A-34997, FEBRUARY 14, 1931, 10 COMP. GEN. 364

A-34997: Feb 14, 1931

Additional Materials:

Contact:

Edda Emmanuelli Perez
(202) 512-2853
EmmanuelliPerezE@gao.gov

 

Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800
youngc1@gao.gov

IS EARNED WHEN THE APPLICATION. IS RECEIVED AND FILED BY THE GOVERNMENT. WHERE THE ORIGINAL DECLARATION WAS LOST. THE FOLLOWING IS A LIST OF NUMBERS AND NAMES ON THE VOUCHERS. APPLICATION WAS NOT APPARENTLY VALID WHEN RECEIVED AND FILED IN THAT IT STATES APPLICANT WAS BORN AT SYDNEY. THAT HER HUSBAND WAS BORN AT NANTUCKET. THAT SHE WAS MARRIED ON SEPTEMBER 15. APPLICATION WAS NOT PROPERLY RECEIVED AND FILED BY THE GOVERNMENT. APPLICATION STATES HE WAS BORN AT FAJASINHA. THAT HIS FATHER WAS NATURALIZED ON OCTOBER 20. THE APPLICANT IS THEREFORE A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES UNDER PROVISIONS OF SEC. 1993. APPLICATION WAS NOT PROPERLY RECEIVED AND FILED BY THE GOVERNMENT. APPLICATION FORM 2400 SUBMITTED WAS NOT AN APPARENTLY VALID APPLICATION UNDER THE PURVIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES DATED DECEMBER 1.

A-34997, FEBRUARY 14, 1931, 10 COMP. GEN. 364

NATURALIZATION - REFUND OF FEES THE FEE OF $10 REQUIRED BY SECTIONS 32 (A) AND 33 (A) OF THE ACT OF JUNE 29, 1906, AMENDED BY SECTION 9 OF THE ACT OF MARCH 2, 1929, 45 STAT. 1515, TO BE PAID AS A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO THE MAKING OF AN APPLICATION FOR A NEW CERTIFICATE OF CITIZENSHIP OR DECLARATION OF INTENTION IN LIEU OF ONE THAT HAS BECOME LOST, MUTILATED, OR DESTROYED OR FOR A CERTIFICATE OF DERIVATIVE CITIZENSHIP, IS EARNED WHEN THE APPLICATION, APPARENTLY VALID, IS RECEIVED AND FILED BY THE GOVERNMENT, A SERVICE HAVING BEEN RENDERED OR A PRIVILEGE GRANTED, AND MAY NOT BE REFUNDED UNLESS THE FACTS STATED IN THE APPLICATION CLEARLY DISCLOSE THE DISQUALIFICATION OF THE APPLICANT OR THE IMPROPRIETY OF EXECUTING THE DOCUMENT FOR WHICH THE APPLICATION HAS BEEN FILED.

DECISION BY COMPTROLLER GENERAL MCCARL, FEBRUARY 14, 1931:

THE COMMISSIONER OF NATURALIZATION HAS FORWARDED TO THIS OFFICE FOR PREAUDIT SEVERAL ADMINISTRATIVELY APPROVED VOUCHERS IN FAVOR OF PERSONS HEREINAFTER NAMED, EACH CLAIMING $15 REFUND FOR FEES PAID IN CONNECTION WITH APPLICATION, FORM NO. 2400, FOR A CERTIFICATE OF DERIVATIVE CITIZENSHIP, AND SEVERAL ADMINISTRATIVELY APPROVED VOUCHERS, EACH CLAIMING $10 FOR REFUND OF FEES PAID IN CONNECTION WITH APPLICATION, FORM NO. 2600, FOR A NEW DECLARATION OF INTENTION, WHERE THE ORIGINAL DECLARATION WAS LOST, MUTILATED, OR DESTROYED.

THE FOLLOWING IS A LIST OF NUMBERS AND NAMES ON THE VOUCHERS, TOGETHER WITH THE ACCOMPANYING ADMINISTRATIVE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF THE PAYMENT:

CLAIMING REFUND OF FEES FOR CERTIFICATES OF DERIVATIVE

CITIZENSHIP SERIAL NO. RC-5281, MRS. BYRON RICHROD. ADMINISTRATIVE STATEMENT:

1-A-62.

BOSTON SCHEDULE NO. 158.

APPLICATION WAS NOT APPARENTLY VALID WHEN RECEIVED AND FILED IN THAT IT STATES APPLICANT WAS BORN AT SYDNEY, NOVA SCOTIA, ON SEPTEMBER 10, 1895; THAT HER HUSBAND WAS BORN AT NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTS, ON APRIL 19, 1900; AND THAT SHE WAS MARRIED ON SEPTEMBER 15, 1924. UNDER THE LAW SHE DID NOT DERIVE CITIZENSHIP THROUGH MARRIAGE TO A CITIZEN ON SEPTEMBER 15, 1924. APPLICATION WAS NOT PROPERLY RECEIVED AND FILED BY THE GOVERNMENT. SERIAL NO. RC-5282, FERNANDO DE FREITAS DIAS. ADMINISTRATIVE STATEMENT:

1-A-95.

BOSTON SCHEDULE NO. 215.

APPLICATION STATES HE WAS BORN AT FAJASINHA, FLORES, AZORES ISLANDS, ON APRIL 1, 1905, AND THAT HIS FATHER WAS NATURALIZED ON OCTOBER 20, 1882. THE APPLICANT IS THEREFORE A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES UNDER PROVISIONS OF SEC. 1993, U.S.R.S. APPLICATION WAS NOT PROPERLY RECEIVED AND FILED BY THE GOVERNMENT. SERIAL NO. RC-5283, SALVATORE CARPANZANO. ADMINISTRATIVE STATEMENT:

2-A-343.

NEW YORK SCHEDULE NO. 214.

APPLICATION FORM 2400 SUBMITTED WAS NOT AN APPARENTLY VALID APPLICATION UNDER THE PURVIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES DATED DECEMBER 1, 1930, AS THE FORM STATES THAT THE APPLICANT WAS BORN AT SAN FILI, ITALY, ON JUNE 16, 1905, AND THAT HIS FATHER BECAME A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES ON FEBRUARY 21, 1901. THE APPLICANT WAS THEREFORE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 1993, U.S.R.S., A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES AND DID NOT DERIVE CITIZENSHIP THROUGH THE NATURALIZATION OF HIS FATHER. THE APPLICATION WAS NOT PROPERLY RECEIVED AND FILED BY THE GOVERNMENT. SERIAL NO. RC-5284, SALVATORE ALTCHEK. ADMINISTRATIVE STATEMENT:

2-A-562.

NEW YORK SCHEDULE NO. 309.

APPLICATION DATED JULY 7, 1930, STATES APPLICANT WAS BORN ON OCTOBER 14, 1909, LESS THAN TWENTY-ONE YEARS PRIOR TO DATE OF APPLICATION. SEC. 33 OF ACT OF JUNE 29, 1906, AS AMENDED BY ACT OF MARCH 2, 1929, 45 STAT. 1516, PROVIDES THAT ANY INDIVIDUAL OVER TWENTY-ONE YEARS OF AGE, WHO CLAIMS TO HAVE DERIVED CITIZENSHIP, ETC., MAY MAKE APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF CITIZENSHIP. APPLICATION WAS NOT APPARENTLY VALID AT THE TIME IT WAS RECEIVED, THEREFORE WAS NOT PROPERLY RECEIVED AND FILED BY THE GOVERNMENT. SERIAL NO. RC-5285, ARCADIO MAROCCHI, RC 5286, HARRY ADOLF NATANAEL

PETTERSON, AND RC-5287, NICOLA DI BENEDETTO. ADMINISTRATIVE STATEMENT SIMILAR TO THAT APPEARING IN CONNECTION WITH

SERIAL RC-5283. SERIAL NO. RC-5288, DEMARCO BARTOLOMEO. ADMINISTRATIVE STATEMENT:

5-A-15.

BUFFALO SCHEDULE NO. 174.

APPLICATION WAS NOT APPARENTLY VALID WHEN RECEIVED IN THAT APPLICANT STATES HE WAS BORN ON NOVEMBER 3, 1908; THAT HE ARRIVED IN THE UNITED STATES ON NOVEMBER 18, 1929, AND THAT HIS FATHER WAS NATURALIZED ON AUGUST 1, 1928. AT THE TIME THE APPLICANT ARRIVED IN THE UNITED STATES HE WAS OVER 21 YEARS OF AGE, AND UNDER SECTION 5 OF ACT OF MARCH 2, 1907, 34 STAT. 1229, DID NOT DERIVE CITIZENSHIP THROUGH NATURALIZATION OF HIS FATHER. APPLICATION WAS NOT PROPERLY RECEIVED AND FILED BY THE GOVERNMENT. SERIAL NO. RC-5289, ALFONSO ARNONE. ADMINISTRATIVE STATEMENT SIMILAR TO THAT APPEARING IN CONNECTION WITH

RC-5283. SERIAL NO. RC-5290, WALTER EUGENE BIEDRON. ADMINISTRATIVE STATEMENT:

11-A-107.

CHICAGO SCHEDULE NO. 311.

APPLICATION WAS NOT APPARENTLY VALID WHEN RECEIVED AND FILED IN THAT IT STATES THE APPLICANT WAS BORN ON OCTOBER 7, 1908, AND THAT HIS FATHER WAS NATURALIZED ON DECEMBER 6, 1929, OR TWO MONTHS AFTER HE REACHED THE AGE OF 21 YEARS. UNDER THE LAW THE APPLICANT DID NOT DERIVE CITIZENSHIP THROUGH NATURALIZATION OF HIS FATHER. THE APPLICATION WAS NOT PROPERLY RECEIVED AND FILED BY THE GOVERNMENT. SERIAL NO. RC-5291, OLGA SARAN. ADMINISTRATIVE STATEMENT:

11-A-112.

CHICAGO SCHEDULE NO. 336.

APPLICATION FORM 2400 RECEIVED, WHICH STATES THAT APPLICANT ARRIVED IN THE UNITED STATES ON DECEMBER 6, 1927; THAT SHE WAS BORN ON JULY 1, 1906, AND THAT HER FATHER BECAME NATURALIZED ON APRIL 21, 1927. APPLICATION WAS APPARENTLY NOT VALID WHEN EXECUTED IN THAT APPLICANT WAS OVER 21 YEARS OF AGE AT THE TIME OF HER ARRIVAL IN THE UNITED STATES. UNDER THE LAW SHE DID NOT DERIVE CITIZENSHIP THROUGH THE NATURALIZATION OF HER FATHER. THE APPLICATION WAS NOT PROPERLY RECEIVED AND FILED BY THE GOVERNMENT.

CLAIMING REFUND OF FEES FOR NEW DECLARATION OF INTENTION OR CERTIFICATE SERIAL NO. 5469, CARMELO CRISCIONE. ADMINISTRATIVE STATEMENT:

2340-D-26025.

RECEIPT NO. 2-B-3850; NEW YORK SCHEDULE NO. 418.

