Can a US bank disallow a lawful permanent US resident from opening an account? Can a US bank disallow a lawful permanent US resident (LPR) from opening an account? Definition of lawful permanent US resident: Lawful permanent residents (LPRs), also known as “green card” holders, are non-citizens who are lawfully authorized to live permanently within the United States.
FDIC Regulation 500 prohibits discrimination in making loans on the basis of "National origin" but not on the basis of immigration status. This story from The Nation says that Bank of America is denying accounts to non-citizens, and arguing that it is legal because of increased risks, although there are current court challenges to this. Perez v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A is a case now pending challenging loan denials based on immigration status. This has particularly come up in regard to DACA recipients, rather than people with LPR status. The US "public accommodation" laws probably do not apply, as a bank is not usually considered a place of public accommodation. Any specific state laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of immigration status might apply. In short, this is an issue still not clearly settled. There seems to be no law or regulation requiring banks to ask for citizenship information, much less to deny accounts based on it, and it would be well to seek a bank with a different policy if possible. The above is very US-specific. Many countries do limit banking access based on citizenship, i understand. I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. Before challenging any bank action, you may well wish to seek advice from a lawyer.
According to USCIS Adjudicator's Field Manual chapter 40.9.2(b)(1)(C)(ii) (on page 73-74 of this PDF), it seems that unlawful presence began to accrue when your 2-year green card expired: The alien begins to accrue unlawful presence as of the date of the second anniversary of the alien’s lawful admission for permanent residence. See id . Also, failure to appear for the personal interview that may be required by USCIS in relation to the Form I-751 or I-829 petition results in the automatic termination of the conditional legal permanent resident status, unless the parties establish good cause for the failure to appear. In chapter 40.9.2(b)(1)(C)(iii) (on page 74), it says that if you make a late filing of Removal of Conditions and it is approved, you are deemed to not have accrued unlawful presence, but if it is denied, you are still considered to have accrued unlawful presence from the expiration of your 2 years. If the late filed petition is accepted and approved, no unlawful presence time will be deemed to have accrued. [...] If, however, the late filing is rejected, the alien begins to accrue unlawful presence time on the date his or her status as a conditional resident automatically terminated.
canadacriminal-law In Canada, this is called &quot;in-dock&quot; identification and, while not prohibited, it is recognized to have very little probative value. It has &quot;particular frailties over and above the normal frailties attaching to identification evidence&quot; and &quot;adds little&quot; (R. v. Izzard (1990), 54 CCC (3d) 252, pp. 255-56 (Ont C.A.); R. v. F.A. (2004), 183 CCC (3d) 518, para. 47 (Ont. C.A.)).
The Supreme Court rules in US v. Wong Kim Ark ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment, which states All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside It is not disputed that said areas are &quot;in the United States&quot;. The court found that &quot;subject to the jurisdiction thereof&quot; is intended to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the national government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases,—children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation, and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign state neither of which are the case in your scenario. Technically, the child is not &quot;eligible&quot; for citizenship, the child has US citizenship, it is just a matter of getting a government official to recognize it (e.g. in issuing a passport).
@DaleM isn't wrong, but some elaboration is in order. You (almost always) gain your citizenship (or nationality) in the first instance, at birth, without the agreement or assent of you or your parents. It is thrust upon you. Usually, your country of citizenship must consent to end your citizenship (or authorize you to do so unilaterally) under that country's laws. Once you have citizenship or nationality, in practice, in most countries, you can generally only renounce your citizenship if you contemporaneously or already have a citizenship somewhere else. You are at a minimum strongly dissuaded from doing so and are not a sympathetic candidate for relief under laws related to statelessness if you willfully put yourself in this position knowing the consequences. This is a feature of the citizenship laws of most countries in order to implement international treaties designed to prevent statelessness which are widely adopted. When an adult is naturalized as a citizen of a new country, usually, their old citizenship is revoked by operation of law under the laws of their old country. In many countries, including the U.S., there are high fees and tax consequences for renouncing your citizenship. Any potential tax liabilities in the future that were not yet due under U.S. law (e.g. capital gains taxes an appreciated assets not yet sold, and estate taxes that would be due if the person renouncing their citizenship had died on that date) are owed immediately upon applying to renounce your citizenship. A stateless person is, subject to quite narrow exceptions, still subject to all of the laws of the place where they are located, including almost all of its criminal laws (except treason) and its tax laws (at least on income earned in that country). A stateless person lacks many rights. They can't travel internationally (there are exceptions under treaty in some cases, but obtaining those rights is cumbersome at a minimum). They can't vote. They typically aren't entitled to domestic welfare state benefits like national health insurance, disability payments, unemployment benefits, subsidized housing, old age or retirement benefits, etc. They can't work in a licensed or regulated profession. They may not even be able to sign a lease. They may not be allowed to own a company or serve as an officer or director of a company or as a trustee of a trust. They aren't entitled to diplomatic assistance. There are many fraudulent legal movements such as the &quot;sovereign citizen movement&quot; (and the Moorish Sovereign Citizens) that assert that citizenship is voluntary and that just by disavowing it in some official feeling way, they can be exempt from taxes, court jurisdiction, and/or other laws. This is false and people who act on this fraudulent misinformation often suffer serious legal consequences as a result.
All new residents with out-of-state non-commercial driver's licenses must obtain a PA Driver's License within 60 days of establishing Pennsylvania residency. All new residents are required to make application for Pennsylvania title and registration of their vehicle(s) within 20 days of establishing residency in Pennsylvania. When you get pulled over, the cop is going to look at your license and ask, "Is this your current address?" If you are working in PA during the day, and sleep in PA at night, you do not live in NJ with your parents. EDIT TO ADD: To be clear on this "new resident" status 61 PA Code § 101.1 "defines resident individual as An individual who is domiciled in this Commonwealth..." plus some exceptions that do not matter in this instance because OP is going to rent an apartment in PA. Domicile is defined in the same section as "The place which an individual intends to be his permanent home and to which he intends to return whenever he may be absent." Title 61 is the Revenue Title. So for tax purposes, you must have an abode and you must have intentions. The Education Title (22) defines Domicile : Domicile is the place where one intends to and does, in fact, permanently reside. So for education purposes you must have intentions and your abode must be permanent. Having a drivers license is one form of proof of residency so presumably the driver's license residency requirement follows the Revenue definition! Title 22 requires you to prove permanence, and 12 months residence prior to registration as a student is one factor. Oh, and Title 61 explicit tells us that you can be a resident for tax purposes but not for residency purposes.
The Code defines "Source of income" as: lawful, verifiable income paid directly to a tenant or paid to a representative of a tenant. There's nothing to suggest that the occupation is a relevant consideration otherwise. What it would mean is that if the occupation of a person is relevant to their source of income, it would be illegal to discriminate on that basis. I would consider occupation distinct from source of income - I could (but don't) have a family trust that is my source of income, and my occupation is volunteer work. My occupation is very clearly not my source of income.
There is a form here which you submit to USCIS – immigrated not before 1906, not for a living person. However, to apply for citizenship, one must have been a permanent resident for 5 years, so given the date on the card (and assuming your father did not marry a US citizen), he could not have been naturalized before departure in 1959.