Bring old passport, Don’t list traffic tickets: My N-400 interview story

[Visio2000]

I filed my N-400 with my wife and my son (he was over 18) on May 28, 2006. We got FP notice in August, 2006. My son was approved in Oct. 2006 but my wife and I did not hear anything after FP. I called USCIS 800 number. I wrote letter to VSC and congressman. Till July 2008, I received another FP notice said our first FP were expired (I thought finger prints are unchanged for lifetime. Well, you have no body to argue with). Any way, we did it again. Then finally, citizenship interview notice arrived and date is Sept. 8, 2008, Newark, NJ. Time is 8:20 AM.

We lives about 50 miles away. It is Monday morning so there were some traffic but not very bad. Parking is $11 (2 hr.) - $14 (over 2 hr.). We arrived at 8:05. It seems not a lot of people. Notice said interview is in 15th floor, But when we got there, a lady sent us to 13th floor. After submitted the notices to the window, we were told to wait till names were called.

By the way, coming with the USCIS interview notice, there is a separated page which lists all the documents you need to bring with according to different situations. For example, if you applied citizenship via marriage, or if you served in US military, or if you have ever been arrested, then you need to bring such and such… Our case is very straight. Accordingly, we only need to bring the green cards. I thought I better to bring our current passport just in case.

Waited about 45 minutes, my name was called. A young lady called me to “Door 2”. She brought me to her cube. First, she asked me to arise my right hand and said “Are you going to tell all truth today?” I said “Yes” of course. After we site down, she opened my file. I saw my N-400 is on the top. She started to test me immediately. I think the test questions are in her computer and is randomly selected. I was asked questions including what is the color of the flag, who is the commander in chief, who is call Father of our country, who elects the Congress, what is the some requirement to become US president, how many Supreme Court justices, what is the most important rights granted to the US citizens. I correctly answered all. The she asked me to write down a sentence “I drive a blue car to work.” I think that’s pretty much of the test. Next, she basically went over all the information on N-400. “When was the last time you left US?”. “For how many days?”. “Have you ever joined any terrorist organizations?”. “Have you every help any one get into US illegally?” …

There are two places I had some problems. She asked me “Have you every been arrested?” I answered “No” However, she said then why did checked the question ‘Yes’? I answered because the question is “Have you ever been arrested, cited, detained by law enforcement agency”. Because I received 2 speeding tickets, they were “cited”. So I checked ‘Yes’ and provide the information. (when I filing the N-400, I browsed online immigration sites. Many people said it is better to put the traffic tickets if you had one.) In fact, I think I should not do it (my wife’s story is more ironic. I will tell later). She then asked a man who seems a supervisor if she can cross it out since there ware no arrests. The supervisor said just leave it because the answer is right.
Then she started to check my passport (issued by my home country). She asked me where is the my old passport (because in the passport said it is to replace an old one). I said it is expired and interview notice did not say I need to bring foreign passports, current or expired. She then asked me how far that I lives. Is any one at home can bring me passport here? I said I lives 50 miles away and nobody at home. Then the lady said I can not process further because I can not decide if you ever stayed out of US for more than 6 months. I told her I can go home to bring back. She agreed and said you need to be here today. The she give a paper so I can get back to the building. I wasted no time to drive home and find my old passports and back in less than 2 hours. When I came back and handed the notes to her (through window, of course), she called me in again. I think soon she realized she made a big mistake. ‘6 month’ rule is for green card holders. I current passport was issues after I got PR and it has stamp. Therefore, all my in and out of US record AFTER I got PR are showed on this passport. When she saw the I-551 stamp on my current passport, she did even bother to check my old passports. I also realized the same. She did not say anything so did I. Good thing is she did not waste time to signed my paper to passed me. In about 2 minutes, I am out. Next, we waited for oath (Yes. Newark office conducts interview and oath on the same day). We received our citizenship certificates at 3:00 PM. I am glad we passed though it was delayed about 2 hours and let me spend extra $11 parking fee and some gas.

My wife’s interview (same time as me but by different lady agent) had same issue as my on traffic tickets (that agent did not ask her the old passports). The lady asked her, why did you put traffic tickets on N-400? She said “Nobody does that. If you put anything there, you need to provide more information and I had to do extra work”. She saw my wife has her N-400 copy which did not check ‘Yes’ on that page. The agent said “Give me your page”. She replaced the page with the one has no “Yes” checked. Unbelievable!

So, our interviews went smooth in general. Here is my 2 cents: 1. Bring you old passport, marriage license, birth certificate .. and anything you can think is important even though the interview notice did not mention it. 2. If you have not file N-400, do not put speeding traffic tickets on it unless you got arrested (I am not lawyer and don’t hold me accountable).

Good luck to everyone!

 

[njman08]

Congrats Visio. This is great news to me since I did not disclose my traffic tickets in N-400 and was planning to disclose in the interview if specifically asked about them. Spent some time collecting certified court disposition letters. Looks like the IOs don't want to waste their time on the tickets. Time they revised N-400 to specifically exclude traffic tickets, but then keeping it this way may make people drive safe atleast until oath. No gurantee in NJ you won't get tickets if you drive safe though.

 

[realnewbie]

Visio2000: Congratulations on the successful ending!

Any reason why your wife's personal copy of the N-400 did not have the 'Yes' checked (for traffic tickets)? Normally, the copy we keep would be a true copy of the submission. Was it just a coincidence in her case?

 

[Visio2000]

Thanks. Here are why:

It just happened to be that way.

When I prepared our N-400 filings, in the first version, I did not put the traffic tickets for both of us. But I remeber I read from immigration forums that some people do disclose their traffic tickets (no arrests though). As I read more, I decided to include those tickets in my second version and filed the forms. Then I simply kept the first version as copy because I was too lazy to make another copy.

Before the interview, I found the copies. Since it has been more than 2 years, I forgot our N-400 "copies" are not the true copies. I thought I did not put the tickets in the form originally till I was asked by the offier (same for my wife).

It seems to me, regular traffic tickets are not concerns to USINS at all along as no arrests made. I do not think they show up in any background search or criminal search. The lady IO repeatly asked me if I was arrested in the traffic stops. I said no. At the end, she seems to blame me "Then why bother to include those tickets and create hard time for both of us". The lady who interviewed my wife even directly told her so.

One of my wife's ticket is "Careless driving" -- very scary. However, the ticket was dismissed in court. No fine, no fee, no nothing. The IO almost to tell her it was stupid to list that in N-400.

For some experienced IO, they seems understand why people put traffic tickets in N-400 but some young IOs do not. This kind of 'honest' could come back to against you. I just share my thoughts.

 

[fbanna79]

In my interview, the officer was clear enough and asked me if i have ever worn the bracelets which, I have never worn. traffic ticket does not count as mentionned on the M-476, Page 8;

http://www.uscis.gov/files/article/M-476.pdf

"Note that unless a traffic incident was alcohol or drug related, you do not need to submit documentation for traffic fines and incidents that did not involve an actual arrest if the only penalty was a fine less than $500 and/or points on your driver’s license."

 

[JohnnyCash]

Nowhere on naturalization guide and instructions on N-400 it state about not to disclose a traffic ticket...Read very carefully, nowhere it states that applicants don't need to disclose traffic tickets regardless those tickets were under $500 or not, or whether there was an arrest or not as a result of those traffic violations...Nowhere...Instead, it's VERY clearly stated everywhere that ALL citations MUST need to be reported. Traffic tickets are citations. So they MUST be reported no matter what.

Actually what USCIS has stated on naturalization guide and N-400 instructions about traffic tickets is not submitting documentations if fine on those tickets was under $500. Not submitting documentation about those traffic tickets are not same like not disclosing them, and that's what people are not understanding. It could be because they have some fear to get a denial or delaying...Besides, all people care about is just to get naturalized as soon as possible and without disclosing anything if it's possible. Those who have had criminal history then they have no choice just to disclose it because they know FBI background checks will reveal their history anyway; otherwise believe me people will not reveal that one too...trust me...

Just because some "immigration officers" and immigration attorneys have said their PERSONAL OPINION of not disclosing it..people are taking those personal opinion on the face value...even though they know that "immigration officers" over the phone don't know nothing about immigration laws and they are just high school graduate people who give wrong information 96% of the time. And immigration lawyers are well known to mess up the cases by their wrong information.

