We got our final interview date in the mail today. Scheduled for July 21, 2008 at our local office. As I understand my wife has to go at it alone. However, I can have her fill out a G-28 and then I can make an appearance as her attorney. But would that only stir up unnecessary trouble since we are related?

I don't see how it would.

But I thought that if the basis were a 3 year marriage, spouse goes to interview too? Ah well. (:

Interesting point, I had no idea we could attend together.

Also just a few days ago I thought this whole interview thing would take place next year this time. As it turns out that July 2007 processing date is in no way accurate.

I would go to the interview center for moral support, but wouldn't appear as her attorney, don't think it would pass the smell test. Might want to look at the N-400 forum and the post regarding the 20 most difficult questions for review purposes. Best of luck!

Are you referring to this thread:
http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=130573
The civics test was last thing my wife would worry over. I am more concerned about them scheduling an oath ceremony six months after the interview. Just looked at Lexa’s timeline, not pleased.
http://www.visajourney.com/timeline/profile.php?id=2
Thread:
http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=130808

Why would she need representation at an initial interview? I can understand if there was an issue later, but right now, should be a cakewalk, right?

I think you should go with her, of course, even if you're not allowed "in the back" with her. But to represent her, "I'm her husband, and her attorney" could set you up for a conflict of interest.

The first one is it.

There are no issues of course. However, in terms of future clients, it is a lot easier to avoid a future problem by representing someone from the start.

Of course I have to go with her, because it is a long drive to our local office. But unlike the average person on VJ, I could in theory go all the way just because I now can. As for conflict of interest, a simple waiver in writing takes care of that. Although her attainment of citizenship does not really conflict with my zealous representation since that is exactly what I want her to get. Could only be an issue if citizenship would for some crazy reason not be in her best interest.

Well, I think the conflict argument to me made is that you personally benefit from her attaining citizenship - and therefore are not just looking out for the client's interests, but your own interests as well. That goes beyond zealous representation of someone else.

Not that I think such an argument should stick of course - I'm just saying that if there is any COI, that's what it is. This being the case, it doesn't make any sense that the client could waive this - your interest and her interest coincide - there is no conflict to waive. The real conflict, I think, more along the lines of your interests in the outcome against your ability to be ethical when representing your client's interests, providing evidence (given the nature of the evidence), etc.

Yeah, something like that.

But, then again, Vinny did represent his cousin down there in Alabama or wherever they were and it worked out for them.

But it was Vinny's wife who really won the case. Since Sat's wife is the 'plaintiff', I do not see how it can work out like it did for Ralph Machio. Good luck though.

My wife just went through her interview on May 13. I went with her, but was not allowed inside the back room where the interview was conducted. I stayed in the waiting room. The interviewer did ask if I accompanied her to the interview. I guess it was a plus that I did. But really...what can anyone do for their spouse by sitting in on the interview? At this point in the process US citizenship is all about the applicant, not about the US citizen spouse. The applicant either meets the criteria or they don't. They shouldn't need coaching or comments from the peanut gallery during the interview. That defeats the purpose of US citizenship IMO. It is inappropriate IMO. The whole point should be that the applicant has made the personal commitment and effort to meet the criteria to become a US citizen.

On a side note...both of my grandparents were Soviet citizens. My grandfather became a US citizen in 1943 after living in the USA for 33 years. My grandmother lived in the USA for 54 years and never became a US citizen even though she easily could have met the requirements. She just kept renewing her green card every 10 years once that was required. Green cards did not become a requirement for foreigners until WW2. Before that it was not required of foreign nationals living in the USA. Everyone has their own personal reason for becoming a US citizen. For my grandfather it was to get a security clearance to work in restricted areas at the Port of Houston during the war.

Also on a side note...my wife is still waiting for a letter from US-CIS to tell her when and where to go to the naturalization ceremony. After the interview she got a paper stating that she passed the interview and the interviewer "recommended" that she be allowed to become a US citizen. She was also verbally told that the next naturalization ceremony was on June 14 in Houston. Unless she gets a letter soon it doesn't look like she will become a US citizen on June 14.

Nothing new when dealing with US-CIS. Things happen when they happen.

Good luck Satellite with your wife's interview. I hope it turns out OK.

No one in my family ever became a citizen who wasn't born one. My mother's brother is still a German citizen and everyone else was just stateless.

I'm not quite sure if your relatives are truely stateless. Everyone is born on a piece of dirt somewhere. Most people can even claim citizenship through a parent or parents no matter where they are born. A lot of countries make exceptions for minor children when their origins are unknown. I think very few people in the world are truely legally "stateless".

If you know your Byelorussian history I'll give an example. My grandparents were born in tsarist Byelorussia that was considered to be Imperial Russia. In 1920 the Bolsheviks lost the western half of Byelorussia to Poland in the war that flare up between them after WW1. My grandparents were born in that western half of Byelorussia that was won by Poland in 1920. In 1939 Stalin invaded Poland from the east and the Nazis from the west. The western half of Byelorussia that Poland won in 1920 was "liberated" and rejoined the other half of Byelorussia in the USSR in 1939. The USA, Britain, and other allied countries did not recognize this action until the Potsdam conference in 1945. So my grandfather's US naturalization papers in 1943 list him as being a Polish national even though he was a Russian speaking Byelorussian. He was listed as a Russian in the archives when he immigrated to the USA in 1910.

My grandmother was listed as a Russian, Pole, and Soviet citizen at different points of time while residing in the USA. She was not stateless. She was born on a piece of dirt that was considered to be Russia, Poland, and the USSR at different points in history. If she were still alive she would be a Belarusian citizen today.

Countries and governments come and go, but everyone is still born on a piece of dirt somewhere and to parents that were born on a piece of dirt somewhere. You should know that there are many ways of claiming citizenship throughout the world. But if your country of birth does not claim you, then a person probably would be considered stateless. As I said, very few people are unable to establish their citizenship. Even exiles are not stateless. They just can't or do not wish to be repatriated.

I may be wrong, but that's the way I see it.

On another side note...the mail arrived today with a letter from Homeland Security that informed my wife that she is officially scheduled for the US naturalization oath ceremony on June 25 here in Houston. So it looks like I will be married to an American woman after June 25th. It will also almost be the end of our visa journey. My stepdaughter won't be eligible to apply for US citizenship until the end of 2009.

Also on another side note...my wife has begun the process of having her Russian university diploma evaluated and is thinking of either resuming her teaching career here or applying her existing degree toward some other line of work. I think she has begun to realize that she can do much better than the part time minimum wage work she is doing now. It served its purpose in letting her get her feet wet in the US job market and I think now she has the confidence to move on to bigger and better things.

They were displaced persons who came to the US via special congressional action.

Congrats Peejay, we are still waiting on them getting the 2nd A_File.

I'm glad it is almost over for me. I hope they get your wife's situation straightened out soon. For me the visa journey has been like walking on pins and needles. You never know when you will get stuck. I'm glad we got to this point more or less unscathed. I'm sure your wife will get her US citizenship sooner or later.

It's always good to see someone online from the old G7 days at the Global 7 Network website. I'm sure you notice that the Russian forums have been shut down and the G7 website was sold to another company. Occasionally I saw others from G7 that posted here on VJ with the same names. You and I being an example. I think we are the last two left here. Hopefully you can direct some of the old G7 gang over here so we can keep in touch.

G7 was lots of fun back in the day. Lots of flame wars and very little adult supervision from Clark. I gotta admit some of those guys ticked me off sometimes, but I hold no grudges. It was a hoot.

Take care, Kud.