Vancouver and Ottawa are the only consulates we’re aware of where it takes over a year to complete an expatriation. Elsewhere, in Canada and the world, from booking to signing the papers generally runs from under a month to 3 months.
I’ve been getting a lot of complaints about Vancouver’s lack of appointments lately (most people have long written off Ottawa for other reasons). This current uptick in complaints is not surprising. With FATCA now looming closer to reality, these one-year-plus delays to expatriate will trap thousands (possibly tens of thousands) of US persons in Canada without the critical ability to prove that they are not a US citizen.
Vancouver is currently booked through June 2013, and requests for information on how to book result in the reply that no appointments are available. And that’s only to get the first appointment. The second takes over a year after the first.
To deal with the tidal wave of CLN applications, consulates around the world, including most in Canada, are adapting to the increased workload, allocated resources, switched to 1 visit only.
Vancouver and Ottawa, however, persist with requiring 2 visits. Ottawa also routinely requires 2 to 3 hour interviews (that’s face time, not waiting time). They are unique in this, as face time at the other consulates in Canada and the world generally runs 10 to 20 minutes.
While renunciations are going on in record numbers in all countries, Canada also has a huge number of people who relinquished their US citizenship decades ago, who the US now (due to a retroactive policy change) considers to be citizens unless they apply for a CLN. Canada also has border babies, born years ago at the nearest hospital regardless of which side of the border it was. In total, 117,000 US-born persons described themselves as “Canadian citizen only” on the 2006 census. Yet almost no one even heard of a CLN until 2011.
Vancouver and Ottawa are the only consulates I’m aware of that require (or have required) 2 visits to apply for a CLN even when based on a relinquishment (s.(1)). This is not only inefficient, it’s unnecessary as the relinquishment is not going to occur at the consulate — it has already occurred and is being formally reported. It’s puzzling why a consulate official would think otherwise. It’s also rather cruel to a person who terminated their US citizenship, according to US law, 50 years ago – they sure don’t need any time to reflect – they’re not making a forward looking decision – they stuck in a bizarre chaotic limbo and just want to get their normal life back as soon as possible.
The US consulates in Canada should be leading, certainly not lagging, in handling expatriations smoothly and efficiently. They should streamline whatever procedures they can and they should not set up artificial roadblocks. If employees have strong personal feelings against expatriation, they should be reassigned to other duties (I’m sure there’s plenty of other work to do at a consulate). Expatriation should always be handled as a smooth administrative matter, not as a confrontational one with the US appearing desperate to hang onto the person. Handling expatriation incorrectly that way not only messes up a person’s life — it makes the US look terrible.
This is a flood that cannot be held back or the dam will break. Does the US really want to look like they’re desperate to prevent people from leaving? Which headline looks worse “US Citizens Renouncing in Droves” or “US Citizens Prevented from Renouncing in Droves” ?
Delays and roadblocks, even those caused non-intentionally, still cause human suffering. These people just want out – or they’re already long out and just need the proof that is now required by retroactive US policy. Everyone just wants to get on with their life.
Obstruction, for any reason, is a lose-lose situation.
Halifax, Montréal, Toronto and Calgary, all of whom are overloaded with work, are doing an excellent job, both in scheduling and all other aspects of expatriation – and it’s not only a fine job for us, they’re also giving a very positive image of the country they represent. All consulates in Canada should use these consulates as a model.
Do we have a report from someone who was interviewed in Ottawa for three hours?
Although it’s not necessary to have your US taxes in order to renounce US citizenship, many prefer to put this aspect of cutting ties with the US behind them before renouncing. Why? Because it’s unclear whether some prejudices will be made, or protections be lost with the loss of citizenship. OVDI participants have already waited a year for a response from the IRS on last year’s submissions- add opting out, dickering back and forth and so on, for them, I’d say that there’s at least a 3 year commitment to extricate one’s self from the US at this point. With budget constraints and increased demand this is only going to get worse. I don’t have any idea how long it’s taking those who enter the so-called ‘streamlined’ procedure to get through the system, but for those currently entering intending to renounce, expect a long wait. 🙁
I never even the imagined the possibility that I would see American citizens so terrified of the United States that they are desperate to renounce their citizenship. This is NOT just a mild preference to renounce. This is motivated by fear and desperation. Interestingly these are U.S. persons living outside the U.S. There have been many countries that have forced residents of the country to live in fear. But, what about non-residents? This is remarkable.
Reminds of the Jefferson’s saying that:
When the government fears the people there is liberty. When people fear the government there is tyranny. Given this test the U.S. is now among the most tyrannical governments ever.
From Osama to Obama!
@Bubblebustin
What you are saying makes sense if you assume that there will be no changes in the rules for renouncing. Those who wish to renounce (probably every U.S. citizen abroad) NOT assume that the rules will continue as they have been and should factor this into their decision on when to pull the plug.
1. The rules may change. I wouldn’t put it past the U.S. to attempt to deny people the right to renounce.
2. A vicious inflation could make make everybody a covered expatriate.
It’s a big mistake to think that things will always be as they are (as we all know).
@USCitizenAbroad: The rules may change.
Possibly with retroactive effect. Ex-PATRIOT, should it pass, applies to anyone who renounced, past tense, within the ten-year period before the bill’s date of enactment. No amount of individual pre-emptive action can protect against something like that.
For US citizens the gap between the myth of liberty and the reality of tyranny gets wider as each day passes. Paradoxically the gap is the widest for citizens who live outside the Homeland.
Bears repeating here:
@Jer33.3,
Thanks for highlighting:
It is sad that the people who receive our relinquishments and renunciations are saddened, but it is their job to do so with respect for every person who makes that appointment for relinquishment or renunciation. It is indeed sad commentary all around that it has come to this. We are fighting for our futures and those of our families.
@Halifax Pier,
I know of two persons who were interviewed for two hours and a third who was told to return for two hours of questioning, but they did not. I am familiar with two of these cases, both of which were routine, what some call a “slam dunk.” The person who did not return for 2 hours of questioning went to a different consulate where they were seen for about 10 minutes. A fourth person was told by the head of American Citizen Services that it would require a 3 hour interview. It is possible that the ACS head misspoke and meant to say 2 hours. As well, the first visit atOttawa seems to run up to ½ hour face time, which is quite long in itself.
There’s other stories making the rounds inOttawa , which have encouraged Ottawans to go to Montréal or Toronto . Not only people but members of the legal/accounting community in Ottawa find the whole thing puzzling, it being so different from elsewhere. Something else unique to Ottawa is I get contacted by people who’ve gone to the consulate but they do not want their story published in the directory. However, the stories are very consistent and I’ve yet to hear anything positive. So, I recommend make life easy on yourself, just go somewhere else.
@pacifica777,
‘Delays and roadblocks, even those caused non-intentionally, still cause human suffering’.
Being one of those caught up in the quagmire of the Vancouver consulate, those words hit home to me. All of my reflection took place more than 40 years ago. None of my family or friends have thought of me as anyone other than a Canadian for more than 40 years. And that includes all of my family who still live in the U.S. Waiting more than a year from first appointment to second appointment and then more waiting for the CLN, is pure torture and quite honestly, it is obstruction. All consulates, world-wide, should be treating people the same.
I am cross-posting this comment.
The Government of Canada needs to realize that its citizens who happen to be USPs face, in some instances, huge delays for their renunciation or relinquishment of US citizenship appointments.
It would be helpful if USPs resident in Canada have their applications for Canadian citizenship fast-tracked so they, too, can report their relinquishments by taking Canadian citizenship to a US Consulate in Canada.
It is important that the Canadian Government protect its USP citizens.
It is important that the Canadian Government not sign, as reported they will do by end of year, an Intergovernmental Agreement with the US.
@maz57,
Re
Keep a very good record of each of your steps in this process and (if) any issue of crossing into the US with your Canadian passport. I find it so very interesting the experience of baird68′s brother in Halifax (a renunciation required as baird68′s brother was forced or intimidated (like I was) into obtaining a US passport and then the Halifax Consulate wisely and humanely dating his CLN December 1968, when he obtained Canadian citizenship). You now have this experience to cite regarding your own relinquishment. If you will be crossing the border with a Canadian passport before your successful relinquishment, the fact is you took Canadian citizenship with the intent to relinquish your US citizenship and you have no control over obstruction from the Vancouver Consulate in getting a timely appointment. You, very wisely, will not cross with a US passport and waive all rights to the delayed reporting of your relinquishment to the Vanvouver Consulate.
Thanks so much for your views and reporting your experience here. I think your experience will be of great importance to highlight what is occurring, the lack of a standard of procedure and some consistency from one consulate to another, whether it be in Canada or, for that matter, anywhere in the world. We have made our informed decisions to renounce or relinquish and get on with our lives. We deserve respect in our right to do so and should not face undue obstruction.
FYI, below was the start of our conversation with the Consul General for Canada, Sylvia D. Johnson, who had the courtesy and respect to communicate with me from the Ottawa Embassy. We understand there will be meetings in January regarding the processes for relinquishment and renunciation taking place in Canadian consulates and the Ottawa Embassy.
Ms. Johnson intervened in Cir’s relinquishment and his appointment was moved up. For the others here it has been ‘wait and watch’ rather than intervention to see if the process in Vancouver was indeed changing.
As reported here, by many – including you, the process has not changed for the Vancouver Consulate, which is not acceptable to us. Can we do anything about it? That remains to be seen, but we have been fortunate in having Sylvia D. Johnson communicate with us on this important issue. We are grateful for her respect and her help.
@ Calgary,
Absolutely agree. I do wish to point out a distinction between a consular official being saddened by expatriation and being uncomfortable or opposed to it.
I’m sure that helping people leave theUS
If personnel at any level are uncomfortable with or opposed to expatriation, however, that’s a whole other kettle of fish. Maybe they shouldn’t be forced to do expatriations, but instead be assigned to other duties, of which I’m sure there are plenty.
*I’ve been quiet for a while, just waiting for my CLN (last report from the consulate: “Your file is still in Washington.”), but more and more I’m feeling that we’re all going crazy. Maybe that’s what the Mayan calendar thing is all about: We humans are the disaster. The recent school tragedy in the U.S. contributes to that feeling, of course, as does this continuing vendetta against expatriates. Anyway, I had been thinking about the U.S. as “nice place to visit, but I wouldn’t want to live there.” Now I don’t even want to visit there.
@ Tiger,
I too find it very disturbing that a consulate doesn’t process s.(1) relinquishments as they’re supposed to.
It’s unsettling in that it indicates that consular official doesn’t understand the *basics* of a crucial section of the Immigration and Nationalties Act. If it’s not occuring due to ignorance, that’s even more unsettling.
Failure to get an s. (1) relinquishment recognised in a timely manner throws lives into complete chaos. And it’s not the person’s fault at all — they did relinquish their citizenship under the law of the time and lived accordingly. It’s the other party who changed the rules after the fact. In good faith, they should minimise the damage caused by this.
Relinquishments which occurred under the old law/policy should be handled immediately – and certainly not take over a year. People’s lives are in turmoil because of this retroactive policy. There is nothing to reflect on. A retroactive revision ofUS law/policy has thrown them into an unfamiliar quagmire where they’re stuck in limbo and can’t even live as themself.
It’s not even a question of what a person wants – the person has no choice. Although Congress can make retroactive laws, the laws of physics are not retroactive — the person cannot simply relive the last 40 years of their life to make it accord with today’sUS even if they wanted to, or for that matter wrap the head around the idea of being a citizen of a country they’re not a citizen of.
@Pacifica777
That’s an awesome letter. As one of those trapped in the lineup at the Vancouver Consulate, I don’t really understand the delays. I can see a long delay and interview time for someone wanting to enter the US, but to leave, that makes no sense. It should take 5 minutes to collect the necessary documentation, review the identification, and ascertain that the person is leaving under their own free will. Even at 10 minutes, a single staff member at the consulate should be able to process 42 applicants a day, 840/month, 10,080/year.
@AnonAnon,
I just had a telephone meeting with the immigration/nationality lawyer I have dealt with in Washington, DC regarding my son’s nationality and the inability to have the right to renounce on his behalf (due to my adult son’s developmental disability). One of the things reiterated from his discussions with the Department of State was there has never been a successful case of a Parent, Guardian or Trustee being able to renounce US citizenship on behalf of their family member — and no real definition of what “compelling reason” (the only possibility) would encompass. It seems only ‘life and death’, nothing to do with economic issues for the person in question.
One of my comments to him was that I had become a “Crazy Lady” in dealing with all of this.
I must say that the two lawyers I have consulted with in my and my son’s case have, in my opinion, been top notch, down-to-earth, caring professionals. It has been a privilege to have them listen to my issues and not confirm that I am a “Crazy Lady”. They have validated over and over my concerns and my actions.
AnonAnon, I hope it is not too much longer that you are reporting here the receipt of your CLN. Thanks so much for being part of the discussion we’re having here!
I haven’t yet begun the renunciation process, but the only people I’ve ever had to deal with (including security and excluding the consul himself) were all Canadian. I know because I asked them.
*@calgary411, thank you for your reply. I’ve been following your story and am struck by how inhumane the U.S. laws are in the case of your son and you. I hope you can achieve your goal soon of being able to renounce on his behalf, but the prospects don’t sound good. I want to thank you for all your work for the Brock society and congratulate you on your own recent receipt of a CLN.
That’s interesting news Pacifica. But you mean “renunciation,” not
“expatriation.” Everybody who lives in a country that isn’t their native
country has already expatriated, but they haven’t necessarily renounced
their native citizenship.
Sorry, I’m really not trying just to be nit picky. I see lots of
people using these inconsistently here and elsewhere. But I think it’s
important we (all expats) start trying more to be clear given the
magnitude of renunciation and also consistent to make the topic easier
to understand for any newbies, journalists, or outsiders who may stumble
upon IBS.
@ Angelica, you bring up a good point about words. Several words used in expatriation law have more than one meaning and that’s less than ideal.
I’m just using the word expatration in the narrow legal sense as per the US Code referring to former citizens. But, yes, I agree the word expatriate is also used to define a person who is simply not living in their home country.
I could not use the word renunciation in the title because this post applies to all forms of relinquishment, only one of which is renunciation.
There are 7 ways by which one can terminate one’s US citizenship Renunciation falls under s. 349(a)(5) of the Immigration and Nationalities Act and is probably most common means of terminating one’s citizenship, it certainly seems to be the most widely known.
Many people, however, terminated their citizenship pursuant to s. 349(a)(1) by naturalising in another country with the intent of relinquishing their citizenship.
In order to differentiate this from renunciation (and keep it down to one word) people refer to s. (1)’s as relinquishment But renouncing under s. (5) is also a relinquishing act. However, to include both s(1)s and s(5)s, you can’t use relinquishment — because although relinquishment is technically correct, due to colloquial usage of the word relinquishment, people will think you’re omitting s. (5). So, expatration covers both and, although it has other meanings, is used by both Dept of State and IRS in this context.
bubblebustin says –
Although it’s not necessary to have your US taxes in order to renounce US citizenship, many prefer to put this aspect of cutting ties with the US behind them before renouncing.
And our favorite guru Phil Hodgen says:
I think you could renounce first then run around and fix all of your tax problems for the prior five years, just so long as you got it all done before you filed your exit year tax returns. That’s living dangerously.
Angelica –
Loose language is slopping around all over the place. Here’s what Phil Hodgen had to say on your topic – “expatriate” is ambiguous. This comment also provides a spot for extending appreciation to Allison Christians for her distinguishing autonomy from sovereignty. Far too many naive intakers of words they think they understand fail to appreciate the nuance that attaches to terms when they lie within the domain of something like law.
And finally, in a category all by itself, is the flexicon of the IRS, turgid meaninglessness that becomes whatever the bureaucracy would like it to mean – unless that expert you pay a fortune to (and to whom the IRSers so readily refer you to, since they themselves could not possibly offer any clarity or reliable answers, their only job being to make noise on the telephone, provided you ever reached anything other than a recording) can manage to make it mean something else. In the indefinite interim, aka limbo, you can toss for a near eternity and eat your own heart out.
@usxcanada
At this rate, five could turn to six could turn to seven before one could file their exit year tax returns. Thanks to OVDI, I’m going on 10! And the IRS is touting OVDP as a desirable alternative if one fears the streamlined procedure qualifications are too narrow. When the IRS’s only official recommendation for those wishing to compliant is to enter either the streamlined procedure or OVDP, will opt out become operational within OVDI, or will it become the norm for the Internal Revenue Manual be used within OVDP? I guess I’m going to find out sooner or later, because I hear that’s where I’m headed.
And what are they going to put on the name and shame list? 250 people? Hhehe
My first appointment took an hour. Mainly because they wanted to know the reasons why. It’s not that common here.
If anything, I expect the fee to go up. The scarey thing is that they can make it anything they want to.
Pingback: The Sun Life Betrayal Part 3 – Converting the non-willful into willful « Freedom from the tyranny of U.S. citizenship-based taxation for U.S. and dual citizens outside the U.S.
Pingback: The Isaac Brock Society - The Sun Life Betrayal Part 3 – Converting the non-willful into willful