Has anyone noticed trends in who gets called to AOS interview?

[misa 2]

I'm a tad ignorant of K-3 process so please excuse this question if it doesn't apply to a K-3 situation. My understanding is that the AOS application has to have been pending for two years before someone can go straight to a 10 year GC, and that USCIS doesn't go by marriage date. Is this wrong?

Nope, they go by the marriage date.

[Killer_Clown_2009 0]

If you are approved for a Green Card 2 years or more after your marriage date, then you get a 10-year card. Less than 2 years and you get a 2 year conditional card (like me).

[rebeccajo 14]

Basically we dont know which DO's are backlogged or just the likelihood of the ones that have already been transfered to CSC already!

I havent noticed any from my DO transfered to CSC lately but i'm not expecting to be transfered anyhow......i've been married 2 years now so its likely that i'll be scheduled for an interview at some point.....even if my DO is backlogged....i guess i'll just have to wait...the chances of being approved for a 10 year GC without an interview would be very slim like 1%

Very unlikely i will be transfered to CSC anyways, i'm eligible for the 10 year GC now as i've been married 2 years!! so i'm thinking that more than likely i'll be scheduled for an interview at some point in the future. No idea when though....i'm guessing my local office is busy or i probably would have heard something already!

I'm a tad ignorant of K-3 process so please excuse this question if it doesn't apply to a K-3 situation. My understanding is that the AOS application has to have been pending for two years before someone can go straight to a 10 year GC, and that USCIS doesn't go by marriage date. Is this wrong?

It goes by how long the K-3 has been married before the AOS has been approved! So basically yes it goes by marriage date!

Maria, the part of your post in bold brings up an interesting point which I and a friend have previously discussed at length.

I developed an opinion (while studying CSC transfers during my husband's 17-month namecheck debacle) that the transfer of cases was a temporary 'fix' to justify something political. Shortly after DHS was created, Congress injected 500 million dollars into that departments coffers. It was a one-time shot of taxpayer dollars which was to be utilized by the new bureaucracy to heighten our nations security procedures as regards immigrants and non-immigrants. One of the biggest steps necessary in this goal was backlog reduction.

Bureaucracies love to bean-count. Backlog reduction is a great bean. If you can show that you've eliminated X number of files from the pipeline, it looks like progress. Late in 2005, with the clock ticking down on when DHS would have to answer to Congress for how they spent the money, they decided in their infinite wisdom to use provisions from the FAM which allowed for an AOS interview to be discretionary. If the necessary paperwork was in the file and the applicant passed security clearance, the bonafides of the relationship were tossed out the window. In essence, they placed national security before abuse of immigration via marriage fraud - something they could easily justify as national security IS their Number One mandate.

I didn't come by this opinion idly. Another bean-counting tactic deployed by USCIS a few months later allowed them to actually eliminate certain files from the bean pile entirely. Per USCIS policy memos and (if my memory serves me) their Sept. 2006 newsletter, they revealed that cases outside of their processing times due to 'circumstances beyond their control' were not to be counted at all. Those cases include all namecheck-delayed files. Poof - wave the magic bean counting wand and approximately 440,000 petitions magically vanished from the statistical bean-pile.

Lo and behold then - look what DHS had up their sleeve. A request for a fee increase. A big one. So away they went to Congress with their improved statistics. Proof positive that money can cure everything that ails a bureaucracy. A political slam-dunk on their part that slid right past our esteemed representatives on the hill in DC.

My point? I think we will see fewer and fewer case transfers as the next few months pass by. Woe that our old timelines on VJ never asked the question "is your case a transfer?" I know of no way now that Admin of this website could effectively go back and collect the percentage of cases among our members which were transferred since the process began in late 2005. What I do know is this - I've looked at the 'filer' threads for May and June and it appears to me the 'transfer rate' is approximately 50/50. I have NO way of backing this up, but from my perspective (and that of another VJ friend who has studied this with me) I believe the previous odds were much higher.

Now that DHS has their big windfall, I would not be surprised to see AOS procedure return to the historical method of interviews for all marriage-based petitions.

Just my perspective.

Edited August 23, 2007 by rebeccajo

[Krikit 1,165]

Thanks to everyone for answering my 10 yr GC question.

RebeccaJo.... your comments are very interesting and probably hit really close to the mark.... if not spot on. Having witnessed this type of political shuffling in my previous work environment, I have no doubt that we are pawns in a bigger game. Thanks for mentioning this.

[LaL 418]

outstanding post, well thought out and researched RJ. thank you

[~*Maria*~ 1]

rebeccajo, I see your point i think ...basically what i'm reading into this is that transfers to CSC is just a temporary quick fix to ease the burden of the DO's until such a time that these offices can catch up on their workload. Eventually they will catch up and will be back to business as usual and as you speculated! AOS procedure will probably return to the older method of interviewing all marriage-based applications.

Too many cases for them to do = backlog.

Am I correct in thinking this or have i read your post wrong?

I'm sure you will correct me if i've got this all wrong

Maria

outstanding post, well thought out and researched RJ. thank you

My thoughts exactly Lal

[rebeccajo 14]

rebeccajo, I see your point i Am I correct in thinking this or have i read your post wrong?

You read me right!

Edited August 24, 2007 by rebeccajo

[~*Maria*~ 1]

rebeccajo, I see your point i think ...basically what i'm reading into this is that transfers to CSC is just a temporary quick fix to ease the burden of the DO's until such a time that these offices can catch up on their workload. Eventually they will catch up and will be back to business as usual and as you speculated! AOS procedure will probably return to the older method of interviewing all marriage-based applications.

Too many cases for them to do = backlog.

Am I correct in thinking this or have i read your post wrong?

I'm sure you will correct me if i've got this all wrong

Maria

outstanding post, well thought out and researched RJ. thank you

My thoughts exactly Lal

You read me right!

Thanks