AOS interview successful, but waiting for FBI name check

[John & Annie 0]

I was told at the interview that they check every country where the applicant has lived, AO also said that it sometimes depends on how fast they get info back from those countries.

You were misinformed. There are several checks that USCIS does to check into your background, and they are detailed in this document:

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:VinCk...lient=firefox-a

You'll note that none of the checks they do involve asking foreign governments for background information.

That is a 2003 dI am reading through the new reports and will report back later. But it appears as the system you are reporting has been replaced.

[Dr_LHA 3]

That document was referenced in the 2006 Ombudsman's report. Where did you read about the replacement system?

[WifeOHunkyJohn 2]

This is a court document posted as a PDF on immigrationportal.com and I thought that, since the date of the document is 30th November 2006, the facts are, pretty much, as accurate as any of my googling can get them. For your viewing pleasure, i have copied and pasted the contents below for you to read, highlighting myself (my highlights are the colored texts) the important facts of the FBI Name Check Process that was compiled and submitted for this case.

Disclaimer: Reproduction of this document may have typos or errors relating to the fact it was copied and pasted from a PDF. I amended any I found but even I do not profess to be perfect.

Source

MICHAEL J. GARCIA

United States Attorney for the

Southern District of New York

By: F. JAMES LOPREST, JR.

Special Assistant United States Attorney

86 Chambers Street, 4th Floor

New York, New York 10007

Tel. No.: (212) 637-2728

(FJL:3210)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

LARISA MIKHAILOVA (A# 75 942 120), '.

Plaintiff,

- v -

DECLARATION OF

MICHAEL A. CANNON

. .

06 Civ. 7106 (LAK)

DISTRICT DIRECTOR, USCIS

NEW YORK; UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY: I ~ -

U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL;

FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION,

11 Defendants.

MICHAEL A. CANNON, pursuant 28 U.S.C. 1746, declares the following:

(1) I am currently the Section Chief of the National Name Check Program Section ("NNCPS"), formerly part of the Record/Information Dissemination Section ("RIDS"), Records Management Division ("RMD), at the Federal Bureau of Investigation Headquarters ("FBIHQ") in Washington, D.C. I have held this position since March 7,2005.

(2) In my current capacity as Section Chief, I supervise the National Name Check Units. The statements contained in this declaration are based upon my personal knowledge, upon information provided to me in my official capacity, and upon conclusions and determinations reached and made in accordance therewith.

(3) Due to the nature of my official duties, I am familiar with the procedures followed by the FBI in responding to requests for information from its files pursuant to the policy and the procedures of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS"). Specifically, I am aware of the name check request for plaintiff Larisa Mikhailova.

NATIONAL NAME CHECK PROGRAM

(4) The National Name Check Program ("NNCP) has the mission of disseminating information from the FBI's Central Records System in response to requests submitted by Federal agencies, congressional committees, the Federal judiciary, friendly foreign police and intelligence agencies, and state and local criminal justice agencies. The Central Records System contains the FBI's administrative, personnel, and investigative files. The NNCP has its genesis in Executive Order 10450, issued during the Eisenhower Administration. This executive order addresses personnel security issues and mandates National Agency Checks ("NACs") as part of the pre-employment vetting and background investigation process. The FBI performs the primary NAC conducted on all U.S. Government employees. From this modest beginning, the NNCP has grown exponentially, with more and more customers seeking background information from FBI files on individuals before bestowing a privilege - whether that privilege is Govenunent employment or an appointment, a security clearance, attendance at a White House function, a Green card or naturalization, admission to the bar, or a visa for the privilege of visiting our homeland. More than 70 Federal, state, and local agencies regularly request FBI name searches. In addition to sewing our regular governmental customers, the FBI conducts numerous name searches in direct support of the FBI's counterintelligence, counterterrorism, and homeland security efforts.

EXPLANATION OF THE CENTRAL RECORDS SYSTEM

(5) The Central Records System ("CRS") utilized by the FBI enables it to maintain all information which it has acquired in the course of fulfilling mandated law enforcement responsibilities. The records maintained in the CRS consist of administrative, applicant, criminal, personnel, and other files compiled for law enforcement purposes. This system consists of a numerical sequence of files broken down according to subject matter. The subject matter of a file may relate to an individual, organization, company, publication, activity, or foreign intelligence matter. Certain records in the system are maintained at FBIHQ. Records which are pertinent to specific field offices are maintained at those field offices.

