jhm3

A few things: A Green Card generally becomes invalid after a year outside the United States (unless the GC holder has obtained a re-entry permit in advance of departure), so in theory, yes, you could spend up to a year abroad. However, immigration officers at the port of entry are likely to scrutinise the situation of a GC holder returning after *any* extended absence -- but particularly if the absence has been longer than 6 months -- and might conclude that he/she abandoned his US residence by spending so much time away. It is likely to be helpful in such cases to be able to show that one is well established in the United States (with housing, bank accounts, a driver's license, etc.) and that one is genuinely resuming residence in the US, not just making short return trips to maintain the Green Card.
Also, note that the expiration date on your visa is basically irrelevant once you enter the US. That's just the last date on which you could use the visa to make that initial entry.
As for the effect that an extended absence would have on a future citizenship application, an absence of more than six months would generally be interpreted as breaking the continuity of residence required for a naturalization application (see section ©(1)(I) here: http://www.uscis.gov/iframe/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-11261/0-0-0-30960/0-0-0-31016.html), so the five years on your "naturalization clock" would begin only upon your return after such an absence.

I don't think this is right. My understanding is that for the DV lottery, you must -- with very few exceptions -- apply based on your country of birth. The following excerpt from the information sheet at http://travel.state.gov/content/dam/visas/DV-2015-Instructions-Translations/DV_2015_Instructions.pdflays out the circumstances in which it might be possible to apply based on connections to a country other than one's country of birth. In this situation, for example, it might be possible to apply as an Italian if your father was only in Brazil temporarily, but that does not seem to be the case ...
Can I still apply if I was not born in a qualifying country?
There are two circumstances in which you still might be eligible to apply. First, if your derivative spouse was born in an eligible country, you may claim chargeability to that country. As your eligibility is based on your spouse, you will only be issued a DV-1 immigrant visa if your spouse is also eligible for and issued a DV-2 visa. Both of you must enter the United States together using your DVs. Similarly, your minor dependent child can be “charged” to a parent’s country of birth.
Second, you can be “charged” to the country of birth of either of your parents as long as neither of your parents was born in or a resident of your country of birth at the time of your birth. People are not generally considered residents of a country in which they were not born or legally naturalized, if they were only visiting, studying in the country temporarily, or stationed temporarily for business or professional reasons on behalf of a company or government from a different country other than the one in which you were born.

I'm amazed at the amount of ill-informed and just-plain-wrong information being offered up in this thread -- often with great, thoroughly unjustified conviction and in deeply judgmental tones. It's enough to make one wonder about the usefulness of this whole website, though I also note that many posters are approaching the topic in a more objective and helpful way. Obviously, without knowing the full story, and without having access to all of the documentation relevant to a prospective claim to citizenship by the individual in question, none of us here is in a position to adjudicate that claim.
Based on the background that has been offered up, however, it does appear that this individual was a US citizen from birth, having been born to parents in wedlock with a US citizen father who met the requirements for transmitting citizenship. How he ended up with a Green Card without anyone in the bureaucracy noticing that he was already a citizen is a bit mysterious, but mistakes do happen. In any case, as others have noted, it appears that he would have gained citizenship, in any case, upon the naturalization of his mother. Regardless of how he obtained citizenship, neither the fact that he failed to obtain documentation (or even to be aware) of it nor the fact that he has been convicted of a felony would have any impact on his status, and as a US citizen, he should not have been subject to deportation.
And it's certainly not unheard of for a US citizen to be deported in error. See this (lengthy) story in a recent edition of "The New Yorker": http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/04/29/130429fa_fact_finnegan In that case, a native-born US citizen was classified in prison records as Mexican and ended up being sent to Mexico at the end of his sentence (and a further period in immigration detention). He ended up homeless in Central America, where he came to the attention of the US embassy (in Guatemala, I think), which issued him a passport once they were able to establish his citizenship. Interestingly, CBP gave him a hard time when he went back to the US on that passport, but as a citizen, he had every right to return.
As for all the discussion about the necessity of obtaining a certificate of citizenship (in the US) in this case, keep in mind that while the US embassy won't issue a CRBA to an adult, they can (as in the case I just mentioned) issue a passport if the documentation to establish citizenship is in order.
This is confirmed in the CRBA section of the website of the US Embassy in Honduras (http://honduras.usembassy.gov/repbirthab.html):

"Applicants over age 18: "Though we accept applications for CRBAs up until a child's 18th birthday, we strongly recommend applying as soon as possible in order to facilitate the application and interview process. "If the applicant for a CRBA is over 18, he/she must submit a signed statement explaining why the birth was not reported earlier. An applicant who is over 18 may not be able to receive a CRBA; however, they will still receive a U.S. passport if it is determined that they are U.S. citizens."

I'm amazed at the amount of ill-informed and just-plain-wrong information being offered up in this thread -- often with great, thoroughly unjustified conviction and in deeply judgmental tones. It's enough to make one wonder about the usefulness of this whole website, though I also note that many posters are approaching the topic in a more objective and helpful way. Obviously, without knowing the full story, and without having access to all of the documentation relevant to a prospective claim to citizenship by the individual in question, none of us here is in a position to adjudicate that claim.
Based on the background that has been offered up, however, it does appear that this individual was a US citizen from birth, having been born to parents in wedlock with a US citizen father who met the requirements for transmitting citizenship. How he ended up with a Green Card without anyone in the bureaucracy noticing that he was already a citizen is a bit mysterious, but mistakes do happen. In any case, as others have noted, it appears that he would have gained citizenship, in any case, upon the naturalization of his mother. Regardless of how he obtained citizenship, neither the fact that he failed to obtain documentation (or even to be aware) of it nor the fact that he has been convicted of a felony would have any impact on his status, and as a US citizen, he should not have been subject to deportation.
And it's certainly not unheard of for a US citizen to be deported in error. See this (lengthy) story in a recent edition of "The New Yorker": http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/04/29/130429fa_fact_finnegan In that case, a native-born US citizen was classified in prison records as Mexican and ended up being sent to Mexico at the end of his sentence (and a further period in immigration detention). He ended up homeless in Central America, where he came to the attention of the US embassy (in Guatemala, I think), which issued him a passport once they were able to establish his citizenship. Interestingly, CBP gave him a hard time when he went back to the US on that passport, but as a citizen, he had every right to return.
As for all the discussion about the necessity of obtaining a certificate of citizenship (in the US) in this case, keep in mind that while the US embassy won't issue a CRBA to an adult, they can (as in the case I just mentioned) issue a passport if the documentation to establish citizenship is in order.
This is confirmed in the CRBA section of the website of the US Embassy in Honduras (http://honduras.usembassy.gov/repbirthab.html):

"Applicants over age 18: "Though we accept applications for CRBAs up until a child's 18th birthday, we strongly recommend applying as soon as possible in order to facilitate the application and interview process. "If the applicant for a CRBA is over 18, he/she must submit a signed statement explaining why the birth was not reported earlier. An applicant who is over 18 may not be able to receive a CRBA; however, they will still receive a U.S. passport if it is determined that they are U.S. citizens."

I'm amazed at the amount of ill-informed and just-plain-wrong information being offered up in this thread -- often with great, thoroughly unjustified conviction and in deeply judgmental tones. It's enough to make one wonder about the usefulness of this whole website, though I also note that many posters are approaching the topic in a more objective and helpful way. Obviously, without knowing the full story, and without having access to all of the documentation relevant to a prospective claim to citizenship by the individual in question, none of us here is in a position to adjudicate that claim.
Based on the background that has been offered up, however, it does appear that this individual was a US citizen from birth, having been born to parents in wedlock with a US citizen father who met the requirements for transmitting citizenship. How he ended up with a Green Card without anyone in the bureaucracy noticing that he was already a citizen is a bit mysterious, but mistakes do happen. In any case, as others have noted, it appears that he would have gained citizenship, in any case, upon the naturalization of his mother. Regardless of how he obtained citizenship, neither the fact that he failed to obtain documentation (or even to be aware) of it nor the fact that he has been convicted of a felony would have any impact on his status, and as a US citizen, he should not have been subject to deportation.
And it's certainly not unheard of for a US citizen to be deported in error. See this (lengthy) story in a recent edition of "The New Yorker": http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/04/29/130429fa_fact_finnegan In that case, a native-born US citizen was classified in prison records as Mexican and ended up being sent to Mexico at the end of his sentence (and a further period in immigration detention). He ended up homeless in Central America, where he came to the attention of the US embassy (in Guatemala, I think), which issued him a passport once they were able to establish his citizenship. Interestingly, CBP gave him a hard time when he went back to the US on that passport, but as a citizen, he had every right to return.
As for all the discussion about the necessity of obtaining a certificate of citizenship (in the US) in this case, keep in mind that while the US embassy won't issue a CRBA to an adult, they can (as in the case I just mentioned) issue a passport if the documentation to establish citizenship is in order.
This is confirmed in the CRBA section of the website of the US Embassy in Honduras (http://honduras.usembassy.gov/repbirthab.html):

"Applicants over age 18: "Though we accept applications for CRBAs up until a child's 18th birthday, we strongly recommend applying as soon as possible in order to facilitate the application and interview process. "If the applicant for a CRBA is over 18, he/she must submit a signed statement explaining why the birth was not reported earlier. An applicant who is over 18 may not be able to receive a CRBA; however, they will still receive a U.S. passport if it is determined that they are U.S. citizens."

I'm amazed at the amount of ill-informed and just-plain-wrong information being offered up in this thread -- often with great, thoroughly unjustified conviction and in deeply judgmental tones. It's enough to make one wonder about the usefulness of this whole website, though I also note that many posters are approaching the topic in a more objective and helpful way. Obviously, without knowing the full story, and without having access to all of the documentation relevant to a prospective claim to citizenship by the individual in question, none of us here is in a position to adjudicate that claim.
Based on the background that has been offered up, however, it does appear that this individual was a US citizen from birth, having been born to parents in wedlock with a US citizen father who met the requirements for transmitting citizenship. How he ended up with a Green Card without anyone in the bureaucracy noticing that he was already a citizen is a bit mysterious, but mistakes do happen. In any case, as others have noted, it appears that he would have gained citizenship, in any case, upon the naturalization of his mother. Regardless of how he obtained citizenship, neither the fact that he failed to obtain documentation (or even to be aware) of it nor the fact that he has been convicted of a felony would have any impact on his status, and as a US citizen, he should not have been subject to deportation.
And it's certainly not unheard of for a US citizen to be deported in error. See this (lengthy) story in a recent edition of "The New Yorker": http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/04/29/130429fa_fact_finnegan In that case, a native-born US citizen was classified in prison records as Mexican and ended up being sent to Mexico at the end of his sentence (and a further period in immigration detention). He ended up homeless in Central America, where he came to the attention of the US embassy (in Guatemala, I think), which issued him a passport once they were able to establish his citizenship. Interestingly, CBP gave him a hard time when he went back to the US on that passport, but as a citizen, he had every right to return.
As for all the discussion about the necessity of obtaining a certificate of citizenship (in the US) in this case, keep in mind that while the US embassy won't issue a CRBA to an adult, they can (as in the case I just mentioned) issue a passport if the documentation to establish citizenship is in order.
This is confirmed in the CRBA section of the website of the US Embassy in Honduras (http://honduras.usembassy.gov/repbirthab.html):

"Applicants over age 18: "Though we accept applications for CRBAs up until a child's 18th birthday, we strongly recommend applying as soon as possible in order to facilitate the application and interview process. "If the applicant for a CRBA is over 18, he/she must submit a signed statement explaining why the birth was not reported earlier. An applicant who is over 18 may not be able to receive a CRBA; however, they will still receive a U.S. passport if it is determined that they are U.S. citizens."

I'm amazed at the amount of ill-informed and just-plain-wrong information being offered up in this thread -- often with great, thoroughly unjustified conviction and in deeply judgmental tones. It's enough to make one wonder about the usefulness of this whole website, though I also note that many posters are approaching the topic in a more objective and helpful way. Obviously, without knowing the full story, and without having access to all of the documentation relevant to a prospective claim to citizenship by the individual in question, none of us here is in a position to adjudicate that claim.
Based on the background that has been offered up, however, it does appear that this individual was a US citizen from birth, having been born to parents in wedlock with a US citizen father who met the requirements for transmitting citizenship. How he ended up with a Green Card without anyone in the bureaucracy noticing that he was already a citizen is a bit mysterious, but mistakes do happen. In any case, as others have noted, it appears that he would have gained citizenship, in any case, upon the naturalization of his mother. Regardless of how he obtained citizenship, neither the fact that he failed to obtain documentation (or even to be aware) of it nor the fact that he has been convicted of a felony would have any impact on his status, and as a US citizen, he should not have been subject to deportation.
And it's certainly not unheard of for a US citizen to be deported in error. See this (lengthy) story in a recent edition of "The New Yorker": http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/04/29/130429fa_fact_finnegan In that case, a native-born US citizen was classified in prison records as Mexican and ended up being sent to Mexico at the end of his sentence (and a further period in immigration detention). He ended up homeless in Central America, where he came to the attention of the US embassy (in Guatemala, I think), which issued him a passport once they were able to establish his citizenship. Interestingly, CBP gave him a hard time when he went back to the US on that passport, but as a citizen, he had every right to return.
As for all the discussion about the necessity of obtaining a certificate of citizenship (in the US) in this case, keep in mind that while the US embassy won't issue a CRBA to an adult, they can (as in the case I just mentioned) issue a passport if the documentation to establish citizenship is in order.
This is confirmed in the CRBA section of the website of the US Embassy in Honduras (http://honduras.usembassy.gov/repbirthab.html):

"Applicants over age 18: "Though we accept applications for CRBAs up until a child's 18th birthday, we strongly recommend applying as soon as possible in order to facilitate the application and interview process. "If the applicant for a CRBA is over 18, he/she must submit a signed statement explaining why the birth was not reported earlier. An applicant who is over 18 may not be able to receive a CRBA; however, they will still receive a U.S. passport if it is determined that they are U.S. citizens."

I'm amazed at the amount of ill-informed and just-plain-wrong information being offered up in this thread -- often with great, thoroughly unjustified conviction and in deeply judgmental tones. It's enough to make one wonder about the usefulness of this whole website, though I also note that many posters are approaching the topic in a more objective and helpful way. Obviously, without knowing the full story, and without having access to all of the documentation relevant to a prospective claim to citizenship by the individual in question, none of us here is in a position to adjudicate that claim.
Based on the background that has been offered up, however, it does appear that this individual was a US citizen from birth, having been born to parents in wedlock with a US citizen father who met the requirements for transmitting citizenship. How he ended up with a Green Card without anyone in the bureaucracy noticing that he was already a citizen is a bit mysterious, but mistakes do happen. In any case, as others have noted, it appears that he would have gained citizenship, in any case, upon the naturalization of his mother. Regardless of how he obtained citizenship, neither the fact that he failed to obtain documentation (or even to be aware) of it nor the fact that he has been convicted of a felony would have any impact on his status, and as a US citizen, he should not have been subject to deportation.
And it's certainly not unheard of for a US citizen to be deported in error. See this (lengthy) story in a recent edition of "The New Yorker": http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/04/29/130429fa_fact_finnegan In that case, a native-born US citizen was classified in prison records as Mexican and ended up being sent to Mexico at the end of his sentence (and a further period in immigration detention). He ended up homeless in Central America, where he came to the attention of the US embassy (in Guatemala, I think), which issued him a passport once they were able to establish his citizenship. Interestingly, CBP gave him a hard time when he went back to the US on that passport, but as a citizen, he had every right to return.
As for all the discussion about the necessity of obtaining a certificate of citizenship (in the US) in this case, keep in mind that while the US embassy won't issue a CRBA to an adult, they can (as in the case I just mentioned) issue a passport if the documentation to establish citizenship is in order.
This is confirmed in the CRBA section of the website of the US Embassy in Honduras (http://honduras.usembassy.gov/repbirthab.html):

"Applicants over age 18: "Though we accept applications for CRBAs up until a child's 18th birthday, we strongly recommend applying as soon as possible in order to facilitate the application and interview process. "If the applicant for a CRBA is over 18, he/she must submit a signed statement explaining why the birth was not reported earlier. An applicant who is over 18 may not be able to receive a CRBA; however, they will still receive a U.S. passport if it is determined that they are U.S. citizens."

A passport is documentation of citizenship all by itself, so if a child has one, there should be no need for additional documentation to prove US nationality. The Certificate of Citizenship serves as a less useful (since it isn't good for travel), more expensive alternative, but it does at least serve the purpose of closing the books with USCIS. (Since it's the State Department, rather than USCIS, that issues passports, USCIS doesn't know when a passport is issued and can get confused about the status of "alien" children who obtain citizenship automatically through a naturalized or adoptive US citizen parent.)

It looks like most of the evidence of ties to the US that you submitted shows that you used to live there, but it doesn't establish that you are currently domiciled in the United States. Indeed, if you have been living in Pakistan for more than two years without maintaining a US residence, your current place of domicile would be Pakistan. Since you are not currently domiciled in the United States, what you need to show for the purposes of filing an immigration petition is show "that [you have] taken steps to establish a domicile in the United States" or "that [you have] either already taken up physical residence in the United States or will do so concurrently with the applicant." (This guidance is taken from the relevant section of the Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM), which provides guidance to State Department officers who deal with consular affairs.) It's that last bit that is likely to be most useful to you -- it means you don't actually have to be living in the United States now, but you do need to be able to show that you are taking steps towards establishing a residence and that you and your husband will be moving there together.
The FAM lists several kinds of evidence that would show that an applicant is taking steps to establish residence in the US. These include:
(1) Opening a bank account;
(2) Transferring funds to the United States;
(3) Making investments in the United States;
(4) Seeking employment in the United States;
(5) Registering children in U.S. schools;
(6) Applying for a Social Security number; and
(7) Voting in local, State, or Federal elections.
To see the relevant text from the FAM in full, go to http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86988.pdf, and scroll down to this section: "9 FAM 40.41 N6.1-2 Establishing U.S. Domicile"

