Liberty and justice for all United States persons abroad

The Isaac Brock Society

Renunciation and Relinquishment of United States Citizenship: Discussion thread (Ask your questions) Part Two

Ask your questions about Renunciation and Relinquishment of United States Citizenship and Certificates of Loss of Nationality.

Participants will need to provide their e-mail address (real or fake) and an alias. The only written rule is that participants must use a same alias each time they post (and not “anonymous” or derivatives thereof).

Bear in mind that any responses that you get from participants is peer-to-peer help, and it is not intended as a replacement for professional advice. Also, the Isaac Brock Society provides this disclaimer: neither the Society nor any of its members are professionals. We offer our advice here only in friendship and we recommend that our readers seek professional advice if they need it.

If you wish to receive an e-mail notification of comments, check the box to that effect when making your first comment.

NB: This discussion is a continuation of an older discussion that became too  large for our software to handle well. See Renunciation and Relinquishment of United States Citizenship: Discussion thread (Ask your questions) Part One

 

10,433 thoughts on “Renunciation and Relinquishment of United States Citizenship: Discussion thread (Ask your questions) Part Two”

  1. @ Cheryl

    I suggest you consider the source of above comments….

    http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2013/08/21/the-cruz-chronicles-1-his-canadian-citizenship-is-not-in-doubt-is-senator-ted-cruz-a-us-citizen/

    Dash1729 says

    October 2, 2013 at 3:48 am

    When it comes to FATCA, I am completely on the side of the Isaac Brock Society–it is none of Obama’s business; it is none of America’s business; what Canadians resident in Canada do regarding their financial affairs and their Canadian or other non-US bank accounts.

    Now when it comes to Obamacare, it happens that I do side with my president, Mr. Obama, and not with Mr. Cruz. But I also feel that this is none of Canada’s business.

    You are asking the USA to stay of Canada’s business. Fine. I agree. And you stay out of the USA’s business. You have no dog in the Obamacare fight.

  3. Thanks everyone. I’ve been round and round with this many times with ups and downs. I’m still not sure but am going to review the timeline and US policies again carefully and I think there is some chance that my application for CNL will be accepted. I am also awaiting the actual document that I signed to be registered as a Canadian born abroad and have asked for documentation that the Canadian government told citizens like me that they would lose American citizenship based of US law at the time. Those may help although I don’t think the I will get the latter.

    The sad thing about all of this is that if I have to go the renunciation route, that I will not likely have to pay any tax and I believe if this whole issue for citizens who thought they had expatriated was taken to court, the US government would lose. They are being unnecessarily heavy handed.

    I will carefully review everything and go from there.

  4. @Cheryl,

    I hope you keep reading here. I have a new thought on INA 350 for you that I will post later today.

  5. The sad thing about all of this is that if I have to go the renunciation route, that I will not likely have to pay any tax and I believe if this whole issue for citizens who thought they had expatriated was taken to court, the US government would lose. They are being unnecessarily heavy handed.

    You are absolutely correct, Cheryl. I hope you and SO MANY OTHER CANADIANS so affected will support the important Challenge through the Alliance for the Defence of Canadian Sovereignty, http://www.adcs-adsc.ca/. If you haven’t yet viewed the compilation video of Parliamentary hearings, I invite you to on the “In Parliament” page of their site: http://www.adcs-adsc.ca/Parliament.html.

    We ask the questions:

    Should ALL Canadians be protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

    AND

    Should Canada remain a sovereign country (without foreign law taking precedence over Canadian law)?

  6. I thought I’d summarize my thoughts on this Certificate of Registration of Birth Abroad (RoBA) business.
    The expatriating act in INA(a)1 says “obtaining naturalization in a foreign state”.

    Clearly that means getting a foreign citizenship that you didn’t have before.The day before you naturalize, you were not a Canadian citizen. The next day, you are. That is naturalization. That is an expatriating act.

    You can’t get a RoBA if you were not born a Canadian citizen by having at least one Canadian citizen parent. The day before you receive the certificate, you were a Canadian citizen. The next day, you’re still a Canadian citizen. You just applied for a certificate. There is no change in your status in Canada. There is no expatriating act.

    Getting a RoBA does show intent to remain and live in Canada and receive the benefits of being a Canadian citizen, some of which require “documented proof” such as applying for a passport, This is useful, but not an expatriating act for a dual-citizen after INA 350 was repealed in October 1978.

