US Citizenship for a spouse of a US citizen working abroad

How will the LPR status expire if we invoke 319(b)

boatbod said:
Finally I found a link to the full text of INA 319 (1996 version). There is nothing in part (b) that states the person applying for naturalization has to file N-400 before they depart the US, only that they must intend to reside abroad for more than 1 year after naturalization, and that they must return to reside in the US after the overseas assignment is complete.

There is however a clear requirement to be an LPR holder, so this appear to me to be the most problematic area of this case, especially if no reentry permit was files prior to departure.

As demonstrated by the $370/$400 fee misstatement issue (recently corrected), the M-476 Guide to Natz does sometimes contain errors, so likely the "must file prior" statement is another of those. I've found no evidence in either INA 319(b) or 8CFR 319.2 to back it up, thus it would appear not to exist in law.

Either way, weverifyit, you need to consult an immigration attorney familiar with this section of immigration law.

Good luck.
Click to expand...

In the first place, LPR status cannot expire for the wife of a US citizen under section 319(b) - it has to be the same policy for GC & Citizenship.

Secondly, if it does expire, I can file a new petition I-130 which is normally processed in 6 months and she will get a temporary GC which entitles her to enter USA as a PR.

Thirdly, is there anything as a returning resident permit for USA.

Thanks
 
boatbod said:
Finally I found a link to the full text of INA 319 (1996 version). There is nothing in part (b) that states the person applying for naturalization has to file N-400 before they depart the US, only that they must intend to reside abroad for more than 1 year after naturalization, and that they must return to reside in the US after the overseas assignment is complete.

There is however a clear requirement to be an LPR holder, so this appear to me to be the most problematic area of this case, especially if no reentry permit was files prior to departure.

As demonstrated by the $370/$400 fee misstatement issue (recently corrected), the M-476 Guide to Natz does sometimes contain errors, so likely the "must file prior" statement is another of those. I've found no evidence in either INA 319(b) or 8CFR 319.2 to back it up, thus it would appear not to exist in law.

Either way, weverifyit, you need to consult an immigration attorney familiar with this section of immigration law.

Good luck.
Click to expand...


Dear boatbod,

That missing link of PR issue could be SB-1 Visa (Returning Resident Visa)

http://madrid.usembassy.gov/cons/immigrenreturning.html
 
boatbod said:
This case not withstanding, I'd wager if there were a conflict between something written in M-476 and either INA or 8CFR, a judge would side with the latter as those are the written laws of the land.
Click to expand...
Realistically, there shouldn't be any conflicts as the language of the guide is based on immigration laws. Should there be a conflict, it would be expected to be corrected immediately.

The problem with the laws is that often times, the provisions under statue is provided are vague. The laws do not have to provide details on how they are executed. The little details are left for various government agencies' interpretation.

In the present case we are discussing, Sections INA 319(b) and 8CFR 319.2 do not provide clear provisions for when the application should be filed. This automatically leaves the decision of this matter to USCIS at their sole discretion, and their requirement is that N-400 has to be filed before the departure. One may argue that the USCIS's interpretation of the governing laws is false. However, the policy remains valid unless it is challenged and overturned in the court of the law.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Can you came back to visit

How long you have to be out site US after you can came back to visit your family ???
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top