Thanks everyone.
Sanjoseaug20,
No, he didn't administer the oath. He did everything ,but administer the oath. Even though he gave me the U.S. passport application form, he did caution me not to apply for a passport or register to vote until I had been sworn in. He went out of his way to roll out the red carpet and treat me with "kid gloves”, so I am certain, someone with some considerable authority, "chewed his butt". You have to understand that, I did not have a pleasant experience with this DAO when we first met.
Kailasherathi, below is the letter I sent to all the “big whigs”. Brace yourself, it is a very looooooong letter
, but it might make for decent "bathroom" reading
Enjoy!
Dear XXXXXXX:
Re: Unlawful administration, adjudication and delay, AND possible denial of my USCIS N-400 Naturalization petition
It is my understanding that the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), an agency that falls under the jurisdiction of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), stands by its statement to the public, which reads as follows:
"......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.........."
I trust that the USCIS will stand firmly behind this statement with objectivity and neutrality, and I should have unshakeable confidence that according to one of USCIS’s cardinal policies, I will not be retaliated against, in any form or manner, by the USCIS or its employees, for contacting you for assistance and having the courage to speak the truth. Moreover, one of the 100 U.S. history and civics questions found in the current USCIS naturalization test, asks "What is the "Rule of law"? Answer: 1.Everyone must obey the law. 2. Leaders must obey the law. 3. Government must obey the law. 4. No one is above the law.
I appreciate the fact that the USCIS and DHS, are entrusted with the all important task of securing our nation's borders and enforcing U.S. immigration law, but if Legal Permanent Residents, (as valid contributors to the very fiber of the way of life, sacred to the constitution and laws of the United States) meet the established eligibility requirements to obtain any immigration benefit, they should be granted that benefit, without unnecessary delay, duress, hostility, bias, intimidation, conjectures and unlawful administration of immigration laws from USCIS or its employees.
My specific observation, concerning my USCIS N-400 Naturalization petition is : The unlawful, unfair, dishonest and incorrect administration of US immigration laws, by a USCIS employee, who without ANY probable cause, is delaying the approval of my Naturalization petition, with my trepidation that said officer may intend to unlawfully deny, said benefit without ANY probable cause.
My Naturalization petition is very uncomplicated, and I have put together a "brief" to articulate my concerns. It may well be, that I am being unnecessarily anxious, or pre-empting the USCIS's "due process", but, hopefully, after you read my correspondence, you will understand my concerns, and be in a position to tell me what my valid options are, the proper procedures for a situation like mine, and give me advise, as to the best course of action.
"Brief"
XXXXXXXX - N-400 Naturalization applicant and party seeking relief
XXXXXXXX - USCIS District Adjudication Officer, Los Angeles Field Office (LAFO) - USCIS employee in question
On Tuesday, September 22, 2009, at 01:45 PM, I attended my Naturalization Initial Interview, scheduled at the Los Angeles Field Office, 300 North Los Angeles Street, Room:XXXXXX, Los Angeles, CA. 90012.
My Adjudication Officer was XXXXXXXX (District Adjudication Officer, Room XXXXXX, Los Angeles Field Office (LAFO)
Even though I have a very uncomplicated Naturalization petition, the only way, I can explain my concerns, is by detailing what happened, leading up to this correspondence, so please bear with me, if it seems "long winded". I have highlighted, capitalized and underlined, XXXXXXXXX's statements, as well as factors that I deem relevant, that have led me to my conclusion, as I cannot see any other reason, why XXXXXX will delay the approval of my Naturalization application, especially as I am IMMEDIATELY eligible and meet ALL USCIS's criteria for Naturalization requirements, as well as provided the documentation that XXXXXXX requested of me, in an exceptionally expedient manner.
I entered the United States, legally , on a F-1 student visa, in 1981, and I have resided in the United States for 28 years, living in the State of California(Los Angeles) since 1995. I have exhibited good moral conduct, without a single incident of crime or lawlessness. I am not from nor have I ever visited any country on DHS’s “watch list”. I graduated University, with 3 degrees. I have been an Ordained Evangelist (Christian Minister) since 2000. I have been a Lawful Permanent Resident since 2002 (7 years). I have never failed to pay my taxes, whenever applicable by IRS regulations, and paid my taxes , for 7 years straight (2000 – 2007) till I lost my job at the end of 2007. The worst recession since the Great Depression, that started in December 2007, has kept me without employment since losing my job. Since losing my job, my family and friends have generously supported me financially and otherwise. In the face of the deep recession, I turned to international business opportunities, which have started gaining momentum, after a lot of hard work and perseverance.
As a result of the USCIS's Adjudication Officer, XXXXXXX's inexplicable, delaying of the approval of my Naturalization petition, I am suffering irreparable harm I am being deprived, unlawfully, of the unique and substantial benefits of US citizenship, including, protection of the laws of the United States, equal to that of US citizens; political rights, including the right to vote; freedom of movement and travel; the right to obtain a United States passport; the protection of the United States government when outside the borders of the United States. I have been subjected to anxiety, fear, despair, uncertainty and emotional distress, engendered by the inability to obtain United States citizenship, including the inability to travel and to carry out necessary developing business activities outside of the United States, out of the concern that I might fall outside the USCIS’s requirements for “physical presence” in the United States as required of all Lawful Permanent Residents, and also out of concern that I may miss my scheduled swearing-in oath ceremony. The Adjudicating officer, is denying my inalienable rights, protected by the laws of the United States Of America, as a Legal Permanent Resident, that has established , beyond reasonable doubt, eligibility to qualify for U.S. Citizenship, and to do so with dignity, and to be treated with respect and courtesy, during the processing and subsequent approval of my Naturalization petition.
Even XXXXXXXX, the Adjudication Officer in question, cannot argue that I do not meet ALL General USCIS Naturalization Requirements: Age, Residency, Residence and Physical Presence, Good Moral Character, Attachment to the Constitution, Language, United States Government and History Knowledge, Willingness to take the Oath of Allegiance.
