I have my green card for over 5 years but I did leave the US for 7 month to get married (I have pictures and documents to prove this), last year. The original plan was to live in Europe (but things didn't work out there). Therefore, I gave up my apartment and quit my job. As well, I moved all my belongings to Europe. However, I did keep open my credit cards, bank account and IRA. Although there was little activity on my accounts during my stay in Europe. I returned to the US in January and got my old job back (same company). I did pay my taxes for the last five years. Overall, I have left the US for about 9 month during the last 5 years. I didn't work after I have left the US. However, I wouldn't know how to prove this. Please let me know if I still can apply for citizenship .
continual presence
- Thread starter p8085
- Start date
p8085,
Please ready my post dated May 01, 2003
http://www.immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=81754
Based on my interview I think you should be O.K.
During the interview I was asked why I was away for 11 months. I replied I had to go to complete my studies. This way the reply from the interviewer "That's o.k. as long as you returned to US within a year i.e. 365 days."
Hope it helps.
Good luck.
Please ready my post dated May 01, 2003
http://www.immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=81754
Based on my interview I think you should be O.K.
During the interview I was asked why I was away for 11 months. I replied I had to go to complete my studies. This way the reply from the interviewer "That's o.k. as long as you returned to US within a year i.e. 365 days."
Hope it helps.
Good luck.
Continuity Of Residence For Citizenship
I found this article on the Internet. I hope it helps others.
------------------------------------------------------------
Continuity Of Residence For Citizenship
by Cyrus D. Mehta* and Parastou Hassouri**
Since September 11, 2001, more and more immigrants are applying for American
citizenship. This process is known as naturalization. The increase in the
number of naturalization petitions may be explained, in part, by the fact
that green card holders feel some vulnerability in light of some of the
anti-immigrant rhetoric circulating through the media. Aside from those
concerns, lawful permanent residents ("green card" holders) may be deported
from the United States for a number of reasons, such as conviction of
certain crimes, the failure to maintain residence in the United States, or
other security-related reasons. Citizens of the United States, on the other
hand, cannot be deported. Additionally, one could say that the most
important benefit of citizenship is the ability of the citizen to
participate in elections and vote, thereby influencing legislation and
policy.
While applying for citizenship, on the surface, is a relatively simple
process, there are many pitfalls of which one must be aware. For instance,
long absences from the United States could lead to a denial of the
application. In addition, prior criminal convictions may not only lead to a
denial of the naturalization application, but also could place the
individual in removal proceedings.
The provisions regarding naturalization are contained in Title III of the
Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA"). Generally, once an individual has
been obtained lawful permanent residence (or been "admitted" as a lawful
permanent resident), after five years, he or she may apply for
naturalization, provided he or she can establish his or her "physical
presence" in the United States "for periods totaling at least half of that
time." INA § 316(a)(1). That is, in the five years or 60 months preceding
the filing of the application, the applicant must establish that he or she
has actually been physically present in the United States for 30 months or
more.
The lawful permanent resident spouse of a U.S. citizen, however, must only
maintain residence for a period of three, as opposed to five years if: he or
she was the spouse of a U.S. citizen during the entire three year period;
was living in marital union with the U.S. citizen spouse for the entire
three year period; and was a lawful permanent resident for that period. See
INA § 319(a). During this three-year period, the eligible individual must
demonstrate actual physical presence in the U.S. of 18 months or more. In
both situations, an applicant must also demonstrate 3 months of residence in
the state where he or she will be applying for citizenship. In addition, an
applicant may submit the application for naturalization up to three months
before the three or five year period. INA § 334(a).
The complication arises because in addition to establishing "physical
presence" in the United States, which is simply a calculation of the total
number of months one has actual been in the United States, the applicant
must also demonstrate "continuous residence," which is a far more nuanced
concept. One's continuous residence in the United States is interrupted by
long absences from the U.S. that are defined-though not with the greatest
clarity-in the INA.
