Registred to vote by mistake and applying for citizenship

Status
Not open for further replies.
It looks like you are in the clear as you were never actually registered to vote. So just answer "No" to Q2 in part 10 of N-400 and move on. You won't be in any kind of trouble.
This is exactly the answer that disqualifies you from naturalization - misrepresenting yourself on naturalization application. The most stupid thing you could do.
You registered for vote, and that is not a problem on it's own, it is absulutely harmless unless you lie on the application.


Any conduct or acts which offend the accepted moral character standards of the community in which the applicant resides should be considered, without regard to whether the applicant has been arrested or convicted.

Even the same statue in adjudicator's manual has limitations to that statement.

(E) False Testimony .

An individual who gives false testimony during the statutory period for the purpose of obtaining any benefit under the Act is precluded from establishing good moral character. See section 101(f)(6) of the Act and 8 CFR 316.10(b)(2)(vi) . The most common occurrence of false testimony is failure to disclose a criminal or other adverse record, but false testimony can occur in any area. False testimony may relate to facts about lawful admission, absences, residence, marital status or infidelity, employment, organizational membership, tax filing information, or any of the multitudes of facts that are developed during a naturalization interview. False testimony, in any area, occurs when the individual deliberately intends to deceive the governm ent while under oath in order to obtain citizenship, regardless of whether the information provided in the false testimony was material, in the sense that if given truthfully it would have made the applicant ineligible for naturalization. For example, an applicant may conceal an arrest that occurred outside or within the statutory period, believing that the disclosure of the arrest would bar his or her naturalization, even though the arrest was minor in nature and would not have an adverse effect upon his o r her eligibility. The applicant’s false testimony, in itself, denotes a lack of good moral character and renders the applicant ineligible for naturalization on the present application and on any future naturalization application until the false testimony date is outside of the statutory period.

There are three elements to false testimony that must exist for a naturalization application to be denied on false testimony grounds. In accordance with the Supreme Court decision in Kungys v. United States , 485 U.S. 759, 780-81 (1988) [ Appendix 74-6 ], the elements of false testimony are:

• Oral statements. “Testimony” for the purposes of section 101(f)(6) of the Act must be oral. False statements in an application, whether or not under oath, do not constitute “testimony”. Falsified documents do not constitute “testimony”. Further, the oral statement must be an affirmative misrepresentation. The Kungys decision makes it clear that there has been no false testimony if facts are merely concealed. Thus, incomplete but otherwise truthful answers will not rise to the level of false testimony. Concealment of the existence of a conviction is not false testimony. Fo r example, an individual has two convictions in the statutory period: one DUI conviction and one conviction for Assault and Battery. In response to the “arrest” question, the applicant testifies, “Yes, I was arrested for DUI and given one year probation.” That testimony is not false. It does conceal the existence of the other conviction, but is not an affirmative misrepresentation and is not, therefore, false testimony. To solve this problem, ALWAYS ask a follow-up question after a known concealment, such a s, “Are there any other arrests?” Assuming the applicant answers “no”, he has now provided false testimony.

• Under Oath . The oral statement must be made under oath in order to constitute false testimony. Oral statements to officers that are not under oath do not constitute false testimony.

• With Subjective Intent to obtain an immigration benefit . An individual must be providing the false testimony in order to obtain an immigration benefit. False testimony provided for any other reason does not preclude an individual from establishing good moral character. Subjective intent is often the most difficult aspect of sustaining a false testimony denial. As the government acknowledges in Kungys v. the United States :

It is only dishonesty accompanied by this precise intent that Congress found morally unacceptable. Willful misrepresentations made for other reasons, such as embarrassment, fear, or a desire for privacy, were not deemed sufficiently culpable to brand the applicant as someone who lacks good moral character.”

Claiming US nationality is a kind of false testimony.
There are two reasons why a false testimony, like claiming US nationality in order to register to vote, does not disqualify from naturalization under GMC.
1. because the claim was not done under oath
2. because it was Without a Subjective Intent to obtain an immigration benefit

clear enoguh for an informed person, though not for baikal3
 
She filled the info for me and never asked "Are you an American citizen??" Of course I would say "NO." I believe by me signing is like accepting that I was an American citizen. Anyway I will go and find about that becasue I don't want to get in trouble.
It does not really matter what you would say. It does only matter what exactly you said.
 
Registering for vote is not a factor listed in the law as a disqualifying one. ...

That never happened before and will most likely never happen in the future.

Registering to vote in itself does not preclude someone from establishing GMC, but since registering to vote usually requires acknowledgement of US citizen,it can be used as a basis to deny an application. Hence, it is advisable to make sure to deregister oneself from the voter registration list before submitting an application. There have been reported instances where applicants have been asked by the IO to provide documentation (from voter registration) confirming that the applicant does not appear on the voter registration list (when the applicant answered YES to the registering to vote question).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Registering to vote in itself does not preclude someone from establishing GMC, but since registering to vote usually requires acknowledgement of US citizen,it can be used as a basis to deny an application. Hence, it is advisable to make sure to deregister oneself from the voter registration list before submitting an application. There have been reported instances where applicants have been asked by the IO to provide documentation (from voter registration) confirming that the applicant does not appear on the voter registration list (when the applicant answered YES to the registering to vote question).
I am sure a copy of you registration would suffice. The one that does not have the question about US citizenship. I am also sure a copy of chronologically same registration from the same locality would suffice too, a blank one.
BTW, if you are claiming some instances, could you put links here, so that we would be able to see what exactly the IO asked for.

Take into account that the question on N-400 is not about thether you are currently registered. It is about whether you have registered before. So, being unregistered is absolutely irrelevant, and also the IO requesting unregistration would behave absolutely foolishly in case his request is because of the question Q2.

I still beleive registering for vote is irrelevant to the final decision, as well as being registered for vote too.
The question is on the application in order to automatically initiate investigating two things:
1. Whether the applicant actually unlawfully voted for elections (lawful votes when GC holders are OK to vote is fine)
2. Whether the applicant actually claimed to be a US citizen on the registration form.
I do not believe the burden of proof is on the applicant. However, USCIS could request additional documents if obtainable, from registration comission.

If you are 100% sure you did not claim to be a US citizen, mark Q2 as yes, and the question about claims to be a citizen as no.
In case you actually claimed to be a citizen, you will be deported for lifetime then.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
BTW, if you are claiming some instances, could you put links here, so that we would be able to see what exactly the IO asked for.

A quick search came up with two good examples:

http://forums.immigration.com/showthread.php?323994-Accidentally-registered-to-vote-n-400-denied-please-help

http://forums.immigration.com/showthread.php?312123-n-400-quot-lack-of-good-moral-character-quot


Take into account that the question on N-400 is not about thether you are currently registered. It is about whether you have registered before. So, being unregistered is absolutely irrelevant, and also the IO requesting unregistration would behave absolutely foolishly in case his request is because of the question Q2.
The case examples above speak for themselves.
I still beleive registering for vote is irrelevant to the final decision, as well as being registered for vote too.
Again, since registering to vote usually requires some sort of claim to US citizenship, it is very relevant in the decision process. Also, having registered to vote is an indication the applicant may have actually voted.


I do not believe the burden of proof is on the applicant.
The burden of proof is on the applicant to provide evidence that they did not make a claim to US citizenship when registering to vote.
I don't know why you are insisting that registering to vote is irrelevant in the naturalization decision making process.
 
The case examples above speak for themselves.
No they do not.
Two only relevant things are:
1. Whether a person actually voted illegally (in those election where only us citizens could vote)
2. Whether a person claimed to be a us citizen on the registration.

Regarding both links, nobody asked the applicants in the threads whether they claimed to be a US citizen. So, both links are useless. They do not prove anything. They just prove that USCIS had a valid reason to deny application, and that reason was not disclosed in the threads. My personal opinion is was a false claim to us citizenship that was the reason for denial.
Now, why the officer asked certain documents. Not because the burden of proof is on the applicant. Right on the contrary. The USCIS obtained those original documents (proving his claim to US citizenship) and asked the applicant to prove the ones USCIS got were not accurate. They both failed.
It is obvious USCIS did obtain those documents because they listed particular dates. So, USCIS did fulfill their burden of proof, and asked the aplicants to provide certain documents not because he had burden of proof, but to give them the possibility to overrule USCIS's newly obtained documents. If burden of proof were on the applicant, USCIS would not need to show him dates first. But USCIS did.

Again, since registering to vote usually requires some sort of claim to US citizenship, it is very relevant in the decision process. Also, having registered to vote is an indication the applicant may have actually voted.
It is only relevant to start an automatic inquiry that does not start otherwise.

The burden of proof is on the applicant to provide evidence that they did not make a claim to US citizenship when registering to vote.
Wrong. Only if USCIS obtains documents proving applicant's guilt, applicant could and still has to prove he is not guily. Otherwise he does not need to prove anything, the same as in other questions in N-400.

I don't know why you are insisting that registering to vote is irrelevant in the naturalization decision making process.
I did not say that. I said it is irrelevant for the result, but it initiates an automatic inquiry. Initiating an inquiry is a part of process. And the process (the list of inquires) depends on Q2. But not the result if the two relevant things are OK.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
One more additional thing. The reason for denial was GMC. Yes, claiming us citizneship is a crime of moral turpitude and could cause a denial on GMC grounds. That is obvious.
 
Wrong. Only if USCIS obtains documents proving applicant's guilt, applicant could and still has to prove he is not guily. Otherwise he does not need to prove anything, the same as in other questions in N-400.

If the applicant admitted registering to vote, the burden of proof is on the applicant to prove that they didn't vote, and that they have deregistered.
 
If the applicant admitted registering to vote, the burden of proof is on the applicant to prove that they didn't vote, and that they have deregistered.
Disregistereing is not necessary. Even a registered candidate could naturalize. And in those particular cases USCIS actually obtained a proof he was not eligible before asking him to prove otherwise. So that shows that at least practical approach is that burden of proof belongs to USCIS.
 
Disregistereing is not necessary. Even a registered candidate could naturalize.

No IO would approve a naturalization applicant for whom it is known that they're still registered in a jurisdiction where only US citizens can legally register.
 
No IO would approve a naturalization applicant for whom it is known that they're still registered in a jurisdiction where only US citizens can legally register.
If an applicant does not violate reguirements for naturalization, the burden of proof he in fact violated them is on USCIS.
If an applicant registered for vote in a jurisdiction where GC holders are allowed to vote, he does not violate anything.
So, in case he has registered, that is USCIS responsibility to check if noncitizens could register. If they could, that is OK.
If they could not, and they still somehow registered this applicant without him claiming to be a citizen, I do not see a reason for USCIS to deny his application. Sorry. GMC would not apply for sure.
However, if USCIS proves this jurisdiction regularly reguires us citizenship for registration, the applicant would need to prove he did not claim us citizenship and did not vote illegally.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It makes also some sense to add that it is very unlikely a non-citizen will be in fact able to register to vote by mistake (in jurisdiction where it is illegal) if not claiming us citizenship on the form. That is why it is very unlikely such cases exist at all. And your statement "IO will never approve naturalization application" might be very well correct - just because there are no occurances like that and no IO will be able to meet an application like that.
 
Do you have any actual case examples to back up your claims, or do you have an agenda of misinformation?
Neither one. I think a complete set of requirements (listed in the law) for naturalization is enough if no requirement like that is present.
As I said, it is so unlikely even a single case actually ever existed (when a candidate was registered without claiming citizenship in jurisdiction requiring citizenship), so do not even bother to find a case.
 
So, in case he has registered, that is USCIS responsibility to check if noncitizens could register.
There is no such responsibility. In the USCIS' eyes, if an applicant declares that they have ever registered to vote in a Federal, State or local election on application it is assumed it involved a claim to USC unless the applicant can prove otherwise.

Anyways, there's no point in further debating the issue when you fail to understand how registering to vote can potentially affect the adjudicating process.
 
There is no such responsibility. In the USCIS' eyes, if an applicant declares that they have ever registered to vote in a Federal, State or local election on application it is assumed it involved a claim to USC unless the applicant can prove otherwise.
The general principle is if you indicate on you application no ineligibilities for naturalization, you do not have to prove anything. It is the same for any USCIS application or petition. The burden of proof is theirs if they want to prove you are not eligible.

Anyways, there's no point in further debating the issue when you fail to understand how registering to vote can potentially affect the adjudicating process.
That is you who does not understant the reason this question is on the application. There are a lot of other questions on the application and on other applications that do not pursue any eneligibility, only initiate a particular line of inquiry.
One of examples is military service on an immigrant visa application. Military service is irrelevant to the benefit itself. However, it initiates inqiry whether you were convicted by a military tribunal. You are not eligible becaused you served. You are not ineligible becaused you served. You are not eligible becaused you did not serve. You are not ineligible becaused you did not serve.

