United States “national” is a broader term than “citizen” that includes not only citizens, but also persons born in “outlying possessions” of the United States.[63]  Here, the term “national” is used by contrast to “United States citizen” to refer to those who fit within the broader term but are not citizens of the United States.  A small group of people may be “nationals” of the United States,[64] and therefore not subject to removal.  A national of the United States is a citizen or “a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States.”[65]  Long residence in the United States, by itself, does not make a person a national of the United States.[66]

 

Several district courts have held that a long-term lawful permanent resident who has filed an application for United States citizenship may be considered a “national” of the United States.[67]  However, the Board of Immigration Appeals, and other courts that have reached the issue, have rejected this definition, and limit “nationals” of the United States to persons who have naturalized, or who were born within a United States territory (such as American Samoa and Swains Island).[68]

            All citizens of the United States are nationals, but some nationals, such as persons born in American Samoa and other U.S. territorial possessions, are not citizens. 8 U.S.C. § 1408; Perdomo-Padilla v. Ashcroft, 333 F.3d 964, 967-69 (9th Cir. 2003). Indeed, the term “national of the United States” is defined as including “a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(22). Thus, a claim to be a U.S. national is not a claim to be a citizen, but a claim to be a member of a broader group that includes citizens as well as others.

 

            As a legal concept, the term U.S. national came into use in the aftermath of the Spanish-American War to clarify the status of persons born in the territories that the United States acquired from Spain. Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong, 426 U.S. 88, 91, 107-13, 96 S.Ct. 1895, 48 L.Ed.2d 495 (1976); Rabang v. INS, 35 F.3d 1449, 1452 (9th Cir. 1994); Cabebe v. Acheson, 183 F.2d 795, 797-801 (9th Cir. 1950). We recently have given the term a narrow construction, holding that an alien does not become a national simply by signing a statement of allegiance in a naturalization application, Perdomo-Padilla, 333 F.3d at 972, or by serving in the U.S. armed forces after taking the standard military oath of allegiance. Reyes-Alcaraz v. Ashcroft, 363 F.3d 937, 939-41 (9th Cir. 2004).”).[69]

 

The new form I-9 has a box for U.S. Nationals, apart from the box for U.S. citizens.

 

                A citizen of Palau (former U.S. Trust Territory), whose father is Micronesian, is visa exempt.[70]  They are admitted and inspected the way a Canadian might be. The CIS Fact Sheet about citizens of Micronesia states that they are free to live and work in the United States. The Fact Sheet clearly states that they are not citizens or nationals of the United States, so they are subject to removal. These citizens are also subject to the grounds of inadmissibility, but do have the right to live and work here as conditions of their admission. 

[63] INA § 308(1), 8 U.S.C. § 1408(1); see also INA § 101(a)(29), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(29) (defining “outlying possessions,” such as American Samoa and Swain’s Island); Marquez-Almanzar v. INS, 418 F.3d 210 (2d Cir. Aug. 8, 2005) (voluntarily enlisting in the United States Army, serving for eight years, swearing allegiance to the U.S. Constitution, registering for the Selective Service, and completely immersing ones self in American society is not sufficient to qualify as a “national” of the United States for immigration purposes); Alwan v. Ashcroft, 388 F.3d 507 (5th Cir. Oct. 18, 2004) (registering with the Selective Service, taking oath of allegiance, and applying for derivative citizenship, without a grant of such application, is insufficient to confer “national” status); Reyes-Alcaraz v. Ashcroft, 363 F.3d 937, 938 (9th Cir. 2004) (“service in the armed forces of the United States, along with the taking of the standard military oath, does not alter an alien’s status to that of a ‘national’ within the meaning of the Immigration and Nationality Act”).

[64] INA § 101(a)(22), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(22) (defining “national” as “a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States”).  Compare definition of “national of the United States” under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.  See Asemani v. Iran, 266 F.Supp.2d 24 (D.D.C. Apr. 23, 2003)

[65] INA § 101(a)(22), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(22).

[66] United States v. Sotelo, 109 F.3d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1997); Carreon-Hernandez v. Levi, 543 F.2d 637, 638 (8th Cir. 1976); Oliver v. INS, 517 F.2d 426 (2d Cir. 1975).

[67] United States v. Morin, 80 F.3d 124, 126 (4th Cir. 1996); Asemani v. Iran, 266 F.Supp.2d 24 (D.D.C. Apr. 23, 2003).  See, e.g., Lee v. Ashcroft, 216 F. Supp. 2d 51 (E.D.N.Y. 2002) (noncitizen demonstrated the requisite permanent allegiance to the United States to acquire national status by registering for selective service, applying for citizenship, and by life‑long immersion in American society); Hughes v. Ashcroft, 255 F.3d 752 (9th Cir. 2001).

