Interim Decision #2947 

MATTER OF OGNIBENE 

Section 248 Proceedings 

A-24702193 

Decided by Regional Commissioner April 4, 1983 

(1) In the case of w dual national alien nonimmigrant, the nationality claimed or established by him at the time of his entry into the United States must be regarded, for 

purposes of section 214 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1184, as his 

sole or operative nationality for the duration of his temporary stay in the United States. 

(2) Satisfactory claim to, or establishment of, alien nationality is one of the conditions 

under which a person is admitted to the United States pursuant to section 214(a) of 

the Act. Thus, applicant who applied for admission to the United States and was admitted 

as a citizen of Canada is strictly governed by the condition of Canadian nationality under 

which he was admitted. 

(3) Section 101(a)(15)(E)(ii) of the Act, 8 U•S.C. 1101 (a)(15)(E)(ii), makes no provision 

for dualpationality in relation to administration and enforcement of treaties of commerce 

and navigation. See Matter of Damioti, 17 I&N Dec. 303 (Comm. 1980). 

ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT: David F. Vedder, Esquire 

Wells & Vader 

P.O. Box 5385 

Daytona Beach, Florida 

The applicant is a 48-year-old native of Italy who alleges to be a dual 

national of Canada and Italy. He last entered the United States as a 

noncontrolled Canadian citizen on December 19, 1980. He now seeks 

treaty investor status based on his claimed Italian nationality and on a 

purported investment in real estate ventures in Florida. 

Section 101(a)(15)(E)(ii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 

U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(E)(ii), defines a treaty investor as-- 

an alien entitled to enter the United States under and in pursuance of the provisions of a 

treaty of commerce and navigation between the United States and the foreign state of 

which he is a national . . . solely to develop and direct the operations of an enterprise in 

which he has invested, or of an enterprise in which he is actively in the process of 

investing, a substantial amount of capital1.1 (Emphasis supplied.) 

The District Director denied the application on the premise that 

because the applicant had not established he "can legally claim both 

Canadian and Italian nationalities at the same time, it must be assumed 

that he can claim only Canadian nationality." Nationals of Italy are 

425 
Interim Decision #2947 

eligible for classification as treaty investors. Nationals of Canada are 

ineligible for that classification. Service Operations Instruction (0.I.) 

214.2(e). 

On appeal, counsel argues that the applicant may properly be deemed 

to hold both Canadian and Italian nationalities. Counsel has introduced 

inconclusive undertakings to this effect from two Canadian sources. 

It has not been conclusively established that the applicant does hold 

dual Canadian-Italian nationality. However, it is noted in this regard 

that the oath of allegiance prescribed for persons becoming naturalized 

as citizens of Canada does not contain an instrument of renunciation of 

prior allegiances. Accordingly, it will be conceded arguendo, to ensure 

due process, that the applicant is in fact a dual national of Canada and 

Italy. 

Counsel urges the proposition that, in spite of his admission to the 

United States as a Canadian citizen, the applicant should now be permitted to assert his Italian nationality in pursuit of the benefit sought in the 

instant application. There are numerous examples of judicial recognition 

of the principle or fact of dual nationality and of the prerogative of dual 

nationals to alternately exercise the respective rights or privileges of 

such dual nationalities. However, such cases are concerned solely with 

questions of expatriation and election of nationality pursuant to the 

provisions of the nationality laws of the United States. See, e.g., Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939); Tomasicchio v. Acheson, 98 F.Supp. 

166 (D.D.C. 1951); Kawakita v. United States, 343 U.S. 717 (1952), reh. 

denied, 344 U.S. 850; Jcabuena v. Dulles, 254 F.2d 379 (3d Cir. 1958). 

The instant application is- set in the wholly distinct context of a dual 

national who, haying been admitted to the United States as a citizen of a 

specific foreign state, now seeks to obtain a benefit unavailable to those 

of the nationality in which he was so admitted, but available to individuals sharing his second nationality. 

However, The clear language of section 101(a)(15)(E)(ii) of the Act 

makes no provision for consideration of dual nationality in relation to 

administration and enforcement of treaties of commerce and navigation, 

nor do attendant regulations, policy, or case law. 

Dual nationality is universally recognized as an undesirable phenomenon. It inevitably 

results in questionable loyalties and leads to international conflicts. . . . Dual nationality 

also makes possible the use of citizenship as a badge of convenience rather than one of 

undivided loyalty_ And it impairs the singleness of commitment which is the hallmark of 

citizenship and allegiance. A person should have a right to choose his own nationality, 

and this choice should be honored by all countries. However, he should not be entitled 

to claim more than one nationality. 

The undesirable features of dual nationality have often been noted. To some extent, 

treaties have sought to curtail this status, e.g. treaties between states agreeing that 

naturalization of their wades:la will be recognized as terminating their original nationality. 

-Moreover, under appropriate circumstances a dual national can be required to elect 

which nationality he desires to retain. (Footnotes omitted.) (Emphasis supplied.) - 

426 
Interim Decision #2947 

3 C. Gordon & H. Rosenfield, Immigration Law and Procedure § 11.3d 

(rev. ed. 1983). 

Two states may in fact lay claim to the same individual as a national at the same time_ 

This circumstance does not, however, place the claimants on an equal footing. The 

equities of one are of necessity superior to those of the other. They cannot at the same 

moment be on the same plane. (Emphasis supplied.) 

