Interview required for ROC?

[Johnny6751 4]

Hi, my spouse and I had our immigration interview 2 years ago when I did AOS here in the USA, we both attended the interview and GC was approved on the spot. I have sent my ROC already and I've read that an interview is required, again? 

[Noname93 200]

It depends. Sometimes they schedule an interview, sometimes they waive it. If it's a clear cut case with lots of evidence they are more likely to waive it, but all you can do is hope.

[Scandi 4,166]

2 hours ago, Johnny6751 said:

Hi, my spouse and I had our immigration interview 2 years ago when I did AOS here in the USA, we both attended the interview and GC was approved on the spot. I have sent my ROC already and I've read that an interview is required, again? 

It's not always required, since you already had an interview for your AOS then you're less likely to get one for ROC. There are never any guarantees, but it's less likely. I too had an AOS interview and my ROC was approved just fine without one. 

[Mike E 11,739]

4 hours ago, Johnny6751 said:

Hi, my spouse and I had our immigration interview 2 years ago when I did AOS here in the USA, we both attended the interview and GC was approved on the spot. I have sent my ROC already and I've read that an interview is required, again? 

There have been two major policy changes. 
 

The second to most recent policy change said that since you had an interview before (even if it was consular) you were eligible for an interview waiver of RoC (yet could still be randomly selected).  The most recent policy change seems to dispense with the “at least one interview rule” and go with a risk based approach. This  your evidence is good and normal, it is even more likely your interview will be waived.  
 

Most I-751s seem to be following into 3 major categories these days:

 

* “quick” approval with interview waived 

 

* death march with no pending N-400. There is a reason why 48 month extension letters were issued.

 

* death march terminated when N-400 filed 

 

If your I-751 is picked for an interview, woe unto you if it is at a FO like SF that seems to be dedicated to N-400s these days. It is a remarkable turn around. SF used to be place where N-400s went to die.  

 

Earlier this month, I figured at the rate things were going,  the N-400 back log was going to end in FY2023 and then maybe I-751s would get attention. But with the advent of the 4 year extension letter, I am not seeing it now. It appears USCIS is going to let the backlog of those who don’t want to naturalize continue to grow exponentially.

 

I still believe the  N-400 backlog will still end in FY2023. But now it seems USCIS will then prioritize cases other than I-751.  Given the history of growth in extension. letter validity, the math says 8 year extension letters are coming in 2023:

 

37.35 years after the November 6, 1986 IRCA which  introduced RoC. 

[A110 96]

1 hour ago, Mike E said:

There have been two major policy changes. 
 

The second to most recent policy change said that since you had an interview before (even if it was consular) you were eligible for an interview waiver of RoC (yet could still be randomly selected).  The most recent policy change seems to dispense with the “at least one interview rule” and go with a risk based approach. This  your evidence is good and normal, it is even more likely your interview will be waived.  
 

Most I-751s seem to be following into 3 major categories these days:

 

* “quick” approval with interview waived 

 

* death march with no pending N-400. There is a reason why 48 month extension letters were issued.

 

* death march terminated when N-400 filed 

 

If your I-751 is picked for an interview, woe unto you if it is at a FO like SF that seems to be dedicated to N-400s these days. It is a remarkable turn around. SF used to be place where N-400s went to die.  

 

Earlier this month, I figured at the rate things were going,  the N-400 back log was going to end in FY2023 and then maybe I-751s would get attention. But with the advent of the 4 year extension letter, I am not seeing it now. It appears USCIS is going to let the backlog of those who don’t want to naturalize continue to grow exponentially.

 

I still believe the  N-400 backlog will still end in FY2023. But now it seems USCIS will then prioritize cases other than I-751.  Given the history of growth in extension. letter validity, the math says 8 year extension letters are coming in 2023:

 

37.35 years after the November 6, 1986 IRCA which  introduced RoC. 

I am seeing a small uptick this week of approvals for I751 for those who filed in October 2022/Nov 2022 and such. This does not go hand in hand with the 4 year extensions what are your thoughts?

I personally think the 4 year extension is not necessarily a reflection of the processing times moving forward, and was a way to deal with the more complicated cases (easier to paint everyone with the same brush and give out crazy extensions than to sort through the files) however I don't see how the 4 year window is encouraging the agency to address the cases using risk based approach. 

Although the risk based approach did not really mention anything about the processing times and it was more about interview waivers so there is that. 

BTW,

What are your thoughts on waiting times for N400? I think it will speed up dramatically to around 3/4 months but I can be wrong

[Mike E 11,739]

4 minutes ago, A110 said:

I am seeing a small uptick this week of approvals for I751 for those who filed in October 2022/Nov 2022 and such. This does not go hand in hand with the 4 year extensions what are your thoughts?

When the FY2023 Q1 numbers are out I will either crow or eat crow. I think it will be the former. The I-751 backlog could be easily extinguished if USCIS wanted it gone. 
 

4 minutes ago, A110 said:

I personally think the 4 year extension is not necessarily a reflection of the processing times moving forward, and was a way to deal with the more complicated cases (easier to paint everyone with the same brush and give out crazy extensions than to sort through the files)

There is a great novella called Candide by Voltaire that I was required to read in university.  I kept it.  
 

4 minutes ago, A110 said:

however I don't see how the 4 year window is encouraging the agency to address the cases using risk based approach.

