Open letter to Homeland Security

[Chris Parker 11]

Chris, the theory might make more sense if there was anything in the I-485 petition that spoke to the validity of the marriage.

Or if first-world, same native language, as far away from the mail-order bride stereotype as you can get people DIDN'T get caught in name checks. It happens to Canadians, Englishmen, while petitioners from high fraud consulates get approved without interviews.

Randomly selected cases subjected to intense scrutiny? Not an unheard of strategy when you have limited resources.

Edited September 14, 2007 by Chris Parker

[Caladan 19]

Chris, the theory might make more sense if there was anything in the I-485 petition that spoke to the validity of the marriage.

Or if first-world, same native language, as far away from the mail-order bride stereotype as you can get people DIDN'T get caught in name checks. It happens to Canadians, Englishmen, while petitioners from high fraud consulates get approved without interviews.

Randomly selected cases subjected to intense scrutiny? Not an unheard of strategy when you have limited resources.

Nope. If you have limited resources you concentrate on the areas more likely to yield results. You don't go randomly. If this were a fraud detection check masquerading as a name check, you'd see the resources chasing down the high-fraud areas. If it were a mask, we wouldn't see Canadian couples, e.g., getting stuck in it. Or there's be a strong pattern based on national origin with a few outliers.

On the other hand, a hit in a name database that has to be verified manually can happen anywhere in the world.

Besides, it's not like they don't actually conduct fraud interviews or reject cases for being fraudulent. What would be the payoff -- chances are the person scamming for a green card is already planning to wait until conditions are lifted in order to jet, if they're smart... is six months of namecheck going to stop that?

[rebeccajo 14]

absolutely, but then who does this law apply to (i.e. citizen vs. non-citizen)?

Well, speaking for myself (and NOT for everyone else) I feel like it's my right (not a privilege) as an American citizen to marry whom I choose, and allow them to live and work in this country. This is the principle behind the K1 and K3 visas, but my only gripe is that the process takes so long - especially since it doesn't have to, with so much new and better technology.

Exactely ! That is precisely how my wife (USC) feels.

Ah. Camelot.

Just because your wife feels that way doesn't make it so.

Since you have that US Histories degree, show me in the Constitution or Bill of Rights where immigration is addressed. Once you've located the small yet very broad reference, get back to me.

Edited September 15, 2007 by rebeccajo

[rebeccajo 14]

Having thousands of people sitting around waiting for in some cases for years on end for a name check to be processed is hardly benefiting National Security. As I have said before anyone aiming to come into the US in order to commit mass-terror is hardly likely to do so by making sure he/she files the correct paperwork and then wait for the FBI to clear his/her application before carrying out their nefarious deeds!

How do you know for sure that it is really an FBI name check delay? Because USCIS told you?

Sorry, even if the FBI told you this (or told your Congressman or whoever), I think we all somehow know that it is just a USCIS cover story. USCIS is a national security agency, and it has the power to mark information as classified and to conduct undercover investigations. Such action is also not uncalled for when the bona fides of a marriage are being questioned. For them to call this process an "FBI name check delay" is totally plausible. The best part is the imposing extreme delays is the cheapest and most effective method to expose suspected marriage fraud. The only thing unfair about this process are the fees for temporary benefits renewals, which they've now eliminated under the new fee schedule, and the delay in eligibility for naturalization, which ties right back into the core national security risk.

Hmmm. There must be something in the water around here today.

Chris, have been ever been stuck in namecheck? Have you ever had the Adjudicating Officer sit across the desk from you and TELL YOU your petition is approved except for the nasty little detail of the namecheck being complete? Have you had a US Senator CONFIRM it? Have you read reports of USCIS record retention or the Missouri 'cave' where old records are kept? Are you aware that the FBI keeps records in 265 storage facilities from which records have to be manually extracted if there is a name hit?

Have you had a high-power Washington DC attorney who headed up the team of US Attorneys who wrote the 1996 changes to immigration law CONFIRM to you that your case is lying on the desk of one of THIRTEEN agents at the FBI who toll the bell for USCIS namecheck inquiries?

Until you KNOW more about the process, I'd suggest you take your highly offensive and inflammatory remarks and keep them to yourself. Umkay?

