Section 201 (g) of the Nationality Act of 1940 provides that the following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States: A person born outside the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States, who prior to the birth of such person, has had 10 years residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions at least 5 of which were after attaining the age of 16 years, the other being an alien: ** * We are of the opinion that, for the purposes of section 201 (g) of the Nationality Act of 1940, a citizen of the United States who, while residing in this country, enlists or is inducted into the armed forces of the United States and as a member thereof is ordered to serve in a foreign country in pursuit of his military duties is to be considered as residing in this country during such tour of duty abroad and as the applicant's father is therefore deemed to have resided in the United States for 10 years, 5 of which were after his attainment of the age of 16 years, and all of which were prior to the birth of the applicant, the applicant is a citizen of the United States. Findings of Fact: Upon the basis of all the evidence presented, it is found: (1) That the applicant was born at Vancouver, Canada, on October 1, 1944; (2) That the applicant has applied for admission to the United States as an American citizen; (3) That the applicant's father is a native and citizen of the United States and his mother is a native and citizen of Canada; (4) That the applicant's father resided in the United States for 10 years, prior to the birth of the applicant, 5 of which were after the attainment of the age of 16 years. Conclusions of Law: Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, it is concluded: (1) That under section 201 (g) of the Nationality Act of 1940, the applicant is a citizen of the United States; (2) That under section 13 of the Immigration Act of May 26, 1924, the applicant is not inadmissible to the United States on the ground that he is an immigrant not in possession of a valid immigration visa and not exempted from the presentation thereof by said Act or regulations made thereunder. Other Factors: The applicant's mother is accompanying him to the United States for permanent residence. Order: It is ordered that the applicant be admitted to the United States as an American citizen. IN THE MATTER OF H In EXCLUSION Proceedings 56175/617 Decided by Board May 23, 1945 Citizenship-Female-Dual national at birth-Expatriative effect of marriage to alien in 1901. A native-born woman who was of dual nationality at time of birth (United States and Canadian) did not expatriate herself by marriage to a British subject, native of Canada, in 1901, notwithstanding the existence of a "naturalization" treaty with Great Britain, her emigration to Canada, and the existence of Canadian law conferring Canadian allegiance of husband upon an alien wife, inasmuch as such marriage conferred no new nationality status upon her, it being noted that prior to March 2, 1907, there was no statutory provision here regarding loss of citizenship by such marriage. EXCLUDED BY BOARD OF SPECIAL INQUIRY: Executive Order No. 8766-No passport. Executive Order No. 8766-No passport visa or other nonimmigrant visa. Act of 1917-Physically defective. Act of 1917-Likely to become public charge. BEFORE THE BOARD Discussion: The appellant is a native of the United States, who applied on April 28, 1945, at Thousand Islands Bridge, N. Y., for admission to the United States as a temporary visitor. She was found to be inadmissible by a Board of Special Inquiry on the grounds stated above and has appealed from that decision. The appellant was born on December 18, 1875, at Clinton, Iowa. Her father was a native and citizen of Canada at the time of her birth and it appears that she acquired dual American and Canadian nationality at birth. She was taken to Canada by her parents when she was 5 or 6 years of age and has since resided continuously in that country. On January 23, 1901, she married a native and citizen of Canada. The appellant now wishes to visit her sister and niece in Rochester, N. Y., for an indefinite period and to undergo an operation for cataracts which affect both of her eyes. She is 69 years of age and has been certified by the United States Public Health Service "to be afflicted with well-developed cataract, both eyes. Applicant virtually blind. Possible to restore vision by operation. However this is not an emergency. Class B." The appellant possesses $150 and has no income. Her relatives in the United States state that they will be able to care for her for only a limited period of time and her friends in Canada, with whom she makes her home, state that they will be unable to care for her if she becomes an invalid. Prior to the act approved March 2, 1907, there was no statutory provision whereby a citizen of the United States lost her American nationality by virtue of her marriage to an alien. The decisions of the courts are in conflict on the subject and it has been considered administratively that such a marriage generally does not result in the loss of United States citizenship. In the case, however, of marriages of citizen women to aliens who are nationals of a country with which the United States had a naturalization treaty containing reciprocal provisions that each country party to the treaty would recognize a person, originally one of its citizens or subjects, to be a