Interview Nightmare, please help!

Yeah, the fine was $170 which I paid off back then right after I got it reduced in court. The court document I received had all the information on the outcome of the case and what it entailed, as well as the eventual outcome of me paying off the fine.
 
I feel what you are saying, lived here most of my life as well, im american as it gets but its just not official yet( was on g4 forever, then got DV) .....its all about being humble and dealing with the uscis ...before you know it it will be a blur in your past......best of luck
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.

POINT OF CORRECTION PAL.What do you mean"Typical immigrants"? folks here might fined that offensive.As long as you seeking U.S citizenship that means you looking for the benefits the united states offers.There's no difference how one came here.Is only one 'WORD' IMMIGRANT/LOOKING FOR BETTER LIFE.I even fined it very odd. How can one's parents be working under the U.N as you mention since age 4.That means you came here on a dependant as a UN/diplomat visa.To adjust status with those kind of visa is extremely very difficult.How did you get your GREEN CARD??
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I feel what you are saying, lived here most of my life as well, im american as it gets but its just not official yet( was on g4 forever, then got DV) .....its all about being humble and dealing with the uscis ...before you know it it will be a blur in your past......best of luck


Thanks man, glad to know someone knows exactly how this feels. I was on G4 as well (read:not immigrant), but that all changed when I switched over to GC. Hopefully it works out. Just couldn't shake off the fact that I was being judged on my moral character for this one offense, as if an American did it, they would be judged just as harshly for their moral character, baloney.
 
POINT OF CORRECTION PAL.What do you mean"Typical immigrants"? folks here might fined that offensive.As long as you seeking U.S citizenship that means you looking for the benefits the united states offers.There's no difference how one came here.Is only one 'WORD' IMMIGRANT/LOOKING FOR BETTER LIFE.I even fined it very odd. How can one's parents be working under the U.N as you mention since age 4.That means you came here on a dependant as a UN/diplomat visa.To adjust status with those kind of visa is extremely very difficult.How did you get your GREEN CARD??

Typical immigrant as in someone who moves here on their own personal choice seeking to leave behind their former country.

This is not my case at all. I came here through my parents when I had barely the capacity to enter kindergarten. I could be called a child of immigrants, but only one problem: neither of my parents are immigrants. They are still here on G4 visa as international workers. If that is considered immigrant, then the UN has been bringing in immigrants from all over to NYC, rather than international employees.

There is no problem adjusting status because G4 visas expire within a few years. Applied for my GC and got it eventually, probably could have done it sooner, but I enjoyed heading straight to the diplomatic lanes at the airport :)
 
Given that your parents didn't get a GC or citizenship, how in the world did you get your GC at the age of 19 or younger? :confused:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I was also wondering how will that be possible adjusting status at that age.Since there's no fast or special lane in the law for G4 visa holders to acquire green card.I think there's more to the story.USCIS probably smells something funny that's why they reschedule the interview.Come clean BRO.And folks might be able to shared some lights on your case.
 
Given that your parents didn't get a GC or citizenship, how in the world did you get your GC at the age of 19 or younger? :confused:

G4 is a funny category....basically if you are a g4 dependant and have lived in the us for seven years between the age of 14 and 22 then that qualifies you for a greencard. So he would have to have been earliest 21.
 
Yeah, the fine was $170 which I paid off back then right after I got it reduced in court. The court document I received had all the information on the outcome of the case and what it entailed, as well as the eventual outcome of me paying off the fine.

Did you provide a copy of the statute for reference? Did you expect the ISO (Immigration Services Officer--that is the current job title) to do all your legal research for you? That is an automatic delay that could have been avoided.

The documentation you provided apparently was not up to the quality that is normally provided. USCIS Officers will eventually see a great deal of such documentation and have a fairly good idea of what it is supposed to look like, perhaps you did not have the same experience. Consider it a lesson learned and move on. In one of your posts you alluded that now you would have to pay the court for documents...did you not get "certified" documents previously?

Lastly, nobody on this forum was there but you and they way you have portrayed your experience is not very credible. I don't believe that any USCIS Officer along with his Supervisor ganged up on you and denounced you as "evil and immoral". That sounds like those particular words are coming from you as a mischaracterization of your encounter out of anger and arrogance, Mr. "I didn't want to give up the Diplomatic Line at the airport".

