What is the US for residence purposes?

[commocean 9]

1 hour ago, SteveInBostonI130 said:

 

If on board a US government vessel, then yes.  If on board a private boat, then no.  Those are actually registered in a state, just like cars are.  If on a US flagged vessel, then it depends if the ship is part of a Ready Reserve force (of mostly cargo ships).  If just a US registered/flagged vessle, then no.  The company that runs the ship have to observe US laws for the crew onboard, but the crew's actual residency status is vague when outside US waters.  They are definitely out of US juristiction when stepping off the ship in foreign ports.  But onboard they are in status like at the international terminals at airports.  The person is not in the country officially, but are subject to the laws of that country for enforcement.

 

https://maritime.dot.gov/about-us/frequently-asked-questions

 

I believe you are referring to this about the government's ability to commandeer a ship during wartime:

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/82

 

But you have the wrong information.  That code allows the President to commandeer ship production, not actual privately owned vessels.  Both your examples are of British situations, and US law differs from British law.

I'd tend to take what you say as the truth if you didn't make a mistake in the first part.  A documented boat doesn't need a state registration.  I'm not sure why you said that.  It's quite clearly not the case. My boats were all documented and never state registered. I admit I don't know the law about commandeering ships.  Since it's unlikely to happen I haven't researched it.  I just know of two Brits who had their boats commandeered by the Royal Navy. Here's something else that's interesting.  Certain state laws/regulations don't apply on documented vessels.

[SteveInBostonI130 3,459]

17 minutes ago, commocean said:

I'd tend to take what you say as the truth if you didn't make a mistake in the first part.  A documented boat doesn't need a state registration.  I'm not sure why you said that.  It's quite clearly not the case. My boats were all documented and never state registered. I admit I don't know the law about commandeering ships.  Since it's unlikely to happen I haven't researched it.  I just know of two Brits who had their boats commandeered by the Royal Navy. Here's something else that's interesting.  Certain state laws/regulations don't apply on documented vessels.

 

https://www.mass.gov/boat-registration

 

Correct, boats over 5 net tons (25+ feet) can be federally documented with USCG and not require state registration.  Boats under 5 tons have to be state registered to operate in state waters, or have to be registered if not documented with USCG.

[commocean 9]

15 minutes ago, mushroomspore said:

Downside would be getting all the way to the N400 interview and then being denied because the IO (and potentially even their supervisor, if it escalates to that point) does not appreciate being told by an applicant or applicant's spouse, "Well I think these 'requirements' of yours are really just flexible guidelines and I believe that my wife has met the residency and physical presence requirements." Your previous comment discusses how US registered vessels belong to the US federal government, but as I stated, that is not equal to that vessel being equal to being on US soil. Those are two different things and it is ultimately what really matters here since USCIS counts how many days a permanent resident has been inside the US/on US soil to count towards citizenship. Note that the USCIS policy uses the word "requirements", NOT the word "guidelines". If you really want zero problems, take USCIS' policies as literally as possible. As I said before, if you can find the exact statute or law code that explicitly says, "Being on a US registered vessel is equal to being on US soil", this plan is unlikely to succeed. I'm not quite sure what you mean by your last sentence, but my interpretation is that you are saying you just need to do a good job of selling the idea that your wife wants to become a US citizen. That is not enough to be granted citizenship. You MUST meet the physical presence REQUIREMENTS and pass the tests as well. If a good pitch is all that's needed to become a citizen, that's what we would all be doing. But as aaron2020 said, it's also your life, your choice.

I disagree with you. I've gone through this with my son who has a green card but goes to college in the UK.  In order to keep his PR we got him a reentry permit.  Everyone says that staying away for more than a year causes it to be lost.  But that's not exactly true. It's the presumption of not wanting to live in the US if you're gone for a year that's the problem.  You could be gone less and lose it or more and not.  They say, in effect if not literally, this is a guideline.  Perhaps you don't understand that I agree with you there are requirements.  But there are guidelines to how these requirements are met.  Immigration officers have a lot of leeway in their decision process.  After I got married my wife's application for a tourist visa was turned down whereas a coworker's wife with seemingly the same profile got one.  Or how about the 85 year old guy who married the 18 y.o.?  The rules aren't as hard and fast as many think.  Sometimes you do need to be persuasive.  Sorry. Why do they ask for wedding pictures?  And apparently this worked for one woman who argued her case successfully.  I appreciate so many opinions, but those who cite laws.I really appreciate,  Or those who can think outside their comfort zone.. I think some people here are getting their knickers in a twist senselessly.  To me it's an interesting intricacy that I was curious if anyone had experience with.   opinions are bronze, theories silver, facts gold.  Everyone can have a bronze.

