Angela Morris Amado Rocha v. Immigration and Naturalization Service

First Circuit

Angela Morris Amado Rocha v. Immigration and Naturalization Service

450 F.2d 946, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 7103

CourtCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit

DecidedNovember 15, 1971

Docket6505

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 450 F.2d 946 (Angela Morris Amado Rocha v. Immigration and Naturalization Service) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the First Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Angela Morris Amado Rocha v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 450 F.2d 946, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 7103 (1st Cir. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

PER CURIAM.

The Supreme Court now having decided a case, Afroyim v. Rusk, 1967, 387 U.S. 253, 87 S.Ct. 1660, 18 L.Ed.2d 757, which clearly refutes the rationale of MacKenzie v. Hare, 1915, 239 U.S. 299, 36 S.Ct. 106, 60 L.Ed. 297, we are asked to reconsider our decision in Rocha v. I. N. S. 1965, 351 F.2d 523, cert, denied 383 U.S. 927, 86 S.Ct. 930, 15 L.Ed.2d 847. The government concedes that we not only have the power to do this, but the obligation, because a question of the constitutionality of a statute is involved. In fact, it does not disagree with the conclusion that the Supreme Court would now hold the 1907 statute unconstitutional. Its position is that the procedures for restoring citizenship provided for by the 1940 Nationality Act were not followed. These procedures, however, were predicated on the assumption that the parent has been “expatriated.” Since the 1907 statute was, it now appears, unconstitutional, there has been no expatriation. Petitioner must, accordingly, be declared a citizen of this country. Our opinion in 351 F.2d 523 is withdrawn.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

PER CURIAM.

The Supreme Court now having decided a case, Afroyim v. Rusk, 1967, 387 U.S. 253, 87 S.Ct. 1660, 18 L.Ed.2d 757, which clearly refutes the rationale of MacKenzie v. Hare, 1915, 239 U.S. 299, 36 S.Ct. 106, 60 L.Ed. 297, we are asked to reconsider our decision in Rocha v. I. N. S. 1965, 351 F.2d 523, cert, denied 383 U.S. 927, 86 S.Ct. 930, 15 L.Ed.2d 847. The government concedes that we not only have the power to do this, but the obligation, because a question of the constitutionality of a statute is involved. In fact, it does not disagree with the conclusion that the Supreme Court would now hold the 1907 statute unconstitutional. Its position is that the procedures for restoring citizenship provided for by the 1940 Nationality Act were not followed. These procedures, however, were predicated on the assumption that the parent has been “expatriated.” Since the 1907 statute was, it now appears, unconstitutional, there has been no expatriation. Petitioner must, accordingly, be declared a citizen of this country. Our opinion in 351 F.2d 523 is withdrawn.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

450 F.2d 946, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 7103, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/angela-morris-amado-rocha-v-immigration-and-naturalization-service-ca1-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack