N-400 Good Moral Character (GMC) Questions

[BigJoe5]

Someone asked.....

"......could you provide some clarifications on question 16.D of N-400?
The latest revised form asks whether one was ever cited by any LEO for any reason.
Instructions attached to N-400 don't have mention of word "cited" and only give examples of what to do in case if one was arrested or detained. The published and redacted version of AFM also lacks the reference to most current form N-400, instead discussing what appears to be the older version of N-400.
How do you explain such discrepancy?
Are those who , after reading instructions and published AFM , assume that citation can be concealed risking to have petitions denied for not answering the question truthfully? Or was the question itself worded erroneously? Could you clarify this? There are 89 pages of controversial postings on this subject and everyone seems to make their own decision how to respond to this question.
If you have great deal of awareness about current regulations it would be great if you responded with your opinion under relevant thread, with corresponding sections of INA and CFR to back up your point of view."

RESPONSE:

The form instructions clearly tell the applicant to answer yes IF ANY PART applies and then attach an explanation. As was pointed out, the AFM is redacted. [No agency will let you in on all their tricks-of -the-trade, trade secrets, or law enforcement sensitive or proprietary information. This is true in business as well..anybody know the formula for Coca-Cola, or the KFC spice recipe?]

GMC is partly (majority) defined in INA 101(f) and is further clarified in 8 CFR 316.10.

BOTH the INA and CFR include different levels of GMC factors.

There are:
permanent bars,
temporary bars, AND
Officer's Discretion (which is guided by USCIS Policy and precedent decisions.)

There are other bars that are sort of obscure: (Subversives: voluntary Communist Party or Totalitarian-favoring Party membership or currently issued an NTA).

Probation is not a bar to filing BUT it is a bar to actual approval and Naturalization. Behavior while on probation is a major factor in discretionary determinations of GMC.

Good behavior on probation: paid fines, attended: classes, counseling, AA or NA mtgs; passed toxicology screenings, did not violate terms of probation, perhaps got early release or termination of probation, and got no bench warrants would be seen as favorable factors and likely a finding of sufficient GMC.

Screwing up on probation, getting bench warrants, failing to pay fines, not showing up where and when told to, failing tox screens (ask Robert Downey, Jr., Lindsey Lohan and Paris Hilton about that), or getting probation extended should lead to a finding of a lack of GMC due to no rehabilitation being shown. This person should expect to wait 5 full years AFTER the end of probation before applying with any chance of success.

One of the biggest problems applicants can cause for themselves is to lie or attempt to conceal anything. This is especially foolish when the thing they lie about or attempt to conceal would not have prevented naturalization. The LIE will start a period when they CANNOT establish GMC and cannot re-apply until they serve a new GMC statutory period commensurate with the section of law they are applying under. Generally this will be 5 years from the date of the most recent LIE.

Don't be a fool! Don't lie or try to conceal anything on an N-400.

IF you have any GMC issues see a lawyer BEFORE filing an N-400.

 

[Bobsmyth]

Someone asked.....


Are those who , after reading instructions and published AFM , assume that citation can be concealed risking to have petitions denied for not answering the question truthfully?

Purposeful concealment of any fact asked by an IO can lead to a denial. Kaspar has somehow concluded that certain posters on this board imply it is ok to purposely conceal traffic tickets, when in fact that is not what they are suggesting.

 

[KASPAR]

Someone asked.....

"......could you provide some clarifications on question 16.D of N-400?
The latest revised form asks whether one was ever cited by any LEO for any reason.
Instructions attached to N-400 don't have mention of word "cited" and only give examples of what to do in case if one was arrested or detained. The published and redacted version of AFM also lacks the reference to most current form N-400, instead discussing what appears to be the older version of N-400.
How do you explain such discrepancy?
Are those who , after reading instructions and published AFM , assume that citation can be concealed risking to have petitions denied for not answering the question truthfully? Or was the question itself worded erroneously? Could you clarify this? There are 89 pages of controversial postings on this subject and everyone seems to make their own decision how to respond to this question.
If you have great deal of awareness about current regulations it would be great if you responded with your opinion under relevant thread, with corresponding sections of INA and CFR to back up your point of view."

