Have you ever committed a crime or offense for which you were not arrested?
- Thread starter VisaNutz
- Start date
In general, a "name check" cross-checks an applicant's name against multiple law enforcement and intelligence databases to ensure that the applicant is not a criminal, terrorist, or otherwise involved in any illegal or suspicious activities that caused his/her name to show up on one of these databases.
Jackolantern
Registered Users (C)
The databases used for the name check for naturalization will show almost any occasion the individual had a brush with the law -- arrests, convictions, wanted suspects, etc. But the name check for naturalization is different from the security checks done for Federal jobs.
If your family member is a citizen and has no criminal history whatsoever, there probably is an appeal or resolution process whereby he/she can challenge the findings that were the basis for being rejected from the job. That's if security reasons were the basis for rejection, not other reasons like qualifications.
If your family member is a citizen and has no criminal history whatsoever, there probably is an appeal or resolution process whereby he/she can challenge the findings that were the basis for being rejected from the job. That's if security reasons were the basis for rejection, not other reasons like qualifications.
Last edited by a moderator:
All I have are traffic tickets which I am talking about on that thread so I won't talk about them here.
My family member has no criminal history but in the job interview, this person lied about me and certain others of the family being citizens when we are not and this person lied about their age by one year. This person has also been a citizen for a long time.
Jackolantern
Registered Users (C)
The family member who got rejected for the job lied about his/her age? Then why would there be any surprise about the rejection? The Federal government has numerous ways of verifying one's age.
I now wonder if this will come up in the interview and here I didn't even do anything.
Jackolantern
Registered Users (C)
Whose interview for what? What they did in that job interview won't come up in your citizenship interview.
I mean my interview for citizenship.
What your relative did in their federal job interview is completely irrelevant to your naturalization interview. I wouldn't worry about it.
For more information about the USCIS immigration security background checks, please see this link from 2006. It may be a little dated, but provides a broad outline of what the background check entails.
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/security_checks_42506.pdf
Aside: your relative pulled a dumb move lying about multiple things in a federal job interview - it is so easy to verify what you declare in an interview. If the federal job required a background check, everything said in the interview would have been verified.
This is not exactly true. The statutes and case law related to administrative denaturalization do make important points about the materiality of the misrepresentations, their intent, and their effect on the government's ability to investigate them. In one example, providing even an incorrect place and date of birth is not automatically considered material grounds for revocation or denial of naturalization.
Section III of the following link from the Dept. of Justice has details about what is and is not the government's burden of proof to initiate administrative denaturalization: http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/ina340.htm . And this guidance was written before the Gorbach vs Reno case of 2000 which the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decided in favor of the immigrant. This decision prompted the then-INS to revise its guidelines even further to raise the bar by which it could initiate administrative denaturalization procedures.
Unless you materially misrepresented your eligibility for U.S. naturalization, once you are naturalized, you are done with the immigration system.
Separate note: famous naturalized politicians and government officials:
- Madeleine Albright
- Henry Kissinger
- Jennifer Granholm
- Arnold Schwarzenegger
- the late Tom Lantos
Jackolantern
Registered Users (C)
Administrative denaturalization is no longer allowed; the courts struck have down that practice. All forcible denaturalizations must be done in court with judicial oversight.
I just done from my interview, it went very well, total of 30 min. (7:30 to 8:00)
The officer went through my application and made some changes (example, Have you ever been arrested I answered No he marked Yes since I was arrested for political reason).
He congratulated me and stated I passed and will send me the oath letter soon for 8/14/2009 date.
I asked him if I could get the 7/17/2009 oath, he stated it’s already full but he will ask his supervisor if that possible.
The officer went through my application and made some changes (example, Have you ever been arrested I answered No he marked Yes since I was arrested for political reason).
He congratulated me and stated I passed and will send me the oath letter soon for 8/14/2009 date.
I asked him if I could get the 7/17/2009 oath, he stated it’s already full but he will ask his supervisor if that possible.
Jackolantern
Registered Users (C)
Actually, they did mention that it effectively could be material if it led to discovering other facts. It's just not material by itself. Quoted from the page at NewRunner's link:
Jackolantern
Registered Users (C)
Or if such knowledge of such membership would have led USCIS to discover other facts material to naturalization.
I think they ask for all memberships because they don't want the applicant to decide which memberships are relevant and which are not; they want it all to be disclosed and let the adjudicator decide.
But the burden for denying naturalization is much lower than for denaturalization; they can issue a denial for an immaterial lie or concealment because the lie itself affects the question of good moral character. At a minimum, one should definitely list the memberships that USCIS is likely to know about -- in particular, any that were listed on your I-485, and any for which you have a prominent leadership position.
Jackolantern
Registered Users (C)
You disclosed it at the interview, and the interviewer found it irrelevant as they should.I donated $100 to ACLU and signed up to list my name in a prominent news paper. Due to my last name, my name ended up one of the first in the long list of printed names in the paper. Anyways, I didn't list it in N400 but mentioned to the IO at interview and showed him ACLU mail form. He flipped it around curiously and commented something to the effect of how some people may think ACLU is a communist organization and then gave the paper back.
It could have been a different story if you didn't disclose it at all, and then the interviewer said they saw something about your involvement with that group in the news (note that giving $100 and having your name listed in small print with a bunch of other names is not the "prominent leadership position" I was talking about).
USCIS no longer has the authority to denaturalize anyone, but they can bring a case to the Attorney General who can then raise the case to the courts to initiate denaturalization proceedings. In the end, the Judicial branch of government is the final authority on whether denaturalization can occur in any given case. What Gorbach vs Reno decided was that INS did not on its own have any authority to conduct denaturalization.
All that aside, this link is a cancellation of naturalization certificate appeal decision from USCIS from 2004. The reasoning provided for the dismissal of the appeal has interesting information about who can and cannot carry out denaturalization proceedings. The important thing here is that this is a case from 2004 which takes into account the decisions made by the courts that INS/USCIS could not denaturalize anyone.
Thanks for the link. I don't know why this person lied about certain things during the interview when this person was very qualified for the job. This is something no one in the family understands. This person is highly intellectual and had to know it can be verified. WOW!
Absrao, I think they must have thoroughly screened the California governor when he applied since he was a famous actor then and was in the limelight. People in the limelight do not go undetected. Just an example, people who are or who have been in reality shows are watched closely by the IRS. The winner of the first season Survivor got caught for tax evasion. I forgot his name. My point being that people in the limelight cannot go undetected by USCIS or any other government agency.
ananga73
Registered Users (C)
Get the h*ll out of here with your self righteous n*nsense!