Naturalization n-400 + public intoxication = case denial,denied, inelegible.

the denial DONT state that I must wait until a particular date before I can reapply. I CALLED TO THE CALL FREE # OR 1800# AND THEY TOLD ME I CAN REAPPLAY AT ANY TIME.
 
DECISION:
IT SAY:
IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 319a OF THE INMIGRACION AND NATIONALITY ACT,AS AMENDED.PURSUANT TO THE EXAMINATION OF YOUR APPLICATION,IT IS DETERMINED THAT YOU ARE INELEGIBLE FOR NATURALIZATION FOR THE FOLOWING REAZON, SECTION 316 ACT (INA)
TITLE 8,(CFR) PART 316.10
YOUR ARREST AND SUBSEQUENT CONVICTION OCCURRED DURING THE REQUISITE STATUTORY PERIOD DURING WICH YOU REQUIRED TO DEMONSTRATE GOOD MORAL CHARACTER.
BASED ON THE FOREGOING,IT IS DETERMINED THAT YOU HAVE NOT MET THE REQUERIMENTS FOR GOOD MORAL CHARACTER UNDER SCTION 316 INA AND 8 CFR 316.10 AS CITED AVOBE.. THEREFORE , YOU ARE INELIGIBLE FOR NATURALIZATION. ACCORDINGLY , YOUR APPLICATION IS DENIED
 
If it is all that you typed above, there is no need to.
I meant to HIDE the name (when I said white out or black out), A# before uploading, never reveal information which can point back to you.
 
ivantheterrible said:
thx Jack..i'll call tomorrow morning!
Click to expand...

You misunderstood Jackolantern. He was being sarcastic and his point was that you can't trust the information you get by calling the USCIS toll-free customer service line - it is staffed by very poorly trained people who often give incorrect and incompetent advice.

What you need to do is to get professional legal advice for 1-2 immigration lawyers, and do that quickly, before your 20 days run out.

Don't base your decision just on the opinions expressed in an online forum (such as this one) or on the information that you get from the low-level poorly trained clerks staffing the USCIS toll-free line. Spend some money and get some competent legal advice from a good immigration lawyer (maybe even more than one) before deciding what to do next. Try to find a lawyer affiliated with AILA (http://www.aila.org/), as they are more reliable.
 
thx Baikal3 !!!, I went to 2 different lawyers.. and am not getting a very good positive energy answer.. both almost agree that the hearing will be an waste of mony and time.. as I have to pay $650 to apeal.. and i may get the same answerr "denial"...
the best advise I got is to wait few months..and reapply.. i'll have to pay the same mony as the hearing..but I may have the chance to get a different uscis officer on the second interview.. and all can be better and different.. most of the time is no based on the law, is based on the chemistry between you and the uscis officer have.
example if after pay for the hearing .. $650 plus attorney fees.. my case get denial.. then i will have to spend 10k or 20k to take this case to the supreme court??... then who will give me the money?? or the money back?? uscis?..or IRS? Am not in a hurry to be a citizen.. but am so frustrated that in this country are alot of ppl living here illegaly or others ppl for more then 20 or 30 years with just residence..and they dont even care to be Americans Citizens.. and I in my case Am trying to do my best and the goverment quick my ***.. this is total unfair... am upset & frustrated!!!!
 
the controversial thing is that the goverment spend around 4 billon dollars per year in campaings to incentive ppl to be a citizens.. but when you trying to do good things they give you hard hard time and make you loss time and money.
 
ivantheterrible said:
thx Baikal3 !!!, I went to 2 different lawyers.. and am not getting a very good positive energy answer.. both almost agree that the hearing will be an waste of mony and time.. as I have to pay $650 to apeal.. and i may get the same answerr "denial"...
the best advise I got is to wait few months..and reapply.. i'll have to pay the same mony as the hearing..but I may have the chance to get a different uscis officer on the second interview.. and all can be better and different.. most of the time is no based on the law, is based on the chemistry between you and the uscis officer have.
example if after pay for the hearing .. $650 plus attorney fees.. my case get denial.. then i will have to spend 10k or 20k to take this case to the supreme court??... then who will give me the money?? or the money back?? uscis?..or IRS? Am not in a hurry to be a citizen.. but am so frustrated that in this country are alot of ppl living here illegaly or others ppl for more then 20 or 30 years with just residence..and they dont even care to be Americans Citizens.. and I in my case Am trying to do my best and the goverment quick my ***.. this is total unfair... am upset & frustrated!!!!
Click to expand...

It is good that you spoke to some lawyers and indeed reapplying may be a better option than appealing the denial.

Did any of the lawyers you consulted commented on the wording of the denial letter and the specific reasons given for the denial there?

In my non-expert opinion, the denial letter (assuming that you did not omit any relevant parts of it here) is inadequately worded and does not provide a sufficiently clear and precise explanation for the denial.
I would have expected a denial letter to reference a specific subsection of 8CFR§316.10, but it did not do that. The real question is whether you were denied based on 8CFR§316.10(b)(2)(ii) [that is if they considered your public intoxication conviction to be a conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude during the statutory period] or under 8CFR§316.10(b)(3)(iii) [that is, if the denial was based on the IO's discretionary judgement that your public intoxication conviction, although not a CIMT, still demonstrated lack of good moral character].
See http://law.justia.com/cfr/title08/8-1.0.1.3.68.0.1.7.html

