Court cases related to "4 years and 1 day remedy"

tinkertwain

New Member
I have been a LPR since 1999. I had to go out of the country for 11 months in 2010 (took a re-entry permit). Before that all of my visits outside the US (approx. once every two years) lasted 30 days or fewer.

During my extended absence, I retained my job (continued to work remotely), my apartment, bank account, filed taxes as resident, etc. I applied for Citizenship in 2011, and appeared for interview. During the interview, I offered to submit evidence showing I did not abandoned my residence. However, the officer said that was not needed. I was surprised when I received denial letter a week later. The letter stated that the application was denied because I took a job while abroad. My attorney at that time recommended that I file N-336. I filed that along with all the evidence. Couple of months later, we decided to move to different state because of my wife’s job. I wrote a letter to USCIS to move my case to that state. I was finally called for interview 9 months later in the new state. I went fully prepared along with all the evidence and also copy of previous decision by a court. During the interview the officer told me that she would not be able to overturn earlier decision. I respectfully, submitted all the documents and requested her to give a fair look at my case before jumping to the conclusion. She said that she would, and also told me that I could apply after 4 years and 1 day, after I came back from extended stay abroad. After that I did not hear back from the USCIS. I wrote letters the director but no response.

I applied again N400 petition after I completed 4 years. I was scheduled for interview again couple of months back. I went for the interview praying that let this be my last visit to the USCIS. The officer was typical stone faced and asked me some basic question about my case. I was thinking why did the officer not prepare before the interview, because answers to what the officer was asking were right there in my petition and letters I sent earlier. In any case, I answered whatever was being asked. The officer asked me for proof of mortgage payment (and that was the only document I did not take with me, talk about bad luck!). In lieu of that I offered to submit my paychecks and tax transcripts and also offered to mail in those statements. I also suggested that my ownership of the home (and length of ownership) can easily be verified by going to public property tax records of the County. At the end the officer gave me a letter which basically says that they cannot make a decision right away and will notify me when they make the decision. The officer also told me that they cannot give me a time frame by when they will make the decision.

This interview also shook my confidence on whether they would reject my application again claiming that I do not qualify for “4 years and 1 day remedy” as the rule book says that it is meant only for people who have stayed abroad for more than a year (Policy Manual Vol 12,Chapter 3(C)(3)). While researching N-336 I did come across few court decision where the Judge criticized overturned USCIS denial of N400 petition for the reason petitioner did not have an extended stay abroad for over a year. However, I am unable to find them now. Would highly appreciate if someone could point me to those court decisions, where in court overturned USCIS decision of denial for petitioners who applied 4 years and 1 day after coming back from extended stay (that lasted more than 6 months but less than 1 year). I am also planning to make FOIA query to the USCIS about this. Will post what they say when I receive the response.
 
I'm interested in this question too. I've seen differing opinions about this. The literal reading of the regulation (8 CFR 316.5(c)(ii)) does seem to say it only applies to absences of more than 1 year, but I have seen some people believe otherwise.

I don't know about court cases, but I do know that there is a letter from the "Chief of the Naturalization and Special Projects Branch of the Office of Adjudications" which is in an appendix of an older version of the Adjudicator's Field Manual that seems to say that 4 year + 1 day does apply to absences less than 1 year. The chapter that that is in was migrated into the USCIS Policy Manual, which doesn't contain the letter, and thus you cannot find this in the AFM anymore; I gave a link to an archived copy on the Wayback Machine; but it's the contents of the letter that matters.
 
I was the one who applied under 2 years plus 1 day rule (marriage to US citizen) after a 9 months trip out of the US. After the interview, the officer gave me form N14 stating that I need to submit some evidence to prove that I did not abandoned my residence including copies of all passports and travel document, bank, credit card statements, medical record or anything that prove my residence. I sent whatever I had the next day and had been waiting for 2 months to get the status update to "inline for oath", I will go to the oath ceremony on 8/19, my process is going to the end in 2 weeks( if nothing wrong on that day). Back to your case, I think you will be ok, just suffer some delay compare to other solid cases then everything gonna be ok.
 
USCIS finally approved my petition, I recently received an oath letter. Thanks all to those who responded to my questions.
 
USCIS finally approved my petition, I recently received an oath letter. Thanks all to those who responded to my questions.
So what happened? Did they allow you to use the 4 year + 1 day rule for an absence of between 6 months and 1 year? Did you present any precedents or arguments? Is there anything that can help a future person facing this?
 
I do not know 100%. I had a N-336 pending (after N-336 interview) for over 3 years, about which they never took decision. After I completed 4 years from my extended trip abroad (between 6 month and 1 year), I applied for N-400 again. A week after I applied for N-400, I also got a phone call from USCIS to go for finger printing again for the pending N-336, which I promptly did. However, N-400 is what they approved. I'd have really liked if they overturned earlier decision and approved N-336, as my case was stronger than "Li vs Chertoff" case.
 
Top