Interim Decision #2034 

MATTER OF STANLAKE 

In Exclusion Proceedings 

A-14248767 

Decided by Board December 19, 1969, as modified March 20, 1970 

In the absence of persuasive evidence that he did not intend to renounce his 

United States citizenship, applicant who in 1946 was voluntarily naturalized in Canada and took an oath of allegiance to that country (even 

though there was no oath of renunciation of U.S. citizenship) thereby 

transferred his allegiance which resulted in a loss of United States citizenship under section 401(a) of the Nationality Act of 1940. 

EXCLUDABLE: Act of 1962—Section 212(a) (20) [8 U.S.C. 1182(a) (20 ) 

migrant without immigrant visa. 

ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT: ON BEHALF OF SERVICE: 

Marie M. Donohoe, Esquire Irving A. Appleman 

217 Lyon Building Appellate Trial Attorney 

60'7 Third Avenue (Memorandum filed) 

Seattle, Washington 98104 B. G. Greenwald 

(Memorandum filed) Trial Attorney 

(Brief filed) 

The special inquiry officer certified his order finding the applicant an alien and excluding him as an immigrant without a visa. 

We shall make no change in his order. 

The issue is whether the applicant's naturalization in Canada 

caused him to lose United States citizenship. The applicant contends expatriation did not result because he became naturalized 

in the belief he had to acquire Canadian citizenship in order to 

obtain a job as a forest ranger. He states that he did not intend 

to renounce United States allegiance when he became naturalized. 

The special inquiry officer found the applicant voluntarily became 

naturalized, and his assumption of Canadian allegiance was 

inconsistent with retention of allegiance to the United States. 

The applicant, a 53-year-old male, was born in the United 

States. When he was about two years old, his mother, a Canadian 

national, took him to Canada. He remained in Canada, except for 

a year spent in the United States in 1936. He served in the Cana517 
Interim Decision #2024 

dian Army from September 1939 to October 1945. On August 13, 

1946, he executed a petition for naturalization in Canada and on 

the same day took an oath of allegiance to King George VI after 

having written it out in longhand (Ex. 8). On October 18 he was 

granted a naturalization certificate. This is considered to be the 

date of his expatriation (Ex. 5). On October 21 he took an oath 

of allegiance with the Province of Manitoba and an oath of office 

as a forest ranger. He entered on duty as a forest ranger in 

November 1946. He held the job until June 1950. Canadian 

authorities have stated that Canadian citizenship was not a 

requirement for the position, that an oath of allegiance is not 

mandatory, and that an oath of office is required (Ex. 9). 

The applicant was self-employed for a while. The Canadian 

3overnment paid for some training he took in the United States. 

He was hospitalized for a period of time. In 1962, in connection 

vith a job in the Canadian post office department, he took an oath 

)f allegiance to Queen Elizabeth II and also took an oath of office 

',Ex. 7). The applicant certified as true a post office appointment 

orm showing that he was "naturalized October 1946" (Ex. 6). 

On September 25, 1962, the applicant secured a Canadian pass-

,ort (p. 28) and filed an application for an immigrant visa with 

he American consul at Toronto. The records of the consul reveal 

hat the applicant then stated he had become a naturalized Canaian citizen (Ex. 8). He did not proceed with the application. 

Applicant was admitted as a visitor at Cleveland, Ohio, on 

ctober 26, 1962, for a period ending March 25, 1963. On October 

3, 1964, he was placed under deportation proceedings for having 

!mained beyond the date of admission. The record of the hearing 

as not transcribed. It was adjourned to January 19, 1965 (Ex. 

. The record does not show that a hearing was held on January 

but we note that exhibits in the deportation hearing were 

.ted January 19, 1965. The applicant returned to Canada before 

e proceedings could be concluded. 

The applicant applied for admission on December 10, 1967. His 

ipectiun was deferred but was not completed, because of his 

[lure to appear when. requested (unnumbered exhibit following 

:. 9). 

On July 8, 1968, after applying for admission as a United States 

izen, he was given a hearing in exclusion proceedings. The 

ler which the special inquiry officer certified to the Board folTed. 

kt the time of the applicant's naturalization in Canada, United 

518 
Interim Decision 4#2034 

States law provided that a United States citizen would lose his 

nationality by— 

obtaining naturalization in a foreign state, * * (section 401 (a), Nationality 

Act of 1940, 54 Stat. 1168). 

On appeal counsel contends that subjective intent controls as to 

whether expatriation occurred, that applicant applied for naturalization because he believed it was necessary in order to obtain a 

job as a forest ranger, that there is nothing in the record to show 

that he desired a transfer allegiance from the United States to 

Canada, that the oath signed by the applicant did not state he 

was abandoning United States citizenship, that the concept of 

dual citizenship is accepted, that the United States and Canada 

are similar and that there is traditional friendship between the 

countries. Counsel points out that the record does not show that 

applicant tried to avoid any duty or obligation imposed upon him 

by United States citizenship and that he claimed United States 

citizenship when he entered the United Staes. 

The Service contends that voluntary naturalization in a foreign 

state coupled with an oath of allegiance is inconsistent with 

retention of United States citizenship and constitutes a transfer 

of allegiance regardless of subjective intent. We need not confront that issue in this case, for we find on this evidence that 

respondent has failed to establish a lack of intention to renounce 

his United States citizenship. 