INA § 316(b) states the following: "absence from the United States of more
than six months but less than one year during the period for which
continuous residence is required for admission to citizenship, or during the
period between the date of filing the application and the date of any
hearing under section 336(a), shall break the continuity of such residence,
unless the applicant shall establish to the satisfaction of the Attorney
General that he did not in fact his abandon his residence in the United
States during such period."
The subsection continues to state that an absence from the U.S. for a
continuous period of one year or more breaks the continuity of residence,
except for certain narrowly defined employment situations that cause an
individual to be stationed overseas. INA § 316(b). If an applicant has been
absent from the U.S. for more than one year, the slate is wiped clean and
the person has to once again establish residence for 4 years and 1 day
before filing the citizenship application. 8 C.F.R. § 316.5(c)(1)(ii).
As the statute is silent as to absences of less than six months, it is safe
to assume that these absences do not create a presumption as to disruption
of continuity of residence. With respect to absences of more than six months
and less than one year, as will be discussed below, there appears to be an
increasing tendency for the INS to deny such applications on ground that the
applicant has failed to maintain continuous residence in the United States.
It is important to bear in mind that the statute also addresses these
absences individually, not collectively. That is to say, if an applicant has
had several absences of more than six months and less than a year, he or she
must still be given the opportunity to rebut a presumption of disruption of
continuous residence, provided, of course that the total time spent in the
United States complies with the INA's "physical presence" requirements.
Recently, however, the authors have also seen that absences of 6 months but
less than a year have led to denials. There appears to be no statutory basis
for such denials, especially if the applicant has offered sufficient
evidence to rebut the presumption of disruption. Such evidence includes, but
is not limited to, the following: evidence that one's employment in the U.S.
was not terminated (or evidence that applicant continued to receive benefits
such as health coverage); evidence that the applicant continued to maintain
a residence in the U.S.; evidence that family members remained in the United
States while the applicant was outside the U.S.; or evidence that the
applicant did not seek or obtain employment abroad. It is essential that
applicants be able to establish that their intention was to maintain
residence tin the United States and substantiate this intention with as much
documentary evidence as possible prior the interview, to prevent a denial of
the application. As long as the INS continues to adhere to a rigid and
mechanical interpretation of the statutory language, it will remain the
applicant's burden to prepare a solid case.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
About The Author
*Cyrus D. Mehta, a graduate of Cambridge University and Columbia Law School,
practices immigration law in New York City. He is First Vice Chair of the
American Immigration Law Foundation and recipient of the 1997 Joseph Minsky
Young Lawyers Award. He is also Chair of the Immigration and Nationality Law
Committee of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York. He
frequently lectures on various immigration subjects at legal seminars,
workshops and universities and may be contacted at 212-425-0555 or
info@cyrusmehta.com
** Parastou Hassouri is an associate attorney at Cyrus D. Mehta &
Associates, PLLC. She received her J.D. from the University of Pittsburgh
School of Law in 1999. Prior to joining the firm, she served as a Judicial
Law Clerk with the Executive Office for Immigration Review, New York City
Immigration Court.
I found this article on the Internet. I hope it helps others.
------------------------------------------------------------
Continuity Of Residence For Citizenship
by Cyrus D. Mehta* and Parastou Hassouri**
Since September 11, 2001, more and more immigrants are applying for American
citizenship. This process is known as naturalization. The increase in the
number of naturalization petitions may be explained, in part, by the fact
that green card holders feel some vulnerability in light of some of the
anti-immigrant rhetoric circulating through the media. Aside from those
concerns, lawful permanent residents ("green card" holders) may be deported
from the United States for a number of reasons, such as conviction of
certain crimes, the failure to maintain residence in the United States, or
other security-related reasons. Citizens of the United States, on the other
hand, cannot be deported. Additionally, one could say that the most
important benefit of citizenship is the ability of the citizen to
participate in elections and vote, thereby influencing legislation and
policy.
While applying for citizenship, on the surface, is a relatively simple
process, there are many pitfalls of which one must be aware. For instance,
long absences from the United States could lead to a denial of the
application. In addition, prior criminal convictions may not only lead to a
denial of the naturalization application, but also could place the
individual in removal proceedings.
