No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 April 2017
Although such cases do not, strictly speaking, usually involve any application of international law, the interest of international lawyers in cases concerning nationality,naturalization, expatriation, exclusion and deportation of aliens, etc., and the intimate connection of these problems with international law, seems sufficient to justify some mention of them here from time to time.
2 Sustaining a conviction for unlawful re-entry after deportation, see Lazarescu v. United States, 199 F. (2d) 898 (4th Cir., Nov. 10, 1952).
3 Enjoining deportation to South Korea because evidence did not sustain the findings of the Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization, and of the Attorney General, that petitioner would not be subjected to physical persecution if deported thither, see Sang Byup Park v. Barber, 107 F. Supp. 603, 605 (N. D. Calif. May 9 and Aug. 19, 1952). To like effect, see U. S. ex rel. Watts v. Shaughnessy, 107 F. Supp. 613 (S. D. N. Y. Sept. 18, 1952), involving deportation to Spain. Evidence sustained the finding of no danger of persecution in Yugoslavia, in U. S. ex rel. Nereo Dolenz v. Shaughnessy, 107 F. Supp. 611 (S.D.N.Y. July 9, 1952). Also involving discretionary suspension of deportation, see Arakas v. Zimmerman, 200 F.(2d) 322 (3rd Cir. Dec. 4, 1952); U. S. ex rel. Kaloudis v. Shaughnessy, 106 F. Supp. 483 (S.D.N.Y. May 21, 1952); U. S. ex. rel. Strauber v. Shaughnessy, 107 F. Supp. 399 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 23, 1952); Chavez v. McGranery, 108 F. Supp. 255 (S. D. Calif. Oct. 31, 1952).
4 Deportation of former Communists was upheld in Martinez v. Neely, 197 F. (2d) 462 (7th Cir. May 21, 1952); and Latva v. Nicolls, 106 F. Supp. 658 (Mass., Aug. 6, 1952).
5 Problems of deportation procedure and procedure to review deportation orders were involved in Sardo v. McGrath, 196 F. (2d) 20 (Dist. Col. Jan. 31, 1952); Bogiatzis v. Hall, 195 F. (2d) 661 (4th Cir. Apr. 3, 1952); U. S. ex rel. Catalano v. Shaughnessy, 197 F. (2d) 65 (2d Cir., May 27, 1952); U. S. ex rel. Dolenz v. Shaughnessy, 200 F. (2d) 288 (2d Cir. Dec. 5, 1952); Belizaro v. Zimmerman, 200 F. (2d) 282 (3rd. Cir., Dec. 8, 1952); Birns v. Commissioner, 103 F. Supp. 180 (N. D. Ohio, Feb. 13, 1952); U. S. ex rel. Chen Ping Zee v. Shaughnessy, 107 F. Supp. 607 (S.D.N.Y., Mar. 18, 1952); U. S. ex rel. Rowoldt v. Shrode, 103 F. Supp. 752 (Minn., Apr. 2, 1952); Ex parte Rogers, 104 F. Supp. 393 (Guam, May 9, 1952); Alves v. Shaughnessy, 107 F. Supp. 443 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 23, 1952).
6 The admissibility of an immigrant convicted of crime involving moral turpitude but pardoned, was at stake in Sohaiby v. Savoretti, 195 F. (2d) 139 (5th Cir., March 22, 1952). A Spanish Communist punished for entering the United States as a stowaway could be sent back to Spain and as an excluded alien had no right to pick an alternative destination as would a deportee, U. S. ex rel. Camezon v. District Director, 105 F. Supp. 32 (S.D.N.Y., Apr. 22, 1952). Also involving exclusion of an alien Communist, see U. S. ex rel. James v. Shaughnessy, 107 F. Supp. 280 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 26, 1952).
7 Barber v. Varleta, 199 F. (2d) 419 (9th Cir., Oct. 7, 1952).
8 U. S. ex rel. Lee Tiel Seem v. Shaughnessy, 104 F. Supp. 819 (8.D.N.Y., May 24, 1952). Also involving detention of aliens, see U. S. Lines v. Shaughnessy, 195 F. (2d) 385 (2nd Cir., Mar. 17, 1952); U. S. ex rel. Keng Ho Chang v. Shaughnessy, 105 F. Supp. 22 (S.D.N.Y., May 12, 1952). On exclusion, see also Tom We Shung v. McGrath, 103 F. Supp. 507 (Dist. Col., Feb. 27, 1952).
9 Procedural questions relating to proceedings for declarations that persons are American citizens were dealt with in Wong Wing Woo v. McGrath, 196 F. (2d) 120 (9th Cir., Feb. 14, 1952); Lee Hung v. Acheson, 103 F. Supp. 35 (Nev., Jan. 28, 1952); Scott v. McGrath, 104 F. Supp. 267 (E.D.N.Y., Apr. 11, 1952); U. S. ex rel. Soo Hoo Chew Yee v. Shaughnessy, 104 F. Supp. 425 (S.D.N.Y., Apr. 26, 1952); Lee Pong Tai v. Acheson, 104 F. Supp. 503 (E.D. Pa., Apr. 30, 1952); Yee Gwing Mee v. Acheson, 108 F. Supp. 502 (N.D. Calif., Sept. 5, 1952).
10 U. S. v. Yin Liu, 190 F. (2d) 400 (2d Cir., July 10, 1951); Petition of Moy Jeung Dun, 101 F. Supp. 203 (N. J., Nov. 28, 1951). See, however, U. S. v. Kwan Shun Yue, 194 F. (2d) 225 (9th Cir., Jan. 28, 1952), contra, on grounds petitioner had not been admitted to the United States as an “immigrant.”
11 Application of Mannerfried, 101 F. Supp. 446 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 29, 1951), Swedish national; Petition of Dweck, 106 F. Supp. 169 (E.D.N.Y., Mar. 29, 1952), Syria a “neutral state” in 1943; In re Molo, 107 F. Supp. 137 (S.D.N.Y., June 3, 1943), Iran “neutral” on June 21, 1943.
12 In re Anzalone, 107 F. Supp. 770 (N. J., Oct. 10, 1952).
13 Petition of Plywacki, 107 F. Supp. 593 (Hawaii, Oct. 17, 1952).
14 Acheson v. Albert, 195 F. (2d) 573 (Dist. Col., Mar. 20, 1952).
15 U. S. v. Pecora, 105 F. Supp. 559 (W.D. Pa., June 11, 1952).
16 U. S. v. Sweet, 106 F. Supp. 634 (E.D. Mich., Aug. 8, 1952); U. S. v. Chomiak, 108 F. Supp. 527 (E.D. Mich., Nov. 18, 1952). Affirming a conviction for conspiracy to fraudulently secure naturalization, see Bridges v. U. S., 199 F. (2d) 811, 845 (9th Cir., Sept. 6, 1952).
17 No expatriation resulted from his service in the Italian Army, in view of the Attorney General’s ruling that such service could “only be regarded as having been taken under legal compulsion amounting to duress.” 41 Op. Atty. Gen., Op. No. 16.
18 Justices Douglas, Minton, Reed and Clark dissented, holding that expatriation resulted from taking an oath to the Italian King and serving in the Italian Army in 1931, which they regarded as voluntary service.
In Mastrocola v. Acheson, 105 F. Supp. 580 (S.D.N.Y., June 17, 1952), the American-born children of Italian parents who went to Italy with their parents as minors and remained long after reaching 21 were held to have lost American citizenship for failure to return within a reasonable time, or within the 2-year period after the 1940 Nationality Act went into force, Judge Kaufman saying: “Failure of a dual national to return to the United States after attaining majority is an abandonment of American citizenship.” In Gualco v. Acheson, 106 F. Supp. 760 (N.D. Calif., July 29, 1952), two American-born children of American parents went to Italy as minors and stayed after reaching 23; American citizenship was not lost by the one who showed that his stay in Italy was involuntary; but the other child was deemed expatriated, as his acts showed voluntary assumption of Italian citizenship. In Segreti v. Acheson, 195 F. (2d) 205 (Dist. Col., Mar. 20, 1952), a child born abroad of an Italian who had been naturalized in the United States but who had reacquired Italian citizenship by living in Italy, was held to have lost American citizenship by making no effort to come to the United States for 13 years after reaching the age of 21, although he had spent a year in this country when 17.
