Traffic tickets and naturalization (threads merged)

vdostoi1 said:
It actually depends on how you define an arrest. One imagines that an arrest is when you are being told that you are placed under arrest by a police officer. However, aren't you technically under arrest when a police officer pulls you over since you are not free to go on your way until he tells you to?
Click to expand...

Yes, technically you are being detained.
But the point is that the N-400 interview is not a law school exam, they just want to check if you have good moral character, I don't think they're trying to trick you.
Anyways, that's what he said and he sounded pretty confident and knowledgeable.
 
sarrebal said:
Yes, technically you are being detained.
But the point is that the N-400 interview is not a law school exam, they just want to check if you have good moral character, I don't think they're trying to trick you.
Anyways, that's what he said and he sounded pretty confident and knowledgeable.
Click to expand...

Hey, sounds good to me!
 
vdostoi1 said:
It actually depends on how you define an arrest. One imagines that an arrest is when you are being told that you are placed under arrest by a police officer. However, aren't you technically under arrest when a police officer pulls you over since you are not free to go on your way until he tells you to?
Click to expand...

How many of you answer the question to "Have you ever been arrested or convicted?" on OF-156 form for a non-immigrant visa before getting the GC?

Wll USCIS check consistency between all the previous form?
 
This is a huge hot button issue here. My take on it for whatever it is worth is that the fact that you have a couple of minor tickets is immaterial to whether or not you will be approved. However it seems that the consensus of conservative opinion is that you have a duty to disclose.

There are numerous examples on this board of folks who have had no diffculty in being approved if they did not disclose and I have yet to see a credible and simple case presented here where not disclosing has caused an issue. (I am sure others may have different opnions).

Having said that, I disclosed, because I believe that disclosure will not hurt me and haveing spend the last 10 years in various immigrant states, I do not want to fumble an easy ball this close to the goal. YMMV.
 
Well, it seems that differnt I/Os have different opinions, when I had my interview I asked my I/O same question and she said that all traffic tickets need to be disclosed. They do not go so much to your "arrest" question but to the question of your honesty (read, good moral character).
 
Let me give my experience here. I had two speeding tickets. The first one I paid the fine and it was over. The second, I went to traffic court, fought it and was held not responsible.

Being the a*al retentive guy I am, I mentioned both on my N-400. The one with the fine, the IO didn't even bother about. He said "you paid the fine and the matter ends there". The second one, he insisted on a court document with the findings of the Magistrate's hearing. He said that anytime you go to a court for whatever reason, we need a document from the court, with court seal and stamp that shows the final disposition. So he gave me an N-14 form to bring the document in. Once I did that they sent my oath notice in the mail.

My advice to all is: just choose the straightforward path, and be sure to have all documents. Why play a guessing game if you have the documentation you need? Mention it in your application and bring the original court disposition or proof of payment to your interview. That way if they are interested, they can take it. If they aren't interested, no big deal. You save yourself needless worry by following this recommendation.
 
I used to be of the opinion that you had to declare all minor traffic tickets on N400, so I did.
During the interview process the IO scratched off the traffic tickets with a pen, and told me that I only had to put it down if I was taken into custody.
 
Ah, this question is such a pain. I have a question. I have MANY parking tickets. Is there any way to get a comprehensive list of all the citations I've received and paid? Will the DMV have my entire record, and can they print something out that says I'm set? All my citations are from California (bastards), but I do have one each from Canada, the Netherlands and Germany. I don't need the foreign ones, do I?
 
MagnaHoy said:
Being the a*al retentive guy I am, I mentioned both on my N-400. The one with the fine, the IO didn't even bother about. He said "you paid the fine and the matter ends there". The second one, he insisted on a court document with the findings of the Magistrate's hearing. He said that anytime you go to a court for whatever reason, we need a document from the court, with court seal and stamp that shows the final disposition. So he gave me an N-14 form to bring the document in. Once I did that they sent my oath notice in the mail.

.
Click to expand...

What if you went to court but still get foudn guilty so you paid the fine?

You still can just say I paid the fine without mentioning you went to court or not. There is no such question on N-400 such as "Have you been to a court
for a crime or offense?"
 
You could probably get away without mentioning anything... but if it were my application, I wouldn't take that risk. It appears that different IO's apply the rules somewhat differently. And the fact that, once successfully naturalized, I would never have to deal with the immigration authorities again in this lifetime, motivated me to give it my all :).
 
