Daft_Cat

Yeah, someone may know more about the various nuances, but my understanding is that it's all variations of the same delay tactic. Though if you were only asked for a CV, perhaps it's more aligned to the standard pre-DS5535 SAO process.

I would say it's highly likely based off everything you've shared. Safe bet is to plan as if you will get it, and pivot later if you manage to slip by unscathed. Otherwise you risk having to disrupt your plans mid-flight. If asked about your travel history, I would be more delicate than you are being here. An officer may be off-put by your tone around career success enabling extensive travel and the inability of Government employees to relate. Attorneys have different theories. Mine is of the opinion that Montreal was always one of the most inefficient consulates in the world, and covid made it worse by accelerating an already substantial backlog of clients waiting for interviews and visa processing. The DS-5535 is a useful tool in this regard in that it removes mandatory processing timelines. This essentially gives the consulate the power to kick the ball down the road for a certain percentage of clients, reducing the immediate bottleneck. He thinks they're essentially misusing it beyond its original scope. There has been plenty of "actual" evidence shared in prior iterations of this thread, so those would be good places to start. In particular, I seem to remember a stat that ~40% of Montreal Applicants are put through some degree of AP compared to the global consulate average of ~15%. My numbers / interpretation of this data point may be off, so someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

I'm not sure anyone can really answer that. This thread's more for people that have already received one. Few if any of us can say with certainty why we got one... except that Montreal seems to give them out more than the average consulate. 1. I would be shocked if it wasn't. 2. I'm not sure the consulate knows your travel history in any fulsome way - that's partially what the DS-5535 is supposed to illuminate for applicants whose profile triggers the process. 3. Doubt it would have any effect whatsoever. My officer didn't choose to give me a DS-5535 after looking at my passport (or any of my documents) - it appeared to me like she got a prompt on her computer when she was otherwise ready to clear me. Either way, not a great idea to go out of your way to hide info at your interview. 4. I don't think so - unless it's part of the standard applicant journey and I've since forgotten. Safe to assume that if your name was on some list, it would've popped up much earlier than your interview - likely in the USCIS phase. That's probably part of why the DS-5535 has a super high (albeit slow) approval rate. No idea, but anecdotally I haven't seen many DS-5535ers with those Visa classes (though perhaps they're less common to begin with).

While everyone will naturally favor their own bias, there are some incontrovertible facts around WOMs that should be taken into careful consideration. Ultimately it's a game of expectations. A year ago, a WOM was a silver bullet - particularly for those who had been waiting longer than 6 months. More often than not the consulate would issue the visa just to avoid the hassle. This is no longer true. Filing a motion to dismiss has become the State Department's first line of defense. They're the norm for almost all cases, regardless of time in the queue, and they pose significant procedural delays. Keep in mind that even if a judge ultimately sides with the applicant (and it can take time to get that decision issued), the case then moves into adjudication where it can take months to get a spot on the calendar. What this means (aside from additional cost) is that for applicants that have been waiting a long time already, it's increasingly likely that your spot in the AP queue will arrive before your WOM bears fruit (if it does at all). And for applicants that are tricked into filing way too early by over-eager attorneys, the reality is that most judges (even liberal ones) are probably going to side with the State Department and dismiss the case outright, essentially wasting what might have ended up being a useful legal tool down the road. It's a tricky situation, and I'm not sure what the value of a WOM is at this point outside of the more extreme cases (e.g. clients that have been waiting a year+ with no case updates and genuinely have no idea what is going on).

60 days for their initial response. At that point they’ll either ask for a 30-45 day extension or they’ll fire a motion to dismiss. In the latter case you have 2 weeks to respond, ask for an extension, or withdraw the WOM.

That's interesting and points away from theory #1 (that my WOM is proving useful). Given that you filed a bit earlier than I, perhaps the difference in our experience is indicative of the real-time shift in the State Department's approach. To provide additional context, about a month after I filed, the State Department signaled that they would be filing a Motion to Dismiss. Fortunately (or so I thought at the time), we were able to dissuade the US attorney by highlighting the amount of time I had been waiting. We essentially convinced her that there was a good shot the MtD wouldn't hold up. The result was that the US attorney asked for an extension instead and said she work with her clients to speed things up. Unfortunately, all that followed was a second extension request, which came through right around Christmas (probably due to vacation schedules), and a MtD, which arrived in mid-Jan. The US attorney implied that her hand was being forced. Throughout all of this, there were no case updates. My case was never touched. To me, this implies that the State Department's current strategy is to dismiss pretty much all WOMs, regardless of time waited or underlying circumstances. At least as far as Montreal is concerned. It seems possible that the State Department isn't even reaching out to the consulate to inform them of the suit. Otherwise you'd expect that there would've been at least a couple of updates triggered by the opening of my case. At the same time, we've signaled our intention to fight the MtD, so it's possible the consulate is now aware and is processing my application as a result. Seems unlikely though.

