Jump to content

Mike B.

Members
  • Content Count

    451
  • Joined

  • Last visited


Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    Mike B. got a reaction from Kano1024 in sending money to his family (long)   
    No offense, but you do understand that even being in a marriage with "some manipulative qualities" is absolutely awful, right? I mean, normal people don't try to "manipulate" theirs spouses at all. You seem to be setting the bar pretty damn low: "He's trying to manipulate me and separate me from my money, but only somewhat." It doesn't really work that way. Being manipulated into something is binary: either you're being manipulated or you're not.
    I understand that you want to stay with the person you love, and honestly I don't know what I'd do if I were in your shoes. I'd like to think that I'd dump him immediately, but maybe I wouldn't. Love is a powerful thing. Still, you owe it to yourself to set the bar a lot higher than you are.
  2. Like
    Mike B. got a reaction from Kano1024 in sending money to his family (long)   
    The other thing to remember here is that this behavior is not normal. Bvpshenvalley starts her post with "I am married to a dirt-poor Peruvian. I have dealt with these same exact issues as you describe in this thread." So allow me to say this: I am married to a dirt-poor Peruvian. I have not dealt with these same exact issues as you describe in this thread. My wife's family, despite living in the pueblos jovenes (google it if you need an explanation) has never asked for a cent from me, nor do we send them remittances. Just recently my wife's four-year-old nephew was diagnosed with brain cancer. Although we make little money, probably much less than most people who post here, my wife and I JOINTLY decided to send some money down to pay for his MRI, offset some of the cost of his surgery, and stuff like that. They ain't getting a car out of us, though. This is money to help save the kid's life, and again, it was agreed to jointly by my wife and me.
    I hope you understand that I'm not telling you this story to say "isn't my marriage so much better than yours" or "Hey look, everything is perfect with my wife and me." I'm telling it to you to demonstrate that there is another way, that mature people (and I can barely count myself as even that) can work these things out, and that the foundation of a relationship is the idea that things have to be done in a joint fashion in which there is at least some agreement between the two of you about important things like what to do with all your money. Sure, everyone disagrees sometimes, but I sincerely hope you do not get into the mode of thinking where you are telling yourself "every couple has disagreements, so I guess it's normal if my husband wants to move his whole family in with us and drive me even further into nearly a quarter million dollars worth of debt when I want the exact opposite." It's just my opinion, I don't even know you, and others will disagree, but I think adopting that line of thinking would be doing yourself a great disservice. What you are going through is not necessarily normal at all.
  3. Like
    Mike B. got a reaction from F & J in Dual Citizenship for the US Citizen after marriage?   
    Of course, this raises the question of how much the US embassy will help any of its citizens, dual citizens or not. US citizens are routinely arrested in Latin America while trying to smuggle cocaine into the United States. The embassies are likely to give those drug trafficking citizens all the help you'd expect, which is pretty close to none. I remember watching a thing on TV about some young women who were arrested in Peru by DINANDRO (rough equivilant of the DEA). The totality of the US embassy's help was to offer each of them a single sheet of blank paper and tell them that if they wanted to use it to write a short message to their families, the embassy would fax it to a fax number in the US. Those young women would have faced thirty-five years in a US prison had DINANDRO not snatched them before they got on their plane home, so the feds weren't exactly willing to move mountains to help them.
    There was also recently a news item about two American girls who were arrested in Israel, supposedly because the Israeli government thought that one of them had a vaguely Arabic-sounding name and might have once said something that was somewhat sympathetic to the plight of the Palestinians. The girls were stripped naked and thrown into some filthy holding cell. The American embassy's response was more or less to tell them that they shouldn't have run afoul of our great allies, the Israelis, especially when one of them has such a name. Thanks a lot, embassy!
    The bottom line is that even if you're not a dual citizen, if you get arrested in a foreign country and yell out "But I'm an American citizen!," you are likely to be laughed at.
  4. Like
    Mike B. got a reaction from F & J in Dual Citizenship for the US Citizen after marriage?   
