Interim Decision #2231, 

MA iTbR OF HERMOSA 

In Deportation Proceedings 

A-14839916 

Decided by Board September 28, 1973 

The Philippine Islands have never been deemed part of the United States 

within the purview of the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of 

the Constitution of the United States; hence, respondent's claim to United 

States citizenship under the provisions of section 1 of the Immigration Act of 

February 5, 1917, as amended, and the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution by virtue of her birth in the Philippine Islands on March 27, 1943, is without 

merit. 

CHARGE: 

Order: Act of 1952—Section 241(aX2) [8 U.S.C. 1251(aX2)]—Nonimmigrantremained longer. 

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: William II. Marsh, Esquire 

225 Broadway 

New York, New York 10007 

The respondent, who was born in the Philippines on March 27, 

1943, entered the United States in December of 1966 as a nonimmigrant student. She remained longer than authorized and as a 

result deportation proceedings were commenced. The respondent's 

basic contention during these proceedings had been that, although 

a citizen of the Philippines, she is also a national of the United 

States. This contention was rejected by the immigration judge and 

his ruling was affirmed on appeal by this Board. The respondent 

now moves for reopening and reconsideration of her case on the 

basis of a claim to United States citizenship. The motion will 'be 

denied. 

In 1899 the United States acquired the Philippine Islands from 

Spain under the Treaty of Paris.' That document granted Congress the power to determine "[title civil rights and political status 

of the native inhabitants. ..."of the Islands. 2 Commencing in 1902, 

!Treaty of Peace Between the United States and Spain, 30 Stet. 1754 (1899). 

2 1d., Article IX, 30 Stat. at 1759. 

447 
Interim Decision #2231 

Congress exercised this power through a series of acts which 

conferred Philippine, but not United States, citizenship on the 

peoples of the Islands. See Act of July 1, 1902, 32 Stat. 691; Act of 

March 23, 1912, 37 Stat. 76; Act of August 29, 1916, 39 Stat. 546. 

Several decades later, Congress provided for the eventual independence of this possession. The Philippine Independence Act, 3 

4stated that "citizens of the Philippine effective May 1, 1934,

Islands who are not citizens of the United States shall be considered as if they were aliens" for purposes of immigration, exclusion 

and expulsion under the Immigration Acts of 1917 and 1924. 

Section 8(a), Philippine Independence Act, footnote 3, supra. This 

legislation also provided that full independence would be granted 

to the Islands approximately ten years after the inauguration of a 

new constitutional government in the Philippines. However, the 

Presidential Proclamation establishing independence was delayed 

by World War II until July 4, 1946. Presidential Proclamation 

No. 2695, 3 CPR p. 86 (1943-48 Comp.). In the interim, which covers 

the respondent's date of birth, Filipinos retained their United 

States nationality, yet were deemed aliens for the above described 

purposes. See Matter of Peralta, 11 I. & N. Dec. 321, 322-23 (BIA 

1965). Upon complete independence, those Filipinos who were not 

United States citizens became aliens for all purposes, thus losing 

every aspect of their United States nationality. Section 14, Philippine Independence Act, footnote 3, supra; Rabang v. Boyd, 353 U.S_ 

427 (1957). 

Nevertheless, the respondent contends that she is both a Filipino and a citizen of the United States by virtue of her birth in the 

Philippines. She maintains that the Islands were deemed part of 

the United States for purposes of the citizenship clause of the 

Fourteenth Amendment. While this claim is squarely in conflict 

with the clear thrust of the foregoing enactments, its resolution 

will require examination of provisions dealing specifically with 

citizenship and nationality. 

The Fourteenth Amendment specifies that "[a]11 persons born 

or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction 

thereof, are citizens of the United States,...." This language of 

the Constitution is quite similar to some earlier legislation; 5 

 nevertheless, neither the initial statute nor the constitutional 

provision attempted to define the term "United States." 

In 1940 Congress passed the first comprehensive legislation 

dealing with nationality and citizenship at birth. Section 101(d) of 

3 Act of March 24, 1934, 48 Stat. 456. 

° Matter of V 

, 

7 I. & N. Dec.242 (ETA, 19M) 

s Section 1992, Revised Statutes, Act of April 9, 1866, 14 Stet. 27. 

448 
Interim Decision #2231 

the Nationality Act of 1940,6applicable at respondent's birth, 

stated: "The term 'United States' when used in a geographical 

sense means the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, 

Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands of the United States." From 

this provision, and section 201(a) of the 1940 Act which substantially reiterated the relevant portion of the Fourteenth Amendment, it is clear that the respondent did not acquire United States 

citizenship by reason of her birth in the Philippines. Congress, 

over the course of several years, had determined that the Philippines would be an independent nation and their peoples treated as 

citizens of that nation and not as citizens of the United States. 

The respondent, however, relies upon section 1 of the Immigration Act of 1917,7which provides in part: 

That the term "United States" as used in the title as well as in the various 

sections of this Act shall be construed to mean the United States, and any 

waters, territory, or other place subject to the jurisdiction thereof.... 

This seemingly broad language does not, in fact, support the 

respondent's claim to citizenship. 

Initially it should be noted that Congress was limiting itself to 

matters of immigration and not nationality when it enacted this 

provision. Indeed, the definition itself confines its application to 

the 1917 Act, which dealt exclusively with matters of immigration. 

Moreover, as previously summarized, Congress on numerous occasions has specifically addressed itself to the question of Philippine 

citizenship; in each instance it declined to confer United States 

citizenship on Filipinos. 

The decision in United States v. Ganey, 54 F. Supp. 755 (D. Minn. 

1944), affirmed 149 F.2d 788 (C.A. 8), cert. denied 326 U.S. 727, 

rehearing denied 326 U.S. 810 (1945), which concerned a claim 

essentially similar to respondent's, supports our conclusion as well. 

While the provision of law relied upon by the respondent was not 

directly in issue there, the holding in that case is germane. The 

court held that an idividual born in the Philippines did not become 

a citizen of the United States by virtue of the Treaty of Paris, 6and 

further remarked that "Congress has never conferred citizenship 

upon the inhabitants of the Philippine Islands." United States v. 

Gamy, 54 F. Supp_ at 756_ 

It is thus abundantly evident that the Islands were never 

deemed part of the United States within the purview of the 

citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See also Matter 

6 Act of October 14, 1940, 54 Stat. 1137. 

7Act of February 5, 1917, 39 Stat. 874. 

See footnote 1, supra. 

449 
Interim Decision #2231 

of M—, 6 I. & N. Dec. 182 (BIA 1954). The respondent's claim is 

without merit, and accordingly the motion will be denied. 

ORDER: The motion is denied. 

450