ary 11, 1921, the date on which he first entered the United States. The district director denied the motion and submitted the case to the Regional Commissioner for concurrence. The Regional Commissioner concurred in the decision of the district director and the case has come forward for review.

The district director, in making his decision, concluded that if a record of lawful entry for permanent residence was created as of a date prior to July 1, 1924, the applicant would still be deportable under section 241 (a) (2) of the act by reason of his entries without inspection on September 5, 1924, and May 14, 1930. He further concluded that creation of a record of lawful admission for permanent residence as of the date of approval of the application would expunge any ground of deportation based on actions arising prior to the date of approval.

Prior to its amendment by the Act of August 8, 1958 (72 Stat. 546), section 249 contained a requirement that the applicant establish that he was not subject to deportation. The amended section 249 no longer contains that requirement; therefore, no determination as to deportability need be made in adjudicating an application under that section of law.

The pertinent portion of section 249, as amended, now reads: "A record of lawful admission for permanent residence may, in the discretion of the Attorney General and under such regulations as he may prescribe, be made in the case of any alien, as of the date of the approval of his application or, if entry occurred prior to July 1, 1924, as of the date of such entry, if no such record is otherwise available * **"" (emphasis supplied). The bill which became the Act of August 8, 1958 was amended by the committee of the Congress which had it under consideration and the emphasized portion was added. The committee report which accompanied the bill stated that the purpose of that amendatory language was to preserve the date for establishment of a record of lawful entry under existing law for those aliens who entered prior to July 1, 1924 (S. Rept. No. 1905, 85th Cong., 2d Sess.). In construing section 249, as amended, it is essential to bear in mind this legislaitve mandate to record lawful entry for permanent residence as of the date of entry when such entry occurred prior to July 1, 1924. It is concluded, therefore, that when an applicant establishes eligibility for relief under section 249 based on an entry prior to July 1, 1924, the record of lawful admission for permanent residence must be created as of the date of such entry.

It remains to be determined whether the applicant in this case would be deportable under section 241(a)(2) if such a record is created. The committee report cited above goes on to state that the purpose is amending section 249 was to enlarge the scope of authority

to permit discretionary consideration of the adjustment of status of aliens who are subject to deportation on generally technical grounds only. It is true that if section 241, dealing with deportation, and section 249 are read separately, it might be concluded that on the one hand Congress favored the recording of lawful entry and on the other took from the prospective beneficiary the relief granted. That is hardly an intelligent way to interpret a legislative enactment. To find on one page that the statute bestowed benefits and on another cancelled them is to attribute to Congress an irrational futility. Such absurdities are rejected by universally ratified maxims of statutory interpretation (Lau Ow Bew v. United States, 144 U.S. 47, 59 (1892); Ozawa v. United States, 260 U.S. 178, 194 (1922)). It has been held that once a record of lawful admission for permanent residence has been created pursuant to section 249 such action constitutes, for purposes of reentry, a waiver of all known grounds of inadmissibility (Matter of S-, A-6420797, A-4411537, Int. Dec. No. 1022). In order to effectuate the overall legislative design, it must also be held that, subject to the provisions of section 246, the creation of a record of lawful admission as of a date prior to July 1, 1924, pursuant to section 249 expunges any known ground of deportability based on events which took place prior to the date of approval of the application.

The district director's order will be amended accordingly and a record of lawful admission will be created as of February 11, 1921. Order: It is ordered that a record of lawful admission be created in the name of LF- Y as of February 11, 1921.

MATTER OF S

Application for Certificate of Citizenship

A-11171850

Decided by Regional Commissioner March 10, 1960

Approved by Assistant Commissioner March 24, 1960

Expatriation-Act of March 2, 1907-Wartime oath of allegiance effective upon termination of hostilities when confirmed by subsequent acts.

Dual United States and British national at birth who took oath of allegiance to British Crown in 1917 upon enlistment in Canadian Army at age 22, which oath was effectively confirmed after the wartime period by repeated acts consistent only with relinquishment of United States nationality, is held pursuant to section 2 of the Act of March 2, 1907 to have lost United States nationality as of the date of termination of hostilities, July 2, 1921. Hence, his child born abroad in 1924 did not acquire United States citizenship at birth under R.S. 1993.

BEFORE THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER

Discussion: This case is on appeal from the decision of the District Director, St. Paul, Minnesota, of October 6, 1959, denying the application of D- MS for a certificate of citizenship.

Applicant claims that she acquired United States citizenship under section 1993, R.S., at birth in Canada on June 28, 1924, through her father, F-W -K- who was then a citizen of the United States through birth therein. The issue involved is the citizenship of the father at the time of applicant's birth.

