jacketconfident

21 minutes ago, ros88 said:

He is regularly stationary abroad as USCIS can see from his and mine overseas trips out of the country.

and they will be at least one year long.

And he co-owns the company where he works and he has his main office based in Washington DC.

It's possible that you qualify for naturalization under 319(b), but you should really consult with an immigration lawyer who is experienced in these cases.

On 12/11/2022 at 1:51 PM, ros88 said:

hi!

I am in the same position I followed my then fiance’ out of the country and that’s why I don’t have enough months to apply for citizenship and he is now my husband and needs to move out of the country again that’s why I need to naturalize in order to travel back and forth without any issue.

he is a defense contractor based in the US but he works also for Nato and need to be overseas for long times sometimes.

Do you think that I can do the same you did even if I was just his fiance at the beginning but we are married now since 2020.

 

looking forward to hearing back from you thanks 

Hello! The main question I would have is whether your husband is "regularly stationed abroad" with his job with the defense contractor or at NATO. (A related question is whether the defense contractor work is employment or whether he himself is the contractor to the government. The latter would not be helpful, as using 319(b) requires him to be an employee of a qualifying employer.) That is a statutory requirement, and USCIS interprets it to mean that your husband's employment abroad would need to last at least a year from the date of filing the N-400. But you said that he is "based in the US", which sounds like he is not regularly stationed abroad, even if he is often sent on long business trips overseas. 

So:

(1) Is he an employee of a defense contractor or of NATO? And

(2) Are the overseas business trips as an employee of the defense contractor or NATO at least one year long?

Since most of the discussion on this site relating to Section 319(b) of the INA relates to military spouses, I wanted to share our experience of a successful naturalization under another of the 319(b) categories – for those whose spouse has a qualifying employment abroad with an American firm or corporation. It was difficult for us to find a case similar to ours in researching how to prepare our application, so I thought this post might provide a helpful data point.

I (the original petitioner) am an American citizen. I am employed at a foreign office of a US-headquartered commercial law firm. This foreign office practices both US and foreign law, but I am an American lawyer practicing US securities law out of this foreign office. Among other things, I assist foreign companies in issuing bonds. I help make sure that these bonds comply with US securities laws, especially as a portion of them are sold to US investors.

I do not practice immigration law. This post is an account of our immigration experience, not legal advice.

My wife (the original beneficiary) was a US permanent resident, but had only resided in the US for about six months before we moved abroad. This put her in the position of needing to return frequently to the United States to maintain her permanent residency, which was a pain and not really sustainable for long, as we do not yet know when we will return to the United States.

American firm or corporation

Applicants’ spouses need to be employed by an “American firm or corporation,” or a subsidiary thereof. This usually means that the American spouse’s employing entity, or its parent, needs to be more than half owned by Americans and was incorporated or registered in the United States.

Not all global American-based law firms are likely to meet this criterion. For instance, many operate on a verein model in which the foreign offices are not in common ownership with the US offices; functionally, they are separate law firms that share common branding. My employer, however, is one of a few that follows a more traditional model on which most of the foreign offices are just branches of the US law firm. So, although my employment contract is governed by foreign law, the employing entity is a US LLP.

In order to establish American ownership USCIS requested a number of documents, including the firm’s partnership agreement and its annual report. Our own immigration lawyers initially suggested that we ask the firm for copies of the passports of all the firm’s owners (the equity partners) in order to prove that more than half of them were Americans. None of this was remotely acceptable to my firm. In the end, all we had for our application was a letter from the general counsel of the law firm affirming that, having access to the records of the firm, it was more than half owned by Americans. Evidently, this was acceptable to USCIS.

Development of foreign trade and commerce of the United States

Apparently, the criterion that the employing firm be engaged in the development of the United States is rather loose. Our immigration lawyers drafted a letter for the head of HR of my firm to sign that confirmed that I did the sort of US-related work I mentioned above. (My understanding is that the applicant needs to show that the firm is engaged in the development of foreign trade and commerce with the United States, not that the employee’s particular job is so connected – but in my case, the strongest connection to US trade and commerce is through my job.)

The applicant also needs to show that the citizen spouse is “regularly stationed abroad,” meaning that they are scheduled to be employed abroad for at least one year from the time of filing the N-400. This requirement seems more geared towards military and diplomatic posts. In my case, and like most jobs at law firms, my contract is of indefinite length. Accordingly, the letter from HR merely confirmed that I was, at the time of writing, employed by the firm. Evidently this, too, was acceptable to USCIS.