It looks like most of the evidence of ties to the US that you submitted shows that you used to live there, but it doesn't establish that you are currently domiciled in the United States. Indeed, if you have been living in Pakistan for more than two years without maintaining a US residence, your current place of domicile would be Pakistan. Since you are not currently domiciled in the United States, what you need to show for the purposes of filing an immigration petition is show "that [you have] taken steps to establish a domicile in the United States" or "that [you have] either already taken up physical residence in the United States or will do so concurrently with the applicant." (This guidance is taken from the relevant section of the Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM), which provides guidance to State Department officers who deal with consular affairs.) It's that last bit that is likely to be most useful to you -- it means you don't actually have to be living in the United States now, but you do need to be able to show that you are taking steps towards establishing a residence and that you and your husband will be moving there together.
The FAM lists several kinds of evidence that would show that an applicant is taking steps to establish residence in the US. These include:
(1) Opening a bank account;
(2) Transferring funds to the United States;
(3) Making investments in the United States;
(4) Seeking employment in the United States;
(5) Registering children in U.S. schools;
(6) Applying for a Social Security number; and
(7) Voting in local, State, or Federal elections.
To see the relevant text from the FAM in full, go to http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86988.pdf, and scroll down to this section: "9 FAM 40.41 N6.1-2 Establishing U.S. Domicile"

You're welcome, and sure, waiting until April 2016 to file your application should be fine, as long as you do have the required 30 months of physical presence during the five years immediately prior to that date. Indeed, it could help to overcome any questions the immigration officer might have about your maintenance of residence if you have been living full time back in the US for a while at the time of your application and interview. Good luck!

If others know of specific cases in which USCIS has treated a temporary period of study abroad as constituting a break in residence for naturalization purposes, they can correct me, but my reading of the relevant rules and definitions is that attending college in another country wouldn't necessarily interrupt a naturalization applicant's continuity of residence, as long as his primary residence/permanent home/domicile remains in the United States throughout the period of his studies.
The regulations (8 CFR Part 315.5(a); see link below) define residence for naturalization purposes as "domicile, or principal actual dwelling place, without regard to the alien's intent." In most cases, the location of an applicant's domicile would be determined by looking at where he or she has physically resided during a given period, but it would probably be recognized that a college student's dormitory or campus apartment is not his or her "domicile" or primary residence, even if he or she does spend the better part of several years there. Indeed, the regulations on residence for naturalization purposes (8 CFR Part 315.5(b)(2)) specify that a student can apply for naturalization either in the state where his or her educational institution is located (not a possibility if the institution is in Canada, obviously), or "in the State of the applicant's home residence if the applicant can establish that he or she is financially dependent upon his or her parents at the time that the application is filed and during the naturalization process," which suggests an acknowledgement of the fact that the place of residence for naturalization purposes of a college student is often his or her family home.
To preserve continuity of residence for naturalization purposes, you would nonetheless have to return to the United States at least once a year and preferably at least once every six months. By law, absences of more than a year do interrupt continuous residence for naturalization purposes, unless -- as an employee of the US government or certain US firms -- you are eligible to file Form N-470 to preserve continuous residence while abroad; that wouldn't be relevant in this case. If you spend more than six months outside the United States at any one time, there is a rebuttable presumption that there has been a break in continuous residence, but that presumption can be overcome if you can present compelling evidence that your primary residence remained in the United States while you were abroad. They would be interested in seeing that your family remained in the United States and that you continued to have access to your US home, for example, and other evidence of ongoing ties (bank accounts, driver's license, health insurance coverage, etc.) would be helpful, too. Also, when re-entering the United States after an extended absence, you might be called upon to demonstrate that you have not abandoned your US permanent residency status by moving abroad; this issue is less likely to come up if you return more often, but in any event, as a student temporarily abroad for a definite purpose and a fixed period of time with ongoing family ties to the United States, you shouldn't have difficulty establishing that you have maintained your status.
The requirement that might end up causing you more difficulty is the physical presence requirement. If you are going to be spending most of the next several years studying in Canada, it might be difficult to have the 30 months physically in the US that you will need when you reach the 5-years-as-an-LPR mark in November 2015. Take a look at the calendar and plan carefully. Hope this helps ...
Regulations on Residence for Naturalization Purposes: http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-11185/0-0-0-30650/0-0-0-30706.html

I have followed this thread with interest because the same thing happened to my mother-in-law recently. She is a dual national of Ecuador and a VWP country and has used her VWP passport to enter the US on numerous occasions. Upon arrival for her most recent visit, she was informed by the CBP officer -- quite rudely, according to her -- that she couldn't use "whatever passport she wanted to" and that she had to enter on her Ecuadorian passport (presumably because that is where she lives). Fortunately, she had an old (but still valid) US visa in that passport, so further difficulties were averted, but I am convinced that both in that case and the case referred to here, the officer acted inappropriately by demanding that the applicant for entry use a particular passport.
To review a couple of points already discussed here:
(1) There is clearly no published rule stating that VWP nationals holding multiple citizenships and/or residing in third countries are not eligible for the program; on the contrary, information on the CBP website makes clear that they are (see the FAQ answer referred to earlier in this thread).
(2) CBP officers do of course have discretion to deny admission to any foreign national at the port of entry (the difference for VWP participants is that they have no right of appeal), but that decision presumably should be based on the officer's (hopefully reasonable) suspicion that the applicant for entry does not intend to comply with the terms of admission (or poses some kind of danger to the public good, I suppose).
A CBP officer might well have a couple of extra questions for a VWP national residing in a third country, and the applicant for admission would probably be wise to be prepared to produce evidence of strong ties to his country of residence and/or citizenship to establish his or her lack of immigrant intent, but in my view there is no basis in law or policy for the CBP officer to assert that any non-USC must use a particular passport.
Indeed, I suspect that in this case the British government would consider it an affront that US officials refused to accept a British passport presented by a British citizen. (To be clear, I'm not saying that the British government could, should, or would insist that British passport holders automatically be *admitted* to the US, but I think the UK authorities would feel strongly that all British citizens, regardless of any other citizenships they may hold, should be able to use their UK passports when traveling and that UK travel documents should be respected.) I hope the original poster will consider bringing this incident to the attention of the British Embassy, which might well have something to say to the US government about it. Perhaps a diplomatic protest or two will help to make sure that CBP officers are better trained.

I have followed this thread with interest because the same thing happened to my mother-in-law recently. She is a dual national of Ecuador and a VWP country and has used her VWP passport to enter the US on numerous occasions. Upon arrival for her most recent visit, she was informed by the CBP officer -- quite rudely, according to her -- that she couldn't use "whatever passport she wanted to" and that she had to enter on her Ecuadorian passport (presumably because that is where she lives). Fortunately, she had an old (but still valid) US visa in that passport, so further difficulties were averted, but I am convinced that both in that case and the case referred to here, the officer acted inappropriately by demanding that the applicant for entry use a particular passport.
To review a couple of points already discussed here:
(1) There is clearly no published rule stating that VWP nationals holding multiple citizenships and/or residing in third countries are not eligible for the program; on the contrary, information on the CBP website makes clear that they are (see the FAQ answer referred to earlier in this thread).
(2) CBP officers do of course have discretion to deny admission to any foreign national at the port of entry (the difference for VWP participants is that they have no right of appeal), but that decision presumably should be based on the officer's (hopefully reasonable) suspicion that the applicant for entry does not intend to comply with the terms of admission (or poses some kind of danger to the public good, I suppose).
A CBP officer might well have a couple of extra questions for a VWP national residing in a third country, and the applicant for admission would probably be wise to be prepared to produce evidence of strong ties to his country of residence and/or citizenship to establish his or her lack of immigrant intent, but in my view there is no basis in law or policy for the CBP officer to assert that any non-USC must use a particular passport.
Indeed, I suspect that in this case the British government would consider it an affront that US officials refused to accept a British passport presented by a British citizen. (To be clear, I'm not saying that the British government could, should, or would insist that British passport holders automatically be *admitted* to the US, but I think the UK authorities would feel strongly that all British citizens, regardless of any other citizenships they may hold, should be able to use their UK passports when traveling and that UK travel documents should be respected.) I hope the original poster will consider bringing this incident to the attention of the British Embassy, which might well have something to say to the US government about it. Perhaps a diplomatic protest or two will help to make sure that CBP officers are better trained.