IOs are not mean, they are sometimes prejudiced. A good IO should have seen a few hundred, maybe a few thousand cases. Having gone through so many cases, don't you think their antenna goes up just a bit when they see something out of the norm. While I do not expect an IO to make a sarcastic comment to me, I can understand it if they are trying to psych the applicant to confirm their suspicion. I am also sure that they will be able to make such comments without actually violating their Dos and Don'ts ... a good interrogator learns how to say things without actually violating someone's rights.
Sanjoseaug20,
Based on my experience, I would definitely suggest that he consults with an experienced immigration attorney, to discuss the potential consequences 3-5 years of unemployment will have on his naturalization petition.
Now, please allow me the liberty to digress from Be77's original concerns.
Taxes are NOT a requirement for eligibility for naturalization petitions, what the standard states regarding taxes, is that you must have filed taxes, when and where applicable to IRS regulations, and you cannot owe IRS (unless you have proof that a payment agreement has been entered into between IRS and yourself), or else it will be deemed that you lacked "good moral" character. If you did not receive any taxable income, how are you supposed to file taxes? However, as it relates to naturalization petitions, even though there are NO written rules on this, IMMIGRATION ATTORNEYS, will advise naturalization petitioners that, as an “unwritten” rule, if someone is UNEMPLOYED, then he/she must be prepared to show/explain to USCIS how he/she has been supporting himself/herself without the means of any visible income; otherwise, the adjudication officer might deny their case in presuming the person is being involved in some kind of shady/illegal activities. SUBMITTING A NOTARIZED AFFIDAVIT(S) FROM AN INDIVIDUAL(S) ABOUT BEING FINANCIALLY SUPPORTED IS SUFFICIENT. After my Naturalization interview, on Sep 25, 2009, as part of the form WR-822 documents IO requested I submit, I submitted TWO(2) such affidavits to IO, as well as other documentary evidence of receiving financial support.
The MAJORITY OF FINANCIAL CONCERNS that can create problems in naturalization cases are NONSUPPORT OF DEPENDANTS and NONPAYMENT OF TAXES, because these point to a LACK of "good moral character". I do NOT have ANY dependants, neither am I delinquent to the IRS, with regards to nonpayment of taxes, as a matter of fact, for 7 years prior to losing my job in 2007, I paid taxes EVERY year (7 years straight). Plus, I have been a PRODUCTIVE member of society, even in the face of a very challenging and severe recession ( I pursued international business opportunities, and have been developing product proto-types in the Novelty and Luxury Furniture industries, here in the U.S. Evidence of ALL of these were submitted to IO.
In a USCIS Interoffice Memorandum, dated February 16, 2005; from William R. Yates, Associate Director, Operations, to Regional Directors, Service Center Directors, District Directors, Officers-in-Charge, RE: Request for Evidence(RFE) and Notices of Intent to Deny(NOID), page 3, (2)”Record is COMPLETE and case is APPROVABLE” portion of the memorandum states…..
“...........The other end of the spectrum is a case in which all of the required evidence has been submitted, and the case is APPROVABLE. An applicant or petitioner must establish eligibility for the requested benefit , but when ELIGIBILITY has been ESTABLISHED, the case should be APPROVED. 8 CFR 103.2(b)(1). If the record is COMPLETE with respect to all of the required INITIAL evidence as specified in the regulations and on the application or petition and accompanying instructions, the USCIS adjudicator is NOT required to issue an RFE to obtain further documentation to support an approval based on that record. From review of recent cases, it has appeared that adjudicators too often issue a RFE for ADDITIONAL TYPES OF EVIDENCE that could tend to eliminate all doubt and all possibility for ineligibility or denial. This tendency is understandable in light of the “zero tolerance memo” issued by INS (Immigration and Naturalization Services) Commissioner Ziglar in the wake of “9/11”. That memo, however, has been RESCINDED. See comments of Deputy Director Michael Petrucelli contained in transcript of the September 8, 2003 USCIS Town Hall Meeting. USCIS is determined to protect the integrity of its adjudications, but USCIS, must also facilitate LAWFUL IMMIGRATION, and has a responsibility to process cases EFFICIENTLY and REASONABLY. Therefore , when a case is APPROVABLE based on INITIAL EVIDENCE, and there is NOT evidence justifying a particular concern to support a RFE, the case should be APPROVED, WITHOUT RFE or NOID. The standard to be met by the petitioner or applicant is “preponderance of the evidence”, which means the matter asserted is more likely than not to be TRUE. Filings are NOT required to demonstrate eligibility BEYOND a REASONABLE doubt……..........”
On October 27, 2006, A USCIS Interoffice Memorandum, Subject: “Case Management Timelines”, sent out by Michael Aytes, Associate Director, Domestic Operations, to Regional Directors, District Directors, Service Center Directors, Director, National Benefits Center and Officers-In-Charge. On Page 3 of 4, a portion of the memorandum states:
“………An RFE places the case in active suspense until we receive a response or the timeframe lapses, whichever comes first. When a case is missing ititial evidence the RFE stops the 90-day processing clock on the associated EAD and/or Advance Parole application(s). The clock will start over when we receive a timely response to a request for required initial evidence. An RFE for additional evidence, however, only suspends the processing clock and the clock resumes to the point where it had stopped when we receive a timely response
When we send an RFE, also commonly referred to by the 1-72 or N-14 pre-printed forms that are sometimes used, the following timelines apply :
N400 - consistent with 8 CFR 335.7. customers are given 30 days from the date of our request: if a response is not received. the case is adjudicated on its merits.
All other applications - consistent with 8 CFR 103.2(b)(8)-(15). customers are given 12 weeks (84 calendar days) to respond.
Where an interview notice indicated that the customer was to bring a specific document or evidence to the interview. but the customer does not do so. we should not repeat the request through an RFE. An exception, however, is when we have requested that an applicant bring, for example "all evidence of your claim to eligibility to your interview." Here, because the request was not specific, if a customer fails to bring some evidence that could be inferred from the blanket request, issuing an RFE for the still rnissing evidence is appropriate. Similarly, if an issue first arises at an interview, the customer should be afforded an opportunity to respond to the new request for evidence.
When necessary evidence or information is identified at the interview and we decide that a short-term (generally 1-2 weeks and no more than a month) opportunity to submit the materials is appropriate. It can be done as an extension of the interview. Where more time is clearly appropriate, it should be done as an RFE. Ideally, even when done as an RFE, the applicant or petitioner leaves the interview with the notice. Where that is not possible, the RFE notice should be sent within 14 days of the interview.
Customers should be informed of missing evidence as early in the process as possible and should be encouraged to submit material as soon as they can in order for case processing to resume. (They should be advised, however. to submit all of their response at one time. not piecemeal.)........
.............Post-RFE/NOID processing- Offices should have procedures in place to promptly connect an RFE/NOID response with the pending application and to resume processing PROMPTLY once the response is RECEIVED. Such cases should be returned to the pre-RFE/NOID place in the processing queue. In fact, USCIS has a discrete processing goal for these cases. Our processing time goal for these cases that have had RFEs or NOIDs sent, is 60 DAYS after the customer’s response is RECEIVED. To ensure expectations are consistent with our objectives and to minimize UNNECESSARY case status enquiries. RFE and intent notices should CLEARLY indicate this.
In summary, active case management means managing each case through the process, with a goal of each case being completed correctly and within our timeframes, with the exception of any discrete times spent in active suspense. It also means managing cases in active suspense based on the associated call ups and returning them to active processing AS SOON AS POSSIBLE and appropriate………”
During my Naturalization interview, the adjudication officer, clearly requested I submit specific documentation. 1. 2007 tax returns, 2. Copies of my passport pages and 3. Due to my unemployment,documentary evidence of receiving financial support from my family and friends from the end of 2007 - present. According to USCIS policy, request for evidence, MUST relate to issues that the adjudication officer wants to resolve, and all issues must be addressed in the document requesting evidence. My interview was 9/22/2009, 3 days later, (9/25/2009) I hand delivered all the documents requested, and still did not get any kind of response till date.
I am NOT a criminal or illegal immigrant who is ignorant of the law or my rights as a Legal Permanenet Resident. I will not grovel or beg for U.S. citizenship. I am attracted to the sense of justice in the U.S. Taking a stance of servitude or subserviency, just to be given an immigration benefit which lawfully, I am eligible for, is as un-American as anyone advocating that I do. I know who I am and what my reputation and integrity are. During the statutory period (governing Naturalization petitions - 5 years immediately preceding the petition) and up till my unemployment in the last quarter of 2007, I have been a tax-paying, law abiding, productive member of society (I submitted documents supporting this), and an IO who thinks otherwise, as far as my naturalization petition goes, is legally required to provide existing evidence contrary to that fact.
Naturalization or Legal Permanent Residence might be considered "discretionary" benefits, however, there are still U.S. laws and statutes that govern naturalization petitions. I'm sorry, but, the approval of a Naturalization petition does not depend on the subjective opinion or unfounded suspicion, conjecture or paranoia of an adjudication officer, or on the Legal Permanent Resident's willingness to agree to be subjected to bias, indignities, injustices and subserviency. Thank God for that. This is the United States of America, the GREATEST country on earth, were laws actually mean something, which is one of the reasons I desire to become a U.S. citizen. The existing post "9/11" "paranoia", that you see at the USCIS, not withstanding, does not remove my protection under the law. NO government agency or employee is above the law. None
I think it is obtuse to think that there are no mean IOs or that an IO could not possibly violate a petitioner's rights. Are you kidding me? Maybe, you have not experienced one, but surely, a highly unregulated agency (for the most part) like USCIS is bound to have incidents of misconduct and abuse. Up till when I had my naturalization interview, I NEVER had any problems with USCIS. Not even my AOS or the removal of my GC "condition" was complicated. Everything went so smooth, I was stunned. Now, does that mean, I advocate that "there are no mean IOs" ? Of course, not all IOs are inappropriate, rude, biased or inconsiderate, but some definitely are! There is a difference in using investigative questioning techniques ("psyching out" according to you) as opposed to civil rights misconduct. Under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Legal Permanent Residents also enjoy the right to be free from discrimination based on their race, ethnicity, and national origin -- in immigration benefits, employment, education, health care, and housing (among other settings). The joy of anticipating U.S. citizenship should be protected from adjudication officer's unfounded suspicions, allegations, hypothesis, conjectures, bias and inhospitable disposition, or do you disagree?
In a feeble attempt to streamline the naturalization process to ensure it is more pleasant for applicants, part of an official USCIS memorandum sent to staff, stated "..Supervisors should regularly monitor and observe adjudication officers to ensure that officers are asking essential or pertinent questions relating to the benefit sought.." I fail to see how USCIS Supervisors are enforcing this memo.
I don't feel that every police officer in L.A.P.D. or other police departments around the country, is corrupt or violates laws, but can you in good faith tell me that SOME officers don't break the law (planting evidence, stealing evidence like narcotics and cash, "rail roading" innocent people, framing innocent people). Does this make the entire police department in a city bad? Of course not, but to say, there are no bad eggs in a police department, is untrue, at best. So for you to say "There are no mean IOs", is perplexing.
You cannot have been involved with the USCIS (formerly INS) for any amount of time and not have heard a multitude of complaints about "rogue" IOs. Just read threads on this forum, and on other immigration forums and boards.The USCIS , like any organization or agency, will ALWAYS reflect segments of real society, therefore, there are bound to be IOs that are racist, prejudiced, biased, obnoxious, ignorant, condescending, inhospitable, and unaccountable (until their actions are brought to light). Period. Immigration procedures and SOME of the employees that ought to fairly execute them, without a doubt, are flawed.
In conclusion, the age old proverb states "it is he who wears the shoes, that knows where it pinches". Point? Until you've had a bad experience with an IO, you will remain mostly detached and indifferent (like I used to be). I know what the IO said to me. I am not crazy and it is not a figment of my imagination. If his comments were merely "sacarstic", I wouldn't overreact.
To start an interview and set the tone with demeaning remarks suggesting I come from a lawless or "savage" country, is unacceptable, and I've been around long enough, to know what in this society is considered appropriate or inappropriate; USCIS IO or not. Imagine if you will, that you are an IO, and a petitioner from Russia was infront of you, before you even begin the interview, would you start the interview and set the tone by saying " So you are from Russia? I hear you Russians have the highest incidents of heroin addiction in the world"? What the #*@&? Even if this statement is true, what does that have to do with the petitioner's naturalization or citizenship application? That my friend, is a "no no" and is considered as "national origin" bias. Read up on the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This is the kind of statement the IO made to me, BEFORE he started my interview. (By the way, this is just an example. I am NOT Russian, and my intention is not to offend any body from Russia)
Since there is the general consensus that immigration officers are "angels", here are a FEW examples of these "model citizens":
A cursory search on Google will provide anyone with scores of examples. Like this one: Atlanta, GA – Hashukh C. Patel, a Business Interface Representative for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and former USCIS Adjudication Officer, and his wife… were indicted by a federal grand jury on May 13, 2008. The indictment… charges both defendants with conspiracy to encourage…aliens to come to the U.S. [illegally] for the Patels’ private financial gain.
New York - A federal immigration official was arrested on corruption charges after a young Colombian woman brought prosecutors a recording of the man demanding sex in exchange for a green card.Queens, NY, prosecutors said Isaac R. Baichu, who worked as an adjudication officer in the Garden City, Long Island, office of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, threatened to hold up the woman’s application and even deport her relatives if she didn’t acquiesce.
“I want sex,” he said on the recording. “One or two times. That’s all. You get your green card.” The woman, who is married to a U.S. citizen, said she gave in to one demand for oral sex because she was afraid, but she also used a mobile phone hidden in her purse to record the December encounter and conversation.
Bribery, be it for cash, gifts or for sex is but one criminal element at the USCIS. There are others like embezzlement and abuse of public trust. In the United States of America v. Catherine Ileen Spear, for instance, according to the indictment, Catherine Spear worked as a federal immigration employee responsible for the intake of applications submitted by persons applying for changes in their immigration status. Instead of processing the applications, she kept the fees accompanying the applications and then threw the applications in the trash.
Roy Bailey, “a former top immigration official in Detroit whose “outrageous conduct” involved taking free meals, landscaping services and casino chips in return for official favors.” Bailey… pled guilty “to defrauding the federal government, conspiracy to commit bribery, and failing to report a felony….” “Under Roy Bailey’s control, the immigration system… was starkly divided between those he favored and those he did not…”
Other cases of crime corruption and incompetence involving immigration officers are:
• David Duque Jr., a Border Patrol agent since the mid-1990s, faces up to 15 years in prison at his November sentencing after pleading guilty to bribery and the unlawful transfer of documents. While being recorded by investigators, Duque sold some 70 identification documents to a source cooperating with law officers — including passports, birth certificates, green cards and Social Security cards. He also took a $5,000 bribe to allow cocaine through a highway checkpoint in Falfurrias, Texas.
• Fernando Arango, a Customs officer in Nogales, Ariz., is set for trial in November on bribery and drug charges. Prosecutors allege Arango took $50,000 to allow a recreational vehicle packed with 440 pounds of cocaine through a border crossing last year. According to court documents, Arango instructed an accomplice to buy an RV and provided details about how to construct a hidden compartment to stow the drugs. He instructed the accomplice to have an elderly couple drive across the border, saying he "controlled" the crossing and that "for $3,000 per kilogram, he would assure safe passage of the cocaine," a criminal complaint states.
• Lizandro Martinez, a Customs officer for 14 years, faces up to life in prison at his scheduled October sentencing for allowing drugs through his inspection lane at the Progreso International Bridge in Texas. Martinez pleaded guilty to drug trafficking conspiracy and money laundering, admitting that starting in 2002 he allowed vehicles loaded with marijuana into the United States. Temporarily disabling the license plate reader at his lane so there would be no record, Martinez allowed in more than 13,000 pounds of drugs, sometimes in pickups "filled to the top," according to court documents and testimony. He got $10,000 per truck. The drug payments allowed him to make some $750,000 in cash purchases in 2003-2004, investigators said. Despite several suspensions — at least 15 misconduct complaints were filed against him dating back to 1992 — Martinez remained on the payroll until his arrest in 2004.
• Michael ****os Gonzalez, an Arizona Border Patrol agent, is scheduled for trial in October on charges of possession with intent to distribute marijuana after allegedly stealing a 23-pound bundle of marijuana following a drug stop. According to court records, an Arizona Department of Public Safety officer stopped a pickup with bundles of drugs concealed in the bed. The driver fled, abandoning the truck, and the DPS officer gave chase. Gonzalez then arrived on scene. Video from the DPS officer's car shows Gonzalez, in Border Patrol uniform, walking to the tailgate, removing a bundle of marijuana, rearranging other bales to fill space left by the missing bundle, putting the drugs in his trunk and driving away, court records allege.
• Mario Alvarez and Samuel McClaren, California Border Patrol supervisory agents, are scheduled for sentencing Sept. 29 and face up to 18 years in prison on bribery and tax charges. They admitted taking $186,240 in bribes from a human smuggling organization to release or facilitate the release of immigrants from custody. Based in El Centro, Calif., they at one point smuggled two illegal immigrants across the border themselves in a government vehicle and released them for cash, according to court documents. In some cases, the agents altered the migrants' immigration status so they wouldn't be deported.
• Oscar Antonio Ortiz, a Border Patrol agent in El Cajon, Calif., was sentenced in July to five years in prison for conspiring to bring at least 100 illegal immigrants into the United States. Ortiz admitted that he and fellow agent Eric Balderas took money to transport illegal migrants north from the international boundary, sometimes in their Border Patrol vehicles. "They would have an arrangement with the smuggling organization: Meet us at 'x' point at 'x' time. Aliens would run through the fence into the Border Patrol truck. The truck would be driven north," said federal prosecutor Alana Wong. Balderas faces up to five years at his October sentencing. In an odd twist, the investigation revealed that Ortiz was himself an illegal immigrant. Ortiz applied for the Border Patrol with a fake birth certificate listing Chicago as his birthplace, though it was really Tijuana, Mexico.
• Mike Gilliland, a Customs employee since 1990, was indicted in June on charges of taking bribes to allow illegal immigrants through his inspection lane at the Otay Mesa Port of Entry in California. Gilliland is accused of conspiring with two female smugglers to permit passage of caravans of cars, each sometimes packed with 10 or more migrants. According to court documents, wiretaps captured Gilliland making arrangements with the smugglers about what time to cross and which lane to use, using coded language. The smugglers allegedly used their deal with the inspector to promise clients "guaranteed" entry. One arrested driver told agents the smugglers who hired her had "a business arrangement" with an inspector who "has a beard, and is probably 45 years or older," an affidavit said. Gilliland is 44 years old with a beard, it added. A trial date is pending.
• Richard Elizalda, a Customs officer since 1996, was charged in June with accepting cash bribes and a 2000 Lexus for allowing ****oads of illegal immigrants through his lane at the San Ysidro Port of Entry in San Diego. The investigation began in 2004 after a confidential source informed authorities about a corrupt officer there named "Richard." The following year, agents intercepted phone calls between Elizalda and a female smuggler in which they discussed Elizalda's work schedule and, on one occasion, the arrest of one of their drivers — saying how he'd almost made it and what bad luck he'd had, according to court documents. A trial date is pending.
• Fabian Solis, a Customs officer in Texas, was sentenced in February to three years in prison for conspiring to smuggle undocumented migrants for money. Solis permitted smugglers to transport immigrants from staging points in Mexico through his inspection lanes at the Falcon Heights, Roma and Rio Grande international ports of entry between March 2003 and December 2004. Solis charged $300 a head, and allowed in at least 219, according to court documents. Solis was captured on video accepting bribe money.
• Juan Alfredo Alvarez, a senior Border Patrol agent stationed in Hebbronville, Texas, was sentenced in February to 20 years in prison on bribery and drug conspiracy charges. He and his brother, Jose Guadalupe Alvarez, received some $1.5 million in bribe money from drug traffickers for guaranteeing the safe passage of more than 66,000 pounds of marijuana through Border Patrol checkpoints, prosecutors said. Jose Alvarez, who acted as an intermediary for the smugglers, was sentenced to 17 years.
• Jorge Reyeros, a supervisory Customs inspector who worked out of Port Elizabeth, N.J., and Newark Liberty International Airport, was sentenced in January to 24 years in prison for conspiring with his brother and Colombian drug traffickers to import cocaine. Trial testimony revealed that 1,100 pounds of cocaine was to be shipped from Ecuador, concealed inside plastic bananas. Reyeros' brother, Juan, was also convicted for acting as a middleman. Another co-defendant, convicted smuggler Hernan "Nacho" Uribe of Medellin, Colombia, testified that Jorge Reyeros' role was to "let the drugs go by."
• Four Border Patrol agents who worked together at the Sierra Blanca, Texas, checkpoint were sentenced to prison last fall in a scheme to allow drugs and immigrants into the country. Agent Aldo Manuel Erives worked with his brother to smuggle cocaine and 750 illegal migrants through the checkpoint. Erives enlisted fellow agents and coordinated safe passage by calling his cohorts to tell them what vehicles to wave through at what time. One co-defendant, agent Jesus Delgado, told investigators he thought Erives was joking when he first approached Delgado about allowing vehicles to pass without inspection. Erives' brother, Jose Lehi Erives, acted as a middleman, negotiating dates, shipments and payment with smugglers; he was sentenced to 10 years in prison. Aldo Erives received 10½ years. Other Border Patrol agents and their sentences were: Robert Espino, eight years; David Garcia, two years; and Delgado, one year.
