Interview Nightmare, please help!

IOs don't know all the details of the law. They use what they know and come up with their own conclusions.
You had an interview June 2,so by virtue of the law they are supposed to adjudicate your case within 120 days of the initial interview.
Giving you additional time to procure the required documents , but telling you have to wait until August 29 to present it is nonsense.
They did have you do the English civic test, correct?
 
IOs don't know all the details of the law. They use what they know and come up with their own conclusions.
You had an interview June 2,so by virtue of the law they are supposed to adjudicate your case within 120 days of the initial interview.
Giving you additional time to procure the required documents , but telling you have to wait until August 29 to present it is nonsense.
They did have you do the English civic test, correct?

Yeah, I passed everything that was required. My case is pending on that court document. I was flabbergasted that they wanted me to come on August 29th in person to hand that final document.
 
IOs don't know all the details of the law. They use what they know and come up with their own conclusions.
You had an interview June 2,so by virtue of the law they are supposed to adjudicate your case within 120 days of the initial interview.
Giving you additional time to procure the required documents , but telling you have to wait until August 29 to present it is nonsense.
They did have you do the English civic test, correct?

I'm looking over the documents I got back from my first interview and it says all documents have to be "HAND DELIVERED" on August 29th. Also, the document I have to bring in is titled "Request for Applicant to Appear for Naturalization Re-Interview".

Could I really do what we were talking about before with these notices? Does the "RE-Interview" effectively reset the 120 days countdown for August 29?
 
This is a interesting case, please keep us posted of your progress.

Sometimes I wonder if IOs have to meet some quota of cases that are not recommended for approval like cops have quotas.

This is literally becoming a "pissing" contest between you and the USCIS, lol :D
 
This is a interesting case, please keep us posted of your progress.

Sometimes I wonder if IOs have to meet some quota of cases that are not recommended for approval like cops have quotas.

This is literally becoming a "pissing" contest between you and the USCIS, lol :D

I think the Supervisor and I acknowledged the beginning of the pissing contest when I asked him why am I being continually demonized for such a small infraction that any American could have done. He proceeded with an angry face saying this discussion is over and to just get the document.

This amazes me because the entire interview process is a joke. I have heard people with very little knowledge of US customs, English language, etc. getting their citizenship just fine. But for a New Yorker who's been here since he was 4 to get one after 20 years, of course not.
 
I'm looking over the documents I got back from my first interview and it says all documents have to be "HAND DELIVERED" on August 29th. Also, the document I have to bring in is titled "Request for Applicant to Appear for Naturalization Re-Interview".

Could I really do what we were talking about before with these notices? Does the "RE-Interview" effectively reset the 120 days countdown for August 29?
They have the option of giving you a specific amount of time to procure the required documentation, but they can't demand that you hand deliver it on a specific date only, that's just silly. Nor can they refuse the documen if you send it in beforehand. Once they see your certified letter along with a detailed letter outlining the law and their responsibility they will have no choice but to react accordingly.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This amazes me because the entire interview process is a joke. I have heard people with very little knowledge of US customs, English language, etc. getting their citizenship just fine. But for a New Yorker who's been here since he was 4 to get one after 20 years, of course not.

You were in the US since age 4? Did either parent become a US citizen before you turned 18?
 
They have the option of giving you a specific amount of time to procure the required documentation, but they can't demand that you hand deliver it on a specific date only, that's just silly. Nor can they refuse the document or if you send it in beforehand. Once they see your certified letter along with a detailed letter outlining the law and their responsibility they will have no choice but to react accordingly.

You seem very confident about the law, so I want to trust you. I just don't know why there would be an official template for hand delivering a document on a specified date if that were to contradict the law, especially in NYC. I guess I will try your suggestion and ask a lawyer about it because I can't do this alone. But would you know why they have official letterheads and templates for this method of retrieval if the law says otherwise?
 
Do they want you to do another interview on August 29th? They actually do have the right to order a second (or third) interview, as long as the interview is within the 120 day window after the first interview.

But if all they want is to get the document by August 29th, you shouldn't need to show up for that.
 
You seem very confident about the law, so I want to trust you. I just don't know why there would be an official template for hand delivering a document on a specified date if that were to contradict the law, especially in NYC. I guess I will try your suggestion and ask a lawyer about it because I can't do this alone. But would you know why they have official letterheads and templates for this method of retrieval if the law says otherwise?
Their document doesn't contradict the law since they have until September to adjudicate our case. However, they can't say they will only accept the requested document on a specific date (well they can say that but it doesn't mean much since they have to accept it when you send it). They use official letterheads and templates because this office uses this type of tactic to intimidate the applicant. The law is on your side to make sure they follow procedure, not to give them an unfair advantage by using bullying tactics.
 
