Did USCIS naturalize me too early?

[Crazy Cat 41,850]

I guess this could be reviewed when applying for SS retirement benefits.  Seems to me, the error is visible to the right eyes looking. 

Edited June 2 by Crazy Cat

[Crazy Cat 41,850]

15 hours ago, thelimey said:

That’s multiple human errors if that is the issue. Which is unlikely. 

I think it is very likely that there were multiple human errors.

[Rekyrts 43]

Personally, I would not leave my immigration wellbeing up the the hope that USCIS corrects the mistake it itself (via its staff) made. 

 

The way I look at it is thus:

 

• The law says 5 years
• USCIS staff do not have the discretion to override that

 

Based on this (and assuming my layman's interpretation is correct), I would proactively speak to an immigration attorney and reach out to the FO via traceable mail. There is no way I would leave it as-is. Even though OP did nothing wrong (IMHO), it doesn't erase the problem.

[Rekyrts 43]

3 hours ago, thelimey said:

Honestly, if the USCIS called me tomorrow and said “we made a mistake, we need you to come back in 3 weeks and retake the oath, and meanwhile we’ll send you back your green card” I’d be fine with that. 
 

but they’re not going to do that are they. They closed my case and moved on. Needle in haystack. Plus do they want to admit errors?

 

Given the sanctity and seriousness of citizenship I’m a little shocked that it could potentially come down to one employee making a mistake. You’d hope they have checks and balances in place. What was “quality review” for?

 

I would also expect simpe If/then rules to be baked into their computer systems. If applicant requires X number of days between event A and event B then flag error if Y is less than X. If I can’t buy an iPhone charger online without filling in the checkout form fields correctly on Amazon then one shouldn’t be able to fill in citizenship granting forms incorrectly. Not rocket science. 
 

I’m intriguied by the “resident since” comment above. If that date was wrong in the system it could explain things but then again you’d think when they looked at my green card they’d have noticed the discrepancy. 
 

the IO was flustered. It was 7am. Her computer kept rebooting. She was more stressed than me. She made me fill in my spouses details as an amendment to the n400 and was chiding me for not doing it. I did point out that the n400 clearly says you can skip that if you’re not applying as the spouse of a US citizen. 
 

i did note that when I signed to validate the changes to the n400 on their ipad that she correctly had my spouses citizenship as Canadian so there’s no way they erroneously put me under the 3 year spouse rule. 
 

the other thing in the interview which seemed strange was she kept asking me about trips to a country I’ve never been to. I assumed this was part of their strategy to try and rattle you. She also asked me about my alias (using my middle name as first name). I’ve never done that ever. She insisted I sign that as part of the n400 updates she made. 
 

on both the alias and the trips to a country I’ve never visited she kept saying she had no idea why they were there and it’s all part of a background check done by others.

 

what a sh** show 

 

This is all so very weird. The The thing about the country and middle name is so off.

[thelimey 5]

7 minutes ago, Rekyrts said:

Personally, I would not leave my immigration wellbeing up the the hope that USCIS corrects the mistake it itself (via its staff) made. 

 

The way I look at it is thus:

 

• The law says 5 years
• USCIS staff do not have the discretion to override that

 

Based on this (and assuming my layman's interpretation is correct), I would proactively speak to an immigration attorney and reach out to the FO via traceable mail. There is no way I would leave it as-is. Even though OP did nothing wrong (IMHO), it doesn't erase the problem.

Trouble is. Every lawyer I spoke to independently said 

 

1. Never heard of this happening 

2. Leave it alone. You’re a citizen if you have the paperwork. Only engage a lawyer if it becomes a problem. 
 

I’m sure I’ll eventually find a lawyer who sees it as a payday and wants to get involved. But may be a case of a “solution looking for a problem”. 
 

There may be other people in my boat who’ve either never noticed and just assumed it was all kosher as part of the 90 days early. (I mean how many people who naturalize have read the actual text of the law versus summaries?). And/or noticed but are more laid back and never thought twice. My spouse is like that and doesn’t understand why I’m not just applying to my passport and moving on, leaving the past in the past. 

[OldUser 6,662]

32 minutes ago, Rekyrts said:

Personally, I would not leave my immigration wellbeing up the the hope that USCIS corrects the mistake it itself (via its staff) made. 

 

The way I look at it is thus:

 

• The law says 5 years
• USCIS staff do not have the discretion to override that

 

Based on this (and assuming my layman's interpretation is correct), I would proactively speak to an immigration attorney and reach out to the FO via traceable mail. There is no way I would leave it as-is. Even though OP did nothing wrong (IMHO), it doesn't erase the problem.

One way to attack it is to hire a lawyer to do full analysis and if OP is indeed not a citizen, write a letter requesting USCIS to justify how they came to conclusion OP could be naturalized before 5 year anniversary. Get some action, perhaps another oath and new certificate? 

[Rekyrts 43]

1 hour ago, OldUser said:

One way to attack it is to hire a lawyer to do full analysis and if OP is indeed not a citizen, write a letter requesting USCIS to justify how they came to conclusion OP could be naturalized before 5 year anniversary. Get some action, perhaps another oath and new certificate? 

 

This makes sense to me.

 

I *think* that, at this point, it's a fairly easy fix.

[From_CAN_2_US 1,106]

OP, if you end up calling Jim Hacking, please update here when you do. I would love to hear his opinion and watch that particular show when you call.

[Rekyrts 43]

1 hour ago, thelimey said:

Trouble is. Every lawyer I spoke to independently said 

 

1. Never heard of this happening 

2. Leave it alone. You’re a citizen if you have the paperwork. Only engage a lawyer if it becomes a problem. 
 

I’m sure I’ll eventually find a lawyer who sees it as a payday and wants to get involved. But may be a case of a “solution looking for a problem”. 
 

There may be other people in my boat who’ve either never noticed and just assumed it was all kosher as part of the 90 days early. (I mean how many people who naturalize have read the actual text of the law versus summaries?). And/or noticed but are more laid back and never thought twice. My spouse is like that and doesn’t understand why I’m not just applying to my passport and moving on, leaving the past in the past. 

 

Having dealt with USCIS/INS over a few decades, simply put, I have learned to do my own due dilligence. I've never had to deal with something like this, but I have had to deal with their errors.

 

USCIS has mistakenly conferred citizenship a lot of times before. As such, I would never assume that it couldn't happen again. For me, it's not about the cost, but about protecting your rights. All that craziness the IO was asking? The names? The country you didn't visit? For me, that just underscores how off the wall the interview was. 

 

I would think the easiest way to rescind/NOIR an approved petition seems to something like this. I think the previous suggestion of doing a FOIA is fantastic. Easily DIY, and should answer any major questions. 

 

If my oath ceremony preceded the 5-yr mark by a day, I would absolutely make sure it was corrected.

 

[RamonGomez 271]

Based on how many mistakes USCIS makes that are not in the applicant's favor, there are probably a non-trivial number of mistakes they make in the applicant's favor. Things like someone getting a 10-year green card instead of a 2-year card are reported here somewhat frequently.

 

Oddly enough I'm surprised that something like this isn't fully automated and the "Schedule Oath Ceremony" button isn't greyed out until the applicant is eligible or some sort of warning message is thrown up when USCIS tries to print the naturalization certificate.

 

Going forward, this is a tough one. Dealing with USCIS is going to be costly, frustrating, and may even create more issues if they bungle things further. If it were me I would, in writing, try to contact USCIS about it - maybe write the field office a letter, fill out a service request online, etc.  Chances are they are not going to do anything about it, but at least you'll have proof of trying to fix this in case you are ever accused of wrongdoing down the road (which is insanely unlikely). I would not spend thousands to fight USCIS tooth and nail on this.

 

Good luck.

 

 

Edited June 2 by RamonGomez

[Crazy Cat 41,850]

10 minutes ago, Rekyrts said:

If my oath ceremony preceded the 5-yr mark by a day, I would absolutely make sure it was corrected.

That would be the bottom line for me, too. 

[RamonGomez 271]

33 minutes ago, Rekyrts said:

 

This makes sense to me.

 

I *think* that, at this point, it's a fairly easy fix.

How much have you dealt with USCIS lol? People have had massive difficulties with simple name typos, reprinting notices, changing addresses, etc. Even getting in touch with a USCIS can be frustrating.

 

This is likely going to be a massive undertaking. 

