8 U.S.C. § 351 to 416
Repealed or transferred
8 U.S.C. § 405 has no page of its own: the Office of the Law Revision Counsel prints it together with other sections as the single entry 8 U.S.C. § 351 to 416, shown below.
[repealed]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 45
cases, 1927–1959 · leading case: Schneiderman v. United States, 320 U.S. 118 (1943).
Schneiderman v. United States, 320 U.S. 118 (1943). “” 8 U. S. C. § 405 . This provision is continued in substance by § 338 of the Nationality Act of 1940, 54 Stat.”
Baumgartner v. United States, 322 U.S. 665 (1944). “596 , 8 U. S. C. § 405 . Practically identical provisions are con *679 tained in § 338 of the Nationality Act of 1940, 54 Stat.”
Turlej v. United States, 31 F.2d 696 (8th Cir. 1929). “* * * No alien has the slightest right to naturalization unless all statutory requirements are complied with; and every certificate of citizenship must be treated as granted upon condition that the government may challenge it as provided in section 15 [8 USCA § 405] and demand…”
United States v. Milana, 148 F. Supp. 152 (E.D. Mich. 1957). “Rosario, who died in 1947, was ordered denaturalized, pursuant to 8 U.S.C.A. § 405 (1927) , 1 for having made permanent residence in his native country within five years of his naturalization.”
United States ex rel. Harrington v. Schlotfeldt, 136 F.2d 935 (7th Cir. 1943). “The court found the charges sustained by the evidence and accordingly cancelled the certificate of citizenship.”
United States v. Bischof, 48 F.2d 538 (2d Cir. 1931). “601 , 8 U. S. C. § 405 [8 USCA § 405]) for the cancellation of appellee’s certificate of naturalization.”
United States v. Kusche, 56 F. Supp. 201 (S.D. Cal. 1944). “601 , 8 U.S.C.A. § 405 , for “illegal procurement,” but only for extrinsic fraud, and that the complaint does not state any facts to support a charge of extrinsic fraud; and hence does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.”
Rosenberg v. United States, 60 F.2d 475 (3d Cir. 1932). “” 8 USCA § 405. In pursuance thereof, the district attorney, alleging that Rosenherg was a resident of the state of.”
United States v. Saracino, 43 F.2d 76 (3d Cir. 1930). “601 , as amended (8 USCA § 405), provides: “It shall be the duty of the United States district attorneys for the respective districts, or the Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner of Naturalization, upon affidavit showing good cause therefor, to institute proceedings in any court…”
United States v. De Francis, 50 F.2d 497 (D.C. Cir. 1931). “601 (8 USCA § 405), provides: “It shall be the duty of the United States district attorneys for the respective districts, upon affidavit showing good cause therefor, to institute proceedings in any court having jurisdiction to naturalize aliens in the judicial district in which…”
United States v. Schneiderman, 106 F. Supp. 892 (S.D. Cal. 1952). “In that action the complaint charged defendant Schneiderman had illegally procured his naturalization certificate in that at the time of his naturalization and during the five years preceding his naturalization he “had not behaved as a person attached to the principles of the…”
United States v. Parisi, 24 F. Supp. 414 (D. Md. 1938). “The proceeding is based on section 405 of Title 8 of the United States Code, 8 U.S.C.A. § 405 , which authorizes the “setting aside and canceling the certificate of citizenship on the ground of fraud or on the ground that such certificate of citizenship was illegally procured”.”
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.