citizenshipinterview Going with an attorney to citizenship interview

[journey_togoback 1]

For people who went with their attorney to the Citizenship interview, what was your experience like? 

 

Reason I am asking is, it seems it’s normal for an attorney to go with you for AOS, ROC etc. I don’t see the same for citizenship interviews. So does taking an attorney to the citizenship interview even if they are just to sit and observe signal to the IO that something might be wrong with your case?
 

Note: I know it isn’t necessary to go with an Attorney to the interview and there is not much they could do. I just want to know the experience of people who had their attorneys present at the interview.

[TBoneTX 43,133]

43 minutes ago, journey_togoback said:

I know it isn’t necessary to go with an Attorney to the interview and there is not much they could do.

Welcome to the forum.

 

You've answered your own question.  Unless something is distinctly wrong with the case and it hasn't been resolved by this stage, naturalization interviews are essentially "pro forma" -- answer the required questions and show adequate English-language proficiency.  These interviews are neither as thorough nor as intense as are consular, AOS, and ROC interviews.

[Mike E 11,723]

Recent examples I’ve read why one should have had an attorney:

 

* LPR was mistakenly issued a 10 year green card.  At N-400 interview IO rail roads her into withdrawing her N-400 because there was no I-751.  There is no way I would ever voluntarily withdraw a petition because USCIS messed up and I suspect neither would competent lawyer 

 

* LPR got green card through employment and was married for 3 years to someone who was a USA citizen for 3 years at the time  N-400.  At N-400 interview, IO invents a policy that says one can naturalize at 3 years only if the petitioner was the spouse.  A comely ent lawyer would have forced the IO to cite the written policy and in turn quoted policy and case and got that LPR a positive decision.  
 

Statistically most N-400 cases don’t need an attorney. Just like statistically most car trips don’t need a seat belt. But when someone rear ends you …

[bing10 114]

13 hours ago, Mike E said:

Recent examples I’ve read why one should have had an attorney:

 

* LPR was mistakenly issued a 10 year green card.  At N-400 interview IO rail roads her into withdrawing her N-400 because there was no I-751.  There is no way I would ever voluntarily withdraw a petition because USCIS messed up and I suspect neither would competent lawyer 

 

* LPR got green card through employment and was married for 3 years to someone who was a USA citizen for 3 years at the time  N-400.  At N-400 interview, IO invents a policy that says one can naturalize at 3 years only if the petitioner was the spouse.  A comely ent lawyer would have forced the IO to cite the written policy and in turn quoted policy and case and got that LPR a positive decision.  
 

Statistically most N-400 cases don’t need an attorney. Just like statistically most car trips don’t need a seat belt. But when someone rear ends you …

 

Very good examples.

 

As @Mike E said, the vast vast majority of interviews go completely normally without issue. It's unusual, but not unheard of for an interview to get de-railed. I took a lawyer to mine, as it was an important interview and I can afford it.

 

[Crazy Cat 39,317]

***Spammer ejected.  Zombie thread locked****