Consulate Report Directory (Brockers Describe their Consulate Meetings) and CLN Delivery Time Chart Part 2
If clicking on a link brought you to the wrong page on the comment thread, click here to go to the current page.
Wonder what really happens at the consulates? Find out in the Isaac Brock Society’s Consulate Report Directory, currently 279 pages of first-hand accounts of renunciation/relinquishment appointments, arranged by consulate location, along with further information and links to the required Dept of State forms and the Dept of State manuals used by the consulates in processing CLN applications, with an appendix containing a timeline chart (booking-meeting-CLN) as reported by consulate location.
The Directory is updated as consulate visit stories are posted on the website.
You can post here or elsewhere on the site (we’ll keep an eye out for them). Some comments may be excerpted or condensed slightly in the consulate reports. The original posts and comments remain on their threads are not edited.
Thanks to everyone for sharing your experiences…and keep ’em coming! It’s a new experience for everyone and your information is really helpful.
To change or delete your report in the Directory, you can post the change as a comment on this thread or e-mail Pacifica@isaacbrocksociety.ca
Click here for the Consulate Report Directory
Notes:
Consulates are listed alphabetically by country and the Directory’s table of contents links to each section (they don’t look like links, but they are.)
This thread is a continuation of Consulate Report Directory Part 1, which contains earlier discussion on this topic, 929 comments from its inception in March 2012 through February 2013.
To Book an Appointment and/or Request Information from your Local Consulate:
This post by Eric, Almost No US Citizenship Renunciation Appointments Left During 2016 in Dublin, contains a chart of links to the consulates’ website pages on renunciation/relinquishment, for info on booking appointments and/or requesting information at your location. (The title highlights Dublin, but the charts, article and discussion cover consulates around the world.)
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
If clicking on a link brought you to the wrong page on the comment thread, click here to go to the current page.
I am an accidental American born in the US to Canadian parents who left when he was 3 years old never to return. No passport, no social security number, nada.
I just received a letter from the Consulate in Barcelona – where I submitted my documentation in July 2015 accrediting my relinquishment for having worked at Health and Welfare Canada in the late 1980’s – saying that “the Department was unable to approve my CLN” as I “failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence, as required by INA Section 349(b), that you have expatriated yourself by the voluntary commission of an expatriating act with the intent to relinquish citizenship.”
I had a certificate from Health and Welfare confirming employment and I swore before the counsel that I had worked there with the intent to lose my American citizenship. What else could I have done/could I now do to provide “evidence of commission of an expatriating act, voluntariness, or intent”? Affadavits? Photos? As a Canadian, I didn’t have to swear an oath to take the job!
How does one appeal such a decision?
Well, I can’t advise you on what you should do except to tell you what I would do in this situation:
I would reply to their letter and tell them, “I’m sorry, but I totally disagree with your determination. I am no longer a US citizen and haven’t been since the day I accepted my Canadian government employment. I don’t want to be one of your citizens and you can’t make me be one. Good bye.”
@Chicken Assembler
Unless your job entailed swearing an oath of allegiance, the likelihood of successfully appealing the decision is pretty much nil. Your best bet is to book an appointment to renounce (yes, unfortunately, that means paying another $2350) and get your taxes in order.
@ChickenAssembler
First off — from what you’ve written, their letter sounds very vague – I’d suggest contacting the signer of the letter to get details on why the department arrived at that decision, specifically why they felt you did not meet the burden of proof, so you can focus on that point/s in preparing your case. (Also in case it’s a bureaucratic error – if they write back that it’s because they don’t have, say, your proof of employment – meaning they lost it, so the decision-maker never saw it – something like that you could probably straighten out relatively easily.)
Regarding the appeal process, the Foreign Affairs Manual on Administrative Review and Appeal of Loss-of-Nationality Findings is at this link.
At any rate, if pursuing the matter, I think your first step is to find out specifically why they claim you failed to establish your claim.
Best wishes.
@ChickenAssembler
To pacifica777’s point, I didn’t mean to say that you shouldn’t try to appeal — as far as I know, that’s one of the few things you can do for free so it’s worth a shot. It’s just a case of “hope for the best, plan for the worst.”
