Citizenship denied

Jackolantern

Registered Users (C)
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.
The OP could have asked for clarification.

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.
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?"

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:

richmondva

Registered Users (C)
Everyone's point is well taken and as I have already pointed out earlier, there is no denying that OP has a tough case and there is a good chance of the appeal being denied as well. I too have a fair share of feeling in my mind that OP quite likely knew about his arrest and thought he could get away with it without disclosing it and probably acted plain stupidly in this case.

The only difference in the way I look at this (and to some extent Bob) is that OP is (now probably was :D) here for some recommendations that could help guide him/her. The role in general that I envision serious responders on this forum should adopt is closest to the role of an adviser/"defense lawyer" (at least in my opinion; some can differ so please no prolonged debates on this fact). However, a lot of us here have very simply and conveniently assumed the role of a judge and convicted the OP (you have a situation with minimal facts; its simple to say he did it, and he's morally bad; so he should be denied! end of story and go for coffee!) :)

All I am trying to do is presuming innocence until proven guilty and trying to play the role of an adviser and exploring options that will help OP. As I had requested earlier, if anyone has a better suggestion than originally suggested by Bob to defend the OP please bring it up. A few of the posts we are getting here are trying to help IO/USCIS build a case against OP (and USCIS is not even looking here :D). And most posts are only passing judgment without knowing the complete facts. In my opinion that is as good as not responding because only the OP is here for an advise/not USCIS (unless you are honestly trying to convey to OP that he has no chance or case and should not even appeal, neither reapply and forget citizenship and go back to his/her country! I doubt anyone here believes that and if someone does, my advice to them would be never to try to become a lawyer and choose some other profession :D)

Again this is not directed at anyone and is my personal opinion; so please don't bash me and instead use that energy in trying to help the OP if you can. I will try not to respond to anyone who takes this personally and directs personal comments since I had no one in particular in mind nor any ill feelings when I wrote this post. :)
 

sanjoseaug20

Registered Users (C)
In response to richmond va ... from the same thread ... this echoes my sentiments.

"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.
.
.
.

"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.
 

Jackolantern

Registered Users (C)
All I am trying to do is presuming innocence until proven guilty and trying to play the role of an adviser and exploring options that will help OP. As I had requested earlier, if anyone has a better suggestion than originally suggested by Bob to defend the OP please bring it up.
I don't see any way of overturning this denial, if indeed there was an arrest with the usual handcuffs, Miranda rights, "you are under arrest" etc.

Assuming it was an actual arrest with the standard arrest-related activities, the best case I see for the OP is to state a lack of understanding based on not being good at English, if he/she is from a place where English is not the main language. That way, if the appeals panel agrees, they might change the denial reason to bad English instead of bad moral character (this actually happened in a court case, as I mentioned earlier in the thread). If the denial reason is bad English, he/she can immediately reapply instead of waiting 5 years.
 

WBH

Registered Users (C)
I don't see any way of overturning this denial, if indeed there was an arrest with the usual handcuffs, Miranda rights, "you are under arrest" etc.

I think a key issue is also if he ever disclosed the incident on N400 or not.
All those questions are not just about "arrest". If he answer No to all those question, then it is very hard for him to deny he had intent to hide this incident. If he answer some Yes but only answer NO to the IO's oral question about the arrest, maybe he is OK because he disclossed the incident anyway.
 

Jackolantern

Registered Users (C)
I think a key issue is also if he ever disclosed the incident on N400 or not.
My last comment was based the assumption that (1) there was an actual arrest with the usual arrest-related activities, and (2) the incident was not otherwise disclosed before the IO revealed the knowledge of the fingerprint results.

If either of those assumptions are false, then there would indeed be some grounds for overturning the denial.
 