USCIS denied more than 121,000 naturalization petitions in 2008. The 121,283 applications denied in 2008 represented 10.4 percent of all 1,167,822 naturalization applications processed in 2008. Applicants whom USCIS denied citizenship received denials for one or more of the following reasons: applicant could not prove five years of permanent residence in the United States; applicant was determined to lack allegiance to the United States; applicant was determined to have bad moral character; or applicant failed the English language or American civics test. I DO NOT FALL UNDER ANY OF THESE CATEGORIES FOR DENIAL.
In a USCIS Interoffice Memorandum, dated February 16, 2005; from William R. Yates, Associate Director, Operations, to Regional Directors, Service Center Directors, District Directors, Officers-in-Charge, RE: Request for Evidence(RFE) and Notices of Intent to Deny(NOID), page 3, (2)”Record is COMPLETE and case is APPROVABLE” portion of the memorandum states:
“...........The other end of the spectrum is a case in which ALL of the required evidence has been submitted, and the case is APPROVABLE. An applicant or petitioner must establish eligibility for the requested benefit , but when ELIGIBILITY has been ESTABLISHED, the case should be APPROVED. 8 CFR 103.2(b)(1).
If the record is COMPLETE with respect to all of the required INITIAL evidence as specified in the regulations and on the application or petition and accompanying instructions, the USCIS adjudicator is NOT required to issue an RFE to obtain further documentation to support an approval based on that record. From review of recent cases, it has appeared that adjudicators too often issue a RFE for ADDITIONAL TYPES OF EVIDENCE that could tend to eliminate all doubt and all possibility for ineligibility or denial. This tendency is understandable in light of the “zero tolerance memo” issued by INS (Immigration and Naturalization Services) Commissioner Ziglar in the wake of “9/11”. That memo, however, has been RESCINDED. See comments of Deputy Director Michael Petrucelli contained in transcript of the September 8, 2003 USCIS Town Hall Meeting. USCIS is determined to protect the integrity of its adjudications, but USCIS, must also facilitate LAWFUL IMMIGRATION, and has a responsibility to process cases EFFICIENTLY and REASONABLY. Therefore , when a case is APPROVABLE based on INITIAL EVIDENCE, and there is NOT evidence justifying a particular concern to support a RFE, the case should be APPROVED, WITHOUT RFE or NOID.
The standard to be met by the petitioner or applicant is “preponderance of the evidence”, which means the matter asserted is more likely than not to be TRUE. Filings are NOT required to demonstrate eligibility BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT This is a much lower standard than the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard in criminal matters or the "clear and convincing" standard in quasi-criminal cases, both of which are far more stringent.……..........”
I AM 100% CONFIDENT, THAT, UNDER U.S. NATURALIZATION LAWS, I HAVE PROVEN MY ELIGIBILITY, BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, AND NEITHER XXXXXX OR THE USCIS HAS ANY GROUNDS OR REASONS, WHATSOEVER, TO DELAY OR DENY MY NATURALIZATION PETITION, UNLESS XXXXXXXX IS INEXPLICABLY ACTING UNDER EXTREME BIAS, FOR REASONS BEST KNOWN TO HIM, WHICH IS UNFAIR. THEREFORE, IN ALL FAIRNESS, MY PETITION, SHOULD BE IMMEDIATELY APPROVED.
Section 336(b) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA), provides for judicial review of a stalled naturalization application. It states that if USCIS fails to grant or deny an application for naturalization before the end of the 120-day period after the date on which the interview/examination is conducted, the applicant may apply to the district court for the district in which the applicant resides for a hearing on the matter. The court may (1) determine the matter, by granting the application and naturalizing the individual as a citizen. The court is allowed to deny the application if it believes that the individual does not meet the requirements for citizenship (legal permanent resident status; residence and presence in US; and good moral character for requisite period of time(s) ) or (2) remand to USCIS, with appropriate instructions, to determine the matter and proceed with the application process. I know that 120 days has not passed, but even if I were to wait for the 120-day period, my current financial situation, will not afford me to pursue this matter through the court system, and I cannot afford to retain an immigration attorney, at this point in time.
On September 22, 2009, at 2:07 PM, I was beckoned by XXXXXXX, as I waited in the seating area of Room XXXXX of the USCIS’s Los Angeles Field Office, located at 300 North Los Angeles Street, Los Angeles, CA. 90012. XXXXXX escorted me to his office (XXXXXX). When we entered his office, XXXXXX proceeded to administer the oath (...."to tell the truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God"). XXXXXX, then asked me for my Permanent Resident Card (Green Card) and California State driver's license, which I handed to him. Before the interview began, no sooner had I sat down, following the oath, did XXXXXX make a condescending and derogatory remark about my country of origin, XXXXXX. With a look of contempt on his face XXXXX's exact words, delivered with impunity, were "You're from XXXXXX. Are they still killing each other in XXXXX?". Even if XXXXXXX, was expressing a fact, which he was not, he had no right to express that, directly in front of me, knowing I am of XXXXXX descent, and that I was in his office to complete my Naturalization interview. It is simply unacceptable. Regardless of XXXXX's subjective opinions of XXXXX, he should not be allowed to express those opinions, within the context of a Naturalization interview, involving a Legal Permanent Resident of XXXXXXXX descent. Plus, I am almost certain, that XXXXXXXX, knows very little about XXXXX nor has he ever visited XXXXX, so to make XXXXXXXXs out to be some sort of savage and uncivilized "tribe", was highly offensive to me. After all, part of the USA's success is because this great country is a melting pot of people and cultures from around the world, and nothing signifies this more than the Latin phrase on the U.S. coat of arms; “ "e pluribus unum" (One out of many, one)
Stunned, I sat silent, afraid, and unable to respond to XXXXX's remark, especially as I was extremely nervous, due to the anxiety of preparing for and anticipating the Naturalization interview and test on U.S. history and civics, and wondering if I would be successful during the interview, plus, I did not want to object to XXXXXX's inappropriate comment, for fear of retaliation or receiving an unfavorable result(denial) for my interview. I wondered, internally, how XXXXXX's remark, was relevant to my application to become a U.S. citizen, and why an experienced and elderly adjudication officer, like XXXXXX, would be so insensitive, considering I have lived in the US since 1981 when I was 19 (I have resided in the U.S. for a total of 28 YEARS), I have a "squeaky clean" record, and I graduated from college here in the U.S., with 3 college degrees. A BSC in Business Administration. An Associate Degree in Marketing, and an Associate Degree in Business Management.