Once you calm down and view it rationally, it won't seem so horrible or burdensome. Having actually looked up the most likely PA statute and viewing the possible penalties and accepting as fact that you merely got a REDUCED fine of $170, it will not prevent naturalization. I am assuming that it was reduced because you showed remorse and came off as sympathetic and apologetic, but what did the original charge and requested penalty start out as? It had to be reduced from something else.

Now I will tell you something that you might not have considered. You have an FBI RAP Sheet and even if the PA College Cops did not fingerprint you, something got entered in a database (NCIC--google it). The USCIS Officer has a RAP Sheet with certain information, it may pertain only to the original charge(s) and might or might not have the Court Disposition. You were seen by a "Magisterial district judge" which is another name for a justice of the peace (a very low level adjudicator who probably makes less money and is less learned in the law than the ISO). That court may not be on par with the average court as far as record keeping and data entry are concerned. The Cops on the other hand (even campus PDs) are sticklers for putting as much detail as possible in order to warn the next cop that might encounter a perp about what to look out for. That may well be your case. USCIS may have more info than you think but only what that cop had to say (why did he arrest you in the first place? that statute allows a cop to just give you a warning). So, if you were (pardon the pun) "pissy" with them at USCIS, what would you expect as a reaction?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
...what would you expect as a reaction?

They have been numerous reports about some IOs at NYC being rude and intimidating. As an agency funded by applicant fees, some IOs are oblivious to the fact they are providing a service and as such have certain customer service responsibilities. If an applicant provides a court document that the IO doesn't think meets the requirement, is it too much to ask for the IO to explain the requirement in a respectful and courteous manner instead of engaging in arrogant authoritarian behavior ?
IMO, some IOs have no business serving applicants face to face since they lack the customer service skills required to do so.
 
Given that your parents didn't get a GC or citizenship, how in the world did you get your GC at the age of 19 or younger? :confused:

G4 visa is considered a special immigrant category and as such can apply directly to permanent residency if certain conditions are met.
 
.Since there's no fast or special lane in the law for G4 visa holders to acquire green card.I think there's more to the story..Come clean BRO.
Under certain conditions, a G4 visa holder can convert to permanent residency status as a special immigrant. Being unaware of this fact doesn't justify your reasoning that there must be more to the story and that the OP must be hiding something.
 
Some people here are wondering about my switch my G4 to GC. Just wanted to let you know I'm not hiding anything, I got GC the legal way, so no need for conspiracy theories.

And yes, the Supervisor did demonize me, even confirming that he was looking down on me and that I should be aware of what Good Moral Conduct is. Very condescending given the nature of my citation, Americans do do it and I wouldn't consider them immoral at all.


And I was NEVER arrested. The cop told me it would be treated the same level as a traffic violation ticket, that it would not be some criminal record. I went to court to get the FINE reduced from $220, not the actual charge, which was just Disorderly conduct/Physical off. I don't remember the exact title of the charge, but someone had posted it earlier. The cop didn't have to give me a warning at all. He was probably looking for quota and knew that college kids do this all the time, so it had to be punished with a fine. I didn't do anything except the act, and when I got caught, I complied with the police officer and accepted the ticket. It was a very courteous exchange.

Lastly, I didn't allude that I would have to pay for real court documents now. I'm getting those court certified documents the same as I did before: calling them to ask for it and sending a self-addressed envelope. Just the first time, I thought I was getting legit documents, turned out they sent me lousy documents as seen by the IO. So now I'm asking for better documents because I got burned the first time, and I will bring along a copy of the statute for next time.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I am not sure what is the meaning of "demonize" ... was there some evil chanting going on at the same time?

For someone to say "I do not like what immigrants do and you should be aware of GMC", is out of bounds as he is generalizing about immigrants. But if he said "I do not like what immigrants like you do and you should be aware of GMC", it has a different meaning. And whatever Bob might say about NYC handling of immigrant cases, a small word here and there can make a difference. And from what I can see (read), the OP has a habit of simplifying / exaggerating, so I am not surprised.