The denial letter you received is ambiguously worded and does not clearly explain which specific provision of 8CFR§316.10 was used. If the IO decided that 8CFR§316.10(b)(2)(ii) applied here and that the public intoxication conviction was a CIMT [which I would find fairly surprising, but not impossible, depending on the specifics related to the Texas statute regarding public intoxication], the denial was not discretionary and the IO's finding might be binding in terms of subsequent N-400 applications filed within 5 years from that conviction; an appeal/MTR might be necessary in such a case.
However, the fact that the denial letter did not specifically mention moral turpitude and did not specify a date by which you may re-apply, appears to indirectly indicate that the denial was discretionary and was based on 8CFR§316.10(b)(3)(iii). In that case it would indeed be easier to re-apply (now or in a few months), and hope that you'll have better luck with the next IO.
The fact that the lawyers you consulted suggested re-submitting a new N-400 shortly appears to indicate that they also thought that the denial was discretionary. Still, if you can get a more direct answer from the lawyer(s) on this point, that'd be good.

Regarding feeling frustrated and upset about unfairness of the immigration system - we can't help you with that here. The best you can expect from an online forum like this one is some practical advice for dealing with some practical problems.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes u are rigth!! this is a discretionary judgement..upto the uscis officer.. and yes.. few other attorneys told me that usics want to see a very clen history 5 years before the day u submit the n-400.. even for a class c missdemeanor they will denial.. Now the dilema is Time VS money.. i rather wait maybe a year an reapply.. rather then spend 6k to 10k or more in attorneys fees.. off course alot of lawers will say ..yes!! we can take this case to a suprem court... but.. who will pay??? off course My pocket. :(
 
conclusion !! Exemple= first application n-400 form $700 + denial + n-336 (Request for a Hearing) $650 + reapply $700 = around $2100.. nice they can keep with it so they will cash out $2100 per resident . off course they will denial more then aprove.. this is a capitalist economy system. I almost forgot that I live in USA.
 
An appeal would need to show that your charge does not preclude you from demonstrating GMC. This centers around the issue of whether the conviction "measures up to the standards of average citizens of the community in which the applicant resides'.

Similarly, if you submit a new application it is up to the discretion of the IO to determine if your conviction precludes you from demonstrating GMC.

Either way, there is no guarantee of a positive outcome.
 
then i should wait another 11 years to reaply? am loosing interest in this country.. there is alot more important facts that uscis should denial or take care more then denial naturalization to a good honest resident that in 11years only got and public intoxication..
 
Which 11 years? 5 years after the end of probation (which is about 4 and half years from now) would put both the conviction and probation entirely outside the 5-year moral character window. If you keep your record clean until reapplying in November 2015, that incident will not cause your denial.
 
ivantheterrible said:
then i should wait another 11 years to reaply? am loosing interest in this country.. there is alot more important facts that uscis should denial or take care more then denial naturalization to a good honest resident that in 11years only got and public intoxication..
Click to expand...

You can reapply now. However, include a cover indicating that despite your previous conviction of public intoxication you have otherwise been a contributing member of society and that you have taken steps (ex:community work) to prevent such an event to reoccur. The thing is you want to show is that the conviction does not preclude you from demonstrating GMC rather than just blindly reapplying again. This will dramatically increase your chances for an approval.
 
Look at it from the Officer's perspective............

Adjudicator's Field Manual tells them:

AFM 76.1 General.

Denaturalization, or revocation of naturalization, is one of the more complex and time consuming actions provided for under the INA. In addition, unlike most other proceedings conducted under the INA which are handled in administrative settings, denaturalization actions must be filed in federal district court. Because citizenship is such a precious right, it cannot be taken away unless the government is able to meet a high burden of proof, either clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence that does not lea ve any issue in doubt (in a civil denaturalization proceeding pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1451(a)), or beyond a reasonable doubt (in a criminal proceeding initiated pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1425). Accordingly, a case should only be referred for denaturalization where there is objective evidence to establish that the individual was not eligible for naturalization, or procured naturalization by willful concealment or material misrepresentation. A discussion of the legal standards for denaturalization can be found i n Chapter 22.3 of the Special Agent’s Field Manual .

During the denaturalization proceeding, USCIS ’ practices and procedures will be carefully scrutinized by the court. All related documentation from the A-file is subject to discovery and may need to be introduced as evidence. In addition, the USCIS officers who conducted the naturalization interview and approved the application may be called to testify as witnesses. Therefore, it is essential for USCIS officers to follow established procedures throughout the naturalization application process.

The district adjudications officer plays a central role in the denaturalization process. First, and foremost, by carefully adjudicating the naturalization application, the DAO can ensure that only individuals eligible for naturalization in fact receive this most important benefit. Second, by ensuring that the naturalization case has been carefully adjudicated, for example, that all applicants are interviewed under oath, and all modifications occurring during the interview are noted clearly and completely on N-400 or processing sheet, the DAO can ensure the Government will meet the high burden of proof if denaturalization is appropriate. Finally, because they are most familiar with the requirements for naturalization and the naturalization process, the DAO serves an important function in identifying potential denaturalization cases, assisting Investigations and Counsel in preparing the case for litigation, and testifying as necessary once the case is in litigation.
 
BigJoe5 said:
First, and foremost, by carefully adjudicating the naturalization application, the DAO can ensure that only individuals eligible for naturalization in fact receive this most important benefit.[/B] .
Click to expand...
And how does that relate to the discretionary powers IOs have in determining whether an applicant meets GMC? There's a distinction between an applicant who clearly isn't eligible (ex:Committed several CIMTs during statutory period) and one who might not be eligible based on the subjective interpretation of an IO for lesser convictions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top