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. @WhatAmI

    PROSPECTIVE…going forward ?

    Prospective literally means “looking forward”

  2. @WhatAmI

    from (b)

    the burden shall be upon the person
    or party     claiming that such loss occurred, to
    establish such claim by a preponderance of the
    evidence.

  3. Section 349 is for someone who is already a US citizen and performs various actions listed in the section. Section 350 is only for those born dual. I think all the other listed actions in 349 would still apply to a “dual” except item 1 naturalization, unless that naturalization was in a third country.

  4. @Benedict

    The 1978 changes were “prospective”, meaning going forward, meaning not retroactive. That’s all clear. I was just musing as to whether some deranged US official might try to tell us that those points of law were invalid, unenforceable, whatever, back to the date of the Supreme Court decision many years before.

    I can read point (b) either way. The person or party claiming the loss could be all the individuals here at Brock, or it could be the DoS being nasty and taking action to strip USC from people. I think reading it as the latter makes sense in the context of the contradiction you pointed out a few posts up (17:14pm) where you said “Either I am crazy or the wording says…”.

    It’s a bit worrisome that we’re having to guess at the interpretation of these documents…

    @TrueNorth

    Yes, thanks, that’s exactly the interpretation I finally arrived at today for INA 349 and 350. It just took me 10 times as many words to fumble through it.

  5. @WhatAmI

    I am going to summarize INA 349 and INA 350 in very simple (layman) terms and I am leaving out the “voluntary clauses” (and preponderance of evidence)...this is my interpretation only…feel free to correct me…
    starting with 350 – followed by 349 EXPATRIATION ACTS

    basically, PRIOR TO OCT 10, 1978, if you didn’t perform an Act of Expatriation, as a dual national by birth, you automatically lost your US Citizenship by age 25 if you didn’t move back to the US to take up permanent residence (unless you performed a US oath before age 22 to retain it)
    However Oct 10, 1978 repealed the rule for anyone who had not completed the 3 year term by Oct 10, 1978. (thus you would still be a US Citizen)
    Any US born citizen or (naturalized to US) who performed an ACT of EXPATRIATION #2 – #10 (1952-1986) or #2-7 (post-1986) technically lost it as of the date of EXPATRIATION — ergo: CLN backdates to that date.
    Furthermore EXPATRIATION act #1 would also be effective immediately if done by an adult (ie 21)
    However EXPATRIATION act #1 done for a minor (pre-1986 Act changes), had a time delay until the minor reached 25…allowing the minor to reclaim US Citizenship by entering the US to establish a permanent residence, failing which the minor lost US Citizenship…(After 1986, the minor clause was removed)

    This would appear to explain why people, in general, thought they lost US Citizenship by age 21 for failing to take action to re-affirm it via taking an OATH to the US before 22…probably got condensed to: do nothing and you lose it…but Oct 10,1978 changed that…
    However, since I am one of those RARE individuals who was EXPATRIATED by #1 PRE-1986 (the minor clause)…I theretically had until age 25 to take action regardless of the Oct 10,1978 rule…any other expatriating act became effective at the time it occurred…

    I struggled as to whether to post this…as I don’t want to mislead anyone…If anyone can find fault in this interpretation, I would hope this posting is removed…
    It would appear that the above explains something odd that happened to me at the Consulate…the sudden about face and the odd comment by the Notary…”you were wronged and we want to make this right”…I now see that I theoretically was misinformed as to my qualifying for Stanford U at the age of 22…since the rule that applied to me was open ended until age 25…of course, in hindsight this may have been a good thing, considering FATCA…

  6. @Dianne

    I found the following in 7 FAM 1250 NATURALIZATION AND OATH OF ALLEGIANCE TO A FOREIGN STATE http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/120544.pdf

    d. An oath of allegiance is a statement affirming one’s loyalty to a foreign
    state. Such a statement may be oral or in writing; it does not have to be
    under oath although in many instances it is; and it may be a simple statement, or it may
    be contained in a larger document, of which the oath
    is only one part. The taking of such an oath is only an expatriating act if
    it is taken voluntarily after the age of 18 with the intention of
    relinquishing one’s citizenship.
    e. The statement of allegiance need not be in any particular form. It may
    be oral or written. Its words and meaning must express actual allegiance
    or fidelity to the foreign state or subdivision or to its government,
    sovereign, constitution, prince, or similar concepts. However, a simple
    pledge to carry out the duties of a certain job (i.e., sometimes referred to
    as an oath of office), or similar statement, even though subscribed under
    oath, is not potentially expatriating.

  7. @Benedict

    I agree with your summary.

    However, I have another curve ball for you. The quote below is from the USCODE-2010 document. Does this mean the changes (including the one removing the expatriation of minors) was made retroactive?

    EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1986 AMENDMENT
    Section 23(g) of Pub. L. 99–653, as added by Pub. L.
    100–525, § 8(r), Oct. 24, 1988, 102 Stat. 2619, provided that:
    ‘‘The amendments made by sections 18, 19, and 20
    [amending this section and section 1483 of this title]
    shall apply to actions taken before, on, or after November
    14, 1986.’’

  8. @WhatAmI

    It gets so complicated…I don’t know how something can be done retroactively…
    If this rule came into effect on November 14th 1986…I was already 29…
    I will leave that for others to analyze…
    I feel drained as it is…

  9. @Dianne

    You said:

    The oath of Fidelity and Secrecy that I signed goes like this: I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully, truly and to the best of my judgement, skill and ability execute and perform the duties required of me as an employee of the Government of Canada at the Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. I am hoping to get a letter from my M.P. confirming that the A.E.C.L. was considered an arm of the federal government when I worked there in the 1970′s. What do you think?

    My wife is a Human Resource Officer with the BC Provincial Government, and when I mentioned the comment about an oath with regards to a Crown Corporation, it was her belief a Crown Corporation was part of the Government.

    So I decided to look for some contextual reference…

    Here is something that I came up with: under 13 (3) in the text of this case…

    (3) The Auditor General shall require every person employed in his office who is to examine the accounts of a department or of a Crown corporation pursuant to this Act to comply with any security requirements applicable to, and to take any oath of secrecy required to be taken by, persons employed in that department or Crown corporation.

    and this:

    36.3 (1) Where a Minister of the Crown or the Clerk of the Privy Council objects to the disclosure of information before a court, person or body with jurisdiction to compel the production of information by certifying in writing that the information constitutes a confidence of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada, disclosure of the information shall be refused without examination or hearing of the information by the court, person or body.

    http://scc.lexum.org/decisia-scc-csc/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/494/index.do

    I think you may want to pursue this further…it sure looks like a Crown Corpoation is treated like a part of the government…
    Also … note the “OR” between paragraphs below…the paragraphs are different…one is “nationality” based the other is “oath” based…

    (A) 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, after attaining the age of eighteen years if he has or acquires the nationality of such foreign state; or

    (B) 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, after attaining the age of eighteen years for which office, post, or employment an oath, affirmation, or declaration of allegiance is required

    I hope this helps to build your case…

  10. @Dianne

    Also in that PetroCanada case..just a bit lower…

    Petro-Canada Act, S.C. 1974-75-76, c. 61
    14. (1) The Corporation is, for all purposes of this Act, an agent of Her Majesty, and its powers under this Act may be exercised only as an agent of Her Majesty.

    (Later repealed and substituted by S.C. 1984, c. 31, s. 14 (Schedule II, Item 40(9)):

    14. (1) The Corporation is, for all purposes of this Act, an agent of Her Majesty in right of Canada.

  11. @Dianne

    Here you go : A.E.C.L.

    Citing the “modern legislative trend” towards “putting the Crown on an equal footing with everyone else”, the Ontario Court of Appeal recently overturned an application judge’s granting of legal immunity to a Crown agent. The Appellate Court held that Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. (“AECL”), a federal Crown corporation and Crown agent, is not immune from the application of s. 60 of the Ontario Evidence Act (“OEA”) which authorizes the enforcement in Ontario of a letter of request from a foreign court. The Court further held that in this particular case, “justice required” that the letter of request be enforced.

    http://www.mondaq.com/canada/x/241888/Civil+Law/A+Little+Less+Above+The+Law+Crown+Immunity+In+Lantheus+Medical+Imaging+Inc+V+Atomic+Energy+Of+Canada+Ltd

  12. @Dianne

    It seems pretty clear to me…just on the basis of “nationality” (if you were a canadian at the time…)

    In your oath it says:
    I will faithfully, truly and to the best of my judgement, skill and ability execute and perform the duties required of me as an employee of the Government of Canada at the Atomic Energy of Canada Limited.

  14. @Dianne

    I’ll give you one more reference that should help guide your case
    This is from the FAM GUIDE itself:

    http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/109065.pdf

    UNCLASSIFIED (U)
    U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7
    Consular Affairs
    7 FAM 1210 Page 2 of 13
    UNCLASSIFIED (U)

    d. Who has the burden of proving that loss of U.S. nationality occurred and what is the burden of proof: The party claiming that loss of citizenship occurred
    must establish this by a preponderance of the evidence. Black’s Law Dictionary defines a preponderance of the evidence as “[g]reater weight of evidence, or evidence which is more credible and convincing to the mind.” Preponderance of the evidence equates to “more likely than not.” This is also known as the “balance of probabilities.” This is the standard required in most civil cases.

  15. Anyone Renounced in Sydney, Australia?

    Hello,
    I am the parent of a 17 year old dual US/Australian citizen. Our child has US citizenship by virtue of the fact that my wife and I were living in the US at the time of his birth. My wife and I have never held US citizenship and moved back home to Australia when our son was 3 years old. He has grown up and attended school in Australia, has no family, assets or other ties in the US.

    He has made the decision that he does not want to maintain his US citizenship and intends to renounce when he turns 18. The ACS Unit that services our region is in Sydney. I was hoping there may be others on this forum who have been through the process in Sydney that we might be able to contact regarding their experiences dealing with the ACS in Sydney? I have read the Consulate Report Directory and have noted a couple of entries for Australia (one in Melbourne and one unknown location).

  16. @WhatAmI

    Something Medea said made me do some more research..(little things nag at me)…

    ? Why did I immigrate at 5 1/2 and Naturalize at 10 when you didn’t ? even though you came back to Canada at age 12…

    And I think I found the answer…but it then raises another question…

    Apparently the rules for my situation are “I could not be registered at birth”… go figure: see B – 1

    A person born in wedlock abroad to a Canadian mother and a foreign father was not entitled to register to obtain citizenship

    http://www.parl.gc.ca/About/Parliament/LegislativeSummaries/bills_ls.asp?ls=c37&Parl=39&Ses=2

    OK… so that confirms Medea’s comment …(thank you Medea)…I immigrated and Naturalized….

    However, that raises a question (and by the way…there is a “WhoAmI” also answering questions, so I may be confused here…)

    I thought you said at age 12, your parents registered you by Certificate of Birth Abroad…maybe I am wrong on this..but how is that possible? as the link above says it had to be done within 2 years…(little things nag at me)
    “Starting in 1947 when the Canadian Citizenship Act came into effect, the birth of a child outside Canada to a Canadian parent had to be registered within two years in order for the child to be a “natural-born Canadian citizen.”(7) Some births were never registered”

    Maybe the answer is here, but it wasn’t clear as to specifics:
    “To provide relief, the Government extended the registration deadline over the years.”

  17. @Benedict

    Yes, I read somewhere a year or two ago that one had to register a Canadian birth abroad within a year or two. My mother said she didn’t; everything was done at the border when we moved home to Canada (when I was 12). My RBA is dated 4 months later. I was a bit freaked when I realized that. I wondered if it could be taken away or invalidated. I stopped worrying though. Also, TrueNorth or somebody here recently pointed out the changes to our laws in 2009 such that it doesn’t matter now when you register. You could get a RBA now yourself, if you wanted.

    I recently read that the laws back then were such that being born abroad to a Canadian mother wasn’t good enough; it had to be the father. Both mine were Canadian, so I was OK.

  20. Interesting court proceedings in Cayman Islands centering around the issue of whether obtaining a US passport is evidence of allegiance to the US
    http://www.caymannewsservice.com/politics/2013/07/18/us-experts-battle-it-out

    Article says that both sides enlisted US ‘experts’ to testify.
    ‘US experts battle it out’
    Posted on Thu, 07/18/2013 – 21:16 in Politics

    (CNS): Two legal expert witnesses went head-to-head Thursday when they gave their evidence regarding American law, and in particular the issue of allegiance to the United States, on the second day of the petition hearing challenging the election of Tara Rivers to the district of West Bay at the national poll in May. The chief justice heard from Professor David Cole and Professor David Rowe (left), who gave contradictory expert opinions on whether the possession and use of a United States passport constituted an acknowledgment of allegiance to that country – a narrow, but important point, on which Rivers’ possession of a US passport and her right to run for office depends.”,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

  22. @OzParent
    Sorry that I haven’t seen any replies to your question here. Don’t think all too many Aussies go on this site generally. I can vouch firsthand for Melbourne being okay for renouncing. But I’ve neither met nor heard of anyone who has done so in Sydney. Good luck with your son’s plan to renounce there. My guess would be that he’ll be completely fine and not encounter any problems at all beside the usual worrying about it beforehand. After this is done with, you would do other Australians a service if you provide some information on this site about what the renunciation process in Sydney was like, That would bring some comfort to people like yourself who are seeking more knowledge about it. Cheers.

  23. @SwissPinoy, he says the figures for the 1st quarter of 2013 were the highest ever. Has the list been issued yet? I don’t recall seeing it, but then my memory’s a sieve sometimes.

  24. @OzParent
    There aren’t many of us Aussies here on this IBS site to share our experiences with you. I am in Perth and reported my updated details several months ago but the Consulate Report Directory didn’t get updated. I am the “unspecified location” report from Australia. I don’t know of anyone one going through the process in Sydney but I am pretty sure the consulate staff there will be totally professional and helpful.

  25. @OzParent I’m new here but people are all very supportive, just not many aussies here. IT sounds like your son’s case is pretty straightforward.

    I’m in Melbourne, and waiting to relinquish so I can’t yet offer any information (and certainly not Sydney) but hoping we can have a celebration with @ozteddies

    @Rose Thanks, was wondering where that “unspecified location” was 🙂

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: