Cohorte histórica descendiente pre-1952

Escenarios de ejemplo

• ELIGIBLE. Under Revised Statutes sec. 1993, a child born abroad to a U.S.-citizen father is a citizen at birth. Father's citizenship and the abroad birth are established. Claim is governed by R.S. sec. 1993 (era 1).

  Birth occurred in 1928, before noon EST 24 May 1934 — the era governed by R.S. sec. 1993. R.S. sec. 1993 provided that children born outside U.S. limits to U.S.-citizen fathers are citizens. The father was a U.S. citizen and the child was born abroad. Citizenship was acquired at birth. The mother's Italian citizenship is irrelevant for sec. 1993 purposes. No retention condition applies to this era (the 1934-Act retention condition reached only births on/after 24 May 1934). Montana v. Kennedy (1961) confirms the R.S. 1993 father-only rule. Note: had the claimant been a child born to a U.S.-citizen mother and alien father in 1928, citizenship would NOT have been acquired absent the narrow sec. 301(h) preservation (Montana v. Kennedy).

• ELIGIBLE. Citizenship was acquired at birth under NA-1940 sec. 201(g) (mother met the 10-year/5-after-16 residence test). Any failure to satisfy the retention requirement (5 years U.S. residence between ages 13 and 21) was remedied by the prospective abolition of retention conditions by the Act of 10 Oct 1978 (Pub. L. 95-432).

  Birth date is 1944 — governed by NA-1940 sec. 201(g)-(h) (births 13 Jan 1941-23 Dec 1952). Mother is the transmitting U.S.-citizen parent. Mother resided in Texas for 22 years (ages 0-22), far exceeding the 10-year/5-after-16 requirement (well over 5 years after age 16). Citizenship was acquired at birth. The NA-1940 sec. 201(h) retention requirement (5 years of U.S. residence between ages 13 and 21) was PROSPECTIVELY ABOLISHED by Pub. L. 95-432 (10 Oct 1978) — the claimant could not lose citizenship after that date for failure to satisfy retention. Because no formal loss had been finalized before 10 Oct 1978, and the abolition operated prospectively from that date, the claimant retains citizenship. Documented via N-600 with the mother's Texas residence records and the child's Mexican birth certificate.

• NOT ELIGIBLE under the era rule as applied at birth. Under R.S. sec. 1993 (the law in force in 1910), citizenship could be transmitted only through a U.S.-citizen father; the mother's U.S. citizenship did not transmit to a child born abroad to an alien father before 24 May 1934. Montana v. Kennedy, 366 U.S. 308 (1961) is directly controlling. (A narrow later-enacted INA sec. 301(h) maternal-preservation analysis should be checked, but the default era rule bars the claim.)

  Birth date is 1910 — well before 24 May 1934 (the Equal Nationality Act). The governing statute at birth was R.S. sec. 1993, which provided for father-only transmission; maternal transmission was impossible regardless of the mother's citizenship. Montana v. Kennedy, 366 U.S. 308 (1961), involved similar facts (1906 birth, U.S.-citizen mother, alien father) and held no citizenship transmitted under R.S. sec. 1993. INA sec. 301(h) = 8 USC sec. 1401(h) preserves the pre-1934 maternal scenario only in narrow circumstances and should be examined, but absent qualification under that provision the claim fails. No general equitable or retroactive remedy corrects the pre-1934 maternal-bar situation.

• LIKELY ELIGIBLE today, subject to a careful retention-timing analysis: the 1934-Act retention condition was prospectively abolished by Pub. L. 95-432 (10 Oct 1978), so a retention loss not finalized before that date cannot now strip the citizenship that vested at birth.

  Birth date 1938 falls in the 24 May 1934-12 Jan 1941 Equal Nationality Act era. Citizenship vested at birth because the mother could transmit and met the residence test. The 1934 Act's retention condition required 5 years' U.S. residence immediately before age 18 plus an oath within 6 months of age 21 — which the claimant did not perform. However, the Act of 10 Oct 1978 (Pub. L. 95-432) prospectively abolished retention conditions: no person could thereafter lose citizenship for failing a prior retention requirement. The dispositive question is whether the retention loss was already FINAL before 10 Oct 1978; if it was not finalized, the 1978 repeal preserves the citizenship. If a loss had been formally determined before 1978, INTCA 1994 (Pub. L. 103-416 sec. 103) restoration must be analyzed. This scenario illustrates that the '2 years between ages 18-21' formulation is WRONG for the 1934 Act — the correct condition is the 5-years-before-18 residence plus age-21 oath.