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.
Soon to apply for Citizenship with long absences from the US
- Thread starter cafeconleche
- Start date
cafeconleche
Registered Users (C)
Will do.
cafeconleche
Registered Users (C)
Ok, I just sent my application. NERVES! I cannot wait for this process to get started. Thanks for your help, and I'll be asking more questions using my beloved thread, I'm sure.
i have few stays of more then 6 months out of US ..what proofs other then tax transcripts i m suppose to take with me as i wasnt working or studying here or paying bills or leases..?
and one more qusetion i ve two daughters my younger one was born last year in 2009 the tax return i filed for 2009 she is not in it as my brother showed her in his tax return as a dependent ..as i was living with my brother my husband wasnt here...so do u think its gonna cause any problem that i she is not in my tax return?
and one more qusetion i ve two daughters my younger one was born last year in 2009 the tax return i filed for 2009 she is not in it as my brother showed her in his tax return as a dependent ..as i was living with my brother my husband wasnt here...so do u think its gonna cause any problem that i she is not in my tax return?
Jackolantern
Registered Users (C)
i have few stays of more then 6 months out of US ..what proofs other then tax transcripts i m suppose to take with me as i wasnt working or studying here or paying bills or leases..?
You have multiple trips of over 6 months each. You'll need really strong evidence to overcome that, and it looks like you don't have that, so you'll almost surely be denied unless you wait enough years after the last long trip. When was the last trip of 6 months or more? After that trip, did you take any series of back-to-back trips that were multiple months each?
cafeconleche
Registered Users (C)
Can you list each trip you took?
cafeconleche
Registered Users (C)
I was just Googling around, and I found this immigration firm's website, and I thought it was interesting: http://www.immserve.com/naturalization/default.asp
"...assume an LPR with a home and family in the U.S. travels to Europe to attend medical school. But he returns to the U.S. every few months to visit his family. Continuous residence is not broken on these facts. But the time abroad cannot count towards the physical presence requirement."
This is relevant to my case since I did go to study, and did visit my family in the US as often as possible, never staying out for more than 6 months at a time. I'm going to email the firm and see if I can get a personalised analysis of my case so I can show it to the IO during the interview if he asks me why I decided to study somewhere else. Is that a good idea, or do you think this wouldn't really add much to my case?
"...assume an LPR with a home and family in the U.S. travels to Europe to attend medical school. But he returns to the U.S. every few months to visit his family. Continuous residence is not broken on these facts. But the time abroad cannot count towards the physical presence requirement."
This is relevant to my case since I did go to study, and did visit my family in the US as often as possible, never staying out for more than 6 months at a time. I'm going to email the firm and see if I can get a personalised analysis of my case so I can show it to the IO during the interview if he asks me why I decided to study somewhere else. Is that a good idea, or do you think this wouldn't really add much to my case?
I was just Googling around, and I found this immigration firm's website, and I thought it was interesting: http://www.immserve.com/naturalization/default.asp
"...assume an LPR with a home and family in the U.S. travels to Europe to attend medical school. But he returns to the U.S. every few months to visit his family. Continuous residence is not broken on these facts. But the time abroad cannot count towards the physical presence requirement."
This is relevant to my case since I did go to study, and did visit my family in the US as often as possible, never staying out for more than 6 months at a time. I'm going to email the firm and see if I can get a personalised analysis of my case so I can show it to the IO during the interview if he asks me why I decided to study somewhere else. Is that a good idea, or do you think this wouldn't really add much to my case?
cafeconleche,
There's a case from Massachusetts, Yu Ping Li v. Chertoff, about a U.S. resident who studied in Canada whose absences reached 6 months but less than 1 year. You might want to check it out for the reasoning and should at least be persuasive authority. I don't believe that was appealed to the 1st Circuit and will not be controlling, but it should be helpful.
