This conviction itself does not not mandate a finding of a lack of good moral character anywhere in the regs or statute. The "unlawful act" could have happened, the conviction could have happened, all of the probation could have happened ALL INSIDE THE STATUTORY PERIOD and it still would not mandate a finding of a lack of GMC. IF this case were to be denied it would HAVE TO BE based solely on discretionary grounds.
Again, I ask, how would you justify the discretionary denial of this case in the face of the procedures that were not so much "imposed on" but rather "reinforced and reiterated to" adjudicators after their lawsuit settlement? That settlement lead to the following being imposed on the naturalization officers:
"Proper application of 8 C.F.R. § 316.10(b)(3)(iii) requires that naturalization adjudicators not seize upon minor unlawful acts committed by an applicant without engaging in an individualized analysis of whether the commission of those acts does in fact reflect adversely upon the applicant’s moral character. Additionally, naturalization adjudicators must inquire into and make a determination as to whether an applicant can establish “extenuating circumstances” for having committed unlawful acts."
I see an old incident in 2002, (a street fight--there is probably some extenuating circumstances there somewhere), an eventual conviction in 2004, a mere 6 months of (uneventful?) probation that actually ended in 2005, no further incidents to date. The N-400 was filed in 2010. Using those basic facts, if you were the naturalization examiner would you even bother considering pursuing a discretionary denial that would have pass through your supervisor's review? Your supervisor who provides your perforrmance review?
Again, I ask, how would you justify the discretionary denial of this case in the face of the procedures that were not so much "imposed on" but rather "reinforced and reiterated to" adjudicators after their lawsuit settlement? That settlement lead to the following being imposed on the naturalization officers:
"Proper application of 8 C.F.R. § 316.10(b)(3)(iii) requires that naturalization adjudicators not seize upon minor unlawful acts committed by an applicant without engaging in an individualized analysis of whether the commission of those acts does in fact reflect adversely upon the applicant’s moral character. Additionally, naturalization adjudicators must inquire into and make a determination as to whether an applicant can establish “extenuating circumstances” for having committed unlawful acts."
I see an old incident in 2002, (a street fight--there is probably some extenuating circumstances there somewhere), an eventual conviction in 2004, a mere 6 months of (uneventful?) probation that actually ended in 2005, no further incidents to date. The N-400 was filed in 2010. Using those basic facts, if you were the naturalization examiner would you even bother considering pursuing a discretionary denial that would have pass through your supervisor's review? Your supervisor who provides your perforrmance review?
Last edited by a moderator: