info USCIS officer provided

[aniretake]

Yesterday I went to Atlanta to speak with an immigration officer regarding questions
16. Have you ever been arrested, cited,.....
17. Have you ever been charged....

He said we do NOT need to mention any speeding tickets and such if fine was under $500.00. Even laughed at me. BUT: if your case was dismissed, you DO need to disclose it because it will appear in their system.

 

[WBH]

if your case was dismissed, you DO need to disclose it because it will appear in their system.

It does not make sense. So a dismissed case will be in their system
but not case you plead guilty by paying the fine?

 

[Bobsmyth]

Yesterday I went to Atlanta to speak with an immigration officer regarding questions
16. Have you ever been arrested, cited,.....
17. Have you ever been charged....

He said we do NOT need to mention any speeding tickets and such if fine was under $500.00. Even laughed at me. BUT: if your case was dismissed, you DO need to disclose it because it will appear in their system.

Your answer makes it sound that you only have to disclose speeding tickets if they were dismissed, but what you meant is any criminal arrests or charges that were dismissed must still be disclosed.

 

[WBH]

what you meant is any arrests or charges that were dismissed must still be disclosed.

It still does not make sense. A citation for traffic violation involve a charge.
One is charged with speedin, or charged with failure to stop at astop sign,
or charged with not turning on left turn signal wghen making a left turn.

So it does not make sense that you don't have to disclose a traffic violation
case if you are found guilty nad you paid teh fine but you have to dislocse it
when the judge order the charge to be dismissed due to lack of evidence
because the ticketing police officer did not show up.

 

[aniretake]

Your answer makes it sound that you only have to disclose speeding tickets if they were dismissed, but what you meant is any arrests or charges that were dismissed must still be disclosed.

It is NOT MY answer, but USCIS officer.

 

[Bobsmyth]

It is NOT MY answer, but USCIS officer.

No, it's the way you interpreted the IO's answer. What the IO most likely said is that any speeding ticket under $500 need not be disclosed, but that any criminal arrest or charge that was later dismissed must be disclosed since it still shows up in their system.

 

[Bobsmyth]

It still does not make sense. A citation for traffic violation involve a charge.
One is charged with speedin, or charged with failure to stop at astop sign,
or charged with not turning on left turn signal wghen making a left turn.

So it does not make sense that you don't have to disclose a traffic violation
case if you are found guilty nad you paid teh fine but you have to dislocse it
when the judge order the charge to be dismissed due to lack of evidence
because the ticketing police officer did not show up.

It makes sense when you differentiate between a speeding ticket under $500 and a criminal charge/arrest that was dismissed.

 

[WBH]

It makes sense when you differentiate between a speeding ticket under $500 and a criminal charge/arrest that was dismissed.

It depends upon how you define criminal. You may say traffic violation
is not crminal but still it is in the crminal penal code. It is just that no ordinary traffic violation carry any jail time. For the same reason,
there are other non-raffic related offense that neitehr carry jail time and
maxmum fine is below $500. Should one be allowed not to disclose such offense?

The bottomline is : a traffic ticket means the recipient of teh ticket is
charged whether you consider that is crminal or not.

 

[aniretake]

No, it's the way you interpreted the IO's answer. What the IO most likely said is that any speeding ticket under $500 need not be disclosed, but that any criminal arrest or charge that was later dismissed must be disclosed since it still shows up in their system.

Bobsmyth, do you imply that I dont understand English well? I went there with my amerocan friend who understood it just the same way. Especially since I showed both tickets to the officer. One was speeding, the other one was dismissed (no arrest and such).

 

[rick92]

Bobsmyth, do you imply that I dont understand English well? I went there with my amerocan friend who understood it just the same way. Especially since I showed both tickets to the officer. One was speeding, the other one was dismissed (no arrest and such).

Nobody is saying that.- Relax. - I think BOB is trying to give you the legal definition of the terms in question.-

 

[Bobsmyth]

Bobsmyth, do you imply that I dont understand English well? I went there with my amerocan friend who understood it just the same way. Especially since I showed both tickets to the officer. One was speeding, the other one was dismissed (no arrest and such).

Considering that there's no logic in why you would only have to disclose a speeding ticket that was dismissed and not one that was under $500, I rather go with the explanation that make sense: not having to disclose speeding ticket under $500 but having to disclose criminal charge even if it was dismissed.

