AOS interview successful, but waiting for FBI name check

[Donna A 4]

i didnt think it would mean anything since that is the leagal way of doing things but just wanted to be sure i didnt have to put parole in any spaces when filling out any papers.

thanks

[John & Annie 0]

I have read through the the 2007 Ombudsman report and he slammed the FBI name check and the fact that the USCIS uses is so much as an excuse. Section F. of the Executive Summary states:

FBI name checks may be the single biggest obstacle to the timely and efficient delivery of immigration benefits, and the problem of long-pending FBI name checks cases worsened during the reporting period.

His reasoning was that by allowing this check to go on for so long it is allowing a sense of legitimacy with the issuance of interim benefits to people who potentially will get denied. He urged and recommended some different systems so that applications get adjudicated within 90 days so that interim benefits are unneeded. Another very very good point is that the interim benefits contradict the real ID act.

[rebeccajo 14]

Sorry for having caused the confusion. A K1 entrant who is pending adjustment and reenters with AP doesn't suffer a change in their immigration status. It's their entry status that changes, which affects the way immigration law can be applied towards that immigrant.

The explanation Despair gives is pretty accurate from a practical standpoint but it doesn't cover the legal ramifications. It's been explained to me in this manner by Kezzie, whose lawyer explained it to her. I'm taking the liberty of paraphrasing -

"When you enter the US on a valid visa, both your physical self and your legal self have been inspected and admitted to the US. When you enter the US on Advance Parole, your physical self has been inspected and admitted, but your legal self is still at the door."

In essence, traveling on AP sort of changes a K1's legal standing to that of a VWP adjustor - excepting the caveat that they are adjusting from the original entry on the K1 and have fulfilled the terms of that visa by marrying the petitioner. So as Despair explained, there are rarely any practical problems with reentry on AP - and in reality there are rarely any problems with adjusting after the parolled entry.

But because a parollee has a different legal standing after entry, students of immigration law often advise against travel for the immigrant when AOS has become protracted. If there is a mistake in the system - if there is a #######-up in that immigrants case - they will need all their legal eggs in one basket should the AOS be denied.

[Empress of Groovy 373]

Rebecca, I appreciate your thorough explanation, but I think that the anxiety it caused some readers may have outweighed the usefulness of the information. I am by no means an expert, but I have never heard of travelling on an AP being problematic in the way that you (by way of Kezzie’s lawyer) mention. I’m certainly not saying that it doesn’t happen, but the chances of traveling on a valid AP negatively impacting an otherwise straightforward AOS application seem very remote. The tone of your original response to my AP excitement suggested that I should put away the party hat and have my husband stay put. I hope that it doesn’t sound like I’m advocating a head-in-the-sand approach to this, but knowing every possible thing that could go wrong with an AOS application--despite doing everything right--could just lead to an elevated level of freak-out. I have been reading this site for a while, and your responses are almost invariably spot on. But I think that this one post was a bit alarmist.

Julie

[zsam 0]

I have read through the the 2007 Ombudsman report and he slammed the FBI name check and the fact that the USCIS uses is so much as an excuse. Section F. of the Executive Summary states:

FBI name checks may be the single biggest obstacle to the timely and efficient delivery of immigration benefits, and the problem of long-pending FBI name checks cases worsened during the reporting period.

His reasoning was that by allowing this check to go on for so long it is allowing a sense of legitimacy with the issuance of interim benefits to people who potentially will get denied. He urged and recommended some different systems so that applications get adjudicated within 90 days so that interim benefits are unneeded. Another very very good point is that the interim benefits contradict the real ID act.

I feel, from my experience, that the USCIS has started to delay interim benefits to people who may be denied or rather, who they feel pose security threats. I believe this is what happened to us and a recent memo did come out re: interim benefits. What I don't understand is that if a person is such a threat, shouldn't the "entry into the US" be the point at which the applicant/immigrant is held back. We managed to get the hubby here relatively fast but now have been waiting for a long time. Other people waited years to get here and then have no problems in the AOs process. No one has commented on this memo and I posted it elsewhere so I guess it hasn't been publicized widely.

Interim memo on ancillary benefits

Interim Memo

[John & Annie 0]

Sorry for having caused the confusion. A K1 entrant who is pending adjustment and reenters with AP doesn't suffer a change in their immigration status. It's their entry status that changes, which affects the way immigration law can be applied towards that immigrant.

The explanation Despair gives is pretty accurate from a practical standpoint but it doesn't cover the legal ramifications. It's been explained to me in this manner by Kezzie, whose lawyer explained it to her. I'm taking the liberty of paraphrasing -

"When you enter the US on a valid visa, both your physical self and your legal self have been inspected and admitted to the US. When you enter the US on Advance Parole, your physical self has been inspected and admitted, but your legal self is still at the door."

In essence, traveling on AP sort of changes a K1's legal standing to that of a VWP adjustor - excepting the caveat that they are adjusting from the original entry on the K1 and have fulfilled the terms of that visa by marrying the petitioner. So as Despair explained, there are rarely any practical problems with reentry on AP - and in reality there are rarely any problems with adjusting after the parolled entry.

But because a parollee has a different legal standing after entry, students of immigration law often advise against travel for the immigrant when AOS has become protracted. If there is a mistake in the system - if there is a #######-up in that immigrants case - they will need all their legal eggs in one basket should the AOS be denied.

Hey RJ,

What is not being brought up her is that despite the manner of admittance in the K1, you are being admitted as a non-immigrant, therefore regardless if you have paroled back in or never left, you are still adjusting from a non-immigrant status and the same legal applications apply. There really is no difference except the fact that you got to travel.

Now I realize that I am not an attorney but in my reading on this:

To say that you are paroled back into the country as a K1 is the same as being that of a VWP is not accurate, when you enter on the VWP you waive the right to fight any deportation proceedings. Whereas, by being paroled back in to the same status, you retain the right to fight in a deportation hearing.

John

[StacySmith 0]

I have read through the the 2007 Ombudsman report and he slammed the FBI name check and the fact that the USCIS uses is so much as an excuse. Section F. of the Executive Summary states:

FBI name checks may be the single biggest obstacle to the timely and efficient delivery of immigration benefits, and the problem of long-pending FBI name checks cases worsened during the reporting period.

His reasoning was that by allowing this check to go on for so long it is allowing a sense of legitimacy with the issuance of interim benefits to people who potentially will get denied. He urged and recommended some different systems so that applications get adjudicated within 90 days so that interim benefits are unneeded. Another very very good point is that the interim benefits contradict the real ID act.

I feel, from my experience, that the USCIS has started to delay interim benefits to people who may be denied or rather, who they feel pose security threats. I believe this is what happened to us and a recent memo did come out re: interim benefits. What I don't understand is that if a person is such a threat, shouldn't the "entry into the US" be the point at which the applicant/immigrant is held back. We managed to get the hubby here relatively fast but now have been waiting for a long time. Other people waited years to get here and then have no problems in the AOs process. No one has commented on this memo and I posted it elsewhere so I guess it hasn't been publicized widely.

Interim memo on ancillary benefits

Interim Memo

Well by no means was our K-1 sent thru fast at all and I know others in the same boat...took over 9 months to get our k-1 and it has been 13 months since we started our AOS and at the interview we of course was told we are hung out in limbo aka FBI clearance!

There is no rhyme or reason to their madness!

Stacy

Edited June 15, 2007 by StacySmith

[rebeccajo 14]

Rebecca, I appreciate your thorough explanation, but I think that the anxiety it caused some readers may have outweighed the usefulness of the information. I am by no means an expert, but I have never heard of travelling on an AP being problematic in the way that you (by way of Kezzie’s lawyer) mention. I’m certainly not saying that it doesn’t happen, but the chances of traveling on a valid AP negatively impacting an otherwise straightforward AOS application seem very remote. The tone of your original response to my AP excitement suggested that I should put away the party hat and have my husband stay put. I hope that it doesn’t sound like I’m advocating a head-in-the-sand approach to this, but knowing every possible thing that could go wrong with an AOS application--despite doing everything right--could just lead to an elevated level of freak-out. I have been reading this site for a while, and your responses are almost invariably spot on. But I think that this one post was a bit alarmist.

Julie

Julie, sorry to have caused you any anxiety. I've not been on as much here lately, and even when I am, my posts are often short and intended more to lead the reader to research. Again I'm sorry to have caused you any heartburn.

