Two days ago, the State Department published in the Federal Register a request for comments on a new filing it will make with the Office of Budget & Management as required under the Paperwork Reduction Act, estimating the number of people who file Form DS-4079, the Request for Determination of Possible Loss of United States Citizenship.
This post analyses the history of the State Department’s OMB filings regarding DS-4079. For an overview of the hilarious process of cooking up respondent burden estimates under the Paperwork Reduction Act, you may wish to read this post from last year on the IRS’ OMB filings regarding Form 8854. In short: don’t waste your time writing up comments for them to read, because your participation only lends a veneer of legitimacy to their fake attempt to pretend they’re listening and being reasonable. And don’t bother trying to ascribe any significance to the numbers. Just read on and make up your mind whether to laugh or cry.
The 2007 initial request
In August 2007, when the State Department first requested an OMB Control Number for Form DS-4079, it estimated that 2,298 people would file the form annually — this against a background of 368 names in the Federal Register name-and-shame list in the preceding four quarters. (Of course, there’s evidence that the IRS had begun randomly dropping names from that list the previous year, meaning the number of people dumping the blue passport might have been far higher than admitted — but perhaps State didn’t get the memo that they were supposed to be following the IRS and downplaying their estimates too.)
In the Supplementary Statement to the filing, the State Department revealed the cost burden to the federal government to process each DS-4079 (distinct from the burden of the respondent who actually fills out the form, which they estimated at 15 minutes):
The Federal government will incur an annualized estimated cost of $151,805.88. Reviewer burden hours, estimated average hourly rate per reviewer and the number of reviewers were determined to calculate the annualized estimated cost. The process to reach the annualized estimated cost to the Federal government began with the calculation of the estimated average hourly rate multiplied by the total reviewer burden hours ($33.03 x 2 hours = $66.06). The preceding total was then multiplied by the total number of respondents to the questionnaire ($66.06 x 2,298 respondents = $151,805.88).
It seems rather difficult to reconcile this two hour, sixty-six dollar burden with the more recent claims the State Department made in this June 2010 Federal Register notice that Shadow Raider posted yesterday:
The CoSS demonstrated that documenting a U.S. citizen’s renunciation of citizenship is extremely costly, requiring American consular officers overseas to spend substantial amounts of time to accept, process, and adjudicate cases. A new fee of $450 will be established to help defray a portion of the total cost to the U.S. Government of documenting the renunciation of citizenship. While the Department decided to set the fee at $450, this fee represents less than 25 percent of the cost to the U.S. Government. The Department has determined that it must recoup at least a portion of its costs of providing this very costly service but set the fee lower than the cost of service in order to lessen the impact on those who need this service and not discourage the utilization of the service, a development the Department feels would be detrimental to national interests. See 31 U.S.C. 9701(b)(2).
The 2010 extension
Oddly enough, in October 2010 when the State Department filed for an extension with the OMB, they cut their estimate of DS-4079 filers in half to just 1,132, even as the number of ex-citizens to which the IRS was willing to admit in the preceding twelve months had nearly quadrupled to 1,397. At the time, State claimed that “Decrease in burden is do [sic] to improvement in Bureau estimations over the prior 3 years”; they again claimed that it would take them only two hours to review each form, at a slightly increased cost of $33.74 per hour. The 2010 Supplementary Statement is even more fascinating:
The Department is in the process of incorporating an electronic element for the DS 4079 form. The respondent will input all the necessary data into the form online. The respondent will be able to submit the data on the form by clicking the “submit” button located on the form. Once the respondent clicks the “submit” button, the data on the form will populate a case file in the American Citizen Services Database (ACS) for easy access by the Consular Officer(s) at the U.S. Post handling the case. If the respondent is completing the form online, the respondent will be required to print the form and provide his or her signature(s) to the form manually. The form is not valid until the respondent and Consular Officer handling the case provides their hand-written signature(s) in the appropriate sections on the form.