THE ACT OF MARCH 2, 1929, SEC. 32-A (45 STAT. 1515), PROVIDES THAT IF ANY DECLARATION OF INTENTION FURNISHED TO ANY DECLARANT UNDER THE NATURALIZATION LAWS IS LOST, MUTILATED, OR DESTROYED, THE DECLARANT MAY, UPON THE PAYMENT TO THE COMMISSIONER OF A FEE OF $10, MAKE APPLICATION TO THE COMMISSIONER OF NATURALIZATION FOR A NEW DECLARATION, AND THAT IF THE COMMISSIONER FINDS THAT THE DECLARATION IS LOST, MUTILATED, OR DESTROYED, HE SHALL ISSUE TO THE APPLICANT A NEW DECLARATION. ON THE RECEIPT OF THE APPLICATION (FORM 2600) IN THE OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT DIRECTOR OF NATURALIZATION AT NEW YORK CITY IT WAS FOUND THAT THE DECLARATION IN QUESTION WAS IN THE FILES OF THE DISTRICT DIRECTOR. THE COMMISSIONER OF NATURALIZATION, FINDING THAT THE DECLARATION WAS NOT LOST BUT IN THE POSSESSION OF THE GOVERNMENT, CAN NOT UNDER THE LAW ISSUE A NEW DECLARATION. A VALID APPLICATION WAS NOT, THEREFORE, RECEIVED AND FILED BY THE GOVERNMENT. SERIAL NO. RC-5163, CHARLES EDWARD MCDONNELL. ADMINISTRATIVE STATEMENT SIMILAR TO THAT APPEARING IN CONNECTION WITH

SERIAL NO. RC-5469. SERIAL NO. 5166, GEORGE ABDALLA SAYEGH. ADMINISTRATIVE STATEMENT:

2271-C-2354266.

RECEIPT NO. 2-B-3890; NEW YORK SCHEDULE NO. 421.

THE ACT OF MARCH 2, 1929, 45 STAT. 1515, PROVIDES: * * * IF THE COMMISSIONER OF NATURALIZATION FINDS THAT THE CERTIFICATE OR DECLARATION IS LOST, MUTILATED, OR DESTROYED, HE SHALL ISSUE TO THE APPLICANT A NEW CERTIFICATE OR DECLARATION * * *. ON DECEMBER 2, 1930, BEFORE THE APPLICATION FORM WAS FORWARDED TO THE BUREAU, THE APPLICANT APPEARED BEFORE THE DISTRICT DIRECTOR OF NATURALIZATION AT NEW YORK CITY AND ADVISED THAT OFFICER THAT HIS ORIGINAL CERTIFICATE OF CITIZENSHIP HAD BEEN LOCATED AND HE DID NOT DESIRE A NEW CERTIFICATE. THE COMMISSIONER OF NATURALIZATION, FINDING THAT THE CERTIFICATE IS NO LONGER LOST, BUT HAS BEEN RECOVERED, CAN NOT ISSUE A DUPLICATE UNDER THE TERMS OF THE ACT REFERRED TO ABOVE. SERIAL NO. RC 5168, VINCENZO MINA, AND RC-5169, JOHN KALODOUKAS. ADMINISTRATIVE STATEMENT SIMILAR TO THAT APPEARING IN CONNECTION WITH

SERIAL NO. RC-5469. SERIAL NO. RC-5470, PHILLIP MICHAEL DUKE. ADMINISTRATIVE STATEMENT:

1500-D-142063.

RECEIPT NO. 2-B-3301; NEW YORK SCHEDULE NO. 367.

APPLICATION (FORM 2600) EXECUTED ON SEPTEMBER 16, 1930, REQUESTED A NEW DECLARATION OF INTENTION IN LIEU OF ONE ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN FILED IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT AT BOSTON, MASS., ON MAY 15, 1924. ON THE RECEIPT OF THE APPLICATION BY THE DISTRICT DIRECTOR AT BOSTON IT WAS FOUND THAT THE DECLARATION IN QUESTION WAS FILED ON JULY 24, 1923, MORE THAN SEVEN YEARS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE APPLICATION. SUBD. 2, SEC. 4, ACT OF JUNE 29, 1906, AS AMENDED, PROVIDES THAT NOT LESS THAN TWO YEARS NOR MORE THAN SEVEN YEARS AFTER HE HAS MADE SUCH DECLARATION OF INTENTION HE SHALL MAKE AND FILE A PETITION. THE VALIDITY OF A DECLARATION OF INTENTION IS, THEREFORE, LIMITED TO SEVEN YEARS FROM THE DATE OF ISSUANCE. THE DECLARATION IN QUESTION BECAME INVALID ON JULY 25, 1930. SEC. 32-A, ACT OF MARCH 2, 1929 (45 STAT. 1516), PROVIDES THAT IF THE COMMISSIONER FINDS THAT THE DECLARATION IS LOST, MUTILATED, OR DESTROYED HE SHALL ISSUE A NEW DECLARATION. AT THE TIME THE APPLICATION WAS MADE THE DECLARATION WAS NO LONGER IN EXISTENCE, AND THEREFORE A VALID APPLICATION WAS NOT RECEIVED AND FILED BY THE GOVERNMENT. SERIAL NO. RC-5471, GIUSEPPE SILVESTRI. ADMINISTRATIVE STATEMENT:

