USCIS Director Gonzalez to Participate

[gobdogman 0]

I see what we did wrong.

We didnt kiss his a$$ before we asked our questions ,thats why we didnt get much of a chance to have our voices heard.

Typical govt. side stepping #######.

Wow i am beginning to feel like our govt. really doesnt care about the citizens here unless we fit thier own agenda.

[joseph22 0]

I find this interesting...If this is accurate, doesn't it mean that a lot of the IMBRA holdup was unnecessary? If they did it anyway, why was this so hard to implement.

Jack, from CA writes:

Is name check delay by FBI really helping the national security?

Dr. Emilio González

Our top priority at USCIS continues to be preserving the integrity of the immigration system in this county. While providing accurate and responsive immigration service is of paramount importance, UISCIS does not do so at the expense of national security or public safety. To this end, USCIS conducts law enforcement checks on all applications and petitions before they are adjudicated, completing approximately 35 million background checks a year.

In addition, USCIS maintains a strict policy requiring that all law enforcement checks be resolved prior to granting an immigration benefit by obtaining necessary information from appropriate law enforcement and intelligence agencies.

Very interesting note.

It does seem totally contradictory to the entire IMBRA RFE reaction.

Why ask us if we are criminals. Look it up in your super stud background check computers.

And did we meet with a marriage broker? Pretty sure there's always been a requirement to briefly explain how you met. This whole debauchery should never have happened.

[sleepless in OR 2]

I was just about to post the same. LOL

Gee....what a helpful answer.....

*coughbullsh!tcough*

Ah yes, a bureaucratic waste of time and resources at its best. If all the PR people assigned to writing these bogus responses were put to work on case review of the K-1 backlog, a few approvals might actually be rendered this week. What a crock!

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

my personal favorite so far bold part by me

---------------------------

Amit, from St. Petersburg, Fl writes:

Dear Mr. Gonzales, I am an Immigration Attorney and attended your speech you addressed at AILA Annual Conference, San Antonio, TX. I enjoyed it Believe it or not, USCIS efficiency, consistency has improved significantly, altough there is a lot of room for improvement. Thank you, Amit

Dr. Emilio González

Thank you for your important feedback. This year we established a Transformation Program that ensures the progress our agency has made over the last several years will continue into the future. Key to our success will be the establishment of an electronic case management system that will make it easier for our customers to apply for immigration benefits while meeting critical security requirements to keep our Nation safe. During the coming months, information will be provided to our customers regarding these important initiatives.

[The Molinas 0]

Mike, from NYC writes:

Are you a Naturalized Citizen, and if so, when did you become one. Futhermore, how and where did you enter the country. Have yo uundergone a recent background check? Did you pay the appropriate fees and do you have the receipts to prove so? Under which type of VISA did you enter? Were you ever an illegal immigrant, either by choice or circumstance?

Dr. Emilio González

Mike, yes I am a naturalized U.S. citizen. I entered the country in 1961 and became a U.S. citizen in 1966. Since this was so long ago, I do not recall what the fee was but I assume my parents paid it (I was 9 at the time) otherwise I would not have been naturalized and therefore, I have never been an illegal immigrant.

My situation, and that of my family, is proof that the legal immigration system of our great Nation works as it was intended.

I LOVE THAT ONE!!!!!!!!!!!!

[vartan 0]

why would you waste a question like that.. bah

[sleepless in OR 2]

I find this interesting...If this is accurate, doesn't it mean that a lot of the IMBRA holdup was unnecessary? If they did it anyway, why was this so hard to implement.

Jack, from CA writes:

Is name check delay by FBI really helping the national security?

Dr. Emilio González

Our top priority at USCIS continues to be preserving the integrity of the immigration system in this county. While providing accurate and responsive immigration service is of paramount importance, UISCIS does not do so at the expense of national security or public safety. To this end, USCIS conducts law enforcement checks on all applications and petitions before they are adjudicated, completing approximately 35 million background checks a year.

In addition, USCIS maintains a strict policy requiring that all law enforcement checks be resolved prior to granting an immigration benefit by obtaining necessary information from appropriate law enforcement and intelligence agencies.

Very interesting note.

It does seem totally contradictory to the entire IMBRA RFE reaction.

Why ask us if we are criminals. Look it up in your super stud background check computers.

And did we meet with a marriage broker? Pretty sure there's always been a requirement to briefly explain how you met. This whole debauchery should never have happened.

No kidding. What a total farce. Lots of people have observed they already do background checks, as stated in the eloquent reply above. After all, they have our personal info on the applications. If they don't do these checks, what the heck ARE they doing at the service centers, and don't forget the little side trip to NVC before the petition even gets sent to the foreign consulates.

Makes you wonder if the whole IMBRA related recall and hiatus of K1s in process was part of some nefarious scheme to slow down legal immigration even further while they dink around some more trying to resolve the little problem of what to do with 12 million illegals already here.

[gobdogman 0]

why would you waste a question like that.. bah

Simple ,its govt censorship at its finest.

They allow the questions that they can answer without actually putting the system at fault or accountable for anything.

They dont want to let us see the thousands of questions that will actually make the system a failure or needing repair. They are only covering their a$$ by choosing easy questions.

[Canuck Carrie 1]

Wow, 12 whole questions and psuedo answers.

All those bad questions make him look bad, I'm not disappointed in it, it's what I expected.

[vartan 0]

Simple ,its govt censorship at its finest.

Nah I meant why would a person actually ask that question

[gobdogman 0]

Well thats it ladys and gent's you see what kind of help that was.

Only 1 questions regarding K1 and it was typical side stepping and fluff.

Should have known we wouldnt get any real information from govt. forum.

Well back to the pulling hairs and waiting for that magical e-mail with the word APPROVED.

Hope everyone gets their magic e-mail soon i know its really putting a strain on my relationship with my girl.

I am actually thinking of selling my business and house and moving to the philippines anyways.

Edited July 24, 2006 by gobdogman

[MN&UK 0]

HERE IS HIS ANSWER TO OUR QUESTION, CAN YOU SAY B******T

Utter #######!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! His answer was rote, bureaucratic #######!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think he just read his answers off of their website verbatim.

#######

#######

and can I say..#######!

[Erik 0]

This is a bummer, I was really looking forward to the complementary KY question being answered.... guess he "slipped" away from it yet again.

[iceyspots 0]

This is a bummer, I was really looking forward to the complementary KY question being answered.... guess he "slipped" away from it yet again.

did someone say KY?

[Erik 0]

This is a bummer, I was really looking forward to the complementary KY question being answered.... guess he "slipped" away from it yet again.

did someone say KY?

I guess you missed my first post in this thread

"Asked a couple questions myself.

1. Same as all of you, why can't the CSC do anything efficiently

2. Why doesn't the I-129F Package come with a complementary tube of KY"