Full of trepidation, but undaunted, I sat, nervously, anticipating XXXXX's questions. He then said, "There was a delay in starting your interview. The documents in your file were not arranged in proper order, and I had to file them properly". To which I politely, replied, "Not a problem". His abrasive response was "Not for you maybe, but I had to file them. It was a problem for me". At this point, already extremely nervous, I was starting to feel uneasy, as to why XXXXXX was initiating a Naturalization interview, with irrelevant, non-interview issues, and why he was being so hostile and intimidating towards me.
Please note that in 2006, in an attempt to streamline the Naturalization interview process and make the interview more pleasant for petitioners, the USCIS sent out a directive to its staff. Part of it stated:
"...Supervisors should REGULARLY MONITOR and OBSERVE Adjudication Officers to ensure that officers are asking ESSENTIAL or PERTINENT questions relating to the benefit sought.......".
His attitude towards me was hostile, caustic, unprofessional, adversarial and intimidating. From information I researched from the USCIS, prior to my interview, I was under the impression, that though it is natural to be nervous, the adjudication officers, were there to be professional, but warm and friendly, and to make the whole process less nerve wracking. After all, becoming a US Citizen , is one of the most important benefits, the USCIS approves for Legal Permanent Residents, like myself. XXXXXX, was unequivocally hostile towards me, for no apparent reason. It seemed as if XXXXXXX, was inexplicably upset with me and I was an annoying interruption to XXXXX's day.
.
XXXXXX then proceeded to ask me the civics and history questions , which I passed with flying colors, (100%) and also administered, the "proficiency in English" portion, by having me write sentences that he read out loud, and he also had me read, sentences. I passed this portion with flying colors too (100%).
He then went through my actual N-400 application, thoroughly, asking me questions as he went along. When he got to my employment history section, he asked me why I had not worked since the end of 2007. "That's a long time to be without a job. How were you surviving?" he said. I explained that I was a Commercial Sales Rep. for a large toy distributorship in Los Angeles, called XXXXXXXX, in North Hollywood, earning approximately $80,000 per annum, and in the last quarter of 2007, the toy industry was devastated by the discovery that Chinese manufacturers (who manufacture 89% of toys bought and sold in the U.S.), included deadly lead paint in the manufacturing process, thus creating a health hazard for the kids who played with them. The ensuing panic this caused, led to a drastic reduction in sales, and subsequently, I quit my job, and before I could recover, the worst economic recession, since the Great Depression, which officially started in December, 2007, seriously affected my job prospects.
I explained this to XXXXXX, expecting him to already take into consideration, the fact that unemployment is NOT a lawful basis for denying Naturalization, and NO WHERE on the USCIS N-400 Naturalization petition form or its accompanying instructions, does the USCIS mention that unemployment is a hindrance to being approved for Naturalization. More over, unless XXXXXX, has been living under the proverbial rock, he must be aware, as is everyone living in the U.S., that millions of Americans have been without jobs for a year or two as a result of the severe recession that officially started in December , 2007. I however, assured XXXXX, that even though, I had to make some lifestyle adjustments (gave up my luxury automobile, a 2006 Volvo S-60, that I had leased, brand new, and was financing, moved from a three bedroom house to a single room in my friend's home e.t.c.), fortunately my friends and family, have been in the position to support me financially, during this most difficult economic period, not just for me, but for ALL Americans, while I continued searching for a job.
My family in XXXXX, who is financially well off, also suggested that, since I was having difficulties finding a job, I should pursue Oil & Gas and Import business opportunities in XXXXXX, and look to set up a business as an independent US based consultant. The vast majority of my family, immediate and extended, live and work in XXXXX. They are law abiding, highly educated and successful, business people and professionals. As to the caliber of my family, one of them, XXXXX (my brother-in-law), a well respected and principled, elder statesman, is a past recipient of the Eisenhower
Fellowship Award(
www.eisenhowerfellowships.org). The Eisenhower Fellowships organization engages emerging leaders from around the world to enhance their professional capabilities, broaden their contacts, deepen their perspectives, and unite them in a diverse, global community - a network where dialogue, understanding, and collaboration lead to a more prosperous, just, and peaceful world. The Eisenhower Fellowship brings two groups of approximately 25 outstanding mid-career Fellows (aged 32-45) drawn from 49 different countries to the U.S. annually for an intensive, individually designed program in the fellows professional field. Fellows are identified by high-level in-country nominating committees and selected by a committee at Eisenhower Fellowships headquarters in Philadelphia.
I have also been, developing products, in the US, in the Novelty and Luxury Furniture industries (evidence was presented to XXXXX). At my wits end, and unable to find acceptable employment, I reasoned, and rightly so, that my family's suggestion had some merit. I made several, family sponsored trips to XXXXX, (WITHOUT violating USCIS's continuous and physical presence requirements) to pursue business opportunities as an independent U.S. based consultant, and with some hard work, and persistence, I was able to initiate some Distributorship and Equipment purchase interests between two U.S. firms (XXXXXXX in Los Angeles and XXXXXXX in Des Moines, Iowa), and XXXXX firms (XXXXXX, XXXXXX and XXXXXXX). Evidence of this is readily available, and was given to XXXXX. I also explained to XXXXXX, that during these business trips to XXXXXX, in search of a viable solution, to negate my extended unemployment brought on by the severe recession, the USCIS should take into consideration, I was supported by family and friends, especially, during the periods, I was in XXXXXXXX, including assistance in paying my rent in Los Angeles, while I was abroad.
USCIS policy will tell you that you cannot not be denied Naturalization only because you fell on some hard economic times, and that as long as you meet Naturalization eligibility requirements, set by the USCIS, there is NO requirement by the USCIS that an applicant be employed, prior to filing a Naturalization petition, as a matter of fact, an applicant can be unemployed at the time of the Naturalization interview and test.
