Open letter to Homeland Security

[WifeOHunkyJohn 2]

I'm not here to defend Chris but I don't think he said that the FBI name check is fake. I think that he is saying that the USCIS will sometimes use "name check" when it's actually just sitting on your case hoping that the couple breaks up or are investigating. According to my lawyer, if they really want they can question your neighbors, etc...

Yes he did...

Chris - for simplicity sake, are you suggesting the FBI namecheck is some sort of ruse?

Precisely - it is USCIS and we all know it.

Effective investigation of suspected marriage fraud by USCIS really takes years of waiting to see if the couple ever breaks up. How else would you do it?

As of May 2007, USCIS reported a staggering 329,160 FBI name check cases pending, with approximately 64 percent (211,341) of those cases pending more than 90 days and approximately 32 percent (106,738) pending more than one year. While the percentages of long-pending cases compared to last year are similar, the absolute numbers have increased. There are now 93,358 more cases pending the name check than last year. Perhaps most disturbing, there are 31,144 FBI name check cases pending more than 33 months as compared to 21,570 last year – over a 44 percent increase in the number of cases pending more than 33 months.41

http://www.immigration.com/newsletter1/ombd07annreport.pdf

Yeah, other agencies like the Ombudsman and FBI are forced under the regulations not to prejudice the ongoing USCIS investigation. It has been decided to let FBI take the blame to best distract the applicant from the real investigation. Maybe FBI will even get more money from Congress? (because USCIS sure won't) Ombudsman has to go along with it. In the same report, Ombudsman even admits that USCIS denied him access to records and facilities.

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.

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.

[Caladan 19]

I'm not here to defend Chris but I don't think he said that the FBI name check is fake. I think that he is saying that the USCIS will sometimes use "name check" when it's actually just sitting on your case hoping that the couple breaks up or are investigating. According to my lawyer, if they really want they can question your neighbors, etc...

I believe you are drawing a distinction without a difference.

Yes, they can, but there's no need to lie and say it's a name check when it's pretty easy just to find other reasons to delay a case. It's not like we're talking a process that normally takes 10 days with full transparency along the way. They can just say 'we have to review a few things, you'll hear from us soon.' They can start an actual fraud proceeding. Ooh, maybe they can delay processing a check for forty days with a coverup of a 'backlog'

No one here is claiming that all delays are due to inefficiency and that they don't have the ability to delay and try to wait out a case they're not sure of. We're denying that the FBI namecheck hole are sekrit ways to delay. They don't have to give a specific reason for a delay. (That's actually the point of your CFR.)

Here are the reasons I believe the FBI name check is not generally a cover-up to try to make a marriage fail:

1) Every case gets run through the database.

2) The amount of cases at the FBI, which people and newspapers and Senators can verify independently, is large enough to make it plausible that the delay is entirely due to manpower deficiencies.

3) There is no information on the I-485 that asks to the validity of marriage. This suggests that on Chris' theory, they are not even trying to make suspected fraudulent marriages fail, but just random marriages fail. While random checks are the nature of the game, this wouldn't even be a random check like a Stokes interview or requesting extra evidence. Checks do not seem to be based on country of origin, which would make sense if they were trying to weed out mail-order fraud marriages by selecting a group at random.

4) Many, many people are being approved without an interview. Again, without any adjudication as to whether their marriage is real. This would seem to be at odds with a general policy to try to make marriages fail to avoid giving out green cards.

5) Most people going through a namecheck, based on the information we have here at VJ, are NOT asked for additional evidence after having been married for the time they've sat in namecheck. They might have to update the I-864. So this theory that 'they make you wait so they can nail you in two years for not having more evidence of your marriage' doesn't make sense because they haven't asked to see that evidence.

6) Given 5), there is no security benefit added by delaying a green card and then NOT asking to see additional evidence. Delaying it two years and then not asking for additional evidence just means the person doesn't need to lift conditions.

Is it so implausible that Chris was unlucky enough to win the triple crown and get stuck in a namecheck AND suspected for fraud? That would explain the long wait and the second interview (which many people do not have.) His profile looks different than an average namecheck case.