492-C-881142.

RECEIPT NO. 2-B-3918; NEW YORK SCHEDULE 426.

APPLICATION (FORM 2600) EXECUTED ON NOVEMBER 17, 1930, FOR A NEW CERTIFICATE OF NATURALIZATION ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN ISSUED AT CAMP GREENLEAF, GA., ABOUT JULY, 1918, AND TAKEN UP BY THE AMERICAN CONSUL IN ROME WHEN THE APPLICANT APPLIED TO RETURN TO THE UNITED STATES AFTER HAVING BEEN IN ITALY FOR ABOUT 5 YRS. SEC. 32-A OF THE ACT OF JUNE 29, 1906, AS AMENDED (45 STAT. 1516), PROVIDES THAT IF ANY CERTIFICATE OF CITIZENSHIP ISSUED TO ANY CITIZEN UNDER THE NATURALIZATION LAWS IS LOST, MUTILATED, OR DESTROYED, THE CITIZEN MAY MAKE APPLICATION TO THE COMMISSIONER OF NATURALIZATION FOR A NEW CERTIFICATE, AND IF THE COMMISSIONER FINDS THAT THE CERTIFICATE IS LOST, MUTILATED, OR DESTROYED, HE SHALL ISSUE TO THE APPLICANT A NEW CERTIFICATE. IN THE INSTANT CASE THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ENTERED A FORMAL ORDER CANCELING NATURALIZATION CERTIFICATE NO. 881142 UNDER SEC. 15 OF THE ACT OF JUNE 29, 1906, ON JUNE 19, 1926, AND SUCH CERTIFICATE MARKED "CANCELED" IS IN THE BUREAU'S FILES. AT THE TIME THE APPLICATION WAS MADE THERE WAS NO CERTIFICATE NO. 881142 IN EXISTENCE AS A VALID CERTIFICATE. A VALID APPLICATION WAS NOT RECEIVED AND FILED BY THE GOVERNMENT. SERIAL NO. RC-5014, HAROLD HOMLES, ADMINISTRATIVE STATEMENT:

3-B-694.

PHILADELPHIA SCHEDULE NO. 210.

APPLICATION (FORM 2600) EXECUTED ON MAY 20, 1930, REQUESTED A NEW DECLARATION OF INTENTION IN LIEU OF ONE ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN FILED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK COUNTY, N.Y., IN NOVEMBER, 1923. INVESTIGATION IT DEVELOPED THAT NO DECLARATION OF INTENTION WAS FILED BY THE APPLICANT AS ALLEGED. THE ACT OF MARCH 2, 1929, SEC. 32-A (45 STAT. 1516) PROVIDES THAT IF ANY DECLARATION OF INTENTION FURNISHED TO ANY DECLARANT UNDER THE NATURALIZATION LAWS IS LOST, MUTILATED, OR DESTROYED THE DECLARANT MAY MAKE APPLICATION TO THE COMMISSIONER OF NATURALIZATION FOR A NEW DECLARATION, AND IF THE COMMISSIONER FINDS THAT THE DECLARATION IS LOST, MUTILATED, OR DESTROYED HE SHALL ISSUE TO THE APPLICANT A NEW DECLARATION. IN THE INSTANT CASE NO DECLARATION OF INTENTION FOR THIS APPLICANT WAS LOST, MUTILATED, OR DESTROYED FOR IN FACT NO DECLARATION OF INTENTION EXISTED. THEREFORE, UNDER THE LAW A VALID APPLICATION WAS NOT RECEIVED AND FILED BY THE GOVERNMENT. SERIAL NO. RC-5280, JOSEPH SURRADGE WISHART, ADMINISTRATIVE STATEMENT:

2-B-3190.

NEW YORK SCHEDULE NO. 356.

APPLICATION WAS NOT APPARENTLY VALID WHEN RECEIVED AND FILED IN THAT IT STATES THE APPLICANT'S DECLARATION OF INTENTION WAS FILED IN 1900. DECLARATIONS OF INTENTION FILED AT THAT TIME HAVE EXPIRED BY LIMITATION OF LAW. THE APPLICATION WAS NOT PROPERLY RECEIVED AND FILED BY THE GOVERNMENT.

VOUCHERS DESIGNATED AS SERIAL NOS. RC-5281 TO 5291, INCLUSIVE, ARE FOR REFUND OF FEES PAID IN CONNECTION WITH APPLICATIONS FOR CERTIFICATES OF DERIVATIVE CITIZENSHIP. IN DECISION OF DECEMBER 1, 1930, 10 COMP. GEN. 240, IT WAS HELD AS FOLLOWS (QUOTING FROM THE SYLLABUS):

THE FEE OF $10 REQUIRED BY SECTION 33 (A) OF THE ACT OF JUNE 29, 1906, AS AMENDED BY SECTION 9 OF THE ACT OF MARCH 2, 1929, 45 STAT. 1515, TO BE PAID AS A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO THE MAKING OF AN APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF DERIVATIVE CITIZENSHIP, IS EARNED WHEN THE APPLICATION, APPARENTLY VALID, IS RECEIVED AND FILED BY THE GOVERNMENT, A SERVICE HAVING BEEN RENDERED OR AS A PRIVILEGE GRANTED, AND MAY NOT BE REFUNDED SIMPLY BECAUSE THE APPLICANT DESIRES TO WITHDRAW THE APPLICATION PRIOR TO THE COMPLETION OF ACTION BY THE GOVERNMENT IN ISSUING THE CERTIFICATE. COMP. GEN. 35 DISTINGUISHED.

THE FEE OF $5 REQUIRED BY SECTION 5 OF THE AMENDATORY ACT OF MARCH 2, 1929, 45 STAT. 1513, FOR A "CERTIFICATE OF ARRIVAL ISSUED FOR NATURALIZATION PURPOSES," IS NOT EARNED UNLESS THE CERTIFICATE HAS ACTUALLY BEEN ISSUED, THAT IS, PREPARED READY FOR DELIVERY, AND MAY BE REFUNDED UPON THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE APPLICATION IF THE CERTIFICATE HAS NOT BEEN SO PREPARED.