    TrueNorth’s observation about missing the 2 year deadline for applying for a RoBA had me exited and hopeful, for about 2 minutes. There are several reports of people getting RoBAs years later, including @Cheryl, me and my sister. Nobody has posted here yet that they were denied a RoBA because of the 2-year limit. Maybe the 2-year limit only applied if you remained outside of Canada, and once you returned, whenever that may be, they gladly gave you a RoBA. You can’t possibly get a RoBA if you are not a Canadian citizen born abroad. If time had really run out, and they took away your “born-abroadness”, you think they would have made you naturalize.

    Being told by the Canadian official that you would lose your US citizenship is interesting. They said that to people who naturalized, and of course that statement was true at the time, all the way up to 1986 when it became your choice to keep it or lose it. Being told that by a Canadian official when applying for a RoBA is interesting. It shows intent to lose your USC because you believed what the official said and acted on it anyway. However, I believe it was a wrong statement. Will the US be bound by an incorrect interpretation of their laws by a foreign official, especially when they now consider it unconstitutional to strip your USC against your will?

    I would only try to claim this if I was willing to renounce on the spot if refused. I’d have $450 in my pocket ready to go.

    I hesitate to say that I maybe remember somebody saying they called a consulate to ask about this. If somebody did post this, it means little anyway because we have read posts of people being told incorrect things by consular staff and consuls themselves. People have definitely asked about this before, but it’s hopeless trying to search IBS for the contents of comments.

    I have a new slant in INA 350 that I’ll post separately.

  7. Finally, I can see the comments at Brock again!

    I noticed that during this time, a similar conversation was going on over at MapleSandbox re: confusion over whether one is born dual or not, and the difference between acquiring proof of Canadian citizenship versus nationalizing as a Canadian, etc.

    Lynne brought up a good point over at Sandbox which is that one can get access to their Canadian citizenship file to get a better handle as to WHEN they actually became a Canadian citizen according to the Canadian government. She also provides a link here: http://maplesandbox.ca/2012/renunciation-and-relinquishment-what-are-the-differences-is-there-a-difference/comment-page-22/#comment-45950

  8. WhatAmi asked “Will the US be bound by an incorrect interpretation of their laws by a foreign official, especially when they now consider it unconstitutional to strip your USC against your will?”

    Not only is the US Government not bound by the errors of a foreign official, as a general rule it’s not bound by the errors of its own agents. That’s especially true in matters of taxation http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Articles/IRSNotResponsible.htm
    but outside of a ruling in court or an administrative proceeding that is not appealed (which may only give a rule of the case not applicable to others) you take advice from even the Government at your own risk.

  9. Thanks to @Benedict for politely pointing out some sloppy wording in my post above. A person born of 2 Canadian parents, such as @Cheryl and myself, qualify for a Certificate of Registration of Birth Abroad. I slipped and posted “at least one parent”, but that is the retroactive change made in 2009. Back in the day, the father had to be Canadian. Just the mother was not enough.

  10. @Cheryl is the first person I’ve seen on IBS since I’ve been here that has a possible claim to INA 350. I’ve been watching, because I missed the cut-off for INA 350 by 3 months.

    Even though I could not have claimed INA 350, my heart sunk for others when I found this FAM section last year (I quoted some of it a couple of days ago):

    http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/120532.pdf

    I’ve been racking my brain about this for @Cheryl these last few days and have a new idea about this.

    Keep in mind for the moment that the INA laws going back to 1952 were there to strip people of their precious USC if they did something to piss off Congress, such as take on a foreign citizenship, etc. There was no language for people who wanted to intentionally rid themselves of US citizenship. That was inconceivable to them.

    So, the FAM says this about INA 350. Note that the “the benefit” mentioned in this quote is claiming Canadian citizenship benefits from the government, not the benefit of claiming INA 350 to rid yourself of USC ;-):

    k. In light of the Terrazas decision, CA no longer makes a finding of loss of nationality for a person who claimed such a benefit between December 24, 1952 (effective date of the INA) and October 10, 1978 (effective date of Public Law 95-432) who met the 3-year residence requirement, even if he or she claimed that the benefit was sought and obtained with the intention of relinquishing U.S. citizenship.

    I interpret this as saying “Even though INA 350 was repealed prospectively in 1978, the government will no longer use it against you to strip your US citizenship. Additionally, because this law was unconstitutional anyway, CA will no longer accept it as expatriating even if you claim it is”.

    That is still somewhat discouraging. Note they even go to the extent that a clerk (or higher official?) in a passport office has the authority to immediately “give back” citizenship to anyone who had it taken away under INA 350:

    l. If a CLASS hit occurs when clearing the name of a passport applicant due to former INA 350, the lookout should be removed and the passport issued.

