New Policies at USCIS or just Multiple Anomalies

[pushbrk 12,898]

Can you describe a common fraud profile? I don't know what it is...

There are many common fraud profiles with their own variations in different countries. The most common one I'm seeing with regard to the subject of this thread is, first a high fraud country, then either a well off foreign male combined with a relatively poor female petitioner. Sometimes this is combined with a large reverse age difference but sometimes the older female is financially stable. It could be anything with multiple red flags. It's really a subject of and for multiple other threads.

Again, this thread has a purpose and it is not to ask questions about the terminology used in the thread. It's for discussion of the apparent change in direction in dealing with these cases at USCIS. If you want to discuss fraud scenarios in any other context, please start a new thread for that purpose.

[dsamyra3 3]

I received one of those "RFEIE" 's, they are brutal. It was a 4 pages long asking for any and everything. My husband has not had his interview yet, but If this "RFEIE" help us from getting denied, then I am all for it. My husband is from Morocco and Casablanca is one of the toughest embassy's, so anything that might detour them from just handing out a denial works for me.

[mahboula 11]

Yes, Egypt and Morocco are prime locations from which I see this change coming but the cases also fit common fraud profiles.

Yes they do fit common fraud profiles. But still, the majority of cases I've read about that fit the typical fraud profile(on vj) are still getting approved without an RFE(or RFEIE). I wondered if the RFEIE cases had anything else in common so I looked at five that I could remember. It's interesting that they were all IR1-cr1 petitions and four of them at CSC(one didn't specify service center so its possibly csc as well). Could it be these were all issued by the same officer(?adjudicator) or is that too much of a stretch?

Edited April 11, 2011 by mahboula

[elya 17]

FWIW - based on Igor's list; percentage of cases that got RFEs:

May 2010 NOA1s - 16%

June 2010 NOA1s - 20%

July 2010 NOA1s - 9%

August 2010 NOA1s - 21%

September 2010 NOA1s - 19%

October 2010 NOA1s - 21%

If it weren't for the June number, I would almost say there's an upward trend...

[americandiva 0]

A recent thread, http://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/304159-visa-denied/page__st__30__p__4597847__fromsearch__1#entry4597847 is the catalyst for starting this one. I've seen what I would term a noticeable increase in what I'll term "RFEIE" 's (Requests for Extensive Initial Evidence) being reported here on VJ and elsewhere. I've also seen a less marked increase in "Standard Interviews" prior to petition approval. It would seem (only educated speculation) that USCIS is upping its game in the ongoing turf war with Consular Services.

I'm seeing this increased activity in cases that fit fraud profiles, the same kinds of cases USCIS is seeing sent back to them with recommendations to revoke petition approval after a Consulate has denied the visa. I've also seen more second denials after reaffirmation lately than I've seen before but that's a less marked increase as well. (not statistics, just observations)

My conclusion is that USCIS is tired of getting their petitions re-adjudicated as to the classification, 201(b) "Alien Spouse of a US Citizen" followed by NOIR reviews, notices, rebuttals, reaffirmations and second visa denials. As a result, they are getting more pro-active in their adjudication of quite a number of cases that will go to high fraud Consulates and that fit common fraud scenarios. They are doing this with RFEIE's asking for pretty much the kitchen sink of evidence we would call "front loading" including full evidence and explanation of each and every potential red flag. They do tend to give more like 90 days to respond to these RFEIE's than the normal 30 days for an RFE.

Opinions? Observations?

Please stay on topic. Though many have "complaints" that's not the purpose for which this thread was started, nor is it to discuss the thread linked at the top. That one has it's own place for discussion.

Pushbak, it is really funny that you said that.I orginally filed a petition for my husband/step-son under the k-3/k-4, which no longer exist.So, the I-130 was approved for my husband first.After finding out that the k-3/k-4 no longer applies, I had to do a separtate petition for my minor age 4 step-son. When I filed the petition for my step-son I did so with an expedite, and I had my local congressman help with the case as well. My step-son's petition was approved on 4/6/11.I had already paid the AOS fee for my husband. I went on the NVC website today to pay the VISA bill for my husband, but I was not allowed to log in ,and it also stated that I need to talk to a rep , so I talk to a rep , and she informed me that my husband's petition that has already been approved was forwarded back to the USCIS, and there is no info at the time.... WILDDDD #######. Now, maybe that is not the case. I would like to think that they wanted the case back to assemble the packet into one (husband&step-son) I can not think of any reason why they would think that this is a fraud case, or something fishy..... Does any one have any input? If please give me your feedback.

Edited April 11, 2011 by americandiva

[Julie y Pat 67]

It is my opinion, from your observations on this topic, and my own observations in other areas, that these aren't just multiple anomalies, but changes in policy. I think the policy change, in general, is to decrease the number of immigrants entering the US, and to increase the number of immigrants leaving the US. I don't know if you're referencing other sources besides VJ for the observations you make in the start of this thread, but that doesn't really matter, we can extrapolate from the numbers here to get a bigger picture. Increasing the burden of proof for petitioners and applicants going through higher fraud consulates is one way to shrink the number of potential immigrants, hence more "Standard Interviews" and RFEIE's. I think another way to shrink the number of potential immigrants is by doubling or tripling the time it takes for petitions to be approved. The stress of waiting can take it's toll on relationships, and the likelihood of a relationship falling apart and never making it to the interview stage can be increased by making the wait longer, and I think they are counting on this. And the number of deportations have gone up the last two years. I hope I didn't go too far off topic, but these are the reasons I think it's policy change rather than multiple anomalies.

[pushbrk 12,898]

Pushbak, it is really funny that you said that.I orginally filed a petition for my husband/step-son under the k-3/k-4, which no longer exist.So, the I-130 was approved for my husband first.After finding out that the k-3/k-4 no longer applies, I had to do a separtate petition for my minor age 4 step-son. When I filed the petition for my step-son I did so with an expedite, and I had my local congressman help with the case as well. My step-son's petition was approved on 4/6/11.I had already paid the AOS fee for my husband. I went on the NVC website today to pay the VISA bill for my husband, but I was not allowed to log in ,and it also stated that I need to talk to a rep , so I talk to a rep , and she informed me that my husband's petition that has already been approved was forwarded back to the USCIS, and there is no info at the time.... WILDDDD #######. Now, maybe that is not the case. I would like to think that they wanted the case back to assemble the packet into one (husband&step-son) I can not think of any reason why they would think that this is a fraud case, or something fishy..... Does any one have any input? If please give me your feedback.

This really deserves a thread of it's own. Very strange but nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

Aside, folks I'm leaving for the airport soon to return from China, so you won't see me for a couple days.

[RICARDO4EVA2 194]

Cases returning to USCIS is caused by two things....

USCIS's error

Petitioner/Applicant's error