Arthur John Keefe (July 1976), “How to Expatriate Yourself on Ten Easy Grounds”, 62 American Bar Association Journal 925:
Most of you have never had a client step into your office seeking guidance on renouncing his United States citizenship. It has happened to me twice. I’m not suggesting that you bone up on the subject, although from 1945 to 1969 there were more than ninety-five thousand administrative determinations of voluntary abandonment of United States citizenship.
Yesterday, Fauzia Kasuri, a senior member of the Pakistani political party Movement for Justice (Tahrik-e Insaf), went to the U.S. Consulate General in Lahore to take the Oath of Renunciation of United States Citizenship. Unlike we ordinary renunciants — who depending on the consulate might get sent away without any proof at all that our renunciation is in progress — Kasuri got a signed letter from Consul Marc A. Snider (pictured at right) confirming her renunciation and even committing publicly to a timeline for issuing a Certificate of Loss of Nationality to her:
The oath of renunciation taken on the above date is the final act that Ms. Kasuri must take in the relinquishment process. The U.S. Consulate General has retained Ms. Kasuri’s passport and will forward the information from the renunciation to the Department of State in Washington, D.C. for final processing, which normally takes two to four weeks. Once complete, the Department of State will forward a copy of the final certificate to Ms. Kasuri for her records.
Anyone reading this managed to get a CLN in two weeks? It took Petros more than a year to get his, and while we’ve had reports that it’s taking somewhat less time these days, two to four weeks is certainly not the “normal” timeline — this is a flat-out lie by State to try to keep themselves from looking ridiculously slow. Clearly, the boys & girls in Mordor Washington are rushing Kasuri’s paperwork through the system; in a country which was allegedly founded on the premise that “all men are created equal”, politicians get special treatment while the rest of us have to wait … and wait … and wait …
I thought a translation of this old article would make an appropriate post for the tenth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq: singer-songwriter Lo Ta-yu, a naturalised U.S. citizen, renounced his U.S. citizenship in 2004 to protest a Congressional resolution calling on Taiwan to deploy troops in support of the U.S. occupation of Iraq. In contrast to the tiresome mainstream media portrayal of renunciants as “wealthy businesspeople fleeing the country”, Lo is a far more typical example of the type of person who gives up citizenship: someone who emigrated from U.S. to pursue opportunities elsewhere, and only many years later decided that he needed to take a clear stand to protest the U.S. government’s arrogant interference in the country where he chose to live.
Most of us here have little interest in going back to live in the U.S., but others who are considering giving up U.S. citizenship may be worried about whether they’ll be able to get back into the country in case their career takes them there in the future, or to care for aging relatives, or for any number of other reasons, either temporarily or permanently.
Though there are some cases which may show evidence of the USCIS trying to retaliate against renunciants when it comes to visas and treatment at the border, there are also many examples of ex-citizens both low-profile and high-profile who have managed to return to live in U.S., among them naturalised Japanese citizen Arudou Debito (the former David Aldwinckle, now an affiliate scholar at the East-West Center in Honolulu), Taiwan constitutional court judge Chen Be-yue (who renounced in 1996 and then got a green card in 2008 through her U.S.-born daughter, though she wisely cancelled it again the following year), and Fred Alger (who came back on an H-1B visa to rebuild Alger Asset Management after all its employees were killed in the WTC attacks).
A recent article in the Korea Times, a Korean diaspora newspaper published in North America, gives us many more examples of Korean Americans who gave up their U.S. citizenship to try their hand at politics in South Korea, then returned to the U.S. when things didn’t work out. I’ve translated it below.
Via Courthouse News, we learn of the story of Robert Darnbrough, a Canadian who renounced U.S. citizenship in 2003, and was later denied a Nexus border crossing card by U.S. Customs & Border Protection. Darnbrough filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the State Department in February 2011, which then released some documents to him in November that year. However, they did not deliver information contained in the Consular Lookout and Support System (CLASS), claiming that 8 USC 1202(f) (confidential nature of records) allowed them to withhold it under FOIA Exemption #3.
Darnbrough filed suit against the Department of State in October 2012 to force the release of the records. Judge Emmet G. Sullivan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled in his favour on Wednesday, stating that “that government cannot rely on Section 1202(f) to withhold information that was not gathered, used, nor is being used to determine an actual past or pending visa application”. There seem to be two pieces of information in CLASS about Darnbrough: some biographical data, and comments about his renunciation and the reason for his Nexus card denial.
If Darnbrough chooses to make public the reasons for that denial, we could learn whether it was related to his renunciation. However, Darnbrough doesn’t seem to be seeking public attention, either back in 2003 when he renounced, or now. I highly doubt he’s a covered expatriate either; he apparently works as an insurance agent in Sasketchewan. Nevertheless he’s in the Federal Register list for Q1 2005, two years after his renunciation. This fits the pattern observed earlier: the Federal Register has a near-perfect record for publishing names of ex-Americans before 2006 — no matter whether they’re rich or poor, public or private — but a far worse record afterwards.