    They have little appreciation that a person would ever, god forbid, take it upon themselves to get rid of US citizenship. A consul told me to my face in 1978, when I wanted to get rid of my USC, “But everybody _wants_ to be an American, and everybody _should_ be an American”. So, what if a person makes application for loss of citizenship under INA 350? The FAM says:

    m. If a U.S. citizen requests a finding of loss of nationality under former INA 350 the matter should be referred to CA/OCS/L (ASK-OCS-L@state.gov).

    @Benedict, is this the department that you dealt with in DC for your case?

    Doesn’t that sound like they are willing to entertain the claim, and are instructing the consul to submit the claim to D.C. for consideration and approval? If they knew they would never approve such a claim, period, you’d think the FAM would say this. Instead, it invites the submission of the claim.

    I find this encouraging. Prior to today, I may not have tried to pursue this for myself if I had qualified for INA 350, but my thinking now seems like it has a chance. It seems to me like a better shot than claiming the application for the Certificate of Registration of Birth Abroad ;-). Certainly, the consul is directly instructed to submit the INA 350 claim to DC so the worry of a roadblock during the interview is greatly reduced.

    Comments on this for @Cheryl’s case?

  11. @ WhatAmI

    OCS/L … at which point my lawyer intervened on my behalf, lawyer to lawyer…

  12. @Benedict, cool, the same department.

    I missed adding a speculation to my INA 350 post. Maybe they are allowing that wiggle room and entertaining INA 350 claims because in fact the October 10, 1978 law change that repealed INA 350 was prospective only.

    No slam-dunk, of course. For example, @Benedict’s and Geri’s claims of relinquishment by naturalizing in Canada as minors was also valid at the time but refused (@Benedict’s by DC lawyers; Geri’s by the consul in Calgary).

  13. @Cheryl

    I think you have the right approach regarding a claim to have relinquished based on the registration of birth abroad as an adult. However reading the material on INA 350, I think @WhatAmI may be right that you have a stronger claim to have given up US citizenship via INA 350. You may want to consider getting a new Canadian citizenship certificate, because I believe the current ones show the date of acquisition of Canadian citizenship. I believe that if you obtained such a certificate today, it would show Canadian citizenship acquired on your date of birth. IMHO that weakens your claim if you go the route of claiming that you relinquished via the registration of birth abroad but it strengthens your claim via INA 350.

    I’m quite familiar with the registration of birth abroad process because that is how I obtained Canadian citizenship. I’m less familiar with INA 350 so if you lean towards that route I will let others lead the discussion because I think there are others who are more knowledgeable when it comes to INA 350.

    @WhatAmI

    Thank you for your comments both on INA 350 and on the RoBA process. It sounds like you are sensitive to the fact–as others posting here might not be–that RoBA is a bit of a different process than an ordinary naturalization. I’d be a bit more optimistic than you on @Cheryl’s chances for a relinquishment claim based on RoBA because I do agree that the way it played out, it DID look a lot like naturalization. But, like I said, it’s not a slam dunk. From what I know so far, invoking INA 350 may be Cheryl’s best bet.

    @BA

    I’m not sure how my comments many months ago on a completely different matter are relevant here. Reviewing those old comments again, I think my wording and tone may have been a little harsh. But I stand by the basic sentiment expressed: Obamacare is a domestic American concern best left to people who live in the USA. It’s also a bigger issue than Ted Cruz, who BTW has now finally gotten around to actually renouncing his Canadian citizenship as opposed to just talking about it. But none of this seems relevant to the current discussion.

  14. “IRS Makes Changes to Offshore Programs; Revisions Ease Burden and Help More Taxpayers Come into Compliance” – How Will These Changes Affect USCs and LPRs Living Outside the U.S.?

    Posted on June 18, 2014

    A few hours ago, the IRS made a significant announcement, which was expected after IRS Commissioner Koskinen’s remarks earlier in the month. See, IRS Commissioner’s Comments – Is He Listening to USCs and LPRs Living Around the World!?

  15. @BROCKERS
    i truly hope s/he is listening to USPs abroad..but it would be the first time in years !!!! hey,they are not even meeting their statutory obligations to respond to Nina Olsens TAO filings !!!

  17. @BA

    “Which soldier would you prefer to be or follow ?”

    I would prefer to be or to follow the soldier who sees things as they are.

    Not the one who sees a 900 foot hill when there is only a 600 foot hill.

    But also not someone who pretends that there is no hill there at all.

    I hope that I am not being compared here to the soldier who sees a 900 foot hill and gives up. If you read my messages here, I never once advised @Cheryl to give up–and I’m not advising that now.

