Is Interview a mere formality?

[richmondva]

A little brainstorming for everyone and am open to picking up a healthy debate on this one (interview anxiety I suppose just a few days before ). I have been browsing this forum for a few weeks now and my take on the N-400 interview process is as follows:

The IO (and perhaps his supervisor at the local DO who signs the N-652) have fairly limited powers and the role of IO and local DO is limited to administering the Civics and English tests (which we can assume for the sake of this argument to be a formality and will be passed by most who can post on this forum at least). Besides this the only other role that the local DO plays is to collect the information pertaining to the case. When the local DO receives a case, the case is most likely already flagged with one of the statuses below (by some authority elsewhere) based on the background check:

1. Collect and confirm all the information from the candidate and forward it to the decision making authority (at NBC or somewhere) so a final decision can be made.
2. Approve the case provided no other critical information is obtained from the candidate. If some additional important information other than what is already on the N-400 is collected then delay the case for further scrutiny by an authority (again probably at the NBC).

So if the case received by the IO/local DO had been flagged as 2. (by NBC or whoever), then unless you tell the IO that you shot your neighbor but forgot to mention that on the N-400 , you are likely to be approved and proceed with Oath letter and/or Oath etc.

If your case had been flagged as 1. by NBC then all the IO does is to collect your information and pass it over to the NBC.

So what I am trying to determine is if anyone at the local DO have the power to change the case status from 1. to 2. based on the interview. My understanding is "NO" but I am open to discussion. Hence the title "Is Interview a mere formality" because in my opinion local DO has the power to delay but cannot really do anything in terms of approving or denying a case. Any comments?

 

[absrao]

I wish (and many others I am guessing) its mere formality. I wish USCIS makes this process more of science than art. Local IOs and their supervisors do have power to use their judgment. If its formality then all IOs should be same documentation (if something is missing). In my case, first IO asked for IRS transcripts while the second IO (second interview) was asking me why I was asked to bring IRS transcripts.

They may not have power to deny application nilly-willy as they have to abide by law and dont like to have appeals. But apart from that they do review applications closely, use their discretion in making decisions.

 

[WBH]

I do believe the decision is made at the local DO after the interview not at NBC before the interview although I also think the interview is a formality for
majority of the applicants.

 

[WhichWay2Go]

RVA,

I don't believe the interview is just a formality, but the most important thing is to get you there to raise that right hand and swear to tell the truth. Until that point, they only have your application and do not know if it was really you who signed it for the answers to be the truth and sent it in.

I am guessing, but I doubt the application will have been looked at unless there have been flags from FP, name check or Courts etc.

The IO goes through the application before calling you in and then after that Oath, they get you to verify the important things or all things. I have read where all the questions were asked and others (in my case) only a small subset of them.

If the IO feels you comply, they then mark it for final approval which I suspect is pretty much a formality and rubber-stamp affair.

Don't sweat it dude, but I know that is easy to say. You only need check some of my pre interview postings here. I was scanning the house daily looking for USCIS bugs and cameras. I was wearing my aluminum foil beanie in case they were tracking my thoughts via satellite. LOL

Just kidding, but it does get tense these last few days. I think it is because we want the Citizenship so much that we begin to wonder if there is anything we don't know about or forgot to mention.

 

[sanjoseaug20]

Check out the website http://www.dhs.gov/files/statistics/publications/YrBk08Na.shtm

This has immigration statistics for the past 100 years in a spreadsheet there - table 20. Do not look at applications filed (as the backlog can carry from year to year). Look at number of cases approved vs denied. And just look at the last 5 years. The number of rejections is always more than 10% of the success cases - going up to 20%. [ I am shocked to see the numbers in 1996-2000, and maybe there is some story there. ]

Now this > 10% number does not tell whether the decision is made at DO or NBC. However, it tells that the odds are high that your file will be flagged for scrutiny (as compared to audit on a federal tax return for example). If they are denying 10% of the applications, I am sure that they are also scrutinizing another 10% heavily before approving them. I think the FP / Name Check / Interview is a formality only if your record is perfectly clean. If you fall into any of the "DID YOU EVER" boxes or borderline residency situations, I think they will look at it seriously. Also, the question is not of a person checking the column in the form - I think the FBI check and other background checks will show these.

I will bet that
a) the person filing in most cases (> 80%) would know whether he/she will be scrutinized.
b) At the same time, there will < 10% persons who will be innocent bystanders / collateral damage - that is they are scrutinized more heavily than their file would warrant.

 

[Bobsmyth]

NBC collects the information for your file, whereas the IO at DO is the one who adjudicates your application based on the information provided. The interview process is far from a formality, but rather part of the process to determine if you are eligible for naturalization.

 

[WBH]

Check out the website http://www.dhs.gov/files/statistics/publications/YrBk08Na.shtm

This has immigration statistics for the past 100 years in a spreadsheet there - table 20. Do not look at applications filed (as the backlog can carry from year to year). Look at number of cases approved vs denied. And just look at the last 5 years. The number of rejections is always more than 10% of the success cases - going up to 20%. [ I am shocked to see the numbers in 1996-2000, and maybe there is some story there. ]

Now this > 10% number does not tell whether the decision is made at DO or NBC. However, it tells that the odds are high that your file will be flagged for scrutiny (as compared to audit on a federal tax return for example). If they are denying 10% of the applications, I am sure that they are also scrutinizing another 10% heavily before approving them. I think the FP / Name Check / Interview is a formality only if your record is perfectly clean. If you fall into any of the "DID YOU EVER" boxes or borderline residency situations, I think they will look at it seriously. Also, the question is not of a person checking the column in the form - I think the FBI check and other background checks will show these.

