Citizenship denied

Al Southner

Registered Users (C)
My only original point is that some retailer who get a bad checks can report to police without first contacting the check issuer to give him a chance
to coorect. Then you tell me my logic has a problem but now you say "I never said such a situation doesn't exist".


WBH,

You win!!! You were right and I was wrong. The retailer can call the police and have 50 people who wrote bad checks during that week arrested... :cool: 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?:confused: I should have known that all people who write bad check are criminals, and this is the laws in the US...:rolleyes: Lastly, fruit farmers across the corners now accepts checks without state ID, where have I been? Oh... I know, have never been to a farmer's market in 10 years, whole foods is my primary source of vegetation, plus they required ID to match your check book, which I never use cause I prefer credit card transaction while showing my ID...:p Please accept my apologies for insulting the logic in your arguments, come to think of it, my logic is whack dude...:(
 

richmondva

Registered Users (C)
WBH,

Nobody is looking down on anybody, but I am concerned about the logic in some of your arguments. So, we need to clearly differentiate the person from the act, which I thought that's what I did. I never said such a situation doesn't exist, i said the owner is an idiot because who has the time to collect checks which won't clear due to lack of funds...:eek: In 5 years, nobody will be writing checks anymore, because they becoming less popular and too much use of paper, and credit cards have been for a while...:D

Al:

I sort of disagree slightly with you here. I have a small business and I love checks (cash is even better :D) coz we don't have to pay those ****ing credit card companies hefty fees they charge us and then pass on a small "cash back" portion to the buyer (which we ultimately charge the buyers with increased price anyway :D:D). To add to our woes there are these buyers who soil their diapers for 3 months :D and then claim that the product they received was not as per the specifications or their requirements and these CC companies coolly debit the business accounts for no fault of ours. The charge back process most times is cumbersome and worthless s**t waste of time to say the least unless you have nothing else to do. So the businesses (read small businesses) are left with nothing but loss of time, money and product or get back a worthless chewed up product.

If business owners (especially small business owners) had their say they would just not accept credit cards but unfortunately in the real world they don't have a choice because the acceptance is dictated by the ease for customers or marketing from the CC company or the cash backs or the Walmarts who spend millions to ensure they get back every dime. Honestly for businesses the benefits of accepting checks far outweigh the risks associated with an occasional bad check and we "voluntarily" are not going away from checks anytime soon (unless left with no choice because of CC companies or buyers reluctance to use it going forward).

Sorry! I know this is way off topic but wanted to vent it out; so I could at least have a decent weekend. :D
 

JohnnyCash

Volunteer Moderator
"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.
 

onthesky

Registered Users (C)
well said. Johnny Cash. I think your tone is more like an lawyer to a client instead of talking like a friend in this forum. That is when some users started feel uncomfortable.
Good point.
 

Al Southner

Registered Users (C)
Al:

I sort of disagree slightly with you here. I have a small business and I love checks (cash is even better :D) coz we don't have to pay those ****ing credit card companies hefty fees they charge us and then pass on a small "cash back" portion to the buyer (which we ultimately charge the buyers with increased price anyway :D:D). To add to our woes there are these buyers who soil their diapers for 3 months :D and then claim that the product they received was not as per the specifications or their requirements and these CC companies coolly debit the business accounts for no fault of ours. The charge back process most times is cumbersome and worthless s**t waste of time to say the least unless you have nothing else to do. So the businesses (read small businesses) are left with nothing but loss of time, money and product or get back a worthless chewed up product.

If business owners (especially small business owners) had their say they would just not accept credit cards but unfortunately in the real world they don't have a choice because the acceptance is dictated by the ease for customers or marketing from the CC company or the cash backs or the Walmarts who spend millions to ensure they get back every dime. Honestly for businesses the benefits of accepting checks far outweigh the risks associated with an occasional bad check and we "voluntarily" are not going away from checks anytime soon (unless left with no choice because of CC companies or buyers reluctance to use it going forward).

Sorry! I know this is way off topic but wanted to vent it out; so I could at least have a decent weekend. :D



RichVA,

I commend you for being a small business owner and I harbor no contempt for your business practice. What I have concerns about is putting yourself in the liability zone by allowing patrons to pay with check, as opposed to the green men themselves or plastic money, because if you count the administrative costs of this exercise, you will find that they are enormous. I agree that plastic money owners charge high fees to small business owners fr no reason, hence people prefer checks or green men in person. When I travel around the world, most places rarely accept my amex card, so I always have my visa/mastercard to cover my expenses...:rolleyes: The user fees collected by credit card co. needs to be reformed to help people like you...

You don't need to vent, just go and get laid and frustration will flee... :) VA Beach will be empty this week, so it is good place to go for a nice dip, bring sand operated heater though....:D
 

Al Southner

Registered Users (C)
:eek:
well said. Johnny Cash. I think your tone is more like an lawyer to a client instead of talking like a friend in this forum. That is when some users started feel uncomfortable.
Good point.


Wait till bobsmyth finish with Johnny Cash about this moral judgment of posters...:eek: I know it won't be pretty...:D I agree with JCash, people who post here have to be judge in the context of information provided and given a good advise as well, plus some lectures on HOW NOT to make it in America, but rely on government...lol!!!
 

Bobsmyth

Volunteer Moderator
I being denied with my citizenship, because they said I lied in the interview if I was arrested. I had a situation 4 years ago, with a bad check. NOW, I understand that I was arrested, but to my eyes I never was behind bars, I went to paid a fee, but I never thought I was arrested, because I never see myself behind bars,ok. Well when I filled out the N400 form, I marked NO under that questions, in my interview, the person asked me twice if I was arrested again I said NO, the the fingerprints show tha I was arrested, so they aske me question about it!!! the only thing that I remember that I was in schock extremely nervuos, fortunaly I had some related papers, that always kept together with all my important documents, and I show those to him, he just make a copy of it and told me that I will receive a respond by mail. Now, of course the denied my application. Now my question is do I have to file the N366 requesting the hearing?? Do I have to explain them myself it was a confusion in my side, or I be better safe hiring a Lawyer, the thing is I do not have money to do so, and I do not want to pay a lawyer if they still are going to denied. What should I do? Need help ASAP.

What important documents did you provide the IO? Did you present the arrest or court documents? Did the arrest actually lead to a conviction? An arrest in itself is not something that would make you ineligible for naturalization, but willfully withholding such an arrest would.
 

onthesky

Registered Users (C)
Al Southner, I think maybe you can keep going and finish your law degree. By the time you finish, the job market for a lawyer could be much better. I have a friend graduated from one of top schools with law degree this year and still on the job market. Also, you can use this forum to sharp your skills in the meanwhile.
There are always different ways to express yourself. If you can add that to your skillset, you would be wonderful lawyer!
 

Al Southner

Registered Users (C)
Al Southner, I think maybe you can keep going and finish your law degree. By the time you finish, the job market for a lawyer could be much better. I have a friend graduated from one of top schools with law degree this year and still on the job market. Also, you can use this forum to sharp your skills in the meanwhile.
There are always different ways to express yourself. If you can add that to your skillset, you would be wonderful lawyer!



Onthesky,

Thanks for the encouragement, and will surely consider going to finish my law degree. I can be inartful at times or clumsy in trying to articulate issues, which I something that I need to correct, but because of this "internets" sometimes I rarely care, which is a terrible traint to pick up...:rolleyes:

What is going on with your friend? Lawyers are in high demand in this country, tell him to move to DC and I can send my private email, know a partner at fulbright, I can talk to him to offer an informational interview and possible interview... I need to leave soon, sabbath is upon this man...

http://www.fulbright.com/
 

onthesky

Registered Users (C)
Al, thanks for your reply. I know you and Johnny got great points sometimes. However, this is not a court or crazy law office. People with trouble here not only need some advise, sometime, a few words of encouragement does mean so much to them also, which is not something people can get from unmerciful governments and money sucking lawyers. Face the facts, the current immigration law is against immigrants. Some small mistakes can destroy people's hardwork of years, can break many families. When it comes to individual person, it means everything to him/her.

Thanks for your offering to my friend. He graduated from law school and has been assistant of federal judge for some time. From this month he will work for non-profit org as a volunteer. A big law firm offers him but can not let him start right away. They paid him some months salary just to keep him. When he can start work is contingent on when the economy start picking up.
 

JohnnyCash

Volunteer Moderator
At this point it's totally mute as to what crime OP committed and what was the disposition on that offence/charge because OP's application is not denied because of the crime/conviction itself; rather it's denied for lying/withholding an arrest information which is well documented on the denial notice that OP received. Again, OP's application is not denied becuase of crime/convicition itself; rather lying to the govt. under oath. If OP had corrected/updated that information with the officer at the time of interview, either voluntarily or when OP was asked twice on this, then OP might be enjoying being a US citizen by now; but OP provided the said information only when officer informed him/her about the arrest record twice.

I'm sure the bad check case must have been dismissed after paying off the money. Plus, it shouldn't have made the OP deportable either given the amount of the check but it could have made the application to be denied as per the discretion of the officer under the clause of lacking moral character especially when incident occured within the 5 years period. But as it's mentioned by the OP that denial letter didn't indicate anything about the bad check issue to be the reasoning for his/her application to have denied; instead lying to the officer is the reasoning given. So, the OP should focus his/her entire defense on-why s/he thought/understood that s/he wasn't arrested when s/he answered on the application and to the officer.

OP should also try to explain that since s/he is not a lawyer nor has had much information on the legality of all this, thus s/he thought that it's was not an arrest or s/he couldn't understand well what officer was asking. If OP is able to do so, his/her application stands a good chance to get an approval thru appeal as another officer will review/interview the OP if an appeal is filed. Believe me, many people were able to get approval on appeal in the same situation, which have seen on this site and many more including outside of cyber world over the years. Thus, it's not the end of the process. OP has nothing to lose by filing appeal except time and money but chances are s/he might have a good shot to get approval so long a good defensive strategy will be excercised.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Huracan

Registered Users (C)
I really hate that USCIS has that power of withholding information from the interviewee. One could make an "honest" mistake of misinterpreting something that happened in the past that might or might not have been an arrest. If USCIS can easily look into name check and other databases, applicants should also have access to the same information so they can come prepared to the meeting and fill out the application correctly. I don't think an IO asking him a couple of times if you had an arrest means anything, if the issue doesn't come to mind. It feels like entrapment, like trying to catch the interviewee in a lie, that might or not be an honest forgotten thing.
 

JohnnyCash

Volunteer Moderator
I totally understand, Huracan, what you are saying but there is no any law yet wherein USCIS could be punished for withholding information; instead there is a law that punishes applicants for wilfully lying/concealing a material information such as an arrest. So this is all about the laws, and laws are made in the Congress in Washington DC than in a particular USCIS district office. If one thinks something unfair/wrong and not balanced then I think they should raise their voice by contact their congresspeople and media, whether they are legal or not.

For example, USCIS is going to close down their Garden City office in NY area and moving to Queens borough which is very much accessible to everyone given the public transportation and its proximity. Legal or ilegals have been contacting their congresspeople, USCIS and media as to why they have an office in Garden city which is too far for people who live in Queens and Brooklyn...why they don't have an office where most immigrants live because Queens in NYC is the largest immigrant community on the earth but the applicants from Queens and Brooklyn are being sent to Garden city office for their green card and citizenship interview. It's reported that most of these immigrants don't have a car, and it's very time consumpting to go to that office by public transportation from Queens/Brooklyn...at least 2 hours or more unless one would take LIRR which will cost you more money. So with commulative voices, USCIS is now going to close down Garden city office and moving to Queens in the early of next year.

Similarly, by commulative efforts in filing lawsuits against USCIS/FBI and going to media and contacting congresspeople, USCIS and FBI are now taking good care of background checks on a timely manner unlike in the past when applicants were used to remain in limbo for many years for their background checks to be cleared. Having said that, if something seems unfair, then people should try to raise their voice if they want to see a change. I'm not saying that a change will occur overnight but it could one day.

As for whether or not OP was asked more than once during the interivew by the officer on the question on arrest then officer did ask at least twice on this as per OP's posting-"the person asked me twice if I was arrested again I said NO". If one reads the guidelines to the officers then you will find that officers are required to ask a question such as this twice if they feel there is some kind of inconsistency or untruthful answer is provided on the application or during the interview. Officers are required to phrase the question in a way that applicants should understand. And this seems to be the case because OP did present and submit documents regarding the case only when officer informed that there is an arrest record in his/her background which OP didn't state to the officer despite of being asked twice. It could be possible that officer was asking either about the arrest or charge or even both, but OP thought that officer was asking only about the arrest or talking about having arrest record on background check but officer might be mentioning about criminal charge. A criminal charge also must be disclosed even if there was no arrest. Regardless of what and how OP interpreted, s/he should now focus his/her defense on how to explain to the USCIS that s/he did not WILFULLY lie; instead it was his/wrong understanding and interpretion on this matter.

I really hate that USCIS has that power of withholding information from the interviewee. One could make an "honest" mistake of misinterpreting something that happened in the past that might or might not have been an arrest. If USCIS can easily look into name check and other databases, applicants should also have access to the same information so they can come prepared to the meeting and fill out the application correctly. I don't think an IO asking him a couple of times if you had an arrest means anything, if the issue doesn't come to mind. It feels like entrapment, like trying to catch the interviewee in a lie, that might or not be an honest forgotten thing.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jackolantern

Registered Users (C)
I really hate that USCIS has that power of withholding information from the interviewee. One could make an "honest" mistake of misinterpreting something that happened in the past that might or might not have been an arrest. If USCIS can easily look into name check and other databases, applicants should also have access to the same information so they can come prepared to the meeting and fill out the application correctly. I don't think an IO asking him a couple of times if you had an arrest means anything, if the issue doesn't come to mind. It feels like entrapment, like trying to catch the interviewee in a lie, that might or not be an honest forgotten thing.
Actually, because USCIS doesn't have 100% information about 100% of the applicants, I think it is a good strategy for them to hide their hand. If USCIS told the applicants everything they know, the applicants would feel safe about lying/hiding about something else that USCIS doesn't know.

In this case, when the interviewer pushed the issue, he should have brought up the incident and asked if it was an arrest.

But if there indeed was no arrest ... for example, he only got a letter in the mail explaining the offense and demanding that he visit a police station or court to resolve the situation, and went there without force, then he needs to appeal and assert that he wasn't arrested. Or if they took him to the station but didn't tell him he is under arrest and/or didn't read him the Miranda rights, that may also be grounds for claiming it wasn't an arrest.

On the other hand, if the officer said "you are under arrest", and he was handcuffed and taken to a police station, and he still thinks that isn't an arrest, he should be failed for lack of understanding English.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

SEA400

Registered Users (C)
I am glad to see JohnyCash, Al Southner and Jackolantern on the same thread.

Been following you guys for 5 years. Your rare comments add a lot of values.
 

Bobsmyth

Volunteer Moderator
At this point it's totally mute as to what crime OP committed and what was the disposition on that offence/charge because OP's application is not denied because of the crime/conviction itself; rather it's denied for lying/withholding an arrest information which is well documented on the denial notice that OP received.

If the OP actually did have the arrest or court documents on hand and gave them to IO at interview, that can be used (as part of appeal) to demonstrate that the OP did not fully understand the meaning of "arrested". Why purposely not disclose something verbally if you have the physical evidence with you?
 

richmondva

Registered Users (C)
If the OP actually did have the arrest or court documents on hand and gave them to IO at interview, that can be used (as part of appeal) to demonstrate that the OP did not fully understand the meaning of "arrested". Why purposely not disclose something verbally if you have the physical evidence with you?

Very good point! I hope the OP is seeing and understanding all these valuable suggestions.
 

Jackolantern

Registered Users (C)
If the OP actually did have the arrest or court documents on hand and gave them to IO at interview, that can be used (as part of appeal) to demonstrate that the OP did not fully understand the meaning of "arrested".
Hence my earlier statement that if the OP is so clueless of the meaning of "arrested", that he still thought it is not an arrest after being told "You are under arrest" and being handcuffed and involuntarily taken to a police station, he should be denied for insufficient understanding of English.

There actually was a court case like that ... the applicant claimed he didn't lie, said that he gave a certain answer because he didn't understand English very well. The court accepted his claim and voided the bad moral character issue, but denied him for being bad at English.
 

JohnnyCash

Volunteer Moderator
If the OP actually did have the arrest or court documents on hand and gave them to IO at interview, that can be used (as part of appeal) to demonstrate that the OP did not fully understand the meaning of "arrested". Why purposely not disclose something verbally if you have the physical evidence with you?

You have a good point here when you say why not purposely and voluntarily disclose something as important and critical as the issue in this case especially when documentary evidence is available handy, but as I said in my initial posting on this thread that some people mistakenly think that USCIS won't find out about something, or they think that disclosing something will make their application to be denied or delayed which makes them to either lie or conceal material information which is the case with OP as OP chose not to tell the truth despite of being asked by the officer twice at the interview. Most people do get away but not everyone, and OP was happened to be interviewed by an honest officer who does his job professionally and dutifully unlike most officers who are more interested in showing how many cases they have adjudicated than carefully reviewing and analyzing each of them.

I PERSONALLY believe that OP knew very well that s/he was purposely lying/concealing the information and was thinking that officer wouldn't know about arrest/charge, but when application got denied, OP is looking to find ways to see if s/he can do something to get what s/he had hoped for. I mean, OP did carry the record of his/her criminal incident, which means s/he knew that s/he could be asked for it but s/he still chose to gamble in thinking that s/he would be able to pull all this out by lying. Otherwise s/he could have explained the whole situation to the officer when officer asked twice on this than answering no.

Appeal is won when officer seems to have wrongly applied the laws, or made the ruling without the facts and laws which don't seem to be the case here because OP did lie to the govt. agent under oath without a reasonable doubt, which proves a bad character on OP part, and a sure ground to deny the application. I don't believe even for a second that OP somehow mistakenly misunderstood the question or interpreted it wrongly or something like that. Officer actually made the right decision in this case especially when it's written on everywhere about being truthful on the application and to the govt. agent, which OP failed to do so and instead provided the documentation only in the end when s/he found himself/herself being caught red-handed for lying/concealing a material fact.

So even though OP eventually and finally submitted documentations regarding his/her criminal runs-around with the laws; yet still it doesn't wipe out the fact that OP did lie to the officer initially despite of being given an ample opportunity to correct the mistake because officer did ask him/her twice on this. Thereby, prevailing on appeal will depend on how easy-going the next officer will be because some officers are easy-going than others. In my opinion, there are only 30% chances to win the appeal on this denial.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top