(6) Through the General Indices, FBIHQ and each field division can access the CRS. The General Indices are arranged in alphabetical order and consist of an index on various subjects, including the names of individuals and organizations. Only the information considered pertinent, relevant, or essential for future retrieval is indexed.

(7) Communications directed to FBIHQ from various field offices and Legal Attaches ("Legats") are filed in the pertinent case files and indexed to the names of individuals, 11 groups, or organizations which are listed in the case captions or titles as subjects, suspects, or 11 victims. Searches made in the indexto locate records concerning particular subjects are made by searching the name of the subject requested in the index.

(8) The entries in the General Indices fall into two categories:

a. A "main" entry - an entry that carries the name corresponding with the subject of a file contained in the CRS.

b. A "reference" entry - an entry, sometimes called a "crossreference," that generally only mentions or references an

individual, organization, etc., contained in a document located in another "main" file.

(9) On or about October 16, 1995, the Automated Case Support ("ACS") system was implemented for all Field Offices, Legats, and FBIHQ. More than 105 million records were converted from automated systems previously utilized by the FBI. ACS consists of the following three automated applications that support case management functions for all investigative and administrative cases:

a. Investigative Case Management ("ICM") - ICM provides the ability to open, assign, and close investigative and administrative cases as well as to set, assign, and track leads. A case is opened by the Office of Origin ("OO"), which sets leads for itself and other field offices, as needed. The offices that receive the leads are referred to as Lead Offices ("LOs), formerly known as Auxiliary Offices. When a case is opened, it is assigned a Universal Case File Number ("UCFN"), which is utilized by FBIHQ and all offices conducting or assisting in the investigation. Using fictitious file number "1 11-HQ-12345" as an example, an explanation of the UCFN is as follows: "1 1 1" indicates the classification for that specific type of investigation; "HQ is the abbreviated form used for the Office of Origin of the investigation, which in this case is FBI Headquarters; and "12345" indicates the individual case file number for that particular investigation.

b. Electronic Case File ("ECF") - ECF serves as the central electronic repository for the FBI's official text-based documents. ECF supports the universal serial concept, where only the creator of a document serializes it into a file, providing single source entry of serials into the computerized system. All serials originated by the 00 are maintained in the 00's case tile.

c. Universal Index ("UNI") - UNI continues the universal concepts of ACS by providing a complete subject/case index to all investigative and administrative cases. Only the 00 is required to index. However, the LOs may index additional information as needed. UNI, an index of approximately 96.4 million records, functions to index names to cases, and to search names and cases for use in the FBI investigative and administrative cases. Names of individuals or entities are recorded with identifying information such as the date or place of birth, race, sex, locality, social security number, address, or date of event.

(10) The decision to index names other than subjects, suspects, and victims is a discretionary decision made by the investigative FBI Special Agent ("SA"), the supervisor in the field division conducting the investigation, and the supervising FBI SA at FBIHQ. The FBI does not index every name in its files, hut indexes only that information considered pertinent, relevant, or essential for future retrieval. Without a "key" (index) to this mass information, information essential to ongoing investigations could not be readily retrieved. The FBI files would thus be merely archival in nature and could not be effectively used to serve the mandated mission of the FBI, which is to investigate violations of Federal criminal statutes. Therefore, the General Indices to the CRS files are the means by which the FBI can determine what retrievable information, if any, the FBI may have in its CRS files on a particular subject matter.

(11) When the FBI searches a person's name, the name is electronically checked against the UNI. The searches seek all instances of the individual's name, a close date of birth, and social security number, whether a main file name or reference. Again, a main file name is that of an individual who is, himself, the subject of an FBI investigation, whereas a reference is someone whose name appears in an FBI investigation. References may be associates, witnesses, or conspirators. Additionally, there may be a myriad of other reasons to explain why an FBI SA believed it important to index a particular name in an investigation for later recovery. The names are searched in a multitude of combinations, switching the order of first, last, and middle names, as well as combinations with just the first and last, first and middle, and so on. The Name Check Program (NCP) application searches the names phonetically against the UNI records and retrieves similar spelling variations. This is especially important considering that many names in our indices have been transliterated from a language other than English.

