I totally understand that I can do my best and it's up to the IO to whether or not approve my case. I just wanted to know what chances I have in getting approved. According to you, I have a zero chance!
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.
Working abroad and applied for naturalization
- Thread starter dxbkid
- Start date
I totally understand that I can do my best and it's up to the IO to whether or not approve my case. I just wanted to know what chances I have in getting approved. According to you, I have a zero chance!
The couple successfully appealed since they were able to have a lawyer demonstrate for them that they still had residential ties to the state/district they applied from. They weren't physically present in their state/district when they applied, so physical presence in the district/state at the time you apply does not matter as you claim.The immigration service denied that couple (in that link) for a good reason, that is stated in the application guidelines. When you are out of the origianl district where you filed, that district has no longer jurisdiction over your case. This is a no brainer. Continuos residency does not matter here any more, and what matters is the physical presence in order to have THE appropriate jurisdiction.
If an applicant permanently moves overseas, then it's obvious that no center has jurisdiction anymore. Likewise, when an applicant permanently moves to another state, they must reside in the new state 3 months before they can apply.Ask us a simple question, who has the jurisdiction over my case when I move out of that district where I filed? The answer is the "new" district where I move in. But who is my "new" district if I am making my living overseas?
But for an applicant who moves temporarily overseas on a job assignment with a reentry permit and N-470, the state/district they apply to has jurisdiction as long as they can show sufficient proof of residential ties to that district.
The couple successfully appealed since they were able to have a lawyer demonstrate for them that they still had residential ties to the state/district they applied from. They weren't physically present in their state/district when they applied, so physical presence in the district/state at the time you apply does not matter as you claim.
If an applicant permanently moves overseas, then it's obvious that no center has jurisdiction anymore. Likewise, when an applicant permanently moves to another state, they must reside in the new state 3 months before they can apply.
But for an applicant who moves temporarily overseas on a job assignment with a reentry permit and N-470, the state/district they apply to has jurisdiction as long as they can show sufficient proof of residential ties to that district.
you make sense Bobsmyth. I mean my assignment agreement clearly states that my assignment is temporary and that I have to return to the USA once my assignment is over. In addition, the agreement has a fixed term of 3 years. So everything says that I will be returning to the USA!
A direct quote from my assignment agreement:
"Your assignement is expected to commence on 09/17/2007 and will end no later than 09/2010"
"At the conclusion of the assignment it is your intention to return to your usual place of residence."
And your regular place or state of residence is the one you lived in before you left.
It would be a different story if you didn't have reentry permit and N-470, since those documents (along with letter from employer and proof of residential ties) go along way in showing your intentions.
It would be a different story if you didn't have reentry permit and N-470, since those documents (along with letter from employer and proof of residential ties) go along way in showing your intentions.
calvillager
Registered Users (C)
But for an applicant who moves temporarily overseas on a job assignment with a reentry permit and N-470, the state/district they apply to has jurisdiction as long as they can show sufficient proof of residential ties to that district.
Love to read the statue or the guidelines.
If you "temporary" (what is temporary? Help needed!) move from SF to LA, you have to be interviewed and take oath in LA. It will be awkward that SF still has jurisdiction over my case when I move overseas working for a year! But SF still has the jurisdiction over my case if I vacation three months overseas. Also SF has the jurisdiction over my case if I vacation three months in LA.
Do you believe the move is only "temporary" for taking a permanent job outside the district where the application was filed?
There have been similar cases reportedly denied due to oversea moves for jobs. In early '70s this issue was up to individual district to make decisions, but later the INS issued a memo that guidelined the districts to deny such cases. (I am not talking about special circumstances.) I couldn't recall exactly where I read those things, but highly likely they are in the "Adjudicator's field manual."
Direct quote from the immigration and nationality act:
"Residence during absences of less
than one year.
(i) An applicant’s residence
during any absence of less than
one year shall continue to be the State
or Service district where the applicant
last resided at the time of the applicant’s
departure abroad.