ACCORDINGLY, THE $5 FEE IS REFUNDABLE IN ALL THE CASES PRESENTED AS THE CERTIFICATE OF DERIVATIVE CITIZENSHIP WAS NOT PREPARED READY FOR DELIVERY IN ANY OF THE CASES. THE $10 FEE IS REFUNDABLE ONLY IF THE APPLICATION WHEN RECEIVED BY THE GOVERNMENT WAS APPARENTLY INVALID, BECAUSE THE FACTS STATED THEREIN DISCLOSED THE DISQUALIFICATION OF THE APPLICANT TO RECEIVE THE CERTIFICATE, OR THE IMPROPRIETY OF EXECUTING SUCH A CERTIFICATE IS PATENT THEREFROM. THERE SHOULD BE APPLIED IN DETERMINING WHETHER AN APPLICATION IS "APPARENTLY VALID" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE DECISION OF DECEMBER 10, 1930, SUPRA, THE SAME PRINCIPLES WHICH WERE REQUIRED TO BE APPLIED BY THE CLERKS OF COURTS IN DETERMINING THE VALIDITY OF A DECLARATION OF INTENTION TO BECOME A CITIZEN, ENUNCIATED IN DECISION OF JUNE 10, 1927, 6 COMP. GEN. 812 814, AS FOLLOWS: THE FEES REQUIRED BY LAW ARE CHARGED FOR A SERVICE RENDERED AND A PRIVILEGE GRANTED, AND IF NO VALID SERVICE IS RENDERED OR PRIVILEGE GRANTED IT NATURALLY FOLLOWS THAT NO FEE SHOULD BE CHARGED. 3 COMP. GEN. 458; 4 ID. 518; 5 ID. 306. THE CLERK OF COURT IS PRESUMED TO KNOW THE REQUIREMENTS OF LAW AND REGULATIONS ISSUED PURSUANT THERETO FOR A VALID DECLARATION OF INTENTION OR PETITION FOR NATURALIZATION. IF THE DISQUALIFICATION OF DECLARANT OR PETITIONER OR THE IMPROPRIETY OF EXECUTING AND FILING SUCH DOCUMENTS IS PATENT FROM THE FACTS BEFORE THE CLERK OF COURT, THE RESPONSIBILITY IS HIS; HE HAS RENDERED NO VALID NECESSARY SERVICE, AND THE FEES SHOULD NOT BE COLLECTED, AND, IF COLLECTED IN ADVANCE, SHOULD BE RETURNED, ASSUMING DEPOSIT OF THE FEES IS SO MADE AS TO BE AVAILABLE FOR REFUND. IF THE INFORMATION FURNISHED THE CLERK OF COURT IS ERRONEOUS OR MISLEADING, OR THE DISQUALIFICATION OF DECLARANT OR PETITIONER OR THE IMPROPRIETY OF EXECUTING AND FILING THE DOCUMENT IS NOT APPARENT FROM THE FACTS BEFORE THE CLERK OF COURT, THE RESPONSIBILITY IS NOT HIS; AND IF ANY SERVICE BE RENDERED IN SUCH CASES THE PRESCRIBED FEES SHOULD BE COLLECTED THEREFOR AND SHOULD NOT BE REFUNDED, NOTWITHSTANDING THAT THE DECLARATION OR PETITION MAY SUBSEQUENTLY BE FOUND TO BE INVALID EITHER BY THE COURT OR OTHERWISE. SEE 3 COMP. GEN. 115; ID. 458; 4 ID. 518.

APPLYING THESE PRINCIPLES TO THE LISTED VOUCHERS CLAIMING REFUND OF FEES FILED IN CONNECTION WITH APPLICATIONS FOR CERTIFICATES OF DERIVATIVE CITIZENSHIP, DESIGNATED AS SERIAL NOS. 5281 TO 5291, INCLUSIVE, THE $10 FEE IS REFUNDABLE IN EACH CASE FOR THE REASON THAT THE FACTS STATED IN THE APPLICATIONS SHOWED CLEARLY THAT THE APPLICANTS WERE DISQUALIFIED FROM APPLYING FOR A CERTIFICATE OR THAT THE EXECUTION OF A CERTIFICATE WOULD BE IMPROPER.

SECTION 32 (A) OF THE ACT OF JUNE 29, 1906, AMENDED BY SECTION 9 OF THE ACT OF MARCH 2, 1929, 45 STAT. 1515, PROVIDES AS FOLLOWS:

IF ANY CERTIFICATE OF CITIZENSHIP ISSUED TO ANY CITIZEN, OR ANY DECLARATION OF INTENTION FURNISHED TO ANY DECLARANT, UNDER THE NATURALIZATION LAWS, IS LOST, MUTILATED, OR DESTROYED, THE CITIZEN OR DECLARANT MAY, UPON THE PAYMENT TO THE COMMISSIONER OF A FEE OF $10, MAKE APPLICATION (ACCOMPANIED BY TWO PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE APPLICANT) TO THE COMMISSIONER OF NATURALIZATION FOR A NEW CERTIFICATE OR DECLARATION. THE COMMISSIONER FINDS THAT THE CERTIFICATE OR DECLARATION IS LOST, MUTILATED, OR DESTROYED, HE SHALL ISSUE TO THE APPLICANT A NEW CERTIFICATE OR DECLARATION WITH ONE OF SUCH PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE APPLICANT AFFIXED THERETO.

