AOS interview successful, but waiting for FBI name check

[WifeOHunkyJohn 2]

WifeOHunkyJohn,

I guess that eliminates the possibilities that I thought of!

Yodrak

We are awaiting the FBI name check and .... we haven't had an interview yet, but were transferred to CSC, .....

If there's a way to be the exception to the rule, my mum always says I'm the one to find it...

[ridley 0]

If there's a way to be the exception to the rule, my mum always says I'm the one to find it...

Don't feel too alone, WOHJ. I think there are others of us (CSC folks) in the same boat you're in. We just don't have any confirmation of it.

[Traditions Way 0]

....

Edited December 8, 2006 by Traditions Way

[journeyhelper 0]

Just got done speaking with our Senators office. No news, they can only just keep putting in requests to the FBI. The FBI will have had this for 2 years next month. I understand after 911 that the world has changed but this seems to drag on forever. Anyway, in case someone wants to read about the name check here is the web site from the FBI http://www.fbi.gov/page2/nationalnamecheck.htm

[rebeccajo 14]

rebeccajo,

Other possibilities: Perhaps only cases where the security checks come back quickly are 'qualified' to send to the CSC for completion without interview? Or if the security checks do not come back quickly the CSC returns to cases to the NBC for 'normal' processing?

Yodrak

NBC? Are they now sending things to 30 Rockefeller Center?

Fwaguy - National Benefits Center. Missouri.

Yodrak - As WifeOHunkyJohn points out, her case is being retained at CSC despite being in namecheck status. ridley points out there are others at CSC waiting who suspect namecheck but because they have not been interviewed are not certain. It's not uncommon to see a case sit at CSC for three to six months after transfer and then suddenly be approved. Given what I know about CSC's current processing times and their rubber-stamp authority to approve without interview, the only explanation for these longer processing times is a security clearance hit. Why these hits are being resolved when other are allowed to lanquish is at its best contradictory and at its worst irresponsible.

That being said I do believe I have read here of one case being sent to CSC and then being bounced back to Missouri. I cannot remember the OP, any other circumstances, or if the case has since been resolved.

[Yodrak 7]

reveccajo,

Yes, WifeOHunkyJohn punched a good sized hole in my theory. But I don't think that cases that are languishing are necessarily being "allowed" to languish. I think that in most cases they are probably legitimately harder to resolve than other cases. Some hits can be pursued electronically, some have to be pursued manually, and the files that need to be checked may be conveniently located in some cases and difficult to access in others.

And some cases do get truly lost, misplaced, vanished. But not deliberately so.

Yodrak

.....

Yodrak - As WifeOHunkyJohn points out, her case is being retained at CSC despite being in namecheck status. ridley points out there are others at CSC waiting who suspect namecheck but because they have not been interviewed are not certain. It's not uncommon to see a case sit at CSC for three to six months after transfer and then suddenly be approved. Given what I know about CSC's current processing times and their rubber-stamp authority to approve without interview, the only explanation for these longer processing times is a security clearance hit. Why these hits are being resolved when other are allowed to lanquish is at its best contradictory and at its worst irresponsible.

That being said I do believe I have read here of one case being sent to CSC and then being bounced back to Missouri. I cannot remember the OP, any other circumstances, or if the case has since been resolved.

[rebeccajo 14]

Yodrak,

Sorry, I'm not giving USCIS that much credit.

It is my personal theory that a certain number of files have been targeted for approval by a certain date in order to meet quotas for backlog clearance - a backlog that is to be cleared no matter what.

My common sense tells me that once selected for the quota, these files do go through security clearance. But the bonafides are being tossed aside - national security is being given precedence over the former marital validity hurdle. Not something I see as unreasonable but still strange given the former policy of satisfying both.

I'm not saying the languish of old files is deliberate. I'm saying they have been backburnered for a task deemed more important by USCIS. Work prioritizing, if you will. A common business practice but irresponsible nonetheless.

