Negative Interview Experiences

[NuHere 6]

With the recent posts where people shared their unpleasant interview experiences, I was wondering if there was an official way to file a complaint against the interviewing officer or requesting to speak to his/her supervisor and letting them know.

We have our rights too. I understand the position we, the immigrants being interviewed, are in and that most of wouldn't want to do it, but I'm curious.

The officers are aware of their authority and some totally abuse it. Even though I assume the majority of people don't lie on their applications and therefore have nothing to worry about, still... nobody wants to get into an argument with their IO out of fear of it affecting the application.

However, certain lines shouldn't be crossed (eye rolling, etc). That is just rude and extremely unprofessional.

[Darth Vader Rises 1]

Two points:

1) During the interview, if at any time the applicant feels the interviewer is exceeding his authority in any way, he, the applicant, may insist on having a colleague thenimmigration officer, of equal or higher rank, sit in on the interview. Not sure how this would help ultimately.

2) Write a leter to the field district director after the fact. All agents are required at the interview to provide their first initial, surname and officer number. Not sure how far this would go.

Ultimately, the point behind making complaints in these official matters against government agents is not to secure punitive measures for the agent in question, but to document the facts on the record so that, if a trend of truly concerning behaviour is detected, it can be addressed comprehensively.

With the recent posts where people shared their unpleasant interview experiences, I was wondering if there was an official way to file a complaint against the interviewing officer or requesting to speak to his/her supervisor and letting them know.

We have our rights too. I understand the position we, the immigrants being interviewed, are in and that most of wouldn't want to do it, but I'm curious.

The officers are aware of their authority and some totally abuse it. Even though I assume the majority of people don't lie on their applications and therefore have nothing to worry about, still... nobody wants to get into an argument with their IO out of fear of it affecting the application.

However, certain lines shouldn't be crossed (eye rolling, etc). That is just rude and extremely unprofessional.

[NuHere 6]

That's the thing, I don't think it would ultimately help the person filing the complaint. But perhaps if, as you say, an officer had a few complaints against him/her, some sort of a disciplinary action could take place. In reality, with the recent news about police behavior and action, I'm just frustrated by seeing people abuse their authority. That's all.

Perhaps, this is why some people hire attorneys. I assume the IOs act in a different manner with an attorney present, representing their client.

Edited August 15, 2014 by NuHere

[Darth Vader Rises 1]

Not quite, NuHere:

Immigration officers are aware of the limited authority lawyers have and there is very little leverage a lawyer can exert at an interview: they cannot be sued personally, dismissed from their positions or impacted negatively in any way. The only time a lawyer at the interview is "empowered" is when his client is uninformed. Most immigration officers know thisvand are not cowed by attending lawyers.

That's the thing, I don't think it would ultimately help the person filing the complaint. But perhaps if, as you say, an officer had a few complaints against him/her, some sort of a disciplinary action could take place. In realityed, with the recent news about police behavior and action, I'm just frustrated by seeing people abuseed their authority. That's all.

Perhaps, this is why some people hire attorneys. I assume the IOs act in a different manner with an attorney present, representing their client.

[JimmyHou 611]

This is just my personal opinion - I'm saying that because a lot of people are very touchy when it comes to this topic. I'm not advising anyone to do anything, but since this is a general discussion, I'm going to share my view.

An interviewer can roll his eyes at me all he wants as long as he approves my application. He can be rude and unpleasant as long as he is informed. Based on some of what I've read here on VJ, the worst interviews are not those where the IO is rude, but where he is uninformed and unwilling to listen to explanations. Sometimes, IOs are shockingly unaware of the law and of USCIS regulations. Those are the cases where a complaint to a supervisor is deemed necessary.

There was a case where an applicant filed everything correctly and was denied because USCIS scheduled his interview two days before his fifth green card anniversary. It was completely ridiculous! There is no such regulation. The applicant asked to have the decision delayed, or have his oath a few days later, or come in for a second interview, but the IO insisted that the law said that he had to be denied. The applicant complained and the decision was reversed within a couple of weeks.

I think those are the cases where a complaint is necessary. I also think a complaint is warranted if the applicant genuinely feels they are being discriminated against.

