Thanks to Helen who has written this post on Re-instating US Citizenship after Renunciation. It’s a topic that doesn’t have a lot of coverage, and your knowledge and thoughts will be appreciated.
*****
I was granted my CLN in Sept 2014, the last day before the price increase from $495 to $2350.
I need to try to re-instate my US citizenship due to schooling needs of my son, as I am not finding adequate provision for his special needs in my resident country overseas and would like to return to the US for him. He is a US citizen.
The CLN is a 2 sided document. On page 2, the back side covers Appeal Procedures. It is poorly and vaguely written – but below is what is on page 2 of the CLN:
ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW OF A FINDING OF LOSS OF NATIONALITY
The premise established by the administrative standard of evidence is applicable to cases adjudicated previously. Persons who previously lost US citizenship may wish to have their cases reconsidered in light of this policy.
A person may initiate such a reconsideration by submitting a request to the nearest US consular office or by writing directly to:
Director, Office of Policy Review and Inter-Agency Liaison, Overseas Citizens Services (CA/OCS/PRI)
SA-29 4th Floor, Dept of State, 2201 C Street, NW,
Washington, DC 20520or via express mail/courier service to
Director, CA/OCS/PRI
2100 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 4th Floor
Washington, DC 20037Each case will be reviewed on its own merits taking into consideration, for example statements made by the person at the time of the potentially expatriating act.
for additional information see:
http://www.travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_778.html
<http://www.travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_778.html>
I spoke with the Consul at the US Embassy in Slovakia, where I renounced 3 years ago.
He said I need to write an appeal letter containing statements such as, When I renounced my US citizenship:
“I was under undue influence of another person” or “I renounced without understanding of the nature of my act and knowledge of consequences.”
“I was acting under duress and my actions were not voluntary.”
The Consul in Slovakia will send in my appeal to the address listed.
I have heard there are a few examples of people regaining their US citizenship through the appeal process. I wanted to post this topic to this group in the event that people might
know of how they went about doing it.
The Consul seemed to think it was best to avoid political or taxation reasons why the CLN was sought and focus on emotional or extreme duress from family members.
It would be better to describe this as voiding the original renunciation (analogous to annulling a marriage). In other words, you have to show some defect in the original renunciation / relinquishment, which if known should have made it of no effect. An example would be if you did not undertake the act voluntarily.
Note that it is not enough to show that you chose to renounce due to some good reason, such as taxes or whatever. This would make it a free, calculated choice, not an example of coercion. An example specifically mentioned in the regulations is that of having been pressured by a “cult” to renounce. I suppose this detail originated during the 1970s, when Americans were worried about “brainwashing” by religious groups like the Hare Krishna or the Moonies. (Since then scholars have mostly retreated from the terms and concepts represented by “cult” and “brainwashing.”)
Would it be possible for a normal renunciate to claim to have belonged to such a cult? I can well imagine that it might, although this would be hard to do without a fairly concrete notion of what sort of cult you belonged to. (Did you renounce out of obedience to the guru, or in order to avoid the Mark of the Beast?) With enough foresight, renunciates might even work this sort of language into their original renunciation statement, in anticipation of later challenging it if necessary.
Another possibility would be to claim spousal abuse: your ex-husband made you renounce, you had no choice. (Emphasis on the lack of choice.)
why the heck you renounce … you want your cake and eat it too.. Sad !!!
Eric wrote an interesting post for Brock back in 2015 …
http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2015/06/22/re-naturalising-after-giving-up-u-s-citizenship/
Hmmm… Is this a subject relevant to the Brock community. I suggest this is indeed as Sanjay above said wanting your cake and eating it too. Although I sympathize with Helen, this is contrary to our raison d’être here at Brock.
We don’t have to agree on whether to respect people who try to reinstate US citizenship but it sure seems to me that it’s on topic. Several people have posted that $0.00 amount of tax isn’t the reason they renounced but a bunch of abuses are the reasons, and several have said they wish to have US citizenship reinstated if the abuses stop.
Some countries make it easy to reinstate renounced citizenships. Some people do it, some don’t.
It’s only sensible that with the rise and renunciations there will be an increase in problems associated with renouncing. Best to try to look past the immediate relief of being free to any unforeseen problems that might develop.
Is Helen being fickle?
@ Pierre,
Personally where I focus most of my energies at Brock is helping people get out of US citizenship. However, I feel this post is relevant as it is related to renunciation (but worthy of a separate post/thread — it started as a question on the renunciation thread) because, although obviously connected to renunciation, re-instatement is a separate matter.
If the renunciation was driven by the desire to protect, or demands from, non-US citizen family members who object to family assets, businesses and finances being drawn into the US web, then is this coercion if the alternative is divorce and family breakup? Hard to say.
If the USA were to adopt full fledged Residence Based Taxation and drop reporting requirements and penalties for overseas Americans without US-source income, I might regret that I had renounced citizenship, and possibly look to see if there could be a way to regain it, just so I could vote against US politicians who are harming their own country and the rest of the world.
But believe me folks, this is not going to happen.
@fn0
It has to happen. It might take forever though.
I can’t say if this a topic for Brock or not but I think it does speak to a population within the Brock community: American spouses who have have been strongly urged by their partners to renounce US citizenship. I have heard people mention threats of divorce (and losing custody of minor children) or a forced separation of assets that leaves the American spouse with very little. That’s pretty darn coercive as far as I’m concerned. And if the marriage ends anyway in death or divorce, I can see wanting to have citizenship reinstated under those circumstances.
@ Pierre,
Missed your second point when I was commenting above. No, I don’t think this post is contrary to our raison d’être. Like if someone wishes to re-gain their US citizenship and succeeds at doing so, that does not endanger another person’s status as a non-US-citizen. If Helen succeeds, I’m still not American. So, I’d say it’s different from the usual around here, but not contrary.
“Like if someone wishes to re-gain their US citizenship and succeeds at doing so, that does not endanger another person’s status as a non-US-citizen.”
That’s not what happened to a bunch of Brockers when Afroyim (v. Rusk) regained his US citizenship.
I think until FATCA came along, many long-term US expats who became citizens of another country were happy to simply fade away from the US— most did not actively nuke their USC. Due to banking, financial, and increased awareness of the peculiar institution of citizenship based taxation, ex-pats came to fear or were outright harmed by the blue book with the eagle on it. If renouncers and relinquishers (including DIYers) were polled as to the reason they burned their USC, I suspect most would say it was done due to fear of harm or due to actual harms inflicted by the US government (think IRS) and their local financial institutions. While the US signed on to the UN Declaration of Universal Human Rights which enshrines the right of expats to travel back to their place of origin, US taxation policy and FATCA run contrary to said right by compelling US expats to nuke their birth citizenship.
I feel for Helen. I would consider her problem a worthy Brock topic for discussion. I’ve read about people crying or even becoming physically sick after renouncing and leaving their local consulate— the process for these people is obviously not a happy moment. For Helen and folks like her I offer my sympathy.
The reason my son could not renounce his US-deemed US citizenship is because he did not have the requisite mental capacity to voluntarily, with understanding and no influence from anyone, do so. And a parent, a guardian or a trustee could not do so on such a person’s behalf.
For any of us who have renounced we had to (as below) demonstrate to a consular officer that we were acting voluntarily, without undue influence from anyone, and that we fully understood the implications/consequences attendant to the renunciation of U.S. citizenship.
https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal-considerations/us-citizenship-laws-policies/renunciation-of-citizenship.html
************
It appears a very difficult situation for Helen. A more likely avenue would be the route to US citizenship as that of any other non-US citizen. (And, as I commented on the previous post to Helen, I would want to make sure of the special needs US *appropriate* placement that she could realistically obtain for her son by doing that important research from where they are right now. She may have that all in place and know how it will all be paid for. If not, from my experience in Canada (similar to the US), I wouldn’t expect it to be an easy process.)
Information on rights after expatriation: http://www.renouncecitizenship.ca/expatriation-process/rights-after-expatriation/.
I don’t know what Helen’s motives for renouncing were but she did say her reason for wanting her citizenship back is to get the education for her child that she believes is only available in the USA. Maybe instead of claiming duress when she renounced, Helen could simply say, in all honesty, she is anxious for the welfare of her American child (I presume born prior to renunciation) who most certainly has a right to live in the USA. Is there some sort of visa that would cover her during the months of the year her child is in school in the USA? Of course it’s possible she can’t afford to maintain her home in Slavakia while away. I too sympathize with Helen but it seems like a hard row to hoe to undo a renunciation.
An interesting aside: Hong Kong actually has a simple two-page form and procedure for “Restoration of Chinese Nationality” for those who renounced or otherwise forfeited their Chinese citizenship. On the HK Immigration website they report 3 or 4 people annually doing this. Even their renunciation procedure is fairly simple and straightforward. They’re not stupid.
@Norman,
I thought of Afroyim v. Rusk when I was writing the comment you referred to. But Afroyim dealt with the US govt depriving citizens of their citizenship against their will.
In theory, that’s a pretty good concept, I think. I didn’t (and don’t) want two citizenships, but if someone wants to be dual, I figure why not, it’s good they don’t have to automatically lose their citizenship.