(ii) Return to the United States. If,
upon returning to the United States,
an applicant returns to the State or
Service district where the applicant
last resided, the applicant will have
complied with the continuous residence
requirement specified in
§ 316.2(a)(5) when at least three months
have elapsed, including any part of the
applicant’s absence, from the date on
which the applicant first established
that residence. If the applicant establishes
residence in a State or Service
district other than the one in which he
or she last resided, the applicant must
complete three months at that new residence
to be eligible for naturalization."
Does this help my case at all?
"Residence during absences of less
than one year.
(i) An applicant’s residence
during any absence of less than
one year shall continue to be the State
or Service district where the applicant
last resided at the time of the applicant’s
departure abroad.
(ii) Return to the United States. If,
upon returning to the United States,
an applicant returns to the State or
Service district where the applicant
last resided, the applicant will have
complied with the continuous residence
requirement specified in
§ 316.2(a)(5) when at least three months
have elapsed, including any part of the
applicant’s absence, from the date on
which the applicant first established
that residence. If the applicant establishes
residence in a State or Service
district other than the one in which he
or she last resided, the applicant must
complete three months at that new residence
to be eligible for naturalization."
Does this help my case at all?
There have been similar cases reportedly denied due to oversea moves for jobs.
I'm sure there were, but did they involve approved N-470 and reentry permit as well?
Direct quote from the immigration and nationality act:
"Residence during absences of less
than one year.
(i) An applicant’s residence
during any absence of less than
one year shall continue to be the State
or Service district where the applicant
last resided at the time of the applicant’s
departure abroad.
(ii) Return to the United States. If,
upon returning to the United States,
an applicant returns to the State or
Service district where the applicant
last resided, the applicant will have
complied with the continuous residence
requirement specified in
§ 316.2(a)(5) when at least three months
have elapsed, including any part of the
applicant’s absence, from the date on
which the applicant first established
that residence. If the applicant establishes
residence in a State or Service
district other than the one in which he
or she last resided, the applicant must
complete three months at that new residence
to be eligible for naturalization."
Does this help my case at all?
Most definitely since you will never will be gone for more than one year at a time (let alone 6 months), and you intend to return to the state/district you last resided.
Last edited by a moderator:
Jackolantern
Registered Users (C)
No, if it is truly a temporary move, you would still interview in SF.Love to read the statue or the guidelines.
If you "temporary" (what is temporary? Help needed!) move from SF to LA, you have to be interviewed and take oath in LA.
Temporary in this context means you plan to return to SF in the not-too-distant future and can show a good reason why you would return, like a house or job or spouse waiting for you to move back. Or the act of actually returning to SF, if you return before the interview.
calvillager
Registered Users (C)
No, if it is truly a temporary move, you would still interview in SF.
Temporary in this context means you plan to return to SF in the not-too-distant future and can show a good reason why you would return, like a house or job or spouse waiting for you to move back. Or the act of actually returning to SF, if you return before the interview.
Not long ago in this board, a graduate student (not an under-graduate) went to school in (say) NY while his wife and kid lived in CA. He came back CA from school for the initial interview and argued he just (less than a month) went to NY temporarily for school and all his connections were still in CA. But CA still had to transfer his case to NY for re-interview. If you consider "temporary", there are not many cases that can be "more temporary" than this graduate student's situation.
I would say it doesn't bode well if you tell IO you are taking a 3-yr temporary job overseas. Anyway, though I see no ray of hope, but still wish the OP prevails.
Not long ago in this board, a graduate student (not an under-graduate) went to school in (say) NY while his wife and kid lived in CA. He came back CA from school for the initial interview and argued he just (less than a month) went to NY temporarily for school and all his connections were still in CA. But CA still had to transfer his case to NY for re-interview. If you consider "temporary", there are not many cases that can be "more temporary" than this graduate student's situation.
I would say it doesn't bode well if you tell IO you are taking a 3-yr temporary job overseas. Anyway, though I see no ray of hope, but still wish the OP prevails.
State/residency requirement is determined on a case by case basis during interview. Perhaps the student in the case above did not demonstrate sufficiently to the IO his CA residency ties and that he intended to return to CA after his studies were done. I still hold that proof of residency ties to the state/district is the main factor in determining proper jurisdiction of these cases.
