How many people get AoS interview waived?

[Caladan 19]

Pin this thread. I am tired of people wondering if it was because their marriage gets a gold star or because they used ACCO fasteners.

[no name 1]

http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/CS...s_121305_ST.pdf

Here it is folks.

It has nothing to do with country, income, bonafides of the relationship, petition type.......it it PURELY based upon caseloads.

I'm surprised by the responses of some of you who have been here awhile in answering this question.

I said what happened in my local office - the UK/Canadians have no interviews. All others did have interviews - had nada to do with backlog as the cases were pending at the same times.

IMHO, there seems to be a pattern.

Edited December 18, 2007 by devilette

[Caladan 19]

If you look at the timelines and click people transferred, you see a lot of names of different national origin. It wouldn't surprise me if 'cases unlikely to need an interview' included more first-world countries, but it seems to be a much bigger tent than that, and I don't think anyone gets transferred even if they're super-duper prepared if their office isn't backlogged. It's the backlog reduction that's driving it.

[no name 1]

If you look at the timelines and click people transferred, you see a lot of names of different national origin. It wouldn't surprise me if 'cases unlikely to need an interview' included more first-world countries, but it seems to be a much bigger tent than that, and I don't think anyone gets transferred even if they're super-duper prepared if their office isn't backlogged. It's the backlog reduction that's driving it.

See my above post - the cases were pending at the SAME TIME. Doesn't make sense.

[Jesse and Hema 2]

http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/CS...s_121305_ST.pdf

Here it is folks.

It has nothing to do with country, income, bonafides of the relationship, petition type.......it it PURELY based upon caseloads.

I'm surprised by the responses of some of you who have been here awhile in answering this question.

Thanks, RebeccaJo... But that document's statement that "context of backlog elimination, some cases that are unlikely to require an interview have been transferred from district offices" implies that the interview requirements have already been determined by the time they decide to transfer because of backlog. I'm sure the workload plays a part, though.

Seems nobody's sure of any patterns though. In my case, income level is far above poverty line, the beneficiary is from a low-fraud country, there's no former marriages, no criminal history, I'm not from California, and we might be applying along with everyone else from the "filing rush"... So we might get lucky!

Ya know what? I bet they pick up an application and roll some dice...

[rebeccajo 14]

Pin this thread. I am tired of people wondering if it was because their marriage gets a gold star or because they used ACCO fasteners.

I'd like to see that as well.

Even within the offices from which cases are transferred, not all cases WILL be transferred. Some will stay and some will go back to CSC. The last time I was able to check by 'filer' threads, it looked to me like the rate of transfer within VJ members was 50%.

"Cases unlikely to require an interview" means the paperwork is there - within the entire file INCLUDING THE CONSULAR FILE - for an officer to tick off the boxes and sign their name to it. Nothing more nothing less.

Edited December 18, 2007 by rebeccajo

[Caladan 19]

http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/CS...s_121305_ST.pdf

Here it is folks.

It has nothing to do with country, income, bonafides of the relationship, petition type.......it it PURELY based upon caseloads.

I'm surprised by the responses of some of you who have been here awhile in answering this question.

Thanks, RebeccaJo... But that document's statement that "context of backlog elimination, some cases that are unlikely to require an interview have been transferred from district offices" implies that the interview requirements have already been determined by the time they decide to transfer because of backlog. I'm sure the workload plays a part, though.

Seems nobody's sure of any patterns though. In my case, income level is far above poverty line, the beneficiary is from a low-fraud country, there's no former marriages, no criminal history, I'm not from California, and we might be applying along with everyone else from the "filing rush"... So we might get lucky!

Ya know what? I bet they pick up an application and roll some dice...

I think we can conclude that they look first at whether the district office is backlogged. If it isn't, you're getting an interview even if you have an easy case. You can look up your district office on USCIS's website. If they give processing time as 'six months', you're a normal office. If it's a date listed earlier than that, you count as a backlogged office.

Once they've noted that it's at an office that is backed up enough to transfer, they may look at the application more closely. But looking at the timelines collected here (you can search under AOS timelines, and transfer 'yes or no'), it doesn't seem like there's a consistent pattern. People from the middle East, from traditional so-called mail-order bride countries, get transferred, too. And again, there isn't much in the mere AOS file for most of us that shows a committed relationship. Anything we personally submitted from the K-1 was more than a year old, and who knows if the adjudicator even sees the K-1 file when making the decision to transfer it.

[rebeccajo 14]

They see the K1 file. They have the entire immigrant petition. I saw our file on the officers desk.

[Caladan 19]

If you look at the timelines and click people transferred, you see a lot of names of different national origin. It wouldn't surprise me if 'cases unlikely to need an interview' included more first-world countries, but it seems to be a much bigger tent than that, and I don't think anyone gets transferred even if they're super-duper prepared if their office isn't backlogged. It's the backlog reduction that's driving it.

