A recent article in a Korean American newspaper, referring to newly-published statistics from South Korea’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, has revealed that the number of Koreans cutting off their ties with the U.S. reached an 11-year high last year: 2,158 Koreans gave up U.S. green cards or citizenship in 2011. Very clearly, this is larger than the Federal Register number for the same year — and of course, the Federal Register includes people of all nationalities, not just Koreans.
Keep in mind that the Federal Register is only supposed to cover citizens and “long term residents”, those who have had their green cards for more than eight out of the past fifteen years, so some of those 2,158 were not supposed to show up in the “name-and-shame list” anyway. That said, this article is another piece of evidence to add to the ones we already have that the Federal Register grossly understates the number of people ceasing to be U.S. Persons. I’ve translated the article and various background materials below.
| 한국 역이민 행렬 가속화 | South Korea’s reverse migration trend picks up speed |
| http://ny.koreatimes.com/article/742326 | |
| 한국일보, 2012-07-26 | The Korea Times, 26 July 2012 |
| 김노열 기자 | By Kim No-yeol |
| 작년 역이민 총 2,158명…11년 만에 최고치; 2011 외교백서, 고령·취업·이민 부적응 등 이유 | Total of 2,158 reverse migrants last year … highest in 11 years; 2011 Diplomacy Whitebook gives reasons like old age, career, inability to adjust, etc. |
| 미국에 이민 왔다가 한국으로 되돌아간 역이민자수가 11년 만에 최고치를 기록한 것으로 나타났다. 한국 외교통상부가 25일 공개한 ‘2012 외교백서’에 따르면 2011년 한 해 동안 미국 시민권이나 영주권을 포기하고 한국으로 영구 귀국한 역이민자는 총 2,128명으로 전년 대비 7.6% 늘었다. | The number of reverse migrants who emigrated to America but then returned to Korea has set an 11-year record high, it has been revealed. According to the 2012 Diplomacy Whitebook published on 25 July by South Korea’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, in the one-year period of 2011, the number of reverse migrants who gave up U.S. citizenship or green cards and permanently returned to South Korea was 2,158, up by 7.6% from the previous year. |
As we all know, journalists everywhere are prone to misinterpretations of government reports, so I did some due diligence on these numbers — and found out, to my surprise, that the reporter’s description is accurate. The first relevant source is the Diplomacy Whitebook‘s appendix, at page 301. The 2,158 figure for “reverse migrants” comes from Table 3, which lists “people declaring permanent return” (영주귀국 신고자); it also lists “people giving up on moving overseas” (해외이주 포기자), which is not included in that 2,158 and isn’t relevant for our purposes. The columns are: Year, U.S., Canada, Central/South America, Australia, New Zealand, Other, and Total. You can see that out of all emigrants declaring their return to South Korea that year, those from the U.S. made up a bit more than half of the total of 4,164 reverse migrants who officially reported their return to the South Korean government.
South Korea’s actual Overseas Migration Act, which governs the procedure for declaring permanent return, states:
| 제12조(영주귀국의 신고) | Section 12 (Declaration of permanent return) |
| 해외에 이주하여 영주권 또는 이에 준하는 장기체류 자격을 취득한 사람이 국내에서 생업에 종사할 목적 등으로 영주귀국(永住歸國)하려면 외교통상부령으로 정하는 영주귀국을 증명할 수 있는 서류를 갖추어 외교통상부장관에게 신고하여야 한다. | Persons who moved overseas and obtained permanent residency or qualification of long-term stay which is equivalent to it and who then return permanently to engage in any profession or for other reasons shall make a declaration to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade, providing documents proving permanent return as defined in an order by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. |
So what exactly are those “documents proving permanent return”? The answer is found in the Overseas Migration Act Implementation Regulations, which explain (emphasis mine):
| 제13조(영주귀국) | Section 13 (Permanent return) |
| ① 법 제12조에서 “외교통상부령으로 정하는 영주귀국을 증명할 수 있는 서류”란 영주권 또는 영주권에 준하는 장기체류 자격의 취소를 확인할 수 있는 서류와 거주여권을 말한다. | (1) In Section 12 of the Act, “documents proving permanent return as defined in an order by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade” means documents which can confirm the cancellation of permanent residency or of long-term stay equivalent to permanent residency, along with a passport. |
| ② 외교통상부장관은 영주귀국 신고를 받았을 때에는 영주귀국 확인서를 발급하여야 한다. | (2) When the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade receives a declaration of permanent return, he shall issue a Certificate of Confirmation of Permanent Return. |
So that confirms it: each of those 2,158 provided proof to the South Korean government of the cancellation of their right to stay in the United States. Also note that the regulations don’t specify anything ridiculous like a fine of 300% of your assets for failing to file this paperwork. So this number of self-reports is highly likely to be an underestimate of the actual number of Koreans who gave up U.S. green cards — kind of like how early FBAR figures are far smaller than the actual size of the U.S. population abroad.
The Regulations quoted above do not yet seem to have been amended to take into account South Korea’s recent moves to permit dual citizenship, so it’s not clear whether that 2,158 includes former citizens, or just former green card holders. People restoring South Korean citizenship would show up in nationality statistics as well, however. According to those figures, 3,740 Koreans had their nationality restored in 2008. This was back when regaining South Korean nationality meant giving up any other citizenship you had obtained. If that number is divided up anything like the “permanent return” figures, probably about half of those 3,740 are former Americans — utterly dwarfing the Federal Register statistic of 235 people losing citizenship that year.
Keep in mind that the U.S. has more than 35 million foreign-born residents. People born in South Korea barely form 3% of that total. Even if people of some other nationalities have only one-tenth the reverse migration rate of Koreans, you can do the math yourself and compare that to the U.S. government’s published numbers. Again, at this point we may still have some lively discussion about who exactly doesn’t get included in the Federal Register, but it gets harder and harder to claim with a straight face that it includes everyone losing U.S. citizenship or long-term green cards.
| 특히 이 같은 수치는 지난 2000년 모두 2,612명을 기록한 이후 가장 많은 것이며 2000년대 최저치를 기록한 2005년과 비교해서는 무려 61% 증가한 것이다. 한인들의 역이민 행렬은 1997년 IMF 외환위기 후 2000년 정점을 찍은 뒤 감소세를 보이다가 ▶2006년 1,403명 ▶2007년 1,576명 ▶2008년 1,654명 ▶2009년 2,058명 등 갈수록 큰 폭의 증가세를 보이고 있다. | It’s the largest number since 2000 when the record of 2,612 was set, and when compared with 2005 — the lowest point in the past decade — the number has increased by 61%. Reverse migration of South Koreans after the 1997 IMF currency crisis reached its peak in 2000, but declined after that. However, with 1,403 in 2006, 1,576 in 2007, 1,654 in 2008, and 2,058 in 2009, it appears to be a rising trend again. |
| 무엇보다 2008년에는 역이민자수가 한국에서 이민수속을 밟아 미국으로 떠나온 한인 이민자수(1,034명)를 1962년 해외이주법 제정 이후 46년만에 처음 역전하기도 했다. 이는 2011년에도 이어져 한국에서 이민수속을 밟고 이민 온 한인이 618명에 그치면서 역이민자에 비해 1,510명이나 적었다. | More than that, for the first time in the 46 years since the passage of the 1962 Overseas Migration Act, in 2008 the number of reverse migrants exceeded the number of Koreans who went through procedures in South Korea to emigrate to the U.S. (1,034 persons). The number of Koreans who came as immigrants [to the US] was only 618, or 1,510 fewer than the number of reverse migrants. |
Here, unlike above, the journalist has made an obvious error. Again, you can refer to the whitebook’s appendix at page 301. Table 1 lists the number of “people making declarations of moving overseas” (해외이주 신고자), whence the 618 mentioned above. Table 2 lists “local move” (현지이주), whatever that means; the figure for U.S. given there is 13,386, which sounds like roughly the right magnitude for the number of people who moved out of South Korea without telling the South Korean government. In otherwords, the 618 is based on the number of self-reports of migration.
