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

[Mithra 1,185]

Just out of curiousity but would the fact that two of the OP's male family members applied for and were denied visitor visas to the US very shortly after her arrival to the US have any bearing on her AOS interview or treatment at the interview?

Honestly, I would just try to forget about what happened at the interview and move on. Spending money on atty fees to attempt to sue USCIS or the IO would be a waste. I understand that the IO was offensive but you wouldn't be the first or the last to be insulted or offended by an IO.

Edited November 7, 2010 by je veux ton amour

[~ameriptian~ 54]

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.

That's not true. I am offended by the fact that we were treated without respect and were made fun of more than anything. I said I do understand that these questions are needed to be asked sometimes, but nothing justifies treating people like that.. You can ask any type of question you want and still be respectful in some way, but being clearly demeaning and insensitive to people's feelings is not right..

[~ameriptian~ 54]

Just out of curiousity but would the fact that two of the OP's male family members applied for and were denied visitor visas to the US very shortly after her arrival to the US have any bearing on her AOS interview or treatment at the interview?

Honestly, I would just try to forget about what happened at the interview and move on. Spending money on atty fees to attempt to sue USCIS or the IO would be a waste. I understand that the IO was offensive but you wouldn't be the first or the last to be insulted or offended by an IO.

They applied for Visitor Visas to attend our wedding.. We sent official invitations and affidavits and even emailed the consular, but they were denied.. I, highly, expected that point to be mentioned at the interview, but it was not.. The interview went into a totally different direction...

The fact that I am not the first nor the last to be offended or insulted by an IO is itself sad.. Just because people apply for a certain application/status, doesn't give anyone the right to insult/offend them especially by remarks more than questions..

Edited November 7, 2010 by Aya&John

[~ameriptian~ 54]

Dunno because it didn't happen to me.

Exactly! Probably if it had happened to you, you probably would have felt different about it.

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.

After knowing that the questions are legal to ask..I understand that they are necessary to as in some cases, but again nothing justifies the offensive remarks..

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.

[Mithra 1,185]

It is sad but there are so many things in life that are sad and unfair. I do understand your anger about the situation completely. I'm just saying it may be better for you to try to let it go since you do have to ROC and possibly become naturalized one day. Making a big stink about the interview may be the equivalent of telling your boss to f-off when you still need your job?

[sachinky 465]

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

I assumed your "decision" was to go ahead and sue and file a complaint. That's what I thought you implied. My apologies if I wrongly assumed. I thought it was quite clear that your minds were made up.

[sachinky 465]

Religion/culture/race are not the sole criteria for approving or denying visas/AOS but they are issues that are often brought up -- just like age differences or communication barriers -- in order to judge whether the relationship is bonafide or not, to uncover immigration fraud, or rattle you in order to uncover immigration fraud or sometimes just to find out why/how you fall outside the prevalent norms.

Honestly, a lot of times, these are just tactics to see if you crack. Stokes are not random, questions asked are not random. You can be rest assured about that. Something in your file set them off. I read somewhere that interviewing officers are often trained to guage body language/eye movement. More than the questions, that's what they are focusing on. Are you shuffling too much? Are you nervous? How much are 'umming' and 'aahing?' Do you look uncomfortable -- that sort of stuff. I wouldn't worry if I were you -- clearly, you managed to convince the IO of your sincerity.

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

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.

Very good response. Thanks for that. I agree with you about the bit where (if this type of interrogation ensued) one would wonder why.

And I think that's the OP's quandry. She feels targeted by race and religion. We all know race and religion can be huge issues in a marriage. Properly phrased, these kind of questions (from an adjudicating officer) are perfectly legitimate.

At any rate, IMO the AO went a bit further than needed. Of course, a lot depends on if the quotes given us are verbatim or not. And a whole lot depends on "how" the AO put the questions. Was he combative or not? We don't know because we weren't there.

I don't know about you Jim, but I've read my share of threads regarding rude treatment of aliens by USCIS employees. The AO had a right to follow any line of questioning he feels necessary. But he didn't have the right to be "rude" (if that is what really happened.

I think the OP has a perfectly legitimate right to file a complaint to her local office if she feels she was treated with contempt at the interview. I don't there's not much else she can do. But writing that letter of complaint may just be enough to make her feel better. And if the dude has a track record of bad behavior with USCIS customers, then her complaint will be noted.

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

Religion/culture/race are not the sole criteria for approving or denying visas/AOS but they are issues that are often brought up -- just like age differences or communication barriers -- in order to judge whether the relationship is bonafide or not, to uncover immigration fraud, or rattle you in order to uncover immigration fraud or sometimes just to find out why/how you fall outside the prevalent norms.

Honestly, a lot of times, these are just tactics to see if you crack. Stokes are not random, questions asked are not random. You can be rest assured about that. Something in your file set them off. I read somewhere that interviewing officers are often trained to guage body language/eye movement. More than the questions, that's what they are focusing on. Are you shuffling too much? Are you nervous? How much are 'umming' and 'aahing?' Do you look uncomfortable -- that sort of stuff. I wouldn't worry if I were you -- clearly, you managed to convince the IO of your sincerity.

And then there are other days where we come up against persons who have a little power who like to try and abuse it.

Every one of us who has been through this process knows the hoops we have to jump through. I think most of us would say we've had nerves about it at one point or another. At each step, we hope our lives will be given the "blessing" of the US government. We tuck our tails and shuffle our feet plenty to appease the man.

We don't have to take ill-treatment though. If I ever thought I was treated overly harsh by a USCIS employee, I would let their supervision know.

Politely.

Edited November 7, 2010 by JohnnyQuest

[VanessaTony 3,567]

The problem with the word "rude" is some people laugh at rude, some people get offended. Some people find "fart jokes" funny, other people find it crass.

My ineloquent point is - the IO is trained to sniff out fraud. Just like police sometimes use "soft" interrogation or "hard" interrogation depending of their reading of a persons body language, I suspect that's what happened here. What exactly can an IO say to properly "shake" someone up if he's not allowed to be even slightly rude?

The IO interprets body language and responds accordingly. Usually the hard technique is the best technique in fraud cases people you have to be a certain kind of person to do it. Soft techniques are better for children, or crimes of passion, or the "delicately minded" people.

I just wouldn't waste my time. It was offensive sure, but it's a Stokes, you can't expect good treatment if someone thinks you're a murderer either. Just because YOU know you're innocent doesn't mean the IO does and it's on YOU to prove it. Would I be offended if those questions were asked of me? Sure, that's the point. Would I harp on about it after being approved? Probably not. I WOULD be concerned about what's in my file to trigger the suspicion though.

To be honest, and probably completely inaccurate - it appears to me that you've had your religion qn'd one too many times. That the IO isn't the first person to ask questions about it, perhaps even you yourself are struggling in some sense internally to deal with it. If I was sure about something within myself I wouldn't react with as much indignation as you have. I would if I was still not 100% sure of my decision/choices.

If someone calls you fat and you think you are, you get upset. If you don't think you're fat you just think they're a moron, OR you start to wonder if that's how everyone sees you. If you hear someone laughing and you're insecure, you might think it HAS to be directed at you, or you might look around to see what's so funny and laugh along. It's all a matter of self-confidence and security in your life and your life choices.

It appears to me you're not 100% sure yet about something, something that triggered your indignation. So, (and I'm not meaning to be rude here), perhaps you should seek spiritual counselling or something? I know that my family is having a hard time handling my moving overseas, and they often question my decision and that upsets me, mostly because sometimes I question my decision. Not to be with my husband but of the huge change in my life. Perhaps you're feeling a little the same? Sorry if I'm off track but it seemed possible

[~ameriptian~ 54]

The problem with the word "rude" is some people laugh at rude, some people get offended. Some people find "fart jokes" funny, other people find it crass.

My ineloquent point is - the IO is trained to sniff out fraud. Just like police sometimes use "soft" interrogation or "hard" interrogation depending of their reading of a persons body language, I suspect that's what happened here. What exactly can an IO say to properly "shake" someone up if he's not allowed to be even slightly rude?

The IO interprets body language and responds accordingly. Usually the hard technique is the best technique in fraud cases people you have to be a certain kind of person to do it. Soft techniques are better for children, or crimes of passion, or the "delicately minded" people.

I just wouldn't waste my time. It was offensive sure, but it's a Stokes, you can't expect good treatment if someone thinks you're a murderer either. Just because YOU know you're innocent doesn't mean the IO does and it's on YOU to prove it. Would I be offended if those questions were asked of me? Sure, that's the point. Would I harp on about it after being approved? Probably not. I WOULD be concerned about what's in my file to trigger the suspicion though.

To be honest, and probably completely inaccurate - it appears to me that you've had your religion qn'd one too many times. That the IO isn't the first person to ask questions about it, perhaps even you yourself are struggling in some sense internally to deal with it. If I was sure about something within myself I wouldn't react with as much indignation as you have. I would if I was still not 100% sure of my decision/choices.

If someone calls you fat and you think you are, you get upset. If you don't think you're fat you just think they're a moron, OR you start to wonder if that's how everyone sees you. If you hear someone laughing and you're insecure, you might think it HAS to be directed at you, or you might look around to see what's so funny and laugh along. It's all a matter of self-confidence and security in your life and your life choices.

It appears to me you're not 100% sure yet about something, something that triggered your indignation. So, (and I'm not meaning to be rude here), perhaps you should seek spiritual counselling or something? I know that my family is having a hard time handling my moving overseas, and they often question my decision and that upsets me, mostly because sometimes I question my decision. Not to be with my husband but of the huge change in my life. Perhaps you're feeling a little the same? Sorry if I'm off track but it seemed possible

Wow, Vanessa! I think that's totally off-point.

I respect your point of view...but no, that's not the case.. I am totally comfortable with my religious views which are not new to anyone who has known me for quite a few years..

