110 thoughts on “Almost no U.S. citizenship renunciation appointments left during 2016 in Dublin; other U.S. embassies also putting up various roadblocks”

1. I relinquished 3 years ago, I had to literally insist on relinquishment and guide them through the process. I was prepared, by reading Brock and reading every online reference to the subject matter from the State Department’s official documents. By being fully prepared I was able to avoid any issues and sail smoothly through.

2. This is invaluable @Eric. Thank you so much for all your work. Always appreciated. Useful to point to when our NON-US home country of residence advises that the only remedy for the US abusing us extraterritorially via FATCA+US extraterritorial taxation (and all our fellow local taxpayers footing the implementation/enforcement bill to buy the US free lunch forever and ever) is to “JUST Renounce”.

   I also hope the accretion of evidence will help with the complaint to the UN http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2014/07/28/human-rights-complaint-on-behalf-of-all-u-s-persons-abroad-has-now-been-submitted/ .

   Wonder if Patrick Cain http://www.patrickcain.ca/ would be interested in the data in order to do a follow up to his stories like these;
   ‘Want to shed U.S. citizenship? Get in line?’
   http://globalnews.ca/news/1519628/want-to-shed-u-s-citizenship-get-in-line/
   http://globalnews.ca/news/1952125/unwilling-dual-citizens-face-10-month-wait-to-shed-u-s-citizenship-in-toronto/
   http://globalnews.ca/news/1072303/over-3100-americans-renounced-citizenship-last-year-fbi/

3. Doesn’t surprise me that you have to wait until 2017 nearly to make your faithful journey over to Phoenix Park to divorce the USA.

4. This bunch of D.C. Pukes makes people do what they should never have to do and that is renounce their citizenship. These Pukes are supposed to work for us and if they don’t we are supposed to replace them. I will bet that the expats have all been delinquent in the voting the Pukes out movement. Let it br your last act as a citizen–voting all incumbents out of office.”
   The is one other thing an expat could do before taking such a final stand as renouncing and that is to insist with a writing campaign that these people who are our employees that they pass the FairTax and right away, so you don’t have to renounce.

5. The wait times will only increase. What is the hardest thing to understand and also the hardest thing for all of my English, German, Dutch, German, french, Italian, Chinese and other friends, is that this situation, of ever growing renunciations, has been going on for several years already and not once, to my knowledge, as a major U.S. news network done their job and actually interviewed three or four or more renunciants, to hear from them firsthand why they did this. No, not in the United States, where there is no objective news reporting. Imagine a country where the lines to give back the nationality only grow and where diplomatic posts have to announce publicly that they have major backlogs, with waits to renounce exceeding 8 and 10 months in many cases (Dublin, Toronto), yet the U.S. news media don’t investigate. They only repeat the same false stories, like the one I actually saw on CNN two years ago, when they mentioned that people were renouncing in ever increasing numbers. The comment of ‘The World’s News Leader”: “Well, I guess these people simply refuse to pay their taxes and contribute their fair share. They can live elsewhere, but the IRS will get them eventually.” What stupidity! Forgetting the economic and image harm that this is causing to the U.S., so many people internationally now realize that the U.S. is not the liberal and free place that the propaganda machine sends out. It is a disgrace, probably one of the greatest and most evil situations that a person has to be put into, to be forced to renounce a tie to a country, just to survive outside of it. More and more will join the group of liberated and now free former U.S. chattel slaves.

6. This is duplicitous, degrading, disgusting and all the other D words I can find. Especially those consulates that are restricting their appointments to a few hours a month? And they had the nerve to raise the fee?

   And the Homelanders who always say just renounce are not reading this. Also even Canadians who say none of us should have dual citizenship. It’s always Hotel California time to me.

7. I imagine that if they actually designated sufficient time to address the backlog, that is the only business the Consulates would be doing nowadays. They wouldn’t have time for anything else. They could easily streamline this (like doing it online, for example), not to mention charge a reasonable fee but they won’t. Just one more reason people are standing in line to get out.

   Each ex-citizen who emerges from this pathetic meat grinder is another enemy of the US government. Not only is it a disgrace, it makes no absolutely no sense. But then, there is not much currently going on in the US that makes any sense.

8. @Eric

   Great work! With regard to Canada, Toronto has no appointments available prior to December 2016.

9. These backlogs should add some fuel to the fire to a potential U.S. court challenge of the high renunciation fee – further showing that the Department of State is “restricting” and “impairing” one’s right to renounce under the Expatriation Act of 1868.

10. Thanks from me as well, again and again, Eric. It all starts, unless it has changed from when I went through the public school systems in New York and Washington, that there is no (or piss-poor) education on the exceptional US citizenship-based taxation law into the very poor communication that should be easily provided by DOS consulate and embassy websites to educate anyone who is thinking of renouncing just what the process, the costs, the wait times will be for them. I know in my gut that some will never find the information they need to make their own decisions about starting their own journey into expatriation hell.

    Why would the US DOS or anyone in the homeland think anyone would ever wish to leave their homeland, for whatever reason?

    …and heard (Moodys Gartner) that number of appointments at some consulates / embassies in Canada are exploding, with wait times upwards of from 12 to 20 months in some places.

11. Absolutely terrific post and charts, Eric!   I’ve linked to it on the How to Renounce and Consulate Report Directory pages.

    Such a despicable situation, given that people need to have these appointments asap to get back to living normal lives.

12. once again, Yeoman’s work from @Eric

    The boiling frog cliche is appropriate here, and this shows the frog is getting hotter and hotter.

13. Thanks, Eric. Outstanding as usual. The US knows no shame.

14. Once again Eric and his spreadsheets have covered another outrageous aspect of the seedy FATCA affair. Good work!

15. Pure lunacy. Why in the hell is this being done one by one? Get a room of 200 people at a time, they can take an oath and be done with it. crazy

16. Well well well, the US government 404’ed this page:
    http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/120546.pdf
    maybe because I linked to it in another IBS thread.
    The last available snapshot captured a 403 instead (access denied):
    https://web.archive.org/web/20160304113824/http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/120546.pdf
    But an earlier snapshot still lives:

    https://web.archive.org/web/20151014091310/http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/120546.pdf

    “7 FAM 1221 INTRODUCTION
    […]
    d. A potential loss-of-nationality case or previously approved loss case may also come to the attention of a consular officer abroad or passport specialist at a domestic passport agency or center in the course of adjudicating a passport application. 7 FAM 1223 provides guidance about how to proceed in such cases.”

    So, in combination with my earlier analysis that you can relinquish for free by applying for a US passport and declaring that you voluntarily performed a relinquishing act with intent to relinquish US nationality, you can do it at a passport agency in the US, maybe at a US post office. You don’t have to wait for an appointment, but you might have to be interviewed … maybe at a US post office, does anyone know?

    Following are the other steps I quoted before.

    7 FAM 1221 b lists four questions that the consular officer should ask, and the passport applicant will answer yes to all of them.

    7 FAM 1222 c directs the consular officer to proceed according to 7 FAM 1224.

    7 FAM 1224 describes steps that we’re familiar with. There is no mention of a fee. 7 FAM 1224.5 indicates that an interview might be necessary but does not state a blanket requirement.

    7 FAM 1226 requires the consular officer to prepare an opinion memo.

    7 FAM 1227 requires the consular officer to prepare a CLN.

    7 FAM 1227 c has a textbox saying:
    “As explained in 7 FAM 1240, copies of approved CLNs are distributed to:
    Department of State Citizenship Files (CA/PPT)
    The expatriate (via the U.S. embassy or consulate)
    DHS/USCIS
    IRS
    FBI”
    Notice who the second recipient is. Also notice who the fourth recipient is.

    7 FAM 1227 e(7) says:
    “If the CLN is disapproved, but the passport was canceled and returned to the applicant for use of the foreign visa, the applicant may apply for a new passport for which the requisite fees may be charged. 7 FAM 1300 Appendix G provides guidance about circumstances when passports may be issued without charging fees.”

    Apply for a passport and declare that you already intentionally relinquished. If you get your CLN, there’s no fee. If your CLN is cancelled and then for some reason you still want a new passport, there might or might not be a fee for the new passport.

17. I noticed another George popped in, welcome! This is the original George. 🙂

    This is disgusting and as someone said adds fuel to the UN complaint but should also be fodder for Joe Arvey.

    The FACT that renunciation has essentially become impossible because of cost, time, complexity and wait means that the FATCA IGA is an absolute farce.

    This adds support to the idea that IF you can commit a relinquish act, do it IMMEDIATLY, document same to the best of your ability and worry about a CLN later.

    And the other thing that made my blood boil was my PM WAS involved in shady offshore deals BUT same PM agreed to FATCA IGA making my childrens accounts blocks from our house OFFSHORE!!

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/edward-snowden-calls-british-people-7712007

18. Pukekonz No need for a room. They should make it as easy as Canada made it for Tec Cruz (and anyone else renouncing Canadian citizenship). One simple form. $100 Canadian (about $70 U.S.). One stamp. Drop it in a mailbox. Done.

    In addition to the delays and the expense of the renunciation, some people cannot afford to travel to a Consulate. Others can’t travel to a
    Consulate for medical reasons. Some can’t travel to a Consulate because it is simply too far away.

    U.S. State Department is intentionally making it as difficult as they possibly can. It’s part of their game. They keep losing their own game so they keep changing the rules. Then they accuse us of cheating.

19. Carol, could you download Normans link and archive it with Brock?

    Norman—–Good job!!

20. @Norman Diamond,

    I’m willing to bet they would not give someone a CLN that way now. They’d probably just reject the passport application for “insufficient documentation” or something like that.

    I also bet the next version of the FAM removes this whole backdoor entirely, or somehow modifies it to charge $2350 for the actual CLN.

