N-400 Nightmare on Interview day

[vaitbajram]

My interview was scheduled on 8/25/09. I applied based on marriage to US citizen but i had greencard since Dec 2004 based on asylum. 3 years of merrage was 8/10/09, and I applied 68 days before on 5/28/09. I passed the test, and I was told to wait for my oath letter. After 1 hour, a seniour immigration officer said my application has been denied because I applied too early. I suppose to wait till 8/10/09 to have 3 years of marrage then to apply. In the application says you can apply 90 days before. However she said wait for denial letterand I can apeal her decision. Now I have to apply everything from scratch and lose my $675 and wait for another 3 months. Any comments??Was I wrong??Time frame below:

GC received based on asylum 12/1/04
Merried to US Citizen 8/10/06
N-400 sent 5/28/09
Interview 8/25/09
Denied on 8/25/09

 

[WBH]

Merried to US Citizen 8/10/06
N-400 sent 5/28/09
Interview 8/25/09
Denied on 8/25/09

Unfottunately, USCIS is right. 90 day rule applies to GC anniversary but not to marriage anniversary.

But don't feel miserable. Just re-apply but this time use 5 year of PR as basis. You are already in
the 90 days period prior to your 5 years of PR, so you can re-apply now

 

[Al Southner]

My interview was scheduled on 8/25/09. I applied based on marriage to US citizen but i had greencard since Dec 2004 based on asylum. 3 years of merrage was 8/10/09, and I applied 68 days before on 5/28/09. I passed the test, and I was told to wait for my oath letter. After 1 hour, a seniour immigration officer said my application has been denied because I applied too early. I suppose to wait till 8/10/09 to have 3 years of marrage then to apply. In the application says you can apply 90 days before. However she said wait for denial letterand I can apeal her decision. Now I have to apply everything from scratch and lose my $675 and wait for another 3 months. Any comments??Was I wrong??Time frame below:

GC received based on asylum 12/1/04
Merried to US Citizen 8/10/06
N-400 sent 5/28/09
Interview 8/25/09
Denied on 8/25/09

Nothing terrible happened to you. You were just overzealous in your application and failed to notice the small details. As WBH said, reapply and yes, 675 is required again and USCIS pride itself of being unfair and following the law as written on the books...

 

[WBH]

Nothing terrible happened to you. You were just overzealous in your application and failed to notice the small details. As WBH said, reapply and yes, 675 is required again and USCIS pride itself of being unfair and following the law as written on the books...

It is a good catch by the IO's supevisor. The IO was ready to give the oath letter (perhaps DO is the one that has the same day oath).

I wonder if the superviso had not caught this and oath were given, would USCIS take citizenship back in the future if they later realized this mistake?

 

[vaitbajram]

So i guess USCIS was right. Thanks for advise guys.

 

[ncnat]

I did not realize that before. I learned something new today.

 

[Jackolantern]

I wonder if the superviso had not caught this and oath were given, would USCIS take citizenship back in the future if they later realized this mistake?

Theoretically the citizenship could be revoked, but USCIS would be very unlikely to pursue it, given that revocation in this case would result in reinstatement of permanent resident status (because there is no crime or fraud, just an eligibility mistake). Then the individual could simply reapply with the 5 year rule. When they pursue denaturalization it is because they want to deport somebody; they don't want to waste their time only to have the person remain in the US and reapply immediately.

However, in the future, if they wanted to pursue mass denaturalization again, perhaps from the directive of a president who wants to get people off the voter's list in certain states in an election year, cases like this are easy to find and impossible to defend. Just run a database search on all marriage-based naturalizations to find out which cases have less than 3 years between the filing date and marriage date. Then once it goes to court, the case is over in less than half and hour like on Judge Judy. The evidence is clear, there are no legal complexities to argue over, and the individual has nothing to challenge the finding. A single prosecutor could handle more than a dozen of these each day in court.

 

[alexginga]

Maybe God is trying to tell you something.. but it seems to me that it is just your unlucky day..

They should have rejected the application / returned the money from the start. It is unfair for them to deny it based on a technicality, while pocketing your hard-earned dollars..

If I was you - I would have pleaded with them to change the date on the application (treat it as typo) or reschedule your interview for the 3-year anniversary date of your wedding, etc. - they could have easily done it if they had sympathy... Apparently USCIS does not work like that.. :-(

Something is telling me that this USCIS supervisor will be judged accordingly and no mercy will be given to him on his judgement day..