To altaic ... this commentary has no bearing to your case as you need to look forward.
However, it is an illustration of how small change to words here and there can give totally different meaning. You can parse and demonize anything ... such as words like demonize. Keep it factual for the 2nd interview and / or appeal.
 
I am not sure what is the meaning of "demonize" ... was there some evil chanting going on at the same time?

For someone to say "I do not like what immigrants do and you should be aware of GMC", is out of bounds as he is generalizing about immigrants. But if he said "I do not like what immigrants like you do and you should be aware of GMC", it has a different meaning. And whatever Bob might say about NYC handling of immigrant cases, a small word here and there can make a difference. And from what I can see (read), the OP has a habit of simplifying / exaggerating, so I am not surprised.

To altaic ... this commentary has no bearing to your case as you need to look forward.
However, it is an illustration of how small change to words here and there can give totally different meaning. You can parse and demonize anything ... such as words like demonize. Keep it factual for the 2nd interview and / or appeal.

de·mon·ize
verb /ˈdēməˌnīz/ 
demonised, past participle; demonised, past tense; demonises, 3rd person singular present; demonising, present participle; demonized, past participle; demonized, past tense; demonizes, 3rd person singular present; demonizing, present participle

Portray as wicked and threatening
- seeking to demonize one side in the conflict


Hope that clears up what I was trying to convey.


For the Supervisor to bring up GMC in this case is absolutely absurd. You judge potential citizens the same way you would judge average Americans in regards to what kinds of laws they broke. Now if the Supervisor believed that if an American had done what I did and would then proceed to question his/her GMC, then I'm all good. But I know that that would not be his process of thought, so that's why I'm calling them out for being excessively judgmental and in contrast of the Supreme Court's vision of how to admit an alien as a citizen.

I don't think I have been simplifying or exaggerating because I have been telling it like it is:

"I'm glad you think that average Americans urinate in public" (IO)

"Yes, I am looking down on you" (Supervisor)

"Americans do not break the law!" (Supervisor)

"Average Americans do not go around urinating in public." (IO)


Those were their exact words, no simplifying or exaggerating. If you don't find those words highly condescending, provocative, nor ostracizing, then we really don't have much to talk about because you wouldn't understand what was going through my head upon hearing such dog crap.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
8 CFR § 245.3 Adjustment of status under section 13 of the Act of September 11, 1957, as amended.

Any application for benefits under section 13 of the Act of September 11, 1957, as amended, must be filed on Form I–485 with the director having jurisdiction over the applicant's place of residence. The benefits under section 13 are limited to aliens who were admitted into the United States under section 101, paragraphs (a)(15)(A)(i), (a)(15)(A)(ii), (a)(15)(G)(i), or (a)(15)(G)(ii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act who performed diplomatic or semi-diplomatic duties and to their immediate families, and who establish that there are compelling reasons why the applicant or the member of the applicant's immediate family is unable to return to the country represented by the government which accredited the applicant and that adjustment of the applicant's status to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence would be in the national interest. Aliens whose duties were of a custodial, clerical, or menial nature, and members of their immediate families, are not eligible for benefits under section 13. In view of the annual limitation of 50 on the number of aliens whose status may be adjusted under section 13, any alien who is prima facie eligible for adjustment of status to that of a lawful permanent resident under another provision of law shall be advised to apply for adjustment pursuant to such other provision of law. An applicant for the benefits of section 13 shall not be subject to the labor certification requirement of section 212(a)(14) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The applicant shall be notified of the decision and, if the application is denied, of the reasons for the denial and of the right to appeal under the provisions of part 103 of this chapter. Any applications pending with the Service before December 29, 1981 must be resubmitted to comply with the requirements of this section.