I will bet that
a) the person filing in most cases (> 80%) would know whether he/she will be scrutinized.
b) At the same time, there will < 10% persons who will be innocent bystanders / collateral damage - that is they are scrutinized more heavily than their file would warrant.

A great proportion of denial (even majority as I heard are indeed due fail to pass English and civic tests so these have nothing to do with flag or not flag. For these, interview is sure not a formality

 

[WhichWay2Go]

[ I am shocked to see the numbers in 1996-2000, and maybe there is some story there. ]

Thanks for the link and you are correct, that would make for interesting reading, especially for 1999 and 2000, the denials are are approaching 50%

 

[WhichWay2Go]

A great proportion of denial (even majority as I heard are indeed due fail to pass English and civic tests so these have nothing to do with flag or not flag. For these, interview is sure not a formality

WBH, I am not sure I would go along with that as you can get a second try at those tests. Surely if a person failed, you would go home and study like crazy to make sure that when the next interview date came around, you would know them.

 

[WBH]

WBH, I am not sure I would go along with that as you can get a second try at those tests. Surely if a person failed, you would go home and study like crazy to make sure that when the next interview date came around, you would know them.

You should imagien how hard that is. Many old people came to the states
as totally English illierate when they were quite old and they perhaps had never been well
educated even in theior native languuage.
Their kids sponsor their GC. English and vics may be easy for other for for these immigrants passing
them is much moire hard than an average person figure out what exactly General Relativity means.
They simnply pass the age by which one can lear foreign language even very simple vocabulary

 

[richmondva]

Wow! Those were quite incredible statistics. Pretty Scary! Doesn't make me feel any better a few days before the interview.

Thanks for all the input guys! Bottom line, what I interpret is that a lot depends upon the whims and fancies of the IO. If he/she had a fight with the spouse that morning, its likely that Mother Theresa could have a tough time getting through that day. But if he (or she) managed to get a dinner date with Angelina Jolie (or Brad Pitt) for that evening even Saddam Hussain might have his chance on a lucky day.

Honestly, I don't want to think about all this anymore. Will take is as it comes.

 

[WBH]

Thanks for all the input guys! Bottom line, what I interpret is that a lot depends upon the whims and fancies of the IO. If he/she had a fight with the spouse that morning, its likely that Mother Theresa could have a tough time getting through that day. But if he (or she) managed to get a dinner date with Angelina Jolie (or Brad Pitt) for that evening even Saddam Hussain might have his chance on a lucky day.

.

I believe actually the decisions made by IOs are fairly consistenct and
stable. But consider huge number of cases, there bound to be some
exceptions.

 

[richmondva]

I believe actually the decisions made by IOs are fairly consistenct and
stable. But consider huge number of cases, there bound to be some
exceptions.

Yeah! I know and agree. They are professionals after all. Should drive these thoughts out of my mind.

With some years having as many as 50% denials, I am not sure whether to classify approvals as "exceptions" or denials .

 

[Jackolantern]

They used to deny numerous cases for trivial offenses that aren't grounds for denial now. Mostly traffic violations and piddly misdemeanors like Kichul Lee who was ticketed for collecting too many oysters at the beach. See http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002174823_citizens09m.html

Unfortunately, I bet that most of the improperly denied simply accepted the denials without appealing and either didn't reapply at all, or waited until 5 years after the incident.

There are also other reasons for those massive denials in 1999-2001. In the late 1990s there was a mass denaturalization effort, and that frenzy probably extended into increased tendencies to deny cases for bogus or trivial reasons. Then in 2001 there was 9/11, so you can imagine that anybody whose case was still pending after 9/11 would have a hard time.

 

[WBH]

Yeah! I know and agree. They are professionals after all. Should drive these thoughts out of my mind.

With some years having as many as 50% denials, I am not sure whether to classify approvals as "exceptions" or denials .

Total naturalized and those denied plus not reported even do not add up to total number of cases filed for some years.

1996 saw the introduction of immigration reformed act and deportation criteria
sufdeently became very low and I guess many aplicants did not become aware of that when they filed N400

 

[Jackolantern]

Total naturalized and those denied plus not reported even do not add up to total number of cases filed for some years.

Some people withdraw. For others, their application is decided in another year.

 

[WBH]

Some people withdraw. For others, their application is decided in another year.

If decided in another year, shhould that be summarized in teh next year statistics? I think the total number do not even add up if combine all rows.

And I can not even imagine so many would withdraw their application.

 

[sanjoseaug20]

.... Wow! Those were quite incredible statistics. Pretty Scary! Doesn't make me feel any better a few days before the interview ....

Don't worry much, but do prepare for the interview. As I said, if your file is clean and you are prepared, you are very likely to sail through. When I had my interview - my first thought was whether this was a joke - as more than half the time, the officer was talking about his/her own personal life ... mostly about his health and then what kind of insurance government provides etc. But it is better to be prepared and have a similarly easy interview, than the reverse.

 

[WBH]

They used to deny numerous cases for trivial offenses that aren't grounds for denial now. Mostly traffic violations and piddly misdemeanors like Kichul Lee who was ticketed for collecting too many oysters at the beach.

But before 2003, N-400 even clearly say "excluded traffic violation" when you
had to answer those crminal history questions

 

[richmondva]

Total naturalized and those denied plus not reported even do not add up to total number of cases filed for some years.

That's probably because a numbers of cases carry over to the subsequent years as San had pointed out.

1996 saw the introduction of immigration reformed act and deportation criteria sufdeently became very low and I guess many aplicants did not become aware of that when they filed N400

Even if you ignore the period of a few years after 1996, the denials are still at 20-30% for most years which I believe it still a high number. We can fairly safely assume that all these people were lawful permanent residents; so seems like they were eligible for PR but not good enough for citizenship. They have gone through rigorous screening during the I485/green card process but somehow did not make it through the N-400 process. Seems a little odd to me!