INTERVIEW PROCEDURES

INTERVIEW PROCEDURES

Greet the interviewee in a polite, dignified manner to put him or her at ease.

Identify yourself, giving your name and title.

Greet him or her (and others) pleasantly;

Introduce himself or herself by name and explain the officer’s role;

Explain the process of the interview to the interviewee so he or she will know what to expect during the interview;

Avoid speech that appears to be evaluative or that indicates that the officer thinks he or she knows the answer to the question;

Be patient with the interviewee; and

Keep language as simple as possible

Argue in opposition to the applicant or petitioner’s claim (if the officer engages in argument, he or she has lost control of the interview);

Question the applicant in a hostile or abusive manner;

Take sides in the applicant or petitioner’s claim;

Attempt to be overly friendly with the interviewee; or

Allow personal biases to influence him or her during the interview, either in favor of or against the interviewee.

Begin the interview with an explanation in non-technical terms of the purpose of the interview.

Obtain identification from all parties to the interview, including interpreters, attorneys, and/or other representatives, unless identity has been previously established.

Administer the following oath: "Do you solemnly swear (or affirm) that the statements you are about to make will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?"

The oath or affirmation should always be administered in such a manner as to impress upon the person being interviewed the solemnity of the occasion and the importance of the testimony that he is about to give. The adjudicator and the person(s) being interviewed should stand and raise their right hands during the administration of the oath or affirmation. The fact that the interview is being conducted under oath or affirmation should be noted in the transcript or in the file. If a verbatim question and answer statement is taken, the exact wording of the oath or affirmation should be included in the transcript. If such a statement is not taken, the memorandum record of the interview should show that the person being interviewed was under oath or affirmation.

An applicant or his or her attorney or representative should be permitted to present documents or other evidence that may help to clarify an issue of concern to the interviewer. When possible, such evidence should be submitted and reviewed before the interview, and when relevant, should be added to the applicant's file.

In certain other types of cases where more than one individual is to be questioned, it is generally best to question each party separately, asking each party several of the same questions in order to identify inconsistent answers. It may be necessary to recall either party for further questioning if contradictory answers are provided. In other types of interviews, an entire family group may be interviewed collectively.

In a case where there is reason to believe that a witness under oath has given or may give false testimony, it may be advisable to inform the subject that willfully giving false testimony on a material matter under oath constitutes the crime of perjury, and that a person convicted of perjury is subject to a penalty of a fine, imprisonment or both. (However, see the comment below about challenging every false statement immediately.)

Should the interviewing officer be required to leave the office for any reason during the interview, the relating file(s) should be removed to avoid unauthorized review during the officer's absence.  IV. COMPONENTS OF AN INTERVIEW

There are several components of an interview. Unless the interview is discontinued, the officer must include each of the components, which are:

1. Pre-interview preparation;

2. Introduction;

3. Oath;

4. Verification of basic biographic information;

5. Testimony;

6. Conclusion.

(d) Questioning Techniques

(1) All questions are either "closed-ended" or "open-ended."

Closed-ended questions call for specific, factual and usually brief responses (e.g., "Have you ever been arrested?").

Open-ended questions solicit views, opinions, thoughts and feelings and generally call for longer, narrative-type responses (e.g., "Tell me about any arrest you have had."). Open-ended questions are normally more useful in assessing an individual's credibility and for eliciting statements which may later be supported or contradicted.

The person(s) being interviewed should be permitted to give a full explanation of any issue involved in the case. Fairness requires consideration of all relevant evidence. In some instances, detailed questioning may be desirable in order to make it more difficult for the subject to disavow his statements at a later time or to fabricate a new story. USCIS officers are reminded that the purpose of the interview is to develop the facts, favorable as well as unfavorable, with equal fairness to the subject and to the interests of the Government, in order to properly adjudicate the application or petition.

(e) Concluding or Terminating an Interview

An adjudicator should not unnecessarily prolong an interview, but should conclude it when all necessary information has been elicited. The person(s) being interviewed(s) should be thanked for cooperating and providing information.

On some occasions it may be necessary to terminate an interview even though all essential information has not been elicited; however, termination should be avoided whenever possible. Termination may be necessary in the following situations, which are not intended to be exclusive:

The person being interviewed is unable to communicate without an interpreter, and one is not available.

An interpreter clearly has difficulty translating effectively

The officer has reasonable doubts about either the ability or impartiality of an interpreter supplied by the interviewee, and a USCIS or DHS interpreter is not immediately available.

An attorney or other representative of an applicant or petitioner insists on responding to questions or coaching the person being interviewed.

An attorney or other representative of an applicant or petitioner insists on interpreting for his or her client during an interview.

The person being interviewed refuses to respond to questions essential to the successful completion of the interview.

The conduct of the attorney or other representative has exceeded the bounds of zealous representation and interferes with the ability of the officer to conduct the interview.