"Live, work, and/or keep ties" evidence question

[Sarah9898]

Hi everyone,

I finally finished off my N-400 and was just reviewing the document checklist before I sent it off and I hit a total roadblock.

A brief run-down of my situation: I am 25 years old, applying for naturalization. I'm a Canadian citizen and grew up there. In 2004-2008, I attended school in Canada (cheap tuition). I generally came back to the US every few months (for summers and school breaks, etc.), except for two supremely stupid instances: once in the summer of 2005, when my 19 year old stupid self decided it would be fun to stay in Canada for the summer and take an unpaid internship at an elementary school, and once again in the summer of 2006, when I again decided to take an unpaid internship in Canada and spend the summer there instead of going back to the US. These two years happened to coincide with years where my family decided to spend the holidays in Canada (we have extended family there and sometime spend the holiday break with them), so I didn't go back to the US for Christmas break either.

Because of that, now I have two ugly stains on my citizenship application (two trips that were longer than one year). This is what my dates of travel for that period now look like (everything after the last 2008 trip is negligible i.e. a few short trips here and there, none for longer than 1 week):

Jan 2008 to May 2008
Sept 2007 to Dec 2007
June 2006 to August 2007
September 2005 to April 2006
June 2005 to August 2005
Sept 2005 to Dec 2005
Jan 2005 to May 2005
Sept 2004 to Dec 2004

So it's been 4 years and 1 day since the last long trip, so I thought I was in the clear and could now send in my application. But then I looked at the document checklist and realized I don't have (and really, couldn't have feasibly had in my situation) any of the documents that they suggested I provide in situations where you take a longer trip. I don't have rent checks because I was a student/in my teens, so couldn't have possibly afforded to pay rent in an apartment in the US while paying for my student apartment in Canada. I also don't have tax returns for those two years because I made no money and so wasn't required to file one. I was also generally independent from my family during this time and didn't live with them, so getting information from them is not an option.

The only remotely relevant thing I have is a reentry permit that I applied for in Dec. 2007. The reason I applied for that was that my parents had been told at the border that some of the the longer trips they took were problematic. They were allowed in, but just told that they needed to get a re-entry permit the next time they left. I applied for one during Christmas break (Dec 2007) after hearing that story because I was concerned that I might not be allowed back in when the semester finished in May 2008. I didn't end up needing to use it though because no one seemed to care about the four-month absence at the border. Is that good enough? Am I going to be denied because I don't have the tax returns, or are they generally not that strict on that requirement?

 

[baikal3]

Hi everyone,

I finally finished off my N-400 and was just reviewing the document checklist before I sent it off and I hit a total roadblock.

A brief run-down of my situation: I am 25 years old, applying for naturalization. I'm a Canadian citizen and grew up there. In 2004-2008, I attended school in Canada (cheap tuition). I generally came back to the US every few months (for summers and school breaks, etc.), except for two supremely stupid instances: once in the summer of 2005, when my 19 year old stupid self decided it would be fun to stay in Canada for the summer and take an unpaid internship at an elementary school, and once again in the summer of 2006, when I again decided to take an unpaid internship in Canada and spend the summer there instead of going back to the US. These two years happened to coincide with years where my family decided to spend the holidays in Canada (we have extended family there and sometime spend the holiday break with them), so I didn't go back to the US for Christmas break either.

Because of that, now I have two ugly stains on my citizenship application (two trips that were longer than one year). This is what my dates of travel for that period now look like (everything after the last 2008 trip is negligible i.e. a few short trips here and there, none for longer than 1 week):

Jan 2008 to May 2008
Sept 2007 to Dec 2007
June 2006 to August 2007
September 2005 to April 2006
June 2005 to August 2005
Sept 2005 to Dec 2005
Jan 2005 to May 2005
Sept 2004 to Dec 2004

So it's been 4 years and 1 day since the last long trip, so I thought I was in the clear and could now send in my application. But then I looked at the document checklist and realized I don't have (and really, couldn't have feasibly had in my situation) any of the documents that they suggested I provide in situations where you take a longer trip. I don't have rent checks because I was a student/in my teens, so couldn't have possibly afforded to pay rent in an apartment in the US while paying for my student apartment in Canada. I also don't have tax returns for those two years because I made no money and so wasn't required to file one. I was also generally independent from my family during this time and didn't live with them, so getting information from them is not an option.

