I have seen a significant number of posts where folks ask WHY would USCIS call you for an interview if you have an issue that would make the N-400 be denied. Others ask about things that they failed to include on the N-400 either by mistake or on purpose. And then there are those that brag about how they got something expunged so they believed that they were not required to disclose it. Or then there are all those who try to hide their numerous and/or lengthy trips abroad.
Well, have you ever heard the expression "Give them enough rope to hang themselves"? This is ONE reason. Also they are legally entitled to an examination (interview).
On the other hand, a main purpose of the interview is to CLARIFY answers. Many N-400 applicants have a language other than English as their first language. USCIS knows this and Officers are specifically instructed to rephrase questions until they are satisfied than the applicant understands the questions.
Once the Officer is convinced that you understand the question, then they take notes and sworn statements and brand you as having given "false testimony" and you create a brand new bar to naturalization or worse. The unfortunate thing is when someone lies about something that would not have prevented naturalization and they only did it based on bad advice.
The following is an excerpt from the MOST RECENT AAO non-precedent Decision posted on their website at: http://www.uscis.gov/err/B7 - Form I-526 and I-829/Decisions_Issued_in_2011/Apr142011_01B7203.pdf
"Significantly, the petitioner did not timely retract his claim prior to exposure by the AAO's February 17, 201 1 notice. A timely retraction of a misrepresentation can serve as a defense to inadmissibility under section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) of the Act. See Matter of R-R-, 3 I&N Dec. 823 (BIA 1949); Matter of M-, 9 I&N Dec. 118 (BIA 1960). For the retraction to be effective, however, it must be done "voluntarily and without prior exposure of [the] false testimony." Matter of R-R-, 3 I&N Dec. at 827; see also Matter of Namio, 14 I&N Dec. 412, 414 (BIA 1973) (holding that recantation of false testimony one year after the event, and only after it became apparent that the disclosure of the falsity of the statements was imminent, was not voluntary or timely). See also Valdez-Munoz v. Holder, 623 F.3d 1304, 1309-10 (9th Cir. 2010) (affirming that the doctrine of timely recantation is not available if a person recants only when confronted with evidence of his prevarication).
In general, a few errors or minor discrepancies are not reason to question the credibility of an alien or an employer seeking immigration benefits. See Spencer Enterprises Inc. v. U.S., 345 F.3d 683, 694 (9th Cir., 2003). However, if a petition includes serious errors and discrepancies, and the petitioner fails to resolve those errors and discrepancies after an officer provides an opportunity to rebut or explain, then the inconsistencies will lead USCIS to conclude that the facts stated in the petition are not true. See Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 591."
There are distinctions between naturalization proceedings and other immigration benefits petitions and applications. Naturalization is the highest benefit so you are held to a higher standard. The ultimate decision CAN be strictly discretionary on certain aspects and this is one of them.
Take it for what you will. Any comments??????
Well, have you ever heard the expression "Give them enough rope to hang themselves"? This is ONE reason. Also they are legally entitled to an examination (interview).
On the other hand, a main purpose of the interview is to CLARIFY answers. Many N-400 applicants have a language other than English as their first language. USCIS knows this and Officers are specifically instructed to rephrase questions until they are satisfied than the applicant understands the questions.
Once the Officer is convinced that you understand the question, then they take notes and sworn statements and brand you as having given "false testimony" and you create a brand new bar to naturalization or worse. The unfortunate thing is when someone lies about something that would not have prevented naturalization and they only did it based on bad advice.
The following is an excerpt from the MOST RECENT AAO non-precedent Decision posted on their website at: http://www.uscis.gov/err/B7 - Form I-526 and I-829/Decisions_Issued_in_2011/Apr142011_01B7203.pdf
"Significantly, the petitioner did not timely retract his claim prior to exposure by the AAO's February 17, 201 1 notice. A timely retraction of a misrepresentation can serve as a defense to inadmissibility under section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) of the Act. See Matter of R-R-, 3 I&N Dec. 823 (BIA 1949); Matter of M-, 9 I&N Dec. 118 (BIA 1960). For the retraction to be effective, however, it must be done "voluntarily and without prior exposure of [the] false testimony." Matter of R-R-, 3 I&N Dec. at 827; see also Matter of Namio, 14 I&N Dec. 412, 414 (BIA 1973) (holding that recantation of false testimony one year after the event, and only after it became apparent that the disclosure of the falsity of the statements was imminent, was not voluntary or timely). See also Valdez-Munoz v. Holder, 623 F.3d 1304, 1309-10 (9th Cir. 2010) (affirming that the doctrine of timely recantation is not available if a person recants only when confronted with evidence of his prevarication).
In general, a few errors or minor discrepancies are not reason to question the credibility of an alien or an employer seeking immigration benefits. See Spencer Enterprises Inc. v. U.S., 345 F.3d 683, 694 (9th Cir., 2003). However, if a petition includes serious errors and discrepancies, and the petitioner fails to resolve those errors and discrepancies after an officer provides an opportunity to rebut or explain, then the inconsistencies will lead USCIS to conclude that the facts stated in the petition are not true. See Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 591."
There are distinctions between naturalization proceedings and other immigration benefits petitions and applications. Naturalization is the highest benefit so you are held to a higher standard. The ultimate decision CAN be strictly discretionary on certain aspects and this is one of them.
Take it for what you will. Any comments??????
Last edited by a moderator: