Trouble understanding IO during interview (given another opportunity)

[Huracan]

Hi,

I'm posting on behalf of a friend who had the naturalization interview a few days ago. The interview went well except that it was hard to understand the IO because of her accent and low voice. The civics test and written test seems it went well. The N-652 says that the candidate will be given another opportunity to be tested in the ability of understanding English. It has the read/write/speak crossed, and written understand. On the other hand the form says that the application has been recommended for approval.

A few questions come to mind:

1. Is it possible that because the application has been recommended for approval that a supervisor might override the English understanding part and approve the application without a second interview?
2. Is it possible to ask for another IO to perform the interview if the original IO has an accent or level of voice that makes his/her difficult to understand?


I think the IO said that the second interview would come between two to three months after the first interview. Let's see how it goes. Any ideas on how to make the second interview more successful are welcome. I think my friend's level of English is good enough. I believe the main problem was with understanding the IO.

 

[smeagol12]

Hi Huracan,

Was your friend interviewed in SF office? My IO was like that. I did pass though, although, I kept saying" huh?". Did the IO said that there will be 2nd interview?

 

[Huracan]

Hi smeagol12,

No, it was not in SF. I'm sure hard to understand IOs are all over the country . I think the IO said there would be a second interview within 60 to 90 days. However, the N-652 shows that the application has been recommended for approval, so there is a contradiction between the requirement to show up again and the congratulations part of the form. Anyway, it is likely that a second interview will be needed. Perhaps a miracle happens and my friend gets an oath letter in the mail instead. It seems that due to variability in speech of each IO it introduces bias during the interview process. I wonder if USCIS keeps track of which IOs have a higher number of people asked to come back for English requirements. It would be good to make sure that IOs speak clearly. I don't think candidates are supposed to understand all kind of accents and speaking styles.

My 2 cents.

 

[smeagol12]

Hi Huracan,

I don't think there will be 2nd interview. If you friend passed the test, then he/she should be ok. There are always 2 officer who review an application, and thus, if IO decided that your friend needs 2nd interview, the 2nd officer may think differently.

 

[Bobsmyth]

Hi Huracan,

I don't think there will be 2nd interview. If you friend passed the test, then he/she should be ok. There are always 2 officer who review an application, and thus, if IO decided that your friend needs 2nd interview, the 2nd officer may think differently.

The interview letter states that the applicant will be given another chance to be tested on English portion. This means the applicants failed the English test and must be retested. The reviewing officers can't override the English test portion of the interview if it was clear to original IO that the applicant failed read/write/speak portion of test.

http://www.visajourney.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/normal_N-652.jpg

 

[Huracan]

Yes, the interview letter says that the applicant will be given another chance to be tested on the English portion. Then the read/write/speak are crossed and a handwritten annotation is added saying that the test is for "understanding" which I take it to mean understand spoken English. For once, this seems beyond the read/write/speak portion so I am not sure how fair it is to call for a second interview for this. However, my friend had a question about the second interview being performed by the same IO or a different IO. Does anyone have experience with this? It would clearly be a problem being scheduled again with the same IO, as the same accent barrier would exist.

 

[Bobsmyth]

Yes, the interview letter says that the applicant will be given another chance to be tested on the English portion. Then the read/write/speak are crossed and a handwritten annotation is added saying that the test is for "understanding" which I take it to mean understand spoken English. For once, this seems beyond the read/write/speak portion so I am not sure how fair it is to call for a second interview for this. However, my friend had a question about the second interview being performed by the same IO or a different IO. Does anyone have experience with this? It would clearly be a problem being scheduled again with the same IO, as the same accent barrier would exist.

Understanding means comprehension. It is tested when the IO speaks to the applicant and is part of the examination. At the second examination, the IO can request a different IO due to the original IO's heavy accent.

 

[WBH]

I heard a story that someone was pulled off from oath on the oath day because
the USCIS thought the person had a bad understanding of English when spoken
to right before oath. He answered some Yes to question about situation after the interview but Yes were meant for pre-interview situation. USCIS knew what he meant so wanted him to clear up but he did not understand them well. So they cancelled his oath

 

[Huracan]

Wow, that's a bit extreme. Anyway, according to that adjudicator's field manual:
"The questions to the applicant shall be repeated in different form and elaborated, if necessary, until the officer conducting the examination is satisfied that the applicant either fully understands the questions or is unable to understand English."

I understand the IO repeated the questions, but still in a fairly unintelligible manner to my friend. I am not sure if the IO made an effort on rephrasing the questions or using different tone of voice or vocalization.

I am leaning towards recommending to take a lawyer to the second interview to guarantee the right for a different IO and for a fair assessment of English competency.