Jump to content
POA

Physical presence confusion CRBA

15 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Back story:

 

Mother 1: Mother was born in Saipan in 1986. She used her PH passport to move back to the PH in the early 90's. Years later, she had a baby. Again, years after the child was born, she was able to get a US Passport and was told that she can pass her citizenship to her child but she needs 1 year of physical presence in the US.

 

Mother 2: Born in Saipan early 90s, left Saipan and moved to the PH using her US passport. Had a kid and now being told that she needs to have 5 year Physical presence in the US.

 

Why does mother 1 is required only 1 year while the other was required 5 years?

 

Mother 1 hasn't filed CRBA yet but that was the information given to her.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Rules change over time and they also differ for married (to non-USC, 5 years) vs single (1 year) mothers 

see for example https://travel.state.gov/content/travel_old/en/legal-considerations/us-citizenship-laws-policies/citizenship-child-born-abroad.html

 

 

 

 

Edited by SusieQQQ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, SusieQQQ said:

Rules change over time and they also differ for married (to non-USC, 5 years) vs single (1 year) mothers 

see for example https://travel.state.gov/content/travel_old/en/legal-considerations/us-citizenship-laws-policies/citizenship-child-born-abroad.html

 

 

 

 

 

They are both going to apply for CRBA for their kids around the same time but one was told to have 5 years and the other was told to have 1 year. Both are unmarried as well and had their kids out of wedlock. Thanks for the link though, that has lots of info. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SusieQQQ said:

Rules change over time and they also differ for married (5 years) vs single (1 year) mothers 

see for example https://travel.state.gov/content/travel_old/en/legal-considerations/us-citizenship-laws-policies/citizenship-child-born-abroad.html

 

 

There is no longer a difference for single women -- for all children born after June 11, 2017, the requirement is 5 years physical presence (with 2 years being after the US citizen parent was 14 years old).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jan22 said:

There is no longer a difference for single women -- for all children born after June 11, 2017, the requirement is 5 years physical presence (with 2 years being after the US citizen parent was 14 years old).

 

So that could be the reason, Mother 2 gave birth recently while Mother 1 gave birth years ago. I am not finding information about 1 year physical presence though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, POA said:

 

They are both going to apply for CRBA for their kids around the same time but one was told to have 5 years and the other was told to have 1 year. Both are unmarried as well and had their kids out of wedlock. Thanks for the link though, that has lots of info. :)

Was one born before June 11, 2017, and the other after that date?  The law changed at that time --- before requires one continuous year (not even 1 day outside US) and after requires 5 years, 2 of which were after the parent was 14.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, jan22 said:

Was one born before June 11, 2017, and the other after that date?  The law changed at that time --- before requires one continuous year (not even 1 day outside US) and after requires 5 years, 2 of which were after the parent was 14.

 

You're correct, the 5 year waiting mom gave birth recently while the 1 year waiting mom gave birth before June 11, 2017.

 

It does say here the one year,

 

Birth Abroad Out-of-Wedlock to a U.S. Citizen Mother:

A person born abroad out-of-wedlock to a U.S. citizen mother may acquire U.S. citizenship under Section 309(c) of the INA if the mother was a U.S. citizen at the time of the person’s birth and if the mother was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the person’s birth. The U.S. citizen mother must be the genetic or the gestational mother and the legal parent of the child under local law at the time and place of the child’s birth to transmit U.S. citizenship.

 

***

So I guess my question is, why are the 2 mothers still required to stay in the US before they can CRBA for their kids when both mothers were in Saipan for years prior to moving to the PH.

Edited by POA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, POA said:

 

So that could be the reason, Mother 2 gave birth recently while Mother 1 gave birth years ago. I am not finding information about 1 year physical presence though.

Section 309(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act [one year requirement] vs Section 301(g) [5 year requirement].

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, POA said:

 

You're correct, the 5 year waiting mom gave birth recently while the 1 year waiting mom gave birth before June 11, 2017.

 

It does say here the one year,

 

Birth Abroad Out-of-Wedlock to a U.S. Citizen Mother:

A person born abroad out-of-wedlock to a U.S. citizen mother may acquire U.S. citizenship under Section 309(c) of the INA if the mother was a U.S. citizen at the time of the person’s birth and if the mother was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the person’s birth. The U.S. citizen mother must be the genetic or the gestational mother and the legal parent of the child under local law at the time and place of the child’s birth to transmit U.S. citizenship.

 

***

So I guess my question is, why are the 2 mothers still required to stay in the US before they can CRBA for their kids when both mothers were in Saipan for years prior to moving to the PH.

Because it's the law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jan22 said:

Because it's the law.

lol. Thank you. I know it's the law. I was just trying to make sense of it since it says physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the person’s birth. Both mothers' were in Saipan during their childhood so they should have met this requirement.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
24 minutes ago, POA said:

lol. Thank you. I know it's the law. I was just trying to make sense of it since it says physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the person’s birth. Both mothers' were in Saipan during their childhood so they should have met this requirement.

 

But the recent birth requires 5 years, not one -- but it, too, can be in outlying posessions versus in the US.  Per USCIS, current "outlying possessions" of the US are American Samoa and Swains Island.  The Covenant that established US citizenship requirements for the CNMI is complex, but -- bottom line -- dosen't make it an outlying possession for physical presence calculations.

Edited by jan22

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jan22 said:

But the recent birth requires 5 years, not one -- but it, too, can be in outlying posessions versus in the US.  Per USCIS, current "outlying possessions" of the US are American Samoa and Swains Island.  The Covenant that established US citizenship requirements for the CNMI is complex, but -- bottom line -- dosent make it an outlying p I ssession.

 

I see so that's why they are still required. Thank you! This helps a lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, POA said:

 

I see so that's why they are still required. Thank you! This helps a lot.

No problem; glad it helped.  You picked a really hard area of citizenship law to try to understand...just because it's the law doesn't mean it has to make sense!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jan22 said:

No problem; glad it helped.  You picked a really hard area of citizenship law to try to understand...just because it's the law doesn't mean it has to make sense!

Lol true. It piques my curiosity. :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
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.
×