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

[Samoray 165]

Wow this is an extremely offensive interview

I have never thought that it could go to that extent during an interview

But congratulations for the approval

[sachinky 465]

I'm still not sure which one of your 'human rights' were violated?

People tend to throw that term around without truly understanding what that entails.

Edited November 6, 2010 by sachinky

[~ameriptian~ 54]

I'm still not sure which one of your 'human rights' were violated?

People tend to throw that term around without truly understanding what that entails.

I do understand what the term Human Rights means. I volunteered for years to educate children and young adults about the issue. It's a Global Cause, IMHO...and the fact, that these rights are violated around the world daily on so many different levels (ranging from slightly, to extremely), is very shameful...

These are the very first two articles of Human Rights on the UN Website:

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

Article 1.

* All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

^ Top

Article 2.

* Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

I am going to sum 2 points up from our interview in only the above two statements:

- We were not treated equally as any AOS interviewees who have a normal case or with dignity.

- We were asked what was the distinction of our race and religion.. I don't understand what that has to do with approval or denial of an AOS application..

Article 7.

* All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

- From this discussion I learned that an IO is a Law Enforcement Officer and s/he clearly is supposed to treat all applicants equally unless the case clearly falls under immigration fraud, threatens the safety or the people and the country, etc.

Article 18.

* Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

- I believe the officer had no right to make fun of the fact that I do not cover my hair and still follow Islam as a Spiritualist and the fact that my husband and I have converted/changed our religious views.

BUT THEN AGAIN: I DO understand that all AOS/Visa cases are not the same, and immigration is not a human nor a constitutional right.

But, I do believe that all applicants should be treated equally with respect and preservation of their dignity ESPECIALLY if they do not fall under immigration fraud, put anyone's life in danger, have a serious criminal history, etc..

AND THEN AGAIN If there are questions to be asked to determine whether the person is eligible for a certain status, there's no reason to SAY offensive REMARKS about anyone's race/culture/religion/nationality..

If these points are no basis for approval or denial, then they should not be even mentioned.

Edited November 6, 2010 by Aya&John

[~ameriptian~ 54]

I did not come to the conclusion that the IO violated my Human Rights, and I did not mention in any post in this thread that he did. The post above is a clarification that the IO was in that shady area of discrimination against people based on race/religion/nationality and he had a bad attitude and made some very offensive remarks concerning these points...

The post above clarifies why I think the IO's was offensive from a humanitarian point of view..

[amykathleen2005 441]

I do agree that you did not have a very positive experience, but I am glad you were finally able to be approved.

However, you keep mentioning that you are not the "type of people" who should be questioned. What "type of people" are you referring to? You yourself are upset that you have been set apart because of your religious beliefs but then you go on to imply that you want other people to be profiled to find the right "type". Well how do you find that without some type of criteria to separate people?

[sachinky 465]

I am going to sum 2 points up from our interview in only the above two statements:

- We were not treated equally as any AOS interviewees who have a normal case ....

And who decides that? You? USCIS? The IO sure didn't seem to think you have a 'normal case' given that you were subjected to lite-Stokes.

[sachinky 465]

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.

This.

I'm also curious as to what "type" of people you keep on referring to -- those, according to you, should/could possibly be subject to the type of treatment you had to undergo. [As far as I understand, anything outside prevalent cultural (religious/social/racial) norms is considered to be fairgame for scrutiny/investigation/suspicion as far as USCIS is considered.]

And yes, you brought up US constitutional rights and 'valuing human rights' several times -- thereby implying that yours (or your husband's) were violated in some way.

Anyway, since you've made up your mind, good luck with your efforts to sue the IO/DHS/USCIS!

Edited November 7, 2010 by sachinky

[VanessaTony 3,567]

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.

He was hoping to get you to answer in a "rehearsed" way and throw you off balance by asking random questions without warning.

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..