Since the South Korean government does not appear to be threatening to steal 300% of anyone’s assets for failing to fill out this not-very-useful self report, apparently no one bothers with it. (In the free world, this is the proper attitude towards paperwork for a country in which you no longer live). For comparison, the Department of Homeland Security reported that 22,824 South Koreans were granted green cards in 2011, and that 12,664 naturalised as U.S. citizens. The problem seems to be that the reporter misinterpreted the table.
| 역이민 사유를 보면 고령이 21%로 가장 많고, 한국내 취업 19%, 이민생활 부적응 10%, 신병치료 7%, 한국내 취학 3% 등이 뒤를 이었다. 전문가들은 이민 1세대들이 노후를 고국에서 보내기 위해 ‘유턴’하는 경우가 많아진데다 미 경기침체의 장기화와 맞물려 한국에서 살아가려는 한인들이 점차 늘고 있는 것으로 분석하고 있다. | Looking at the reasons for reverse migration, “old age” was the most common at 21%, “employment in South Korea” at 19%, “inability to adapt to immigrant life” at 10%, “treatment for a new illness” at 7%, and “studying in South Korea” at 3%. According to analysis by experts, there are many cases of first-generation migrants who make a “u-turn” in order to spend their old age in their home country, and furthermore the gradual growth in the number of Korean-Americans going to live in Korea may be linked to the U.S.’ protracted economic recession. |
As mentioned above, many former green card holders do not show up in the Federal Register either. Those who were in the U.S. for fewer than eight of the last fifteen years aren’t considered “long term residents” under 877(a) or 877A and so don’t even have to file Form 8854. The Federal Register list only began including the note that “[f]or purposes of this listing, long-term residents, as defined in section 877(e)(2), are treated as if they were citizens of the United States who lost citizenship” in the Q1 2012 list. However it seems reasonable to guess that the list has included long-term residents with green cards all along, since the wording of the actual law authorising the list has not changed, and of course the IRS would never make major changes without Congress explicitly amending a tax law first, right?
So how many of these 2,158 were “long-term residents”? The reason of “inability to adapt to immigrant life” only accounted for about two hundred of the cases of return; it’s probably safe to bet that most of them didn’t stay in the U.S. for eight years. People responding with the most common reason, “old age”, appear to comprise senior citizens who spent long years raising their children in the U.S., but hope to go back to their hometowns in South Korea for retirement, so they’re all likely to fall into the “long-term resident” category. With the other reasons, it’s hard to say how many of them are long-term vs. short-term green card holders, let alone citizens.
For those of you who are interested in reading more about the phenomenon of reverse migration among Koreans in the U.S., New American Media has an English-language report on this phenomenon focused specifically on the elderly. As the report points out, there’s no pressure from the South Korean side for reverse migrants to give up U.S. citizenship and restore the South Korean one, as they can easily qualify for an ex-citizen’s F4 visa. It’s only the U.S. which will make their lives difficult if they exercise their human right to settle down outside of their passport-issuing country.
However it seems reasonable to guess that the list has included long-term residents with green cards all along,…
Yes, it’s an anecdote and not a statistic but… I know first-hand of six people who surrendered green cards in the past four years. All were “long term”, and at least two would have been covered by 877. So far none of them has appeared in the federal register.
My money’s on gross understatement of the figures, but I’ve neither real proof nor a watertight theory for why the Federal Register numbers disagree so thoroughly with what we see. Maybe they’re manipulated. Or maybe it’s as simple as the person responsible just not giving a damn about the task. It’s plainly a waste of time compiling it. If it were my job I’d find other more worthwhile things to do instead.
@Eric, Just outstanding research. Thank you so much for your time and effort in finding these stories and doing the translating. I know it’s a time consuming endeavour and I just wanted you to know how much your work is appreciated.
@Eric, Thank you for doing this research.
According to the US Department of Homeland Security, about 1 million people immigrate to the US each year (http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/lpr_fr_2011.pdf).
Based on census data, the US Department of Homeland Security estimates that about 1% of the legal immigrants in the US return to their countries of origin each year (http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/ois_ill_pe_2011.pdf, see “Emigration of legally resident flow” on the last page). From the estimated 30 million legal immigrants and naturalized citizens, this means 300,000 emigrants each year. Given this huge number, I suspect that the overwhelming majority of people listed in the Federal Register are immigrants who return to their countries. This is supported by the high number of non-English names in the list. I also suspect that most of them are people who return green cards, not who renounce US citizenship.