Hyde, International Law at § 1131, as quoted in Matter of Damioli, 17 

I&N Dec. 303, 306 (Comm. 1980). 

Clearly, in any given proceeding of law or treaty which turns on the 

specific nationality of an individual, the conduct of a dual national -may 

be examined to ,determine specific applications of such law or treaty. 

Thus, for example, "A person possessing two or more nationalities who 

habitually resides in one of the countries whose nationality he possesses, 

and who is in fact most closely connected with that country, shall be 

exempt from all military obligations in the other country or countries." 

Article I, Military Obligations in Certain Cases of Double Nationality 

(a protocol concluded at The Hague on April 12, 1930, to which the 

United States and Canada, et al., are signatory). 'Thus, under appropriate circumstances in a given proceeding of law, the operative nationality 

of a dual national may be determined by his conduct without affording 

him the opportunity to elect which of his nationalities he will exercise. 

The instant proceeding is deemed to constitute such a circumstance. 

The applicant is an alien, that is, he currently is physically present in a 

sovereign state of which he is neither a citizen nor a national. His 

presence in this country is governed by section 214 of the Immigration 

and Nationality Act, which provides that, "[t]he admission to the United 

States of any alien as a nonimmigrant shall be for such time and under 

such conditions as the Attorney General may by regulations prescribe 

. . . ." Clearly, the presence of any person In a sovereign state as an alien 

nonimmigrant is based on such person having satisfactorily claimed or 

established alien nationality or citizenship at the time that such person 

applied for admission to and was admitted to such sovereign state. 

Satisfactory claim.to , or establishment of, alien nationality is one of the 

conditions under which a person is admitted to the United States pursuant to section 214 of the Act. 

The applicant applied for admission-to the United States and was 

admitted to the United States as a citizen of Canada. His continued 

presence in the United States is strictly governed by the condition of 

Canadian nationality under which he was admitted. The applicant cannot be afforded the opportunity of "the use of citizenship as a badge of 

convenience" (Gordon and Rosenfield, supra) in this instance, for to do 

so would contravene section 214 of the Act by usurpation of the statutory discretionary authority of the Attorney General to establish the 

conditions under which an alien nonimmigrant may be admitted to the 

427 
Interim Decision #2947 

United States. It is hereby found that, in the case of a dual national alien 

nonimmigrant, the nationality claimed or established by him at the time 

of his entry into the United States must be regarded, for the purposes of 

section 214 of the Act, as his sole or operative nationality for the duration of his temporary stay in the 'United States. "Nationality Considerations Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(E)(ii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act" (memorandum of law from the Service General Counsel, 

February 4, 1983). To permit a dual national alien nonimmigrant to 

freely switch or alternate nationalities, for whatever reason, subsequent to admission to the United States would cause unjustifiable confusion in proceedings under the Immigration and Nationality Act, which 

contemplates, in instances such as this one, possession by alien nonirrunigrants of a single, specific nationality, to wit, that in which they were 

admitted to the United.States. 

Further, as stated by Gordon and Rosenfield, supra, as a general 

principle, dual nationals, in any given proceeding in which nationality is 

a factor, "should not he entitled to claim more than one nationality." 

Clearly, it is not the prerogative or position of the United States to 

require a dual national alien nonimmigrant to elect to retain one or 

another of his nationalities. Equally clearly, the national sovereignty of 

the United States is acceptably and reasonably exercised through section 214 of the Act in holding that a dual national alien nonimmigrant is, 

for the duration of his temporary stay in the United States, of the 

nationality which he claimed or established at the time that he entered 

the United States. Accordingly, it is concluded that the District Director properly determined that the applicant must be regarded as a citizen 

of Canada and that he is therefore ineligible for the benefit sought in 

that Canada is not signatory to a treaty of commerce and navigation 

with the United States. 

The District Director did not address any factors beyond those concerned with the applicant's nationality. Review of the appellate record, 

however, does not compel a prima facie finding that the investment 

under consideration is substantial, as also required by section 101(a)(15) 

(E)(ii) of the Act. 

The record contains no indication of the investment by the applicant 

of a substantial amount of capital owned or controlled by him. The 

record does contain documentary evidence of real estate transactions by 

the applicant, most of which involve assumption of mortgage debt or the 

incurring of new mortgage debt. The record contains copies of personal 

checks totaling $108,915 applied by the applicant to various real estate 

ventures. However, the record is silent as to whether this sum represents capital owned by the applicant or for which he is personally at risk 

or whether it represents unsecured mortgage debt incurred by the 

applicant. "Investthents such as mortgage debt or commercial secured 

428 
Interim Decision #2947 

loans to the enterprise (e.g., loans secured by the enterprise assets) 

cannot count toward determining the amount of the actual investment." 

VoL V, Visa Services No. 20, Bureau of Consular Affairs, U.S. Department of State (May 1982). A review of the applicant's statement of 

accounts indicates that the applicant's real estate transactions are based 

on exactly such mortgage debt or commercial secured loans. Accordingly, 

it is found that the applicant has failed to establish that he has in fact 

invested a substantial amount of capital in a commercial enterprise. 

For the above-stated reasons, the decision of the District Director 

will be affirmed and the appeal will be dismissed. 

ORDER The appeal is dismissed. 

429