My interview experience

bourne24

Registered Users (C)
hi everyone
sorry folks but it took me a while before i made up my mind about wether to post my experience or not, because it wasnt really what me and my wife expected it to be.
well my interview was scheduled for thursday sept 4th at 7 am in GARDEN CITY, NY. we arrived at 6:30, and the line already started to fill. at 6:50 a security officer came out asking everyone to be ready to take off their belts, and empty their pockets as soon as we reach the metal detector. then after that we entered a big waiting room on our left, where a woman was collecting appointment letters. she asked us if we had an attorney, we said yes. she said stand in line then. people without attorney she would ask them to go have a seat next to the entrance. once in line we waited to be called by a lady in the window, once there she asked if the lawyer was present, we replied not yet he is on his way. so she told us that we had maximum until 8am to wether have the interview with his presence or not. so we had a seat, and in 5 more minutes our lawyer showed up. he then took the interview letter to the same lady in the window where she stamped it with the time and the waiting game started.
10 minutes later, another lady came calling my name along with six other people and she took us upstairs to the second floor where another waiting room was. every 10 min or so an officer would come out and call the applicants name and ask him to follow him or her to the office.
my turn came after more than an hour of waiting time, we both started to feel tired since we had a sleepless night. some couples were sleeping on each other shoulders,lol.
so we followed the officer to his office, all offices were small sized and all doors were open, so basically you could hear almost everything that is happening in the office next to you. anyway he swore us in then asked us to have a seat. and now the best part begins.
first he asked for our ID'S, my wife naturalization certificate, and her passport. he took my I-94 and stapled it with my file. then started asking questions directly to my wife:
- how did you meet you husband? she answered then he started making the story sound kind of ridiculous, as if it wasnt true. he pressed for more details and my wife replied by summarizing our first meeting. he made a face then moved on.
-how long you've been living at your current address?
-are you employed now? my wife is not at the moment, we have a co-sponsor
-what's the co-sponsor relationship to you?
then the problems started, my wife worked in 2006 in NY and filed her tax return in VA on exactly APRIL 15TH (tax deadline). the reason was that she was visiting a friend of hers in VA for a couple of weeks and because she is the procastinator type ended up doing it there so she can avoid any penalties. the officer made a huge deal of it, asking my wife who did it?? how come it was done like this? and so on. although my wife simply told him the truth and explained that it was a simple tax preparer who told her that it wasnt any problem to file from VA.
at this point he move to me, he asked me what was her last job??
- where she worked before this last job?? which basically happened before our relationship even started.
- then in what year she worked for comapany X?? it was 2005, again way before i knew her.
now here is what pissed me off, since my wife had three previous jobs, one in NY, one in NJ, and one in CT. but kind of close to the city. the officer asks me, how would i explain the fact that my wife has been HANGING AROUND the tri-state area for the last few years????? how in the world can i explain the action of someone at a time when i didnt even know who he was!!!!. i told him what do you mean by that?? he said the biographic info indicates that, and i told him well how can i explain that. and he moved on
then he asked for joint documents which my lawyer handed him, and our album. something really interesting, he was flipping the pages of our evidence and the album at a tremendous speed, as if he was just doing it without interest and simply to show that he took the time to look at it. at this point he asked my wife to select two pictures for the file, which she did. the started asking me the YES and NO questions. he handed back the certificates and held on to my passport, he stood up and told us that he will be back in a minute.
as soon as he stepped out, my lawyer adviced us that he went to schedule us for a SECOOOOND INTERVIEW, meaning STOKESSS INTERVIEW.
he came back and that was exactly what happened, he told us i need you guys to come back on NOV 4th for a second interview, this time regarding the adjudication of the I-130.
asked us if we had any questions, we were both me and my wife stunned but didn't have any questions. then he walked us out and wished us a nice day!!!.
it was definitely a nice day afterwards, both me and my lawyer reached the same conclusion before we even started discussing how the interview went. this officer had his mind made up already before he even started interviewing us, and he was simply looking for a reason to do so. none of the questions asked tested the bona fide of our marriage, none. i was mad, disappointed. although my wife was comforting me and being optimistic. we both felt like it was intended for us to be scheduled for a stokes interview. and the worst is that you simply see yourself helpless in front of the power of USCIS.
anyway we are going to do our best for the stokes, and hopefully it will be fine.
 
bourne24,

How long have you two been married? Any kids together? Hopefully you guys will make it in your next interview in Nov.
 
sorry to hear this but i hope next time you guys make it..getting the right IO really matters
 
That was a horrible story, my friend. My only question would be - why your lawyer was so quiet during the interview? I thought the purpose of having a lawyer at the interview is to help you out. Hope you make it next time.
 
