# Roger Ver: Reminder, Former Citizens Have No Right to Enter Their Former Countries



## BBCWatcher

Former U.S. citizen Roger Ver for the third time was denied a visa to visit the United States. He wanted to visit the U.S. to speak at a Bitcoin convention in Miami, but he missed the conference and spoke remotely.

See here, here, here, here, and here for examples of reports describing his story. Warning: he's not getting much sympathy.

Ver, nicknamed "Bitcoin Jesus," acquired citizenship in Saint Kitts and Nevis, one of the world's few outright purchasable citizenships, in late 2013. Saint Kitts and Nevis has no personal income tax. Then he renounced his U.S. citizenship in March, 2014. Due to the substantial wealth he accumulated (and with unrealized gains untaxed), he is a covered expatriate according the U.S. Internal Revenue Code. He owes (or owed) some amount of U.S. Expatriation Tax. He also continues to owe U.S. income tax on his U.S. source income. Unfortunately Bitcoin has lost about 60% of its value since March, 2014, so Ver's Expatriation Tax might have ended up with a high cost basis relative to his net worth today if he had/has, as seems likely, substantial Bitcoin and Bitcoin-correlated holdings. So he may have at least badly mistimed his expatriation.

The U.S. consulate in Barbados denied Ver's visa because he did not demonstrate sufficient binding ties to Saint Kitts and Nevis or to some other place where he has stable residence. That's a basic requirement for a U.S. visa. Without that demonstration a visa applicant is deemed to be at high risk of overstaying. It's proven quite difficult for Ver to demonstrate binding ties to some stable place of residence overseas. It probably doesn't help that the evidence he submitted (or tried to submit) included his interest in a "Borders are Imaginary Lines" t-shirt business in Japan. The U.S. government clearly doesn't agree with the t-shirt. The consulate never got to the question of whether Ver could be denied entry based on his expatriation for tax reasons, another provision in U.S. immigration law that remains largely untested. Ver now denies he expatriated for tax reasons, though again the U.S. government disagrees.

In addition to problems visiting the Bitcoin conference (and otherwise promoting his business interests and income), Ver cannot visit his family in the United States without a visa. All of his relatives live in the United States, including an ailing uncle. Ver also cannot transit the United States without a visa, making international travel to/from his new country of citizenship more difficult (but not impossible).

In 2002 Ver pleaded guilty to U.S. federal criminal charges involving his storing explosives in his apartment building (putting his neighbors in danger) and trading them on eBay from 1999 to 2000 (putting U.S. postal workers among others in danger). He served some time in federal prison and thereafter was subject to parole for a longer period of time. The U.S. consulate apparently did not get to the question of whether Ver's visa should be denied on the basis of his criminal record.

Ver claims his attorneys assured him he would qualify for U.S. visas. If so, he was badly advised. Absent a treaty (e.g. within the European Union), non-citizens (including former citizens) have no legal right to enter any foreign country. They are mere guests, subject to the varying whims of the governments considering their entry and ability to stay. This guest status is not unique to the United States.


----------



## Bevdeforges

Technically speaking, anyone who is deemed to have renounced their US citizenship "for tax reasons" (up to the government to determine, not your good self) may be denied any sort of visa to enter the US. (This includes a VWP/ESTA 90 day visit.)

However, I think Mr. Ver's case is perhaps a bit "obvious." Copping to the explosives charges kind of rules out his visa prospects under any circumstances. I suppose he's lucky they denied his entry solely based on the lack of binding ties. (Possibly chosen so that he doesn't have grounds for suing his hack lawyer, who should have known about the explosives rap.)

If the Darwin awards were available for those who committed non-lethal screw-ups, I think Mr. Ver might be a good candidate this year.
Cheers,
Bev


----------



## maz57

Roger Ver is a special kind of s--t disturber and in no way represents the more typical folks who lose their US citizenship. His criminal conviction will disqualify him for entry to most countries, so nothing unique in that respect. Most former US citizens travel freely to the US when ever they want but they actually permanently live somewhere else and have the homes, accounts, spouses, jobs, and family to prove it.

The Consulate took one look at his nebulous Saint Kitts residency and did their job. They never had to consider anything further. If the day ever comes when he meets the "binding ties" test they can move on to the other stuff. My guess is he will never be allowed entry; his conviction will seal the deal. I'm not sure if the US has a visa exception based on compassionate grounds (say a dying parent) and a bond is posted to guarantee exit before the specified time.

