C.F.R. » Title 5 » CHAPTER I—OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT › SUBCHAPTER B—CIVIL SERVICE REGULATIONS › PART 338—QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS (GENERAL) › Subpart A—Citizenship Requirements

5 C.F.R. § 338.101

Citizenship

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) A person may be admitted to competitive examination only if he is a citizen of or owes permanent allegiance to the United States.

(b) A person may be given an appointment in the competitive service only if he or she is a citizen of or owes permanent allegiance to the United States. However, a noncitizen may be given an appointment in rare cases under § 316.601 of this chapter, unless the appointment is prohibited by statute.

(c) Paragraph (b) of this section applies to reinstatement and transfer as well as to other noncompetitive appointments, and to conversion to career or career-conditional employment.

[33 FR 12429, Sept. 4, 1968, as amended at 57 FR 10124, Mar. 24, 1992]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17 cases, 1971–2003 · leading case: Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong, 426 U.S. 88 (1976).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong, 426 U.S. 88 (1976). · cites it 4× “[1] The Civil Service Commission's regulations, 5 CFR § 338.101 (1976), provide in pertinent part: "(a) A person may be admitted to competitive examination only if he is a citizen of or owes permanent allegiance to the United States.”
MOW SUN WONG Et Al., Appellants, v. Alan K. CAMPBELL, Dir. of the Off. of Pers. Mgmt. Et Al., Appellees, 626 F.2d 739 (9th Cir. 1980). · cites it 6× “FACTS On December 20,1970, five lawfully resident aliens instituted a class action for declaratory and injunctive relief challenging, inter alia, the constitutionality of a regulation promulgated by the Civil Service Commission (the “CSC”), 5 C.F.R. § 338.101 (1979), 3 which…”
Espinoza v. Farah Mfg. Co., 414 U.S. 86 (1973). · cites it 2× “§ 3301 ; 5 CFR § 338.101 (1972). But it has never been suggested that the citizenship requirement for federal employment constitutes discrimination because of national origin, even though since 1943, various Executive Orders have expressly prohibited discrimination on the basis…”
Sugarman v. Dougall, 413 U.S. 634 (1973). · cites it 2× “1 (1954); 5 CFR §§ 338.101 , 302.203 (g) (1973); and, for example, Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government Appropriation Act, 1972, § 602, Pub.”
Ramos v. United States Civil Serv. Comm'n, 376 F. Supp. 361 (D.P.R. 1974). · cites it 8× “Having passed the test, he applied for a position as Control Tower Operator Trainee, but was notified that he could not be considered for appointment to the competitive Civil Service because CSC regulation 5 C.F.R. § 338.101 [1] makes citizenship a qualification for appointment.”
MOW SUN WONG Et Al., Appellants, v. Robert E. HAMPTON, Chairman of the United States Civil Serv. Comm'n, Et Al., Appellees, 500 F.2d 1031 (9th Cir. 1974). · cites it 6× “5 C.F.R. § 338.101 (1971). 2 The constitutional question is closely similar to that which the Supreme Court refused to intimate a view on, in its recent decision of Sugarman v.”
Jose Luis Perdomo-Padilla v. John Ashcroft, Attorney Gen., 333 F.3d 964 (9th Cir. 2003). “2d 495 (1976) (noting that Civil Service Commission regulations construed “nationals” “who owe *968 permanent allegiance to the United States” to cover only natives of American Samoa (citing 5 C.F.R. § 338.101 (1976))). This court, too, has explained that non-citizen nationality…”
Mazhar Jalil v. Robert E. Hampton, Chairman United States Civil Serv. Comm'n, 460 F.2d 923 (D.C. Cir. 1972). · cites it 5× “5 C.F.R. § 338.101 (1971). 9 If the quoted regulation of the Commission exceeds the authority given it by the Executive Order, then it is invalid and may not be applied to exclude Dr.”
Foley v. Connelie, 419 F. Supp. 889 (S.D.N.Y. 1976). · cites it 2× “[10] 5 C.F.R. § 338.101 (1976). [11] New York Executive Law § 225 (McKinney 1972).”
Mow Sun Wong v. Hampton, 333 F. Supp. 527 (N.D. Cal. 1971). · cites it 2× “5 C. F.R. § 338.101 (1971). The Commission is authorized to establish standards with respect to citizenship by Executive Order No.”
Gordon T. Best v. John C. Stetson, 691 F.2d 42 (1st Cir. 1982). “The government says that this initial appointment was a mistake because civil service regulations, 5 C.F.R. § 338.101 (a) (1976), then prohibited appointing an alien to the competitive service.”
Mow Sun Wong v. Hampton, 435 F. Supp. 37 (N.D. Cal. 1977). “101, 5 C.F.R. 338.101 (1976). 2 . Executive Order 11,935, 41 Fed.”
Show all 17 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.