The opinion of the court was delivered by: WOOD
1. Iryna Tytiana Bartkiw (nee Szerenga) filed her petition for naturalization, No. 216261, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on May 10, 1960, in the name of Iryna Szerenga, she at that time being unmarried.
2. Iryna Szerenga came to this country on August 30, 1949, accompanied by her parents, sisters and brothers, as a displaced person from the Ukraine. She became twenty-one years of age on January 14, 1960. Her petition for naturalization was calendared for hearing by the Court on July 13, 1960, at which time she appeared before an interrogation officer of the Immigration and Naturalization Service.
She advised the Examiner at that time that she had been in Canada for several weeks prior thereto and had in the meantime married one Donald Bartkiw, a naturalized Citizen of Canada.
3. They had become engaged in January of 1960 and were married on June 4, 1960, approximately six weeks prior to the above hearing. The Hearing Examiner approved her for citizenship and so advised the Court and she became a naturalized citizen by Order of the Court on July 13, 1960.
4. On August 10, 1960, respondent, having returned to Canada after the aforesaid hearing on July 13, 1960, applied for entry into the United States and it was then discovered that on or about June 13, 1960, she had applied to Canadian Immigration authorities for admission as a permanent resident.
Following the application to the Canadian authorities, she was given permanent residence status in Canada as of August 22, 1960.
6. The facts concerning her application for permanent residence status in Canada, her marriage, and her residence having become known as aforesaid to the authorities of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, there was filed with the Court on August 11, 1960 the motion under consideration. Hearings were held on August 29, 1960, and October 9, 1961, to give the respondent an opportunity to present evidence, argument and briefs on her behalf relative to the issues involved.
7. The respondent has stated that it has always been her intention to be a resident and a citizen of the United States, but that has been thwarted due to her marriage and the fact that her husband's employment requires him to live in Canada. She still is desirous of becoming a United States citizen.
8. Her husband has testified that if it were possible for him to do so and his wife were a United States citizen, he would seek employment in the United States where they would reside.
The position of the Immigration and Naturalization Service in this case can be most succinctly stated as follows:
'* * * what we have here is an admission by this young lady that at the time she applied for citizenship she was engaged. Her fiance lived in Canada. She knew that she was going to go to Canada to live after she was married. She did in fact go to Canada to live after she was married. She has in fact resided in Canada since she was married, which is contrary to the statement which she made in her petition, that she intended to reside permanently in the United States.' (NT 26)
Although we have concluded that there was no fraud or intentional act to deceive in any way on the part of the respondent, the above brief statement of facts ...