The risk based approach + 4 year extension lets the service centers adjudicate all the low risk cases and defer  the cases that require an interview.  The 4 year letters also allow USCIS to wait for the new coin from the I-751 fee hikes to pay for the older high risk cases. If the courts approve the fee hikes then I believe USCIS will risk access new I-751 cases and “quickly” approve them. The savings from those will then be applied to pay for interviews of the back logged high risk cases. 
 

4 minutes ago, A110 said:

 . 

BTW,

What are your thoughts on waiting times for N400? I think it will speed up dramatically to around 3/4 months but I can be wrong

They have sped up to 3 months.  As I wrote even at SF. It is so fast that i fear USCIS will hold interviews during the 90 day early filing window which is illegal. 
 

 The data is shocking. Most of USCIS’s resources are being put on N-400s now. While conspiracy theorists say it is so that the ruling party can get more voters

for 2024 I think it is because

 

* new hires at USCIS get trained / assigned N-400s first and

 

* allegedly employee turnover at USCIS is high compared to rest of the country’s work force.  

 

Thus  a certain point for USCIS, most of the ISO1s are trained only for N-400.  We appear to be there now.
 

So if USCIS has a high backlog of N-400s, it makes sense to prioritize those. 

 

What happens after those newbies finish the N-400 backlog in 2023 is anyone’s guess. Will they process I-751s? Or asylum and refugee cases? Or something else? If the fee hikes go through, they  could work on I-129Fs, since that will generate extra coin for I-485 and I-751 down the road.  

[HarryWL 262]

Needless to say, it's time to abolish the ROC process. 

[OldUser 6,612]

18 minutes ago, HarryWL said:

Needless to say, it's time to abolish the ROC process. 

Realistically won't happen any time soon. If increase for I-751 extensions from 24 months to 48 months occurred under this administration, supposedly welcoming immigrants, then what can you expect from the opposing party candidate in the future.

 

To answer OP's question about interview: always be prepared for it. It may be waived, but it's not a guarantee. Also if you apply for N-400 while I-751 is pending, it may result in combo interview.

Edited January 26, 2023 by OldUser

[SalishSea 17,803]

10 hours ago, A110 said:

I am seeing a small uptick this week of approvals for I751 for those who filed in October 2022/Nov 2022 and such. This does not go hand in hand with the 4 year extensions what are your thoughts?

I personally think the 4 year extension is not necessarily a reflection of the processing times moving forward, and was a way to deal with the more complicated cases (easier to paint everyone with the same brush and give out crazy extensions than to sort through the files) however I don't see how the 4 year window is encouraging the agency to address the cases using risk based approach. 

Although the risk based approach did not really mention anything about the processing times and it was more about interview waivers so there is that. 

BTW,

What are your thoughts on waiting times for N400? I think it will speed up dramatically to around 3/4 months but I can be wrong

Approvals for ROC filers from Oct 2022???

 

do you mean 2021?

[A110 96]

1 hour ago, Jorgedig said:

Approvals for ROC filers from Oct 2022???

 

do you mean 2021?

No.You can look it up on lawfully. This is not self reported data so it's factual.

[OldUser 6,612]

23 minutes ago, A110 said:

No.You can look it up on lawfully. This is not self reported data so it's factual.

Where do you get this info from? Just curious.

 

In Android's Play Store:

 

"Disclaimer: Lawfully, Inc. does not represent, or is not affiliated with, any government entity. We do not offer any legal advice. Lawfully Case Tracker uses cutting-edge technology to track and predict cases as best as possible, based on case data registered in Lawfully, but the results are not guaranteed."

 

So how does it know about the cases not registered in their app?

Edited January 27, 2023 by OldUser

[SalishSea 17,803]

1 hour ago, A110 said:

No.You can look it up on lawfully. This is not self reported data so it's factual.

Odd.   Wonder why none of them happen to be VJ members?   
 

ROCs are generally not expedited, and even the fastest center (CSC) takes upwards of a year.

[Johnny6751 4]

btw:

 

 

01/17/2023: Sent via FedEx Elgin Illinois office field
01/18/2023: Application delivered and signed by USCIS.
01/24/2023: Money order cashed

 

Now what?

[OldUser 6,612]

16 minutes ago, Johnny6751 said:

btw:

 

 

01/17/2023: Sent via FedEx Elgin Illinois office field
01/18/2023: Application delivered and signed by USCIS.
01/24/2023: Money order cashed

 

Now what?

Wait for NOA1

[A110 96]

2 hours ago, OldUser said:

Where do you get this info from? Just curious.

 

In Android's Play Store:

 

"Disclaimer: Lawfully, Inc. does not represent, or is not affiliated with, any government entity. We do not offer any legal advice. Lawfully Case Tracker uses cutting-edge technology to track and predict cases as best as possible, based on case data registered in Lawfully, but the results are not guaranteed."

 

So how does it know about the cases not registered in their app?

I can be wrong but I do read somewhere that USCIS receipt numbers have a certain pattern to them and if one knows the pattern they can just hit the API with different receipt numbers.It doesn't take a genius to write a program to do that, this is the easiest way to build data about the cases and there is nothing wrong with it (Other than hitting the agencies api multiple times which as far as I know is not illegal). This is my own hypothesis of course but you can also check the lawfully app (paid version) and see this for yourself.