How to lose your greencard!

B

BigJoe5

Registered Users (C)
The 9th Circuit is the MOST LIBERAL and LENIENT of all courts. The majority of 9th circuit cases that get accepted for review by the U.S. Supreme Court get reversed.

However, even this court won't turn a blind eye to one's abandoning lawful permanent resident status as demonstrated by their actions..

Please read this case and beware.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
In this case, one must note that the person had absolutely no intention and no ties to the U.S. except for her distant family that she would scarcely visit.

For me, this particular denial is clearly understandable. Absence of drivers license, bank account, tax returns, etc ... are enough to assume that the individual is not resident.

Are there some more cases like this to learn from?
 
Hannah7 said:
In this case, one must note that the person had absolutely no intention and no ties to the U.S. except for her distant family that she would scarcely visit.

For me, this particular denial is clearly understandable. Absence of drivers license, bank account, tax returns, etc ... are enough to assume that the individual is not resident.

Are there some more cases like this to learn from?
Click to expand...

There are tons of immigration cases in courts all around the country everyday.

SEE: http://www.uscourts.gov/court_locator.aspx and figure out which circuit you live in and just search for that court's opinion page.

You can identify immigration cases in a variety of ways. somebody v. Eric Holder, Jr OR v. Attorney General (Att'y Gen) OR v. Napolitano OR v. USCIS OR v. ICE etc.. sometimes an individual Service Center, District or Field Offcie Director or the Chief of AAO (currently Perry Rhew) of v. Alejandro Mayorkas (USCIS Director)....
 
Hannah7 said:
For me, this particular denial is clearly understandable. Absence of drivers license, bank account, tax returns, etc ... are enough to assume that the individual is not resident.
Click to expand...

I would contend that while this is an easily deniable case, but the benchmarks you listed are easy to beat. Drivers license and bank accounts can be setup very easily, and tax returns can also be filed with zero income. I wish USCIS will lay down some regulations where continuous residence becomes more black and white. While it will cause hardship to some people, simpler rules are easier to follow ... and as I wrote this I realized that this is not how bureaucracy works. An example of a more black and white rule would be to say that you break CR with a 6 month trip, but you also break it with smaller trips if you were away for 9 or 10 months in any rolling 12 month span.
 
Sure, bank account, tax returns and state DL are easy to beat as you say. This is why I say it is clearly deniable case.

Except for returning from time to time for a couple of weeks, she didn't have any other intention to return. I guess, she didn't even have a re-entry permit ...
 
Only thing I wonder ...
a) what did she think ... that they will approve her?
b) how did this case get to the court?
 
sanjoseaug20 said:
Only thing I wonder ...
a) what did she think ... that they will approve her?
b) how did this case get to the court?
Click to expand...

She was sent to see an IJ by CBP upon last entry. She would have been better off just giving up the greencard and applying for a B visa. She was fighting to keep a greencard for no apparent reason. Totally pointless of and for her BUT useful to others out there who wonder about this issue.

An Order of Removal is appeallable in a Petition for Review in the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals with jurisdiction over the place of U.S. residence of an LPR and/or Immigration Court location that issued the Order. Greencard holders are entitled to see an IJ rather than being subject to Expedited Removal unless they have already been ordered removed but the greencard was not lifted.
 
I am not questioning "how" this got into the courts, but again what was she thinking taking it to the court? Was it just the lawyer who either wanted money or to prove a point?
 
sanjoseaug20 said:
I am not questioning "how" this got into the courts, but again what was she thinking taking it to the court? Was it just the lawyer who either wanted money or to prove a point?
Click to expand...

MY money would be on "a greedy advocate" with a gullible client. So sad that it happens, but it does.
 
sanjoseaug20 said:
I would contend that while this is an easily deniable case, but the benchmarks you listed are easy to beat. Drivers license and bank accounts can be setup very easily, and tax returns can also be filed with zero income.
Click to expand...
I think the point is not really that having those things proves you are a US resident. It's more that if you DON'T have any those things, it's a strong indicator that you're not a bona fide resident.
 
1) --------------------------------
I agree with that too guys.

A bona fide resident must have those things (DL, bank account, SSN, and report of filed taxes when due) at any time when leaving the country. We all agree with that.

Now we can ask what are other factors/ties that show you are immigrant. I would say, is it just one's behavior? About what he/she thinks where he/she lives and so on.

2) --------------------------------
Consider this when comparing two (2) permanent residents:

Resident A owns 3 houses, small business, and a car in the United States. However, he has also other big businesses, 10 properties and other assets overseas.
Resident B has nothing. He has nothing in the States, but also nothing overseas. All he has is the desire to settle down somewhere in the United States.

Questions - when A and B are absent for the same amount of time:

Who is "better" resident? The A can show many assets linking him here, while he actually has more assets there. Person B has apparently nothing besides DL, account, etc, but the ratio of assets is better than A.

Or is it true, that the officers compare what one has in the U.S. and in other countries? If yes, how they can do it?
 
If both the residents are away for 2.5 years (let us say), I agree that Resident A can selectively show only US assets and prove residential ties much much better. However, it is still going to be the pattern of travel which will invite scrutiny. A person with 13 properties is unlikely to be traveling for 1 year at a time (over and over), but might be making numerous business trips, so many that he/she is close to the danger zone. Other parameter would be family ties ... not parents of an adult ... if the person's spouse and kids continued to live in US, that will be a positive factor. If the person continued to pay health and auto insurance, that would be another factor. You will need to look at the overall scenario. Desire to be in the US is not a qualifying parameter at this point of time.
 
You get a point with the family ties. I can't get a credit here as a single person :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top