Local DOs and Denial Due To Continuous Residency

[immigrateful]

Hi,

I'm aware of two cases on this forum that are heading the denial path due to too many back-to-back long trips outside of the USA during the 5 year period preceding the N-400 application. Both of these cases are with the Tampa DO.

I am with the San Francisco DO and my question is this: Will some DOs look at the application more favorably than others as far as CR is concerned?

Also, are there any on this forum who've had a positive adjudication with the San Francisco DO despite having long back-to-back trips outside of the USA?

Or is it pretty much a definite denial irrespective of the DO you're at if you have too many trips (but within the regulations, i.e., < 6 months, meeting PP requirements, etc) outside of the USA?

 

[ccordova624]

Where I volunteer I have seen several cases from applicants that have been denied from having "back-to-back" trips.
We knew they were going to be denied, we adviced them to wait, but they opted to apply anyways, thinking that USCIS will not noticed or that they may have a "nice" officer that will not look at those trips.

Some of those applicants had trips for 5 month & 28 days and then a week later they will leave the US for another 5 months 26 days... and so on...
They though that staying outside the US less than 6 months they will be fine... WRONG!
So several of them will have to start counting 5 years after their last trip, which for many will be starting 4 months ago.

USCIS its not stupid... they know what you guys do.

A green card is for PERMANENT RESIDENCY in the U.S. no for just quick visits and being out for more that 5 months back to back. If those applicants dont need the GC they should surrendered it and move for good to their country.

BTW: All those applicants were in the SF DO.

 

[McMahon]

If you have taken back-to-back-to-back tong trips outside the United States you kind of know that your application may be shaky. The USCIS is federal, and in my opinion no matter which Service Center processes your case and which District conducts your interview you may be putting yourself at risk by submitting an application with potential flaws.
----------------------
Detroit DO - NSC
09/28/98 Entered on K-1 (Fiance) Visa
12/19/98 Married with US Citizen (still happily married 9 years after )
12/24/98 Filed I-485, I-130, I-765 in OKC (NSC)
01/03/99 Moved to Texas (TSC)
05/xx/00 Moved to Eastern PA (VSC)
11/xx/00 Moved to Central NJ (VSC)
03/19/01 LPR
03/xx/03 Received GC dated 03/19/2001
03/20/07 N-400 Priority Date
04/12/07 FP done
09/19/07 Interview passed
10/26/07 Naturalized Citizen

 

[boatbod]

I've been saying that back-to-back trips are a bad idea for at least 18 months. Most people understand the logic of "intent", but there are still those that cannot look beyond the 'single trip' rules defined in 8.CFR.316 Sometimes no amount of telling is sufficient, and they just have to learn the hard way.

 

[TheBlueGod]

I've been saying that back-to-back trips are a bad idea for at least 18 months. Most people understand the logic of "intent", but there are still those that cannot look beyond the 'single trip' rules defined in 8.CFR.316 Sometimes no amount of telling is sufficient, and they just have to learn the hard way.

Understood. However, each case is different and I have some faith in the system, ie that they look at the individual circumstances.

Some people do have extentuating circumstances eg. taking care of a very sick family member abroad who is in hospital (I've read about one such case). In my case I was doing my postdoctoral fellowship abroad for 3 yrs - so for 3 yrs my record is filled with more than half-a-dozen back to back trips abroad as I came back here ever 4 months to see my family (coudn't afford to come back more often than that on an academic salary).

I applied for citizenship last year, 3 yrs after returning for good, and after 7 yrs of having my Green Card. Yes an IO could just turn down my case at the interview, but the fact that they allow you to apply means that they are willing to listen to your evidence of why you needed to be out. I have all the documents to show the temporary nature of the postdoc research, my family being here in the U.S during that time, my coming back frequently (to the extent that I could afford) to see them, and my paying U.S taxes all through.

Bottom-line, most of my life has been in the U.S - I'm confident of showing that a temporary 3 yr educational program abroad does not constitute an intent to abandon my residency here.

 

[Jackolantern]

I applied for citizenship last year, 3 yrs after returning for good, and after 7 yrs of having my Green Card. Yes an IO could just turn down my case at the interview, but the fact that they allow you to apply means that they are willing to listen to your evidence of why you needed to be out. I have all the documents to show the temporary nature of the postdoc research, my family being here in the U.S during that time, my coming back frequently (to the extent that I could afford) to see them, and my paying U.S taxes all through.

At least you are aware of the issue and realize you have a burden of proof to overcome. But some mistakenly think they'll be fine simply because no single trip was longer than 6 months.

 

[boatbod]

Understood. However, each case is different and I have some faith in the system, ie that they look at the individual circumstances.

They do, and sometimes overseas study is considered an acceptable reason. Less so with family medical issues, but still not impossible.

 

[immigrateful]

Most people understand the logic of "intent", but there are still those that cannot look beyond the 'single trip' rules defined in 8.CFR.316

Shouldn't the 8.CFR 316 be re-worded or revised then? It seems to misleading and hurting people who want to play within the rules (not play with the rules as people on this board sometimes assume by default).

 

[Bobsmyth]

Shouldn't the 8.CFR 316 be re-worded or revised then? It seems to misleading and hurting people who want to play within the rules (not play with the rules as people on this board sometimes assume by default).

It goes back to the question of intent. Rules are written as a guideline to USCIS adjudication. If applicants think they can circumvent the rules by playing with the dates without regard to intent, they are preparing themselves for definite failure.

 

[boatbod]

Shouldn't the 8.CFR 316 be re-worded or revised then? It seems to misleading and hurting people who want to play within the rules (not play with the rules as people on this board sometimes assume by default).

Maybe, but the rules written by Congress only provide the framework, and USCIS has been given the responsibility (and a fairly free hand) in the actual implementation. If an N-400 is denied due to continuous residence issues, the applicant can appeal the decision and have a hearing before a judge. Under those circumstances, the judge must follow the law (as written in 8.CFR) and prior case precedent, rather than the USCIS playbook that the IOs use.