Rigoletto

Come on folks, its a big forum and I got just three responses. I'll appreciate more replies. Anyone with interview experience and has been ask specifically by the IO that he wanted to see the spouse. Please. I just don't want to drag my spouse with me for nothing. I dont want to ruin the vacation for her because she got just a week free and if she waits for my interview she will miss it.

Hi:

As the legal types say, asked and answered.

Your spouse is NOT officially required to be there. Sometimes the officer may request to meet the spouse, so if the spouse can

be there, that is advisable.

However, in your situation, I would certainly not postpone the interview to allow your wife to attend. Chances are, if you

bring good evidence, the officer may not request to meet her. If the officer does request to meet her, you can explain

that she is on vacation. Likely, that will be enough. If not, she can come back to meet the officer at a later date.

Don't sweat this too much - just handle the situation as it comes. I don't see any reason why you should postpone or

be worried about this based on the facts you gave.

In my response above I was not specifically referring to question 15. I was referring to those situations where people know they have citations for speeding but choose not to disclose them at all on the form. It seems to me that reasonable people can disagree about how to answer question 15 if 16 is marked "yes", but a complete failure to disclose an incident involving a citation on the application, even a minor one, CAN result in a denial.

Fair enough. I agree that Question 16 definitely requires a YES under the facts we discussed. If someone were to fail to disclose

it, the government would have technical grounds for denial. As some people here point out, it is unlikely, but you and I agree that

it is possible, and therefore it is advisable to disclose.

WHO CAME IN FIRST THE EGG OR THE CHICKEN....ENOUGH WORRYING GUYS.....

Who said we are worrying? This issue does not even apply to me. We were just enjoying a stimulating

intellectual debate/discussion.

In my response above I was not specifically referring to question 15. I was referring to those situations where people know they have citations for speeding but choose not to disclose them at all on the form. It seems to me that reasonable people can disagree about how to answer question 15 if 16 is marked "yes", but a complete failure to disclose an incident involving a citation on the application, even a minor one, CAN result in a denial.

Fair enough. I agree that Question 16 definitely requires a YES under the facts we discussed. If someone were to fail to disclose

it, the government would have technical grounds for denial. As some people here point out, it is unlikely, but you and I agree that

it is possible, and therefore it is advisable to disclose.

Regardless of whether speeding is considered a federal offense, failing to disclose it on your application can result in having your application denied for a lack of good moral character. I really don't see what the downside is about being honest, but I sure see a lot of potential downsides to failing to disclose information that USCIS deems relevant.

Hi:

I am sorry, but no, it cannot. You are required to answer the legal question asked truthfully. As I have mentioned before, any

citation (incl. a speeding ticket) should be disclosed in Question 16, which is the appropriate place for such an answer. If

you wish to disclose it in Question 15, fine, but that is superfluous. Answering "NO" to question 15 in no way indicates a lack

of good moral character.

Incidentally, I agree 100% on the avoidance of a speeding ticket. So far in life, I have been fortunate enough to have avoided

one.

Rigoletto my friend,

Firstly I work with the PD here so, speeding in Minnesota is an offense. Regardless of what you think or how you interpret the question, it's an offense. Plain and simple. Might not be an offense where you come from, but it is an offense here. The question relates to both State and Federal. I have not assumed anything. If you apply for ANY federal job you are required to put down every bit of information, every time a cop has stopped you, regardless of the reason. Same applies to your N-400. They are Federal application and failure to report the smallest details can make your application null and void. Which is determined by the person reviewing your documents. Goes back to the point of judging your moral character, not the offense that was committed unless it was capital murder. I know my state statues. I sit for 3.5 hrs studying them every other day. Secondly I did not assume that a traffic citation is a misdemeanor, I said it was a petty misdemeanor. Big difference here in Minnesota.

Your analysis should start with the definitions under Title 18 of U.S.C.

Again, don't confuse the issues - we are dealing with the question at hand - not the questions in other federal job applications. I work at

a federal district court and have had to fill out such forms. The questions are more broadly phrased.

Incidentally, we have a lot of police officers coming through here - some know the law, and others don't. But all claim that they do.

Why would she have answered "no" to 15? The question on the form is "Have you ever committed a crime or offense for which you were not arrested?"

The court with jurisdiction classifies a traffic violation is a minor offense and I'll take them at their word.

My wife committed an offense (speeding) for which she was cited, but NOT arrested. Therefore, based on the way the question is worded, "yes" appears to be the correct answer.

Which body of law did you use in defining the word "offense?" Remember who the party is that is using the

word "offense." This question does NOT turn on CO law.

They're talking about legalizing millions of people who broke the law and crossed the border illegally and then they want to deny or possibly denaturalize people for a moving violation?

I'm fine with that, go ahead and deny me, I don't really need a US passport anyways.

But it does sound a little ridicolous, wouldn't you agree?

Then go ahead and disclose all the "crimes" you committed without being arrested (caught).

I guarantee you nobody would apply for naturalization...

I never said the rules or the process made sense, but unfortunately we don't get to make or change them on our own.

My wife answered "yes" to question 15 because she got a speeding ticket and was cited but not arrested. It seems to me the wording on the question should be re-written to "Have you ever committed a crime or offense for which you were not arrested, cited or detained by any law enforcement officer?"

Again, why do you assume that a speeding ticket/citation is a "crime" or an "offense"? The legal definitions are

quite different from everyday language.

Under the facts you pose, your wife should have answered NO to question 15 and YES to question 16. [Of course,

you may say, in practice, does it really matter whether I said YES to both or YES only to question 16. Probably

not, since it is pretty clear that your intent was to give full disclosure. But since we are debating the technicalities

here, I thought I should point out the legally correct answer.]

So what is the legally correct answer? According my state

An offense is a violation of the penal law. An offense can range from a simple petty misdemeanor (e.g. a traffic violation) to a felony (e.g. capital murder). In common law usage, 'offense' differs from 'crime' in that there is typically no victim, but the action remains prohibited by statute.

And now I'm done with this topic. We are going around in circles. You want to report it, do it. You don't want to report it don't.

Why do you assume that your state law applies? Also, why do you assume that a traffic citation is a misdemeanor? Felonies and

misdemeanors are not the only violations that exist and not all violations are "crimes" or "offenses."

They're talking about legalizing millions of people who broke the law and crossed the border illegally and then they want to deny or possibly denaturalize people for a moving violation?

I'm fine with that, go ahead and deny me, I don't really need a US passport anyways.

But it does sound a little ridicolous, wouldn't you agree?

Then go ahead and disclose all the "crimes" you committed without being arrested (caught).

I guarantee you nobody would apply for naturalization...

I never said the rules or the process made sense, but unfortunately we don't get to make or change them on our own.

My wife answered "yes" to question 15 because she got a speeding ticket and was cited but not arrested. It seems to me the wording on the question should be re-written to "Have you ever committed a crime or offense for which you were not arrested, cited or detained by any law enforcement officer?"

Again, why do you assume that a speeding ticket/citation is a "crime" or an "offense"? The legal definitions are

quite different from everyday language.

Under the facts you pose, your wife should have answered NO to question 15 and YES to question 16. [Of course,

you may say, in practice, does it really matter whether I said YES to both or YES only to question 16. Probably

not, since it is pretty clear that your intent was to give full disclosure. But since we are debating the technicalities

here, I thought I should point out the legally correct answer.]

Your driving record is not a federal document that you failed to put information that asks for it. Who are you going to say instructed you? You think the I/O really cares that you received incorrect information? The question clearly states and is simple to read

15. Have you ever committed a crime or offense for which you were NOT arrested. The key words are committed a crime and not arrested here. =). Getting a speeding ticket is breaking the law. By breaking the law you commit a crime or an offense. It's not an arrestable offense, but it's a petty misdemeanor which you get cited for and not arrested. Getting cited means.......Yes you broke the law and you committed a crime...or else you would have not got cited if you did not break the law. sigh

Now on to the bottom part of the page

If you answered Yes to any Question 15 through 21, complete the following table. If you need more spaces, use a separate sheet of paper to give the same information

The key term in that table Cited. A traffic ticket is a citation. No where on this form does it ask you how much the citation was for, it asks you to list the important information about the citation. This leaves it open for them to interpret and not us

The I/O looking over your file doesn't know you from Adam. Your trying to create a good impression and show you have good moral character. Failure to report the information ...ummm....umm.. doesn't really show good moral character.

It's not that your DL is invalid or you DL record is clear, it's the fact that you knowingly did not put information in your FEDERAL application for naturalization. This is not a job application people.

Anyways....good on you mate, that's the best part about this country FREEDOM to choose to do what you want to do =) Good luck and best wishes my friend

Sigh....you seem to assume that the plain meaning of words such as "crime" and "offense" governs.

I suggest you look up the definitions in your state penal code - I especially suggest looking at the words "crime," "offense," and

"moving violation." The terms are distinct.

For someone who has an ordinary traffic citation, i.e. a mere "moving violation," the answer to this question is almost certainly

NO, because a "moving violation," barring additional circumstances/enhancements (e.g. alcohol) is NOT a crime or an offense.

In plain language it may be, but plain language doesn't govern.

Incidentally, referring to your next post, you are correct regarding Question 16. It asks whether you have been "cited" - if you

received a traffic ticket, you have been "cited" and should answer YES. If the express conditions apply ($500 cap and no

alcohol etc.), no documentation need be provided.

Count me in , may 28th will be a year for me, and it sucks when you read about people who filed later thn you get approved, i just read about someone one from October 08 get approved. What have you guys done about your case? have you called anyone, contacted your senator etc? I called on macrh 29th , i was told someone touched my case on march 25th and that soon i should get some news, well its been almost 2 weeks and i still have no touched since my biometrics back in july08, I guess im gonna have to file my n400 next month, it just sucks to be stuck in thios situation when we already paid for a service that we never got.

Hi:

I am sorry to hear you are still waiting. Have you gotten your U.S. Senator or Representative involved yet? As soon as your

application is past the processing date they indicate, I would try that.

It seems that the funny answer is: YOUR APPLICATION WILL BE PROCESSED TWICE AS FAST

I think that's a little understatement. CSC norm is 3 months, VSC norm is 12 months, so it's QUADRUPLE as fast.

Yes, understatement. We dont want to make VSC folks feel too bad

ok, well... talking about the uneven speed between the two centers, kind of don't want to start this because I know lots of VJers are going to join in venting and sometimes I'm reading others stories are worse than me so I always feel bad. Anyways, I just simply think that the masterminds who caused the uneven number of cases distribution and behind this TSC to VSC, VSC to CSC switch are the ones who should feel bad. Feel bad is an understatement as well. *Remember what Iowa Senator Charles Grassley said to AIG?* They claimed on their website that there was a significant increase of applications on year 2007. So on year 2008 when they decided to narrow down the processing centers into two major ones (which we now know is VSC and CSC), WHAT THE HECK WERE THEY THINKING? They should have known better and had the statistics in hands about some states have more population/application/approved 2 yr GC in year 2007 than others, especially New Mexico and Texas. They weren't exactly dividing the states into East and West either. Why can't they use the statistics to evenly divide up the case loads between the two processing centers so the timeline for both centers can be equal/even, perhaps 6 months and 6 months instead of 3 months and 12 months.

Sigh! Anyone understand/get what I'm saying? Serious frustrations for folks at VSC, especially folks who got moved from first TSC then VSC then CSC. Let alone to talk about the chances of losing files when transferring. Other please feel free to express your opinions about what went wrong and how can they fix the uneven problem.

*Refer to this link if anyone who doesn't know about what Iowa Senator said to AIG:

http://wcbstv.com/national/grassley.AIG.su...e.2.960939.html

Well, at least, for your increased fee and long wait at VSC, you now get a lovely message from the VSC director as

well as a special pouch to store your GC in. Your dollars at work!

Card received today!

Best of luck to everyone still waiting.

Card received today!

Best of luck to everyone still waiting.

Today's Update:

Thursday April 9th

In-person post office check: 9:45 am- No Mail at all. Nothing. Nada. Ziltch.

USPS Mail, 3:00pm: No Mail at all, Again.

....(literally)...........

Ant (Still waiting for I-751, Still waiting for Baby...)

Stop taking the medication and pick up the KoolAid!

I disagree. If you look at the number of divorces that occur within the two-year period and the number of waiver petitions filed,

there is a clearly a need for a second layer of review in order to prevent exploitation of the system. It is easy enough

for some people to get the documents together and pass an interview - it is harder to live together for two years if it is not

the real thing. Not that some fake marriages wouldn't pass the I751, but it decreases the statistical chances.

