←back to thread

I'm Peter Roberts, immigration attorney, who does work for YC and startups. AMA

199 points proberts | 3 comments | 16 May 25 15:05 UTC | HN request time: 2.507s | source

I'll be here for the next 5-6 hours. As usual, there are countless topics given the rapidly changing immigration landscape and I'll be guided by whatever you're concerned with. Please remember that I can't provide legal advice on specific cases because I won't have access to all the facts. Please stick to a factual discussion in your questions and I'll try to do the same in my answers.

Edit: I am taking a break now and will return later this afternoon/evening to respond to any comments and answer any questions. Thank you everyone for a great and engaged AMA so far.

Show context
noodlesUK ◴[16 May 25 15:46 UTC] No.44006833[source]▶
Thanks for doing the AMA!

I'm a US citizen born abroad - I got my citizenship via (I believe) INA 320 when I was a child. I have a US-born father who was not eligible to pass on his citizenship at the time of my birth. I lived in the US for most of my childhood up until ~2015 (initially as an LPR), and at some point, I obtained a US passport.

I don't have a certificate of citizenship, only a US passport. Given the way the US is going, I'm concerned that one day I'm going to apply renew my passport or otherwise have to prove my citizenship, and I'm not going to be able to sufficiently document it. Is this a real risk? Would you advise applying for a CoC in my circumstances? Am I even eligible to apply for one given that I live abroad? What other steps if any should I take to protect my status?

replies(3): >>44007354 #>>44007811 #>>44010525 #
proberts ◴[16 May 25 16:31 UTC] No.44007354[source]▶
You still can apply for a Certificate of Citizenship but there's a cost associated with it and I really don't think it's necessary or even advisable because you are now giving the government a chance to reassess its previous approval. A U.S. passport is always considered sufficient evidence of U.S. citizenship.
replies(1): >>44007444 #
1. noodlesUK ◴[16 May 25 16:41 UTC] No.44007444[source]▶
Thanks. I guess that’s a valid point - why invite unnecessary scrutiny.
replies(2): >>44007997 #>>44009523 #
2. johnisgood ◴[16 May 25 17:37 UTC] No.44007997[source]▶
This is a really good advice, actually.
3. Terr_ ◴[16 May 25 20:27 UTC] No.44009523[source]▶
Especially since the current administration seems to be, er, indiscriminately grasping at low-hanging fruit make some kind of unofficial quota.

If good documentation and good behavior won't protect you, then that leaves trying to avoid being in the front page of search results.