Also, some people have said that some immigration officers at their interview told them that traffic tickets are not a big deal...and don't need to be reported...But people should think hard that if traffic tickets are not a big deal and if these tickets don't need to be reported then why USCIS haven't changed their instructions on N-400 and on naturalization guide about disclosing all citations...and why many applicants were drilled and even denied because of traffic tickets...And even though there are some courts cases out there wherein it's noted that traffic tickets alone cannot be the reason to deny a citizenship application, but then there are many cases as well wherein courts denied the appeal from those whose citizenship application was denied because of traffic tickets.

By the way, denial of an application based on traffic tickets is one thing, but deny the application or revoking the citizenship in the future on not mentioning everything what it's asked on the application truthfully under Oath and Penalty of perjury is another. I understand having some traffic tickets might not make an application to be denied, but not being truthful about them on the application (as they are citiations) as it's required on the application will very much a ground to revoke the citizenship in the future. USCIS is not saying that it's up to people to decide what they should disclose or what they shouldn't when it comes to traffic tickets; rather they have clearly stated that all citations must be reported. But people are deciding by their own as to whether or not they should disclose traffic tickets, or whether or not disclosing a traffic ticket is worthy for USCIS' attention or its impact on citizenship application...To me, let the USCIS to decide whether traffic tickets would impact an application or not...I would follow what USCIS has stated about it on their instructions than deciding anything on it by my own...as if I'm the judge and I'm the jury on this issue...

I know some people might say that noone could be deported for having some traffic tickets and for not reporting them, but they know nothing. Govt. has revoked and deported, and will revoke and deport anyone who concealed and misrpresented a material fact on the application...I've seen more than thousands of times...And always remember, whenever govt. wants to find a dirt on someone for a reason, they would try anything and everything...believe me...So I personally wouldn't be an advocate on traffic tickets by myself as to whether it's a big deal or not, or whether tickets should be reported or not...I rather play by the rules than risking my and my loved one's immigration life in the future....

Below is the instruction to read what USCIS is saying there....



"Note that unless a traffic incident was alcohol or drug related, you do not need to submit documentation for traffic fines and incidents that did not involve an actual arrest if the only penalty was a fine less than $500 and/or points on your driver’s license."

 

[Bobsmyth]

Question 10 on a recent USCIS Q&A somewhat goes into this:

http://www.uscis.gov/files/nativedocuments/July2008Q&A.pdf

10.
Question: What documentation is USCIS looking for on N-400 applications for clients who have traffic citations only (no arrests), such as speeding tickets? This is in reference to the Good Moral Character section, question 16, which asks if you have ever been arrested, cited, etc. Also, what is expected at the N-400 interview regarding these traffic tickets?

Response: Typically if an individual only has minor traffic citations with no arrests resulting (i.e. speeding tickets), they will not be required to submit any additional information with the N-400. However, if, during the course of the interview, an adjudications officer determines that there are circumstances that warrant further investigation, (e.g. there is an indication that the applicant has failed to pay fines associated with the citations), the officer may request additional documentation. (e.g. payment, certified police/court documents indicating such).

 

[Vorpal]

JohnnyCash, what's your take on this situation?

At my oath ceremony, the IO in charge went into a speech, lasting several minutes, explicitly stating that when filling out the back of our oath letters, traffic tickets are NOT to be mentioned. She repeated several times that she does NOT care about traffic tickets, only arrests. In fact, when one of the oath takers (someone who obviously didn't pay attention) tried to disclose a traffic ticket, she once again repeated her speech.

Technically, if the USCIS finds out that an applicant who attended that oath ceremony had a traffic ticket, but still marked "NO" on the back of the oath letter, wouldn't they be able to initiate denaturalization and deportation proceedings? Since there is no written proof of the IO in charge of the ceremony stating that she doesn't want applicants to list traffic tickets (although the oath letter specifically asks to list traffic tickets), it's very much possible to be denaturalized and deported, right?

In my humble opinion, after personally seeing the way IOs treat traffic tickets at the interview and oath, I firmly believe that people get overly paranoid about traffic tickets. This is my personal take on this issue, as I am only familiar with my application and a few others on this forum. As far as the recent denial of nyc_newbie's application, it's quite obvious that the IO had a personal issue with traffic violations and decided to take her grievances out on this unfortunate applicant whose N-400 happened to land on her desk. Since she denied him for having two(!!!!!!) speeding tickets within a 5 year good moral character window (I don't remember reading anywhere that a traffic violation is a CIMT), also citing "a pattern of traffic violations illustrated by 4 tickets in eight(!!!!!!) years", this IO was obviously out to deny nyc_newbie and was willing to find any reason to do so. One traffic ticket for every two years is considered excessive??? She seriously needs to not only have her head checked, but to receive a severe administrative reprimand for her actions. Again, this is based on my personal experience. Anyone who disagrees with me has every right to do so, but I firmly stand by my opinion.

 

[Bobsmyth]

The way I see it, traffic citations are used as "reserve ammunition" to verify good moral character. If there is something that puts into question an applicants good moral character during an interview, it allows the IO to pry deeper into the applicants history by asking about citations. Most of the time this "reserve ammunition" is not needed or used, but when it is, it can add weight to a denial based on lack of good moral character. By the time the oath comes around, it is even needed less since the foundation of an applicant's good moral character has already been established at the initial interview.
I seriously doubt if anyone's application has been denied or subsequently denaturalized solely on not disclosing traffic citations in the past, especially in light of a district court decision a few years ago regarding the latter.

 

[Vorpal]

I seriously doubt if anyone's application has been denied or subsequently denaturalized solely on not disclosing traffic citations in the past, especially in light of a district court decision a few years ago regarding the latter.

Search for posts by nyc_newbie (there are only about 30), and you'll be shocked to see what happened to him. His application was denied SOLELY for having 2 traffic tickets in the 5 year good moral character window. He had no other adverse conditions affecting his case. In fact, he mentions in his first post that the IO got extremely nasty when he disclosed his traffic tickets and spend the majority of the interview grilling him about them.

 

[njman08]

Search for posts by nyc_newbie (there are only about 30), and you'll be shocked to see what happened to him. His application was denied SOLELY for having 2 traffic tickets in the 5 year good moral character window. He had no other adverse conditions affecting his case. In fact, he mentions in his first post that the IO got extremely nasty when he disclosed his traffic tickets and spend the majority of the interview grilling him about them.

I think nyc_newbie's case was an exception. It is difficult to imagine that USCIS would take a consistant stand the 4 or 5 trafiic violations would constitute lack of GMC. Going by the inetrviews and oath ceremonies reported, it looks like USCIS does not care much about traffic violations that do not involve arrest. As Bob says, they may be used in conjunction with other criminal incidents to decide about applicant's GMC.

From a pragmatic standpoint- it would be too expensive for USCIS to process all the traffic violation. There are just too many of them. I think they should focus on real GMC issues, which they seem to do. They would do well to remove the ambiguity in N-400 questions - perhaps make the applicant list and provide documentation for traffic offences if and only if he/she has ever been arrested.

 

[choppy]

They screwed up the forms. The question is have you ever been cited. The "exception" is if it's under $500 then you don't have to provide documentation. The result is that 1) it appears you should list ALL citations/tickets but 2) you don't have to provide documentation that you paid them. Same with parking. The exception language should really have been written to say that you neither have to provide info on them or list them. As it is a lot of people are confused, including the IOs no doubt.

The newbie case is a case of some IO dusch. I have no doubt he will get approved in the end if that's all there is.

 

[choppy]

The way I see it, traffic citations are used as "reserve ammunition" to verify good moral character. If there is something that puts into question an applicants good moral character during an interview, it allows the IO to pry deeper into the applicants history by asking about citations. Most of the time this "reserve ammunition" is not needed or used, but when it is, it can add weight to a denial based on lack of good moral character. By the time the oath comes around, it is even needed less since the foundation of an applicant's good moral character has already been established at the initial interview.
I seriously doubt if anyone's application has been denied or subsequently denaturalized solely on not disclosing traffic citations in the past, especially in light of a district court decision a few years ago regarding the latter.