RESPONSE:

The form instructions clearly tell the applicant to answer yes IF ANY PART applies and then attach an explanation. As was pointed out, the AFM is redacted. [No agency will let you in on all their tricks-of -the-trade, trade secrets, or law enforcement sensitive or proprietary information. This is true in business as well..anybody know the formula for Coca-Cola, or the KFC spice recipe?]

GMC is partly (majority) defined in INA 101(f) and is further clarified in 8 CFR 316.10.

BOTH the INA and CFR include different levels of GMC factors.

There are:
permanent bars,
temporary bars, AND
Officer's Discretion (which is guided by USCIS Policy and precedent decisions.)

There are other bars that are sort of obscure: (Subversives: voluntary Communist Party or Totalitarian-favoring Party membership or currently issued an NTA).

Probation is not a bar to filing BUT it is a bar to actual approval and Naturalization. Behavior while on probation is a major factor in discretionary determinations of GMC.

Good behavior on probation: paid fines, attended: classes, counseling, AA or NA mtgs; passed toxicology screenings, did not violate terms of probation, perhaps got early release or termination of probation, and got no bench warrants would be seen as favorable factors and likely a finding of sufficient GMC.

Screwing up on probation, getting bench warrants, failing to pay fines, not showing up where and when told to, failing tox screens (ask Robert Downey, Jr., Lindsey Lohan and Paris Hilton about that), or getting probation extended should lead to a finding of a lack of GMC due to no rehabilitation being shown. This person should expect to wait 5 full years AFTER the end of probation before applying with any chance of success.

One of the biggest problems applicants can cause for themselves is to lie or attempt to conceal anything. This is especially foolish when the thing they lie about or attempt to conceal would not have prevented naturalization. The LIE will start a period when they CANNOT establish GMC and cannot re-apply until they serve a new GMC statutory period commensurate with the section of law they are applying under. Generally this will be 5 years from the date of the most recent LIE.

Don't be a fool! Don't lie or try to conceal anything on an N-400.

IF you have any GMC issues see a lawyer BEFORE filing an N-400.

I have specifically asked about D.16 in Part 10 (not child murderers, grandma decapitators, human body part cookers and etc.)

The question D.16 asks to give AFFIRMATIVE or NEGATIVE [YES or NO] response to the following:

Have you ever been arrested, cited, or detained by any law enforcement officer (including USCIS or former INS and military officers) for any reason?

To me it sounds like one must answer YES if one was issued even the most minor traffic ticket prior to filing the N-400 form.

The reason I asked this is that number of posters ( see http://forums.immigration.com/showt...ts-and-naturalization-(threads-merged)/page89 ) appear to be confident that traffic tickets should be excluded and applicants have an option to answer NO to question 16.D as long as the offense did not involve arrest, wasn't for DUI/DWI and fine wasn't in excess of $500 per violation.

To support their view some of those posters repeatedly posted a link to an undated USCIS website posted instruction (that seems to be relevant to now outdated form N-400 which specifically excluded traffic violations from list of those that had to be reported). I also noted that the redacted form of AFM alludes to similar error (discusses the now outdated N-400 form) . As far as attached to current N-400 form instructions concerned, they simply omit word "cited" and instead suggest to answer YES to "have you been arrested or detained" if you were not arrested but were detained at least once.
Some posters, based on their own interpretation of above instructions, undated USCIS guideline to fill the naturalization form and redacted version AFM, suggested that nowhere does it say you must disclose the traffic ticket that didn't result in your arrest, fine greater than $500 or charge of DUI/DWI. One poster even boldly claimed that "they [meaning USCIS] don't care" , based on his personal interview experience. And a few , after repeatedly insisting one had choice and was better off not to answer YES to 16.D for minor tickets, now suggest that they were not telling people to conceal their traffic tickets from USCIS. Question: How can you answer NO to 16.D and claim, with a straight face, that you didn't intend to conceal your traffic ticket if that's exactly what you keep saying applicants should do?

Your reply, Bigjoe, is not clear in regards to question I asked and goes into lengthy reply about what GMC is and how Coca-Cola keeps secret its' recipe for a popular drink.

Is it a SECRET to eliminate any ambiguity and clarify the intention of the question , in absence of instructions providing clear-cut guidance on it?

Can you give a straight YES or NO answer on 16.D?

Suppose I had a speeding ticket 30 years ago and it was for $50, with my driving record being squeaky clean ever since, do I answer YES or NO to 16.D?

 

[BigJoe5]

N-400 Instructions for part 10:

Answer each question by checking ''Yes'' or ''No.'' If any part of a question applies to you, you must answer ''Yes.'' For example, if you were never arrested but were once detained by a police officer,check ''Yes'' to the question ''Have you ever been arrested or detained by a law enforcement officer?''and attach a written explanation.

We will use this information to determine your eligibility for citizenship. Answer every question honestly and accurately. If you do not, we may deny your application for lack of good moral character.Answering "Yes" to one of these questions does not always cause an application to be denied. For more information on eligibility, please see the Guide.


I do not understand how the above instructions can confuse anyone.

What part of ...... If any part of a question applies to you, you must answer ''Yes.'' .... is in any way confusing?

PLEASE explain it to as if I were a 3rd grade student.


The question that seems to confuse you is:

Have you ever been arrested, cited, or detained by any law enforcement officer
(including USCIS or former INS and military officers) for any reason?

A traffic ticket is a citation and is covered by the word "cited".

Answer YES and explain: "I got a speeding ticket" OR "I got a ticket for littering" OR "I got a ticket for {fill in the black}"

 

[KASPAR]

N-400 Instructions for part 10:

Answer each question by checking ''Yes'' or ''No.'' If any part of a question applies to you, you must answer ''Yes.'' For example, if you were never arrested but were once detained by a police officer,check ''Yes'' to the question ''Have you ever been arrested or detained by a law enforcement officer?''and attach a written explanation.

We will use this information to determine your eligibility for citizenship. Answer every question honestly and accurately. If you do not, we may deny your application for lack of good moral character.Answering "Yes" to one of these questions does not always cause an application to be denied. For more information on eligibility, please see the Guide.


I do not understand how the above instructions can confuse anyone.

What part of ...... If any part of a question applies to you, you must answer ''Yes.'' .... is in any way confusing?

PLEASE explain it to as if I were a 3rd grade student.


The question that seems to confuse you is:

Have you ever been arrested, cited, or detained by any law enforcement officer
(including USCIS or former INS and military officers) for any reason?

A traffic ticket is a citation and is covered by the word "cited".

Answer YES and explain: "I got a speeding ticket" OR "I got a ticket for littering" OR "I got a ticket for {fill in the black}"

I was not confused by the question, rather, there was a heated argument with some members of this forum who claimed that I was misleading, misinforming and giving a wrong impression to readers when I said the exact same thing you wrote: that one MUST answer YES to 16.D even for the most minor of traffic violations.

Thanks for the clarification.

Moderators, please merge this with the sticky http://forums.immigration.com/showt...ts-and-naturalization-(threads-merged)/page89

This is a valuable clarification and it should be seen and read by ALL N-400 applicants who ask about relevance of minor traffic tickets to 16.D.

 

[König]

Purposeful concealment of any fact asked by an IO can lead to a denial. Kaspar has somehow concluded that certain posters on this board imply it is ok to purposely conceal traffic tickets, when in fact that is not what they are suggesting.

Exactly. I have never seen anybody on this forum advising anyone to lie to an IO or to conceal something.

 

[Vorpal]

BigJoe5:

Take a look at page 60 of the document linked below:

http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/About Us... Guide/Permanent_Residents_Naturalization.pdf

What's your take on this? It's an official document, posted on USCIS.gov, not something that someone threw together in their spare time, hacked into the USCIS website, and uploaded it. Based on the opening paragraph on p. 60, it is very clear that minor traffic tickets that didn't result in an arrest don't need to be disclosed.