[Killer_Clown_2009 0]

So that person should shut up, because you don't like their remarks. And the other person shouldn't FEEL what they FEEL because it is not factual? Time for a reality check, you can't have it both ways. Now we wait for the soft back peddling to begin as per pattern.

[Krikit 1,164]

Nope. If you have limited resources you concentrate on the areas more likely to yield results. You don't go randomly.

I would have to respectfully disagree here. You see and experience random security checks in all walks of life..... including those agencies under the structure and organization of the DHS.

[rebeccajo 14]

So that person should shut up, because you don't like their remarks. And the other person shouldn't FEEL what they FEEL because it is not factual? Time for a reality check, you can't have it both ways. Now we wait for the soft back peddling to begin as per pattern.

Good lord. Who stepped on your tail today?

Edited September 15, 2007 by rebeccajo

[Chris Parker 11]

Chris, have been ever been stuck in namecheck? Have you ever had the Adjudicating Officer sit across the desk from you and TELL YOU your petition is approved except for the nasty little detail of the namecheck being complete? Have you had a US Senator CONFIRM it? Have you read reports of USCIS record retention or the Missouri 'cave' where old records are kept? Are you aware that the FBI keeps records in 265 storage facilities from which records have to be manually extracted if there is a name hit?

Have you had a high-power Washington DC attorney who headed up the team of US Attorneys who wrote the 1996 changes to immigration law CONFIRM to you that your case is lying on the desk of one of THIRTEEN agents at the FBI who toll the bell for USCIS namecheck inquiries?

Until you KNOW more about the process, I'd suggest you take your highly offensive and inflammatory remarks and keep them to yourself. Umkay?

Actually, you are speaking well beyond your own experience by trying to put me down.

My full timeline is actually below:

http://www.visajourney.com/timeline/profile.php?id=37540

I have over 7 years experience dealing with the immigration beauracracy, and I was in the name-check delays long before they called it that. I know very well, as you might at the end of this process, that USCIS itself is not the little angel it wants you to believe it is, and their officers are trained to be as rude as they can while remaining professional, they will try to provoke you to argue with them, ask you to produce original documents at the interview they didn't ask you to bring in order to create further delays, as well as outright lie to you that they know nothing or they can't do anything, when they really know everything and have full control of the situation. Name-check delays blamed on the FBI are just their current gimmick to cover-up their core strategy, and they will find other excuses in the future when they can't keep this one up. When you go through enough applications with them and seen enough news stories, you'll begin to notice the pattern.

The reality is, application approval could be very easy and quick to do with imposing delays to uncover fraud, because the only actual work USCIS actually needs to do to process and approve an application takes less than 5 minutes. However, the wait time to actually get them to do that for you will always be months to years, because of security advantage they gain in actually doing nothing and watching relationships fall apart as they statistically will do. Don't stop for a minute to believe they are as stupid and incompetent as they make themselves appear, because they aren't really.

However, you can take my remarks and do what you want with them. Consider them offensive if you want, but no matter what you call the process (name-checks or whatever), and no matter how much respect you give USCIS which they rightfully deserve (they have an impossible job and very high standard, that's absolutely true), USCIS's main technique will always remain giving everyone a hassle and jerk around about their applications to try to cause relationships crack up, and if they do, then call them fraudulent (actually, in their eyes, every case is fraudulent, but most get away with it).

You're the one still learning what USCIS and the immigration laws are really all about and how they work. I'm finished on this thread, hopefully somebody gleemed some understanding from my remarks that the immigration process is much more difficult than the OP has even begun to contemplate.

[rebeccajo 14]

Ah. Now things are crystal clear to me.

Chris, nobody ever asked us for additional documents. In fact they gave documents back to us. I had reason to wonder (during my husband's namecheck delay) that they might be "hung up" on him because of his country of birth. But that really made no sense either - it wouldn't be in the US' best interest to leave a UDA bomber on the loose now, would it?

It sounds to me like you had a rough time. But my experience (although personally not yet as long as yours) doesn't lead me to believe the goal of USCIS is to give everybody enough hassle to cause their relationships to crack. And, I know enough other individuals (with timelines as long as yours) who have had experiences opposite of yours.

As you state, relationships break up statistically. I've recovered from what I call "K1 syndrome" (that starry eyed state of mind where one believes if the relationship can survive long distance, it can survive anything) and I think our international relationships are just as likely to fail or succeed as a domestic one. That being the case, I think whatever happens to a relationship has little to do with immigration and more to do with the couple. Just like a domestic marriage.

[chaplin 0]

re to all that feel that it is my right (not a privilege) as an American citizen to marry whom I choose, and allow them to live and work in this country.

Not to be flippant, but the government has made it a privilege.....just ask the same sex partners throughout this great country of ours (who in most instances are both USCs). Also, I am sure that in order to get married, you had to fulfill requirements to obtain the license. The government sets up rules that we all must follow. Marriage to a foreigner just has an extra layer.

[Caladan 19]

Krikit, while I agree you can use random security checks to improve security on something like, say an airline, or as a check of procedure, I cannot think it's a good use of resources here. Honestly, if you were trying to ferret out fraud by making people wait, wouldn't you start by having an I-485 that required evidence of relationship? Or maybe not concentrate on the first-world relationships? Or do something to ensure that the person waiting for the green card can't work or otherwise get around in the U.S.? Wouldn't you narrow it down at all?

USCIS elsewhere seems to operate on the assumption that once you're here, you're hard to get rid of.

And I think it does people a disservice to suggest that they're stuck in imaginary namechecks because they're being clandestinely investigated for fraud when all the evidence we have suggests that there ARE namechecks and that the delay is just typical underfunding. I would not be at all surprised if USCIS figured once it was stuck in namechecks it was off their desk and not their problem for a while. But that's not the same as saying 'let's try to make this marriage fail and make up namechecks, and instruct the Senators to lie.'

Chris, what security advantage do they gain by delaying the adjustment of status of someone who is already in the United States? I'd believe that they take their time overseas at high fraud consulates on the assumption that fraudulent or ill-conceived relationships might fall apart. (Even so, that doesn't seem to be the case at most places, unless you want to argue that Montreal has a long backlog to ferret out fraudulent Canadians and that Morocco schedules interviews quickly because they're not worried about fraud.)

That I could conceivably believe. But once they're here, what conceivable advantage does waiting confer? Wait long enough and the person doesn't even have to file for removal of conditions. How does that make it more secure, handing them a permanent green card?

[chaplin 0]

That I could conceivably believe. But once they're here, what conceivable advantage does waiting confer? Wait long enough and the person doesn't even have to file for removal of conditions. How does that make it more secure, handing them a permanent green card?

We laughed after our interview because the Officer stated that once we got through name check and everything was fine they would mail the green card out. Well, what are they going to do if it doesn't (not that we are worried) send armed cards to our front door? They had my husband in "custody" if you will, at the interview. That was the time to detain him if they felt that was in the best interest of national security. Instead they send him on his way - with an approved I-130.

[rebeccajo 14]

That I could conceivably believe. But once they're here, what conceivable advantage does waiting confer? Wait long enough and the person doesn't even have to file for removal of conditions. How does that make it more secure, handing them a permanent green card?

We laughed after our interview because the Officer stated that once we got through name check and everything was fine they would mail the green card out. Well, what are they going to do if it doesn't (not that we are worried) send armed cards to our front door? They had my husband in "custody" if you will, at the interview. That was the time to detain him if they felt that was in the best interest of national security. Instead they send him on his way - with an approved I-130.

I used to wonder that too! What would they do? Arrive at the door with the cuffs?

Actually, I think that's probably what they would do. Now, in my opinion, THAT is the scary stuff.

I actually used to keep a copy of flyer I had downloaded from a 'pro-amnesty' website that advised you of your rights should immigration authorities ever approach you.

So you can see - I had my moments of high anxiety as well.

[kim and khalid 0]

People, get you act together....

This is beyond ridiculous. I have been waiting, and waiting and waiting. My wife and I have been married for going on 4 years now, and it has been almost one year since we began the process of allowing her to come the USA and work to support our family. Your terrible inefficiency has put uncessary stress on our lives. Your lack of clarity has caused unecessary delays. Your lack of hard work has wasted thousands of dollars in revenue for YOU - taxes my wife could have been paying into the US treasury if you could be bothered to fix your system and get her a work permit.

