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:
No, this is for your benefit too. Yes, maybe I am already biased, so let's move beyond that. Or read my signature ... I have this problem, I think sometimes it is better to show the mirror than give false assurances. It's your luck.
You can always challenge a decision. You can always complain about a government official's attitude. But for you to win ... you need to have a) a pretty strong case, and b) willingness and time/patience/money to take the battle forward. When the complaint is within CIS, the CIS brotherhood will change a 50:50 odds to a 40:60 odds. To go in front of judge, only 1 in 10 people will go forward even if it was completely open and shut case (stats made up, not real).
I still do not see a case where the IO or supervisor mis-behaved. Maybe they were a bit out of line ... but that's about it. And they can play up their side of the story in any complaint hearing. From my reading of the story so far, this is what I see, and it ain't big.
==> They were not satisfied with the evidence.
==> They asked you for more
==> You did not have any
==> You argued.
==> They argued back.
You should focus on getting the documents ...
I have been following this thread for sometime now.
to OP: whether you would like to be classified into a "traditional" immigrant or not, reality is that that's what you are. Whether your choice or someone else made that choice for you it doesn't matter. You decided to take green card and continued down path to get US citizenship. Process is same; whether you are here for x number of years from age y has no impact of what so ever.
Here is quote i thought is appropriate; this is from movie As good as it gets;Melvin Udall character in the movie played by Jack Nicholson ".....What makes it so hard is not that you had it bad, but that you're that pissed that so many others had it good. "
Many of us had to take certified court documents to citizenship interview; it is an interview with process emphasized. American way is ask when in doubt, not argue.
Any citizen of any country can perceive to be an American (behavior, culture, etc) except being an American citizen (either by birth or by naturalization).
Yeah, I heard these sociological puzzles before many times.
I've already accepted the fact that someone born on the fringe border of Mexico-USA with no English nor any knowledge of WASP culture while growing up here is more American than I am.
I've also already recognized the fact that people who have very little knowledge of US customs and history who just came here a couple of years ago are becoming US citizens before me.
I find it all a bad joke, but the fact is that it is a reality in this country. No big deal. I just had hoped that my route to citizenship would not have been any worse than the aforementioned.
P.S. Perception is completely different from enculturation.
P.S.S. Please don't try to paint arguing as a distinct cultural trait, it just comes off as strange at best, ethnocentric at worst.
Allow me to play the devil's advocate for a moment. Let's suppose that a person is walking home at night, with every public establishment closed for the day, and the nature happens to call. The person tries to control their urge, succeeding for a couple of blocks. However, with the person's home another 15 blocks away, he/she is physically unable to hold it in any longer, so he/she steps into a dark corner and urinates. Unfortunately for this person, he/she urinated in full view of a detective, who happened to be sitting across the street in an unmarked car. After the person finishes their business, the detective steps out of the car, flashes his badge, and issues the person a ticket for public urination.
In no way do I condone public urination, but, in certain circumstances, it becomes necessary to break laws, even though Americans never break them (I guess Americans never speed, jaywalk, run stop signs, file their taxes late, etc.). I'm sure that the OP is not a serial public urinator - he just happened to make a choice between ducking into a dark corner or urinating in his pants. No need to revile him over it.
In this particular case, it happened on a college campus, so it's almost certain that there was an available bathroom nearby and "couldn't hold it" doesn't apply.
You would have noticed on the N400 instructions the emphasized over and over. CERTIFIED COPIES of documents. And with your knowledge of knowing who and what AVERAGE AMERICAN can do and also know TYPICAL IMMIGRANT and unwilling immigrant. I assumed you should know the difference between a document and certified copy of the document.
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?
The OP never mentioned it happened on campus. He said it happened while in college.
Per the document checklist in the guide:
If you have ever been arrested or detained by any law enforcement officer for any reason, and charges were filed, send:
An original or court-certified copy of the complete arrest record and disposition for each incident (dismissal order, conviction
record or acquittal order).
http://www.uscis.gov/files/article/M-476.pdf
Considering the OP provided an original court disposition listing the charge, conviction and fine and he was informed by the PA court it's what has been accepted by other agencies in the past he had every reason to believe it was an acceptable document. For God sake stop trying to crucify the OP and accept the interview incident as an example of poor customer service at USCIS.
The problem here is that trying to provide a justification or otherwise make light of a violation of the law when speaking to a government official who has authority over your situation is like begging the bull to charge at you. From their perspective, it's as if you're unremorsefully disrespecting the law to their face, even though you and I and even they know that the offense is a minor thing on the level of what common Americans do.
In this particular case, it happened on a college campus, so it's almost certain that there was an available bathroom nearby and "couldn't hold it" doesn't apply.
Per the document checklist in the guide:
If you have ever been arrested or detained by any law enforcement officer for any reason, and charges were filed, send:
An original or court-certified copy of the complete arrest record and disposition for each incident (dismissal order, conviction
record or acquittal order).
http://www.uscis.gov/files/article/M-476.pdf
Considering the OP provided an original court disposition listing the charge, conviction and fine and he was informed by the PA court it's what has been accepted by other agencies in the past he had every reason to believe it was an acceptable document. For God sake stop trying to crucify the OP and accept the interview incident as an example of poor customer service at USCIS.
The same N-400 instructions state :"For more information on the documents you must send see the document checklist in the guide"Here is the actual instruction for N400:
http://www.uscis.gov/files/form/n-400instr.pdf