Double denial!

[jonesg111 0]

I don't mean to flood the forum with my personal story but I did mention this on a few other threads.

At this point I'm really not sure on what our next step should be so I'll do a quick recap of our story and hopefully someone can point us in the right direction.

We were in Montreal for our interview in June. Everything went fine up until the end when the CO said that we needed to provide more proof of domicile and in order to do that my wife would have to move back to the US, buy a house, get a job, and enroll in school.

He gave us that sheet that specifically states that the USC DOES NOT need to reside in the US to prove domicile and there were steps that could be taken to show that you intend to reestablish domicile.

We sent in the following paperwork about a month ago, papers that show a job offer for my wife the USC, a rental agreement with her folks where we would live, voter's registration card, and a moving quote for moving from here to there.

In addition to that, originally we had sent in bank statements, car insurance, and credit card accounts that showed my wife had not moved up here "permanently".

What are we supposed to do now?!!? We've sent in everything they ask for and then are sent a letter asking for the same things we just sent?

Should we at this point be calling our Senator and get them involved? I'm not sure what else to do.

[TimandJoyce 1]

Wow! I can really understand your frustration. We got a RFE for my AOS and they're asking for the impossible, and we don't know what to do, yet. Talking with a friend and he says, 'that's the government for you, they don't make sense!"

We're thinking we may get a senator involved too. Hope all goes well for you. Hang in there...I'm sure there are answers for you.

[Malrothien 6]

I'm not trying to sound rude or anything but I have a feeling that pre-existing bank accounts or other financial accounts do not count as "re-establishing" domicile. Your wife had those accounts prior to moving up, right?

[trailmix 77]

I'm not trying to sound rude or anything but I have a feeling that pre-existing bank accounts or other financial accounts do not count as "re-establishing" domicile. Your wife had those accounts prior to moving up, right?

You are right Malrothien.

Now if you had added your Canadian wife to those accounts recently or they were brand new - then that might be added evidence of intent to reestablish domicile.

[trailmix 77]

Here is what concerns me, I mentioned something similar in Dalene's thread just now.

There are basically 3 types of 'domicile' proof (that pertain to civilian U.S. persons):

- Proving you moved only temporarily

- Proving that, while you have a place in Canada, the U.S. is your main country of domicile

- Proving that you are moving and intend to reestablish domicile

It seems to me that if types of proof get mixed up then the CO has free reign to decide what he wants you to prove (of the three options above)

In Dalene's case, she mentioned that she spends a lot of time at her home in the U.S. - so then the CO comes back with - well, since you have a Canadian PR card, i'm not convinced your primary residence is in the U.S. (he assuming that is what Dalene was trying to prove).

In your case jones, you should be trying to prove that you are going to reestablish domicile. You mention:

In addition to that, originally we had sent in bank statements, car insurance, and credit card accounts that showed my wife had not moved up here "permanently".

Did you ever state that - about her not moving up here permanently?

Anyway, I hope it makes sense where i'm going with this.

The bank account, car insurance etc etc can all be used as kind of a 'back-up' - to say hey we are moving and look, we already have this groundwork set up - however, primary proof must be to reestablish domicile, you can't prove domicile per se - you don't have it.

Now, the downside of all this is that it would appear that the CO did not ask you what you were trying to prove and he did not ask Dalene - so I guess he just makes his own assumptions.

Edited November 25, 2009 by trailmix

[jonesg111 0]

Yes we did state several times or at least I thought we did to the effect that she was just here temporarily. I was added to her US bank accounts, she was here on a temporary visitor's visa etc.

[trailmix 77]

Yes we did state several times or at least I thought we did to the effect that she was just here temporarily. I was added to her US bank accounts, she was here on a temporary visitor's visa etc.

Oh right I forgot about the visitor's visa. How long has she been in Canada again?

[jonesg111 0]

Yes we did state several times or at least I thought we did to the effect that she was just here temporarily. I was added to her US bank accounts, she was here on a temporary visitor's visa etc.

Oh right I forgot about the visitor's visa. How long has she been in Canada again?

At this point its been almost a year and a half, but thats due to US immigration taking so long to get our paperwork done.

[trailmix 77]

Ok, well I can see how the 'temporary' thing just might not work. It seems straighforward to us, but obviously not to them.

