afrocraft

1 minute ago, mereal said:

Yea it has an addresses.. I think I will do so.. it just freak me out when it said use the enclosed envelope to mail The documents.. and there were no enclosed envelope in the mail..

Go ahead and send. You can mark the envelope "Attn: N-400 Receipt Number XXXXXX" and include a cover letter addressed to the officer who interviewed you.

This is a tough situation, and only the two of you can decide what to do. So understand your options.

You have a legally acquired visa to enter the US. You can use it. You do have 90 days after entry to get married and apply for adjustment of status, or leave the US. You can try to patch things up in person in those 90 days, then leave if unsuccessful. Of course you have to make arrangements for where to stay, and how to sustain yourself during those 90 days in case things don't work out. You should be prepared to answer questions about your marriage plans at your port of entry. If you stay beyond the 90 days, you'll be out of status and subject to deportation. Based on your situation, there is nothing an immigration lawyer can do for you.

Did the letter provide a mailing address? If so, I would send ASAP with your own envelope, with proof of mailing. I think you have 30 days to respond. 

On 7/19/2019 at 7:37 PM, dilip said:

Not  to be political,  the current administration is not going after legal immigration...

Actually, they are. They are erecting roadblocks to asylum applications (people forget that asylum is a legal pathway to immigration), conducting additional vetting for employment visas (at one point), and allowing denial of legal claims without RFEs or other opportunities for applicants to address issues with their petitions. They've also proposed eliminating diversity visas.

But yeah, let's not get political.

A chef's apron -- with nothing underneath 👀

4 hours ago, Paatay Khan said:

Edit to add: 

I'm sure none would want to tempt uncle Sam but why unnecessarily fear such things when you don't have to is beyond me. If someone's good moral character is questioned by their 'not disclosing' minor traffic violations, then the only people who are innocent would be pedestrians.

I'm not so sure what's so hard about disclosing minor violations. I did; just say yes, provide brief details about the incident, and move on. No documentation is required, after all. You make it sound like it's a 30-day exorcism in the wilderness.

5 hours ago, Paatay Khan said:

1) Well, according a couple of attorney that I'm familiar with, their experienced interpretation of the word 'EVER' means statutory period...

2) I'm sure before scheduling the interview, they look up and find out each and every detail about the applicant going back to day one. So if the applicant, knowingly or unknowingly didn't disclose any minor traffic violations, won't they be scrutinized by the IOs for not doing so and hence getting denied?

3) Again, if there's a minor traffic violation that one was cited for, outside the statutory period that cannot be found in dmv records due to being way old, that the applicant vaguely remembers(date/time/exact location)about, not disclosing it would also be considered misrep? 

 Wrong on all counts:

1. Be careful with these "attorneys." So if one commits genocide a year before the statutory period, extending their argument, that shouldn't count in assessing good moral character (GMC)? Before you accuse me of fear-mongering, see the quote below for what the regulations say about evaluating GMC.

2. You would think so, but turns out you're wrong. They use the FBI background check, which does not capture all infractions. I did a FOIA request on my FBI record, and it didn't have my traffic violation.

3. DMV records vary by state, I think, but my driving record still had a $20 violation from 2005. Go figure.

Quote

 

§316.10   Good moral character.

(a) Requirement of good moral character during the statutory period. (1) An applicant for naturalization bears the burden of demonstrating that, during the statutorily prescribed period, he or she has been and continues to be a person of good moral character. This includes the period between the examination and the administration of the oath of allegiance.

(2) In accordance with section 101(f) of the Act, the Service shall evaluate claims of good moral character on a case-by-case basis ... The Service is not limited to reviewing the applicant's conduct during the five years immediately preceding the filing of the application, but may take into consideration, as a basis for its determination, the applicant's conduct and acts at any time prior to that period, if the conduct of the applicant during the statutory period does not reflect that there has been reform of character from an earlier period or if the earlier conduct and acts appear relevant to a determination of the applicant's present moral character.
 

(b) Finding of a lack of good moral character. (1) An applicant shall be found to lack good moral character, if the applicant...

(vi) Has given false testimony to obtain any benefit from the Act, if the testimony was made under oath or affirmation and with an intent to obtain an immigration benefit; this prohibition applies regardless of whether the information provided in the false testimony was material, in the sense that if given truthfully it would have rendered ineligible for benefits either the applicant or the person on whose behalf the applicant sought the benefit;

 

I'm done arguing. You know the facts; you can make your own decision.

3 hours ago, Paatay Khan said:

So all the people in the past and present who've not mentioned their traffic violations (mostly suggested by attorneys), even if they didn't involve any injuries/arrest/drugs, have misrepresented themselves and are going to be in trouble even after they got naturalized? 

2 hours ago, Paatay Khan said:

Edit to add: P.S. Didn't you need to prove good moral character within the statutory period of either 3 or 5 years. And how do petty traffic violations affect your 'good moral character'? So if the forms say, 'have you EVER been in so and so situation, do they mean the statutory period or your whole lifetime ...

Lots of questions in there:

1. Is not disclosing minor traffic violations a misrepresentation? Yes, since the question on the N-400 application requires disclosure (but not documentation) of every violation, however minor. As if to drive home the point, another question asks for any violation one may have committed but was not even cited for. So if you grabbed 'em by the p**** and got away with it... 

2. What is the "statute of limitations" on the disclosure requirement? There is none; the question clearly asks for any violation EVER cited for.

3. What are the repercussions of such misrepresentation? In practice, hard to say. Most will likely get away with it: We all commit violations of law that go unpunished because they are not noticed or enforced. It also depends when it's caught. If before naturalization, and the incidents of misrep are repeated and egregious, one could be denied on good moral character grounds (not for the traffic violations per se, but for lying under oath to a federal officer during the interview). If after naturalization, the bar for denaturalization is so high that it is unlikely to happen, as the government must prove the misrep was willful, that it was material to the naturalization decision, and/or that revocation of citizenship is in the public interest. Tall order, but why tempt Uncle Sam?

36 minutes ago, dudeinTriBeCa said:

I shouldn’t be the one to educate you, that’s what USCIS’s website and policy manuals are there for. Besides, the application instructions clearly states only certain traffic tickets/fines up to a dollar amount need to be disclosed. So telling OP to declare all citations however “minor” is blatantly false by the standards of USCIS policies. 

As usual, it's the empty vessels that sound loudest. For the sake of others, below are the relevant application questions/instructions. Note the different standards on disclosure and documentation:

On disclosure of traffic offenses:

Quote

 

If any of (the following) apply to you, you must answer "Yes" even if your records have been sealed, expunged, or otherwise cleared. You must disclose this information even if someone, including a judge, law enforcement officer, or attorney told you it no longer constitutes a record or told you that you do not have to disclose the information.

23. Have you EVER been arrested, cited, or detained by any law enforcement officer... for any reason?

 

On documentation to submit for traffic offenses:

Quote

You must submit documentation of traffic incidents if: (1) The incident involved alcohol or drugs; (2) The incident led to an arrest; or (3) The incident seriously injured another person. You do not need to submit documentation for traffic fines or incidents that did not involve an arrest or did not involve drugs or alcohol, if the only penalty was a fine of less than $500 or points on your driving record.

1 hour ago, dudeinTriBeCa said:

Fear monger. Simply false information!!

Really? Educate me then.

11 hours ago, DCN400 said:

Oath ceremony scheduled for August 16. 😃

Congrats! Awesome for you, sucks for me. Means I'll have to wait till September at the earliest 😔

1 hour ago, DCN400 said:

Just got a notification (on egov) that my oath ceremony notice was mailed! No status change on MyUSCIS account yet, but I expect it to update in the afternoon. 

 

Curious to know if I made it to August (13 or 16) oaths or not. From what I have seen on trackers an oath letter is usually mailed at least 5 weeks before the oath date so looks like it might be September. 

Congratulations!

18 minutes ago, DCN400 said:

Congratulations! 

 

Not yet. It’ll be 8 weeks tomorrow since I got approved. Estimated wait time online is 27 days. 

Thanks. Wow -- 8 weeks! Have you tried to follow up? At worst, you should've been scheduled for last Tuesday, based on the DC court schedule.

On 7/9/2019 at 6:57 PM, DCN400 said:

My status changed on 05/22 (two weeks after the interview) to approved and oath ceremony will be scheduled. However, I have yet to receive an approval letter or an oath notice online or via mail. 

 

I hope you receive your RFE soon! Best of luck. The waiting game is stressful. 

Any word on oath ceremony? I just got approved yesterday.

9 minutes ago, Alex61 said:

Thank you. It was a relief. I don’t think then it would be a problem like your case. I make sure to let IO know as soon as I can in my interview. 

I didn't have weapons training though. Just marching band lol.

Good luck!

3 hours ago, kumakun said:

Thanks @afrocraft! This is very helpful (and comforting). 😀 Yes I am an overthinker! 😂

You're good. Just be sure to include, for each piece of evidence, documents from marriage to the present time. As much as is possible, obviously.

Good luck!

2 minutes ago, Alex61 said:

Mine was a national service too with 1 month weapon training and the rest I just served in an office (no weapon, no boot or military-clothes whatsoever). 

How can I do it before the interview? How do i raise it via secure messaging? Did this cause a delay in your application after interview?

No major delay caused in my case. I did get the "a decision cannot be made" letter after interview, but approval came 2 days later. In your case, the bigger risk is not a delay; it's a small, but real, chance of denial on moral character grounds. 

Context matters in how proactive you should be in fessing up. Your country of origin and its relationship to the US. The nature/designation of your military group. The nature of the weaponry involved. And your other responses to related questions. For instance, there are multiple questions on the N-400 related to military training/weapons experience. How did you answer them?

15. Were you EVER a member of, or did you EVER serve in, help, or otherwise participate in, any of the following groups: Military unit? Paramilitary unit? Police unit? etc.

