Traffic tickets and naturalization (threads merged)

KASPAR

Banned
You sure do not seem to suffer from extreme modesty. 89 pages of ambiguity and one special newbie who is planning to set everythinjg (and everyone) straight. Has it ever occurred to you that 89 "pages of ambiguity" represent the actual ambiguity that exists in the current SOP of USCIS IOs? People have reported very different experience with respect to traffic tickets (sometimes completely opposite experience) which can only mean that uniformity does not exist in this matter. You, on the other hand, want to disregard the statistics that is based on numerous actual accounts of N-400 applicants and prove your point by referring to a highly unusual isolated case?

I sure am not a rude , offensive , childish troll. Can you say the same about yourself?
Learn to tolerate the opinion of those you disagree with.

I don't have to show uniformity in interpretation of question by all IO's and DO's in order to disprove the claim that you don't have to disclose your traffic tickets during the N-400 proceedings.

All I have to do is show that there is a possibility (and factual evidence) of severe consequences if one chooses to be a judge and juror in deciding whether they should omit those offenses.
 

Vorpal

Registered Users (C)
All I have to do is show that there is a possibility (and factual evidence) of severe consequences if one chooses to be a judge and juror in deciding whether they should omit those offenses.

I am through with responding to your nonsense. Links or it didn't happen. That's all.

With regards to your comment to Konig, about learning to tolerate other people's opinion, are you familiar with the term "lead by example"?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

a_v1

Registered Users (C)
When will I see an end for this discussion. I do follow this thread for my upcoming interview and nowadays it is taking a lot of time to read all the posts.

If you think that "There is a possibility (low or high) that DO/IO will reject your case if you don't mention your traffic tickets on N400 applicatoin (any charge and any amount)" .. Then mention that in 1 post and move on.

Visitors can make their own decisions based on available info and you already warned them with the info. What is the pointing in posting 10's of long threads on same issue (that rejection happened to 1 guy on this board so far).

All of our details are anonymous, How do you even know those details about the rejection due to not disclosing traffic ticket are correct (Sorry, I am not suspecting that user...it is just for an argument). There is a chance that he posted that for fun. You are taking that 1 sample and making it as a general law. Why do you scare the people who already applied and opted NO as a answer?

Why don't we end this discussion and move on? I will try to lead by example. I don't post any followup message on this argument :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

KASPAR

Banned
I am through with responding to your nonsense. Links or it didn't happen. That's all.

With regards to your comment to Konig, about learning to tolerate other people's opinion, are you familiar with the term "lead by example"?

Don't be a hypocrite.
I didn't even know who this user Konig was and, behold, there he came charging me with lack of modesty, being an ignorant newbie and so on. That's just pure ad hominem and nothing of substance to prove a point.
You resort to the same sort of ad hominem demagoguery.
I notice that some users here have a habit of just ganging up on one and by all means try to turn this into a personal argument, while dodging the relevant to subject matter points and logical arguments presented.

It doesn't matter who I am and what I am.

What matters is that there is a Good Moral Character requirement in Naturalization proceeding and if USCIS thinks that applicant fails to possess it he/she can be fried as potatoes in McDonald's. Concealing both material and immaterial fact IS such an offense. This , I assume, is clear to all beyond any dispute. Or do we have any arguments about it ?

What is being contested here is whether minor traffic offenses fall into the category of citations that must be disclosed in N-400 application.

What do we have to base our argument on?

We have form N-400, Application for Naturalization.
Part 10 D, Question Number 16 asks to answer to a following in AFFIRMATIVE or NEGATIVE ( YES or NO ) :

Have you ever been arrested, cited, or detained by any law enforcement officer (including USCIS or former INS and military officers) for any reason?


Tell me what part of the above quoted sentence or highlighted words in it you do not understand I will try to explain.

Where do you see the words "excluding traffic tickets"? Do you?

There was an earlier version of N-400 form that specifically and unambiguously had words "excluding traffic violations" added at the end to clarify the scope of it , but those words (explicit reference to exclusion of traffic violation ) were removed from the wording of the question in 2003 and , in fact, are absent from current version of N-400 form.
It is claimed that many people with DUI and DWI were evading answering the question affirmatively, later claiming innocence by saying "I thought DUI"DWI was just a traffic violation". Whatever it may be, the words "excluding traffic violations" are no longer part of the relevant question.

