question 15 about "good moral character"

[venusfire503 54]

I know this question will seem silly or whatever, but I still need to know...

On the N-400 form, under "Good Moral Character", there is a question:

15. Have you ever committed a crime or offense for which you were not arrested?

What exactly do they mean? What is an "offense"? I imagine MOST people would have to answer "yes" to that question, if we're being honest - speeding would probably be the most common reason. There are all kinds of weird laws that people might not know about and that aren't enforced. And some we do know about, don't care, and make jokes about (you know - those sex related ones that people say things like "ooooooooh - this is illegal in some states). Does USCIS really care about those? Really, where do they "draw the line"?

Also, I didn't see a place to explain if someone does check off "yes". I would hate for my husband to run into all kinds of problems for checking off "yes" because he's gone above the speed limit but didn't get caught, for example.

Also wondering - if someone DID "get away" with something, does admitting to it on this form ever result in the person getting "turned in"?

Just want to add that my husband hasn't done anything "bad", so it's not like I'm asking if there's a way to help him get away with breaking the law or anything. The main thing is that we're both a little paranoid-ish, and I just want some clarification. I guess it's possible that someone could have their citizenship revoked in the future if someone really had it in for them, using something like speeding that wasn't mentioned on the N-400.

I hope I'm making sense. I'm really tired right now.

venusfire

[Kathryn41 3,205]

If you have ever been charged or fined or anything like that for an offense but you weren't arrested for that offense, then you would answer yes to this question. For example, I was charged back in 1983 with windsurfing without a lifejacket. I had to appear in court before a judge to answer the charge and received a $10 fine. So, I checked off yes. I was not arrested but I was charged. I provided the court documents saying that they no longer had any records of the charge on file and a newspaper article about the court trial (it excited local interest). The interviewer looked at them, smiled and moved on without asking me any questions. I did declare this incident all the way through the immigration process and never once did it cause a problem.

If you do have such an incident in your past and fail to disclose it, if it ever comes to light in the future your citizenship can be revoked for misrepresentation. The offense may not prevent you from becoming a citizen, but failing to disclose it definitely can.

Where do you draw the line about what to report and what not to report? I figured that wasn't my call to interpret so I gave them the information and let them decide.

Hope that helps.

Edited December 12, 2009 by Kathryn41

[NickD 202]

Heard on the news several weeks ago where a guy was released from prison for raping a woman because the newer DNA evidence proved he was innocent after spending 20 years in prison. That same DNA testing did find the guilty party and if that person was an immigrant that answered no to that question, the USCIS could deport him on the basis of falsifying information because of that question.

Other cases would be if you took part in a gang murder and one of the members later on implicated you as part of that murder to make some kind of a deal. Embezzlers have also been known be be caught years after a crime was committed as well as bank robbers or in the drug trade.

So if you do have something like that in your background or any other type of a major crime and answered no to this question, after you served your sentence, expect to be deported afterwards for falsifying information on your N-400. With my poor sense of humor, really don't have to be concerned about this if your crime ended up with a death sentence, probably won't bother with deporting your dead body.

That is why that question is there, to permit the USCIS to deport you for falsifying information, but only if you are caught even years later for committing that crime. Others may argue it goes against the 5th amendment.

Suppose one could become overly scrupulous about not coming to a complete stop at a stop sign or driving 56 in a 55. Even if caught would be a very minor offense and a traffic violation that the USCIS is not even concerned about. Probably best to leave it to just some major crimes against society, so you have two concerns to worry about, getting caught, then getting deported if you fall in the class.

[myfakeID 2]

What about something you did but were not caught doing? For example - music file sharing. Most people who do it never get caught, and I'm sure there's some sort of statute of limitations on it. Even if there's not, I imagine whoever 'catches' people doing it gets them soon after they did it - not several years later. If someone didn't realize it was illegal, then stopped doing it once they found out it's not allowed, but were never caught, then does this need to be mentioned on the N-400?

The same with things like speeding. 'Everyone' does it, but not everyone gets caught. Even if you're caught, do you need to answer "yes" on the form? What if you're never caught?

Or should everyone check "yes" on the form, and when asked, mention things like speeding or not coming to a full stop at a stop sign? Will they think you're crazy, or laugh it off and move to the next question? Sometimes if you give a little information, it just causes problems. But technically, can ANYONE honestly answer "no' to that question?

Just curious.

