I was very happy to report on a born-dual friend’s successful consulate meeting this week, in which he applied for a CLN based on his relinquishment at the time of taking government employment.
However, Brockers have reported some consulate personnel erroneously telling them that a person born dual or who acquired their non-US citizenship as a minor is unable to expatriate except by renouncing. In fact, there is no automatic disqualification of such persons from having the capacity to perform certain other relinquishing acts.
Such consulate personnel are probably conflating s. 349(a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act with all other non-renunciation methods of relinquishing one’s citizenship. Section 349(a) (1) is naturalising in a foreign country after having obtained the age of 18 with the intent to relinquish. Obviously a person cannot naturalise in a country they’re already a citizen of.
It appears that s. 349(a) (2), taking an oath, may also not apply to persons who already possess citizenship in the country they’re taking the oath to, as DoS has a 4-prong test for determining if an oath of allegiance is “meaningful” for this purpose. Prong 4 is “the making and receipt of the oath or affirmation alters the affiant’s legal status with respect to the foreign state” (7 FAM 1252(h))”.
But that still leaves not one, but three, possible ways for a person who acquired non-US citizenship at birth or as a minor can terminate their US citizenship:
— Commissioned or non-commissioned military officer in the armed forces of a foreign state, s.349(a)(3);
— Government employment in a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, 349(a)(4) [eg. federal, provincial, municipal];
— Renunciation, s. 349(a)(5).
Subs (6) and (7) deal with war and treason, so presumably not relevant to this particular discussion.
CLNs based on government employment have been issued to persons who acquired their foreign citizenship at birth or as a minor. I’m aware of several of these and I know of none that have been rejected because the person was born dual or acquired their foreign citizenship as a minor — nor can I find anything in the law or DoS procedure manuals to indicate that this could be a ground for rejection. I was also in contact with a citizenship specialist at DoS/Consular Affairs/Legal Affairs in Washington regarding persons-born-dual, who told me that it was her understanding that this was not a bar to relinquishing under subs (3) and (4).
Reports on the consulates are mixed, though. At Calgary in 2012, Prairie Girl had to insist that her s. 4 based application be sent to Washington, where it was approved over a Calgary consul’s negative recommendation in her CLN file. Authentic had no problem at Halifax in 2013. In recent months, people have run into problems with this misconception at Toronto, though another person had a smooth meeting at Ottawa, where the personnel were both aware of s. 4 and that it can apply to a person born dual.
It starts to feel like luck of the draw, so bone up on it before you go. Bring 349(a) and the relevant sections of the DoS manual/s with you. They have this information, of course, but you can have relevant passages pre-marked for convenience, if needed. Educating oneself is always important for any type of expatriation, and knowledge of the specifics of the law and procedure can be critical in any case where the consulate official handling your case is not familiar with CLN applications based on the sub-section you relinquished under.
Basically, be prepared, and politely but firmly stand your ground if a consulate official tells you that you are precluded from having relinquished under s. 3 or 4 because you were born dual or acquired your second citizenship as a minor.
8 USC 1481, Text of Immigration and Nationality Act, s. 349(a)
USCIS charts: if born to US parent/s outside the US, ascertain if you are or are not a US citizen.
Chart 1: Children born outside US in wedlock
Chart 2: Children born outside US outside of wedlock
Department of State Manuals:
7 FAM 1210 Introduction
7 FAM 1220 Developing a Loss of Nationality Case
7 FAM 1270 Military Service and Loss of Nationality
7 FAM 1280 Loss of Nationality and Taking Up a Position in a Foreign Government
Experiences of Brockers:
Reports by persons who relinquished upon taking government employment. The reports are in reverse chronological order based on date of consulate meeting.
You can also access these reports, along with all other relinquishment/renunciation reports reported to Brock, throughout the Consulate Report Directory. The Directory is arranged in chapters by consulate, and reports appear chronologically within each chapter.
Related Brock page: Born Outside the US and/or Born Dual.
Cross-posted at Maple Sandbox.
Ed. Doing nothing is a perfectly reasonable option. You do not need a passport to deal with a bank.
If the consulate accepts a teaching job from 1982, then there would be no tax filing obligations .
They are inconsistent. They have accepted a nursing job as a cause for relinquishment..
Self documenting with a lawyer is meaningless in my view. It won’t help with the Americans and at present you have no bank problems. The only winner is the lawyer.
Canada FATCA IGA, Annex I, B.((4) (a)(3) – page 24
CRA Guidance on enhanced financial accounts information reporting
I don’t see what role a lawyer would have in this. One could swear an affidavit with a lawyer that it was one’s intention to relinquish one’s citizenship by performing an act in 1982, but an affidavit sworn in 2016 doesn’t have much probative value as to one’s state of mind (intention) in 1982 as a document from 1982 would. Can’t hurt certainly, but don’t see it has an advantage over an unsworn statement in this context — my 2 rmb.
Anyway, it reads to me like they’re simply requiring proof that you performed a relinquishing act, eg the citizenship certificate demonstrating that the act occurred and the date on which it occurred, as opposed to actually adjudicating nationality status.
Can anyone confirm definitively whether, by law or DoS Guidance Document (please quote) whether municipal employment or employment in a Crown Corporation qualifies for relinquishment under 349(a)(4)A?
I was successful by filling potholes for The City roads department. Crown corporations seem hit and miss. An administrator/clerk in an Alberta hospital was approved. Someone who was a contractor not an employee with Canada Post was denied. A CBC employee was denied.
They qualify as a “political subdivision thereof” in the Act [ . . . any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof . . . , INA, s. 349(a)(4)(A)]. I don’t recall seeing it stated more explicitly than “political subdivision thereof” in the DoS Foreign Affairs Manual.
We have had reports from people who relinquished via municipal or crown corp employment. Some went quite smoothly, but as WhatAmI points out in his examples, it definitely can vary; and DoS’ reasoning can be pretty bizarre, like in the CBC matter, Molly posted that DoS wrote her that “CBC was a ‘hybrid entity’ that combined elements of both public and private sectors and as such, ‘would not place those in their employ within the purview of INA 349(a)(4).’” (Last I recall her posting about this, she was thinking she might contest. I don’t know if she did or, if so, what happened since.)
Thanks all for the replies. The anecdotal evidence for municipal employment is positive, but it would be nice to see a guidance document just come out and say so. Too much to ask for I guess…