The saving provision in 11 USC § 522(b) states, “If the effect
of the domiciliary requirement under subparagraph (A) is to
render the debtor ineligible for any exemption, the debtor may
elect to exempt property that is specified under subsection (d).”

There is conflict among the courts in cases in which the debtor
is unable to claim some, not all, of the state exemptions. Some
courts interpret "any" in the savings clause to mean "all." So,
these courts say, as long as debtor can claim any of the state
exemptions, the savings clause is not available. The Idaho
bankruptcy court in
In re Wilson, 2015 WL 1850919 (D. Idaho
2015), held that "so long as debtors can receive some
exemptions under the applicable state law (Colorado), there is
no reason for recourse" to the saving clause. Previously that
court held In
In re Harris, 2010 WL 2595294 (Bankr.D.Idaho
2010): "For this provision to allow a debtor to utilize the federal
exemptions, . . . the debtor must be ineligible for all state
exemptions . . .." And in
In re Katseanes, 2007 WL 2962637
(Bankr.D.Idaho 2007) the same court held that although the
nonresident debtors could not use Utah’s homestead
exemption, they could not claim the federal exemptions under
the saving provision because "any" in that provision requires
that all state exemptions be unavailable before the federal
exemptions can be used.

A Pennsylvania bankruptcy court also concluded that "any" in
the savings clause means "all."
In re Brooks, 393 B.R. 80
(Bankr.M.D.Pa.2008).(debtor who was not Maryland resident
could not use those state exemptions that were limited to
residents and could not use the federal exemptions under the
saving provision in 11 U.S.C. § 522(b)(3)(C) which applies only
when none, not some, of the state exemptions are available to
the nonresident debtor).

However, other courts have allowed use of the savings
provision when some of the state exemptions are not available.
The Florida court in
In re Kelsey, 477 B.R. 870 (M.D. Florida,
2012) allowed a debtor to claim the federal homestead
exemption in lieu of the Colorado homestead exemption, which
was limited to property within the state of Colorado. Similarly,
the Oregon court in
In re Tate, 2007 WL 81835 (Bankr.D.Or.
2007), allowed debtors to substitute the federal homestead
exemption for that of Texas because the latter was not
available outside that state. The Kansas court in
In re
Bingham
, 2008 WL 186277 (Bankr. D. Kan. Jan. 18, 2008)
stated that if the Texas exemptions applied, debtor could use
the federal homestead exemption because that of Texas was
not extraterritorial. Also see
In re Williams, 369 B.R. 470
(Bankr.W.D.Ark.2007), in which the court apparently interprets
“any” as meaning "some,” not "all."