Question - Interview Date Before Meeting Requirement

S

syriano

Registered Users (C)
Folks,

I wanted to repost this question on the main board so it can be seen by wider audience. I just received my interview letter last weekend asking me to show up for my interview in San Antonio next month. I'm a little worried because my interview tales place actually 3 days before I meet the 5 year requirement.

I have seen just one case in which the CIS had called the applicant for another interview becuase he had his first interview couple of weeks before meeting the requirement and I'm worried that they might actually put my app on hold and call me for a second interview.

I would like to hear your input on this issue and am curcious if anyoen else has gone through the same experience. I mean it just goes not make any sense, if I have to meet the requirement before the interview date why cannot they wait for few more days before they schedule the first interview instead of bringing me in for a second round?

thanks in advance
 
IMHO it is not a big deal.
You do not become a citizen until the oath, should not be a problem to take the interview as scheduled.
 
syriano said:
Folks,

I wanted to repost this question on the main board so it can be seen by wider audience. I just received my interview letter last weekend asking me to show up for my interview in San Antonio next month. I'm a little worried because my interview tales place actually 3 days before I meet the 5 year requirement.

I have seen just one case in which the CIS had called the applicant for another interview becuase he had his first interview couple of weeks before meeting the requirement and I'm worried that they might actually put my app on hold and call me for a second interview.

I would like to hear your input on this issue and am curcious if anyoen else has gone through the same experience. I mean it just goes not make any sense, if I have to meet the requirement before the interview date why cannot they wait for few more days before they schedule the first interview instead of bringing me in for a second round?

thanks in advance
Click to expand...

As long as you submitted your app after 4 years 9 months, you shouldn't have any problems.-
 
The five-year period determined your eligibility to file for Naturalization. And you obviously have met that.

I might be mistaken, but there is not a rule I am aware saying the interview can not occur before the end of the 5-year period.

I am inclined to say there are no issues here. CIS issuing an IL confirms this.

Anyone else?


On a separate note: That processing time is freakishly fast! ;)
 
At the time of the initial interview you must meet the 5 year continuous residence requirement if applying under the 5 year rule. Depending on the IO and level of detail, they may request that you return after you have met the requirement. I'd feel safer asking to reschedule the interview rather than to be at the mercy of an IO who may or may not take notice of the early filing.
 
If you go to the interview and they don't reschedule it, don't let them give you an oath before the full 5 years. Having the oath before the full 5 years makes you vulnerable to possible revocation of citizenship in the future. There was one poster who had the interview 1 day before the 5 years, and the IO wanted to put him/her in a same-day oath, but the person pointed out the 5-year issue and got an oath the next day instead.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If you filed the app after 4 yr 9mon, then you are fine.
The timing has to be met before you file the application and NOT at the time of interview.
So,are you saying that you filed after 4 yr 9 mon and got interview before 3 months? If that is your concern then you have nothing to worry about. However,if you filed earlier than 4 yr 9 months, then you may be denied.
Just because they called you for interview does not mean they will approve it.
My mother-in-law filed in CA 2 weeks before she was supposed to file and it took her 12 months to get interview and they denied her case and asked her to file again.
 
Jackolantern said:
Is that written into the law? I don't think so.
Click to expand...

INA 316(a)(2) states:

has resided continuously within the United States from the date of the application up to the time of admission to citizenship,

Since the interview takes place between the date of application and admission to citizenship, I think it's fair to assume that the determination of continuous residence is made at the interview.
 
jimgreener said:
So,are you saying that you filed after 4 yr 9 mon and got interview before 3 months? If that is your concern then you have nothing to worry about.
Click to expand...


A previous poster reported that his interview was rescheduled since the continuous residence requirement determination could not be made at interview.

http://forums.immigration.com/showpost.php?p=1922568&postcount=235

Again, if the continuous residence requirement determination cannot be made during the interview according to INA 316(a)(2), chances are they may require you to reschedule the interview.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bobsmyth said:
A previous poster reported that his interview was rescheduled since the continuous residence requirement determination could not be made at interview.

http://forums.immigration.com/showpost.php?p=1922568&postcount=235

Again, if the continuous residence requirement determination cannot be made during the interview according to INA 316(a)(2), chances are they will require you to reschedule the interview.
Click to expand...

Bob, and all,

thanks for your replies. But keep in mind that I did not break any rule - I filed after 4 years and 9 months but it just happened that CIS processed my case quickly.

INA 316(a)(2) states that the physical requirement has to be met before "admission" but what is exactly "admission", is it the interview or the oath?

I saw the link Bob provided but it was unclear by how many days the applicant was short from his signature.
 
Bobsmyth said:
INA 316(a)(2) states:

has resided continuously within the United States from the date of the application up to the time of admission to citizenship,

Since the interview takes place between the date of application and admission to citizenship, I think it's fair to assume that the determination of continuous residence is made at the interview.
Click to expand...
The decision doesn't have to be made at the interview. It can be made after. That's why some people get "decision cannot be made" letters. And they're going to re-check everybody at the oath anyway. If the oath is only a few days after the interview, it's usually mathematically impossible to do anything to break continuous residence if nothing already happened that would have broken it before the interview. And if one did somehow break it after the interview, removal from the oath is still possible.

And regardless of when the interview happens (whether before or after the 5-year mark), it is impossible to know at the interview itself if somebody resided continuously "from the date of the application up to the time of admission to citizenship".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
syriano said:
Bob, and all,

thanks for your replies. But keep in mind that I did not break any rule - I filed after 4 years and 9 months but it just happened that CIS processed my case quickly.

INA 316(a)(2) states that the physical requirement has to be met before "admission" but what is exactly "admission", is it the interview or the oath?

I saw the link Bob provided but it was unclear by how many days the applicant was short from his signature.
Click to expand...

"admission to citizenship" implies oath.

If my memory holds well, the poster (fbanna) applied 90 days early (April 2008), and was originally scheduled for an interview June 19. At the interview, the IO told him they would have to reschedule the interview for August 22 since he did not have enough continuous residence days (early filing and initial interview made him short by about 30 days. he was eventually approved and is now a citizen.
 
Jackolantern said:
The decision doesn't have to be made at the interview. It can be made after.
Click to expand...
I wasn't referring to decision. I was referring to determination of continuous residence. That's not to say that an IO may choose "decision cannot be made at this time" instead of rescheduling the interview , or worse denying the case.

Jackolantern said:
And regardless of when the interview happens (whether before or after the 5-year mark), it is impossible to know at the interview itself if somebody resided continuously "from the date of the application up to the time of admission to citizenship".
Click to expand...
Yes, that's obvious. My point was that the interview is used to make a preliminary determination of continuous residency.
 
Bobsmyth said:
"admission to citizenship" implies oath.

If my memory holds well, the poster (fbanna) applied 90 days early (April 2008), and was originally scheduled for an interview June 19. At the interview, the IO told him they would have to reschedule the interview for August 22 since he did not have enough continuous residence days (early filing and initial interview made him short by about 30 days. he was eventually approved and is now a citizen.
Click to expand...
I know that is what happened in that case. But I am not talking about USCIS usual procedure, I am talking about whether anything in the law says the interview cannot happen before the 5 year (or 3 year if applicable) mark. The law surely requires the oath to happen on or after the 5 year/3 year date, but I don't see anything saying that about the interview.
 
I chatted with fbanna in private, he said that he was only 9 days short of his 5 year requirement and the officer handed him his rescheduled notice at the entrance. This is really insane....make it drive for 2 freaking hours just to hand me a rescheduled notice. These guys need to get their stuff together...
 
I believe in this particular case (syriano) has to make sure that He is not given oath befoee the 5 year requirement is met.

Now

1) He can go to his interview and get approved and can ask to delay the oath.
2) He can go to his interview and get decision not made letter. (in this case he has to wait and hopefully all is well) .
3) He can go to his interview and IO decided to have second interview later on when 5 year requirement is met.
4) He can himself delay the interview.


My experience tells me that he should go to interview and IF he gets approved make sure oath is delayed.

vik_b

I ma just a layman not a lawyer, please treat my commenst appropriately
 
syriano said:
I chatted with fbanna in private, he said that he was only 9 days short of his 5 year requirement and the officer handed him his rescheduled notice at the entrance. This is really insane....make it drive for 2 freaking hours just to hand me a rescheduled notice. These guys need to get their stuff together...
Click to expand...

Each person has his/her priorities. In my world till I got my citizenship USCIS had the second highest priority (after family).

Now If you can take some time off it might be a prudent thing to go to interview even if they reschedule it.

It is the second last step and you are close. Just make few more extra effort you are almost there.

Good luck.

vik_b

I am not a lawyer just a layman. Please treatr my commenst appropriately.
 
Jackolantern said:
I know that is what happened in that case. But I am not talking about USCIS usual procedure, I am talking about whether anything in the law says the interview cannot happen before the 5 year (or 3 year if applicable) mark. The law surely requires the oath to happen on or after the 5 year/3 year date, but I don't see anything saying that about the interview.
Click to expand...

There's nothing in the law that says the interview cannot take place before the continuous residency requirement is met. However, that wasn't my original argument.
What I'm saying is that since a continuous residency determination is made at the interview, it gives the IO discretion to either reschedule the interview if the applicant filed early but hadn't yet met the requirement, delay a decision until requirement is met, or deny the case outright.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top