    STOP. Just stop. You don't know what you are talking about. You are factually incorrect. The Supreme Court of the United States and the United States Department of State have already issued rulings on the issue. Once again you have quoted material that directly contradicts your assertion, as your quote is of the amended INA, which was brought into line with Vance v. Terrazas with the inclusion of the phrase "voluntarily and with the intention to relinquish," the product of an amendment. As I have already shown you by posting the policy of the Department of State, the method that is used to determine the intention of the United States citizen in question is, and a quote, directly from the Department of State, "the consular officer will simply ask the applicant if there was intent to relinquish U.S. citizenship when performing the act. If the answer is no, the consular officer will certify that it was not the person's intent to relinquish U.S. citizenship and, consequently, find that the person has retained U.S. citizenship."
    Now, you may not like this, and that's fine. You can write a letter to the Secretary of State urging her to change this policy. Or, perhaps, you do not understand the policy, and that's fine also. But if you don't understand it, you should not post about in on this board, as you are telling people something that is wholly incorrect. I don't know how else to impress this upon you. It is particularly frustrating that you are quoting material that in absolute plain text that any literate native speaker of English would understand states that applying for citizenship in a foreign country is only considered a renunciation of citizenship when there is the specific intent to do so.
  5. Like
    Mike B. got a reaction from MrsAwakened in Drug Possession Charge...   
    For the record, I think that the laws that pertain to drug use and possession in the United States are largely stupid. Your fiance used to use cocaine -- something that he, Barack Obama, and George W. Bush all have in common. I hope he is clean now and you somehow find a way to live with him wherever you choose in happiness. The problem is, unfortunately, that USCIS works in a pretty binary manner: "Are we legally obligated to do X? If yes, than do X. Are we legally prohibited from doing Y? If yes, then do not do Y." Saying "The law really ought to allow USCIS to allow my fiance in the country" is the wrong way to think about things.
    Good luck with everything. I hope you find a satisfactory resolution to your issue. If I could help you further, I would, but I cannot.
  6. Like
    Mike B. got a reaction from FLAussie in sending money to his family (long)   
    She's $200,000 in debt, he wants her to buy his family members a car, and you think people are being too judgmental?!?!?!
    Attention people who are still wondering why the financial system and housing market in this country totally collapsed: look no further.
  7. Like
    Mike B. got a reaction from thedude6752000 in Visa Turned Down in India due to "(in)sufficient economic and social ties to assure their departure after a limited stay in the United States"   
    I used to live in Peru. That's how I met my wife. As much as I love Peru, the country has a pretty significant problem with corruption. I dislike the fact that the National Police do almost nothing to protect the population until they receive a bribe. Also, I dislike the fact that beating women is, to a large extent, socially acceptable behavior in Peru. The capital also has a pretty significant pollution problem.
    So now I've "bad mouthed" not "just 1 thing" about the country I lived in, but three things. I guess I'm one of the people you now "hate." I can live with that.
  8. Like
    Mike B. got a reaction from Kaylara in Maybe USCs should have more weight in the matter...   
    Like I said before, I have, on dozens of occasions, been able to prove that the Department of State has totally screwed up and violated the law and/or their own internal regulations, despite the fact that State is certainly, at least in my area, the most with-it of the departments. Simply put, wherever there is a venue to prove how terrible the government is run, it's easy to do it. No one in the government knows what the hell they are doing.
    In the area of immigration, this is solved not by actually doing a decent job, but rather by just taking away any venue that people have to prove what a crappy job the government does. The immigration process is totally opaque, the government goes out of its way to do a lousy job of tracking and reporting what is going on, and there is no appeal processes.
    When you win an administrative appeal, it is a admission by the government that they screwed up and violated the law, unfairly depriving someone of his rights. Why should I believe and assertation that the government doesn't screw things up and unfairly deny citizens and non-citizens alike what they deserve when I've got a stack of such admissions sitting on my desk? Why in the world would you assume that an administrative appeals process in immigration wouldn't find errors all the time, just like similar processes do? It just doesn't make any sense.
    You can argue until you're blue in the face, but the fact of the matter is that ordinary citizens do not hold the same amount of political power that, say, government employees hold. COs by definition hold power over citizens and their fiancees. Reasonable people can disagree about how much of a check should be put on that power, but that doesn't change the fact that they do indeed hold more power.
  9. Like
    Mike B. got a reaction from Kaylara in Maybe USCs should have more weight in the matter...   
    If you mean USCIS is one of the better government agencies, I'm not sure about that. They seem to be horribly ineffcient. People make fun of the post office and the social security administration all the time, but they deal with way more paperwork than USCIS does and get things done way faster as well. Even the Department of Defense, which I think is probably terribly run, manages to overcome huge logistical problems, oversee an enormous and highly decentralized defense system, actually pay the million plus employees it has, and do at least a semi-decent job of fighting two wars all at the same time. Even though I have not had any problem with it, I'm not convinced that USCIS is well-run.
