porkedpie

For naturalization eligibility if married to a US citizen, only requires 3 years (summarized):
However, otherwise it generally requires 5 years.
It does not mention if the "type" of green card matters though. e.g. If I get an EB-1C which is obviously employment based, and have that for 3 years, would I then be eligible for naturalization by virtue of being married to a USC, even though my residence was employment based?
Or would it be required to be on an IR1?

S Folinsky

A story from when I was in practice. One of the young office staff had obtained her green card at age 20 derivative of her father’s status. She married an AmCit a year later. One day she moaned that she had wait for natz until she was 25 even though she was approaching her third anniversary. I made her very happy. (An office employee benefit was processing the N-400 sans attorney fee).

porkedpie

Great, thanks!
Somewhat confusing that there are different types in the first place. Other than conditional ones (which I would term something other than oxymoronic conditional permanent residence), why not just have a green card is a green card.

newacct

The way you got your green card doesn't matter for the 3-year rule. So based on this example, you would be eligible for naturalization under the 3-year rule (assuming that you have been married to your spouse for at least 3 years continuously, and your spouse has been a US citizen for at least 3 years, on the date you file the application).

S Folinsky

Abbreviated history lesson and avoiding a rant. The condition was added by the 1986 Immigration Marriage Fraud Amendments (aka IMFA). This was actually a minor piece of legislation signed into law four days after the extremely major IRCA legislation (please don’t ask). In my opinion, the implementation of IMFA is legally flawed, but that is another discussion.

We are operating under the Immigration & Nationality Act of 1952 as amended. The Act is a long and complicated law and the subsequent amendments have really made it even more complicated and sometimes internally self-contradictory (contributing to the continued employment of lawyers and judges, but I digress). There is a lot of baggage on the concept lawful permanent residence. So, apparently the contract concept of conditions was grafted onto the status.

The law of contract conditions is a major portion of the torture imposed on law students. But allow me to give an example of an implied condition which might give a flavor. Assume L leases a house to T for three years. There is an exchange of promises L to T for possession and T to L for payment of rent. The house catches fire and burns down n year two. So, L can no longer provide possession. That said does L continue to owe the promised cash payments?

So, the status is permanent, but not so permanent unless a future obligation is complied with. That is a condition.

tht

I became a LPR via EB1c after moving here as an L1a visa holder. I then married my wife a USC a couple of years later, so I was eligible under the 3 or 5 year option around the same time. My lawyer (who was working on a separate but related issue) advised me to go the 5 year route as less documentation would be required.

I was leaning that route anyway as I wanted the entire process to be based on my own merit as my plan predated my wife. To that same end I waited to get engaged until I had my green card in hand.

I think your are getting the “type” and underlying “source” of LPR confused. The “Category” on the front does translate to the source, so mine was: E18, but I don’t believe you have a different status based on that.

While I don’t think it’s related to how the LPR was obtained there is “commuter status” for LPR’s who live in Canada or Mexico and work in the US:

https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/...rt-b-chapter-4

Expatrian

That’s always been my understanding. My EB GC 5-yr date hit about the same time as my 3-yr marriage date to my USC wife, as did yours, but I went with the 5-yr eligibility for USC as, as you said, it is the simpler route.

OP: here’s the USCIS citizenship eligibility checker if you didn’t already come across it:

https://www.uscis.gov/citizenship-re...igibility-tool

tht

The USCIS Website guides you to online filing.

My advise as someone who filed online is to print out the paper form and collect and double check all the information:
https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/...orms/n-400.pdf

I followed the guidance on the USCIS site and the office Mr at the interviews still had to make changes to my form to the information.

S Folinsky

Actually it is more related than you might know. The Supreme Court case on the status is from 1974 entitled Saxbe v Bustos. It has a fairly lucid description of the law in general. (In the last 48 years there have been many changes, e.g. creation of Dept of Homeland Security and its assumption of powers formerly with Justice. But in general, it fairly describes the system).

PetrifiedExPat

I jumped at 3 vs 5 year, I wanted to share citizenship with my child asap, just in case. Just in case what? Who knows, and I didnt want to find out.

Expatrian

That makes a lot of sense if you had a reasonable amount of time difference between the two choices. But if it’s relatively close, the 5-yr option is the path of least resistance. 🙂

Rete

Is it really? What is so hard to prove that you are now and have been married to the same US Citizen for three years? A marriage certificate? A few pieces of evidence that you live together, i.e. child's birth certificate, rental lease, home ownership? Takes all of perhaps 1/2 a day to get everything together. Now if you told me that you were planing on divorcing in the near future, then I would say go the 5 year route. What's a 1/2 day to day when compared to waiting another 2 years?

If, however, you are already at the 5 year mark (minus 90 days), then there is no reason to go the 3 year married to a USC route.