Citizenship denied

WBH

Registered Users (C)
WBH,

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.

Again you just assume anything you have not heard of is untrue. Citations are given all the time without taking the offenders to police stattion. This
oif course won't happen to serious crime but there are a huge area between serious crime and petty offenses. For petty offenses, it is quiet normal
for police to just issue citation.summon after identification is established on the spot.
 

Mimi1212

Registered Users (C)
So with that said, FINGERPRINTS = ARREST for sure. For future applicants if you are fingerprinted you have a record and it will show on your background check, as I said on my previous post here.
 

WBH

Registered Users (C)
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.

The bottomline of my opinion is that FP is usually but not always part of "arrest". It does not matter to answer N400 form because the question
combined "arrested, cited, charged" into juts one question on N400. I think
during the interview, the IO should repeat that question but the IO may prefer brevity and only asked" Have you ever been arrested". If an applicant
was only cited but not arrest (taken into polcie station to do FPOP, mug shot etc), he should not just answer one word "NO" otherwise he may face beiong
accused of lying. If he answer No he better follow up with "I was cited".

In case of the OP I find he did not explain his situation well. Did he
answer "Yes" on N400 to the "Have you been arrested, cited, charged?"
If he did, then he could argue he never intend to lie because he alreayd dislosed
his incident on N400. If he answer No, then why did he still carry
those court documents? If he just answer NO on N400 form and brought
those court docuemnts just in case the IO knew his incident then he was in big
trouble for lying and he had no more good argument anymore.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

WBH

Registered Users (C)
So with that said, FINGERPRINTS = ARREST for sure. For future applicants if you are fingerprinted you have a record and it will show on your background check, as I said on my previous post here.

FINGERPRINTS means ARREST but no FINGERPRINTS does not mean no arrest
 

Mimi1212

Registered Users (C)
Maybe that's when the word "Detained" comes into place? I've never heard of an arrest without being fingerprinted. It doesnt make any sense, fingerprinting is the only way that it would go to your record, so If the case was minor and you were not fingerprinted then that might be a detention.
 

Bobsmyth

Volunteer Moderator
In case of the OP I find he did not explain his situation well. Did he
answer "Yes" on N400 to the "Have you been arrested, cited, charged?"
If he did, then he could argue he never intend to lie because he alreayd dislosed his incident on N400. If he answer No, then why did he still carry
those court documents?.
The question on N-400 is "Have you ever been arrested, cited or detained". The OP could have honestly answered NO if his/her understanding of the question meant that arrest and detained (as in jail time) go hand in hand.
If the OP answered NO to "Have you ever been charged with committing any crime or offense", then I can see it as purposely withholding the incident.

Reading past experiences, i noticed that some IOs will not clarify a question if they feel they can deny an applicant for lying based on symantics rather than on questioning that leaves no doubt the applicant knew what the questions means. An example of this would be:

IO: Have you ever been arrested?
Applicant: (Thinking arrest means jail/detention) No
IO: Let me repeat the question again. Have you ever been arrested?
Applicant: No
IO: Let me make this very clear to you: Have you ever been arrested?
Applicant: (By now nervous as the IO is being arrogant and repeating the question without further explanation). No, but here are the papers I have from court.
IO: I just asked you three times and you answered No. You lied to me, I have to deny you. (As IO is basking in their self righteous glory).

Is it really so much to ask for the IO to rephrase the question rather than asking it over and over again the same way? (As even the AFM mentions how to question an applicant without there being any doubt in the question).
 
Last edited by a moderator:

WBH

Registered Users (C)
The question on N-400 is "Have you ever been arrested, cited or detained". The OP could have honestly answered NO if his/her understanding of the question meant that arrest and detained (as in jail time) go hand in hand.

What about "cited"? He must have been given a notice to appear in court.

Reading past experiences, i noticed that some IOs will not clarify a question if they feel they can deny an applicant for lying based on symantics rather than on questioning that leaves no doubt the applicant knew what the questions means.