The instructions (step by step guide) are ominously mute about it as well. In fact, the very part attached instructions that is supposed to explain how to interpret and answer the relevant question doesn't mention word "cited" and only mentions "check YES to the question "Have you ever been arrested or detained by a law enforcement officer?"
And what about cited? Opps, step-by-step guide is mute on it.

It clearly states "Answer each questions by checking YES ir NO. If ANY part of a question applies to you, you must answer YES. For example , if you were never arrested but were once detained detained by a police officer, check YES to the question "Have you ever been ...", but it mysteriously OMITS the word "cited" from it, leaving only words "arrested" and "detained".

It is difficult to decipher what, if any , specific intention was in making this part of application obscure and void of clarity.
Is it because it is assumed that applicant will know that temporary stop before issuance of citation is defined as detainment? (after all, you are restricted in your freedom of movement until after police officer returns and allows you to move on, with or without citation).
Or is it because the form N-400 was revised so many times that the very persons responsible for putting together instructions didn't pay attention to change of wording in the question in later editions? And if latter be true, does it absolve you of liability to answer the directly asked question and conceal the fact of having a citation?
Or, what if it is deliberately obscured to give the USCIS officer a discretionary authority and opportunity to check (whenever felt necessary) the truthfulness or evasiveness (thus good moral character) of an applicant?

What does Adjudicators Field Manual say in this regard?

Interestingly, there is NO FULL edition of AFM available online to read and see for certain what the USCIS field instructions in regards to all specific questions are.
What we have is just a REDACTED PUBLIC VERSION of AFM (supposedly updated through May 10, 2011). http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/AFM/HTML/AFM/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-15.html

So, we have no choice but look at what we have available, scroll down to Chapter 74, subsection 2 ( 74.2 Part by part discussion of form N 400 data) .
http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/AFM/HTML/AFM/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-23223/0-0-0-23319.html#0-0-0-747

Once there we click on 74.2(g) and we find the page EMPTY - >> http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/AFM/HTML/AFM/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-23223/0-0-0-23319/0-0-0-24711.html

So, we click on NEXT DOCUMENT and go to page 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

Here, we scroll all the way down to 15B , and what we read?
(15B) Been arrested, cited, charged, indicted, convicted, fined or imprisoned for breaking or violating any law or ordinance excluding traffic regulations?

But this is OLD version of the question. So, how do we explain the discrepancy? Is it that the AFM is NOT edited and remains the exact same , despite the N-400 form and it's corresponding question being changed? If so, is it some failure in part of printing office to supply the USCIS officers with properly revised Field Manual instructions?
OR, is it a deliberate omission (hence "REDACTED PUBLIC VERSION") of the relevant and newly edited parts of current field manual?

Do you or any of you, beating your chests and calling me a newbie, do ANY of you know the absolute exact and accurate answer to any of above questions?
If so, how do you explain it all? And if not, then who gives you the authority to speak with certainty how one should follow your suggestion and conceal the fact of traffic citations?

Read that public version of field manual, even in redacted form it is very informative. One part of it deals with determination of false testimony (what is definition of false testimony, how it applies to oral and under oath deposition, what is included and excluded under relevant statute and etc.). At some point it gives USCIS officer instructions how to determine if the answer provided by applicant, if inaccurate , is material or immaterial to the benefit sought;at the same time it goes on to say ,simultaneously, that both material and immaterial omissions are relevant and can be used for denial, adding then that immaterial one is more difficult to use as proof of intention to mislead for purpose of getting a benefit (a total mumbo-jumbo for someone not well practiced in reading and trying to understand the law on regular basis). And, as if this was not enough, it also clearly instructs the USCIS officer to consider if (when either materially or immaterially relevant but indisputably incorrect) answer given by an applicant has the intention to avoid denial, delays or any complications in the process of getting naturalized.
In other words, if Officer believes that you KNOW that giving a truthful answer MAY delay or complicate your Naturalization (not necessarily result in denial, but merely delay and complicate) , then it is enough grounds to consider you to be a person of bad moral character who tries to mislead or deceive the officer to get an immigration benefit within a statutory period. And in YOUR case, vorpal, that's is exactly what you suggest people to conceal the information for!

