stating, in the context of an action to revoke citizenship, that while the government’s evidence justifying revocation of citizenship must be “clear, unequivocal, and convincing,” “the defendant bears a ... heavy burden in establishing that he strictly complied with all the congressionally imposed prerequisites to the acquisition of citizenship ....”
How later courts described this case
- stating, in the context of an action to revoke citizenship, that while the government’s evidence justifying revocation of citizenship must be “clear, unequivocal, and convincing,” “the defendant bears a ... heavy burden in establishing that he strictly complied with all the congressionally imposed prerequisites to the acquisition of citizenship ....”
- indicating that although a majority of the panel held that Dailide’s citizenship was “illegally procured,” a majority did not agree that he had made misrepresentations
- service in a Lithuanian police force during the Nazi occupation of that country, including detaining and searching Jewish civilians escaping from the ghetto and interviewing Jewish prisoners, constituted persecution of civilian populations
- summary judgment where undisputed facts showed that defendant had assisted in detaining two Jews who had escaped from ghetto
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
*399 DAVID A. NELSON, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part.
I concur in the affirmance of summary judgment for the United States and in most of the reasoning, if not all of the rhetorical flourishes, ably set forth in Part IV of Judge Clay’s opinion. There is no genuine issue over the fact that Dailide assisted in the detention of Izrael and Riva oak, Jews who had escaped from the ghetto and who were turned over to the Germans for imprisonment. In helping to deprive these individuals of their freedom— which he unquestionably did, whether he personally was carrying a sidearm at the time or not — I believe that Dailide “assisted the enemy in persecuting civil populations of countries, Members of the United Nations,” within the meaning of those words as used in § 2(b) of the Displaced Persons Act of 1948. I express no view on the question whether summary judgment in favor of the government could also be affirmed on the basis of the misrepresentations Dailide made to the U.S. Army’s Counter Intelligence Corps about his wartime activities.