See my above post - the cases were pending at the SAME TIME. Doesn't make sense.

What do you mean, cases pending at the same time? I'm legitimately confused by what you mean. It's not the case that ALL of the office's backlog is transferred, just some of it.

[Caladan 19]

They see the K1 file. They have the entire immigrant petition. I saw our file on the officers desk.

But still -- our information was over a year old and I did not jam pack the file full of proof of relationship. There was nothing in there that said 'Oh, this couple must be super-duper non-fraudulent' compared to most people's petitions.

[rebeccajo 14]

They see the K1 file. They have the entire immigrant petition. I saw our file on the officers desk.

But still -- our information was over a year old and I did not jam pack the file full of proof of relationship. There was nothing in there that said 'Oh, this couple must be super-duper non-fraudulent' compared to most people's petitions.

Oh I have no doubt of that!

I wish I had the particular link from the FAM at the ready which states that interviews for ANY STAGE of the adjustment process are at the discretion of the officer. But if you want to dig through it for yourself, you'll find it in rather plain language.

People were traditionally interviewed because that's the way it has always been done - you know the lingo. Government offices suffer from the practice just as much as business does. If not more so.

Lo and behold a backlog occurred and USCIS could smell (as early as late 2005 when this memo was issued) congressional testimony around the corner in about 18 months to answer for their 500 mil appropriation they had received in 2001. How were they to answer for the crushing mountain of files still lying about? Define a new policy, that's how. Eliminate something that didn't HAVE to be done in the first place.

Hence your memo, which SHOULD be the final word any of us need.

And another thing - it doesn't take a stack of papers four inches thick to get a case approved. You'd be surprised if you could see the criteria of tick-marks our lives are reduced to for immigrant processing. It's not a case of how SOLID your case is as how SOLIDLY you present it.

Edited December 18, 2007 by rebeccajo

[no name 1]

They see the K1 file. They have the entire immigrant petition. I saw our file on the officers desk.

But still -- our information was over a year old and I did not jam pack the file full of proof of relationship. There was nothing in there that said 'Oh, this couple must be super-duper non-fraudulent' compared to most people's petitions.

Your consulate could be a giant green flag!

[athena_ny 1]

http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/CS...s_121305_ST.pdf

Here it is folks.

It has nothing to do with country, income, bonafides of the relationship, petition type.......it it PURELY based upon caseloads.

I'm surprised by the responses of some of you who have been here awhile in answering this question.

I still feel if it were only based on caseload, that we'd see those filing from inside the country without having had a K1 or K3 not have an interview. Except for some very rare cases, such as eau_explain's, for the most part, we do not. They do some picking and choosing on who they transfer, and I will continue speculating this until I start seeing some of those people get through without an interview. Of course, it's possibly I'm just missing them.

I do agree with it's not so much how solid your case is as how solidly you present it - we had very little proof because we'd been married for a short amount of time. We had pictures, we had cards addressed to both of us, but most bills were separate, I wasn't on the lease, etc etc. We got some stuff before the interview, but it wasn't much. She didn't ask to see pictures. We were still approved.

[Caladan 19]

They see the K1 file. They have the entire immigrant petition. I saw our file on the officers desk.

But still -- our information was over a year old and I did not jam pack the file full of proof of relationship. There was nothing in there that said 'Oh, this couple must be super-duper non-fraudulent' compared to most people's petitions.

Your consulate could be a giant green flag!

I looked up Hartford; the other couple transferred that has filled in their timeline was from India. I think there have been a few Canadians interviewing in Hartford recently. Looking casually through the list, I see a lot of Filipinas transferred, and Manila is known as a tough consulate. A few from the Middle East, not generally known for easy journeys. Several from the Ukraine and Russia.

I don't doubt they have to decide whom to interview and whom to transfer somehow. But I don't like how often people tend to take being transferred, or needing an interview, as a judgment on their relationship, especially when for most people the I-485 is filed with no new evidence of relationship beyond a marriage license.

[athena_ny 1]

They see the K1 file. They have the entire immigrant petition. I saw our file on the officers desk.

But still -- our information was over a year old and I did not jam pack the file full of proof of relationship. There was nothing in there that said 'Oh, this couple must be super-duper non-fraudulent' compared to most people's petitions.

Your consulate could be a giant green flag!

I looked up Hartford; the other couple transferred that has filled in their timeline was from India. I think there have been a few Canadians interviewing in Hartford recently. Looking casually through the list, I see a lot of Filipinas transferred, and Manila is known as a tough consulate. A few from the Middle East, not generally known for easy journeys. Several from the Ukraine and Russia.

I don't doubt they have to decide whom to interview and whom to transfer somehow. But I don't like how often people tend to take being transferred, or needing an interview, as a judgment on their relationship, especially when for most people the I-485 is filed with no new evidence of relationship beyond a marriage license.

I 100% agree with the last part.