1. An order of the district court granting or denying a petition
for naturalization is a final decision within the meaning of
Jud.Code § 128. P.
270 U. S.
575.
2. Whenever the law provides a remedy enforceable in the federal
courts according to the regular course of legal procedure, and that
remedy is pursued, there arises a "case" within the meaning of the
Constitution, Art. III, § 2, whether the subject of the litigation
be property or status. P.
270 U. S.
576.
3. A petition for naturalization is a "case" within the meaning
of Jud.Code § 128, and an order of the district court denying the
petition is renewable by the Circuit Court of Appeal. Pp.
270 U. S.
577-578.
Response to questions certified by circuit courts of appeals in
naturalization proceedings.
Page 270 U. S. 574
MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS delivered the opinion of the Court.
These cases present, by certificate, the question whether the
circuit courts of appeals have jurisdiction to review a decree or
order of a federal district court denying the petition of an alien
to be admitted to citizenship in the United States.
The existence of the jurisdiction was assumed by this Court,
without discussion, in
Ozawa v. United States,
260 U. S. 178. It
has been exercised by the circuit courts of appeals in most of the
circuits. [
Footnote 1] In the
Fifth Circuit,
Page 270 U. S. 575
jurisdiction was denied in
United States v. Dolla, 177
F. 101. Although the correctness of the decision was questioned by
Judge Amidon in
United States v. Leonore, 207 F. 865, 869,
and by Judge Hough in
United States v. Mulvey, 232 F. 513,
521, 522, it has been followed in the Third circuit and in the
Eighth. [
Footnote 2] In the
state courts, judgments granting or denying petitions for
naturalization have generally been held to be reviewable on appeal,
like other cases. [
Footnote
3]
The "jurisdiction to naturalize aliens as citizens of the United
States" is conferred by Act of June 29, 1906, c. 3592, § 3, 34
Stat. 596 upon the district courts, among others. Jurisdiction to
review the "final decision in the
Page 270 U. S. 576
district courts . . . in all cases," except as otherwise
provided, was conferred by Act of March 3, 1891, c. 517, § 6, 26
Stat. 826, 828, upon circuit courts of appeals. This provisions was
reenacted in Judicial Code § 128, and, by Act of February 13, 1925,
c. 229, 43 Stat. 936, in § 128(a). The order granting or denying a
petition for naturalization is clearly a final decision within the
meaning of that section.
Ex parte Tiffany, 252 U. S.
32. This is true although a certificate granted may be
cancelled under § 15 of the Naturalization Act.
United States
v. Ness, 245 U. S. 319. And
a denial of the petition may not preclude another application for
naturalization.
In re Pollock, 257 F. 350.
Compare
Salinger v. Loisel, 265 U. S. 224,
265 U. S. 230.
The substantial question is whether a petition for naturalization
is a case within the meaning of the Court of Appeals Act.
The function of admitting to citizenship has been conferred
exclusively upon courts continuously since the foundation of our
government.
See Act of March 26, 1790, c. 3, 1 Stat. 103.
The federal district courts, among others, have performed that
function since the Act of January 29, 1795, c. 20, 1 Stat. 414. The
constitutionality of this exercise of jurisdiction has never been
questioned. If the proceeding were not a case or controversy within
the meaning of article 3, § 2, this delegation of power upon the
courts would have been invalid.
Hayburn's
Case, 2 Dall. 409;
United
States v. Ferreira, 13 How. 40;
Muskrat v.
United States, 219 U. S. 346.
Whether a proceeding which results in a grant is a judicial one
does not depend upon the nature of the thing granted, but upon the
nature of the proceeding which Congress has provided for securing
the grant. The United States may create rights in individuals
against itself and provide only an administrative remedy.
United States v. Babcock, 250 U.
S. 328,
250 U. S. 331.
It may provide a legal remedy, but make resort to the courts
available
Page 270 U. S. 577
only after all administrative remedies have been exhausted.
Compare New Orleans v. Paine, 147 U.
S. 261;
United States v. Sing Tuck,
194 U. S. 161;
American Steel Foundries v. Robertson, 262 U.
S. 209. It may give to the individual the option of
either an administrative or a legal remedy.
Compare
80 U. S. United
States, 13 Wall. 38;
Chorpenning v. United States,
94 U. S. 397,
94 U. S. 399.
Or it may provide only a remedy.
