sam8622645
New Member
I'm getting ready for a consular report of birth abroad interview, and I'm trying to figure out if my old non-US passport is enough of proof for my physical presence.
I'm a naturalized US citizen. So I've originally entered the USA on a passport of my native country. And during my life in the USA, I've gone through several of my old country's passports.
One of such passports was issued to me in an NYC consulate of my country, as stated in the passport's "place of issue" field. It was issued in place of a previous passport that had expired while I was living in the USA.
In that passport, I only have one short trip, which is documented by entry and exit stamps of my native country and an entry stamp of US CBP. Which corresponds to just one round trip.
Additionally, this passport expired while I was still not a US citizen, and I was issued a separate travel document, which references this passport's number. Also issued in NYC consulate of my native country. This travel document is just a form with my picture, all information, consular stamp, to be used once only to return to my native country in conjunction with an expired passport.
This means that I was in the USA when I received this passport. And I was still in the USA when the passport expired. With only one short trip.
I understand that the US doesn't stamp passports on exit, and I could have exited the USA with this passport without any stamp, but then I wouldn't be able to receive that separate travel document in an NYC consulate, referencing the passport number of that passport.
Short of jumping the border, it wouldn't have been possible for me to not have been in the USA during the entire time frame of the validity of that passport.
I've had a passport before that, and two more after that. And then a US passport. So it's rather old. But I'm glad I never threw it away.
Now the question is, would that in itself be enough to prove that I was physically in the US for five years?
I understand when people's passports aren't accepted as proof because the US doesn't stamp on exit. But what about this particular case?
Any way I look at it, I just can't think up a scenario of me leaving the US or not being in the US and yet still having the passport and the travel document in the state in which I described.
Would such logic convince the interviewer or would they simply discard it regardless or the explanation that I provided above?
How much leeway do they get when the judge on the proof that is presented to them?
I'm a naturalized US citizen. So I've originally entered the USA on a passport of my native country. And during my life in the USA, I've gone through several of my old country's passports.
One of such passports was issued to me in an NYC consulate of my country, as stated in the passport's "place of issue" field. It was issued in place of a previous passport that had expired while I was living in the USA.
In that passport, I only have one short trip, which is documented by entry and exit stamps of my native country and an entry stamp of US CBP. Which corresponds to just one round trip.
Additionally, this passport expired while I was still not a US citizen, and I was issued a separate travel document, which references this passport's number. Also issued in NYC consulate of my native country. This travel document is just a form with my picture, all information, consular stamp, to be used once only to return to my native country in conjunction with an expired passport.
This means that I was in the USA when I received this passport. And I was still in the USA when the passport expired. With only one short trip.
I understand that the US doesn't stamp passports on exit, and I could have exited the USA with this passport without any stamp, but then I wouldn't be able to receive that separate travel document in an NYC consulate, referencing the passport number of that passport.
Short of jumping the border, it wouldn't have been possible for me to not have been in the USA during the entire time frame of the validity of that passport.
I've had a passport before that, and two more after that. And then a US passport. So it's rather old. But I'm glad I never threw it away.
Now the question is, would that in itself be enough to prove that I was physically in the US for five years?
I understand when people's passports aren't accepted as proof because the US doesn't stamp on exit. But what about this particular case?
Any way I look at it, I just can't think up a scenario of me leaving the US or not being in the US and yet still having the passport and the travel document in the state in which I described.
Would such logic convince the interviewer or would they simply discard it regardless or the explanation that I provided above?
How much leeway do they get when the judge on the proof that is presented to them?