The tax question is not so cut and dried. It would be hard to argue that he expatriated for tax reasons if he paid and continues to pay tax on his US source income. (Or maybe he doesn't and has a large unpaid tax bill. He is at least subject to US tax and they have some serious leverage on him.) If he really wanted to evade tax he would have moved everything he owned out of the US before all this blew up in his face. Or maybe is he is nutty enough to never have even considered the tax implications of his actions.

The problem with enforcing the Reed amendment is that there is no provision in law which allows the IRS to share tax information with another US government department, in this case, State department. So State doesn't have the information they would need to make such a determination. A determination has to actually be made; the government can't just "think" he expatriated for tax reasons. There have been various proposals to fix this problem but none have been enacted to the best of my knowledge.

Roger Ver's troubles are entirely self-inflicted. The moral of the story: don't wake up the bear. The world needs guys like Ver and Snowden to bring the issues to light but they pay a terrible personal price. I wouldn't want to be either one of them.


----------



## RogerVer

For the record, the law states that I simply have to show ties outside of the USA, not necessarily the country I have citizenship in. I've lived in Japan for 9 years, and have a family and a business there. The US embassy for whatever ignorant reason refused to even look at my evidence of ties to Japan. 
In short, the embassy workers aren't even following their own rules. That's why I decided to complain to the media. 
Roger Ver


----------



## Nononymous

One has to be impressed with the SEO capabilities of the forum software.


----------



## BBCWatcher

Roger, do you have legal residency in Japan? I'm not talking about only a "gaijin card" -- those you can get without permission to stay.

If you do have legal residency in Japan, why didn't you apply for a B-1 (or B-1/B-2) visa at a U.S. consulate in Japan? By definition you weaken your demonstration of binding ties applying somewhere else in the world.

Did you submit your evidence of binding ties to Japan with your visa application proper or attempt to submit evidence after denial? The latter doesn't work and cannot be accepted.

Was the evidence you submitted (or tried to submit) evidence of your t-shirt business? Do you see how that evidence might have undermined your claim of binding ties?

What family do you have in Japan? Don't provide any personal details, but are you referring to your legal spouse? Child? Both? Neither?

When considering the 9 years you claim, were you physically present in Japan at least 50% of that time -- a total of at least 4.5 years?

Finally, have you fired the attorney or attorneys that gave you that advice?


----------



## BBCWatcher

maz57 said:


> The problem with enforcing the Reed amendment is that there is no provision in law which allows the IRS to share tax information with another US government department, in this case, State department. So State doesn't have the information they would need to make such a determination.


I don't buy that.

True, the State Department wouldn't/shouldn't have IRS input. But such information is not necessarily a prerequisite. For example, a former U.S. citizen could voluntarily declare, in a press interview, "I renounced U.S. citizenship to avoid taxes." There'd be no impediment to the State Department considering such evidence. If the accountant (probably former accountant) made a similar public statement, that'd be evidence, too.

Also, "covered expatriates" are now "deemed" to have renounced their U.S. citizenships for tax reasons. That's a recent (~2008) innovation since the Reed Amendment that may make the State Department's job easier. The State Department is not barred from asking, "Are you a 'covered expatriate' as defined in the U.S. Internal Revenue Code?" as far as I can tell.

Anyway, one can easily imagine circumstances when the State Department would have all the evidence it needs to make a Reed determination. Attorneys presumably advise their clients on how they might legally avoid revealing such evidence (or at least how to minimize it), but some clients don't take their attorneys' advice and some attorneys are incompetent.


----------



## BBCWatcher

I should elaborate a bit.

Were I to terminate a citizenship, I would have no expectation that my former country would do me any favors. Entry and stay permission are favors. All governments, including the U.S. government, have broad discretion to deny entry to foreigners. Loss of citizenship means loss of citizenship-associated rights and privileges, quite simply -- demotion to guest status or lower.

Thus the only reasonable, responsible advice anybody ought to be giving is that one should expect never to set foot ever again in the country that you "divorce." If it's not a "binding ties" visa problem then it could be something else, easily. In Roger's case for example, as I read the law, his criminal conviction and subsequent prison sentence are firm grounds for a visa denial since they were serious enough ("moral turpitude," etc.) See 8 U.S. Code § 1182 (a)(2). Sure, one could spend a fortune on attorneys trying to overcome a visa denial and/or a CBP denial of entry, but even if you have the money to spend and time to wait you cannot depend on a favorable outcome. Even then Congress and the President could simply change the law tomorrow and, for example, explicitly and completely bar all former citizens from entry. There is no Constitutional question at stake, and even the Constitution can be amended if there were.

