n-400 interview experience - with criminal record

[williamvo1]

Hi Guys,

I got ny n-400 interview on Sep-02-08. Here is how it went

Got called at 8:45 am.
Asked to tell the truth.
The officer was really nice and friendly
Asked to read a sentence " The man wanted a job"
Asked to write "You drink too much coffee"
Asked 10 civic questions .......... I did all correctly
Asked to sign my mane on 2 pictures that I summitted with my n-400
Asked me to sgin and Print my name on my n-400
And here was the hard part............
Asked me if i was married ---->>> I said YES
Then he looked at my marriage certificate and he said that my marrige date was not the same in my n-400 (I wrote the reception party on my n-400 not the registered marrige date ) and he had to correct it before i could approve my case. He told me that he'd like to put me on 2:45pm (same day)for an oath ceremony. He asked me if i could wait out side for an hour so i could correct my marrigge date.
I waited for almost 2 hours and the he called me back to his office again and told me that His superviser was in the meeting right now so I could not ask her to change my marriage date on the computer.
He told me that I have passed all the requirements but he could not approve my case on the system then he handed me n-625 says YOU PASSED ..... and CHECK on B letter saying the decision can not be made yet....we will send you a written letter.
I asked him how long it gonna take to get a decision he told me that He has stamp APPROVED on my n-400 file and all I have to do is to wait for an oath letter. And he said sorry that he could not put me on 2:45 (same day) oath ceremony. He told me that my case shouldn't take to long because all the gotta do is to change my marriage date on my n-400.
I got 2 offences (1 for fraud check back in 2001 - 1 for DUI same year- 1-for probation 12 months - 2 for comunity service 6 moths and cost 7,500 ). But he just akes me if i have stayed out of trouble since my last conviction--->> I said YES.
Those who got trouble in your past if it was over 5 years should not have any problem at your interview if you tell the truth.
Now i'm wating for my oath letter any one has the same experience please share with me.

SENT n-400 : FEB-2007
MARCH-2007 fingerprints taken
oct-2007 inpass : case still pending on FBI background check
July-2008 2nd FP taken ---->>> so desprate
AUG-2008 : IL recieved : --->> so happy
SEP-02-2008 INTERVIEW ---->>> PASSED
WAting for oath letter........... Don't know when


williamvo1
View Public Profile
Send a private message to williamvo1
Find all posts by williamvo1
Add williamvo1 to Your Contacts

 

[Jackolantern]

Those who got trouble in your past if it was over 5 years should not have any problem at your interview if you tell the truth.

Everybody's situation is different, it all depends on the specific nature of the offenses. Some people will get approved, but some will get denied and deported.

 

[JohnnyCash]

Those who got trouble in your past if it was over 5 years should not have any problem at your interview if you tell the truth.

You are NOT an immigration officer nor an immigration attorney so to make such a misleading statement to others. If you have even a slight idea of immigration laws concerning naturalization then you would have known that- although USCIS considers the acts of applicants for the last 5 yrs in order to determine the moral character, yet still USCIS is not limited to only last 5 yrs; rather they can go as far as back they wish to see applicants' acts. It all depends on how severe or damaging criminal history an applicant has.

Just for your information, by telling the truth doesn't mean everything will be okay with no problem. If immigration officer finds someone is not eligible for naturalization under the laws then officer wouldn't approve the application even if applicant tells the truth. For example, if someone has broken continues residency for a valid reason, officer wouldn't approve that person's application even if applicant will tell the truth to the officer as to why s/he broke contineous residency. Same goes to criminal situation.

And keep it in mind, just because officer didn't make a big deal in your case, that doesn't mean other officers will do the same.

 

[JohnnyCash]

I got 2 offences (1 for fraud check back in 2001 - 1 for DUI same year- 1-for probation 12 months - 2 for comunity service 6 moths and cost 7,500 ).

What was the amount of that bad check? In another word, how much monetary damage to the victim by your fraud check? If it was $10,000 or more then it's a done-deal deportation under section INA 237.

Whenever a criminal situation is involved, immigration officers normally have the duty to find out what was the crime for, and when and where crime was committed, what is the dispostion on the case, if there is any conviction, how long ago case got disposed or when probation ended, etc....

