'29. Have you ever been arrested or charged with violation of any law of the United States or State or any city ordinance or traffic regulation? ..........no..........If so, give full particulars.....none.....'
On March 15, 1933 defendant was interviewed under oath by Naturalization Examiners Halstead and Braden who testified that their notes made at the time positively indicated that he told them both at separate interviews that he had never been arrested. The United States District Court of New Jersey entered its order admitting the defendant to citizenship on September 11, 1933. The order was issued on the recommendations of the naturalization examiners who relied on defendant's representations that he had never been arrested, and such recommendations would not have been made if there had been a full disclosure by defendant.
The case of United States v. Accardo, D.C.N.J., 1953, 113 F.Supp. 783, would appear to be dispositive of the issue. In that case the District Court revoked defendant's citizenship on the grounds of fraud and illegal procurement. There the defendant admitted certain difficulties with the law in his petition for naturalization, but failed to disclose other arrests and convictions. The Circuit Court of Appeals of this Circuit affirmed, per curiam, the action of the lower court. 3 Cir., 1953, 208 F.2d 632. As to the present defendant's contention that his arrests did not show that he was not of good moral character, the District Court said, 113 F.Supp. at page 786:
'* * * Since we here consider defendant's character only, defendant's contentions as to notice to the Government as to some of this record becomes irrelevant, even if this contention were not fallacious. It is too clear for argument that the above fraud of itself shows defendant was not then 'of good moral character, attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States.' Del Guercio v. Pupko, 9 Cir., 1947, 160 F.2d 799, 800; Stevens v. U.S., 7 Cir., 1951, 190 F.2d 880 * * *.'
The defendant testified that he had disclosed his arrests but that the examiners said they were not important if he had not 'served time'. This testimony was clearly denied by the examiners and is unworthy of belief. The same defense was presented in United States v. Corrado, D.C.E.D.Mich., 1953, 121 F.Supp. 75, where citizenship was revoked.
Accordingly, both on the ground of fraud and on the ground that the order and certificate of naturalization of defendant were illegally procured, the order will be revoked and set aside, and the certificate will be cancelled.
The facts herein stated and the conclusions of law expressed shall be considered the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law of the Court. An appropriate order will be submitted.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.