Guys.If the IO states that the document requested should be hand delivered on a specific date.Then there's absolutly nothing anyone can do about it but wait.Remember the regular standard for requested documents/evidence time frame is 30 days and they will tell you how to send in the requested document.In most cases if they ask you to return on a specific date with a document.That means they want to ask you more questions.(READ MY POST)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Lot of discussion has happened since my last comment, so rather than replying to individual comments, here's my summary.
A) I do not know why they want you to hand-deliver the document. It will be safer for you to order 2 copies from the court. One to mail, one for hand delivery. You do not want to land up for re-interview and the officer asking you where the document is. If they lost it (or claim to), you still owe them the document.
B) I think the request for re-interview is just that ... a re-interview. They are not satisfied, and hence want to do another round. Because of the heated discussions you had, you may not remember all the issues they raised. Think about them, and whether you discuss them here or not, prepare for them for the next round.
C) I think simply starting to accuse IOs on small matters leads to a slippery slope ... you could have had the opportunity to lodge a complaint, but from what I see ... you are in a typical "he said she said" situation. The supervisor has already indicated he is going to support his team. My suggestion for next time ... cool down. We all have our personal priorities, but that's not important for the supervisor ... what is important is the process through which we resolve the issues. If you called him and started firing him, you are not going to win brownie points ... even if it is his job to listen to such complaints.

My suggestion. Train has already left the station. You have a bunch of things to do ... this includes getting the documentation ready and delivered, but also thinking and learning on how to handle the case. And forget what consequences it has on your personal life ... that is an important but separate matter. Please prepare...
 
Guys.If the IO states that the document requested should be hand delivered on a specific date.Then there's absolutly nothing anyone can do about it but wait.Remember the regular standard for requested documents/evidence time frame is 30 days and they will tell you how to send in the requested document.In most cases if they ask you to return on a specific date with a document.That means they want to ask you more questions.(READ MY POST)

That's what I was thinking... August 29 is probably not just to hand in the document, it's for a second (mini) interview.
 
I'm looking over the documents I got back from my first interview and it says all documents have to be "HAND DELIVERED" on August 29th. Also, the document I have to bring in is titled "Request for Applicant to Appear for Naturalization Re-Interview".

Could I really do what we were talking about before with these notices? Does the "RE-Interview" effectively reset the 120 days countdown for August 29?

For couple of previous posters including Jack ... highlighting this post which clearly says "request for applicant to appear for naturalization re-interview".
 
Naturalization Quality Procedures (NQP) requires anyone with a criminal history to present certified dispositions for MOST encounters with law enforcement (trivial things like parking and speeding tickets and other minor things are excepted) AND each such applicant will be questioned under oath and under penalty of perjury about such incidents AND will complete a sworn statement (the statement is a standardized form).

IF you did not complete a sworn statement, a second interview is required just for that, and the Officer needs the certified court disposition in hand in order to get all the legalities (actual charges) and facts (supplemented by your testimony) straight for the record.

It is unclear exactly what the charge was. The leading contenders would seem to be among:

Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes

TITLE 18 CRIMES AND OFFENSES

PART I. PRELIMINARY PROVISIONS

Chapter 1. General Provisions

§ 106. Classes of offenses.

(b) Classification of crimes.--
*****
(8) A crime is a misdemeanor of the third degree if it is so designated in this title or if a person convicted thereof may be sentenced to a term of imprisonment, the maximum of which is not more than one year.
(9) A crime declared to be a misdemeanor, without specification of degree, is of the third degree.
(c) Summary offenses.--An offense defined by this title constitutes a summary offense if:
(1) it is so designated in this title, or in a statute other than this title; or
(2) if a person convicted thereof may be sentenced to a term of imprisonment, the maximum of which is not more than 90 days.

PART II. DEFINITION OF SPECIFIC OFFENSES

ARTICLE F. OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER AND DECENCY

Chapter 55. Riot, Disorderly Conduct and Related Offenses

§ 5503. Disorderly conduct.

(a) Offense defined.--A person is guilty of disorderly conduct if, with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, he:
(1) engages in fighting or threatening, or in violent or tumultuous behavior;
(2) makes unreasonable noise;
(3) uses obscene language, or makes an obscene gesture; or
(4) creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose of the actor.
(b) Grading.--An offense under this section is a misdemeanor of the third degree if the intent of the actor is to cause substantial harm or serious inconvenience, or if he persists in disorderly conduct after reasonable warning or request to desist. Otherwise disorderly conduct is a summary offense.
(c) Definition.--As used in this section the word "public" means affecting or likely to affect persons in a place to which the public or a substantial group has access; among the places included are highways, transport facilities, schools, prisons, apartment houses, places of business or amusement, any neighborhood, or any premises which are open to the public.

