Deported for an Agravated felony but we think he is a US Citizen? What to do next?

[Zedayn 485]

Mistakes at USCIS happen and I'm well aware of that. Lets not forget, this guy came to the States and became LPR. There are documents which had to been provided before he was given his LPR status. USCIS would have learned then, that the guy was born onto USC parent/parents. Yet, he was still given LPR. That's crazy.

He was born abroad, and he had not proven his US citizenship. So USCIS would not consider him being a USC because there was no proof, regardless if a parent was a USC or not.

[bluebird74 34]

And just for your reference: In this case, the child was born 1992; entered country 1998, age 6; mother naturalized 2004.

Citizenship at Birth for Children Born Outside the U.S. and its Territories

A Child Born Outside the U.S. is a Citizen at Birth IF...

AND...

Both parents were U.S. citizens at the time of birth,

The parents were married at the time of birth and at least one parent lived in the U.S. or its territories prior to the birth.

If the child was born out of wedlock, see N-600: FAQ.

One parent is a U.S. citizen at the time of birth and the birthdate is on or after November 14, 1986

The parents are married at the time of birth and the U.S. citizen parent had been physically present in the U.S. or its territories for a period of at least five years at some time in his or her life prior to the birth, of which at least two years were after his or her 14^th birthday.

If the U.S. citizen parent spent time abroad in any of the following three capacities, this can also be counted towards the physical presence requirement:

· Serving honorably in the U.S. Armed Forces;

· Employed with the U.S. Government; or

· Employed with certain international organizations.

Additionally, time spent abroad by the U.S. citizen parent while the U.S. citizen parent was the unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person who meets any of the three conditions listed above can also be counted.

If the child was born out of wedlock, see N-600: FAQ.

No one has full knowledge of anything in particular. We learn something new everyday and laws and regulations change over time. I have in fact educated myself and given the information provided at that time, I have commented accordingly. You see to know more about the subject - I was not given that information. It may have been provided at later time and it is too time consuming for me to read all the posts in this thread. A lot of information shared here, was shared several times by other VJ members. I am not the one who will reside at the Tribunal in the hearing of this guy's case, so I do not have to be aware of all the facts. However, I keep in mind the fact - I suggest you do the same, that this is a case of a person who became LPR, lost that privilege, got deported and is now fighting to "retroactively" become a USC, for the purpose of rendering his deportation illegal. All I am saying, is good luck.

[jhm3 15]

Actually they are not automatically a US citizen because a parent is a USC when born in the foreign country. They must go through the process of having the birth reported abroad to gain that citizenship. It is up to the state department to determine if they meet the standard of proof required to acquire US citizenship.

A child born abroad to a US citizen parent *is* -- automatically -- a US citizen *if* the statutory provisions for the transmission of citizenship from the parent to the child are satisfied. The issuance of a Consular Report of Birth Abroad does not *confer* citizenship, it *documents* citizenship. It is indeed up to consular officials to judge whether or not the statutory requirements for the transmission of citizenship have been met when they are processing an application for a CRBA or a passport, but they are not granting (or withholding) citizenship, they are reviewing evidence of a claim that a child acquired US citizenship at birth to determine whether or not to issue citizenship documents.

The information at http://travel.state.gov/content/passports/english/abroad/events-and-records/birth.html explains that the purpose of the CRBA is "to document that the child is a U.S. citizen" and states that if the "embassy or consulate determines that the child acquired U.S. citizenship at birth, a consular officer will approve the CRBA application."

You can also Google section 7 FAM 1131.7 of the State Department's Foreign Affairs Manual to see that, except for children born between 1934 and 1952 (on account of provisions of the relevant law in force during that period), there is no positive action required on the part of a child who acquired US citizenship by birth to a US citizen parent abroad or on the part of his parents in order for the child to retain his citizenship (so not having a CRBA by the time you are 18 does not mean you are not a citizen, for example).

[Boiler 45,516]

He proved his Citizenship when he entered at the age of 6.

[Caryh 5,206]

Can you please cite a source? I cite the N-600 instructions: http://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/files/form/n-600instr.pdf -- sorry I can't copy paste the relevant part, but look at page 1.

Having trouble finding the source again. But technically they are not citizens of the USA until the report of birth abroad has been completed. They have the right to apply, but they do not have citizenship until its been determined they qualify, and the state department has sole authority to decide who qualifies and gets citizenship.

[SBB 74]

Having trouble finding the source again. But technically they are not citizens of the USA until the report of birth abroad has been completed. They have the right to apply, but they do not have citizenship until its been determined they qualify, and the state department has sole authority to decide who qualifies and gets citizenship.

The CRBA does not confer or grant US citizenship, it merely confirms and documents the citizenship that the child has had all along.

[Ryan E 10]

Having trouble finding the source again. But technically they are not citizens of the USA until the report of birth abroad has been completed. They have the right to apply, but they do not have citizenship until its been determined they qualify, and the state department has sole authority to decide who qualifies and gets citizenship.

If you find it, please share. There is a difference between having citizenship and documenting it. If you want some interesting reading, check out the situation with Americans of polish decent visiting Poland a while back and being held when trying to leave because the needed to make a polish passport to leave because they were automatic polish citizens because there parents or grandparents were.

[Shub 78]

Having trouble finding the source again. But technically they are not citizens of the USA until the report of birth abroad has been completed. They have the right to apply, but they do not have citizenship until its been determined they qualify, and the state department has sole authority to decide who qualifies and gets citizenship.

The CRBA does not confer or grant US citizenship, it merely confirms and documents the citizenship that the child has had all along.

That is exactly it. Think of the CRBA as a regular birth certificate issued inside the United States. It does not make you a citizen. The fact that you were born on US soil is what makes you a citizen. A birth certificate is simply an easy method of proving that you are a US citizen when required.