The only remotely relevant thing I have is a reentry permit that I applied for in Dec. 2007. The reason I applied for that was that my parents had been told at the border that some of the the longer trips they took were problematic. They were allowed in, but just told that they needed to get a re-entry permit the next time they left. I applied for one during Christmas break (Dec 2007) after hearing that story because I was concerned that I might not be allowed back in when the semester finished in May 2008. I didn't end up needing to use it though because no one seemed to care about the four-month absence at the border. Is that good enough? Am I going to be denied because I don't have the tax returns, or are they generally not that strict on that requirement?

In the issues concerning continuous residency the IO adjudicating a particular application has very wide discretion, so it is usually impossible to predict with any certainty how a particular case will play out, until and unless you try. Much depends on your luck with a particular IO.

There are two separate issues you may have to deal with:
1) Some IOs, possibly because of being inexperienced or because of poor understanding of the law, ask for evidence of not having broken continuous residency even for applicants who are applying under the 4 years plus one day rule - where the applicant admits up front that a given absence actually did break continuous residency.

If you do apply under the 4years plus one day rule, I suggest that in part 2 of the form N-400 (basis of eligibility for naturalization) you do not check box A but rather check box D "Other" and write there that you are applying on the basis of 8CFR 316.5(c) (1) (ii) [which is the 4 years plus one day rule]

2) There is a separate issue of maintaining legal permanent residence status and not having abandoned the LPR status.
It may happen that the IO could question if one or both of your foreign trips that lasted over a year actually resulted in your abandoning the LPR status. The bar for proving that the LPR status was not abandoned is lower than for proving that continuous residency was not broken, but you still have to show something. As a practical matter, it seems that not too many IOs raise this issue, and having a reentry permit may be sufficient for overcoming the issue should it come up.

I did not understand what you meant by saying that you ended up not needing a reentry permit to reenter
the U.S. after the June 2006 to August 2007 absence. Do you mean that you actually came back to the U.S. in Dec 2007 for a Christmas break?
Technically, after an uninterrupted absence from the U.S. over a year but less than two years, a CBP agent at the border should not allow a green card holder back in the U.S. unless that green card holder has a valid reentry permit or a returning resident SB-1 visa.

 

[BigJoe5]

In the absence of a re-entry permit, one is encouraged to get an SB-1 Returning Resident Visa. However, the CBP Officer has wide discretionary authority to grant a waiver at the POE (Port-of-Entry). There is a form and a fee avenue for that waiver BUT it is NOT mandatory. CBP can grant such a waiver through an exercise of discretion alone. The evidentiary headache is something that DHS will not deal with to raise an old issue of abandonment of LPR status during naturalization proceedings. The issue of abandonment is now a moot point.

The rebuttal evidence is ONLY needed when one has the shorter (less than 1 year break) and opts to file as soon as otherwise possible instead of waiting out the remedial period. In actually waiting the full remedial period, you are no longer attempting to rebut anything. The rebuttal evidence is now a moot point.

Here is further explanatory information:

http://www.slideshare.net/BigJoe5/n-400-applying-the-remedy
http://www.slideshare.net/BigJoe5/understanding-n400-early-filing
http://www.slideshare.net/BigJoe5/administrative-vs-judicial-remedial-powers

 

[baikal3]

In the absence of a re-entry permit, one is encouraged to get an SB-1 Returning Resident Visa. However, the CBP Officer has wide discretionary authority to grant a waiver at the POE (Port-of-Entry). There is a form and a fee avenue for that waiver BUT it is NOT mandatory. CBP can grant such a waiver through an exercise of discretion alone. The evidentiary headache is something that DHS will not deal with to raise an old issue of abandonment of LPR status during naturalization proceedings. The issue of abandonment is now a moot point.

The rebuttal evidence is ONLY needed when one has the shorter (less than 1 year break) and opts to file as soon as otherwise possible instead of waiting out the remedial period. In actually waiting the full remedial period, you are no longer attempting to rebut anything. The rebuttal evidence is now a moot point.