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 issue - but barring that this is absurd - if you screw up driving and it's just some stupid thing like inadvertently running a red light or going 5m over speed limit, that's hardly a GMC issue - it just means you're a bad driver.

 

[Vorpal]

I think nyc_newbie's case was an exception. It is difficult to imagine that USCIS would take a consistant stand the 4 or 5 trafiic violations would constitute lack of GMC. Going by the inetrviews and oath ceremonies reported, it looks like USCIS does not care much about traffic violations that do not involve arrest. As Bob says, they may be used in conjunction with other criminal incidents to decide about applicant's GMC.

From a pragmatic standpoint- it would be too expensive for USCIS to process all the traffic violation. There are just too many of them. I think they should focus on real GMC issues, which they seem to do. They would do well to remove the ambiguity in N-400 questions - perhaps make the applicant list and provide documentation for traffic offences if and only if he/she has ever been arrested.

I agree completely. As I've mentioned earlier, it's quite obvious that nyc_newbie's IO had a personal issue with traffic violations (maybe her or someone whe knows was injured or killed as a result of a traffic incident). I would even understand if nyc_newbie was denied due to 50 traffic tickets, but 2??? That's just going a bit too far. I'm confident that the denial will be reversed on appeal. Among many cases where a denial due to traffic tickets was overturned, there is one that stands out in my mind. Back in 1958, an naturalization applicant had his application denied due to bad moral character for having 16 speeding tickets in a period of about 2 years. He sued and the court determined that 16 speeding tickets do not constitute bad moral character.

As far as ambiguity is concerned, the USCIS really needs to provide more clear and concise instructions as to how to address traffic violations and establish a uniform procedure for all IOs to follow. Either list all traffic violations and provide proof of payment/court dispositions (or clearly instruct IOs not to ask for proof of payment for non-DUI/DWI/less than $500 violations), or list only DUI/DWI/arrest traffic violations over $500 and provide proof for those. It's obvious that many IOs don't care about traffic tickets and don't even want to hear about them. If that's the case, why is this continuing to be such a persistent issue???

 

[JohnnyCash]

I personally always believe in following the instructions than making a decision by my own.

Yes, it's true that most people do get paranoid about traffic tickets in context to citizenship application, but then they get paranoid on everything that seems unclear to them...not only on traffic tickets issue. I honestly don't see any reason for them to get paranoid because instructions are very clear...in black & white..on the naturalization guide and on N-400 that all citations must be reported. Period. In my opinion, they make this issue as a very big deal and a complex one and get paranoid because they just simply don't seem to comprehend/understand what is written in a simple English on naturalization guide and on the N-400 about reporting/disclosing all citations.

Actually, they don't seem to comprehend/read well that instructions are saying only not to submit documentation if traffic tickets were less than $500 in fine, but nowhere on instructions it states not to disclose a ciation. To these people, not submitting documentation is same like not disclosing of traffic tickets. So it's a matter of their understanding/comprehension and most probably their reading ability of a simple English, if you ask me. Also, these people listen too much to other people on this issue even though they know what USCIS has instructed on their naturalization guide and on N-400. Plus, these people are deciding by their own as to whether or not to disclose traffic tickets, or whether or not disclosing traffic tickets would impact their application in any way...based upon other people's case..which makes them to completely ignore what USCIS has instructed on N-400.

To be honest to you, these people are paranoid and don't want to disclose this issue is actually for their own reasons. These people are worried to get denied because they don't have a proof of paying to those tickets, and even though they might have paid those tickets and have proof; they are so afraid of their case to be delayed or probably they are afraid of denial. That's why this issue drives them crazy and they get paranoid...and that's why they try to argue with people who don't rubberstamp their thoughts/views on this issue by giving all sort of answering and links. I've been here for so long to witness this. Because of this reason alone, the most helpful and knowledgeable person from this site was banned. He was the most knowledgeable person I've come acorss over the years in all the immigration sites I've been involved to. Plus, he was really a helpful and passionate person. He already had more than 10,000 postings until two years ago. Never involved in nonsense or irrelevant topics. His ID was JoeF. The people who made him banned were actually being helped by him in the beginning, but once those people's case got decided...they got involved in all sort of games on this site by talking nonsense issues and gang banging on him on this issue which led to racial slur and so on. His ban was the biggest loss to this site. He is now on another immigration site of lawyer Ron...

