N336 denied

[Going through 5,668]

33 minutes ago, SusieQQQ said:

I was wondering about this. Is there a process that gets triggered when something like this comes up in a citizenship application?

Only thing I found on the USCIS website was this so far:

 

V. Cases Involving Form N-400, Application for Naturalization The following guidance applies to the issuance of NTAs in cases in which applicants for naturalization are removable. There are two primary situations in which NTAs may be issued in connection with a filed Form N-400. If the N-400 case involves fraud (documented in the SOF) the procedures found in this section must be followed, rather than the procedures found in Section III (Fraud Cases with a Statement of Findings Substantiating Fraud). However, the below guidance does not apply to EPS cases. EPS cases must be referred in accordance with Section IV.A.1 (Egregious Public Safety Cases) of this memo. Additionally, the below guidance does not apply to non-EPS criminal cases when the N-400 can be denied on GMC grounds based on the criminal act. These cases must be denied and referred in accordance with Section IV.A.2 (Non-Egregious Public Safety Criminal Cases).

 

A. The first situation occurs when the applicant may be eligible to naturalize but is also deportable under section 237 of the INA. Examples include applicants convicted of aggravated felonies prior to November 29, 1990, or applicants convicted of deportable offenses after obtaining Lawful Permanent Resident (LPR) status that do not fall within the GMC period.

 

B. The second situation occurs when it is determined that the applicant was inadmissible at the time of adjustment or admission to the United States, thus deportable under section 237 of the INA and not eligible for naturalization under section 318 of the INA.16

 

The ISO should:

 

1. Make a written recommendation on the issuance of an NTA through a review of the totality of the circumstances to include factors such as: willfulness of actions, fraud factors, length of LPR status, criminal history, and officer error at time of adjustment.

 

2. Once the ISO has made a recommendation on the issuance of the NTA, the case should be forwarded to the Review Panel (see Section V.A.2), along with the written recommendation. The Review Panel will make the final determination on NTA issuance. If consensus cannot be reached by the Review Panel, the case will be elevated to the District Director, through the district representative, for a final decision.

 

3. If the Review Panel decides to issue an NTA, place the N-400 on hold until removal proceedings have concluded. Once removal proceedings have concluded, adjudicate the case appropriately. If the Review Panel declines to issue an NTA, deny the case under section 318 of the INA.

 

https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Laws/Memoranda/Static_Files_Memoranda/NTA PM (Approved as final 11-7-11).pdf

Edited October 24, 2017 by Going through

[NYCruiser 423]

3 hours ago, SusieQQQ said:

With the current administration, I’ll take a bet on which way that will lean...

What does the Trump Administration have to do with this? Are you say previous Administrations would have given him a pass for Misrep?

[SusieQQQ 11,584]

8 minutes ago, NYCruiser said:

What does the Trump Administration have to do with this? Are you say previous Administrations would have given him a pass for Misrep?

Not a pass as such, but it was my understanding that previous admins concentrated more on convicted criminals and this one seems to be going after everyone in breach.  Or maybe I was placing too much trust in the many VJ threads where people advised apparent victims of marriage fraud to just get on with their lives because uscis wasn’t going to bother to track down and deport their ex spouses.

[NYCruiser 423]

18 minutes ago, SusieQQQ said:

Not a pass as such, but it was my understanding that previous admins concentrated more on convicted criminals and this one seems to be going after everyone in breach.  Or maybe I was placing too much trust in the many VJ threads where people advised apparent victims of marriage fraud to just get on with their lives because uscis wasn’t going to bother to track down and deport their ex spouses.

Probably. The current administration is just enforcing the law: something with should have been done a long long time ago. 

[SusieQQQ 11,584]

57 minutes ago, NYCruiser said:

Probably. The current administration is just enforcing the law: something with should have been done a long long time ago. 

Yup,but it’s putting a massive amount of strain on overloaded immigration courts, which is why it wasn’t done long ago. That part of the system needs fixing.

 

”The Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University found that the number of pending immigration cases swelled to more than 610,000 last month.... Immigrants waited an average of 672 days for their cases to be resolved in 2016, according to The Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse. Marks says that number will likely grow as more judges face reassignment.”

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/trump-immigration-crackdown-straining-courts-advocates-say-n785396

 

Edited October 24, 2017 by SusieQQQ

[Hypnos 6,576]

Yep, immigration courts around the country are literally backed up all over the country, with projected dockets two and sometimes three years in the future. 

[Holt 73]

You meant the new admins will enforce the law stricter than Obama's era ?

Back to the stage, I wonder if he was found at fault, then why he would submit the N336 ?

Edited October 24, 2017 by Holt

[Going through 5,668]

2 hours ago, Holt said:

You meant the new admins will enforce the law stricter than Obama's era ?

Back to the stage, I wonder if he was found at fault, then why he would submit the N336 ?

Hope?  Asking for forgiveness?  Claim of not understanding the forms and what they were asking? Hoping another IO would over-rule the first IO? Who knows? 

 

I would be curious to know what his written explanation for intentionally leaving out the information was.  If he put something like "I wasn't aware I had to list my children" or "I was advised not to" he didn't stand a chance.