Returning US after 7 years with GC

[SalishSea 18,014]

5 minutes ago, millefleur said:

I agree that it is odd. It seems the laws and what actually happens don't line up that well. It's possible those who get served an NTA just lawyer up and don't bother with VJ anymore since we are more of a DIY site. 

 

I totally get what you're saying that it is weird that they would have such a strict law about residency but then be willing to admit people. Perhaps CBP merely doesn't have the power to deny LPRs and it has to be decided by higher ups. It seems CBP can't force you to sign a I-407 but if you refuse you will most as surely go to immigration court after that. So perhaps that is how it gets enforced. 

Perhaps.  Currently, immigration courts are hugely backed up, and likely have bigger fish to fry anyway.  

[Mike E 11,742]

44 minutes ago, Jorgedig said:

But, do they?  We never hear about those situations here.  

Most people believe what they are told by Google searches and their associates in real life and online  that they need an SB-1 or they need to file I-131. The actual truth is buried by search engines.
 

Of  those that try to fly home, some have expired green cards and some airlines won’t board them despite CBP continuously and fruitlessly telling them to stop that.  Of those that land in the USA, some if not most sign I-407 voluntarily  after CBP dangles that coveted 10 year B-1/B-2 visa because they realize that’s what they really need.  
 

So a minority of these long absent LPRs manage to run the gauntlet.  An NTA? Bring it on they say.  They know there are enough criminals among LPRs that ICE wants gone that it abandonment cases are lower priority.  CBP knows it and so I do believe most times CBP doesn’t bother issuing an NTA.  
 

I found this case, which illustrates the futility of DHS  pursuing  abandonment cases:

 

The Clients, four Pakistani-citizen family members who were Green-Card holders since 1992, and three of their U.S.-citizen family members had left the U.S. for Pakistan in October 2005 only intending to remain there for a short period. However, due to multiple medical conditions and property-sale issues, their trip became extended involuntarily until June 2009 when they returned to the U.S. Upon the Clients' arrival in the U.S., their passports and Green Cards were confiscated and they were placed in removal (deportation) with the allegation that they abandoned their Green-Card status because they were outside of the U.S. for almost four years. The Clients sought the assistance of the Firm's attorneys thereafter. The Firm's attorneys sought to terminate the Clients' removal proceedings because they did not intend to remain outside of the U.S. for so long, but ICE initially opposed the motion, thereby requiring a hearing on the merits of the motion. At that merits hearing, testimony was taken and arguments were made. At the end of the merits hearing, the Immigration Judge found that the Clients had not abandoned their Green-Card status and, due in part to ICE's change in legal position, granted their motion to terminate their removal proceedings. ICE waived appeal, making the decision final, and the Clients were returned their Green Cards and passports that very same day.

It appears DHS has to prove intent to abandon and that is a difficult task.  It appears DHS prefers to spend finite resources removing violent criminals before the Governor pardons  (in order  to prevent deportation).

 

And even if there is a decision to issue a final removal order, some if not most of the time the LPR is the parent or spouse of a U.S. citizen.  So they file  a new I-485 package: no more removal. 

 

Really, what harm is being done here anyway?

 

[SalishSea 18,014]

1 minute ago, Mike E said:

Most people believe what they are told by Google searches and their associates in real life and online  that they need an SB-1 or they need to file I-131. The actual truth is buried by search engines.
 

Of  those that try to fly home, some have expired green cards and some airlines won’t board them despite CBP continuously and fruitlessly telling them to stop that.  Of those that land in the USA, some if not most sign I-407 voluntarily  after CBP dangles that coveted 10 year B-1/B-2 visa because they realize that’s what they really need.  
 

So a minority of these long absent LPRs manage to run the gauntlet.  An NTA? Bring it on they say.  They know there are enough criminals among LPRs that ICE wants gone that it abandonment cases are lower priority.  CBP knows it and so I do believe most times CBP doesn’t bother issuing an NTA.  
 

I found this case, which illustrates the futility of DHS  pursuing  abandonment cases:

 

The Clients, four Pakistani-citizen family members who were Green-Card holders since 1992, and three of their U.S.-citizen family members had left the U.S. for Pakistan in October 2005 only intending to remain there for a short period. However, due to multiple medical conditions and property-sale issues, their trip became extended involuntarily until June 2009 when they returned to the U.S. Upon the Clients' arrival in the U.S., their passports and Green Cards were confiscated and they were placed in removal (deportation) with the allegation that they abandoned their Green-Card status because they were outside of the U.S. for almost four years. The Clients sought the assistance of the Firm's attorneys thereafter. The Firm's attorneys sought to terminate the Clients' removal proceedings because they did not intend to remain outside of the U.S. for so long, but ICE initially opposed the motion, thereby requiring a hearing on the merits of the motion. At that merits hearing, testimony was taken and arguments were made. At the end of the merits hearing, the Immigration Judge found that the Clients had not abandoned their Green-Card status and, due in part to ICE's change in legal position, granted their motion to terminate their removal proceedings. ICE waived appeal, making the decision final, and the Clients were returned their Green Cards and passports that very same day.

It appears DHS has to prove intent to abandon and that is a difficult task.  It appears DHS prefers to spend finite resources removing violent criminals before the Governor pardons  (in order  to prevent deportation).

 

And even if there is a decision to issue a final removal order, some if not most of the time the LPR is the parent or spouse of a U.S. citizen.  So they file  a new I-485 package: no more removal. 

 

Really, what harm is being done here anyway?

 

Thanks for the explanation.

 

And I agree, there is no harm being done, except: to those in the long lines for numerically-limited GCs it may sting to see people with GCs keeping them and living outside the US.

 

Also, I'm just one for rules, and if rules are not being enforced or don't make sense anymore, why have them?

[Okboy 43]

17 hours ago, Mike E said:

Anyway https://www.houstonimmigration.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/AILA-rights-of-LPRs-at-entry-points.pdf is clear:

 

An LPR who is deemed to be seeking admission may be charged as removable from the United States as an arriving alien.
 

LPRs that are charged as removable, including those who are alleged to have abandoned their U.S. residence, have the right to a hearing before an immigration judge. See Matter of Huang, 19 I&N Dec. 749 (BIA 1988). Despite this, CBP may attempt to convince an LPR that their absence from the United States resulted in automatic abandonment of their U.S. residence, and urge them to sign a Form I- 407, Record of Abandonment of Lawful Permanent Resident Status. As AILA recently advised, an individual does not lose LPR status merely because of time spent abroad. An LPR remains an LPR unless the government proves abandonment by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence and until an order of removal is issued and becomes final.

Form I-407 must be signed voluntarily and there are no negative consequences if an LPR refuses to sign the form. Neither failure to sign nor abandonment of LPR status by itself is grounds for detention by CBP. If CBP makes a determination, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the LPR abandoned his or her residence in the U.S., and the LPR refuses to sign a Form I-407, CBP’s only recourse is to issue a Notice to Appear (NTA) before an immigration judge. Even LPRs who have signed a Form I-407 retain the right to request a hearing before an immigration judge to determine whether LPR status was abandoned. See Matter of Wood, No. A24-653-925 (BIA 1992). Should CBP confiscate the LPR’s permanent resident card, the LPR has the right to alternative evidence of LPR status, such as an I-94 card and/or passport stamp.

 

Based on the above, I believe the best answer is to just come home.  

It depends if airline carriers would interpret the law as it seems and let her board the plane to come home. Sometimes they don’t.

[Boiler 45,820]

27 minutes ago, Okboy said:

It depends if airline carriers would interpret the law as it seems and let her board the plane to come home. Sometimes they don’t.

I have heard of this, but never come across anybody who has a GC saying this happened to them.

As has been asked before, how would an Airline know?

 

The Airline would have to ask, why would they?

[aaron2020 11,651]

I have personally seen it happen in Vietnam.  

At check-in, the airlines asked how long the person has been in Vietnam.  The person will answer honestly because they are unaware of the potential consequences.  They can refuse to board any green card holder that says they have been in Vietnam for more than a year.

[Allaboutwaiting 2,503]

2 hours ago, Jorgedig said:

Thanks for the explanation.

 

And I agree, there is no harm being done, except: to those in the long lines for numerically-limited GCs it may sting to see people with GCs keeping them and living outside the US.

 

Also, I'm just one for rules, and if rules are not being enforced or don't make sense anymore, why have them?

The consequence is the NTA and hiring an immigration attorney, which we know is nightmarish enough.

[SalishSea 18,014]

4 minutes ago, Allaboutwaiting said:

The consequence is the NTA and hiring an immigration attorney, which we know is nightmarish enough.

Right.   In theory.   In reality, I’m wondering if that actually ever happens for the reasons listed above, so that de facto, there is actually little to no consequence.

[millefleur 5,047]

4 minutes ago, Jorgedig said:

Right.   In theory.   In reality, I’m wondering if that actually ever happens for the reasons listed above, so that de facto, there is actually little to no consequence.

I think it's one of those situations where the law is mostly a deterrent rather than a punitive one. The person that I know who got reprimanded after trying to live 50/50 outside the US and abroad eventually came back to the US and stayed to complete naturalization. So, whatever reprimand was given scared him enough to finally go through with that instead of risking coming and going for long periods on his GC again.

[Boiler 45,820]

6 minutes ago, Jorgedig said:

Right.   In theory.   In reality, I’m wondering if that actually ever happens for the reasons listed above, so that de facto, there is actually little to no consequence.

Hassle, maybe, but if you have someone you can adjust through what is the point?

 

1 minute ago, millefleur said:

I think it's one of those situations where the law is mostly a deterrent rather than a punitive one. The person that I know who got reprimanded after trying to live 50/50 outside the US and abroad eventually came back to the US and stayed to complete naturalization. So, whatever reprimand was given scared him enough to finally go through with that instead of risking coming and going for long periods on his GC again.

I know someone who was hassled after 4 months out, he naturalised.

[Allaboutwaiting 2,503]

1 minute ago, Jorgedig said:

Right.   In theory.   In reality, I’m wondering if that actually ever happens for the reasons listed above, so that de facto, there is actually little to no consequence.

Would be interesting to see some statistics on NTA's issued for abandonment -searched for a while and found none-.

[Mike E 11,742]

1 hour ago, Okboy said:

It depends if airline carriers would interpret the law as it seems and let her board the plane to come home. Sometimes they don’t.

Name the airline. 

[SalishSea 18,014]

11 minutes ago, Boiler said:

Hassle, maybe, but if you have someone you can adjust through what is the point?

 

I know someone who was hassled after 4 months out, he naturalised.

Right.   I guess rather than fight it out in IC, most could more easily and cheaply file a new AOS.

[iwannaplay54 985]

18 hours ago, Mike E said:

Anyway https://www.houstonimmigration.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/AILA-rights-of-LPRs-at-entry-points.pdf is clear:

 

An LPR who is deemed to be seeking admission may be charged as removable from the United States as an arriving alien.
 

LPRs that are charged as removable, including those who are alleged to have abandoned their U.S. residence, have the right to a hearing before an immigration judge. See Matter of Huang, 19 I&N Dec. 749 (BIA 1988). Despite this, CBP may attempt to convince an LPR that their absence from the United States resulted in automatic abandonment of their U.S. residence, and urge them to sign a Form I- 407, Record of Abandonment of Lawful Permanent Resident Status. As AILA recently advised, an individual does not lose LPR status merely because of time spent abroad. An LPR remains an LPR unless the government proves abandonment by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence and until an order of removal is issued and becomes final.

Form I-407 must be signed voluntarily and there are no negative consequences if an LPR refuses to sign the form. Neither failure to sign nor abandonment of LPR status by itself is grounds for detention by CBP. If CBP makes a determination, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the LPR abandoned his or her residence in the U.S., and the LPR refuses to sign a Form I-407, CBP’s only recourse is to issue a Notice to Appear (NTA) before an immigration judge. Even LPRs who have signed a Form I-407 retain the right to request a hearing before an immigration judge to determine whether LPR status was abandoned. See Matter of Wood, No. A24-653-925 (BIA 1992). Should CBP confiscate the LPR’s permanent resident card, the LPR has the right to alternative evidence of LPR status, such as an I-94 card and/or passport stamp.

 

Based on the above, I believe the best answer is to just come home.  

After 7 years?  

 

One of my colleagues in Saudi flew home with his wife and she was given two choices:  detention pending removal or surrender the card.  She gave it up and was admitted under her Brit passport.

 They were in and out every year and owned a big house up in Maine.  No chance they “permanently moved” out of the US.

 

Yep, they cant take your card but they can detain you until a judge eyeballs your case.

 

My call?  She’s hosed.  This one’s open and shut.

 

Edited January 11, 2022 by iwannaplay54

[Mike E 11,742]

2 minutes ago, iwannaplay54 said:

After 7 years?  

 

One of my colleagues in Saudi flew home with his wife and she was given two choices:  detention pending removal or surrender the card.  She gave it up.  They were in and out every year and owned a big house up in Maine.

 

Yep, they cant take your card but they can detain you until a judge eyeballs your case.

 

My call?  She’s hosed.  This one’s open and shut.

 

They returned once a year and she was threatened with detention? I suspect there was more going on then just abandonment.  
 

They are going to let her keep her green card while in detention? What else does she get to keep in detention?