A-7377746
Decided by Central Office February 13, 1950
Citizenship — Acquired by child at birth outside the United States (1920) through citizen father — R.S. 1993 — Prerequisite as to father's residence in United States prior to birth of child.
1. A child born in China in 1920 to a United States citizen father (the son of a native citizen, under R.S. 1993) is deemed to have acquired United States citizenship at birth where the father resided in the United States prior to the birth of such child.
2. Such residence by the father prior to the birth of the child is deemed established where the father came to the United States in December 1919, was detained at the port of arrival while his citizenship status was determined both administratively and judicially, and was discharged in 1921 when the court decided the father was a citizen as he claimed, the father being deemed to have entered the United States in December 1919, which was before the birth of the child in 1920. (See 2 IN Dec. 191.)
EXCLUDED BY BOARD OF SPECIAL INQUIRY:
Act 1924 — No immigration visa.
Executive Order 8766 — No passport.
BEFORE THE CENTRAL OFFICE
Discussion: The appellant is a 29-year-old married male, a native of China, having been born in that country on March 21, 1920. He arrived at the port of Boston, Mass., on November 17, 1949, by plane and sought admission into the United States as a citizen of the United States, claiming that he acquired United States citizenship under section 1993, Rev. Stat., through birth abroad to a citizen father. It was concluded that he had failed to establish his claim to United States citizenship, he was excluded on the grounds above mentioned, and from that decision he appealed.
For the applicant to have derived United States citizenship under section 1993, it is necessary that his father shall have resided in the United States prior to the appellant's birth ( Weedin v. Chin Bow, 274 U.S. 657). The sole issue in the case is whether the appellant's father did in fact so reside. The appellant's father, who is also a native of China, first arrived at Angel Island, Calif., on December 29, 1919, via the S.S. Korea Maru and applied for admission into the United States as a citizen of the United States, claiming that his father was a native-born citizen of the United States. The evidence presented in support of his claim was not deemed sufficient to establish that his father was a native-born citizen of the United States and he was excluded on April 9, 1920. From that decision he appealed. The appeal was dismissed on June 18, 1920. Thereafter, habeas corpus proceedings were brought on June 23, 1920, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Southern Division, and on September 27, 1920, the court ordered the appellant's father discharged as a citizen of the United States. No appeal from this decision was taken and the appellant's father was landed as a citizen of the United States on February 9, 1921. It will be noted that the appellant was born in China on March 21, 1920, while his father was in detention pending a final disposition of the latter's initial application for admission into the United States.
The final disposition of the application for admission into the United States as a citizen of the United States that was made by the appellant's father on December 29, 1919, was his landing on February 9, 1921, as a citizen of the United States. Although the appellant's father, until the final adjudication of his application for entry into the United States, was regarded as having been stopped at the border of the territorial limits of the United States, since his application for admission as a citizen was finally determined in his favor, he is to be regarded as having entered this country as of the date of his original arrival in the United States ( Matter of O---- S----, 55933/351 (Dec. 29, 1944, B.I.A.); Matter of C---- B---- L----, 1300-62010 Feb. 18, 1948, C.O.)). The appellant's father, therefore, is regarded as having begun to reside in the United States on December 29, 1919, and the appellant, accordingly, did acquire United States citizenship under section 1993, Rev. Stat., at birth. There is no evidence that he has since expatriated himself. His appeal will, therefore, be sustained and his admission will be authorized.
Recommendation: It is recommended that the appeal be sustained and that the appellant be admitted to the United States as a citizen of the United States.
So ordered.