Kahane v. Shultz

4 Citing cases

  1. Heuer v. United States Secretary of State

    20 F.3d 424 (11th Cir. 1994)   Cited 12 times
    Involving a suit for a judicial declaration of United States citizenship after the plaintiff's passport application was denied

    Linzalone v. Dulles, 120 F. Supp. 107, 109 (S.D.N.Y. 1954). See also Kahane v. Shultz, 653 F. Supp. 1486 (E.D.N.Y. 1987). Indeed, in the current case, Heuer's application for a United States passport was denied because of the prior issuance of a CLN. The fact that, in some instances, the plaintiff "requests" the denial by renouncing voluntarily his American citizenship does not change the existence of such a denial.

  2. Kahane v. Secretary of State

    700 F. Supp. 1162 (D.D.C. 1988)   Cited 9 times

    I. FACTUAL FINDINGS The Court's factual findings are based upon Kahane v. Shultz, 653 F. Supp. 1486 (E.D.N.Y. 1987), Kahane's Affidavits (Oct. 27 and Nov. 16, 1988), defendant's exhibits, and Declarations of Carmen DiPlacido, Director of the Office of Citizens Consular Services, Bureau of Consular Affairs, United States Department of State (Oct. 26 and Nov. 18, 1988). Plaintiff Meir Kahane was born in New York, New York on August 1, 1932, and became a United States citizen by virtue of his birth.

  3. Goldenberg v. U.S. Citizenship Immigration Serv

    10-CV-1991 (NGG) (JMA) (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 27, 2011)

    No remand is necessary (or possible), however, because the present action is not an appeal of the USCIS's determination, but a collateral challenge to it. Plaintiff's declaratory judgment action under 8 U.S.C. ยง 1503(a) asks this court to make a de novo determination of Plaintiff's citizenship and declare him a citizen of the United States. See Kahane v. Shultz, 653 F. Supp. 1486, 1487 (E.D.N.Y. 1987); see also Richards v. Sec'y of State, 752 F.2d 1413, 1417 (9th Cir. 1985) ("A suit under section 1503(a) is not one for judicial review of the agency's action. Rather, section 1503(a) authorizes a de novo judicial determination of the status of the plaintiff as a United States national.").

  4. U.S. v. Schiffer

    831 F. Supp. 1166 (E.D. Pa. 1993)   Cited 17 times
    Noting that the applicant's misrepresentations concerning his criminal history were material because they "clearly thwarted an avenue of inquiry that would have led to disqualifying information"

    See Cafiero v. Kennedy, 262 F. Supp. 140, 146 (D.N.J. 1966). In Kahane v. Shultz, 653 F. Supp. 1486, 1492-93 (E.D.N Y 1987), Judge Glasser questioned the Ninth Circuit's reading of Terrazas, stating "[t]his court would be reluctant to hold that any act, standing alone, conclusively bespeaks its intent," but conceded that "[i]f the act stands alone, with no proof of intent adduced by either side, a court may conclude that the preponderance of the evidence shows an intent to relinquish citizenship." We agree with Judge Glasser that the Ninth Circuit has overstated the evidentiary weight to be accorded to such acts.