Add to all above said the human factor on the part of the USCIS officer. Let's say it is not you, vorpal, but some totally innocent reader who never had intention to conceal a fact from USCIS for the purpose of avoiding the delay and complications, but he/she reads your and similar posts, follows your advise and ends up before an officer to whom he or she appears to be deliberately concealing the fact and misleading with the intention to avoid delay or complications, just imagine what the range of possibilities and consequences could be.


As Houston based Solomon Law Firm PC eloquently puts it:

One important thing to keep in mind is that there are many adjudicators who work for the USCIS. Adjudicators are human beings. Each person is limited not only by his or her unique ability to read and understand instructions, and by errors that they might make in interpreting and applying the rules, but also by their emotions.

Have you ever noticed a difference between decisions made by a policeman who was in a good mood and one who was angry or apparently having a bad day when you were stopped for speeding? The policeman has some discretion in how to apply the law; adjudicators sometimes have the same kind of discretion.

http://www.thesolomonlawfirm.com/CM...-articles/USCIS-adjudicators-field-manual.asp

Anyone here can call the law firm linked above and get a FREE consultation on the phone or in the office: a lot better than listening to any of you who have zero credentials in the matter and dodge discussing all relevant issues, while so prone to brazenly attack the one who suggests readers to err on the side of caution and be safe than be sorry.


You want more links?
There some more links for you, go chose and pick whichever you want:

http://immigration.lawyers.com/citizenship/Good-Moral-Character-is-Needed-for-Naturalization.html

http://www.google.com/#q=traffic+ti...gc.r_pw.&fp=da8c3ab7508c4c6a&biw=1366&bih=553

http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&...gc.r_pw.&fp=da8c3ab7508c4c6a&biw=1366&bih=553

Huge number of links to browse there, with first one excluding any links to immigration.com (so you can avoid browsing through links to this forum and some other closely related ones), while the second link is all inclusive of all google searches relevant to the subject of traffic tickets and naturalization application.

I could continue this on, but it should suffice for now and the ball is in your court now, so let's see what will you come up with this time, other than more ad hominems and personal attacks on the basis of you not being happy with the poster who doesn't agree with your opinion and has good reasons to doubt that the course of action you suggest is one that recklessly and needlessly puts the potential applicants in the harms way and in danger of being denied or revoked of their citizenship in future.


Regards,
KASPAR
 
Last edited by a moderator:

König

Registered Users (C)
I sure am not a rude , offensive , childish troll.
Then I would suggest you to learn to specify a subject when you open a thread ("Warning to all N-400 applicants" is not a specific subject), not to post in caps (it creates an impression that you shout), not to change the font size and font colour (leave red colour for professors who are correcting students' exams). All the above actions created an impression that you are a troll. I was not the only one to make this assumption.

Learn to tolerate the opinion of those you disagree with.
How do you even know what my opinion is, if I have never expressed it? I have never given an advise concerning traffic tickets to any forum member simply because it was/is of the little interest to me. This is a beaten subject here, and people mostly share their experience, not vigorously advocating for this or that. It helps others to make an informed decision about their future course of action.

I don't have to show uniformity in interpretation of question by all IO's and DO's in order to disprove the claim that you don't have to disclose your traffic tickets during the N-400 proceedings.
I have never made the claim that one is not supposed to disclose tickets as well as the claim that one is supposed to disclose the ticket. Do you confuse me with someone else? I just said that hundreds of the first-hand accounts are still better than KASPAR's theoretical arguments, and I still stand by that. Does it mean I am advocating for not disclosing? Absolutely not. I believe that, after reading such first-hand accounts, each and every member will answer to the best of their judgement. People disclose tickets and are approved, people do not disclose tickets in writing but disclose verbally and are still approved. Why should I bother telling people what to do?

I have said everything I wanted on this subject, and I have no desire to continue arguing with you. Never mind me, keep fighting with your windmills... Good luck.
 

