WRONG AGAIN? Now what?????

[CGIACOMO1012]

I'm an asylee applying for citizenship, PR since August 31, 2004. Based on the 5 years minus 90 days, I should be able to send my papers by June 2, 2009, which I did. Unfortunately my papers were returned... for the second time!!! It says that iit seems I'm seeking naturalization based on either a LPR, (5) years, or because I'm married to a US Citizen for 3 years, and basically that my time is not up.

In the first application I, in Part 2 of the N-400 application, I selected "D" Other" and that I was applying based on Asylum granted in August 2005. Apparently that was not an appropriate answer because I was certainly applying ahead of time. When I asked for help thru this forum, a few people clarified the process to me, among them you. I was told, to wait until June, to select "A": Lawful permanent resident ", and no additional information was needed.

Now I chose "A" ( in August 2009 it will 5 years). The papers were delivered in Texas on the due date, June 2. A week later all my papers are returned.

The attached letter says:
"In the case of an applicant subject to a requirement of continuous residence under section 316 (a) or 319(1), the application for naturalization may be filed up to 3 months before the date the applicant would first otherwise meet such continuous residence requirement. The information provided with your application indicates you have filed your application more than 3 months before meeting the residency requirement for the category selected. Therefore you are ineligible to file for naturalization at this time under the category selected. "

What law and article and section says that an asylee could seek naturalization 5 years minus 90 days? Should I resend my papers tomorrow with a clarificatory letter? Please confirm....

 

[sri69]

Were all of the papers re-generated with the updated date of June 2, 2009 (including specifically part 11?)

 

[brahmachari99]

First of all, did you become a permanent resident in Aug 2004 or 2005? You mention two years in your post.

Secondly, it has been advised numerous times in this forum that you need to give yourself a margin of 5-6 days when you send the application. If they received the application on June 2, then you must've sent it at least a day or two earlier. Which means that you definitely sent it too soon. Assuming your permanent residency date of Aug 31, 2004, you should've really mailed your application around June 8 or 9.

You are lucky they sent your application back. They could have easily let the application process, and then at the time of interview, rejected it and told you to reapply. At least now you can resend the application without any delay, and without having lost the $675. Make sure you reprint the signature page and put the current date on it.

 

[Jackolantern]

Secondly, it has been advised numerous times in this forum that you need to give yourself a margin of 5-6 days when you send the application. If they received the application on June 2, then you must've sent it at least a day or two earlier. Which means that you definitely sent it too soon.

June 2 is exactly 90 days before August 31. Which means the application would have been sent before that, and the signing date would have been before June 2 as well. So they were given 3 major opportunities to mistakenly reject the application: They could have looked at the signing date which was before the 90 days, or the postmark date which was before the 90 days, or they could have miscounted by 1 or 2 days. So it's not surprising that they made at least one of those mistakes.

You are lucky they sent your application back. They could have easily let the application process, and then at the time of interview, rejected it and told you to reapply.

No. If it arrived on June 2, that is exactly 90 days so it should not be rejected. If it went to the interview stage, the OP would have the opportunity to prove that it was received at the 90-day mark which was not too early. But in this case because they rejected it without an interview, there was no opportunity to challenge the mistake.

 

[danilito]

No. If it arrived on June 2, that is exactly 90 days so it should not be rejected. If it went to the interview stage, the OP would have the opportunity to prove that it was received at the 90-day mark which was not too early. But in this case because they rejected it without an interview, there was no opportunity to challenge the mistake.

The 90 days should be since the date you signed your N-400 form. If USCIS received your application on June 2, you must signed it before. You are lucky they rejected it. They could easily cashed your check and in the day of your interview tell you that you applied before the 90 days and ask you to reapply. I know a case who suffer this in Kendall Regional Office (Miami).

 

[Bobsmyth]

First of all, did you become a permanent resident in Aug 2004 or 2005? You mention two years in your post.

Asylum based GCs are back dated 1 year, so OP has been LPR since Aug 2004.

 

[Bobsmyth]

I'm an asylee applying for citizenship, PR since August 31, 2004. Based on the 5 years minus 90 days, I should be able to send my papers by June 2, 2009, which I did. Unfortunately my papers were returned... for the second time!!! It says that iit seems I'm seeking naturalization based on either a LPR, (5) years, or because I'm married to a US Citizen for 3 years, and basically that my time is not up.

In the first application I, in Part 2 of the N-400 application, I selected "D" Other" and that I was applying based on Asylum granted in August 2005. Apparently that was not an appropriate answer because I was certainly applying ahead of time. When I asked for help thru this forum, a few people clarified the process to me, among them you. I was told, to wait until June, to select "A": Lawful permanent resident ", and no additional information was needed.

Now I chose "A" ( in August 2009 it will 5 years). The papers were delivered in Texas on the due date, June 2. A week later all my papers are returned.

The attached letter says:
"In the case of an applicant subject to a requirement of continuous residence under section 316 (a) or 319(1), the application for naturalization may be filed up to 3 months before the date the applicant would first otherwise meet such continuous residence requirement. The information provided with your application indicates you have filed your application more than 3 months before meeting the residency requirement for the category selected. Therefore you are ineligible to file for naturalization at this time under the category selected. "

What law and article and section says that an asylee could seek naturalization 5 years minus 90 days? Should I resend my papers tomorrow with a clarificatory letter? Please confirm....

The 90 day rule is specific to those who will meet continuous residence requirement on their 5 year anniversary as an LPR. It could be that as an asylee since your GC is back dated 1 year, your continuous residence isn't. So even if you have been a LPR since 2004, USCIS really only starts counting continuous residence from the day your GC was approved.

 

[Jackolantern]

The 90 days should be since the date you signed your N-400 form.

No. They're supposed to look at the date it arrived at USCIS, not the date it was signed. But sometimes by mistake they look at the signing date and reject it before the interview on that basis. So it is safer to ensure the signing date and postmark date are both after the 90th day, in order to protect yourself from their mistakes.

I know a case who suffer this in Kendall Regional Office (Miami).

Was that one rejected at the interview because of a signing date before the 90th day, even though the application arrived at USCIS on or after the 90th day?

 

[Jackolantern]

The 90 day rule is specific to those who will meet continuous residence requirement on their 5 year anniversary as an LPR. It could be that as an asylee since your GC is back dated 1 year, your continuous residence isn't. So even if you have been a LPR since 2004, USCIS really only starts counting continuous residence from the day your GC was approved.

Asylees' continuous residence starts counting one year before their GC approval, unless they were outside the US for an extended time during that one year.

 

[danilito]

No.
Was that one rejected at the interview because of a signing date before the 90th day, even though the application arrived at USCIS on or after the 90th day?

Just as I said, he took the Interview the same day as me and was rejected because the sign date was 95 days before the 5 year period of being LPR.

 

[Bobsmyth]

Asylees' continuous residence starts counting one year before their GC approval, unless they were outside the US for an extended time during that one year.

In that case the 90 rule applies to asylees as well, provided they haven't broken continuous residence requirement.

 

[Jackolantern]

Just as I said, he took the Interview the same day as me and was rejected because the sign date was 95 days before the 5 year period of being LPR.

Did the N-400 arrive at USCIS on or after the 90th day? Did he object to the denial at the interview and show that it arrived on or after the 90th day?

 

[handxx]

I am sorry my friend but why is your rush ? Just consider yourself lucky because they sent you your documents back without cashing your check. Why did not you wait an extra week is that this crucial or important to send exactly same day ?

I mean there is no point to question USCIS about this issue , everybody in here was advising to send 5 6 days later and basically they think it is early to apply so just print the last page, sign and re-send ..

 

[CGIACOMO1012]

Thank you all for your responses.

My GC says Resident since August 31, 2004. I got approved on August 31, 2005. To apply Naturalization I counted 90 days exact from August 31, 2009, so the date that applies to my case is June 2. I thought that if I got my package to be delivered right on time on June 2, it was OK. Perhaps it's just a matter that I really sent it on Saturday 30th but post dated it to when they were to receive it.

I have never been out of this country for more than 45 days and in total my days out count is 106 days since I became PR (in my GC) August 31, 2004. So I would say that I have been complying as a continuous resident in this country for the last five years.

Shall I just go ahead and resend the papers again today with a clarificatory letter? The papers have a stamp. I was attaching originals (marriage certificate) and now I don't have any extra ones, so I plan to use the same. Will that be appropriate and fair enough?

 

[CGIACOMO1012]

I am sorry my friend but why is your rush ? Just consider yourself lucky because they sent you your documents back without cashing your check. Why did not you wait an extra week is that this crucial or important to send exactly same day ?

I mean there is no point to question USCIS about this issue , everybody in here was advising to send 5 6 days later and basically they think it is early to apply so just print the last page, sign and re-send ..

I guess I will consider myself lucky. Honestly I never saw any message advising to send 5 or 6 days later, and I have been visiting this website everysingle day for quite a long time. Otherwise, I would have waited a week...

I just wanted to see from all your experiences if what happened to me made sense. My rush is that I have personal plans and I also I want to finish with this long process once and for all. I've been patiently waiting for over 10 years. And to me every single day counts .....

 

[Jackolantern]

My GC says Resident since August 31, 2004. I got approved on August 31, 2005. To apply Naturalization I counted 90 days exact from August 31, 2009, so the date that applies to my case is June 2. I thought that if I got my package to be delivered right on time on June 2, it was OK.

Legally it was OK. But by now you should be aware that USCIS has a tendency to make mistakes and otherwise mess up due to incompetence. Waiting for an extra few days is to protect yourself from their incompetence, not to comply with the regulations.

Honestly I never saw any message advising to send 5 or 6 days later, and I have been visiting this website everysingle day for quite a long time.

Almost every week there is at least one or two messages advising to wait for anywhere from 2 days to 5 or 6 days extra. It's surprising that you haven't read them.

 

[Huracan]

I've been saying to people to count 85 days to be on the safe side.

 

[CGIACOMO1012]

I guess I'm now on the "safe" side. The X day is very subjective, that's what I was told. Some officers follow this date and some are more ample. Now I know that I better be prepared for interpretations. Still, I'm pleased that at least they didn't cash the cashiers check. As I'm already over the 90 days, I will resend the package tonight along with a clarificatory letter.

Thank you very much for all your comments and responses. I was frustrated last night. Today I'm more hopeful and positive. Things could happen just because...

We will see.... It's a roller coaster. It definitively is!!!

 

[Jackolantern]

I guess I'm now on the "safe" side. The X day is very subjective, that's what I was told.

It is not subjective as far as USCIS deciding to reject your application based on the 90 days rule is concerned. It's just that some of the low-level staff who open the mail and do the initial data entry simply cannot count! They're making a wrong calculation, not a subjective judgment. The only subjective part is how long you personally want to wait in order to give yourself a buffer from their incompetence. Some say 2 days, others prefer 5 or 6 days.

As I'm already over the 90 days, I will resend the package tonight along with a clarificatory letter.

Make sure to reprint the signature page and sign it with a new date, otherwise you may get rejected again based on the old signing date.

 

[sri69]

I thought that if I got my package to be delivered right on time on June 2, it was OK. Perhaps it's just a matter that I really sent it on Saturday 30th but post dated it to when they were to receive it.

This is why I was querying earlier for the date that you placed on the part 11. If you signed and forward dated, that is not the best approach in legal terms. When one signs a legal document, it is best to sign the current date (not back date or forward date). At least in the industry that I work in, forward and back dating is frowned upon.

Not trying to give you a hard time, but USCIS may have observed the forward dating and may have reacted by not accepting the forward dating signature approach.

Either way, you should be set now that there is additional buffer now. Best of luck and hope that you get a fast approval process.