Physical presence confusion CRBA

[POA 175]

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.

 

 

 

 

[SusieQQQ 11,584]

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 January 9, 2019 by SusieQQQ

[POA 175]

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.

[jan22 2,897]

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).

[POA 175]

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.

[jan22 2,897]

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.

[POA 175]

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 January 9, 2019 by POA

[jan22 2,897]

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].

[jan22 2,897]

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.

[POA 175]

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.

 

[aaron2020 11,651]

Laws change.  The 1 year rule was deemed unconstitutional in 2017, so that is when the rule changed.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/12/us/politics/supreme-court-citizenship-ginsburg-gorsuch.html

[jan22 2,897]

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 January 9, 2019 by jan22

[POA 175]

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.

[jan22 2,897]

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!

[POA 175]

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.