In the Matter of M

15 Cited authorities

Schneiderman v. United States
320 U.S. 118 (1943) Cited 534 times
Holding citizenship “should not be taken away without the clearest sort of justification and proof,” and that proof cannot “leave the issue in doubt”
Baumgartner v. United States
322 U.S. 665 (1944) Cited 279 times 1 Legal Analyses
In Baumgartner v. United States, 322 U.S. 665 (1944), the issue was whether or not the findings of the two lower courts satisfied the clear-and-convincing standard of proof necessary to sustain a denaturalization decree.
Nishikawa v. Dulles
356 U.S. 129 (1958) Cited 89 times
Holding that, in the face of congressional silence on the question, proof of an act of expatriation must be by clear and convincing evidence
Perez v. Brownell
356 U.S. 44 (1958) Cited 79 times
In Perez the contention that § 401(e) was penal in character was impliedly rejected by the Court's holding, based on legislative history totally different from that underlying §§ 401(j) and 349(a) (10), that voting in a political election in a foreign state "is regulable by Congress under its power to deal with foreign affairs."
Savorgnan v. United States
338 U.S. 491 (1950) Cited 94 times
In Savorgnan v. United States, 338 U.S. 491, an American citizen had renounced her citizenship and acquired that of a foreign state.
Eichenlaub v. Shaughnessy
338 U.S. 521 (1950) Cited 29 times
In United States ex rel. Eichenlaub v. Shaughnessy, 338 U.S. 521, 70 S.Ct. 329, 94 L.Ed. 307 (1950), the Supreme Court was confronted with a case involving naturalized citizens, whose citizenship was later revoked and cancelled ab initio for fraud in the procurement.
Mackenzie v. Hare
239 U.S. 299 (1915) Cited 89 times
In Mackenzie exactly the same argument was made that appellant urges here. Indeed, the Court uses the same opinion in this case to strike down § 352(a)(1) as was urged in Mackenzie, namely, Osborn v. Bank of the United States, 9 Wheat. 738 (1824), where Chief Justice Marshall remarked: "The constitution does not authorize Congress to enlarge or abridge... [the] rights" of citizens.
Pino v. Nicolls
215 F.2d 237 (1st Cir. 1954) Cited 41 times
Holding that "[t]he mere possibility of [the conviction being overturned] does not defeat deportation of the convicted alien; though of course if, prior to deportation, he has succeeded in one of these ways in upsetting his conviction, it can no longer serve as a basis for deportation"
Gonzales v. Landon
215 F.2d 955 (9th Cir. 1954) Cited 27 times
In Gonzales v. Landon, 350 U.S. 920, we held that the rule as to burden of proof in denaturalization cases applied to expatriation cases under Section 401(j) of the Nationality Act of 1940.
Podea v. Acheson
179 F.2d 306 (2d Cir. 1950) Cited 33 times
Rejecting a "technical" application of the Nationality Act requiring expatriation after finding that plaintiff's actions were induced by "erroneous advice" from the U.S. Department of State
Section 1182 - Inadmissible aliens
8 U.S.C. § 1182 Cited 9,718 times 66 Legal Analyses
Holding deportable aliens who have been convicted of "crimes involving moral turpitude"
Section 1251 - Transferred
8 U.S.C. § 1251 Cited 2,154 times 1 Legal Analyses
Delineating crimes that make alien deportable
Section 1481 - Loss of nationality by native-born or naturalized citizen; voluntary action; burden of proof; presumptions
8 U.S.C. § 1481 Cited 253 times 4 Legal Analyses
Providing that United States nationality may be lost by "voluntarily performing" certain acts "with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality"

In the Matter of M

15 Cited authorities

Holding citizenship “should not be taken away without the clearest sort of justification and proof,” and that proof cannot “leave the issue in doubt”

In Baumgartner v. United States, 322 U.S. 665 (1944), the issue was whether or not the findings of the two lower courts satisfied the clear-and-convincing standard of proof necessary to sustain a denaturalization decree.

Holding that, in the face of congressional silence on the question, proof of an act of expatriation must be by clear and convincing evidence

In Savorgnan v. United States, 338 U.S. 491, an American citizen had renounced her citizenship and acquired that of a foreign state.

In United States ex rel. Eichenlaub v. Shaughnessy, 338 U.S. 521, 70 S.Ct. 329, 94 L.Ed. 307 (1950), the Supreme Court was confronted with a case involving naturalized citizens, whose citizenship was later revoked and cancelled ab initio for fraud in the procurement.

Holding that "[t]he mere possibility of [the conviction being overturned] does not defeat deportation of the convicted alien; though of course if, prior to deportation, he has succeeded in one of these ways in upsetting his conviction, it can no longer serve as a basis for deportation"

In Gonzales v. Landon, 350 U.S. 920, we held that the rule as to burden of proof in denaturalization cases applied to expatriation cases under Section 401(j) of the Nationality Act of 1940.

Rejecting a "technical" application of the Nationality Act requiring expatriation after finding that plaintiff's actions were induced by "erroneous advice" from the U.S. Department of State

Holding deportable aliens who have been convicted of "crimes involving moral turpitude"

Delineating crimes that make alien deportable

Providing that United States nationality may be lost by "voluntarily performing" certain acts "with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality"