Ну и какое из требований не удовлетворено гринкардёром, который был [admitted] в страну 5 лет назад и после этого даже ни разу не выезжал?
[quote=“Partner,post:60,topic:12290”]
Это правда - “сбрасывается” в ноль. Но происходит это не по факту получения пермита, а по факту отсутствия более года.[/QUOTE]
Тоже интересный момент. Счётчик теоретически могут сбросить даже если отсутствие было менее года. Главное в этом деле было ли намерение оставить свой статус GC. Если будут что то спрашивать о цели поездок, то надо отвечать вразумительно почему они были исключительно временными и никак не влияли на ваш статус GC holder.
Ну и какое из требований не удовлетворено гринкардёром, который был [admitted] в страну 5 лет назад и после этого даже ни разу не выезжал?
Mnogie. Naprimer, Demonstrate good moral character
Obman immigracionnogo rabotnika - eto zavedomo ne good moral character.
А в чем будет заключаться обман иммиграционного работника, если он, предположим, будет [admitted] в страну 5 лет назад и после этого даже ни разу не выезжал и потом подал на натурализацию, честно заполнил [N-400 Part 7 (C)], где указал все свои отсутствия больше 24 ч. (в т.ч. и 7-летнее отсутствие) с момента приобретения им [LPR]-статуса ???
Obman v moment v’ezda posle otsutstvia bolee 1 goda (ili 2 s reentry permitom)
При условии, что при въезде он действительно обманул, отвечая на задаваемые ему вопросы. А если небыло задаваемых вопросов, ответы на которые были обманом??? В чем тогда обман???
Togda obmana net. No vo vremia rassmotrenia formy N-400 ego mogut lishit’ GC zadnim chislom, esli ego poezdka za granicu prevyshala opredelennuiu dlitel’nost’. Togda on ne imeet prava podavat’ N-400, kak ne imeiuscii GC.
raevsky
Модератор,
Скажите, а прецеденты есть? Или это просто предположения гипотетические?
Я так понимаю, здесь ключевое словосочетание - могут лишить GC задним числом…
No равно как могут и НЕ лишить GC задним числом. Правильно???
No равно как могут и НЕ лишить GC задним числом. Правильно???
Naschet ravno ili neravno - ne znaiu. No, konechno, mogut i ne lishit’ zadnim chislom. Zavisit ot togo, zametiat li, smogut li dokazat’, i t.p. Odnako, kogda u vas v USA uje est’ dom, jena i vzroslye deti, a vas vysylaiut neizvestno kuda i s chego vam tam nachinat’ jizn’ bez jeny i detei, kotorye ostalis’ v USA - vot v chem vopros.
Скажите, а прецеденты есть? Или это просто предположения гипотетические?
Vas interesuet sama vozmojnost’ primenenia procedury zadnim chislom? A chem van ne podhodit vysylka nacistskih kollaborocionistov?
Ili vas interesuet vozmojnost’ lishenia GC zadnim chislom imenno za narushenie pravila projivania v USA?
Hotia esli obmana ne bylo, to prakticheski ne mogu predstavit’, chtoby vas lishili grajdanstva. Za odin iskliucheniem - nije. A vot chto lishili GC poka vy grajdanstvo ne poluchili - ochen’ daje mogu. Vse ravno malo radosti, esli vy uje 6 let projili v USA. Deti mogli uspet’ vyrasti, jena mogla zacepit’sia v USA. Mojet okazat’sia, chto vam pridetsia vozvrascat’sia odnomu.
Primechanie. Vspominaetsia odin sluchai, kogda grajdanina USA po rojdeniu lishili grajdanstva USA i vyslali iz strany 50 let spustia za sotrudnichestvo s nacistami. Ochevino, on nikogo ne obmanyval v hode immigracionnogo processa - on rodilsia grajdaninom.