As such, I stand by my opinion that it is not necessary to disclose these tickets on the N-400. Since the above document clearly instructs not to disclose minor traffic tickets, non-disclosure does not constitute willful concealment. In fact, I would love to see the USCIS argue their way out of that one if they ever pursued an applicant for non-disclosure of traffic tickets.

However, if the IO specifically inquires about traffic tickets at the interview, then it's an entirely different situation. By the same token, if traffic tickets should be disclosed, it is also necessary to disclose ALL tickets, including parking, failure to properly dispose of trash, etc. Moreover, if an applicant has ever been stopped by a law enforcement officer and was not free to leave, he/she has been detained and should disclose that as well.

The instructions provided by the USCIS are extremely ambiguous and self-contradictory. The only USCIS document that clearly calls out for traffic tickets is the oath letter.

 

[BigJoe5]

BigJoe5:

Take a look at page 60 of the document linked below:

http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/About Us... Guide/Permanent_Residents_Naturalization.pdf

What's your take on this? It's an official document, posted on USCIS.gov, not something that someone threw together in their spare time, hacked into the USCIS website, and uploaded it. Based on the opening paragraph on p. 60, it is very clear that minor traffic tickets that didn't result in an arrest don't need to be disclosed.

As such, I stand by my opinion that it is not necessary to disclose these tickets on the N-400. Since the above document clearly instructs not to disclose minor traffic tickets, non-disclosure does not constitute willful concealment. In fact, I would love to see the USCIS argue their way out of that one if they ever pursued an applicant for non-disclosure of traffic tickets.

However, if the IO specifically inquires about traffic tickets at the interview, then it's an entirely different situation. By the same token, if traffic tickets should be disclosed, it is also necessary to disclose ALL tickets, including parking, failure to properly dispose of trash, etc. Moreover, if an applicant has ever been stopped by a law enforcement officer and was not free to leave, he/she has been detained and should disclose that as well.

The instructions provided by the USCIS are extremely ambiguous and self-contradictory. The only USCIS document that clearly calls out for traffic tickets is the oath letter.

You asked "What's your take on this?" I will respond to that. This post is NOT an open invitation to start a "GREAT DEBATE".

1.) Page 1 of the link that you provided included a link to the DISCLAIMER:

"The information contained here is a basic guide to help you become generally familiar with many of our rules and procedures. Immigration law can be complex, and it is impossible to describe every aspect of every process. After using this guide, the conclusion reached, based on your information, may not take certain factors such as arrests, convictions, deportations, removals or inadmissibility into consideration.

If you have any such issue, the answer we provide may not fully address your need and may cause the full and correct answer to be significantly different.

We cannot provide legal advice. If you believe you may have an issue such as any described above, it may be beneficial to consider seeking legal advice from a reputable immigration practitioner such as a licensed attorney or nonprofit agency accredited by the Board of Immigration Appeals before seeking this or any immigration benefit.

For more information about immigration law and regulations, please see our website at www.USCIS.gov "

2.) You may not have read it BUT if you did, you appear to have either ignored it, gave it incorrect weight, or misinterpreted it. This webpage is not an official legal document.

3.) The actual N-400 form instructions are VERY clear and unambiguous. [See post #1 of this thread.]

4.) Very few people will ever find the obscure (and admittedly inconclusive and disclaimed as to being actual "legal advise") sentence that you rely upon. However, IF you are going to rely on something quote it. The passage reads:

"What kinds of things do I have to reveal in my application?

The most important thing is to be completely honest.

Except for minor traffic offenses that did not result in your arrest (and drunk driving is not considered a minor traffic offense), you should always reveal any arrest, whether or not charged, and any conviction, and whether or not the conviction has been expunged, sealed or vacated.

If you committed a crime but were not arrested for it, you must still reveal it.

Even if you have committed what you believe to be a minor crime, you should reveal it on your application because USCIS may deny your application if in it you do not tell us about an incident that is significant and material to your eligibility.