Cross References. Section 5503 is referred to in sections 3573, 8902 of Title 42 (Judiciary and Judicial Procedure).

§ 5505. Public drunkenness and similar misconduct.

A person is guilty of a summary offense if he appears in any public place manifestly under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance, as defined in the act of April 14, 1972 (P.L.233, No.64), known as The Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act, except those taken pursuant to the lawful order of a practitioner, as defined in The Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act, to the degree that he may endanger himself or other persons or property, or annoy persons in his vicinity. (June 18, 1999, P.L.67, No.8, eff. 60 days)

Cross References. Section 5505 is referred to in sections 3573, 8902 of Title 42 (Judiciary and Judicial Procedure).

TITLE 42 JUDICIARY AND JUDICIAL PROCEDURE

§ 3573. Municipal corporation portion of fines, etc.

(a) General rule.--Except as otherwise provided by this subchapter, all fines, forfeited recognizances and other forfeitures imposed, lost or forfeited for violation of any ordinance of any municipal corporation, or which under any other statute are to be paid to any specified municipal corporation, shall be payable to such municipal corporation.
*****
(c) Summary offenses.--Fines, forfeited recognizances and other forfeitures imposed, lost or forfeited under the following provisions of law shall, when any such offense is committed in a municipal corporation, be payable to such municipal corporation:
(1) Under the following provisions of Title 18 (relating to crimes and offenses):
Section 2709(a)(1), (2) and (3) (relating to harassment).
Section 3304 (relating to criminal mischief). {Additional contenders?}
Section 3503 (relating to criminal trespass).

Section 3929 (relating to retail theft).
Section 4105 (relating to bad checks).
Section 5503 (relating to disorderly conduct).
Section 5505 (relating to public drunkenness).

Section 5511 (relating to cruelty to animals).
Section 6308 (relating to purchase, consumption, possession or transportation of intoxicating beverages).
Section 6501 (relating to scattering rubbish).

Still in Title 42.........

§ 322. Seal.

Each court of this Commonwealth shall have a seal engraved with the name of the court and such other inscription as may be specified by general rule or rule of court. A facsimile or preprinted seal may be used for all purposes in lieu of the original seal.

**********
"Magisterial district judge." A justice of the peace holding office under section 7(a) of Article V of the Constitution of Pennsylvania and Subchapter B of Chapter 15 (relating to magisterial district judges).
**********

Explore whatever references you have in the documents on hand at: http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/li/public/cons_index.cfm
 
Guys.If the IO states that the document requested should be hand delivered on a specific date.Then there's absolutly nothing anyone can do about it but wait.

An applicant can still send in the document beforehand and make reference to the law. Whether USCIS will or can adjudicate the case before the mentioned date is another issue.
 
Lot of discussion has happened since my last comment, so rather than replying to individual comments, here's my summary.
A) I do not know why they want you to hand-deliver the document. It will be safer for you to order 2 copies from the court. One to mail, one for hand delivery. You do not want to land up for re-interview and the officer asking you where the document is. If they lost it (or claim to), you still owe them the document.
B) I think the request for re-interview is just that ... a re-interview. They are not satisfied, and hence want to do another round. Because of the heated discussions you had, you may not remember all the issues they raised. Think about them, and whether you discuss them here or not, prepare for them for the next round.
C) I think simply starting to accuse IOs on small matters leads to a slippery slope ... you could have had the opportunity to lodge a complaint, but from what I see ... you are in a typical "he said she said" situation. The supervisor has already indicated he is going to support his team. My suggestion for next time ... cool down. We all have our personal priorities, but that's not important for the supervisor ... what is important is the process through which we resolve the issues. If you called him and started firing him, you are not going to win brownie points ... even if it is his job to listen to such complaints.

My suggestion. Train has already left the station. You have a bunch of things to do ... this includes getting the documentation ready and delivered, but also thinking and learning on how to handle the case. And forget what consequences it has on your personal life ... that is an important but separate matter. Please prepare...

I remember the IO wanting a certified court document. He said that he didn't know what the charge meant, it doesn't say anything specifically on public urination. He said that that could mean something serious or not. In any case, he was not accepting the original court document I received.

The exact description of the offense says:

(4) creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose of the actor.

under Disorderly Conduct.


When I asked the local Centre County court about this charge, they said it was a non-traffic violation. So I concluded that it isn't a crime, and it isn't a misdemeanor by PA law, so it just seems like a violation/offense by PA law. Does this mean I have to go through this strict of a process for a minor violation according to PA?

Looking back in retrospect, I could have just concluded that the Supervisor and IO were just morons and not have debated about my case. I would have made my complaint and then leave to prepare for the next scenario since they just were not listening to reason. But maybe a few people would know what was going through my head. I lived in NYC since I was 4 for 20 years. I thought I was a college kid equal to any other college kid, even if they are a citizen. For the IO and Supervisor to tell me that I committed an evil, immoral crime that no American(highly condescending given my sociological situation) would ever have done, made me ballistic. Again, I'm sure not many people have been in that situation, but even if you haven't and can be compassionate about that and move on for this one blunder based on emotion, I would be most appreciative.

Now I just need to get two copies and speak with a lawyer, given all the information on hand.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If the answer to this question is yes, this fact may secure your citizenship without this hassle they're putting you through.


Nah, unfortunately my parents did not convert their citizenship at all. They had no need to since they were working under the custody of the UN.

But, of course, I have a need to convert because this is the only country I knew since I grew up here from early childhood to adulthood. I just thought it made sense to make become a citizen by now. I don't why they (IO and Supervisor) made it seem like I was like any other typical immigrant when I didn't choose to come here personally to gain benefits, I'm just kind of here already without any conscious move on my part.
 
The burden of proof for any benefit under the Immigration and Nationality Act is on the applicant or petitioner.

INA 291 = 8 USC § 1361. Burden of proof upon alien

Whenever any person makes application for a visa or any other document required for entry, or makes application for admission, or otherwise attempts to enter the United States, the burden of proof shall be upon such person to establish that he is eligible to receive such visa or such document, or is not inadmissible under any
provision of this chapter, and, if an alien, that he is entitled to the nonimmigrant, immigrant, special immigrant, immediate relative, or refugee status claimed, as the case may be. If such person fails to establish to the satisfaction of the consular officer that he is eligible to receive a visa or other document required for entry, no
visa or other document required for entry shall be issued to such person, nor shall such person be admitted to the United States unless he establishes to the satisfaction of the Attorney General that he is not inadmissible under any provision of this chapter. In any removal proceeding under part IV of this subchapter against any person, the burden of proof shall be upon such person to show the time, place, and manner of his entry into the United States, but in presenting
such proof he shall be entitled to the production of his visa or other entry document, if any, and of any other documents and records, not considered by the Attorney General to be confidential, pertaining to such entry in the custody of the Service. If such burden of proof is not sustained, such person shall be presumed to be in the United States in violation of law.

INA 318 = 8 USC § 1429. Prerequisite to naturalization; burden of proof

Except as otherwise provided in this subchapter, no person shall be naturalized unless he has been lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence in accordance with all applicable provisions of this chapter. The burden of proof shall be upon such person to show that he entered the United States lawfully, and the time, place, and manner of such entry into the United States, but in presenting such proof he shall be entitled to the production of his immigrant visa, if any, or of other entry document, if any, and of any other documents and records, not considered by the Attorney General to be confidential, pertaining to such entry, in the custody of the Service. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 405(b),1 and except as provided in sections 1439 and 1440 of this title no person shall be naturalized against whom there is outstanding a final finding of deportability pursuant to a warrant of arrest issued under the provisions of this chapter or any other Act; and no application for naturalization shall be considered by the Attorney General if there is pending against the applicant a removal proceeding pursuant to a warrant of arrest issued under the provisions of this chapter or any other Act: Provided, That the findings of the Attorney General in terminating removal proceedings or in canceling the removal of an alien pursuant to the provisions of this chapter, shall not be deemed binding in any way upon the Attorney General
with respect to the question of whether such person has established his eligibility for naturalization as required by this subchapter.

*******
When one is trying to prove that a particular state criminal statute is NOT something that will prevent naturalization it is the applicant who must put forth the evidence to demonstrate full eligibility. The job of the USCIS Officer is to make sure that the applicant has proven to the satisfaction of USCIS (in accordance with all the laws, regulations, precedents, policies and procedures) that you, in fact, are fully eligible. The USCIS Officer must evaluate whatever evidence that you put forward however, it is your primary responsibility to put forth that required evidence. In this case, you did not do your part as required. The USCIS Officer is NOT your personal lawyer or representative.

The USCIS Officer is not like an impartial referee such as is the traditional role of a judge in a criminal trial in an adversarial proceeding. Instead the USCIS Officer is more like an inquiring magistrate in an inquisitorial proceeding. The USCIS Officer will accept the evidence that you offer AND do further research as needed based on that starting point, but is not required to, and will not, do ALL the work for you. The fee is NOT that high when you consider that private lawyers will charge you $100/hr or more.

You did not meet the evidence requirements which are spelled out in the form instructions and the Guide as to 1.) the required certified court disposition and 2.) the legal references pertaining to the charges and penalty. Was there a fine or community service, or probation?
 
Top