Iz inyh podrobnostei dela - on takje byl i grajdaninom Germanii po rojdeniu (to li rodilsia v Germanii, a amerikanskoe grajdanstvo poluchil po odnomu iz roditelei, to li rodilsia v USA, a grajdanstvo Germenii - po odnomu iz roditelei, ne pomniu; pomniu chto odin iz roditelei byl amerikanec, a drugoi - nemec). V konclageriah on ne slujil i prestuplenii protiv chelovechestva ne sovershal. Rabotal v Evrope na jeleznoi doroge i pustil pod otkos kak minimum odin poezd soiuznikov. Vesc’ vpolne dopustimaia, kogda strany voiuiut; narushenia mejdunarodnyh zakonov ne bylo. Kogda vse eto vyiasnilos bolee chem cherez 50 let, on byl lishen amerikanskogo grajdanstva i vyslan v Germaniu (stranu svoego grajdanstva)
Vas interesuet sama vozmojnost’ primenenia procedury zadnim chislom? A chem van ne podhodit vysylka nacistskih kollaborocionistov?
Ili vas interesuet vozmojnost’ lishenia GC zadnim chislom imenno za narushenie pravila projivania v USA?
если б мы говорили про нацистских преступников в топике, то даже в этом случае я б не стал интересоваться про прецеденты о них, поскольку и СМИ об этом трещат на каждом углу и на себя примерить возможность быть нацистским преступником я исключаю.
Конечно же интересен ваш опыт в вопросе прецедентов лишения статуса людей, которые когда-то значительное время до этого находились вне США длительное время и остались при этом грнкардхолдерами по каким-то причинам. Тут возможны два случая, один - это когда человек соврал о времени своего отсутствия вне США и второй случай, когда его об этом никто не спрашивал. Судя по всему всех участников этого обсуждения именно это и интересует.
Can extended trips abroad effect lawful permanent residence status, or create concerns for citizenship applications?
It is an all too common situation – after years of bureaucratic entanglements, a person finally obtains lawful permanent residence in the US, only to find they still have business or family concerns that will keep them out of the US for an extended period of time. Often, the lawful permanent resident (LPR) will try to reenter the US, only to have a port of entry officer or consular official tell them they have abandoned their permanent residence status. Absences from the US of more than six months raise a rebuttable presumption that an individual intends to abandon permanent resident status, and absences of more than one year invalidate the green card as an entry document unless the person holds a valid re-entry document. This means that a foreign national who has been continuously abroad for more than 12 months may still be a permanent resident, but a special immigrant visa issued by a US consul may be necessary to re-enter the US unless the individual has a valid re-entry permit.
While an extended absence alone is not grounds for revoking permanent residence, it is one factor the government considers very important. Extended absences may also adversely affect US citizenship eligibility, despite the existence of a re-entry permit. Therefore, when planning an extended trip abroad, it is necessary to plan ahead to avoid abandonment.
What can a permanent resident do to prevent abandonment of the immigrant status in the case of an extended absence from the US?
Among the many factors that influence the decision on abandonment are the length and reason for the absence and the number and type of connections the LPR maintains in the US. There are many steps a LPR can take to demonstrate his or her intention to maintain their status in the US.
Of course, the LPR can obtain a re-entry permit if the absence is to be longer than one year. A re-entry permit, filed on Form I-131, is usually granted for two years and serves as recognition by the USCIS that the individual does not intent to abandon permanent residence despite prolonged absence from the US. This application is typically submitted by the individual while physically present in the US and must be used prior to the expiration of the document, or two years from the date of issuance. If the holder of a re-entry permit is a conditional permanent resident, the permit will be valid to the date the conditional resident must apply for removal of conditional status.
One of the most important factors in preserving permanent residence is the proper filing of US tax returns while abroad and filing as a US resident and not as a nonresident. Because of international tax laws, there will often be no tax owed to the US government, but failure to file a return is almost always considered a sign that LPR status has been abandoned. The LPR should also maintain a bank account and credit cards in the US. These accounts should be as active as possible. For example, if the LPR is employed abroad, the salary should be deposited in the US account. The LPR should also continue to renew his/her US driver’s license. If possible, the LPR should purchase property in the US.
If the LPR’s absence is due to employment, a letter from the employer detailing the terms and length of employment is very important. If the absence is for family or personal reasons, these should be well documented. While such reasons are acceptable, the ease with which they can be manipulated means they should be very well documented.