    When talking about how great the immigration system is, it also should be remembered that the government is unable to figure out where in the hell millions of people it is supposedly tracking are, which right there seems to indicate that things might not be going smoothly.
  10. Like
    Mike B. got a reaction from Jacque67 in Husband doesn't want to file papers   
    No they are not. Get over yourself.
  11. Like
    Mike B. got a reaction from thedude6752000 in Visa Turned Down in India due to "(in)sufficient economic and social ties to assure their departure after a limited stay in the United States"   
    I was born and raised in the United States. I moved to Peru. So you post about me, based wholly on conjecture, is incorrect.
    I dislike corruption, and I find the physical assault of women to be intolerable. Like most Peruvians, I am concerned about the level of pollution in Lima.
    Glad you hate me for that, though! Whatever floats your boat/helps you sleep at night is a-ok to me!
  12. Like
    Mike B. got a reaction from thedude6752000 in Visa Turned Down in India due to "(in)sufficient economic and social ties to assure their departure after a limited stay in the United States"   
    OP: Never mind all these holier-than-thou people who are absolutely certain that they know what your intentions are better than you are. Also, I have absolutely no doubt that you are intelligent enough to immediately dismiss anyone who makes the argument "if you don't like every law that has even been passed in this country, you should leave" as what they are: fools. You simply cannot ever convince people who say stuff like that. Sorry, but it's true.
    Yeah, it's going to be very difficult to get an F1. The best evidence you could give is evidence that truly is tied to India. As you correctly pointed out, money can be moved very quickly to the United States even when people cannot, as our bizarre and hypocritical policy is that free trade in every single commodity EXCEPT labor is good. Somehow free trade in labor is evil and would bring about the destruction of the Republic or something, so we have to tightly control immigration. As nonsensical as it is, that's the law, and immigration is an area where the government seems to hold all of the cards: USCIS is the only game in town, Congress will take absolutely forever to pass any kind of reform to the INA because people (like many on here) love to bask in the glory of being part of the collective and think things like "If I had to go through a lousy process, everyone should go through a lousy process," and quite frankly your Congressman/Senator/President/Etc. don't give a damn about your girlfriend because she can't vote and/or donate a million dollars to a reelection campaign. So yeah, it sucks, but you kinda have to get used to it. If your girlfriend owns a bunch of unmovable property such as real estate, has solid evidence that she is being sent to the US by a job that she will return to, can show that she absolutely cannot leave her family for whatever reason, or something like that, that would be much better evidence than a bank account loaded with money. Unfortunately, 1) it sounds like she may not have that stuff and 2) even if she did it is very, very far from guaranteed that she'd overcome an IO's suspicions.
    Many people have told you that you should get a K-1 even though you say you have no intent to marry. Do not listen to them. If you truly have no intent on marrying this woman, it makes no sense to get a K-1. If you think you might want to do it but are not ready and simply want to spend more time with her but cannot get her to the US on some other visa, look for a different way to spend time with her. Maybe she could manage to go to a third country and you could visit her there. Or maybe instead of her practicing her English you might be interested in practicing your Hindi by spending some time in India. Perhaps a bilingual college-educated person such as yourself could even find a job in India.
    If you do want to marry her, though, then get the K-1 (assuming you want to marry in the United States). I know the wait sounds really long, but at the end of the day it really isn't that bad. The emotional pain you will feel is like any other kind of pain: it hurts while you're feeling it but then as soon as it's over it is over. I'm sure you've been injured before. Even when you remember that injury, you can't truly experience the pain like you felt it then. Same goes with being apart for half a year. Yeah, it took eight whole months for me wife (then fiancee) to get her K-1 and come here. And it sucked at the time. But at the end of the day I get to spend the rest of my life with her and I'm with her pretty much every minute of my life that I'm not at work, so it's not like it bothers me that we were apart for so long anymore. You get over it the moment you see her at the airport.
    Anyway, best of luck to you. I hope you find a way to be united with her.
    I speak to my wife in Spanish and I am not Hispanic. Does my story hold up or do you think I'm lying?
  13. Like
    Mike B. reacted to Jawaree in Can't get a passport to meet fiancee   
    Dude get child support out of the way before you embark on another
    expensive odessy, you have to meet up withher in the last 2 yrs to file &
    you will have to think about the I864
  14. Like
    Mike B. got a reaction from user19000 in Fraud: Check outcome of I-751 after divorce?   
    The Freedom of Information Act only requires that government agencies provide you with documents that already exist. It does not require the government to manufacture documents to send you. So you could not send a FOIA saying "am I still on the hook with I-864" because the document saying yes or no does not exist. They would have to write it up just to respond to you.
    You could send a FOIA request asking for the case file of your ex-wife in order to see if she has been tossed out of the country or not. That file already exists, and could be copied and mailed to you. However, Exemption (b)(6) allows the government to withhold documents the release of which would "constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." You can bet your butt that if you filed a FOIA request asking for someone else's file, USCIS would invoke this exemption and refuse to release any documents to you. So the short answer is that I am pretty confident that the answer is no, you cannot get around this issue by using FOIA.
  15. Like
    Mike B. got a reaction from decocker in PROFESSOR: How is my incest different than Homosexuality?   
    According to the State of Texas, the same is true about sexuality. After all, they are the ones arguing about straight men who just happen to like to have ####### sex with other men.
  16. Like
    Mike B. got a reaction from Póg mo in Margaret Thatcher is dead   
    Tá gráin agam ar Thatcher fós.
  17. Like
    Mike B. got a reaction from decocker in PROFESSOR: How is my incest different than Homosexuality?   
    This argument wasn't made by the side of those who were in favor of the constitutionality of Prop 8, to my knowledge. This is probably because your argument runs very, very close to a similar one that was popular in the past and is now considered embarrassing. In the 1950s and 60s southern states lined up to make the argument that all sorts of racist laws weren't really equal protection problems because when you really think about it, they kind of fall on blacks and whites evenly. For example, a law against interracial marriage could be said to equally prohibit whites from marrying blacks as it does blacks from marrying whites, so where is the equal protection problem? Similarly, segregated schools could be said to merely prevent everyone from attending integrated schools. Sure, black people were prohibited from attending white schools, but white people were also prohibited from attending black schools, so in a way, everyone is being treated equally, in that they equally are being prevented from integrating.
    As recently as a ten years ago in Lawrence v. Texas the state of Texas made the argument that laws against sodomy don't violate equal protection because they prohibit heterosexual men from having ####### sex with other men just as much as they prevent homosexual men from doing so. In fact, during oral arguments, Texas opened up with the (really quite bizarre) claim that Lawrence was never really proven to be a homosexual, and in fact could have merely been a heterosexual man who enjoyed having ####### sex with other men. If its possible that Lawrence isn't part of some sort of class of protected people, the argument went, then the whole idea of a equal protection claim falls flat. In the end, it was argued, the statue only "descriminates" against people who engage in illegal conduct.
    But Texas lost that case, and the Supreme Court found that the law was "targeted at more than conduct. It is instead directed toward gay persons as a class.... A State can of course assign certain consequences to a violation of its criminal law. But the State cannot single out one identifiable class of citizens for punishment that does not apply to everyone else, with moral disapproval as the only asserted state interest for the law. The Texas sodomy statute subjects homosexuals to a lifelong penalty and stigma. A legislative classification that threatens the creation of an underclass ... cannot be reconciled with the Equal Protection Clause."
    Similarly, in Loving, the Court found that while laws against interracial marriage can be said to fall on blacks and whites equally, the fact that a racial distinction is being drawn means that the legislation is subject to strict scrutiny, and that the laws in question are "obviously an endorsement of the doctrine of White Supremacy."
    I would argue that proposition 8 is similarly situated. The proposition does prevent straight people from marrying people of the same sex (why would they ever want to?) in the same way that the statue in Texas prevented straight men from having ####### intercourse with other men (why would they ever want to?) and in the same way that segregated schools prevented white people from attending run-down schools built for blacks (why would they ever want to?). So yes, you can twist anything into an argument that people are being treated equally. But there has to be a higher scrutiny of these laws, and such scrutiny would quickly find that the purpose of these laws is to punish an unpopular class of people, period. Gay marriage isn't illegal because of some compelling reason of state, it's illegal because people find homosexuality to be yucky and thus making gay sex and gay marriage illegal is a good way to punish them for being such yucky people. That's all it's about. The laws against having sex with your daughter have a totally different purpose: they are illegal to prevent coercion, rape (who can say that a minor daughter has true power to consent to her father's demands?), the medical problems that arise with children born of incest, etc. Those are all compelling interests.
  18. Like
    Mike B. got a reaction from Alex & Rachel in PROFESSOR: How is my incest different than Homosexuality?   
    You're creating a straw man argument intentionally. Either that, or you don't understand the arguments in favor of gay marriage. They are as such:
    The Supreme Court has recognized that homosexuals are a protected class of persons and that legislation cannot target them with the sole purpose of expressing moral disapproval (Lawrence v. Texas). The Supreme Court has also found that there is a right to marry that cannot be denied on the basis of membership in a class of persons (Loving v. Virgina). California has enacted a constitutional amendment that denies a class of persons the right to marry in order to express its moral disapproval of membership in the group. California is thus violating the Constitution.
    You're living in a fantasy world if you think there's any danger of that argument being used to argue for a constitutional right to have sex with your young daughter. I mean, just pure fantasy.
  19. Like
    Mike B. got a reaction from Karee in PROFESSOR: How is my incest different than Homosexuality?   
    You're creating a straw man argument intentionally. Either that, or you don't understand the arguments in favor of gay marriage. They are as such:
    The Supreme Court has recognized that homosexuals are a protected class of persons and that legislation cannot target them with the sole purpose of expressing moral disapproval (Lawrence v. Texas). The Supreme Court has also found that there is a right to marry that cannot be denied on the basis of membership in a class of persons (Loving v. Virgina). California has enacted a constitutional amendment that denies a class of persons the right to marry in order to express its moral disapproval of membership in the group. California is thus violating the Constitution.
    You're living in a fantasy world if you think there's any danger of that argument being used to argue for a constitutional right to have sex with your young daughter. I mean, just pure fantasy.
  20. Like
    Mike B. got a reaction from decocker in PROFESSOR: How is my incest different than Homosexuality?   
    You're creating a straw man argument intentionally. Either that, or you don't understand the arguments in favor of gay marriage. They are as such:
    The Supreme Court has recognized that homosexuals are a protected class of persons and that legislation cannot target them with the sole purpose of expressing moral disapproval (Lawrence v. Texas). The Supreme Court has also found that there is a right to marry that cannot be denied on the basis of membership in a class of persons (Loving v. Virgina). California has enacted a constitutional amendment that denies a class of persons the right to marry in order to express its moral disapproval of membership in the group. California is thus violating the Constitution.
    You're living in a fantasy world if you think there's any danger of that argument being used to argue for a constitutional right to have sex with your young daughter. I mean, just pure fantasy.
  21. Like
    Mike B. got a reaction from Knope2012 in sending money to his family (long)   
    She's $200,000 in debt, he wants her to buy his family members a car, and you think people are being too judgmental?!?!?!
    Attention people who are still wondering why the financial system and housing market in this country totally collapsed: look no further.
  22. Like
    Mike B. got a reaction from Harpa Timsah in Dual Citizenship for the US Citizen after marriage?   
    STOP. Just stop. You don't know what you are talking about. You are factually incorrect. The Supreme Court of the United States and the United States Department of State have already issued rulings on the issue. Once again you have quoted material that directly contradicts your assertion, as your quote is of the amended INA, which was brought into line with Vance v. Terrazas with the inclusion of the phrase "voluntarily and with the intention to relinquish," the product of an amendment. As I have already shown you by posting the policy of the Department of State, the method that is used to determine the intention of the United States citizen in question is, and a quote, directly from the Department of State, "the consular officer will simply ask the applicant if there was intent to relinquish U.S. citizenship when performing the act. If the answer is no, the consular officer will certify that it was not the person's intent to relinquish U.S. citizenship and, consequently, find that the person has retained U.S. citizenship."
    Now, you may not like this, and that's fine. You can write a letter to the Secretary of State urging her to change this policy. Or, perhaps, you do not understand the policy, and that's fine also. But if you don't understand it, you should not post about in on this board, as you are telling people something that is wholly incorrect. I don't know how else to impress this upon you. It is particularly frustrating that you are quoting material that in absolute plain text that any literate native speaker of English would understand states that applying for citizenship in a foreign country is only considered a renunciation of citizenship when there is the specific intent to do so.
  23. Like
    Mike B. got a reaction from Ontarkie in Dual Citizenship for the US Citizen after marriage?   