(12) If there is a match with a name in a FBI record, it is designated as a "Hit," meaning that the system has stopped on a possible match with the name being checked. At that point, a person must review the file or indices entry to further refine the names "Hit" on. If a search comes up with a match to a name and either a birth date or social security number, it is designated an "Ident." An "Ident" is usually easier to resolve.

RESOLUTION RATE

(13) Historically, approximately 68% of the name checks submitted by USCIS are electronically checked and retunled to USCIS as having "No Record" within 48 hours. A "No Record" indicates that the FBI's UNI database contains no identifiable information regarding a particular individual. Duplicate submissions (hi,d entically spelled names with identical dates of birth and other identical information submitted while the original submission is still pending) are not checked, and the duplicate findings are returned to USCIS within 48 hours.

(14) For the name check requests that are still pending after the initial electronic check, additional review is required. A secondary manual name search completed within 30 - 60 days usually identifies an additional 22% of the USCIS requests as having "No Record," for a 90% overall "No Record" response rate. The results of this 22% are returned to USCIS. The remaining 10% are identified as possibly being the subject of an FBI record. At this point, the FBI record must now be retrieved and reviewed. If the record was electronically uploaded into the FBI ACS electronic record keeping system, it can be reviewed quickly. If not, the relevant information must be retrieved from an existing paper record. Review of this information will determine whether the information is identified with the request. If the information is not identified with the request, the request is closed as a "No Record," and USCIS is notified as such.

(15) Once a record is retrieved, the information in the file is reviewed for possible derogatory information. Less than 1% of the requests are identified with a file containing possible derogatory information. If appropriate, the FBI then forwards a summary of the derogatory information to USCIS.

GROWTH OF THE NAME CHECK PROGRAM

(16) Prior to September 11,2001, the FBI processed approximately 2.5 million name check requests per year. As a result of the FBI's post-911 1 counterterrorism efforts, the number of FBI name checks has grown. For fiscal year 2006, the FBI processed in excess of 3.4 million name checks.

USCIS NAME CHECK REOUESTS

(17) In this period of heightened national security concerns, a review of the background check procedures employed by USCIS was conducted in November 2002. It was determined that in order to better protect the people and the interests of the United States, a more detailed, in-depth clearance procedure was required. One of these procedures involved the name check clearance performed by the FBI. At that time only those "main" files that could be positively identified with an individual were considered responsive. The risk bf missing a match to possible derogatory record(s) was too great and therefore, the search criteria was changed to access references. From a process standpoint, this meant many more files were required to be reviewed for each individual.

(18) In December of 2002 and January of 2003, USCIS resubmitted 2.7 million name check requests to the FBI for all pending applications for benefits under the Immigration and Nationality Act for which name checks were required. The 2.7 million requests were in addition to the regular submissions by USCIS. The FBI has now returned an initial response for all 2.7 million requests. While many initial responses unquestionably indicated that the FBI had no information relating to a specific individual, approximately sixteen percent of the responses (over 440,000) indicated that the FBI have information relating to the subject of the inquiry. These 440,000 requests are in the process of being resolved.

(19) The FBI's processing of the more than 440,000 residuals has delayed the processing of regular submissions from USCIS. As directed by USCIS specifically, the FBI processes name check requests on a first-in, first-out basis unless USCIS directs that a name check be expedited.

(20) It is important to note that the FBI does not adjudicate applications for benefits under the Immigration and Nationality Act. The FBI generally provides a summary of available information to USCIS for their adjudication process.

PLAINTIFF'S NAME CHECK REOUEST

(21) The name check request for plaintiff Larisa Mikhailova was submitted by USCIS on June 29, 2005, and was completed on November 2,2006. The results were forwarded to USCIS, Washington, D.C., in accordance with our normal protocol.

(22) Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 5 1746, I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Executed this 30th day of November 2006.

MICHAEL A. CANNON

Section Chief

National Name Check Program Section

Records Management Division

Federal Bureau of Investigation

Washington, D.C.

Edited February 12, 2007 by WifeOHunkyJohn

[Immigrant 0]

(19) The FBI's processing of the more than 440,000 residuals has delayed the processing of regular submissions from USCIS. As directed by USCIS specifically, the FBI processes name check requests on a first-in, first-out basis unless USCIS directs that a name check be expedited.

Has anyone found any information pertaining to the success or failure of recent WOM cases?

I am very interested to know what is happening now.

[shermike 1]

This is interesting reading. I am a little clearer on how they perform the Name checks and what causes the delays.