However, many of these same factors are involved in the decision of whether to issue such a permit, and even with a re-entry permit the LPR can still be deemed to have abandoned status.
What should a lawful permanent resident do while traveling abroad to prevent abandonment of lawful permanent resident status?
It is important that the LPR traveling abroad for an extended period be prepared to document his/her intent to remain a US resident if questioned by immigration or consular officials. One of the best ways to do this is to carry copies of relevant documents in a single location so that they can be presented readily to officials. Among these documents should be copies of past tax returns, deeds showing property ownership, records of bank account activity, relevant letters from employers, and letters explaining the purpose of the extended absence.
A commonly held but mistaken assumption is that a visit every year to the US will preserve LPR status. While an LPR needs only the green card to reenter the US after an absence of less than one year, this is not enough to indicate the intent to remain a resident of the US. The LPR must take additional action to preserve their status as mentioned above.
Ia byl neprav. Administrativnaia denaturalizacia (bez suda) vpolne real’na v techenie 2 let posle naturalizacii.
Irina Gorbach, the first named plaintiff in Gorbach v. Reno, was
hardly the type of person one might have expected to be targeted for
so extreme a process as denaturalization. A software engineer at Microsoft,
Gorbach was accused of lying on her naturalization application
about her place of residence, though she claimed to have informed
the INS that she moved while her application was still
pending.Another new citizen, Agueda Escalante, was targeted for denaturalization
on the grounds that she had willfully concealed a past
arrest on her application for naturalization.64 The allegation
stemmed from a surreal run-in with the police, who appeared at her
house ostensibly in response to a 911 call.65 After confirming that
there was no emergency, the officers looked around Escalante’s
home and discovered a common houseplant that they mistook for
marijuana.66 Though Escalante was never formally charged with any
crime, she was handcuffed and taken to the police station, and her
plant was seized.67 Because no charges were filed once the police
discovered their mistake, Escalante did not consider herself to have
been “arrested,” and consequently did not report the incident on her
application for naturalization.68 On the basis of this incident, the INS
told Escalante, in her Notice of Intent to Revoke Naturalization
(hereinafter “NOIR”),69 that “[y]ou were not a person of good moral
character when you took the oath of allegiance,” and that the INS
would therefore seek to revoke her citizenship.70
Gorbach, Escalante, and eight other named plaintiffs who were
served with NOIRs filed a class action lawsuit against the INS, seeking
to enjoin the agency from conducting denaturalization proceedings
under regulations they believed were promulgated without a
proper grant of authority from Congress.
Zdes’ opiat’ je loj’, a ne sluchainaya oshibka INS, no podi dokaji, chto Gorbach ne informirovala INS. Mojet, informirovala. A administrativnyi arest v sluchae Escalante byl sluchainoi oshibkoi policii, poetomu ona po svoei oshibke voobsce ne schitala ego za arest, i potomu ne ukazala.
Tem ne menee ih denaturalizovali bez suda, poskol’ku eto proizoshlo v techenie pervyh 2 let posle naturalizacii. Sud by vriad li reshil delo v pol’zu INS, hotia kto znaet…
Bolee togo, zakon daet INS takoe pravo lish’ na tom osnovanii, chto vo vremia naturalizacii INS dopustilo oshibku; fraud - eto inoe osnovanie, ne neobhodimoe uslovie dlia administrativnoi denaturalizacii.