If you get lucky and get to set foot in your former country, great, but one cannot depend on luck. Be prepared not to be lucky. I believe in agency, in competent adults having the ability to act competently and voluntarily, including the ability to make "mistakes." Termination of one's citizenship is an "eyes wide open" voluntary act. If you're not prepared for the consequences of that act, that's solely your problem, in my view.


----------



## maz57

BBCWatcher said:


> I don't buy that.
> 
> True, the State Department wouldn't/shouldn't have IRS input. But such information is not necessarily a prerequisite. For example, a former U.S. citizen could voluntarily declare, in a press interview, "I renounced U.S. citizenship to avoid taxes." There'd be no impediment to the State Department considering such evidence. If the accountant (probably former accountant) made a similar public statement, that'd be evidence, too.
> 
> Also, "covered expatriates" are now "deemed" to have renounced their U.S. citizenships for tax reasons. That's a recent (~2008) innovation since the Reed Amendment that may make the State Department's job easier. The State Department is not barred from asking, "Are you a 'covered expatriate' as defined in the U.S. Internal Revenue Code?" as far as I can tell.
> 
> Anyway, one can easily imagine circumstances when the State Department would have all the evidence it needs to make a Reed determination. Attorneys presumably advise their clients on how they might legally avoid revealing such evidence (or at least how to minimize it), but some clients don't take their attorneys' advice and some attorneys are incompetent.


Although the Reed amendment has been on the books for almost 20 years, it has never been used. There have certainly been many who have renounced for tax reasons in that time and would therefore be subject to Reed. The Reed enforcement problem was explained in an interview with a former high level IRS official that I read about a couple of years ago. For the life of me I can't remember the guy's name otherwise I'd Google it to confirm. There has to be a reason it has never been applied.

Because former US citizens are, by definition, no longer US taxpayers (assuming they have complied with all the Form 8854 requirements) some might argue that proves they expatriated for tax reasons (or that taxes were at least one of the reasons). The exit tax procedure makes it somewhat of a moot point because that's the opportunity for the IRS to finally "catch up" on deferred taxes if there are large unrealized gains. It actually makes more sense; at least the IRS gets some cash out of the deal. With Reed they would get nothing.


----------



## Bevdeforges

Not sure it was called the "Reed amendment" back then, but the basic legislation concerning "penalties" for renouncing US citizenship were passed back in 1996 or so. And at the time, it was up to the IRS to decide whether or not you had renounced "for tax reasons" - completely independent of anything you might have said or done, unless you filed a notification ahead of time that you were renouncing for certain, specified reasons (mostly things like taking the nationality of your spouse, reclaiming your birth or ancestral nationality based on long-term residence in the country, etc.).

It was that legislation, too, that stated that the Attorney General could deny a former US citizen any sort of visa (including a VWP) just on principle - although, as maz says, I don't think this has ever actually be invoked. (I'm sure the attorney general has more important things to do and the Immigration authority doesn't really have to have a reason to deny entry to anyone anyhow.)

Fine, when one renounces, they should be conscious of the possibility that they will "have trouble" visiting the States, or possibly may be barred at some point, potentially for some stupid reason well beyond their control. (Some politicos wanting to "make a point" about Immigration, perhaps?) Every time you cross a street, there's a chance you'll miss seeing a speeding car that could run you over, too. It's a risk you acknowledge and deal with. If you have an ailing father or other family members in need, maybe you put off your renunciation until the risk is past. But in the meantime, you don't poke the bear if you can help it. (BTW, any word on "progress" in Boris Johnson's situation? They evidently haven't hauled him off in cuffs, and if he has no assets in the US for them to seize, I suspect the matter may just drop.)
Cheers,
Bev


----------



## RogerVer

BBCWatcher said:


> Roger, do you have legal residency in Japan? I'm not talking about only a "gaijin card" -- those you can get without permission to stay.


Yes, I have special permanent residency. 



BBCWatcher said:


> If you do have legal residency in Japan, why didn't you apply for a B-1 (or B-1/B-2) visa at a U.S. consulate in Japan? By definition you weaken your demonstration of binding ties applying somewhere else in the world.


The Japan embassy had a 6 week long waiting time in Japan, so I first applied next door in South Korea where the wait time was only 3 days. After asking for more details about my criminal conviction, the US embassy in Seoul denied me on Oct 16th 2014 based on 212(a)2(A) claiming that I had committed a crime of moral turpitude. I knew this was a possibility in advance, so when my lawyer contacted them about filing the waiver request paperwork, they changed the denial to a 214(b) (immigrant intent) nearly two months later on Dec 12th. This was annoying since they had clearly moved the goal posts on me.



BBCWatcher said:


> Did you submit your evidence of binding ties to Japan with your visa application proper or attempt to submit evidence after denial? The latter doesn't work and cannot be accepted.


I tried to submit it before the denial, but they physically refused to allow me to even slide it through the window for their review. This is what made me so mad, and motivated me to complain to the media. (Claiming I hadn't shown any proof of ties outside the USA while physically refusing to look at the proof)



BBCWatcher said:


> Was the evidence you submitted (or tried to submit) evidence of your t-shirt business? Do you see how that evidence might have undermined your claim of binding ties?


I'm not sure how this rumor started. I don't own any t-shirt business. I am the CEO of MemoryDealers.com, an international IT hardware company, and I was the first person in the world to invest Bitcoin related startups. I only wore the t-shirt expressing my views after I had already been denied the first two times.



BBCWatcher said:


> What family do you have in Japan? Don't provide any personal details, but are you referring to your legal spouse? Child? Both? Neither?


I would like to keep my family details private, but I have a spouse. 



BBCWatcher said:


> When considering the 9 years you claim, were you physically present in Japan at least 50% of that time -- a total of at least 4.5 years?


Yes, home base has been Japan for 9 years, I've had a business there since 2006 and I've spent more time there than any other country.


BBCWatcher said:


> Finally, have you fired the attorney or attorneys that gave you that advice?


Actually I think the lawyer's advice has been fine. The US embassy workers are ignoring their own rules. This is what has me so mad.


----------



## BBCWatcher

Roger, thanks for what you did reply to. Welcome to this little forum here.

As I understand it, a decision on your waiver request (should the "binding ties" obstacle be overcome) is entirely discretionary. Nevertheless I wish you better luck in the future, and I'll be interested to follow your progress.


----------



## Bevdeforges

As long as you're responding to questions here, I'm curious as to what passport you are traveling on these days.

You mentioned that you hopped over to Korea to apply for your visa, yet normally, you are limited to applying to the consulate in the country in which you are resident. (I know Korea permits applications from anyone "legally present" there - but they mention in their FAQ that you are expected to show your "binding ties" to the country in which you applied for your visa, so they discourage shopping for shorter wait times like you appear to have done.) Apply for a U.S. Visa | Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) - South Korea (English)

The issue is, I guess, that even if you have a visa, that doesn't necessarily guarantee you entry into the US. Yes, it's arbitrary, but the Immigration agent at the port of entry can decide for any reason simply not to admit you. It has happened to many folks with lesser notoriety than yourself.

I'm not unsympathetic to your situation. But it's a known risk when going the renunciation route. I do hope you're able to find a solution you can live with.
Cheers,
Bev


----------



## RogerVer

I've been traveling on my St Kitts passport for the last year.
In that time I applied for and easily received visas to go to:
Australia, Russia, China, Macau, Mexico, Japan, Thailand, and I've traveled to about a dozen other visa free countries in that time as well.

In fact, I traveled for my work so much that I ran out of pages in my St Kitts passport in just the first 11 months.

The USA is the only country that is being difficult regarding a visa. 
Not even being able to change airplanes in the US is the biggest headache in my life. I don't care nearly as much if I am allowed to actually visit or not.


----------



## BBCWatcher

I think British Airways has two flights per week between St. Kitts and London Gatwick (not Heathrow, unfortunately), but otherwise it looks like nonstops to major airports are all in the United States. Last I checked Aeromexico has a nonstop from Tokyo to Mexico City, thence with some connections to Central and South America, but it doesn't run every day.