The rest of my wife’s application included evidence that is common to other 319(b) applications: evidence we live together abroad, evidence that she would leave the US after naturalization, intent to return to the US, etc.

I’m happy to field questions in the thread below.

So far as we know, the Naples consulate is still scheduling and doing interviews. Our interview is next week, and we have received no notifications about it since it was scheduled. 

Also, there definitely seem to have been interviews since  August this year. See, for instance: https://www.visajourney.com/timeline/profile.php?id=374740.

UPDATE -- It turns out that at least some IR1/CR1 interviews for November are still going forward in Naples at this time. (I just communicated with a VJ member whose interview hasn't been cancelled.) It is, however, unclear what the announcement from the Italian Embassy means, and whether it implies any recent change in what visas are getting issued. Apologies for the hasty take. 

As of November 9th, the Embassy and Consulates in Italy have stopped issuing visas. https://ais.usvisa-info.com/en-it/niv/information/announcements#619-operational_status_of_visa_services_20201109140452

The "military option" mentioned here derives from INA § 319(b) (8 U.S.C. § 1430(b)). There are a few other ways for her to get expedited citizenship under this subsection; notably, if you work for an American firm engaged in the "development of foreign trade and commerce" and are transferred abroad for what you expect to be more than a year, she can apply for citizenship as soon as you have the offer to transfer. 

On 4/23/2020 at 1:40 PM, Anrim said:

Hi Daisy&Mirko,

 

We have created a wonderful WhatsApp group. You guys can send us your phone number in a private message and we can add you.

 

Hi! Our CR1 case may need to be transferred to the Naples consulate. Could I be added to the WhatsApp group, if it was ever created?

1 hour ago, AlessiaM said:

1. This one is primarily for Italians who lived in another country before moving to the USA with a K1 visa. I am living in Edinburgh since 2018 and I will be living here for the next year. I am enrolled in the A.I.R.E  (Anagrafe Italiani Residenti all'Estero) and  I do not have any address in Italy anymore. Can I go to the U.S. Embassy in London for the medical exams and the interview? Also, all the vaccinations that needs to be done, can I do them here in Scotland? 

As far as I know: This depends not on whether Italy knows that you reside abroad but whether you can convince the State Department that you have status in the UK. If you have, or have applied for settled status in the UK, they should allow you to interview in the UK as well.

@Romans13 Shouldn't you be able to find this in CEAC? It should say whether your case is at NVC or MTL. 

@Airline Pilot Yes, it's a horrendous system. If I had known two years ago when I started this process that it would take so long, I think we would have done it differently. And of course, it's all the worse that they are not giving us the faintest idea of the reasons for the delay and when they expect to be able to interview again. 

@Zelna Ugh, I'm so sorry. It really is unnecessarily cruel of even the career employees of the State Department to fail to come up with a solution. For instance, even if they really think that in-person interviews are very important for security reasons (questionable), if they really wanted to have visas processed, they could come up with a solution. Put up plexiglass between the consular officials and interviewees and make the groups of interviewees called in much smaller, or rent out a larger space temporarily just for interviews. It's telling that the State Department has no interest or appetite for creative solutions.

 I'm curious what your immigration attorney's reasoning was, though, about the health advisory and the land border. Consider:

•  A few consular posts have, apparently, started rescheduling cancelled IR1/CR1 interviews, especially for people who have already taken their medical exam. There is still a health advisory in effect for all of those places.
• Why designate the IR1/CR1 categories as "mission critical" if you couldn't process those visas because of a global Level 4 health advisory? Like, what was the point of doing that unless embassies are allowed to work on them?
• Some of the consular posts that have started rescheduling interviews (Paris, perhaps Naples?) are still subject to the 14-day travel ban from the US. Granted, those bans don't apply to spouses of US citizens ... but then again, spouses of US citizens can fly into the US from Canada, and maybe they can even drive over the border if relocating to the US is considered essential travel. 

My current, pessimistic guess is that all consular posts could, relative to State Department internal guidelines, process spousal immigrant visas right now -- at least for those interviews, like yours, that were already scheduled. If a given consulate hasn't started rescheduling them, it's either because (a) they can't, because consular staff fled the country for the US (an unwise move in hindsight!) or (b) they won't, because they are very hidebound to their current office layout and practices which require a lot of people working and waiting in small space, which they cannot now do. 