Edited February 13, 2007 by shermike

[WifeOHunkyJohn 2]

This makes interesting reading. For all the things we say about USCIS (the mis-information line, the lack of valid updates, the lack of consistency etc...) the Ombudsman Report of USCIS 2006 echoes and explores all of this.

It's almost as though somebody has been listening to us...

Overview of CIS Ombudsman's 2006 Annual Report to Congress

Source

CIS Ombudsman >> 2006 Annual Report

Message from the Ombudsman (PDF, 1 page – 49 KB) A personal message from the Ombudsman in which he provides insights on his philosophy and vision for creating a twenty-first century immigration benefits system.

Executive Summary (PDF, 4 pages – 68 KB) Contains an overview and brief summaries of key sections of the Annual Report.

Introduction (PDF, 5 pages – 91 KB) An outline and description of the Ombudsman’s mission, vision and accomplishments. It also includes a dialogue on the State of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).

Pervasive and Serious Problems (PDF, 40 pages – 1 MB) faced by USCIS and its customers include:

• Backlogs and Prolonged Processing Times (PDF, 8 pages – 238 KB) – USCIS customers continue to face lengthy and costly waiting periods for benefits, while many ineligible or fraudulent applicants enjoy interim benefits such as employment authorization;
  
• Untimely Processing and Systemic Problems with Employment-Based Green Card Applications (PDF, 4 pages – 111 KB) – USCIS’ inability to process enough green card applications in prior years has resulted in a backlog of employment-based green card applications;
  
• Lack of Standardization Across USCIS Business Processes (PDF, 3 pages – 101 KB) – Processing times and the quality of decisions between offices are inconsistent;
  
• Pending I-130 Petitions (PDF, 2 pages – 79 KB) – Over one million family-based immigration petitions are pending with USCIS leaving customers frustrated and creating extra work for USCIS. Most of these petitions have been pending for many years and may not be adjudicated for many more years; USCIS does not consider them as part of its backlog;
  
• Interim Benefits (PDF, 5 pages – 271 KB) – Legitimate customers pay for services they would not need if the underlying petition were timely processed, while ineligible and fraudulent applicants receive work authorization and travel documents because of processing delays;
  
• Name Checks and Other Security Checks (PDF, 4 pages – 110 KB) – Some security checks significantly delay adjudication of immigration benefits for many customers, hinder backlog reduction efforts, and may actually compromise security as they allow potential security risks to remain in the United States for extended periods of time;
  
• Funding of USCIS (PDF, 4 pages – 117 KB) – Because of the congressional requirement that it be self-funded from fees, USCIS often makes decisions that compromise operational efficiency to ensure revenue flow;
  
• Information Technology Issues (PDF, 4 pages – 126 KB) – Despite years of study and effort aimed at modernization, USCIS continues to use paper-based processes instead of modern technological advances. This leaves immigration officers without access to critical data due to legacy agency information systems which cannot communicate with one another;
  
• Limited Case Status Information Available to Applicants (PDF, 5 pages – 170 KB) – Customers are frustrated with the lack of reliable information available to them because of: limited customer access to USCIS immigration officers who have knowledge of individual cases; questionable accuracy of the information provided; insufficiently detailed information provided to answer specific inquiries; and the practice of providing minimal information to customer inquiries;
  
• Coordination and Communication (PDF, 5 pages – 183 KB) – A general lack of coordination and communication between USCIS offices and between USCIS and other agencies cause processing delays, inconsistency in adjudications, and costly inefficiencies;
  
• Training and Staffing – A general lack of relevant training and staffing problems leave the USCIS workforce ill-equipped to handle the volume and complexity of the workloads they face;
  
• Green Cards Collected, Not Recorded, and Green Card Delivery Problems (PDF, 1 page – 45 KB) – Untimely and inaccurate updating of records results in major inconveniences for some USCIS customers and misdirected green cards for others;
  
• Delay in Updating U.S. Citizenship Designation in Records (PDF, 1 page – 48 KB) – Some naturalized citizens cannot apply for passports because naturalization cannot be verified.
  

Many of these problems are not new. More discussion and recommended solutions are provided in the report.