  18. I am at the US departure lounge in Toronto. ***For the first time in the 100+ times I have entered US from Canada, they noticed the brand on my Canadian passport and asked for my US passport***. I proudly told the homeless insecurity guy that I renounced. He believed and did not flinch. Next time I will bring a copy of my CLN it will be embossed in my Canadian passport. Also the homeless guy interrogated me for 10 minutes about whether I was being paid to do anything. Nope, I said, I pay them (conference registration fees, hotel) The USA should be grateful I am spending money in US but I am forced to because this is where the meeting is. Anyway, so a second thing is they seem to be clamping down on US sources of income of Canadian residents (I have never got such questions before).

  19. @Benedict must be referring to me? I’m not spending hours a day just to be negative or discourage Cheryl. I’m just trying to help suss out the possible outcome for each of the alternatives. There is a big difference between mind and body over an inanimate hill and trying to figure out how a consul will perceive a relinquishment claim involving changing laws over 40 years in 2 separate countries. I’m not trying to be the guy who is right. I’m trying to help avoid mistakes. I’m used to ignoring usxcanada, but if my compadre and ally @Benedict says I’m going overboard, I guess it’s time for me to take a rest.

    Funny thing is, several months ago a woman came to IBS with the idea of claiming the request for a RoBA as an expatriating act. As I recall, nobody thought it would be accepted and there was no debate that time. I think she had government employment in her history as well though, so it was probably unanimous to steer her in that direction instead since there is a history of success with that. That’s from memory; I could have it wrong. The claim of INA 350 has a very low level of certainty compared to gov’t employment. We haven’t heard from anybody who has tried it, and we only have a few sentences in the FAM to go by.

  20. No, you all have it wrong… I am not pointing fingers…

    I am simply stating that people come here for help…they believe they are not US Citizens…and no one here has claim to judge them to be such…(you don’t know all of their story as they can’t express it here, nor should they)

    If you can’t be constructive in your comments, bite your tongue…they all know the mountain looks 900 ft high, steep and insurmountable…what they seek is different VANTAGE POINTS…constructive help…

    I am proof that one can reach the summit if one knows one is right…(The US had no process back in my time or they wouldn’t be in this pickle)…anyone who has read my story should have guessed they blinked first…

    The 1986 about face that stipulates one had to have the intent requires a mind reader and no US agent has this power…preponderance of evidence supports one’s belief by actions take that are consistent with one’s claims… (ie, no use of US Passport, no voting in US , etc…) things that would hold up in court…

    So, no one should dare say is not feasible (particularly since you don’t have all the facts, nor are a specialist in US policy for all periods in question)…

    So, again…be constructive, yes, but don’t claim to KNOW the end result…every situation is unique…

    Learn from others, keep an open mind or else bite your tongue…

  21. I just want you all to know that the information that I’m getting from you all has been very helpful and is not making me despair or wanting to give up. It has been good to have others look at info I’ve seen from a different vantage point and I have learned new info I didn’t know before.

    I know that I meant to relinquish my US citizenship in1977 and I very much want the United States to acknowledge that. In the end I have to sift through all of this and decide how best to proceed. Your help has been appreciated and invaluable. Thanks.

  22. If born outside of Canada under the 1946 act the birth had to be registered in order to be a Canadian citizen. The act said:

    “(ii) the fact of his birth is registered at a consulate
    or with the Minister, within two years after its
    occurrence or within such extended period as may
    be authorized in special Cases by the Minister, in
    accordance with the regulations.”

    If your birth was not registered by your parents you were not a Canadian citizen. Applying for the registration as an adult seems to fit “naturalization in a foreign state upon his own application”.

    Things changed in 1977 with the new act. It looks to me that under the act you became a citizen of Canada automatically. To naturalize by your own application I think you would have to have done it before the 1977 act.

  23. Forgive me if this is the wrong place to ask this question … but someone out there may have the answer.

    I have lived outside the US for 25 years (in Europe) and am a dual national (having got my non-US nationality 3 years ago). I am fully compliant, submit FBARs, tax returns, and all the other claptrap, every year. However, I am planning to renounce US citizenship – for all the obvious reasons. I just can’t stand it any more.

    However, my US father recently passed away and I am planning to move back to the States for 18-24 months to look after my very elderly mother. For that period I would be resident in the US for taxes. I would then return to my adopted country abroad where I plan to live for the rest of my life, and renounce US citizenship.

    Question: Might spending a chunk of time in the States jeopardise my ability to renounce? Are there dangers in doing this that I am not aware of? Thank you for any insights.

  24. @Star, no it won’t. Renunciation is a personal choice you make and the fact that you’ve been living in the States for a while has nothing to do with it. If you had the option to relinquish (which you don’t from the sounds of it) then it could have an impact on whether you’d get approval. But for a renunciation no. You are effectively telling the embassy/consulate that you’ve decided to give up your US citizenship and there’s nothing they can do to stop you from doing so.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: