dimbmw
-
Posts
26 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Partners
Immigration Wiki
Guides
Immigration Forms
Times
Gallery
Store
Blogs
Posts posted by dimbmw
-
-
8 hours ago, sytemcall said:
Hello,
USCIS officer did not allow me to use my name from GreenCard for naturalization during interview n400. He added patronymic name from my Russian passport as middle name. And he said I can change it in court.
I want not to to change my name 2 addition times like "John Smith" ( from green card) -> John Petrovich Smith (Naturazation) - >John Smith (change again in court)
This is like tragedy for me. What I can do with it? I got a paper "decision cannot yet be made about your application" after interview. Looks like they will do addition checks.
Please HELP. This is in San Jose, CA.
What makes you think they gave you "decision can not be made" because of the name issue? I am dealing with the same office, got the same "decision can not be made" for no reason, and heard nothing from them for almost 3 month already.
-
On 8/3/2017 at 1:49 PM, rlam57 said:
"[You] had a lot of overseas travel."
I believe they really want to verify if you did meet the requirement of continuous residence and physical presence. They always have the way to check on you not really rely on the data provided by airlines I think ?
In my opinion, they were supposed to check my travel PRIOR to my interview. Also it shouldn't take much time anyways, as the I94 info is available online.
-
3 hours ago, Going through said:
Security checks can sometimes happen after interviews too if the IO wanted to check up on statements you made during the interview, or confirm travel dates, etc.
Yes, that is the generic response sent when there is a processing delay. Have you tried calling to speak to an IO about your case? Not the normal customer service people---a L2 immigration officer who can give you specific details, I mean.
Yes, I tried , it was a wasted time, as the L2 person was only saying blah-blah without any _information_ - nothing definitive, other than they did NOT mail any request for information to me. And by the way he did not mention that any security checks are pending, too.
As for the travel dates - the IO browsed through my passport and checked every entry stamp at the interview against my travel list (i had a lot of overseas travel). But checking the US entry stamps does not help with checking the departure dates, of course, and I am afraid that these are nearly impossible to verify without the data provided by airlines.
-
>30 days after the N-400 interview (decision can not be made in the N652), lost patience and sent them online request...
the reply feels to be a copy-paste of what they send to many others... i am wondering if this can be trusted or is it just a BS answer?
why in hell would they have invited someone to the interview if he hasn't passed the security checks yet?
here it is:
We have placed your case on a processing hold because the required security checks remain pending. Until we receive the results of these security checks, we cannot move forward on your case. We require the results of security checks before we make a decision on any pending case.
We cannot predict when we will receive the results of these security checks. Please be assured that we will make every effort to make a decision in your case as soon as the security checks are complete.
We hope this information is helpful to you. -
7 month wait after the interview, messed up communications , lost emails.... I am wondering where USCIS is hiring such a pathetic workers?
-
Just out of curiosity, since it's been a year since the interview (twice as much as the max allowed 120days), did you bother contacting your congressmen ? One year after the interview seems to be just insane.
Have you considered a court way?
-
33 minutes ago, Bugs said:
Perhaps. So what? Are you planning on suing USCIS or interested in gaining citizenship? Seems just sticking with the latter is much less a headache if it is your primary goal.
Besides getting what I am eligible for I am interested in the government service to stop acting foolish and waste tax money.
-
56 minutes ago, Bugs said:
Of course they are always on the lookout for evidence of fraud, and, yes, that would likely result in revocation/deportation. There is no question on this.
However, absence of such clear evidence, such revocation/deportation will not occur. This is because burden of proof lies on them in this regard.
It is your duty, however, to provide enough evidence of the contrary for them to grant status, whether for entry visa, initial LPR status, or citizenship.
What does the law say about this?
The law explicitly states that any entry visa or LPR status that is marriage based must be based on evidence of a bona fide marriage. It also states that the burden of proof is on the applicant when seeking to gain this type of visa or LPR status.
USCIS adjunctator guides also state that the entire history of a naturalization applicant's immigration file will be looked at when reviewing an N-400. This means that they revisit previous applications for visa, LPR, and any evidence provided with them, as well as entries, interviews, and so on. Therefore any discrepancies between this previous information and new information provided in and with the N-400 may result in a request for evidence to resolve these discrepancies before choosing to grant citizenship. This means they may ask for evidence of a bona fide marriage again if they find that, since the LPR status was granted, the marriage didn't look like a genuine marriage after all (such as living apart).
There is no law that explicitly states that the USCIS officer must ask for such evidence in a 5 year N-400 review, because it is not blanket and is up to the discretion of the USCIS officer to decide if that is needed, as is the case for any discrepancy. Nor is there a law that says they cannot. Does this mean they will ask for this in your case? Maybe, maybe not. They are not required to, but they are not prohibited from doing so and can delay your citizenship until it is provided by you.
Why do we know this? Because there are numerous 5 year N-400 applicants on here that explicitly state they were asked for such evidence and which resulted in delays and/or denials without such evidence. This is the benefit of something like this website, with thousands upon thousands of experienced applicants can share their stories and advice. It would be prudent to listen, because, usually consensus on a answer is the correct one here.
Again, you may pass through the N-400 process easily, and wonder what all the fuss was about. But you may not. And, due to the latter, it would always be better to be prepared for the worse than sorry.
Something tells me, though, that you don't feel you would be able to provide such evidence, or, worse, did actually commit fraud, or you wouldn't be so up in arms against such advice. Hopefully it is just the former - and if so, I believe I presented to you options at your disposal for providing such evidence despite living apart.
Again, take heed.
You are wrong in both of your assumptions. The reason I am asking about what the law actually is is because in my opinion some interviewers are going too far in asking irrelevant and useless questions. By doing that they actually waste their time and applicants time. Not to mention that they just spoil a good day to the applicant, and a pretty important one. So I was wondering whether that is allowed by law to act like that or is it their own initiative. It seems that the IOs have limited descretion on which particular civics questions to ask, as they have to choose a sheet of questions with the 10 questions on it, but then they are only allowed to ask these 10, and not the other ones. But with that their well organized workflow ends, as they allow themselves to ask questions that really do not make much sense to ask. I would expect the scope of questions to be limited with what makes sense to ask. Clearly, it makes sense to only ask questions the answers to which can verify if certain conditions are fulfilled, and there is no sense to ask things that are irrelevant. If the law would have required certain things, for example for a couple to live together no less than N% of days, then there should have been a question on how many days they've actually spent under one roof. But if there is no such requirement, there should be no such question. Maybe if they will not waste that much time during the interview on useless questions, then they will give less N-652s with the "decision cannot be made at this time", explaining the aplicant that they've ran out of time and the file had too many pages so they will have to review it some time later.
-
1 hour ago, Bugs said:
This is incorrect in regards to GRANTING citizenship. Correct, however, in regards to revocation or deportation.
So basically are you saying that in order to grant citizenceship under the 5-year they may ask an applicant to prove once again that his/her marriage was bona fide. Can you provide a link to the law that CLEARLY states that? My current understanding of the law is that they may question the original marriage but not for the purpose of granting/not granting citizenceship but to see if they can subsequently revoke the LPR status. In other words, I don't think they may just refuse to issue citizenship and be good with that, they might either grant citizenceship or proceed with the attempt to revoke the LPR.
-
11 minutes ago, Damara said:
This fact sheet attempts to simplify the naturalization
eligibility requirements and list of documents that can
be asked for during the naturalization interview. This fact
sheet references the most commonly used documents,
but is not an all-inclusive list. A USCIS Officer may ask
for additional information and documents that are not
included in this fact sheet.Damara, let me make it easier for you.
Let me ask you, do you feel a difference when a police officer asks a wife to prove that she did not kill her husband and when the police officer asks where she was the day when he was killed ?
-
4 hours ago, Bugs said:
USCIS can require evidence confirming the marriage was bona fide, if that is what was needed for initial entry and LPR status, before granting citizenship. Failure to do this, while it wouldn't get your LPR status revoked or get you deported, could result in a delay on being granted this new status until it is provided.