[igomo 0]

The only place I disagree with you is #3. While the I-485 may not ask anything about the marriage, it's useless without the I-130 which does asks for proof such as marriage certificate, pictures, etc... So you're cherry picking

I also don't believe they try to discourage EVERYBODY from getting a greencard. But if any of the red flags are raised such as age difference, certain countries of origin, etc... they could delay hoping that the couple breaks up or abandons the case.

I guess I'll find out during my interview. Everything has gone smoothly for me this far but I hired a lawyer to handle my case because of the age difference between my wife and I.

You can believe it takes that long to do a name check all you want. I don't. If it does then we're really screwed because they are allowing people after 9/11 on F-1/J-1 and other visas in the country who shouldn't be getting in.

I'm not here to defend Chris but I don't think he said that the FBI name check is fake. I think that he is saying that the USCIS will sometimes use "name check" when it's actually just sitting on your case hoping that the couple breaks up or are investigating. According to my lawyer, if they really want they can question your neighbors, etc...

I believe you are drawing a distinction without a difference.

Yes, they can, but there's no need to lie and say it's a name check when it's pretty easy just to find other reasons to delay a case. It's not like we're talking a process that normally takes 10 days with full transparency along the way. They can just say 'we have to review a few things, you'll hear from us soon.' They can start an actual fraud proceeding. Ooh, maybe they can delay processing a check for forty days with a coverup of a 'backlog'

No one here is claiming that all delays are due to inefficiency and that they don't have the ability to delay and try to wait out a case they're not sure of. We're denying that the FBI namecheck hole are sekrit ways to delay. They don't have to give a specific reason for a delay. (That's actually the point of your CFR.)

Here are the reasons I believe the FBI name check is not generally a cover-up to try to make a marriage fail:

1) Every case gets run through the database.

2) The amount of cases at the FBI, which people and newspapers and Senators can verify independently, is large enough to make it plausible that the delay is entirely due to manpower deficiencies.

3) There is no information on the I-485 that asks to the validity of marriage. This suggests that on Chris' theory, they are not even trying to make suspected fraudulent marriages fail, but just random marriages fail. While random checks are the nature of the game, this wouldn't even be a random check like a Stokes interview or requesting extra evidence. Checks do not seem to be based on country of origin, which would make sense if they were trying to weed out mail-order fraud marriages by selecting a group at random.

4) Many, many people are being approved without an interview. Again, without any adjudication as to whether their marriage is real. This would seem to be at odds with a general policy to try to make marriages fail to avoid giving out green cards.

5) Most people going through a namecheck, based on the information we have here at VJ, are NOT asked for additional evidence after having been married for the time they've sat in namecheck. They might have to update the I-864. So this theory that 'they make you wait so they can nail you in two years for not having more evidence of your marriage' doesn't make sense because they haven't asked to see that evidence.

6) Given 5), there is no security benefit added by delaying a green card and then NOT asking to see additional evidence. Delaying it two years and then not asking for additional evidence just means the person doesn't need to lift conditions.

Is it so implausible that Chris was unlucky enough to win the triple crown and get stuck in a namecheck AND suspected for fraud? That would explain the long wait and the second interview (which many people do not have.) His profile looks different than an average namecheck case.

[misa 2]

The only place I disagree with you is #3. While the I-485 may not ask anything about the marriage, it's useless without the I-130 which does asks for proof such as marriage certificate, pictures, etc... So you're cherry picking

People adjusting from K1s do not need to file an I-130. Also up until earlier this year (or end of last year), people were not required to show evidence of bona fide marriage when filing for the I-130, just a marriage certificate.

[Nancy2015 2]

The only place I disagree with you is #3. While the I-485 may not ask anything about the marriage, it's useless without the I-130 which does asks for proof such as marriage certificate, pictures, etc... So you're cherry picking

People adjusting from K1s do not need to file an I-130. Also up until earlier this year (or end of last year), people were not required to show evidence of bona fide marriage when filing for the I-130, just a marriage certificate.

Amen to that. We filed AOS in September 2006, and the only thing we had to send along with I-130 was our marriage certificate. No other proof of marriage was required.

[Caladan 19]

The only place I disagree with you is #3. While the I-485 may not ask anything about the marriage, it's useless without the I-130 which does asks for proof such as marriage certificate, pictures, etc... So you're cherry picking

People adjusting from K1s do not need to file an I-130. Also up until earlier this year (or end of last year), people were not required to show evidence of bona fide marriage when filing for the I-130, just a marriage certificate.

Yup. I didn't file an I-130. We sent in a copy of a marriage certificate. That's not cherry-picking, that's just all that's required for 'proof' for K-1 adjusters. I'd like to think it's because we had proof of a relationship already at the interview, but considering that that package for us went to Hartford and our petition may very well go to California, I doubt that's the case.

It wasn't required until recently to have proof for the I-130, meaning all those people CURRENTLY stuck in namechecks, for the most part, had proof of... a marriage certificate. Maybe there's something secret in the fonts on the documents...

And there doesn't seem to be any patterns based on country of origin when it comes to namechecks. People from the Middle East get approved without interviews. People from Canada wait nine months. People with big age differences get approvals without interviews.

You may indeed face extra scrutiny. You may get called for an extra interview, or delayed while they check on your neighbors, but I'm pretty sure that they're not inventing namechecks when it would be very easy to say 'We have a few more things to review. You may contact us again in 90 days.'

[igomo 0]

So they had to prove the validity of their marriage for the K1, what's the difference?

A marriage certificate is proof of validity.

The only place I disagree with you is #3. While the I-485 may not ask anything about the marriage, it's useless without the I-130 which does asks for proof such as marriage certificate, pictures, etc... So you're cherry picking

People adjusting from K1s do not need to file an I-130. Also up until earlier this year (or end of last year), people were not required to show evidence of bona fide marriage when filing for the I-130, just a marriage certificate.

[igomo 0]

So you're basically cherry picking again on a technicality. Those who go the K1s route have to prove the validity before filing for the AOS, those who go the other route have to prove when they send the I-130. There's no difference.

They can check on our neighbors all they want. Good luck to them. This is a high income suburban class neighborhood where neighbors rarely speak to each other, all they'll say they see us together all the time... oh and complain that we have weeds in our lawns and feed the birds :-)

The only place I disagree with you is #3. While the I-485 may not ask anything about the marriage, it's useless without the I-130 which does asks for proof such as marriage certificate, pictures, etc... So you're cherry picking

People adjusting from K1s do not need to file an I-130. Also up until earlier this year (or end of last year), people were not required to show evidence of bona fide marriage when filing for the I-130, just a marriage certificate.

Yup. I didn't file an I-130. We sent in a copy of a marriage certificate. That's not cherry-picking, that's just all that's required for 'proof' for K-1 adjusters. I'd like to think it's because we had proof of a relationship already at the interview, but considering that that package for us went to Hartford and our petition may very well go to California, I doubt that's the case.

It wasn't required until recently to have proof for the I-130, meaning all those people CURRENTLY stuck in namechecks, for the most part, had proof of... a marriage certificate. Maybe there's something secret in the fonts on the documents...

And there doesn't seem to be any patterns based on country of origin when it comes to namechecks. People from the Middle East get approved without interviews. People from Canada wait nine months. People with big age differences get approvals without interviews.

You may indeed face extra scrutiny. You may get called for an extra interview, or delayed while they check on your neighbors, but I'm pretty sure that they're not inventing namechecks when it would be very easy to say 'We have a few more things to review. You may contact us again in 90 days.'

[LaL 418]

So they had to prove the validity of their marriage for the K1, what's the difference?

A marriage certificate is proof of validity.

Clarification - K1's have to prove meeting within 2 years and bona fide ongoing relationship not validity of marriage.

A marriage certificate is "proof of validity"? Isn't that completely against the grain of the argument here?

It has been suggested that namechecks are being used to weed out potential fraud simply by way of a delay The point was that less, if any, bona fide marriage proofs would be produceable should the marriage be delayed while fraudulant.

The converse point that myself, and others are trying to make is regardless how protracted the AOS adjudication is, overwhelming anecdotal evidence does NOT support having to submit new current bona fide marriage proof which squashes much of the original argument.

[igomo 0]

The argument I am making is that you do need to prove the validity of the relationship to file for AOS based on a marriage.

As far as the name check always being what it implies to be, it's a gray area and each of us can believe whatever we want believe. Unless you are a top gun at the USCIS or FBI you are only stating what you believe to be true based on the evidence.