KASPAR

Banned
Then I would suggest you to learn to specify a subject when you open a thread ("Warning to all N-400 applicants" is not a specific subject), not to post in caps (it creates an impression that you shout), not to change the font size and font colour (leave red colour for professors who are correcting students' exams). All the above actions created an impression that you are a troll. I was not the only one to make this assumption.

It is none of your business what title I chose for thread I post, what fonts I use and what subject discussion I decide to participate in. Learn to mind your own business and don't intrude into that of others.
If you have any objection over the substance or logical arguments made then , by all means, feel free to share your opinion. But do not tell others what and how they should post here (none of how I wrote the OP was in violation of terms of this board and if I chose to emphasize something with bold or colored fonts I will do so without asking your permission. Keep this in mind).


How do you even know what my opinion is, if I have never expressed it? I have never given an advise concerning traffic tickets to any forum member simply because it was/is of the little interest to me. This is a beaten subject here, and people mostly share their experience, not vigorously advocating for this or that. It helps others to make an informed decision about their future course of action.

Your last edited on 30th July 2011 at 04:16 AM Post # 2660 clearly states your opinion on what I have posted earlier in this regard and , by any measure, doesn't seem to agree with it.
Actively disagreeing with certain stated opinion can not be said to be an equivalent of withholding an opinion.
You charged me with lack of modesty, called me a newbie and went on to suggest that just because there is no uniformity in interpretation of question by USCIS during an interview, it justifies those who advocate electing to conceal the minor traffic violation.
What you seem to suggest is that if out of 1000 people who stole a gum from convenience store only very few got caught and jailed , then somehow it justifies those who induce and tell everyone else to go to the same store and keep stealing those gums with impunity. "There is no uniformity in interpretation and enforcing of shoplifting laws in that store after all". What a wonderful way to advise readers of the forum what to do!

I have never made the claim that one is not supposed to disclose tickets as well as the claim that one is supposed to disclose the ticket. Do you confuse me with someone else?

See above.

I just said that hundreds of the first-hand accounts are still better than KASPAR's theoretical arguments, and I still stand by that.

Sigh..

Does it mean I am advocating for not disclosing? Absolutely not. I believe that, after reading such first-hand accounts, each and every member will answer to the best of their judgement. People disclose tickets and are approved, people do not disclose tickets in writing but disclose verbally and are still approved.

SIGH...

Why should I bother telling people what to do?

Why do you bother telling me what I should do ?

I have said everything I wanted on this subject, and I have no desire to continue arguing with you. Never mind me, keep fighting with your windmills... Good luck.

The only fools fighting windmills are those who think it is OK to be a judge and juror in deciding what to disclose and what to conceal, as far as direct questioning by form N-400 is concerned.
I sure hope to make sure that you and those who share your opinion do not succeed in victimizing innocent applicants unaware of consequences of material concealment during N-400 proceedings.
Now, let's see if you keep your word and stay away from posting another nonsense.

To the rest: DO consult an immigration attorney if there is any question you do not understand and not sure how to answer. Do NOT rely on public forum and so-called user "statistics" when making a decision that could cost you your future life.

Good luck to all N-400 applicants.


Regards,
KASPAR
 
Last edited by a moderator:

statusquery

Registered Users (C)
Hi,

I just stumbled upon this thread.. and have question. I have 3 driving tickets on my driver record and with the interpretation of instructions I did not report them as it was not more than $500.

2007 - CONVICTION - Speeding Equal to or greater than 10% ( I got points)
2007 - COURSE - Driver Safety Course
2005 - COURSE - Driver Safety Course

Now to be prepared for Interview, is there a "Court Disposition" I have to get ? Is the "Disposition" is only for major felony like DUI etc?

Please suggest with all the documents I can carry just in case...
 

KASPAR

Banned
Hi,

I just stumbled upon this thread.. and have question. I have 3 driving tickets on my driver record and with the interpretation of instructions I did not report them as it was not more than $500.

2007 - CONVICTION - Speeding Equal to or greater than 10% ( I got points)
2007 - COURSE - Driver Safety Course
2005 - COURSE - Driver Safety Course

Now to be prepared for Interview, is there a "Court Disposition" I have to get ? Is the "Disposition" is only for major felony like DUI etc?

Please suggest with all the documents I can carry just in case...

