Naturalization Help!

[finnay]

Can somebody please provide a feedback regarding the following issue:

A couple of days ago, my parents attended the Naturalization interview in Miami. As they were travelling back home for 4-5 month at a time (but never for more then 5 - 5.5 month), total stay in the US for more than half of 5 year period, the officer questioned their continuous residency and scheduled another appointment to review the proof of the above (mortgage, lease, utilities, etc.)

Since I sponsored them for a GC, and they really don't have a lot of money, they lived mostly with me and I payed all those bills. They also drive my car.
For their interview, I gave them an affidavid stating this.

In addition, my father's FBI check did not come through.

My questions are:
Why did BCIS officer demanding the proof of residency despite the instructions for naturalization stating that one only needs to prove continues residency only if absent for more than 6 month?
What can my parents bring to the interview, if there is no paperwork that BCIS is asking? My neighbors and condo association is very well aware of the fact that my parents live with me.
How do we deal with FBI name check completion?
My parents are quite ill, late 60's couple from Eastern Europe. They were travelling back home for medical purpose as I could never affor to pay their medical bills. I am concerned this will take toll on thir condition even more.

Any kind advise will be most appreciated

 

[ocworker]

Why did BCIS officer demanding the proof of residency despite the instructions for naturalization stating that one only needs to prove continues residency only if absent for more than 6 month?

i believe the interview officer can ask anything s/he wants to during the naturalization interview. if they believe your parents trying to trick the system by coming to US for few months, and leave for 5-5.5 months, they might want to see some proves even thought the trips were less than 6 months. basically it raises a red flag to them saying "why travel out so often if the person should mean to live in US (PR)".

 

[truckensafely]

I would say since they lived with you most of the time you must attend the next interview with your parents & try & explain the situation to the intreviewing officer.

 

[sony55]

i believe the interview officer can ask anything s/he wants to during the naturalization interview. if they believe your parents trying to trick the system by coming to US for few months, and leave for 5-5.5 months, they might want to see some proves even thought the trips were less than 6 months. basically it raises a red flag to them saying "why travel out so often if the person should mean to live in US (PR)".

No, the officer can NOT ask anything he/she wants. They do, however, have the authority to ask whatever they want within the frame drawn by the law!

So, absolute authority = NO, governed authorit = Yes. Immigrants should not be scared like chicken and think that the Immigrations officers are GOD.

That being said, I think the officer in this case was right and his / her questioning was legal and within the law.

sONY

 

[finnay]

i believe the interview officer can ask anything s/he wants to during the naturalization interview. if they believe your parents trying to trick the system by coming to US for few months, and leave for 5-5.5 months, they might want to see some proves even thought the trips were less than 6 months. basically it raises a red flag to them saying "why travel out so often if the person should mean to live in US (PR)".

So basically the proof in terns of dates of entries in the passports would not satisfy the officer?
And why would that be a "trick" to travel outside the US for 5.5 month if INA clearly states that trips for less than 6 month do not break continiuos residence?
By the same logic, cops can still give you a ticket if you drive 54 mph in 55 mph zone, since they assume you are trying to trick the speed limit.
I guess the letter of law does not mean much to the BCIS these days.

 

[ateganda29]

i believe that a trip outside the US for less than 6 months itself does not raise a flag. what i think raised the flag on your parents is the fact that it is a habitual thing over the past 5 years. although trips outside the US for less than 6 months does not generally question ones continuous residency. but i believe when it comes down to applying for naturalization, they look at the situation cumulatively. so if your parents do that annually, the officer may interpret that your parents have been here half of the 5 year period (since they're out of the country 5-5.5 months at a time each year). i think it's best if you go with them to their next interview to better articulate your parents situation.

 

[John Sreedhar]

What are the chances of denial in such cases? Which point the officer raises in denying the case?

Johnnycash,Joef,Rahul your views please?

 

[ocworker]

No, the officer can NOT ask anything he/she wants. They do, however, have the authority to ask whatever they want within the frame drawn by the law!

So, absolute authority = NO, governed authorit = Yes. Immigrants should not be scared like chicken and think that the Immigrations officers are GOD.

That being said, I think the officer in this case was right and his / her questioning was legal and within the law.

sONY

i agree with you. however, people must know the "law" in order to determine if the officer asks within the frame drawn by the law.

asking to proof of residence is nothing wrong from the USCIS point of view.

 

[finnay]

Yes. They see a pattern, and of course, such a pattern raises suspicions. It looks too much as if they lived abroad, and just came to the US once in a while. And that has never been enough to keep the GC. It raises the possibility that they may have abandoned their GCs, and of course, if that's the case, naturalization isn't possible.
So, you have to distinguish between the 6-month break of the continuous residency requirement and the requirements to maintain the GC. I think in this case the latter one is really the issue.

Joe,

I don't think your statement necessarily applies for my partucular case. During 5-year period, they been absent from the U.S. for 618 days out of total 1825 days which amount to less than 34 % of the time. Furthermore, none of their four trips had been longer than 5.5 month ( 2 of them were less than 5 month).
I might very well be missing something here, but how does this leads to abandoning their GCs and making them ineligible for naturalization?

Thanks,
Pablo

 

[sony55]

i agree with you. however, people must know the "law" in order to determine if the officer asks within the frame drawn by the law.

asking to proof of residence is nothing wrong from the USCIS point of view.

Exactly, and that's what i meant when i said

That being said, I think the officer in this case was right and his / her questioning was legal and within the law

sOny