purpose of FBI name check

[John & Annie 0]

what do you mean? the US already *categorizes* those they wish to have security clearances prior to visa issuance based on the "list of 26" countries with terrorism ties.

I was not aware of that. But it does not really change my opinion about the process - if those applicants are so carefully screened before entry, then why subject them to namechecks again?

THEN you add in an adjustment of status, and yes, its a whole new ballgame.

Yep, an extremely unfair ballgame. BTW, I had no problems with the namecheck, and even if I had, it would have been a mere inconvenience (getting new AP's and EADs). I am pis*ed off on behalf of others For some people getting GC as soon as possible is very important, for example to naturalize quicker and be able to sponsor a parent.

In reading the Ombudsman's Report, he specifically addresses this issue and talks about how illogical it is to give interim benefits to a person who potentially could be denied immigration

Can you see a huge potential of a wrong problem being solved?

Bartek

Not really sure what you are asking me?

[brtlmj 0]

In reading the Ombudsman's Report, he specifically addresses this issue and talks about how illogical it is to give interim benefits to a person who potentially could be denied immigration

Can you see a huge potential of a wrong problem being solved?

Not really sure what you are asking me?

I am saying that the problem could potentially be "solved" by denying interim benefits to those who haven't passed namechecks yet.

Edited March 2, 2007 by brtlmj

[LaL 418]

I am saying that the problem could potentially be "solved" by denying interim benefits to those who haven't passed namechecks yet.

Are you are saying my husband should not be eligible to work because of this red-tape?

Edited March 2, 2007 by lal_brandow

[brtlmj 0]

what do you mean? the US already *categorizes* those they wish to have security clearances prior to visa issuance based on the "list of 26" countries with terrorism ties.

...if those applicants are so carefully screened before entry, then why subject them to namechecks again?

because when overseas you are subject to VISA rules (DOS rules) and stateside for AOS/naturalization benefits you are subject to DHS rules.

In other words - it's the law. What I am really saying is that it's an inefficient and unfair law, and could be easily changed without compromising security.

I hope your husband gets his GC soon.

Are you are saying my husband should not be eligible to work because of this red-tape?

NO! I am saying that bureaucracies have a tendency to solve wrong problems.

Bartek

Edited March 2, 2007 by brtlmj

[John & Annie 0]

We have held the opinion that Marriage should be the fufillment of the Visa Process and that everything should be done beforehand.

That is to say, get married, mail in the marriage cert with an application, get the Conditional Green Card

[Otto 83]

From what I've read in my short time here at VJ - the process reeks foul.

I'm glad they're careful - but not to the detriment of good, honest and hard working people.

Understanding they don't want 'bad guys' to become citizens and therefore have access to the justice system we so prize here, doesn't make it any more appetizing. It's 2007 for goodness sakes - punch in the name, take a picture and scan it - any matches? No..then poof..onward..do it or don't.

I would imagine the 'delays' are more a matter of management saying "we're the FBI, we're not immigrations..."

Anyway - it's ridiculous what ever the reason and whoever is responsible...

[zsam 0]

I am saying that the problem could potentially be "solved" by denying interim benefits to those who haven't passed namechecks yet.

QUOTE(John & Annie @ Mar 2 2007, 03:55 PM) *

In reading the Ombudsman's Report, he specifically addresses this issue and talks about how illogical it is to give interim benefits to a person who potentially could be denied immigration

----

Many of us have spouses who faced intense scrutiny to come here--which is fine by me. but the "denying interim benefits" is wholly unfair. We are in this exact situation that you pose as a solution. And I tell you, it is not fun. Can you imagine foregoing over a year of lost wages due to being denied interim benefits? And reading John and Annie's quote about the Ombudsman report is heartbreaking. We're in graduate/professional school and at the end of the day USCIS is possibly going to deny us immigration. WOW..our govt should've just denied us the visa and made our lives easier.

[Dr_LHA 3]

It's 2007 for goodness sakes - punch in the name, take a picture and scan it - any matches? No..then poof..onward..do it or don't.[/i]

If the FBI namecheck comes up with no matches then its not an issue, its when it does come up with matches that its a problem. So essentially what you describe here is what happens in cases where there are no matches.

[brtlmj 0]

Many of us have spouses who faced intense scrutiny to come here--which is fine by me. but the "denying interim benefits" is wholly unfair. We are in this exact situation that you pose as a solution. And I tell you, it is not fun. Can you imagine foregoing over a year of lost wages due to being denied interim benefits? And reading John and Annie's quote about the Ombudsman report is heartbreaking. We're in graduate/professional school and at the end of the day USCIS is possibly going to deny us immigration. WOW..our govt should've just denied us the visa and made our lives easier.

Just to clarify - my opinion is that it would be a WRONG solution. I would never suggest that the interim benefits were denied for AOS applicants awaiting namecheck results. I am just saying that this solution may appear more attractive to some bureaucrat than, say, speeding up namechecks.

Bartek