The confusion arises from the fact that the form N-400 has been repeatedly revised. When USCIS changed it, it has removed words "excluding traffic tickets" (which used to be a part of the question , like it still is in I-485 form) and currently, if you read question 16.D, you see it asking if you have ever been "....cited....by any law enforcement officer...for any reason".

Instructions, apparently, do not reflect the changes to the questionnaire and still do not clearly state what to do if all you have got is a minor traffic violation ticket issued by police. If you read question, then it certainly is a citation. But nowhere in instruction it says what exactly to do if you were not arrested, or fined in excess of $500, or convicted of DUI/DWI.

It is said that too many people with serious traffic violations, DUI/DWI were concealing the conviction and later claiming innocence by saying "I thought this was a traffic violation , so I didn't report it".

Whatever it might be, what we all guess is a mere speculation.

You would be most assured of avoiding negative consequences by revealing to USCIS that you HAD a traffic ticket for speeding and took safety courses to get points removed.
You should have a certified court disposition papers, which will show that you paid the fine and took the courses. Some people brought a printout of a driving record and were specifically required to submit a CERTIFIED court disposition papers (you can look up here and on google how to meet the definition).

If it turns out that USCIS officer doesn't care then so won't you, there is nothing they can do to you for revealing that you had a speeding ticket , paid for it and even took safety course to clear the point. The worst thing that can happen is that the interviewing officer new at the job and doesn't know specifics - in such case you are looking at few weeks of delay in oath ceremony. NOTHING in comparison to 5 years you already waited.

HOWEVER, should it turn out that you MUST have revealed the citation (as N-400 directly asks) and , should USCIS officer assume that you have willfully concealed it for ulterior reasons, then they may think you lack good moral character. This will result in denial of your N-400 application and 5 year bar before you can re-apply.
It is also possible for you to get your citizenship now, without mentioning the ticket, and, WHO KNOWS, years down the road you may get an NTA and find yourself in Citizenship revocation proceedings with deportability charges added to it for related reasons.
In my opinion that's a huge risk, be it denial, 5 years bar or revocation 50 years form now.

Of course, it is your choice what you wish to do, but if I were you I would get the certified court disposition papers and specifically tell the officer to take a note of it and , should they ask for disposition, just be ready to hand it over.

P.S. To the admins, law office of Rajiv Khanna and all parties involved in acquiring a Citizenship: this subject is generating a lot of confusion due to changed wording of N-400 form and instructions still reflecting how to fill out the older versions of the same form.
It would be great if somebody could raise this question officially, either in liaison meeting or by writing a letter and asking for clear and unambiguous clarification as to how the question 16.D on form N-400 shall be answered. I have read in one of the answers of the attorney that there was a liaison meeting between AILA and CIS where CIS rep specifically instructed to disclose traffic tickets, but I did not find the link to the meeting ( I'll still try to contact the attorney and ask her if she has more specific information on it).
Until it is 100% clarified, one way or another, it would be the safest bet to just answer YES to 16.D if you ever were cited by any law officer for any reason.
Just answer YES and have the certified court disposition papers ready, in case you are asked for proof of it.

Good luck
 
Last edited by a moderator:

statusquery

Registered Users (C)
The confusion arises from the fact that the form N-400 has been repeatedly revised. When USCIS changed it, it has removed words "excluding traffic tickets" (which used to be a part of the question , like it still is in I-485 form) and currently, if you read question 16.D, you see it asking if you have ever been "....cited....by any law enforcement officer...for any reason".

Instructions, apparently, do not reflect the changes to the questionnaire and still do not clearly state what to do if all you have got is a minor traffic violation ticket issued by police. If you read question, then it certainly is a citation. But nowhere in instruction it says what exactly to do if you were not arrested, or fined in excess of $500, or convicted of DUI/DWI.

It is said that too many people with serious traffic violations, DUI/DWI were concealing the conviction and later claiming innocence by saying "I thought this was a traffic violation , so I didn't report it".

Whatever it might be, what we all guess is a mere speculation.

You would be most assured of avoiding negative consequences by revealing to USCIS that you HAD a traffic ticket for speeding and took safety courses to get points removed.
You should have a certified court disposition papers, which will show that you paid the fine and took the courses. Some people brought a printout of a driving record and were specifically required to submit a CERTIFIED court disposition papers (you can look up here and on google how to meet the definition).

If it turns out that USCIS officer doesn't care then so won't you, there is nothing they can do to you for revealing that you had a speeding ticket , paid for it and even took safety course to clear the point. The worst thing that can happen is that the interviewing officer new at the job and doesn't know specifics - in such case you are looking at few weeks of delay in oath ceremony. NOTHING in comparison to 5 years you already waited.

HOWEVER, should it turn out that you MUST have revealed the citation (as N-400 directly asks) and , should USCIS officer assume that you have willfully concealed it for ulterior reasons, then they may think you lack good moral character. This will result in denial of your N-400 application and 5 year bar before you can re-apply.
It is also possible for you to get your citizenship now, without mentioning the ticket, and, WHO KNOWS, years down the road you may get an NTA and find yourself in Citizenship revocation proceedings with deportability charges added to it for related reasons.
In my opinion that's a huge risk, be it denial, 5 years bar or revocation 50 years form now.

Of course, it is your choice what you wish to do, but if I were you I would get the certified court disposition papers and specifically tell the officer to take a note of it and , should they ask for disposition, just be ready to hand it over.

P.S. To the admins, law office of Rajiv Khanna and all parties involved in acquiring a Citizenship: this subject is generating a lot of confusion due to changed wording of N-400 form and instructions still reflecting how to fill out the older versions of the same form.
It would be great if somebody could raise this question officially, either in liaison meeting or by writing a letter and asking for clear and unambiguous clarification as to how the question 16.D on form N-400 shall be answered. I have read in one of the answers of the attorney that there was a liaison meeting between AILA and CIS where CIS rep specifically instructed to disclose traffic tickets, but I did not find the link to the meeting ( I'll still try to contact the attorney and ask her if she has more specific information on it).
Until it is 100% clarified, one way or another, it would be the safest bet to just answer YES to 16.D if you ever were cited by any law officer for any reason.
Just answer YES and have the certified court disposition papers ready, in case you are asked for proof of it.

Good luck

Thanks you very much.. for your detailed explanation.. I hope USCIS clears the confusion. Now the question I have is can I go to the court and get "Disposition" ? do they give for traffic tickets ?
 

KASPAR

Banned
Look up your ticket. Usually it says what entity it was issued on behalf of.
Next, call and go to that place (usually a clerks office in a municipal court) and request the certified disposition (with court seal).

Good luck
 

Dallas03096

Registered Users (C)
What is the impact of pleading guilty or no contest to a Arizona speeding ticket on naturalization process? Understand reckless driving is a criminal misdemeanor in Arizona
 

voyager99

Registered Users (C)
i am completly confused by all these replies-please help

ok. i understand the issue here and read everything but i am still confused what should i do:

I had a red light pass ticket in 2010 (paid the fee , didnt see a judge but anyway requested ceritifed receipt from township)

I have stopped by traffic police. he asked my documents, he told me i passed him from left but after i sincerely apologize and explain the situation, he let me go with no ticket.

so what am I supposed to do? should get a record of everything? i am totally confused. i am afraid to use my car now!!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

voyager99

Registered Users (C)
Is a redlight traffic camera ticket need to be mentioned?

I know this topic is very confusing to everybody. But one more time I will ask. Should I list my red light camera ticket in my n400 form? I have the proof of payment.
 

sunnys

New Member
Red light ticket or speeding ticket, all moving violations must be mentioned. PLEASE CARRY THE PROOF OF HAVING PAID THE CITATION. THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT. However if you were not given a citation by any cop that stopped you for checking you or warning you, it doesn't have to me mentioned.
 

Roderickjon

Registered Users (C)
All postings here are from folks that worry about listing speeding tickets prior to going in for the interview. What is one supposed to do if he found out after the Oath that he should have listed the tickets but didn't. In my case I didn't lie with the intent to hide a material fact rather I never thought about speeding tickets beeing of interest while answering the questions. Only by coming to his forum did I realize that I may have made a mistake by not disclosing them. Now its over 5 years ago that I have been a US citizen. Should I open a can of worms or leave it alone?
 