Nope. Unless the lawsuit prompts them to prioritize your case. For me, my last update was July 28th (response to an email), followed by my WOM in September. Had no updates at all throughout two extension requests and a motion to dismiss. First update since then happened around the end of Jan, but a confounding factor there is that I sent an email about a week or two prior. Can't say if the email or the ongoing WOM is the cause (we're fighting the MtD, so it's possible the consulate is still being pressured by the US attorney). I've had two updates since - each at two week intervals. 3 possible scenarios here: 1) My WOM is working, albeit on a slower timeline than it would've earlier. 2) My email towards the end of Jan (in which I stressed that I was now approaching a year in AP) ended up in front of the right immigration officer and my case was escalated accordingly 3) Neither my email nor the WOM has directly contributed to the recent updates, and I've simply reached the front of the queue I suppose there's a 4th scenario as well, which would be some combination of the above.

As Leo said, the act of attaching it to your file will trigger an update, regardless of if they respond or not. I've had 3 things happen to me upon sending an email: 1) An update followed by a response 2) An update but no response 3) Crickets (no update, no response) Usually you'll get scenario 1 unless they've replied recently, in which case you'll get 2. I experienced 3 a couple of times as well - my guess is it just has to do with how busy they are. I'm sure the consulate gets hundreds of emails from applicants per day.

Oh wow, I had no idea this resource existed! Would've helped greatly in narrowing down some of my US travel dates. I think the important point for new DS-5535ers is to just be as specific as possible while proactively calling out the areas where you can only provide general details. The consulate understands that you may not be able to provide every last detail of every last trip, etc. That's a pretty high bar for anyone to reach unless you keep sterling records and travel infrequently. Similarly for some of the more granular work history stuff (exact start dates, etc.). As long as you're not willfully omitting relevant info or contradicting things that DHS or other agencies already know, you're fine. I know it's a bit nebulous, but grounds for refusal under a DS-5535 are limited to legitimate security issues. You're not going to be refused because you got the date wrong on a trip from Toronto to Chicago 10 years ago.

I was in a similar situation to your husband - extensive travel to the US due to the time I spent living there as an international student. Others can correct me if I'm wrong, but I do not believe US travel is exempt (or, if you're living in the US on a Visa, trips back home to Canada). Or at least it was never indicated to me either on the form, by the immigration officer, or by my immigration attorney. In my case, that meant dozens of entries describing, to the best of my ability, the times I traveled from the US to Canada and vice versa (with the starting point being whichever country I was currently living). Two general rules for your husband, assuming he gets it: 1) Answer to the best of your ability. 15 years is a long time, and he may not have exact dates for all his trips (unless he keeps amazing records). General time frames (e.g. month or approximate day) are ok in instances where it's impossible to be specific. In my case, the tail end of that that 15-year stretch extended into my teenage years. I had a couple family trips in there that were impossible to narrow down to specific dates (I don't keep my old passports, and my parents don't keep emails / paper records going back that far). In cases like that, there's really nothing you can do. Remember that they're looking specifically for red flags - travel between the US and Canada when your husband was a student is unlikely to raise eyebrows. 2) It's better to provide too much detail rather than not enough. This goes without saying, but when in doubt, it's better to include additional details / context within your responses. Don't leave room for misinterpretation. The good news is that I don't really think the substance of our responses are all that important at the end of the day (an opinion backed up by my attorney), but you still don't want to leave room for someone to misinterpret one of your answers in bad faith. I hope he doesn't get one, but not the end of the world if he does. Just stay positive!

Wrong address. I believe that's an admin address for appointment scheduling. Email the consulate directly at Montreal-IV-DV@state.gov. Make sure to include your case number in the subject line.

I've only sent a handful of emails over the past year, but I'd say their response rate is about 50%. If I recall correctly, emails that went unanswered didn't trigger a case update.

It’s basically them opening your case for whatever reason. To update a clearance, to respond to an email, etc. Generally, semi-frequent case updates are a sign that they’re actively working on your case. The typical applicant journey is a handful of updates right after DS-5535 submission followed by months of radio silence (unless you send them an email) followed by another flurry of updates right before your case is approved.

To those looking to me for signs of life at the consulate: Another case update today. Third in a month.

E-mail the consulate at Montreal-IV-DV@state.gov with the correct number. Make sure to include your case number in the subject line. Shouldn’t be a big deal but I’d keep pestering until they confirm the revision.

Not a lot of interest in issues around legal immigration. The only angle I can think of is that these kinds of extended delays don't exactly incentivize undocumented immigrants (current and future) from pursuing legal pathways.

You already know my answer, haha. But the silver lining is that there have been some case updates for me the past few weeks, so there is at least some semblance of life at the consulate.

This is a great post. Also, as it so happens, we interviewed within a couple days of each other. I had also been experiencing radio silence until a few weeks back when I sent my first “friendly reminder” email since last summer. While I received no response, I did get a case update on Jan 31st (which wasn’t necessarily surprising) and then got another unsolicited update on Feb 5th. Could be something, could be nothing… but I did stress in my email that I’ve now been waiting a year. Part of me wonders if the officer reviewing my email put it in a priority pile based on the amount of time I’ve been waiting. I know it’s usually a fools errand, but might be worth reaching out to them again if my experience is at all indicative.

