Jump to content
tuckin14

67% of Interview Cases are Denied

18 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

I found this link in another thread:

http://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/files/nativedocuments/Response_to_CISOMB_I-751_Recommendation_Signed_7-10-13.pdf

The memo indicates that in a recent study by USCIS, 67% of cases referred for interview were denied.

Keep in mind that a certain number of cases with no evidence of fraud are referred for interviews randomly. So presumably some of the 33% were cases with no issues.

USCIS concluded from this (accurately, it seems to me) that they are doing a good job of determining what cases require interviews.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting memo.

However, it doesn't appear to say "as of what year" the 67% were purportedly denied and for what specific reasons, or whether this was cumulative, or what the trend might be, or whether appeals were successful, etc. Accordingly, it might unnecessarily scare people who see "67% denied" and take it at face value.


06-04-2007 = TSC stamps postal return-receipt for I-129f.

06-11-2007 = NOA1 date (unknown to me).

07-20-2007 = Phoned Immigration Officer; got WAC#; where's NOA1?

09-25-2007 = Touch (first-ever).

09-28-2007 = NOA1, 23 days after their 45-day promise to send it (grrrr).

10-20 & 11-14-2007 = Phoned ImmOffs; "still pending."

12-11-2007 = 180 days; file is "between workstations, may be early Jan."; touches 12/11 & 12/12.

12-18-2007 = Call; file is with Division 9 ofcr. (bckgrnd check); e-prompt to shake it; touch.

12-19-2007 = NOA2 by e-mail & web, dated 12-18-07 (187 days; 201 per VJ); in mail 12/24/07.

01-09-2008 = File from USCIS to NVC, 1-4-08; NVC creates file, 1/15/08; to consulate 1/16/08.

01-23-2008 = Consulate gets file; outdated Packet 4 mailed to fiancee 1/27/08; rec'd 3/3/08.

04-29-2008 = Fiancee's 4-min. consular interview, 8:30 a.m.; much evidence brought but not allowed to be presented (consul: "More proof! Second interview! Bring your fiance!").

05-05-2008 = Infuriating $12 call to non-English-speaking consulate appointment-setter.

05-06-2008 = Better $12 call to English-speaker; "joint" interview date 6/30/08 (my selection).

06-30-2008 = Stokes Interrogations w/Ecuadorian (not USC); "wait 2 weeks; we'll mail her."

07-2008 = Daily calls to DOS: "currently processing"; 8/05 = Phoned consulate, got Section Chief; wrote him.

08-07-08 = E-mail from consulate, promising to issue visa "as soon as we get her passport" (on 8/12, per DHL).

08-27-08 = Phoned consulate (they "couldn't find" our file); visa DHL'd 8/28; in hand 9/1; through POE on 10/9 with NO hassles(!).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting memo.

However, it doesn't appear to say "as of what year" the 67% were purportedly denied and for what specific reasons, or whether this was cumulative, or what the trend might be, or whether appeals were successful, etc. Accordingly, it might unnecessarily scare people who see "67% denied" and take it at face value.

JUL 10 2013

.........7-10-13.pdf

it seems that this memo is based on denials on or before 2013.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Based on what our IO told us yesterday, his experiences with denials seemed pretty rare and he shared a couple of examples. One denial went to BIA judge who sent it back for approval. Our IO had no idea why we were selected for an interview, there was nothing to "flag" our petition. As mentioned before, sent in e-request for being beyond processing times. Maybe some ISO didn't like how big our package was and shoved it off for an interview as the interview notice came a week later. That being said, damn happy to be in the 33%!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cases are classified in three categories.

C are cases that the reviewing officer sees are presenting no problem. Depending on the region, 0-10% of C cases are selected for interviews.

B are cases that have problems, but not necessarily fatal ones. For example, the case is supported by the minimum number of documents, or the documents are all recent. It can also be a case that the immigration officer simply has a bad feeling about, even if they can't articulate just why. 30-50% of B cases are selected for interviews.

A are cases with major red flags, such as married couples living apart, large age difference, etc, form is not signed, insufficient evidence, prior I-751 denied. 100% of A cases are selected for interviews.

So selection for an interview does not mean your case has problems, but statistically means it it more likely to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While i understand the two year condition, i do not understand the evidence thing.

This is not about the beneficiaries, but at times they may be denying a US citizen the togethernes of family if the USC has not paid attention to creating evidence.

It is pretty normal if a couple has not joined bank accounts, doesnt have both names on utilities etc. Not everyone may have wills, or life insurance.

Health insurance and joint lease and joint taxes i understand because these things save a couple money and are required for living together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cases are classified in three categories.