[NickD 202]

What about something you did but were not caught doing? For example - music file sharing. Most people who do it never get caught, and I'm sure there's some sort of statute of limitations on it. Even if there's not, I imagine whoever 'catches' people doing it gets them soon after they did it - not several years later. If someone didn't realize it was illegal, then stopped doing it once they found out it's not allowed, but were never caught, then does this need to be mentioned on the N-400?

The same with things like speeding. 'Everyone' does it, but not everyone gets caught. Even if you're caught, do you need to answer "yes" on the form? What if you're never caught?

Or should everyone check "yes" on the form, and when asked, mention things like speeding or not coming to a full stop at a stop sign? Will they think you're crazy, or laugh it off and move to the next question? Sometimes if you give a little information, it just causes problems. But technically, can ANYONE honestly answer "no' to that question?

Just curious.

Sharing MP3's does leave a trail, not getting caught speeding or running a stop sign does not. If you left a trail and did something naughty where you can get caught, besides facing penalties for your misdeed, may also expect to get deported if you answered no to that question if the crime was major enough. That is why that question is there, but the consequences of how one answers it can be a year or longer court case.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sh.../frank/ins.html has an example of this.

[NickD 202]

Also curious about this issue, not that it concerns my wife in the least bit. Was also curious about the amount of fraud in bringing an immigrant here resulting in the conditional residency requirement enacted in 1988. Learned in 1986 with the new immigration act, the only door open to immigration was marriage where some odd 2 million applications were filed with a huge percentage as fraud. Not only the was the AOS drastically stiffened with background checks, but the conditional was added as well. Didn't mind the AOS, seemed logical, but that conditional was a nightmare repeated, that wouldn't have been bad either, but the long delayed in being in the twilight zone was the real nightmare. And we already had proven our innocence at the AOS. Then with another repeat of this with the N-400, has to be a reason. Did learn that after that 1986 fiasco, the average number of I-751's per year was only 140K, but can only wonder if this step is discovering more fraud, couldn't find examples of that. Our government does tend to make things difficult, present new programs, but never seems to justify whether these programs are doing any good or not. You would not mind the inconvenience of these steps if they were doing any good. Was an equal shock during our process to learn we have anywhere from 12-20 million illegals living here. They never even applied for LPR or USC but seem to be getting by, but if you do, you are really in for it.

Did find this on the web, but cannot vouch for it's accuracy at http://www.visaandgreencard.com/CM/Article...uralization.asp

"Administrative Denaturalization: A Grim Reality

The Ninth Circuit court of Appeals in Gorbach v. Reno recently dealt a serious blow to thousands of individuals who may have obtained their Naturalization certificate by mistake or misrepresentation. The Ninth Circuit reversed the ruling of a Washington District Court Judge, which had held that the INS' "administrative denaturalization" rules were unauthorized, and enjoined the INS from proceeding against any individual. While judicial review will be available to any individual who INS strips of his citizenship, it make take well over one year to battle the INS' denaturalization effort through the administrative process.

The INS' rule states that it may reopen a naturalization proceeding and revoke naturalization if it obtains "credible and probative evidence that (1) shows that the Service granted the naturalization by mistake; or (2) was not known to the service Officer during the original proceeding; and (i) would have had a material effect on the outcome of the original proceeding; and (ii) would have proven that (A) the Applicant's application was based on fraud, misrepresentation or concealment of a material fact; or (B) the applicant was not, in fact, eligible for naturalization."

The INS must issue a Notice of Intent To Revoke (NOIR) Naturalization within 2 years of the date naturalization was granted, if it believes that the above conditions exist. Once an individual receives an NOIR, the individual must respond within sixty days, otherwise, the allegations in the NOIR are deemed admitted. If the individual rebuts the INS allegations, the INS will make a decision. The case will be referred for judicial proceedings if any material issues of fact exist as to the individual's eligibility for naturalization. The individual whose naturalization is on the line must raise these issues of fact in rebuttal to the NOIR, or risk losing everything.

In the event the INS' decision shows no issues of material fact, the INS may issue a revocation instantly.

At present, some 4000 cases will be affected immediately. The INS issued NOIRs against most of these individuals, but the rebuttals have been held in limbo pending the Ninth Circuit's decision in Gorbach. Should the INS elect to proceed against these individuals, they will be permitted to present their defenses in the reopened naturalization proceedings."

From the bold print above, apparently the USCIS or the old INS does have a two year statue of limitation on the way you have answered your questions, but do give you an opportunity to reply, even fight in out in a court of law. And second, apparently some odd 4,000 cases do exist, but over an unknown time frame.

In terms of the sponsoring USC that normally has to make a substantial investment to bring an alien here, in looking over all of the USCIS forms, they appear to be far more incriminating to the sponsoring USC than in protecting them if they were the victim of fraud. There are sections in this board loaded with such USC's that were victimized and seemingly helpless.

Just seems to be that the entire process in long overdue for a major overhaul and what do we have a US Constitution for?

[lucyrich 20]

It's an interesting catch-all.

After you have been naturalized, the US Government cannot take away your citizenship without your consent. See the Supreme Court decision Afroyim v Rusk for details.

But, if they find that your citizenship was procured through fraud, that is, if they find that you lied or made a material misrepresentation at any time during the naturalization process, they can retroactively denaturalize you. That is, they say you were never really properly naturalized in the first place. That's almost the same as taking your citizenship away, but with two important distinctions 1) it's saying you never had the citizenship to begin with and 2) it has to be based on something that happened before your oath, not something that happened after you became a citizen.

Hypothetically, let's assume you had been committing serious crimes like spying, smuggling, mass murder, etc. but you hadn't been caught, and then you were naturalized, answering "No" to that question. Many years later they might catch you. They could use your false answer on that question to justify denaturalizing you and deporting you. They might be able to do that even if the statute of limitations for your crimes had expired, or if there were other legal issues that prevented them from getting a criminal conviction.

At least theoretically, if you answered "No" to that question and they later found evidence that you had been speeding or jaywalking before you were naturalized, they might be able to try to use that to denaturalize you as well. However, for a minor thing like speeding or jaywalking, the chances of them finding convincing evidence years later is slim, and even if they did, a false answer regarding speeding probably wouldn't rise to the level of a "material misrepresentation". So I wouldn't worry about it for minor things like that.

There are some interesting legal issues regarding the fifth amendment right against self-incrimination. I wonder what would happen if you said "Yes", but then when they asked you about it at the interview you said, "I refuse to answer on the grounds that it might tend to incriminate me".

Or, I wonder what would happen if you answered "Yes", and then at the interview you said "I don't know any specifics, but there are so many laws about so many things, I think I probably must have violated one of them sometime". I'm guessing that wouldn't insulate you against a previous armed bank robbery, because your vague answer was intentionally misleading. It might insulate you against them coming after you about an old jaywalking incident, but they wouldn't do that anyway.

[lucyrich 20]

From the bold print above, apparently the USCIS or the old INS does have a two year statue of limitation on the way you have answered your questions,

That's true for administrative denaturalizations, that is, denaturalizations performed strictly by the USCIS (a part of the executive branch). But I believe no such time limit exists for judicial denaturalizations. For example, I believe they have denaturalized former Nazi war criminals after they had lived in the US as citizens for decades. The judicial process is more involved for them than the administrative process, but they will use it occasionally.

[venusfire503 54]

Thank you for participating in this. I wasn't sure if anyone would take me seriously enough to answer.

Now I'm wondering what types of crimes would prevent someone from getting approved, then. Unless they had some reason to suspect you for something more, I can't imagine things like jaywalking, speeding, etc would give them enough of a reason. Apparently windsurfing without a jacket isn't a problem, either! Things like spying, smuggling, etc and other things that are obvious enough to most people as being wrong could result in a denial. I wonder two things then.

1 - What happens with "in the middle" sort of things? In other words, how 'bad' does the crime have to be to make a difference? I can't imagine someone getting denied for something like running a red light. Something like murder would be a definite denial, I imagine. What about something like... shop lifting, for example?

2 - What happens if a person is denied for this, or some other reason? Do they stay here as a forever LPR, are they deported, or are they eligible to apply again in the future? I imagine the answers depend on the reason for denial.

Not sure that anyone would want to post answers from personal experience, but.. you never know. Or maybe someone knows about someone else's case. I'm just curious what happens. An example: I remember someone mentioning the SO getting caught shoplifting, and was successful for ROC. I wonder if citizenship would be a problem in that case, though.

Has anyone tried answering as lucyrich mentioned? I wonder how that worked.

venusfire

[NickD 202]

Thank you for participating in this. I wasn't sure if anyone would take me seriously enough to answer.

Now I'm wondering what types of crimes would prevent someone from getting approved, then. Unless they had some reason to suspect you for something more, I can't imagine things like jaywalking, speeding, etc would give them enough of a reason. Apparently windsurfing without a jacket isn't a problem, either! Things like spying, smuggling, etc and other things that are obvious enough to most people as being wrong could result in a denial. I wonder two things then.

