Citizenship denied

Al Southner

Registered Users (C)
JohhnyCash,

I totally agree with your opinion on this matter. The OP contention of never being behind bars is bogus and a dog barking at a moon scenario.:eek: The administrative laws governing USCIS are very clear, the N400 application is never final until the candidate is sworn in to tell the truth at the interview, which means you can omit purposely any embarassing information, but appear in person for the interview and inform the officer that you would like to amend or correct, this is legal and acceptable. :) The OP was asked on two occasions, which means the IO knew the information which the OP should have known, because his FP report from the FBI included this arrest record and the nature of his arrest. :rolleyes:

I don't see the OP's appeal coming to a successful conclusion. I would like to be a lawyer who will handle this case, easy money will be coming in my way, because USCIS will prevail in this case. The burden of proof is on the OP to demonstrate that USCIS made an error in rendering a denial decision. :rolleyes: Based on the facts provided by the OP, I see no error in this decision as he was given ample opportunity to be truthful. The notion that somehow he provided court documentation to the IO is even more bizarre to me. He should have avoided all of this hoopla if he asked his relative, why would someone send him a check (3 for that matter), for which he's not owed any money or part of any foreign business? Asking a bank teller if the check are good is irrelevant, they aren't forensic experts on fraudalent check, happen to process them only....:confused:
 

richmondva

Registered Users (C)
He should have avoided all of this hoopla if he asked his relative, why would someone send him a check (3 for that matter), for which he's not owed any money or part of any foreign business? Asking a bank teller if the check are good is irrelevant, they aren't forensic experts on fraudalent check, happen to process them only....:confused:

The issue of 3 fraudulent checks from a relative is a different thread. This is the bad grocery check one. I know even I tend to get confused between the two :D because of the immense interest both these have generated.

Jcash, Al

But Bob's argument might still have some weight for OP's defense since OP did not know until a later date that the application was/will be denied. But s/he still produced the paperwork in front of the IO. So OP certainly has some sort of a defense there stating that s/he could very well have avoided producing or carrying documents but preferred to disclose those and be truthful. S/he can claim that s/he answered "No" to the questions for arrest because s/he did not believe what had happened to him/her was actually an arrest.

I agree that OP probably knew all the time that s/he had been arrested but that does not imply that s/he doesn't have an argument to defend his/her position. I would put the chances of success at 60-40 in favor of the OP.
 

Jackolantern

Registered Users (C)
But Bob's argument might still have some weight for OP's defense since OP did not know until a later date that the application was/will be denied. But s/he still produced the paperwork in front of the IO.
But the paperwork was produced only after the IO told him/her that the FP results showed an arrest. The OP realized that he/she was being caught in a lie, and then produced the paperwork. So I don't think that helps.

I think the only hope the OP has for appeal is if there truly was no arrest ... suppose he/she got something in the mail demanding a visit to a police station or courthouse to pay a fine, then went there without being forced or accompanied by police, and got fingerprinted there before or after paying the fine. Unfortunately, the OP apparently isn't returning to this thread to clarify what really happened.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Bobsmyth

Volunteer Moderator
If the OP's understanding of the word "arrest" was different from the IOs, no matter how many times the IO would have asked the same question over and over the OP's answer would still have remained the same. On the other hand, if the IO would have clarified the meaning of arrest for the OP, then it would leave no room for misinterpretation on the OP's part.
Some on this board are not sure on the meaning of the meaning of "detained", but that doesn't mean they should be failed for bad english skills, yet alone lying at the interview for not disclosing their meaning of being detained.
We could only assume at this point until the OP responds and offers clarification to the theories posters have provided.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jackolantern

Registered Users (C)
If the OP's understanding of the word "arrest" was different from the IOs, no matter how many times the IO would have asked the same question over and over the OP's answer would still have remained the same.
That's only if the understanding of "arrest" is so drastically different that the incident where he/she was handcuffed, told "You are under arrest", and read Miranda rights didn't occur to the OP that it might somehow be interpreted as an arrest and didn't think it should at least be mentioned to the IO in case it was an arrest in the IO's opinion. And if not perceived an arrest, that incident should at least be perceived as "detained", with Question 16 answered YES and accompanied with an explanation. The IO could then reclassify it is an arrest and the OP would have been approved.

Either it was a deliberate attempt to hide the incident (hoping the IO doesn't know about it), or a very bad understanding of English if it is neither understood to be detained nor arrested.
Some on this board are not sure on the meaning of the meaning of "detained", but that doesn't mean they should be failed for bad english skills, yet alone lying at the interview for not disclosing their meaning of being detained.
What is considered "detained" is a lot more vague than being told YOU ARE UNDER ARREST and being handcuffed and having your Miranda rights read to you.

And if I had a brush with law enforcement but wasn't sure about whether it was "detained", I would mention the incident if repeatedly asked about being detained.