As for Newbie's case then it could be possible that officer might have a personal agenda, but cannot say for sure. Why? Because some officers see violation of traffic tickets differently. And then there are officers who don't like immigrants. But I can bet you that officer wouldn't be reprimanded because she made a decision that she thought was right. Remember, she has a discretionary power to decide on a situation which she thinks it's just? Maybe, other officer on Appeal might not think as she thought. I've seen cases which were initially got denied, but gotten approved on Appeal by another officer even though in some cases initial decision was right. For example, there was a case 2-3 ago about a guy who came here on a student visa but never ever put a step in the school. He right away started working and a few years later he met a US citizen...got married and adjusted his status...But during naturalization officer found out that he used student visa just to get into the country and never went to school even for a day. Officer rightfully denied his application by noting that he violated immigration laws by using non-immigrant visa for immigrant purpose. Secondly, officer noted that he lied to question number 23 (I guess) on the application wherein it states if applicant has ever lied to any immigration officer. The point is-just because another officer on appeal had reversed the denial then that doesn't mean the first officer's decision was wrong. As I said, the determination on a moral character is a very broad aspect of immigration laws.

As for your interview experience, then after the interview having traffic tickets doesn't impact the eligibility so long their wasn't any arrest. But I would still disclose that on my oath notice because oath notice does ask to disclose it. Why? Because when USCIS will try to revoke my citizenship in the future, if, even after many-many years later, then this officer wouldn't be there to testify in my favor to prove that she was the one who said not to disclose those tickets despite of what is stated on oath letter. There is no proof like video of what she said nor any written evidence from her that she made you not to disclose a traffic ticket in the back of oath letter. So, people wouldn't be able to defend themselves if ever case reopens. I personally play the game right and follow what's written in the book. I'm not saying that people who don't disclose traffic tickets will have their citizenship difinately be revoked now or in the future, but one can never say anything....believe me...I've seen this happening more than once...I'm not here to win any argument or make me look good; rather I'm saying what I know for sure. I can care less if people hate me and don't like what I say, but I always say what I know good for immigrants.

 

[Bobsmyth]

Search for posts by nyc_newbie (there are only about 30), and you'll be shocked to see what happened to him. His application was denied SOLELY for having 2 traffic tickets in the 5 year good moral character window. He had no other adverse conditions affecting his case. In fact, he mentions in his first post that the IO got extremely nasty when he disclosed his traffic tickets and spend the majority of the interview grilling him about them.

I knew you would you to bring up his case Vorpal.
Since we don't have all the facts in front of us regarding his case, we can only speculate that it was denied solely on the 2 traffic cases in the last 5 years. Not to disrespect nyc_newbie, but I rather go by all the facts and evidence in his case as seen by USCIS, instead of hearsay on the forum. Only once I see such a case appealed to the BIA or through the legal system will I become a believer.

 

[JohnnyCash]

First off, this is NOT true at all that people weren't denied for not disclosing traffic tickets. People do get denial everyday for not disclosing ANYTHING that's being asked on the application. Just because people don't see/hear those denial over here, that doesn't mean there are not people who get denial for not disclosing what's asked on the application.

Secondly, not disclosing of traffic tickets is not just about traffic tickets so to think traffic tickets are petty matter; rather not disclosing of traffic tickets means not providing the full information on the application which is asked. Application for naturalization (N-400) does ask to disclose all citations....and traffic tickets are citations which must be reported regardless someone gets denied or not. Let USCIS make the decision whether it's petty matter or not, or whether it would impace the application or not than being a judge and jury by your own or deciding by your own what information should be submitted and what should be omitted. Just follow the instructions given on naturalization guide and on application form. Nowhere in there states that people don't need to disclose a citiation.

Thirdly, as I said earlier thatif there are court cases to say that USCIS cannot deny the application because of traffic tickets then there are many court cases also there wherein courts have affirmed the decision made by USCIS to deny the applications because of traffic tickets. I did tell many times that immigration officers do have discretionary power to make a decision as it seems just to them. And officers have denied many applications to applicants who were involved in traffic violations many times. They had noted in their decision that they don't find applicants to be a person of good moral character in the fact of him/her being involved so many times in violation of our traffic laws. FYI, traffic laws are also laws of this country like IRS laws, and others. Violation of traffic laws is also a sign of disregard of laws. And Federal Appeal Courts agreed to it.

Fourth, don't intermingle two facts here. Disclosing of traffic tickets is one fact, and not disclosing them is another. Denial of an application because of traffic violations is one thing, while denial of an application or revoking of citizenship in the future is another. USCIS has and can deny an application and revoke the citizenship to anyone if they would know that applicant wasn't truthful in providing all the required information on the application under oath and penalty of perjury. Nowhere USCIS states not to disclose a citation. So if someone chooses not to disclose it, then s/he is concealing a fact and misrepresenting himself/herself on the application....a ground in itself to deny the application and revoking the citizenship regardless of whether traffic violations were serious or not to impact the decision on the application.

Fifth, there was a case in the court wherein a guy got naturalized in the court. He didn't disclose on his application that he was charged for defrauding someone (writing bad checks). He wasn't denied for this reason but for other reasons, but he admitted in the court about it and was able to get naturalized. USCIS got easy on him. See here about his case-

http://pacer.mad.uscourts.gov/dc/cgi-bin/recentops.pl?filename=wolf/pdf/hussain publish.pdf

But then there are thousands of cases wherein USCIS has denied the citizenship application to those who didn't disclose a criminal history. Just becuase some cases have slipped under the radar, that doesn't mean other would let the case slip away too. Nor it can be said which decision was right. Again, not mentioning a material fact on the application will very much be a ground to revoke citizenship and deportation even though that information might not impact the application. Remember, people are under oath during the interview, and everything on the application is said under penalty of perjury.

All I'm saying is that nowhere it states not to disclose a citation...nowhere. Instead, what has been said is not submitting document to those tickets wherein fine was under $500. That means, all the citations must need to be reported. But unfortunately, people are becoming a judge and jury by their own by deciding what would impact the application and what wouldn't, and what should be reported and what shouldn't. They are making their own decision based upon what they hear from others and after seeing other people's cases that traffic tickets aren't a big matter because officers don't care...which is making them to completely ignore and disregard what is mentioned on instructions about disclosing all citations. If traffic tickets weren't big deal then why there are so many cases wherein people were denied?? Just because people have not heard of those denial, that doesn't mean those cases don't exist.

On the same toll, some people might become a judge and jury on disclosing their marital history, employment history and their association with some troubled groups, their criminal history...etc...to decide by their own what they should report and what they shouldn't...by being a judge and jury by their own...Again, I'm here up for following the instructions. If I'm asked to write down my name in full, then I will write down my name in full on the application than deciding to put it only in abbre....

 

[choppy]

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.

 

[JohnnyCash]

The question precisely b/c of the $500 clarification is genuinely confusing and AILA I think raised this with CIS.

Nothing is confusing there. It clearly states in black and white that ALL citations must be disclosed...Instructions also state for not submitting documentation for those tickets wherein fine was under $500. Don't read wrong or don't confuse by your own to disclosing of traffict tickets with not submitting documents to those tickets which were less than $500. How is it confusing?? Where does it say that a traffic ticket should not be disclosed if it was under $500?? Where does it say that people can choose by their own as to what to disclose and what not to in context to traffic tickets?? The state of confusion on this issue is made by applicants by their own to justify and fit their own situation based upon what they see and hear about other people's cases. Otherwise, instructions are very crystally clear on it which is to disclose ALL citations.

 

[JohnnyCash]

Nevertheless, I believe USCIS shouldn't ask to disclose all citations or all traffic tickets on their instruction if there wasn't an arrest involved with those traffic violations, if they don't wanna care much about traffic tickets/violations. This way they wouldn't give a wrong idea to others on this issue whenever they would deal someone with this kind of issue. Right now there is consistency in their adjudication on this issue. Some officers don't care about these tickets while others are denying applications on this issue alone.

But until USCIS makes changes to their instructions on this issue, I think people should disclose all the tickets than being a judge and jury to what they should disclose and what they shouldn't or how other officers have treated this matter with others...or whether it would impact the application or not....