[68] INA § 308, 8 U.S.C. § 1408.  See Omolo v. Gonzales, 452 F.3d 404 (5th Cir. Jun. 12, 2006) (person may become a national only by birth or by completing the naturalization process); Perdomo-Padilla v. Ashcroft, 333 F.3d 964 (9th Cir. June 23, 2003) (filing application for naturalization does not change an applicant’s immigration status from that of a noncitizen to that of a national); Matter of Navas-Acosta, 23 I. & N. Dec. 586 (BIA 2003) (same); Sebastian-Soler v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 409 F.3d 1280 (11th Cir. May 19, 2005) (taking of oath of allegiance before Immigration Officer does not satisfy exception under which oath can be taken before a judge in alternate location; asserted permanent allegiance to United States was insufficient to make him national of United States); Tovar-Alvarez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 427 F.3d 1350 (11th Cir. Oct. 13, 2005) (“Though 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(22) states that a person is a ‘national of the United States’ if he owes ‘permanent allegiance to the United States,’ the manner in which one comes to owe allegiance to the United States is through birth or naturalization pursuant to the statutory scheme enacted by Congress, see 8 U.S.C. § § 1401-1409, 1421-1458. Sebastian-Soler, 409 F.3d at 1286. Moreover in Sebastian-Soler, we specifically rejected the Fourth Circuit’s reasoning in Morin. 409 F.3d at 1287. Because Tovar-Alvarez was not born in the United States and has not been naturalized, he is not a United States national.”); Reyes-Alcaraz v. Ashcroft, 363 F.3d 937, 938 (9th Cir. 2004) (“service in the armed forces of the United States, along with the taking of the standard military oath, does not alter an alien’s status to that of a ‘national’ within the meaning of the Immigration and Nationality Act”); United States v. Karaouni, 379 F.3d 1139, 1143 (9th Cir. Aug. 24, 2004) (giving the term “national of the United States” a narrow construction, holding that a noncitizen does not become a national simply by signing a statement of allegiance in a naturalization application, or by serving in the U.S. armed forces after taking the standard military oath of allegiance); Abou-Haidar v. Gonzalez, 437 F.3d 206 (1st Cir. Feb. 21, 2006) (person cannot become a national of the United States without fully completing the naturalization process set by Congress); United States v. Sotelo, 109 F.3d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1997); Carreon-Hernandez v. Levi, 543 F.2d 637, 638 (8th Cir. 1976); Oliver v. INS, 517 F.2d 426 (2d Cir. 1975); Dragenice v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 183 (4th Cir. Dec. 4, 2006).

[69] United States v. Karaouni, 379 F.3d 1139, 1143 (9th Cir. Aug. 24, 2004).

[70]  8 C.F.R. § 212.1(d).

Second Circuit

CITIZENSHIP - NATIONAL OF THE UNITED STATES
Fernandez v. Keisler, ___ F.3d ___, 2007 WL 3036814 (2d Cir. Sept. 26, 2007) (noncitizen did not qualify as a "national" of the United States as one who owes "permanent allegiance" to the United States and thus qualifies as a U.S. national under INA 101(a)(22)(B), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(22)(B) (West 2005)).

Fourth Circuit

CITIZENSHIP " UNITED STATES NATIONAL
Patel v. Napolitano, 706 F.3d 370, 2013 WL 285711 (4th Cir. Jan. 25, 2013) (affirming dismissal of action by federal inmate under 8 U.S.C. 1503(a) for a judgment declaring him a United States national, district court's dismissal, where plaintiff does not claim to be a United States national under the BIA's interpretation of 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(22), that the statute does not confer nationality on aliens who claim only to owe permanent allegiance to the United States).

CITIZENSHIP - NATIONAL OF THE UNITED STATES
Puentes-Fernandez v. Keisler, __ F.3d __, 2007 WL 2782013 (4th Cir. Sept. 26, 2007) (deferring to BIAs definition of United States National). See Matter of Tuitasi, 15 I. & N. Dec. 102 (BIA 1974) ("acquisition of nationality for a noncitizen national is not governed by [8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(22) ]" but instead by 8 U.S.C. 1408, the provision describing categories of noncitizen nationals; "a noncitizen may become a U.S. national only by completing the naturalization process, by birth to U.S. national parents, or by birth in an outlying possession of the United States.").

Fifth Circuit

CITIZENSHIP " BIRTH IN PHILLIPINES DOES NOT CONFER CITIZENSHIP
Nolos v. Holder, It was 611 F.3d 279 (5th Cir. Jul. 9, 2010) (petitioners birth in Philippines, while a U.S. territory, does not grant citizenship).