Jackolantern

Registered Users (C)
But I doubt FBI FP report has any details about whether Miranda rights
are read or not.
If the Miranda rights were not read, that is something that could be brought up in the appeal. Of course, unless the officer admits it, the difficulty is with proving it. There may be video available (many cop cars have a constantly rolling camera), but it would have to be subpoenaed from the archives if it exists.

However, if the situation was one where the OP went to a police station or courthouse to pay or challenge a fine, instead of being forcibly handcuffed and taken to the station, the police report itself may reflect the lack of handcuffing and Miranda rights etc.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jackolantern

Registered Users (C)
Reading of Miranda rights is not a requirement in every arrest.
The point was that if the officers did not do the usual arrest-related activities such as reading Miranda rights, handcuffing, etc., that would lend support to the claim that the OP reasonably believed it was not an arrest.
 

WBH

Registered Users (C)
The role in general that I envision serious responders on this forum should adopt is closest to the role of an adviser/"defense lawyer" (at least in my opinion; some can differ so please no prolonged debates on this fact). However, a lot of us here have very simply and conveniently assumed the role of a judge and convicted the OP (you have a situation with minimal facts; its simple to say he did it, and he's morally bad; so he should be denied! end of story and go for coffee!) :)

On the other hand, you have to consider there are positive side of someone
playing a judge. You can consider this is a rehearsal t prepare for the worst
IO/judge
 

Huracan

Registered Users (C)
Guys, I think you are beating a dead horse. It seems the original poster has deserted this forum.
 

Vickk

Registered Users (C)
Need urgent help

Hello I am writing in regards for my mom’s citizenship that has been denied. She gave her interview 2 years ago and was told that she passed her English history and civic exam and was told that she will receive her oath letter by mail once the decision has been reached, now after waiting for 2 years she just received a letter stating that her Citizenship has been denied because you have lied on your application. (Have you ever given false or misleading information to any U.S government while applying for immigration benefits?)
Explanation:
A review of her file shows that her case was applied on 1998 and I-140 (immigration petition for alien worker) was filed by her employer, later in 2001 she got her green card. Once she got her green card she went for a better paying job which her employers didn’t like. Her ex employer than filed a sworn statements stating that they had withdrew the petition and it was suppose to be stopped. Moreover the owner stated that letters submitted were fraudulent and not on their letterhead and contained forged signature. Also submitted were fraudulent taxes that had numbers crossed out and changed.

Now this is a bunch of lie that they have made up, my mom didn’t knew about any of this till today .We don’t know what to do ,would her green card be revoked as well ?can she reapply for her green card when it will expire. The letter stated that she have 30 days to file a request for hearing.
 

Huracan

Registered Users (C)
You should open a separate thread for this. The issue seems serious.

Hello I am writing in regards for my mom’s citizenship that has been denied. She gave her interview 2 years ago and was told that she passed her English history and civic exam and was told that she will receive her oath letter by mail once the decision has been reached, now after waiting for 2 years she just received a letter stating that her Citizenship has been denied because you have lied on your application. (Have you ever given false or misleading information to any U.S government while applying for immigration benefits?)
Explanation:
A review of her file shows that her case was applied on 1998 and I-140 (immigration petition for alien worker) was filed by her employer, later in 2001 she got her green card. Once she got her green card she went for a better paying job which her employers didn’t like. Her ex employer than filed a sworn statements stating that they had withdrew the petition and it was suppose to be stopped. Moreover the owner stated that letters submitted were fraudulent and not on their letterhead and contained forged signature. Also submitted were fraudulent taxes that had numbers crossed out and changed.

Now this is a bunch of lie that they have made up, my mom didn’t knew about any of this till today .We don’t know what to do ,would her green card be revoked as well ?can she reapply for her green card when it will expire. The letter stated that she have 30 days to file a request for hearing.
 

suncat

Registered Users (C)
What a evil employer?

You should open a new thread to discuss this.

After denial of citizenship, would USCIS revoke green card? If so many un-predicable things will happen to citizenship application, I think it is better just keep green card.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top