Here is further explanatory information:

http://www.slideshare.net/BigJoe5/n-400-applying-the-remedy
http://www.slideshare.net/BigJoe5/understanding-n400-early-filing
http://www.slideshare.net/BigJoe5/administrative-vs-judicial-remedial-powers

It may well be that, as you say, the issue of possible abandonment of LPR status should now be considered moot. However, I do remember that there were some relatively recent posts in this forum about cases where the IO raised the issue of possible abandonment of the LPR status for some trips that were over 5 years old - although I do not have links to those threads; maybe someone who follows this forum more closely remembers which threads those were.

To the OP: to underscore the point that IOs, and even supervisors, are sometimes confused/poorly trained in applying the 4 years plus 1 day rule, you can take a look at this thread:
http://forums.immigration.com/showt...-interview-denial-plzz-help&highlight=abandon
So it is a good idea to specify upfront (I would do it by using box D of part 2 of N-400) that you are applying under 8 CFR 316.5(c)(1)(ii) [4 years plus 1 day rule]

 

[baikal3]

Here is a link to a thread
http://forums.immigration.com/showthread.php?354390-proving-the-intent
where the poster applied under the 3 year marriage-based rule, but apparently was asked to prove that he did not abandon the LPR status in relation to some trips that were older than 3 years old.
However, in that case it looks like the applicant filed federal tax returns as non-resident for some of the tax years that were older than 3 years old - so USCIS did have a good reason to raise the issue of possible abandonment of the LPR status - and it seems that eventually N-400 was approved anyway.

 

[BigJoe5]

It may well be that, as you say, the issue of possible abandonment of LPR status should now be considered moot. However, I do remember that there were some relatively recent posts in this forum about cases where the IO raised the issue of possible abandonment of the LPR status for some trips that were over 5 years old - although I do not have links to those threads; maybe someone who follows this forum more closely remembers which threads those were.

To the OP: to underscore the point that IOs, and even supervisors, are sometimes confused/poorly trained in applying the 4 years plus 1 day rule, you can take a look at this thread:
http://forums.immigration.com/showt...-interview-denial-plzz-help&highlight=abandon
So it is a good idea to specify upfront (I would do it by using box D of part 2 of N-400) that you are applying under 8 CFR 316.5(c)(1)(ii) [4 years plus 1 day rule]

Yes, you are right, many folks at USCIS are not well versed in this rule and exactly how it works. That is a the best reason for the applicants to be prepared to "make their case". The basic underlying requirement for any applicant for any benefit under the INA is to demonstrate their eligibility for it.

Good Luck.

 

[Sarah9898]

I did not understand what you meant by saying that you ended up not needing a reentry permit to reenter
the U.S. after the June 2006 to August 2007 absence. Do you mean that you actually came back to the U.S. in Dec 2007 for a Christmas break?
Technically, after an uninterrupted absence from the U.S. over a year but less than two years, a CBP agent at the border should not allow a green card holder back in the U.S. unless that green card holder has a valid reentry permit or a returning resident SB-1 visa.

I'm sorry, that was kind of unclear. Here is what I meant:

when I re-entered the US after the long absences (which was August 2007 and April 2006), the IO raised no issue about the length of the stay. Honestly, I don't even remember being asked about how long I was gone for. I was asked what I did in Canada, and I said I went to school there, and that was pretty much it. I think I was just a young, harmless looking girl who was obviously a student, so maybe that's why they didn't raise a big stink about it? I also think I took the train one of those times (I took the train a lot those days and then flew domestically to get around paying for an international flight), and generally on the train they are pretty lax (nothing gets scanned; they just look at your documents and only ask you to get off to scan your stuff if you have some other issue/complication).