Everyone here is telling you this.
If your mind is so intent on what is otherwise, why bother posting in here? While you certainly are not the first to ignore advice on here, as many choose not to, only to come crawling back in here regretting it afterwards, if they come back at all, it still somewhat baffles me why people ask for advice if they are so set on not listening to it, especially when it is unanimous.
You simply are not going to the get confirmation you want here. Take it....or leave it.
My mind is very clear. I asked a specific question (see the name of this thread). Instead of providing a clear answer, which turned out to be " NO ", someone started to bring up something I never asked about. Indeed, I knew that the service has a right to review the circumstances that led to LPR status and may want to question it, but if they choose to do so, it will be THEIR burden of proof to prove that the marriage was not bona fide, as the LPR status has over 5 years of age. Then another someone started confusing the duty of answering the questions with the burden of proof, which are totally 2 different animals in my opinion.
-
16 hours ago, Damara said:
I somewhat disagree. If a person is applying using a 5-year rule he/she has to prove that he has fulfilled his 5 years of residency requirement and other things relative to a 5-year application. Thats all true. But the next part - USCIS can take a second look at the way you got the GC. They can ask questions and even ask for proof.
I don't think they can ask for "proof". They can ask certain questions, and ask to answer them. But let's not confuse the burden of proof with the burden of answering questions.
-
14 minutes ago, candybabe said:
the proof is in the pudding , in this case the dates - when the date you become an LPR as a spouse of a USC and the date of your divorce documents from said USC (which you will need to attach to your N-400) are close in date, not to mention same year , the IO will def consider those discrepancies relevant - to the entire case, not just the naturalization application.
I personally do not consider that these are any sort of "discrepancies". Could be a valid marriage IMHO. People tried to live together and found that does not work for them.
-
28 minutes ago, geowrian said:
Depends on what exactly is being examined - eligibility for an immigration benefit (visa, green card, etc.) or fraud. Being ineligible for a benefit due to a lack of evidence is different (but not exclusive) from committing fraud. The burden is on the applicant to prove eligibility for a benefit. The burden is on USCIS to show fraud/misrepresentation.
Exactly.
That's exactly how I understand the law. If a person is applying using a 5-year rule he/she has to prove that he has fulfilled his 5 years of residency requirement and other things relative to a 5-year application. He does not have to prove anything about his prior marriage, even though he has to answer questions about it, if asked.
-
25 minutes ago, candybabe said:
Enjoy !
INA: ACT 246 - RESCISSION OF ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS
Sec. 246. [8 U.S.C. 1256]
(a) If, at any time within five years after the status of a person has been otherwise adjusted under the provisions of section 245 or section 249 of this Act or any other provision of law to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence, it shall appear to the satisfaction of the Attorney General that the person was not in fact eligible for such adjustment of status, the Attorney General shall rescind the action taken granting an adjustment of status to such person and canceling removal in the case of such person if that occurred and the person shall thereupon be subject to all provisions of this Act to the same e xtent as if the adjustment of status had not been made. Nothing in this subsection shall require the Attorney General to rescind the alien's status prior to commencement of procedures to remove the alien under section 240 , and an order of removal issued by an immigration judge shall be sufficient to rescind the alien's status. 1/
(b) Any person who has become a naturalized citizen of the United States upon the basis of a record of a lawful admission for permanent residence, created as a result of an adjustment of status for which such person was not in fact eligible, and which is subsequently rescinded under subsection (a) of this section, shall be subject to the provisions of section 340 of this Act as a person whose naturalization was procured by concealment of a material fact or by willful misrepresentation.Also -
INA: ACT 291 - BURDEN OF PROOF
Sec. 291. [8 U.S.C. 1361] Whenever any person makes application for a visa or any other document required for entry, or makes application for admission, or otherwise attempts to enter the United States, the burden of proof shall be upon such person to establish that he is eligible to receive such visa or such document, or is not inadmissible under any provision of this Act, and, if an alien, that he is entitled to the nonimmigrant; immigrant, special immigrant, immediate relative, or refugee status claimed, as the case may be. If such person fails to establish to the satisfaction of the consular officer that he is eligible to receive a visa or other document required for entry, no visa or other document required for entry shall be issued to such person, nor shall such person be admitted to the United States unless he establishes to the satisfaction of the Attorney General that he is not inadmissible under any provision of this Act. In any removal proceeding under chapter 4 against any person, the burden of proof shall be upon such person to show the time, place, and manner of his entry into the United States, but in presenting such proof he shall be entitled to the production of his visa or other entry document, if any, and of any other documents and records, not considered by the Attorney General to be confidential, pertaining to such entry in the custody of the Service. If such burden of proof is not sustained, such person shall be presumed to be in the United States in violation of law.This is all irrelevant.
We are talking about a person who has been a LPR for over 5 years and is not a citizen yet.
-
2 hours ago, candybabe said:
Actually the burden of proof is on the applicant - ALWAYS on the applicant, not on USCIS
I believe you are wrong. Look up the law.
-
46 minutes ago, geowrian said:
The law has no requirement to live together, nor does it lay out precisely what qualifies as a bona fide marriage (it would be very easily abused if it was just a checklist of requirements). However, that doesn't mean they are completely unrelated either. Cohabitation is something USCIS usually closely examines as evidence of a bona fide marriage (I can think of a few cases off-hand where they have issued NOIDs at ROC for this reason).
While citizenship based on the 5 year rule is not directly tied to the original marriage, they have requested evidence of a bona fide marriage from others in the past. My assumption is they are verifying that fraud was not committed.
As stated above, there is no requirement to live together. However, cohabitation (or lack thereof) is one aspect they look at to determine if a marriage was bona fide / if any fraud was committed.
As an example, if somebody entered the US on an IR-1 and never saw their spouse or communicated with them except via an attorney for a divorce, this will raise plenty of flags of fraud. The idea that the marriage was actually bona fide and the spouse did not enter the US via fraud (even if a CO made a determination that it was bona fide) is a very tough sell.
Outside of the visa process and ROC, the burden of proof would be to show fraud was committed. However, this is not a "beyond a reasonable doubt" burden either...they aren't throwing the person in prison for a crime. This occurrence in practical application is very rare...the presumption would be that the marriage was bona fide and that does set a high bar. However, it's not an impossible bar to meet, and it has happened in some cases. Just because somebody fooled a CO once (assuming the person did actually commit fraud) doesn't grant them immunity from ever reviewing the authenticity of the marriage. That said, I think they would likely delay the naturalization application decision and look for more black & white misrepresentations...just odd timings of a divorce or a "feeling" would not hold up. However, they can certainly raise some eyebrows that further investigation may be necessary.
I'm not suggesting it's an easy process or they would just deport the person...as an LPR they are entitled to due process and to be heard in the US court system. But if the circumstances and evidence suggests fraud was committed, then the possibility of having one's status revoked and removal proceedings opened is very real.
https://www.us-immigration.com/us-immigration-news/us-green-card/can-my-us-green-card-be-revoked/
Item #1 is possible but very difficult to show. However, if #1 is suspected then trying to find something to show #3 would probably be the path as that's an easier/stronger case.
Anyway, going back to your original case...just living apart is unlikely to result in any actions by itself (but the person should be ready to explain it if asked). If it's combined with other evidence that tells a compelling story, things may be different.
I understand that in case of the CR1 and subsequent ROC a couple must have lived in a marital union which means together - so no questions about that.
I am more interested in the IR1 case , when there has been no ROC at all, as the alien became LPR at port of entry.
Based on what you said, I am concluding that there is slim chance for the uscis to prove that marriage was not bona fide unless the USC or the LPR admits that it was a fraud. In fact, a couple could just have married and waiting for the alien to join the USC in US for 2 years, and then they could briefly meet and conclude that no..., they don't love each other as much any more. As their marriage is presumed to be bona fide and they don't have to prove anything to anyone, it puzzles me why IOs at N-400 interview even bother to ask sometimes questions about the reasons that led to divorce and other previous marriage related questions, if they stand no chance proving anything even in an extreme example like the one above.
