Jump to content

12 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Posted

Hello all,

My husband came to live with me in in March of this year and he is also a greencard holder in Spain. As some of you know you have to travel into the country at least every six months to get your passport stamped in order to not loose your residency in Spain. Is there anything that we can do so that he doesn't have to travel every six months until his double nationality comes through? Can we go to the embassy and request a special permission or something?

Any info an agency to contact is greatly appreciated.

USCIS

09/06/11 - I-130 Sent via overnight mail courier

09/07/11 - I-130 NOA1 (email/text received 9/8, hardcopy 9/10)

09/12/11 - Touched

10/31/11 - Called USCIS for update (none provided, i was told to call back in February 2012)

11/02/11 - Touched

11/02/11 - I-130 Approved (email/text received 11/03, hardcopy 11/5)

USCIS – 56 days between NOA1 and NOA2 (I-130 approval)

NVC

11/04/11 - NVC received case (I called NVC and operator said case received but not in their systems yet, was asked to call back in a week)

11/28/11 - NVC finally entered case into system and provided me with NVC Case # and IIN

11/30/11 - NVC emailed me case info letter, AOS invoice and DS3032 form

11/30/11 - Emailed DS-3032 information to NVC (email accepted by NVC 12/1)

12/01/11 - Paid AOS fees ($88) via the NVC Online Payment Center (marked as PAID on 12/5)

12/02/11 - Received and paid IV fee via NVC Online Payment Center (marked as PAID on 12/07)

12/05/11 - Sent AOS package to NVC (Received on 12/06, in system and complete with no RFE by 12/08)

12/07/11 - Sent IV package to NVC (Received by 12/08 and complete with no RFE by 12/12)

12/27/11 - Received P4 letter by email. Interview of 2/24/12. Super Happy!

02/24/12 - VISA APPROVED

03/08/12 - JFK POE

4/15/12 - GC in Mail

Posted

I have heard that if you go to the embassy there is a request you can submit to avoid having to travel every 6 months and just pay a fee of $500-$1,000 USD depending on the country and you can stay here in the US for up to two years.

Filed: Country: Vietnam (no flag)
Timeline
Posted (edited)

Is your husband also a US green card holder?

A US green card holder MUST permanently reside in the US. A US green card holder cannot have a permanent resident in another country or that legal status. Having legal permanent residency in Spain (green card in Spain) can cause his US green card status to be revoked because he has legal permanent residency status in Spain.

He must choose to be a permanent resident in the US or a permanent resident in Spain. He can't have both according to the US government. Read the requirements for maintaining a US green card. Read the part about losing a US green card when the person permanently reside in another country or has that legal status in another country.

Edited by aaron2020
Filed: Country: Ecuador
Timeline
Posted

Is your husband also a US green card holder?

A US green card holder MUST permanently reside in the US. A US green card holder cannot have a permanent resident in another country or that legal status. Having legal permanent residency in Spain (green card in Spain) can cause his US green card status to be revoked because he has legal permanent residency status in Spain.

He must choose to be a permanent resident in the US or a permanent resident in Spain. He can't have both according to the US government. Read the requirements for maintaining a US green card. Read the part about losing a US green card when the person permanently reside in another country or has that legal status in another country.

It's true, of course, that a US green card holder must reside in the United States to avoid a finding that he/she has abandoned his LPR status and risk losing his/her green card, but I don't think the mere fact of holding a similar residency status in another country would have a direct impact on a person's US legal permanent residency. To be sure, if the location of someone's actual residence were in question (e.g., in the case of an LPR who was spending only limited amounts of time physically present in the US), his/her holding of a permanent residency status elsewhere could very well be seen as an additional piece of evidence that he/she was not in fact maintaining his US status, but I recall running across a court case involving a holder of US and Canadian permanent residency in which the immigration service conceded that there was no prohibition on the holding of multiple permanent residence statuses per se. (Sorry, I don't have a reference handy.) (On the other hand, I also recall a case in which the cancellation of the green card of a person who held US and British permanent residency statuses was upheld; the decision was based on the fact that he spent limited amounts of time in the US and was found not to have established residence, but his British status was cited as a relevant piece of evidence in reaching that determination. (Singh vs. Reno, 1997))

In practice, of course, it would be hard to satisfy two countries that you are in fact a permanent resident of both of them at the same time, and I'm afraid you might not find much information on this board about how to maintain status in Spain, though perhaps someone will know. Good luck ...

Posted

There's the famous case of the US LPR who was deemed to have abandoned US LPR status on return from a 1-day trip to Canada (the purpose of which was to maintain his Canadian permanent resident status). He lost his green card.

Spouse-based AOS from out-of-status H-1B, May - Aug 2012

Removal of conditions, Aug - Nov 2014

Posted

I would love to hear about this famous case as well.... Since when we were at our visa interview, the two interviewees asked us if he has ever lived in another country and if he held residency there and he said yes and he has his papers in for his Spanish nationality. He's lived there since he was 16 when his parents moved there from DR legally and moved to DR only 6 months prior to us submitting his US residency papers to attend the family farm after his fathers passing. We fell in love while we were both on vacation in our parents hometown two years before we married, but we've known each other since we were kids from me staying in his hometown with my grandparents during the summertime.

He honestly doesn't care much for Spain and is only doing this because of the pressure from his mom who lives there with his three younger sisters (all in their early 20's), he only wants to be with me and start a family here by my side and one day have a home in DR. Spain is more convenient because of the language and not having to start over but there is no work out there, it's very limited and we are closer to our home country from here than from Spain.

I'm sure that if there was a problem then they wouldn't have given him his visa to come here and be with his baby, me;)

USCIS

09/06/11 - I-130 Sent via overnight mail courier

09/07/11 - I-130 NOA1 (email/text received 9/8, hardcopy 9/10)

09/12/11 - Touched

10/31/11 - Called USCIS for update (none provided, i was told to call back in February 2012)

11/02/11 - Touched

11/02/11 - I-130 Approved (email/text received 11/03, hardcopy 11/5)

USCIS – 56 days between NOA1 and NOA2 (I-130 approval)

NVC

11/04/11 - NVC received case (I called NVC and operator said case received but not in their systems yet, was asked to call back in a week)

11/28/11 - NVC finally entered case into system and provided me with NVC Case # and IIN

11/30/11 - NVC emailed me case info letter, AOS invoice and DS3032 form

11/30/11 - Emailed DS-3032 information to NVC (email accepted by NVC 12/1)

12/01/11 - Paid AOS fees ($88) via the NVC Online Payment Center (marked as PAID on 12/5)

12/02/11 - Received and paid IV fee via NVC Online Payment Center (marked as PAID on 12/07)

12/05/11 - Sent AOS package to NVC (Received on 12/06, in system and complete with no RFE by 12/08)

12/07/11 - Sent IV package to NVC (Received by 12/08 and complete with no RFE by 12/12)

12/27/11 - Received P4 letter by email. Interview of 2/24/12. Super Happy!

02/24/12 - VISA APPROVED

03/08/12 - JFK POE

4/15/12 - GC in Mail

Filed: Country: Ecuador
Timeline
Posted

Going back to the case I mentioned before in which it was found that there is *not* any prohibition on holding permanent resident statuses in more than one country, here is the citation:

Li vs. Chertoff, 490 F. Supp. 2d 130 (D. Mass. 2007)

http://pacer.mad.uscourts.gov/dc/cgi-bin/recentops.pl?filename=tauro/pdf/li_v_chertoff.pdf

It's just a district count ruling, but it's significant that in this case both the plantiff (who was appealing the denial of her naturalization application to the courts) *and USCIS* "agree[d] that it is permissible for a person to hold permanent resident status in more than one country" and USCIS "point[ed] to no law to the contrary" (p.6).

Again, I imagine that an LPR with permanent residency rights abroad *could* find his/her US status in jeopardy if he or she was spending more time overseas than in the US or if he or she was unable to demonstrate that his or her ties to the US were stronger than his or her ties elsewhere, but it seems that just holding another permanent residency status by itself ought not to affect his or her status in the US.

By the same logic, I wouldn't think that going one step further and obtaining Spanish citizenship (as you say your husband is in the process of doing) would affect an LPR's status in the US or his ability to naturalize down the road, as long as his residence in the United States was clearly and demonstrably uninterrupted. It might lead to some questions when and if it comes up in future interactions with USCIS, though, so you might just want to be prepared for that.

Filed: Country: Vietnam (no flag)
Timeline
Posted (edited)

Going back to the case I mentioned before in which it was found that there is *not* any prohibition on holding permanent resident statuses in more than one country, here is the citation:

Li vs. Chertoff, 490 F. Supp. 2d 130 (D. Mass. 2007)

http://pacer.mad.uscourts.gov/dc/cgi-bin/recentops.pl?filename=tauro/pdf/li_v_chertoff.pdf

It's just a district count ruling, but it's significant that in this case both the plantiff (who was appealing the denial of her naturalization application to the courts) *and USCIS* "agree[d] that it is permissible for a person to hold permanent resident status in more than one country" and USCIS "point[ed] to no law to the contrary" (p.6).

Again, I imagine that an LPR with permanent residency rights abroad *could* find his/her US status in jeopardy if he or she was spending more time overseas than in the US or if he or she was unable to demonstrate that his or her ties to the US were stronger than his or her ties elsewhere, but it seems that just holding another permanent residency status by itself ought not to affect his or her status in the US.

By the same logic, I wouldn't think that going one step further and obtaining Spanish citizenship (as you say your husband is in the process of doing) would affect an LPR's status in the US or his ability to naturalize down the road, as long as his residence in the United States was clearly and demonstrably uninterrupted. It might lead to some questions when and if it comes up in future interactions with USCIS, though, so you might just want to be prepared for that.

What you quoted is irrelevant dicta. The case did not turn on this issue, and the court did not base its decision on this issue.

"Though the court may consider other relevant factors, the court does not find Plaintiff’s residency status in Canada relevant here."

The quote above does not mean that the court does not think the P's residency status is Canada is never relevant. The court is only saying that it is not relevant in considering this case.

In addition, what the parties agree to as you quoted is NOT BINDING in other cases. It is only a stipulation in this case.

I completely disagree with your quote that this court "found that there is *not* any prohibition on holding permanent resident statuses in more than one country" because the court did not consider holding permanent resident statuses in more than one country to be not relevant in making its decision.

This case is not relevant to the issue at hand because the court did not examine the issue of having permanent residency in a foreign country and the US.

Edited by aaron2020
Filed: Country: Ecuador
Timeline
Posted

What you quoted is irrelevant dicta. The case did not turn on this issue, and the court did not base its decision on this issue.

"Though the court may consider other relevant factors, the court does not find Plaintiff’s residency status in Canada relevant here."

The quote above does not mean that the court does not think the P's residency status is Canada is never relevant. The court is only saying that it is not relevant in considering this case.

In addition, what the parties agree to as you quoted is NOT BINDING in other cases. It is only a stipulation in this case.

I completely disagree with your quote that this court "found that there is *not* any prohibition on holding permanent resident statuses in more than one country" because the court did not consider holding permanent resident statuses in more than one country to be not relevant in making its decision.

This case is not relevant to the issue at hand because the court did not examine the issue of having permanent residency in a foreign country and the US.

No, the case didn't turn on this issue, but it seems to me significant in itself that the court (as stated in the quotation cited above) did not find the Plaintiff's holding of a foreign permanent resident status to be relevant to a determination of whether or not her US residency had been abandoned or interrupted. If there *were* any blanket prohibition on holding multiple permanent resident statuses (and in this case at least, USCIS advanced no such argument and even "agree[d] that it is permissible for a person to hold permanent resident status in more than one country"), then surely the judge *would* have found the Plaintiff's Canadian residency relevant.

It's true that this is just a lower court ruling and that in other cases USCIS might not agree so readily that holding multiple residency statuses is allowed. And as I have said above, holding residency in another country might well play a part in putting an LPR's US status in jeopardy if there are other indications that he has abandoned or failed to maintain his residency in the United States, so this ruling should certainly not be relied upon as anything like the final word on the subject. However, I thought it was worthwhile to point this ruling out, for what it is worth, as it does address (if only briefly, tangentially, and somewhat indirectly) the question of whether or not the holding of permanent residency status in a foreign country, *by itself*, is incompatible with US permanent residency. If others can point to other laws, regulations, or precedents with a bearing on that question, please do share.

Filed: Country: Vietnam (no flag)
Timeline
Posted (edited)

No, the case didn't turn on this issue, but it seems to me significant in itself that the court (as stated in the quotation cited above) did not find the Plaintiff's holding of a foreign permanent resident status to be relevant to a determination of whether or not her US residency had been abandoned or interrupted. If there *were* any blanket prohibition on holding multiple permanent resident statuses (and in this case at least, USCIS advanced no such argument and even "agree[d] that it is permissible for a person to hold permanent resident status in more than one country"), then surely the judge *would* have found the Plaintiff's Canadian residency relevant.

It's true that this is just a lower court ruling and that in other cases USCIS might not agree so readily that holding multiple residency statuses is allowed. And as I have said above, holding residency in another country might well play a part in putting an LPR's US status in jeopardy if there are other indications that he has abandoned or failed to maintain his residency in the United States, so this ruling should certainly not be relied upon as anything like the final word on the subject. However, I thought it was worthwhile to point this ruling out, for what it is worth, as it does address (if only briefly, tangentially, and somewhat indirectly) the question of whether or not the holding of permanent residency status in a foreign country, *by itself*, is incompatible with US permanent residency. If others can point to other laws, regulations, or precedents with a bearing on that question, please do share.

A basic concept in reading a court decision is that if an issue (such as whether having two permanent residency is permissible under US laws) is not considered in making the ruling, then that issue is irrelevant and not a factor in making the ruling. The issue cannot be a finding of the court since the court did not consider it.

Your conclusion is completely wrong. There is no court finding on this issue. There was a stipulation between the parties, so the judge did not have to consider the issue.

Furthermore, you are making a big guess that "then surely the judge have found the P's Canadian residency relevant." This is solely your opinion. Since the parties had a stipulation (agreement) on the issue of two permanent residency, the judge had nothing to consider on the issue since it is not in dispute between the parties. You don't know what the judge would "surely" have found since the judge never had to consider the issue.

The case you cited has nothing to say on the issue of multiple permanent residency since the judge did not have to consider that issue.

Edited by aaron2020
Filed: Country: Ecuador
Timeline
Posted

I see your point that the court in this case didn't actually offer a "ruling" or "finding" on the permissibility of holding multiple residence statuses; apologies for any inadvertent mischaracterization of the meaning or significance of this passage. The judge does explicitly state that he could have considered this or other relevant factors in reaching his decision, but he did not find the plaintiff's Canadian residency status to be relevant (to the question at hand, which was whether or not the continuity of the plaintiff's US residency for naturalization purposes had been broken as a result of moving to Canada for her studies). I still do think that his decision not to take up the point is interesting in itself, but admittedly, he had no trouble disregarding the matter in this case, since USCIS and the plaintiff had agreed that holding more than one residency status was allowed.

Nonetheless, I thought this case was worth pointing out (even if it has no weight whatsoever as a precedent, and even if USCIS is in no way bound by the position it took here), precisely because USCIS was willing (in this instance, at least) to concede that there is no prohibition on the holding of multiple permanent residence statuses per se. If there are rules or regulations that say or suggest otherwise, or if there are other cases in which USCIS has not been willing to concede this point, I hope others will point them out.

 
Didn't find the answer you were looking for? Ask our VJ Immigration Lawyers.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
- Back to Top -

Important Disclaimer: Please read carefully the Visajourney.com Terms of Service. If you do not agree to the Terms of Service you should not access or view any page (including this page) on VisaJourney.com. Answers and comments provided on Visajourney.com Forums are general information, and are not intended to substitute for informed professional medical, psychiatric, psychological, tax, legal, investment, accounting, or other professional advice. Visajourney.com does not endorse, and expressly disclaims liability for any product, manufacturer, distributor, service or service provider mentioned or any opinion expressed in answers or comments. VisaJourney.com does not condone immigration fraud in any way, shape or manner. VisaJourney.com recommends that if any member or user knows directly of someone involved in fraudulent or illegal activity, that they report such activity directly to the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. You can contact ICE via email at Immigration.Reply@dhs.gov or you can telephone ICE at 1-866-347-2423. All reported threads/posts containing reference to immigration fraud or illegal activities will be removed from this board. If you feel that you have found inappropriate content, please let us know by contacting us here with a url link to that content. Thank you.
×
×
  • Create New...