568 Argument for Petitioners. Upon the granting or denial of his petition depend his status and the most important civil and political rights. If denied, he continues to be an alien; he cannot exercise the rights of citizenship; he is deprived of the protection incident to citizenship. In most States he cannot vote or participate in the affairs of government, and in many States he is debarred from becoming an incorporator or director of companies or the owner of real property. In many parts of the country he cannot be employed on public works; he is not permitted to practice law however qualified he may be or to engage in various kinds of business as to which by statutory enactment citizenship is made an essential qualification. He is subjected to a multitude of inconveniences and discriminatory regulations. If, therefore, he has shown himself entitled to naturalization, and that right is denied to him, he certainly would be deprived of the most precious right that an inhabitant of the United States can possibly possess; and if such right can be withheld from him by the determination of a single judge, his further deprivation of his right to review such determination would result not only in grave injustice to the individual but in a distinct injury to the public. Moreover, it might occasion, in some sections of the country, a wholesale denial of the right of naturalization. The only safeguard against such a course resides in the right of appeal. In re Fordiani, 98 Conn. 435. That it was not considered necessary to have a specific provision in the Act of 1906 authorizing appeals becomes evident from a consideration of the debate in the Committee of the Whole referred to in the note on page 326 of the opinion in United States v. Ness, 245 U. S. 319. Subsequent to the decision in that case, this Court, in effect, entertained jurisdiction of an appeal like that taken in the present cases. Ozawa v. United States, 260 U. S. 178. Argument for the United States. 270 U.S. If the requirements of the statute are met, then naturalization is a right and not a favor. United States v. Shanahan, 232 Fed. 169; United States v. Jorgenson, 241 Fed. 412; Spratt v. Spratt, 4 Pet. 393. In a petition or proceeding for naturalization of aliens, the court is vested with a legal, but not a personal discretion to determine whether an alien is qualified for admission to citizenship. United States v. Hrasky, 240 Ill. 560; United States v. Kichin, 276 Fed. 818; In re Fordiani, 98 Conn, 435; United States v. Vogel, 262 Fed. 262. See also, Spratt v. Spratt, 4 Pet. 393; Re Symanowsski, 168 Fed. 978; Re Clark, 18 Barb. 444; Davis v. Boston Ry., 235 Mass. 482. Assistant to the Attorney General Donovan, with whom Solicitor General Mitchell and Mr. Franklin G. Wixon were on the brief, for the United States. The preponderance of decisions in state and lower federal courts is adverse to the right of appeal. Section 128 of the Judicial Code does not extend to the cases at bar. United States v. Dolla, 177 Fed. 101; Muskrat v. United States, 219 U. S. 346. · Doubts certainly exist as to the "finality" of such a decision as that here involved. Whether a decision favorable to the alien, admitting him to citizenship, is or is not "final" is not the question in these cases. Presumably such a decision is final. But with regard to a decision unfavorable to the alien, (which is the question here involved,) different considerations arise. His application may have been denied, or consideration of it may have been postponed, for some temporary reason, not going to the merits. He may be debarred because he has not "behaved as a man of good moral character" during the five years preceding his application. In that event, it would seem that the action of the court in denying his application will not prevent him from applying again after the lapse of another five years. In re Guliano, 156 Fed. 420; 568 Argument for the United States. In re Argento, 159 Fed. 498; In re Centi, 217 Fed. 833; Gassola v. Commanding Officer, 248 Fed 1001; In re Pollock, 257 Fed. 350. There is a conflict of opinion as to the power of a court to add to its denial of an application a clause providing that the applicant shall be “forever debarred" from again applying for citizenship. In re Kornstein, 268 Fed. 172; State ex rel. Weisz v. District Court, 61 Mont. 427; Marx v. United States, 276 Fed. 295. Naturalization proceedings, it is true, have been entrusted to the courts (both state and federal) since the beginning; and this grant of power to the judiciary is clearly constitutional. Holmgren v. United States, 217 U. S. 509. The control of naturalization proceedings is therefore within the legitimate scope of the judicial power; and such proceedings may be classed as cases and controversies" within the meaning of the Constitution. But the word "case," like any other word, may have one meaning when used in the Constitution and quite another when used in a statute. Lamar v. United States, 240 U. S. 60. A hearing on a petition for naturalization may be a "case" to which the