It is not actually defined what a technicality is. It could be a technicality, or could be that he actually claimed to be a US national, not a US citizen. We do not know. What we know is that claim to US nationality is harmless under INA, while a claim to US citizenship is not.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
bank listed me as US citizen and never asked me for imm. status
- Thread starter vdostoi1
- Start date
TheRealCanadian
Volunteer Moderator
What we know is that claim to US nationality is harmless under INA, while a claim to US citizenship is not.
That's the technicality I am referring to.
I do not consider this a technicality. I think technicality would be if he actually made a claim for US citizenship, but the authorities made a mistake while trying to persecute him and that is why could not persecute him.
Here the situation looks different. He has never made a claim to US citizenship (even though he might have wanted to make this type of claim, and even though he might have full intention to make it, and even though he himself could even believe this claim was made), and should not have been persecuted from the very beginning. The authorities should have not started persecuting him at all, because what he did is not punishable under INA.
Here the situation looks different. He has never made a claim to US citizenship (even though he might have wanted to make this type of claim, and even though he might have full intention to make it, and even though he himself could even believe this claim was made), and should not have been persecuted from the very beginning. The authorities should have not started persecuting him at all, because what he did is not punishable under INA.
TheRealCanadian
Volunteer Moderator
I do not consider this a technicality.
You therefore do not understand the meaning of the term.
The only way the conviction was overturned was that there is a remote possibility he was making a claim to US nationality which is as you say harmless under the INA. I mention remote because 99.9999% of US nationals are also US citizens, but the 9th Circuit court of appeals considered that enough.
If this was a civil trial then he would have been completely out of luck, because the burden of proof there is merely a balance of probability, not beyond reasonable doubt.
By the way, prosecute and persecute are two different words.
No, my understanding is different. I think the court considered that enough regardless of the percentages. The definitions of US citizen and US national are different. The court did not care if US citizens and/or US nationals actually exist. It could be that 99.99999% of US nationals are not US citizens, or it could be that no US citizens actually exist at all, it would not change anything in the court's logic. The decision was not made according to statistical approach, just according to the definition of the term.The only way the conviction was overturned was that there is a remote possibility he was making a claim to US nationality which is as you say harmless under the INA. I mention remote because 99.9999% of US nationals are also US citizens, but the 9th Circuit court of appeals considered that enough.
So, this still does not look a technicality to me.
I am also sure the result will be the same in the civil court as well. Just because the claim "I am A or B" is not the same as "I am A". That is just a simple logic.