1708 When does expatriation occur [3A Am Jur 2d ALIENS AND CITIZENS]

View Entire Section

Go to Parallel Reference Table
Go to Supplement
Under 8 USCS 1488, loss of United States nationality occurs immediately when a citizen commits one
of the expatriating acts enumerated in 8 USCS 1481(a) with the requisite intent to relinquish United
States citizenship. 16 It does not occur at the time a person's status as an alien is subsequently judicially
determined. 17
1708 ----When does expatriation occur [SUPPLEMENT] [3A Am Jur 2d ALIENS AND CITIZENS]
Statutes:
The provisions of INA 349(a) [8 USCS 1481(a)] which enumerate acts which may cause a citizen,
whether native born or naturalized, to lose United States nationality are amended to require that the
person perform such acts voluntarily with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality.
Immigration and Nationality Act Amendments of 1986, 18(a).
The conclusive presumption of voluntariness for acts of expatriation performed under certain
circumstances, INA 349(b) [8 USCS 1481(b)], was repealed. Immigration and Nationality Act
Amendments of 1986, 19.
Obersvation:: While the burden of proof remains with the Government to prove by a preponderance of
the evidence that an act of expatriation was performed voluntarily, it appears that the citizen yet has the
burden of production of evidence to rebut the statutory presumption of voluntariness under INA 349(c)
[8 USCS 1481(c)].
Footnotes
Footnote 16. United States ex rel. Marks v Esperdy (1963, CA2 NY) 315 F2d 673, affd 377 US 214, 12
L Ed 2d 292, 84 S Ct 1224, reh den 377 US 1010, 12 L Ed 2d 1059, 84 S Ct 1904.
Footnote 17. United States ex rel. Marks v Esperdy (1963, CA2 NY) 315 F2d 673, affd 377 US 214, 12
L Ed 2d 292, 84 S Ct 1224, reh den 377 US 1010, 12 L Ed 2d 1059, 84 S Ct 1904.
1709 Burden of proof [3A Am Jur 2d ALIENS AND CITIZENS]
View Entire Section
Go to Parallel Reference Table
Go to Supplement
In any proceeding where there is an issue of expatriation, once a person makes a prima facie case that he
is a United States citizen, 18 the burden shifts to the person or party claiming loss of nationality
generally the governmentto establish expatriation by a preponderance of the evidence. 19 The burden
of proof would work this way, for example, in a deportation proceeding. 20 A prima facie case of
citizenship within this rule may be established by the government's concession that at one time the
adversary party had been vested with citizenship status. 21

The burden on the government to prove expatriation is a heavy one. 22 The Supreme Court has stated
that in expatriation cases the facts and law should be construed as far as reasonably possible in favor of
the citizen, and that evidentiary ambiguities are to be resolved in favor of the citizen. 23
Except where a conclusive presumption applies, 24 the citizen has the burden of coming forth with
evidence to rebut the statutory presumption that his alleged expatriative act was committed voluntarily. 25
Such presumption must be rebutted by a preponderance of the evidence. 26
Comment: Neither the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment nor the due process clause of the
Fifth Amendment require that a claim of loss of citizenship be established by clear and convincing
evidence rather than by a preponderance of the evidence. 27
The presumption of voluntariness
provided in 8 USCS 1481(c) is not unconstitutional. 28
1709 ----Burden of proof [SUPPLEMENT] [3A Am Jur 2d ALIENS AND CITIZENS]
Statutes:
The conclusive presumption of voluntariness for acts of expatriation performed under certain
circumstances, INA 349(b) [8 USCS 1481(b)], was repealed. Immigration and Nationality Act
Amendments of 1986, 19.
Observation:: While the burden of proof remains with the Government to prove by a preponderance of
the evidence that an act of expatriation was performed voluntarily, it appears that the citizen yet has the
burden of production of evidence to rebut the statutory presumption of voluntariness under INA 349(c)
[8 USCS 1481(c)].
Footnotes
Footnote 18. Nishikawa v Dulles (1958) 356 US 129, 2 L Ed 2d 659, 78 S Ct 612.
Footnote 19. 8 USCS 1481(c).
Footnote 20. Re Barreiros (1964, BIA) 10 I & N Dec 536.
Footnote 21. Monaco v Dulles (1954, CA2 NY) 210 F2d 760.
Footnote 22. Stipa v Dulles (1956, CA3 Pa) 233 F2d 551.
Footnote 23. Nishikawa v Dulles (1958) 356 US 129, 2 L Ed 2d 659, 78 S Ct 612.
Footnote 24. 8 USCS 1481(b).
Footnote 25. 8 USCS 1481(c).
Footnote 26. 8 USCS 1481(c).
Footnote 27. Vance v Terrazas (1980) 444 US 252, 62 L Ed 2d 461, 100 S Ct 540, reh den 445 US 920,
63 L Ed 2d 606, 100 S Ct 1285 and on remand (ND Ill) 494 F Supp 1017, affd (CA7 Ill) 653 F2d 285.
Footnote 28. Vance v Terrazas (1980) 445 US 920, 63 L Ed 2d 606, 100 S Ct 1285.