USCIS Revenue (PDF, 7 pages – 155 KB) While an entire section is devoted to USCIS funding and budgets, revenue-related statements recur throughout the report because of the centrality of that issue across all USCIS operations. Under current funding structures, USCIS is unable to maximize efficiency and make USCIS a true world-class customer service provider. Of even greater concern, funding needs distract from implementing processes that would enhance national security.

Up-front Processing (PDF, 6 pages – 142 KB) The report highlights the value of up-front processing of applications for USCIS benefits. This is a key Ombudsman recommendation. Modeled on the Dallas Office Rapid Adjustment (DORA) pilot program, such a process could dramatically improve customer service and efficiency, while deterring fraud and enhancing national security. Up-front processing modifies current USCIS processing procedures to complete as many actionable items on a case as possible when USCIS accepts the application/petition for processing.

Data from the DORA pilot program, when projected against USCIS national statistics, demonstrate the tremendous savings that could be achieved. Those statistics also illustrate how the practice of obtaining interim benefits by individuals who abuse the process can be virtually eliminated.

Recommendations (PDF, 23 pages – 254 KB) This section of the report discusses the Ombudsman’s 13 formal recommendations to the USCIS Director during the reporting period, which include:

• Extend the validity periods of refugee travel documents and process I-131 applications within six weeks (the average U.S. passport processing time) (Recommendation # 16);
  
• Eliminate the “Return Service Requested” postal meter mark to reduce the quantity of mail returned to USCIS and improve the likelihood that customers will receive critical correspondence and documents from USCIS on a timely basis (Recommendation # 17);
  
• Provide more and better information regarding the availability of visas in certain nonimmigrant categories (Recommendation # 18);
  
• Standardize asylum decision delivery processes and modify the asylum pickup decision delivery process for purposes of efficiency and convenience to USCIS customers (Recommendation # 19);
  
• Change Administrative Appeals Office operations and practices to be more transparent (Recommendation # 20);
  
• Use of Notice of Action Form I-797 by the Asylum Division to reduce the need for USCIS customers to make repeat visits to an asylum office (Recommendation # 21);
  
• Issue Notices to Appear (NTAs) whenever a green card application is denied and the applicant does not have a lawful immigration status (Recommendation # 22);
  
• Eliminate fingerprint requirements for all active duty military personnel who are applying for naturalization (Recommendation # 23);
  
• Amend current USCIS asylum adjudication procedures to eliminate duplicative processes, discourage abuse, and update procedures to follow the provisions of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Recommendation # 24);
  
• Issue multi-year EADs in cases where USCIS knows that processing times exceed one year and amend regulations and processes to eliminate gaps in employment authorization currently experienced by many applicants (Recommendation # 25);
  
• Accept DNA testing to improve accuracy of decisions on family-based visa petitions and reduce delays in adjudicating those petitions (Recommendation # 26);
  
• Implement up-front processes nationally (Recommendation # 27);
  
• Establish an online address change process to improve customer service and USCIS efficiency (Recommendation # 28).
  

Each of these recommendations, along with the fifteen recommendations from previous years, is discussed in detail within the report. The report also provides a summary of USCIS responses to each of the recommendations and any progress on implementation of the recommendations.

Local Ombudsman Pilot Program (PDF, 1 page – 42 KB) The Homeland Security Act of 2002 states that the Ombudsman shall have the responsibility and authority to appoint local ombudsmen and make available at least one local ombudsman per state. In preparing to exercise this responsibility and authority, the Ombudsman initiated a pilot program to design and develop a local ombudsman office.

Case Problems (PDF, 6 pages – 92 KB) During the reporting period, the Ombudsman expanded services to individuals and employers by developing guidance for all USCIS officers and employees regarding the office’s mission and the criteria for accepting individual inquiries. The Ombudsman also refined communication processes between this office and USCIS to standardize transmission of information on case problems. In addition, the Ombudsman improved the systems to collect data and identify problems and solutions.

2006-07 Reporting Year Objectives (PDF, 2 pages – 44 KB) The Ombudsman expects to continue urging implementation of up-front application processes, while identifying potential solutions to the USCIS funding dilemma. In addition, the Ombudsman expects to improve the office’s public outreach.

Appendices (PDF, 17 pages – 910 KB) This section contains charts, graphics and explanations to support and illustrate the concepts and topics discussed in the report.