Peace and sympathies to you..

 

[Jackolantern]

They should have rejected the application / returned the money from the start.

No. Details like the length of the marriage should be sorted out in the interview. Sometimes people write down the wrong marriage date by mistake because of a typo, or they had a situation like having a ceremony and the legal marriage on different dates. Allowing them to discuss and correct it in the interview is better than just rejecting up front without a chance for explanation or correction.

In addition, rejecting it up front without an interview on the basis of insufficient length of marriage would require the initial data entry clerks to perform an additional step of analysis of the application, increasing the cost for everybody else if they did that extra step without taking the money.

The green card anniversary date is different ... USCIS always knows that date, so typos and misinterpretations by the applicant don't affect that, and it doesn't require the initial data entry clerk to look beyond the first page.

If I was you - I would have pleaded with them to change the date on the application (treat it as typo)

Are you crazy? There's no way they can treat the filing date as a typo, as there already is a paper trail and data log for when the application was received, money deposited, and fingerprints done, etc. They can't pretend the application was filed in August if the money was deposited in June and fingerprints given in July.

or reschedule your interview for the 3-year anniversary date of your wedding, etc.

The law requires the filing date to be on or after the 3-year marriage anniversary. Rescheduling the interview date doesn't affect that. USCIS had to deny the application, or they would be breaking the law.

 

[WBH]

Something is telling me that this USCIS supervisor will be judged accordingly and no mercy will be given to him on his judgement day..

Peace and sympathies to you..

Three years of marriages is clearly specified on the M-476 (at the bottom of Page 22), so USCIS can say it is all the apllicant's fault for not reading their
instruction

 

[warlord]

Three years of marriages is clearly specified on the M-476 (at the bottom of Page 22), so USCIS can say it is all the apllicant's fault for not reading their
instruction

They don't have to say anything, it is the applicants fault for not following the guidelines. It is clearly mentioned in the N-400 who qualifies and what you will need in order to file...

 

[WBH]

However, in the future, if they wanted to pursue mass denaturalization again, perhaps from the directive of a president who wants to get people off the voter's list in certain states in an election year, cases like this are easy to find and impossible to defend.

Realistically speaking I think it is never going to happen. Either things are not
going to be that bad or things are going to be much worse than that. Worse than that measn soemthing really bad happen in this country but there is no need to mass de-naturalization thru legal channel. It is enough for some people to drive otehr other people out by force.

 

[WBH]

Theoretically the citizenship could be revoked, but USCIS would be very unlikely to pursue it, given that revocation in this case would result in reinstatement of permanent resident status (because there is no crime or fraud, just an eligibility mistake). Then the individual could simply reapply with the 5 year rule. When they pursue denaturalization it is because they want to deport somebody; they don't want to waste their time only to have the person remain in the US and reapply immediately.

Another possibility is that USCIS won't revoke citizenship but if the person in such case commited a crime and the public and government hate it very much. Since a citizen can not be deported, the USCIS can easily find the
naturalization process is flawed so they can de-naturalize this person.

Of course I believe USCIS can do it to every natualized citizen if they
believe noi one's case si really that perfect but for others like hiding a traccic tiket etc they may think it is not worth it But inthe case like OP's, it is clearly the applicant was not eligible so they can easily pursue it. -- remmeber in such scanarie the crime must be the kind that is not minor but not really that serious.. If it is very serious that can means death pemalty, life sentence or even 20 years, I don't think de-natualization, deportation etc mean anything anymore.

In other words, if one benefit of citizenship is protection against deportation, such benefit may not be there if citizenship was given when 3 years of marriage is not compleded at teh time of filing. SUch protection is needed for crimes that is moderately serioyus crime. If the crime is minor, no one would bother to deport teh offenser. If the crime is too serious, the offender has to stay in jail for a long long time and can not be deported even if he want to deported

 

[absrao]

Three years of marriages is clearly specified on the M-476 (at the bottom of Page 22), so USCIS can say it is all the apllicant's fault for not reading their
instruction

Stuff like this can be easily automated and provided as online application wizards. But then I guess USCIS will be losing money in alerting folks about issues upfront. But then again, if they are truely in the business of awarding immigration benefits, they should do it so applications with clear errors aren't taking up resources of USCIS - resources they could spend on other cases.