Восстановление добровольной потери (Afroyim/INA 349)

Примеры сценариев

• May resume citizenship under INA §324(a) = 8 USC §1435(a) by taking the oath — no residence or re-naturalization required.

  She lost citizenship solely by reason of marriage under the Expatriation Act 1907 §3 (Mackenzie v. Hare, 239 U.S. 299 (1915)). INA §324(a) = 8 USC §1435(a) provides oath-based resumption for exactly this marital-loss cohort; it is class-specific and does not require a residence period.

• Likely never lost U.S. citizenship for want of intent; the Department of State can recognize continuous citizenship — no §324 resumption needed.

  Under Afroyim v. Rusk (1967) and Vance v. Terrazas (1980), foreign naturalization expatriates only if voluntary AND done with specific intent to relinquish U.S. nationality, which the government must prove by a preponderance. Absent such intent, no loss occurred; DOS issues documentation recognizing he is a (dual) U.S. citizen throughout.

• No resumption or residency-based restoration is available; the only path back is to obtain LPR status and re-naturalize under INA §316.

  A formal renunciation under §349(a)(5) = 8 USC §1481(a)(5) is a deliberate, intent-laden expatriating act that validly severs U.S. nationality; §324 does not cover voluntary renunciants and there is no residency-based restoration (scoping §4.7). He must immigrate as an LPR and file Form N-400 under INA §316 = 8 USC §1427 like any other applicant.

• May reacquire under INA §324(d) = 8 USC §1435(d), the INTCA-1994 provision for the pre-1978 retention-loss cohort.

  His abroad-acquired citizenship was lost under a retention condition of the type upheld in Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971); that condition was prospectively repealed by Pub. L. 95-432 (1978), and INTCA 1994 (Pub. L. 103-416) added §324(d) to allow the already-lost retention cohort to reacquire — distinct from the 1978 repeal, which must not be merged with the 1994 restoration.

• If his loss fits the foreign-state-service class, he may resume under INA §324(c) = 8 USC §1435(c) by application and oath; otherwise, if the historical act lacked intent he may instead be recognized as never having lost nationality (Afroyim/Vance), and failing both he must re-naturalize under §316.

  INA §324(c) = 8 USC §1435(c) provides class-specific resumption for certain former citizens who lost nationality through foreign-state service. The threshold analytic step is to map the exact loss mechanism: §324(c) if the foreign-state-service class is met; an Afroyim v. Rusk (387 U.S. 253 (1967)) / Vance v. Terrazas (444 U.S. 252 (1980)) 'never-lost' recognition if the act lacked the requisite voluntary intent (government bears the preponderance burden); and §316 = 8 USC §1427 re-naturalization as the fallback. No residency-based restoration exists in any branch (scoping §4.7).