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/ina340.htm
The relevant INA regulation, which was promulgated under the authority of INA § 340(h), see Revocation of Naturalization, 61 Fed. Reg. 55,550 (1996) (to be codified at 8 C.F.R. pt. 340), (5) provides a procedure for the reopening of naturalization proceedings by the district director under whose jurisdiction a naturalized citizen resides. The regulation authorizes the INS to “reopen a naturalization proceeding and revoke naturalization in accordance with this section, if the Service obtains credible and probative evidence which: (1) Shows that the Service granted the application by mistake; or (2) Was not known to the Service Officer during the original naturalization proceeding; and . . . (i) Would have had a material effect on the outcome of the original naturalization [proceeding]; and (ii) Would have proven that: (A) The applicant’s application was based on fraud or misrepresentation or concealment of a material fact; or (B) The applicant was not, in fact, eligible for naturalization.” Id. at 55,553-54 (to be codified at 8 C.F.R. § 340.1(a)). Notice of intent to reopen naturalization proceedings “must be served no later than 2 years after the effective date of the order admitting a person to citizenship,” id. at 55,553 (§ 340.1(b)(1)), i.e., two years after the naturalized citizen has taken the oath of allegiance to the United States. The naturalized person has the opportunity to respond and may request a hearing, id. at 55,553 (§ 340.1(b)(3)), and has a right to counsel, id. at 55,554 (§ 340.1(b)(5)). The burden of proof in such administrative proceedings – as in judicial denaturalization cases – is on the INS to prove its complaint by clear, unequivocal and convincing evidence. (6) A decision adverse to the naturalized citizen may be appealed administratively, id. at 55,554 (§ 340.1(e)), and, if the administrative appeal is also adverse to that individual, he or she may seek judicial review under INA § 310, 8 U.S.C. § 1421. Id. at 55,554 (§ 340.1(f)).
Tak chto ne stoit udivliat’sia esli vas lishat GC iz-za togo, chto dali ee po oshibke, esli uj grajdanstva bez suda imeiut pravo lishit’ na etom je osnovanii.
2 лайка
raevsky
Модератор
для людей, которые еще не успели выпить с английским языком на брудершафт скажите пожалуйста чем же дело все таки закончилось для Горбач, который судя по всему указал не тот адрес в заявлении и Эскаланте, который, как я понял, выращивал коноплю в своем доме, был не до конца арестован и умолчал об этом в заявлении?
скорее всего для Эскаланте выбора небыло, или он все указывает честно и выдворяется из страны или он врет и возможно остается в стране с возможностью когда нить быть выдвореным. Он рискнул, тем более для торчков риск - естественное состояние души.
Irina Gorbach, injener Microsoft, ukazala staryi adres v zaiavlenii na grajdanstvo. Kogda eto vyiasnilos’, ee lishili grajdanstva za etu loj’ na zaiavlenii na grajdanstvo, hotia ona utverjdala, chto soobscila v INS o smene adresa uje posle podachi zaiavlenia, i, davaia ei grajdanstvo, INS znalo o ee novom adrese.
Agueda Escalante policia arestovala za to, chto ee komnatnyi cvetok priniala za marihuanu. Kak tol’ko ekspert posmotrel na rastenie, ee nemedlenno otpustili i cvetok vernuli, i ona poschitala, chto etot arest - oshibka, kotoruiu ne nado ukazyvat’ na zaiavlenii na grajdanstvo. Grajdanstvo ei dali (poka ob obmane ne bylo izvestno), a potom za obman lishili, kogda obman vskrylsia.
Oba raza grajdanstva lishili za otsutstvie “good moral character”, kotoroe trebuet na vrat’ vlastiam.
V oboih sluchaiah esli by obmana na zaiavlenii ne bylo (srazu byl by ukazan vernyi adres ili ukazan byl by fakt aresta), to grajdanstvo by dali, i problem by ne bylo. No fakt obmana byl nalico, hotia skryvat’ im bylo nechego.
А эти названные люди имеют право подать снова на гражданство?
Просто интересно.
Konechno, imeiut. Pravda, ne ran’she chem cherez 5 let posle obmana.
1 лайк
на мой взгляд эти два случая показывают весь тупизм ситуации и еще раз доказывает, что въезжать через Канадскую границу нужно и надо, поскольку вместо того, чтобы пресекать получение гражданства недостойными людьми, власти занимаются крючкотворством и бюрократией. Уж кто-кто, а жители БСССР как никто другой знают, что с такими тупизмами нужно и можно бороться и обходить их.
Жаль этих женщин, которые ни за что ни про что пострадали от бюрократической машины.
ЗЫ. raevsky
Модератор
а что там в конце текста было написано про восьмерых человек для суда по денатурализации и что вроде как они объединились для чего-то… Суд закончился или еще в процессе? Какова судьба тех несчастных?
Как я понимаю что это было где-то в 2000 то может Gorbach в настоящее время уже гражданкой стала. С помощью гугла можно найти ее facebook account и ее книгу.