Case: Naturalization – application of citizenship wrongly delayed.
Brief Facts: Client filed a citizenship (naturalization) application in 2011, client was interviewed and passed the test around February 2012. On around September 2012, Client contacted our office stating that he was called for another interview on the case. Client went through an extensive investigation interview on her green card (employment based). Client retained our law firm to attend the interview. After 3 hours of interview, Client was told the case will be sent to the Naturalization unit for an adjudication. On February 2013, Client was called for another interview. However, this time client received a note stating that she has a pending warrant and three criminal convictions. Client was never arrested in her life and she was highly stressed especially since she knows she has a perfect clean record.
Our Approach: Client was so stressed that she was has severe emotional distress. We asked client to obtain a police clearance certificate and also to have an internet check on her name. Client found out that she had a clean record and there was nothing pending against her.
Results: Shah Peerally, Esq., prepared a short brief and went to the immigration interview with Client. At the interview, it was found that USCIS completely confused the file with someone else resulting both in the delay and issuing of the request for criminal cases disposition. Eventually the officer apologized and granted an approval on the naturalization to the client. Client will be scheduled for a naturalization oath in the coming weeks.
Experience: This case required a systematic approach where no only the Client case issues needed to be addressed but required that our team re-assure the client that she will not be arrested at the interview. Only an experienced lawyer could have analyzed and ultimately taken such an approach on the case.
Note that in case of delayed citizenship, one method to get a case moving is to look into a a USC 1447(b) or Writ of Mandamus lawsuit. But the above case study is not one where any lawsuit was required.