CalGreenCard

Registered Users (C)
Some have commented that the difference between I-485 (which specifically excludes traffic tickets) and N-400 (which doesn't specifically mention traffic tickets) is evidence that traffic tickets should be disclosed on the N-400. After all, why would USCIS use the different wordings if they didn't want you to report traffic tickets?

While I can see their point, there is another data point that should be mentioned: the N-445 does specifically require that traffic tickets be reported. So a counter argument could be made: if one is required to mention traffic tickets on the N-400, why the difference in wording between the N-400 and the N-445? It could be argued that the N-400 is intentionally left more ambiguous because the interviewer will have a chance to ask if they feel that traffic tickets specifically should be asked about. Since the N-445 is post-interview, everything must be disclosed since there will be no further chance to interview the applicant.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

CalGreenCard

Registered Users (C)
Now its over 5 years ago that I have been a US citizen. Should I open a can of worms or leave it alone?

Leave well enough alone.

While people are sometimes denaturalized for inaccurate information on the N-400, in all cases that I am aware of, it involves willful lying and the discovery after the fact of serious crime and/or fraud many orders of magnitude more serious than simple confusion about whether to report a traffic ticket.

I believe one should tell the truth on the form and under oath to the best of one's ability, but once the process is over, there is no point in trying to go back and correct things.
 

voyager99

Registered Users (C)
Some have commented that the difference between I-485 (which specifically excludes traffic tickets) and N-400 (which doesn't specifically mention traffic tickets) is evidence that traffic tickets should be disclosed on the N-400. After all, why would USCIS use the different wordings if they didn't want you to report traffic tickets?

While I can see their point, there is another data point that should be mentioned: the N-445 does specifically require that traffic tickets be reported. So a counter argument could be made: if one is required to mention traffic tickets on the N-400, why the difference in wording between the N-400 and the N-445? It could be argued that the N-400 is intentionally left more ambiguous because the interviewer will have a chance to ask if they feel that traffic tickets specifically should be asked about. Since the N-445 is post-interview, everything must be disclosed since there will be no further chance to interview the applicant.

I think this is very grey topic after i read all these. i dont really know what to do probably until i start filling the n400 form in a week...
i read the instructions and it is very unclear. it says under 500 dont need to be documented. "dosumented can be mean dont list it, or dont bring proof. but you will see many ppl got asked for the proof because they listed anyway.

i believe if you got a point, or reallt stopped by a police and depends on the traffic violation, might be mentioned in N400. however, if you didnt get point or it is not even in your driving record, i think, one can consider to verbally tell the interviewer the ticket and show him/her the proff and be open. It can be explained that you werent sure if you should listed or not. they will corrected if it is.
 

kidurpalkan

Registered Users (C)
I know this topic is very confusing to everybody. But one more time I will ask. Should I list my red light camera ticket in my n400 form? I have the proof of payment.

Traffic light cameras are run by the private contractors, hired by Municipality, not by Police Departments.
Moreover, in overwhelming majority of cases (except in CA where they have cameras capturing the image of the driver behind the wheel as well), the ticket is not issued against the individual driver, rather it is issued against the owner of the vehicle.
Because the incident is not witnessed by Police officer, there is no proof who was behind the wheel, therefore the owner of the vehicle will not get points added to driving record and the insurance companies can't use the infraction to raise the rates.
Overall, in its' effects, it is similar to parking ticket, where owner has monetary liability but no points or mention of moving violation in their driving record.

The referenced question of Form N-400 specifically asks if you have ever been cited by any law enforcement officer.
Camera is not a law enforcement officer. Neither are contractors who run it. At best the record of image is reviewed by a municipal police officer , just to endorse that the camera captured the image of the vehicle that was indeed moving in violation of posted signs , but that same officer can't come to court and testify that he witnessed YOU being behind the wheel of that vehicle. Nor is he or she are issuing you the ticket (as opposed to regular traffic stop).

For all the above reasons, I believe that there would be no intentional misrepresentation or concealment of fact if you did not disclose such traffic violations (just as with parking tickets), as opposed to not disclosing the traffic citations that were a result of traffic stop and personally signed and handed citation.

But this is my individual opinion, not a legal advise. For legal advise consult an immigration attorney who is well versed in all aspects of Naturalization law.
 
Top