The IO's investigation shows you DID fall into that "category", whatever category you think that is. You're going on about how mistreated you were but it's obvious you think (as someone else stated) that your relationship is above reproach and how DARE the IO question you. Obviously something is wrong in your files for you to get a Stokes interview. They are not random. Interviews are (some K1's like me don't get interviews) but Stokes are not random.

The "race" etc questions were obviously posed because something in your file triggered suspicion. Something about your religion and culture (as listed in your file) made them think something wasn't quite right. THAT'S why your questions would have been directed towards religion specifically (as someone else posted their questions were regarding age and language.. should they be offended that the IO are ageists and language-ists?".

- We were not treated equally as any AOS interviewees who have a normal case or with dignity.

The point is you DIDN'T have a normal case. If you did you wouldn't have had a Stokes interview.

- We were asked what was the distinction of our race and religion.. I don't understand what that has to do with approval or denial of an AOS application..

Race/Religion isn't relevant to the AOS approval/denial, but likely was to confirm you were on the same page as each other with your religion

- From this discussion I learned that an IO is a Law Enforcement Officer and s/he clearly is supposed to treat all applicants equally unless the case clearly falls under immigration fraud, threatens the safety or the people and the country, etc.

This is the point. Yours DID. You were being investigated for immigration fraud and therefore as you stated yourself, you DON'T get treated equally.

- I believe the officer had no right to make fun of the fact that I do not cover my hair and still follow Islam as a Spiritualist and the fact that my husband and I have converted/changed our religious views.

He does have the right. Not to make fun of course, but to try and get you to admit your fraud in any way possible he does. It appears he's doubting either of yours conversion and therefore all the questions about religion make sense.

BUT THEN AGAIN: I DO understand that all AOS/Visa cases are not the same, and immigration is not a human nor a constitutional right.

But, I do believe that all applicants should be treated equally with respect and preservation of their dignity ESPECIALLY if they do not fall under immigration fraud, put anyone's life in danger, have a serious criminal history, etc..

Again, as stated, you WERE being investigated for immigration fraud.

AND THEN AGAIN If there are questions to be asked to determine whether the person is eligible for a certain status, there's no reason to SAY offensive REMARKS about anyone's race/culture/religion/nationality..

If these points are no basis for approval or denial, then they should not be even mentioned.

It appears by your constant references to their questions about your religion that they suspect that either or both of you is not honest in his/her claims of conversion.

Obviously you were approved so you must have answered well, but like Jim said many posts ago, be prepared that you might be investigated.. at home, work .. or wherever they believe the "lie" is occuring.

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

As Vanessa and others have clearly stated, you were obviously suspected of fraud. You were treated the same as anyone else who is suspected of fraud, and from your statements you appear to understand this concept entirely. It really doesn't seem like it was the treatment that offended you as much as the fact that they suspected you and lumped you in with those 'other people', and you seem convinced the suspicion was the result of some unfairly applied racial/religious/cultural prejudice on the part of USCIS or the IO. If you have evidence this is the case then, by all means, file your lawsuit. Otherwise, since this will not be your last interaction with US immigration, you can probably reduce your future stress level considerably if you try to become a little less thin skinned when they become suspicious.

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

As Vanessa and others have clearly stated, you were obviously suspected of fraud. You were treated the same as anyone else who is suspected of fraud, and from your statements you appear to understand this concept entirely. It really doesn't seem like it was the treatment that offended you as much as the fact that they suspected you and lumped you in with those 'other people', and you seem convinced the suspicion was the result of some unfairly applied racial/religious/cultural prejudice on the part of USCIS or the IO. If you have evidence this is the case then, by all means, file your lawsuit. Otherwise, since this will not be your last interaction with US immigration, you can probably reduce your future stress level considerably if you try to become a little less thin skinned when they become suspicious.

Jim, would you not have been offended (at least) by any of those questions posed to the OP?

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

Jim, would you not have been offended (at least) by any of those questions posed to the OP?

Dunno because it didn't happen to me.

Seriously, I've had law enforcement officers get in my face before and accuse me of all sorts of stuff. I didn't take it personally because:

a) I knew it wasn't true

b) I knew the officer didn't know me from Adam, so he wouldn't know if it was true or not

Much of how you react to being treated harshly depends on how you expected to be treated. For instance, I expected to be treated like dirt by the drill instructors in basic training. As a result, I was never bothered by being yelled at and called all sorts of offensive names. I knew it wasn't personal. The DI was just doing his job.

I think the same thing applies in the OP's case. If she had known this was a possibility at the interview, she'd have been better prepared to cope with it. From what I can glean, she wrongly assumed that the IO would just automatically know she wasn't one of those "other people" who scam for a green card, and subsequently treat her with courtesy and respect. She admits these tactics might be necessary for some people, and seems to be offended that she was considered one of those people.

I was prepared for the possibility this might happen at our AOS interview, and I made sure my wife and step-kids were also prepared. There apparently wasn't anything in our files to trigger their suspicion, for which I'm grateful. If we had been subjected to a Stokes interview then I would have been more concerned about what in our file set them off, rather than thinking about filing complaints and lawsuits.

[~ameriptian~ 54]

I do agree that you did not have a very positive experience, but I am glad you were finally able to be approved.

However, you keep mentioning that you are not the "type of people" who should be questioned. What "type of people" are you referring to? You yourself are upset that you have been set apart because of your religious beliefs but then you go on to imply that you want other people to be profiled to find the right "type". Well how do you find that without some type of criteria to separate people?

If you read the whole thread you would know what I mean.. I clarified it in almost every post.. Even though I do NOT agree with that type of treatment, I understand that these questions are necessary to ask in case the file falls under immigration fraud.. There's nothing that justifies treating people badly and belittling them like that..

[amykathleen2005 441]

If you read the whole thread you would know what I mean.. I clarified it in almost every post.. Even though I do NOT agree with that type of treatment, I understand that these questions are necessary to ask in case the file falls under immigration fraud.. There's nothing that justifies treating people badly and belittling them like that..

You have spent the whole topic saying that you should not have been asked those questions and questioning their legality, and now you are saying that you understand that these questions need to be asked to find immigration fraud. So what is the problem?

[~ameriptian~ 54]

This.

I'm also curious as to what "type" of people you keep on referring to -- those, according to you, should/could possibly be subject to the type of treatment you had to undergo. [As far as I understand, anything outside prevalent cultural (religious/social/racial) norms is considered to be fairgame for scrutiny/investigation/suspicion as far as USCIS is considered.]

And yes, you brought up US constitutional rights and 'valuing human rights' several times -- thereby implying that yours (or your husband's) were violated in some way.

Anyway, since you've made up your mind, good luck with your efforts to sue the IO/DHS/USCIS!

I mentioned Human Rights and Constitutional Rights in different contexts.

I said: "There must be some guideline of Human Rights during interviews." - Meaning: No one should be treated different based on race/culture/religion, etc. Wondering if USCIS IO's put that in mind while interviewing people....

And by a constitutional right I mean my husband as a USC has the right to be treated 'in a civil manner' and not based on the above mentioned cafeteria-s...

Where did I mention in this thread that I made up my mind to sue the IO/DHS/USCIS????

Please, quote it and show it to me!!

[~ameriptian~ 54]

You have spent the whole topic saying that you should not have been asked those questions and questioning their legality, and now you are saying that you understand that these questions need to be asked to find immigration fraud. So what is the problem?

Again: I understand that these questions need to be asked in some cases.. If race/religion/culture are no basis for approval or denial, why should they be mentioned?!

I had a question in the title of the thread: "Are these questions/REMARKS Legal to Say (I didn't say ASK) in an AOS interview?"

What I completely disagree with is the offensive remarks.. Nothing justifies treating people like that...including me, you, or anyone...