However, as it relates to Naturalization petitions, even though there are NO written rules on this, immigration attorneys, will advise Naturalization petitioners that, as an “unwritten” rule, if someone is UNEMPLOYED, then he/she must be prepared to show/explain to USCIS how he/she has been supporting himself/herself without the means of any visible income; otherwise, the Adjudication Officer might deny their case in presuming the person is being involved in some kind of shady/illegal activities. SUBMITTING A NOTARIZED AFFIDAVIT(S) FROM AN INDIVIDUAL(S) ABOUT BEING FINANCIALLY SUPPORTED IS SUFFICIENT. After my Naturalization interview, on Sep 25, 2009, as part of the form WR-822 documents XXXXXX requested I submit, I submitted TWO (2) such affidavits to XXXXXX, as well as other documentary evidence of receiving financial support (see below).
Please note, that according to USCIS policy, as a general rule, unemployment, does NOT adversely impact one’s ability to file and obtain U.S. Citizenship, since the "good moral character" is not an issue in being unemployed; and when it comes to "good moral character", I have cleared FBI fingerprint, name, security and background checks.
Normally unemployment, is not an issue at all, because, MANY people, who have been laid off or lost their jobs, pass the interview and become U.S. citizens. Given the facts and circumstances that I have presented, in my Naturalization petition, my job loss does not affect my Naturalization petition in any way. According to the USCIS, there are often concerns regarding whether unemployment will create problems in one's Naturalization (Citizenship) case. The required USCIS N-400, Naturalization petition application forms carry NO questions on this matter. The N-400 form and accompanying instructions, make NO note of unemployment or income requirements, as they relate to Naturalization petitions.
Proof of my income or support from others should not be deemed an eligibility requirement for Naturalization based upon having been a Lawful Permanent Resident (having a "Green Card") for five years. In my bewilderment, I can only suspect, that, XXXXX is suspicious that I may have had income in 2008 but failed to file required tax returns (which, in turn, would demonstrate a lack of good moral character and would be a basis for denying a Naturalization application). Of course, this line of thinking, is ludicrous, as I clearly stated on my N-400 application, the fact, I have been unemployed since the last quarter of 20007, and subsequently, I was supported by gifts from family/friends.
Understandably, IRS regulations, can be as complex as those of the USCIS, so XXXXXX, might have assumed that, the gifts I RECEIVED were taxable. Even if one was to assume, that this was XXXXXXX’s line of reasoning, IRS regulations are very clear, as to who must pay GIFT TAX. ONLY individuals who GIVE a gift exceeding $12,000 in a given year, are required to file IRS Form 709(Gift Tax), so it is definitely not relevant to me or my Naturalization petition, because I was the RECIPIENT of gifts, not the DONOR; and though I received gifts from different individuals, NO one individual gave me more than $7,000 in any given year between the last quarter of 2007 -present, so even my donors, in the U.S., did not have to file IRS Form 709. Also, since my family, and friends in XXXXXX and XXXXX, who supported me financially, are not resident in the U.S., they are exempt from filing IRS Form 709.
The IRS Form 709 is used to report gifts you make to other people.
I earned absolutely NO taxable income in 2008, and spent a good portion of 2008, with the aid of my family, pursuing international business opportunities, evidence of which I also submitted to XXXXX. I also voiced to XXXXX, during my Naturalization interview, that, the benevolence of friends/family, has been my only source of support. Moreover, the documents I submitted to XXXXXX, are sufficient to address any unwarranted concerns, XXXXXXX may have.
The MAJORITY OF FINANCIAL CONCERNS that can create problems in Naturalization cases are NONSUPPORT OF DEPENDANTS and NONPAYMENT OF TAXES, because these point to a LACK of "good moral character". ( If these are the MAJOR financial concerns relating to Naturalization petitions, and I have cleared, fingerprint, name, security and background checks, why did XXXXXXX not approve my petition? I do NOT have ANY dependants, neither am I delinquent to the IRS, with regards to nonpayment of taxes, as a matter of fact, for 7 years prior to losing my job in 2007, I paid taxes EVERY year (7 years straight). Plus, I have been a PRODUCTIVE member of society, even in the face of a very challenging and severe recession ( I pursued international business opportunities, and have been developing product proto-types in the Novelty and Luxury Furniture industries, here in the U.S. Evidence of ALL of these were submitted to XXXXXXX). Neither of USCIS's financial concerns, regarding Naturalization, are relevant to my unemployment or my Naturalization petition. I have proven, without a shadow of doubt, with a PREPONDERANCE of evidence, that I meet ALL the statutory requirements to be approved for Naturalization, and XXXXXXX as an Adjudication Officer for the USCIS has acted in a grossly negligent manner, nothing short of the abuse of the power, invested in him by the Federal Government, since he has NO grounds to delay or deny my Naturalization petition, aside from what I suspect, is his unexplained and baffling personal bias against me.
Refusing to accept my explanations, and even though unemployment is NOT a lawful basis not to approve a Naturalization petition , XXXXXXX sternly told me that he would need to see documented evidence of the financial support from my family and friends. A bit confused at XXXXXX’s inexplicable insistence, I told him I would provide documents. I told XXXXXX, that my support was in the form of deposits, bank wire transfers, free room and board, discounted room and board, multiple airline tickets and Western Union money transfers. I also received cash, especially from XXXXX (close friend, former co-worker, business associate and current landlord), and XXXXXX (biological brother).I asked him if I could submit affidavits of support from XXXXXX (close friend), a California State Insurance Specialist in Los Angeles, and XXXXXX (biological brother), a Medical Doctor in Calgary, Canada. XXXXX said, "Yeah, you can, but you don't have to bring me the lengthy standard USCIS Affidavit Of Support form (USCIS form I-134), notarized statements would do". I assumed that XXXXX did not want the USCIS form I-134, because this is only relevant to show that visa applicants have sponsorship and will not become public charges while in the United States, and this did not relate to me or my Naturalization petition. He also wanted to see evidence of any bank deposits or bank transfers to my bank account, from family and friends. I told him I could provide the notarized statements of financial support and the bank evidence. I however, told him that documentation of monies that I received via Western Union, would be more challenging to obtain, as I did not keep the transaction receipts, and Western Union, does not give such documentation, apart from the receipts of the transactions, which I disposed of, not knowing, I would be required to present them someday. I made it clear to XXXXX, verbally, and in a subsequent letter (written and presented to him, along with ALL the documents he required)that I wanted it known, for the record, that I also received Western Union transfers from my friends and family as part of the overall support I received from them from 2007-present).
Even though, I met ALL "continuous presence" (I never stayed out of the U.S. for more than 6 months at any given time) and "physical presence" ( I was accumulatively physically present in the U.S. for at least 30 months, during the 5 years prior to my Naturalization application) , requirements, established by USCIS, to be eligible for Naturalization, XXXXXX asked me to submit a photocopy of every page of my passport, because as he put it "You travel a lot". Keep in mind that the USCIS, with regards to their "physical presence" Naturalization petition requirement, clearly states ".....For aliens not married to a U.S. citizen, the alien must have been physically present in the United States, accumulatively, for thirty months, within five years, prior to the date, of filing the naturalization application. This requirement is cumulative but not continuous. An alien can leave, and come back, to the United States, within five years, as much as he/she wants, as long as he/she does not break continuity of residence or abandon residence and as long as his/her total time, spent in the United States, adds up to thirty months". I clearly meet this requirement, so why did XXXXX, raise an eyebrow to my trips abroad? Again, I was surprised at XXXXX's reaction, as I did not see the relevance of this statement, since travelling is not an issue, provided I meet the USCIS's continuous and physical presence requirements, which I do.
In my opinion, XXXXXX was inexplicably just looking for ANY excuse to show my Naturalization application in a bad light, and was “fishing” for un-required evidence, rather than focus on my eligibility, which is undeniable and inalienable.
Please note that Upper Management of the USCIS, OFFICIALLY frown on Adjudication Officers, "fishing" for evidence, instead of considering the existing preponderance of evidence. USCIS issued a memo to Adjudication Officers, regarding the avoidance of "fishing" for evidence. In a June 01, 2007 USCIS memo, regarding "Removal of the Standardize Request For Evidence Processing Timeframe Final Rule, 8 CFR 103.2(b); Significant Revision to Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapters 10.5(a), (b); New Appendix10-9 (AFM Update AD07-05)"; FROM Donald Neufeld, Acting Associate Director, Domestic Operations, TO Service Center Directors, National Benefits Center Director, Office of Refugee, Asylum and International Operations Director, Regional Directors, District Directors, Field Office Directors. A portion of the memo CLEARLY states
"....In short, an adjudicator should strive to request evidence needed for THOROUGH, CORRECT, decision-making. The adjudicator should NOT "FISH" FOR EVIDENCE" - Chapter 10.5(a)(2)
XXXXXX is obviously "FISHING" FOR EVIDENCE, in my Naturalization petition.
I explained to XXXXXX, that my trips, except for two, were all to XXXXX, on business, and were all paid for by my family (part of my family's ongoing financial support since losing my job at the end of 2007). These trips allowed me to seek legal, legitimate and valid international business opportunities, encouraged by my family, as the job market in the U.S. is bleak, due to the recession, and to embark on a proactive search for an alternative viable source of livelihood. Fortunately, my business efforts between the U.S. and XXXXX, have started to yield positive results. I told XXXXXXX, that I could provide referrals to the U.S. companies I dealt with while pursuing business opportunities in XXXXX. The only trips that were not to XXXXX, was a family paid vacation in Jan 2008, to Brazil/ Dominican Republic, as a gift to help me alleviate the tremendous stress and depression, I was going through, due to my job loss and my unemployment. I also traveled to Canada to visit my brother (who has also financially supported me), from Sept 04 to Sept 20,2009. This trip to Canada, was also family sponsored. XXXXXX's sneering response was " Well I still want to see every page of your passport, I'm going to make you spend some nickels at the photocopying machine, and, I also want to see documentation that you received financial assistance from family and friends. You don't have to give me a detailed "blow by blow" document, just evidence that you actually receive(d) money from family and friends. I just want to make sure you were not running around robbing banks or something". Robbing banks or something? I couldn't believe what I heard. I felt this was an assault on my character. Stunned, at XXXXX's comment, but too scared to say anything, so it would not have an adverse effect on his decision, regarding my Naturalization application. Despite his puzzling attitude towards me, I was extremely polite and courteous to XXXXXX, and I didn't know why he was being so unnecessarily difficult towards me. Plus, prior to my losing my job at the end of 2007, I had paid my taxes to the IRS from the year 2000 to the year 2007 (7 years straight), of which I have evidence. Moreover, since legally entering the U.S. in 1981, I have never committed any crime or been arrested, linked to or suspected/convicted of any crime, whatsoever. I am not from nor have I ever visited any country on DHS’s “watch list”.
XXXXXX, concluded the interview by asking me if I would be willing to serve in the U.S. Military if needed, and if I would defend the Constitution of the United States and obey her laws. He also asked me if I would take the Pledge Of Allegiance. I answered all these questions in the affirmative. He then had me write my name in capital letters, beneath my signature and date on my actual form USCIS N-400 application.
XXXXX then gave me a form-N-652 (Naturalization Interview Results), stating I had passed the tests of English and US history and government. The form asked also asked me to follow the instructions on form WR-822, and that USCIS will send me a written decision about my application. The form also stated that a decision cannot yet be made about my application. The form N-652 was date stamped Sep. 22, 2009.
XXXXX then handed me a form WR-822, date stamped Sep, 22, 2009. He advised me that I had till Oct 22, 2009 to submit the documents he requested on the form. “I will not be here by Oct 22, so get the documents to me a.s.a.p.” he said. He also advised me, in no uncertain terms, to hand deliver them to Room 6024-14, hand them to his receptionist and have the receptionist stamp a photocopy for my records, of the date and time I submitted the documents. XXXXX then told me about, how once, he had asked a Naturalization applicant for additional documents, the applicant mailed in his documents, 2 weeks after his interview, but it took 25 months for the documents to reach his desk, subsequently, the applicant was denied. XXXXX told me that, on any given day, if I wished, I could come in to have a "face to face" with him, but I would have to wait till he had completed all his Naturalization interviews for that day , which I interpreted as an indirect way of telling me that I could come to his office if I wished, but he would be too busy to see me. I assured XXXXX that I would personally hand deliver the documents to his office, within 3 days , instead of the 30 days he gave me on the form WR-822. The documents requested for on the form WR-822 are 1) Copies of my tax returns for 2007-2008, 2) Copies of all pages of my passport, and 3) Documentary proof of financial support from family/friends.