Edited June 2 by RamonGomez

[thelimey 5]

Thank you all for the great thoughts above.

I spoke to a very experienced immigration attorney today. 

 

They noted:

 

• Never heard of this happening in 25+ years practicing immigration law
• They advised against reaching out to USCIS (as did other lawyers I spoke to last week). Kicking can of bees may upset them, put them on the defensive, try to blame me, reopen my entire immigration history.
• The advice was imagine you never got home and googled it. You asked an official about the 5 year rule, you were told it was part of the 90 day early rule. You took your oath. You went home an American. Many in my situation would have done that. My spouse is one of them. Would never have thought twice about going down a rabbit hole of legal websites.
• If USCIS or DOJ ever reaches out, then engage a lawyer to help remedy it, and facts will be on my side. No fraud, misleading, willful omission, etc on my part. In fact, I alerted them to the potential issue and was told it's not an issue
• Lawyer confirmed that, unless denaturalized, I am and remain a citizen of the United States
• An agency or department such as USCIS, SSA may notice a discrepancy and raise a flag to the DOJ, but only the DOJ and the federal judiciary has the power to revoke the citizenship - and the certificate of naturalization. SSA, for example, cannot say 'you're not a citizen'. Not their call to make. 
• Denaturalization is rare, high burden of proof, and not used to correct mistakes historically. A prosecutor is not obligated to prosecute every potential denaturalization case that crosses their desk. In fact the DOJ guidelines say when determining whether to institute denaturalization proceedings, a prosecutor should consider whether proceedings would result in the “betterment of the citizenship of the country" and that proceedings should not be instituted merely to correct errors and irregularities in an individual’s naturalization, which would properly have been the subject of consideration at the naturalization hearing or of correction on appeal

 

Now, all that said, as someone pointed out above, I am very tempted to get my A# file through FOIA. Perhaps they have my green card date earlier than it actually was in there, meaning from their POV the 5 years was met and no computerized checks would flag it. Why wouldn't the IO have noticed any such discrepancy when she took my physical green card and looked at it? Human error. A tired, stressed, rushed lady who more concerned about getting her schedule back on track than answering my questions. Everyone's got a boss. Bet she was stressed about being an hour behind and not meeting her quota for the day.

Does anyone know if a FOIA request can open a can of worms? (See above about not reaching out to USCIS) i.e. whoever is compiling your FOIA request sees a date issue and raises a flag. Or is it just electronic files which someone essentially copies from an internal computer folder and puts in an online portal where you can download them?

 

I will try and dial into the Jim Hacking show tomorrow too... would love to get his take on it. Called his office, offered to pay for some of his time to discuss it directly (I prefer the anonymity of forums to being on a YouTube show), but they don't give legal advice (except on the YouTube show) and only take on cases where there is work to be done. 

Edited June 3 by thelimey

[Crazy Cat 41,850]

1 hour ago, thelimey said:

• They advised against reaching out to USCIS (as did other lawyers I spoke to last week). Kicking can of bees may upset them, put them on the defensive, try to blame me, reopen my entire immigration history.
• The advice was imagine you never got home and googled it. You asked an official about the 5 year rule, you were told it was part of the 90 day early rule. You took your oath. You went home an American. Many in my situation would have done that. My spouse is one of them. Would never have thought twice about going down a rabbit hole of legal websites.
• If USCIS or DOJ ever reaches out, then engage a lawyer to help remedy it, and facts will be on my side. No fraud, misleading, willful omission, etc on my part. In fact, I alerted them to the potential issue and was told it's not an issue

1.  I see they never said you didn't take the oath too early.......

2.  You can't erase the fact that you googled it and discovered the issue.

3.  No one has said you intended fraud.  The fact is that you possibly took the oath too early.  A mistake by USCIS doesn't negate that fact.

 

Good luck. .  Ignoring an issue is not always the best course of action. Be aware that we see bad attorney advice pretty often around here.

Edited June 4 by Crazy Cat

[thelimey 5]

4 minutes ago, Crazy Cat said:

1.  I see they never said you didn't take the oath too early.......

 

Sorry, should have been clearer. When I wrote "never heard of this happening in 25+ years practicing immigration law", the this I was referring to is the oath occurring ahead of the 5 year date.