Not to mention the conflicting information from IOs (ie. Vorpal's observation of what IO told him over the phone and at oath ceremony that USCIS doesn't care about traffic citations.)
Bring old passport, Don’t list traffic tickets: My N-400 interview story
- Thread starter Visio2000
- Start date
- Status
Not to mention the conflicting information from IOs (ie. Vorpal's observation of what IO told him over the phone and at oath ceremony that USCIS doesn't care about traffic citations.)
JohnnyCash - the instructions may seem clear to an experienced person, but for an average applicant it is indeed ambiguous. I do appreciate your penchant of going by the word of law, and feel that everybody should. But I also think that it is unreasonable to expect everybody to have the same level of knowledge and clarity.
We seldom make applications to the government without professional help. For instance my GC applications were prepared by an attorney, tax returns by CPAs, etc. But when it comes to naturalization, most applicants do it by themselves. I took hardly an hour to prepare my N-400 since the process seemed so simple - it is in fact simple. Though I read the guide, it did not occur to me that non-DUI, non-arrest traffic violations need to be diclosed. Later when I stumbled upon the discussions in the forums, I read the guide again and realized my mistake. I was relieved that we always have an opportunity to correct this at the interview. However going by the OP's interview experience (same DO as mine) and by Vorpal's oath experience it appears that the IOs do not want to hear about the traffic tickets. They are only interested in arrests.
In this backdrop I would feel that USCIS should take a consistant stand and make the application unambiguous by separating arrests from citation. From an average applicant's persperctive, traffic citations and arrests are two vastly different things. In states like NJ traffic tickets are so common that treating arrests and citations in the same breath does not make any sense. Also looking at traffic violations in the GMC context does not seem to gel.
This topic has been beaten to death in the forums and I would rather take a pragmatic viewpoint and say that some modifications to the N-400 application would clear most of the confusion around this issue.
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 X. The fact that there is a number of - I assume rational - people that are confused by this is enough to show that it's confusing. The onus should not be on the applicant to try to figure out what the hell the writer of the question is getting at. If you want to know the truth, I think they added the instructions later when they were getting deluged with tons of ticket documentation and forgot to change the question. As I said before, I think you should disclose this but I can see how a person reading the two together could be confused. If that person later gets naturalized, and assuming the govt wants to waste its time, it would have to show that a reasonable person could not have possibly assumed that the question was only limited to $500 tickets. Just based on the activity on this forum around this issue, I think it's safe to say that people are confused.
The questions are intended to reflect the requirements of the statute and regulations and they must be read with that in mind. Of course, the applicant can't pick and choose the right meaning but neither can the officer, even if the officer has some discretion. Otherwise, an officer could impose its own version of morality on any applicant - and that's not law but governmental anarchy.
Anyone who was denied based
The questions are intended to reflect the requirements of the statute and regulations and they must be read with that in mind. Of course, the applicant can't pick and choose the right meaning but neither can the officer, even if the officer has some discretion. Otherwise, an officer could impose its own version of morality on any applicant - and that's not law but governmental anarchy.
Anyone who was denied based
JohnnyCash
Volunteer Moderator
I wonder how hard it's to read/understand/comprehend a simple instruction in English...that states that all citations must be disclosed and no need to submit documentation to those tickets wherein fine was under $500....How hard it's to understand??????????????? One doesn't need to be an experienced, rocket scientist or a lawyer to read this simple instructions, in my opinion....
There is actually nothing confusing. Applicants are the ones make this issue a confusing one to fit and justify their situation; otherwise instructions are crystally clear for anyone to read/understand who can read/understand even a bit of English. When applicants can read/understand other questions on the application very well then why this issue is so confusing to them?? I am sure they could read well wherein it states to write your full name, date of birth, social security number, prior addresses and employments, marital history and so on...then what's so difficult for them to understand/read that all citations must be disclosed???
