Marcus73

It shows that all these “requirements” can be bent depending on which officer handles our applications. Ultimately citizenship does not really provide me with tangible benefits I can’t do without, so I’ve decided I’ll stay on my green card for the next 8 years. If 6 days extra in 2015 was all that mattered, then it’s not worth the effort or the money to do that all over again. 

I think the process is totally flawed. https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Resources/Citizenship & Naturalization Based Resources/A Guide to Naturalization/PDFs/M-480.pdf  This is a flowchart that tells you whether you are eligible to submit an application. Attachment A for the 3-year eligibility states: During the past three years, I have not been out of the country for 18 months or more. And question 5 of the main flowchart states: During the last five years (or the last three years if I qualify under Attachment A), I have not taken a trip out of the United States that lasted one year or more. If there was a problem with eligibility, why allowing someone to submit an application in the first instance? Why can't they use drop down menus when applying. You choose the most appropriate answer to your scenario and if deemed eligible, your application is successfully submitted prior to being processed (yes, I work in computer science and that's how my brain rolls). And when documents are required, a clear list of what documents are expected. I was totally left aghast when i was asked why my spouse was not with me? It wasn't written anywhere that he was expected to come. Anyway, my green card is valid until 2028, I'm ok until then. 

That makes sense. I did file my tax with the IRS for 2015 and have evidence that my spouse was living here. Unfortunately, I was not asked to provide this type of evidence. The appointment letter only asked for passport, green card, spouse birth certificate and marriage certificate. What puzzles me is that there is no option to come back with the certifications they need. It's either yes or no at the interview. The "may disrupt continuous residence" statement allows an officer to enforce it or not. It doesn't say "will disrupt". But the law is down to the officer who interprets it as it fits better for him nor me.

maybe i am still counting incorrectly, but the statement says: Physically present in the U.S. for eighteen months within the three year period before applying in the case of qualified spouses of U.S. citizens (see legal basis)

I was physically present for the whole 2016, 2017 and 6 months of 2018 before i applied, i.e. 30 months within the three year period (June 2015-June 2018) before applying. Or is there a separate requirement that I did not meet?

i came back from my 186 days absence in December 2015, I applied for citizenship in July 2018. I had my interview in July 2019. I was continuously in the country for 30 completed months before i applied for citizenship. I've seen that decisions can be appealed but it sounds unfair to me that i have to pay $ 605 of petition fee for a decision that was wrongly taken

I am a green card holder and I applied for citizenship last year as spouse of an American citizen. I have recently had the interview and my application was denied on the basis that, in 2015 as a green card holder, i left the USA for 186 days (the max allowed is 180). 

However, the USCIS.gov page states:

"Resided continuously in the U.S. for three years in the case of qualified spouses of U.S. citizens"

I have resided continuously for 3 years and 6 months. 

Should I appeal their decision? What are my options now?