Compare Turner v. United
States, 248 U. S. 354.
Whenever the law provides a remedy enforceable in the courts
according to the regular course of legal procedure, and that remedy
is pursued, there arises a case within the meaning of the
Constitution, whether the subject of the litigation be property or
status. A petition for naturalization is clearly a proceeding of
that character.
The petitioner's claim is one arising under the Constitution and
laws of the United States. The claim is presented to the court in
such a form that the judicial power is capable of acting upon it.
The proceeding is instituted and is conducted throughout according
to the regular course of judicial procedure. The United States is
always a possible adverse party. By § 11 of the Naturalization Act,
the full rights of a litigant are expressly reserved to it.
See
In re Mudarri, 176 F. 465. Its contentions are submitted to
the court for adjudication.
See Smith v. Adams,
130 U. S. 167,
130 U. S.
173-174. Section 9 provides that every final hearing
must be held in open court, that, upon such hearing, the applicant
and witnesses shall be examined under oath before the court and in
its presence, and that every final order must be made under the
hand of the court, and shall be entered in full upon the record.
The judgment entered, like other judgments of a court of record, is
accepted as complete evidence of its own validity unless set aside.
Campbell v.
Gordon, 6 Cranch 176;
Spratt v.
Spratt, 4 Pet. 393,
29 U. S. 408.
It may not be collaterally attacked.
Pintsch Compressing
Co.
Page 270 U. S. 578
v. Bergin, 84 F. 140. If a certificate is procured when
the prescribed qualifications have no existence in fact, it may be
cancelled by suit. "It is in this respect," as stated in
Johannessen v. United States, 225 U.
S. 227,
225 U. S. 238,
"closely analogous to a public grant of land (Rev.Stat. § 2289
et seq.), or of the exclusive right to make, use and vend
a new and useful invention (Rev.Stat. § 4883,
et.
seq.)."
The opportunity to become a citizen of the United States is said
to be merely a privilege, and not a right. It is true that the
Constitution does not confer upon aliens the right to
naturalization. But it authorizes Congress to establish a uniform
rule therefor. Art. I, § 8, cl. 4. The opportunity having been
conferred by the Naturalization Act, there is a statutory right in
the alien to submit his petition and evidence to a court, to have
that tribunal pass upon them, and, if the requisite facts are
established, to receive the certificate.
See United States v.
Shanahan, 232 F. 169, 171. There is, of course, no "right to
naturalization unless all statutory requirements are complied
with."
United States v. Ginsberg, 243 U.
S. 472,
243 U. S. 475;
Luria v. United States, 231 U. S. 9,
231 U. S. 22. The
applicant for citizenship, like other suitors who institute
proceedings in a court of justice to secure the determination of an
asserted right, must allege in his petition the fulfillment of all
conditions upon the existence of which the alleged right is made
dependent, and he must establish these allegations by competent
evidence to the satisfaction of the court.
In re Bodek, 63
F. 813, 814, 815;
In re _____, 7 Hill (N.Y.) 137. In
passing upon the application, the court exercises judicial
judgment. It does not confer or withhold a favor.
The government contends that, at all events, a naturalization
proceeding is not a case within the meaning of the Court of Appeals
Act. The same phrase may, of course, have different meanings when
used in different
Page 270 U. S. 579
connections.
Lamar v. United States, 240 U. S.
60,
240 U. S. 65.
The Constitution does not require that a litigant be afforded the
opportunity of having every judicial decision reviewed by an
appellate court.
Compare Rogers v. Peck, 199 U.
S. 425,
199 U. S. 435.
But the Court of Appeals Act conferred upon that court appellate
jurisdiction of final decisions of the district courts "in all
cases" except those for which it provided a direct review by this
Court.
See Lau Ow Bew v. United States, 144 U. S.
47,
144 U. S. 57;
The Paquete Habana, 175 U. S. 677,
175 U. S.
683-686. A denial of a review in naturalization cases
would ingraft an exception upon an otherwise universal rule.
Compare Craig v. Hecht, 263 U. S. 255,
263 U. S.
274-276;
In re Graves, 270 F. 181. There is
nothing in that Act which should limit the application of the
all-embracing language used.
