Search results

but I can't find where the 90 day rule is.

No person, except as otherwise provided in this title, shall be naturalized, unless such applicant, (1) immediately preceding the date of filing his application for naturalization has resided continuously, after being lawfully admitted for permanent residence, within the United States for at...

there is tons of stuff on this - just search the website - it all depends on how old you are now and whether it has been 5 years since the required time lapsed.

Yes, he's obviously off on that one but it's not clear to me that any of that is relevant to the question. As I said, the dude should see a lawyer.

You answered truthfully to each question and this sensible officer obviously understood that.

I meant to say that if you got denied based on a traffic ticket, you would likely sue. Of course, you could win or lose but, in general, though not always, courts are rational. Anyways, again I agree that you should disclose this.

The question is confusing not on its own but with the instructions. Anyway, I found it confusing and many other people here found it confusing. If I were writing the instructions - I would be clear to say you don't have to show proof or payment BUT YOU HAVE TO DISCLOSE THE FACT AS PER QUESTION...

Yes, he should disclose but this is neither a crime nor fraud (and the link does not work) nor "association with troubled groups" - let's have a sense of proportion. The question precisely b/c of the $500 clarification is genuinely confusing and AILA I think raised this with CIS.

I would be more worroed about the I-9. For the reasons mentioned above, the bank is a private party and he wasn't getting any federal or state benefit from them - maybe he just didn't want the bank to know he was here illegally.

interestingly, had he only checked that he was a permanent resident, it would seem the statute would not pick him up. though still a GMC question. It's interesting that he remembers this even though it may have been many years ago.

This was probably before he had a GC. I assume it's also not the employer that sponsored him - if he was employment based. It's also not clear what the "application" was - maybe one of hundreds he filled out to get a job anywhere.

Sure but it would have to have been before 1998 to private persons. Alternatively, it would really have to be a "U.S. national" if you go that way. Was there a box for U.S. national that he checked? I think he should talk to a lawyer instead of getting worked up on this forum. Also, it's a...

you should talk to an attorney about this before you go ahead with the case.

sit and wait

Ehhh... that's from 1991. The statute was changed as per Bobsmyth's link in 1998 to explicitly pick up private persons.

Ehhh...ok, again, I don't know your case but normally an officer can't just backdate your approval.

you will also note from Bobsmyth's post that the law changed in 1998 and was narrower before so it matters when this was done.

I would not, however, distringuish federal from state here. If there were a STATE law where your citizenship/residency mattered (e.g., state welfare only for citizens/residents) then that would be picked up under the language cited above by Bobsmyth.

First of all, the poster's question is ridiculous. If he is really worried he should go to any law school library and research it and then go see an attorney if he's still worried. Secondly, "for any purpose or benefit" under the law has to mean that you are trying to secure some benefit...

Just as a matter of common sense - if you were the IO and saw that someone had hundreds of traffic violations (how the person kept their license would be another story) where it appeared that he/she completely disregarded traffic laws and just paid the tickets, you could see how that could GMC...