My parents visited Canada in early December 2007. On their way back, the IO brought up the issue of the longer trips they had been taking. He told them he would let them through that time, but they should obtain a re-entry permit to avoid the possibility of being denied re-entry at some future trip. When I flew home to visit them later that month (again, had no problems getting in, didn't even think the long trips were an issue), they told me about the incident and said that I should also try to get a re-entry permit since I had also taken long trips in the past. That way, I wouldn't have any problems coming back once the semester ended (May 2008). (Of course, now I know that that's meaningless because you only need the re-entry permit for when you come back after a long trip, and it doesn't absolve you of your previous longer trips.) That's when I got the re-entry permit, and had it with me when I came back in May 2008 (but of course, didn't need it because I had only been out for 4-5 months). I guess what I'm now wondering is whether the re-entry permit will be viewed as evidence of nonabandonment, even though I got it after the questionable trips.

 

[Sarah9898]

There are two separate issues you may have to deal with:
1) Some IOs, possibly because of being inexperienced or because of poor understanding of the law, ask for evidence of not having broken continuous residency even for applicants who are applying under the 4 years plus one day rule - where the applicant admits up front that a given absence actually did break continuous residency.

If you do apply under the 4years plus one day rule, I suggest that in part 2 of the form N-400 (basis of eligibility for naturalization) you do not check box A but rather check box D "Other" and write there that you are applying on the basis of 8CFR 316.5(c) (1) (ii) [which is the 4 years plus one day rule]

Thanks for this. I totally would not have known! There is no risk that this would overly confuse them though, right? BigJoe5, do you also recommend doing this?

 

[Sarah9898]

In the absence of a re-entry permit, one is encouraged to get an SB-1 Returning Resident Visa. However, the CBP Officer has wide discretionary authority to grant a waiver at the POE (Port-of-Entry). There is a form and a fee avenue for that waiver BUT it is NOT mandatory. CBP can grant such a waiver through an exercise of discretion alone. The evidentiary headache is something that DHS will not deal with to raise an old issue of abandonment of LPR status during naturalization proceedings. The issue of abandonment is now a moot point.

The rebuttal evidence is ONLY needed when one has the shorter (less than 1 year break) and opts to file as soon as otherwise possible instead of waiting out the remedial period. In actually waiting the full remedial period, you are no longer attempting to rebut anything. The rebuttal evidence is now a moot point.

This was the clearest, most wonderful explanation ever. Essentially, I would have needed to provide that evidence if I had applied as soon as I was eligible (which was about 14 months ago). Now, no longer need to worry about it because I chose to stick it out--right? Thanks! You guys are amazing.

 

[baikal3]

I'm sorry, that was kind of unclear. Here is what I meant:

when I re-entered the US after the long absences (which was August 2007 and April 2006), the IO raised no issue about the length of the stay. Honestly, I don't even remember being asked about how long I was gone for. I was asked what I did in Canada, and I said I went to school there, and that was pretty much it. I think I was just a young, harmless looking girl who was obviously a student, so maybe that's why they didn't raise a big stink about it? I also think I took the train one of those times (I took the train a lot those days and then flew domestically to get around paying for an international flight), and generally on the train they are pretty lax (nothing gets scanned; they just look at your documents and only ask you to get off to scan your stuff if you have some other issue/complication).

My parents visited Canada in early December 2007. On their way back, the IO brought up the issue of the longer trips they had been taking. He told them he would let them through that time, but they should obtain a re-entry permit to avoid the possibility of being denied re-entry at some future trip. When I flew home to visit them later that month (again, had no problems getting in, didn't even think the long trips were an issue), they told me about the incident and said that I should also try to get a re-entry permit since I had also taken long trips in the past. That way, I wouldn't have any problems coming back once the semester ended (May 2008). (Of course, now I know that that's meaningless because you only need the re-entry permit for when you come back after a long trip, and it doesn't absolve you of your previous longer trips.) That's when I got the re-entry permit, and had it with me when I came back in May 2008 (but of course, didn't need it because I had only been out for 4-5 months). I guess what I'm now wondering is whether the re-entry permit will be viewed as evidence of nonabandonment, even though I got it after the questionable trips.

Hmm. First, you should really try to get the info about your entries to/exits from the U.S. straight, and try to recover at least approximate info about all your trips, including the ones by train/car.

