ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR NATURALIZATION

This matter is before the Court as a final hearing upon a petition for naturalization pursuant to 8 U.S.C.A. § 1447 .

The petitioner is a native of the Republic of Mexico who entered the United States in 1949 and has never been admitted for permanent residence.

On March 24, 1964, and April 3, 1964, hearings were held before a special inquiry officer of the Immigration and Naturalization Service in regard to deportation proceedings against petitioner.

An order of deportation was entered against him, and on April 5, 1965, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed. Millan-Garcia v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 343 F.2d 825 (9th Cir. 1965).

Thereupon the petitioner petitioned for a writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court, which Court, on November 8, 1965, in a per curiam opinion ( 382 U.S. 69 , 86 S.Ct. 247 , 15 L.Ed.2d 144 ), directed as follows:

On January 11, 1966, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued its order directing the petitioner be granted an opportunity to file his petition for naturalization with the District Court.

On January 31, 1966, the petitioner filed his petition for naturalization, and on February 17, 1966, and March 14, 1966, a preliminary examination was conducted by an officer of the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Pursuant to 8 U.S.C.A. § 1446 (d) a recommendation to deny the petition and the reasons therefor were submitted to the Court.

The Court received into evidence the oral testimony of the petitioner, and that of Glen Michael and Rose Uylhara, who were favorable to the petitioner. The petitioner examined under oath Brian H. Simpson of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, who had conducted the administrative hearings in regard to the naturalization proceedings. In addition, the Court received into evidence (1) the petitioner’s military service record; (2) the transcript of the preliminary examinations conducted on February 17, 1966, and March 14, 1966; (3) the transcript of the deportation proceedings held on March 24, 1964, and April 3, 1964; and (4) the application to file a petition for naturalization, dated January 31, 1966.

The only serious challenge of the petitioner to the introduction of evidence was in regard to the transcript of the hearing at the deportation proceedings. He objects to the introduction of the transcript for the reason that at that hearing he was not represented by counsel and the Government failed to appoint counsel to represent him. The objection is fully answered by the Ninth Circuit in *547 the deportation proceedings and need not be discussed further here. Millan-Garcia v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 343 F.2d 825 (9th Cir. 1965).

Preliminarily it should be stated that the hearing before the Court was a final hearing in accordance with 8 U.S.C.A. § 1447 (b), and the Court has arrived at its judgment independently of any findings and recommendations of the naturalization examiner.

The threshold of the petitioner’s difficulties with the Government over his deportation and naturalization concern his involvement with the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, the July 26th Movement, the Socialist Workers Party and the Young Socialist Alliance, and his association or contacts with individuals known or suspected to have Communist Party affiliation. The Government does not develop the involvement and association by independent witnesses, but instead chooses to rely on the testimony of the petitioner given under oath at the various proceedings before the Immigration and Naturalization Service.

The petitioner explained to the Court that he has now changed his political beliefs, and states that he is in favor of the “United States type of government because it is more democratic”. He testified that when he learned that Castro was a Communist he “thought very hard about it”. His acquaintances were not helpful to him, but in time “I alone changed my mind about Castro during the missile crisis. If he wasn’t a Communist, he had gone too far in his ties with Russia.”

During the deportation proceedings, petitioner stated that in the event of armed conflict between the United States and any Spanish-speaking country, he would not bear arms against such a country. He now states that he would bear arms without any reservation.

In summary, he states that in 1964 during his deportation proceedings he was in a mixed-up state of mind in regard to his loyalty to the United States; he “didn’t know where he stood”. He states that now he knows that his loyalty is with this country where he seeks to become a citizen.

The following sworn testimony, in part, was given by petitioner on March 24, 1964, at his deportation proceedings:

The following sworn testimony, in part, was given by the petitioner on March 14, 1966, at the hearing before the naturalization examiner:

When referring to the Fair Play for Cuba organization the following testimony was given:

In response to the question on March 14, 1966—

From the evidence before it, the Court concludes that the petition for naturalization should be denied. The burden upon a petitioner is stated in Berenyi v. Immigration Service, 385 U.S. 630 , 87 S.Ct. 666 , 17 L.Ed.2d 656 :

8 U.S.C.A. § 1427 (a) requires that a petitioner for naturalization must establish that during the five years preceding the filing of his petition he has been a person of good moral character, attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States.

Within the five years from the date of his application to become a citizen the petitioner:

The petitioner has not passed the tests for the requirement of naturalization.

It is ordered that the petition for naturalization be denied.

It is further ordered that the Clerk this date shall serve copies of this Order by United States mail upon the attorneys for the parties appearing in this cause.