Traffic tickets and naturalization (threads merged)

Welcome to the World of New citizens - some clever Pretenders ain't they? Why? This is why.
Because the question Specifically asks if you were cited. A ticket is a citation. If you got a ticket it is yes.
Now a fellow says s/he got 11 tickets in 14 years.
Very conviniently s/he says he honestly forgot to mention it. That would be a lie. Why? Because he did magically remember the ONE DUI but Conviniently Manage to forget 11 Tickets! Thus a lie.
raj157 is straight away Lying to immigration officer when asked if s/he got any citations. He got 3-4 speeding tickets in 11 years but when asked by an immigration officer said NO - didn't get any citation!!!!!! WOW!
Others PRETEND that n-400 language is ambiguous. Another Lie. It clearly says to answer YES if you got any citation.
Therefore what we have are a bunch of new Citizens pretending as if the language of the form is not clear.
Why are they saying NO to a question which specifically asks to answer YES if you got ANY citations?
Why are you pretending that the question is not clear and not answering this honestly?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
mauriciopelli said:
Welcome to the World of New citizens - some clever Pretenders ain't they? Why? This is why.
Because the question Specifically asks if you were cited. A ticket is a citation. If you got a ticket it is yes.
Now a fellow says s/he got 11 tickets in 14 years.
Very conviniently s/he says he honestly forgot to mention it. That would be a lie. Why? Because he did magically remember the ONE DUI but Conviniently Manage to forget 11 Tickets! Thus a lie.
raj157 is straight away Lying to immigration officer when asked if s/he got any citations. He got 3-4 speeding tickets in 11 years but when asked by an immigration officer said NO - didn't get any citation!!!!!! WOW!
Others PRETEND that n-400 language is ambiguous. Another Lie. It clearly says to answer YES if you got any citation.
Therefore what we have are a bunch of new Citizens pretending as if the language of the form is not clear.
Why are they saying NO to a question which specifically asks to answer YES if you got ANY citations?
Why are you pretending that the question is not clear and not answering this honestly?
Click to expand...

Personally, I did mention all two of my traffic tickets in the N400 petition; however I respect the choice of others who did not. This is certainly a confusing matter to many. The USCIS guidelines for several other petitions, state explicitly that 'Do not specify minor traffic offenses...". This was the case with N400 guidelines until the recent version. Also minor traffic offenses are 'Not crimes of Moral turpitude' and ABSOLUTELY, IN NO WAY should affect the decision on N400. So in my opinion, this cannot be considered a material fact declaring of which could otherwise affect the outcome of the process . Now I can see the argument from both the sides, and most people dread away from declaring it because of the language, which puts arrest, detention and every encounter with an officer in one line. For a law abiding person, the word 'arrest' can be a stigma and often times, naive USCIS officers ask for extra documents clarifying the 'arrest' records before the interview, creating unnecessary delays and confusions to a process that is already lengthy and 'beurocratic enough'.

Another fact is that immigrants are NOT required to be savvy about the legal jargons to become citizens. All they need is Basic English and Civic Skills. And 'NOT ADVANCED SKILLS' in English literature or in 'The Law'. Most people who have been through the process successfully, honestly, did not even know that a traffic ticket was a citation. If you would look at a ticket from some of the states, you can see that no where it mentions a word 'citation' in it. In the state where I live, t reads 'Uniform traffic ticket for the state of ....’. I myself did not know that a speeding ticket meant a citation up until I started following the treads in this forum. Now let’s say, had I not done any research, I wouldn't have known it meant citation, and consequently wouldn't have it declared in the form - In that case would that be considered a 'will full misrepresentation of a material fact’. I don't think so. And again, 'speeding only' in most cases is not even a criminal offense (barring reckless driving), but a civil one and it involves a 'civil monetary penalty'. Had the language which exempted the inclusion of 'documentation of minor traffic offenses... ‘ clearly continued to state, 'but all traffic offenses have to be declared’, this would have been a different story.
Most people in this forum seem to be eager to declare a material fact such as DUI, which is a criminal offense and could in fact affect the "Moral Character' stipulation.
So I believe that this shouldn't be a major issue in either case. Some people go as far to declare their 'Costco' membership under part 10.B. I wouldn't, as I DO NOT think IT IS a material fact. But let's say someone got arrested or detained for any reason, I am sure almost everyone will agree to the fact that it must be declared. Why? Because the language is clearer, and the words do really match one-to-one.
It all goes back individually to our personalities. Although the standards of measure vary, most people comfortably call certain things 'petty' while others the bar must be yet lower.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bobsmyth said:
LOL:D..good one Vorpal! I was thinking mistakes happen as well :D
Click to expand...

This is true!

As far as tickets are concerned, a person I work with had his interview last April and volunteered to disclose 2 speeding tickets after not mentioning them on his N-400. The IO told him that he doesn't care about minor traffic violations. This person became a citizen about a month later.
 
That is exactly how I interpreted the language too.
I had one citation and I declared it. Interviewing officer asked me what was it for. I told him it was for "Passenger not wearing seat belt". He asked me if there were any non-traffic related citations or arrests. When I said "No", he crossed out my "Yes" to that question and checked "No". He initialed it and wrote "traffic stop only" against it.


mauriciopelli said:
Because the question Specifically asks if you were cited. A ticket is a citation. If you got a ticket it is yes.
Click to expand...
 
I had the same experiences. I got a speed ticket after file N-400. I brought the receipt with me just in case. The officer saw the receipt in my file folder, and said "oops, what's that?" I told him it's a speed ticket. He took it and asked whether it's a DUI, and whether there was any injury to any people. I said "No". He then said we would not mention that on N-400.
 
The evidence is overwhelming that minor traffic tickets are not used to determine moral character by most IOs. To argue that those who choose not to disclose minor traffic cases are lying and are unhonest future citizens is pure malarkey.
 
After reading all experiences, neither I nor my mother will disclose speeding tickets we had (each of us had one, both under $500). Thanks to everyone!
 
My experience I had talked to the INS on the phone (at the time trying to find out why I wasn't in the system, but then asked about the tickets as well). I was told no simple traffic fines do not need to be included.

I didn't disclose my tickets I had gotten (2 I think since being a PR and 15 or so tickets and warnings etc before hand.). Was asked the question at the interview if I had been arrested.
"No."
Asked if I had ever gone to court.
"Yes."
asked for what reason.
"2 traffic fines"
asked if each were over $500 or any drug/alcohol involvement
"No"

Moved on to something else and got my citizenship the next month...
 
N-400 clearly says if you got a citation. Since ticket is a citation the answer will be yes. Just like forum moderator Johnny cash said.
raj157 said no to citation but s/he got traffic tickets. That would be a lie by any standards. If you are lying that you didn't get a traffic ticket but you in fact did then what would that be? A lie of course.
someone posted they were denied in interview due to some problem with this.
If you are applying for n400 you must have been here atleast 3 years. and if in 3 years you got a traffic ticket you should know it is a citation. If you don't then there is something wrong.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
so in your opinion, all those IOs who correct the answer to "NO" in interview (even when applicant marked "yes") and advise "not to mention it on N-400 if it's less than $400/DUI/arrest" are Making applicants lie ?
what do you think about that?
why are they advising people to do wrong/dishonest things?
why are they correcting the answer to "NO" during the interview even?

any ideas?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Washburn, don't you think raj157 is lying when asked by uscis officer in interview that if s/he got citations and answer NO when in fact s/he got 3-4 citations.

You mean to tell me that some of these people claiming that io changed answer to no could actually see and read what the IO was scarmbling down on their n-400 a few feet in front of them and with the n400 form pointing in opposite direction to them? You mean to tell me I should believe what strangers are telling me to do on an internet forum and I should ignore what uscis instructions tell? That I shouldn't go by the rules? If a few Io's are telling this then may be they are not trained properly? I can list a whole lot of things and guess but why should I not answer YES to citation when say I got citation? Why would anyone not answer honestly and say YES to citation when they got citation?

Should I ignore what Johnny cash tells when he himself is trained in US immigration? Which is saying YES to citation question if you got traffic tickets. I think I would do what uscis instructions tell me to do and what Johnny cash tells to do which is saying YES to citation if I got traffic tickets.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maur:
No need to get so angry; I'm sure there are a few who really, purposefully will try to hide all kinds of stuff; but when it comes to this traffic ticket thing, it really is different: just think a bit: when you call USCIS service center and ask for advise on how to fill out that question, they tell you NOT to mention traffic tickets if they're under $400/not DUI, etc etc. That's what made me not list them in my application also...and that's what I read from almost all the people who called USCIS cs asking for advise on how to fill that particular question; The "citation" including speeding tickets is theoretically/technically correct but there are 3 things that tell you that you don't need to list those citations (when they're TICKETS) when they're under $400, not DUI, etc, and all those 3 are "legal" correct sources:
1. USCIS cust service
2. "The guide" to naturlaization
3. The IOs themsleves...

so why would you still go AGAINST all those and do the opposite?

and with all due respect; it's not "a few" IOs who correct the application to "no". If you read all the posts here, you will see almost EVERY report was one where they corrected it to "no"; so pretty much 100% of the time they do it; that is a clear FACT!!
(where someone did it the other way around, is clearly the exception). I hope you really see this... the "normality" is that they corrected it to "no". How can they ALL be untrained, everywhere, 100's or even 1000's of them doing this...? untrained? I don't think so.

I just think the wording of the "guide" should be corrected / changed to reflect what is being practiced.
 
I have to agree with maur. Whats the big deal in declaring it? You run a higher risk/reward ratio of being caught as a liar than of being denied citizenship because you got a ticket.
 
i guess we'll just have to agree to disagree and just not fight all the time about it. I will try not to post about this anymore. what's the use? I think there will always be people who do it both ways, but at the end the application will say "no", because they all get corrrected, so the outcome is the same. Main thing is one does what one is most comfortable with and what one believe to be honest.
I did what I did after reading the "guide" and calling USCIS cust service and verifying what I understood (do not mention tickets) was correct; so I'm fine with that, 'cause I know I only followed USCIS advise, both in written and oral form.
 
For the umpteenth time.....during my oath ceremony, the senior-level IO who was conducting it repeated numerous times that we should NOT disclose traffic tickets on the back of the oath letter, even though it specifically asks to include traffic violations. As usual, there are always people who don't listen to instructions. One of the oath takers disclosed a traffic ticket. She made him change the answer to "NO", stopped the procedures and repeated rather loudly that she only wants to know about arrests, not traffic tickets. Unless a traffic violation fell into one of the three categories described in the Guide to Naturalization and/or resulted in an arrest, the USCIS does NOT want to hear about it. Case closed.
 
Why don't they just update N-445 and end the ambiguity? :)

Vorpal said:
For the umpteenth time.....during my oath ceremony, the senior-level IO who was conducting it repeated numerous times that we should NOT disclose traffic tickets on the back of the oath letter, even though it specifically asks to include traffic violations.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top