That was a horrible story, my friend. My only question would be - why your lawyer was so quiet during the interview? I thought the purpose of having a lawyer at the interview is to help you out. Hope you make it next time.

WRONG. The lawyer can do nothing, but sit there and get paid... :p

Only if the IO violates your rights or something, the lawyer would be there for a... purpose... other than that... the Lawyer did the only thing he could do...
 
It seems to me that the interviewing officer purposely and deliberately continued the case by not approving it after the interview just to show or make a point that an attorney's presence wouldn't intimidate IO nor it makes the application to be approved. And it could also be possible that IO wanted OP to spend more money on attorney since case is scheduled for another interview in Nov. But officer was within his authority even though it might seem personal on officer's part.

This theory seems more obvious to me when officer didn't ask many questions about parties' relationship despite of calling the both parties for an interview which is mainly for I-130, nor officer asked for any documents to prove the bonafide of the relationship. I'm pretty sure that officer just wanted to prove that having an attorney wouldn't make him to approve the application. Officer knew that he might not be able to deny the application based upon facts/laws and its merit but he can very well delay the adjudication...which was exactly he did.

I don't think next interview will be a stroke interview. It would be just a formality. And it could also be possible that officer wants to ask his supervisor on the OP's wife tax filing in different state while being a resident to another. Though it has nothing to do with application, but probably officer wasn't sure at that time. I don't think there is anything to worry about...
 
It sure sounds like he'd made up his mind before he met you. I don't think the photo thing is telling - a lot of posters here have said they really only flick through the photos, even when approving the couple - they're just not great evidence compared to financial papers and other documents.

Before I got married I met a friend of a friend who worked at USCIS... I asked if I should be hiring a lawyer to file our case, and he told us it was fine (but not necessary) for the paperwork but a bad idea for the interview. Given my husband and I are both native English speakers and generally competent answering questions about ourselves, apparently the presence of a lawyer would suggest to him that we thought something was "iffy" about our case and therefore he'd probably look a little harder at it.

It made sense (and didn't make sense) at the time... it could be a possibility in your situation, although from the looks of things he'd made up his mind before you and your lawyer even walked in the room. I'm very sorry it didn't go well... but time to press on and really brush up for your stokes interview.
 
bourne24,

How long have you two been married? Any kids together? Hopefully you guys will make it in your next interview in Nov.

thanks for your reply and wishes, we've been married for a 13 months, and we met january 2007. we have no kids together.
 
That was a horrible story, my friend. My only question would be - why your lawyer was so quiet during the interview? I thought the purpose of having a lawyer at the interview is to help you out. Hope you make it next time.

PRAETORIAN is right, the lawyer is not allowed to interfere with the questioning process unless a the question asked violates your rights.
 
It seems to me that the interviewing officer purposely and deliberately continued the case by not approving it after the interview just to show or make a point that an attorney's presence wouldn't intimidate IO nor it makes the application to be approved. And it could also be possible that IO wanted OP to spend more money on attorney since case is scheduled for another interview in Nov. But officer was within his authority even though it might seem personal on officer's part.

This theory seems more obvious to me when officer didn't ask many questions about parties' relationship despite of calling the both parties for an interview which is mainly for I-130, nor officer asked for any documents to prove the bonafide of the relationship. I'm pretty sure that officer just wanted to prove that having an attorney wouldn't make him to approve the application. Officer knew that he might not be able to deny the application based upon facts/laws and its merit but he can very well delay the adjudication...which was exactly he did.

I don't think next interview will be a stroke interview. It would be just a formality. And it could also be possible that officer wants to ask his supervisor on the OP's wife tax filing in different state while being a resident to another. Though it has nothing to do with application, but probably officer wasn't sure at that time. I don't think there is anything to worry about...

your theory makes a lot of sense, and it may be well be right. i wish i didnt have to use a lawyer, however in my situation i had to because of some complication with NSEERS registration. it was a step that i was worried about but i passed it withouth difficulties, and the interview ended up being the worst.
 
WRONG. The lawyer can do nothing, but sit there and get paid... :p

Only if the IO violates your rights or something, the lawyer would be there for a... purpose... other than that... the Lawyer did the only thing he could do...

Well, if the lawyer can't "stink" during the interview unless "the questions asked violate one's rights," can he properly prepare his client for an interview knowing that certain issues might be questioned in a harsh way? I mean if the lawyer has a good experience, reviews the case and sees that there might be problems with some of the things on the application, why can't he prepare the client for the worst? I am no lawyer, but if I was I'd make sure my client does not get grilled on the interview.
 
Well, if the lawyer can't "stink" during the interview unless "the questions asked violate one's rights," can he properly prepare his client for an interview knowing that certain issues might be questioned in a harsh way? I mean if the lawyer has a good experience, reviews the case and sees that there might be problems with some of the things on the application, why can't he prepare the client for the worst? I am no lawyer, but if I was I'd make sure my client does not get grilled on the interview.

zuzkin,

You make absoutlety 100% sense & I agree with you all the way. Our GC interview is coming up 2 weeks from today and guess what? Our attorney who had filed our case wants to show up for the interview. I asked him the other day if my wife & I can stop by at his office and go over the paperwork and get little prepared for the interview. He said there is no need since you guys have been married for over 4 yrs and have 2 kids together and on top of that your I-130 is also approved. Your interview is just a formality. I asked him where do you come in the picture & whats the point of you showing up for the interview. He said basically I sit next to you as a dummy but will have all your forms and supporting documents incase there is something the IO wants at the time of the interview and you don't have it handy. I thought about calling him up and asking him not to show up. I don't know I am lost.
 
zuzkin,

You make absoutlety 100% sense & I agree with you all the way. Our GC interview is coming up 2 weeks from today and guess what? Our attorney who had filed our case wants to show up for the interview. I asked him the other day if my wife & I can stop by at his office and go over the paperwork and get little prepared for the interview. He said there is no need since you guys have been married for over 4 yrs and have 2 kids together and on top of that your I-130 is also approved. Your interview is just a formality. I asked him where do you come in the picture & whats the point of you showing up for the interview. He said basically I sit next to you as a dummy but will have all your forms and supporting documents incase there is something the IO wants at the time of the interview and you don't have it handy. I thought about calling him up and asking him not to show up. I don't know I am lost.

I think you don't need a "handy boy" to help you deliver the papers into the IO's hands. In my opinion, based on your posts here, you might know more than him about how to handle that interview. Having an attorney with you could intimidate anybody; not just an IO. Theoretically you would need an attorney when there is a need to help protect your rights when those are challenged. On my interview, I was somehow lost in those forms that the IO was requesting. But we had established a good communication process and she helped me with my stumble. I think a lot of these lawyers are money-thirsty individuals that care less about the client then about his money. I can only imagine how much he's asked to warm up a bench on your interview. If I were you, I'd ask the attorney about the overall case situation and the possible risks associated with it. BTW, my wifes friend was, too, requested by her lawyer to be present at her GC interview, and wants $4K for that:eek:
How's that!
 
zuzkin,

Pay the lawyer to represent you, get out of here......I don't believe in that either & esp when your case is so straight forward, but here my attorney is not charging me a penny to show up for the interview. When we had filed the case thru him, the amount he initially charged us included his representation on the day of the interview. He is coming for free, now what do you have to say on that?
 
zuzkin,

Pay the lawyer to represent you, get out of here......I don't believe in that either & esp when your case is so straight forward, but here my attorney is not charging me a penny to show up for the interview. When we had filed the case thru him, the amount he initially charged us included his representation on the day of the interview. He is coming for free, now what do you have to say on that?

You got me. Hey...your business is your business. I can write memoirs here all day long. In the end, you are the one who is going to that interview. Good for you that he is not "charging" for the interview. I guess, if your case is so "straight forward", it really does not make a big difference if you go with or without your lawyer. Those were my thoughts. I truly wish you luck.
 
Thanks zuzkin. I hope it doesn't create a negative impact if the attorney is around, that's the only thing that concerns me.

You are more than welcome Atlanta_Brother. To answer your last question, I think that the presence of your attorney might not create as much of a negative impact as it might prompt the IO to ask more in depth questions. I think the sole factor that the attorney can't say much at all during the interview, diminishes his/her importance in being present there. On the other hand, if you are lucky and get to speak with a humane and humble IO, then you could probably have three attorneys with you and still be fine.
 
Bourne,
Do you remember the name of your IO? I had experience pretty much the same thing and my initial interview as at garden city. My next interview is in December at federal plaza.
 
Top