Here is one last posting on the issue of re-entry permits. Here is the first entry and here is the second entry. The point of the postings has been that re-entry permits are not a guarantee of re-entry for a lawful permanent resident who has one but whose actions do not reflect an intent to maintain their status. The case is Moin v. Ashcroft, decided by the Fifth Circuit Court of Apeals in 2003.
Moin was a native of Pakistan who obtained her permanent residency in August, 1991 but who, two months later, returned to Pakistan. She did so at the urging of her parents to consider marriage proposals and to then get married. She intended to be out of the U.S. for only a few months but she was gone for almost one year. While in Pakistan, Moin married with the traditional wedding ceremony and related cultural events lasting for three months and she then had a child there. She returned to the U.S. in October, 1992, alone because her husband and child did not have a visa to come with her.
She promptly returned to Pakistant to be with her husband and very ill child who tragically died. She did not return to the U.S until November, 1994. She returned did return on her re-entry permit. She left again in February, 1995, at the urging of her husband, had another child and did not return to the U.S. until February, 1996.
When Moin lived in the U.S. she lived with her parents, had only a few personal items at their home, did not own any real estate in the United States and had no verified employment here. On the contrary, in Pakistan, Moin was joint owner with her husband of two shops and an apartment in Pakistan; owned a car there and her husband purchased a home there.
Finally, in May, 1996, Moin returned to the U.S. with her son, presented her green card in order to be admitted but was ultimately placed in removal proceedings on the grounds that she had abandoned her permanent residency.
The Immigration Judge ordered her removed and the Court of Appeals agreed. The Court held that the case depended on whether Moin’s trips to Pakistan really qualified as “temporary trips abroad” which it defined as a trip for a "relatively short" period, fixed by some early event; or a trip that will end when some event happens that has a reasonable possibility of happening within a relatively short period of time.
Moin said her trips were temporary—she was never gone for more than 2 years and she had a valid re-entry permit. But the court said that a reentry permit does not guarantee return if the permanent resident is found to be inadmissible because of abandonment.
Moin also said that she always really intended to reside permanently in the United States. But the Court said even if that was her “ultimate” intent, what counts was her intent to return to the United States within a relatively short period. Her desire to maintain her status was not the issue, her actions were.
Interestingly, the Court expressed sympathy of Moin’s predicament—her husband and child were unable to obtain visas and Moin’s unfortuante choice was not live apart from them or possibly lose here green card. Nonetheless, the Court dismissed her appeal and affirmed the
Order of Removal.
The case highlights the importance of re-entry permits—and their limitations. They are absolutely essential to have and yet they are limited in value under the wrong set of circumstances. They are not guarantees of entry if an permanent resident’s actions are not consistent with a true intent to maintain their permanent residency status. Maintaining that green card status during a lenghty trip abroad requires not only the re-entry permit but also requires taking other steps beginning on the very day one becomes a permanent resident and throughout to develop and retain sufficiet ties to the U.S.