I'm not saying that you misunderstood, or what the IO told you was wrong. Rather, I'm stating what you said doesn't make sense.

Btw, it's easy to misinterpret something someone said or meant. For example, some incorrectly interpret the naturalization guidebook of not having to provide documents for traffic tickets under $500 as to mean that you don't need to disclose them outright.

 

[Bobsmyth]

It depends upon how you define criminal. You may say traffic violation
is not crminal but still it is in the crminal penal code. It is just that no ordinary traffic violation carry any jail time. For the same reason,
there are other non-raffic related offense that neitehr carry jail time and
maxmum fine is below $500. Should one be allowed not to disclose such offense?

The bottomline is : a traffic ticket means the recipient of teh ticket is
charged whether you consider that is crminal or not.

Perhaps I need to make my point clearer.

Facts:
1) It's been reported over and over that IOs have told applicants that they don't care about minor traffic tickets (<$500).
2) Under immigration law a dismissal (of a criminal charge) can still be considered a conviction.

Conclusion:
USCIS is not interested in minor (implies civil) traffic tickets under $500 , but requires you to disclose dismissed (criminal) charges since they can still be considered convictions under immigration law. It's clear that they are making a distinction between a minor (civil) traffic ticket under $500 and a dismissed criminal charge.

 

[Mr Vertigo]

How can a dismissed case be considered a conviction? At best, it could be considered that the applicant lacka Good Moral Character but even that is debatable. Entirely innocent people get charged with various things everyday.

 

[TheRealCanadian]

How can a dismissed case be considered a conviction? At best, it could be considered that the applicant lacka Good Moral Character but even that is debatable. Entirely innocent people get charged with various things everyday.

It depends on the circumstances for dismissal. If it is dismissed without conditions, then it's an acquittal. If it's dismissed after the defendant does something (like community service) then USCIS can consider it the same as a conviction.

 

[Mr Vertigo]

It depends on the circumstances for dismissal. If it is dismissed without conditions, then it's an acquittal. If it's dismissed after the defendant does something (like community service) then USCIS can consider it the same as a conviction.

Yes, I guess that makes sense.

 

[Bobsmyth]

How can a dismissed case be considered a conviction? At best, it could be considered that the applicant lacka Good Moral Character but even that is debatable. Entirely innocent people get charged with various things everyday.

Didn't we cover the definition of "conviction" under immigration law in a different thread already?

Here's how INA 101(a)(48) defines conviction:

48) (A) The term "conviction" means, with respect to an alien, a formal judgment of guilt of the alien entered by a court or, if adjudication of guilt has been withheld, where-

(i) a judge or jury has found the alien guilty or the alien has entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere or has admitted sufficient facts to warrant a finding of guilt, and

(ii) the judge has ordered some form of punishment, penalty, or restraint on the alien's liberty to be imposed.



So this means that a dismissed charge can still be considered a conviction under immigration law and as such must be disclosed. It's not up to applicant to interpret the law when it comes to their own dismissed criminal conviction. The same goes for expunged cases. Some applicants believe they don't need to disclosed expunged cases since they are sealed to the public. However, under immigration law expunged cases must be disclosed as well since the original charge and conviction is what defines it as a conviction for immigration purposes.

 

[Mr Vertigo]

Maybe we did, but I don't read every single thread.

 

[WBH]

How can a dismissed case be considered a conviction? At best, it could be considered that the applicant lacka Good Moral Character but even that is debatable. Entirely innocent people get charged with various things everyday.

Here is the very original law that define conviciton for immigration purpose.
Withheld adjudication often lead to complete dismissal, which means no conviciton at all in teh eye of teh crminal court but can still be considered as a conviciton for immigration purpose

(48)(A) The term "conviction" means, with respect to an alien, a formal judgment of guilt of the alien entered by a court or, if adjudication of guilt has been withheld, where-
(i) a judge or jury has found the alien guilty or the alien has entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere or has admitted sufficient facts to warrant a finding of guilt, and
(ii) the judge has ordered some form of punishment, penalty, or restraint on the alien's liberty to be imposed.

 

[Mr Vertigo]

Yes, but that law clearly says that there must be either admission of guilt, or some sort of punishment. Not every dismissal is considered a conviction.

 

[WBH]

Yes, but that law clearly says that there must be either admission of guilt, or some sort of punishment. Not every dismissal is considered a conviction.

That is why one is rerquired to disclose the dismissed case for USCIS to review.