UNDER THE PRINCIPLES ANNOUNCED IN DECISION OF DECEMBER 10, 1930, WITH RESPECT TO REFUND OF FEES PAID IN CONNECTION WITH APPLICATIONS FOR CERTIFICATES OF DERIVATIVE CITIZENSHIP ISSUED UNDER SECTION 33 (A) OF THE SAME STATUTE, THE FEE OF $10 REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 32 (A) LIKEWISE IS EARNED WHEN THE APPLICATION, APPARENTLY VALID, FOR A NEW CERTIFICATE IN LIEU OF ONE THAT HAS BEEN LOST, MUTILATED, OR DESTROYED, HAS BEEN RECEIVED AND FILED BY THE GOVERNMENT, AND THERE SHOULD BE APPLIED THE SAME PRINCIPLES ABOVE STATED IN DETERMINING WHETHER THE APPLICATION WAS "APPARENTLY VALID.'

REFERRING TO VOUCHER DESIGNATED AS SERIAL NO. RC-5469, 5163, 5168, AND 5169, THERE WAS NOTHING IN THE APPLICATION FOR A NEW CERTIFICATE TO DISCLOSE THAT THE ORIGINAL CERTIFICATE HAD NOT BEEN LOST, MUTILATED, OR DESTROYED, OR TO SHOW ON ITS FACE THAT THE ISSUING OF A NEW CERTIFICATE WOULD NOT BE AUTHORIZED. IN THESE CASES THE FEE WAS EARNED WHEN THE APPLICATIONS WERE RECEIVED AND FILED AND THE VOUCHERS MAY NOT BE CERTIFIED FOR PAYMENT.

THE SAME MAY BE SAID AS TO VOUCHER NO. RC-5166. APPLICANT IS NOT ENTITLED TO A REFUND MERELY BECAUSE HE WAS PERMITTED TO WITHDRAW HIS APPLICATION AFTER THE SAME HAD BEEN RECEIVED AND FILED. 10 COMP. GEN. 240.

REFERRING TO VOUCHER NO. RC-5470, THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE APPLICATION WAS ERRONEOUS AND MISLEADING AND NOTHING APPEARED IN THE APPLICATION TO PUT THE GOVERNMENT OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE ON NOTICE THAT THE ORIGINAL DECLARATION OF INTENT HAD BECOME INVALID BY LAPSE OF TIME. THE VOUCHER MAY NOT BE CERTIFIED FOR PAYMENT.

REFERRING TO VOUCHER NO. RC-5471, THERE WAS NOTHING CONTAINED IN THE APPLICATION TO INDICATE THAT THE NATURALIZATION CERTIFICATE HAD BEEN CANCELED BY ORDER OF THE COURT. THE VOUCHER MAY NOT BE CERTIFIED FOR PAYMENT.

REFERRING TO VOUCHER NO. RC-5014, THERE WAS NOTHING CONTAINED IN THE APPLICATION TO INDICATE THAT THE APPLICANT HAD NEVER FILED A DECLARATION OF INTENTION. THE VOUCHER MAY NOT BE CERTIFIED FOR PAYMENT.

REFERRING TO VOUCHER NO. 5280, THE FACTS STATED IN THE APPLICATION FOR A NEW CERTIFICATE SHOWED THAT THE ORIGINAL DECLARATION OF INTENTION HAD BECOME INVALID BY LAPSE OF TIME. THEREFORE, THE GOVERNMENT OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE WAS PUT ON NOTICE OF THE INVALIDITY OF THE APPLICATION. THE VOUCHER WILL BE CERTIFIED FOR PAYMENT.