By the same logic, just because your case was approved, doesn't mean that others with the travel profile will also be approved. As you may have noticed from my "join date", I've been hanging around here far too long. My advice is based on opinions and observations formed over the past 2 years, not just from what happened last week. I'm happy that you were successful, but it really doesn't mean the whole issue of continuous residence just went away.
Approved! Continuous Residency OK.
- Thread starter immigrateful
- Start date
By the same logic, just because your case was approved, doesn't mean that others with the travel profile will also be approved. As you may have noticed from my "join date", I've been hanging around here far too long. My advice is based on opinions and observations formed over the past 2 years, not just from what happened last week. I'm happy that you were successful, but it really doesn't mean the whole issue of continuous residence just went away.
But it does show that USCIS views each case independently.
Last edited by a moderator:
Oh yes... and very inconsistently at that.
cafeconleche
Registered Users (C)
I'm maintaining all my ties to the US and saving all the paperwork. Thanks for the information
derekleewo
Registered Users (C)
I also had a similar situation and I was approved without any problems at all. My whole process took just 5 months and I became a citizen Nov last year.
I had 3 long trips outside the US with 2 weeks between each one. I was outside the US for 156, 151, and 57 days.
I was prepared to fully explain the situation. I was still working for my US company and being paid in the US, but the IO never asked anything about the trips. The only travel related question she asked is if I had traveled since submitting the N-400, which I did and she noted the dates of that 2-week trip. And even for that trip, I couldn't remember the exact dates. I just told her I was gone for 2 weeks I "think" it was <gave her an estimated date>. On the way home I mentioned it to my wife (who had her interview right after me) and she told me I actually got the date wrong
I had 3 long trips outside the US with 2 weeks between each one. I was outside the US for 156, 151, and 57 days.
I was prepared to fully explain the situation. I was still working for my US company and being paid in the US, but the IO never asked anything about the trips. The only travel related question she asked is if I had traveled since submitting the N-400, which I did and she noted the dates of that 2-week trip. And even for that trip, I couldn't remember the exact dates. I just told her I was gone for 2 weeks I "think" it was <gave her an estimated date>. On the way home I mentioned it to my wife (who had her interview right after me) and she told me I actually got the date wrong
Jackolantern
Registered Users (C)
That's still less than a total of a year. So even if they treated them as one long trip, you'd still be within the "more than 6 months but less than a year" condition ... which is not like some other people whose back-to-back trips totaled more than 1.5 years. And you were working for a US company.
Actually a very small user base use the internet at all for immigration issues. Many of the hundreds+ that get denied are most likely not using an internet board either, but talking directly with lawyers to see what they can do for their situations.
Every case is based on the individual and up to the IO that is interviewing each individual. Each IO is different, each IO makes that call if they think you broke your residency or not. Having strong ties in the US for things under 6 months is something that strenghens a case. Visiting a sick relative helps more. People who leave and work overseas and come back and stay at a realatives place will have a much tougher time.
People have gotten citizenship by being away for 11 months before, others have been deiend being on a trip for 4 months. Every case is unique as with every IO.
This is just a small % of the user base for accepted and denied people. It's just a guideline of things to watch out for. It's also better for people to worry about the possibilities of denials, rather then going in thinking they're safe because of one success story and then getting hit with the cold reality that they might have a denial on their hands...
C’mon people, please don’t make up new requirements – which don’t exist in naturalization law at the first place. "More than 6 months but less than a year" condition is related to SINGLE trip ONLY.
As someone pointed out already, are you trying to scare others inventing new requirements? I’m surprised to see that someone experienced as you are, would post something like this.
derekleewo
Registered Users (C)
I was gone for just about 13-14 months, but you're right, when I add up the days outside the US, it comes to 364.
My point was that the IO didn't even ask me if I was working for a US company or not. Nor did the 2 weeks back in the US between each trip trigger any questions from IO.
Jackolantern
Registered Users (C)
What about the phrase "EVEN IF" do you not understand? Are you disagreeing with the statement that multiple back-to-back trips totaling under a year is not as bad as multiple back-to-back trips totaling 1.5 years?
Last edited by a moderator:
Jackolantern
Registered Users (C)
You put your employment history on the N-400. If you listed the employer and the IO knows it is a US corporation, they don't have to ask you about it.
Why speculating at the first place? As you see your speculation guided derekleewo in believing that she/he has fulfilled requirement that doesn’t exist.
The reason you wasn’t asked nothing about these trips is because all of them were under 6 months as required by naturalization law. Not because 156+151+57 is less than 1 year and you have satisfied "more than 6 months but less than a year" condition that is not applicable to trips sum brought by Jackolantern.
Jackolantern
Registered Users (C)
The point is that multiple trips adding up to less than a year cannot be logically treated as worse than a single trip of the same length (of course, they might illogically do that, but that's another story). So because a single trip of 364 days can be successfully defended (with sufficient evidence, like working for a US company) under the "6 months but less than a year" conditions, multiple trips adding up to 364 days can be defended equally or better. And that 364 day total should not be considered equivalent to cases where the trips add up to 1.5 years or more (like the OP whose total was in excess of 20 months).
Last edited by a moderator:
Jackolantern
Registered Users (C)
Others have been denied or hassled for back-to-back trips of under 6 months each. The reason for not being asked about the trips is simply because of the personality and mood of the IO.
I’m sorry but your theory just doesn’t make sense to me. I don’t know why you came up with something that doesn’t exist in naturalization law!? “6 months but less than a year” condition is applicable only to single trip.
Why are you making theory of applying this condition to sum of multiple trips when it is not applicable?
Actually, Jackolantern's theory makes perfect sense. For instance, if an IO sees a pattern of 3 back-to-back trips, each lasting 5 months, with the applicant returning back to the U.S. for 2-3 weeks between trips, it may be considered intent to break continuous residence. It's been reported on this forum (in fact, in this very thread) numerous times.
immigrateful
Registered Users (C)
Some posters on this board have taken it upon themselves to complicate a simple matter that often leads to scaring people.
Here's what I was told a year back when I mentioned that I had 4 back-to-back trips and a temporary India address was listed on the N-400 (while still claiming US residency):
(thread: http://immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?t=234301&page=2)
As opposed to what the poster opined, my interview was as smooth as it could have gotten.
Another poster said:
(thread: http://immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?t=281247&page=2)
Of course, responses such as these ones were helpful in that they made me investigate the matter a little further only to conclude that I had a very robust case. I persisted with the application and I'm happy I did.
Last edited by a moderator:
Theory is still.. just theory. At the end - It doesn’t matter what does or doesn’t make sense to us – it is what is written in the naturalization law.
Last edited by a moderator:
Jackolantern
Registered Users (C)
I am making logical comparisons. If you can lift up a truck, I don't have to see you lifting a car to know that you can lift the car.
All else being equal, 3 trips totaling 364 days is not worse than one trip of 364 days. Do you disagree with that? The logical conclusion is that the multiple trips can be defended equally or better than the single trip, even though there is no specific law about 3 trips adding up to 364 days.
Last edited by a moderator: