Sm1smom
Super Moderator
Am still not convinced much with the reasoning ( am convinced that he should have indicated though). We all know that if a person had done crime or not ( even the background check)will be known with the finger print, not name. And he has disclosed by bringing the court paper along other documents.
This will be a big learning case for all of us. I stick with the person who advised you to go along the documents and tell them all the truth.
That's fine, don't be convinced. You do what your guts tells you when it comes to filing out forms in the US and your face the consequences when the time arrives.
The background check example I gave is just one reason why all names have to be declared, whether legally changed or not, it's not the only reason they require it. And mind you, it's possible for the cops to have just a person's name on record for a crime, with no finger prints, if the person was not arrested, did not leave prints behind, etc. For instance, a person could commit assault on someone and run away from the scene before the cops arrive, if the victim knows the the attacker by name, all the cops will have on record is the attacker's name. Now if this person changes his name some years later and a background check is carried out, the previous crime will never show up under the new name because his prints are not attached to the previous name.
One thing a lot of immigrants don't seem to realize is that when the time comes to apply for citizenship, all the documents and forms used for the GC application are given a lot more scrutiny then they did during the GC process. That is not the time you want the IO to begin to wonder why certain information wasn't listed on those forms back then.