21. “What this really seems to mean is that State seized on a few examples of people who didn’t know what they were doing or who were trying to throw sand in the gears, and used that as an excuse to treat the rest of us like delinquent children and force us to subsidise the time spent on those other cases.”

    The “sand in the gears” link points to the Wikipedia article on Juan Mari Brás:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Mari_Br%C3%A1s

    ‘In Lozada Colón v. U.S. Department of State (1998), the plaintiff was a United States citizen, born in Puerto Rico and resident of Puerto Rico, who executed an oath of renunciation before a consular officer at the U.S. Embassy in Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic. On April 23, 1998, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia held that the case was about “the much debated political question as to the status of Puerto Rico and its nationals in relation to the United States.” It added that “While Plaintiff may well have strong political views with regard to Puerto Rican independence and the need for a citizenship separate and apart from the United States, this is not an issue for this Court to decide”, and concluded that “the Plaintiff must seek another, more appropriate forum to express his political views.”‘

    “Puerto Rico and its nationals” eh? Hey court, Puerto Rico has citizens. The US has US non-citizen nationals in American Samoa and some other places, and the US had US non-citizen nationals in Puerto Rico before the US made them US citizens, but Puerto Rico has citizens.

    ‘The United States Department of State position asserted that renunciation of U.S. citizenship must entail renunciation of Puerto Rican citizenship as well.’

    This time it isn’t clear if the confusion is in the court or in the Wikipedia author. US citizenship cannot be renounced. US nationality can be renounced. I’m not sure if US non-citizen nationals have to acquire US citizenship before they can renounce US nationality, but still the renunciation step renounces US nationality. Somewhere I read that renunciation of US nationality also causes loss of US citizenship but I wonder if that’s really authoritative. Anyway, renunciation of US nationality should not cause loss of Puerto Rican citizenship because Puerto Rican citizenship existed before the US took over Puerto Rico and continues to exist despite all the manipulations the US has done with regard to the US status of those people over the years.

    ‘The Court described the plaintiff as a person, “claiming to renounce all rights and privileges of United States citizenship, [while] Plaintiff wants to continue to exercise one of the fundamental rights of citizenship, namely to travel freely throughout the world and when he wants to, return and reside in the United States.” The court based this decision on the Immigration and Nationality Act section 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(38), which defines the term “United States”, and evince that Puerto Rico is a part of the United States for such purposes.’

    Hey court, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(38) defines the term “United States” when used in a geographical sense, not constitutional sense. The 14th Amendment doesn’t make Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands of the United States, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands parts of the United States. A person born in those areas gets US naturalization at birth by some other act of Congress, not by by 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(38) and not by14th Amendment. That naturalization makes them 14th Amendment citizens; without it they would still be US non-citizen nationals the same as American Samoans, and Congress could do the same to future newborns if Congress wished. So, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(38) doesn’t make these people US citizens, it only makes these people US nationals.

    The district court had good precedent for confusing US citizenship with US nationality. US Supreme Court did the same in Afroyim v. Rusk. But the law doesn’t do that, unless in Afroyim v. Rusk US Supreme Court rendered unconstitutional any law that distinguishes US nationality from US citzenship.

    ‘Based on the federal court ruling in Colón v. U.S. Department of State (1998), years after the U.S. State Department accepted his renunciation, Juan Mari Brás was notified on June 4, 1998, by the U.S. Department of State, that they were rescinding their acceptance, and refused to accept Mari Brás’s renunciation, determining he could not renounce his United States citizenship as he did not request another national citizenship, and he was born and remains living and working in Puerto Rico.’

    Wow, so a Brocker isn’t the only one who had their CLN revoked.

22. Or worse, they’d go ahead and issue the passport, claiming that the act of applying for a passport demonstrates intent to retain US citizenship. Now you’re a documented citizen again.

23. (For clarity, my previous post was an afterthought to my post before that, not a response to Norman’s post in between.)

24. “Or worse, they’d go ahead and issue the passport, claiming that the act of applying for a passport demonstrates intent to retain US citizenship.”

    I don’t think the FAM allows the consular officer or passport specialist to ignore the applicant’s declaration when following FAM procedures to determine if the applicant is still a US national or not.

    Of course if the passport applicant declares that they intended to keep US nationality at the time of performing the potentially expatriating act then the application does help demonstrate that intent. For example, me in previous decades, when I didn’t know what was coming.

25. @Norman Diamond
    It looks like they took this entire FAM series down. I suppose they are going to rewrite it, eliminating any “loopholes”

    @(Original)George
    When the time comes (and it is getting closer every day), I will indeed be committing a relinquishing act, I will document same, and I will then get my CLN later, as you suggest. Who knows, I may even get a CLN sooner (when I request an appointment at the consulate I will certainly mention that I am ALREADY no longer a US citizen). I do very much like the idea of taking the control over this process out of their hands.
    I will also travel to the US on my brand-spanking-new non-US passport, if the need arises, even before I get a CLN. It would, after all, be ILLEGAL for me to travel on my no-longer-valid US passport, wouldn’t it?