That is why if you answer Yes to one question about an incident already on N400, you better be conservative when answerting other question regarding the same incident.
Since you already disclose the same incident, it does not matter you answer Yes to both Question 16 and 17 or just one of them.
 

WBH

Registered Users (C)
IO: Have you ever been arrested?
Applicant: (Thinking arrest means jail/detention) No
IO: Let me repeat the question again. Have you ever been arrested?
Applicant: No

For those who plead guilty to get their cases to dismissed, they
have to figure out how to answer Qeustion 18: "Have you ever been convicted a crime or offense". We do not knwo whether
conviction here means conviction in criminal court or expand to
those deals that are also defined as conviction by immigration laws.

I usually think Q 18 is for crminalk conviction and Q 19 is for
nonconviction in crminal court but considered conviction equivalent
by immigration laws.

So if the IO ask the applicant Q 18, the applicant should not just give a NO
answer if teh case is dismissed. He may say "No, but I plead guilty before
the case was dismissed"
 

Bobsmyth

Volunteer Moderator
So if the IO ask the applicant Q 18, the applicant should not just give a NO
answer if teh case is dismissed. He may say "No, but I plead guilty before
the case was dismissed"

Or the applicant can ask the IO to rephrase the question for clarification.
 

WBH

Registered Users (C)
That's assuming the OP knew that a citation is an order to appear in court.

The IO must assume applicants have common sense otherwise the whole interview become meaningless. What if someone has three wives
and then said he is not a polygamist because he does not know what
the word polygamy means?
 

WBH

Registered Users (C)
Or the applicant can ask the IO to rephrase the question for clarification.

and the IO bother to explain what conviction means? Many people do not know
convicitons have different meaning under immigration laws.
 

Al Southner

Registered Users (C)
Again you just assume anything you have not heard of is untrue. Citations are given all the time without taking the offenders to police stattion. This
oif course won't happen to serious crime but there are a huge area between serious crime and petty offenses. For petty offenses, it is quiet normal
for police to just issue citation.summon after identification is established on the spot.


The OP's crime was not a minor crime, so inserting a minor crime to this discussion is irrelevant. Let me be very clear: no citation is going to be reported to the FBI, unless the offender is a suspected of terrorism activity by transporting liquid nitrogen to his apartment, for which is illegal on its face value. The officer is going to issue a citation and arrest this individual, call the federal law enforcement. Minor traffic citation aren't crimes for which one can appear on a FBI background check, are you kidding me or what? Can you imagine..."Oh...sir, your tail light isn't working, so I am going to give you a citation, but won't be arresting you because we are too busy today and we won't be taking your FP and mug shot". :rolleyes: A petty offense won't cause a denial of a citizenship.

All serious crimes, rape, DUI or DWI, drug trafficking, domestic violence and even road rage, officer are going to take you to jail for booking and FP. You have committed crimes against the people of the state, so you have to face a legal punishment. Those are crimes which can cause a denial of citizenship..:cool:
 

WBH

Registered Users (C)
Can you imagine..."Oh...sir, your tail light isn't working, so I am going to give you a citation, but won't be arresting you because we are too busy today and we won't be taking your FP and mug shot". :rolleyes: A petty offense won't cause a denial of a citizenship.

I can only say you have not experienced certain experiences
 

Al Southner

Registered Users (C)
I can only say you have not experienced certain experiences

An officer in the example I provided wouldn't be a self-respecting police officer. Officer have a duty to detain and arrest criminals involved in serious crimes, being busy isn't excuse...:confused: No disagreement on experiences, but I know bull when I smell one. Your contention of minor citation showing up in the FBI name check is horse manure...:D

FBI name check and FP database are for that particular issue. Name check is run against numerous databases, to ensure the subject is or has never being under investigation by federal authorities. If you whack a pinata during a party and offend the host, he then calls the police and you are asked why you whacked the pinata with a hammer, a citation issued from the pinata assault won't appear in the FBI database. Unless the pinata was a federal property...:rolleyes:
 

WBH

Registered Users (C)
An officer in the example I provided wouldn't be a self-respecting police officer. Officer have a duty to detain and arrest criminals involved in serious crimes, being busy isn't excuse...:confused: No disagreement on experiences, but I know bull when I smell one. Your contention of minor citation showing up in the FBI name check is horse manure...:D

FBI name check and FP database are for that particular issue. Name check is run against numerous databases, to ensure the subject is or has never being under investigation by federal authorities. If you whack a pinata during a party and offend the host, he then calls the police and you are asked why you whacked the pinata with a hammer, a citation issued from the pinata assault won't appear in the FBI database. Unless the pinata was a federal property...:rolleyes:

I will not follow up on your post. Please don't follow up on mime either
 

Jackolantern

Registered Users (C)
Reading past experiences, i noticed that some IOs will not clarify a question if they feel they can deny an applicant for lying based on symantics rather than on questioning that leaves no doubt the applicant knew what the questions means. An example of this would be:

IO: Have you ever been arrested?
Applicant: (Thinking arrest means jail/detention) No
IO: Let me repeat the question again. Have you ever been arrested?
Applicant: No
IO: Let me make this very clear to you: Have you ever been arrested?
Applicant: (By now nervous as the IO is being arrogant and repeating the question without further explanation). No, but here are the papers I have from court.
IO: I just asked you three times and you answered No. You lied to me, I have to deny you. (As IO is basking in their self righteous glory).
However, in this case the OP revealed the papers only after the IO revealed knowledge of the arrest. In your above scenario, the IO probably would not have denied the individual, as the court papers were produced before the IO revealed the information.
Is it really so much to ask for the IO to rephrase the question rather than asking it over and over again the same way?
Is it really too much to expect the applicant to ask the IO to rephrase the question, given that the applicant knows of an incident with the police in the past? Or to say "Well, I wasn't arrested, but this is what happened one night when I was taken to the police station"?

If all the usual activities of an arrest have occurred, and somebody answers no to both Q16 and Q17 and also doesn't disclose the incident on the N-400 or when repeatedly questioned, and their naturalization is still approved after that, it means those questions are useless. Everybody would just say No regardless of their arrests, and if the IO catches it just say you didn't understand the meaning of "arrested". Maybe this is just an unfortunate misunderstanding, but they can't just allow everybody to have their own definitions of arrested/detained/charged/etc. which are so drastically different from the legally accepted meanings.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

SunnyJ

Registered Users (C)
Obviously, the whole discussion is now more on speculation and reached analysis-paralysis stage.
There is always a human side to a case adjudication... if the applicant decided to appeal and is able to convince the judge that the question was not understood by the applicant, there is a possibility that the decision can be over-turned. The applicant did produce some paper ( we dont know wht it was) and was not sure about his/her arrest ( we can speculate otherwise to fancy our ideas) and there could be a simple appeal process. Not always are they going to be easy,, but the risk of not appealing and thinking that 5 years later is safer is, to me, another misguided advise. At the end,, this is a case where the applicant should DEFINITELY talk to a lawer or two and get experts opinion on how to proceed...
 

WBH

Registered Users (C)
The applicant did produce some paper ( we dont know wht it was) and was not sure about his/her arrest ( we can speculate otherwise to fancy our ideas) and there could be a simple appeal process.


Just do not know if the applicant only produced papers after the IO informed
the applicant he had arrest record or not. It may make things worse because
the USCIS can argue teh applicant clearly know he should answer Yes but just decide to answer No with a contingency plan. The key is that if applicant answer
NO to all those questions or just No to that arrest question. If he answered NO
to all those questions, then the USCIS can insist he was trying to lie rather then
misunderstood. Otherwise why did he even bring some papers?
 

Bobsmyth

Volunteer Moderator
However, in this case the OP revealed the papers only after the IO revealed knowledge of the arrest.
.

Revealed knowledge of the arrest or of the OP being FP'd. In the end, does it matter as the argument is still the same: it appears the IO only repeated the same question instead of providing a clarification for the OP.

Just to show how confusing the questions can be, there is currently a poster who is not sure what arrest and narcotics means, all asked in good English.

http://forums.immigration.com/showpost.php?p=2108098&postcount=1581
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top