[jhm3 15]

Having trouble finding the source again. But technically they are not citizens of the USA until the report of birth abroad has been completed. They have the right to apply, but they do not have citizenship until its been determined they qualify, and the state department has sole authority to decide who qualifies and gets citizenship.

I'm sure your intentions are good, and I trust that you believe what you are saying to be true, but it is not helpful to make -- in this case inaccurate -- assertions that cannot be backed up with a source. A child born to a US citizen parent abroad either is a US citizen from birth or he/she isn't, depending on whether or not the transmission requirements are met. They either are or they are not, independently of whether or not a CRBA has been issued. The CRBA documents citizenship, and the State Department has the authority to decide whether or not to issue the document, based on the evidence available that the transmission requirements have (or have not) been satisfied. Since documentation of citizenship is generally required before someone will be allowed to exercise the benefits of citizenship, the consular officer does indeed play an important role in regulating access to US passports and other privileges, but it's just not right to say someone "technically isn't a citizen" until they have a CRBA. Maybe this is a subtle distinction, but I think it's important for us to get our terminology right here ...

And if I'm wrong, and you do have a source, I really would be glad to see it. I want to be sure I'm getting this right, too ...

[Angela256z 30]

Here is a link with information on a child born in a foreign country. Though this is not an official government site, it could be a jumping off point for research into the subject. http://www.uscitizenship.info/citizenship-library-children.html

[Caryh 5,206]

If you find it, please share. There is a difference between having citizenship and documenting it. If you want some interesting reading, check out the situation with Americans of polish decent visiting Poland a while back and being held when trying to leave because the needed to make a polish passport to leave because they were automatic polish citizens because there parents or grandparents were.

It was an interesting read. It was on the state department web site, and went through all the minor changes in the laws over time that affected citizenship for children of USC's. They made direct mention of the USA not following the Roman method of automatically making children of citizens, citizens. But rather the state department had the right to determine which foreign children of US citizens are citizens. This is why they refer to the CRBA as acquiring citizenship for the child. It is retroactive to birth, and for all practical purposes appears automatic, although legally its not. Any president could presumably make it very difficult for a foreign born child to acquire citizenship.

[jhm3 15]

It was an interesting read. It was on the state department web site, and went through all the minor changes in the laws over time that affected citizenship for children of USC's. They made direct mention of the USA not following the Roman method of automatically making children of citizens, citizens. But rather the state department had the right to determine which foreign children of US citizens are citizens. This is why they refer to the CRBA as acquiring citizenship for the child. It is retroactive to birth, and for all practical purposes appears automatic, although legally its not. Any president could presumably make it very difficult for a foreign born child to acquire citizenship.

I think you are referring to the relevant section of the State Department's Foreign Affairs Manual:

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86757.pdf

But you are misremembering, or you misunderstood, what it says. It says that the US only follows jus sanguinis to the extent provided for in US nationality law -- meaning that citizenship is only transmitted when specific transmission requirements are met. The State Department does indeed have the authority to determine, based on the law, when foreign-born children of US citizens are citizens (i.e., they make a judgment on that when processing CRBA and passport applications), but they don't "refer to the CRBA as acquiring citizenship for the child." A clue is right there in the title of the section: "Acquisition of U.S. Citizenship by Birth Abroad to a U.S. Parent" (Not "by Issuance of a CRBA")!

Edited March 5, 2014 by jhm3

[Caryh 5,206]

I think you are referring to the relevant section of the State Department's Foreign Affairs Manual:

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86757.pdf

But you are misremembering, or you misunderstood, what it says. It says that the US only follows jus sanguinis to the extent provided for in US nationality law -- meaning that citizenship is only transmitted when specific transmission requirements are met. The State Department does indeed have the authority to determine, based on the law, when foreign-born children of US citizens are citizens (i.e., they make a judgment on that when processing CRBA and passport applications), but they don't "refer to the CRBA as acquiring citizenship for the child." A clue is right there in the title of the section: "Acquisition of U.S. Citizenship by Birth Abroad to a U.S. Parent" (Not "by Issuance of a CRBA")!

I believe that is it, and its quite likely I misunderstood a part of it.

[EM_Vandaveer 2,408]

To the people who say that the fact he used to be a LPR means he can't be a citizen:

This is in fact, untrue. Some time ago I came into contact with a fellow Hungarian through VJ. She was born in Hungary sometime in the 1980s to her USC mother and Hungarian father. They relocated to the US while she was a child. Her parents did not know or research immigration, so instead of her coming with a US passport and her dad with an immigrant visa, they both came on Hungarian passports with tourist visas. Their status was later changed (this was easier back then), the father's to some kind of work visa and hers to a student visa. Her parents died and she grew up in a children's home, lost all documents except her passport. She was in student status, went on to college, met her husband, applied for AOS and received a green card.

I tried to persuade her to try for the N-600, but as she lost the documents it just was not feasible. She clearly is a USC, but could not prove it, so ended up being a LPR instead.

Edited March 5, 2014 by EM_Vandaveer

[katie1990 23]

Hello everyone I appreciate all the responses I have received and everyone that has taken the time to respond and even the research that was done. Just an update my grandmother and cousin did go to the Embassy yesterday , although it was a little late he was able to speak to an officer, he tried to explain the whole situation from beginning to end. The officer was taken aback from the whole situation, but gave him an appointment for today,told him to go back today, he is there as I'm typing. But from what the officer told him yesterday was that if everything that my cousin told him was true, he is a US CITIZEN but never formally claimed it or got the required paperwork to prove it. So at this point he told him he was able to receive a US Passport if everything that was told was accurate and today is the day that they would see what paperwork will be needed and what items to bring to process one. So ill be waiting to see what they tell him He said he would call as soon as he was home.