MATTER OF S— 

Application for Certificate of Citizenship 

A-11171850 

Decided by Regional Commissioner March 10, 1960 

Approved by Aociogarce Oor.Oni.7000rt.cr Marco 54, 1000 

Expatriation—Act of March 2, 1907—Wartime oath of allegiance effective upon 

termination of hostilities when confirmed by subsequent acts. 

Dual United States and British national at birth who took oath of allegiance 

to British Crown M 1917 upon enlistment In Canadian Army at age 22, which 

oath was effectively confirmed after the wartime period by repeated acts 

consistent only with relinquishment of United States nationality, is held 

pursuant to section 2 of the Act of March 2, 1907 to have lost United States 

nationality as of the date of termination of hostilities, July 2, 1921, Hence, 

his child born abroad In 1924 did not acquire United States citizenship at 

birth under R.S. 1993, 

BEFORE THE REGIONAL -COMMISSIONER 

Discussion: This case is on appeal from the decision of the District Director, St. Paul, Minnesota, of October 6, 1959, denying the 

application of D—M-----S— for a certificate of citizenship. 

Applicant claims that she acquired United States citizenship under section 1993, R.S., at birth in Canada on June 28, 1924, through 

her father, F W K , who was then a citizen of the United 

States through birth therein. The issue involved is the citizenship 

of the father at the time of applicant's birth. 

The father was born in the United States on February 9, 1895, 

of British national parents. In 1910 he moved to Canada with his 

parents and remained in that country except for temporary visits to 

the United States to attend school from October to May in 1916 

and 1917. He applied in Canada for a homestead on March 10, 

1913, and was issued letters patent thereon on August 4, 1916, after 

reaching his majority. In his sworn statement dated April 18, 1916, 

in support of this application for the letters patent, the father gave 

his age as twenty-one years and stated that he was a British subject 

by birth. He did not take an oath of allegiance either in connection with the application for or the issuance of letters patent. On 

September 7, 1917, at Winnipeg, Canada, he enlisted in the Canadian Army and took the then required oath of allegiance to the 

604 
British Crown, serving until his discharge on July 30, 1919. The 

oath taken by him in 1917 provided as follows: 

, do make Oath, that I will be faithful and bear true 

Allegiance to His lklajeety King Ceorgc the 11:5 licira and But,mmrts, 

and that I will as in duty ballad honestly and faithfully defend His Majesty, 

His Heirs and Successors, in Person, Crown and Dignity, against all enemies, 

and will observe and obey all orders of His Majesty, His Heirs and Successors, and of all the Generals and Officers set over me. So help me God. 

The father had become a United States citizen by birth in this 

country (Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution). 

Being the son of British national parents, he also acquired British 

nationality at birth (the Act of 7 Anne, c. 5). See also, Hackworth, 

Digest of International Law, vol. III, page 360 (1942). 

Section 2, A of of March 2, 1907 (14 Stat. 1225), provided in pertinent part: 

That any American citizen shall be deemed to have expatriated himself 

when he has been naturalized in any foreign state in conformity with its laws, 

or when he has taken an oath of allegiance to any foreign state. 

" And provided also, That no American citizen shall be allowed to expatriate himself when this country is at war. 

The applicant's father, after reaching his twenty-first birthday, 

took an unqualified oath of allegiance to the Brtish Crown on three 

separate occasions. The first on September 7, 1917, was the only one 

taken prior to applicant's birth and at a period during which this 

country was at war. He took that oath, which was an unqualified 

one, to enlist in the Canadian Expeditionary Force. 

The fact that the father was a dual national does not diminish 

the expatriating effect of an oath since the performance of the expatriating act results in loss of United States nationality. It has 

been held that the taking of an oath of allegiance to the British 

Crown by a dual national of the United States and Canada in connection with enlistment in the Canadian Army effects expatriation 

under the provisions of the Act of March 2, 1907 (Matter of 

5 1, & N. Dec. 678 (1954); as to the expatriative effect of an oath, 

see also, Hackworth, Digest of International Law, vol. III, §244 

(1942)). The court in Reaunbe v. United States, 124 F. Supp. 851 

(1954), held that a dual national of this country and Canada would 

lose United States citizenship by taking such an oath when entering 

Canadian military service. This same means of expatriation was 

clearly recognized by the case of Handal. v. Aehoson, 144 U S_ 133 

(1952), as pointed out by the dissenting opinion, although in that 

case the majority had accepted the Government's position that the 

oath taken was involuntary. Kawakita v. United States, 343 U.S. 

717 (1952), also acknowledged that an oath of allegiance taken by 

a dual national would expatriate. 

To the extent that Jalbisena v. Dulles, 254 F.2d 379 (1958), may 

605 
give some indication of a contrary view, the Service is not in accord 

with it. The taking of an unqualified oath of allegiance to a foreign 

state in the present ease Was not a bare assertion of a right or the 

acceptance of a benefit of nationality. It was an overt and solemn 

acceptance, binding in conscience, of an obligation to a state to which 

prior thereto allegiance was owing as an accident of birth. As such 

it was an expatriating act under section 2, supra, and the only remaining question is the extent to which the proviso to that section 

affected its consequences. 

The oath of allegiance on September 7, 1917, was taken during 

wartime. Under the proviso to section 2, Act of March 2, 1907, 

expatriation could not occur during wartime which extended from 

Aril • 0, 1917, to July 2, 1921. Had the father done nothing thereafter to indicate a continued allegiance to Canada, he would not 

have lost his United States citizenship as a result of taking the 1917 

oath (Matter of C , 2 I. & N. Dec. 263 (1946) ; 39 Op. Atty. Gen. 

474 (1940)). However, an oath taken during minority may have 

expatriating effect if confirmed during majority by clear and unequivocal acts, denoting a continued allegiance to the foreign state 

and an intention to relinquish United States citizenship (Di Girolame v. Acheson, 101 F. Supp. 380 (1951)). An oath taken during 

the period of World War I may be similarly confirmed with like 

effect upon the termination of the conflict (39 Up. Atty. Gen. 414, 

481 (1940) ). 

If acts are performed confirming an expatriating oath, it is necessary to determine the effective date of the nationality loss. In a 

case involving the involuntary acquisition of a foreign nationality, 

it has been held that the act manifesting acceptance of the foreign 

nationality, involuntarily argnirpri, related hack to the date of acquisition of foreign nationality (Matter of V—, 3I. & N. Dec. 671 

(1949) ; Matter of M , 6 I. & N. Dec. 70 (1953) ). In a case 

involving election of United States nationality, it was also held that 

the act of election related back (Matter of G , 1 I. & N. Dec. 329 

(1942)). 

In the instant case, therefore, if acts are shown confirmatory of 

the wartime oath of allegiance, expatriation would have been effective as of July 2, 1921, the date of termination of the war period. 

The evidence presented in this case establishes that on July 8, 1924, 

the father applied for a soldier grant of land which was 1,,,,Lied to 

him on July 24, 1928. In a sworn statement on June 11, 1928, in 

support of his application for patent for the land, he stated that he 

was a British subject by birth. Thereafter he became a member of 

the school board at Coronach, Canada, and on January 12, 1935, took 

a second oath of allegiance to the British Crown. He became employed as a Canadian Customs Excise Enforcement Officer on April 

606 
27, 1938, and once more took an oath of allegiance to the British 

Crown. He also voted in provincial, dominion, and other Canadian elections beginning in 1927, and taught school for a short time 

but took no oath in connection therewith. 

The facts in this case, in view of the applicable law, show that 

the applicant's father, acquiring United States and British nation 

ality at birth, took an oath of allegiance to the British Crown during wartime, that such an oath was effectively confirmed after the 

wartime period by repeated acts consistent only with a relinquishment of his United States nationality, and that such confirmatory 

acts related back to July 2, 1921, prior to applicant's birth. Consequently applicant did not acquire United States citizenship. The 

denial of her application by the district director was proper. 

Order: It is ordered that the denial of the application of D 

for a certificate of citizenship by the District Director, 

St. Paul, Minnesota, on October 6, 1959, be affirmed. 

607