(Secs. 103, 245, of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended; 71 Stat. 642, as amended, sec. 17, Pub. L. 97–116, 95 Stat. 1619 (8 U.S.C. 1103, 1255, 1255b))

[47 FR 44238, Oct. 7, 1982, as amended at 59 FR 33905, July 1, 1994]


SECTION 13 OF THE ACT OF SEPTEMBER 11, 1957


(71 Stat. 642; 8 U.S.C. 1255B)

as amended by section 17 of Public Law 97-116 and section 207 of Public Law 103-416

SEC. 13. Notwithstanding any other provision of law-

(a) Any alien admitted to the United States as a nonimmigrant under the provisions of either section 101(a)(15)(A) (i) or (ii) or 101(a)(15)(G) (i) or (ii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, who has failed to maintain a status under any of those provisions, may apply to the Attorney General for adjustment of his status to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence.

(b) If, after consultation with the Secretary of State, it shall appear to the satisfaction of the Attorney General that the alien has shown compelling reasons demonstrating both that the alien is unable to return to the country represented by the government which accredited the alien or the member of the alien's immediate family and that adjustment of the alien's status to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence would be in the national interest, that the alien is a person of good moral character, that he is admissible for permanent residence under the Immigration and Nationality Act, and that such action would not be contrary to the national welfare, safety, or security, the Attorney General, in his discretion, may record the alien's lawful admission for permanent residence as of the date the order of the Attorney General approving the application for adjustment of status is made.

(c) A complete and detailed statement of the facts and pertinent provisions of law in the case.shall be reported to the Congress with the reasons for such adjustment of status. Such reports shall be submitted on the first day of each calendar month in which Congress is in session. The Secretary of State shall, if the alien was classifiable as a quota immigrant at the time of his entry, reduce by one the quota of the quota area to which the alien is chargeable under section 202 of the Immigration and Nationality Act for the fiscal year then current or the next following year in which a quota is available. No quota shall be reduced by more than 50 per centum in any fiscal year.

(d) The number of aliens who may be granted the status of aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence in any fiscal year, pursuant to this section, shall not exceed fifty.

\ publaw \ Pub. L. 108-199 Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004

The AAO Decided this issue on December 19, 2007, found at the link below:


altaic, was this your case by any chance?

DISCUSSION: The application was denied by the District Director, Washington, D.C., and the Administrative
Appeals Office (AAO) dismissed a subsequent appeal. The AAO is reopening this matter on its own motion
pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(5)(ii) for the purposes of entering a new decision. The previous decision will
be withdrawn. The application will be approved.

The applicant is a native and citizen of Panama who is seeking to adjust his status to that of lawful permanent
resident as the immediate relative of the principal applicant, his father, under section 13 ofthe Immigration and
Nationality Act (the Act) of 1957, Pub. L. No. 85-316, 71 Stat. 642, as modified, 95 Stat. 1611.

The district director denied the application for adjustment Of status on November 19, 1999, after determining that
the principal applicant had failed to demonstrate he was unable to return to Panama or that his adjustment would
serve U.S. interests. On appeal, the AAO found the principal applicant to have demonstrated eligibility for
adjustment to lawful permanent resident status under section 13 of the 1957 Act, but concluded that the
applicant was unable to benefit from his father's adjustment as he is no longer a child, as defined by section
101(b)(l) of the,Act. Such reasoning was in error.

The adjustment of the applicant under section 13 of the 1957 Act does not require that he meet the statutory
definition of child. Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 245.3, eligibility for adjustment of status under section 13 of the 1957
Act is available to the immediate family members of qualifying aliens who were admitted to. the United States
under section 101, paragraphs (a)(l5)(A)(i), (a)(l5)(A)(ii), (a)(l5)(G)(i), or (a)(l5)(G)(ii) of the Act and who
performed diplomatic or semi-diplomatic duties. As the record establishes that the applicant in this matter was
admitted to the United States as a dependent of the principal applicant, as defined at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(a)(2), and
the principal applicant has been found eligible for adjustment under section 13 of the 1957 Act, the applicant is
also eligible for adjustment to lawful permanent resident status. Accordingly, the previous decision will be
withdrawn and the application will be approved.

ORDER: The previous decision is withdrawn and the application is approved.

The link: http://www.uscis.gov/err/A3 - Diplomats/Decisions_Issued_in_2007/Dec192007_01A3013.pdf

The prior decisions is found at: http://www.uscis.gov/err/A3 - Diplomats/Decisions_Issued_in_2007/Sep102007_01A3013.pdf
 
Last edited by a moderator:
de·mon·ize
verb /ˈdēməˌnīz/ 
demonised, past participle; demonised, past tense; demonises, 3rd person singular present; demonising, present participle; demonized, past participle; demonized, past tense; demonizes, 3rd person singular present; demonizing, present participle

Portray as wicked and threatening
- seeking to demonize one side in the conflict


Hope that clears up what I was trying to convey.


For the Supervisor to bring up GMC in this case is absolutely absurd. You judge potential citizens the same way you would judge average Americans in regards to what kinds of laws they broke. Now if the Supervisor believed that if an American had done what I did and would then proceed to question his/her GMC, then I'm all good. But I know that that would not be his process of thought, so that's why I'm calling them out for being excessively judgmental and in contrast of the Supreme Court's vision of how to admit an alien as a citizen.

I don't think I have been simplifying or exaggerating because I have been telling it like it is:

"I'm glad you think that average Americans urinate in public" (IO)

"Yes, I am looking down on you" (Supervisor)

"Americans do not break the law!" (Supervisor)

"Average Americans do not go around urinating in public." (IO)


Those were their exact words, no simplifying or exaggerating. If you don't find those words highly condescending, provocative, nor ostracizing, then we really don't have much to talk about because you wouldn't understand what was going through my head upon hearing such dog crap.

If they really said these things, please file a complaint.

Report USCIS Employee Misconduct (link below)

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) employees are expected to practice high ethical standards while delivering customer service to you.

Our number one priority is to perform our duties with a deep commitment to maintaining the trust that you have placed in us to administer the nation’s immigration laws fairly, honestly and correctly.

Anyone with knowledge or suspicion of criminal violations, misconduct, wasteful activities or allegations of civil rights or civil liberties abuse by a USCIS employee should report specific information to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Office of the Inspector General. Such a report should include the:

Date, time and location of the incident
Specific nature of the alleged misconduct
Name(s) of employee(s) involved

You can make a report by any of the following methods: ·

Toll-free DHS Hotline at 1-800-323-8603
By fax at (202) 254-4292
Via e-mail to dhsoighotline@dhs.gov
By mail to the following address:

Department of Homeland Security
Attn: Office of the Inspector General
245 Murray Drive, Building 410 Stop: 2600
Washington, D.C. 20528

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/us...nnel=4a6e0b89284a3210VgnVCM100000b92ca60aRCRD
 
If they really said these things, please file a complaint.

Report USCIS Employee Misconduct (link below)

Joe, I respectfully disagree with you. Here's why?

#1. No one can argue with the point that IOs need to be professional, even if provoked.
#2. However, these statements are useless without a context. They are not sufficient to make a case, nor does an independent reading of them make me think anything wrong with each of these statements.

For example ... when I took the example of "demonize" ... I perfectly well know what it means, I know how to google it, I know how to look up in the dictionary, and I even used it in the same post ... not to show what it means, but just because ...

However, the OP has to get back ... I am sure he has to get back whether it is a forum member, or an IO.

Now let's look at the following 4 statements ... the context could be different, but let's take them one by one.

A. "I'm glad you think that average Americans urinate in public" (IO)
Why would someone make such a statement of his own volition? The IO is disputing something the OP said. Pretty straightforward even though condescending.

B. "Yes, I am looking down on you" (Supervisor)
This one is the most troublesome. But again, it is in response to OP saying "you are looking down at me like a typical immigrant".

C. "Americans do not break the law!" (Supervisor)
Ok, this one is an exaggeration, but I think the supervisor is being true to the rule book.

D. "Average Americans do not go around urinating in public." (IO)
I think this is a continuation of point A.

I do not like to get into pointless battles, but Joe ... why do you think these statements can be complained about ... unless you are having fun at OP's expense?
 