Though this sounds roughly as clunky as the now-mandatory system for online filing of FBARs, it would certainly be a welcome improvement to waiting weeks and weeks to get an in-person appointment at the consulate where you can’t bring your mobile phone. So where exactly is this alleged system for online submission of Form DS-4079 about which they were bragging three years ago? Certainly not in the version of the form currently posted on the website …
There were also two public comments on the OMB filing. One of them discussed the rather unusual theory that Taiwan is actually a trust territory of the United States and that DS-4079 should include instructions to “American Formosan Indians” on how to claim U.S. citizenship. On the other hand, it’s probably a complete waste of time to try to sound more sane than this; State will just find a way to ignore your comment anyway. This is what happened to a second comment by Ronald Zisman of Preshaw & Zisman Immigration Lawyers of British Columbia and Washington State, which made much more cogent observations and reasonable suggestions:
A U.S. citizen who wishes to Renunce or Relinquish should not have to wait 2 to 6 months to do so. The time frame for some consulates are in a walk-in mode but others require mailing in the forms; receiving correspondence from the consulate; waiting for an email from the consulate requesting that the applicant make an appointment; appointment date; and then waiting over 1 year for the CLN. Different consulates within the same country have different procedures. This should be standardized.
In the meantime the applicant does not have proof of his renunciation; his U.S. passport has been stamped as void; but does not receive at administrative decision for one year. This is not acceptable.
The Consulate should provide a date stamped copy of the application to the applicant to avoid issues at port of entry or as to provide proof for other matters.
The prickly bureaucrats at State were just as dismissive of Mr. Zisman, writing in their supplementary statement only that “[t]he second comment was from a person complaining about the renunciation process … [t]he changes he recommended would make the process much more difficult instead of easier”. This statement is clearly mendacious: issuing a proof of renunciation on the spot would simply be a matter of printing out a form letter with the name and birthdate already collected, and then stamping it. Doing so is not only theoretically practical, it has actually been done previously in cases like those of Ukrainian first lady Kateryna Yushchenko and Pakistani politician Fauzia Kasuri.
The 2013 extension
And now, with the FBI claiming to have received 5,444 CLNs of renunciants from the State Department from July 2012 to July 2013 (3,488 in the second half of last year and 1,956 so far this year, not even counting the number of CLNs of relinquishers), State has admitted that their previous estimate may have been a tad too low, so they’re raising it … to 1,729. But their cooked numbers aren’t the most interesting part of the notice. First, there’s the continuing promise that relinquishers (though perhaps not renunciants) could file the form online or by mail:
Methodology: The Bureau of Consular Affairs will post this form on Department of State Web sites to give respondents the opportunity to complete the form online, or print the form and fill it out manually and submit the form in person or by fax or mail.
And then, they offer this amusing aphorism about the nature of Form DS-4079:
Frequency: On Occasion
Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits
Relinquishment of United States citizenship: do it on occasion if you would like to obtain or retain benefits. 🙂
@Eric
“nd then, they offer this amusing aphorism about the nature of Form DS-4079:
Frequency: On Occasion
Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits
Relinquishment of United States citizenship: do it on occasion if you would like to obtain or retain benefits. ”
I presumed that one does not get their SS benefits if they renounce or relinquish..I worked so little for so little in the USA before I came to Canada in 1969 at the age of 21… I thought it would be nice if I could donate my little SS money I contributed to homeless vets…They deserve it.
Northernstar, you can actually still get SS at retirement provided you worked in the US long enough to accumulate the necessary points. You can even request to receive SS via CPP b/c there is some sort of treaty that allows that.
Okay, so does this mean that if you relinquish, you can simply do it online now (or soon) and that you needn’t bother with a consulate visit at all? That would be sweet. For those of us still waiting (endlessly it seems) to acquire citizenship in our new home countries, this would mean just sending an email informing them of the impending event once we have confirmation of the ceremony and then following up with filling out the form, right? And for those who relinquished years or decades ago, it’s just filing online, correct?
This could make getting into a consulate for those who are forced to renounce a lot easier b/c the relinquishers wouldn’t need to go in.
As for the book cooked numbers. Standard govt 3 Card Monty-ism. It’s to the point that you can’t even muster more than a smirk and a raised eyebrow at the predictable nature of it all.
@ Yoga Girl…thanks for the info…I wouldn’t qualify
As for relinquishing on line…I am doing that on July 15th and thought I had to bring all kinds of ID, like birth certificate, marriage certificate. . I have my social security cards in my maiden name and married name and my husband’s death certificate. My landing papers, my Cdn citizenship card and certificate. My Canadia passport too. I even have my last US taxes filed……How could one do that on online ?
@YogaGirl
I wouldn’t count on being able to renounce online. You still have to swear (or affirm) your oath in front of a consular official while viewing the flag through bulletproof glass.
@Eric
Woo, 75% off the cost of a renunciation, limited time only. We better not tell Schumer and Reed that the USG is subsidising renunciations.
So it costs $1800 for a bureaucrat behind a bulletproof glass partition to read a summary of consequences of loss (DS-4081), fill out a DS-4080, sign and stamp both, scan it into a computer, send a report to DC that the renunciant wasn’t a mental case, and have another bureaucrat in DC read it, approve it, and send the approval back electronically so the first bureaucrat can type of a DS-4083 and mail it to the renunciant and forward copies to DC so they can be delivered to the IRS, FBI, USCIS, and Secret Service (if recommended)
I must be in the wrong business…
Edelweiss, not renounce – relinquish. There is no oath swearing for the latter because the act is merely being reported as a done deal.
No reason at all why that can’t be done online. In fact, the CLN’s for relinquishment should be a simple matter of online reporting and confirmation email in reply, followed by waiting for the postal delivery of the certificate.
Renouncing is the cash cow, a pretty skinny one, imo, but they could process more of those if relinquishers were moved to an online process.
I should be working for the DoS. I could streamline this without breaking even a mental sweat.
As I understand it, all they are hoping to save is the cost of data entry for forms 4079. Still, that could be a non-trivial saving for them in time and wages, considering the numbers of such forms they are handling now.
Before I went to the consulate in Toronto last year, I was able to complete form 4079 on line as a pdf file and print it. I don’t remember if I “submitted” it electronically to the consulate or if they received and accepted it that way, but they could easily do that. I took my printed copy to the consulate along with the other documentation to make my case for relinquishment in the 1970s. They ended up with a printed copy of it, too, but I’m not sure if it was a photocopy of mine or a copy they printed from a pdf I had submitted earlier..
I don’t think there is any way to avoid an appearance in person to document one’s relinquishment, because a consular official must assess one’s case and accept or reject it on the preponderance of evidence, including an in-person interview by the consular official. The official must also witness the relinquisher’s signing of the printed 4079. The only step they would save with electronic submission is the need for a clerk to key in the data, as is now required if the 4079 is submitted in printed or handwritten form in the first place.
@ AnonAnon,
That’s what I see, too. I think they’ll still want to see the person’s original documents and current photo id. I know that in the 1970s, you could do this by mail. But over the years, I see more and more things we do requiring photo id and, to a lesser extent, original documents instead of notarised copies. I was definitely told to bring current photo id — guess they want to make sure that you’re who the person say you are, which I think, given the importance of a CLN, actually isn’t a bad idea.
I think such an online system would probably work similar to how London is doing this, where you have to send in your forms and scans of your documents in advance, but have to bring the original docs to the consulate meeting. Sending it in in advance is efficient, giving them a head’s up, everything is ready the day of the visit, and if there’s a problem with a document, it can get straightened out in advance, saving the need for a second visit. So, I think a uniform procedure for filing 4079 online sounds good but I don’t think it would do away with appearing in person.
northernstar & AnonAnon —
Forget typing or pdf-ing for DS-4079 etc. Handwrite. Why do their work for them, especially when they additionally demand to see you in person at their convenience, not yours. Same principle as refusing to file FBAR electronically when allowed (no longer) to file paper. Strew sand in the gears at every opportunity. Sauve qui peut.
@usxcanada, I wasn’t trying to save them money by pre-fillling the 4079 form as a pdf file. I was trying to save my own time in the consulate. I didn’t want to wait for them to do the data entry and possibly have to return for a second visit because they couldn’t get everything done that day. Otherwise, I agree with you. If I were to file with the IRS — which I’m not, because I relinquished so long ago — I would file in handwriting if possible.
I filled out my forms and typed them…My handwriting/printing is not good. I read that some took 2 copies of each form. Is this good to do.
I’ve been out of the country for a couple of weeks and am playing catch-up here.
One quick observation, for those who haven’t encountered one of my much earlier posts here, or at Sandbox, or way back at Expat Forum —
Department of State used to get the predecessor to form 4079 BY MAIL and send CLNs BY MAIL with no human face-to-fact contact, with or without bulletproof glass, back in 1976 and maybe earlier. I know this, because that’s exactly how I got my CLN in 1976. I wrote a snarky letter to the Secretary of State on the occasion of the bicentennial of the US Declaration of Independence, mentioning among other things that I’d taken out Canadian citizenship and had (in my words) thereby “renounced” my US citizenship. Two months later the US Embassy in Ottawa mailed me a form to fill out. I signed the form and mailed it back, and a few months later my CLN arrived in the mail confirming that I had relinquished my US citizenship upon becoming a Canadian citizen about a year earlier.
No part of my process involved any face-to-face meetings, swearing of oaths, or any other bureaucratic crap — just a short form asking me to confirm my date and place of birth, that I’d become a Canadian, that I’d done so of my own free will (!), and that I’d intended thereby to relinquish my US citizenship. Yes to the above, slam bam thank you ma’am, and that was it. No other invasive questions such as now appear in 4079. No copy of my birth certificate (the embassy did in fact get written confirmation of my Canadian citizenship from Citizenship and Immigration Canada by writing directly to them; I wasn’t asked to provide a copy of my certificate of citizenship, I guess they didn’t trust my word for it), No meetings or appointments (I would never have gone into the embassy or a consulate anyway, because at the time I was under indictment in the US for draft evasion, but happily that wasn’t necessary).
If they could do it in 1976 by snail mail, they damn well ought to be able to do it by email or on the internet, and faster (hah! check out some of the sad stories in the R&R database portion of this website). But no, they’re too “exceptional” to be that rational any more.
Just one more small example of how far to hell the US has gone in a handcart over the years.
Four months after the “60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection” for Form DS-4079, State finally gets around to publishing the “30-Day Notice”:
https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/10/24/2013-25017/30-day-notice-of-proposed-information-collection-request-for-determination-of-possible-loss-of
So they’re three months overdue with copying and pasting the 60-Day Notice and changing “60” to “30”. I guess this explains why it takes them so long to look at a CLN and forward it to DC for stamping.
Three comments:
1. Their July 2010 justification for imposing the $450 renunciation fee seems to me to apply as much or more to relinquishments as to renunciations:
“The CoSS demonstrated that documenting a U.S. citizen’s renunciation of citizenship is extremely costly, requiring American consular officers overseas to spend substantial amounts of time to accept, process, and adjudicate cases.”
What does it take to “adjudicate” the swearing of a renunciation oath? I would think it takes at least as much time to assess a person’s claim of relinquishment. (Not that I am advocating extending the $450 fee to relinquishments!)
2. I, too, just love that part of the Federal Register notice about
“Frequency: On Occasion
Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits”
On another thread here at IBS I recently suggested writing to the Secretary of State to ask about the benefits of a CLN. From the point of view of the State Department, what exactly does a CLN entitle us to do?
3. I don’t think it’s likely that they will ever allow for submission of Form 4079 on line. If they did, they would have to use something like Captchas for sure. Otherwise, one can imagine what a flood of bogus applications might be generated by malicious bots. (Of course that’s only a warning; I would never advocate that.)
AnonAnon –
I suspect that the average cost of processing a renunciation were higher before mainstream people started to do it for sensible reasons – if you look at the consular instructions, it’s clear that the process has attracted an amazing variety of cranks, some of whom needed to be protected from themselves. I suspect Gogulski cost the State Department a lot more than $450.
The reasoning, such as it is, for the relinquishment/renunciation fee difference is that with a renunciation you’re asking the State Department to do something (strip you of your citizenship, at your request) and with a relinquishment you’re asking them to document something that you yourself have already done. That’s very legalistic- it is what it is.
Pingback: The Isaac Brock Society | State Department to hike renunciation fees to US$2,350; says “no public benefit” in respecting human right to change nationality
Pingback: State Department to hike renunciation fees to US$2,350; says “no public benefit” in respecting human right to change nationality - Tax samurai
Pingback: Le Department of State va augmenter les frais de renonciation à la nationalité US à $ 2350; dit «pas d'intérêt public» dans le respect de droit de l'homme à changer de nationalité - Tax samurai