Update, 9 June 2014: yesterday I stumbled across a paper from Joel Paget of Ryan, Swanson & Cleveland PLLC, apparently the lawyer who represented Mr. Darnbrough in this case. It was written in September 2012, before the above ruling, but I reproduce the relevant portion here anyway, as it may be of particular interest to people in Vancouver:
Since the enactment of this provision [i.e. the Reed Amendment] in 1996 there have been no implementing regulations. In checking with other immigration attorneys around the U.S. who practice in the citizenship and taxation area there have been only two reported cases where there has been enforcement of the provision by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Service. Both cases were in Vancouver, B.C. The reason there has been little enforcement is the inability of the government agencies to agree on how it should be enforced. One of the overriding concerns is over the privacy of U.S. tax files. Nevertheless, the law is still there. A person who is renouncing should be able to explain the reasons for renouncing, assuming they are not related to tax-avoidance.
The first reported case of denial of entry was at the Vancouver, B.C. International Airport by the USCBP. The refusal to allow entry was based on the person having renounced his U.S. citizenship for tax reasons. Because the renunciation was made before Section 212(a)(10()E) was enacted in 1996, the USCBP reversed its position after being presented a legal brief by the person’s attorney.
The second reported case is one I am currently litigating in the Federal District Court in the District of Columbia. The person was denied a NEXUS card at the downtown Vancouver, B.C. office of NEXUS on the basis that he had renounced his U.S. citizenship. The expatriation was after Section 212(a)(10)(E) was enacted in 1996. The USCBP placed information in his file that appears in the Lookout Book used by the U.S. Department of State and the USCBP. He was subsequently denied entry into the U.S. The Department of State refused to release any documents until the lawsuit was filed. The DOS has released a copy of his whole file, except for the information provided by the USCBP from his NEXUS interview. A Motion for Summary Judgment has been filed and we are waiting for the judge to rule on the motion.
While these two cases are local to the Vancouver, B.C. airport and Vancouver, B.C. NEXUS office, the viewpoint of these officers who are from different divisions within the USCBP may infect other USCBP Ports of Entry with their viewpoint. All the USCBP offices share the same Lookout Book. The information that on e officer puts into a person’s computer file stays there for everyone in Department of State and USCBP systems to read until that officer or the supervisor removes it.
Since Timothy Geithner is, as usual, breaking the law with regards to his obligation to publish the names of all persons losing U.S. citizenship within the meaning of Section 877(a) or 877A by 30 days after the end of the quarter, friends of Isaac Brock who are interested in the number of U.S. Persons abroad cutting off the Homeland’s yoke have to look to other sources of data.
As I discovered recently, the U.S.’ Federal Bureau of Investigation publishes a periodic report entitled “Active Records in the NICS Index”. It breaks down the numbers of different types of records in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (“NICS”) on persons who are disallowed from purchasing firearms under the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993. One of the types of records: persons who renounced (but not relinquished) U.S. citizenship.
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.
If you have a non-U.S. travel document with a U.S. birthplace, you may face trouble entering U.S. territory unless you can demonstrate that you’re no longer a U.S. citizen. But the State Department might take more than a year from the time of your final visit to the consulate to give you a CLN. Worse yet, there’s always the possibility that they’ll find some legally dubious reason to “reject” your renunciation. So would-be former U.S. Persons could be stuck for a long period as “Schrödinger citizens” — neither citizens nor non-citizens, with no proof whatsoever of your status.
Which leads to the question: what if you need to go to the U.S. while you’re stuck in this limbo? Eido Inoue, who comments here on occasion, just wrote a post about this very topic:
For Americans, there is a time when you apply for relinquishment of your U.S. citizenship and you send your U.S. passport to the State Department for processing. However, as you as still technically a U.S. citizen until the U.S. State Department has issued you a CLN (Certificate of Loss of Nationality), you are issued a letter from the embassy explaining that you are in the process and your U.S. passport is in possession of the State Department. This letter is solely for travel to the United States, and America requires those who are U.S. nationals to use their U.S. passport when travelling to/from the United States, regardless of what other passports or nationalities you may possess.
Just a brief snippet of information I came across today: immigration lawyer Moon Sang-il said in a blog post on Monday (link in Korean) that the average time for renunciation of U.S. citizenship in Seoul is two to four months. His statement was in response to a question from an anonymous reader who just had his/her first appointment at the embassy. Presumably he means four months from first appointment to renunciation, rather than from first appointment to receipt of CLN. Still, that’s much faster than what’s been reported for some other countries.
This would roughly match the timeline which New Frontier Party political organiser (and former Southern California Korean American community leader) Chris Nam faced: he started the procedure to give up his U.S. citizenship in July 2011, and actually swore the oath of renunciation in September. I’m not sure when exactly he got his CLN, but the Federal Register only got around to publishing his name in last quarter’s suspiciously small list — almost a year after he set the process in motion.
This just popped up on Google: Bill Hinchberger, an American journalist living in France, is looking for people like us. You can view the details in his post on LinkedIn, even if you don’t have an account there. Update: as pointed out below by swisspinoy, the question seems to have disappeared from LinkedIn. Instead if you want further details, please refer to this post on the American Citizens Abroad Facebook page. Update 2: Now his LinkedIn post is back again.
Mr. Hinchberger’s website hasn’t been updated in a while, so I’m not sure if the email listed there is still valid, but you can contact him through his LinkedIn page, Twitter (@hinchberger), or Facebook.