19. Did you EVER receive any type of military, paramilitary (a group of people who act like a military group but are not part of the official military), or weapons training?

Click on the arrow below for more info:

You're overthinking this. You have more than enough evidence of cohabitation, co-mingling of financing, shared life experiences, and planning for the future together. You don't even need the affidavits or the wills, or any of the detailed explanatory documents/statements. Keep it simple: Create a 2-column "Evidence Guide" in Word and append to your cover letter.

Like so:

Evidence                                                Remarks

Cohabitation

Deed to XXX House                             House purchased by Wifey 3 years before marriage, so bears one party's name

....

Comingled Finances

IRS tax transcripts 2016-2018           We filed MFS in 2016 (husband had zero income) and MFJ in outer years

Joint bank account statements        We first opened a joint account in XXX

one per quarter (201X-Y)

.....

Shared Experiences

Trip-related documentation               Boarding passes for trip to XXX, 201X

....

On 7/13/2019 at 8:22 AM, dilip said:

I agree, do not say at the beginning of the interview.  Wait when he will ask yes no questions and then you can say I have an amendment.  You need to mention about your travel, they already have that information, once you will say it, IO officer will say , we have it.  That was the case for me.

I respectfully disagree. I would raise the issue as soon as I meet the officer. Military experience, especially weapons expertise, raise important national-security flags, and you don't want to give even the hint that you tried to hide that experience, however inadvertent the error. Raise the error early (I might even do it before the interview via secure messaging on the online portal) and prompt the discussion yourself is my advice.

My recent interview experience is instructive in this regard. I don't have military experience, but I completed national service with a months-long, military-style boot camp. I didn't put it in the application but I mentioned it at interview. The officer quizzed me about it -- was weapons training involved? was I an adult at the time? Etc. -- before moving on, underscoring the importance of such experience.

4 hours ago, Hoie said:

I am applying for citizenship and I have 3 Traffic tickets.

1 should I have mention them on the application?

2  does these tickets are going delay or going to effect my naturalization?

thanks you very much in advance 

1. Yes. Don't even think about hiding them -- even if you get through the interview and oath ceremony, you can be denaturalized later if the traffic stops are material to the decision.

2. It depends on the type of ticket and how your state classifies the ticket (misdemeanor/felony). A ticket for a broken taillight is on a different level than, say, running a red light or passing a school bus with a stop sign. You can't do anything about it, so don't bother.

Declare all citations, however minor. Then get a driving record from your state(s) and submit with your application. I had a minor traffic violation nearly 15 years ago, and I was quizzed about that during my interview.

15 hours ago, Ninna said:

So my hubby has his interview coming up in 2 weeks. I’m getting a few of his things ready and I notice that his passport last name is not spelled the same as his green cards. For example. His conditional and permanent resident cards are both spelled Hmoud as his last name. In the passport it is spelled Hammoud. Is this gonna cause any problems during his interview??? Will they just process everything underneath his green card spelling. Anyone went through anything similar???? I’m stressing out over everything I can’t wait for this to be over!! 

I don't have experience with this matter but I imagine it will be an issue. People have been known to try to get around criminal records, terrorism flags, and negative immigration histories using subtle name changes (I'm not saying that is the case with your hubby). I recommend you take originals of his birth certificate, social security card, and a state-issued ID (driver's license, concealed carry permit) to the interview just in case.

1 hour ago, implife said:

Good question. Because after 4 years of inaction, they took action immediately after a new application was submitted. There were no legitimate reasons for delay. in fact, at different points of the follow up it became clear they could not locate the original application, as VSC said that New York office had it, and New York office said VSC had it.

But you said earlier that they approved the initial application, not your second one. You could've accomplished the same thing, much sooner and several hundred dollars cheaper frankly, by filing a petition for a hearing on naturalization -- 1447(b) suit -- pro se, or without a lawyer. USCIS magically finds cases when a judge is looking over their shoulder.

6 hours ago, implife said:

5) finally, submitted another application, and it worked like a charm, they found and processed the first one within weeks

 

I know it's not an identical situation, but something that worked for us.

How do you know it was the second application that did the trick?

3 hours ago, peacan said:

Thank you all for your precious pieces of advice. I am going to write a letter to my service center in Tucson, AZ first on Friday, mail it out they will receive it on Monday. Saturday July 13 marks 120 days after the initial interview. I will call again to speak to a tier two officer since the last two were just operators, that's just my guess. I do have a pending service request that I have not received a response yet. Do you think these are best options before bringing them to court? I think the last one is a little extreme.

Your only administrative remedies are:

• Contact USCIS directly by opening a service request/writing to the field office (I guess that's what you meant, not the service center)
• Speak to someone in the field office via InfoPass (but that's not an option for you)
• Ask your Congressional rep to follow-up through their agency liaison officers
• Ask the CIS Ombudsman for help

9 hours ago, Hypnos said:

That is an absolutely terrible idea. 

Beyond terrible!