Second, taking a closer look at your original post, it is not clear to me when you should start counting your continuous residency clock as having resumed.
In particular, you mention the last two absences from the U.S., Sept 2007 to Dec 2007, and Jan 2008 to May 2008, when, as I understand it, you were still a student in Canada.
Although these absences are less than 6 months each, they are stacked close together, and they are also close to the June 2006 to August 2007 absence. A foreign trip less than 6 months in duration may still be viewed as having broken continuous residency under some circumstances and it seems likely to me that those circumstances may well apply to you. I believe that your continuous residency clock has really re-started only when you came back to the U.S. in May 2008, rather than in August 2007 as you seem to think.

 

[Sarah9898]

To the OP: to underscore the point that IOs, and even supervisors, are sometimes confused/poorly trained in applying the 4 years plus 1 day rule, you can take a look at this thread:
http://forums.immigration.com/showt...-interview-denial-plzz-help&highlight=abandon
So it is a good idea to specify upfront (I would do it by using box D of part 2 of N-400) that you are applying under 8 CFR 316.5(c)(1)(ii) [4 years plus 1 day rule]

That thread scares the crap out of me, since it's essentially the same situation (except mine is a bit more questionable). And given the office I'll be applying at, I'm almost sure I will have the same problem (I don't think this office has the best reputation). Hopefully they surprise me by knowing better.

 

[Sarah9898]

Second, taking a closer look at your original post, it is not clear to me when you should start counting your continuous residency clock as having resumed.
In particular, you mention the last two absences from the U.S., Sept 2007 to Dec 2007, and Jan 2008 to May 2008, when, as I understand it, you were still a student in Canada.
Although these absences are less than 6 months each, they are stacked close together, and they are also close to the June 2006 to August 2007 absence. A foreign trip less than 6 months in duration may still be viewed as having broken continuous residency under some circumstances and it seems likely to me that those circumstances may well apply to you. I believe that your continuous residency clock has really re-started only when you came back to the U.S. in May 2008, rather than in August 2007 as you seem to think.

Well that date was just what people told me on a previous thread http://forums.immigration.com/showthread.php?318233-What-s-the-worst-case-scenario. There, I was even more confused and was worried about losing my greencard in case my application was denied. Everyone said that I wouldn't lose it, but I would likely be denied because I wasn't eligible until Aug. 2011. What exactly are the circumstances?

 

[BigJoe5]

This was the clearest, most wonderful explanation ever. Essentially, I would have needed to provide that evidence if I had applied as soon as I was eligible (which was about 14 months ago). Now, no longer need to worry about it because I chose to stick it out--right? Thanks! You guys are amazing.

YOU had a break in excess of one year, therefore, you were NOT eligible to file and submit any rebuttal evidence in the first place.

IF anyone had a break of 1 yr or more (and you did) and had filed before waiting 4 yrs and 1 day before filing, it would have been denied.

 

[baikal3]

Well that date was just what people told me on a previous thread http://forums.immigration.com/showthread.php?318233-What-s-the-worst-case-scenario. There, I was even more confused and was worried about losing my greencard in case my application was denied. Everyone said that I wouldn't lose it, but I would likely be denied because I wasn't eligible until Aug. 2011. What exactly are the circumstances?

It is hard to enumerate those circumstances precisely, the IO really looks at each case individually.
However, in general, when a sequence of extended absences (even if they are shorter than 6 months each) are stacked close together, with brief periods of presence in the U.S. separating them, the IO may be likely to regard those absences essentially as a single long absence, at least for the purposes of determining continuous residency.
That appears to apply to you: E.g. you were absent from the U.S. 09/2005 to 04/2006, then 06/2006 to 08/2007, then 09/2007 to 12/2007, then 1/2008 to 5/2008.
Moreover, during this whole period your circumstances, regarding ties to the U.S., did not change: you were a student studying abroad, you did not have a job or another source of income in the U.S., and did not maintain an apartment/house in the U.S.
I think it will be very hard for you to argue that somehow after coming to the U.S. in Aug 2007 (as I understood, basically for the summer break, between the semesters in Canada) you somehow resumed close ties to the U.S. and have re-started your continuous residency.
Moreover, the last absence (from January to May 2008) was less than 6 months long, and I am not sure that you can use the 4 years plus one day rule in the case that your continuous residency is considered to have resumed in May 2008.
Perhaps BigJoe5 can comment on that.

In my own view, the safest thing for you to do is to apply 5 years minus 90 days after the return from that last trip, in May 2008 - meaning applying somewhere in early March 2013.

 

[Sarah9898]

It is hard to enumerate those circumstances precisely, the IO really looks at each case individually.
However, in general, when a sequence of extended absences (even if they are shorter than 6 months each) are stacked close together, with brief periods of presence in the U.S. separating them, the IO may be likely to regard those absences essentially as a single long absence, at least for the purposes of determining continuous residency.
That appears to apply to you: E.g. you were absent from the U.S. 09/2005 to 04/2006, then 06/2006 to 08/2007, then 09/2007 to 12/2007, then 1/2008 to 5/2008.
Moreover, during this whole period your circumstances, regarding ties to the U.S., did not change: you were a student studying abroad, you did not have a job or another source of income in the U.S., and did not maintain an apartment/house in the U.S.
I think it will be very hard for you to argue that somehow after coming to the U.S. in Aug 2007 (as I understood, basically for the summer break, between the semesters in Canada) you somehow resumed close ties to the U.S. and have re-started your continuous residency.
Moreover, the last absence (from January to May 2008) was less than 6 months long, and I am not sure that you can use the 4 years plus one day rule in the case that your continuous residency is considered to have resumed in May 2008.
Perhaps BigJoe5 can comment on that.

In my own view, the safest thing for you to do is to apply 5 years minus 90 days after the return from that last trip, in May 2008 - meaning applying somewhere in early March 2013.

Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot to mention this earlier. The August 2007 trip is a bit of an important trip for me because of personal circumstances. My birthday is in August, and this trip was only a few days after my twenty-first birthday (strategically timed so that I would be able to rent a car and go look at apartments/job interviews, convince someone to lease me an apartment in the first place, etc.). I knew I only had one more year of school left so I took care of a bunch of things that I had been in preparation for moving back. I got a CA driver's license during that trip, a US credit card (had been using a Canadian one before), and actually signed a lease for an apartment with a friend (name was on lease, apartment subletted to someone else until May of the following year). When I went back to Canada after that, I started applying for grad schools in the US. During the December trip, I interviewed for and got a job for the following summer (before starting grad school).

All in all, I feel like I coincidentally did enough after August 2007 that I can definitively distinguish that trip from the others (but please tell me if I'm wrong!), mostly because I had to grow up, take control of my life and do the things that adults do when they live somewhere. The three years before that, I was kind of a typical stupid aimless student, which is bad because apparently aimless college students leave no paper trails that they can use for immigration purposes!

 

[Sarah9898]

YOU had a break in excess of one year, therefore, you were NOT eligible to file and submit any rebuttal evidence in the first place.

IF anyone had a break of 1 yr or more (and you did) and had filed before waiting 4 yrs and 1 day before filing, it would have been denied.

Sorry, bad wording on my part. That's what I meant.

 

[baikal3]

Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot to mention this earlier. The August 2007 trip is a bit of an important trip for me because of personal circumstances. My birthday is in August, and this trip was only a few days after my twenty-first birthday (strategically timed so that I would be able to rent a car and go look at apartments/job interviews, convince someone to lease me an apartment in the first place, etc.). I knew I only had one more year of school left so I took care of a bunch of things that I had been in preparation for moving back. I got a CA driver's license during that trip, a US credit card (had been using a Canadian one before), and actually signed a lease for an apartment with a friend (name was on lease, apartment subletted to someone else until May of the following year). When I went back to Canada after that, I started applying for grad schools in the US. During the December trip, I interviewed for and got a job for the following summer (before starting grad school).

All in all, I feel like I coincidentally did enough after August 2007 that I can definitively distinguish that trip from the others (but please tell me if I'm wrong!), mostly because I had to grow up, take control of my life and do the things that adults do when they live somewhere. The three years before that, I was kind of a typical stupid aimless student, which is bad because apparently aimless college students leave no paper trails that they can use for immigration purposes!

Things like getting a California driver's license and a U.S. credit card do not count for much in terms of establishing continuous residency. Getting a lease for an apartment in the U.S. does count for something, but as you subletted the apartment, you did not retain unrestricted physical access to and use of that apartment until the following May; so ultimately it is not a big enough factor in your favor either. In terms of applications to graduate schools, that is even more ephemeral as far as establishing continuous residency is concerned. Those applications might not have worked out, you could have gone to grad school in Canada or some other foreign country, etc.

In my opinion, you have very little chance of succeeding if you apply before March 2013 - that is if you try to claim having re-established continuous residency in the U.S. in August 2007 and apply now under the 4 years plus one day rule.
However, ultimately, you would only be losing time and money if you do that - even if your application is denied on continuous residency grounds, you will be able to re-apply later. So if you don't mind taking the financial risk and expanding the time and effort for preparing the application, and then dealing with fingerprinting, interview, etc, you could apply now and see what happens....

 

[BigJoe5]

It is hard to enumerate those circumstances precisely, the IO really looks at each case individually.
However, in general, when a sequence of extended absences (even if they are shorter than 6 months each) are stacked close together, with brief periods of presence in the U.S. separating them, the IO may be likely to regard those absences essentially as a single long absence, at least for the purposes of determining continuous residency.
That appears to apply to you: E.g. you were absent from the U.S. 09/2005 to 04/2006, then 06/2006 to 08/2007, then 09/2007 to 12/2007, then 1/2008 to 5/2008.
Moreover, during this whole period your circumstances, regarding ties to the U.S., did not change: you were a student studying abroad, you did not have a job or another source of income in the U.S., and did not maintain an apartment/house in the U.S.
I think it will be very hard for you to argue that somehow after coming to the U.S. in Aug 2007 (as I understood, basically for the summer break, between the semesters in Canada) you somehow resumed close ties to the U.S. and have re-started your continuous residency.
Moreover, the last absence (from January to May 2008) was less than 6 months long, and I am not sure that you can use the 4 years plus one day rule in the case that your continuous residency is considered to have resumed in May 2008.
Perhaps BigJoe5 can comment on that.

In my own view, the safest thing for you to do is to apply 5 years minus 90 days after the return from that last trip, in May 2008 - meaning applying somewhere in early March 2013.

As a student who left the nest to attend a Canadian university, and presuming you are dependent on your parents financially then you are not otherwise similarly situated as the other folks who have encountered problems, even the Filipino student who had a thread her not long ago. He stayed home with grandma and stayed on after graduating to work without a re-entry permit.

Let me ask a few questions:

How close to the border do your parents live? How far away did you go for school? What I'm driving at is that it all depends on a bunch of things specific to your case. If your parents live in say, Miami or San Diego or Houston, it really makes little difference about the rest, at least an annual trip is usually expected but missing it once is no big deal. However, if your parents live in Detroit and you went to school in Windsor, you'd be expected to come home a heck of a lot more or even commute. The same would be true if they lived in Buffalo and you went to school in Toronto; or if they lived in Seattle and you went to school in BC; or Fargo and Winnipeg. You see, if it is an easy thing, more visits are expected.

USCIS will look at the specifics of each case and weigh the evidence and circumstances based on the totality of everything available.

Suppose that your folks stay in the U.S. and you went to Mumbai or Manila or Bejing or Sydney, then an annual trip home would be all that is expected at most. However, without a re-entry permit, this sample student would be in trouble if they stayed abroad for over a year as they would have trouble even getting on a plane. You however, could just show up at a land border.

There are other factors to consider which you have not mentioned. Did you live with relatives while going to school? (Grandparents, aunts, uncles?) OR did you live on-campus or nearby but not with family? Was your primary purpose "just an education" or were you working in a family business or only going to school part-time?

Examples of NON-students who run into real problems are:

*A head of household or that person's spouse going "home" to tend to elderly parents and/or the family business for numerous lengthy periods has problems with filing an N-400 too soon. It is worse when they bring the little kids with them.

*The spouse of a USC who is living abroad with mama and papa instead of with hubby or wifey has even greater concerns on the marital union question in addition to residence. Are they really "cousins" who married for a greencard?