Ultimately, your attorney's explanation (health advisory/borders) and my explanation (inertia/bureaucracy/risk aversion) probably end up in the same place: there won't be interviews out of the Montreal consulate for a very long time.

Ah, didn't finish typing.
 

Saying "Embassy X is in Phase 3" doesn't distinguish between those two. Phase 3 of the local government plan, or Phase 3 of Diplomacy Strong?

I was pointing out that, if consular posts are expected to rigorously adhere to both local regulations and Diplomacy Strong before reopening, that would be bad news for a lot of consular posts. Diplomacy Strong, at least, has some pretty stringent conditions for its Phase 3.

But as Paul pointed out above, there seems to be some flexibility in practice for consular posts. They are allowed to work on "mission critical visas" right now, to they extent that they have enough staff and feel comfortable hosting visitors for interviews, and local conditions and regulations allow it. The problem is that not many consular posts seem to be moving quickly to take advantage of this flexibility and reschedule interviews.

1 hour ago, OrihimeandIchigo said:

This is a very informative post, I appreciate the you posting it. Can someone explain all of this to me in very simple terms for me to understand completely? I follow some of it but not all. Thanks (also no bashing me please)

• There's lots of talk of phases of reopening floating around. But who defines what the phases are? There are two possible answers to that question that are relevant to US consulates and embassies:
  • What the US State Department says. It has its own reopening plan with phases.
  • What the local, host country government(s) say(s). They often have their own reopening plan.

I really hope the consulate's reopening isn't contingent on the land border. Remember, anyone can still fly into the US from Canada, which is also the only realistic way to get to the US from most countries -- even those whose embassies have started rescheduling interviews!

That is helpful, thanks.

6 hours ago, Paul & Mary said:

Here is a good site to check to see what the status of each country is in with regards to the STAGES the US Department of State has for the Consulates:

 

https://www.immigrationlaw.com/u-s-consulate-closures-due-to-covid-19/

 

It is updated as changes occur!

 

Word of Warning - I have talked to the site and they are only showing updates that are via the Consulate's and Foreign countries website.   Example: the announcement of Jamaica processing immigrant visas was placed on the consulate's facebook site and not updated on the consulate's website and is not reflected on this link.

 

Best wishes ~ Paul

Thanks for this link, Paul.

Many of the statements collected on that site appear to refer to local government phase schemes. Others may be referring to the DoS's own reopening plan, which goes by the cringe-worthy name "Diplomacy Strong": https://www.axios.com/pompeo-coronavirus-state-department-reopening-ec5dc86d-6393-4614-b05f-68d3b5f6ec10.html. Certainly, for embassies and consulates, one would expect that both local and State Department plans are relevant: consular operations can resume only to the extent that they are permitted by both. 

Note that Diplomacy Strong envisages 14-day compliance check periods before moving up a Phase, where the principal metric seems to be continued decrease in coronavirus cases. That would entail that, even if a country has completely wiped out the virus and has no local restrictions, it would be at least a month from the date of entering Diplomacy Strong Phase I until the start of Phase III.

My questions:

1) Is it really the case that, for even limited visa processing to resume, the consular post must be in Phase III of Diplomacy Strong? 

2) In order to start a Phase under Diplomacy Strong, do all the Xs in the relevant column need to be checked? (See the inset document in the link above and the page on overseas facilities.) 

My concern is about consular posts in Canada (Montreal) and Mexico if the answers to both questions are yes. That would be bad news for visa applicants in those countries, given that (a) "Land Borders" would need to be checked to enter Phase III and (b) the Canadian (and for all I know, Mexican) border is not likely to reopen this summer: https://www.bellinghamherald.com/news/rebuild/article243666227.html. That would mean months of wait before the consulates even open their doors.

Caveats: It's not clear what it would take to check off "Land Borders". (The borders are still there, last I checked!) How open do they have to be? Also, there is some reason to think that not all Phase III requirements need be met for limited visa services to resume: the embassy in Jamaica and a handful of other consular posts have started rescheduling interviews even though the Department of State's global Level 4 travel advisory remains in place. This is true even though "Department of State Travel Advisory" is also one of the Phase III requirements. 

We are also waiting on Montreal.

PD: October-18-2018

CC: April-29-2020

Text of the new EO: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/proclamation-suspending-entry-aliens-present-risk-u-s-labor-market-following-coronavirus-outbreak/

Text of the new order: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/proclamation-suspending-entry-aliens-present-risk-u-s-labor-market-following-coronavirus-outbreak/