Becca

reveccajo,

Yes, WifeOHunkyJohn punched a good sized hole in my theory. But I don't think that cases that are languishing are necessarily being "allowed" to languish. I think that in most cases they are probably legitimately harder to resolve than other cases. Some hits can be pursued electronically, some have to be pursued manually, and the files that need to be checked may be conveniently located in some cases and difficult to access in others.

And some cases do get truly lost, misplaced, vanished. But not deliberately so.

Yodrak

.....

Yodrak - As WifeOHunkyJohn points out, her case is being retained at CSC despite being in namecheck status. ridley points out there are others at CSC waiting who suspect namecheck but because they have not been interviewed are not certain. It's not uncommon to see a case sit at CSC for three to six months after transfer and then suddenly be approved. Given what I know about CSC's current processing times and their rubber-stamp authority to approve without interview, the only explanation for these longer processing times is a security clearance hit. Why these hits are being resolved when other are allowed to lanquish is at its best contradictory and at its worst irresponsible.

That being said I do believe I have read here of one case being sent to CSC and then being bounced back to Missouri. I cannot remember the OP, any other circumstances, or if the case has since been resolved.

Edited December 8, 2006 by rebeccajo

[John & Annie 0]

reveccajo,

Yes, WifeOHunkyJohn punched a good sized hole in my theory. But I don't think that cases that are languishing are necessarily being "allowed" to languish. I think that in most cases they are probably legitimately harder to resolve than other cases. Some hits can be pursued electronically, some have to be pursued manually, and the files that need to be checked may be conveniently located in some cases and difficult to access in others.

And some cases do get truly lost, misplaced, vanished. But not deliberately so.

Yodrak

.....

Yodrak - As WifeOHunkyJohn points out, her case is being retained at CSC despite being in namecheck status. ridley points out there are others at CSC waiting who suspect namecheck but because they have not been interviewed are not certain. It's not uncommon to see a case sit at CSC for three to six months after transfer and then suddenly be approved. Given what I know about CSC's current processing times and their rubber-stamp authority to approve without interview, the only explanation for these longer processing times is a security clearance hit. Why these hits are being resolved when other are allowed to lanquish is at its best contradictory and at its worst irresponsible.

That being said I do believe I have read here of one case being sent to CSC and then being bounced back to Missouri. I cannot remember the OP, any other circumstances, or if the case has since been resolved.

It was very fortunate that I was able to have a lengthy conversation with a "person" at USCIS. They are housed in the same buiding as CSC and did make some inquiries for me. They assured me of a couple of things:

1. The cases do not just sit, the AO's do want to get them off of their desks.

2. It is an international check, not just Domestic

3. They only will transfer back to a DO if there is a hint of something wrong. This is primarily to have a in person interview.

Now, we get to sit and wait. at least we know that this is the only thing.

[rebeccajo 14]

It was very fortunate that I was able to have a lengthy conversation with a "person" at USCIS. They are housed in the same buiding as CSC and did make some inquiries for me. They assured me of a couple of things:

1. The cases do not just sit, the AO's do want to get them off of their desks.

2. It is an international check, not just Domestic

3. They only will transfer back to a DO if there is a hint of something wrong. This is primarily to have a in person interview.

Now, we get to sit and wait. at least we know that this is the only thing.

Of course the AO's want the files off their desks. I know mine does. But he's not in charge of it at this point. I'm not sure I understand your point, John.

And yes there are international checks but from my research those aren't the ones that cause delays.

[shermike 1]

It was very fortunate that I was able to have a lengthy conversation with a "person" at USCIS. They are housed in the same buiding as CSC and did make some inquiries for me. They assured me of a couple of things:

1. The cases do not just sit, the AO's do want to get them off of their desks.

2. It is an international check, not just Domestic

3. They only will transfer back to a DO if there is a hint of something wrong. This is primarily to have a in person interview.

Now, we get to sit and wait. at least we know that this is the only thing.

