5-year residence starting time

J

jnwong

Registered Users (C)
I was reading a note posted by someone else and have the following:

===================================
SEC. 102. FIVE-YEAR RESIDENCE REQUIREMENT FOR NATURALIZATION
(a) Section 316(a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1427(a)(1)) is amended by inserting "after the application for the adjustment of status is filed or" before "after being lawfully admitted for permanent residence".
===================================

Can someone verify the accuracy of the above? Has this become a law now?
 
Originally posted by jnwong
I was reading a note posted by someone else and have the following:

===================================
SEC. 102. FIVE-YEAR RESIDENCE REQUIREMENT FOR NATURALIZATION
(a) Section 316(a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1427(a)(1)) is amended by inserting "after the application for the adjustment of status is filed or" before "after being lawfully admitted for permanent residence".
===================================

Can someone verify the accuracy of the above? Has this become a law now?
Click to expand...

No, this is not the law. This s simply a proposal circulating among users of this forum. The law as it stands today is 5 years from the day one is lawfully admitted.
 
Project Ocean

Originally posted by jnwong
Thanks. Does anybody know how likely will this turn into law? Any recent progress?
Click to expand...
Hi,jnwong,
Thanks for your interest in our activity.

Please read some messages at:
http://immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=113020
and/or
http://immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=99973

Most of active members including me are still waiting for I-485 approval, so we're busy on some activities to reduce the I-485 backlog such as the litigation or lot of FAX/E-MAIL campaigns.

I encourage this "US Citizenship" forum members to join our activities to amend INA to get U.S. Citizenship 5 YEARS AFTER FILING AOS (I-485).
 
Re: Re: Project Ocean

Originally posted by JoeF
Have you though about people who do CP???
Click to expand...
Hi, JoeF,
Thanks for your interest.

Frankly speanking, we don't think about CP cases because major of us are AOS cases.
However, if you think CP cases should be covered, please write a bill proposal specifically.
 
Re: Re: Re: Project Ocean

Originally posted by kashmir
Hi, JoeF,
Thanks for your interest.

Frankly speanking, we don't think about CP cases because major of us are AOS cases.
However, if you think CP cases should be covered, please write a bill proposal specifically.
Click to expand...

In order to cover CP cases as well, the proposal should include date of approval of immigrant visa petition (I-140) instead of AOS filing date.
A better alternative would be to have the requirement of say 8 years of stay in US of which at least 3 years as LPR; OR 5 years as LPR in all. Many countries like UK have similar provisions.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Re: Re: Re: Re: Project Ocean

Originally posted by nkm-oct23
In order to cover CP cases as well, the proposal should include date of approval of immigrant visa petition (I-140) instead of AOS filing date.
A better alternative would be to have the requirement of say 8 years of stay in US of which at least 3 years as LPR; OR 5 years as LPR in all. Many countries like UK have similar provisions.
Click to expand...
Hi, nkm-oct23,
Thanks for your suggestions.

> In order to cover CP cases as well, the proposal should include date of approval of immigrant visa petition (I-140) instead of AOS filing date.

On 7/31/2002, USCIS started allowing the cuncurrent filing I-140 and I-485, and I-140 processing has been delayed recently.
For thoese people, I-485 fileing date is earlier than I-140 approval date.
Maybe, I can add one more date with OR.

By the way, is "date of approval of immigrant visa petition" correct words clearly defined in INA ?

> A better alternative would be to have the requirement of say 8 years of stay in US of which at least 3 years as LPR; OR 5 years as LPR in all. Many countries like UK have similar provisions.

For some people, it might be good,
however, personally, I am not interested in this condition at all.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Project Ocean

Originally posted by JoeF
Well, that's a major reason why I think your proposal would never be considered...
It would create 2 different ways to naturalization.
In my opinion, it shows that you guys haven't thought this whole thing through.

What you should do instead of such a proposal which has no chance in hell to go anywayer, you should push for a speedup of the I-485 processing.

Sorry if I'm a bit blunt, but I've dabbled in politics a bit in my homecountry, and the first thing I learned is to focus on things I can actually get through rather than on pie-in-the-sky issues.
Click to expand...
Hi, JoeF,
Thanks again.

> that's a major reason why I think your proposal would never be considered...
> It would create 2 different ways to naturalization.
> In my opinion, it shows that you guys haven't thought this whole thing through.

First, CP is faster than AOS.
It took less than 6 months, and even now it takes less than a year.
I think it is still acceptable for CP, but not for AOS.
Second, I don't think we must cover everything.
It's too much for AOS people.
If CP people really want to amend, they should do that.

Anyway, I will consider nkm-oct23's first option.

> ... instead of such a proposal which has no chance in hell to go anywayer,

I don't think so.
I believe we have a chance within three years.

> you should push for a speedup of the I-485 processing.
> ... and the first thing I learned is to focus on things I can actually get through rather than on pie-in-the-sky issues.

Actually, we're focusing this item.
In my feeling, we would partially (maybe not perfectly) solve it within a year.
So, the next target is INA amendment of 5-year residence requirement.
 
> A better alternative would be to have the requirement of say 8 years of stay in US of which at least 3 years as LPR; OR 5 years as LPR in all. Many countries like UK have similar provisions.

I think this would cover everyone who got green cards, not just the EB 485 cases which are delayed. I think the law should be amended to include periods of residency as a non-LPR and credit should be given to such periods. People who came on H1 and spent 5 + years on H1 should get some credit for doing so, not just those who applied 485 and are waiting/waited long for approval.
Pursuing just EB 485 cases and proposing relief in citizenship requirements for just the 485 cases is just plain discriminatory and congress will never touch this with a bargepole.
I commend the efforts of kashmir and others but seek realistic and practical goals.
 
draft, please

Originally posted by nkm-oct23
> A better alternative would be to have the requirement of say 8 years of stay in US of which at least 3 years as LPR; OR 5 years as LPR in all. Many countries like UK have similar provisions.

I think this would cover everyone who got green cards, not just the EB 485 cases which are delayed. I think the law should be amended to include periods of residency as a non-LPR and credit should be given to such periods. People who came on H1 and spent 5 + years on H1 should get some credit for doing so, not just those who applied 485 and are waiting/waited long for approval.
Pursuing just EB 485 cases and proposing relief in citizenship requirements for just the 485 cases is just plain discriminatory and congress will never touch this with a bargepole.
I commend the efforts of kashmir and others but seek realistic and practical goals.
Click to expand...
Hi, nkm-oct23,
Thanks again for your comment.

Of course, I'd like to cover as many cases as possible.
However, simply I have no time to update the bill proposal because my priority is still to get my green card as soon as possible.

Can you (or somebody in this forum) draft the bill proposal to cover wider cases than mine ?
A comment is welcome, but what I really need is the draft of the bill proposal.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think this would cover everyone who got green cards, not just the EB 485 cases which are delayed. I think the law should be amended to include periods of residency as a non-LPR and credit should be given to such periods. People who came on H1 and spent 5 + years on H1 should get some credit for doing so, not just those who applied 485 and are waiting/waited long for approval.
Click to expand...

I totally agree and support the idea of giving credit for LPR to relieve the 5-year PR requirement a bit.

In Canada, for instance, the time you spent in the country before becoming LPR is counted 50%, up to a certain maximum period of time, towards the 3-year physical presence requirement to citizenship.

The time we spent on H1 does not differ significantly from regular LPR, e.g. we are still paying US taxes, not a penny less than LPR, maintaining a legal status, etc. so why can't we have part of the time counted towards the 5-year requirement?

Folks, please join in supporting the "project ocean" activity. We should give BCIS more pressuring in amending the requirements.
 
Originally posted by jnwong
I totally agree and support the idea of giving credit for LPR to relieve the 5-year PR requirement a bit.

In Canada, for instance, the time you spent in the country before becoming LPR is counted 50%, up to a certain maximum period of time, towards the 3-year physical presence requirement to citizenship.

The time we spent on H1 does not differ significantly from regular LPR, e.g. we are still paying US taxes, not a penny less than LPR, maintaining a legal status, etc. so why can't we have part of the time counted towards the 5-year requirement?

Folks, please join in supporting the "project ocean" activity. We should give BCIS more pressuring in amending the requirements.
Click to expand...
Hi, jnwong,
Thanks for your comment.

> Folks, please join in supporting the "project ocean" activity.

Thanks again for your encouraging forum members.

> We should give BCIS more pressuring in amending the requirements.

To amend the INA, we don't need to take care of USCIS fortunately.
Our only taget is Congress.
Once a bill becomes a law, USCIS must implement it.


The idea of yours or this forum members is beautiful.
However, we have to draft the bill proposal.
Please draft such a bill so that we can talk to Congressional members.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Project Ocean

Originally posted by JoeF

It seems to me that you need an education in how the political system works here...
Your proposal will work as such an education.
Click to expand...
Thanks for your advice and I agree with you.
I know I have a lot of things to learn in the States.
So what? Again, you haven't thought about this.
Nobody will change laws based on the fact that some processing at this time happens to be faster than other.
It used to be that AOS was faster than CP. So processing time can not be used as justification for this stuff.
A fundamental thing in law is that everybody is treated the same!
Click to expand...
If you can tell me how to draft a bill proposal in order to cover both AOS and CP, I'd appreciate it.
 
Hi JoeF

Let's be more positive, nothing is impossible unless if you try.

With immigration and other issues in this country, nobody will pay attention to you unless if you speak loud.

However, I agree with JoeF that we should use the appropriate way to tackle the issue smartly. We should understand how the game is played with them so we may achieve our goal with min. efforts.

A check on the history shows that the 5-year requirement has been going on for at least 200 years with stubborn immigration system.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top