You must reveal any arrests, offenses and convictions even if a lawyer, judge or other person has said that you have no record and do not have to disclose the incidents."

****************
The problem with your approach is that the N-400 applicant is NOT a Supreme Court Justice or other federal judge and therefore not qualified to interpret the law. What is "minor"? Only one example of something that does NOT qualify is shown. EXACTLY what else does NOT qualify as an exception to full disclosure?

That terminology is there to protect applicants from overly zealous USCIS Officers who would gladly label an applicant who forgot about a parking ticket from being branded as having given false testimony.

IF someone KNOWS and REMEMBERS something that might be covered by a question, the proper course in an N-400 is FULL DISCLOSURE with an explanation. Err on the side of caution because purposely concealing information is a material misrepresentation.

In an N-400 it is the applicant's character that is at issue and that is demonstrated by their actions. It is not necessary that the nature of the deception be pertinent or material to the underlying question of eligibility. This is so because many past problems can be overcome through the passage of time and demonstration of a reform of character.

The CURRENT ISSUE is the N-400 applicant's behaviors that reflect on their current moral character, as of the time that they are seeking naturalization. Being duplicitous during the naturalization proceedings is a reason, all by itself, to deny naturalization as a matter of discretion at the very least.

 

[KASPAR]

You asked "What's your take on this?" I will respond to that. This post is NOT an open invitation to start a "GREAT DEBATE".

1.) Page 1 of the link that you provided included a link to the DISCLAIMER:

"The information contained here is a basic guide to help you become generally familiar with many of our rules and procedures. Immigration law can be complex, and it is impossible to describe every aspect of every process. After using this guide, the conclusion reached, based on your information, may not take certain factors such as arrests, convictions, deportations, removals or inadmissibility into consideration.

If you have any such issue, the answer we provide may not fully address your need and may cause the full and correct answer to be significantly different.

We cannot provide legal advice. If you believe you may have an issue such as any described above, it may be beneficial to consider seeking legal advice from a reputable immigration practitioner such as a licensed attorney or nonprofit agency accredited by the Board of Immigration Appeals before seeking this or any immigration benefit.

For more information about immigration law and regulations, please see our website at www.USCIS.gov "

2.) You may not have read it BUT if you did, you appear to have either ignored it, gave it incorrect weight, or misinterpreted it. This webpage is not an official legal document.

I have been pointing it out all along, to no avail. Vorpal would still maintain that those uploaded and disclaimed texts on USCIS page are equivalent of law written in stone.
There are two additional disclaimers on the USCIS website (the links are at the bottom of each uscis.gov page) , which also unambiguously and clearly disclaim any warranty , fitness for purpose or legal reliability of anything posted on that website.

3.) The actual N-400 form instructions are VERY clear and unambiguous. [See post #1 of this thread.]

Instructions are NOT very clear or unambiguous. If they were there would be no lengthy debate. It actually appears that instructions have not been updated as often as the questions on form N-400. OR, whoever wrote them intentionally focused attention on words arrested and detained , without making a mention of word cited. A lot of posters here will claim that since the word "cited" is not mentioned there then there is no need to answer YES to 16.D

Instructions, along with the page vorpal repeatedly linked ,and redacted version AFM found online, all appear to be related to an OUTDATED form N-400 which had a provision in it (removed in later versions) that explicitly EXCLUDED traffic violations by adding words to the same effect ("...excluding traffic violations"). Those words are NOT present in question 16.D of current version of form N-400.

4.) Very few people will ever find the obscure (and admittedly inconclusive and disclaimed as to being actual "legal advise") sentence that you rely upon.

This is the crux of it: it is DISCLAIMED and is NOT a legal advise. No one can rely upon it, nor use any part of it in court of law as an enforceable statute or code of regulations. Should there be a typo or any other error, the APPLICANT will be held responsible for following and using it as a legal advise.

However, IF you are going to rely on something quote it. The passage reads:

"What kinds of things do I have to reveal in my application?

The most important thing is to be completely honest.

Except for minor traffic offenses that did not result in your arrest (and drunk driving is not considered a minor traffic offense), you should always reveal any arrest, whether or not charged, and any conviction, and whether or not the conviction has been expunged, sealed or vacated.

If you committed a crime but were not arrested for it, you must still reveal it.

Even if you have committed what you believe to be a minor crime, you should reveal it on your application because USCIS may deny your application if in it you do not tell us about an incident that is significant and material to your eligibility.

You must reveal any arrests, offenses and convictions even if a lawyer, judge or other person has said that you have no record and do not have to disclose the incidents."

See above, Bigjoe. This part of undated instructions vorpal links to and refers to is related to an OUTDATED version of N-400 form, not the current one.
In the times gone there used to be specific exclusion of traffic violations in this particular question (just as there is with current form I-485), however, thAt is no longer the case and USCIS had removed those words from most current N-400 form (there is anecdotal evidence that a lot of people with DUI/DWI were answering NO and later claiming that they thought it was just a traffic violation, therefore the change in wording of 16.D. However, whatever the intention or motivation might be, the current form clearly asks if one was ever cited by any LEO for any reason. Traffic wickets fall into this category, no matter how you read it, and there is no way around it even if 50 outdated instructions, manuals and texts pop-up suggesting to the contrary).

 

[BigJoe5]

What is ambiguous about this instruction?

N-400 Instructions for part 10:

"Answer each question by checking ''Yes'' or ''No.'' If any part of a question applies to you, you must answer ''Yes.'' For example, if you were never arrested but were once detained by a police officer,check ''Yes'' to the question ''Have you ever been arrested or detained by a law enforcement officer?''and attach a written explanation.

We will use this information to determine your eligibility for citizenship. Answer every question honestly and accurately. If you do not, we may deny your application for lack of good moral character.Answering "Yes" to one of these questions does not always cause an application to be denied. For more information on eligibility, please see the Guide."


I do not understand how the above instructions can confuse anyone.

What part of ...... If any part of a question applies to you, you must answer ''Yes.'' .... is in any way ambiguous?

PLEASE explain it to as if I were a 3rd grade student.

 

[KASPAR]

What is ambiguous about this instruction?

N-400 Instructions for part 10:

"Answer each question by checking ''Yes'' or ''No.'' If any part of a question applies to you, you must answer ''Yes.'' For example, if you were never arrested but were once detained by a police officer,check ''Yes'' to the question ''Have you ever been arrested or detained by a law enforcement officer?''and attach a written explanation.

We will use this information to determine your eligibility for citizenship. Answer every question honestly and accurately. If you do not, we may deny your application for lack of good moral character.Answering "Yes" to one of these questions does not always cause an application to be denied. For more information on eligibility, please see the Guide."


I do not understand how the above instructions can confuse anyone.

What part of ...... If any part of a question applies to you, you must answer ''Yes.'' .... is in any way ambiguous?

PLEASE explain it to as if I were a 3rd grade student.

Come on Vorpal , the ball is in your court now. Please explain what part of above was ambiguous to you and allowed you to think that it was OK to not list your traffic ticket on N-400?

P.S. I wrote the following on July 29th [ http://forums.immigration.com/showt...ts-and-naturalization-(threads-merged)/page89 Post #2659 ]:
Hopefully, I will be able to sum it all up with fairly conclusive supporting evidence of the necessity to disclose traffic violations and put an end to 89 pages of ambiguity that is putting people in harms way and induces them to unnecessarily risk their future.

Looks like 89 pages of ambiguity are finally coming to an end.

 

[Vorpal]

Come on Vorpal , the ball is in your court now. Please explain what part of above was ambiguous to you and allowed you to think that it was OK to not list your traffic ticket on N-400?

Since you're obviously challenging me, I will challenge you right back. You stated in your previous posts that parking tickets shouldn't be listed, and that a secondary inspection is not considered a detention. Since the question asks "have you ever been cited or detained for any reason", shouldn't both of those situations be answered as well? Comen on, KASPAR, quit being selective and either disclose everything or nothing at all.

What made me think that it was OK not to list traffic tickets on my application? Let's see...the phone call to the USCIS customer service, where the representative informed me that minor traffic tickets don't need to be listed, the fact that the IO who interviewed me only asked about arrests, and the fact that the IO presiding over my oath ceremony specificaly instructed not to mention traffic tickets on the back of the oath letter, despite the fact that it specifically asks to list them. Now, the ball is in YOUR court, buddy.

 

[KASPAR]

Since you're obviously challenging me, I will challenge you right back. You stated in your previous posts that parking tickets shouldn't be listed, and that a secondary inspection is not considered a detention. Since the question asks "have you ever been cited or detained for any reason", shouldn't both of those situations be answered as well? Comen on, KASPAR, quit being selective and either disclose everything or nothing at all.

What made me think that it was OK not to list traffic tickets on my application? Let's see...the phone call to the USCIS customer service, where the representative informed me that minor traffic tickets don't need to be listed, the fact that the IO who interviewed me only asked about arrests, and the fact that the IO presiding over my oath ceremony specificaly instructed not to mention traffic tickets on the back of the oath letter, despite the fact that it specifically asks to list them. Now, the ball is in YOUR court, buddy.

Ok, Bigjoe, what do you say to this?


I will chime in later on when am back. And I will be back.

 

[Vorpal]

Ok, Bigjoe, what do you say to this?


I will chime in later on when am back. And I will be back.

I believe BigJoe has already opined regarding one of the issues. Here's a quote from one of the earlier posts in this thread: "For example, if you were never arrested but were once detained by a police officer,check ''Yes'' to the question ''Have you ever been arrested or detained by a law enforcement officer?''and attach a written explanation."

With regards to conclusive evidence, the ONLY conclusive evidence is one that will be provided (if that ever happens) directly by the USCIS. Until then, the jury is still out.

 

[BigJoe5]

I am still waiting for ANYONE to explain the ambiguity in the form instructions. NOBODY HAS!

IF you cannot reply directly to that and ONLY that, then please don't post anything. Quit cluttering my thread. Answer directly or shut the heck up!

I've read all the half-baked excuses about why Mr. or Ms.X thinks is OK to conceal facts A, B and C. I have always replied the same. Spill your guts on an N-400 BUT check with a lawyer first if you have any REAL criminal issues.

N-400 Instructions for part 10:

"Answer each question by checking ''Yes'' or ''No.'' If any part of a question applies to you, you must answer ''Yes.'' For example, if you were never arrested but were once detained by a police officer,check ''Yes'' to the question ''Have you ever been arrested or detained by a law enforcement officer?''and attach a written explanation.

We will use this information to determine your eligibility for citizenship. Answer every question honestly and accurately. If you do not, we may deny your application for lack of good moral character.Answering "Yes" to one of these questions does not always cause an application to be denied. For more information on eligibility, please see the Guide."


I do not understand how the above instructions can confuse anyone.

What part of ...... If any part of a question applies to you, you must answer ''Yes.'' .... is in any way ambiguous?

PLEASE explain it to as if I were a 3rd grade student.

 

[KASPAR]

Since you're obviously challenging me, I will challenge you right back.

I asked you a question. You dodged it.
The question was : what part of above [re: Part 10 , 16.D] was ambiguous to you and allowed you to think that it was OK to not list your traffic ticket on N-400?
You are still due to answer it.

You stated in your previous posts that parking tickets shouldn't be listed, and that a secondary inspection is not considered a detention. Since the question asks "have you ever been cited or detained for any reason", shouldn't both of those situations be answered as well? Comen on, KASPAR, quit being selective and either disclose everything or nothing at all.

Parking tickets are not issued to you directly by law enforcement officer. There is no mention of your name and no charge of your personal/individual liability for infraction. Anyone could have borrowed your car and parked it in the wrong spot. The ticket is issued to a vin # of the vehicle you own and you are only held monetarily responsible to compensate the locality for the infraction. Therefore, it does not fall under "cited by any law enforcement officer".
As to secondary inspection, if it does not result in an arrest or any charges, then there is no element of allegation of you breaking any law or ordinance. You are not detained to be prosecuted for alleged violation, secondary inspection is a preventative measure not reactive (as long as it does not lead to arrest and/or charges).
You could still mention it in N-400 ( "..flew from Paris to JFK, sent to secondary inspection and released" ...etc.) with detailed explanation in an attached letter, but I don't think it would stand in any court of law if you were charged with the "bad moral character" for answering NO to 16.D if the only basis for lack of GMC was not mentioning a secondary inspection, with no arrest and charges ever filed.
It is not being selective, it is being reasonable.

What made me think that it was OK not to list traffic tickets on my application? Let's see...the phone call to the USCIS customer service, where the representative informed me that minor traffic tickets don't need to be listed,

Few people here and elsewhere don't know that USCIS customer service is NOT even USCIS employee, those are high-school graduated customer service employees of independent contractors that are not aware of the current law, INA or any procedures except the very limited training they get before being put on the phones.
That's like calling a pharmacy CS toll free line and asking the late night answering person how to perform a surgery on a patient in an operating room.

the fact that the IO who interviewed me only asked about arrests, and the fact that the IO presiding over my oath ceremony specificaly instructed not to mention traffic tickets on the back of the oath letter, despite the fact that it specifically asks to list them.

I will bet 9 against 10 that the interviewer was a former Military employee, with "don't ask , don't tell" culture and mindset.
He most likely meant what he said [that traffic violations need not be disclosed] and would not have intended to get anyone in trouble , but that's just one particular officer and one individual occurrence that was relevant to YOUR interview. Each interview and officer are different.

This being said, after lengthy reading and contemplating of various cases and in this time and age of mine I now think that you COULD be held liable for answering NO even despite the fact that interviewer himself instructed you to do so.
If you EVER get into Citizenship revocation proceedings over this matter, it may well be left to a presiding Judge to decide the extent of your liability [intention, truthfulness, susceptibility erroneous suggestion, even if by figure of authority and etc.] and it is not clear cut just because you were told to answer NO by interviewer. In fact, if he is gone, relocated or else, all you have in record is YOU answering NO and the EVIDENCE of whatever traffic violation it is that you didn't disclose.

Now, the ball is in YOUR court, buddy.

You never answered the question asked [see earlier] , until you do the ball remains in your court.

 

[BigJoe5]

I am still waiting for ANYONE to explain the ambiguity in the form instructions. NOBODY HAS!

IF you cannot reply directly to that and ONLY that, then please don't post anything. Quit cluttering my thread. Answer directly or shut the heck up!

I've read all the half-baked excuses about why Mr. or Ms.X thinks is OK to conceal facts A, B and C. I have always replied the same. Spill your guts on an N-400 BUT check with a lawyer first if you have any REAL criminal issues.

N-400 Instructions for part 10:

"Answer each question by checking ''Yes'' or ''No.'' If any part of a question applies to you, you must answer ''Yes.'' For example, if you were never arrested but were once detained by a police officer,check ''Yes'' to the question ''Have you ever been arrested or detained by a law enforcement officer?''and attach a written explanation.

We will use this information to determine your eligibility for citizenship. Answer every question honestly and accurately. If you do not, we may deny your application for lack of good moral character.Answering "Yes" to one of these questions does not always cause an application to be denied. For more information on eligibility, please see the Guide."


I do not understand how the above instructions can confuse anyone.

What part of ...... If any part of a question applies to you, you must answer ''Yes.'' .... is in any way ambiguous?

PLEASE explain it to as if I were a 3rd grade student.

Start your thread or private message your GREAT DEBATE.

What part of the actual form instruction, that has been quoted in full, is ambiguous to anyone?

 

[Bobsmyth]

Kaspar, you need to learn when to stop debating an issue especially when you've been asked to stop by the OP.

 

[Bobsmyth]

Sure enough, KASPAR was also using duplicate ID of N400MD to troll on this forum.

 

[speakamericano]

And I thought N400MD wasn't as obsessed with Traffic Tickets on N-400 as Kasper. Oh well...