Employment/School history and political history

[cardinal 1]

My husband has been a LPR for 6 years. He is finally getting around to filing N400. The whole time he has been in the US, he has been a PhD student at a french university, but working remotely in the US. His PhD does not require coursework - it's straight research - so he doesn't need to be physically in France to do the work.  For the first three years, he spent 3-5 months a year at his fieldsite (in another country); and the last 3 years he's spent about 2 months/year in France working with his advisor. He has maintained residency in the US the whole time - we own a home, have a kid, joint bank account, paid taxes filing jointly, etc.

Should we be worried that an employer/school address outside the US will raise red flags? For the occupation, we're thinking of putting "PhD student (working from home)" - is that adequate, or does it require more explanation? This was a non-issue for ROC, but it's a new administration, and I'm not sure how much to worry.

 

Also, in 2014 there was a  revolution in his country that overthrew the president who had been in power for 30 years and who was trying to force a change the constitution to continue to remain in power. My husband posted one FB post after the president stepped down basically supporting his country and saying that the pres. needed to go and that new leaders needed to abide by the constitution. There was then an attempted coup against the new gov't in 2015 and he protested in DC against the coup. Any issues there? Does he need to disclose anything? This was all after ROC so hasn't come up previously. I don't *think* this could be interpreted as "advocating the overthrow of government" but would like other opinions :)

 

He has no red flags as far as we can tell, not even a parking ticket. We've debated getting a lawyer, but it would be a squeeze financially, and we'd rather not if we don't have to.

Thanks!

[usmsbow 801]

1- If it wasn't an issue for ROC, I can't imagine it would be an issue for citizenship. As long as it is clear he's been a resident the whole time in the US, I wouldn't worry.

 

2- Advocating the overthrow of the government is in regards to the US, not other countries. USCIS won't care about that at all regardless. 

 

IOW, he's fine. Those aren't red flags at all. 

[Alabamak1 688]

if he doesnt have a criminal record....if would be far fetched to get him from a post on social media that he was trying to overthrow the goverment, and in this case it's not even related to the US goverment. Even going further on this matter, as long as he is not a member of a group, clan or association to try to be involved in terrorist acts against the US. i am not up to date on the wording, but the N-400 is very clear what they consider unqualified for naturalization. Read the application through. IMO he is ok to file. 

[cardinal 1]

Thanks both for your quick replies. N400 does say "advocated (directly or indirectly) the overthrow of ANY government...", but I agree that it would be far fetched - that's not what his post was saying (and arguably the gov't was not legitimate to begin with). 

[CarlHamilton 252]

14 minutes ago, cardinal said:

Thanks both for your quick replies. N400 does say "advocated (directly or indirectly) the overthrow of ANY government...", but I agree that it would be far fetched - that's not what his post was saying (and arguably the gov't was not legitimate to begin with). 

No one has been penalized for overdisclosure when in doubt.  It sounds like you're leaning towards thinking he did advocate the overthrow of a foreign government (whether the government was legitimate or not is beyond the scope of the question, although there is a violence component in there).  In that case, you could cut and paste the post and let the officer decide if it's relevant or not. 

Edited August 9, 2018 by CarlHamilton

[CarlHamilton 252]

23 minutes ago, usmsbow said:

 

2- Advocating the overthrow of the government is in regards to the US, not other countries. USCIS won't care about that at all regardless. 

 

IOW, he's fine. Those aren't red flags at all. 

Wrong.  The question asks about ANY government.

[cardinal 1]

1 hour ago, CarlHamilton said:

No one has been penalized for overdisclosure when in doubt.  It sounds like you're leaning towards thinking he did advocate the overthrow of a foreign government (whether the government was legitimate or not is beyond the scope of the question, although there is a violence component in there).  In that case, you could cut and paste the post and let the officer decide if it's relevant or not. 

No, I absolutely don't think that. I worry that someone could interpret it as such, acting in bad faith. His posting (I'm paraphrasing) was basically, After 3 days of revolution the people have pushed out a president who refused to respect the constitution. The people have stood up as one and asked the president to go. Now he is gone and the new leaders need to respect the constitution.

 

I tend to overthink things, but I am also biased because I've lived and worked in the country and the president was objectively a despot who took power in a coup, killed journalists and political opponents, and got rich at the country's expense, so as far as I'm concerned, good riddance to him.

But maybe we will consult a lawyer. Agree that I'd rather err on the side of disclosure.

Edited August 9, 2018 by cardinal

[cardinal 1]

Because I was curious, I went to read the actual INA. The relevant section says:

 

(4) who advocates or teaches or who is a member of or affiliated with any organization that advocates or teaches (A) the overthrow by force or violence or other unconstitutional means of the Government of the United States or of all forms of law; or (B) the duty, necessity, or propriety of the unlawful assaulting or killing of any officer or officers (either of specific individuals or of officers generally) of the Government of the United States or of any other organized government because of his o r their official character; or (C) the unlawful damage, injury, or destruction of property; or (D) sabotage; or