It is argued that the Naturalization Act denies appellate
jurisdiction, since § 3 declares that "exclusive jurisdiction to
naturalize aliens as citizens" is conferred upon the federal and
state courts there specified, and these do not include the circuit
courts of appeals. The term "exclusive" was used in § 3 in order to
withdraw the jurisdiction which minor state courts, being courts of
record, had exercised under the authority conferred by earlier
naturalization statutes.
See House Doc. No. 46, 59th Cong.
1st Sess. Ser. No. 4984, pp. 18-24. The section makes no reference
to appellate proceedings. It is also argued that Congress
manifested the intention of denying the usual method of appellate
review by providing in § 15 for a bill in equity to cancel
certificates of citizenship. The remedy afforded to the government
by § 15 is narrower in scope than the review commonly afforded by
appellate courts. Moreover, there is no corresponding provision
which would afford to the applicant for citizenship an independent
remedy for correcting errors committed in the district court.
Since the adoption of the Constitution Congress has by its
legislation sought to promote the naturalization of
Page 270 U. S. 580
qualified resident aliens. The Act of 1906 did not introduce any
change in policy. It did change, in some respects, the
qualifications, and, to carry out the established policy through
more effective application of the law, it made changes in
administrative and judicial machinery. That end is subserved by the
correction of errors of the trial court through appellate review.
Neither
United States v. Ness, 245 U.
S. 319,
245 U. S. 326,
nor the history of the legislation there referred to leads to a
denial of appellate review. In that case, attention was called to
the fact that Congress had not provided in the Act of 1906 for an
appeal from judgments of the state courts admitting aliens to
citizenship. The question under discussion was whether a judgment
of naturalization entered by a state court barred as
res
judicata a proceeding brought in a federal court under § 15 to
cancel the certificate of naturalization.
To the questions asked in the two cases, we answer that the
circuit court of appeals has jurisdiction to review by appeal the
order or decree of the district court denying the petition to be
admitted to citizenship in the United States.
[
Footnote 1]
In the following cases, appellate courts entertained
jurisdiction over petitions for naturalization without expressly
considering the existence of a right of appeal: First Circuit:
Harmon v. United States, 223 F. 425. Second Circuit:
United States v. George, 164 F. 45;
United States v.
Poslusny, 179 F. 836;
United States v. Cohen, 179 F.
834;
United States v. Baisara, 180 F. 694;
United
States v. Fokschauer, 184 F. 990;
Yunghauss v. United
States, 218 F. 168;
United States v. Meyer, 241 F.
305;
United States v. Vogel, 262 F. 262. Third Circuit:
United States v. Martorana, 171 F. 397. Fourth Circuit:
Bessho v. United States, 178 F. 245;
Dow v. United
States, 226 F. 145. Seventh Circuit:
United States v.
Doyle, 179 F. 687. Eighth Circuit:
United States v.
Brelin, 166 F. 104;
United States v. Ojala, 182 F.
51;
United States v. Peterson, 182 F. 289. Ninth Circuit:
United States v. Rodiek, 162 F. 469. District of Columbia:
United States v. Daly, 32 App.D.C. 525.
See In re
Centi, 217 F. 833.
[
Footnote 2]
United States v. Neugebauer, 221 F. 938;
Appeal of
Cook, 242 F. 932;
Marx v. United States, 276 F. 295.
See United States v. Nopoulos, 225 F. 656, 659;
United
States v. Koopmans, 290 F. 545, 547;
United States v.
Wexler, 8 F.2d 880,
881.
[
Footnote 3]
In re Fordiani, 98 Conn. 435;
United States v.
Hrasky, 240 Ill. 560;
United States v. Gerstein, 284
Ill. 174;
Ex parte Smith, 8 Blackf. 395;
Dean,
Petitioner, 83 Me. 489;
State v. District Court, 107
Minn. 444;
Ex parte Johnson, 79 Miss. 637;
State v.
District Court, 61 Mont. 427;
State v. Judges of Inferior
Court, 58 N.J.Law 97;
United States v. Breen, 135
App.Div. 824;
In re Karasick, 208 App.Div. 844;
In re
Vura, 5 Ohio App. 334;
Ex parte Granstein, 1 Hill
(S.C.) 141. The right of appellate review was denied in
In Re
Wilkie, 58 Cal. App. 22;
State v. Superior Court, 75
Wash. 239.