That big piece of real estate in North America is rather awkward to route around in that part of the world. Maybe a deal with NetJets or similar would make sense to bridge the gaps, e.g. Mexico City to St. Kitts. Or maybe there's a market for a Carribean-oriented airline that bypasses U.S. hubs and their international connection disadvantages. Havana, for example, might make an interesting new hub, ironically due to increasing U.S. travel liberalization.

Maybe there's some lemonaide to make out of this lemon.


----------



## maz57

Bevdeforges said:


> The issue is, I guess, that even if you have a visa, that doesn't necessarily guarantee you entry into the US. Yes, it's arbitrary, but the Immigration agent at the port of entry can decide for any reason simply not to admit you. It has happened to many folks with lesser notoriety than yourself
> Bev


Even being a US citizen doesn't guarantee entry. Once you are standing in front of him, rightly or wrongly, it is entirely up to the discretion of the individual officer. I came close to being refused entry while traveling on my US passport a few years ago. His stated concern was that I might choose to stay permanently or even work!!! Not sure if he didn't comprehend my status or if he was just having a very bad day.


----------



## BBCWatcher

No, you didn't come close to being refused entry. Coming close would have meant secondary screening, a long delay, a supervised march to a departing airliner, perhaps fastening your seatbelt in preparation for taxiing -- _that'd_ be coming close.

As a legal matter you have a guaranteed right of entry and right of abode in the United States.(*) The _operation_ of that legal right, as with any other legal right, is dependent on human beings who occasionally are a bit slow or even err. You still have those rights, and they are enforceable and practically universally respected, oddball temporary hiccups notwithstanding.

Roger Ver no longer has the rights you do. He doesn't even have the once-in-a-blue-moon opportunity for a CBP officer to take more than 45 seconds to admit him to the United States, and he may never have that opportunity. You and he are very different in your legal standing, and that's an important difference. Presumably Roger would be very happy to have what you have -- indeed, that's what he's seeking, to a degree -- though presumably without the other aspects of U.S. citizenship.

(*) Though you could be granted entry then immediately detained for an outstanding arrest warrant.


----------



## maz57

BBCWatcher said:


> No, you didn't come close to being refused entry. Coming close would have meant secondary screening, a long delay, a supervised march to a departing airliner, perhaps fastening your seatbelt in preparation for taxiing -- _that'd_ be coming close.
> 
> As a legal matter you have a guaranteed right of entry and right of abode in the United States.(*) The _operation_ of that legal right, as with any other legal right, is dependent on human beings who occasionally are a bit slow or even err. You still have those rights, and they are enforceable and practically universally respected, oddball temporary hiccups notwithstanding.
> 
> Roger Ver no longer has the rights you do. He doesn't even have the once-in-a-blue-moon opportunity for a CBP officer to take more than 45 seconds to admit him to the United States, and he may never have that opportunity. You and he are very different in your legal standing, and that's an important difference. Presumably Roger would be very happy to have what you have -- indeed, that's what he's seeking, to a degree -- though presumably without the other aspects of U.S. citizenship.
> 
> (*) Though you could be granted entry then immediately detained for an outstanding arrest warrant.


I made it as far as the long delay stage and that was close enough for me. The guy either didn't understand my right to enter or he didn't care and he wanted to toss some grief in my direction for whatever reason. I wasn't wearing a t-shirt with an objectionable slogan, either.


----------



## Bevdeforges

maz57 said:


> Even being a US citizen doesn't guarantee entry. Once you are standing in front of him, rightly or wrongly, it is entirely up to the discretion of the individual officer. I came close to being refused entry while traveling on my US passport a few years ago. His stated concern was that I might choose to stay permanently or even work!!! Not sure if he didn't comprehend my status or if he was just having a very bad day.


Sounds like someone was having a bad day because, from what I understand they actually do have to allow you in if you can "prove" that you are a US citizen. An acquaintance of mine fell afoul of the law saying you must use your US passport if you are entitled to one. He had never renewed his expired US passport, but for some reason had it with him. Showed that and was admitted on that rather than his "foreign" passport that was still valid. (Also got a stern warning about renewing his US passport.)

I'm always suspicious of the grilling I get from time to time when entering the US on my US passport. Only seems to happen if the agent "misses" the line on the entry card that asks where you permanent residence is (i.e. outside the US in my case) and he starts to ask me how long have I been away from the US. I suppose it's to cover his "mistake" or maybe to justify why I say I'm bringing $0 in goods purchased abroad with me.
Cheers,
Bev


----------

