CR1 is DQ, current wait time for interview in Manila?

[Willie_Overall 24]

18 minutes ago, appleblossom said:

 

They shouldn't be prioritising family preference categories over spousal, the order for priority is quite clear - https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/visa-information-resources/visas-news-archive/immigrant-visa-prioritization.html

 

But those 1000 F category cases could well only be 300 or 400 principal applicants, when you include dependents in that - the person that's done the sums doesn't seem to have included spousal dependents so it's not really a fair comparison. 

Does that really matter though?

 

In January, they processed 400 or so. Wouldn't that have included dependents too? So the increase would be the same in that case.

 

Also, 300-400 principal applicants is still 2-3x as much as spousal visas, even though spousal visas are supposed to be prioritized.

[appleblossom 2,482]

1 minute ago, Willie_Overall said:

In January, they processed 400 or so. Wouldn't that have included dependents too? So the increase would be the same in that case.

 

Also, 300-400 principal applicants is still 2-3x as much as spousal visas, even though spousal visas are supposed to be prioritized.

 

I'm not saying it's right (I gave a link saying that they shouldn't be doing that). I was just pointing out that whoever did the "10:1" calculation on FB didn't calculate it properly, it would be nowhere near that ratio.

 

And yes, the 400 for F IV's in January would have included dependents too, whereas the 80 for spousal again doesn't seem to have been calculated that way. So they may well have been about even.

 

 

[Willie_Overall 24]

1 minute ago, appleblossom said:

 

I'm not saying it's right (I gave a link saying that they shouldn't be doing that). I was just pointing out that whoever did the "10:1" calculation on FB didn't calculate it properly, it would be nowhere near that ratio.

 

And yes, the 400 for F IV's in January would have included dependents too, whereas the 80 for spousal again doesn't seem to have been calculated that way. So they may well have been about even.

 

 

Either way, I just can't believe that they could get away with something like this.

 

Don't they have to follow the guidelines?

[LeroyJenkins 3]

Anyone here consider a Writ of Mandamus lawsuit?

 

This one seemed to work in Manila for K1 visas (which are now processing very quickly): https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-dis-crt-dis-col/2174520.html

[Jason and May 79]

1 hour ago, LeroyJenkins said:

Anyone here consider a Writ of Mandamus lawsuit?

 

This one seemed to work in Manila for K1 visas (which are now processing very quickly): https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-dis-crt-dis-col/2174520.html

I’ve read the federal courts in 2023 had the highest level of mandamus filings ever, which has now created a substantial docket delay. But, if my wife remains DQ with no interview by August, 1 year from her DQ date, I have one hundred percent considered retaining an attorney to file a writ.

 

Whether it goes anywhere, I guess, is a whole other issue, what with statutory interpretation of “reasonable time” being based on a rubber-band analogy. 😑

[LeroyJenkins 3]

7 minutes ago, Jason and May said:

I’ve read the federal courts in 2023 had the highest level of mandamus filings ever, which has now created a substantial docket delay. But, if my wife remains DQ with no interview by August, 1 year from her DQ date, I have one hundred percent considered retaining an attorney to file a writ.

 

Whether it goes anywhere, I guess, is a whole other issue, what with statutory interpretation of “reasonable time” being based on a rubber-band analogy. 😑

 

My understanding when it comes to the docket delay is that it highly depends on where you file it.

 

Yes, mandamus lawsuits have increased over the past year (and for good reason), but it doesn't necessarily mean that it'll take forever. My understanding (from a ton of research) is that, if it's filed correctly, it still often takes 90 days or so. Of course, if you get pushback from the government, that timeline will be longer.

 

I've talked to a few different lawyers about this and their opinions vary, but, if I were DQ'd already, I'd probably give it a shot (not saying that's what you should do).

 

But I've also considered a wide range of different options (including moving my wife to a different country). 

 

What do you mean about the rubber-band analogy?

[Jason and May 79]

12 hours ago, LeroyJenkins said:

 

My understanding when it comes to the docket delay is that it highly depends on where you file it.

 

Yes, mandamus lawsuits have increased over the past year (and for good reason), but it doesn't necessarily mean that it'll take forever. My understanding (from a ton of research) is that, if it's filed correctly, it still often takes 90 days or so. Of course, if you get pushback from the government, that timeline will be longer.

 

I've talked to a few different lawyers about this and their opinions vary, but, if I were DQ'd already, I'd probably give it a shot (not saying that's what you should do).

 

But I've also considered a wide range of different options (including moving my wife to a different country). 

 

What do you mean about the rubber-band analogy?

I agree. It absolutely depends on your federal district: Some districts will have substantial docket delays and some not so much. Some districts are very densely populated, some are not, etc. 

 

By rubber-band analogy, I’m referring to statutory interpretations of “within a reasonable time” and “unreasonably delayed.” 

 

The six-factor TRAC principles are (or should be) used to test unreasonable delay; however, courts have found these factors to be “hardly ironclad and sometimes suffer from vagueness,” and, likewise, “…function not as a hard and fast set of required elements, but rather as useful guidance insomuch as their roles may differ depending on the circumstances.” (Am. Hosp. ###’n, 812 F.3d, 189-190.)