If the wait list at your consulate is long, you might want to consider booking an appointment while you go through the appeal process. After all, you can always cancel an appointment but it would be really aggravating is you went through a lengthy appeal process only to be rejected and then face a lengthy wait to get an appointment to renounce.
@ WestCoaster
Section 349(a)(4) of the Immigration and Nationaity Act¸ which deals with government employment, is broken into two sub-parts. 349(a)(4)(B) is for persons who are not citizens of the country and requires an oath. 349(a)(4)(A) is for persons who are citizens of the country and does not require an oath.
Immigration and Nationality Act, s. 349(a)
@ChickenAssembler,
WestCoaster got me thinking. I took it you were a Canadian citizen at the time you took employment. Is that correct? Is DoS questioning that?
@Chicken Assembler
“Unless your job entailed swearing an oath of allegiance, the likelihood of successfully appealing the decision is pretty much nil.” should be “Since your job did not entail swearing an oath of allegiance, the likelihood of successfully appealing the decision is pretty much nil.”
Clearly, I need more coffee! Today feels like a Monday for some reason.
BTW, did anyone else just get an email from the USG re: tomorrow’s IRS Webinar on Overseas Filing for U.S. Taxpayers?
@pacifica777
Yeah, but the problem is that an oath is pretty much the only way to prove intent unless he notified the USG at the time he took the job that he intended it to be an act of relinquishment. Basically, the USG always puts the burden of proof on us. That’s why I believe his chances of successfully appealing is next to nil.
Chicken Assembler’s parents are Canadian, so he would’ve have been entitled to Canadian citizenship from birth regardless of where he was born; in other words, he wouldn’t have had to go through the naturalization process and therefore didn’t commit a relinquishing act to become Canadian.
@pacifica777, @Chicken Assembler
I’m usually an upbeat person who tends to believe that things generally work out for the best. Dealing with the USG and following the boards here for several years has made me very jaded in regards to the USG. I don’t mean to come across as brusque or dismissive.
Rachel Heller recently noted that a lot of us are suffering from burnout, having had the fight beaten out of us from fruitlessly bashing our heads against the wall, feeling trapped and frustrated and unacknowledged. Getting my CLN earlier this year has relieved some of the stress, but it’ll probably be years after filing the final tax papers, FBARs and 8854 before I can really put this behind me.
@ West Coaster,
So far we’ve had 8 reports from Brockers applying for CLNs under s. 4(A) at federal, provincial and municipal levels. 7 were accepted, some had oaths, some didn’t, which didn’t matter as it was not required under s. 4(A). 1 was refused, not because it lacked an oath but because DoS didn’t consider CBC to be a sub-division of the government — that doesn’t make any sense to me either – the person was considering appealing, but haven’t heard anything recently.
I’m not saying an s. 4(A) is a slam-dunk, but they do happen, so I don’t rule them out.
@pacifica777
Yup, and that’s why I posted that I agreed with you about him appealing. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.
However, I do think that he should make contingency plans in case his appeal is refused.
@ WestCoaster,
Re your 2:02 comment. Yes, I’m usually pretty upbeat too because it’s seemed in normal life that things usually do work out. I also feel in dealing with the USG, you have to keep in mind that the worst can happen, and even when things go smoothly, they’re still quite opaque and convoluted to deal with. Also agree it’ll probably be years after extricating onesself to really completely feel it’s behind you – it’s a mega-major and unconscionable disruption to one’s life.
@pacifica77 and @WestCoaster,
I was born to Canadian parents who were temporarily in the USA. My parents were very careful to have me registered as a Canadian at birth due to the American adventures in Vietnam at the time. In fact, for years I thought that I was only Canadian. Happier days.
The expatriating act is documented by the Canadian government, so it could be that either the Consul did not believe me when I made my oath and/or the DoS chose not to believe that I would have taken such a job with the intent to relinquish. Either way it seems that they are treating me to a higher standard than others who have taken governmental jobs intentionally and received their CLN.
