Lawyer or no Lawyer ?

[sreeleshk]

As far as the USCIS is concerned, does it really matter if your having a lawyer to do the paper work (n400) for you and have him accompany you for the IO interview ? or does it not matter at all ?

i have heard the lawyers say that the IOs behave themselves when you are with an attorney by your side. But i consider myself as a smart and intelligent person, and i do alot of research and preperation on the anticipated questions on an IO interview, does a person really need to be spending 1000$ to 2000$ for the lawyer ? is there anything else they can do ? at that point in time ?

appealing, or re-applying after a denial or rejection is another story.

any inputs ?

(to all those lawyers, excuse me , i dont mean to offend you or to put u out of business)

 

[Bobsmyth]

In most instances (ie simple straight forward case) , having a lawyer prepare the paperwork and go to interview does not increase your chance of approval. However, if you have a complicated case, then yes, having a lawyer does increase your chances of success.

 

[WBH]

It really depend on whether you have an issue or not.
If you have an issue and a memo is needed, maybe it is
better to let a lawyer write one. Otherwise forget about it
just prepare yoru own N400.

I also think it does not matter where IO behave himself or not.
He can behave himself but still deny yoru application without your
presence. Keep in mind that the decision is not made on the spot.
Lawyer presence can prevent you from making a silly mistake
but basically during the interview lawyers are only observers.
TRhey can not answer question on yoru behalf.

 

[sreeleshk]

If the case is complicated and needs to go for an appeal, i can understand the importance of the lwayer, i guess the lawyers charge 1k to 2k just to fill out the application, and to accompany u to the interview, actually i just realized that the lawyers cannot speak for u at the interview when u just mentioned it now. so if they are silent - passive at the interview, isnt it a waste of money as , if we do need lawyer, we can get one later if there is a need for an appeal.

One of my friends who is doing his n400 who forgot to register Selective services (he is 30 now), the lawyer said, they prepare a letter for the IO explaining why the candidate didnt/couldnt register and said that the letter from the lawyer is considerd to make an impact rather than the candidate is writing it himself, may be like to show that the candidate is going to fight and use all his resources to get the citizenship or something, and making a a stand. is it true. whats ur take on that ?

 

[Jackolantern]

If the case is complicated and needs to go for an appeal, i can understand the importance of the lwayer, i guess the lawyers charge 1k to 2k just to fill out the application, and to accompany u to the interview, actually i just realized that the lawyers cannot speak for u at the interview when u just mentioned it now. so if they are silent - passive at the interview, isnt it a waste of money as , if we do need lawyer, we can get one later if there is a need for an appeal.

The lawyer's presence at the interview is like a bank having a security guard. They are there not because you want them to actually do something; they are there because you want their presence to create an environment where they won't have to do anything.

Having the lawyer present helps to keep the interviewer from going off into "witch hunt" lines of questioning, as the lawyer can object to legally inappropriate questions (including advising you not to answer), and the presence of the lawyer makes the interviewer realize that you are prepared to take legal action if necessary. Of course, there is no guarantee, as a determined anal interviewer can still insist on pushing certain questions or denying the case for nonsense reasons, just like a determined bank robber can decide to execute the robbery anyway with a security guard being there. But interviewers are usually not so determined.

 

[Jackolantern]

One of my friends who is doing his n400 who forgot to register Selective services (he is 30 now), the lawyer said, they prepare a letter for the IO explaining why the candidate didnt/couldnt register and said that the letter from the lawyer is considerd to make an impact rather than the candidate is writing it himself, may be like to show that the candidate is going to fight and use all his resources to get the citizenship or something, and making a a stand. is it true. whats ur take on that ?

I agree, the lawyer writing the letter sends a message to the interviewer to make sure the denial has a solid reason before issuing a denial. Unfortunately for him, it takes more than a lawyer's letter to show that the failure to register was unwilling and unknowing (he also needs a letter from SS saying they did not ask him to register).

Why didn't the guy just wait until he is 31?

Note that it is likely that USCIS automatically registered him for Selective Service, if he got his GC within the past 10 years or so. Did he check with SS to see if he has been already registered?

 

[sreeleshk]

I agree, the lawyer writing the letter sends a message to the interviewer to make sure the denial has a solid reason before issuing a denial. Unfortunately for him, it takes more than a lawyer's letter to show that the failure to register was unwilling and unknowing (he also needs a letter from SS saying they did not ask him to register).

Why didn't the guy just wait until he is 31?

Note that it is likely that USCIS automatically registered him for Selective Service, if he got his GC within the past 10 years or so. Did he check with SS to see if he has been already registered?

thanks jack, actually he wasnt aware of the 'till 31st birthday ban' Is it a real procedure / rule that they follow, that if u havnt registered when you were supposed to, once your 31 years of age it doesnt matter any more ? or is it just a practice and not a rule of thumb ?

 

[Jackolantern]

thanks jack, actually he wasnt aware of the 'till 31st birthday ban' Is it a real procedure / rule that they follow, that if u havnt registered when you were supposed to, once your 31 years of age it doesnt matter any more ? or is it just a practice and not a rule of thumb ?

It's in their adjudicator's manual.

http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/AFM/HTML/AFM/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-25488/0-0-0-32728.html#0-0-0-1233

Applicants Over 31 Years of Age

Failure to register for Selective Service will generally not prevent a man who was over 31 years of age on the day he filed his naturalization application from demonstrating that he is eligible for naturalization. Even if the applicant was required to register and the applicant’s failure to register was knowing and willful, the failure occurred outside of the statutory period during which the applicant is required to establish his attachment to the good order and happiness of the United States. The INS may, of course, consider a person's conduct before the beginning of this period. INA § 101(f) (last sentence) and § 316(e). If the INS denies naturalization to a man who is at least 31, based on his failure to register with Selective Service, the decision must state explicitly the basis for finding that the failure to register warrants denial of naturalization. As a practical matter, a male applicant over 31 years of age who failed to register with Selective Service should, ordinarily, be found eligible for naturalization unless INS has other evidence, in addition to the past failure to register, that demonstrates that the applicant is not well disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States.