Almost every USCIS form has questions like that. If you registered to vote, an automatic inquiry is initiated to check whether you claimed us citizenship on the application. That has nothing to do with eligibility or ineligibility.
You are not eligible becaused you registered. You are not ineligible becaused you registered. You are not eligible becaused you did not register. You are not ineligible becaused you did not register. However, if you registered, they have one more line of inquiry that they check - whether you claimed us citizenship on your registration form
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So, the law is clear:

http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/AFM/HTML/AFM/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-23223/0-0-0-23319/0-0-0-24712.html

(11) Have you ever claimed in writing, or in any way, to be a United States citizen? Have you ever registered for or voted in any election in the United States?


(A) General .

As part of the naturalization examination, you are now required to ask whether the applicant has ever registered to vote or voted in an election in the United States. If the applicant answers yes, follow-up questions should be asked to determine whether the voter registration or voting was, in fact, unlawful and as a result would render the applicant inadmissible under section 212(a)(10)(D) , and/or section 212(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act. You are also required to determine whether the applicant would be subject to criminal penalties of 18 USC 611, 18 U.S.C. 1015.

An applicant who makes a false claim to citizenship or votes illegally may be found to lack good moral character as a matter of discretion. In addition, an applicant who makes a false claim to U.S. citizenship or votes illegally may be removable. Please note that in some cases illegal voting or a false claim to U.S. citizenship may not make the applicant removable (see Title II of the Children’s Citizenship Act (CCA), P.L. 106-395 ). Consequently, it may be appropriate to deny or continue a naturalization application where there is evidence that the applicant made a false claim to U.S. citizenship or voted illegally. Consult with district counsel before denying an application on these grounds.

Note that in some cases illegal voting or a false claim to U. S. citizenship may not make the applicant removable (see Child Citizenship Act of 2000, Pub. L 106- 395 ).

(B) Additional References .

For more information see the memorandum: Advisory Memorandum: Legal Consequences of Voting by an Alien Prior to Naturalization , dated February 13, 1997 located in Appendix 74-9 ; see also the memorandum Voter Registration and Standardized Citizenship Testing , HQ 70/33.2-P dated May 13, 1997 located in Appendix 74-10 .

For information about false claim to United States citizenship, voting issues, and issues relating to entry as a United States citizen, see the memorandum Section 212(a)(6)(C)(ii) Relating to False Claims to U.S. Citizenship , file HQIRT 50/5.12, 96 Act #059, dated April 6, 1998, contained in Appendix 74-8 .

No prohibition for registering. Clear prohibition for false claim to us citizenship. Clear prohibition to vote when it is illegal.

http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/AFM/HTML/AFM/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-26573/0-0-0-40375.html#0-0-0-1037

In light of these new amendments to the INA, all adjudicators conducting naturalization interviews must now ask the applicant if he or she has ever registered for or voted in an election in the United States. This question and answer must be recorded on the application. If the applicant answers yes, follow-up questions should be asked to determine whether the registration or voting was, in fact, a violation of the aforementioned provision(s). If so, the adjudicator should pursue initiation of proceedings with the District's Investigations Branch which is responsible for issuing charging documents. It should be noted that in some localities, it is legal for non-citizen legal aliens to vote in select municipal elections.

So, it is clearly explained why this question is on the application. Exactly what I said. This question initiates a line of inquiry (District's Investigations Branch will order the original documents) in order to determine if the registration was filled in violation of the laws (prihibition of claim to us citizenship and prohibition to vote in case when it is illegal to noncitizens). And that was written before that question was on the form, and it explains why it needs to be there even though the law does not require that. It also shows that the burden of proof is on USCIS (on District's Investigations Branch in particular), as I said before.

Nothing illegal in registering on it's own.

Anyways, there's no point in further debating the issue when you, Bobsmyth, fail to understand how registering to vote can potentially affect the adjudicating process.
I have total agreement with you on that.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Requirement to register to vote= claim to US citizenship in majority of cases
Claim to US citizenship=Unable to demonstrate GMC
Unable to demonstrate GMC=Denial of application

Case closed. Go find somewhere else to spread your misinformation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top