Roberto and Rosalie immigrated to the United States in May 2013 through the petition of their only son Carlos, who is in the military, and who lives in North Carolina. They have a comfortable life in the Philippines owning several fish ponds and rice lands in Bataan. They did not really want to migrate, but Carlos was insistent, especially after the birth of his two (2) children in 2010 and 2011.
Roberto and Rosalie were at first excited living here, savoring the time spent with their grandchildren. But after a few months, the excitement and novelty of playing grandparents and baby-sitting started to wane. As fall came, both started complaining of body aches and longed to go back to the warm climate of the Philippines. Both started getting “cabin fever” and they missed their daily routine of inspecting their fishponds and being able to get out of the house whenever they wanted to. Here, they stay inside the house the whole day, and are only able to go out in the weekends when Carlos and/or his wife are available to drive for them. Roberto did not want to spend winter in North Carolina and went home after only 5 months of stay in the United States; Rosalie decided to follow later as she wanted to spend her first Christmas in the United States with her grandchildren.
Rosalie consulted with an attorney, who secured a re-entry permit for her which is valid for two (2) years. She went home in April 2014 and return within 1 year. A re-entry permit allows a permanent resident like Rosalie to be absent from the United States for more than 180 days and be allowed back in at anytime during the validity period of the re-entry permit, without losing permanent resident status. In the meantime, Roberto has been gone for more than 180 days, and without a re-entry permit, he is at risk of losing his permanent resident status unless he has a valid reason like a medical or business emergency which prevents him from returning to the United States.
Upon Roberto’s return, he will be inspected and checked by the Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) officers if he is deemed to be an “applicant for admission.” Section 101(a)(13)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as amended, lists down specific instances where a permanent resident/green card holder is considered to be “seeking admission,” despite possessing an unexpired green card: (i) Abandoned or relinquished status; (ii) Been outside the US for a continuous period of more than 180 days; (iii) Engaged in illegal activity outside the US; (iv) Left the US while in removal proceedings; (v) Committed any crime under INA 212(a)(2) involving moral turpitude, drugs, prostitution, etc.; or (vi) Is attempting to, or did return without inspection; or at a place not authorized.
If the CBP officer at the port of entry is unsure whether Roberto is an “applicant for admission,” Roberto will be asked to appear at a deferred inspection hearing at a USCIS district office. During said deferred inspection, Roberto has to prove he has not abandoned his status as permanent resident—for example, he has maintained a permanent residence in the United States (either owned or rented), maintained a bank account, filed income taxes, or have business or employment connections in the United States.
Plenty of green card holders, especially seniors and business owners, leave the United States for 6-9 months at a time, with only brief returns to the United States; or leave for more than 1 year without bothering to get re-entry permits. Others make frequent and several trips outside the United States totaling more than 180 days in a year, and then apply for naturalization. Like Roberto, these green card holders face possible issues of abandonment of permanent resident or green card status, and even removal/deportation.
Securing permanent resident or green card status is hard enough as it is, and this is further exacerbated by frequent visa regressions over the years. Thus, it is important for permanent residents to be aware of the requirements of the law in maintaining and protecting their status.
***
Atty. Aurora Vega is a partner in The Law Firm of Chua Tinsay and Vega (CTV) – a full service law firm with offices in San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego and Manila. The information presented in this article is for general information only and is not, nor intended to be, formal legal advice nor the formation of an attorney-client relationship. Call or e-mail CTV for an in-person or phone consultation to discuss your particular situation and/or how their services may be retained at (415) 495-8088; (619) 955-6277; [email protected].
