Are These Questions/Remarks Legal to Say in an AOS Interview?

[monalisa2010 1]

sorry aya for what you have been passed through that ugly interview...is that interview in consulate in cairo or uscis to adjust your case? well,if its here in egypt u have to know that they have avery good background about any clture they work through ,as example we cant get kids without getting marry ,muslim woman cant marry with christian man , and dont forget that they have egyptians stuff employers ,that man also seems ready himself to turn you nervous ...now i wanna know did he refuse your visa? u mentioned k1 in your topic so what kind of visa you talking about cr1 or k1 pls clarify thanks aya.....

[~ameriptian~ 54]

Several of the questions that you mention (prostitution, bigamy, drugs, gangs, terrorist, etc.) are the same questions that you (and all other AOS applicants) answered in Part 3 of the form I-485.

From my recollection the IO asked the same questions to my wife during the AOS interview. It appears to be standard procedure for the interviewing officer to verify the answers submitted by the applicant.

I did notice that. He was actually checking my answers on the same form as I was answering, but 'stuffing' other questions that were not on the form in between as well.

[~ameriptian~ 54]

I think we all forgot about that part. Anh Map. Very good point. Seems like most of the questions she was most upset about are on the I-485 - Aya, they asked Nik those questions too. Both on the form we submitted and out loud in person.

Although I found these questions offensive (because of the officers unfriendly attitude- I didn't mention how hostile he was when I was laughing out of shock because of what he was asking), I kind of understood that some type of people need to be asked these questions.. And, obviously, the officer didn't do enough investigation to know that we don't fall under that category...

The race, religion, and offensive cultural remarks (generalization) parts are the parts that I am taking personally.. They should not be any basis for approval or denial.. They should not even be posed in an interview..

[~ameriptian~ 54]

sorry aya for what you have been passed through that ugly interview...is that interview in consulate in cairo or uscis to adjust your case? well,if its here in egypt u have to know that they have avery good background about any clture they work through ,as example we cant get kids without getting marry ,muslim woman cant marry with christian man , and dont forget that they have egyptians stuff employers ,that man also seems ready himself to turn you nervous ...now i wanna know did he refuse your visa? u mentioned k1 in your topic so what kind of visa you talking about cr1 or k1 pls clarify thanks aya.....

I was interviewed for my K1 visa almost a year ago.. The interview went very smooth.. I was asked many questions, but nothing offensive and the officer was very pleasant and friendly..

The interview I am referring to in this thread is my AOS interview...

[sachinky 465]

Second, even if you could prove he was biased by race, religion, or culture, you can't show how you were injured by his bias because you were approved.

Precisely.

[Nich-Nick 3,354]

All I am saying is, there MUST be and there should be some guideline of human rights during interviews.. There's no reason to be hostile and demeaning to someone because you 'suspect' there's something in there case...

There are indeed guidelines of customer service where the IO is instructed to treat you with courtesy and dignity, and to be respectful of cultural differences, disabilities, difficulty understanding English, etc. They are given examples of how to phrase a question. They are cautioned against sarcasm.

From the introduction. There's pages of stuff on how they are to conduct themselves.

Adjudications Officers play a critical role in the provision of customer service. Unlike an employee of a private company, you are not trying to sell applicants anything. However, by interviewing applicants to determine whether they have met the requirements for immigration benefits, you provide individual attention to their requests, hopes, and even fears.

Of course, your decisions to approve, continue, or deny a case must always be consistent with the law, regulations, and policy. However, every applicant should receive excellent service, no matter what the outcome of the case.

From an applicant's perspective, you are the face of the USCIS , and the applicant's interaction with you is a "moment of truth." A moment of truth occurs when a customer comes into contact with the organization and forms an impression of its service

.

I think you have reason to complain if you don't feel you were treated with courtesy and respect. Your complaint should be specific with the exact statements and phrasing that offended you. And you should point out the lack of knowledge shown in the interaction concerning meeting twice vs within the last two years. I would do it in writing, not over the phone. Here is the page for Report USCIS Employee Misconduct.

There' also this:

If you have a complaint about the way that a USCIS employee treated you, you should speak with that employee's direct supervisor if possible. If your complaint is not handled to your satisfaction, or if you could not speak with the supervisor, you may write a letter to the

director of your USCIS District Office.

I will find the links to the whole customer service things and PM them to you so you know what the expected behaviors are.

[~ameriptian~ 54]

Precisely.

Does that mean that asking these (race, religion, offensive cultural) questions/remarks is still ok?!

[~ameriptian~ 54]

There are indeed guidelines of customer service where the IO is instructed to treat you with courtesy and dignity, and to be respectful of cultural differences, disabilities, difficulty understanding English, etc. They are given examples of how to phrase a question. They are cautioned against sarcasm.

From the introduction. There's pages of stuff on how they are to conduct themselves.

Adjudications Officers play a critical role in the provision of customer service. Unlike an employee of a private company, you are not trying to sell applicants anything. However, by interviewing applicants to determine whether they have met the requirements for immigration benefits, you provide individual attention to their requests, hopes, and even fears.

Of course, your decisions to approve, continue, or deny a case must always be consistent with the law, regulations, and policy. However, every applicant should receive excellent service, no matter what the outcome of the case.

From an applicant's perspective, you are the face of the USCIS , and the applicant's interaction with you is a "moment of truth." A moment of truth occurs when a customer comes into contact with the organization and forms an impression of its service

.

I think you have reason to complain if you don't feel you were treated with courtesy and respect. Your complaint should be specific with the exact statements and phrasing that offended you. And you should point out the lack of knowledge shown in the interaction concerning meeting twice vs within the last two years. I would do it in writing, not over the phone. Here is the page for Report USCIS Employee Misconduct.

There' also this:

If you have a complaint about the way that a USCIS employee treated you, you should speak with that employee's direct supervisor if possible. If your complaint is not handled to your satisfaction, or if you could not speak with the supervisor, you may write a letter to the

director of your USCIS District Office.

I will find the links to the whole customer service things and PM them to you so you know what the expected behaviors are.

Perfect answer! Thank you so much!

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

I am absolutely not worried about that.. They can go ahead and do any type of investigation they want, it will just show them what type of dumb culture-phobic employees they have... I would love to give them the opportunity to feel that..

All I am saying is, there MUST be and there should be some guideline of human rights during interviews.. There's no reason to be hostile and demeaning to someone because you 'suspect' there's something in there case... Unless you do an investigation and find something (which I am sure they did not because both of us are two of the most straight-forward-people-who-just-want-to-live-right anyone could ever meet), then don't be so demeaning and prove yourself a fool.. But since we are talking about the government here, so I know it's in nobody's hands.. I hope if there's any type of immigration reformation to come, that any leader would have that issue in mind...and it will not happen, unless innocent people who have been subject to these interviews draw their attention to it..

I thought the US is all about Freedom (of Faith, Beliefs, Speech, etc.) and Protecting Human Rights..and I did not really feel that during my interview...

As I explained before, the method they use is a standard law enforcement technique. It's legal, and it's often quite effective. When they bring up cultural or religious issues during the interview it's rarely because they are sensitive to those issues, and more likely because they suspect that you are sensitive to them. The objective is to shake you up. If you were a Catholic from Colombia they might have accused you of being a drug smuggler or something similar.

Any immigration reform will likely not include doing away with the Stokes interview, simply because it works. When people are intimidated they will admit things they otherwise wouldn't admit.

Were any of your Constitutional rights breached during the interview? Were any of your human rights violated? From what you've described, I think the answer is no. You seem to have been offended because the immigration officer had the audacity to suspect you of something, and that you feel you should somehow be above suspicion. As I said in my first post, I think you went into the interview without a realistic understanding of what could happen there, and what the purpose of the interview was.

By all means, file a complaint or even a lawsuit, if you like. It doesn't sound to me like the immigration officer violated either US law or USCIS policy.

[Anh map 2,098]

Although I found these questions offensive (because of the officers unfriendly attitude- I didn't mention how hostile he was when I was laughing out of shock because of what he was asking), I kind of understood that some type of people need to be asked these questions.. And, obviously, the officer didn't do enough investigation to know that we don't fall under that category...

The race, religion, and offensive cultural remarks (generalization) parts are the parts that I am taking personally.. They should not be any basis for approval or denial.. They should not even be posed in an interview..

How much investigation of each applicant do you think is appropriate? And how much longer would be willing to wait for that investigation to be conducted? Furthermore, how much more would be willing to pay (processing fee) for that investigation?

The officer was doing their job to determine that you were eligible to receive the benefit applied for. While you (or any of us) believe that your case shines clearly above the rest as valid, the adjudicating officer needs to determine that based on applying their knowledge and experience.

The burden of proof is on the applicant. You are at that interview to convince the interviewer that you are in fact living as a married couple. Your life together ( just as mine was at the AOS interview) is fair game. Our interviewer focused on age difference and communication. We answered similar questions a few times. As you did, we convinced the officer that our marriage was legitimate.

From what you've mentioned, all the questions were appropriate. That's just one person's opinion.

FWIW here is one VJ member's input on interviews. They were a CPB officer at one point in their life:

A good way to try to check your emotions is to understand that the nature of personal questions is not a reflection on you, it's a reflection of finding the truth to make an informed decision. They are doing their job which is to determine the eligibility of an individual to receive a benefit.

It's business not personal. That's tough to soak in because getting an immigration visa to be with your family is a very personal issue, but they don't see it that way and neither should you. If you understand their perspective and keep that in mind, you can tailor your responses to meet that perspective. Do that and you're most of the way there.