Thank you for the link @pacifica777 as it details the administrative review process clearly and points out the decision process. I imagine that I will have to start obtaining affidavits from people who were there at the time to demonstrate that I had intent and that my actions were voluntary: “Contemporaneous evidence of intent.”
Are there any other cases that anyone has documented of relinquishment denied for not attaining “the preponderance of the evidence” “of commission of an expatriating act, voluntariness or intent”?
Whoever turned you down didn’t apply the law correctly. The ‘preponderance of evidence ‘ is supposed to be determined by prior and subsequent actions. . These are the facts- no US ties, no US job, house, professional licenses, relatives, income etc. No US passport, didn’t vote there or register kids there. Haven’t filed taxes. These facts are supposed to prove your intent. I would consider an appeal or I would say fuck it- I’ve done what I can. However I admit it is probably more difficult in Spain than in Canada. In the meantime don’t do anything to give them ammo.
Hi – in regards to the suggestions of Oath/no oath and affect of each- my story proves the opposite of what one might assume. I was born in US and naturalized as a youngster. In applying for CLN via relinquishment, I submitted BOTH an OATH that I took during my municipal employment AND PROOF OF EMPLOYMENT. The consulate said that my beloved oath was irrelevant and that the only necessary piece of paper was my Proof of Employment – THEY ASKED FOR A FRESH LETTER CONFIRMING MY DATES OF EMPLOYMENT. My CLN was issued and dated as of the first day of employment, not related to the oath, which was taken some time later. So, with regards to the suggestion that you need an oath to prove intent…apparently not.
This story does not include the other hassles experienced! Just clarification regarding my experience with the oath.
Don’t give up Chicken Assembler.
I found it helpful to simply state that I voluntarily and intentionally relinquished citizenship by taking the oath and have done nothing since that time with the intention of regaining citizenship. This fortifys the preponderance of evidence and vacates any acts potentially regaining citizenship to misunderstanding, or ignorance, Also raises the question : can one lose ones citizenship by explicitly taking the oath (with intention) and the regain citizenship intentionaly later (by changing ones mind after the fact)? Let that roll around in your mind for a while!
@ Chicken Assembler
Just taking a guess here as I will never understand US law. Like me, due to your parents both being Canadian, you were born Canadian whether or not they registered you. Mine didn’t, they just drove me across a one mile river through a tunnel to Canada at age of five and I have lived here since.
You have provided the USG of proof a relinquishing act subsequent. Perhaps they reject that because you were a Canadian at birth. They want to claim individuals who were birth duals according to them. I have read reports of naturalized Canadians obtaining a CLN as a result of Canadian government jobs. I am wondering if you are getting caught up in the naturalization versus dual citizenship situation.
Regardless, appeal. They took your money so why not?
Also, I am very sorry for what has happened to you and thank you for sharing your story with us, even if it infuriates me. In a very weird way, it’s what keeps me in the fight. I strongly detest the USG; apologies to those of you who still have fond memories or connections even after you have renounced but I cannot feel otherwise. It’s a country that has abused me for the ‘privilege’ of living there for five measly years, none of which were my choice. I owe them nothing. I will give them nothing. I am only what my name says I am.
@Chicken Assembler. You have paid the $2350 and played by their rules and now you can see that they can’t even be bothered to abide by rules they themselves have invented. This is what you are up against. It is the natural tendency of bureaucrats to deny whatever is being asked for. I still think telling them, (i.e. “notifying” them) is better than asking them. You could try offering to stop by again and swear the renunciation oath as long as they don’t try to charge you another $2350.
It is entirely possible that your file never even made it to D.C. but was determined locally at that Spanish consulate by a beginner who didn’t have a clue what the rules are or how to apply them. As you can see several different people with similar facts got different results at different consulates. If you still have the receipt for the money you paid, it seems to me it might be accepted by a bank as a “reasonable explanation” in lieu of a CLN. For God’s sake don’t give them another $2350. Or as Duke said, you’ve done what you can; just walk away.
@ ChickenAssembler,
Re:
It sounds to me, because of their reference to INA, s. 349(b) in their letter, that they’re not contesting your voluntariness. Sentence 2 of 349(b) presumes you performed the act voluntarily and puts the burden on them to rebut it:
So I get the impression that they’re contesting your assertion that a relinquishment occurred, because Sentence 1 of 349(b) puts the burden of proving that on you, so I think it’s more likely the intent that’s at issue.