8 CFR § 245.3 Adjustment of status under section 13 of the Act of September 11, 1957, as amended.

Any application for benefits under section 13 of the Act of September 11, 1957, as amended, must be filed on Form I–485 with the director having jurisdiction over the applicant's place of residence. The benefits under section 13 are limited to aliens who were admitted into the United States under section 101, paragraphs (a)(15)(A)(i), (a)(15)(A)(ii), (a)(15)(G)(i), or (a)(15)(G)(ii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act who performed diplomatic or semi-diplomatic duties and to their immediate families, and who establish that there are compelling reasons why the applicant or the member of the applicant's immediate family is unable to return to the country represented by the government which accredited the applicant and that adjustment of the applicant's status to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence would be in the national interest. Aliens whose duties were of a custodial, clerical, or menial nature, and members of their immediate families, are not eligible for benefits under section 13. In view of the annual limitation of 50 on the number of aliens whose status may be adjusted under section 13, any alien who is prima facie eligible for adjustment of status to that of a lawful permanent resident under another provision of law shall be advised to apply for adjustment pursuant to such other provision of law. An applicant for the benefits of section 13 shall not be subject to the labor certification requirement of section 212(a)(14) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The applicant shall be notified of the decision and, if the application is denied, of the reasons for the denial and of the right to appeal under the provisions of part 103 of this chapter. Any applications pending with the Service before December 29, 1981 must be resubmitted to comply with the requirements of this section.

(Secs. 103, 245, of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended; 71 Stat. 642, as amended, sec. 17, Pub. L. 97–116, 95 Stat. 1619 (8 U.S.C. 1103, 1255, 1255b))

[47 FR 44238, Oct. 7, 1982, as amended at 59 FR 33905, July 1, 1994]


SECTION 13 OF THE ACT OF SEPTEMBER 11, 1957


(71 Stat. 642; 8 U.S.C. 1255B)

as amended by section 17 of Public Law 97-116 and section 207 of Public Law 103-416

SEC. 13. Notwithstanding any other provision of law-

(a) Any alien admitted to the United States as a nonimmigrant under the provisions of either section 101(a)(15)(A) (i) or (ii) or 101(a)(15)(G) (i) or (ii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, who has failed to maintain a status under any of those provisions, may apply to the Attorney General for adjustment of his status to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence.

(b) If, after consultation with the Secretary of State, it shall appear to the satisfaction of the Attorney General that the alien has shown compelling reasons demonstrating both that the alien is unable to return to the country represented by the government which accredited the alien or the member of the alien's immediate family and that adjustment of the alien's status to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence would be in the national interest, that the alien is a person of good moral character, that he is admissible for permanent residence under the Immigration and Nationality Act, and that such action would not be contrary to the national welfare, safety, or security, the Attorney General, in his discretion, may record the alien's lawful admission for permanent residence as of the date the order of the Attorney General approving the application for adjustment of status is made.

(c) A complete and detailed statement of the facts and pertinent provisions of law in the case.shall be reported to the Congress with the reasons for such adjustment of status. Such reports shall be submitted on the first day of each calendar month in which Congress is in session. The Secretary of State shall, if the alien was classifiable as a quota immigrant at the time of his entry, reduce by one the quota of the quota area to which the alien is chargeable under section 202 of the Immigration and Nationality Act for the fiscal year then current or the next following year in which a quota is available. No quota shall be reduced by more than 50 per centum in any fiscal year.

(d) The number of aliens who may be granted the status of aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence in any fiscal year, pursuant to this section, shall not exceed fifty.

\ publaw \ Pub. L. 108-199 Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004

The AAO Decided this issue on December 19, 2007, found at the link below:


altaic, was this your case by any chance?

DISCUSSION: The application was denied by the District Director, Washington, D.C., and the Administrative
Appeals Office (AAO) dismissed a subsequent appeal. The AAO is reopening this matter on its own motion
pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(5)(ii) for the purposes of entering a new decision. The previous decision will
be withdrawn. The application will be approved.

The applicant is a native and citizen of Panama who is seeking to adjust his status to that of lawful permanent
resident as the immediate relative of the principal applicant, his father, under section 13 ofthe Immigration and
Nationality Act (the Act) of 1957, Pub. L. No. 85-316, 71 Stat. 642, as modified, 95 Stat. 1611.