-
49 minutes ago, charmander said:
Google found this link http://www.lawqa.com/qa/in-an-n400-interview-can-they-ask-me-at-naturalization-to-proof-my-marriage-was-real
I guess the consensus among the professionals is USCIS shouldn't care but they can do whatever they want especially if they have new evidence suggesting the previous marriage was fraud.
What do you really mean by "they can do whaever they want"
i found this:
https://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-11261/0-0-0-36743/0-0-0-36814.html
(a) Deportable aliens . A respondent charged with deportability shall be found to be removable if the Service proves by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent is deportable as charged.
doesn't this mean that they have to prove that the marriage was fraud first?
-
13 hours ago, Bugs said:
In short, they cannot deny your 5 year citizenship based on not living in marital union, but they can deny you if they later realize you misrepresented in order to get the green card in the first place.
How can they prove it in this case?
-
47 minutes ago, candybabe said:
at the time of naturalization, the officer will have the entire file during the interview - from beginning to end - including the paperwork filed and approved abroad. in the N-400 you have to file all your addresses and dates of marriage and divorce. If the officer does not believe the green card was obtained through a bona fide marriage, your application for citizenship would be denied.
If the IO "does not believe in bona fide marriage" , as you said, how can he just deny the application?I can believe that his personal impression should mean nothing other than that he will not approve the application on the spot. But deny? Really?! Just because he "does not believe"? First of all, doesn't they have a burden of proof to PROVE that the marriage has been NOT bona fide? If so, USCIS are supposed to conduct a certain investigation and then take the case to the immigration court, as now it is only an immigration judge who can revoke the LPR status and deport the person, isn't he?
Further, taking this absurd situation to it's limit, how on earth USCIS can prove that the marriage was not bona fide, if there is absolutely no requirement to have any evidence that the couple ever lived together? The USC marries the alien, files for his GC, then he enters US in 2 years and becomes an IR1 LPR. The next day they divorce. How can USCIS prove that the marriage was not bona fide? These guys never had to live together and he has just arrived. In my opinion, unless one of them admits that the marriage was not bona fide, it is just impossible to prove otherwise.
Correct me if I am wrong, maybe the burden of proof is not on USCIS ? Then it would have been a different story, but I still think the burden of proof should be on USCIS to take away someone's LPR status.
Just denying the N-400 application without attempting to revoke the LPR status and deport the person makes no sense either, right?
-
26 minutes ago, Bugs said:
Which I answered in the first sentence of my reply.
OK, so if I got your answer right, you are saying that
1) no, there is no law exists that explicitly or implicitly requires that LPR and USC live together after LRP entered US in the IR1 category.
2) USCIS may want to re-assess if the marriage that caused the alien's LPR status, even though that has already been done by the US consulate abroad.
Actually 1) puzzles me, but it would be great to hear other opinions, if any.... Thanks!
-
3 hours ago, Bugs said:
Technically no. But they may want proof you didn't fraud them on your intentions when obtaining a green card in the first place. Misrepresentation carries a lifetime stigma with USCIS. So evidence of a bona fide marriage may still be requested for that reason.
Evidence of bona fide marriage is checked by the consulate abroad when they do the interview.
In any case, I am interested in the law about if the USC and LPR should ever have lived together, assuming that the marriage was bona fide.
-
24 minutes ago, Ontarkie said:
I don't know, I guess only time will tell if we ever hear back from ppl who have done this.
We've had members who have divorced and been ask to provide details and proof they entered the marriage in good faith. They were surprised they had to do this. They also wanted above and beyond what was supplied at ROC. So anything is possible.
I have to clarify, I am not that much interested in anyone's particular experience with the similar case (as any paricular experience depend on some interviewer), I am interested in what does the law say.
-
29 minutes ago, Ontarkie said:
Sometimes they do look at the duration of marriage and what part of it they lived together. They may question but unless they see fraud it wont stop the process.
So the question is - did they even have to live together at least for 1 day or there is no such requirement?
USCIS officer did not allow me to use my name from GreenCard
in US Citizenship General Discussion
Posted
Same here...