 1710 State Department proceedingsdetermination of nationality by consular or diplomatic officer [3A

Am Jur 2d ALIENS AND CITIZENS]
View Entire Section
Go to Parallel Reference Table
While the State Department will determine that a person in the United States has lost his United States
citizenship while abroad only in connection with an application for a passport, 29 diplomatic or consular
officers are authorized to initiate proceedings as to loss of nationality by U.S. citizens in foreign countries.
30
If a diplomatic or consular officer has reason to believe that a person, while in a foreign country, has lost
his United States nationality under the nationality laws, he must prepare a certificate of loss of nationality
containing the facts upon which such belief is based and forward it to the Department of State, 31 along
with the affidavit of the person subject to investigation if that person admits he has expatriated himself by
the voluntary performance of an act or fulfillment of a condition of the nationality laws and consents to
the execution of the affidavit. 32 The diplomatic or consular office in which the certificate is prepared
must forward a copy of the certificate to the person to whom it relates or his representative if the
certificate is approved by the Department of State. 33
Caution: An affidavit supplied to a diplomatic or consular officer in which an individual admits
committing an expatriative act may be given considerable weight in subsequent proceedings wherein the
individual applies to the INS for a benefit based on claimed United States citizenship. 34
Footnotes
Footnote 29. 22 CFR 50.42.
Footnote 30. 8 USCS 1501.
Footnote 31. 22 CFR 50.41(a).
Footnote 32. 22 CFR 50.41(c).
Footnote 33. 22 CFR 50.41(d).
Footnote 34. Re Kekich (1984, BIA) I & N Interim Dec No 2983.
1711 --Renunciation of nationality [3A Am Jur 2d ALIENS AND CITIZENS]
View Entire Section
Go to Parallel Reference Table
Go to Supplement
A person desiring to make a formal renunciation of nationality before a United States diplomatic or
consular officer in a foreign state must do so in the manner and form prescribed by the Department of
State. 35 The renunciant must include on the form he signs a statement that he absolutely and entirely
renounces his United States nationality together with all rights and privileges and all duties of allegiance
and fidelity thereunto pertaining. 36 The diplomatic or consular officer before whom the person appears
will forward to the State Department for approval the oath of renunciation together with a certificate of
loss of nationality under 8 USCS 1501. 37 If the officer's report is approved by the Department,

copies of the certificate will be forwarded to the INS and to the person to whom the certificate relates or
his representative. 38 Notice of right to appeal must be included therewith. 39
1711 --Renunciation of nationality [SUPPLEMENT] [3A Am Jur 2d ALIENS AND CITIZENS]
Case authorities:
Expatriating act under 8 USCS 1481(a)(5) of making formal renunciation of American citizenship by
executing oath of renunciation before American Consulate in Jerusalem was done voluntarily where
evidence revealed that plaintiff chose to renounce American citizenship in order to further his political
career in Israel and run for election to Israeli parliament, and that he specifically acknowledged at time of
making oath of renunciation that he would become an alien with respect to the United States; fact that
plaintiff's political ambitions were thwarted by decision of Israeli Supreme Court barring plaintiff from
running for election does not entitle plaintiff to declaration that he is, nonetheless, still a United States
citizen. Kahane v Secretary of State (1988, DC Dist Col) 700 F Supp 1162.
Footnotes
Footnote 35. 8 USCS 1481(a)(6); 22 CFR 50.50(a).
Footnote 36. 22 CFR 50.50(a).
Footnote 37. 22 CFR 50.50(b).
Footnote 38. 22 CFR 50.50(b).
Footnote 39. 22 CFR 50.52(a).
1712 --Certificate of expatriation [3A Am Jur 2d ALIENS AND CITIZENS]
View Entire Section
Go to Parallel Reference Table
Go to Supplement
Where loss of nationality occurs under provisions of law other than those specified in 8 USCS 1481,
the procedures of preparation, approval, or disapproval of certificates of expatriation are the same as for
loss of nationality, except that a diplomatic or consular officer must prepare a certificate of expatriation
instead of a certificate of loss of nationality. 40
1712 --Certificate of expatriation [SUPPLEMENT] [3A Am Jur 2d ALIENS AND CITIZENS]
Case authorities:
A Certificate of Loss of Nationality does not effect an alleged loss of nationality, but is merely an
administrative method for the government to keep track, for informational purposes, of those persons it
considers to have voluntarily relinquished citizenship. United States v Schiffer (1992, ED Pa) 798 F Supp
1128.
Footnotes
Footnote 40. 22 CFR 50.51.

 1713 --Administrative appeal [3A Am Jur 2d ALIENS AND CITIZENS]

View Entire Section
Go to Parallel Reference Table
Within one year after the approval of a certificate of loss of nationality or a certificate of expatriation, the
person to whom it relates or his or her representative may appeal the State Department's determination to
the Board of Appellate Review under 22 CFR Part 7. 41
Practice guide: Legal conclusions of the State Department's Board of Appellate Review arrived at in
deciding an issue of expatriation may not be considered binding on the Attorney General in subsequent
proceedings involving the same individual's citizenship. 42
In the event of a conflict between federal
agencies, a citizen may resolve the conflict by bringing an action under 8 USCS 1503 for a judicial
declaration of nationality. 43 The issuance of a certificate of loss of nationality constitutes a "final
administrative denial" under 8 USCS 1503(a), so that the person to whom the certificate has been issued
may file a declaratory judgment action under that section for a declaration of United States nationality. 44
Footnotes
Footnote 41. 22 CFR 50.52.
As to appeals to the Board of Appellate Review, see 113 et seq.
Practice Aids: RequestFor administrative appeal to Board of ReviewExpatriation holding contrary to
law and fact. 11 Federal Procedural Forms 40:98.
Footnote 42. Cartier v Secretary of State (1974) 165 App DC 130, 506 F2d 191, cert den 421 US 947, 44
L Ed 2d 101, 95 S Ct 1677; Lun Kwai Tsui v Atty. Gen. of United States (1978, DC Dist Col) 445 F Supp
832.
Footnote 43. Cartier v Secretary of State (1974) 165 App DC 130, 506 F2d 191, cert den 421 US 947, 44
L Ed 2d 101, 95 S Ct 1677.
Footnote 44. Cartier v Secretary of State (1974) 165 App DC 130, 506 F2d 191, cert den 421 US 947, 44
L Ed 2d 101, 95 S Ct 1677; Linzalone v Dulles (1954, DC NY) 120 F Supp 107.
As to such actions, see 1460 et seq.
Practice Aids: Allegation in complaintFor declaratory judgment and injunctive relief against Secretary
of State issuing certificate of loss of nationalityExpatriation determination contrary to fact. 11 Federal
Procedural Forms 40:112.
1714 Reconsideration of voidable expatriation following renunciation by person of Japanese ancestry
[3A Am Jur 2d ALIENS AND CITIZENS]
View Entire Section
Go to Parallel Reference Table
A person of Japanese ancestry who renounced United States nationality pursuant to 401(i) of the
Nationality Act of 1940 who claims that his renunciation is void under the decision in Acheson v
Murakami 45 must complete Form N-576, Supplemental Affidavit to be Submitted with Applications of

