My interview today !!! kinda lost !

[desperate2]

Hey everybody,
i need help. Today i had my interview, and the following is my timeline :
Permanent resident on July 2001
Left on August 2001- Returned january 2002 (Medical school abroad)
Left on february 2002- Returned august 2002 (<6 months) (Medical school abroad)
Left on september 2002- Returned january 2003 (Medical school abroad)
Left on March 2003- Returned september 2003 (< 6 months) (Medical school abroad)
September 2003- Present: Here all the time

Sooo, the IO told me that the period from july 2001 till september 2003 is the problem coz i did not actually establish residence here. I explained about the school and all, and he seemed to understand, but his point is that i did not seem to do any of the things to prove residence, even if the trips are less than 6 months, but it still looks as i was living abroad most of the time.

So he stated that i should start counting from september 2003, up to 4 years and 1 day, and that i should be eligible september 2007 (This september). So, now i'm awfully confused about this 4 year + 1 day rule thing. when can u and when can't u apply it ? is he accurate about what he said, or i should wait till june 2008 (90 days before september 2008; 5 year anniversary)?

Please help me with your opinion and experience, and i would appreciate it if anybody has any links talking more thoroughly about this 4 year rule, as what they discussed in the naturalization guide is quite confusing.

Thank you all. Appreciate your replies.

 

[boatbod]

I'm not surprised to hear the IO had an issue with your travel from 2001 thru 2003. The opinion I've consistently offered to anyone that'll listen is that repeated "visits" to the US every 6 months do nothing towards retaining your residency for natz purposes. It seems your interview experience unfortunately backs up this viewpoint.

My understanding of the 4yr+1day rule is it can only be applied when you are away from the US longer than 1 year. If it could be applied to trips shorter than 1 year, you'd effectively be able to reduce your overall N-400 waiting period to something less than the original 5 years. That said, I don't think we've had anyone report back after successfully invoking the 4+1 rule, so your mileage may vary.

Good luck with whichever option you decide to take.

 

[desperate2]

If i decided to take the 5 year route, will i still be able to apply 90 days before completion of the 5 years i.e.: June 2008 ?? or i will have to wait till september 2008 ?

 

[takadigi]

If i decided to take the 5 year route, will i still be able to apply 90 days before completion of the 5 years i.e.: June 2008 ?? or i will have to wait till september 2008 ?

Taking the 4 years + 1 day would be almost 9 months quicker for you. So, why would you still have to wait for 5 years - 90 days?

 

[boatbod]

Taking the 4 years + 1 day would be almost 9 months quicker for you. So, why would you still have to wait for 5 years - 90 days?

...because its not clear whether 4yr+1day rule applies since none of the absences were longer than 1 year. The text of 8.CFR.316.5 appears simple enough, but yet IO's and lawyers still differ in their opinion of applicability.

(ii) For period in excess of one (1) year. Unless an applicant applies for benefits in accordance with Sec. 316.5(d), absences from the United States for a continuous period of one (1) year or more during the period for which continuous residence is required under Sec. 316.2 (a)(3) and (a)(5) shall disrupt the continuity of the applicant's residence. An applicant described in this paragraph who must satisfy a five-year statutory residence period may file an application for naturalization four years and one day following the date of the applicant's return to the United States to resume permanent residence.​

Yes, the 90 day early application would still be available if you choose that route.

 

[zap]

Well, this this an area where there is no clear law or regulation which leads to different interpretations. It could go either way but I think you should appeal. Actually 4 year + 1 day rule does not apply in this case(only for trips last long than 1 year). Since you don't have trip lasting even longer than 6 month, so after which trip should you start count 4 years + 1 day? Theoretically you could count from the second to the last trip and be eligible now. See the problem? No clear rule to apply for this situation.

 

[query11.]

Hey everybody,
i need help. Today i had my interview, and the following is my timeline :
Permanent resident on July 2001
Left on August 2001- Returned january 2002 (Medical school abroad)
Left on february 2002- Returned august 2002 (<6 months) (Medical school abroad)
Left on september 2002- Returned january 2003 (Medical school abroad)
Left on March 2003- Returned september 2003 (< 6 months) (Medical school abroad)
September 2003- Present: Here all the time

Sooo, the IO told me that the period from july 2001 till september 2003 is the problem coz i did not actually establish residence here. I explained about the school and all, and he seemed to understand, but his point is that i did not seem to do any of the things to prove residence, even if the trips are less than 6 months, but it still looks as i was living abroad most of the time.

So he stated that i should start counting from september 2003, up to 4 years and 1 day, and that i should be eligible september 2007 (This september). So, now i'm awfully confused about this 4 year + 1 day rule thing. when can u and when can't u apply it ? is he accurate about what he said, or i should wait till june 2008 (90 days before september 2008; 5 year anniversary)?

Please help me with your opinion and experience, and i would appreciate it if anybody has any links talking more thoroughly about this 4 year rule, as what they discussed in the naturalization guide is quite confusing.

Thank you all. Appreciate your replies.

Could you please be more specific with the dates and give the exact number of days collectively you have been out of u.s.
please post the exact number of days you have been out since pr.