[commocean 9]

1 hour ago, JonSeattle said:

I don't know if time aboard a US documented vessel counts as time towards citizenship, but it is not as outlandish as it first seems:

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/46/8103

 

"(2) An individual not required by this subsection to be a citizen of the United States may be engaged only if the individual has a declaration of intention to become a citizen of the United States or other evidence of admission to the United States for permanent residence. An alien may be employed only in the steward’s department of the passenger vessel."

 

That provision would not make a lot of sense unless the time spent counted towards the citizenship requirement. But it could mean that would be time as an employee, not a cruise passenger.

 

I agree with you.  I don't know if it would work but it's not outlandish.  When I heard about this woman doing it I thought I should find out which office she went to. haha  Thanks for the references

[mushroomspore 3,044]

14 minutes ago, commocean said:

I disagree with you. I've gone through this with my son who has a green card but goes to college in the UK.  In order to keep his PR we got him a reentry permit.  Everyone says that staying away for more than a year causes it to be lost.  But that's not exactly true. It's the presumption of not wanting to live in the US if you're gone for a year that's the problem.  You could be gone less and lose it or more and not.  They say, in effect if not literally, this is a guideline.  Perhaps you don't understand that I agree with you there are requirements.  But there are guidelines to how these requirements are met.  Immigration officers have a lot of leeway in their decision process.  After I got married my wife's application for a tourist visa was turned down whereas a coworker's wife with seemingly the same profile got one.  Or how about the 85 year old guy who married the 18 y.o.?  The rules aren't as hard and fast as many think.  Sometimes you do need to be persuasive.  Sorry. Why do they ask for wedding pictures?  And apparently this worked for one woman who argued her case successfully.  I appreciate so many opinions, but those who cite laws.I really appreciate,  Or those who can think outside their comfort zone.. I think some people here are getting their knickers in a twist senselessly.  To me it's an interesting intricacy that I was curious if anyone had experience with.   opinions are bronze, theories silver, facts gold.  Everyone can have a bronze.

Ultimately, once you enter the territory of, "Does this count as physical presence?" or "I've been away for 6+ months, will I lose my GC or not?", it becomes a gamble as to which way it will go because as you said yourself, it largely depends on the specific IO you end up getting. My real point is that when it comes to naturalization, you might as well do everything in your power to lessen the chances of denial for any reason and to increase the likelihood of approval. It's the last step of the process and it's not the time for something to go wrong. If you can avoid further complications or having to force yourself to do extra work, you might as well avoid the complications and make it as smooth a process as possible. Your son was never in danger of losing his PR status anyway because he followed the policies by getting a re-entry permit when he knew he would be out of the US for an extended period of time. So that analogy doesn't quite apply here.

Edited April 8, 2021 by mushroomspore

[commocean 9]

1 minute ago, mushroomspore said:

Ultimately, once you enter the territory of, "Does this count as physical presence?" or "I've been away for 6+ months, will I lose my GC or not?", it becomes a gamble as to which way it will go because as you said yourself, it largely depends on the specific IO you end up getting. My real point is that when it comes to naturalization, you might as well do everything in your power to lessen the chances of denial for any reason and to increase the likelihood of approval. It's the last step of the process and it's not the time for something to go wrong. Your son was never in danger of losing his PR status anyway because he followed the policies by getting a re-entry permit when he knew he would be out of the US for an extended period of time. So that analogy doesn't quite apply here.

This whole process has requirements and in most cases it's clear how to fulfill those.  But if your life is a little different then it's hard to write rules to cover every situation.  So they give these officers some sort of training to sniff out frauds.  In general, although it may be difficult to persuade them, if you follow the intent they should let you in.   But what's the risk?  If they disallow the claim then we come back when we would've if it had never occurred to me this might work.  Maybe a couple of hundred dollars poorer. My son's reentry permit process wasn't an analogy. He had something to lose so we paid for him to get (2) reentry permits.  But in both cases you don't just tick off boxes but go through an interview.  Anyway it was an interesting discussion. Thanks!

[mushroomspore 3,044]

3 minutes ago, commocean said:

This whole process has requirements and in most cases it's clear how to fulfill those.  But if your life is a little different then it's hard to write rules to cover every situation.  So they give these officers some sort of training to sniff out frauds.  In general, although it may be difficult to persuade them, if you follow the intent they should let you in.   But what's the risk?  If they disallow the claim then we come back when we would've if it had never occurred to me this might work.  Maybe a couple of hundred dollars poorer. My son's reentry permit process wasn't an analogy. He had something to lose so we paid for him to get (2) reentry permits.  But in both cases you don't just tick off boxes but go through an interview.  Anyway it was an interesting discussion. Thanks!

No problem and please do let us know how the naturalization process goes for you guys. You asked a very unique question, one I've never seen asked on here. It's always good because this thread may now help someone else out in the future. There's also always the option of consulting a specialty lawyer who would know both realms (immigration and maritime laws), if you can find such a person.

[Mike E 11,739]

15 hours ago, commocean said:

Once getting my wife her green card she has to be in the US for 3 years before applying for a passport. 

 

 She has to be a lawful permanent resident for 3 years, and 18 months of physical presence in the USA before she can become a US citizen. Logging 3 years of physical presence alone will not get her a US passport. She needs to become a US citizen first by filing N-400. Which she can do 90 days before her 3 year anniversary as an LPR.

 

15 hours ago, commocean said:

 

Does that include living in Puerto Rico? The US Virgin Islands? 

Yes, yes.

 

Even includes Guam and CNMI.

 

It does not include American Samoa. American Samoa is not the USA, even though American Samoans are US nationals and have fast path to US LPR and citizenship statuses.

 

If she decides to live in Hyder Alaska, I hypothesize she will have challenges as despite Hyder being part of the USA, travel from Hyder to the rest of the USA requires going through USA passport control. Thus proving physical presence will be a challenge. I am interested in the experiences of LPRs who live in Hyder.

 

If she decides to live in the territories, she will need to maintain a habit of keeping her green card with her, as CBP is known to set up internal check points at domestic airport terminals and concourses in the territories and on domestic flights departing for the territories. CNMI / Guam is a special case because there is an extended visa waiver for foreign visitors, thus implying that flights from Guam / CNMI to the rest of the USA will, like flights involving Hyder, experience passport control. 

[gcny 0]

1 hour ago, Mike E said:

 

 She has to be a lawful permanent resident for 3 years, and 18 months of physical presence in the USA before she can become a US citizen. Logging 3 years of physical presence alone will not get her a US passport. She needs to become a US citizen first by filing N-400. Which she can do 90 days before her 3 year anniversary as an LPR.

 

Yes, yes.

 

Even includes Guam and CNMI.

 

It does not include American Samoa. American Samoa is not the USA, even though American Samoans are US nationals and have fast path to US LPR and citizenship statuses.

 

If she decides to live in Hyder Alaska, I hypothesize she will have challenges as despite Hyder being part of the USA, travel from Hyder to the rest of the USA requires going through USA passport control. Thus proving physical presence will be a challenge. I am interested in the experiences of LPRs who live in Hyder.

 

If she decides to live in the territories, she will need to maintain a habit of keeping her green card with her, as CBP is known to set up internal check points at domestic airport terminals and concourses in the territories and on domestic flights departing for the territories. CNMI / Guam is a special case because there is an extended visa waiver for foreign visitors, thus implying that flights from Guam / CNMI to the rest of the USA will, like flights involving Hyder, experience passport control. 

https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-12-part-d-chapter-3 

 

FYI, the N400 policy manual explains situations  where certain cases of living overseas maybe acceptable but doesn't mention about ships, etc.

Just now, gcny said:

https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-12-part-d-chapter-3 

 

FYI, the N400 policy manual explains situations  where certain cases of living overseas maybe acceptable but doesn't mention about ships, etc.

D. Preserving Residence for Naturalization (Form N-470)

Certain applicants[28] may seek to preserve their residence for an absence of 1 year or more to engage in qualifying employment abroad.[29] Such applicants must file an Application to Preserve Residence for Naturalization Purposes (Form N-470) in accordance with the form instructions.

In order to qualify, the following criteria must be met:

The applicant must have been physically present in the United States as an LPR for an uninterrupted period of at least 1 year prior to working abroad.

The application may be filed either before or after the applicant’s employment begins, but before the applicant has been abroad for a continuous period of 1 year.[30] 

In addition, the applicant must have been:

Employed with or under contract with the U.S. government or an American institution of research[31] recognized as such by the Attorney General;

Employed by an American firm or corporation engaged in the development of U.S. foreign trade and commerce, or a subsidiary thereof if more than 50 percent of its stock is owned by an American firm or corporation; or

Employed by a public international organization of which the United States is a member by a treaty or statute and by which the applicant was not employed until after becoming an LPR.[32] 

[gcny 0]

1 hour ago, gcny said:

https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-12-part-d-chapter-3 

 

 

On  deeper review of the manual, the OP maybe in luck as shown below....

https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-12-part-d-chapter-5

3. Service on Certain U.S. Vessels

Any time an LPR has spent in qualifying honorable service on board a vessel operated by the United States or on board a vessel whose home port is in the United States will be considered residence and physical presence within the United States. ^[27] The qualifying service must take place within five years immediately preceding the date the applicant files for naturalization.

