The OP could have asked for clarification.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.
At least s/he has the sense to ask the forum what it means. And hopefully to ask the IO what it means in the interview, or to reveal an incident that might meet the definition ... e.g. "this is what happened one night in 2005, is this an arrest?"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.
Like WBH said, the IO has to assume common sense. And the naturalization requirements include knowing English. And ignorance of the law is not an excuse. To protect the integrity of the naturalization process, people who fail to disclose required information in the interview before being caught should be denied, otherwise it gives an almost blanket license to answer questions untruthfully and then claim a lack of understanding if caught.
Last edited by a moderator: