I had a traffic ticket which was such that as per the instructions in the guide, I did not need to produce
documentation for it. (Less than $500, no alcohol, nobody hurt, etc.) The guide still says that you have to report
everything they ask for so I had to report it. Well, during the interview she wanted documentation for it. I pointed out politely that the rules in the guide and the form which was sent with my interview letter said that I did not need to provide documentation. She said that unless I provided documentation, she would not be able to know that I did not need to provide documentation. Yes, this was her rationale: I order to prove that I do not need to file it, I need to file it.
(Long Parenthesis: I realize there is a thread about this very question on this forum. There seem to be a lot of confusion about what people should do about prior tickets. Some people argue that the tickets which qualify for the "no documentation" rule also should not be disclosed. However, the fact is this: the only legally valid advice we get when applying is the Guide to Naturalization. It says you do not need to
"submit documentation" but does
not say you do not need to
disclose. There's a difference. I was not going to take the risk of getting barred from naturalization because the USCIS feels I lied on my application. For those who doubt that not disclosing can be an issue, check out user nellybabe's posts. Nellybabe's application was denied and nellybabe was barred from applying for 5 years because a speeding ticket which was
dismissed in court (dismissed, as in "this case has no legs to stand on"!!!!
) was not reported on form N400.
If someone feels the urge to say I should have known better, know that a) I followed the Guide's instructions to the letter and b) I did not know about the thread on traffic tickets before I went to my interview. If I had known, I would have ordered the court disposition just to be safe.
End of Long Parenthesis.
)
Even if her rationale was good, why did she not ask for this evidence
before the interview? If her rationale was good then this documentation was missing
from day one.
For completeness: The two other problems in the interview were that she thought I had not filed information on my wife's first marriage. She had that information right in front of her, on an additional sheet of paper, just like form n400 instructs! (My wife was married three times. There is space only for one previous marriage on the n400 form.) And she thought that being out of the country for over 6 months made me
automatically ineligible for naturalization. She did not know that people who were out between 6 and 12 months can show that they did not abandon their residency. She never asked for evidence demonstrating this, which in retrospect means that by the time of the interview she had all the evidence she needed to determine that my 8-month trip did not disqualify me. The proof is in the pudding, as they say, since I have my oath letter in hand now.
All of this indicates to me that she did not review my file carefully before the interview. Basically, every problem she raised during the interview should have resulted in some letter from the USCIS before the interview.
If you carefully review our thread, there are lot of happy people in the Baltimore thread, and some unhappy who you understand their feelings.
Oh yes. I realize the way my case was handled is not typical. Except that it seems that confusion about traffic tickets is systemic at the USCIS. My advice: always bring documentation about traffic tickets no matter what the damn Guide says.