 

This has become known as a rubber-band test, because of the stretching of interpretation of “reasonable time.” Some courts deem more than 1-year unreasonably delayed, some 2, some more than that, depending on those various factors and circumstances of the TRAC elements, which are highly subjective and flexible or “stretchable.” Point being, there is almost no consistency in its application. Which, whether right or wrong, courts have deemed, as we see in the litigation citation, nearly impossible.

[Crazy Cat 41,837]

17 hours ago, appleblossom said:

They shouldn't be prioritising family preference categories over spousal, the order for priority is quite clear

Interesting.....Looking at just spouses and children of both US citizens and LPRs:

 

November 2023 Immigrant visas issued by post

NOVEMBER 2023 - IV Issuances by Post and Visa Class.pdf (state.gov)

Manila (spouses and children visas)

CR-1 issued 28
CR-2 issued 5

IR-1 issued 111
IR-2 issued 127

Total :  271

 

F2a issued 6

 

I know I carved out a segment of all visas, but I think it is an apples to apples comparison..

 

 

 

Edited January 26 by Crazy Cat

[hiram a 11]

All those visas were people who were F cat then sponsor became USC or leftovers from Jun mass expedite.  No new cases.

[LeroyJenkins 3]

4 hours ago, Jason and May said:

I agree. It absolutely depends on your federal district: Some districts will have substantial docket delays and some not so much. Some districts are very densely populated, some are not, etc. 

 

By rubber-band analogy, I’m referring to statutory interpretations of “within a reasonable time” and “unreasonably delayed.” 

 

The six-factor TRAC principles are (or should be) used to test unreasonable delay; however, courts have found these factors to be “hardly ironclad and sometimes suffer from vagueness,” and, likewise, “…function not as a hard and fast set of required elements, but rather as useful guidance insomuch as their roles may differ depending on the circumstances.” (Am. Hosp. ###’n, 812 F.3d, 189-190.)

 

This has become known as a rubber-band test, because of the stretching of interpretation of “reasonable time.” Some courts deem more than 1-year unreasonably delayed, some 2, some more than that, depending on those various factors and circumstances of the TRAC elements, which are highly subjective and flexible or “stretchable.” Point being, there is almost no consistency in its application. Which, whether right or wrong, courts have deemed, as we see in the litigation citation, nearly impossible.

Thanks for the explanation.

 

If true, this isn't necessarily a bad thing. At least there's a chance of getting a sympathetic court that rules in your favor. If you get an unsympathetic court, the worst you're out is a few grand. No real harm or foul.

 

Another weird thing I've found is that lawyers that I've talked to can't seem to agree if the courts look at the entire length of the case or simply the time where it was under the specific jurisdiction you're suing (most seem to favor the former, but I've heard someone favor the latter theory).

[LeroyJenkins 3]

3 hours ago, Crazy Cat said:

Interesting.....Looking at just spouses and children of both US citizens and LPRs:

 

November 2023 Immigrant visas issued by post

NOVEMBER 2023 - IV Issuances by Post and Visa Class.pdf (state.gov)

Manila (spouses and children visas)

CR-1 issued 28
CR-2 issued 5

IR-1 issued 111
IR-2 issued 127

Total :  271

 

F2a issued 6

 

I know I carved out a segment of all visas, but I think it is an apples to apples comparison..

 

 

 

F1 - 319

F2B - 378

F3 - 132

F4 - 266

 

All individually higher than spousal visas. Guess the Manila embassy and the US government are showing us how important reuniting immediate family members is to them.

[cnels18 0]

I have been following this page for a few weeks, and I'm afraid we're in for a long wait. I filed last April and the process was smooth until it got to the NVC. We were DQ on the 24 of October, I haven't heard anything from them since. I decided to have my wife apply for a visitor's visa and she is scheduled to go in on the 13th of March. It is sad that you can get an appointment as a visitor withing 6 weeks. They may deny her but its worth a shot.

[Vegamanx7 12]

Yeah I just received the generic response after my congressman reached out. 
“NVC documentarily completed this case on 12JUL2023. As of FEB2024, the NVC is scheduling IV interview appointments for the U.S. Embassy or Consulate in MANILA, PHILIPPINES for Immediate Relative applicants that were documentarily complete on or before OCT2022.”

 

I just wish I could be with my wife. I’m stuck in a job I hate because I can’t leave or it jeopardizes our case. 

[Jason and May 79]

3 hours ago, Vegamanx7 said:

Yeah I just received the generic response after my congressman reached out. 
“NVC documentarily completed this case on 12JUL2023. As of FEB2024, the NVC is scheduling IV interview appointments for the U.S. Embassy or Consulate in MANILA, PHILIPPINES for Immediate Relative applicants that were documentarily complete on or before OCT2022.”

 

I just wish I could be with my wife. I’m stuck in a job I hate because I can’t leave or it jeopardizes our case. 

Where did you get this quote? I've seen this exact quote in another group, except the date was January 2023. I'm just curious. 

If beneficiaries have been waiting 2 years post-DQ for their IL, I would imagine there would be a lot more talk about this, but now my interest is piqued. 

[WaltAimee 6]

I requested that my congresswoman do an inquiry in late October of 2023 and at that time the response was that the embassy was processing cases that were DQ on or before June of 2021, so if within three months NVC has caught up with 16 months of backlog it won’t take them very long to get current.