Japanese Renunciants, along with a covering letter requesting a determination of the validity of the
renunciation. 46
Footnotes
Footnote 45. Acheson v Murakami (1949, CA9 Cal) 176 F2d 953.
Footnote 46. 8 CFR 349.1.
1715 Effect of expatriation [3A Am Jur 2d ALIENS AND CITIZENS]
View Entire Section
Go to Parallel Reference Table
A person who is expatriated is an alien. 47 Expatriation is not retroactive and therefore does not affect
the status of persons who acquired such status based on the citizenship of someone who is now
expatriated. 48
Footnotes
Footnote 47. 1 Opinions of The Office of Legal Counsel 34 (1977).
Footnote 48. Perkins v Elg (1939) 307 US 325, 83 L Ed 1320, 59 S Ct 884.
b. Acts Constituting, and Sufficiency of, Evidence to Show Expatriation [1716-1741]
1716 Governing law [3A Am Jur 2d ALIENS AND CITIZENS]
View Entire Section
Go to Parallel Reference Table
Since the provisions of the INA are prospective only, expatriation under 8 USCS 1481(a) can only
result from activities taking place on or after December 24, 1952, 49 that is, the performance by a United
States national of the acts, or fulfillment of the conditions, specified in the statute. 50
Footnotes
Footnote 49. Re F M (1954, BIA) 6 I & N Dec 379.
Footnote 50. 8 USCS 1488.
1717 Effect of dual citizenship [3A Am Jur 2d ALIENS AND CITIZENS]
View Entire Section
Go to Parallel Reference Table
Go to Supplement
The concept of dual citizenship recognizes that a person may have and exercise rights of nationality in
two countries and be subject to the responsibilities of both. 51 The mere fact that a person asserts the
rights of citizenship of a foreign country does not, without more, mean that he renounces United States
citizenship, since conduct merely declaratory of what one national aspect of dual citizenship necessarily
connotes cannot reasonably be construed as an act of renunciation of the other national aspect of the
person's dual status. 52

 1717 ----Effect of dual citizenship [SUPPLEMENT] [3A Am Jur 2d ALIENS AND CITIZENS]
Practice Aids: Consequences of acquiring dual citizenship, 67 Law Inst J 957 (1993).
Footnotes
Footnote 51. Jalbuena v Dulles (1958, CA3 Pa) 254 F2d 379.
Footnote 52. Jalbuena v Dulles (1958, CA3 Pa) 254 F2d 379.
1718 Effect of treaties or conventions [3A Am Jur 2d ALIENS AND CITIZENS]
View Entire Section
Go to Parallel Reference Table
Nothing in Title III of the Immigration Act of 1952 (8 USCS 1401 et seq.) is to be applied in
contravention of the provisions of any treaty or convention to which the United States is a party and
which has been ratified by the Senate upon the effective date of that Title. 53 However, no woman who
was a national of the United States is deemed to have lost her nationality solely by reason of her marriage
to an alien on or after September 22, 1922, or to an alien racially ineligible to citizenship on or after
March 3, 1931, or, in the case of a woman who was a United States citizen at birth, through residence
abroad following such marriage, notwithstanding the provisions of any existing treaty or convention. 54
Footnotes
Footnote 53. 8 USCS 1489.
Footnote 54. 8 USCS 1489.
1719 Restrictions on expatriationacts in United States [3A Am Jur 2d ALIENS AND CITIZENS]
View Entire Section
Go to Parallel Reference Table
Go to Supplement
Except by way of a formal written renunciation or treasonous or related actions under 8 USCS 1481(a)
(7), no United States national can expatriate himself or be expatriated while within the United States or
any of its outlying possessions. 55 However, expatriation can result from performance within the United
States or any of its outlying possessions of any of the acts or the fulfillment of any of the conditions
specified in the statute if and when the national thereafter takes up a residence outside the United States
and its outlying possessions. 56
1719 ----Restrictions on expatriationacts in United States [SUPPLEMENT] [3A Am Jur 2d ALIENS
AND CITIZENS]
Statutes:
As amended in 1994, (8 USCS 1483) is expressed in terms of "loss of nationality" rather than
"expatriation."
Footnotes

Footnote 55. 8 USCS 1483(a).

Footnote 56. 8 USCS 1483(a).
1720 --Age restriction [3A Am Jur 2d ALIENS AND CITIZENS]
View Entire Section
Go to Parallel Reference Table
Go to Supplement
A national who within 6 months after attaining the age of 18 years asserts his claim to United States
nationality in such manner as the Secretary of State prescribes is not deemed to have expatriated himself
prior to his 18th birthday by taking a foreign oath, entering or serving in the Armed Forces of a foreign
state, or making a formal renunciation of nationality before a diplomatic or consular officer of the United
States in a foreign state. 57
1720 --Age restriction [SUPPLEMENT] [3A Am Jur 2d ALIENS AND CITIZENS]
Statutes:
As amended in 1994, (8 USCS 1483) is expressed in terms of "loss of nationality" rather than
"expatriation."
Footnotes
Footnote 57. 8 USCS 1483(b).
1721 Presumption of voluntariness [3A Am Jur 2d ALIENS AND CITIZENS]
View Entire Section
Go to Parallel Reference Table
Go to Supplement
Except as otherwise provided by statute, any person who commits or performs or who has committed or
performed an act of expatriation is presumed to have done so voluntarily. 58 Thus, the government is
not required to introduce any independent evidence of voluntariness. 59 The presumption of
voluntariness may be rebutted upon a showing by a preponderance of the evidence that the act or acts
committed or performed were not done voluntarily. 60 Should involuntariness be established by the
requisite quantum of evidence, the government's evidence in rebuttal need only preponderate and need not
amount to clear, convincing, and unequivocal evidence of voluntariness. 61
A citizen may rebut the statutory presumption of voluntariness by introducing evidence that the
expatriating act was performed under circumstances involving duress, mistake, 62 or incapacity negating
a free choice. 63 If the citizen submits evidence of a lack of mental capacity, the burden is then on the
government to show that at the time of his expatriative act the respondent was experiencing a lucid
interval during which he had sufficient capacity to understand in a reasonable manner the nature and
effect of the act which he was doing. 64 A citizen is not exculpated from the consequences of
expatriating acts by the fact that alternatives open to the citizen were painful or that the acts involved
commendable motives. 65

The statutory presumption of voluntariness does not apply to acts demonstrating a specific intent to
relinquish United States citizenship unless these are the same as acts which are designated as expatriation
by the statute. 66
1721 ----Presumption of voluntariness [SUPPLEMENT] [3A Am Jur 2d ALIENS AND CITIZENS]
Statutes:
Observation:: While the burden of proof remains with the Government to prove by a preponderance of
the evidence that an act of expatriation was performed voluntarily, it appears that the citizen yet has the
burden of production of evidence to rebut the statutory presumption of voluntariness under INA 349(c)
[8 USCS 1481(c)]. The provisions of INA 349(a) [8 USCS 1481(a)] which enumerate acts which
may cause a citizen, whether native born or naturalized, to lose United States nationality are amended to
require that the person perform such acts voluntarily with the intention of relinquishing United States
nationality. Immigration and Nationality Act Amendments of 1986, 18(a).
Case authorities:
Statutory presumption under 8 USCS 1481(c) that an expatriating act was taken voluntarily requires that
Government prove by preponderance of evidence that former citizen had specific intent to relinquish
American citizenship; hence, former citizen failed to support claim that he did not voluntarily renounce
citizenship, but rather was compelled to do so by change in Israeli law which required that members of
Israeli parliament, the Knessett, be citizens only of Israel, because plaintiff's primary motivation for
expatriating act of formal renunciation of American citizenship was to participate in Israeli politics and
run for seat in Knesset. Kahane v Secretary of State (1988, DC Dist Col) 700 F Supp 1162.
Footnotes
Footnote 58. 8 USCS 1481(c).
Footnote 59. Re Gonzalez-Hernandez (1964, BIA) 10 I & N Dec 472; Re Russo (1965, BIA) 11 I & N
Dec 12; Re Jolley (1970, BIA) 13 I & N Dec 543, affd (CA5) 441 F2d 1245, cert den 404 US 946, 30 L
Ed 2d 262, 92 S Ct 302.
Footnote 60. 8 USCS 1481(c).
Footnote 61. Re Gonzalez-Hernandez (1964, BIA) 10 I & N Dec 472; Re Russo (1965, BIA) 11 I & N
Dec 12.
Footnote 62. Re Kekich (1984, BIA) I & N Interim Dec No 2983.
Footnote 63. Re Sinclitico (1975, BIA) 15 I & N Dec 320; Re Kekich (1984, BIA) I & N Interim Dec No
2983.
Footnote 64. Re Sinclitico (1975, BIA) 15 I & N Dec 320.
Footnote 65. Re Kekich (1984, BIA) I & N Interim Dec No 2983.
Footnote 66. Richards v Secretary of State, Dept. of State (1985, CA9 Cal) 752 F2d 1413.

 1722 --Conclusive presumption [3A Am Jur 2d ALIENS AND CITIZENS]

View Entire Section
Go to Parallel Reference Table
Go to Supplement
Any person who commits or performs any act specified in the statute as a basis for loss of nationality is
conclusively presumed to have done so voluntarily and without duress of any kind, if the person was at
the time of the act a national of the state in which the act was performed and had been physically present
in that state for a period or periods totaling 10 years or more immediately prior to the act. 67 The
conclusive presumption does not operate against a citizen who because of official misinformation does
not realize that he is a citizen, 68 or against a citizen whose physical presence in a foreign state for the
time specified by the statute accrued involuntarily by reason of the refusal of that state's government to
permit the citizen's departure. 69
1722 --Conclusive presumption [SUPPLEMENT] [3A Am Jur 2d ALIENS AND CITIZENS]
Statutes:
The conclusive presumption of voluntariness for acts of expatriation performed under certain
circumstances, INA 349(b) [8 USCS 1481(b)], was repealed. Immigration and Nationality Act
Amendments of 1986, 19.
Footnotes
Footnote 67. 8 USCS 1481(b).
Footnote 68. Re S (1958, BIA) 8 I & N Dec 226 (foreign military service); Re P (1959, BIA) 8 I & N
Dec 307.
Footnote 69. Re S (1962, Assistant Comr) 9 I & N Dec 711.
1723 --Defense of duress [3A Am Jur 2d ALIENS AND CITIZENS]
View Entire Section
Go to Parallel Reference Table
Duress is a defense to, or a basis of relief from, loss of nationality. 70 A citizen who claims that an
otherwise expatriative act was performed under duress has the burden of going forward with evidence
establishing such duress. 71
Duress has been found to preclude expatriation by foreign naturalization,
72 foreign governmental employment, 73 citizenship renunciation, 74 and foreign oath of allegiance. 75
The means of exercising duress which will relieve loss of nationality include physical threats, 76
imprisonment, 77 and threats of economic deprivation (if the ability to secure the necessities of life is
adversely affected thereby). 78 However, a citizen failed to establish duress by evidence that she feared
she might forfeit inheriting her husband's property if she remained noncitizen of Venezuela and that
Venezuelan officials might not renew her permission to remain in that country. 79 Furthermore, a citizen
fails to establish that obtaining Canadian citizenship and renouncing United States citizenship were
involuntary due to economic duress on basis that Canadian citizenship and an oath of renunciation were
requirements for the employment he accepted, where he had been gainfully employed as teacher for
several years which did not require obtaining Canadian citizenship, he was not forced to leave the
teaching job, and was not under any onerous financial obligations. 80