U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT
• Santiago Efrain Valle, an agent with Immigration and Customs Enforcement in El Paso, was charged in March with trying to extort $20,000 from an immigration detainee at the El Paso Service Processing Center. Federal agents arrested Valle after he allegedly accepted $20,000 from undercover officers. According to court documents, Valle agreed to accept the money in exchange for dismissing pending immigration charges against the detainee and also changing his risk classification. If convicted, he faces up to three years in prison.
• Rafael Francisco Pacheco, an ICE agent in Tampa, who previously worked as a special agent with the U.S. Customs Service, was sentenced in March to seven years in prison for taking almost $18,000 in bribes from a drug trafficker. Between December 1999 and June 2001, Pacheco accessed government databases to obtain restricted information about the drug trafficker, Fidencio Estrada, then passed it on to him, prosecutors said. He also wrote a letter to request visas for Estrada's wife and daughter, falsely claiming that Estrada was assisting the government in criminal investigations.
U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES
• Robert Schofield, a USCIS district office supervisor in Fairfax, Va., was arrested in June, accused of illegally granting residency and issuing naturalization certificates to more than 100 unqualified immigrants. Qiming Ye, a Chinese citizen, also was charged for allegedly brokering deals between Schofield and Asian immigrants. One unqualified immigrant was granted residency status after meeting Schofield's wife in the Philippines, and then living with Schofield and baby-sitting his stepchild for a year, a court affidavit alleges. When stopped by Customs officials at an airport, the immigrant provided Schofield's name, cellphone and home telephone number from memory, the affidavit said. Passports seized from Ye's residence included green card stamps bearing Schofield's ID, and phone traces showed dozens of calls between Ye and Schofield's home number and his Department of Homeland Security cellphone, the court documents allege. "Numerous" allegations of bribery involving Schofield have been reported in the last decade, an investigator said in an affidavit. A trial date is pending.
• Phillip Browne, a district adjudication officer for USCIS in Manhattan, was indicted in May on charges of visa fraud and money laundering. Prosecutors contend he conspired with his sister and others to provide hundreds of residency papers, or green cards, in a sham marriage scheme that netted more than $1 million. The operation allegedly ran for at least 4½ years. According to prosecutors, Browne's sister ran a business that claimed to offer customers financial and legal help. Instead, prosecutors allege, the business provided fraudulent green cards for fees ranging from $8,000 to $16,000. Browne's sister allegedly paid U.S. citizens to enter into sham marriages with her clients, or produced phony documentation indicating a marriage to an American had already occurred. Based upon the sham marriages, immigrant clients then submitted green card applications, which were allegedly approved by Browne. In all, 30 people were charged. A trial date is pending.
• Robert Walton, an immigration employee for 20 years, was sentenced in April to a year in prison for approving citizenship and residency for immigrants who did not meet requirements. Prosecutors alleged that Walton accepted gifts — a diamond earring, a gold and diamond bracelet, and $5,000 — for approving applications. Walton said in a letter to the judge that the money was a loan and the jewelry pieces were not bribes but thank-you gifts. Walton, who previously worked as a border inspector, intelligence officer and supervisory inspector, said he sought the immigration adjudicator's position because he was "burned out" and wanted a regular Monday-Friday job. He insisted his actions were due to lack of training.
"The job ... had no Standard Operating Procedures, written or verbal," he wrote.
"I worked for my government for 18 years before I was given any direction in ethics," wrote Walton, a church deacon, who added he eventually received a book on the subject.
One person who provided jewelry to Walton was convicted in a separate case of bribing another Detroit-area immigration officer for help in illegally bringing immigrants to America from Lebanon. That officer, Janice Halstead, was sentenced in 2004 to two years in prison for supplying documents that allowed some 130 migrants from Yemen and Lebanon into the country.
**DISCLAIMER**
I am neither a lawyer nor an immigration consultant. My comments should NEVER be considered as legal or professional advice as they are not meant to be such.
Last edited by a moderator: