Interesting Information Regarding CSC Transfers

[lisaf 0]

Well, that's probably what *IS* holding things up for so many. I know it is for us and we were transferred to CSC back in October 2006. This was after the RFE though. Still, we *are* in namecheck. Besides, don't we all know that when it comes to dealing with the USCIS there is no rhyme nor reason for most of what they do, from what we've read on this forum?

also makes sense, I found it odd that my EAD hasn't been touched at all other than to update my biometrics appointment. I can't have that either if a name check is pending...

[Mags 112]

Well, my name is REALLY uncommon. Let's see how long it takes....

[lisaf 0]

Well, my name is REALLY uncommon. Let's see how long it takes....

My name is rare in Australia, not here though I dont think.

Just a thought, do we have to go through a double name check...pre and post married??? I could be getting up to all sorts of things in the last 2 months

Edited April 6, 2007 by lisaf

[mybackpages 0]

One aspect of the criteria could be that there is a backlog a the local office. Mags info doesn't seem to discount this- only that there is some set requirements for one case to be pulled an another not. And now curiosity will get the best of me

[Ladylethal 12]

It's weird 'cus my last name is not so common in Brazil but is VERY common in US, and my FBI checks were done quickly. I wonder if the fact I was an exchange student here before helped, having a record and information on me or something. Dunno.

Mags, what if the criteria is if the office are backlogged?

Which again, is weird since mine was San Juan, PR, and you don't expect it to be very busy, right?

[florida_guy07 0]

mags, I already told you that it is not the visa... there are many VJers that with all kinds of visa and they were transferred to CSC and there are many many many K1s who weren't transferred to CSC... so that's not it. It is DEFINITELY not the visa you came to the US with.

[Mags 112]

mags, I already told you that it is not the visa... there are many VJers that with all kinds of visa and they were transferred to CSC and there are many many many K1s who weren't transferred to CSC... so that's not it. It is DEFINITELY not the visa you came to the US with.

Again, that's NOT what I said. I never said that it WAS the visa! What I said was that people who come over on the K-1 AND who fit the mystery criteria can potentially get forwarded to CSC. She also said that there are other visas, again where the applicants fit the mystery criteria, that can be sent to CSC.

[rebeccajo 14]

There's a USCIS statement on transfers:

Go to uscis.gov and then go to the "Press Room" section.

Go to Page 7.

Go to December 2005 and open the last PDF entitled "Receipts issued from the California Service Center".

[Mags 112]

There's a USCIS statement on transfers:

Go to uscis.gov and then go to the "Press Room" section.

Go to Page 7.

Go to December 2005 and open the last PDF entitled "Receipts issued from the California Service Center".

But that's December 2005. A lot could have changed internally in the USCIS since then....?

[Lucy N Fer 0]

I had my interview last month and I too asked my AO officer why it is that some cases get transferred. The response I got is the same as the press release that Rebeccajo refers to. It is to relieve certain offices that are backlogged. I tend to agree with this answer because I noticed that since mid lastyear everyone in Phoenix has interviews. I looked up VJers with the local office being Phoenix and all had interviews. It would be easy to look up people in your area to try to get an idea if the case may be transferred. She said it really depends on how backlogged each local office is at the time of the application....makes sense to me. Then again, can we really trust anything that comes from USCIS?

By the way, thanks Rebeccajo for that press release (I did read it). It does clear up somethings for me and substantiate what I was told.

Edited April 6, 2007 by Lucy N Bebe

[rebeccajo 14]

There's a USCIS statement on transfers:

Go to uscis.gov and then go to the "Press Room" section.

Go to Page 7.

Go to December 2005 and open the last PDF entitled "Receipts issued from the California Service Center".

But that's December 2005. A lot could have changed internally in the USCIS since then....?

There have been no other official statements since that time. Believe me, I have looked. The mysterious phraseology 'cases that are unlikely to require an interview' has never been explained.

I don't hold myself up as any sort of authority at all. But I've studied this process A LOT (due to our circumstances) and the best conclusion I have come to is that backlog reduction is the sole driving force behind the transfers. If you study the creation of the Dept. of Homeland Security and the one-time appropriation of $500 million they received, you learn the purpose of this was to decrease the backlog. Backlog reduction being considered fundamental to improve the ability for security checks and a higher level of vigilance on the part of immigrant entry to the US.

The current bills being bandied about in Congress contain language regarding DHS backlogs. There is an effort in both the bill read by Obama and the STRIVE Act to hold USCIS accountable for backlogs.

I truly believe these transfers are PURELY being done to eliminate backlog. I don't think it is coincidence that 'unlikely to require an interview' remains undefined. I believe (insofar as marriage based cases are concerned) if the case contains no consular notes of potential marriage fraud and if the fingerprint IDENT comes up clean, a case is likely to get transferred. Namecheck 'holds' will delay some cases, but not to the degree as those cases still at the Service Centers. The function of CSC is speed - I am convinced they monitor ALL cases more closely - including those held at namecheck - and once the check is complete the case will not languish due to supervisory processing.

[Yodrak 7]

mybackpages,

Agreed, a busy office is a factor and Mags info is not inconsistent with this.

The USCIS statement that rebeccajo referenced does say that the cases are taken from the offices that have longer backlogs. But the key point in that statement is that the cases must appear to be approvable without interview. They aren't going to take questionable cases without interview just because the office is busy - they're going to want to have an in-person talk with those people before they make a decision.

Yodrak

One aspect of the criteria could be that there is a backlog a the local office. Mags info doesn't seem to discount this- only that there is some set requirements for one case to be pulled an another not. .....

Edited April 6, 2007 by Yodrak

[Lucy N Fer 0]

Absolutely Yodrak. They are NOT going to take ALL cases. They are relieving some backlog problems not taking ALL their cases away. Like with any other job if there is an assistant to help, they take the easy work. If they took all, what is the use of the local office?

[Mags 112]

mybackpages,

Agreed, a busy office is a factor and Mags info is not inconsistent with this.

The USCIS statement that rebeccajo referenced does say that the cases are taken from the offices that have longer backlogs. But the key point in that statement is that the cases must appear to be approvable without interview. They aren't going to take questionable cases without interview just because the office is busy - they're going to want to have an in-person talk with those people before they make a decision.

Yodrak

One aspect of the criteria could be that there is a backlog a the local office. Mags info doesn't seem to discount this- only that there is some set requirements for one case to be pulled an another not. .....

Agreed, a combination of all of the above would seem sensible. They look through the files, see it would be an easy approval, see that the local office is a bit backlogged and send it to CSC. Maybe part of the mysterious criteria IS a backlogged office...who knows?

[mozplay 29]

I agree with Yodrak's statement and then would add that this lastest bit of info is perhaps another piece to the puzzle. We probably won't ever have all the pieces.

As for whether or not your name has a factor - well, my maiden name is Mohammed - so I would guess that they don't do racial profiling at the very least. But note ... I said GUESS!!!

Mo