traffic citation question

[jsnearline 2]

Agreed. I don't think anyone is going to be convinced either way. Even if my wife and I decided to handle her application differently, it's too late. We've already sent it in. It'll be interesting to see if the IO brings up the issue at all during her interview.

Edited May 5, 2009 by jsnearline

[lucyrich 20]

They do not care about traffic tickets that are less than $500 and are not alcohol-related.

I think you're basically right, but, that's contrary to what the form says. And INA 212(a)(6)©(i) says you have to follow the form. They probably don't care about the ticket itself, but the law gives them grounds to care about whether or not you disclose what the form asks you to disclose.

On the contrary, checking the "yes" box automatically raises eyebrows and there's always a chance of meeting the new/overzealant/annoyed/annoying officer that could delay your case by months.

Now you're being contrary to what you just wrote above. You just said they don't care about traffic tickets that are less than $500 and are not alcohol-related. But now you're saying that if you disclose a traffic ticket that's less than $500 and not alcohol related, the officer may not understand that he really doesn't care about such a ticket, and the officer will delay your case anyway?

You seem to be saying that you know the law better than the immigration officer. The officer isn't SUPPOSED to care about the sub-$500 ticket, but he might not know that rule, and if he's not as much of an expert on the sub-$500 ticket rule as you are, he might delay your case if you disclose it.

I don't buy your theory. I think you've got to let THEM decide what they do or don't care about, and not summarily make the decision for them.

If the officer cares about the sub-$500 ticket, then by definition it's a material fact and you HAVE to disclose it. If the officer doesn't care about the sub-$500 ticket, then there's no harm in disclosing it.

And if we think we could be denaturalized for not having declared a traffic ticket in the remote future, then yes, I think it's being paranoid.

There are actually cases where they have denaturalized people for failing to disclose dismissed charges when the charge was wrongfully brought in the first place and everyone agrees the alien never did anything at all wrong and never came close to violating any law. At least, the alien never did anything wrong until he failed to disclose the contact with police on his N-400.

Failure to disclose very old minor traffic violations has also caused administrative denaturalizations. See this article for some examples of what they have done in the past.

http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=3479

Is it likely to lose citizenship over something like that? Probably not. But why give them the opportunity? It's so easy to eliminate the problem from the start. Call it paranoia if you want, but the way I see it, if you can completely eliminate a risk of denaturalization at no cost to you, even if the risk is remote, it's probably worth eliminating the risk.

[LoveLove 0]

wow..

thank you all for the reply.

I only had two tickets from one state and I called the court yesterday and faxed them a request of the disposition report and they faxed them back to me so I will say yes and explain about that. If they need to see the proof then I will have the certified copy with me by interview since they are sending me those by mail.

The question I asked.. The report says, careless driving -> amended. Defective headlamp. so I will just write whatever is on the report.

Thank you all again. and I will keep you updated. I guess I will get the yellow paper RFE as well?

[warlord 73]

For clarification, the official guide from the USCIS clearly states you DO NOT have to disclose tickets under $500 and are not DUI related

Pdf pg. 8 or (11 of 58), Question 7, just under the IMPORTANT part.

Even if you have commited a a minor crime, USCIS may deny your application if you do not tell the USCIS offical about the incident. Note that unless a traffic incident was alcohol or drug related, you do not need to submit documentation for traffic fines and incidents that did not involve an actual arrest if the only penalty was a fine less than $500 and/or points on your drivers licence.[/i]

http://www.uscis.gov/files/article/M-476.pdf

The USCIS has stated that the term submit documentation refers to mentioning it on the N-400 document and not bringing in extra documentation.

[jsnearline 2]

Where has the USCIS stated, in writing, that not providing documentation equals not disclosing it? If you can post a link to something official in that regard, that could settle the issue.

Edited May 7, 2009 by jsnearline

[Italian_in_NYC 259]

Where has the USCIS stated, in writing, that not providing documentation equals not disclosing it? If you can post a link to something official in that regard, that could settle the issue.

Come on, the instructions are obviously not perfectly written.

Why are we bringing court documents for traffic tickets if no documentation is needed?!?

On the other hand, they can't say "do not disclose traffic tickets" because they do care about DUIs and reckless driving.

Let's just relax, it won't be an issue and nobody will be denaturalized for failing to stop at a stop sign...

[jsnearline 2]

It would be very easy to rewrite the instructions. Here's what they could say...

Note that unless a traffic incident was alcohol or drug related, you do not need to disclose traffic fines and incidents that did not involve an actual arrest if the only penalty was a fine less than $500 and/or points on your drivers licence.

This issue has been discussed on multiple threads. It doesn't seem like either side of the debate is likely to convince the other.

Edited May 7, 2009 by jsnearline

[warlord 73]

Where has the USCIS stated, in writing, that not providing documentation equals not disclosing it? If you can post a link to something official in that regard, that could settle the issue.

Ask them, call them up. That's where they will tell you as many others who have asked the IO and the USCIS can tell you. Not by people on the boards, but by the people who work at the USCIS state that "you do not need to mention it on the N-400".

I can tell you I'm glad I called ahead and found out straight from them. Saved me a lot of extra work that I did not want to have to deal with. Good thing my IO also told me that under $500 and non-dui isn't what they are looking...

Edited May 7, 2009 by warlord

[jsnearline 2]

Verbal assurances are nice, but unless they're willing to put them in writing, they don't mean much.

For example, my mother-in-law applied for an extension of stay last year. She made an INFOPASS because she got an RFE and was worried about the impact on her visa if she wound up being denied. The USCIS folks told her that her 10 year visa would still be valid as long as she left the country within 30 days of a denial. We asked if they could put it in writing and they told us that their rules prohibit them from doing so.

She ended up getting denied on a technicality. I later read in the State Department's Foreign Affairs Manual that if a person applies for an extension of status in a timely manner and remains in the US past the expiration date on the I-94 and USCIS subsequently denies the application, their visa is cancelled under 222(G) and they have to apply for a new one. Had we known this, she would have left as soon as she got the RFE and her visa would still be valid. Getting multi-entry visas from Manila is not easy. The bad advice we got from USCIS cost her big time.

Given that experience, you might be able to see why I would be hesitant to go on the verbal assurances of USCIS on anything. Better safe than sorry.

Edited May 7, 2009 by jsnearline

[jsnearline 2]

There is a similar question on the I-485 and it is much clearer.

Have you ever in or outside the United States...

b. been arrested, cited, charged, indicted, fined, or imprisoned for breaking or violating any law or ordinance, excluding traffic violations?

So, if they didn't want traffic violations reported on the N-400, they would have phrased the question closer to the one on the I-485.

[warlord 73]

There is a similar question on the I-485 and it is much clearer.

Have you ever in or outside the United States...

b. been arrested, cited, charged, indicted, fined, or imprisoned for breaking or violating any law or ordinance, excluding traffic violations?

So, if they didn't want traffic violations reported on the N-400, they would have phrased the question closer to the one on the I-485.

The fact is they state it in writting in the actual form already linked. If you want to spend your time reseaching your tickets then fine that's your time. I and many others were glad we contacted the USCIS to clarify the disclosure of tickets and didn't end up wasting our time trying to track them down and have had easy interviews and successful oath ceremonies...

[Italian_in_NYC 259]

There is a similar question on the I-485 and it is much clearer.

Have you ever in or outside the United States...

b. been arrested, cited, charged, indicted, fined, or imprisoned for breaking or violating any law or ordinance, excluding traffic violations?

So, if they didn't want traffic violations reported on the N-400, they would have phrased the question closer to the one on the I-485.

The fact is they state it in writting in the actual form already linked. If you want to spend your time reseaching your tickets then fine that's your time. I and many others were glad we contacted the USCIS to clarify the disclosure of tickets and didn't end up wasting our time trying to track them down and have had easy interviews and successful oath ceremonies...

Be careful, because if they ever find out you blew that stop sign, you will be deported to Guantanamo, tortured, and finally denaturalized.

[jsnearline 2]

What is the specific instruction on the form you refer to that says not having to document equals not having to disclose?

Like I said... We're just not going to agree on this one...

Edited May 8, 2009 by jsnearline

[Italian_in_NYC 259]

Like I said... You're not going to convince me and I'm not going to convince you on this one.

I agree with you, but if I may (and with no offense absolutely)...

Don't you think you're being a little paranoid here?

USCIS is a very inefficient Govt agency (hey, find me an efficient Govt agency besides the IRS!), we know that, but do you really think they're there to play gotcha with us?

Do you really think they're going to deny or denaturalize anybody for this?

Besides the fact that I'm 100% positive that they don't care about traffic violations, I really don't think it makes a difference if they find out. Good moral character is something else.

I'm not going to convince you, it's fine and you fill out the N400 the way you want, but seriously, don't you think we're making a big argument out of this?

[jsnearline 2]

My decision to disclose the information was partially based on our history with USCIS. If they denied my mother-in-law's extension of stay based on a minor technicality, they can do the same with an N-400. All it takes is one officer having a bad day who decides they want to screw you because they found something small in your background check that you didn't disclose.