hungryhorace

Hi all.

Had an interesting chat with my neigbour last night. He's a Brit who has come over (read: abused) on the VWP with his USC wife and daughter to relocate here.

A month ago he was telling me how one could drive for a year on our UK licences, despite us both 'living' here. I informed him that we absolutely couldn't, hence me obtaining my MA licence as soon as possible. I spoke to him last night and it turns out he was in a RTC where the State police were called. They informed him that as he is now a resident in MA he should not be driving on his UK licence. He didn't want to go too much into what charges he was facing, but i'm guessing operating without a licence and no insurance.

He spent 10 minutes last night tell me he wasn't a resident here. I gently pointed out submitting his AOS papers kinda implies otherwise, as well as the fact he is living with his USC wife and child.

He complained he wasn't able to obtain a MA driving licence previously as he didn't have an SSN. I informed him that was because he came over on the wrong entry document (ie, VWP instead of the CR-1) so why should he expect to have a right to drive when he's clearly not abiding by the rules.

He has apparently now submitted his AOS package which has allowed him to obtain a SSN.

So my question is this, how do the courts define 'resident'? For me, I defined myself as resident the moment I signed a lease for an apartment. This guy thinks he cannot be a 'resident' until he has successfully received his LPR status.

Personally, I think he hasn't got a flying clue about the right thing to do and has deliberately set out at all points to game the system. I'm glad he's got caught.

I've quoted the rules from MGL below in case any legal eagles could see a way he would be able to drive on his UK licence over 30 days (he did NOT obtain a temporary permit as noted above which would have allowed him to drive on his UK licence for 60 days).

markonline1

This is how CA DMV classifies it

"Resident" means any person who manifests an intent to live or be located in this state on more than a temporary or transient basis. Presence in the state for six months or more in any 12-month period gives rise to a rebuttable presumption of residency.

The following are evidence of residency for purposes of vehicle registration:

(a) Address where registered to vote.

(b) Location of employment or place of business.

(c) Payment of resident tuition at a public institution of higher education.

(d) Attendance of dependents at a primary or secondary school.

(e) Filing a homeowner's property tax exemption.

(f) Renting or leasing a home for use as a residence.

(g) Declaration of residency to obtain a license or any other privilege or benefit not ordinarily extended to a nonresident.

(h) Possession of a California driver's license.

(i) Other acts, occurrences, or events that indicate presence in the state is more than temporary or transient."


Applying for AOS would have you falling under (i)

hungryhorace

I suspect the MA RMV would define it similar, though finding their rules on this is nigh impossible.

Thanks for the information.

AZ_Alba

Judging by AZ I think part of the issue here is the difference between legal and non-legal resident. He is an illegal resident so the UK license probably does cover him however until he becomes a legal resident when he can get an MA license. Until then he is unlicensed and hence uninsured.

hungryhorace

He's not an illegal resident IF he filed his AOS package before 90 days remember. Though, i'm unaware if he did that or not. Maybe I'll ask next time I see him

Sally Redux

Friends we know who are dual citizens told us there's no problem with having income in both countries as they don't know about eachother.

hungryhorace

This is probably a reply to another thread..?

Sally Redux

Sorry I was just thinking that loads of people here do stuff wrongly - not really worth worrying about.

hungryhorace

Oh, right. Well, I take your point. Though it doesn't forgive him for essentially driving without insurance or a valid licence here. What if he crashed into you and killed your daughter? How would you feel then?

Sally Redux

I wasn't having a go at you, I think it's wrong too.

sir_eccles

Ask the DMV, IRS and USCIS and "resident" has more than three answers.

hungryhorace

Agreed. However, surely only the MA state governments definition is relevant in this specific case? A shame they appear not to list it anywhere :/

Steve_

There is no generally accepted term of "resident", different laws define it differently. For example if you are an LPR you are resident for tax purposes. Otherwise you are resident for tax purposes if your intent is to be resident or you meet the "substantial presence test". But then again you might not be resident if you make a claim under a tax treaty.

DL laws define it differently from State to State, some say 30 days, some say 60 days, some have exemptions e.g. for students from out-of-State although some limit that to US residents only.

Mass. in particular has extremely complex State laws on a variety of things, DLs being one of them.

Usually there is an element of intent, clearly he has intent to be a resident, he wouldn't be able to coherently argue otherwise in court.

Plus if he entered on the VWP and has filed for AOS in the first 60 days, he could be held to have misrepresented his intent in order to gain an immigration benefit under INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i) .

AZ_Alba

While he is adjusting status, he is in a kind of limbo. I think the 90 day rule applies more to the K-1 visa in which you have 90 after the wedding to file the AOS paperwork to stay legal. Did he entered and married "on the spur of the moment" under the VWP or was he already when entered. In either case may essentially be in the limbo between visitor and LPR would still be a non-immigrant. I think that this one of the areas that a lawyer would love.
Did he overstay his VWP or lie about his intent to immigration officer? If so he could be in a bucket of shit as the traffic case could complicate matters further.

hungryhorace

I can't say he deliberately lied to the CBP officer at the POE as I don't know what question(s) he was asked, but I do know that he absolutely came over on the VWP with the intention of living here permanently after re-gaining his green card that he gave up many years ago.

I don't think he realises how much shit this traffic episode could cause for him.