Misconduct by USCIS officer

[theendcomesquick 4]

8 minutes ago, Hypnos said:

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."

But if an interpreter is refused the officer must provide a form G-1256 stating why. And this all should be recorded on paper. And in our case he did not provide a reason related to conflict of interest. He refused an interpreter because he judged the petioner's English to be sufficient. Yet he does not have the right to judge a person's level of english.

Edited December 3, 2017 by theendcomesquick

[Hypnos 6,576]

You're right. That should have happened, but they eventually relented and gave you the second interview. 

 

It's up to you whether you think it's a good idea to push back on this whilst at the same time pursuing your mother's case. 

[theendcomesquick 4]

2 minutes ago, Hypnos said:

You're right. That should have happened, but they eventually relented and gave you the second interview. 

 

It's up to you whether you think it's a good idea to push back on this whilst at the same time pursuing your mother's case. 

Yeah, I mean I just would hate the same thing to happen to other people after us. People that don't have access to a lawyer and people that might need a translator. Why should they get bullied by the USCIS?

[Hypnos 6,576]

I wouldn't say you were bullied, but I don't think USCIS handled it properly either. 

[Roy&Chanel 109]

May I ask what is the RFE evidence they need?

[NikLR 13,227]

32 minutes ago, theendcomesquick said:

Yeah, I mean I just would hate the same thing to happen to other people after us. People that don't have access to a lawyer and people that might need a translator. Why should they get bullied by the USCIS?

A lawyer cannot act as a translator anyhow according to the link you posted.  

 

People should bring an unbiased interpreter.  Everyone has access to lawyers.  Not everyone can afford a good lawyer. 

 

Since in the end you were allowed a second interview with your wife as an interpreter I really don't think you were bullied.  If anything, the CO was lenient to allow it.  But IMO they did it because they hadn't filled out the proper paperwork to deny your wife, which they should have done. 

Edited December 3, 2017 by NikLR

[theendcomesquick 4]

2 minutes ago, NikLR said:

A lawyer cannot act as a translator anyhow according to the link you posted.  

 

People should bring an unbiased interpreter.  Everyone has access to lawyers.  Not everyone can afford a good lawyer. 

 

Since in the end you were allowed a second interview with your wife as an interpreter I really don't think you were bullied.  If anything, the CO was lenient to allow it.  But IMO they did it because they hadn't filled out the proper paperwork to deny your wife, which they should have done. 

Please explain how the CO was lenient?

[theendcomesquick 4]

5 minutes ago, Roy&Chanel said:

May I ask what is the RFE evidence they need?

They said they would put it in the letter but did not say specifically in the interview. 

[NikLR 13,227]

2 minutes ago, theendcomesquick said:

Please explain how the CO was lenient?

they did another interview. 

[theendcomesquick 4]

6 minutes ago, NikLR said:

they did another interview. 

He only agreed to do the interview again because another lawyer walked by going in for an interview and made sure to say outloud "We brought our interpreter with us" so I would hear. In this case there is a witness to the CO doing a wrong action. So of course he doesn't want to get in trouble with his supervisor. My only regret is not asking for his supervisor at that time. So you see it as lenient but I see it as he knew he did something wrong and afraid to get in trouble. 

Edited December 3, 2017 by theendcomesquick

[geowrian 22,337]

There's nothing that excludes you from being an interpreter, but that doesn't mean that must be accepted as one either. The officer makes that determination based on all the information available to him/her. You seem to have a strong personal interest in the case, which is a conflict of interest for the officer to consider. The applicant seemed to understand proper English already, which is part of the consideration as well.

 

The officer made a mistake in not completing the paperwork and informing the applicant with the option to proceed, use an alternative interpreter, or reschedule the interview. This was subsequently resolved via having a second interview.

The officer was entirely within his power to disqualify you as an interpreter, though.

[jakelake 222]

You should never argue with the person who will make the decision on your case. You were given a second chance and still received the RFE.

Your only recourse would be if the RFE was because the officer wanted to get back at you for no reason.

 

Your focus should be on the RFE, resolving it, getting your visa and moving forward. Playing lawyer and arguing semantics will not get you anywhere at this time.

 

However, when you get the visa, you can certainly then become an activist of change on how USCIS and other agencies should word their documents.

[Mina90 134]

OP, when it comes to immigration, it's better to have thick skin. Plenty of times to be outraged, this is not one of those times IMO. This really shouldn't be much of an issue, just move on and do what you need to do next. Best not to dig holes that aren't needed.

[SusieQQQ 11,586]

1 hour ago, theendcomesquick said:

But if an interpreter is refused the officer must provide a form G-1256 stating why. And this all should be recorded on paper. And in our case he did not provide a reason related to conflict of interest. He refused an interpreter because he judged the petioner's English to be sufficient. Yet he does not have the right to judge a person's level of english.

You said you’d signed that form, so you would have read it and seen that the officer should have filled in, in the relevant section, why he refused an interpreter. Did you ask him to do this and he refused? Or he didn’t fill it in because he did actually allow your wife to be interpreter eventually?

[SusieQQQ 11,586]

48 minutes ago, theendcomesquick said:

He only agreed to do the interview again because another lawyer walked by going in for an interview and made sure to say outloud "We brought our interpreter with us" so I would hear. In this case there is a witness to the CO doing a wrong action. So of course he doesn't want to get in trouble with his supervisor. My only regret is not asking for his supervisor at that time. So you see it as lenient but I see it as he knew he did something wrong and afraid to get in trouble. 

You’re implying that the other lawyer knew what was going on with your case and decided out of the goodness of his heart to help you by saying out loud that they brought an interpreter? (Who presumably wasn’t a spouse)

 

as others have said you are well within your rights, if you believe the officer engaged in misconduct, to lay a complaint with his supervisor. But again as others have said, what do you plan to say? That he first denied, then allowed, your wife to interpret?  Can you show any way in which you were not able to adequately  present the facts of the case in a way that was prejudicial to you because your wife was not initially allowed in? I understand you were nervous, but isn’t an IR application for a parent pretty straightforward- it’s not like a fiancé/spouse visa where you have to prove a genuine relationship through piles of evidence etc? Birth certificate etc, done. Yes?