MATTER of S-- 

Tn DEPORTATION Proceedings 

A-8423672 

Decided tni Board May 15, 1959 

Loss of citizenship—Foreign military service—An Forsa of Ireland. 

Service in the An Forsa (defense forces) of Ireland during a period when it 

was not activated held not to constitute service in the armed forces of a 

foreign state so as to cause expatriation of dual national of United States 

and Ireland under section 401(c) of Nationality Act of 1940. 

Cx_r_ratona 

Order: Art of 1952—Section 241(a) (1) [8 U.S.C. 1211(a) (1)]—Excludable 

at entry under S U.S.C. 1182(a) (22)—Ineligible to citizenship. 

BEFORE THE BOARD 

Discussion: This matter is before us pursuant to the order of a 

special inquiry officer on February 12, 1955, terminating the proceedings and dertifying the case to this Board for final decision. 

The respondent is a 30-year-old unmarried male, native of Ireland and claiming United States citizenship, who last entered this 

country on March 11, 1956, as a returning resident. He has resided in the United States since December 23, 1952, when he was 

admitted for permanent residence as a quota immigrant. The order 

to show cause charged that the respondent was excludable on March 

11, 1556, as an alien ineligible to citizenship because be had applied 

for exemption from United States military service on August 18, 

1953, and had been relieved from training and service on the ground 

of alienage. We agree with the special inquiry officer's conclusion 

that alienage has not been established and our discussion will be 

limited to that ip_seo. 

The respondent was born in Ireland on November 15, 1928. He is 

the legitimate son of a man who was born in the United States in 

1891 and who has not become expatriated. The respondent at birth 

became a citizen of Ireland and a citizen of the United States—the 

latter under section 1993 of the Revised Statutes. On March 24, 

1946, he enlisted for a 5-year term in An Forsa Consanta Aitiuil. 

The English equivalent is stated in the record at times as Local 

340 
Defence Force and at other times as Reserve of Men. It will be 

referred to hereinafter as An Forsa. 

The respondent stated that An Form met weekly for drill exeraiaaa; that attendance teas not compulsory; that there was no penalty for failure to attend; and that he received no pay during the 

entire period of enlistment. He testified that about Easter of 1948 

he was injured in an accident while en route to maneuvers of An 

Forsa; that he was informed by his sergeant that he would be discharged; that he was employed in another town. commencing in 1949; 

and that he did not attend any exercises of An Form after the 

accident in 1948. However, the records indicate that the respondent was not actually discharged from An Forsa until March 23 

1951, upon the expiration of his term of enlistment. 

The respondent's testimony et the hearing on Juno 19, 1057, waa 

to the effect that he had not prior thereto made a claim of being a 

citizen of the United States; that he has 2 brothers and 3 sisters 

in this country; and that he believes that all of them were admitted 

as United States citizens. He stated that he did not apply for a 

United States passport because friends had told him that he lost 

his citizenship because of his service in An Forsa. 

At the time the respondent enlisted in An Forsa, he executed an 

oath which may or may not have been an oath of allegiance. However, the respondent was then under 18 years of age and it is clear 

that the taking of the oath and the eilliAment, itself could not have 

caused expatriation in view of the provisions of section 403(b) of 

the Nationality Act of 1940 [8 U.S.C. 803(b), 1946 ed.]. There 

are two questions involved in this case: (1) Whether the respondent served in the. armed forces of a foreign state, that is, whether 

the service in An Forsa constituted service in the armed forces of 

Ireland, and (2) whether his service after becoming 18 years of age 

was voluntary. While the respondent continued to be a member of 

An Forsa until March 23, 1951, it appears from his testimony that 

he can hardly be said to have served in An Forsa after Easter of 

1948. 