I don’t really have much in the way of suggestions. I think that would depend on what’s in the letter and possibly what occurred at the consulate – eg, did they indicate potential problems and if so what — who signed the letter (eg, if it originated in the DC office, or if Barcelona sat on the file for 10 months, didn’t forward your file to DC, and originated the letter), etc. I understand you might not want to share too much information publically, so I’m mentioning this as food for thought, not necessarily that you’d post details if you’re not comfortable doing so.
One suggestion, though. I have the impression the letter is vague, though I’m basing that on the short excerpts you quoted. If the letter is vague, I’d definitely suggest getting specifics from them on why they reached this determination, before proceeding.
It was mentioned upthread that they might have based their decision on the idea that you couldn’t relinquish because you were born dual. But as s. 349(b) refers to voluntariness and intent – and not to capacity – it doesn’t look that way to me. Granted what you’ve quoted from the letter, back in your original post, that letter sounds pretty sketchy.
At any rate, though, did the letter mention anything about an inability to relinquish by govt employment because you were born dual? Or did the consulate bring that up? That’s completely wrong, we got confirmation of that from Dept of State Legal Affairs, and so far every time a consulate tried to pull that one, DC overruled them and issued the CLN against the consul’s negative recommendation. (Note, this is based on a pretty small sample, about 5 cases.) But anyway, if that is the case and that’s the only problem, based on what’s occurred so far, the odds would appear to be pretty good.
@pacifica777
I just spoke with the consulate regarding the letter to get additional information about my case. I must go through the formal procedure to request the information, but the people in the consulate are reasonable and helpful. What I was able to determine that although the letter was sent to me on consular letterhead, it was actually a pdf file that they received from DC, printed out and mailed to me.
It is very vague as you mentioned, and the short excerpts are really the substantive bits of the letter, with the rest being formalities. No mention is made in the letter or was made in the consulate regarding inability to relinquish by government employment.
I agree with your analysis based on the limited information available: either they consider that the employment was not sufficient as an expatriating act, or that I did not intend to expatriate. The former is documented by the Canadian government and the latter is a matter of opinion that they would be second-guessing my state of mind 30 years later.
As the Duke of Devon mentioned above, I have had NO ties to the US whatsoever. If I had done anything at all in all this time to assert US citizenship they might try to hold that against me, but the truth is that I have not. Trying to document now what I intended then (and since) is very difficult. This was a time pre-Facebook, pre-Instagram, pre-Google, pre-historic. There is no electronic history that I can mine for nuggets of proof. I do have family and friends that know me and could vouch for me though. Perhaps that would suffice.
@Chicken…”Trying to document now what I intended then (and since) is very difficult.”
Later this evening I will reply more substantively.
Documenting is based on all your actions since that time.
Did you have children? The action of NOT registering their births with the USA is very compelling.
Did you enter the USA without a US Passport? Recall dates, maybe find passport stamps, that is very compelling.
The fact you did NOT file tax returns is compelling!!!
If you had INTENDED to retain, you would have traveled on a US Passport, registered children and filed tax returns.
You are going to need to draft a strong reply for an appeal that literally cites the US Code sections and sections of the 7 FAM series.
You will need to state in writing that 8 US Code states “accepting, serving in, or performing the duties of any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof”
You will need to highlight in BOLD, “any…..employment…..”
The US Code does not discriminate on type of employment it states ANY. That means rubbish bin worker is expatriating!!!
They may be reading and saying your job was not an “office” or “post.” Thats fine but congress legislated ANY EMPLOYMENT and any interpretation to the contrary is ultra vires.
To be honest since they have blown you out of the water, you need to go all the way know in an appeal and call them on the carpet citing the law.
@Chicken Assembler
Several folks have posted already that an oath is absolutely NOT required and would have been meaningless since you were already a Canadian citizen. There is no doubt about this.
Some folks wonder if goverment employment is not sufficient for relinquishment since you were born dual, but this is not the case. Government employment and military service are the only reasonable acts duals can claim.