Last edited by a moderator:
cafeconleche
Registered Users (C)
Thanks sunny! I couldn't find the text online, though. Do you know the story?
cafeconleche, here's the link --> http://bit.ly/bhQrxk
cafeconleche
Registered Users (C)
Great, thank you. I just read it, and what I got out of it is that long absences for study purposes do not necessarily break continuous residence, based on individual factors. In my case, I never had a house, but I was a dependent of my parents, who supported me. I did go to study, and never worked abroad. And, I filed taxes for the little work I did when I was back in the US. It also says that intent is not necessarily considered. Do you think I should print out the case and take it with me to my interview?
Great, thank you. I just read it, and what I got out of it is that long absences for study purposes do not necessarily break continuous residence, based on individual factors. In my case, I never had a house, but I was a dependent of my parents, who supported me. I did go to study, and never worked abroad. And, I filed taxes for the little work I did when I was back in the US. It also says that intent is not necessarily considered. Do you think I should print out the case and take it with me to my interview?
I don't think there's any harm in printing it out and bringing it to the interview. There might be a point in the interview that you may feel that you need to bring it to the IO's attention but it will be hard to tell if your IO will be responsive to legal arguments, choosing instead to focus on your facts. Again, it will not be controlling since it is a case from another jurisdiction but it does rely on at least one 2nd circuit case if I remember correctly, of which NY state is a part of.
If you decide to employ the services of an attorney, you might want to show it to see what he thinks and if you can use it as part of your application strategy. Good luck!
I highly doubt that an applicant bringing in a legal case document to the interview would persuade USCIS from ruling differently since each case is determined on its own merits.Do you think I should print out the case and take it with me to my interview?
Quoted from the ruling:You might want to check it out for the reasoning and should at least be persuasive authority
The court’s ruling in this case does not establish the legal proposition that an applicant who moves to another country for school remains a continuous resident of the United States.
Jackolantern
Registered Users (C)
While studying abroad certainly is not a safe route to maintaining continuous residence, studying is viewed more favorably than working abroad for a non-US company.
Jackolantern
Registered Users (C)
While 1447(b) is not the focus of this thread, I find it interesting the linked case is also a 1447(b) case, and USCIS wanted to deny it but the court prevented them from doing so because of how 1447(b) puts the case under court supervision.cafeconleche, here's the link --> http://bit.ly/bhQrxk
It also demonstrates the importance of not waiting too long to file 1447(b). The person in that case waited more than 2 years after the interview to file it, by which time their continuous residence was put in doubt as a result of the extended time in Canada. Had they filed 1447(b) soon after the 120-day limit, it probably would have been resolved before they left for Canada.
Last edited by a moderator:
That depends on the circumstance. An applicant studying abroad for long periods (that presume break in continuous residence) with no home or family in the US is viewed no more favorable than someone working abroad with a non US company... studying is viewed more favorably than working abroad for a non-US company.
Jackolantern
Registered Users (C)
So the person who worked abroad had a home and family in the US, while the person who studied didn't? That's apples to oranges.That depends on the circumstance. An applicant studying abroad for long periods (that presume break in continuous residence) with no home or family in the US is viewed no more favorable than someone working abroad with a non US company.
With an apples-to-apples comparison, i.e. all else being equal, the person who studied abroad has a better chance than the person who worked abroad for a non-US company for the same time frames. Foreign employment is explicitly listed in the regulations as a negative factor.
No. Neither person had a home or family in US.So the person who worked abroad had a home and family in the US, while the person who studied didn't? That's apples to oranges.
What do you mean "all else being equal"?With an apples-to-apples comparison, i.e. all else being equal, the person who studied abroad has a better chance than the person who worked abroad for a non-US company.
Again, a person studying abroad with no US home and immediate family is not viewed more favorable than a person with no US home and immediate family working abroad with a non US company.
However, a person studying abroad with a US home and immediate family is viewed more favorable than a person working abroad with a non US company with a US home and immediate US family.