Did USCIS naturalize me too early?

[Crazy Cat 41,850]

55 minutes ago, thelimey said:

Sorry, should have been clearer. When I wrote "never heard of this happening in 25+ years practicing immigration law", the this I was referring to is the oath occurring ahead of the 5 year date.

 

There is always a first time for everything.  Good luck.

Remember:  These attorneys won't have to deal with any issues if they arise in the future (other than collecting a huge fee).  Personally, I would want this settled asap.  I would absolutely want USCIS involved to investigate.  Maybe your Senator can help.

Edited June 4 by Crazy Cat

[Crazy Cat 41,850]

Chapter 6 - Jurisdiction, Place of Residence, and Early Filing | USCIS

 

"Although an applicant may file early according to the 90 day early filing provision, the applicant is not eligible for naturalization until he or she has reached the required five-year period of continuous residence as a lawful permanent resident (LPR)."

 

"

D. 90-Day Early Filing Provision (INA 334)

An applicant filing under the general naturalization provision may file his or her application up to 90 days before he or she would first meet the required 5-year period of continuous residence as an LPR.^[14] Although an applicant may file early according to the 90 day early filing provision, the applicant is not eligible for naturalization until he or she has reached the required five-year period of continuous residence as a lawful permanent resident (LPR).

USCIS calculates the early filing period by counting back 90 days from the day before the applicant would have first satisfied the continuous residence requirement for naturalization. For example, if the applicant would satisfy the five-year continuous residence requirement for the first time on June 10, 2010 USCIS will begin to calculate the 90-day early filing period from June 9, 2010. In such a case, the earliest that the applicant is allowed to file would be March 12, 2010 (90 calendar days earlier).

In cases where an applicant has filed early and the required three month period of residence in a state or service district falls within the required five-year period of continuous residence, jurisdiction for filing will be based on the three-month period immediately preceding the examination on the application.^[15]"

 

 

Edited June 4 by Crazy Cat

[thelimey 5]

14 minutes ago, Crazy Cat said:

There is always a first time for everything.  Good luck.

Remember:  These attorneys won't have to deal with any issues if they arise in the future (other than collecting a huge fee).  Personally, I would want this settled asap.  I would absolutely want USCIS involved.  Maybe your Senator can help.

Of course I want it settled.  It’s causing stress I don’t need. 
 

At this point I’ve spoken to 4 lawyers.  Same takeaway from all: leave it alone until government brings it up. While I agree they won’t have to deal with repercussions of bad advice, it’s been interesting to hear them all reach the same conclusion.
 

Trouble is what does “settled” even mean? Once the oath has been taken the USCIS has no direct power to change anything. Nada. They’d have to ask the DoJ to prosecute as denaturalization. And then have me take another oath. I can’t see them doing that per their own guidance on denaturalization. 
 

If you read all the small print of USCIS reopening naturalization cases that have been approved it has to be before the oath. After that. Too late. 
 

they can only administratively cancel certificate of naturalization if they were received without an application and oath (ie when their own employee was selling certificates in the 1990s for cash). 
 

After the oath a federal court needs to denatrualize before USCIS can cancel the certificate. 
 

So the question remains. What does settled mean? And what do I do?

[thelimey 5]

5 minutes ago, Crazy Cat said:

Chapter 6 - Jurisdiction, Place of Residence, and Early Filing | USCIS

 

"Although an applicant may file early according to the 90 day early filing provision, the applicant is not eligible for naturalization until he or she has reached the required five-year period of continuous residence as a lawful permanent resident (LPR)."

 

"

D. 90-Day Early Filing Provision (INA 334)

An applicant filing under the general naturalization provision may file his or her application up to 90 days before he or she would first meet the required 5-year period of continuous residence as an LPR.^[14] Although an applicant may file early according to the 90 day early filing provision, the applicant is not eligible for naturalization until he or she has reached the required five-year period of continuous residence as a lawful permanent resident (LPR).