Complete Report Available for Download:

• CIS Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress, June 29, 2006 (PDF, 117 pages - 1.8 MB)
  

This page was last modified on July 10, 2006

[Misis 0]

Well, mine is a perfect example of "name check" case. Don't be confused with my time line, it is supposed to be "expedited" but because of the pending name check... it is not really expedited anymore. I had to do the fingerprints four times in 2 years period. And someone on this thread said no one can speed them up, not even the senator... that is very true. No one can do something when it comes to this name check. So finally I will have my interview on March 5th, hopefully things will go smooth this time.

e.

[journeyhelper 0]

I wish you the best, but we had our interview almost 2 years ago and are still stuck in namecheck hell.

Well, mine is a perfect example of "name check" case. Don't be confused with my time line, it is supposed to be "expedited" but because of the pending name check... it is not really expedited anymore. I had to do the fingerprints four times in 2 years period. And someone on this thread said no one can speed them up, not even the senator... that is very true. No one can do something when it comes to this name check. So finally I will have my interview on March 5th, hopefully things will go smooth this time.

e.

[Synthetrix 0]

My wife's case was finally touched today after 6 months of FBI name check limbo. A nice Valentine's Day surprise.

[Muuuuah 0]

My wife's case was finally touched today after 6 months of FBI name check limbo. A nice Valentine's Day surprise.

Hope it is going to be good news for you

[Miranda&James 8]

Name Checks and Other Security Checks (PDF, 4 pages – 110 KB) – Some security checks significantly delay adjudication of immigration benefits for many customers, hinder backlog reduction efforts, and may actually compromise security as they allow potential security risks to remain in the United States for extended periods of time

I never thought of that but it's a really good point. If someone is security checks for two years and is really some terrorist or some other threat that the FBI checks hope to eliminate then they've had a free ride to sit in the USA for that two years since the FBI/USCIS can't get their act together.

I feel like a groupie in the namecheck club since I don't really know if I'm in namecheck but I just assume that I am The whole giving more information about individual cases thing would be a BIG improvement, I think everyone would agree!

[kim&james 0]

Name Checks and Other Security Checks (PDF, 4 pages – 110 KB) – Some security checks significantly delay adjudication of immigration benefits for many customers, hinder backlog reduction efforts, and may actually compromise security as they allow potential security risks to remain in the United States for extended periods of time[/quote

I never thought of that but it's a really good point. If someone is security checks for two years and is really some terrorist or some other threat that the FBI checks hope to eliminate then they've had a free ride to sit in the USA for that two years since the FBI/USCIS can't get their act together.

I feel like a groupie in the namecheck club since I don't really know if I'm in namecheck but I just assume that I am The whole giving more information about individual cases thing would be a BIG improvement, I think everyone would agree!

opps dont know what happened but the lot below was written by me... Kim

I have been having this discussion with quite a few friends about this exactly. When I mentioned namecheck and the wait that some people have had I have received the usual responce of "yeah but we dont want to give these terrorists a greencard or god forbid american citizenship" until I point out that if a terrorist is serious, they are not going to wait around (sometimes for years) for these official documents to do something dumb. They are already here and can do/go whereever they want. They are usually genuinely surprised by this and most are gullible enough to think that these terrorists wont be allowed into the country.

After the recent comments by that woman in washington about the possibility of giving citizenship to terrorists I just shake my head and let them live with their heads in the sand. More of an effort should be spent at the consular level with these checks being conducted before allowing people into the states. Once here, it is pretty easy to just disappear into the multitude. If they are that organised, they will have the funds to do so. why lock the barn door after the horse has bolted?

Edited February 15, 2007 by kim&james

[Synthetrix 0]

My wife's case was finally touched today after 6 months of FBI name check limbo. A nice Valentine's Day surprise.

It was indeed good news as we got the email today saying that the welcome letter was mailed yesterday. We should have the green card in 60 days or less!

Yippee!

[Muuuuah 0]

My wife's case was finally touched today after 6 months of FBI name check limbo. A nice Valentine's Day surprise.

It was indeed good news as we got the email today saying that the welcome letter was mailed yesterday. We should have the green card in 60 days or less!

Yippee!

Fantastic news Congratulations

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

My wife's case was finally touched today after 6 months of FBI name check limbo. A nice Valentine's Day surprise.

It was indeed good news as we got the email today saying that the welcome letter was mailed yesterday. We should have the green card in 60 days or less!

Yippee!

Great news -- congrats! I think touches are often good signs -- 2 touches in a row especially