Prawninator

I had about Many plates of shrimpies, and each plate had about ManyMany? So around ManyManyMany shrimpies?

No, I wouldn't go, I'd send a card though.

No, I wouldn't go, I'd send a card though.

First of all I want to congratulate all the August filers  that already got citizenship, and I wish good look for the rest of us, I sent my N 400 online on August 21, I got my biometrics done on September  13th , I received my interview appointment letter on November 6 and my interview is on December 10, in Lawrence,  MA.

You'll get an official letter in the mail.  If there is one thing that the government loves it's paperwork.  🙂
 

If you are filing under the 3-year rule, you'll need to upload your tax returns with your N400 application when submitting it online.
If you are filing under the 5-year rule, you are not required to upload them, however its suggested to bring them to the interview.

People have relied on being told things in person at infopass appointments to their peril. I know someone who was told at infopass that their DV visa application could get approved after fiscal year end as long as it was submitted before, which is complete nonsense. It’s unclear to me why infopass staff are not better trained, but that’s another issue. I do hope OP doesn’t run into any obstacles trying to sponsor her husband, which as I understood it was her main concern in starting the thread.

@Prawninator  Honestly I was hesitant to post what I did since its all speculation. But I thought about it a bit and just felt leaving the thread as it was with no hypothetical how can this happen explanation would be worse then being called out on posting speculation. Often times strange things happen in cases- it generates attention and sticks in peoples minds. It then gets quoted around 'well there was that case where she lied and it was ok, so go ahead and lie'
 
There is also the possibility that due to the suspected language issue/misuse of words- the Officer did not understand her responses or statements accurately (interview and/or infopass). 
Such as- she goes to infopass and gets to the window and says she has a question. The worker does not pull up her case. Her question is focused on her concerns - being able to petition for her spouse and losing her citizenship. She says to the Officer something the Officer hears as how she is LPR through parent and has her oath scheduled soon and got married but she was single when she filed and how shes worried they will take her citizenship away. It would then be a perfectly acceptable response for the Officer to say she was  "granted (her) citizenship because of the fact it was not gained through marriage" (that there is no issue with marriage based petition in the future); and her use of the word 'still' referring to the fact that getting married would not itself cause an eligibility issue for naturalization- so she can still remain in the n-400 process.
An alternate explanation would be to take her words literally- which I am hesitant to do- and look at her vague statement of 'I talked to someone' was actually more then what we automatically assume-- that she actually went into an office and sat down with an Officer or supervisor and somehow was able to explain to them that she married after filing and 'made a mistake' in the interview and they were OK with it and told her she can still would still be granted her citizenship because she has shown GMC (taxes, good citizen) and her n-400 was not based on marriage so it wasnt like she married a USC, divorced, got citizenship and was going to petition someone from back home. 
If that was the case she was extremely lucky. One can only hope this exchange was documented in her file in a way that it wont cause a future issue. I do not know if an Officer has the authority to forgive and correct an admitted lie under oath but it seems unlikely. Those types of findings usually are only done by a Judge. 
 
I would love it if the OP comes back and explains in more detail exactly what happened in the interview and at infopass. Perhaps one of the members she referenced, the ones that messaged her with support, will reach out to her and encourage her to post again if they are still in contact. She may not want to come back here- and thats fine- the overall response she got was negative but thats to be expected when you post that you lied under oath in your interview. Regardless of any language misinterpretation- thats what she posted, so those were the responses she got.

Butbut you're Canadian....

Aside from exorbitant cost of living?? 😂
 
My IO actually had a stack of Oath letters printed out with the date and location, she just hand-wrote my name and A-number in the appropriate boxes and handed it to me. Does that count as the letter, I wonder, or will I still get a more "official" copy in the mail?

He's famous in some circles for his quick turnarounds after tanking. I expect he will be decent tomorrow.  It is tiring though, all this back and forth for years. He doesn't have PTSD, but I wonder if he isn't a carrier.....;)

I hope he feels better

Spent the day in the ER. Himself woke up this morning with several symptoms of a CVA. Local VA doesn't want him there, as they have no imaging. Off to a genuine hospital. There is an ER in town, and they explicitly said NOT to drive him as far as Fayetteville.
 
