New Theory on CSC Transfers

[Converse34 1]

This is occurring because, in the context of backlog elimination, some cases that are unlikely to require an interview have been transferred from district offices with longer backlogs to the California Service Center where there is greater existing adjudications capacity.

There has to be some internal parameters around cases that are unlikely to require an interview.

[waitingbee 0]

This is occurring because, in the context of backlog elimination, some cases that are unlikely to require an interview have been transferred from district offices with longer backlogs to the California Service Center where there is greater existing adjudications capacity.

There has to be some internal parameters around cases that are unlikely to require an interview.

From what I can tell, the people that get transferred to CSC entered on a K1, for example, and already had an interview for that. USCIS has already gone over the background of the relationship. However, if someone entered on a student visa, for example, got married on it, they do not have any info on the realtionship background and will have you in for an interview to find out more. So, K1 AOS applicants that got married within 90 days are transferred to avoid backlog since, seriously, how many times do they need to interview us for the same thing if we have proof of a marriage that happened right after the first interview! It has nothing to do with name change, USCIS officers insight into relationship potential, country, etc. Just previous info and backlog.

[rebeccajo 14]

This is occurring because, in the context of backlog elimination, some cases that are unlikely to require an interview have been transferred from district offices with longer backlogs to the California Service Center where there is greater existing adjudications capacity.

There has to be some internal parameters around cases that are unlikely to require an interview.

From what I can tell, the people that get transferred to CSC entered on a K1, for example, and already had an interview for that. USCIS has already gone over the background of the relationship. However, if someone entered on a student visa, for example, got married on it, they do not have any info on the realtionship background and will have you in for an interview to find out more. So, K1 AOS applicants that got married within 90 days are transferred to avoid backlog since, seriously, how many times do they need to interview us for the same thing if we have proof of a marriage that happened right after the first interview! It has nothing to do with name change, USCIS officers insight into relationship potential, country, etc. Just previous info and backlog.

Interviews were never a legal requirement. They have always been at the discretion of the AO or management. They were traditionally done when the workload was lighter. Now some are being waived.

It's interesting if you look in the 'filer' threads at the chart being kept. For the last several months, the transfer rate is roughly 50%.

Do you really think about half of us have something 'wrong' with our cases that make us more likely to be interviewed? Or that half of us have something 'superior'?

Here on VJ, because we 'over-examine' our cases, we have a tendency to nit-pick apart the rest of the process. In the real world of immigration, we are all pretty much a stack of papers. Field Officers have another piece of paper they lay on top of our stack of papers we sent to the service. On that form, they tick off boxes as to what 'paper proof' the file contains upon which they can justify either an approval or a denial. It's all about covering their butts. It's not about if your relationship is 'better' than someone elses.

Edited January 22, 2008 by rebeccajo

[Converse34 1]

Do you really think about half of us have something 'wrong' with our cases that make us more likely to be interviewed? Or that half of us have something 'superior'?

No of course not. But there has to be some way of saying, you in this pile, you in that pile. It can't be completely random.

[rebeccajo 14]

Yeah, but surely they would only advance cases they felt confident would pass in an interview. Especially with the Patriot Act, etc - I would imagine they would rather have us all wait then take a chance.

If you refer to the Patriot Act because of our nation being concerned about terrorism through immigration, you have your wires slightly crossed. The Patriot Act has more to do with seeking out potential terrorist activity via new powers the government gave itself to look into banking records, flight records, etc.

The FBI namecheck (requested by USCIS after you filed your adjustments) conducted on the immigrant is what clears the immigrants background.

[Converse34 1]

Yeah, but surely they would only advance cases they felt confident would pass in an interview. Especially with the Patriot Act, etc - I would imagine they would rather have us all wait then take a chance.

If you refer to the Patriot Act because of our nation being concerned about terrorism through immigration, you have your wires slightly crossed. The Patriot Act has more to do with seeking out potential terrorist activity via new powers the government gave itself to look into banking records, flight records, etc.

The FBI namecheck (requested by USCIS after you filed your adjustments) conducted on the immigrant is what clears the immigrants background.

OK fine. But it still isn't completely random.

[rebeccajo 14]

Do you really think about half of us have something 'wrong' with our cases that make us more likely to be interviewed? Or that half of us have something 'superior'?

No of course not. But there has to be some way of saying, you in this pile, you in that pile. It can't be completely random.

We've been watching this 'phenomen' for nearly two years and yes, it pretty much does look like dart-throwing. We've had reports of case transfers from couples where there is a vast age difference; from applicants in the Middle East; from 'high-fraud' countries; from poor sponsors; from rich sponsors; from couples who met one time, filed and married; from couples who have been together ages.

There really is no pattern.

I'm not beating up on you but this particular misconception is a pet peeve of mine. Case transfers began taking place around the approximate time my husband filed his adjustment. There was quite a 'hue and cry' on VJ about why this was occuring. The natural suspicion being of course, that some peoples cases were 'better' than others. In our case I particularly heard from time to time that our case was not transferred because the husband is from the land of petrol bombs - this always got my back up.

It should be as simple as showing people the memo and the discussion should end there. But we always have to get back to anecdotal evidence to get VJ'ers to believe it. I guess it's the nature of the 'beasts' - we are vested in our cases because they are 'ours' - because the whole thing is personal. But because it is personal, it's patently wrong to suggest to others their case 'needed' an interview.

Edited January 22, 2008 by rebeccajo

[Converse34 1]

There really is no pattern.

That we can tell. There still has be some sort of internal parameters.

[athena_ny 1]

There really is no pattern.

That we can tell. There still has be some sort of internal parameters.

If it makes you feel any better, I agree with the K-1 assessment - K-1 are much more likely to be transferred, and on this board alone I've only seen one non-K1 (I don't really pay much attention to K-3, so not sure about that, so I'm referring to visitor, student, VWP, etc) transferred. The rest of us pretty much count on having an interview.

[rebeccajo 14]

There really is no pattern.

That we can tell. There still has be some sort of internal parameters.

Because your office is backlogged and because your paperwork was completed accurately enough for the AO to tick off the boxes on his form and sign his name to it.

[Converse34 1]

If it makes you feel any better, I agree with the K-1 assessment - K-1 are much more likely to be transferred, and on this board alone I've only seen one non-K1 (I don't really pay much attention to K-3, so not sure about that, so I'm referring to visitor, student, VWP, etc) transferred. The rest of us pretty much count on having an interview.

That's fine. All I'm saying there is something that determines applicants "that are unlikely to require an interview".

[rebeccajo 14]

If it makes you feel any better, I agree with the K-1 assessment - K-1 are much more likely to be transferred, and on this board alone I've only seen one non-K1 (I don't really pay much attention to K-3, so not sure about that, so I'm referring to visitor, student, VWP, etc) transferred. The rest of us pretty much count on having an interview.

That's fine. All I'm saying there is something that determines applicants "that are unlikely to require an interview".

You've seen the evidence. What in your opinion would obviate that?

[Melyssa 0]

I could be completely wrong here, but i'm was just mulling why we and others get transferred to CSC and some don't. Has anyone looked at people who file using their married name versus those who file with their maiden name? Perhaps USCIS sees changing your name as reasonable proof that you have a legit marriage?

As others have said I don't think that has anything to do with it... my case status simply said my case was transferred to try and help speed up processing due to a backlog, or something to that affect!

[zqt3344 21]

Never know, but doubt it, more than likely it is how well your paperwork(supporting documents USCIS requests) and application are assembled and how easily presentable or easy to read and understand it when caseworker reviews it along the lines that you also have sent them everything they could have asked for, plus reviewing your case facts and if you both clear FBI/CIA and whatever else background check and name check clears within about week or less. Just speculating.

I could be completely wrong here, but i'm was just mulling why we and others get transferred to CSC and some don't. Has anyone looked at people who file using their married name versus those who file with their maiden name? Perhaps USCIS sees changing your name as reasonable proof that you have a legit marriage?

[zqt3344 21]

AGREED, you are right, there is some sort of criteria.

If it makes you feel any better, I agree with the K-1 assessment - K-1 are much more likely to be transferred, and on this board alone I've only seen one non-K1 (I don't really pay much attention to K-3, so not sure about that, so I'm referring to visitor, student, VWP, etc) transferred. The rest of us pretty much count on having an interview.

That's fine. All I'm saying there is something that determines applicants "that are unlikely to require an interview".