inquiry officer that appellee be admitted to the United States as a citizen thereof. The appeal of the Immigration and Naturalization Service will be dismissed. ORDER: It is ordered that the appeal be and is hereby dismissed. It is further ordered that the order of the special inquiry officer of February 15, 1965 be and is hereby affirmed. MATTER OF HUANG In Section 245 Proceedings A-13974856 A-13974858 Decided by Regional Commissioner May 27, 1965 Applicants, aliens who were born in the United States under diplomatic status, who have never departed from this country, and who would be eligible for the issuance of nonquota immigrant visas if abroad, are deemed to be lawful permanent residents of the United States; therefore, their applications for adjustment of status pursuant to section 245, Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended, are denied. The applications were denied by the District Director, Baltimore, Maryland, on the ground that applicants were not inspected and admitted or paroled into the United States as required by section 245 of the Act. We have taken jurisdiction by way of certification as provided by 8 CFR 103.4 to resolve the question as to whether applicants may be considered lawful permanent residents of the United States. Ann Lillian Huang and Byron Dean Huang were born in Washington, D.C., on March 10, 1952, and December 15, 1953, respectively. At the time of their birth their father was a duly accredited diplomatic representative of the Republic of China assigned to the Chinese Embassy, Washington, D.C. Applicants' mother, a native and former citizen of China, became a permanent resident of the United States pursuant to section 6 of the Refugee Relief Act of 1953. On October 5, 1959, she was naturalized as a citizen of this country. Her petitions to classify applicants and their father as nonquota immigrants were approved June 29, 1964. The father was granted status as a permanent resident under section 245 of the Act as of August 13, 1964, and is now engaged in private business. It is settled that the applicants who were born in the United States did not acquire citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution as they were not born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649. They have never departed the United States and now desire to become citizens of this country and remain here permanently. If they are considered to be lawful permanent residents of the United States, they may immediately proceed towards naturalization. A similar case was the subject of an opinion dated December 10, 1946, by the General Counsel of the Service who concluded "that a person who is an alien because he was born in the United States under diplomatic status and who has continued to reside in this country, may be considered as lawfully admitted to the United States with respect to deriving citizenship through a parent or parents and also so far as concerns section 701 of the Nationality Act of 1940." Section 701 of the Nationality Act of 1940 provided for the naturalization of persons who served honorably in the military or naval services in the United States and who had been lawfully admitted to the United States. The General Counsel reasoned that it would be absurd and a vain. thing to require aliens who are born in the United States and have never left this country to depart and be readmitted simply to effect a lawful admission. He pointed out that aliens in this category, never having been out of the United States, are not subject to deportation under the immigration laws, as the deportation provisions of those laws relate only to aliens who have entered the United States. Although the Nationality Act of 1940 has been repealed, the reasons underlying the General Counsel's opinion are applicable here. The applicants have grown up as a part of our American population. They are not amenable to deportation. Their parents no longer have diplomatic status and in fact, as stated above, one parent is a United States citizen and the other a permanent resident. It is also noted that during minority the domicile of the child is that of the domicile of the parents. 19 C. J. 411; Yarborough v. Yarborough, 290 U.S. 202, 90 ALR 924. We are not aware of any administrative or judicial decisions under the Immigration and Nationality Act which would preclude a finding that these applicants are lawful permanent residents of the United States. It has been established that, if they were outside this country, they would be eligible for issuance to them of immigrant visas and for admission as permanent residents. Accordingly, in light of the foregoing, and after careful consideration of all the evidence before us, we conclude the applicants may be considered to be lawful permanent residents of the United States. For this reason we shall concur with the decision of the District Director, Baltimore, Maryland, and enter the following order. ORDER: It is ordered that the applications be denied. It is further ordered that applicants be considered to be lawful permanent residents of the United States. MATTER OF HRONCICH In Deportation Proceedings A-8196259 Decided by Board December 26, 1961 and March 6, 1962 (1) Action on the motion for termination of the proceedings to enable respondent to apply for naturalization will be held in abeyance, pending a preliminary determination by the Service of eligibility for naturalization. (2) Since respondent has been found eligible for naturalization under section 329, Immigration and Nationality Act, except for the bar contained in section 318 of the Act, the outstanding order and warrant of deportation are withdrawn and the deportation proceedings terminated for the limited and sole purpose of permitting him to proceed with the final hearing on his petition for naturalization. CHARGE: Warrant: Act of 1924-No immigrant visa. BEFORE THE BOARD This case comes forward pursuant to counsel's motion submitted at the New York office of the Service on November 9, 1961, requesting the withdrawal of the outstanding order and warrant of deportation and further requesting that the proceedings be reopened to permit the respondent an opportunity to petition for naturalization pursuant to the provisions of section 329 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended. Counsel asserted that a petition for naturalization was filed with the District Director at New York, New York but action thereon was deferred inasmuch as section 318 of the Act bars naturalization if there is outstanding a final finding of deportability in a deportation proceeding. The respondent, a 30-year-old male, native and citizen of Yugoslavia, has resided continuously in the United States since last entering at New York, New York on or about September 1, 1950 as a nonimmigrant crewman, at which time it was his intention to seek employment and remain permanently in this country. Upon conclusion of the deportation hearing held at New York, New York on November 1, 1951, the hearing officer found the respondent subject |