which she induced him to sign contained a requeste to be exempted from military service, but asserted that, by reason of his previous status as a prisoner of war of the Germans, it was possible that reprisals might be taken against his parents, who were then living in Occupied France. Petitioner's wife conceded that it was through her assistance and cooperation and with her aid that her husband was advised of some of the contents of the various forms which he signed or was induced to sign and file with the Local Board, but that she told him nothing about the consequences of his application for exemption from military service. She said she told him "part of the truth, but not all of the truth."
Although the wife of the petitioner said the petitioner entered the United States with no money, she put in his name the business factory which she owned and operated and which represented a $25,000 investment of her own money. She did this, she says, to permit her to operate the sales portion of her business while her husband ran the manufacturing portion thereof. When the time arrived at which her husband would be eligible to apply for citizenship, which was two years after his arrival in the United States, he inquired of his wife whether he could become a citizen and what he should do to achieve that status. Then, for the first time, his wife told him the whole truth.
At the conclusion of the hearing, decision upon the petition was reserved, and leave granted to counsel for the respective parties to submit briefs in support of their respective contentions.
The eligibility of petitioner for naturalization depends upon his credibility, and that of his wife, before the Designated Naturalization Examiner and before this Court. The sole ground upon which petitioner bases his contention here that he should be admitted to citienship is to be found in his assertion that his ignorance of the English language prevented his understanding that the granting of his application for relief from military service in the armed forces of the United States would debar him of the right to naturalization. I cannot believe petitioner's testimony that he was ignorant of the English language to the extent which he claims in view of his previous education and business experience. In his sworn statement in his application to the United States Consul for a visa on September 5, 1940 he stated that he could read, write and speak the English language. This fact renders incredible petitioner's testimony that, when he executed DSS Form 301 two years later, he was unable to understand the plain language of the contents of the form which he then signed and swore to. If it be assumed that the form was filled out by his wife on the basis of her misrepresentation to him of the language of the form and the response thereto which he adopted, his oath in verification thereof reflects a collusive conspiracy between his wife and himself to mislead the representatives of Government.
As recently as April 28, 1967, there was filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit an Opinion written by Judge Freedman of that Court in the case of the Petition of Haniatakis, 3 Cir., 376 F.2d 728, which reversed the District Court's finding that the petitioner was entitled to naturalization. In Haniatakis, the petitioner gave false answers both in her written application and in her Petition for Naturalization, and the same false statements were given orally as testimony at the preliminary investigation upon the presented issue as to the materiality or immateriality of the false testimony. The Court of Appeals held that:
"The statute is not concerned with the significance or materiality of a particular question, but rather, as the Supreme Court has recently indicated in Berenyi v. District Director, intends that naturalization should be denied to one who gives false testimony to facilitate naturalization. * * *