I had no updates between June of 2023 (triggered by an email), and Jan of 2024. Before the last couple weeks, there hadn't been any unsolicited case updates on my file. It's not that my case was complex, or that it was taking longer to clear - they literally were not touching it. Can't speak to the individual in the Facebook group, but maybe they took a chance and filed their WOM early - I didn't file mine until September. Or maybe they got lucky or were pestering the consulate more frequently.

I know it's unintentional, but some of these posts rub me the wrong way. Many of us are coming up on a year at this point, so you'll understand if appetites aren't high to help others jump the line. You're in for an extended wait. That's the reality of it, as ridiculous as it sounds. There are about 66k people sitting in AP right now, and only 35 resources dedicated to processing them. Slow processing times are a Montreal-centric problem unfortunately - they utilize the DS-5535 more than other consulates, and have been under-resourced since the pandemic kickstarted an applicant backlog. Some attorneys have speculated that the DS-5535 is being used to relieve the backlog by relaxing requirements around processing timelines for a certain percentage of applicants. I wouldn't recommend doing anything for the next 6 months (at least) other than sending the occasional reminder email to Montreal. If you have imminent plans to move to the US, put a pin in them. Once you're past the 6-month point, talk to an immigration attorney about the appropriate timing for a Writ of Mandamus. At the moment, few firms are willing to file a WOM until 6-12 month post-interview (and that timeline has been increasing). On current timelines, you're looking at 12-15 months even if you do file a WOM. That may change (for better or for worse) depending on the outcome of the election as well as Montreal's ability to address resourcing & shrink the backlog.

I don’t know the specifics of your case, but I can point out similarities: like you, my processing time from USCIC to NVC to the Montreal Consulate went well beyond the reported timelines. I was given a DS-5535 without any reason provided, and have lost well paid (for my age) job opportunities as a result. I filed a WOM 9 months after my interview and a few months later the state department filed a motion to dismiss (after a couple extension requests just to give the illusion of hope). The US attorney was ironically sympathetic to our cause and the judge was an Obama-appointee, but it didn’t change the outcome. Despite this, I’m now preparing to fight the motion to dismiss and am fairly optimistic that I’ll be successful (if I don’t get the visa in the mean time) given the amount of time I’ve been waiting (1 year now). Part of the value of a WOM is that it allows you to keep applying pressure on the consulate by making it easier for them to simply approve you then adjudicate in court. Perhaps your attorney has a very specific strategy, but in your case I would be concerned about the judge siding with the state department on the inevitable MTD on the grounds that you haven’t been waiting long enough yet. If that happens, you’re basically left in a black hole waiting for your number to come up. If you were to wait a few more months and then file, you’d be in a much better spot. Just my opinion, but my experience generally tracks with others on this board. It might be worth bringing up to your attorney just to see what they say.

Another unsolicited case update today. My last one was Jan 31st. Sent an email a couple weeks ago, but no reply to that.

I think WOMs are close to useless now. At least as far as accelerating your case. If I get approved tomorrow, it will 100% be because the consulate has begun processing applicants from Feb 23. It will have nothing to do with my WOM. Attorneys are increasingly hesitant to file before the 6-12 month window, and the process itself takes months just to reach the ever-likely Motion to Dismiss stage. By the time you're getting ready to fight the hypothetical MTD, you're probably already on the cusp of seeing some movement. WOMs still have some value as legal platforms in case the situation worsens or there's evidence that a particular applicant is falling through the cracks... but the "pay to play" element of it seems to be falling by the wayside. It's no longer a silver bullet, for better or for worse.

I understand the stress and feeling of urgency, but your WOM is premature. The state department will file a motion to dismiss and you won't be in a great position to fight the dismissal given your very recent interview date. I would get a second opinion and consider pulling your lawsuit so that you can refile at a later date. I know it's hard to hear, but it's probably a good idea to make peace with the fact that you're in for an extended wait. Keep in mind that there are people in this very thread that have been waiting a year now (myself included), and that the AP backlog has grown to ~66k, with only ~35 employees dedicated to processing cases. The situation could improve, but that's roughly where it stands today. I don't know what internal process the consulate has in place for prioritizing applicants, but I would have to assume (and hope) that there's at least some semblance of first in, first out.

I know they can technically leave us in this position forever (which is indeed scary), but in practice things won’t get to that point. The more the process slows down, the greater the legal burden will be for the State Department. Judges will not be sympathetic when applicants are waiting multiple years without clear reason. While we may not be citizens, our spouses are, and they’re owed a duty from the state that goes beyond the legalese of a “technical refusal pending indefinite administrative processing”. The worse this gets, the more appetite there will be to suspend DS-5535s pending exceptional circumstances until the backlog is cleared, or dramatically scale resourcing to remove the bottleneck. Even my attorney, who is very critical and up front with me, doesn’t believe this situation is permanent. Something’s gotta give eventually.