[armorri122 1]

Wow, I just read this post. What an @$$hole! Pardon my language. I think it sounds legal but there seems to be some gray space around what constitutes harrassment. Perhaps you should get some real legal advice if you are going to pursue this. They can tell you what is the best route to take and they can also lodge complaint letters and things like that on legal letterhead, which makes a HUGE difference. I'm sorry you're experience was so awful.

As some people have said earlier, he was really just trying to throw you off. You did the right thing by staying patient and remaining calm and correcting him, even if he didn't like it. You don't have many rights when it comess to legal immigration but I'm sure you have a right to an experience free ffrom harassment. I would definitely complain.

[~ameriptian~ 54]

As I explained before, the method they use is a standard law enforcement technique. It's legal, and it's often quite effective. When they bring up cultural or religious issues during the interview it's rarely because they are sensitive to those issues, and more likely because they suspect that you are sensitive to them. The objective is to shake you up. If you were a Catholic from Colombia they might have accused you of being a drug smuggler or something similar.

Any immigration reform will likely not include doing away with the Stokes interview, simply because it works. When people are intimidated they will admit things they otherwise wouldn't admit.

Were any of your Constitutional rights breached during the interview? Were any of your human rights violated? From what you've described, I think the answer is no. You seem to have been offended because the immigration officer had the audacity to suspect you of something, and that you feel you should somehow be above suspicion. As I said in my first post, I think you went into the interview without a realistic understanding of what could happen there, and what the purpose of the interview was.

By all means, file a complaint or even a lawsuit, if you like. It doesn't sound to me like the immigration officer violated either US law or USCIS policy.

I did not feel offended by some of the questions. The race/religion/culture questions and REMARKS (as the thread title said) is what offended me most.. I recalled the form I signed which included many of the questions I was asked, hearing them in person sounded pretty crazy, but I still answered every question correctly and had good humor about it.. The officer did not only ask questions, he also made offensive remarks.. I do not wish to discuss them on an online forum since it concerns our personal life, but let's just say that whenever I wanted to explain more about a point.. He interrupted me and a couple of times said "Shhhh" and went to the next question.. It was so rude and unfriendly..

My husband and I were preparing ourselves to be interviewed together or separately.. We had over 650 photos with us.. And we had two folders of proof of our relationship before and after we got married including letters from family and friends.. I expected to be asked any kind of question including some of the questions I posted here in the first post.. I did not expect a rude attitude, though.. I admit that I thought some of the questions sounded very crazy, but the unfriendly attitude and the certain questions related to race, religion, and culture offended me the most.. Just because an officer has the power 'to ask anything they want', it should not give them the right to belittle someone or make fun of their culture..especially without further investigation that that person's case really falls under immigration fraud or threatens anyone's safety, etc...

May be I am too idealistic...but I do value human rights.. Race/color/nationality/religion and other stereotypes and stigmas should be no basis to make a decision on someone.. Even though we were not denied, I do feel these questions should not be posed in any interview...

Edited November 5, 2010 by Aya&John

[~ameriptian~ 54]

Thank you everyone for your input. I respect everyone's point of view whether it agreed with mind or not.

I am sorry some of the posters have been through the same experience, and I am so sorry for the ones who got falsely denied!

My husband and I have already made our decision based on our opinion about the matter and the discussion in this thread...

Once again, thank you all!

[sachinky 465]

Does that mean that asking these (race, religion, offensive cultural) questions/remarks is still ok?!

In my interview I was asked whether or not my husband is an American. I was like, DUH. Why else would I be here at the United States Consulate General? They asked this twice. I assumed they wanted to know what race he belonged to. They were basically asking if he was an Indian American or a white American. So I told them he was of Irish descent. White with flaming red hair. And a temper to match.

They asked me several times if either I or he had converted religions prior to our marriage. I replied in the negative and said that that's why we got married under the Special Marriage Act since we belonged to different communities. I was asked to explain why and elaborate on the details of our wedding which was basically a civil marriage with a few Hindu traditions thrown in.

Sure, our interviewer wasn't hostile and rude like yours but these cultural/racial/religious comments/questions are quite routine in most visa interviews -- especially in situation where the relationship is outside prevalent norms.

You know your relationship is sincere. The IO doesn't know you or your husband from jack-squat and only has the information in your file to go off on. Don't take it so personally.

Edited November 5, 2010 by sachinky

[NikosF 6]

Sounds like you've made your mind up what to do, my I'll throw my 2 cents in anyway.

Let it go. You won't have any luck suing them, and I'd even let the complaint thing slide. The last thing you need is a black mark on your file because you get perceived as a trouble maker. He approved you - so obviously you convinced him.

Sure - it sounds like he could go on a course teaching him to be more civil, but you won't get any joy fighting the government. Read a Kafka novel and realise how good we all have it.

You've been approved. I'd chalk that up as a victory and move on. Sure the guys an a$$hole, but move on and don't let it upset you.