citizen or subject of the other upon being duly naturalized therein in accordance with its laws; and in which cases the wife emigrated to the jurisdiction of the husband's nationality and the law of that country then provided that the marriage of an alien woman to one of its citizens or subjects conferred allegiance of the husband upon the wife, the said wife is considered to have been naturalized in that country in accordance with its laws and to have thereby lost her American nationality. In the instant case such a treaty existed between the United States and Great Britain at the time of the appellant's marriage in Canada to a British subject who was a native of Canada, the country of which she was also a resident. The appellant, however, possessed Canadian as well as American nationality at the time of her marriage and we are of the opinion that her marriage did not affect her status as a dual national since it could not confer upon her a nationality which she already possessed. The appellant being a dual national at birth was not under the necessity of making an election to retain her American nationality1 and as there is no evidence that she has performed any act of expatriation we must conclude that she is a citizen of the United States. Findings of Fact: Upon the basis of all the evidence presented, it is found: (1) That the appellant was born on December 18, 1875, at Clinton, Iowa; (2) That at the time of the appellant's birth her father was a native and citizen of Canada and she thereby acquired Canadian nationality; (3) That the appellant has resided in Canada since approximately 1880; (4) That the appellant married a native and citizen of Canada on January 23, 1901; (5) That the appellant has applied for admission to the United States as a temporary visitor for an indefinite period to visit relatives and to undergo an operation. Conclusions of Law: Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, it is concluded: (1) That under the Fourteenth amendment to the Constitution. and section 1992 of the Revised Statutes the appellant was a citizen of the United States at birth; (2) That the appellant did not lose her American nationality by virtue of her marriage to a native and citizen of Canada on January 23, 1901; (3) That under Part 1 of Executive Order 8766 the appellant is not inadmissible to the United States on the ground that she is not in possession of an unexpired passport and passport or other nonimmigrant visa; (4) That under section 3 of the act of February 5, 1917, the appellant is not inadmissible to the United States on the ground that she is physically defective, such physical defect being of a nature which may affect her ability to earn a living; (5) That under section 3 of the act of February 5, 1917, the appellant is not inadmissible to the United States on the ground that she is a person likely to become a public charge. Order: It is ordered that the appeal be sustained and that the appellant be admitted as a citizen of the United States. IN THE MATTER OF Z In EXCLUSION Proceedings 56175/99 Decided by Board June 9, 1495 Crime involving moral turpitude-Attempt to commit acts of gross indecency— Violation of section 206 of the Canadian Criminal Code. Where, for want of a definition of the term "gross indecency," it may not be conIcluded that every offense under section 206 of the Canadian Criminal Code involves moral turpitude, and the record affords no aid in ascertaining the alien's conduct in the particular instance, it may not be concluded that the offense of which the appellant was convicted involves moral turpitude. EXCLUDED BY BOARD OF SPECIAL INQUIRY: Act of 1917-Convicted of crime-attempt to commit act of gross indecency. Discussion: The appellant, a 36-year-old native of Lithuania and citizen of Canada was accorded a hearing at Montreal, P Q, Canada, on January 18, 1945, relative to his admissibility to the United States. A Board of Special Inquiry excluded him on the ground above stated and his appeal is now before us for consideration. The appellant, an appellant for permanent residence and in possession of a valid immigration visa and Canadian passport, had been found inadmissible under section 3 of the act of February 5, 1917, as a person convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude. The record clearly establishes that on November 4, 1937, the alien was convicted before a judge of the Sessions of the Peace in Montreal, on his plea of guilty, of having attempted to commit acts of gross indecency in violation of section 206 of the Canadian Criminal Code. As a result of his conviction the alien was required to post a $100 bond to keep the peace for a period of one year, and in default thereof he was to be imprisoned in the common jail for 2 months. The alien now claims that notwithstanding his guilty plea he was actually innocent of any wrongdoing. His version of the occurrence on the evening of his arrest on June 30, 1936, which will not be set forth here, appears to have some semblance of plausibility. His claim that he was persuaded by his attorney to plead guilty because of the fact that he had used an assumed name at the time of his arrest, and in order to avoid any unnecessary publicity was corroborated by the attorney. The fact that the prosecuting officials did not bring the case to trial until almost one and one-half years after the complaint or accusation was issued also lends some credence to his allegation that |