Every relinquishment rejection letter that I have seen clearly states the reason. For example, as mentioned one didn’t consider the CBC to be an arm of the government and in my sister’s case, they accepted that the post office is but her job as a contractor rather than a full employee was not. Clearly you must start by getting the details of the decision made in DC.
My wife and I renounced at Halifax, which has a good reputation, on May 17th. And that reputation continues as far as we are concerned. We were treated with the utmost politeness throughout the process. As to CLN’s, the vice-consul advised that the time involved was 90 days, and that would could contact them by e-mail if we hadn’t received a CLN by mid-August. So, if the consulates are being ranked, I would put Halifax right up on top.
Chicken Assembler. It appears that the info you need is on the reverse side of a CLN.
The State dep’t always presumes that a subject must be out of his mind to want a CLN so appeals are designed to restore citizenship- not the reverse.
and from that source
I’m not a lawyer. Perhaps using one might help. Your case is clear cut. Good luck.
@ ChickenAssembler,
Re: you wrote:
a couple of thoughts on the intent factor:
(1)
There’s a concept in law that you can’t really (or easily, at least) prove intent, because you can’t know what was inside a person’s mind, so it has to be inferred it by a person’s actions (or non-actions). Generally DoS has been doing this, going with the 4079.
We’ve had problems reported regarding intent where the person had some sort of “US-citizenship-type-behaviour” after the relinquishing act, mainly with passport use. Some of those cases resulted in a CLN, some, some didn’t.
However, a problem with intent where the person has no “indicators of possible US-citizenship-behaviour after the relinquishing act” doesn’t come up very often.
I only know of one case where this occurred. It was routine s. (1) relinquishment (naturalisation), a slam-dunk, textbook-case DS-4079, but the consulate insisted on contemporaneous proof. They seemed really out-to-lunch, even asking did you mention your intention to relinquish in an e-mail to anyone at the time you naturalised, although the relinquishment occurred in the 1980s. The person’s file got a negative recommendation from the consul for lack of contemporaneous proof, the person sent their own letter to their DC division office to rebut the negative recommendation, and the CLN was issued.
That’s all I know about how they’ve been handling intent when the person’s behaviour clearly indicates lack of US citizenship, as so far it seems they’ve just been going with the 4079 (in some cases, asking the person some questions about it), inferring intent through actions (and non-actions), and, with that one exception, the issue hasn’t arisen that I know of.
(2)
One other thing crossed my mind, which goes to intent, and can be problematic with s(4)s, is how did you know it was a potentially relinquishing act.
Sometimes a consul seems suspicious about that, so it’s come up at consulate meetings. To form the intent of relinquishing by performing an act, you have to know that performing the act can cause a relinquishment, so it’s important to be very clear when answering that question.
You didn’t mention any problems at the consulate re that, and usually when the consul is not satisfied or convinced of something, they let you know, it’s pretty obvious. So, it doesn’t seem that that’s playing into this, but it’s something that crossed my mind about s.(4)(A).
(3)
One thing that seems different here is that you didn’t mention having problems at the consulate and the problem seems to have come out of the blue from DC. Usually the problems arise at the consulates – some are clueless and/or have attitude problems, but DC tends to be more on-the-ball and dispassionate. And so far we’ve had cases of DC overturning negative recommendations (some, not all of them), but no cases of DC pro-actively overturning a positive recommendation. Especially when it comes to intent, the consul is in a better position to evaluate that, in that the DC guy only knows what’s on the papers, whereas if something is fuzzy or nuanced the consul was in a face-to-face situation to question the person about it. It seems odd with a textbook-case 4079 (which it sounds like you have) and no indication of a negative recommendation, that DC would override the positive rec on intent.
Of course, I’ve no clue what the issue they’re disputing is. Not really any suggestions here, more like observations and speculations. It’s puzzling.
Agree with WhatAmI, that ‘Clearly you must start by getting the details of the decision made in DC’ because at this point there’s no knowing what actually is disputed. Sorry you’re in this stressful situation and I hope you get the needed info from them soon and that you can successfully rebut it.