Now if it was only about visiting a police station or court under one's free will to a pay a fine, and there was no handcuffing, no "You are under arrest", etc. that's another matter and the OP should have a good chance in the appeal.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Bobsmyth

Volunteer Moderator
And if I had a brush with law enforcement but wasn't sure about whether it was "detained", I would mention the incident if repeatedly asked about being detained.

Let's say your interpretation of the word detained meant being brought down to the police station and put in jail overnight (jail being the trigger word for your own definition), how would an IO's repetitive question of if you were ever detained change your answer if the IO never clarified that being detained does not need to involve jail in order to be considered detainment?
It's not a question of the OP not being sure what arrest means.. the OP's interpretation (albeit incorrect) of the word arrest requires a jail element so no matter how many times the IO asked without clarification the OP's answer would still be the same.
Also, the AFM has several examples of how the IO can ask a question differently if it appears the applicant is not clear. In the OP's case, maybe the IO did bother with the AFM examples.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

bashar82

Registered Users (C)
From my experience (my fiancée was arrested for relatively "minor" infraction in Richmond, VA and only arrested her after failing to convince the other party to drop the charges) a police officer is required to handcuff a person (Michael Jackson complained about the cuffs being too tight when he was arrested) and have their rights read to them.

Questions for the OP:

1. Did the police restrain you with handcuffs?
2. Did they read you your Miranda rights....."you have the right to remain silent....."?
3. Did the police take your photograph and fingerprints?
 

Jackolantern

Registered Users (C)
Let's say your interpretation of the word detained meant being brought down to the police station and put in jail overnight (jail being the trigger word for your own definition), how would an IO's repetitive question of if you were ever detained change your answer if the IO never clarified that being detained does not need to involve jail in order to be considered detainment?
This is about being arrested. YOU ARE UNDER ARREST. You have the right to remain silent. Handcuffs. If that doesn't occur to you that hey, maybe that is an arrest or maybe the IO thinks that is an arrest and I should tell him, you failed the English requirement.
 

richmondva

Registered Users (C)
This is about being arrested. YOU ARE UNDER ARREST. You have the right to remain silent. Handcuffs. If that doesn't occur to you that hey, maybe that is an arrest or maybe the IO thinks that is an arrest and I should tell him, you failed the English requirement.

Its possible the officer didn't read the rights or maybe s/he never handcuffed the OP. Maybe s/he wasn't clear enough with his/her words. Maybe the OP was scared or did not hear the rights or the accent was not clear. But if OP's interpretation of the word arrest was something that did not happen to him/her then he would just respond "No" to that question. On repeatedly being axed by the IO and then reminding him of the precise incident, the OP could have eventually produced the document stating "oh yes! Are you talking about this! Something did happen a few years back and here is the paperwork for it but I didn't realize that was an arrest".

Honestly if I had not been on this forum before my interview and if I was asked 2 or probably even 3 times at the interview whether I had ever been "detained" or "arrested" by a law enforcement officer, in all probability I would have responded back with a "No" both the times. If the IO would then have reminded me that in Dec 2004 I was detained and got a speeding ticket for driving 11 miles over the limit on so and so road, my light bulb would have flashed and I would have produced my traffic ticket paperwork stating "Are you talking about this! Is that considered a detainment?". Does that make me morally bad in any way to get rejected?

I don't believe anyone here thinks that this would work for sure and get the OP his/her citizenship. All we are saying is that this is the best shot or rather the only shot s/he has. Do you have any other suggestions that can help OP build a case to contest the appeal?

We all probably understand that if the OP does admit that s/he knew all the time that s/he had been arrested but did not disclose it to the IO then s/he is bound to get denied in the appeal.
 

Bobsmyth

Volunteer Moderator
This is about being arrested. YOU ARE UNDER ARREST. You have the right to remain silent. Handcuffs. If that doesn't occur to you that hey, maybe that is an arrest or maybe the IO thinks that is an arrest and I should tell him, you failed the English requirement.

That's an extreme conclusion if an applicant's interpretation of the word arrest specifically implies jail time. The English requirement would not be determined on an applicant's misinterpretation of a single word, but rather on the overall conservation in an interview. Even if the OP was read their maranda rights, any recollection of the incident and the word arrest would likely be forgotten if the applicant's interpretation of arrest specifically implied jail time.
It seems to me that many here are quick to judge the OP without having all the facts at hand, relying on assumptions rather than on the presumption of innocence.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mimi1212

Registered Users (C)
I think that if you are taken to a police unit and taken fingerprints and pictures, you have been arrested. You have to think that once you are fingerprint IT IS going to your record (it will show in every background check), so to make sure you don't make a mistake have someone at the police unit tell you if your case is considered under "arrest" or not. That's for future references tho ;)
 

WBH

Registered Users (C)
I actually believe so far as IOs are concerned, arrest just means "caught".