Conclusion: the supposed trend of rich Americans fleeing the US and renouncing citizenship to avoid taxes is a myth. These are just people returning home. The covered expatriates are just those among them who happen to be “rich”. It’s an insult to them to say that they are leaving the US because of taxes, and not because of the various reasons that cause the others to do so. Leave them alone, Chuck Schumer.
@shadow raider, I am honestly not sure about this “I suspect that the overwhelming majority of people listed in the Federal Register are immigrants who return to their countries. This is supported by the high number of non-English names in the list. I also suspect that most of them are people who return green cards, not who renounce US citizenship.”
It’s possible but I hail from the U.S. West Coast where there are enormous numbers of Americans of Asian origin. I went to school with all kinds of people whose parents or grand-parents came from Japan, Vietnam, Korea and China but they were all U.S. citizens because they were born in the U.S.
The only way we’ll know for sure is if someone does the research. Eric’s work is a great start but what we need in order to answer all these questions is to have a look at all the renunciants named and start tracking over time (not just one quarter) in order to compile some decent data sets to support our arguments.
Eric, good find. The numbers you found make the Federal Register numbers look too short. No surprise there… but it’s good to be able to see some statistics backing up the suspicion.
@Victoria, I agree that I may have jumped to a conclusion too quickly. It’s very possible that the non-English names are of US citizens by birth with immigrant parents or grandparents. I don’t think we can know for sure because the list only has names and no other information. However, just the size of the emigrant population makes me think that most in the list are former immigrants. If just 1% of the emigrants have more than $2 million (which is likely since 3% of the general US population do), this is already 3000 people, more than the 1800 in the list.
On the other hand, it may be that most emigrants just don’t fill in form 8854, just like most immigrants don’t fill in the FBAR.
Shadow Raider wrote: “On the other hand, it may be that most emigrants just don’t fill in form 8854, just like most immigrants don’t fill in the FBAR.”
If that is so, then the estimate that Tim once gave was about 50% of emigrants actually file 8854. This means that the true number of relinquishers and ex-Green Card holders per annum must exceed 20,000.
@Eric: Thanks again for another fantastic article. It is too bad, I think, that South Korea doesn’t report the number of citizens and green card holder separately. In any case, I think that the US government may be intentionally lying. These numbers are too stark to suggest mere incompetence. If the media went berserk over 1780 renunciants, what would they do if the true numbers were reported. I think there must have been at least that many people from Switzerland alone in 2011. In 2012, the actual number in Canada could be 10,000, since we have consulate in eight cities, and all of them are processing day in and day out the maximum number that they will do (what is that two per day per consulate?). Canada has eight consulates. If each consulate did only one per day that would be 8*52*5=2080. But we know that they it takes a month to book an appointment to renounce. In Bern and Berlin, it was over a year ago a while back, and if ever the consulates did anything, like mass renunciation meetings (like the one in Toronto in October, 2011), then that would streamline the process.
The whole renunciation process is bottle-necking on the level of the consulates. Toronto would not allow me even to book a relinquishment meeting until after the date of my relinquishment (February 28, 2011); the earliest appointment I could get was April 7, 2011, over 37 days later.
What would Ockham’s razor suggest? Here are two theories: (1) the United States government is lying about the number of expatriates; (2) the United States is incompetent and is unable to provide accurate statistics. Either of these two hypothesis require further speculation. The question is which of the two theories best suits Ockham’s razor.
(1) The US government is lying and is intentionally failing to comply with the laws requirements. Why? because the majority of bureaucrats vote democrat and don’t want their man Barack Obama to look bad so that he can get re-elected.
(2) The US government is incompetent and is unable to comply with the law’s requirements. Why? Because the State Department fails to provide the necessary information in a timely manner to Treasury. And/or the scribes at the Treasury are incompetent and cannot keep up with the paperwork as it comes to them from State. Or the Treasury and/or State, do not understand the requirements of the law.
For me this is a complete toss up. Perhaps they are indeed feel the true data is embarrassing for Obama (1) and therefore are using their incompetence (2) as a cover. This finally is irksome to everyone who has been threatened with 383% fines because they fail to send in the correct paperwork that they didn’t even know about. Who holds government employees accountable when they fail to fill out their paper requirements correctly?