*Elderly "parents of a USC" who spend as much time as humanly possible "back home" and fail to make any effort whatsoever to assimilate into American society have additional problems because many will also be filing form N-648 to try to get out of learning any English or civics and really are suspected of planning to collect SSI and move back home forever upon naturalization.

Looking at YOU, I don't see any real problem. But what do I know? I never met you and certainly don't have full details, however, from what you presented, I would be surprised if you had problems with getting an N-400 approved. They only thing I would wonder about is if you had already become a USC through your parents, in which case, an N-400 MUST be denied. A "current" USC cannot be naturalized.

 

[Sarah9898]

As a student who left the nest to attend a Canadian university, and presuming you are dependent on your parents financially then you are not otherwise similarly situated as the other folks who have encountered problems, even the Filipino student who had a thread her not long ago. He stayed home with grandma and stayed on after graduating to work without a re-entry permit.

Let me ask a few questions:

How close to the border do your parents live? How far away did you go for school? What I'm driving at is that it all depends on a bunch of things specific to your case. If your parents live in say, Miami or San Diego or Houston, it really makes little difference about the rest, at least an annual trip is usually expected but missing it once is no big deal. However, if your parents live in Detroit and you went to school in Windsor, you'd be expected to come home a heck of a lot more or even commute. The same would be true if they lived in Buffalo and you went to school in Toronto; or if they lived in Seattle and you went to school in BC; or Fargo and Winnipeg. You see, if it is an easy thing, more visits are expected.

USCIS will look at the specifics of each case and weigh the evidence and circumstances based on the totality of everything available.

Suppose that your folks stay in the U.S. and you went to Mumbai or Manila or Bejing or Sydney, then an annual trip home would be all that is expected at most. However, without a re-entry permit, this sample student would be in trouble if they stayed abroad for over a year as they would have trouble even getting on a plane. You however, could just show up at a land border.

There are other factors to consider which you have not mentioned. Did you live with relatives while going to school? (Grandparents, aunts, uncles?) OR did you live on-campus or nearby but not with family? Was your primary purpose "just an education" or were you working in a family business or only going to school part-time?

Examples of NON-students who run into real problems are:

*A head of household or that person's spouse going "home" to tend to elderly parents and/or the family business for numerous lengthy periods has problems with filing an N-400 too soon. It is worse when they bring the little kids with them.

*The spouse of a USC who is living abroad with mama and papa instead of with hubby or wifey has even greater concerns on the marital union question in addition to residence. Are they really "cousins" who married for a greencard?

*Elderly "parents of a USC" who spend as much time as humanly possible "back home" and fail to make any effort whatsoever to assimilate into American society have additional problems because many will also be filing form N-648 to try to get out of learning any English or civics and really are suspected of planning to collect SSI and move back home forever upon naturalization.

Looking at YOU, I don't see any real problem. But what do I know? I never met you and certainly don't have full details, however, from what you presented, I would be surprised if you had problems with getting an N-400 approved. They only thing I would wonder about is if you had already become a USC through your parents, in which case, an N-400 MUST be denied. A "current" USC cannot be naturalized.

Here are the answers:

- Parents lived in California; I went to school a few hours outside Toronto. It was expensive and frankly really unpleasant to fly (no option to directly fly--you either had take the train into Buffalo and fly from there, or take the bus into Toronto and fly from there--I usually did the former because it was cheaper than paying for an international flight). My parents did a lot of back and forth during that time because of a family emergency (family member got diagnosed with a life-threatening illness and they had to help them deal with it) but I was really generally separate from them. The majority of my extended family was in USA. My older brother also went to school in Canada but moved to the US shortly after graduation.

- Did not live with family. I have no family in the college town that I went to school in. I lived in college dorms and later shared a house with friends near the school.

- Was not really working. By that I mean that I had a part-time job in my senior year where I made a negligible amount of money, and I had a couple of internships here and there (mostly unpaid). I had a temporary summer job for about six weeks in the summer of 2007 because I just wanted to save some money for various expenses I would have in CA and for grad school applications. All in all, I was primarily a student.