The provisions regarding naturalization are contained in Title III of the
Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA"). Generally, once an individual has
been obtained lawful permanent residence (or been "admitted" as a lawful
permanent resident), after five years, he or she may apply for
naturalization, provided he or she can establish his or her "physical
presence" in the United States "for periods totaling at least half of that
time." INA § 316(a)(1). That is, in the five years or 60 months preceding
the filing of the application, the applicant must establish that he or she
has actually been physically present in the United States for 30 months or
more.
The lawful permanent resident spouse of a U.S. citizen, however, must only
maintain residence for a period of three, as opposed to five years if: he or
she was the spouse of a U.S. citizen during the entire three year period;
was living in marital union with the U.S. citizen spouse for the entire
three year period; and was a lawful permanent resident for that period. See
INA § 319(a). During this three-year period, the eligible individual must
demonstrate actual physical presence in the U.S. of 18 months or more. In
both situations, an applicant must also demonstrate 3 months of residence in
the state where he or she will be applying for citizenship. In addition, an
applicant may submit the application for naturalization up to three months
before the three or five year period. INA § 334(a).
The complication arises because in addition to establishing "physical
presence" in the United States, which is simply a calculation of the total
number of months one has actual been in the United States, the applicant
must also demonstrate "continuous residence," which is a far more nuanced
concept. One's continuous residence in the United States is interrupted by
long absences from the U.S. that are defined-though not with the greatest
clarity-in the INA.
INA § 316(b) states the following: "absence from the United States of more
than six months but less than one year during the period for which
continuous residence is required for admission to citizenship, or during the
period between the date of filing the application and the date of any
hearing under section 336(a), shall break the continuity of such residence,
unless the applicant shall establish to the satisfaction of the Attorney
General that he did not in fact his abandon his residence in the United
States during such period."
The subsection continues to state that an absence from the U.S. for a
continuous period of one year or more breaks the continuity of residence,
except for certain narrowly defined employment situations that cause an
individual to be stationed overseas. INA § 316(b). If an applicant has been
absent from the U.S. for more than one year, the slate is wiped clean and
the person has to once again establish residence for 4 years and 1 day
before filing the citizenship application. 8 C.F.R. § 316.5(c)(1)(ii).
As the statute is silent as to absences of less than six months, it is safe
to assume that these absences do not create a presumption as to disruption
of continuity of residence. With respect to absences of more than six months
and less than one year, as will be discussed below, there appears to be an
increasing tendency for the INS to deny such applications on ground that the
applicant has failed to maintain continuous residence in the United States.
It is important to bear in mind that the statute also addresses these
absences individually, not collectively. That is to say, if an applicant has
had several absences of more than six months and less than a year, he or she
must still be given the opportunity to rebut a presumption of disruption of
continuous residence, provided, of course that the total time spent in the
United States complies with the INA's "physical presence" requirements.
Recently, however, the authors have also seen that absences of 6 months but
less than a year have led to denials. There appears to be no statutory basis
for such denials, especially if the applicant has offered sufficient
evidence to rebut the presumption of disruption. Such evidence includes, but
is not limited to, the following: evidence that one's employment in the U.S.
was not terminated (or evidence that applicant continued to receive benefits
such as health coverage); evidence that the applicant continued to maintain
a residence in the U.S.; evidence that family members remained in the United
States while the applicant was outside the U.S.; or evidence that the
applicant did not seek or obtain employment abroad. It is essential that
applicants be able to establish that their intention was to maintain
residence tin the United States and substantiate this intention with as much
documentary evidence as possible prior the interview, to prevent a denial of
the application. As long as the INS continues to adhere to a rigid and
mechanical interpretation of the statutory language, it will remain the
applicant's burden to prepare a solid case.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
About The Author
*Cyrus D. Mehta, a graduate of Cambridge University and Columbia Law School,
practices immigration law in New York City. He is First Vice Chair of the
American Immigration Law Foundation and recipient of the 1997 Joseph Minsky
Young Lawyers Award. He is also Chair of the Immigration and Nationality Law
Committee of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York. He
frequently lectures on various immigration subjects at legal seminars,
workshops and universities and may be contacted at 212-425-0555 or
info@cyrusmehta.com
** Parastou Hassouri is an associate attorney at Cyrus D. Mehta &
Associates, PLLC. She received her J.D. from the University of Pittsburgh
School of Law in 1999. Prior to joining the firm, she served as a Judicial
Law Clerk with the Executive Office for Immigration Review, New York City
Immigration Court.
As I returned from abroad, the immigration officer asked me how long I stayed abroad. I told him four weeks although I was 7 month away. But the question is with the N-400 application. I have to enter that I stayed 7 month away. Therefore, I would like to hear from others with the same experience and how their interview went. Thanks 
yes, I am ware that you have to tell the truth to the INS (BCIS). However, it was a verbal check at the airport. I traveled three times abroad, this year. Each time I had a different experince at the reentry. Sometimes they look at my passport, sometimes not. They don't stamp all the times my passport at reentry. Therefore, I don't think this has an influence. The INS check was about 20 seconds after I have returned from my 7 month trip.
Yes, I am ware that they scan the green card. But to my knowledge only to see that the green card is real. The INS is using a system from the Customs department and the NSEERS system. Each airline has to transmit the passenger information prior to arriving in the US. Before you leave, the passport is scanned at the airpot checkin and the data is given to the same systems. This way the FBI, INS (BCIS) and Customs department check if the person has commited any crimes. They keep on records the Name of the passenger, date of entry/leave and some bio data.
In the case I file the N-400 form, I will enter that I have stayed 7 month abroad. The exact dates of my trips. However, I would like to know from others how their experience was at the interview when they stayed away from the US for longer than 6 month but not more than a year.
In the case I file the N-400 form, I will enter that I have stayed 7 month abroad. The exact dates of my trips. However, I would like to know from others how their experience was at the interview when they stayed away from the US for longer than 6 month but not more than a year.
I could be wrong, but I was always under the impression that BCIS does enter your statement about how long you've been abroad into their system. They always write on my passport how long I have been gone (except Canada, of course).
I agree wholeheartedly with JoeF in that we should never ever lie to BCIS. You should be totally honest during your interview, as well as your application. You also need to demonstrate that you did not intend to leave the US permanently, and unfortunately, the preponderance of proof lies upon you.
BTW, thanks for your advice about SS earlier, JoeF. I finally received a letter about my not needing to register.
I agree wholeheartedly with JoeF in that we should never ever lie to BCIS. You should be totally honest during your interview, as well as your application. You also need to demonstrate that you did not intend to leave the US permanently, and unfortunately, the preponderance of proof lies upon you.
BTW, thanks for your advice about SS earlier, JoeF. I finally received a letter about my not needing to register.
Hi Joef,
You had mentioned the GC scanning thing at POE, how about crossing the border of US & Canada? BCIS has no record of when you departed and if they don't scan your GC when you are back to the US, how do they finally determine your absence during naturalization, just curious?
You had mentioned the GC scanning thing at POE, how about crossing the border of US & Canada? BCIS has no record of when you departed and if they don't scan your GC when you are back to the US, how do they finally determine your absence during naturalization, just curious?
I agree w/ Joef of not lying to BCIS at all. One way if they can tell if you lie is to check your air ticket and find out your first departure date (if it is a round-trip ticket). And then, I believe if you departed from a US airport, they have the GC information that they can check against what you tell them.
Since October of 2002, all airlines must use the APIS (Advance Passenger Information System) system. When you checkin (in the US or abroad) data from your passport is entered into the APIS system. The data includes your name, birthdate, citizenship. However, the APIS system is used by the customs agency but is shared with BCIS. In the past, only the arriving date was kept on record. However, I read a report in the Internet that the arrive date is stored now too. Currently, the BCIS is working on a new tracking system. It will be simular to the SEVIS - student tracking system. This new system will track everybody who is entering and leaving the US.