Whether you are taken into a police custody or not, as long as FBI FP and name check come up with something , then you have been
arrested in the eyes of USCIS. Of course, if you are not taken into a police station, you probably won't get fingerprinted, but FBI name
check is different. Maybe even fingerprinting can be done on spot if some police car carries fingerpritning kits. You really do not know.

So as long as The IO see you have a crminal record, then you are "arrested", the IO does not care how the booking procedure is done and where it is done
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Bobsmyth

Volunteer Moderator
I actually believe so far as IOs are concerned, arrest just means "caught".

Whether you are taken into a police custody or not, as long as FBI FP and name check come up with something , then you have been arrested in the
eyes of USCIS.

The trigger is being fingerprinted, not just being caught. Once you are fingerprinted by police, you have an arrest record.
 

WBH

Registered Users (C)
The trigger is being fingerprinted, not just being caught. Once you are fingerprinted by police, you have an arrest record.

Even without being fingerprinted, this can be picked up in FBI name check.

That is why the quesation on N400:"Have you ever commited a crime or an offense for which you were not arrested" rather than "Have you ever commited a crime or an offense for which you were not arrested, cited, or charged".
 

Al Southner

Registered Users (C)
Even without being fingerprinted, this can be picked up in FBI name check.

That is why the quesation on N400:"Have you ever commited a crime or an offense for which you were not arrested" rather than "Have you ever commited a crime or an offense for which you were not arrested, cited, or charged".


How will the FBI pick-up someone whose crime he was never finger printed for? Unless the person is a terrorist and local enforcement share this info with the FBI, I would be hard pressed to find why would the FBI have this information. For the record, FBI has computer systems from the 1800's, old like a french wine, they are nw in the process of modernization.:cool:

The FP is one of their most successful programs ran by the FBI, because local enforcement shares FP data with the feds, other minor crimes are local. WBH, let us know how will the FBI know about this crime, I don't doubt they will know, but how?:confused:
 

Bobsmyth

Volunteer Moderator
Even without being fingerprinted, this can be picked up in FBI name check.

That is why the quesation on N400:"Have you ever commited a crime or an offense for which you were not arrested" rather than "Have you ever commited a crime or an offense for which you were not arrested, cited, or charged".

And how do you suggest such a crime would show up on the FBI database without the suspect ever being fingerprinted? The FBI database is based on arrest records with FPs, not citations.
The purpose to the question is to have the applicant answer if they ever committed a crime serious enough (that would deny them from naturalization), but got away with it. Ex: If an applicant murdered his neighbor but got away with it, it would make him ineligible for naturalization regardless of if he discloses the incident or not.
 

WBH

Registered Users (C)
And how do you suggest such a crime would show up on the FBI database without the suspect ever being fingerprinted? The FBI database is based on arrest records with FPs, not citations.

That is why there is a name check in addition to FP check. If the police
are on busy schedule, they can give citation to a lot of people who
commits not so serious offenses on spot rather than take them into
police station. In such case, the local police can report names to FBI.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

WBH

Registered Users (C)
How will the FBI pick-up someone whose crime he was never finger printed for?

There is FBI name check. Local police can also provde names SSN, etc
to FBI.

If FP is the only way to check, then we would not have FBI name check.
 

Al Southner

Registered Users (C)
That is why there is a name check in addition to FP check. If the police
are on busy schedule, they can give citation to a lot of people who
commits not so serious offenses on spot rather than take them into
police station.


WBH,

Once again, you provide no substantive reasoning or facts on how the FBI would pick someone without an existing FP record associated with a crime of some sort. :confused: As far I am aware, there is no law enforcement officials who is too busy to take someone to a local precint to be FP and a mug shot taken, it is what they are trained to do to ensure criminals are put behind bars. A name check is routine process, I was never arrested but was charged with reckless driving, which means when the FBI did a name check on me years ago, then they should picked-up this issue and alerted USCIS about speedy ways in NJ. We are focused on arrest record with a FP, not a esoteric theory which you seem to be advancing here...:rolleyes: The FBI has a national FP database, which data is entered by local law enforcement agencies to ensure access to criminals who might pose national security threats. :eek:
 

Bobsmyth

Volunteer Moderator
That is why there is a name check in addition to FP check. If the police
are on busy schedule, they can give citation to a lot of people who
commits not so serious offenses on spot rather than take them into
police station. In such case, the local police can report names to FBI.

I doubt the police submits name only records to the FBI for not so serious offenses. Name submissions (without FP) to the FBI's NNCP come from multiple agencies, such as CBP or the IRS when your name comes up in an investigation regardless of if you committed a crime or not. It's possible that your name alone comes up with a hit on the NNCP without you ever having committed a crime.
 
Top