Don't play a foul game here to excuse the justification to fit your situation. The truth is- instructions are very clear on this issue. Period. How officers would take it during the interview, leave it on them than being a judge and jury by your own based upon hearsay and how this issued was disposed by officers in some other people's cases....Instructions say about disclosing all citations, so a citation must be reported...There is no any grey line in between to make a room of choosing which one should be reported and which are not...
I'm not making a law or interpreting it as to my idea, rather I'm simply reading the instructions as they are in there to read....which is not that hard to understand if you ask me....
Another interesting thing I noticed is: The IO interviewed me was not reading the N-400 questions word by word. For example, she simply asked me: " Have you ever been arrested any where?". She did not ask me " Have you ever been arrested, cited, detained by any law enforcement agency?". Therefore, I answered "No". Then she found I answered "Yes" in form and ask why. I told her because I was cited. She seems just realized that the form has cited in the question. She even underlined it after I told her. She asked other questions in the same way but other questions generally do not have such discrepency.
So, here is interesting point:
To answer her question correctly, I must say NO because I have not been arrested.
To answer the form correctly, I must say YES because I was cited.
Personally, I think if USCIS do not want to be bothered by the normal traffic tickets, they should re-design the question to make it more clear. I feels that the "citation" is not mean for regular traffic tickets for at least some officers or they even overlooked the word.
So, here is interesting point:
To answer her question correctly, I must say NO because I have not been arrested.
To answer the form correctly, I must say YES because I was cited.
Personally, I think if USCIS do not want to be bothered by the normal traffic tickets, they should re-design the question to make it more clear. I feels that the "citation" is not mean for regular traffic tickets for at least some officers or they even overlooked the word.
You answered truthfully to each question and this sensible officer obviously understood that.
There is no game to play here. This has been discussed in so many forums and many applicants have been confused. Bottomline is - one needs to be truthful in the interview and correct any omissions/mistakes in the application. I don't think traffic tickets warrant so much attention in the forum.
JohnnyCash:
For me there was grey area. The current USCIS questions and answers publishing date is July 29, 2008. I filed my N400 on May 28, 2006. As I can remember back then the Q&A were not as "crystal clear" as this version. It said you shoud disclose citations but did not mention any thing for traffic tickets or $500 fine amount. It did left rooms for applicants to wonder if they should or should not disclose some very minor traffic tickets (I had one for one of the brake lights went out). The current version of Q&A is much clear. I agree that putting arrests, detentions and citations as one group in a question does not make too much sense. It is different issue though.
Jackolantern
Registered Users (C)
I don't see anywhere that it says all traffic tickets must be listed. And using the word "cited" does not make it clear that it includes traffic tickets that did not involve going to court. Look at the Webster's dictionary definition of cite, for example.
Having said that, I have to say it is dangerous to omit any tickets, because any ticket you fail to list is giving USCIS another weapon with which to denaturalize you in the future. If you are arrested for a crime you did not commit -- terrorism for example (after all, there are at least a million names on the terror watch list) -- it is likely that they won't find any solid evidence against you, because you are innocent. But if they have made up in their minds that you are guilty, they will dig deep to find something else they can use against you. For example, they could not nail Al Capone for murder or drugs, so they found a way to lock him up for tax evasion. By leaving out your traffic tickets, you have made things too easy for them. Any tickets you got will be in a database somewhere that is accessible to USCIS and/or the FBI, as they have access to records that have been purged or expunged, so it will be easy to find out about your tickets and show that you lied on the N-400.
Upon following immigration forums we come to understand what USCIS meant and we know they don't care about any dictionary, but to the common person who isn't a lawyer and may have English as a second language it simply is not totally clear that they want all traffic tickets listed, or even that a traffic ticket is a citation. If they indeed want to know about all traffic tickets, they should spell that intention out loud so that they don't have some people listing it and others not due to confusion. The plain and simple fact is that people are confused, even if they should not be.
Having said that, I have to say it is dangerous to omit any tickets, because any ticket you fail to list is giving USCIS another weapon with which to denaturalize you in the future. If you are arrested for a crime you did not commit -- terrorism for example (after all, there are at least a million names on the terror watch list) -- it is likely that they won't find any solid evidence against you, because you are innocent. But if they have made up in their minds that you are guilty, they will dig deep to find something else they can use against you. For example, they could not nail Al Capone for murder or drugs, so they found a way to lock him up for tax evasion. By leaving out your traffic tickets, you have made things too easy for them. Any tickets you got will be in a database somewhere that is accessible to USCIS and/or the FBI, as they have access to records that have been purged or expunged, so it will be easy to find out about your tickets and show that you lied on the N-400.
Last edited by a moderator:
JohnnyCash
Volunteer Moderator
Doesn't it say it all in itself without me or anyone explains??? I mean, you have admitted by your own here as to what it's used to say, meaning disclosing of alll citations.
It's so strange and it's an irony that why it's so hard for people to read/comprehend/understand a simple instruction in English. I mean, what not to understand in there when it's clearly stated that all citations must need to be disclosed and that there is no need to submit any documentation to those tickets which were under $500?? What's so confusing and not understanding in there? Don't listen to anyone, including immigration officers over the phone and immigration attorneys. Just read the instructions carefully and you would know what to do and what should be done. It's not a rocket science to understand a simple text in English.
Every time someone comes up on here on this issue by giving all kind of answer then it does go to show that person is just trying to justify and fit himself in a situation convient to him by not disclosing tickets even though instructions do state about disclosing all citations. Traffic tickets are citations. Forget about DUI, DWI, rackless driving or anything for that matter. ALL CITATIONS MUST NEED TO BE DISCLOSED according to the instructions. Instructions don't say that applicants should not disclose traffic tickets if they are DUI, DWI, rackless driving, or if under $500. How hard it's to read and comprehend???? It's beyond my understanding that people cannot read text in simple English. Telling that instructions were different back then, and there is no foul game and etc....means nothing because there is no need to argue on this issue given the fact that instructions do ask to disclose all citations.
FYI, there is nothing changed in this regard since 2004 on the form. I've been dealing this matter a way long. The last time it changed was in 2001-2002. People have had non-stop discussion on this topic since then. So don't tell me that instructions were different or confusing when you filed. There was never a confusion. Actually, you guys made this issue as a confusion to you to fit your situation and based upon what you hear from others on here and from some people which has made you to completely ignore and disregard what is written on the instructions.
The N-400 instruction form is currently undergoing revision by the OMB and a 30 day public comment request period is open. This would be a great opportunity for anyone confused with the citation question on the N-400 to submit their public comment to the OMB and DHS for review.
http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspubl...6e055a&disposition=attachment&contentType=pdf
http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspubl...6e055a&disposition=attachment&contentType=pdf
Last edited by a moderator:
Excellent! No amount of discussions in the forums would change the citation question; submitting comments to the OMB and DHS could help.
Let me tell you my experience regarding traffic tickets. Before applying n-400 I had asked a few friends who already became USC whether to report tickets or not. They laughed and were surprised why i asked this. I told them on the form it says citations and per folks on this board traffic tickets are citations. They did not know this fact. Neither did I earlier but becasue I came frequently to this site I saw all the posts about this issue so i came to know this was a citation. My take is that 90% applicants have at least one traffic ticket (conservative estimate) and 90% of those (conservative estimate again) do not know that simple things like speeding etc are citations. Hence 81% are in the dark. Of those less than 1% come to this or other chat boards on the web. That implies that 80% applicants do not know that traffic tickets are actually citations and N-400 form has some reference to them. So, when johnny Cash mentions that some cases may have slipped thru the cracks in the scanner of USCIS then I believe that, that crack is almost grander than the Grand Canyon. 
This is simply not possible that 80% naturalized citizens are at risk of being denaturalized.