Question 16 clearly asks "have you been arrested, cited, detained....". A Traffic ticket is a "citation of an offence" at a minimum and paying fine states it as "conviction of an offence". This is what i understood and and i said Yes to both 16 and 18.

FWIW...
 
I talked to the INS on the phone and they said no. Talked to lawyers and they said no. Did my interview, the issue came up (because they asked about court which I had to attend because where I lived all traffic tickets were mandatory court dates) and still they didn't care.

So if you want to go through all the trouble then go for it, it won't hurt. It also won't hurt to save yourself all the time if the simple violations under $500 non-dui are not disclosed.

But you'll still have people arguing it on both sides and this topic comes up at least once a week.

I listened to the IO, the INS and the lawyers and didn't disclose them (talked about them to the IO because of the courts) and never had any issue with it and easily got my citizenship. That's my experience anyways. Glad I didn't bother with them...
 
IMO, if minor traffic tickets were in fact being used to determine GMC, there would be more reports of IOs specifically asking about them at interview.
 
warlord said:
I listened to the IO, the INS and the lawyers and didn't disclose them (talked about them to the IO because of the courts) and never had any issue with it and easily got my citizenship. That's my experience anyways. Glad I didn't bother with them...
Click to expand...
Getting approved is not a good test of whether it was wise to fail to disclose the tickets. The real test is whether it can stand up to denaturalization if ICE finds out later. Not saying that anybody can or will get denaturalized for it ... my point is that "I didn't disclose them and I got approved" is meaningless, other than the indication that IOs normally don't know about your tickets unless you tell them.
 
Jackolantern said:
Getting approved is not a good test of whether it was wise to fail to disclose the tickets. The real test is whether it can stand up to denaturalization if ICE finds out later. Not saying that anybody can or will get denaturalized for it ... my point is that "I didn't disclose them and I got approved" is meaningless, other than the indication that IOs normally don't know about your tickets unless you tell them.
Click to expand...

It's one thing not to disclose them, and another to flat out lie if the IO specifically asks you about them. Any denaturalization attempt would have to be approved by the federal courts, something I doubt they would allow based on non-disclosure of minor traffic tickets alone.
 
Bobsmyth said:
It's one thing not to disclose them, and another to flat out lie if the IO specifically asks you about them. Any denaturalization attempt would have to be approved by the federal courts, something I doubt they would allow based on non-disclosure of minor traffic tickets alone.
Click to expand...
But that is not the point. The point is that getting approved doesn't validate that it's OK to fail to disclose minor tickets. Successfully fighting off a denaturalization attempt that was based on the later discovery that you failed to disclose the tickets is what would validate such an action (or technically, the inaction of not disclosing the tickets).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Jackolantern said:
But that is not the point. The point is that getting approved doesn't validate that it's OK to fail to disclose minor tickets. Successfully fighting off a denaturalization attempt that was based on the later discovery that you failed to disclose the tickets is what would validate such an action (or technically, the inaction of not disclosing the tickets).
Click to expand...

This is why in my statement it DID come up. I was not asked directly about did I get any traffic fines, I was asked if I had ever gone to court. I told the truth and said yes twice. He asked why I went to court. I told him for 2 traffic violations. He asked if it was a DUI or over $500 for each offence. I said no. He moved on to something else.

So just by that, he knew I did not disclose them on my N-400, he knew I did have 2 violations, and he disregarded them since they didn't fall into the DUI/over $500 catagory. So yes, I can base my experience on getting citizenship by not disclosing them and the IO being aware that I didn't...
 
Jackolantern said:
But that is not the point. The point is that getting approved doesn't validate that it's OK to fail to disclose minor tickets. Successfully fighting off a denaturalization attempt that was based on the later discovery that you failed to disclose the tickets is what would validate such an action (or technically, the inaction of not disclosing the tickets).
Click to expand...

But if a denaturalizaition attempt has no success in being approved by the federal courts in the first place, then there would be no need fight it off.
Your argument only leaves room to validate not disclosing traffic tickets if you can successfully fight off any denaturalizaition attempt. My point is that the action (non disclosure of minor traffic tickets) validates itself in the fact that any attempt of denaturalization would never be approved by the Federal courts in the first place (based on recent court rulings, namely the Gorbach and Kichule Lee class action suits.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top