5 year LPR vs. 3 year LPR for the N400

[TastyCake 232]

Has anyone noticed that 5 year LPRs tend to get more love from the USCIS with the N400 than their 3 year LPR counterparts?

 

On the USCIS account website it indicates there is a 7 month turnaround time for the N400 but with a disclaimer that this estimate is only for the 5 year LPRs... estimates for 3 year LPRs can vary.

 

This is an anecdotal observation but it seems to me that I see far more 5 year LPRs announcing that they received an interview letter.  Nowhere near as many 3 year LPRs.

[SalishSea 17,987]

1 hour ago, TastyCake said:

Has anyone noticed that 5 year LPRs tend to get more love from the USCIS with the N400 than their 3 year LPR counterparts?

 

On the USCIS account website it indicates there is a 7 month turnaround time for the N400 but with a disclaimer that this estimate is only for the 5 year LPRs... estimates for 3 year LPRs can vary.

 

This is an anecdotal observation but it seems to me that I see far more 5 year LPRs announcing that they received an interview letter.  Nowhere near as many 3 year LPRs.

I’m sure that is because FAR more people are naturalizing under the 5 year rule.

[Bob in Boston 759]

our 3 year interview came in 7 months....  (8/21-3/22). under 4 years from AOS to citizen. B-2 overstay

[Crazy Cat 41,985]

30 minutes ago, Jorgedig said:

I’m sure that is because FAR more people are naturalizing under the 5 year rule.

Yep.  I just found this:

Naturalization Statistics | USCIS

Some pretty good data shown on this page, too.

"The median years spent as an LPR for all citizens naturalized in FY 2021 was 7.3 years."

 

Edited January 6, 2023 by Crazy Cat

[.yana 598]

Makes sense: 5 years are applying on their own merits rather than their relationships = less stuff to consider and look into = faster approval.

[TastyCake 232]

5 minutes ago, .yana said:

Makes sense: 5 years are applying on their own merits rather than their relationships = less stuff to consider and look into = faster approval.

Not sure I agree with your rationale but thanks for responding.

 

[.yana 598]

4 minutes ago, TastyCake said:

Not sure I agree with your rationale but thanks for responding.

 

I don't claim to know the actual reasons, just making a guess 🤷‍♀️🙂

[OldUser 7,031]

10 minutes ago, TastyCake said:

Not sure I agree with your rationale but thanks for responding.

 

What's your view on it?

 

It does make sense that applicants under 5 year rule get processed more efficiently.

 

1. Most of them either have I-751 already approved or never had one

2. No bonafide marital evidence is needed. This means no need for reviewing all of it. Also fewer agents are trained to deal with applicants under 3 year rule.

3. Complexity of the case is reduced under 5 year rule.

 

Let's not forget that 5 year rule is the default naturalization path. 3 year rule or marriage to USC in military are special cases.

Edited January 7, 2023 by OldUser

[Dashinka 24,657]

It still all comes down to the local office and in many ways the luck of whose desk the application ends up on.  My wife filed under the 3 yr rule and the Detroit FO did the work.  She had her oath 5.5 months after applying.

[Dashinka 24,657]

9 minutes ago, OldUser said:

What's your view on it?

 

It does make sense that applicants under 5 year rule get processed more efficiently.

 

1. Most of them either have I-751 already approved or never had one

2. No bonafide marital evidence is needed. This means no need for reviewing all of it. Also fewer agents are trained to deal with applicants under 3 year rule.

3. Complexity of the case is reduced under 5 year rule.

 

Let's not forget that 5 year rule is the default naturalization path. 3 year rule or marriage to USC in military are special cases.

N400 regardless of under the 3yr or 5yr rule still implies a full review of someone’s complete immigration record.  In many ways, applying under the 3yr rule should be a bit more efficient since that history is shorter, and more recent.

 

Of course, trying to understand the inner workings of USCIS is really an effort in futility.

[OldUser 7,031]

18 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

N400 regardless of under the 3yr or 5yr rule still implies a full review of someone’s complete immigration record.

Absolutely agree with this statement.

 

18 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

In many ways, applying under the 3yr rule should be a bit more efficient since that history is shorter, and more recent.

My understanding is application after 5-10 years of being LPR is a sweet spot. Only a personal (perhaps unpopular) opinion, but 3 year rule applicants may be held to a higher standard, e.g. IO has to answer these questions in his or her head:

1. "what's the rush for this person to become a US citizen?"

2. "was US citizenship the ultimate goal for this LPR, and not the marriage to US citizen?"

 

Immigration is not only expensive from financial point of view, but also from time investment view. Fraudsters wouldn't usually bother waiting extra years to get immigration benefit. They want it ASAP and move on with their lives (e.g. divorce the US citizen spouse soon after becoming citizen etc.). So it makes sense that marriage based citizenship would attract them and incentivize to apply 2 years 9 months early instead of after 5 years. I'm not having prejudice towards 3 year filers, just speculating it's a more attractive option if the end goal is naturalization.

 

Edited January 7, 2023 by OldUser

[TBoneTX 45,668]

Thread is moved from the US Citizenship Case Progress subforum to General Immigration Discussion.

Edited January 7, 2023 by TBoneTX

[TastyCake 232]

39 minutes ago, OldUser said:

What's your view on it?

 

It does make sense that applicants under 5 year rule get processed more efficiently.

 

1. Most of them either have I-751 already approved or never had one

2. No bonafide marital evidence is needed. This means no need for reviewing all of it. Also fewer agents are trained to deal with applicants under 3 year rule.

3. Complexity of the case is reduced under 5 year rule.

 

Let's not forget that 5 year rule is the default naturalization path. 3 year rule or marriage to USC in military are special cases.

My view was predicated on how the response was framed.  It didn't pass the smell test for me.  I don't claim to be an immigration expert but my original question was around why there seemed to be more 5-year LPRs getting interview letters.  Jorge's response made sense... there are more 5-year LPRs out there (something I didn't realize).

 

If evidence and criteria made the difference, why aren't marriage-based LPRs subject to 5 years as they require more scrutiny (to use yours and Yana's rationale)?  And why aren't LPRs who are here for non-marital reasons able to file after 3 years if they are more straightforward with less to look into?

 

Each path has its own separate criteria and needs to be adjudicated.  You could argue that poring through 5 years of history (to determine legitimacy) would take additional time.

 

I do appreciate yours and Yana's perspective.

 

 

[OldUser 7,031]

22 minutes ago, TastyCake said:

And why aren't LPRs who are here for non-marital reasons able to file after 3 years if they are more straightforward with less to look into?

That's a very good question, which I do not have an answer to. Maybe somebody with more knowledge can explain. My observation is that a lot of developed countries require 5 or 10 years living as permanent resident before naturalizing. It kinda makes sense, it takes time for a foreigner to learn language, customs and become integrated into society. Imagine if countries allowed naturalizing after 6-12 months and what this would mean. E.g. citizens can change a lot of policies and laws by voting. If they haven't lived much in the country, how can they make a good, informed decision when voting?

 

I wonder if there are some international treaties, suggesting 5-10 years terms as LPR for naturalization as a general rule. Though of course there are plenty examples of citizenship by investment in Carribbean countries where people can naturalize without ever stepping their foot on that country's soil.

Edited January 7, 2023 by OldUser

[OldUser 7,031]

Update: actually found something related.

 

Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness.

 

It does mention 5 and 10 year periods of being LPRs in various situations in Article 1. So I think it is used by many countries as naturalization prerequisite. 

 

Fun fact: US did not ratify it.

Edited January 7, 2023 by OldUser