Further, just because an officer approves an application that shouldn't be approved then that doesn't mean officer made a right decision nor it means that decision won't be reversed upon known. Immigration officers are human being who also make mistakes at time. Plus, new officers don't know much about immigration laws anyway because they are not immigration attorney. I've seen some cases on this forum over the years wherein some people were able to be naturalized despite of being convicted for those crime which made them sure deportable. But on the other hand, I've seen many people were not only denied for naturalization but also they were eventually deported.

Think yourself very lucky that you were interviewed by a very nice officer, otherwise some other officers might have denied you or might have hold your case forever...which might have costed you big money and long time wasting in appeal or lawsuit. Recently someone reported on this forum of his application to have denied just because of speeding tickets. Interviewing officer kept his application for 4 months after the interview to make a denial decision. Now he is filing an appeal which would cost him too much money towards filing fees and attorney fees (appx $4K)...And of course, God knows how long it would take for his appeal to be heard.

The point I'm making here is that if officer is not good then applicants could find themselves in a big mess even if application shouldn't have denied at first place. There is no way to recover monetary loss from USCIS even if officer made a wrong or personal negative decision.

 

[Vorpal]

Recently someone reported on this forum of his application to have denied just because of speeding tickets. Interviewing officer kept his application for 4 months after the interview to make a denial decision. Now he is filing an appeal which would cost him too much money towards filing fees and attorney fees (appx $4K)...And of course, God knows how long it would take for his appeal to be heard.

The point I'm making here is that if officer is not good then applicants could find themselves in a big mess even if application shouldn't have denied at first place. There is no way to recover monetary loss from USCIS even if officer made a wrong or personal negative decision.

You're referring to nyc_newbie, correct?

Since it's not possible to recover appeals costs from the USCIS, is it possible to sue the officer personally? It's somewhat difficult to grasp that someone who used their position to wrongfully and maliciously deny an N-400, causing substantial monetary loss to the applicant, can be absolved of any responsibility and get away scot-free.

 

[JohnnyCash]

You're referring to nyc_newbie, correct?

Since it's not possible to recover appeals costs from the USCIS, is it possible to sue the officer personally? It's somewhat difficult to grasp that someone who used their position to wrongfully and maliciously deny an N-400, causing substantial monetary loss to the applicant, can be absolved of any responsibility and get away scot-free.

When I said that it's not possible to recover monetary damage from USCIS as a result of filing Appeal then I was meant that nobody has filed such kinda case to recover what they lost because of wrongful denial, but it's very much possible if someone would pursue for it.

However, you can NOT sue the officer personally. Why? Because officer is just an employee of an agency and made such a decision for the agency even though officer might have her personal agenda in making such a decision...like someone of her loved-one or friend might have died or became handicapped in an accident caused by someone else mistake. The key point to remember is-officer is an employee of the agency and made such a decision for the agency. So, you have to sue the agency, and not the officer. Agency is responsible for the action taken by its agents/employees.

People do file lawsuits everyday against the govt. whether it's against city govt, or state or federal. Laws do permit anyone to file a lawsuit against govt. agencies. But you will hardly see any case wherein an immigrant sued USCIS for monetary damage for a wrongful decision. Immigrants don't want to fight with USCIS...It could be possible that they are scared of losing thier status or think govt. might find something in their record to revoke any kind of benefit even citizenship if they will sue this agency....

Or it could be that immigrants don't want to spend their time/money/efforts in filing this kind of lawsuits against the agency, and just move on. Not many immigrants make much money. According to a report by New York Times, 95%immigrants don't make big chunk of money...they might make decent money, but not hefty one. It was repoeted 2 yrs ago in NYT. I think the main reason for immigrants to not to file this kind of lawsuit is fear. That's why you don't see a big protest against the agency whenever agency decides to increase fees. Yes, people talk here and there...on blogs, forums and some on media but they don't protest on high level nor they write to their congresspeople, President, and other govt. officials to let them know that it's not fair to them. They just keep silent and suffer than raising their voice. For FBI to have decided to clear off backlog on name checks and for USCIS to have decided to process applications quickly is the result of vast protest by immigrants across the nation...either thru media or thru congresspeople.