constitutional power of the courts may extend; and it may still not constitute a "case" which is appealable under § 128 of the Judicial Code. In many naturalization cases, it may happen that no appearance is entered against the applicant. In re Mudarri, 176 Fed. 465. In nearly all such cases, the decision of the district court is based largely upon a personal scrutiny of the applicant and his witnesses, upon the manner in which they answer the questions put to them, upon their frankness and intelligence, and upon many other such elements, none of which can be crystallized in a bill of exceptions or adequately weighed by any appellate tribunal. The decisions of this Court, and the legislative history of the Act of 1906, show that no right of appeal exists. Johannessen v. United States, 225 U. S. 227; United States v. Ness, 245 U. S. 319; Luria v. United States, 231 U. S. 9; 40 Cong. Rec. part 8, pp. 7786-7787. Congress not merely failed to provide a remedy by appeal in naturalization cases, but, having specifically considered the very point, deliberately refused to make such a provision. It is urged by opposing counsel that if there is a right of appeal under § 15, there must also be a right of appeal in the cases at bar. Proceedings for cancellation under § 15, however, are materially different from original petitions for naturalization. Luria v. United States, 231 U. S. 9; United States v. Ness, 245 U. S. 319. In Ozawa v. United States, 260 U. S. 178, the question as to jurisdiction was not raised at any stage of the case. See Webster v. Fall, 266 U. S. 507. The courts enumerated in § 13 of the Act of 1906 have "exclusive jurisdiction" to naturalize aliens. The terms of the Act are mandatory. No court save those enumerated may naturalize any aliens. Even judges of those courts may not exercise the power at chambers or in any place save in open court. United States v. Ginsberg, 243 U. S. 472. MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS delivered the opinion of the Court. These cases present, by certificate, the question whether the circuit courts of appeals have jurisdiction to review a decree or order of a federal district court denying the petition of an alien to be admitted to citizenship in the United States. The existence of the jurisdiction was assumed by this court, without discussion, in Ozawa v. United States, 260 U. S. 178. It has been exercised by the courts of appeals in most of the circuits. In the Fifth Circuit, 1 In the following cases appellate courts entertained jurisdiction over petitions for naturalization without expressly considering the existence of a right of appeal. First Circuit: Harmon v. United 568 Opinion of the Court. jurisdiction was denied in United States v. Dolla, 177 Fed. 101. Although the correctness of that decision was questioned by Judge Amidon in United States v. Lenore, 207 Fed. 865, 869, and by Judge Hough in United States v. Mulvey, 232 Fed. 513, 521-2, it has been followed in the Third Circuit and in the Eighth. In the state courts judgments granting or denying petitions for naturalization have generally been held to be reviewable on appeal, like other cases.3 The "jurisdiction to naturalize aliens as citizens of the United States" is conferred by Act of June 29, 1906, c. 3592, § 3, 34 Stat. 596, upon the district courts, among others. Jurisdiction to review the "final decision in the States, 223 Fed. 425. Second Circuit: United States v. George, 164 Fed. 45; United States v. Poslusny, 179 Fed. 836; United States v. Cohen, 179 Fed. 834; United States v. .Balsara, 180 Fed. 694; United States v. Fokschauer, 184 Fed. 990; Yunghauss v. United States, 218 Fed. 168; United States v. Meyer, 241 Fed. 305; United States v. Vogel, 262 Fed. 262. Third Circuit: United States v. Martorana, 171 Fed. 397. Fourth Circuit: Bessho v. United States, 178 Fed. 245; Dow v. United States, 226 Fed. 145. Seventh Circuit: United States v. Doyle, 179 Fed. 687. Eighth Circuit: United States v. Brelin, 166 Fed. 104; United States v. Ojala, 182 Fed. 51; United States v. Peterson, 182 Fed. 289. Ninth Circuit: United States v. Rodiek, 162 Fed. 469. District of Columbia: United States v. Daly, 32 App. D. C. 525. See In re Centi, 217 Fed. 833. 2 United States v. Neugebauer, 221 Fed. 938; Appeal of Cook, 242 Fed. 932; Marx v. United States, 276 Fed. 295. See United States v. Nopoulos, 225 Fed. 656, 659; United States v. Koopmans, 290 Fed. 545, 547; United States v. Wexler, 8 Fed. (2d) 880, 881. In re Fordiani, 98 Conn. 435; United States v. Hrasky, 240 Ill. 560; United States v. Gerstein, 284 Ill. 174; Ex parte Smith, 8 Blackf. 395; Dean, Petitioner, 83 Me. 489; State v. District Court, 107 Minn. 444; Ex parte Johnson, 79 Miss. 637; State v. District Court, 61 Mont. 427; State v. Judges of Inferior Court, 58 N. J. L. 97; United States v. Breen, 135 App. Div. 824; In re Karasick, 208 App. Div. 844; In re Vura, 5 Ohio App. 334; Ex parte Granstein, 1 Hill (S. C.) 141. The right of appellate review was denied in In re Wilkie, 58 Cal. App. 22; State v. Superior Court, 75 Wash. 239. |