That being said, while I wasn't saying you should put away your party hat, during my husband's extended adjustment we did decide (for the reasons cited in my post) that he should not travel. We took that stance after having done some research on other websites and reading the commentary of lawyers on the matter. My husband is from a country with a troubled background; he is older than many members here and grew up directly in the age and the physical locale of one of the Troubles most notorious events - Bloody Sunday. Indeed, when I first met my husband on-line, I was cautioned more than once about people from "there". As you are aware, when AOS becomes protracted, one has little or no access to information. Everything you know tells you that over time, the matter should sort itself out. But at the same time, you are also aware of this nations paranoia and the fever pitch that it has created. False identity hits and names of innocent citizens on no-fly lists, etc. We were unsure what could occur down the road with my husband's adjustment. In your estimation that may be a overly-cautious and paranoid and you're certainly entitled to your opinion.

Again I apologize for alarming you. But the intention of the post was to give you pause to think. I'd also like to say there are many sources for immigration information on the web besides VJ - my husband and I made our decision after searching through several sites. And that did NOT include the site that is the subject of some controversy around VJ these days. It wasn't even in existence at that time.

In essence, traveling on AP sort of changes a K1's legal standing to that of a VWP adjustor - excepting the caveat that they are adjusting from the original entry on the K1 and have fulfilled the terms of that visa by marrying the petitioner. So as Despair explained, there are rarely any practical problems with reentry on AP - and in reality there are rarely any problems with adjusting after the parolled entry.

But because a parollee has a different legal standing after entry, students of immigration law often advise against travel for the immigrant when AOS has become protracted. If there is a mistake in the system - if there is a #######-up in that immigrants case - they will need all their legal eggs in one basket should the AOS be denied.

To say that you are paroled back into the country as a K1 is the same as being that of a VWP is not accurate, when you enter on the VWP you waive the right to fight any deportation proceedings. Whereas, by being paroled back in to the same status, you retain the right to fight in a deportation hearing.

John

*winks*

John - please note that I said "sort of".

Edited June 15, 2007 by rebeccajo

[John & Annie 0]

*winks*

John - please note that I said "sort of".

Understood, I know your intentions were pure, but a lot of people take what what is said here as rule. Your right they should do there own research, we do.

The reason I brought it up is that I could totally see what you wrote as being mis-construed and taken out of context, then starting a panic about AP. Plus its kinda nice for people to see that it is ok to clarify others posts without flame wars.

All of that being said, I agree, using AP can cause problems. It is important for people to realize that AP is not a guaranteed ticket to come back into the country, the CBP Agent can deny you entry for many reasons. The likelihood of issues is minimal, but there is that risk.

Respectfully,

John

Edited June 15, 2007 by John & Annie

[Empress of Groovy 373]

Rebecca, thanks for your reply. I should say that your original post only made me mildly anxious, but as I'm sure you saw, a few people responded with, "Huh?" And this thread gets a lot of views. It was mainly your esteemed reputation on the board that was the basis of my concern. If just any joker posted a warning about valid AP travel on a delayed AOS, I would have thought, "Why are you tryin' to kill my buzz, man?"

I too have read a lot of stuff about the entire process. Actually, it seems that there is less information about AP than about anything else! I do know that an AP doesn't guarantee admission and that any number of things can complicate reentry--and indeed issuance of the green card. Given Wes's circumstances, I can see why you elected to have him avoid travel, and I didn't say that you were paranoid! But the tone of your original post was quite serious, and I think it was the first recommendation I'd read that one reconsider travel on a valid AP--in a thread that, I assume, is read by a lot of people who are dependent on the AP because their applications have been delayed.

I am fortunate that I have an immigration agent to run questions by. I know that she's not the last word, but it's helpful to have information from "the inside." For my husband, not returning home isn't an option because of family circumstances, illness, etc., so it was nice to have her reassurance that there should be no problem.

By the way, what is the controversial site you mention?

Julie

[maxnma 1]

Has anyone heard of preliminary security review at NBC for AOS BEFORE receiving an interview date or a transfer??

I have yet to read about someone waiting as long as we have for an interview or transfer (79 days and no interview or transfer-all profiles that I've read have received one or the other within 6 weeks; mostly 1 month or less).