"Between the filing of the naturalization viewapplication and the granting of citizenship, the applicant must continue to reside in the US. This does not mean travel is forbidden, however. But one must not change their place of residence during this time and the requirement of spending half of one’s time in the US continues to apply at the time of naturalization as well as the time of application."
Is that true? I need to be physically in the country half of the time after I apply and before the oath?
Is that true? I need to be physically in the country half of the time after I apply and before the oath?
"Between the filing of the naturalization viewapplication and the granting of citizenship, the applicant must continue to reside in the US. This does not mean travel is forbidden, however. But one must not change their place of residence during this time and the requirement of spending half of one’s time in the US continues to apply at the time of naturalization as well as the time of application."
Is that true? I need to be physically in the country half of the time after I apply and before the oath?
it's not clear what they mean by "one's time" and "half of the time". what time are we talking about here?
Must continue to reside in US means must have sufficient residency ties as not to question continuous residency."Between the filing of the naturalization viewapplication and the granting of citizenship, the applicant must continue to reside in the US. This does not mean travel is forbidden, however. But one must not change their place of residence during this time and the requirement of spending half of one’s time in the US continues to apply at the time of naturalization as well as the time of application."
Is that true? I need to be physically in the country half of the time after I apply and before the oath?
it's not clear what they mean by "one's time" and "half of the time". what time are we talking about here?
"One's time" means statutory period, "half of one's time" means half of statutory period, which is 30 months of physical presence when applying under 5 year rule.
"half of one's time" means half of statutory period, which is 30 months of physical presence when applying under 5 year rule.
No, they are talking about the residency AFTER one applies (after 5 years).
http://www.visalaw.com/06may1/2may106.html
My understanding is that I must physically present in the US not less than half of the time between applying for naturalization anf the moment I'm approved. This constitutes continuous residency. I'm not sure that this is true.
The law doesn't mention the half time requirement you mentioned above. Basically, you will need to maintain your continuous residence from the date of your application until you become a US citizen. The same way you had been doing it before you applied to become a US citizen (no trips longer than 6 months)
Sec. 316. [8 U.S.C. 1427]
(a) No person, except as otherwise provided in this title, shall be naturalized, unless such applicant, (1) immediately preceding the date of filing his application for naturalization has resided continuously, after being lawfully admitted for permanent residence, within the United States for at least five years and during the five years immediately preceding the date of filing his application has been physically present therein for periods totaling at least half of that time, and who has resided within the State or within the district of the Service in the United States in which the applicant filed the application for at least three months, (2) has resided continuously within the United States from the date of the application up to the time of admission to citizenship, (3) during all the periods referred to in this subsection has been and still is a person of good moral character, attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States.
No, they are talking about the residency AFTER one applies (after 5 years).
http://www.visalaw.com/06may1/2may106.html
"...the requirement of spending half of one’s time in the US continues to apply at the time..."
That website is referring to physical presence, not continuous residency. However, there is no such requirement for physical residence after one applies in 8 CFR 316.5(4) , INA 316(a), or 8 USC 1427.
The law doesn't mention the half time requirement you mentioned above.
I agree, but the law also dows not mention that one must apply from within the US. When I asked the lawyer about that, this is what he says
"Thank you for your questions.
First, you cannot apply for naturalization while abroad. You must be a resident of the U.S. in order to apply for naturalization and apply from within the U.S.
You may travel outside of the U.S. after you file for your naturalization, but remember that you will have biometrics scheduled after you file (usually about 2-4 weeks afterward) and you will be scheduled for your interview. At the interview they will request updated info on absences from the U.S. and this could affect your eligibility. You must maintain your residence in the U.S., bt you can travel abroad while everything is pending. (Again that time may affect your eligibility though)
How long would you travel for after filing? (Remember you have your biometrics appointment) Staying outside of the U.S. that whole time after biometrics could be a problem.
Regards,
Andrew M. Wilson, Esq.
awilson@srwlawyers.com"