[mushroomspore 3,044]

31 minutes ago, gcny said:

On  deeper review of the manual, the OP maybe in luck as shown below....

https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-12-part-d-chapter-5

3. Service on Certain U.S. Vessels

Any time an LPR has spent in qualifying honorable service on board a vessel operated by the United States or on board a vessel whose home port is in the United States will be considered residence and physical presence within the United States. ^[27] The qualifying service must take place within five years immediately preceding the date the applicant files for naturalization.

That's all fine and good if OP's wife is performing "qualifying honorable service" on the vessel. From the way OP wrote their post, it sounds as though they simply want to travel with the vessel and use that time to count towards physical presence.

Edited April 8, 2021 by mushroomspore

[gcny 0]

4 minutes ago, mushroomspore said:

That's all fine and good if OP's wife is performing "qualifying honorable service" on the vessel. From the way OP wrote their post, it sounds as though they simply want to travel with the vessel and use that time as meeting residency requirements.

 

4 minutes ago, mushroomspore said:

Yes, you're right.

 

[SusieQQQ 11,586]

22 hours ago, commocean said:

Once getting my wife her green card she has to be in the US for 3 years before applying for a passport.  Does that include living in Puerto Rico? The US Virgin Islands?  What about aboard a US documented vessel?

First things first. She needs to keep her green card by maintaining residence. Preserving residence for naturalization purposes, and preserving residence for green card purposes, are not the same thing. From the citizenship manual, note it says “Approval of an application to preserve residence also does not relieve the LPR of the need to have an appropriate travel document when the LPR seeks to return to the United States. A Permanent Resident Card (PRC) card, generally, is acceptable as a travel document only if the person has been absent for less than 1 year. If an LPR expects to be absent for more than 1 year, the LPR should also apply for a reentry permit. The LPR must actually be in the United States when he or she applies for a reentry permit”

 

8 hours ago, commocean said:

Thank you for your opinion.  You may well be right  It seems risky.  What's the down side?  Come back after some more years?  I believe, perhaps wrongly, that these are guidelines.  A good selling job that my wife wants to be a citizen may be what's needed.

The downside is that she loses her green card through abandonment and you have to start over. As for “guidelines” and “good selling job”, good luck with those.

[igoyougoduke 1,656]

10 hours ago, mushroomspore said:

Downside would be getting all the way to the N400 interview and then being denied because the IO (and potentially even their supervisor, if it escalates to that point) does not appreciate being told by an applicant or applicant's spouse, "Well I think these 'requirements' of yours are really just flexible guidelines and I believe that my wife has met the residency and physical presence requirements." Your previous comment discusses how US registered vessels belong to the US federal government, but as I stated, that is not equal to that vessel being equal to being on US soil. Those are two different things and it is ultimately what really matters here since USCIS counts how many days a permanent resident has been inside the US/on US soil to count towards citizenship. Note that the USCIS policy uses the word "requirements", NOT the word "guidelines". If you really want zero problems, take USCIS' policies as literally as possible. As I said before, if you can find the exact statute or law code that explicitly says, "Being on a US registered vessel is equal to being on US soil", this plan is unlikely to succeed. I'm not quite sure what you mean by your last sentence, but my interpretation is that you are saying you just need to do a good job of selling the idea that your wife wants to become a US citizen. That is not enough to be granted citizenship. You MUST meet the physical presence REQUIREMENTS and pass the tests as well. If a good pitch is all that's needed to become a citizen, that's what we would all be doing. But as aaron2020 said, it's also your life, your choice.

 

i remember a case where a woman in Kentucky brought a car and put it in Cruise Control and got into a wreck on the highway as she slept on the wheel. She later sued the car manufacturer  saying that she thought Cruise control will take her home when she fell asleep ( indicating the car will drive itself to her home ). She did lose the case but yeah strange people come up with strange ideas instead of actually reading the manual. 

[commocean 9]

39 minutes ago, igoyougoduke said:

 

i remember a case where a woman in Kentucky brought a car and put it in Cruise Control and got into a wreck on the highway as she slept on the wheel. She later sued the car manufacturer  saying that she thought Cruise control will take her home when she fell asleep ( indicating the car will drive itself to her home ). She did lose the case but yeah strange people come up with strange ideas instead of actually reading the manual. 

Yeh.  I remember when this guy in Italy thought the sun was the center of the solar system.  He didn't read the "manual" that said it was the earth. Then there was this guy who thought the earth was round.  He didn't read the "manual" that said it's flat.  strange ideas! I get your point.