CHAWATHE

BIAJuly 1, 2010No. ID 3700Cited 43 times

Case Details

Status: Published
Procedural Posture: appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Outcome

The applicant's appeal was sustained. The Administrative Appeals Office overruled the director's denial and held that a publicly held corporation incorporated in the United States and trading exclusively on U.S. stock exchanges qualifies as an 'American firm or corporation' for naturalization residence preservation purposes under INA § 316(b).

Excerpt

CHAWATHE, 25 I&N Dec. 369 (AAO 2010) ID 3700 (PDF) (1) For purposes of establishing the requisite continuous residence in naturalization proceedings pursuant to section 316(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1427(b) (2006), a publicly held corporation may be deemed an "American firm or corporation" if the applicant establishes that the corporation is both incorporated in the United States and trades its stock exclusively on U.S. stock exchange markets. (2) When an applicant's employer is a publicly held corporation that is incorporated in the United States and trades its stock exclusively on U.S. stock markets, the applicant need not demonstrate the nationality of the corporation by establishing the nationality of those persons who own more than 51% of the stock of that firm. Matter of Warrach, 17 I&N Dec. 285, 286-87 (Reg. Comm'r 1979), clarified. (3) In most administrative immigration proceedings, the applicant must prove by a preponderance of evidence that he or she is eligible for the benefit sought. (4) Even if the director has some doubt as to the truth, if the petitioner submits relevant, probative, and credible evidence that leads the director to believe that the claim is "more likely than not" or "probably" true, the applicant has satisfied the standard of proof. Matter of E-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm'r 1989), followed. (5) If the director can articulate a material doubt, it is appropriate for the director to either request additional evidence or, if that doubt leads the director to believe that the claim is probably not true, deny the application or petition.

What This Ruling Means

**What Happened:** A worker named Chawathe applied for U.S. citizenship but faced a problem with the residency requirements. To become a citizen, you generally need to live continuously in the United States for a certain period. However, there's an exception for people who work abroad for American companies - their time overseas can still count toward the residency requirement. The immigration office initially denied Chawathe's application, ruling that ChevronTexaco Corporation didn't qualify as an "American company" for this purpose, even though the worker had been employed by them while overseas. **What the Court Decided:** The Administrative Appeals Office reversed the denial and ruled in Chawathe's favor. The court established that a large corporation can be considered an "American firm" for citizenship purposes if it meets two criteria: it must be incorporated (officially established) in the United States, and its stock must trade exclusively on U.S. stock exchanges. **Why This Matters for Workers:** This decision helps workers employed by major U.S. corporations who are sent to work overseas. If you work abroad for a qualifying American company, that time won't hurt your path to citizenship - it can still count toward your residency requirements, making naturalization more accessible for internationally mobile employees.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Similar Rulings

G-K

BIAJul 2013

G-K-, 26 I&N Dec. 88 (BIA 2013) ID 3776 (PDF) (1) The United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime, Nov. 15, 2000, 2225 U.N.T.S. 209 ("UNTOC"), which is intended to help protect witnesses of transnational organized crime from retaliation and intimidation, does not provide an independent basis for relief from removal in immigration proceedings. (2) The objectives of the UNTOC are advanced in the United States through existing immigration laws and regulations, including the S, T, and U nonimmigrant visas and the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted and opened for signature Dec. 10, 1984, G.A. Res. 39/46. 39 U.N. GAORSupp.No. 51, at 197,U.N.Doc.A/RES/39/708 (1984) (entered into force June 26, 1987 for the United States Apr. 18, 1988). (3) The Board of Immigration Appeals and the Immigration Judges do not have the authority to rule on the constitutionality of the statutes they administer and therefore lack jurisdiction to address a claimthat the statute barring relief for particularly serious crimes is void for vagueness.

Dismissed

Read Full Opinion More ChevronTexaco Corporation Rulings All Rulings

Browse Related

Other other employers

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

Check Your Rights Learn the Basics

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.