The district director denied the application for adjustment Of status on November 19, 1999, after determining that
the principal applicant had failed to demonstrate he was unable to return to Panama or that his adjustment would
serve U.S. interests. On appeal, the AAO found the principal applicant to have demonstrated eligibility for
adjustment to lawful permanent resident status under section 13 of the 1957 Act, but concluded that the
applicant was unable to benefit from his father's adjustment as he is no longer a child, as defined by section
101(b)(l) of the,Act. Such reasoning was in error.

The adjustment of the applicant under section 13 of the 1957 Act does not require that he meet the statutory
definition of child. Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 245.3, eligibility for adjustment of status under section 13 of the 1957
Act is available to the immediate family members of qualifying aliens who were admitted to. the United States
under section 101, paragraphs (a)(l5)(A)(i), (a)(l5)(A)(ii), (a)(l5)(G)(i), or (a)(l5)(G)(ii) of the Act and who
performed diplomatic or semi-diplomatic duties. As the record establishes that the applicant in this matter was
admitted to the United States as a dependent of the principal applicant, as defined at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(a)(2), and
the principal applicant has been found eligible for adjustment under section 13 of the 1957 Act, the applicant is
also eligible for adjustment to lawful permanent resident status. Accordingly, the previous decision will be
withdrawn and the application will be approved.

ORDER: The previous decision is withdrawn and the application is approved.

The link: http://www.uscis.gov/err/A3 - Diplomats/Decisions_Issued_in_2007/Dec192007_01A3013.pdf

The prior decisions is found at: http://www.uscis.gov/err/A3 - Diplomats/Decisions_Issued_in_2007/Sep102007_01A3013.pdf

Nah, that's not my case, but I appreciate you for taking the time to research this kind of stuff.
 
Joe, I respectfully disagree with you. Here's why?

#1. No one can argue with the point that IOs need to be professional, even if provoked.
#2. However, these statements are useless without a context. They are not sufficient to make a case, nor does an independent reading of them make me think anything wrong with each of these statements.

For example ... when I took the example of "demonize" ... I perfectly well know what it means, I know how to google it, I know how to look up in the dictionary, and I even used it in the same post ... not to show what it means, but just because ...

However, the OP has to get back ... I am sure he has to get back whether it is a forum member, or an IO.

Now let's look at the following 4 statements ... the context could be different, but let's take them one by one.

A. "I'm glad you think that average Americans urinate in public" (IO)
Why would someone make such a statement of his own volition? The IO is disputing something the OP said. Pretty straightforward even though condescending.

B. "Yes, I am looking down on you" (Supervisor)
This one is the most troublesome. But again, it is in response to OP saying "you are looking down at me like a typical immigrant".

C. "Americans do not break the law!" (Supervisor)
Ok, this one is an exaggeration, but I think the supervisor is being true to the rule book.

D. "Average Americans do not go around urinating in public." (IO)
I think this is a continuation of point A.

I do not like to get into pointless battles, but Joe ... why do you think these statements can be complained about ... unless you are having fun at OP's expense?

I know you're discussing with Joe about this, so I just wanted to clarify those statements in their context. I realized that you have been giving the IOs the benefit of the doubt all the time, so don't worry about what I say because you will most likely disagree with everything I have to say. I'm just providing this for Joe if he feels that he needs more information to make a judgement:


Me: I didn't realize you guys were going to be so strict with a civil offense, I just had the impression that I would be compared to an average American.
IO: "I'm glad you think that average Americans urinate in public"
Me: Well, I just meant that an average American could have easily done the same thing.
IO: "No, because average Americans don't go around urinating in public."

Supervisor: Go ahead, say what you did! (in waiting room area)
Me: Okay, I was urinating in public.
Supervisor: See, there you go!
Me: Well, it's not criminal, but it is an offense, I just don't know why you're looking down on me for it.
Supervisor: "Yes, I am looking down on you"
Me: (flabbergasted, although I am a bit fuzzy as to why I said I would need a lawyer with me before I could respond to what he was saying. I felt like he was trying to make me sound like I did something worse than I did.)

Supervisor: You broke the law, you go get the document, even if you have to go all the way to PA!
Me: Don't you think that's unreasonable? The PA court is refusing to give me such a document. And I don't know why you keep making me feel like a criminal, Americans break these kind of laws and they are not considered criminal.
Supervisor: "Americans do not break the law!"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top