Now, I reported my ticket on the form going by the confusion created by folks here. My friends had lightly told me that it might delay my interview. And believe it or not I think it did. Yes, I did apply during the rush period but this may have also played a part. Anyhow I went to the interview and was laughed at by the IO for reporting the ticket, who by the way was an old and highly experienced woman going by her demeanour and awards' plaques all over her office. Then during Oath the guy making announcements mentioned during his speech that "Please let us know now if you have been arrested or if you have committed a crime or travelled abroad after having your interview. Do not come to me with traffic tickets. I am only interested in knowing if you committed a crime for which you were arrested". Oath proceedings are recorded so there is evidence of such a stament.
What to make of the above? Clearly there is gap somewhere. Either in training of IOs or in the language mentioned on the N-400 instructions or in the interpretation of the instructions. I believe it is the third.
This is simply not possible that 80% naturalized citizens are at risk of being denaturalized. Now, I reported my ticket on the form going by the confusion created by folks here. My friends had lightly told me that it might delay my interview. And believe it or not I think it did. Yes, I did apply during the rush period but this may have also played a part. Anyhow I went to the interview and was laughed at by the IO for reporting the ticket, who by the way was an old and highly experienced woman going by her demeanour and awards' plaques all over her office. Then during Oath the guy making announcements mentioned during his speech that "Please let us know now if you have been arrested or if you have committed a crime or travelled abroad after having your interview. Do not come to me with traffic tickets. I am only interested in knowing if you committed a crime for which you were arrested". Oath proceedings are recorded so there is evidence of such a stament.
What to make of the above? Clearly there is gap somewhere. Either in training of IOs or in the language mentioned on the N-400 instructions or in the interpretation of the instructions. I believe it is the third.
You may not believe this but only a tiny percentage of people actually know that traffic tickets are citations. Even average Ameraicans do not know this fact. You are reading the statement by the book but that's not how it is implied in the real world. You talk to an average guy on the street and he will tell you "Oh yeah it is a ticket yeah!! Citation??? what the heck !!!"
Last edited by a moderator:
TheRealist
Registered Users (C)
I believe it is the first/second and not the third. I think the interpretation is correct: Per the current set of N-400 instructions, we are required to mention any and all citations and instances where we have been stopped by a law enforcement officer for ANY reason. Period. Whether people mention this or not is their choice.
HOWEVER, going by the considerable anecdotal evidence available of IOs pooh-poohing traffic tickets, it seems that internally - either formally or informally - USCIS follows a policy of not making a big deal of traffic tickets. It is reasonable to assume that some of USCIS's internal operating procedures differ from what is made public.
Also, as you have pointed out, it is inconceivable that a very large number of naturalized citizens are at the risk of being denaturalized for not reporting tickets. The (probably) only time this can come up is when a person gets in trouble with the law or with USCIS and they go to town to dig up dirt on him/her. They may dig up unmentioned tickets and give the person grief for witholding of information.
But if this goes to trial, there will be literally thousands of witnesses nationwide who will testify that their IO told them to not mention tickets. Many IOs too will testify the same fact under oath if they are called as witnesses. Whenever thousands of examples of official sanction of deviation from the written rule are available, it always weakens the spirit of the written rule. A major discrepancy in N-400 processing will come out in the open and the defendent will come to no harm on this particular count.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. The above is purely my opinion.
You already believe that the interpretation is correct that's why you are downplaying the first and second choice. But that is just your choice. For most the interpretation is also clear that since they DO NOT KNOW that traffic tickets are citations they are not required to report it. You may call it dumb behavior but this is regular normal behavior. In this country ignorance is the way of life. Have you ever heard any colleague or friend come to you and say "oh you know what, I was cited by police yesterday for over speeding". Everybody talks of getting tickets. Most people just sign check or pay online and feel bad for a few days and then move on. Many dont even keep a copy of ticket even though it says to do so. In my case I got a ticket for speeding 10 years back for which all records were removed in DMV. Nobody has any record of it. Luckily I had copy of disposition because I went to the court and paid there and got a receipt. Most people don't do that. USCIS is aware of this practical reality and so dont make this an issue. Everybody who reads instructions reads about arrest and $500 fine and citations etc and assume that since traffic tickets are none of those they cannot and should not be reported. You may not agree but this is what overwhelming majority of people interpret. Based on this USCIS simply cannot incarcerate millions of already naturalized citizens. Besides USCIS officials clearly mention during oath to not raise traffic tickets as an issue. At least in Brooklyn Oath ceremony that is how it is. I'm not sure how other DOs interpret it but since every DO works differently there may be a different interpretation in your DO.
Last edited by a moderator:
JohnnyCash
Volunteer Moderator
First of all, I've NOT nor I'm reading a statement of disclosing all citation by the book as you say; instead I've and I'm reading it thru the N-400 itself and from a guide to naturalization.
Secondly, it's not govt. and anyone's fault if 90% of the people don't know of whether or not a traffic ticket is a citation, nor it's anyone's responsibility/job to educate these people what is a citation. People have to find out by their own what constitutes a citation like they do on other information like how to sign photos, naturalization certificate, application and to list their membership with certain organizations and etc...So you to say that 90% of people don't know what is a citation or if traffic ticket is a citiation is not a defense nor it could be used as an excuse to play "innocent". If someone cares about their cause then it's that person's responsibily to find the answer to their cause like people do when they come on this forum and others to get the answer to their questions on various issues.
Thirdly, whatever you have described above as to your experience on this issue like your friends or people whom you have asked about this issue and them to have laughed...and then your IO to have laughed...and then at the oath ceremony and etc...means NOTHING because nothing wipes off what has been instructed by USCIS on their guide to naturalization and on the application. I'm just following the instructions, and you are listenning to these friends of yours (who might know nothing about immigration laws and its procedural rules) and you are comfortably enjoying and laughing along with one IO who laughed with you on this issue. These laughing friends of yours and the IO won't be there when you would face deportation for not being truthful on the application under oath and penalty of perjury for not furnishing all the required and asked information if you had not disclosed it and if ever your case reopens in the future...
I know it's totally incomprehensible to people whenever someone says about reopening a case in the future...let alone revocation and deportation...People think its impossible for govt. to revoke someone's citizenship and deport them...let alone on this ground...but these people know nothing...They can laugh as much as they want...but only time will tell....
I know people just care to get citizenship...that's all. If people could get without disclosing their criminal history and without background checks...they would do it in fraction of second...if they were involved in any criminality. I'm sure if FBI would have kept the record of each traffic tickets then nobody would be laughing and taking this matter so easily...because then everyone must need to disclose it ...no matter what...because FBI would report to USCIS anyway.....
It's funny and strange that people could understand and read on not submitting documentation to traffic tickets less than $500 fine. Where does it say that some citations should only be reported, or only certain traffic tickets should be reported? If it doesn't then it should be considered that USCIS wants a full disclosure of all traffic tickets (citations) no matter what...since there is no any exception mentioned...Whenever people file any kind of application with any govt. agency, they do and should ask anything that seems unclear to them. And if they don't then they should not cry and wine and bring that as a defense. Isn't it people ask all kind of immigration related questions on this websites and other websites when they are clear on something? Then, why don't they ask to know whether traffic tickets are citations or not...especially they know well...thru the instructions that concealing and misrepresenting a material fact is a ground to deny the benefit...??
What others say, including immigration officers...immigration attorneys...and other people who didn't have any problem ....doesn't rebut what USCIS has instructed to do nor anything supercede on the instructions. FYI, immigration officers are not immigration attorneys to know immigration laws. And don't think that just because you have not seen anyone being revoked their citizenship and deported on this very issue then there is no one deported. Read thousands of court cases to know this. And some people's horrible experiences on this very issue on other immigration forums like BritishExp...
Whether or not any immigration officer cared about traffic tickets is not the issue; rather issue is whether to disclose a traffic ticket or not....And as per the instructions, applicants must need to report. Don't be a judge and jury to decide whether traffic tickets issue is petty...USCIS don't care...they laugh...or etc...just follow the instructions...that's all...
Last edited by a moderator:
my guess of why USCIS does not really care or want to see the traffic tickets on N4
The IO interviewed my wife (She replaced the N400 page in file with my wife's own copy) said, ” if you put ticket information then I have to call the police department and court to verify. I do not want to that."
Here are my guess of why USCIS does not really care or want to see the traffic tickets on N400:
If an applicant disclosed the traffic tickets, technically, USCIS IO supposes to verify the tickets and outcome (as the IO told to my wife). And the ways to verify are to call or write letters. In reality, it might take several trips back and forth to clear one simple tickets. The police department may tell USCIS it was not in my jurisdiction or we do not keep records for dismissed tickets. The court may say we do not have that record. The name can be spelled wrong and ticket number is not correct. The police department or court might not reply the inqury for a long time.... After all the effort made, it could just verified that there was a traffic ticket of "Failure of maintenance of Lamp" -- brake light burned out (that is one of my tickets). And the ticket was dismissed in court. No fine, no point.
Given USCIS has huge backlog now, either the USCIS headquarter or IOs do not want to spend their time, money and energy on such traffic tickets. The work load could be gigantic. Think of someone could have a lot of tickets.
On the other hand, even the N440 did ask the question, I think most of people, including IOs, do not believe that a traffic ticket (not DUI) has really link to a person's good moral and behavior. You might check your car every night. The brake light still could burn out next day. Is that has some thing to do with ones moral or behavior? I can understand why the law allows police issues tickets because it is one way to let you know (though I prefer they just issue a warning instead). I believe majority of IOs or their family members got traffic tickets in their life. Do you think they would link those tickes to moral?
For the above reasons, I think USCIS internally or unofficially just do not want applicants to put the regular traffice tickets on N400. If something happened to you later on and the government decided to make your life hard they have tons of tools to use. To dig out the undisclosed traffic tickets which were issues many years ago and by different departments from different areas is just not the most handy one.
The IO interviewed my wife (She replaced the N400 page in file with my wife's own copy) said, ” if you put ticket information then I have to call the police department and court to verify. I do not want to that."
Here are my guess of why USCIS does not really care or want to see the traffic tickets on N400:
If an applicant disclosed the traffic tickets, technically, USCIS IO supposes to verify the tickets and outcome (as the IO told to my wife). And the ways to verify are to call or write letters. In reality, it might take several trips back and forth to clear one simple tickets. The police department may tell USCIS it was not in my jurisdiction or we do not keep records for dismissed tickets. The court may say we do not have that record. The name can be spelled wrong and ticket number is not correct. The police department or court might not reply the inqury for a long time.... After all the effort made, it could just verified that there was a traffic ticket of "Failure of maintenance of Lamp" -- brake light burned out (that is one of my tickets). And the ticket was dismissed in court. No fine, no point.
Given USCIS has huge backlog now, either the USCIS headquarter or IOs do not want to spend their time, money and energy on such traffic tickets. The work load could be gigantic. Think of someone could have a lot of tickets.
On the other hand, even the N440 did ask the question, I think most of people, including IOs, do not believe that a traffic ticket (not DUI) has really link to a person's good moral and behavior. You might check your car every night. The brake light still could burn out next day. Is that has some thing to do with ones moral or behavior? I can understand why the law allows police issues tickets because it is one way to let you know (though I prefer they just issue a warning instead). I believe majority of IOs or their family members got traffic tickets in their life. Do you think they would link those tickes to moral?
For the above reasons, I think USCIS internally or unofficially just do not want applicants to put the regular traffice tickets on N400. If something happened to you later on and the government decided to make your life hard they have tons of tools to use. To dig out the undisclosed traffic tickets which were issues many years ago and by different departments from different areas is just not the most handy one.
Your whole argument is based on the assumption that people know or must know that tickets are citations. Reality is that people dont. That is a fact which you can yourself determine by talking to averga efolks on the streets, office etc
- Status