S Folinsky

Ian:

Of course you are entitled to your opinion. I did not say you were not. There are often opinions here that I do NOT bother to comment on even if I should disagree.

That said, there are times where the issues are complicated -- there is uncertainty and the decision tree can be convoluted. I was not "cryptic" at all -- I said the issues were complicated, suitable for legal advice and provided the two lead cases [which every time I read them, I learn something new].

OP posed some quite good questions. And she is entitled to good answers.

ian-mstm

Not in so many words, no... but then again, you never do.


I agree... perhaps you should actually give some.

You wrote: "OP has posed extremely sophisticated questions" but you don't mention which ones or why. Then you say, "The two lead cases are Matter of Kane and Matter of Huang" without commenting how they're relevant to the OP's situation. You suggest that there are "knowledgable immigration attorneys on the border who probably are up on these issues" but you never actually say what those issues are. The OP, and many of us, are left to guess what you're actually trying to say... because you never actually say it. And you don't think such responses are cryptic? The mind boggles.

And then there's this: "these issues are sophisticated and are NOT really subject to lay opinions." which, in an instant, negates everything that has been said to the OP except for the comments you've made. You disrespect the entire community here by suggesting, whether you realize it or not, that "lay opinions" are useless.

News flash: This isn't a community of lawyers. Every opinion here is a lay opinion! Perhaps you'd be kind enough not to rub everyone's face in it so often and with such disdain.

Stuart - you and I go back a long time, and this has been a source of irritation for many of us for many years. I'm not sure what's happened, but recently you've become more militant in your opinion of us "lay" people. I'm not sure you intend this or not - I hope not, but that is how many of your recent posts have been received. Alas, it seems that I'm the one to take you to task on it - although several PM's that I received recently suggest that others wish they could have done it, but am glad that it was me! Apparently, no one else cares if I get into trouble for saying all this!

--------------

deltadeliquent - I apologize for using your thread to rant - but, having now done that, I return you to your regularly scheduled forum.

Ian

S Folinsky

An interesting organization to take a look at is Nolo.Com formerly Nolo Press.

They are one of the pioneers in the legal DIY movement. Their stated purpose is to "reduce" the need for lawyers. Not eliminate, reduce. Most of their books and guides contain warnings at certain points along the lines that the issue is no longer appropriate for DIY and one should obtain legal advice.

I approve of this and do not consider it disrespectful in any way.

deltadeliquent

This is from a PDF on the subject published online by attorneys in Bellevue and Portland:

"Alien commuter status is available to residents of “foreign contiguous territories” sharing a common boundary with the United States. Accordingly, it is limited to residents of Canada and Mexico.
The regulations provide that the person may “commence or continue to reside” in either of those countries. Accordingly, the person can be any of the following:
• A Canadian or Mexican citizen or national,
• A Canadian landed immigrant,
• A third country national who has lived in Canada or Mexico, or
• Anyone who will move to Canada or Mexico.
However, the person must commute from Canada or Mexico and not from a third country that is not contiguous to the United States."

So it looks like it's possible. We just need to figure out how to get one....
Then DH can go to Seattle instead of London. I won't be so jealous!

Do you guys realize that the Vancouver area gets twice as much rain as London?
(Why am I here?)

S Folinsky

I'm glad to have pointed you in the right direction. Having lived and worked in Los Angeles my entire professional life, I've actually never seen a "commuter" LPR or have had occasion to handle one. That said, I have done some work in the related area of "abandonment" [which is why I gave you Kane and Huang].

I do know that "border issues" are somewhat unique and that is why I recommended consultation with attorneys on the border. I think the world of Cascadia Cross Border Law. I have found Greg Boos to be helful over the years when I would have a question. I am honored to consider Margaret Stock as a good friend.

Good luck.

deltadeliquent

Thanks! I'll look into Cascadia.

Cheers.

Steve_

Okay first of all that's not actually possible for a long period of time, if he's working for a UK subsidiary in the US then he has to be on a US payroll eventually because he's physically in the US doing the work, as he sounds like his tax home is in Canada then the US-Canada tax treaty applies, which means the $10,000/183 day rule applies. Basically it boils down to, if you're in the US more than 183 days, you have to be on a US payroll. But in any event he would have to be on a Canadian payroll otherwise which I assume the UK company does not have - so he has to be on a US payroll.

I suppose he could be on a UK payroll but he resides in Canada... hmm... you have a complex tax problem here as he sounds like he's on a UK payroll already but is non-resident but will work in the US. So basically he would have to do three tax returns and claim foreign tax credits for two countries potentially.

Yes, because he's physically performing work in the US and in any event it sounds as though he has to be on a US payroll as well, so for that to happen he has to get an SSN and to get that he has to be work authorized.

Work authorization, usual thing would be L-1B or L-1A as an intra-company transferee, but that assumes he works for them currently.

Not via a spouse filing on I-130 because you don't live in the US. Commuter green cards are essentially via an I-140 (i.e. employer-based filing) because you can't file. Which is a lot of hassle as he needs to qualify and this assumes the US subsidiary is a company that is willing to do it. Maintaining it for any length of time is quite tricky. I spoke directly to USCIS in Phoenix about commuter green cards and the guy I spoke to said he'd never come across one so they must be pretty rare. The tax situation is also rather complicated, because by definition you have immigrant intent so are a tax resident of the US but reside in Canada. The L-1 route makes more sense from a tax perspective.

Anyway I thought you said you hated living in BC, you never mentioned you were a US citizen before, if he's got to work in the US anyway, why not just move to the US? Two birds, one stone. There's no State income tax in Washington State so it's cheaper to live there too. If he's not working in Canada and all of his work is in the UK and the US and he's got a way of immigrating into the US there's really no point living in Canada, imo.

deltadeliquent

Steve, thanks for all of that.
He is already on contract with the UK portion of the US company.
We have contacted Cascadia and will be getting the scoop soon. It's just a possibility at this point, but DH would prefer working in Seattle.

As to moving to the US...
My husband is retired and is just doing some consulting work a week a month to keep current and to top up the pension pot. We did very seriously think about the US, the Four Corners area in particular. But at some point I remembered about the health care problem.
As retired people, not fully employed our research tells us we would be spending about 1000$ a month for health care we would still have to pay for in terms of deductibles and other out of pocket expenses. That's fine for now, whilst he is still working some, but at some point he wants to quit altogether. Then it will be a problem.
This led us to consider Canada. We wound up in BC because I used to live in Oregon and we thought it would be similar. Although I am Canadian neither of us have friends or family here. In fact until we moved here we had spent exactly 5 days north of the border...

Much of my previous problem was about where we landed and lived for the last two years. It's a long story and not a pretty one. We have now moved closer to civilization and I hope to be able to rebuild my life.
I do still so miss the UK, though.

Steve_

If it's just a day a week, then there is a special category for cross-border commuters called L-1 intermittent, essentially it's the same as L-1B but can be renewed indefinitely, provided you spend less than 183 days a year in the US. But to qualify he would have to be an "intra company transferee", the idea behind L-1 intermittent was for people who work say for GM in Windsor and have to work at the HQ in Detroit a day or two a week.

The slight snag is that it was really intended for Canadians and Mexicans, so in those cases you apply at the border, he can't do that because he's not Canadian, so he would have to go to the consulate and apply for it, once they've got the I-129 sorted.

To cut a long story short, based on similar threads we've had on here before, life gets easier once he's Canadian, so apply as soon as he is able.

Bear in mind a lot of people have never heard of L-1 intermittent, it's a pretty obscure category, but I have at least encountered people who've got it, unlike commuter green cards. Also from a tax standpoint it's a lot easier because he can remain a non-resident alien for tax purposes and only pays US taxes on his US-source income (i.e. income earned while physically in the US).

deltadeliquent

We're thunking a. 1 is what he wants. Since he is employed and paid by the UK camp any, but sometimes works in Seattle, which is the headquarters for the whole company.
Maybe it bpdepends how the UK part of the company is split from the US company, IOW if it's considered a seperate company or not.....
Cheers

Steve_

Thinking about it, it only takes 3 years to qualify for US citizenship through marriage which requires spending at least 183 days a year in the US. So you could just move to the US temporarily and spend the summers in Canada. He would still keep Canadian PR status while married to you regardless of how long you spend abroad.

deltadeliquent

Wow! Apologies for that terrible last post. How come the iPad thinks it knows what you want to say? Very sorry for the crazy spelling. I wasn't drinking, I assure you!

Anyway, he will be working only a week a month, not really enough to make a move viable.