So until people won't stand up for themselves, nothing would change. If nobody would file the lawsuit against USCIS for recoving monetary and punitive damages as a proximate result of wrongful denial then how someone could expect govt to change its way of doing business as usual??? People should write to every Congress person, and to every media out there to spread their voice as to how govt. are putting immigrants in a difficult position by their wrongful actions. They should file the lawsuit to teach USCIS a lesson so that they would think twice before doing any mistake next time with another immigrant. What you will do now, will help others in the future. Whatever good changes govt have made lately are the result of the hardwork of those who bombarded the courthouses with lawsuits against USCIS and went to congresspeople and media to raise their voice/concerns, otherwise there might not have been any change in that regard.

Speaking of Newbie's case, then he must not file any complaint against the officer as of now nor to report the officer to DO Director on how he was treated. He should first wait to get the denial reversed; otherwise his appeal might very much be denied because agency will not like to be liable for any future lawsuit for their mistake if they would know of any hint that reversal on the decision might put the agency in trouble. Once the decision gets reversed, then newbie should file a civil lawsuit in the court for all the money he lost in appealing a decision which was wrong at first place. All the money will be any money associated with the appeal with USCIS and lawsuit in the court, like processing fees for the appeal and lawsuit, attorney's fees for the appeal and lawsuit, collecting and submitting of documents for appeal and lawsuit... postage money and etc..And punitive damage could also be sought out. But it would be up to the judge on how much money plaintiff could be awarded.

But do not even think to do anything before the decision gets reversed. Once the decision gets reversed then newbie would have an evidence to file his lawsuit on the ground that the first decision was wrong at first place which has caused him to have lost so much money and suffering of psychological truma to reverse it. Only after reversal, he should make a complaint about the officer. I am not saying that he stands a good chance to get the decision reversed or to win the lawsuit against the USCIS because immigration laws authorize attorney general (immigration officers) a discretionary authority to determine on moral character as it seems fit to them. His case is not the only one that got denied for multiple speeding tickets, I know many people who were denied for this very reason...and I am not talking of people from Seatlle wherein judges infervened and undo the damages.

I even stated very clearly in my sticky posting that there have been cases wherein immigration officers denied citizenship application to applicants who have had multiple traffic tickets. Officers noted in their file that they don't find applicants to be persons of good moral character in the fact of violation of traffic laws so many times by applicants. According to them, they might not take that as serious if violation could have occured once or twice, but they had no other choice except to make such a determination when applicants were involved with traffic violations so many times.

Those applicants appealed up to federal courts, but their appeal was denied. It might be hard for some people to understand this kind of denial, but a determination on a moral character of a person is made thru many ways. It's not about traffic violations alone, rather it's about disregard of laws so many times....Traffic laws are also laws. Determination on a moral character is a very broad aspect of immigration laws. By the way, I'm fully aware of how some courts ruled on this traffic issues. I'm not saying what is wrong and what is right, instead I'm just telling what I came to know about this matter over the years.....

 

[choppy]

On the other hand, a few years ago some folks up in Seattle got denied b/c they fished without a permit or some such other thing and that got reversed. It's all facts dependent. Absent gross misconduct you cannot sue the individual, you have to sue the agency.

 

[Vorpal]

On the other hand, a few years ago some folks up in Seattle got denied b/c they fished without a permit or some such other thing and that got reversed. It's all facts dependent. Absent gross misconduct you cannot sue the individual, you have to sue the agency.

That is correct. Before JohnnyCash clarified his original post about not being able to recover legal expenses from the USCIS, I asked if it's possible to recover them directly from the IO who wrongfully denied an application. I'm well aware that the organization that employs a person (in this case, USCIS) is responsible for his/her actions while they are on the clock.

 

[williamvo1]

MY CASE n-400

Here is my case,

The fraud check was under 500usd ---->> got convicted = probation = completed in jan/2001
DUI - got community service (1st time)
I marked down yes on the question : have you ever got arrested, and i got the photo order of the court and the discharged order from the probation office. I agree that it depends on the seriousness of the offense some will not pass the interview and could get deported. I consider myself lucky. My case is not over until I got an oath letter. I'm so happy that i passed the interview and nervous that i don't know when i'm going to get the oath letter.

Thank you all for your response

 

[petter]

Hi
I had the same situation, my interview was done on sept26 2008 at Washington dc field office.

Have you recieved your oath ceremony letter?

 

[Roderickjon]

JohnnyCash wrote:

His case is not the only one that got denied for multiple speeding tickets, I know many people who were denied for this very reason...and I am not talking of people from Seatlle wherein judges infervened and undo the damages.