We do not believe the applicant has established that he sought 

naturalization in Canada because he thought it was a prerequisite 

to getting a job. In his application for naturalization, he stated 

the application was made for the following reasons: "I have been 

in Canada since infancy, married to a Canadian, served in the 

Canadian Army, and intend to remain in Canada" (Ex. 8). There 

is nothing about employment. Furthermore, Canadian citizenship 

was not a requirement for the position which the applicant held 

(Ex. 9). 

To accept applicant's claim, in the face of the documentary evidence to the contrary, requires a finding that he is at least credible. This finding would not be justified on the record. His testimony is conflicting and uncorroborated. Although he now claims 

he became naturalized to take a job, when questioned under oath 

by the Service in July 1964, he denied that he had ever gone 

through a Canadian naturalization procedure. He said that he 

was offered a position with the Canadian Government after discharge from the army, that there was a question as to whether he 

could be a provincial civil servant since he was an American citi519 
Interim Decision #2034 

zen, that inquiry was made concerning this at Ottawa, Ontario, 

that without, further ado he received naturalization papers and 

that he refused them (Ex. 15 of Ex. 5, pp. 3, 8). At his hearings 

on November 6, 1968, he stated that in 1962 he told the United 

States consul in Canada that he had been issued naturalization 

papers which he refused (pp. 15-16) . He informed a Service 

officer in the summer of 1968 that he had refused naturalization 

(p. 27). He stated he had been sent naturalization papers and had 

returned them (pp. 34, 35). He testified he returned his naturalization certificate to the Canadian authorities while he was a 

forest ranger (p. 37). (There is no record of this.) Applicant 

first denied taking an oath of allegiance in connection with the 

naturalization, but then stated he did remember taking it and 

that he had to feed his family (p. 36). At the hearing counsel 

conceded the applicant had voluntarily applied for Canadian naturalization (p. 46). 

Applicant's testimony that he never claimed Canadian nationality is refuted by the document he signed in connection with post 

office employment showing that he is a naturalized British subject 

(Ex. 6). He denied he had sworn allegiance to the Queen when he 

took the job with the post office (p. 3 of Ex. 15 of Ex. 5), yet the 

record contains a card he signed which shows that he took an 

oath of allegiance to the Queen (Ex. 7 of Ex. 15) . 

When one voluntarily takes the nationality of another country 

and takes an oath of allegiance to that country, whether or not it 

contains a renunciation of former allegiance, the normal infermce is that there has been a transfer of allegiance from the old 

.ountry to the new. The promise to be faithful and bear true alle- 

;iance to the new soverign does not ordinarily contemplate coninued allegiance to the old. While such continued allegiance may 

le possible, we do not find it here. The applicant had lived the 

najor portion of his life in Canada. He stated in his petition for 

[aturalization that he intended to remain in Canada. He did 

emain for many years. He fought in the Canadian Army; he had 

Canadian wife; he made no effort to inquire as to the effect of 

he naturalization upon his United States citizenship. He claimed 

lanadian nationality When he took jobs as a ranger and in the 

ost office. He took the oath of allegiance three times. He entered 

he United States as an alien visitor. Finding no persuasive evience that the applicant did not intend to renounce United States 

itizenship, we see no reason why we should not take the normal 

iference from his conduct in seeking foreign naturalization. 

We distinguish this case from Baker v. Rusk, 296 F. Supp. 

1 

520 
Interim Decision #2034 

1244 (C.D. Cal. 1969), cited by counsel. In Baker the court held 

that a native born United States citizen did not become expatriated by taking an oath of allegiance in 1926 to King George V 

in connection with admission to the practice of law in Canada, 

because the Government failed to establish that he had abandoned 

allegiance to the United States. Baker did not seek to become a 

naturalized Canadian citizen. He did not become a Canadian citizen by taking the oath. There was no evidence that he ever considered himself a Canadian citizen, and he performed no other 

expatriating act. In the instant case, applicant deliberately sought 

to become a Canadian citizen; he thereafter represented himself 

to be a Canadian citizen. 

It was stipulated that applicant voluntarily sought naturalization. Had there been no stipulation the burden would be upon the 

applicant of showing that the naturalization was not voluntary. 

Section 349 (c) of the Act; 8 U.S.C. 1481 (c). In this regard, his 

case differs from that of Matter of Susan B. Anthony Lewis 

(A-823447, B1A, June 26, 1969), where the issue was whether 

the individual had acted voluntarily. 

We draw no adverse inference from the fact that on July 2, 

1963, the applicant filed an application for a certificate of Canadian citizenship to replace the one which he had lost. He states 

that this was done at the behest of the Service which was investigating his case. There is no contradiction of this testimony. 

Counsel contends that Congress has no power to expatriate. We 

are without power to consider such a contention, Matter of L , 4 

I. & N. Dec. 556 (BIA, 1951). 

Counsel contends that exclusion of the applicant would be a 

serious matter to his employer since his job is to care for animals 

used in research, and there is difficulty in filling such a position. 

A finding that applicant lost United States citizenship does not 

mean he is barred from the United States forever. If his employment is as difficult to fill as counsel claims, he should be able to 

obtain a visa for permanent residence. The Service has indicated 

it will do what it can to help the applicant adjust his status. 

ORDER: No change is made in the special inquiry officer's 

order. 

521