1 - What happens with "in the middle" sort of things? In other words, how 'bad' does the crime have to be to make a difference? I can't imagine someone getting denied for something like running a red light. Something like murder would be a definite denial, I imagine. What about something like... shop lifting, for example?

2 - What happens if a person is denied for this, or some other reason? Do they stay here as a forever LPR, are they deported, or are they eligible to apply again in the future? I imagine the answers depend on the reason for denial.

Not sure that anyone would want to post answers from personal experience, but.. you never know. Or maybe someone knows about someone else's case. I'm just curious what happens. An example: I remember someone mentioning the SO getting caught shoplifting, and was successful for ROC. I wonder if citizenship would be a problem in that case, though.

Has anyone tried answering as lucyrich mentioned? I wonder how that worked.

venusfire

Sounds like you are mixing in crimes you were arrested or caught for with crimes that may have been committed you were not arrested or caught for. Quite a difference, but if you were arrested for any crime, you must answer yes and explain it. Those crimes that a person wasn't caught and arrested for, let's just leave that in a gray area. Certainly jaywalking or speeding is not a crime, more of a traffic violation, but even at that, if the fine was below 500 bucks with no injuries, you do not have to report it.

[venusfire503 54]

Sounds like you are mixing in crimes you were arrested or caught for with crimes that may have been committed you were not arrested or caught for. Quite a difference, but if you were arrested for any crime, you must answer yes and explain it. Those crimes that a person wasn't caught and arrested for, let's just leave that in a gray area. Certainly jaywalking or speeding is not a crime, more of a traffic violation, but even at that, if the fine was below 500 bucks with no injuries, you do not have to report it.

NickD,

This is a thread because of curiosity, not because of any crimes or arrests. I'm a USC anyway.

The part at the beginning of that section specifically mentions that you need to answer yes if records do or did exist. I guess question 15 is to cover anything you got away with, or some other situation (I dunno - someone who turned themselves in, but then pleaded out?). So I'm asking the question about things that didn't result in an arrest, especially anything that wasn't discovered in the first place. But I'm also curious what crimes would result in a denial if the person admitted to them.

This is really odd, but this question came from watching a TV show (I know, I know...). In it, a guy has to chose between lying and letting someone get away with something, or telling the truth. Telling the truth would result in losing his citizenship, because it (of course - this was TV) required admitting to a crime he committed but got away with - and didn't admit to on his N-400.

Now that I'm looking at it again, what if you DO admit to something, no matter how minor, but weren't arrested? It says if you answered "yes", to complete the table, but the table is all about being arrested.

I know - I really should get back to getting things done here....

venusfire

[NickD 202]

Sounds like you are mixing in crimes you were arrested or caught for with crimes that may have been committed you were not arrested or caught for. Quite a difference, but if you were arrested for any crime, you must answer yes and explain it. Those crimes that a person wasn't caught and arrested for, let's just leave that in a gray area. Certainly jaywalking or speeding is not a crime, more of a traffic violation, but even at that, if the fine was below 500 bucks with no injuries, you do not have to report it.

NickD,

This is a thread because of curiosity, not because of any crimes or arrests. I'm a USC anyway.

The part at the beginning of that section specifically mentions that you need to answer yes if records do or did exist. I guess question 15 is to cover anything you got away with, or some other situation (I dunno - someone who turned themselves in, but then pleaded out?). So I'm asking the question about things that didn't result in an arrest, especially anything that wasn't discovered in the first place. But I'm also curious what crimes would result in a denial if the person admitted to them.

This is really odd, but this question came from watching a TV show (I know, I know...). In it, a guy has to chose between lying and letting someone get away with something, or telling the truth. Telling the truth would result in losing his citizenship, because it (of course - this was TV) required admitting to a crime he committed but got away with - and didn't admit to on his N-400.

Now that I'm looking at it again, what if you DO admit to something, no matter how minor, but weren't arrested? It says if you answered "yes", to complete the table, but the table is all about being arrested.

I know - I really should get back to getting things done here....

venusfire

I feel we have beat this subject to death, if you answer yes to question 15, you will incriminate yourself, if you answer no, and do get caught, can be deported. Similar if not identical questions were also asked on the I-485 adjustment of status form.

[NickD 202]

Should add a positive note, these questions help to keep out serial killers, drug dealers, rapists, pedophiles, sex offenders, and other nasty people.