I even stated very clearly in my sticky posting that there have been cases wherein immigration officers denied citizenship application to applicants who have had multiple traffic tickets. Officers noted in their file that they don't find applicants to be persons of good moral character in the fact of violation of traffic laws so many times by applicants. According to them, they might not take that as serious if violation could have occured once or twice, but they had no other choice except to make such a determination when applicants were involved with traffic violations so many times.

____________________________________________

Johnny, on the issue of traffic tickets an immigration attorney in D.C confirmed to me that he has never heard of anybody gotten an application denied soley based on minor traffic tickets. He said that any attempt by an IO to deny an application based on traffic tickets would be overturned by the court.

Could you please provide specific examples and quote appropriate sources that would validate your claim to the contrary.

A thorough search on google has not netted any specific results on goverment denials on the basis of speeding tickets.

 

[Vorpal]

Johnny, on the issue of traffic tickets an immigration attorney in D.C confirmed to me that he has never heard of anybody gotten an application denied soley based on minor traffic tickets. He said that any attempt by an IO to deny an application based on traffic tickets would be overturned by the court.

Could you please provide specific examples and quote appropriate sources that would validate your claim to the contrary.

A thorough search on google has not netted any specific results on goverment denials on the basis of speeding tickets.

A couple of months ago, an applicant from NYC, who goes by the name of nyc_newbie on this forum, was denied on the basis of bad moral character for 2 speeding tickets under $500 each. If you read his interview experience, you'll see that his IO had some sort of a personal vendetta against speeders. While the IO's decision will most likely be overturned on appeal, it's still an unnecessary headache, as well as a decent chunk of change out of the applicant's pocket.

 

[Triple Citizen]

Barring an officer's personal vendetta, the issue being debated here is the language of the form. Do you, as in individual, think the word EVER written in a larger font and in bold on the N-400, allows the applicant the freedom not to disclose all his/her citations, whether the fine was under $500 or not. Don't take into account the possible ramifications of getting a vindictive officer, just answer after reading the language of the form.

If you read his interview experience, you'll see that his IO had some sort of a personal vendetta against speeders.

 

[Vorpal]

Barring an officer's personal vendetta, the issue being debated here is the language of the form. Do you, as in individual, think the word EVER written in a larger font and in bold on the N-400, allows the applicant the freedom not to disclose all his/her citations, whether the fine was under $500 or not. Don't take into account the possible ramifications of getting a vindictive officer, just answer after reading the language of the form.

The applicant in question disclosed all of his tickets on the N-400. Read more here: http://boards.immigration.com/showthread.php?p=1977667&highlight=ugly#post1977667

The purpose of my post was to answer Roderickjon's post (in which he stated that his attorney has never heard of anyone being denied on the basis of minor traffic tickets), not to debate whether or not to list traffic tickets. This issue is similar to discussing politics and religion. Both sides stick to their guns uphold their views.

 

[Triple Citizen]

I know whom you were answering. I just wanted to know your view of the language itself. That is all

not to debate whether or not to list traffic tickets. This issue is similar to discussing politics and religion. Both sides stick to their guns uphold their views.

 

[Vorpal]

I know whom you were answering. I just wanted to know your view of the language itself. That is all

My personal view of the language was that the USCIS wanted to know about criminal citations. If I decided to view it as "all citations/tickets, regardless of violation", then I'd have the arduous task of locating every single parking ticket I've ever received (probably at least 50 throughout my driving history - ask any NYC resident who owns a car how easy it is to get one of those), as well as a written jaywalking warning given to me by a crossing guard back when I was in grade school.

 

[williamvo1]

2 months passed still waiting for oath letter

Hi guy,

I got interviewed on SEP-02-2008, 2 months has passed and I have not heard anything from USCIS. I made 2 inforpas since the interview and wa told that my case is in "re-verification" I don't know what the hack that means. I'm just so deperate. The whole process has been over 21 months (applied on FEB-2007). Any one on the same boat please share your experience)

Thanks guys

 

[petter]

Oath letter-washington dc field office

Hi
I contacted the USCIS to check the status of my n400 oath letter/date, and I was told that

"their records indicate that my application is in the queue for a judicial naturalization through the court in Washington, DC. And the queue for the court in the district is large and I cannot project a date for your ceremony at this time".


Pet