"It's ridiculous to indulge in wild imaginations and accuse the applicant of something. That's not what we do here."
I've been here a wayyyy longer to have known and seen as to what "we" do here. This is a public forum wherin people discuss immigration matters. This is not a forum wherein people need to rubberstamp posters or to tell them only what they want to hear out. Everyone is entittled to their own and honest opinions, agreed by others or not, wrong or right...so long no profanity is used. Difference in opinions is the beauty of this country and very important to any public forum. Further, people will always comment on something as they perceive/understand, which might be different than yours. Besides, if someone is so worry about opinions provided by others then they shouldn't be posting their concerns on an 'open and public forum'. Bottom line is- this is a public forum wherein people discuss situaitons than just rubber stamping each other. Posters could be civil in expressing their opinions but can/should express their own opinions without being called -judgemental.
And nobody is accusing OP for anything; instead they are just giving their opinions as they perceive OP's sitaution as per their own understanding on this situation. I know well that whenever people provide their opinions on a public board by saying something then it's always considered accussation when some people don't agree with those opinions. Just don't forget that any information out there is always up for a judgement call, whether on a public board or out of the board. So if you tell me something about yourself then don't expect me not to judge you because information is there to judge at first place. In other way, if I tell you that I was charged for writing a bad check and that my citizenship application got denied, then do you expect me to receive only goody/sympathetic opinions from everyone on a public forum? I would rather be happy to get opinions from both sides than only from those who would rubberstamp my acts or something like that. And if I would be so worried about getting other opinions from people, then I shouldn't be posting my situaiton on a public forum.
"All we can do is advice based on what she wrote here, not what she could possibly be hiding."
This site is not an attorney office (even though it's operated by an attorney firm) wherein one should expect only to be helped; rather all the forums on this site are discussion boards wherein issues/situaitons are debated/discsused with the opinions from everyone, whether someone can help or not, or regardless of what could be a help to anyone. If one is looking for ONLY help (and not an open discussion) then going to an attorney would be the right thing to do. And it seems you failed to notice that I did help OP in my initial posting by mentioning two possible options for him/her in his/her situation.
"How did you conclude that she was arrested and finger printed?"
It's very easy to conclude since OP himself/herself stated that background checks showed that OP was arrested. Let me quote what OP stated- "the fingerprints show tha I was arrested".
Also, OP was very clear in saying about an incident s/he remembers which occurred 4 years ago, which means this bad check issue is the one OP was referring to. Here is what OP stated in itself- "I had a situation 4 years ago, with a bad check". OP had not mentioned about this incident if s/he hasn't seen any relevancy to arrest/denial of the application.
Your understanding on OP's situation might be PARTIALLY correct when you say that OP meant that FP background showed that OP was arrested in the past but you are wrong in adding the dots or get a full picture as to why OP would even mention about this bad check issuance incident on here and to the immigration officer at the interview with documents if this is the not relevant arrest/denial of the application. OP was mentioning it only in context to any arrest s/he has had on his/her record.
Yes, it's true that only OP knows what s/he is actually referring to on here about his/her situation, but one should also know that not every poster can explain/write their situation exactly or as clearly as they should. That means, the respondents should only comment on how it makes a sense to them about a situation until OP comes back and clarifies the situation more clearly.
Let me tell more about this issue to make a better sense on it-
(1) A check becomes bad when it doesn't cash out as it's written, meaning doesn't get honored by the bank it's drawn upon. It doesn't matter whether the check was for one cent or trillions of dollars. If it wouldn't get cashed out then it becomes bad. This also includes when someone writes a check from an account that closed down or doesn't exist anymore. Regardless of whatever reason for a check to have not cashed out, it becomes bad if it doesn't cash out. Period.
(2) There is no such thing as to what was the intent when check was written down because it's still considered a bad check if it wouldn't cash out. District attorney offices/Police/Sheriffs ALWAYS file/lodge a criminal complaint/charge/case when they decide to prosecute the matter under the criminal statute-"passing bad check with intent to defraud". So whenever a bad check case is filed, then it includes the element of the crime which is "intent to defraud" here. It's up to the defendant to prove to the judge/jury that when a bad check was written then there was never an intent to defraud. So if defendant is ever to prove that, the case would be dismissed, but one would never see this happening when a check becomes bad for whatever reason and evidence of NSF itself is there to prove the guilt beyond the reasonable doubt.
(3) No one, no private entity or any law enforcement agency, files a criminal complaint on a bad check right away; instead they all give enough time to the defendant to make it up on the bad check in a good faith. It takes away their time and resources without amicably trying to resolve this matter first. In this situation, law enforcement agencies always prefer victims to be not to be victims anymore, and victims also don't prefer to take the matter to criminal courts so long their loss is compensated. That's why such a criminal complaint is filed only when defendant fails to make it up on the bad check or make some kind of plan on making payment on it.
(4) Also remember, if victims don't wish to file a criminal complaint or don't wish to go to law eneforcement then nothing would happen. And even if someone goes to Police to file such a complaint then it would depend on how such a case is handled in a particular place. For example, even if someone writes a bad check in the amount of $25K in NYC, Police normally don't prosecute defendant; instead would advise the victims to take the matter to the civil courts which is wrong for them to do so because passing a bad check is a crime everywhere in the United States regardless of vicitms' loss is recovered or not. A crime is a crime, and violators must need to be punished. On the other hand, it's a felony to write even a $200 worth of bad check in Las Vegas where district attorney aggressively prosecutes bad check complaints. That's why casinos are so easy in extending a big line of credit over there to most people even to those who have a bad credit.
(5) Filing a criminal complaint means filing a criminal charge, which must need to be reported to USCIS, regardless of there was any arrest or not.
(6) Normally when law enforcement agencies receive a criminal complaint from the victim, they file a criminal charge against the defendant and send a notice to the defandent indicating that they have received a criminal complaint. In that criminal complaint they also state that they want defendant to contact their office within certain time to make a payment on the loss amount; otherwise an arrest warrant will be issued. They don't give much time in issuing arrest warrant after filing a criminal case. 10 days in Las Vegas, and might be the same in other jurisdictions. If defendant doesn't contact them within the allotted time, they issue an arrest warrant. However, if defendant would go to their office to make the payment despite of having outstanding arrest warrant then they dont arrest...so long defendant either make the full amount or at least agree to a restitution. In many places, when a criminal charge is made, they process the defendant without arrest...meaning-taking fingerprints and mugshot.
Nevertheless, OP shouldn't worry about the deportation on this issue because in order for USCIS to deport the OP on this issue, the amount of bad check must be $10K....And I don't think OP wrote a bad check in this amount in a grocery store.
How did you conclude that she was arrested and finger printed? My understanding is, she meant that the FP back ground check showed she was arrested in her past, not the same as arrested and finger printed at the same time. Nobody here knows except her what exactly happened at that time. It's ridiculous to indulge in wild imaginations and accuse the applicant of something. That's not what we do here. All we can do is advice based on what she wrote here, not what she could possibly be hiding.
What was I thinking, I should have known that in this country, people are NOT given the opportunity to remedy the situation, because police are called the minute someone passes a bad check, without being given the opportunity to remedy the issue. What was I thinking?