jacketconfident

It's possible that you qualify for naturalization under 319(b), but you should really consult with an immigration lawyer who is experienced in these cases.

Hello! The main question I would have is whether your husband is "regularly stationed abroad" with his job with the defense contractor or at NATO. (A related question is whether the defense contractor work is employment or whether he himself is the contractor to the government. The latter would not be helpful, as using 319(b) requires him to be an employee of a qualifying employer.) That is a statutory requirement, and USCIS interprets it to mean that your husband's employment abroad would need to last at least a year from the date of filing the N-400. But you said that he is "based in the US", which sounds like he is not regularly stationed abroad, even if he is often sent on long business trips overseas. So: (1) Is he an employee of a defense contractor or of NATO? And (2) Are the overseas business trips as an employee of the defense contractor or NATO at least one year long?

Since most of the discussion on this site relating to Section 319(b) of the INA relates to military spouses, I wanted to share our experience of a successful naturalization under another of the 319(b) categories – for those whose spouse has a qualifying employment abroad with an American firm or corporation. It was difficult for us to find a case similar to ours in researching how to prepare our application, so I thought this post might provide a helpful data point. I (the original petitioner) am an American citizen. I am employed at a foreign office of a US-headquartered commercial law firm. This foreign office practices both US and foreign law, but I am an American lawyer practicing US securities law out of this foreign office. Among other things, I assist foreign companies in issuing bonds. I help make sure that these bonds comply with US securities laws, especially as a portion of them are sold to US investors. I do not practice immigration law. This post is an account of our immigration experience, not legal advice. My wife (the original beneficiary) was a US permanent resident, but had only resided in the US for about six months before we moved abroad. This put her in the position of needing to return frequently to the United States to maintain her permanent residency, which was a pain and not really sustainable for long, as we do not yet know when we will return to the United States. American firm or corporation Applicants’ spouses need to be employed by an “American firm or corporation,” or a subsidiary thereof. This usually means that the American spouse’s employing entity, or its parent, needs to be more than half owned by Americans and was incorporated or registered in the United States. Not all global American-based law firms are likely to meet this criterion. For instance, many operate on a verein model in which the foreign offices are not in common ownership with the US offices; functionally, they are separate law firms that share common branding. My employer, however, is one of a few that follows a more traditional model on which most of the foreign offices are just branches of the US law firm. So, although my employment contract is governed by foreign law, the employing entity is a US LLP. In order to establish American ownership USCIS requested a number of documents, including the firm’s partnership agreement and its annual report. Our own immigration lawyers initially suggested that we ask the firm for copies of the passports of all the firm’s owners (the equity partners) in order to prove that more than half of them were Americans. None of this was remotely acceptable to my firm. In the end, all we had for our application was a letter from the general counsel of the law firm affirming that, having access to the records of the firm, it was more than half owned by Americans. Evidently, this was acceptable to USCIS. Development of foreign trade and commerce of the United States Apparently, the criterion that the employing firm be engaged in the development of the United States is rather loose. Our immigration lawyers drafted a letter for the head of HR of my firm to sign that confirmed that I did the sort of US-related work I mentioned above. (My understanding is that the applicant needs to show that the firm is engaged in the development of foreign trade and commerce with the United States, not that the employee’s particular job is so connected – but in my case, the strongest connection to US trade and commerce is through my job.) The applicant also needs to show that the citizen spouse is “regularly stationed abroad,” meaning that they are scheduled to be employed abroad for at least one year from the time of filing the N-400. This requirement seems more geared towards military and diplomatic posts. In my case, and like most jobs at law firms, my contract is of indefinite length. Accordingly, the letter from HR merely confirmed that I was, at the time of writing, employed by the firm. Evidently this, too, was acceptable to USCIS. The rest of my wife’s application included evidence that is common to other 319(b) applications: evidence we live together abroad, evidence that she would leave the US after naturalization, intent to return to the US, etc. I’m happy to field questions in the thread below.