Misconduct by USCIS officer

[N-o-l-a 7,167]

Just so you are aware, embassy interviews in other countries prohibit the spouse from being present during the interview as well.  For example, in Stockholm, I was allowed to sit within earshot for the interview but could not be within sight of my husband or communicate with him during the interview.  That is fairly common.  Whether you thought that she could be your interpreter or not isn't the issue, you should really not assume that a spouse should be allowed to be present during the interview for any reason.   Was your lawyer not bilingual?

[theendcomesquick 4]

Quote

I’m not sure why you are quoting this as you stated this was not the reason given?

 

also unless I’m missing something - if you’re bringing your mother you are a citizen, and if you’re a citizen (I presume naturalized) you must have passed the English proficiency test? 

The reason i quoted it is because many  people are bringing this up even though the officer never brought it up.

 

And yes I did pass the English test. But you are still allowed to bring an interpreter with you in case you do not understand all language. That is your right and answering a question you do not understand could get you into trouble.

[theendcomesquick 4]

Quote

Just so you are aware, embassy interviews in other countries prohibit the spouse from being present during the interview as well.  For example, in Stockholm, I was allowed to sit within earshot for the interview but could not be within sight of my husband or communicate with him during the interview.  That is fairly common.  Whether you thought that she could be your interpreter or not isn't the issue, you should really not assume that a spouse should be allowed to be present during the interview for any reason.   Was your lawyer not bilingual?

 

1. This interview is not for the spouse but for my mother who is the beneficiary. Also if you see the manual it says that you are allowed to bring a relative as an interpreter to the USCIS interview. So why should I not assume a relative could be an interpreter when it is stated clearly in the manual:

"However, the officer must not predetermine that a derivative beneficiary is disqualified from serving as an interpreter, due to a conflict of interest, solely because he or she is a derivative beneficiary.  "

https://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/AFM/HTML/AFM/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-2449/0-0-0-2798.html#0-0-0-361

 

2. I did not have a lawyer and in the case I did have one the lawyer is not allowed to be the interpreter while at the same time giving legal advice. That part is also clearly stated in the manual:

"Additionally, some individuals are restricted from serving as an interpreter. These include minors under age 18, witnesses, and attorneys and representatives for the interviewee."

Edited December 2, 2017 by theendcomesquick

[theendcomesquick 4]

2 hours ago, SusieQQQ said:

 

the form you signed does say that the interpreter recognizes at any point that the officer may use their discretion in disallowing the interpreter. 

 

he refused us the interpreter before even allowing the interpreter to enter. and if he refuses an interpreter for a legitimate reason he needs to provide a form stating why they where refused. he did none of this.

Do you think if I had a lawyer with me he would refuse me an interpreter? i dont think so

Edited December 2, 2017 by theendcomesquick

[geowrian 22,337]

I don't see the misconduct here. There's no evidence the interpreter was refused solely based on the relationship. The officer used his discretion and determined that the totality of the circumstances did not warrant one. You can try to argue that the decision was incorrect, but that's an exercise in futility IMO. And the interpreter was permitted eventually, so this whole thing becomes moot.

 

Move on and respond to the RFE.

[Villanelle 4,122]

Geowrain is correct. They did let you use an interpreter. Yes, at first they said no, but then it was a yes. So what is the complaint about? Because they said no at first? Anyway if you are that upset about this you can mail a letter to the supervisor at that specific office. Or go back via infopass and hand it to them in person. It wont change the decision- but it should cause the supervisor to review the case which may work for you or against you.

[SusieQQQ 11,586]

1 hour ago, theendcomesquick said:

Do you think if I had a lawyer with me he would refuse me an interpreter? i dont think so

I don’t know. Possibly he’d give the same explanation to the lawyer and the lawyer would acquiesce.

in any case it seems clear you’d feel better taking a lawyer along to any future interviews.

Edited December 2, 2017 by SusieQQQ

[NateAndJessica 200]

10 hours ago, theendcomesquick said:

Hello,

 

I went on a USCIS field office interview and feel I was wronged by the officer -- can anyone advise what to do?

 

Background:

The interview notice says you are allowed to bring an interpreter and lawyer. I went with my wife to have her as my interpreter but when the officer called our name and we both went up he looked at my wife and said "Who are you" I responded she was my wife and came as interpreter. He then said that since I spoke English I didn't need an interpreter. We pushed back saying that the paper says you can have an interpreter. He said if you can't understand then you can come back out and get her. So I went in alone and did the interview. I did request my wife once during the interview but was too nervous to argue with him. 

Then after the interview was over my wife came up to make sure I understood everything. Another person passed us in the hall and their lawyer said within our earshot "We brought our interviewer with us." Presumably she heard us arguing with him from the beginning. Then my wife started arguing with the guy "You refused us an interpreter, etc" He said "but you speak English so you don't need one". And she replied "on the paper it doesn't say anything about your level of English" So he said "fine you can redo the interview but it won't make a difference" Then he let us redo the interview and results are a RFE.

 

But after thinking it through, how can I trust this officer will fairly handle our case when he refused our basic right to bring an interpreter? It seems he saw that we did not have a lawyer with us and did not know our right to bring an interpreter. What should I do? Should I call the USCIS office and speak with the manager to make a complaint and request a different officer. This officer did not follow protocol. 

You got off really easy with only an RFE. Time to start being grateful you got a very patient interviewer.

[Hypnos 6,576]

If your wife isn't a derivative beneficiary, as you state, then the paragraph you've been quoting does not apply. 

Edited December 3, 2017 by Hypnos

[mallafri76 1,012]

If it was me, I’d just move past it. Respond to the RFE and get the visa. Why make waves and upset the people who decide whether or not your mom can join you in the US?!?! 

[theendcomesquick 4]

1 hour ago, NateAndJessica said:

You got off really easy with only an RFE. Time to start being grateful you got a very patient interviewer.

LOL. too funny. I guess I should worship the USCIS gods too.

[theendcomesquick 4]

27 minutes ago, mallafri76 said:

If it was me, I’d just move past it. Respond to the RFE and get the visa. Why make waves and upset the people who decide whether or not your mom can join you in the US?!?! 

This is true. On one hand any wrong should be righted, on the other hand should we be willing to put our case at risk. Most people would say no.

[theendcomesquick 4]

57 minutes ago, Hypnos said:

If your wife isn't a derivative beneficiary, as you state, then the paragraph you've been quoting does not apply. 

But no where does it say that a relative is prohibited from serving as a interpreter. 

[NikLR 13,227]

5 hours ago, theendcomesquick said:

1. This interview is not for the spouse but for my mother who is the beneficiary. Also if you see the manual it says that you are allowed to bring a relative as an interpreter to the USCIS interview. So why should I not assume a relative could be an interpreter when it is stated clearly in the manual:

"However, the officer must not predetermine that a derivative beneficiary is disqualified from serving as an interpreter, due to a conflict of interest, solely because he or she is a derivative beneficiary.  "

https://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/AFM/HTML/AFM/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-2449/0-0-0-2798.html#0-0-0-361

 

2. I did not have a lawyer and in the case I did have one the lawyer is not allowed to be the interpreter while at the same time giving legal advice. That part is also clearly stated in the manual:

"Additionally, some individuals are restricted from serving as an interpreter. These include minors under age 18, witnesses, and attorneys and representatives for the interviewee."

3. Impartial and Unbiased Individual  

The interpreter must be impartial and able to interpret without bias. An impartial and unbiased individual is one who does not have a predisposition or preconceived opinion about a matter. A predisposition or preconceived opinion may prevent the individual from interpreting information accurately, literally and fully or making a reliable interpreter declaration.  

 

Officers must consider potential conflicts of interest between an interviewee and his or her proposed interpreter, as well as any other circumstances that might interfere with the interpreter's ability to provide an accurate, literal, and full interpretation. Interpreters and the interviewees must disclose any relationship, predisposition, or preconceived opinion that could affect the interpreter's objectivity and consequently his or her ability to provide impartial and objective interpretation during the interview. For example, some friends, family members, or persons with financial connections to the interviewee (e.g. business partners) could have either actual conflicts of interest with the interviewee or have a strong personal interest in the interviewee obtaining the immigration benefit at issue such that the proposed interpreter is not able to provide impartial and unbiased interpretation services.⁹ As such, family members will generally be disfavored as interpreters if there is another qualified interpreter available to the customer. Upon disclosure, the officer must use his or her discretion in making a determination as to whether the circumstances will interfere with the interpreter's ability to interpret objectively and provide an accurate and truthful interpretation of the information conveyed during the interview. If the officer determines that despite the relationships or other circumstances disclosed, the interpreter can still provide competent, impartial and unbiased interpretation, then the interpreter may normally be accepted.¹⁰   

 

 

As your wife, your interpreter cannot be impartial or unbiased.  She's married to you, and what affects you, will affect her. 

Edited December 3, 2017 by NikLR

[Hypnos 6,576]

But it does say that an interpreter should be impartial and without bias. 

 

It's reasonable to conclude that interpreting for someone on behalf of seeking a benefit for their mother-in-law means that person isn't free from bias. 

 

"For example, some friends, family members, or persons with financial connections to the interviewee (e.g. business partners) could have either actual conflicts of interest with the interviewee or have a strong personal interest in the interviewee obtaining the immigration benefit at issue such that the proposed interpreter is not able to provide impartial and unbiased interpretation services."