So they had to prove the validity of their marriage for the K1, what's the difference?

A marriage certificate is proof of validity.

Clarification - K1's have to prove meeting within 2 years and bona fide ongoing relationship not validity of marriage.

A marriage certificate is "proof of validity"? Isn't that completely against the grain of the argument here?

It has been suggested that namechecks are being used to weed out potential fraud simply by way of a delay The point was that less, if any, bona fide marriage proofs would be produceable should the marriage be delayed while fraudulant.

The converse point that myself, and others are trying to make is regardless how protracted the AOS adjudication is, overwhelming anecdotal evidence does NOT support having to submit new current bona fide marriage proof which squashes much of the original argument.

[athena_ny 1]

The only place I disagree with you is #3. While the I-485 may not ask anything about the marriage, it's useless without the I-130 which does asks for proof such as marriage certificate, pictures, etc... So you're cherry picking

I also don't believe they try to discourage EVERYBODY from getting a greencard. But if any of the red flags are raised such as age difference, certain countries of origin, etc... they could delay hoping that the couple breaks up or abandons the case.

I guess I'll find out during my interview. Everything has gone smoothly for me this far but I hired a lawyer to handle my case because of the age difference between my wife and I.

You can believe it takes that long to do a name check all you want. I don't. If it does then we're really screwed because they are allowing people after 9/11 on F-1/J-1 and other visas in the country who shouldn't be getting in.

I'm not here to defend Chris but I don't think he said that the FBI name check is fake. I think that he is saying that the USCIS will sometimes use "name check" when it's actually just sitting on your case hoping that the couple breaks up or are investigating. According to my lawyer, if they really want they can question your neighbors, etc...

I believe you are drawing a distinction without a difference.

Yes, they can, but there's no need to lie and say it's a name check when it's pretty easy just to find other reasons to delay a case. It's not like we're talking a process that normally takes 10 days with full transparency along the way. They can just say 'we have to review a few things, you'll hear from us soon.' They can start an actual fraud proceeding. Ooh, maybe they can delay processing a check for forty days with a coverup of a 'backlog'

No one here is claiming that all delays are due to inefficiency and that they don't have the ability to delay and try to wait out a case they're not sure of. We're denying that the FBI namecheck hole are sekrit ways to delay. They don't have to give a specific reason for a delay. (That's actually the point of your CFR.)

Here are the reasons I believe the FBI name check is not generally a cover-up to try to make a marriage fail:

1) Every case gets run through the database.

2) The amount of cases at the FBI, which people and newspapers and Senators can verify independently, is large enough to make it plausible that the delay is entirely due to manpower deficiencies.

3) There is no information on the I-485 that asks to the validity of marriage. This suggests that on Chris' theory, they are not even trying to make suspected fraudulent marriages fail, but just random marriages fail. While random checks are the nature of the game, this wouldn't even be a random check like a Stokes interview or requesting extra evidence. Checks do not seem to be based on country of origin, which would make sense if they were trying to weed out mail-order fraud marriages by selecting a group at random.

4) Many, many people are being approved without an interview. Again, without any adjudication as to whether their marriage is real. This would seem to be at odds with a general policy to try to make marriages fail to avoid giving out green cards.

5) Most people going through a namecheck, based on the information we have here at VJ, are NOT asked for additional evidence after having been married for the time they've sat in namecheck. They might have to update the I-864. So this theory that 'they make you wait so they can nail you in two years for not having more evidence of your marriage' doesn't make sense because they haven't asked to see that evidence.

6) Given 5), there is no security benefit added by delaying a green card and then NOT asking to see additional evidence. Delaying it two years and then not asking for additional evidence just means the person doesn't need to lift conditions.

Is it so implausible that Chris was unlucky enough to win the triple crown and get stuck in a namecheck AND suspected for fraud? That would explain the long wait and the second interview (which many people do not have.) His profile looks different than an average namecheck case.

1. Not all people have to file an I-130. K1s for example, do not.

2. We had to file I-130 back in March. No validity of marriage was requested at that time, so it's fairly recent therefore making your point moot.

So you're cherry picking

Edited September 15, 2007 by meow mix

[Caladan 19]

So they had to prove the validity of their marriage for the K1, what's the difference?

A marriage certificate is proof of validity.

The only place I disagree with you is #3. While the I-485 may not ask anything about the marriage, it's useless without the I-130 which does asks for proof such as marriage certificate, pictures, etc... So you're cherry picking

People adjusting from K1s do not need to file an I-130. Also up until earlier this year (or end of last year), people were not required to show evidence of bona fide marriage when filing for the I-130, just a marriage certificate.

No, it's not. It's proof we married, not proof of a legitimate relationship continuing after we married, or that the marriage wasn't undertaken for immigration benefit alone. (I mean, if a marriage certificate was all you need to prove a valid relationship, there would never be any fraud findings at all...)

The K-1 documentation isn't proof that we have a legitimate relationship after we married, either, technically, as all of the information on that is now at least eight months old.

And yes, we all make our own judgments based on the evidence we have. I am arguing, however, that your position is wrong based on the evidence we have.

[Chris Parker 11]

With all that accountability, and the chain of information within this document that outlines the entire process, it sure doesn't sound to me like it's all a huge conspiracy where they are faking an FBI Name Check just so that they don't have to process a green card application.

Of course, i may be wrong and look forward to you offering your take on things...

There is no conspiracy, I think that's where you've got me wrong. Maybe to the applicants it might feel like it is a conspiracy, but it is not because U.S. interests are being protected.

The investigation is kept secret from the applicant and petitioner so as not to prejudice the results. Asking neighbors is unnecessary, expensive, and would only alert the applicant & petitioner about the investigation. The applicant & petitioner are just told the application is being "processed" or undergoing "security checks." I think we all know the job of USCIS is to investigate the accuracy and truthfulness of the application before approving it.

Disclosure of information is only required under the 8 CFR 103.2 when the Service intends to render an unfavorable decision for a non-discretionary application or petition (Form I-130 for example. but not Form I-485). When that is done, they are required to send a "Notice of Intent to Deny" with the information that forms the basis for their conclusion of ineligibity for the benefit, in order to allow the petitioner an opportunity to rebut. However, for discretionary decisions like I-485, no such requirement, as the CFR says.

Furthermore, the situation with the processing delays is not an outright denial, but merely a "decision pending" state or "intent to deny", followed by a motion to reconsider initiated by the Service itself in response to the "noise".

[LaL 418]

Furthermore, the situation with the processing delays is not an outright denial, but merely a "decision pending" state or "intent to deny", followed by a motion to reconsider initiated by the Service itself in response to the "noise".

Until there is an greencard in hand everyone who applies is pending status whether they have been told they are in namecheck or not.

For the record NO ONE on the FBI namecheck tracker has received a NOID (and there are dozens of people who have cleared the list ).

[John & Annie 0]

With all that accountability, and the chain of information within this document that outlines the entire process, it sure doesn't sound to me like it's all a huge conspiracy where they are faking an FBI Name Check just so that they don't have to process a green card application.

Of course, i may be wrong and look forward to you offering your take on things...

There is no conspiracy, I think that's where you've got me wrong. Maybe to the applicants it might feel like it is a conspiracy, but it is not because U.S. interests are being protected.

The investigation is kept secret from the applicant and petitioner so as not to prejudice the results. Asking neighbors is unnecessary, expensive, and would only alert the applicant & petitioner about the investigation. The applicant & petitioner are just told the application is being "processed" or undergoing "security checks." I think we all know the job of USCIS is to investigate the accuracy and truthfulness of the application before approving it.

Disclosure of information is only required under the 8 CFR 103.2 when the Service intends to render an unfavorable decision for a non-discretionary application or petition (Form I-130 for example. but not Form I-485). When that is done, they are required to send a "Notice of Intent to Deny" with the information that forms the basis for their conclusion of ineligibity for the benefit, in order to allow the petitioner an opportunity to rebut. However, for discretionary decisions like I-485, no such requirement, as the CFR says.

Furthermore, the situation with the processing delays is not an outright denial, but merely a "decision pending" state or "intent to deny", followed by a motion to reconsider initiated by the Service itself in response to the "noise".

It sounds to me like you have had a very tough time with USCIS, yet you have provided no tangible proof to support you supposition. You have merely shown some polices of the USCIS and continue to offer only opinions.