It is especially irksome to me, since my renunciation is my final protest against this failed State: Listen up! I’m not going to do this paperwork anymore. Listen to me. I renounce thee. If then our collective voices are being muffled, then it leads to a very bad situation where the People themselves cannot hear our final protest.
@shadow raider, I think you are dead right about the form 8854 and that most folks never bother. If you’re not planning on coming back and you think that you will be able to lose yourself in another country, then what would be the point? When my husband gave up his Green Card, it never occurred to him to even ask if there was any paperwork involved. There wouldn’t have been because he only spent a few years in the U.S. but, hey, in his head he was going home and that was that. End of story. 🙂
Here is more anecdotal information of a most astounding variety: a reader reports that the Bern consulate has increased staff for renunciations from one person to three:
Now suppose one person could handle one renunciation per day and three could handle three per day. Then the total renunciations at the Bern consulate would be 3*5*52=780 per annum. Now it is extremely pessimistic, given the amount of paperwork involved, to suggest that three staff could only handle three renunciations per day. Perhaps each person handle two or three per day: 2 = 1560; 3 = 2340. I.e., Bern alone, one consulate is able to handle minimum of 3 renunciations per day and their numbers would 780 per year–and there is a waiting list of one month to get an appointment, which means that they completely booked.
These are very pessimistic numbers. My time at Toronto Consulate was one hour. I had one staff person handling my paper work and it took the consular officer about 10 minutes. If they were streamline and efficient (LOL) they could conceivably handle 5-6 renunciations per staff person per day.
Korea has only two consulates. See http://www.usembassy.gov/ Seoul and Busan.
And then there are the heads you can’t count because they’re below ground.
Someone came in for renunciation when I was in the waiting area at Toronto. Then a Brocker (obviously not that same person) posted that he’d renounced that same afternoon. Mine’s a s.(1) relinquishment, so I don’t know if that counts with renunciation statistics. But still, it does total 3 expatrations — that I know about — the same afternoon at the same consulate.
And Sophie mentioned about Bern
I’ve noticed a number of people mention running into other people expatriating when they’re in the waiting area at their consulate, including the person who said a stranger dropped a piece of paper that said, “IsaacBrockSociety.ca” 🙂 at his feet.
Definitely a lot of CLN applications everywhere.
Thank you @Eric for this research.
There isn’t any doubt that the renunciation numbers are highly sensitive, and so continue to make the news in the US. The more light shed on them, the better.
Don’t know if this was posted already elsewhere at IBS;
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443477104577553131193801016.html
July 27, 2012 ‘U.S.: Taxpayers Who Renounced Citizenship Fell Sharply’
Good to see that characterization of the US tax system as ‘highly unusual’, ( though I’d rather something more critical – like extortionate and unethical). On the down side, they’ve got no robust basis for the *claim that ‘many “accidental
citizens”…….. owe U.S. taxes’. A particularly problematic claim, since no one even knows how many ‘accidental’ there are, much less how many would owe US taxes. Even the IRS. We know that of those who did file US returns from abroad, most did NOT owe any US tax (which was stated by the Taxpayer Advocate).
“The U.S. is highly unusual in that it imposes taxes on “world-wide”
income, no matter where a citizen or permanent resident lives.
The U.S. also has a broad definition of who is a citizen—including
all those born on U.S. soil. As a result, there are many “accidental
citizens” who don’t consider themselves American *but owe U.S. taxes.“
What is the basis for that *claim? And, if it was true, then it is a function of the burden of citizenship taxation – resulting in double taxation, which no-one should be liable for. Again, the usual claims that if you’re not paying US taxes, you’re not paying tax. (a catchy t-shirt or bumper sticker slogan for IRS employees?).
@Eric- excellent work and thank you for taking the time to do it.
@Eric
Incredible research- thanks very much!
Maybe there should be a new column in the Relinquishment and Renunciation Data for listings in the Federal Register?
@ Victoria
When your husband gave up his green card how long did he have to wait to get that official stamp of approval on his I-407? I sent mine in (hoping they will acknowledge that I actually became non-green carder over 15 years ago) but it has been 3 months now and even with a reminder letter I have not had any word from USCIC. (I haven’t been able to track down a phone number or e-mail for that elusive office.) I am about to unilaterally declare myself a non-green carder without their official stamp of approval since it is what I believed myself to be all these years anyway. I even declared myself as a “former resident alien” on the 1040s, not knowing at that time that an I-407 even existed.
Thanks for that good suggestion, Just a Canadian. It would, though, be on a database that we don’t publicly assign names to. Perhaps?.
Re:#s of emigrants leaving the US, or numbers renouncing to return to their country of origin.
This article http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/16/us/more-us-children-of-immigrants-are-leaving-us.html?_r=1&ref=americansabroad discusses the children of immigrants to the US, emigrating to their parent’s homelands rather than staying in the US. Some were US born or naturalize, some perhaps not.
The article contained a link to this useful resource, and here is a sample search for ‘renunciation’ http://www.migrationpolicy.org/search/results.php?q=renunciation
or, for ‘tax*’ (using tax* = search results for tax, taxes, taxation)
http://www.migrationpolicy.org/search/results.php?q=tax*
Thanks for the link to the NY Times article, badger. I found it refreshing and salute these children of US immigrants leaving the US — they are looking for a better, more enriching life just as their parents did. It is a different time and their opportunities are elsewhere in this big world. We should all be free to have done or to do so, especially from a country that espouses its freedoms. It is also interesting to read very literate comments to the article of those choosing a path outside of the USA.
And, of course, thanks Eric for another of your big finds and presenting it to us here at Isaac Brock. What a resource for us all.
@calgary411, it struck a chord with me, because we all wish for a good life for our children, and for them to be free to follow the path of their best opportunity, without shackles. How many of the children in the article will find that freedom – without the US grasping hand clinging on to them?
As the article makes clear, the US isn’t the only game in town (and it never was, as we know):
…….. “Enterprising Americans have always sought opportunities abroad. But this new wave underscores the evolving nature of global migration, and the challenges to American economic supremacy and competitiveness.
In interviews, many of these Americans said they did not know how long they would live abroad; some said it was possible that they would remain expatriates for many years, if not for the rest of their lives. “……. from NYT article ‘Many U.S. Immigrants’ Children Seek American Dream Abroad’ by Kirk Semple
Published: April 15, 2012 http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/16/us/more-us-children-of-immigrants-are-leaving-us.html?_r=1&ref=americansabroad
@badger,
Residence-based citizenship and encouraging young Americans to go out and help make the world a better place would be such a win-win, an opportunity for the US to move from its insular policies. Where are the innovative senators and congressmen to lead this? Perhaps one day the U.S. will see it is time to scrap their Military Industrial Complex model and go to a more positive one. Idealism, perhaps. But, I would like to think not.
@calgary,
Yes, you would think that to send out ambassadors into the world, and to forge new connections and partnerships and relationships would be the most logical and best strategy for the US. Not to punish those who go and live outside the US. Now, the US only sees those children in the article, and us, and our children abroad as chattel – our value is only to generate tax and penalty revenues.
There will be a wave of backlash from those US children of immigrants, after they move abroad, with their families still inside the US, and then find out about the US+IRS persecution of those who leave. And, then, just like us, they will be urging all those who they meet abroad to think twice about going to the US – since they’ll have been scorched by the extraterritorial tax system and know it firsthand. They won’t be trying to form businesses and partnerships (which would benefit the US) – they’ll try to cut the US and IRS ties when they come to realize that it is a massive barrier to a successful life abroad. The US is isolating itself. It would rather grasp at and persecute expats than forge beneficial partnerships and future networks.
@Just a Canadian- I personally don’t see why we would want to republish that piece of worthless information. Wouldn’t we just be guilty of advancing the U.S. government’s act of emotional abuse that it visits on people who are doing nothing more that exercising their Constitutional rights? The most that I would want to see is just a link to the bovernment’s site. I think that even that is more acknowledgement that it deserves from our site.
@Em, This was many years ago it sounds like things have changed. This is what happened.
We had moved back to France but my husband went to the States for business. On his way in or out (can’t remember) they took him aside and said that it looked like he had left the country and was this the case? He said “yes” and they took the Green Card away from him. He had to sign a document saying he was surrendering it voluntarily. They said that this was not a problem and he could always re-apply for a new one if we decided to come back. No mention was made of any exit procedure, he was not asked for any further information and he signed no other paper other than the one where he agreed to give it up of his own free will. Sounds like he got off easy. 🙂