I did not say it would be confiscated, I said it would be subject to confiscation (per the normal judical procedures initiated by the officer) regardless of whether the person had an I-131 or not.
The reasonable limit to being outside is 2 years max, and the poster would be wise to structure his departure with this in mind, rather that try luck.
First, confiscated is not a term that would be used at all by a CBP Officer in this circumstance. The term used would be removal proceedings.
Second, What would be the ground of inadmissibility used to place the LPR that presents a valid re-entry permit into removal proceedings. The first thing that would have to be determined would be if the LPR card holder was an applicant for admission.
(
C) An alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States shall not be regarded as seeking an admission into the United States for purposes of the immigration laws unless the alien-
(i) has abandoned or relinquished that status,
(ii) has been absent from the United States for a continuous period in excess of 180 days,
(iii) has engaged in illegal activity after having departed the United States,
(iv) has departed from the United States while under legal process seeking removal of the alien from the United States, including removal proceedings under this Act and extradition proceedings,
(v) has committed an offense identified in section 212(a)(2), unless since such offense the alien has been granted relief under section 212(h) or 240A(a), or
(vi) is attempting to enter at a time or place other than as designated by immigration officers or has not been admitted to the United States after inspection and authorization by an immigration officer.
For the sake of this discussion, the LPR card holder is an applicant for admission because the holder has been absent for continuous period in excess of 180 days. However, he has not abandoned his status as evidenced by his applicantion for a re-entry permit. Furthermore, the US Government through CIS has given him permission to be absent from the United States for longer than one year, which is generally the litmus test for abandonment of status, as evidenced by the holder being granted a valid re-entry permit.
An officer would not be able to use conditions i or ii in considering placing the LPR holder into removal proceedings. It would only leave the other 4 conditions in junction with the grounds of inadmissibility to consider when making a determination to place the LPR card holder in removal proceedings.
So what ground of inadmissibility would be used to place a LPR card holder that has presented a valid re-entry permit that would relate to his status taken for granted that was not already in removal proceedings or committed a crime?
It would not happen. I am also not trusting to luck. In my 14 years of experience of dealing with Immigration issues for at least 8 hours a day I have never seen it happen. I would be the individual that would approve that officer working the case to put that LPR holder in removal proceedings. My experience is just the opposite of what you have posted here. The first renewal of a re-entry permit is very often granted. It actually would be very unusual for it not to be granted. Subsequent renewals are a different story of course.
Placing a LPR holder in removal proceedings is considered a very big deal and is not taken lightly nor is it done without a lot of consultation with litigation. It is most often done based on criminal convictions not abandonment of status issues. This is because in order to prove abandonment of status issues in removal proceedings you generally have to show a pattern of absence or one very long continuous absence. If the card holder has a re-entry permit, it tends to overcome the very long continuous absence so you are just left with establishing the pattern. In practice, by time you have established the pattern, the situation most often has resolved itself by either the LPR holder doing a 407 or staying in the US because their personal issue as resolved.
FB