We are not terrorists. We are not illegal aliens. We are the people who follow the rules and suffer for it. We are the people who praise our country to our spouses, so that they will consider living here, and then have to explain why Homeland Security with its unbelievable budget can't be clear and efficient.

You force us to harrass our congressmen and women. You force us to fill out the same forms mutliple times. You force us to prove that we don't need money before you allow our spouses to make any.

You are an embarassment to a merit-based capitalistic system of government.

I will never forgive you.

-B

As tempting as these thoughts may be, the facts of the matter are:

(1) You and your wife are living together in the U.S.A.

(2) Although your interim benefits are temporary and subject to renewals, they provide you with most of the same rights as lawful admission for permanent residence would give you.

(3) The government is just taking a cautious approach to approving a very powerful application; the longer full status is withheld, the more likely any marriage fraud or misrepresentation is likely to be uncovered.

(4) The broken immigration system is partially due to Congress's irresponsibility to fix it or to fund it. So, your Congressmen need to be continually reminded of the problems people are encountering dealing with their law.

1) True. And she is going crazy sitting at home all day on limited income, not being able to work. She has two masters degrees, speaks 3 languages, and gave up a lot to come here.

2) Benefits? What benefits? They won't issue her a social security number, so we can't get her a drivers license. She can't work. She's not elegible for any benefits or assistance should I lose my job. She's in limbo. The only thing she has is free movement (a multiple entry visa).

3) We've been married for close to four years. I could understand if the was a IMBRA marriage, or even a young marriage from a high-risk country. I'm afraid that doesn't sit with me.

4) Agreed. Good point.

I just wanted to offer a suggestion can she not get a job doing something that doesnt require a ss number like babysetting or something on that lines it would give her something to do.. i feel bad for her bc i am scared of the same situation when my fiance gets here and we have been trying to come up with things for him to do until we are sure he can work i am somewhat new to this .... i know also how hard it is to do other work when you are we qualified to do something else so maybe just to make her feel better until the redtape ####### is over i do however agree with both of you though it is ####### but maybe nessary ####### ..lol well that is my suggestion ...

Babysitting or something that doesn't require an SSN is just under the table, and is still considered employment and if there is no EAD, it's still breaking the law.

WELL THEN I GUESS I BROKE THE LAW AT 14 BC I NEVER REPORTED IT TO THE GOVERMENT HAHA .. AND ITS FUNNY BC ISNT THAT BEING A LITTLE PETTY TO GO AS TO FAR AS TO SAY SOMETHING LIKE THAT ??

[Chris Parker 11]

Chris, nobody ever asked us for additional documents....

It sounds to me like you had a rough time. But my experience (although personally not yet as long as yours) doesn't lead me to believe the goal of USCIS is to give everybody enough hassle to cause their relationships to crack. And, I know enough other individuals (with timelines as long as yours) who have had experiences opposite of yours.

As you state, relationships break up statistically. I've recovered from what I call "K1 syndrome" (that starry eyed state of mind where one believes if the relationship can survive long distance, it can survive anything) and I think our international relationships are just as likely to fail or succeed as a domestic one. That being the case, I think whatever happens to a relationship has little to do with immigration and more to do with the couple. Just like a domestic marriage.

You didn't have to deal with NYC, one of the highest security USCIS local offices in the nation with the highest rate of fraud among applicants. That's where you begin to understand what USCIS's application processing system is all about.

For example, even for naturalization this year in 2007, as expected, they again asked for an obscure original document at the interview that they didn't ask us to bring: a bank statement or other document with both spouses names from 2005. We contemplated needing to bring proof of residence in the district for 90 days prior to the application filing date even though they didn't ask for it, but we didn't contemplate an inquiry for a document from 2 years ago to help prove actually living together continuously for three years (especially since we had a child birth certificate in Feb 2006 with both spouses named as parents). In the end, an expired auto insurance card with both names for March 2006-Sept 2006 was in the folder, and the officer settled on accepting that instead (again, nobody asked us that either but we knew better than to expect the unexpected to be requested); if we hadn't brought that we probably would have had to go home and wait to get a RFE form or new interview appointment in who knows how long. This is the hallmark of USCIS, and the delays you folks are experiencing now aren't really FBI name-checks still says I.