The opinion of the court was delivered by: Joseph Samuel Perry, District Judge.
Petitioner, C-C-J-P filed her petition for naturalization under
Section 316(a) Immigration and Nationality Act. (8 U.S.C. § 1427).
This court has examined said petition and the file in the above
cause together with the findings of fact, conclusions of law and
recommendation by the designated Naturalization Examiner that
said Petitioner's petition for naturalization be granted.
The statute (8 U.S.C. § 1427) concerning the requirements for
naturalization is quite explicit. It provides, in part, —
Turning to 8 U.S.C. § 1101, which sets forth the definitions of
terms used in the chapter, we find that sub-paragraph (f)(2)
thereof provides —
Briefly summarizing a sworn statement which Petitioner made to
the Immigration and Naturalization Service officer in the
matter of her petition for naturalization: She met Pierre in
Haiti about 1951 and they had a child in 1953. In 1955 she
married Theodore and they lived together in Washington until
April, 1956, when she returned to Haiti. When she came back to
the United States in August of 1956, her husband,
Theodore, had disappeared and she was unable to find him. She
consulted an attorney in Washington in 1956 about an annulment of
her marriage to Theodore because she "had reason to believe that
Theodore was married to another woman at the time he married me;"
that since she could not find Theodore she could not get the
annulment. In 1960 she saw Pierre in New York. He knew she was
not living with her husband, Theodore, and asked her to live with
him. She accepted. After their second child was born she wrote to
the Archdiocese of Chicago in an effort to obtain a church
annulment of her marriage to Theodore and in 1962 was informed
that her marriage to Theodore was valid because "Theodore was not
married to the woman he had lived with before he married me."
Petitioner further stated that she intended to get a divorce from
Theodore but kept postponing it. In 1967 she did obtain a divorce
and married Pierre on June 17, 1967.
It is the view of this court that Petitioner does not meet the
statutory requirements for naturalization and that the Examiner
should have applied the rationale of In re Zunker, D.C.,
283 F. Supp. 793, and Petition for Naturalization of O______ N______,
D.C., 233 F. Supp. 504. Each of those cases held that an
adulterous relationship entered into by an alien during the five
years immediately preceding the filing of a petition for
naturalization barred the requisite finding of good moral
character during that time.
In his Report, the Examiner suggests that —
"In the present posture and under the present Act,
perhaps the better policy would be the adoption of a
federal standard allowing citizenship,
notwithstanding the commission of adultery as the
term is Defined by the state law, where neither party
to the relationship has been convicted of criminal
adultery during the statutory period; where prior to
the first adulterous act the existing marriage or
marriages had been permanently disrupted; where the
extramarital relationship did not tend to destroy an
existing marriage or marriages nor evidence disregard
of marital vows and responsibilities; and where the
petitioner and the other party to the adultery have
married and reside together in a bona fide marital
It is not within the province of either the Examiner or this
court to enlarge, by interpretation, the intent of Congress —
either by reading into the statute provisions which Congress has
seen fit to omit therefrom or by granting citizenship to a
petitioner who lacks one of the clearly stated requirements of
The record in this case establishes, and the Examiner concedes
in his Conclusions, that during the period for which she is
required to establish good moral character the Petitioner has
The finding required by the statute of good moral character
cannot be made in this case and
It is therefore ordered that the petition for naturalization be
and it hereby is denied.
© 1992-2003 VersusLaw Inc.