MIAMI IMMIGRATION ATTORNEYS
HABLAMOS ESPAÑOL      |      FALAMOS PORTUGUÊS      |      SI PARLA ITALIANO      |      NOUS PARLONS FRANÇAIS      |      WIR SPRECHEN DEUTSCH      |     我们说普通话

Call Today for a FREE
in Office Consultation

(305) 856-0400

Toll Free: 1-88-VISA-LAW-1

Several years ago, a gentleman from Spain came for a free consultation to our Miami office to discuss the denial of his naturalization application. At that time we were unable to help him. He had been untruthful at his citizenship interview and was denied due to lack of Good Moral Character. We explained that he would have to wait five years from the date of his interview before he would be able to file again.

What happened was, he had obtained his residency through marriage to a United States citizen and three years following the issuance of his “green-card” had applied for naturalization. When he went to the interview at the Oakland Park Field Office, he told the officer that he still lived with his wife. Unfortunately, he did not know that USCIS had already found out that he was in fact divorced from his wife and certainly no longer living with her. He was issued a lengthy decision denying his petition based on lack of Good Moral Character.

Luckily the gentleman returned to us five years later and retained us to represent him on his renewed quest for United States citizenship. We were able to submit a reasonable explanation of why he did not know that he was divorced at the time of his previous interview. We obtained and submitted a copy of the ex-wife’s petition for divorce, which was served by publication, meaning, she did not know where he was at the time. This did not explain why he misrepresented to the officer that he was living with her and would require further explanation.

At his interview, which was once again conducted at the Oakland Park Field Office, we presented his case and provided original stamped copies of his previous divorce and proof that his marriage was entered into good faith. He explained, with remorse, why he misrepresented the fact that they were not living together and the officer listened carefully.