Interview Concern

[JayHouser 209]

So our interview is right around the corner in 12 days but I had a little concern

 

For our case as the petitioner I have 2 minor misdemeanors from a while back that I included the documents for with my I29F and of course answered yes to the question regarding it. But then I remembered back in 2011 I also got a misdemeanor traffic ticket for "Allowing a person to drive with a suspended license" Long story short I didn't allow that I was at work and had enough evidence to prove that this person was not given permission to drive my car, so when I showed up to court they never formally charged me it, they adjusted the charge to a minor non criminal traffic offense of  "Not having drivers license on demand" and hit with me a $100 fine. Which it was less of a headache to fight 100 bucks so I paid it and moved on with my life.

 

 

Anyways my concern I remember another prominent member on here got to their interview and was denied because they had I believe a domestic charge from the 90s that was dismissed and expunged, somehow USCIS missed it, was caught at the interview, and resulted in a denial.

 

Am I overreacting here? I am not even sure if the original charge even if it was not adjusted would have counted because it was traffic related, but then again, it was criminal traffic which might be a different story. And I do not have any records of it because again when I showed up for the first court date they never formally charged with me it. 

 

 

 

 

[Dashinka 23,211]

Personally, I think you may be over reacting a bit.  In the case of the other member, it may have been a charge involving morale turpitude, which you traffic ticket does not seem to fit.

 

Good Luck!

[JayHouser 209]

The other person had a domestic charge that did not result in a conviction.

 

 

I just did some digging and saw that the traffic charge was a citation for criminal traffic that carried a maximum penalty of $500 and in the I29F it says to disclose all non traffic criminal charges even citations unless the traffic charge was alcohol or drug related OR carried a fine of $500 or more

[bakphx1 785]

They may not have missed it.  It may have been seen and determined to be not a deal breaker.  I haven’t seen old traffic incidents be the determining factor for a denial.  

[TNJ17 1,329]

You’re the petitioner. It’s really a non issue. If your case is at interview stage USCIS saw no issues with your criminal background. They run a background check on the US citizen petitioner and will see even expunged charges. If they approved your petition they have no issue with it. But you’re the petitioner so really no issue. 

[JayHouser 209]

33 minutes ago, bakphx1 said:

They may not have missed it.  It may have been seen and determined to be not a deal breaker.  I haven’t seen old traffic incidents be the determining factor for a denial.  

It's not them not seeing as a deal breaker that concerns me, its a denial based on failure to disclose that concerns me

[<3T&M<3 217]

34 minutes ago, JayHouser said:

It's not them not seeing as a deal breaker that concerns me, its a denial based on failure to disclose that concerns me

 

You could give your fiance the court documents to this situation you are worried about and IF they ask about IT specifically then at least she would have the documents with her. ... ?

[bakphx1 785]

1 hour ago, JayHouser said:

It's not them not seeing as a deal breaker that concerns me, its a denial based on failure to disclose that concerns me

I was taking that into consideration.  Part of what they consider is whether it was an intentional misrepresentation or an oversight.  Since adding it or leaving it out wouldn't affect the outcome (like a drug or DV charge), they may or may not ask about it, but it's not something that they'll assume you left off because omitting it means you'd be approved where you otherwise wouldn't.  That's a factor.  

[JayHouser 209]

I gave her whatever documents in case they do ask for it. What you say makes sense when you put it that way. As long as it is not an automatic denial for not disclosing something as what happened to another VJ user. They didn't even allow them a chance to present the documents after

[bakphx1 785]

12 minutes ago, JayHouser said:

I gave her whatever documents in case they do ask for it. What you say makes sense when you put it that way. As long as it is not an automatic denial for not disclosing something as what happened to another VJ user. They didn't even allow them a chance to present the documents after

We all sweat the details when it’s our own case.  But despite all the demands for information, RFE’s, etc., most of us found the people wanting to approve us, not play “gotcha” with every detail.  As stated before it’s likely they saw it and didn’t care.

 

They also have an incentive to get the case to approval on the first pass as often as possible, so I doubt they’d set up something to be appealed to add a$100 fine on the petitioner’s record.

[JayHouser 209]

22 minutes ago, bakphx1 said:

We all sweat the details when it’s our own case.  But despite all the demands for information, RFE’s, etc., most of us found the people wanting to approve us, not play “gotcha” with every detail.  As stated before it’s likely they saw it and didn’t care.

 

They also have an incentive to get the case to approval on the first pass as often as possible, so I doubt they’d set up something to be appealed to add a$100 fine on the petitioner’s record.

Thank you for your positivity! Though i thought you can't appeal a K1 denial. I will stay in good spirits

[bakphx1 785]

7 hours ago, JayHouser said:

Thank you for your positivity! Though i thought you can't appeal a K1 denial. I will stay in good spirits

Interesting.  I see lawyers who say you can appeal it, others say you can't.  Hopefully it's all moot for your case.  Either way, it would mean handling a case more than once no matter which remedy you pursued (new petition or CR1 as alternatives).  I won't take the thread off track by discussing that topic further and again the consensus is you won't have a problem. 

 

[WandY 430]

20 hours ago, JayHouser said:

Anyways my concern I remember another prominent member on here got to their interview and was denied because they had I believe a domestic charge from the 90s that was dismissed and expunged, somehow USCIS missed it, was caught at the interview, and resulted in a denial.

 

People need to understand the difference between an expungement and a set-aside, as well as how each is discoverable in a background check. An expungement of an arrest record or conviction is (depending on state law) either sealed or destroyed. A "sealed" record still exists, but it's shielded from prying eyes. A "destroyed" record is physically destroyed - it's gone. Some states call expungement a "set aside." Generally, they are the same. Either way, expunged records are generally kept from the eyes of anyone searching records (banks, employers, etc.). The problem with immigration is that it's federal. Some arrest/conviction records find their way into federal databases, such as the FBI. Some records, not all. Federal agencies do not generally follow state expungement actions, unless ordered to by a state court. Sometimes it just takes a notice of expungement - a physical form handed to the feds - to clear a federal database. Once cleared from the feds, the record is probably gone. That's the true nature of expungement ("to remove"). A good lawyer will walk the paperwork from the state to the feds and do a follow-up review to make sure the record is gone.