With respect to the first question mentioned above, a letter addressed to counsel on September 13, 1957, by the Irish Department. 

of Defence contains the statement that a member of An Forsa would 

not have been a member of the armed forces of Ireland unless called 

out on permanent service, and that An Form had not been called 

for such service be[ween 1047 and 5050. There is alc, a letter dated 

August 21, 1958, from the Minister for External Affairs of Ireland 

which contains the statement that during the entire period between 

1946 and 1951 An Forsa "was an integral part of the Defence Forces 

of Ireland." The last-mentioned letter contains the specific statement that it was based on information furnished officially by the 

341 
Minister for Defence of Ireland. A letter dated March 20, 1958, by 

the Department of External Affairs of Ireland contains statements 

to the effect that service in An Forsa is on a part-time basis; that 

attendance at training is voluntary, subject only to the condition 

that a member is required to attend a minimum number of training parades; that an obligation to render full-time milifary service 

would arise only if An Forsa were called out in defense of the 

state; and that such a situation has not arisen since the establishment of An Force. 

In a letter dated March 30, 1959, counsel informed this Board that 

he had written to the Minister for Defence on January 5, 1959, 

tameernin ■o the apparent discrepancy between the two letters mentioned above, and he enclosed a copy of a reply dated March 4, 

1959. In this letter the Minister for Defence stated that, although 

An Forsa was formed as a class within the Reserve and had certain 

attachments to the Defence Forces, the position of the respondent, 

in law, was that unless he was called out on permanent service he 

was not a member of the armed forces of Ireland. It was further 

stated that An Forsa was not called out on permanent service during the period from March 24, 1946, to March 23, 1951. 

After careful examination of the record, it is our considered opinion that:, while An Pores iteelf may have been an integral pore of 

the defense forces of Ireland, the respondent's service in An Forsa 

did not constitute service in the armed forces of Ireland. We believe the situation is analogous to Meter at Z , 2 T. & N. Dec. 

346 (Atty. Gen., 1945), and Matter of L F—, 2 I. & N. Dec. 

455 (1946), in which it was held that service in the Canadian Officers' Training Corps and the University Air Training Corps of 

Canada did not constitute service in the armed forces of Canada. 

In the first case, we specifically stated that only service in that part 

of a foreign army which is activated or subject to active Military 

duty will satisfy the requirements of section 401(c) of the Nationality Act of 1940. 

The second question we have referred to above is whether the 

respondent's service after becoming 18 years of age was voluntary. 

As we have indicated, his evlislment while under the age of 18 

would not have caused his expatriation even if An Forsa had been 

part., of the armed forces of Ireland. Tt was stated in a communication dated February 3, 1958, that the respondent did not apply 

for discharge prior to the termination of his enlistment ; that it was 

open to hint to do so at any time; and that the discharge of a member of An Forsa during the period from 1946 to 1951 "could only 

have been effected on application by him for his discharge on compassionate grounds but he would have to prove adequate cause for 

his case to merit consideration on such grounds." 

342 
The record does not disclose precisely what is regarded by the 

Irish authorities as "compassionate grounds" for a discharge but 

presumably it means that the respondent would have had to prove 

that hia continued service would result in hand..hip to him or other 

persons. While it was stated that the respondent could have applied 

for a discharge at any time, the fact that he failed to do so is not 

significant if actually he would have been unable to obtain a discharge. 

The Service contends that the testimony of the respondent is to 

the effect that any member of An Forsa, could obtain a discharge 

regardless of whether compassionate grounds existed. We agree 

that the respondent seems to have been of that opinion but the evidence introduced by the Service shows that he was mistaken and 

that he would have to prove that his case merited discharge on 

compassionate grounds. The respondent's testimony is that no 

change occurred in his situation or that of his family between the 

time of • his enlistment and his discharge, and we believe- it is clear 

that counsel has put in issue the question of whether the respondent's service in An Forsa after his 18th birthday was voluntary or 

involuntary. On the basis of the record before us, we do not believe 

that the Government has established by clear, convincing and unequivocal evidence that the respondent voluntarily served in An 

Forsa after reaching the age of 18 as required by the decision in 

Nish:lb:ma v. Duties, 356 U.S. 129 (1958). We conclude, therefore, 

that it has not been established that the respondent is an alien, and 

the special inquiry officer's action was correct. 

Order: It is ordered that the special inquiry officer's order of 

February 12, 1959, terminating the proceedings, be and the same is 

hereby affirmed. 

393