19 Acheson v. Droesse, 197 F. (2d) 574 (Dist. Col., Jan. 10, 1952), where the case was dismissed as moot because nationality had been restored by a private law; Acheson v. Wohlmuth, 196 F. (2d) 866 (Dist. Col., Apr. 24, 1952) ; Scavone v. Acheson, 103 F. Supp. 59 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 21, 1952); Perri v. Acheson, 105 F. Supp. 434 (N. J., June 17, 1952), where the individual had also served in the Italian Army against the United States. In Nieto v. McGrath, 108 F. Supp. 150 (S.D. Tex., Mar. 31, 1951), and Martinez v. McGrath, 108 F. Supp. 155 (S.D. Tex., Oct. 29, 1952), Judge Allred held that admissions of having voted in Mexican elections were insufficient evidence to sustain expatriation, in view of the individuals’ limited education and poor ability to use English when subjected to the questioning which elicited such admissions.
In Acheson v. Wohlmuth, supra, Judge Washington said of the contention that an election in Germany was not in “a foreign state” nor an “election” since subject to veto by the American military commander:
“Whether Germany in 1946 was a ‘state’ in the fullest sense of that word, or in the sense in which the term is used in international law generally, is an inquiry we need not here pursue. The determinative question is whether it remained a state within the meaning of the Nationality Act of 1940. Thus we inquire, not whether Germany was sui juris among the nations of the world, but whether it was a polity capable of commanding an allegiance inconsistent with allegiance to the United States. …
“The election … was the basic step toward the restoration of organized government of, by and for the German people. As such, regardless of the fact that it was conducted under American auspices, in an area occupied by the American armed forces, and subject to American veto, it was a ‘political election in a foreign state’ within the meaning of the statute.”
20 Furono v. Acheson, 106 F. Supp. 775 (N.D. Calif., July 24, 1952). In Acheson v. Wohlmuth, supra, the case was remanded for further evidence concerning duress.
21 Revedin v. Acheson, 194 F. (2d) 482 (2d Cir., Feb. 8, 1952).
22 Perri v. Acheson, 105 F. Supp. 434 (N. J., June 17, 1952); Monaco v. Acheson, 105 F. Supp. 739 (S.D.N.Y., June 17, 1952).
23 Grassi v. Acheson, 101 F. Supp. 431 (Dist. Col., Nov. 27, 1951); Mazza v. Acheson, 104 F. Supp. 157 (N.D. Calif., Apr. 21, 1952). In the latter case, although entry into the Italian Army and the oath of allegiance took place before the age of 21, expatriation resulted from remaining in the army after that time.
24 Mandoli v. Acheson, 344 U. S. 133, 73 S. Ct. 135 (Nov. 24, 1952); Shigenori Morizumi v. Acheson, 101 F. Supp. 976 (N.D. Calif., Dec. 14, 1951); Noboru Kanbara v. Acheson, 103 F. Supp. 565 (S.D. Calif., Jan. 30, 1952); Paracchini v. McGrath, 103 F. Supp. 184 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 19, 1952).
25 DiGirolamo v. Acheson, 101 F. Supp. 380 (Dist. Col., Dec. 7, 1951).
26 Naito v. Acheson, 106 F. Supp. 770 (S.D. Calif., July 24, 1952); Furono v. Acheson, 106 F. Supp. 775 (S.D. Calif., July 24, 1952).
27 Fukumoto v. Acheson, 105 F. Supp. 1 (Hawaii, June 10, 1952).
28 Barsanti v. Acheson, 103 F. Supp. 1011 (Mass., Mar. 28, 1952).
29 Ryckman v. Acheson, 106 F. Supp. 739 (S.D. Tex., Mar. 27, 1952).