I have clarified many times in this thread why I think religion/race/nationality should not be mentioned...simply, because if it is no basis for approval or denial, it should not be mentioned.. It's just my opinion..

I, also, think that the terms race and religion are very tricky terms...since nobody really track your genes or read the content of your mind and heart just by appearance.. For example, people who meet me for the first time, they think I am Mexican or South American, I am not related whatsoever to either the country or the continent.. Another example, is when someone asks what religion someone else follows: S/he might say Christian (which could mean: Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, Baptist, etc).. Or Muslim which could mean: (Sunni, Shiite, etc).. Or Simply a Spiritualist.. These are totally personal choices that have nothing to do with immigration, IMHO.. If they REALLY REALLY have to be mentioned, they should be put as Q/A wise, not with offensive examples and remarks like in our case....

I am not harping about our bad experience.. I could go on and on about what happened during the interview and analyze every single question/word, but I do not want to.. I originally started this thread with a question: Are these questions and REMARKS legal to say? And a THOUGHT of suing/reporting the IO based on whether the questions/remarks were legal or not.. My husband and I have already made up our mind about the whole issue.. It's an open discussion now and I am simply explaining my point of view of why I think race/religion/culture related questions or offensive remarks of the same nature should not be mentioned in an interview..

[Deputy Purple 1,294]

I can't say I'd be happy at being treated this way but I can say I hope I'd better be able to let it go as part of the process is it ever did happen to us.

Op said that being a woman from Egypt married to a foreigner is indeed very rare, wouldn't that be a "Red Flag"? So now the IO wants to understand how a Muslim woman from Egypt finds herself sitting in an AOS interview here and she's not wearing a head scarf which again is out of the norm [by his understanding].

Then there are 2 denied B Class visas for her brothers connected to her wedding, why wouldn't the IO wonder if the marriage was part of a larger plan to get her family to the US?

Sure it may sound ridiculous to us but does anyone here really think that it hasn't been tried before?

OP, you keep saying your were ridiculed (laughed at/made fun of) but you haven't really backed that up.

[Harpa Timsah 13,258]

Very good response. Thanks for that. I agree with you about the bit where (if this type of interrogation ensued) one would wonder why.

And I think that's the OP's quandry. She feels targeted by race and religion. We all know race and religion can be huge issues in a marriage. Properly phrased, these kind of questions (from an adjudicating officer) are perfectly legitimate.

At any rate, IMO the AO went a bit further than needed. Of course, a lot depends on if the quotes given us are verbatim or not. And a whole lot depends on "how" the AO put the questions. Was he combative or not? We don't know because we weren't there.

I don't know about you Jim, but I've read my share of threads regarding rude treatment of aliens by USCIS employees. The AO had a right to follow any line of questioning he feels necessary. But he didn't have the right to be "rude" (if that is what really happened.

I think the OP has a perfectly legitimate right to file a complaint to her local office if she feels she was treated with contempt at the interview. I don't there's not much else she can do. But writing that letter of complaint may just be enough to make her feel better. And if the dude has a track record of bad behavior with USCIS customers, then her complaint will be noted.

I agree with this very much. I think the IO lacked, for lack of a better term, "bedside manner." We all agree that some or all of the questions needed to be asked, but I believe there is a more polite way that is also better at rooting out fraud. I think we have all met some of these people who make you feel so at ease even though they are not really your friend. This type of (rare) personality is the best suited for this line of work, imo.

I think the IO probably had a right to ask "what is your race" even though it is offensive. They want to see how large the cultural discrepancy is between you. One time I was questioned (not USCIS related) in a sideways way about my background that led to questions like "how did you get your name" when I wished they would have just been straightforward about it. Although in that case what they were after (my religion) was illegal considering the circumstances.

I do not think the IO had any right to make fun of you about how you were dressed. If you were dressed in an untraditional manner, the better way would have been more along the lines of... "I was under the impression that women etc etc etc" with a friendly smile that made you spill your true feelings on the matter.

I'm sorry that you had a bad time. I am also glad the IO questioned you thoroughly and erased all doubt that you were committing fraud. I sincerely wish he were better at his job and could come to that conclusion without making fun of you. That is horrible.

The real strange thing is that you were approved at the interview... no "we'll get back to you" type of thing. That part sounds a bit like he was "practicing his mean face" or something.

By all means, file a complaint. It is part of the system and will not hurt you for your future applications.

[Nwanyioma 11]

My dear Aya,

Im so sorry to hear about what you went through at your interview. You see people have to realize that you have the right to feel the way you feel. But they dont understand. Aya Im happy to hear that you were approved!!! Take care.

Nwanyioma

[Rob and Jill 82]

Aya,

While I can understand you being offended and upset by the questions you were asked, I don't see where you could sue. Certainly send a letter and complain if you think it will help. It MIGHT. However, keep in mind that you were in an AOS interview and you're not a U.S. Citizen YET. Honestly, I am not even sure the Constitution protects you at this phase in immigration...That's something for me to research in spare time!

It stinks you were treated that way. I'm sorry it happened, but I honestly think you should find your happy place and let it go.