One good suggestion has been made to combine I751 layer of review with the 3-year citizenship process. Of course,

not everyone wants to apply for citizenship. Therefore, perhaps there could be the option of either (1) filing N400 for

citizenship or (2) filing the I751 on the 3rd-year anniversary.

Hi:

OK - I'll bite. The thing to keep in mind is that these notices that VSC send out "by the book" do not take up all

that much time. Most of these are automatically generated. So, other than saving stationary and paper (which is

good) and perhaps taking up more of the mailroom's time, sending or not sending these should not affect the

rate of adjudication significantly.

I sincerely doubt that VSC is that much slower because they are sending out more notices. They may have less

adjudication staff or they may receive a disproportionate share of cases, but I don't think the notices are

holding them up.

Hi Everyone,

Wanted to thank everyone for this forum, it helped a lot

I GOT THE EMAIL YESTERDAY!!!!

The usual, card production etc... as of April 7th

RD May 23 2008

Hang in there everyone!

Congrats, Im May 28th no touches, no emails since july7th/08, hopefully im next, but again Congrats,

If it helps, I got the card production e-mail this last Sunday (4/5) stating that card had been ordered on 4/3.

My RD was 5/20. It looks like Latemay filed just after me and was approved a few days later.

While these applications by no means go exactly in order, it seems like they are working their way towards

the end of May. Good luck.

Congratulations!

I received the card production e-mail yesterday - Sunday April 5.

Didn't realize that they work on the weekends!

Hi:

I noticed that I got dropped from the list at some point. In any event, I received the card production ordered

e-mail yesterday. If someone can add to the list, here are my dates again:

Filed TSC, transferred to VSC

Receipt date 05/20/2008

NOA date 05/29/2008

Biometrics 06/14/2008

Approved 04/05/2009

Thanks.

Hi:

I noticed that some applications from June 2008 are being approved. It looks like those had been transferred

to CA service center. I filed in May 2008 and received no transfer notice - therefore, I assume my application

is still at VSC.

Does anyone know if April/May filers have not been transferred or what is going on?

Thanks.

hi, I did search for info but it was not clear. I know that you can enter the US with an expired green card and noa1 letter but what documents are require to enter Mexico? any info would be appreciated.

I don't know the answer to your question, but I will say that I would never consider taking my Wife to Mexico unless she were a naturalized citizen. I wouldn't want her to go anywhere outside of the U.S., which has plenty of places that rival Cancun!

Hi:

I am curious why you would take such a rigid stance on this issue. I, and many others, have travelled many times abroad as a permanent resident - Europe, UK, Australia, Mexico, South America etc. It is really quite simple - make sure you meet the requirements for returning to the US AND make sure you meet the entry requirements for the country you go to. Depending on your nationality, some countries may require you to obtain separate visas for entry, but all this can be done with careful planning. Why the paranoia?

Hi:

Just an update for the list - I looked up the status of the I751 in the system, and it does mention that the case was transferred to Vermont Service Center on 05/22/2008.

Of course, they said they sent a notice of that, but I didn't get one - just the regular NOA and the biometrics. Biometrics is today!

Hi:

Just a few updates for the list.

NOA extending status for 1 yr: 05/29/2008 (received today 06/04/2008)

Biometrics appointment: 06/14/2008 (received today 06/04/2008)

I don't want to mess up the list, so if someone knowledgeable wouldn't mind adding it?

BTW, these notices came from the Mesquite, TX Service Center.

R

Wow - not to get hopes up, but it would be great if they started mailing those again!

Not to get your hopes up, but we did finally get ours yesterday.

Oh don't worry - since my application has only been with USCIS a few days, no reason to be hurried!

Hi all,

Reading all these posts made me think that Texas will not be sending NOA 1 for I-751 but to my surprise there was one waiting for me in the mailbox yesterday, my question is do we still need to get the stamp in the passport to travel and work or is the NOA good enough.

Thanks

Curious, what is your timeline? When did you file?

Package was received by INS May 9, 2008, Check Cashed May 13, 2008, NOA 1 recieved 5/19/08

Wow - not to get hopes up, but it would be great if they started mailing those again!