Before leaving XXXX's office, I asked him when I could expect to receive a decision on my Naturalization application, to which XXXXXX, dismissively replied "in a few weeks". He then left his office, taking with him, my Permanent Resident Card (PRC) and California Driver's License(DL), I presume to make photocopies. He returned in a few minutes, and handed me my PRC and DL . As I got up to leave, I extended my hand to shake his, and he grudgingly shook my hand, while explaining to me how to exit his office and interview area, through the rear, which I did. I didn't quite know, what to make of my strange Naturalization interview, but, one thing, for sure, was, I didn't leave feeling "warm and fuzzy".
Disappointed, that I was not given a favorable decision (immediate approval) at my Naturalization interview, which I had no reason to doubt I would get, I was still very confident that I would ultimately, receive a favorable decision from XXXXX, after he reviews the documents he asked me to submit.
I gathered the documents he requested. On Friday, Sep 25, 2009, at 7:45 AM (XXXXX's receptionist date and time stamped a photocopy of the form WR-822 for my records, with an official DHS stamp, showing when I returned the documents XXXXX requested), I personally hand delivered ALL the documents XXXXXX requested, and even submitted EXTRA evidence. The following are the documents that I submitted to XXXXXX:
1) Copy of my 2007 IRS income tax returns (which showed gross income of approximately $80,000, and a tax refund of approximately $8,000. I also included the $8,000 tax refund as part of my financial support during the extended period of unemployment in question).
2) Copies of all pages of my current passport, and my past immediate passport, which had been cancelled, without prejudice, when my current passport was issued)
3) A letter, showing a detailed "time-line" (from 2007 to present), that carefully explained the who, how and when I was financially supported by family/friends, as well as my trips abroad during this period. The letter also stated that at no time, did I stop being a productive member of society ( a reference to XXXXXX's "robbing banks" remark). I also included:
4) Copies of incoming deposits and bank transfers to my XXXXX Bank account, from family and friends, abroad and in the US, dating back to 2007 till present.
5) Notarized statements of financial support, from my close friend, former co-worker, current landlord and business associate, XXXXX in Los Angeles, and from my biological brother, XXXXXX, in Calgary, Canada. XXXXX's statement was notarized in Los Angeles, and XXXXXX's statement was notarized in Calgary. XXXXXX, who is also my business associate, also included with his notarized statement, documentation of proto-types of products in the Novelty as well as Luxury Furniture industries, developed by both of us, which we are looking to launch by the end of 2009.
6) Documents, of international bank transfers from XXXXX, to my current landlord, close friend and business associate, XXXXXX's bank account in Los Angeles, funds, given to me by my family, to pay my rent and utilities in Los Angeles, during periods in 2008, while I was pursuing international business opportunities in XXXXXXX.
7) Extensive documentation, including flight itineraries, boarding passes, unused tickets, e.t.c. of my international and domestic air travel (2007 - present), ALL paid for by my family.
8) Name and contact information for the US firms I negotiated business with (XXXXXX, C.E.O., XXXXXXXX , Los Angeles and XXXXXX, Vice President Sales and Marketing, XXXXXX in Des Moines, IA), during my trips to XXXXXX. I also detailed the exact nature and extent of my business dealings with these firms. It is worthy to note, that XXXXXX XXXXXXX, during October 18-30, 2009, flew to XXXXXX, (as part of my efforts), to meet with a company, XXXXXXX, which I referred him to. Unfortunately, I could not be there , for fear of potentially missing a scheduled USCIS swearing-in oath ceremony, or notice to appear for a second Naturalization interview or further Request for Evidence notice.
On October 27, 2006, A USCIS Interoffice Memorandum, Subject: “Case Management Timelines”, sent out by Michael Aytes, Associate Director, Domestic Operations, to Regional Directors, District Directors, Service Center Directors, Director, National Benefits Center and Officers-In-Charge. On Page 3 of 4, a portion of the memorandum states:
“………An RFE places the case in active suspense until we receive a response or the timeframe lapses, whichever comes first. When a case is missing initial evidence the RFE stops the 90-day processing clock on the associated EAD and/or Advance Parole application(s). The clock will start over when we receive a timely response to a request for required initial evidence. An RFE for additional evidence, however, only suspends the processing clock and the clock resumes to the point where it had stopped when we receive a timely response
When we send an RFE, also commonly referred to by the 1-72 or N-14 pre-printed forms that are sometimes used, the following timelines apply :
• N400 - consistent with 8 CFR 335.7. customers are given 30 days from the date of our request: if a response is not received. the case is adjudicated on its merits.
• All other applications - consistent with 8 CFR 103.2(b)(8)-(15). customers are given 12 weeks (84 calendar days) to respond.
Where an interview notice indicated that the customer was to bring a specific document or evidence to the interview. but the customer does not do so. we should not repeat the request through an RFE. An exception, however, is when we have requested that an applicant bring, for example "all evidence of your claim to eligibility to your interview." Here, because the request was not specific, if a customer fails to bring some evidence that could be inferred from the blanket request, issuing an RFE for the still missing evidence is appropriate. Similarly, if an issue first arises at an interview, the customer should be afforded an opportunity to respond to the new request for evidence.
When necessary evidence or information is identified at the interview and we decide that a short-term (generally 1-2 weeks and no more than a month) opportunity to submit the materials is appropriate. It can be done as an extension of the interview. Where more time is clearly appropriate, it should be done as an RFE. Ideally, even when done as an RFE, the applicant or petitioner leaves the interview with the notice. Where that is not possible, the RFE notice should be sent within 14 days of the interview.
Customers should be informed of missing evidence as early in the process as possible and should be encouraged to submit material as soon as they can in order for case processing to resume. (They should be advised, however. to submit all of their response at one time. not piecemeal.)........
