Or hopefully the IO doesn't decide to deny the case outright based on not meeting continuous residency requirement at the time of interview.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Question - Interview Date Before Meeting Requirement
- Thread starter syriano
- Start date
Or hopefully the IO doesn't decide to deny the case outright based on not meeting continuous residency requirement at the time of interview.
Jackolantern
Registered Users (C)
It would be absurd to deny (rather than delay) the case for that reason, given that USCIS is the side who chose the interview date. Perhaps even illegal; otherwise they could make a habit out of scheduling interviews before the 5 year/3 year mark and then deny everybody who shows up.What I'm saying is that since a continuous residency determination is made at the interview, it gives the IO discretion to either reschedule the interview if the applicant filed early but hadn't yet met the requirement, delay a decision until requirement is met, or deny the case outright.
It would be absurd to deny (rather than delay) the case for that reason, given that USCIS is the side who chose the interview date. Perhaps even illegal; otherwise they could make a habit out of scheduling interviews before the 5 year/3 year mark and then deny everybody who shows up.
Yes, but these types of absurdities can nevertheless happen.
I doubt it would ever come to purposely scheduling interviews in order to deny cases, but a few cases here and there may still fall through the cracks due to the discretionary powers of an IO.
First do not get mad at me if I am way off so here goes..
Since our experts are vigorously discussion this issue. I went back and looked up the requirement in Sec. 316. [8 U.S.C. 1427] here is the link for curious minds:
http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=c9fef57852dc066cfe16a4cb816838a4
From rereading it several times I am coming to conclusion that 5 year continuous residency has to be met at the time(or just before) of application (not at interview or at oath). It is stated clearly in (a)(1)
Now, the 90 days period allowed by USCIS is not a law passed by congress rather a procedure adopted by uscis. In my view and I repeat my view ---
uscis has taken a stance to take date of application of naturalization as the date of oath ceremony rather then the actual priority date, other wise they HAVE to deny all application which are filed 90 days ahead of actually meeting the residency requirement as per (a)(1).
I am sure I will get a lot of views so let it roll...
vik_b
just a layman not a lawyer
Since our experts are vigorously discussion this issue. I went back and looked up the requirement in Sec. 316. [8 U.S.C. 1427] here is the link for curious minds:
http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=c9fef57852dc066cfe16a4cb816838a4
From rereading it several times I am coming to conclusion that 5 year continuous residency has to be met at the time(or just before) of application (not at interview or at oath). It is stated clearly in (a)(1)
Now, the 90 days period allowed by USCIS is not a law passed by congress rather a procedure adopted by uscis. In my view and I repeat my view ---
uscis has taken a stance to take date of application of naturalization as the date of oath ceremony rather then the actual priority date, other wise they HAVE to deny all application which are filed 90 days ahead of actually meeting the residency requirement as per (a)(1).
I am sure I will get a lot of views so let it roll...
vik_b
just a layman not a lawyer
Now, the 90 days period allowed by USCIS is not a law passed by congress rather a procedure adopted by uscis.
Actually INA 334(a) and 8 USC 1445 is the law that allows naturalization applications to be sent up to 3 months (90 days implied) in advance.
Actually INA 334(a) and 8 USC 1445 is the law that allows naturalization applications to be sent up to 3 months (90 days implied) in advance.
I stand corrected on 3 month procedure. It is a law.
From reading INA 334(a) it seems uscis can not (should not) deny the application of syriana as s/he has met and is going to meet all the continuous residency requirement as required by the law.
Interestingly INA 334(a) says 3 months and form N-400 says 90 days.
vik_b
Related blog from N-400 applicant from Utah
http://bnong.blogspot.com/2008_09_01_archive.html#8387156511038487539
I just wanted to share the above link for the blog of one N-400 applicant whose interview was re-scheduled due to his/her not meeting requirement. His/her interview was rescheduled and shortly thereafter obtained his/her citizenship.
http://bnong.blogspot.com/2008_09_01_archive.html#8387156511038487539
I just wanted to share the above link for the blog of one N-400 applicant whose interview was re-scheduled due to his/her not meeting requirement. His/her interview was rescheduled and shortly thereafter obtained his/her citizenship.
I stand corrected on 3 month procedure. It is a law.
From reading INA 334(a) it seems uscis can not (should not) deny the application of syriana as s/he has met and is going to meet all the continuous residency requirement as required by the law.
Interestingly INA 334(a) says 3 months and form N-400 says 90 days.
vik_b
INA 334(a) only states how early an application can be filed and isn't a waiver to the continuous residence requirement. The continuous residency requirement determination is made at the interview itself, and again at the oath.