I think the way in which Afroyim and the series of cases which followed it, leading to the 1990 reversal of the presumption regarding intent in loss of citizenship, has affected Brockers is by putting the burden of proof on the party claiming loss of citizenship. The determination of loss of citizenship is supposed to be made on a balance of probabilities, which to me is 50 percent plus 1 nanogram, but it seems DoS (acting as the other party and the decision-maker) sets it a lot higher than that.
“But Afroyim dealt with the US govt depriving citizens of their citizenship against their will.”
That’s what Afroyim wanted it to deal with, but collateral damage have ended up here on Brock.
I think that this is certainly a worthy topic for IBS.
It is unconscionable US extraterritorial citizenship-based taxation that created the situation. Anyone with a US citizen/taxableperson vulnerable family member/dependent/minor/person deemed legally incompetent is still and forever effectively bound to the US inextricably whether they themselves renounced or not. If one family member remains bound, so does the rest of the immediate family. A family is an economic unit. What harms one member or binds one member to the US, binds and harms them all.
If the child/dependent has US citizenship status, they have a RIGHT to live in the US, full stop. If they are not independent, then the parent/guardian is responsible to pursue their best interests. If it is in the best interests of the minor/dependent to live in the US, then they obviously can’t do it on their own.
The parent renounced under duress, as did several of us. There was and is really no other effective remedy or recourse which would provide relief from the stresses and expense and time wasted trying to satisfy the extraterritorial tax and information demands of the US, and this burden isn’t trivial. We all know how difficult this situation was and is – solely due to the actions and arrogance of the US in continuing to twin citizenship and taxation no matter how much it hurts us and no matter how much it twists our lives – which by now on the part of the US is clearly willful. There is no cake and eating it too on the part of this individual, but rather it is the US that is taking the cake. It asserts de facto ownership over those with US citizenship and asserts that it has the extraterritorial right to their assets and their obedience, but does not live up to any obligations to see to their wellbeing when they are outside its boundaries – it would penalize any ‘foreign’ non-US education or disability savings and benefits and would continue to cost the parent in stress, and money wasted on compliance with tax and forms. Yet, it also will not extend any US benefits to those in need outside its boundaries.
Hypocrisy and greedy cake eating is what US extraterritorial citizenship taxation is all about.
What the US has done and continues to do to those ‘abroad’ is unconscionable and a human rights violation. Why should we then sit in judgement regarding the actions of someone just trying to protect themselves and their family in the best way they can see fit to when faced with the continued recalcitrance and callousness and injustice created by US actions?
There are countries where one can give up one’s citizenship and then later reclaim it and have it reinstated, because those countries acknowledge that perhaps one might have a valid reason to renounce and then return. I can’t think of an example just now, but I know it has been discussed here before.
This dilemma would not exist if the child and parent in question were Canadians seeking to live in Canada after living abroad.
Well said, Badger. France would be one that has a fairly straightforward procedure for welcoming back those who renounced.
Might be easier/faster to get an green card/immigrant visa through family members then naturalize after 5 years.
http://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/us-immigration/how-long-sponsor-family-member-green-card.html
The disabled son cannot sponsor his mother until the son turns 21, and then there will be a 12 year wait. The mother thinks her disabled son will need her help sooner than that.
I was just wondering if one has US citizenship reinstated, if then taxes are due for the missing years. In this case- back taxes plus 20% late interest since 2014.
Pacifica777:
“I think the way in which Afroyim and the series of cases which followed it, leading to the 1990 reversal of the presumption regarding intent in loss of citizenship, has affected Brockers is by putting the burden of proof on the party claiming loss of citizenship.”
Yes, but…
Presumption of “no intent” fits those who exit US citizenship reluctantly and continue to feel that because they were born in America they should have the right to enter.
Presumption of “intent” fits those of us who exit willingly, and wish to be treated as non-US-citizens in every respect.
Two post-exit problems afflict both groups:
a) Unreasonable conditions and charges for USG confirmation of status;
b) Discriminatory barriers to entry as a NRA visitor.
“The determination of loss of citizenship is supposed to be made on a balance of probabilities, which to me is 50 percent plus 1 nanogram, but it seems DoS (acting as the other party and the decision-maker) sets it a lot higher than that.”
Yes. And it was the reversal of the presumption of intent that bestowed that power on the DoS – a non-neutral adjudicator which actively sets out to thwart the intent of the person wishing to exit.
Of course he did. He doesn’t want to be faced with having to send an appeal to Washington claiming that a US citizen was coerced into renouncing by the US Government.