The bottom line is, she did not maintain her U.S. residence - I can't remember if she still has a place to live there. But, even if she did they probably would have just looked at it like they looked at Dalene's - ie: they would have asked, what is her principal residence, the one in Canada or the one in the U.S. and i'm thinking that Canada is the answer they would come up with.

My only suggestion to you is that you look at this from a completely different angle. Look at this as attempting to 'reestablish' domicile. You have tried the other and they are not going to accept it.

[Inky 1,110]

1 year + makes me think that their primary residence is in canada, not america, temp is temp like a few months.

Can the USC return to america and then send paper work stating they returned ( copys of tickets, itinerarry, stamps showing they left ) and whatever else the USC can gather up proving they are " re-establishing " their residence in the USA? Or is that not an option? And return at a later date to help with the move etc.

Edited November 25, 2009 by Inky

[jonesg111 0]

Ok, well I can see how the 'temporary' thing just might not work. It seems straighforward to us, but obviously not to them.

The bottom line is, she did not maintain her U.S. residence - I can't remember if she still has a place to live there. But, even if she did they probably would have just looked at it like they looked at Dalene's - ie: they would have asked, what is her principal residence, the one in Canada or the one in the U.S. and i'm thinking that Canada is the answer they would come up with.

My only suggestion to you is that you look at this from a completely different angle. Look at this as attempting to 'reestablish' domicile. You have tried the other and they are not going to accept it.

But the thing is that we have done both angles. The first was to show that she never gave up domicile in the US with bank accounts, car insurance, drivers license etc. They said no to that one. So now this last time we sent in papers that said we have a place to rent when we get back, that she has a job when she gets back, etc. They denied both, so now what?

[Malrothien 6]

Ok, well I can see how the 'temporary' thing just might not work. It seems straighforward to us, but obviously not to them.

The bottom line is, she did not maintain her U.S. residence - I can't remember if she still has a place to live there. But, even if she did they probably would have just looked at it like they looked at Dalene's - ie: they would have asked, what is her principal residence, the one in Canada or the one in the U.S. and i'm thinking that Canada is the answer they would come up with.

My only suggestion to you is that you look at this from a completely different angle. Look at this as attempting to 'reestablish' domicile. You have tried the other and they are not going to accept it.

But the thing is that we have done both angles. The first was to show that she never gave up domicile in the US with bank accounts, car insurance, drivers license etc. They said no to that one. So now this last time we sent in papers that said we have a place to rent when we get back, that she has a job when she gets back, etc. They denied both, so now what?

What kind of job and what proof of that job did you send? Did you sign an actual lease agreement with her parents?

[jonesg111 0]

Ok, well I can see how the 'temporary' thing just might not work. It seems straighforward to us, but obviously not to them.

The bottom line is, she did not maintain her U.S. residence - I can't remember if she still has a place to live there. But, even if she did they probably would have just looked at it like they looked at Dalene's - ie: they would have asked, what is her principal residence, the one in Canada or the one in the U.S. and i'm thinking that Canada is the answer they would come up with.

My only suggestion to you is that you look at this from a completely different angle. Look at this as attempting to 'reestablish' domicile. You have tried the other and they are not going to accept it.

But the thing is that we have done both angles. The first was to show that she never gave up domicile in the US with bank accounts, car insurance, drivers license etc. They said no to that one. So now this last time we sent in papers that said we have a place to rent when we get back, that she has a job when she gets back, etc. They denied both, so now what?

What kind of job and what proof of that job did you send? Did you sign an actual lease agreement with her parents?

Yes, it was what Trailmix had used, it was a letter from her folks stating that we had agreed upon a rental arrangement and it would be ready when we arrived. The letter of proof of employment was from the Owner of a company on company letterhead stating that my wife would be starting to work for him upon her return to the US.

[wmtc 0]

Man! I think it better to file for IR-1/CR-1 then filing DCF, it is becoming very hard for certain folks to prove domicile. It becoming a Hassle. Hope u folks get thru this in one peace.

Edited November 25, 2009 by wmtc

[Malrothien 6]

Man! I think it better to file for IR-1/CR-1 then filing DCF, it is becoming very hard for certain folks to prove domicile. It becoming a Hassle. Hope u folks get thru this in one peace.

A DCF gets an IR1/CR1 and if the petitioner is abroad, has to prove the same thing.