This reasonable and sensible construction of the 1940 Act, making "marital union" practically synonymous with "existence of the marriage status", was followed in the two subsequent cases construing and enforcing the 1940 Act. Petition of Kelly, 61 F. Supp. 467, 467-468 (D.Oregon 1945) which approves Levine; Petition of Sam Hoo, 63 F. Supp. 439, 440 (N.D.Cal. 1945) which reads "marital union" in Section 311 of the 1940 Act as "valid marriage." No sound reason appears why we should not make the same sensible and practical construction of what is in reality the same phrase in the present statute.
The section relied upon the California Civil Code is the same in the Guam Civil Code, Sec. 61 in both codes. The petitioner cites in her brief and recognizes that Petition of Sam Hoo, D.C., 63 F.Supp. 439 is to the contrary. In the Hoo case, the petitioner sought naturalization as the husband of a United States citizen.
Hence the burden or obligation is upon the petitioner to show that he is not debarred from naturalization by the provisions of Section 315 of the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act. Tutun v. U.S., 270 U.S. 568, 46 S.Ct. 425, 70 L.Ed. 738; U.S. v. MacIntosh, 283 U.S. 605, 51 S.Ct. 570, 75 L.Ed. 1302; U.S. v. Schwimmer, 279 U.S. 644, 49 S.Ct. 448, 73 L.Ed. 889; In re Laws, D.C., 59 F.Supp. 179; Petition of Hoo, D.C., 63 F.Supp. 439; In re McNeil, D.C., 14 F.Supp. 394. I am convinced that the petitioner has sustained this burden of proof.
In the reverse process of denaturalization, the rule is that citizenship may not be annulled except by clear, unequivocal and convincing evidence. U.S. v. Schwimmer, 1929, 279 U.S. 644, 649, 49 S.Ct. 448, 73 L.Ed. 889; Tutun v. U.S., 1926, 270 U.S. 568, 578, 46 S.Ct. 425, 70 L.Ed. 738; U.S. v. Macintosh, 1931, 283 U.S. 605, 51 S.Ct. 570, 75 L.Ed. 1302; In re Laws, D.C.N.D.Cal. 1944, 59 F. Supp. 179; Petition of Boric, D.C.Or. 1945, 61 F. Supp. 133, 136; Petition of Sam Hoo, D.C.N.D.Cal. 1945, 63 F. Supp. 439. See cases cited in Note 11.
And, in order to safeguard against admission of those who are unworthy, or who for any reason fail to measure up to required standards, the law puts the burden upon every applicant to show by satisfactory evidence that he has the specified qualifications." United States v. Schwimmer, 279 U.S. 644, at page 649, 49 S.Ct. 448, 449, 73 L.Ed. 889; Tutun v. United States, 270 U.S. 588, 46 S.Ct. 425, 70 L.Ed. 738; United States v. Macintosh 283 U.S. 605, 51 S.Ct. 570, 75 L.Ed. 1302; In re Laws, D.C., 59 F. Supp. 179; Petition of Sam Hoo, D.C., 63 F. Supp. 439. (Emphasis supplied.)