USCIS calculates the early filing period by counting back 90 days from the day before the applicant would have first satisfied the continuous residence requirement for naturalization. For example, if the applicant would satisfy the five-year continuous residence requirement for the first time on June 10, 2010 USCIS will begin to calculate the 90-day early filing period from June 9, 2010. In such a case, the earliest that the applicant is allowed to file would be March 12, 2010 (90 calendar days earlier).

In cases where an applicant has filed early and the required three month period of residence in a state or service district falls within the required five-year period of continuous residence, jurisdiction for filing will be based on the three-month period immediately preceding the examination on the application.^[15]"

 

 

Yup. I’ve read that a few time  as well as the underlying law it’s a summary of. Which is worded a little differently. 

[Crazy Cat 41,850]

2 minutes ago, thelimey said:

Trouble is what does “settled” even mean?

"settled" means you are comfortable.

[thelimey 5]

10 minutes ago, Crazy Cat said:

"settled" means you are comfortable.

true words. 
 

what a situation: you have this thing earlier than your should have this thing but because you have this thing it gives you certain rights and protections so we can’t take this thing away

 

and this is exactly why there are supposed to be so many checks and balances in place to make sure citizenship isn’t granted to someone who isn’t eligible. Be that by a few weeks due to clerical timing or ever due to a shady past. 
 

It’s why I trusted their response to my questions in person. Like there’s no way they could accidentally give me this right? 

[RamonGomez 271]

19 hours ago, thelimey said:

Thank you all for the great thoughts above.

I spoke to a very experienced immigration attorney today. 

 

They noted:

 

• Never heard of this happening in 25+ years practicing immigration law
• They advised against reaching out to USCIS (as did other lawyers I spoke to last week). Kicking can of bees may upset them, put them on the defensive, try to blame me, reopen my entire immigration history.
• The advice was imagine you never got home and googled it. You asked an official about the 5 year rule, you were told it was part of the 90 day early rule. You took your oath. You went home an American. Many in my situation would have done that. My spouse is one of them. Would never have thought twice about going down a rabbit hole of legal websites.
• If USCIS or DOJ ever reaches out, then engage a lawyer to help remedy it, and facts will be on my side. No fraud, misleading, willful omission, etc on my part. In fact, I alerted them to the potential issue and was told it's not an issue
• Lawyer confirmed that, unless denaturalized, I am and remain a citizen of the United States
• An agency or department such as USCIS, SSA may notice a discrepancy and raise a flag to the DOJ, but only the DOJ and the federal judiciary has the power to revoke the citizenship - and the certificate of naturalization. SSA, for example, cannot say 'you're not a citizen'. Not their call to make. 
• Denaturalization is rare, high burden of proof, and not used to correct mistakes historically. A prosecutor is not obligated to prosecute every potential denaturalization case that crosses their desk. In fact the DOJ guidelines say when determining whether to institute denaturalization proceedings, a prosecutor should consider whether proceedings would result in the “betterment of the citizenship of the country" and that proceedings should not be instituted merely to correct errors and irregularities in an individual’s naturalization, which would properly have been the subject of consideration at the naturalization hearing or of correction on appeal

 

Now, all that said, as someone pointed out above, I am very tempted to get my A# file through FOIA. Perhaps they have my green card date earlier than it actually was in there, meaning from their POV the 5 years was met and no computerized checks would flag it. Why wouldn't the IO have noticed any such discrepancy when she took my physical green card and looked at it? Human error. A tired, stressed, rushed lady who more concerned about getting her schedule back on track than answering my questions. Everyone's got a boss. Bet she was stressed about being an hour behind and not meeting her quota for the day.

Does anyone know if a FOIA request can open a can of worms? (See above about not reaching out to USCIS) i.e. whoever is compiling your FOIA request sees a date issue and raises a flag. Or is it just electronic files which someone essentially copies from an internal computer folder and puts in an online portal where you can download them?

 

I will try and dial into the Jim Hacking show tomorrow too... would love to get his take on it. Called his office, offered to pay for some of his time to discuss it directly (I prefer the anonymity of forums to being on a YouTube show), but they don't give legal advice (except on the YouTube show) and only take on cases where there is work to be done. 

 

You're doing the right thing by researching this. But I think you are going to drive yourself crazy. If 4 lawyers all told you the same thing, including very experienced ones, I would make peace with it, DOCUMENT AS MUCH AS YOU CAN NOW about what happened at the interview, who you spoke to etc. and move on with life. 

[WozAnon - NM 19]

On 6/1/2024 at 5:56 PM, thelimey said:

 

5 year green card anniversary is in late June 2024

 

Filed N400 in April per 90 day early filing.

 

Had N400 interview this week (late May 2024 - 8 weeks after applying, and technically the first day of my 60th month of permanent residence) and the IO sent me down the hallway for a same day oath ceremony.

 

I asked USCIS officer at ceremony check-in if it was ok to be getting naturalized a month ahead of the green card’s 5 year anniversary. He said “don’t worry about it, you’re good”

 

There was no cell service inside the Field Office so I wasn't googling anything in the hour I waited for the ceremony. I took them at their word that it was no problem and I assumed it was all part of the 90 day early eligibility deal and I was just lucky as things had moved very fast. 

 

Then I get home and hit Google and start reading about the 5 years being non negotiable as it's in the naturalization law wording. Hindsight being 20/20 I wish I'd asked them if I could come back in a month and take the oath, but I didn't. So, here I am naturalized, with a certificate saying I "complied in all respects with all of the applicable provisions of the naturalization laws of the United States". Though one can argue I didn't because 4 weeks short of 5 years is not meeting the 5 year provision. 

 

I'm assuming it's not as simple as calling them up and saying 'hey, how about you give me my green card back for a month and then we have a do over?" Giving back the certificate would be essentially denaturalizing (which would imply I'm a citizen in the first place in which case, just leave me be... we're talking 4 weeks and by the time the wheels of government moved I'd likely be eligible) which isn't quick or easy. Unless they could somehow claim it as meaningless and invalid... but an oath was involved. That's pretty binding under the law. 

 

Question is of course what to do?

 

I called 2 different lawyers. Both said if you’ve got your certificate you’re a citizen. Don’t worry about it unless if ever becomes a problem which is unlikely. On the other hand both said they’d never heard of this happening. Not like there’s precedent or they have experience in this situation. 

 

I understand that the only remedy would be denaturalization if a court deemed that it was illegally obtained by failing to meet an eligibility requirement. Then I’d be a LPR again and have to start citizenship all over again. Meanwhile if I’d had a US passport in the interim I’d be guilty of “claiming to be a us citizen”. 

 

This is so frustrating as I’ve been by the book my entire immigration journey and right at the end I’m concerned a clerical error by a tired overworked human has jeopardized things

 

The only thing that gives me confidence is that I asked a USCIS employee as noted above, my IO approved me, the file passed a “quality review”. That’s multiple human errors if that is the issue. Which is unlikely. 

 

But the uscis doesn’t make the law. They execute it. And the law is clear about 5 years. Unless they’re now counting 1 day into the 60th month as eligible. 

 

I wish I was blissfully ignorant of the small print and was just happy to have got my citizenship. But I can't unlearn what I've learned. 

 

I’d appreciate any advice, thoughts, similar anecdotes

 

Just curious, which field office was this at?

[Skyman 321]

On 6/3/2024 at 12:09 AM, From_CAN_2_US said:

There was a recent case in Canada where a person who was granted Canadian citizenship and given a Canadian citizenship certificate on the basis of their mother being a Canadian citizen when they were born. 32 years later, IRCC (USCIS’s counterpart in Canada) revoked their citizenship because they realised the mother had not taken her oath before this person was born.

 

Although unlikely, I am worried something similar could happen to OP in the future. The error in both cases is by the body determining citizenship. Yet despite issuing certificate, in that case in Canada, the same issuing body revoked the citizenship status.

 

https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.7196530

Luckily in the Canadian’s case, all she had to do was reapply for citizenship and it was reinstated. Took a couple of months though.

I'd demand refund of 32 years of taxes.

[Crazy Cat 41,850]

1 hour ago, Skyman said:

I'd demand refund of 32 years of taxes.

In the US, tax liability falls on more than just citizens.  US tax laws are the same for legal residents and citizens.