My senator's office sent me this email yesterday:

There is no change on the I-485 application. It is still at the National Benefit Center in the

security check area. Once it clears preliminary security review, it will be transferred and

worked. I asked the MSC if they would review the I-765. They agreed and I will let you know

more about that when I do.

Has anyone heard of this or does anyone have more information of the security check process from start to finish? Or is it confidential information and we just have to live with the uncertainty of it all?

[LaL 418]

Has anyone heard of preliminary security review at NBC for AOS BEFORE receiving an interview date or a transfer??

I have yet to read about someone waiting as long as we have for an interview or transfer (79 days and no interview or transfer-all profiles that I've read have received one or the other within 6 weeks; mostly 1 month or less).

My senator's office sent me this email yesterday:

There is no change on the I-485 application. It is still at the National Benefit Center in the

security check area. Once it clears preliminary security review, it will be transferred and

worked. I asked the MSC if they would review the I-765. They agreed and I will let you know

more about that when I do.

Has anyone heard of this or does anyone have more information of the security check process from start to finish? Or is it confidential information and we just have to live with the uncertainty of it all?

well I can tell you the namecheck has nothing to do with interviews or being transferred anywhere. It begins shortly after your NOA1 and finishes when its complete regardless of where you "wind up".

I wouldn't say that waiting 3 months since filing is necessarily something to worry about, give it a bit more time. SHould you wish to inquire about your case - make an infopass appointment.

[zsam 0]

Has anyone heard of preliminary security review at NBC for AOS BEFORE receiving an interview date or a transfer??

I have yet to read about someone waiting as long as we have for an interview or transfer (79 days and no interview or transfer-all profiles that I've read have received one or the other within 6 weeks; mostly 1 month or less).

My senator's office sent me this email yesterday:

There is no change on the I-485 application. It is still at the National Benefit Center in the

security check area. Once it clears preliminary security review, it will be transferred and

worked. I asked the MSC if they would review the I-765. They agreed and I will let you know

more about that when I do.

Has anyone heard of this or does anyone have more information of the security check process from start to finish? Or is it confidential information and we just have to live with the uncertainty of it all?

Hmm..we've been waiting over a year for interview or transfer. We got our I-765 just recently...and were told there will be no interview yet. I think everyone's security starts at NBC when teh app is received and if THEY think they need to scrutinize you more then you get some serious delays. I know in the case of some countries, like Pakistan, I have heard that the applicant's files are sent to multiples agencies globally as well.

[maxnma 1]

Hmm..we've been waiting over a year for interview or transfer. We got our I-765 just recently...and were told there will be no interview yet. I think everyone's security starts at NBC when teh app is received and if THEY think they need to scrutinize you more then you get some serious delays. I know in the case of some countries, like Pakistan, I have heard that the applicant's files are sent to multiples agencies globally as well.

Wow. Really?? Over a year and still waiting????

On one hand, strangely enough, I'm releived to know that there is someone else that didn't get an interview or transfer within 6 weeks, but on the other hand, waiting over one whole year has got to just suck! I'm sorry that you've been waiting so long.

I know most of those in this thread have been waiting a lot longer than I have since filing and I don't mean to hijack this thread. Because I guess I'm a succor for punishment, I've been comparing myself to all of the other AOS filers since Janurary and have watched all of them one by one get transfers/interviews/approvals.

We are wanting to start a business and needing to get a commercial loan but my husband needs his GC before applying for the loan and his sister is getting married in August and we were crazy enough to think that we would have the GC by then so we didn't apply for AP. You'd think by now I'd have learned to expect the worst with immigration.

[Empress of Groovy 373]

maxmna, the worst thing you can do is compare your timeline with other people's when you feel that yours is delayed. I know that timelines are the backbone of this site, but everyone's situation is different. Wondering why so-and-so who applied after you has already had his interview will have you pulling your hair out. (Have a look at my timeline and you'll see what I mean!). You really need to give it time. I don't mean to seem unsympathetic, but it hasn't even been 90 days since you filed. I haven't heard of the preliminary security check, but I also didn't make any inquiries so early in the process.

If you apply for AP right away and send the application overnight delivery, your husband may have an AP by August. My renewal was processed in only five weeks. The original took about 10 weeks, but that was 15 months ago. In any event, it's probably a good idea to apply for it now while it's $170. As of July 30, the fee increases to $305, if you can believe that.

Breathe through your eyelids...