    STOP. Just stop. You don't know what you are talking about. You are factually incorrect. The Supreme Court of the United States and the United States Department of State have already issued rulings on the issue. Once again you have quoted material that directly contradicts your assertion, as your quote is of the amended INA, which was brought into line with Vance v. Terrazas with the inclusion of the phrase "voluntarily and with the intention to relinquish," the product of an amendment. As I have already shown you by posting the policy of the Department of State, the method that is used to determine the intention of the United States citizen in question is, and a quote, directly from the Department of State, "the consular officer will simply ask the applicant if there was intent to relinquish U.S. citizenship when performing the act. If the answer is no, the consular officer will certify that it was not the person's intent to relinquish U.S. citizenship and, consequently, find that the person has retained U.S. citizenship."
    Now, you may not like this, and that's fine. You can write a letter to the Secretary of State urging her to change this policy. Or, perhaps, you do not understand the policy, and that's fine also. But if you don't understand it, you should not post about in on this board, as you are telling people something that is wholly incorrect. I don't know how else to impress this upon you. It is particularly frustrating that you are quoting material that in absolute plain text that any literate native speaker of English would understand states that applying for citizenship in a foreign country is only considered a renunciation of citizenship when there is the specific intent to do so.
  24. Like
    Mike B. got a reaction from VanessaTony in Dual Citizenship for the US Citizen after marriage?   
    STOP. Just stop. You don't know what you are talking about. You are factually incorrect. The Supreme Court of the United States and the United States Department of State have already issued rulings on the issue. Once again you have quoted material that directly contradicts your assertion, as your quote is of the amended INA, which was brought into line with Vance v. Terrazas with the inclusion of the phrase "voluntarily and with the intention to relinquish," the product of an amendment. As I have already shown you by posting the policy of the Department of State, the method that is used to determine the intention of the United States citizen in question is, and a quote, directly from the Department of State, "the consular officer will simply ask the applicant if there was intent to relinquish U.S. citizenship when performing the act. If the answer is no, the consular officer will certify that it was not the person's intent to relinquish U.S. citizenship and, consequently, find that the person has retained U.S. citizenship."
    Now, you may not like this, and that's fine. You can write a letter to the Secretary of State urging her to change this policy. Or, perhaps, you do not understand the policy, and that's fine also. But if you don't understand it, you should not post about in on this board, as you are telling people something that is wholly incorrect. I don't know how else to impress this upon you. It is particularly frustrating that you are quoting material that in absolute plain text that any literate native speaker of English would understand states that applying for citizenship in a foreign country is only considered a renunciation of citizenship when there is the specific intent to do so.
  25. Like
    Mike B. got a reaction from VanessaTony in Dual Citizenship for the US Citizen after marriage?   
    The text that you quoted accurately says that applying for the citizenship of another country is legal and is not considered a renouncement of US citizenship unless it accompanies some sort of voluntary and intentional renunciation of US citizenship. I believe that that directly contradicts what you wrote when you stated "you cannot apply actively for another country's citizenship." You can indeed apply for another country's citizenship, and in fact you can do so and be perfectly safe in maintaining your US citizenship as long as you don't also do something that voluntarily and intentionally renounces your foreign citizenship, such as formally swearing off your citizenship at the US embassy or something like that. See, e.g., Vance v. Terrazas, which establishes that a United States citizen cannot have his or her citizenship revoked, and that citizenship can only be lost through intentional renunciation. The interesting and pertinent thing here is that, as I understand it, the method that the Department of State uses to determine whether or not a person was intentionally relinquishing United States citizenship is to ask. So if you were ever put in the extraordinary situation of having the Department of State question whether or not you intended on relinquishing your United States citizenship, they'd ask if you if did, and you could, of course, simply reply "no."
    See this page for more information about the above. Here is a pertient quote from it:
    When, as the result of an individual's inquiry or an individual's application for registration or a passport it comes to the attention of a U.S. consular officer that a U.S. citizen has performed an act made potentially expatriating by Sections 349(a)(1), 349(a)(2), 349(a)(3) or 349(a)(4) as described above, the consular officer will simply ask the applicant if there was intent to relinquish U.S. citizenship when performing the act. If the answer is no, the consular officer will certify that it was not the person's intent to relinquish U.S. citizenship and, consequently, find that the person has retained U.S. citizenship.
×
×
  • Create New...