Of course the AO's want the files off their desks. I know mine does. But he's not in charge of it at this point. I'm not sure I understand your point, John.

And yes there are international checks but from my research those aren't the ones that cause delays.

My AO actually told me that it was the international check that was causing the delay in my name check clearance.

[rebeccajo 14]

My AO actually told me that it was the international check that was causing the delay in my name check clearance.

Did he elaborate on that?

[Killer_Clown_2009 0]

could this be because the government really isn't concerned about the citizens of people from VWP countries? i am soo going out on a limb here.

Laura I have been thinking this as well. I come in here all the time and looking at the growing list and wait times of some of those that have filed. I think that is part of the answer to alot of those that breeze through the processing.

lal_bradlow and MaryandMian,

Not all tourists are from VWP countries. An not all adjusters from non-immigrant status other than K are tourists.

Yodrak

i recognize that Yodrak. I am just saying that as far as the annoyance for tourist adjusters would be they have already applied for a visa and been approved (B2 i suppose); sorry to have mixed in VWP there - although its not a stretch to assume that there isn't a concern for VWP or Canadians adjusting given their ease in entrance.

Hi Lal,

They do check criminal records in the countries of people who are adjusting from a tourist visa (including Canadians and/or those from VWP coutries) as part of the background check. I forget where exactly I saw this, but it might have been on the FBI website somewhere or on an immigration lawyers site. Not sure, but I read that it can slow down the process if the person is from a country that doesn't like to share information with the US.

Edited December 9, 2006 by jane2005

[LaL 418]

could this be because the government really isn't concerned about the citizens of people from VWP countries? i am soo going out on a limb here.

Laura I have been thinking this as well. I come in here all the time and looking at the growing list and wait times of some of those that have filed. I think that is part of the answer to alot of those that breeze through the processing.

lal_bradlow and MaryandMian,

Not all tourists are from VWP countries. An not all adjusters from non-immigrant status other than K are tourists.

Yodrak

i recognize that Yodrak. I am just saying that as far as the annoyance for tourist adjusters would be they have already applied for a visa and been approved (B2 i suppose); sorry to have mixed in VWP there - although its not a stretch to assume that there isn't a concern for VWP or Canadians adjusting given their ease in entrance.

Hi Lal,

They do check criminal records in the countries of people who are adjusting from a tourist visa (including Canadians and/or those from VWP coutries) as part of the background check. I forget where exactly I saw this, but it might have been on the FBI website somewhere or on an immigration lawyers site. Not sure, but I read that it can slow down the process if the person is from a country that doesn't like to share information with the US.

certainly they go through the same namecheck as required for AOS. i was discussing robin's statement that tourist/vwp/etc adjusters do not have the additional wait of providing police reports, etc. when applying overseas. namecheck stateside, yes, if AOS'ing, but there is a difference between that and the requirements of other kinds of visas overseas. i dont know about now, but my husband did not need to submit police reports to obtain his B1/B2.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

I'd just be curious to know how detailed these checks are for VWP adjusters -- I see on these boards K applicants from VWP countries who are required to submit waivers for what seem to be relatively minor offenses that did not require jail time (drug possession, petty theft, etc). I do wonder if these same applicants would be waiting that extra 6 months (in addition to the 4-6 months to get the petition approved) if they were tourist adjusters or if they would be getting speedy approvals in less than the time it takes to approve a I-129F petition.

It really does burn me up to think someone who is doing tourist-AOS through my DO (Los Angeles) is getting their green cards 2-3 months quicker than it is taking to approve the I-129F petition at the CSC had they done a K visa. I honestly believe they are not being held to the same standard.

[Killer_Clown_2009 0]

If you are that angry about "legal" adjustment of status from a tourist visa......this cmpletely LEGAL AND CORRECT way to apply for AOS, then you need to take it up with the policy makers, not get burned up and resentful of people who LEGALLY AND CORRECTLY as per immigration rules adjust their status.

Edited December 9, 2006 by jane2005