An interviewer asking questions in a curt fashion or rolling his eyes at me has no effect on my eligibility, so I don't really care. If I were going to a nice restaurant, I'd expect polite service, but at McDonald's, I just hope they get my order right. I think of USCIS more like McDonald's.

Of course I think everyone has the right to be treated well and that IOs should be expected to be respectful. It's not that I don't think I have the right to complain, it's just that if my case is not affected, it's not worth my time to complain. It's true that someone else will end up having to deal with the same rude IO if I don't complain, but I'd rather they deal with him than with someone else who doesn't know what he's doing.

Personal opinion aside, as Darth mentioned above, there are avenues through which you can complain and ask for review.

[NuHere 6]

I hear you. I'm sure all of us deal with a similar situation differently. Someone like you, Jimmy, might shrug the whole thing off (if it happened to you) and be all about fact. I think that is the bet way to approach anything USCIS related. Others might spend days and weeks worrying and stressing over it until they hear the decision. And that to me when the IO's behavior is basically ruining someone's life (for a limited time).

Darth, you are right that an attorney's legal authority might be limited, but I would tend to agree with Happy Chic. I think the fact that a third person who isn't intimidated sits in the room affects the IO and how he/she treats the person being interviewed.

[JimmyHou 611]

I hear you. I'm sure all of us deal with a similar situation differently. Someone like you, Jimmy, might shrug the whole thing off (if it happened to you) and be all about fact. I think that is the bet way to approach anything USCIS related. Others might spend days and weeks worrying and stressing over it until they hear the decision. And that to me when the IO's behavior is basically ruining someone's life (for a limited time).

Darth, you are right that an attorney's legal authority might be limited, but I would tend to agree with Happy Chic. I think the fact that a third person who isn't intimidated sits in the room affects the IO and how he/she treats the person being interviewed.

I agree completely; it depends on the applicant's personality and experiences. And you're right; it really does mess up some people's day, week, or month to be treated like that. Plus it is unnecessary to be rude; they can get the same info by being polite.

I've been in the US for a long time and I remember the "special registration" process that legal aliens from Arab and Islamic countries had to "volunteer" for shortly after 9/11. That was a rough process. In that case, you were being asked questions by INS interviewers who were purposefully trying to freak you out so that you'd admit to some mistake you may have made. And it took hours and hours of waiting... the process was completely undefined, the interviewers had no experience. And you can imagine how overloaded they were when they just said, "everyone come in for an interview". I think I waited about 4 hours for my interview then I got yelled at because I had made photocopies of everything except a school transcript. I had to go back the next day to submit it because they wouldn't copy it there. Luckily the second day only took 30 minutes. I hope my N400 interview goes better than that! :-)

Haha! Wow! I went a little off topic with that little rant, but it's relevant to the whole INS/BCIS/USCIS rudeness issue.

I'm not even complaining about having even asked to do it; but it was unpleasant. I think it's experiences like that that help you develop a think skin

If you have a bad experience with USCIS or at an embassy or at an airport, you'll probably be more able to ignore a rude officer in the future.

Edited August 15, 2014 by JimmyHou

[Darth Vader Rises 1]

You're free to disagree, but I think you missed the entirety of my remarks. I said a lawyer's utility mostly stems from an applicant's ignorance of his rights. Any informed applicant can keep the same tabs onnthe immigration officer with just the same effectiveness.

I have to respectfully disagree. While you are correct that there is "little leverage a lawyer can exert at an interview", immigration lawyers also keep tabs on IOs' behaviors with the applicant/beneficiary. Lawyers can have an IO retract unruly questions or comments. As an example, IOs are far, far less to "eye-roll" at applicants when an attorney is present. That being said, there is no need to hire an attorney solely on the basis that an IO may misbehave since IOs are supposed to be objective and neutral in their adjudications. Just as a disclaimer, I'm no attorney and I don't work for one.

[Darth Vader Rises 1]

Agreed! So bottomline, if you feel unnecessarily intimidated by USCIS (many do, some don't) and can part with upwards of three hundred dollars in most cases for a lawyer to sit in on your interview, get one. If you're confident, don't get one. That's my takeaway here.

According to a lawyer I spoke with a few months ago, the majority of applicants (in his opinion) who request lawyers at the interviews are those with either criminal backgrounds, poor English language skills, very complicated cases, or simply ineligible in the first place. He said it would be ridiculous for someone like myself to go to the interview simply based on the way I had presented myself to him, and that it would simply be a waste of dollars.

I hear you. I'm sure all of us deal with a similar situation differently. Someone like you, Jimmy, might shrug the whole thing off (if it happened to you) and be all about fact. I think that is the bet way to approach anything USCIS related. Others might spend days and weeks worrying and stressing over it until they hear the decision. And that to me when the IO's behavior is basically ruining someone's life (for a limited time).

Darth, you are right that an attorney's legal authority might be limited, but I would tend to agree with Happy Chic. I think the fact that a third person who isn't intimidated sits in the room affects the IO and how he/she treats the person being interviewed.

[NuHere 6]

It's sad whenever intimidation is restored to as means to obtain information on a mass scale. I'm sorry you had to go through that experience, Jimmy. If everyone's consciousness operated on the level of treating others you want to be treated yourself, it would be a much smoother ride. But not everyone is quite there yet.

Darth, I'd say that is a 100% spot on summary. Only you know yourself and have to make the call if a few hundred dollars might be worth the relative peace of mind you'd gain from being accompanied by an attorney. In New York, you'd be looking at waaaay more than $300.

Edited August 15, 2014 by NuHere

[second stage 14]

2) Write a leter to the field district director after the fact. All agents are required at the interview to provide their first initial, surname and officer number. Not sure how far this would go.

Agree with Darth.

Take their name and then write a letter once you are a US citizen otherwise, it's not necessary to raise a hue and cry when you are still in the process.

[jarta 24]

As an immigrant in the US,I am willing to deal with any rudeness from any USCIS personal or from IO at any airports. I will suck it up just so that I can be with my family.

But I know not everyone is like me so i know it much harder for others to take my line of thinking. I take consolidation from the fact, one day I wouldn't have to deal with them again.

After all its their country and can do whatever they want to me, if I don't like it, I should move back to my country....Its sad but that's how I see it. This way, This mentality helps go through this painful process.

By the way - I'm not saying my way is the best or right way to go about it, but its just an idea that I have adopted to help me through this painful, time tasking, daunting, monotonous and tedious process.

[Wenmix 3]

The interview can be intimidating for sure but mine was uneventful and my officer couldn't have been more professional and friendly. Here is my advice, for what it is worth. Be respectful. Be professional. Dress in a suit (I wore a navy blue pant suit). Be prepared with documents. Be open and honest and sincere. Be nice to them and they will be nice back. We managed to create some friendly camaraderie and I commiserated with her about some really bulky files on her desk. I'm not saying suck up, but I am saying see them as a person too who is just doing their job. Treat it like a job interview - the most important job interview of your life - and assume that all will be fine, be positive - and it should be.

I'm not saying some of them aren't jerks or having bad days.

[Chicagoguy 2 27]

A number of years ago I accompanied a Russian couple and their son along with another American couple.The couple having the interview had almost zero

English skills. But I think the interview person looked at us successful Americans who came along and said nothing during the interview - only later when asked - and thought to herself that this couple would never be a burden to the U.S. in the future.

And interviewer was correct

But any interview can be a ####### shoot - in my opinion.

[Darth Vader Rises 1]

I'd say a suit is probably unnecessary, and I would hardly call this the most important interview of my, or anyone else's life...that would be setting the bar a little low. There are so many far more challenging opportunities ahead of us that cannot be as easily attained as naturalisation can, which, for an eligible Legal Permanent Resident, is fairly straightforward.

The interview can be intimidating for sure but mine was uneventful and my officer couldn't have been more professional and friendly. Here is my advice, for what it is worth. Be respectful. Be professional. Dress in a suit (I wore a navy blue pant suit). Be prepared with documents. Be open and honest and sincere. Be nice to them and they will be nice back. We managed to create some friendly camaraderie and I commiserated with her about some really bulky files on her desk. I'm not saying suck up, but I am saying see them as a person too who is just doing their job. Treat it like a job interview - the most important job interview of your life - and assume that all will be fine, be positive - and it should be.

I'm not saying some of them aren't jerks or having bad days.