Going to India after receiving GC

[narinder1808]

My wife and myself are GC holders. We received our GC in April 2004. My daughter is an US citizen. We are planning to move to India. My company has opened an office there and is asking me if I would like to reloacte. I am interested in the offer. Right now the plan is to move back to India for good. But we would like to keep our hard earned GC valid just incase.
Can you all please tell if this is even possible and if yes, whats the best possible way to do so to keep the GC valid so that if for some reason after sometime if we would like move back then we can still use it.
FYI, I am planning to sell off my house if I move back. Thus won;t have any ties (financial or family) with the US when I leave.

Appreciate all the help.

Thanks

 

[narinder1808]

Whats the max period I can keep it valid for? I might be making a few trips to US every year for office related work. Will that help?

Any thing I can do to keep it valid for next couple of years. This will help me in coming back in next 2 years incase things are not that smooth in India as I am anticipating right now. If I stay beyond that in India then it will mean I am well adjusted there and I won;t mind giving up GC at that point.

Thanks

 

[hadron]

In the old days, you could keep your GC alive by returning to the US every 179 days. It won't make you eligible for citizenship, but as long as your trips 'outside' remained under the 6month mark, you were fine. Don't know how it works nowadays.

There are probably as many people outside the US with valid green-cards as there are green-card holders inside the US. It is entirely possible and legal to maintain your GC if you stick to the rules.

There are a couple of administrative ways to get a permit to stay abroad for extended periods:

http://uscis.gov/graphics/formsfee/forms/i-191.htm

http://uscis.gov/graphics/formsfee/forms/n-470.htm


Also, note this thread on the re-entry permit:

http://www.immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?t=193847

 

[hadron]

Well, it has been done, and it is still being done.

Considering the hassle of getting a GC in the first place, it is a good idea to keep it alive if you leave the country for job related reasons. It might require keeping a job here (e.g. by registering a corporation, buying a piece of real-estate and paying yourself a salary from the income), keeping an address here (fancy mailbox with forwarding service) and paying your taxes.

(yes, it is 131, not 191)

 

[hadron]

I didn't say owning a house helps to maintain a GC.

I said maintaining employment on W2 in the US helps to maintain a GC (one way to maintain employment is by working as a manager for a corporation that owns real-estate). Sure, the corp has to show a profit. A good accountant will be able to tell you when you have to shut it down and transfer the assets into a new corp to avoid the 'hobby' issue. Again, none of this is illegal, plenty of corporations get rolled over annually for tax purposes (e.g. physician offices organized as a P.C.)

Matter of Huang was a case where the beneficiary actually never lived in the US. The case has limited bearing on the OPs situation. If you get to the point that you have to involve BIA or the federal courts, you are indeed hosed. If you are able to maintain the correct paperwork to show that you have no intent of leaving the US, you are fine (just as plenty of other people, enterpreneurs and professionals working between both worlds).

 

[hadron]

You still don't seem to get it. You own the corp, the corp owns the real-estate, the corp pays you a salary out of its income. And of course it is not an accountant half way around the world who does the taxes for you, it is someone right here (typically in delaware, the home of most US shell corporations).

If you
- maintain a place of residence,
- a paying job,
- a bank account,
- pay your taxes,
...you HAVE the paperwork that prooves that you have an unabandoned residence to return to. Hence no problem.

INTENT is in your head, the paperwork is what counts for USCIS (while the NSA is good in spying on people, I don't think they have found a way to get into peoples heads yet

 

[hadron]

You still don't get it. The real estate corp has one purpose: To provide W2 employment. It has nothing to do with the personal residence, it can be a piece of commercial real estate, building lots, hunting property etc. (you can still hire someone on the usual percentage basis to run the day to day affairs of the property, you don't have to be physically present in the US to run this type of company).

 

[pralay]

I said maintaining employment on W2 in the US helps to maintain a GC (one way to maintain employment is by working as a manager for a corporation that owns real-estate).

Actually it does not. Employment and residence-ship are two different things. Having residence in USA does not automatically mean I have employment in USA. Same way, having employment in USA does not automatically mean I have residence in USA. There is only straight way to "maintain residence" (or "maintain GC") - residing in USA. Any other method or workaround can help (for example, being W2 employment in USA or keeping family members in USA), but there is no surety. Of course if you are a Canadian or Mexican citizen and have "commuter status" you can keep your US LPR status without living in USA provided you have employment in USA.

 

[hadron]

There are ways to maintain your GC while you live most of your time abroad. It has been done, it is being done, and some of the elements I have described work quite well in that regard. (a colleague of mine maintains his GC for the past 15 years in this way. he chose not to become a citizen when he lived here but he might come back in retirement.) Of course, none of this is a guarantee that you can maintain your GC, but as long as you show ties to this country with a residence, a job and family, your odds are pretty good. (btw. a 'residence' is in the eyes of the goverment any address the USPS can deliver a letter to. it is called the 'miracle on 34th street doctrine').

 

[pralay]

(btw. a 'residence' is in the eyes of the goverment any address the USPS can deliver a letter to. it is called the 'miracle on 34th street doctrine').

In your definition an USPS PO box can be a "residence", right? Or your office address?

A "residence" is location where a person "resides". It can be a home or boat or campsite or motel. Certainly not PO box.

Of course there are non-USPS PO Boxes which are represented as "units" (similar to apartment address; for example, "123 Elm St #420"). But showing this PO box as "residence" is nothing but cheating.

 

[robwoj]

I do not understand why people make it so complicated. If they want to go to India but want to keep the GC - so they want to return to the US - they can simply:
- Apply for reentry permit
- Get a contract for 1-2 years
- Keep ties to the US
- Keep an address with a friend or family
- File US taxes

If they like it India after 2 years - they get rid of all ties to the US, get rid of GC altogether and forget about coming to the US altogether. Plans can change after being abroad for 2 years.

If they keep the intention of coming back to the US - they can do so and live happily ever after.

Instead people seem to get rid of GC at the start. It is ok if you understand the consequences.

I am not a lawyer and this is not any advie.

 

[hadron]

Except that there is a big gulf between what could happen theoretically, and what happens (or doesn't happen) every day at the various POEs.
If you show up in suit and tie, with paperwork demonstrating your ties to the US in hand, they just don't hassle you. Yeah, they could deny entry, but in reality they have bigger fish to fry.

 

[hadron]

Nobody is getting arrested at the POE for the suspicion of having abandoned his residence. You are either denied entry, or you are sent for deferred inspection at the local office. Just spare us your fear-mongering.

The OP is thinking about giving his GC away without a pressing need for it. I think the most solid piece of advice in this thread came from robwoj

I do not understand why people make it so complicated. If they want to go to India but want to keep the GC - so they want to return to the US - they can simply:
- Apply for reentry permit
- Get a contract for 1-2 years
- Keep ties to the US
- Keep an address with a friend or family
- File US taxes

If they like it India after 2 years - they get rid of all ties to the US, get rid of GC altogether and forget about coming to the US altogether. Plans can change after being abroad for 2 years.

If they keep the intention of coming back to the US - they can do so and live happily ever after.

 

[hadron]

As opposed to your suggestion of violating the immigration laws...

As long as your paperwork is in order, no immigration law is violated. Whatever happens in your head (the actual intent) is not a breach of law.

Whether you like it or not, people go back and forth maintaining their GCs without becoming a citizen. Actually, an elderly relative of mine who does exactly that with his family based GC gets the talk about not abandoning his residence every other time when he presents at the POE (blablabla next time we won't admit you...blablabla...re-entry permit....blablabla). Once they sent him for deferred inspection, he showed up with his 4 US-citizen daughters in tow and the local office voided the findings of the POE officer (I guess after you have been through a civil war and decades of a military dicatorship, USCIS kind of looses its ability to instill fear into you).

 

[pralay]

.
Whether you like it or not, people go back and forth maintaining their GCs without becoming a citizen.

Of course many people do. Some people fail and some succeed. Even though Ieach case is different, I would not term some of cases as "maintaining GC". They are "not getting caught".

.
.Actually, an elderly relative of mine who does exactly that with his family based GC gets the talk about not abandoning his residence every other time when he presents at the POE (blablabla next time we won't admit you...blablabla...re-entry permit....blablabla). Once they sent him for deferred inspection, he showed up with his 4 US-citizen daughters in tow and the local office voided the findings of the POE officer (I guess after you have been through a civil war and decades of a military dicatorship, USCIS kind of looses its ability to instill fear into you).

So I guess you understand the difference. This old person has tie with US (having four daughters in USA). Someone leaving USA with family ("for good" in his own word) is not something that can be considered as "tie with USA".

.
.(I guess after you have been through a civil war and decades of a military dicatorship, USCIS kind of looses its ability to instill fear into you).

I guess the it's just opposite. America is a land of law. Many immigrant who comes from other countries think that law can be twisted, bent or stretched. Having green card but living in another country (in home country) is a good example of that.

 

[hadron]

I guess the it's just opposite. America is a land of law. Many immigrant who comes from other countries think that law can be twisted, bent or stretched. Having green card but living in another country (in home country) is a good example of that.

The US is a country based on tweaking the law just so much that you can get away with it 99% of the time. This country has more attorneys/capita than any other developed nation. If things were done according to the law, 1/2 of them would be out of work (the law says that a rapist should spend 15-->life in prison. In reality he is allowed to plead to disorderly conduct and spit his victim in the face on the way out of the courtroom)

 

[pralay]

The US is a country based on tweaking the law just so much that you can get away with it 99% of the time. This country has more attorneys/capita than any other developed nation. If things were done according to the law, 1/2 of them would be out of work (the law says that a rapist should spend 15-->life in prison. In reality he is allowed to plead to disorderly conduct and spit his victim in the face on the way out of the courtroom)

Whatever you mention are not "tweaking laws", but most times it's due following reasons:
1. In some occasions prosecutors are not competent enough. On the other hand defence attornies are more competent (hence more powerful). Good examples are OJ Simpson, Kobe Byrant cases.
2. In criminal court, it's "innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt". Thay's the way law is. In many cases it's not possible to prove beyond resonable doubt, because court is a court. It's not a time-machine to verify every possible items/incident of the past. That's the limitation of court and that is how court should be seen. Sometimes court (hence law) works, sometime does not.

Due to point 2, in many cases it's not very easy to show a person guilty of a crime. In many rape cases it becomes he-says-she-says story in court (because there is no witness). Kobe Bryant case is perfect example. Prosecutors also understand that and that's why they go for much lesser punishment (or sometimes withdrawing the case alltogether).

Are you complaining that why an lawyer is defending a rapist? Because that's their job to defend client zealously. That's not "tweaking laws" but following law in correct manner. One party wins in court and other party loses. In many occasions it's not fair, but that's the way law is. Again, it's not tweaking laws, but an unfair side of man-made imperfect legal system.

There are cases where defence lawyers are successful to defend a guilty persons, but on other other hand there are innocent people who are in death row because their defence lawyers were sleeping in court. So just seeing on side may not give you right picture of legal world.

Comparing number of lawyers with other country is absurd because every country has different career oppotunities. Legal infrastructures are different, method of excercizing laws are different. Having less lawyers does not make a country's law and order better - but just opposite.

 

[hadron]

I am glad to hear that there is one person in this country who believes in the inherent goodness residing with the legal profession !

Thank you for explaining your judicial philosophy, I don't think I asked for it, but it is nevertheless insightful.

 

[pralay]

I am glad to hear that there is one person in this country who believes in the inherent goodness residing with the legal profession !

Thank you for explaining your judicial philosophy, I don't think I asked for it, but it is nevertheless insightful.

Nobody asked for citing "civil war", "decades of a military dicatorship" either.

 

[hadron]

And again, that doesn't mean that this works for other people. And advising other people to gamble in this way is just plain irresponsible.

The OP is thinking about giving up his GC anyway. The only risk he would run is to be turned back at the border. If someone was dependent on maintaining his GC, playing some sleight of hand with CIS would indeed be foolish.

I mentioned military dictatorships only because everyone has his panties in a knot when it comes to USCIS. People who have seen worse just don't get too fazed when dealing with these guys.