and awarding the custody, care and maintenance of the child to Mrs. Bortle (Government's Exhibit No. 5) although neither of the parties was ever physically present in Mexico in connection therewith. The attorney for Mrs. Bortle herein says that the purported divorce is a forgery. If so, the Bortles were unaware of it for some time. A letter written by Mrs. Bortle to Mr. Bortle's parents in April 1964 (Government's Exhibit No. 7) indicated her impression that Mr. Bortle had remarried and in June 1964 Mr. Bortle considered that he had been divorced by virtue of the Mexican decree (Government's Exhibit No. 9).
At the hearing pursuant to the court order of September 23, 1964, Mrs. Bortle testified that she expected her husband to follow her to the United States for his vacation, that she intended to return with him to Argentina at the expiration of his leave or to go with him to any other foreign country to which he might be assigned, that the time of his anticipated vacation was deferred from time to time, that he did not arrive in the United States until April 1964 about a year after her arrival, that he then spent one week with her in Arlington, Virginia, departed, and never returned. He is serving in Pretoria, South Africa, and was not present at the hearing. However, in a sworn statement dated June 11, 1964 obtained from Mr. Bortle by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (Government's Exhibit No. 9) he stated that he and Mrs. Bortle had not lived together as husband and wife since his return to the United States, that he had known of his assignment to South Africa for only about three and one-half weeks, and that neither of them intended her return to Argentina or to resume living in marital union after she came to the United States.
The circumstances are not such as to justify a conclusion that Mrs. Bortle really intended after she left Argentina to resume living with her husband in marital union. What she herself has written indicates that there was a mutual decision that after the birth of the baby Mr. Bortle would go his way and she would go her way (Government's Exhibit No. 7, page 4), and that they contemplated a divorce (Government's Exhibit No. 4). This is not to say, however, that Mrs. Bortle actually wanted these things. She was very much in love with her husband and would have remained with him had he been willing.
The desire of Mrs. Bortle to be a United States citizen and to make a new life for herself in this country is understandable. Her young son is a United States citizen, and she herself has been lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence. Nevertheless, under the facts of this case the court is compelled to conclude that, had all the circumstances been known to the Examiner and to the Court at the time she applied for citizenship, the judgment of naturalization would not have been entered.
It is further concluded by the court that Mrs. Bortle has failed to carry her burden of proving her qualifications for naturalization. In other words, she has failed to show that she was living in marital union with her citizen spouse immediately preceding the date she filed her petition for naturalization, and she has likewise failed to show that it was her intention, in good faith, upon naturalization to live abroad with her citizen spouse at his overseas station. Accordingly, the court will vacate so much of the order of August 13, 1963 as admitted the petitioner, Mrs. Bortle, to citizenship.
No fraudulent intent is imputed by the court to Mrs. Bortle from the circumstance that all the true facts were not disclosed in her naturalization papers.
Should she apply for naturalization after she has met the requisite residence requirements the vacating of the judgment of naturalization in this case should not be held against her.
This opinion is to serve as the court's findings of fact and conclusions of law.
An appropriate proposed order should be submitted.