Bring a Lawyer to N400 Interview: Yes or No?

[*FishF00D* 45]

The big day is coming up and I've been given conflicting advice about whether or not I should bring lawyer to my Naturalization interview.

 

My case:

• I'm a Canadian who entered on K1 visa, married promptly, and received my 2yr GC without issue.
• My USC spouse became abusive/unfaithful/an addict. We divorced: I applied for ROC with a divorce waiver and was granted my 10yr GC without an interview.

• I applied for naturalization under the 5yr rule.

 

Many people on this site have been vocal that USCIS will go through your "entire immigration history" to make a decision on Naturalization, and given the way my USC marriage went I'm dreading the idea of having the IO dredge up/pick apart the details of my failed relationship. With this in mind, some have suggested I bring a lawyer so that the IO won't ask any off-color questions, etc.

 

Others have said that since I applied under the 5yr rule that the details of my former marriage aren't necessarily relevant -- and that especially since I was given a 10yr GC without an interview, I already gave USCIS enough evidence to prove without a doubt in their mind that what happened-happened and won't need to get into it again.

 

The details of my failed marriage are heavy - it was exceptionally traumatic, and needing to make a decision about this is causing me a lot of grief - so I may as well open it up to public discourse.

 

^^^
All of that said (and to benefit others considering legal assistance) what are  good reasons to hire a lawyer to accompany you to the interview? Weigh in!

[Verrou 1,962]

It really depend on your comfort level. Since you applied with 5 years rules and also with I-751 waiver, u should be fine. Just answer truthfully and be honest about it. 
 

I always think that lawyer is more about mental support during interview. Yes here and there u might meet scary IO but it’s less than norm. The norm IO generally courteous and professional. 
 

+1 vote without a lawyer, just from the info that you gave here

Edited July 17, 2023 by Verrou

[Mike E 11,739]

I hired a lawyer for my wife’s N-400 interview because

 

1. she is not a native speaker of English

 

2. I wanted an officer of court to bear witness to anything negative

 

3. I wanted a lawyer with knowledge  of the law to police the process.

 

Number 3 was a factor: the officer asked about travel prior to my wife (who adjusted from K-1) becoming an LPR. Lawyer said, nope not in scope. I belief had the lawyer not been present, my wife would be waiting for oath.

[*FishF00D* 45]

12 hours ago, Mike E said:

I hired a lawyer for my wife’s N-400 interview because

 

1. she is not a native speaker of English

 

2. I wanted an officer of court to bear witness to anything negative

 

3. I wanted a lawyer with knowledge  of the law to police the process.

 

Number 3 was a factor: the officer asked about travel prior to my wife (who adjusted from K-1) becoming an LPR. Lawyer said, nope not in scope. I belief had the lawyer not been present, my wife would be waiting for oath.

 

Glad to know that a lawyer helped keep things straight for your wife! The chance on an IO asking questions "out of scope" is my primary concern; one piece of advice I've received is to bring a lawyer specifically so that an IO can't ask questions that they "shouldn't" or don't have grounds for -- which it sounds like your wife could have gotten caught up in an irrelevant line of questioning if not for the lawyer!

[Mobius2 48]

Your future in the US depends on this interview. Paying a lawyer to help secure it is a small price.

 

It seems from the details that your process has been relatively clean but that's just one factor. 

 

Another factor that many people don't talk about is the IO and his/ her aggressive/ combative level. 

 

Some IOs don't have the time nor energy to give you grief but some will do their best to make sure you leave the office with an opposite of a smile on your face. This is where the lawyer comes in to stop unreasonable questioning. 

 

I brought my lawyer with me, even tho she didn't get a chance to speak since my interview was around 5 mins.

[*FishF00D* 45]

46 minutes ago, Mobius2 said:

Your future in the US depends on this interview. Paying a lawyer to help secure it is a small price.

 

It seems from the details that your process has been relatively clean but that's just one factor. 

 

Another factor that many people don't talk about is the IO and his/ her aggressive/ combative level. 

 

Some IOs don't have the time nor energy to give you grief but some will do their best to make sure you leave the office with an opposite of a smile on your face. This is where the lawyer comes in to stop unreasonable questioning. 

 

I brought my lawyer with me, even tho she didn't get a chance to speak since my interview was around 5 mins.

 

You raise a good point. My interview is happening at the brand-new Cranbury office in NJ -- so far I've heard that it's really nice inside, well-staffed and friendly -- but if the IO's have only been hired recently then there might be a greater chance of them not knowing what aspects of a case like mine are "out of bounds" in a totally non-malicious sense. 

 

 

[Mike E 11,739]

48 minutes ago, *FishF00D* said:

but if the IO's have only been hired recently

An (apparently) recently hired ISO this month asked a VJ member 10 questions on the civics test despite getting 9 of 10 correct. A lawyer would have stopped the examination at 6 correct answers.

Imagine getting the first 6 correct, and then being asked 5 more and getting those 5 wrong. “You failed, you got 5 wrong”.
 

If it were me, I probably would get those 5 wrong because I would be furious. (I went 6 for 6 IRL.)

Edited July 18, 2023 by Mike E

[Mobius2 48]

1 hour ago, *FishF00D* said:

 

You raise a good point. My interview is happening at the brand-new Cranbury office in NJ -- so far I've heard that it's really nice inside, well-staffed and friendly -- but if the IO's have only been hired recently then there might be a greater chance of them not knowing what aspects of a case like mine are "out of bounds" in a totally non-malicious sense. 

 

 

 

 

According to various sources, n400 interviews are largely being conducted by junior/ new hires since it's a relatively straightforward application that requires a supervisor review as final approval. A recent n400 FOIA that I saw, literally had around 5 questions for IO to determine eligibility. And to aid that process, the software itself raises flags for potential concerns for the IO.

 

Either way, it costs 300 - 600 $ to take a well-versed lawyer along. 

 

* One may not end up needing their assistance at all

* or save their interview from RFEs

* or save their application from any claims of misrep which can cost thousands later on.

 

 

[*FishF00D* 45]

11 minutes ago, Mobius2 said:

 

 

According to various sources, n400 interviews are largely being conducted by junior/ new hires since it's a relatively straightforward application that requires a supervisor review as final approval. A recent n400 FOIA that I saw, literally had around 5 questions for IO to determine eligibility. And to aid that process, the software itself raises flags for potential concerns for the IO.

 

Either way, it costs 300 - 600 $ to take a well-versed lawyer along. 

 

* One may not end up needing their assistance at all

* or save their interview from RFEs

* or save their application from any claims of misrep which can cost thousands later on.

 

 

 

All very good points and affirms that it's worth the investment, if only as "insurance" and "assurance" lol

 

The lawyers in my area (good and bad) seem to charge $1000 at minimum for accompaniment to the interview. Not exactly affordable for me (I'm a full-time student!) but in the grand scheme of things it seems like paying would be worth the peace of mind.

 

 

[TBoneTX 45,259]

You can get away with it without having to pay an attorney.

Your having waited for 5 years should preclude questions about the marriage.

If you're asked, pleasantly reply, "I'm applying under the 5-year rule, under which marriage queries are precluded, sir."  Repeat as necessary.

The magic words are, "Let's please include your supervisor in this interview now, sir."  Repeat as necessary.

Practice in front of a mirror until you're comfortable with these responses.

Edited July 18, 2023 by TBoneTX

[Mike E 11,739]

6 minutes ago, *FishF00D* said:

The lawyers in my area (good and bad) seem to charge $1000 at minimum for accompaniment to the interview.

My wife’s N-400 interview appointment letter said:

 

Your attorney or authorized representative may come with you to the appointment or be available via phone.

 

What does your letter say?

 

My wife’s lawyer called from San Jose to my wife’s interview Tucson. It worked pretty well except that the ISO did ask my wife a material question before calling the lawyer to join the call. Remember to stay mute until your lawyer is present in person or on the phone.

[Ontarkie 14,217]

Most of the threads I have seen on here where the marriage questions come in,  is usually when ROC and divorce happens so soon after approval or there were other red flags in the history. 

Being you filed ROC with the waiver your case is already more upfront. Nothing sneaky you're trying to get by them. 

 

Bring the lawyer if the fee won't hurt you and it gives you peace of mind. 

Edited July 18, 2023 by Ontarkie

[Mobius2 48]

1 hour ago, *FishF00D* said:

 

All very good points and affirms that it's worth the investment, if only as "insurance" and "assurance" lol

 

The lawyers in my area (good and bad) seem to charge $1000 at minimum for accompaniment to the interview. Not exactly affordable for me (I'm a full-time student!) but in the grand scheme of things it seems like paying would be worth the peace of mind.

 

 

 

 

Hmm that's a ripoff...perhaps you could also seek a good lawyer outside your state that can dial in during your interview. It's allowed by USCIS.

 

That way you can get a much lower quote, perhaps in the range of 150-300.

[JeanneAdil 6,489]

 The lawyer can't stop USCIS from asking any  question, and can't answer the questions for you. In fact, you'll find that the lawyer has to sit quietly through much of the interview.

 

The representative’s role is to ensure that the applicant’s legal rights are protected. A representative may advise his or her client on points of law but should not respond to questions the officer has directed to the applicant.

 

https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-12-part-b-chapter-3

[*FishF00D* 45]

2 hours ago, TBoneTX said:

You can get away with it without having to pay an attorney.

Your having waited for 5 years should preclude questions about the marriage.

If you're asked, pleasantly reply, "I'm applying under the 5-year rule, under which marriage queries are precluded, sir."  Repeat as necessary.

The magic words are, "Let's please include your supervisor in this interview now, sir."  Repeat as necessary.

Practice in front of a mirror until you're comfortable with these responses.

 

I wish I had the faith in myself required to be so level-headed and thoughtful in the moment! In situations like these I not great at asking someone in a position of power to stay within their respective boundaries - but it's a useful skill for someone who can!