.............Post-RFE/NOID processing- Offices should have procedures in place to PROMPTLY connect an RFE/NOID response with the pending application and to RESUME processing PROMPTLY once the response is RECEIVED. Such cases should be returned to the pre-RFE/NOID place in the processing queue. In fact, USCIS has a discrete processing goal for these cases. Our processing time goal for these cases that have had RFEs or NOIDs sent, is 60 DAYS after the customer’s response is RECEIVED. To ensure expectations are consistent with our objectives and to minimize UNNECESSARY case status enquiries. RFE and intent notices should CLEARLY indicate this.
In summary, active case management means managing each case through the process, with a goal of each case being completed correctly and within our timeframes, with the exception of any discrete times spent in active suspense. It also means managing cases in active suspense based on the associated call ups and returning them to active processing AS SOON AS POSSIBLE and appropriate………”
I trust that after you analyze my situation, you will appreciate why I am perplexed at XXXXXX's decision not to approve my Naturalization petition at the time of my interview or shortly thereafter. I have heard that certain USCIS Adjudication Officers are inexplicably “difficult”. I have also heard that there is an unspoken "anti-immigrant" atmosphere at the USCIS. Even if these are unfounded rumors or "urban legends", I have trepidation that, based on what I experienced at my interview, for no reason, XXXXXX is, with callous disregard, delaying my Naturalization application, as unemployment IS NOT a legal or administrative reason not to approve a Naturalization petition, and his intention is to deny my petition without PROBABLE CAUSE.
PLEASE HELP ME. I entered the US legally, in 1981 as a student. Graduated college with 3 degrees. In my 28 years living in the U.S., I have NEVER committed a crime or engaged in anything unlawful. I have been an Ordained Evangelist (Christian Minister) since 2000. I have been a Legal Permanent Resident since 2002 (7 years). I meet ALL requirements to be eligible for Naturalization. I am not from nor have I ever visited any country on DHS’s “watch list”. I have always paid my taxes to the IRS, whenever applicable, under IRS regulations. I paid my taxes, for 7 years straight, from 2000-2007, (I lost my job in the last quarter of 2007). I am not dependent and have never been dependent on Unemployment Benefits or Government Assistance ("Welfare"). Due to our nation's current severe recession, I have struggled to find acceptable employment, but, fortunately, my family and friends have been in the position to support me , while I job hunted and currently developed international business contacts in XXXXXX, as a U.S. based consultant, and I am developing products here in the U.S. My efforts to become self reliant is starting to bear fruit. I stand to lose all my hard work in the last year, pursuing international business opportunities between the U.S. and XXXXXX, and developing products here in the U.S., because of XXXXX's actions.
My Naturalization interview and test with XXXXX, and his request that I submit the documents listed above, was on Sep 22, 2009. Even though I had until Oct 22, 2009, I personally hand delivered the documents on Sep 25, 2009 at 7:45 AM. I know the USCIS has 120 days to respond with a decision, but based on the facts I have presented, I should have been approved immediately following my initial interview with XXXXXX, who is in error, regarding the LAWS governing Naturalization petitions. I want to know if there are any actions I can take to address my concerns, or prevent XXXXXXX from UNLAWFULLY and UNFAIRLY delaying or denying my Naturalization petition.
Naturalization is the most important benefit the U.S. can give eligible Legal Permanent Residents, of which, I am one. After all, some of the greatest minds and achievers, in the US, were once Legal Permanent Residents, who became Naturalized Americans. For instance, Albert Einstein (Time magazine's "Person Of The Century"), Ieoh Ming Pei, Madeleine Albright, John Muir, Joseph Pulitzer, Andrew Carnegie, Felix Frankfurter, Hakeem Olajuwon, Philip Emeagwali, Martina Navratilova, Subranhmanyan Chandrasekhar, Irving Berlin, Edward M. Bannister, Saint Frances X Cabrini, "Mother" Mary Harris Jones, Rita M. Rodriguez, David Ho, Ang Lee, Alejandro Mayorkas(Director, USCIS) and the Governor of our great State of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, are all famous and great Americans, who were once Legal Permanent Residents, that decided to become Citizens of the USA, the GREATEST country on earth.
I have registered my e-mail with the USCIS for e-mail alerts on my case. I check the status of my petition on a daily basis. As of Sunday, November 15, 2009, this is what the "Case Status" section of the USCIS website says about my petition: " Your case information is incomplete within Case Status Online. For further assistance, please call the National Customer Service Center at 1.800.375.5283 ". I have called the USCIS National Customer Service Center, several times, and the USCIS staff answering the phones do not have any information regarding the progress of my petition, just that I should contact them if I haven't heard anything in 120 days. My online account on the USCIS website states that my case was last updated on 08/06/2009, which I find baffling, since I completed my Naturalization interview and test on 09/22/2009. The official last processing date for N-400 Naturalization petitions in the USCIS Los Angeles District Office, is 04/03/2009. How can that be true, when I know for a fact that there are petitioners who sent in their Naturalization applications on 08/10/2009 ( 2 MONTHS after me), and were interviewed on 11/10/2009(2 MONTHS after me), received their swearing-in (Oath letter) on 11/16/2009, and are scheduled to be sworn-in as U.S. Citizens on 12/03/2009. I sent in my aplication on 06/12/2009. I was interviewed on 09/22/2009. Yet, I have not received an Oath letter or scheduled swearing-in date.
I am VERY CONCERNED AND HAVE ENDURED SLEEPLESS NIGHTS, because, apart from the anxiety and stress of applying for Naturalization, the NON-REFUNDABLE filing fee I paid is $675. If my petition, that has already been UNLAWFULLY and UNECESSARILY delayed, is UNDESERVEDLY, UNLAWFULLY and INEXPLICABLY denied by XXXXXX, I will have to pay an additional $605 filing fee, just to respond to a Notice Of Intent To Deny (NOID) Form N-336, within 30 days of receiving such a notice. Imagine, I would now have to pay an additional $605, just to say EXACTLY what I am saying in this correspondence. Not only does that seem unjust, but, given my current economic state, I simply would not be able to afford the $605 filing fee, retain the services of an immigration attorney or , alternatively, would also find it very difficult to re-apply and pay the $675 non-refundable Naturalization petition filing fee, all over again, and for no JUSTIFIABLE reason.
This particular point I raise is very interesting, because in 2008, unlike most other federal agencies, USCIS was funded almost entirely by user fees. Direct Congressional appropriations made about 1% of the USCIS budget and about 99% of the budget was funded through user fees. The total USCIS budget in 2008 was $2.6 billion
Under federal law, immigrants who are in the U.S. as Legal Permanent Residents enjoy many of the same freedoms that U.S. Citizens enjoy. Under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Legal Permanent Residents also enjoy the right to be free from discrimination based on their race, ethnicity, and national origin -- in immigration benefits, employment, education, health care, and housing (among other settings). One of the most important rights accorded to Legal Permanent Residents is the right to apply for U.S. Citizenship, once eligible.
Surely, this is not the welcome-mat one expected on the way to U.S. Citizenship, especially as I have lived in the US for the past 28 years (more than half of my life) as a law abiding, tax- paying and productive member of society. I cherish the United States and consider this my home, as much as anyone else. Up to this point, I have had no problems with the USCIS or any USCIS employee. XXXXXX treated me like a common criminal and illegal immigrant, and he should be reprimanded and held accountable for his actions, so another innocent Legal Permanent Resident does not have to suffer the anxiety and indignities, XXXXX has made me endure. The joy of anticipating the privileged benefits of U.S. Citizenship is being dampened by XXXXX’s personal biases, subjective opinions, unfounded suspicions, allegations, hypothesis, conjectures, and also, his inhospitable disposition. I cannot find words to explain the excruciating, exhaustive, anxious and, indeterminable waiting, caused by the USCIS's baffling "bureaucratic black hole", and XXXXXXXX's, perplexing adjudication of my naturalization petition. This unfortunate experience with XXXXXX and the USCIS, is very hurtful and stressful and with your assistance, I trust this matter can be quickly resolved without my resorting to unnecessary, expensive and time consuming legal actions, to rectify XXXXXX’s glaring errors. Thank you.
Sincerely,
XXXXXXX
Address
Phone number
USCIS A#: XXXXXXX
USCIS N-400 Receipt #: XXXXXXXXXX
c.c.
The President, United States of America
The Attorney General, United States of America
The Secretary, Department of Homeland Security
The Director, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)
The Chief of Staff, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)
The Chief, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Office of Citizenship
The Director, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Office of Security and Integrity (OIS)
The Director, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Office of Internal Audit (OIA)
The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Ombudsman
Senator Barbara Boxer, Senator, State of California
Senator Dianne Feinstein, Senator, State of California, and Member, Senate Committee on The Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security
Senator Charles E. Schumer, Chairman, Senate Committee on The Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security
Senator John Cornyn, Ranking Member, Senate Committee on The Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security
Senator J. Leahy, Member, Senate Committee on The Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security
Senator Richard J. Durbin, Member, Senate Committee on The Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Member, Senate Committee on The Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security
Senator Charles E. Grassley, Member, Senate Committee on The Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security
Senator John Kyl, Member, Senate Committee on The Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security
Senator Jeff Sessions, Member, Senate Committee on The Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security
Congressman Henry A. Waxman, United States House of Representatives, 30th District of California
Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), Chairman, House Committee on The Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security
Congressman Howard L. Berman (D-CA), Member, House Committee on The Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security
Congresswoman Sheila Jackson (D-TX), Member, House Committee on The Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security
Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D-CA), Member, House Committee on The Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security
Congressman Pedro Pierluisi (D-PR), Member, House Committee on The Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security
Congressman Luis V. Gutierrez (D-IL), Member, House Committee on The Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security
Congresswoman Lisa Sanchez (D-CA), Member, House Committee on The Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security
Congressman Anthony Weiner (D-NY), Member, House Committee on The Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security
Congressman Charles A. Gonzalez (D-TX), Member, House Committee on The Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security
Congresswoman Judy Chu (D-CA), Member, House Committee on The Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security
Congressman Steve King (R-IA), Member, House Committee on The Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security
Congressman Greg Harper (R-MS), Member, House Committee on The Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security
Congressman Elton Gallegly (R-CA), Member, House Committee on The Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security
Congressman Dan Lungren (R-CA), Member, House Committee on The Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security
Congressman Ted Poe (R-TX), Member, House Committee on The Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security
Congressman Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), Member, House Committee on The Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security
Attorney XXXXXXX, Law Offices of XXXXXXX
" That only a few (1%), under any circumstances, protest against the injustice of long-established laws and customs, does not disprove the fact of the oppressions, while the satisfaction of the many (99%), if real, only proves their apathy and deeper degradation". – Elizabeth Cady Stanton
**DISCLAIMER**
I am neither a lawyer nor an immigration consultant. My comments should NEVER be considered as legal or professional advice as they are not meant to be such.
Los Angeles time-line:
Sent N-400 6/11/09
NOA 7/14/09 (PD of 6/12/09)
FP Notice 7/15/09
FP Date 7/30/09
IL: 8/4/09
ID: 9/22/09 (Los Angeles DO) Passed!
BUT....
"nasty" and "difficult" AO
gave me N-652 stating
"A decision cannot yet be made about your application"
"Please follow the instructions on Form WR-822"
"USCIS will send you a written decision about your application"
AO gave me Form WR-822 requesting 1)Copy of 2007 tax return 2) Copies of all pages of passport 3)Documentary proof of financial support from family/others
AO suggested I hand deliver documents to his office, and said I should hear from them in a few weeks.
WR-822 and ALL requested documents HAND DELIVERED to AO's office on 9/25/09
Tired of waiting sent 15 page passionate "complaint" letter in the middle of November 2009 (sent to everyone from The President down)
Received a letter on 12/10/2009 (dated 12/04/2009) inviting me to come in for an appointment on 12/14/2009 (at 9:30 a.m.) to “complete my N-400 naturalization application and affix my signature to my N-400 naturalization application. Signed by the Director of the Los Angeles DO and District Adjudication Officer (DAO) who interviewed me in September, 2009
Attended appointment on 12/14/2009 - APPROVED
OL: ???????????
OD: ???????????
PP: (applied)????????
PP: (received)?????????
