Traffic tickets and naturalization (threads merged)

Traffic Tickets-
According to the latest instruction booklet you need not provide any documentation if the fine is less than $500.
This is what I did-
I saved my 3 tickets. I Stapled any proof I got like I went to the court website and printed the case status or an email proof or even receipt in mail to those tickets.
In my interview I was asked for the tickets and I just showed my tickets.I was prepared for the situation in case the interviewer insists on a court document you can always show him the instruction booklet.
http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/formsfee/forms/files/n-400ins.pdf
It is on Page 2.
 
Glad you found this Rwsh. It certainly provides a concrete stance on the issue and clarifies any doubts people have had.

Naturalizer123 -- I hope you are reading this. Your most vehement advice to people (where you were convinced beyond doubt that you were right), that they should not list their tickets, is clearly wrong.
 
Need advice on proof of traffic tickets in NYC

I didn't list my three minor traffic tickets on my N-400. I didn't think you needed to. However, following the discussion here and speaking to the CIS national number, I intend to bring up the tickets to the IO during the interview. My question is about the documentation I should take with me.

I have a copy of the ticket and proof of payment for the first ticket (cancelled check). For the second one, I have a notice of dismissal from the DMV. For the third, I don't have a notice of dismissal - my lawyer never took it from the court. So, I went to the Traffic Violations Bureau (the court) and they flatly told me that they cannot provide anything for that ticket. The only thing I can get is a Drivers Record abstract from the DMV which will show that there are no tickets on there - I've ordered this already. Any thoughts on if this will be sufficient???

Cheers
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Shribuy said:
Glad you found this Rwsh. It certainly provides a concrete stance on the issue and clarifies any doubts people have had.

Naturalizer123 -- I hope you are reading this. Your most vehement advice to people (where you were convinced beyond doubt that you were right), that they should not list their tickets, is clearly wrong.
Click to expand...
I am pretty sure that there are lawyers who could provide concrete but opposite stance on this issue. Even the author of the article is not so sure, as he said "... it is the author's recommendation that applicant for U.S. citizenship disclose civil infractions on Form N-400 ...". It is simply a recommendation. Different lawyers may give you different recommendations. It is up to you to decide what to do with your minor, occasional, non-DUI traffic tickets. Habitual violators excepted.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Fair point, NJGoose.

But let's just remember, on the other threads, there was lots of ranting and raving that there wasn't even "one case" where anyone had gotten into trouble. That was wrong.

And there was *zero* recognition by the, er, "protagonist" ;), that declaring traffic tickets *may* be necessary. That was wrong.

And there was complete certainty. When I proposed that there may be different points of views, I was summarily shredded. That was wrong.

My point has always been that this is open to interpretation. And that a more conservative interpretation requires you to list the tickets. The fact that people who had this point of view were ridiculed is what I take offense to.

Each to his own. There is no absolute right or wrong in this situation.
 
Shribuy said:
My point has always been that this is open to interpretation. .
Click to expand...

that is absolutely correct. It is not wise to lie for any reason. and it is also not wise to give INS more than they deserve. so if they tell you not to list tickets less than $500, it doesn't make sense to list.
 
Read the thread. It is not that they ask you not to list tickets less than $500. They say you don't need to *provide proof* for tickets less than $500 when you submit the application.

Big difference.
 
Shribuy said:
Read the thread. It is not that they ask you not to list tickets less than $500. They say you don't need to *provide proof* for tickets less than $500 when you submit the application.
Click to expand...

Shriby
I for one appreciate your stand to be honest on M-400. Most of the time it's the best strategy.

However, I do have a concern on the potential dielamma. If you list minor traffic citation, they'd certainly ask you abot the nature, and penalty amount etc for the violation, since this info is not provided on N400 (no place for details). Then, what do you do? DO you think that the IO will simply take our words, saying this is under 500$? I doubt it. And I've heard cases pending on further evidences on traffic violations after interview. This would contradict with the notation on N400 that no need to proof for <$500 citation.

On the other hand, if even lawers acknowledge that it is not cristal clear on this issue, it should not be considered dishonest or lie when someone decides NOT to list minor citations. There is no moral issue here, and any future accusation for "lie on N400" would be very weak and questionable, even in the count.

Likewise, this is only my opinion, and I'm open for discussions. For me, I do have 2 citations. I'll try to collect as much info as possible. But if could not get any supporting documents, I'd be hesitant to list them on N400, waiting to be challanged in the interview.

Let's continue to discuss this potentially serious matter.
 
I do see the contradiction you bring up. Here's what I did -- I listed all the tickets (for example, Cited for Speeding), in the last column, I put in "Paid, Traffic School, DISMISSED" so that they knew what the issue was. Optionally, you could put in your fine amount in the first column (Cited for Speeing, $109 - or whatever)

I was not asked about my tickets. I had the tickets and checks to prove I'd paid them. I have definitely read of people who were asked for proof. So, I do see the issue. Up to each person to figure out how they want to interpret the law or more correctly the opinions of the lawyers. Depends where on the consevative/risk-taker scale you are.

I've never said someone *has* to list their tickets. I've said that's my opinion and that's what I did. I've also always said - each to his own. These things are open to interpretation. There is no absolute right or wrong and it is a point of view.

If someone believes they don't have to list the tickets, that's their call. By the same token, let's just acknowledge that there are people who believe they should. And that point of view is also valid

At some level, it probably doesn't make sense to discuss this issue ongoing b/c it will never be resolved :) There are always many ways to read the law and the lawyers' opinions.

Good luck!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Shribuy said:
I do see the contradiction you bring up. Here's what I did -- I listed all the tickets (for example, Cited for Speeding), in the last column, I put in "Paid, Traffic School, DISMISSED" so that they knew what the issue was. Optionally, you could put in your fine amount in the first column (Cited for Speeing, $109 - or whatever)

I was not asked about my tickets. I had the tickets and checks to prove I'd paid them. I have definitely read of people who were asked for proof. So, I do see the issue. Up to each person to figure out how they want to interpret the law or more correctly the opinions of the lawyers. Depends where on the consevative/risk-taker scale you are.

I've never said someone *has* to list their tickets. I've said that's my opinion and that's what I did. I've also always said - each to his own. These things are open to interpretation. There is no absolute right or wrong and it is a point of view.

If someone believes they don't have to list the tickets, that's their call. By the same token, let's just acknowledge that there are people who believe they should. And that point of view is also valid

At some level, it probably doesn't make sense to discuss this issue ongoing b/c it will never be resolved :) There are always many ways to read the law and the lawyers' opinions.

Good luck!
Click to expand...

I think it is you who insist on discussing the pointless issue here. Now you agree there is no absolute right or wrong here, which is contradictory of what you said before that you must list minor traffic vilation. Please be consistent and not losing your credibility.
 
NJGoose said:
The original poster did not pay a small price for getting ticket payment receipts to bring to the interview. That is why he was stuck.
Click to expand...

Yeah the big price he paid is the delay caused by unnecessary action.
 
sampai said:
I agree that minor traffic tickets should not be listed on the N-400.

Could one of the people who says you have to list your tickets please cite:

1. A single case where an applicant did not list the tickets, and had his case delayed or denied because of this

or

2. A single case where someone was denaturalized for not listing traffic tickets on the N-400
Click to expand...

Sampai, actually the reason why no one is responding to your question is that none of those ever happened. It exists in many people's dream, however. Many people come to this board to dream.
 
I found this advice by Carl Shusterman:

"Question #6: I got a traffic ticket for speeding, do I have to tell INS about that in a citizenship interview?

Carl Shusterman: The N-400 application asks whether you have ever been arrested or convicted of a crime, "excluding traffic regulations," so you would not have to reveal a speeding ticket. However, if the offense were more serious, for example, driving under the influence of alcohol, you should not only reveal the arrest, but you should attach a certified copy of the arrest report to your application. It is important to stress, that all "arrests" must be revealed, even if they did not result in criminal convictions, were expunged or otherwise erased from your record.

Failure to reveal an arrest or conviction, no matter how minor, or how long ago the arrest/conviction occurred, may result in your application for naturalization being denied because you gave false testimony."
Click to expand...

And also I found this quote from Carl, that traffic tickets are not deportable offences nor crimes of moral turpitude:

Question #2: Can a traffic ticket get me deported? What kind of crimes count against me and are we ever immune to deportation?

Carl Shusterman: You cannot be deported for a traffic ticket. Most, but not all, people who are deported for criminal convictions have either committed felonies or "crimes of moral turpitude". Crimes of moral turpitude would include crimes such as murder, manslaughter, rape, and most theft crimes. However, less serious crimes like simple assault and battery or driving under the influence of alcohol are usually not considered crimes of moral turpitude.
Click to expand...

From what I understand, information on N400 is used to determine whether an applicant is "deportable" and thus cannot be granted citizenship. It does not appear that minor traffic tickets are in any way relevant to N400 process and decision.
 
Okay, I read what Ron had to say, and Ron also said this to a guy lost in a name check hell who did NOT report his tickets:

"I very seriously doubt that you case is being held up because you failed to report the tickets."
Click to expand...

And also:

They will get a copy of your file, but this (traffic tickets) is not an issue that they can or will raise.
Click to expand...

It looks to me, if you report the tickets, you better have all proof of what they were and that everything was paid, etc., otherwise you may postpone your citizenship indefinitely. On the other hand , if you don't report the tickets, no one will ask about them since they are not relevant.
 
blackrussian said:
Okay, I read what Ron had to say, and Ron also said this to a guy lost in a name check hell who did NOT report his tickets:



And also:



It looks to me, if you report the tickets, you better have all proof of what they were and that everything was paid, etc., otherwise you may postpone your citizenship indefinitely. On the other hand , if you don't report the tickets, no one will ask about them since they are not relevant.
Click to expand...

I completely agree with you. This is the correct interpretation of Ron's comment, while the one cited by Shribuy is inaccurate. Let me add that according to instruction, there is no need for you to report anything tickets under $500 or not DUI, so "better have all proof" is also irrelevant.
 
blackrussian said:
I found this advice by Carl Shusterman:



And also I found this quote from Carl, that traffic tickets are not deportable offences nor crimes of moral turpitude:



From what I understand, information on N400 is used to determine whether an applicant is "deportable" and thus cannot be granted citizenship. It does not appear that minor traffic tickets are in any way relevant to N400 process and decision.
Click to expand...

Your last sentence is what I have been saying on this board at least 1000 times. But still is not understood by people like Shribuy, who insists providing speeding ticket is required. On a similar front, people like him also most likely believe reporting how much you eat every day on N400. Since both are not relevant to N400, the heck, might report personal habbit as well.
 
Shribuy said:
Read the thread. It is not that they ask you not to list tickets less than $500. They say you don't need to *provide proof* for tickets less than $500 when you submit the application.

Big difference.
Click to expand...

it does not say you need to list speeding ticket either. So to me there is no big difference. I don't see where the big difference you are talking about. The big difference that are relevant here is if you are having a DUI or not having a DUI, or arrested vs. not arrested.
 
Yara_Dildara said:
can u show where on the instruction it is mentioned that there is NO need to report traffic tickes wherein fine was under $500?

Either I dont know how to read well or some people are blind here. Instruction clearly says-

(1) Applicants must need to disclose ALL the citations even if they are for minor stuffs.

(2) Applicants dont need to submit proof for the payment of fine for traffic tickets if fine was under $500.

what people don't seem to understand is -NOT submiting the proof doesn't mean not disclosing about a traffic infraction regardless of how small it was.

some people r arguing that reporting minor traffic ticekts would just cause delay but don't impact decision negatively anyway, but they don't seem to know that whether or not a traffic ticket would cause a delay or impact a negative decision, a traffic ticket must need to be reported according the instructions on N-400. if a person will conceal it, it could be considered a deliberate concealment or misrepresentation which could be a ground to deny N-400 for bad character.
Click to expand...

Nowhere in the instruction says traffic tickets must be reported in the instruction. I am not sure what instruction you are reading from, possibly from a state farm insurance application. Again not reporting what is not required is not concealing anything, so the second part of your argument can be totally thrown out.

The instruction clearly says no need to report anything under $500. "...even if for minor stuff..."? Can you tell me where in the instruction you find this phrase? Did you just make it up?
 
Since N400 application used to specifically say that minor traffic violations were NOT to be included, and since the laws governing naturalization had NOT changed regarding traffic tickets and their impact on citizenship, I have to conclude we are not required to mention minor traffic tickets on N400.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top