There is no legal requirement that testimony as to duress be corroborated by documentary or other proof.
81
The conclusive presumption of voluntariness contained in 8 USCS 1481(b) eliminates duress as a
defense to expatriation under the circumstances specified in that provision. 82
Footnotes
Footnote 70. Takehara v Dulles (1953, CA9 Wash) 205 F2d 560; Perri v Dulles (1953, CA3 NJ) 206 F2d
586; Fukumoto v Dulles (1954, CA9 Hawaii) 216 F2d 553; Stipa v Dulles (1956, CA3 Pa) 233 F2d 551.
Footnote 71. Vance v Terrazas (1980) 445 US 920, 63 L Ed 2d 606, 100 S Ct 1285.
Footnote 72. Fukumoto v Dulles (1954, CA9 Hawaii) 216 F2d 553.
Footnote 73. Stipa v Dulles (1956, CA3 Pa) 233 F2d 551.
Footnote 74. Acheson v Murakami (1949, CA9 Cal) 176 F2d 953.
Footnote 75. Gensheimer v Dulles (1954, DC NJ) 117 F Supp 836.
Footnote 76. Insogna v Dulles (1953, DC Dist Col) 116 F Supp 473.
Footnote 77. Acheson v Murakami (1949, CA9 Cal) 176 F2d 953.
Footnote 78. 3rd CircuitStipa v Dulles (1956, CA3 Pa) 233 F2d 551.
9th CircuitTakehara v Dulles (1953, CA9 Wash) 205 F2d 560 (loss of a ration card); Richards v
Secretary of State, Dept. of State (1985, CA9 Cal) 752 F2d 1413; Kamada v Dulles (1956, DC Cal) 145 F
Supp 457.
DC CircuitSoccodato v Dulles (1955) 96 App DC 337, 226 F2d 243; Insogna v Dulles (1953, DC Dist
Col) 116 F Supp 473 (fear of the consequences of being unable to find work).
Footnote 79. Kekich (1984, BIA) I & N Interim Dec No 2983.
Footnote 80. Richards v Secretary of State, Dept. of State (1985, CA9 Cal) 752 F2d 1413.
Footnote 81. Pandolfo v Acheson (1953, CA2 NY) 202 F2d 38; Insogna v Dulles (1953, DC Dist Col) 116
F Supp 473.
Footnote 82. Re M G (1958, BIA) 7 I & N Dec 665 (foreign voting); Re C (1960, BIA) 9 I & N
Dec 41 (foreign military service); Re Russo (1965, BIA) 11 I & N Dec 12 (foreign voting).
1724 Intent to renounce citizenship [3A Am Jur 2d ALIENS AND CITIZENS]
View Entire Section
Go to Parallel Reference Table
Fourteenth Amendment citizenship, that is, citizenship by birth or by naturalization in the United States, is
retained unless a citizen voluntarily relinquishes it and, once acquired, cannot be shifted, canceled, or

diluted at the will of the Federal Government, the states, or any other governmental unit. 83
Accordingly, to establish an individual's loss of citizenship, the government must prove specific intent to
renounce United States citizenship, not just the voluntary commission of an expatriating act. 84
This is true regardless of the expatriation statute which is applicable to the person's case. 85 A person
who is not mentally competent lacks the capacity to perform an expatriative act with the intent to
relinquish United States citizenship. 86
In order to prove a specific intent to relinquish citizenship, the government must show more than
knowledge on the part of the citizen that Congress has declared an act to be expatriating. 87 On the other
hand, a citizen may relinquish his United States citizenship by performing an expatriating act with an
intent to renounce citizenship whether or not he knew that the act was an expatriating act under the statute
and indeed whether or not he knew that expatriation was possible under United States law. 88
Voluntary acts which manifestly involve dilution of allegiance to the United States may be considered
highly persuasive evidence in themselves of intent to abandon United States citizenship, and may shift the
burden to the citizen to come forth with evidence that he had no such intent. 89
Nevertheless, any
such act is neither the equivalent, nor conclusive evidence, of intent to relinquish citizenship, 90
and
the individual alleged to have relinquished citizenship is always free to raise the issue of intent regardless
of the expatriative act involved. 91
Intent rarely will be established by direct evidenceproof by circumstantial evidence is more common. 92
The government may prove intent by evidence of an explicit renunciation, 93
acts inconsistent with
United States citizenship, or affirmative voluntary acts clearly manifesting a decision to accept foreign
nationality. 94
Proof of intent may be by a preponderance of the evidence and need not be by clear and convincing
evidence. 95