The father was born in the United States on February 9, 1895, of British national parents. In 1910 he moved to Canada with his parents and remained in that country except for temporary visits to the United States to attend school from October to May in 1916 and 1917. He applied in Canada for a homestead on March 10, 1913, and was issued letters patent thereon on August 4, 1916, after reaching his majority. In his sworn statement dated April 18, 1916, in support of this application for the letters patent, the father gave his age as twenty-one years and stated that he was a British subject by birth. He did not take an oath of allegiance either in connection with the application for or the issuance of letters patent. On September 7, 1917, at Winnipeg, Canada, he enlisted in the Canadian Army and took the then required oath of allegiance to the

British Crown, serving until his discharge on July 30, 1919. The oath taken by him in 1917 provided as follows:

I, do make Oath, that I will be faithful and bear true Allegiance to His Majesty King George the Fifth, His Heirs and Successors, and that I will as in duty bound honestly and faithfully defend His Majesty, His Heirs and Successors, in Person, Crown and Dignity, against all enemies, and will observe and obey all orders of His Majesty, His Heirs and Successors, and of all the Generals and Officers set over me. So help me God.

The father had become a United States citizen by birth in this country (Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution). Being the son of British national parents, he also acquired British nationality at birth (the Act of 7 Anne, c. 5). See also, Hackworth, Digest of International Law, vol. III, page 360 (1942).

Section 2, Act of March 2, 1907 (34 Stat. 1228), provided in pertinent part:

That any American citizen shall be deemed to have expatriated himself when he has been naturalized in any foreign state in conformity with its laws, or when he has taken an oath of allegiance to any foreign state.

** And provided also, That no American citizen shall be allowed to expatriate himself when this country is at war.

The applicant's father, after reaching his twenty-first birthday, took an unqualified oath of allegiance to the Brtish Crown on three separate occasions. The first on September 7, 1917, was the only one taken prior to applicant's birth and at a period during which this country was at war. He took that oath, which was an unqualified one, to enlist in the Canadian Expeditionary Force.

The fact that the father was a dual national does not diminish the expatriating effect of an oath since the performance of the expatriating act results in loss of United States nationality. It has been held that the taking of an oath of allegiance to the British Crown by a dual national of the United States and Canada in connection with enlistment in the Canadian Army effects expatriation under the provisions of the Act of March 2, 1907 (Matter of S 5 I. & N. Dec. 678 (1954); as to the expatriative effect of an oath, see also, Hackworth, Digest of International Law, vol. III, §244 (1942)). The court in Reaume v. United States, 124 F. Supp. 851 (1954), held that a dual national of this country and Canada would lose United States citizenship by taking such an oath when entering Canadian military service. This same means of expatriation was clearly recognized by the case of Mandoli v. Acheson, 344 U.S. 133 (1952), as pointed out by the dissenting opinion, although in that case the majority had accepted the Government's position that the oath taken was involuntary. Kawakita v. United States, 343 U.S. 717 (1952), also acknowledged that an oath of allegiance taken by a dual national would expatriate.

To the extent that Jalbuena v. Dulles, 254 F.2d 379 (1958), may

give some indication of a contrary view, the Service is not in accord with it. The taking of an unqualified oath of allegiance to a foreign state in the present case was not a bare assertion of a right or the acceptance of a benefit of nationality. It was an overt and solemn acceptance, binding in conscience, of an obligation to a state to which prior thereto allegiance was owing as an accident of birth. As such it was an expatriating act under section 2, supra, and the only remaining question is the extent to which the proviso to that section affected its consequences.

The oath of allegiance on September 7, 1917, was taken during wartime. Under the proviso to section 2, Act of March 2, 1907, expatriation could not occur during wartime which extended from April 6, 1917, to July 2, 1921. Had the father done nothing thereafter to indicate a continued allegiance to Canada, he would not have lost his United States citizenship as a result of taking the 1917 oath (Matter of C—————, 2 I. & N. Dec. 263 (1946); 39 Op. Atty. Gen. 474 (1940)). However, an oath taken during minority may have expatriating effect if confirmed during majority by clear and unequivocal acts, denoting a continued allegiance to the foreign state and an intention to relinquish United States citizenship (Di Girolamo v. Acheson, 101 F. Supp. 380 (1951)). An oath taken during the period of World War I may be similarly confirmed with like effect upon the termination of the conflict (39 Op. Atty. Gen. 474, 481 (1940)).

If acts are performed confirming an expatriating oath, it is necessary to determine the effective date of the nationality loss. In a case involving the involuntary acquisition of a foreign nationality, it has been held that the act manifesting acceptance of the foreign nationality, involuntarily acquired, related back to the date of acquisition of foreign nationality (Matter of V, 3 I. & N. Dec. 671 (1949); Matter of M, 6 I. & N. Dec. 70 (1953)). In a case involving election of United States nationality, it was also held that the act of election related back (Matter of G-, 1 I. & N. Dec. 329 (1942)).

In the instant case, therefore, if acts are shown confirmatory of the wartime oath of allegiance, expatriation would have been effective as of July 2, 1921, the date of termination of the war period. The evidence presented in this case establishes that on July 8, 1924, the father applied for a soldier grant of land which was issued to him on July 24, 1928. In a sworn statement on June 11, 1928, in support of his application for patent for the land, he stated that he was a British subject by birth. Thereafter he became a member of the school board at Coronach, Canada, and on January 12, 1935, took a second oath of allegiance to the British Crown. He became employed as a Canadian Customs Excise Enforcement Officer on April