Following a CT, and a Telehealth consult with a stroke nurse in MO, we had a hugely entertaining telehealth consult with Neuro. The Doc had limited English and was having a hard time making herself understood. Fortunately, Himself speaks Italian.  Alas given his difficulty hearing, he couldn't make her out. Between the nurse and I, we managed to repeat what the Doc was saying to everyone's satisfaction.
No stroke, no bleeding into his brain box. It would appear although his autonomic insufficiency ordinarily means his BP trends high, it is now trending low. Without proper perfusion, his extremities could not cooperate with his intentions.  
Also, nothing to be done about it. The Doc did look genuinely sorry she had nothing to offer him. Another new normal.
 

Did it love you long time?

Sure why not...

I'm starving....
want, steak, want cake, want chips, want shrimp, won ton soup, etc....

Shhh so hungry right now.  Plane is late. STARVING!!

Go do both.
 
You win for this line alone.

Oh everyone at work gets to have ketchup and dill pickle chips, as well as good chocolate.  I may bring back some ice wine for special drs too.
Oooo hickory sticks!
Cheezies! Omg.. and smarties.  

Thank you!

This translation inspires an English-haiku translation of the Spanish haiku, see man!!!!!
 
I ain't a salmon;
I ain't a tilapia;
I'm just a tuna.
 
Everyone may lavishly reputation-point us now, justified man.    

Then make us a venison sandwich NOW, si P ma'am.
We knew that you were sandbagging us,   P ma'am.
Number of desired caught salmon precised, si and  P ma'am.
 
This revives our first and arguably best (actually, all are best) Spanish haiku, see man:
     Soy no un salmon,
     tampoco tilapia...
     solo soy atun.
 
     I am not a salmon,
     nor tilapia...
     I am only a tuna.

Yes.
 
Since this thread is such a unique situation and I suspect it will be referred to in the future I want to point out a few things for the 'record'. 
 
Clearly English is not the OPs native language. When dealing with immigration matters words matter. One small word can totally change the entire situation. Many of the responses here are based on what the OP wrote- and I suspect somethings got lost in translation so to speak. 
Below is the OPs postings along with my interpretation of what she meant to say that would explain how this ended the way it did.
 
I applied for naturalization in April 2017 finally got my interview two weeks . I got married in August 2017 . I didn’t mentioned that I did because I didn’t have my marriage certificate yet . I take my oath soon how will this affect my husband application when I am ready to file for him .
 She applied for naturalization Apr '17 when she was single, so she filled out the n-400 properly- as single. She then says got my interview 2 weeks- which she later clarified meant 2 weeks ago. Then she states she was married (future post says it was overseas) in Aug '17. Her final sentence- which is what caused the thread to go the way it did- seems to read she didnt mention she did (marry) because she didnt have a marriage certificate. Now everyone here assumed she meant she didnt mention she was married AT THE INTERVIEW- I believe she means she didnt mention it on the n-400 she filed as single.
 
I had my interview two weeks ago and I said I was single . I didn’t file for my husband yet because he has an obligation with work that he can not get out (contract)
She had her interview 2 weeks ago - and then she says 'I said I was single' but again does not specify if she said this in the interview or is referring to her n-400 application filled out as single. She then goes on to explain she hasnt filed any paperwork for her spouse because of whatever. Not relevant.
 
Just an update for anyone that maybe concern . I had an appointment through infopass and spoke to someone. I was still granted my citizenship because of the fact it was not gained through marriage. I worked paid my taxes and was a good citizen for the last ten years in this country . Therefore I’m sorry to disappoint many of you that responded to this tread that was hoping I got denaturalized . Thanks to everyone that inbox me words of encouragement. I appreciate your help...
I have to assume she explained her concerns to infopass and they were able to understand her and provided correct info. (I know I know). She specifically states they told her that her citizenship was not gained through marriage so its ok that shes married. The only way this makes sense as the answer they gave her is if she had concerns about still being eligible now that she is married. I didnt quote it above but she posted that she got LPR status through her dad and as everyone knows there are various requirements for those kinds of situations- ie married child vs unmarried child. Marital status in those situations can cause your originally accurately filed petition to no longer be valid. So I suspect she had concerns that the same applied to n-400, which it does not.  
The OP would have to post back specifically if she actually stated in the n-400 interview that she was not married. I suspect she didnt therefore there was no perjury or misrep and users responses here was based on misunderstanding due to language.

I'm confused, whether or not it was relevant to them being granted citizenship, didn't they commit perjury? I had to swear an oath to tell the truth and nothing but the truth before my interview.

Hmm....