C are cases that the reviewing officer sees are presenting no problem. Depending on the region, 0-10% of C cases are selected for interviews.

B are cases that have problems, but not necessarily fatal ones. For example, the case is supported by the minimum number of documents, or the documents are all recent. It can also be a case that the immigration officer simply has a bad feeling about, even if they can't articulate just why. 30-50% of B cases are selected for interviews.

A are cases with major red flags, such as married couples living apart, large age difference, etc, form is not signed, insufficient evidence, prior I-751 denied. 100% of A cases are selected for interviews.

So selection for an interview does not mean your case has problems, but statistically means it it more likely to.

Probably only time I was happy that I made the "C" grade!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cases are classified in three categories.

C are cases that the reviewing officer sees are presenting no problem. Depending on the region, 0-10% of C cases are selected for interviews.

B are cases that have problems, but not necessarily fatal ones. For example, the case is supported by the minimum number of documents, or the documents are all recent. It can also be a case that the immigration officer simply has a bad feeling about, even if they can't articulate just why. 30-50% of B cases are selected for interviews.

A are cases with major red flags, such as married couples living apart, large age difference, etc, form is not signed, insufficient evidence, prior I-751 denied. 100% of A cases are selected for interviews.

So selection for an interview does not mean your case has problems, but statistically means it it more likely to.

Hi,

I am not in any way doubting the three classifications that you outlined. I just think it is a bit late in the game for an age difference to be a factor.


Mahalo/Salamat!

Steve and Joan
Met on Facebook 2/24/12
Met in person 6/5/12
Second visit 10/2/12
Engaged 10/3/12
NOA10/15/12
Third visit 12/10/12
Joan got her passport! 2/20/13
NOA2 4/24/13
Fourth visit 5/28/13
CFO 5/30/13
Embassy Interview APPROVED 6/6/13

Joan passed through immigration in Hawaii! She's home! 6/13/13

MARRIED 8/24/13

AOS, EAD and AP petitions sent to Chicago via Express Mail

EAD/AP Received 11/13/13

AOS Interview APPROVED 11/26/13

2-year Green Card in hand 12/5/13

ROC (I-751) sent to CSC via USPS Express Mail 8/31/15

ROC check cashed 9/4/15

ROC Biometrics 10/1/15

ROC Approval 4/6/16 (waiting for actual card)

Permanent Green Card Arrived 4/14/16
Naturalization Interview 2/22/17 APPROVED!

Oath Ceremony 3/21/17--Joan is a US Citizen!

Kayak small lagoon crop 10 72 for VJ.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As an overview, the process is not very transparent. What I'm about to say is based on what I've read on this board, four meetings with attorneys who were not actually representing my wife in her case, two long and one short meetings with an immigration officer, and everything I've been able to read on the internet. But I don't think there are any primary sources on how the process works. Attorneys probably know from experience, but not from anything published.

USCIS is trying to read someone's mind. Know what they think and what they thought when they said "I do." A rather daunting task.

Consider the IRS. Two people going into an IRS audit with identical facts and paperwork should have the same outcome. If one person was desperately trying to feed their family and deducted impermissible job-hunting expenses, and another was just trying to make grocery money because their spouse makes 7 figures, the IRS is not going to have pity. The IRS also is not there to particularly improve or damage your life, or judge you.

My sense is that USCIS knows they have people's lives in their hands, and wants to do the right thing.

Officially, USCIS cannot say "We interview couples all the time and we go with our gut on whether it's a real marriage or not." And realistically, probably 98% of people filing petitions did intend a real marriage, at least when they got married. But legally, that kind of discretion doesn't fly. So they say "Here's the paperwork we want."

Say you go in with everything. Leases, bank accounts, mail to both of you, pictures, utility bills, wills, both names on a deed. USCIS will almost surely approve. And where there's no smoke, there's no fire. A couple with all that is very likely to be a real couple.

Now say you are short some of it. This doesn't presage a denial, but it's USCIS's opening to look deeper. To want to understand what's going on. If bank accounts weren't combined, was it because the couple seems not to trust each other, or because one is liable for debts and they don't want the other's money seized? If they didn't live together, is it because of a temporary and important job or educational issue, or isn't living together just that important? If there is one "red flag" but there's an explanation for that and everything else lines up, that's probably OK.

Go back to my IRS example. Taxpayer A goes through an audit with a certain set of facts, has an outcome, it is appealed, eventually goes to court, a court rules. That set of facts becomes the rule for all future cases. If you have a case that fits that set of facts, you can count on it being decided the same way.

Now consider an immigration case. Let's say you have no cohabitation and minimal comingling of assets but USCIS institutionally and the individual immigration officer feel in their gut that you are a real couple. You have what seem like good explanations for what's missing. They can approve you. Now someone else with similar facts and evidence comes up but USCIS doesn't have the same warm fuzzy feeling. They will deny. When you go before the immigration judge, USCIS will say "No cohabitation and minimal financial comingling does not meet our standards." You can't point to that other couple that got approved on the same paperwork. There is no record, and no one has standing to appeal their favorable decision. But the judge will not overturn USCIS on the unfavorable decision because the applicant simply doesn't have the evidence.

I recall seeing a lot of worried couples post on this forum, but I don't recall anyone who seemed to have a strong case being denied. I wouldn't approach USCIS as though they will wave you through just because you "feel" right. But I think that other evidence that shows you are real and genuine can make up for missing paperwork.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

I am not in any way doubting the three classifications that you outlined. I just think it is a bit late in the game for an age difference to be a factor.

Age difference is not necessarily grounds for denial, just a reason to take a look at the case.

Anyway, age difference as a criterion is not something I made up. It's in the USCIS Adjudicators Field Manual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Age difference is not necessarily grounds for denial, just a reason to take a look at the case.

Anyway, age difference as a criterion is not something I made up. It's in the USCIS Adjudicators Field Manual.

I was not doubting you tuckin14, it is just annoying that this would still be an issue (after K1 and AOS where the ages have already been examined).


Mahalo/Salamat!

Steve and Joan
Met on Facebook 2/24/12
Met in person 6/5/12
Second visit 10/2/12
Engaged 10/3/12
NOA10/15/12
Third visit 12/10/12
Joan got her passport! 2/20/13
NOA2 4/24/13
Fourth visit 5/28/13
CFO 5/30/13
Embassy Interview APPROVED 6/6/13

Joan passed through immigration in Hawaii! She's home! 6/13/13

MARRIED 8/24/13

AOS, EAD and AP petitions sent to Chicago via Express Mail

EAD/AP Received 11/13/13

AOS Interview APPROVED 11/26/13

2-year Green Card in hand 12/5/13

ROC (I-751) sent to CSC via USPS Express Mail 8/31/15

ROC check cashed 9/4/15

ROC Biometrics 10/1/15

ROC Approval 4/6/16 (waiting for actual card)

Permanent Green Card Arrived 4/14/16
Naturalization Interview 2/22/17 APPROVED!

Oath Ceremony 3/21/17--Joan is a US Citizen!

Kayak small lagoon crop 10 72 for VJ.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An immigration attorney told me, in answer to my direct question during our ROC time, that 5% of ROC applicants must be interviewed, by statute. Let's not overthink that memo or draw erroneous conclusions from it.

Edited by TBoneTX

06-04-2007 = TSC stamps postal return-receipt for I-129f.

06-11-2007 = NOA1 date (unknown to me).

07-20-2007 = Phoned Immigration Officer; got WAC#; where's NOA1?

09-25-2007 = Touch (first-ever).

09-28-2007 = NOA1, 23 days after their 45-day promise to send it (grrrr).

10-20 & 11-14-2007 = Phoned ImmOffs; "still pending."

12-11-2007 = 180 days; file is "between workstations, may be early Jan."; touches 12/11 & 12/12.

12-18-2007 = Call; file is with Division 9 ofcr. (bckgrnd check); e-prompt to shake it; touch.

12-19-2007 = NOA2 by e-mail & web, dated 12-18-07 (187 days; 201 per VJ); in mail 12/24/07.

01-09-2008 = File from USCIS to NVC, 1-4-08; NVC creates file, 1/15/08; to consulate 1/16/08.

01-23-2008 = Consulate gets file; outdated Packet 4 mailed to fiancee 1/27/08; rec'd 3/3/08.

04-29-2008 = Fiancee's 4-min. consular interview, 8:30 a.m.; much evidence brought but not allowed to be presented (consul: "More proof! Second interview! Bring your fiance!").

05-05-2008 = Infuriating $12 call to non-English-speaking consulate appointment-setter.

05-06-2008 = Better $12 call to English-speaker; "joint" interview date 6/30/08 (my selection).

06-30-2008 = Stokes Interrogations w/Ecuadorian (not USC); "wait 2 weeks; we'll mail her."

07-2008 = Daily calls to DOS: "currently processing"; 8/05 = Phoned consulate, got Section Chief; wrote him.

08-07-08 = E-mail from consulate, promising to issue visa "as soon as we get her passport" (on 8/12, per DHL).

08-27-08 = Phoned consulate (they "couldn't find" our file); visa DHL'd 8/28; in hand 9/1; through POE on 10/9 with NO hassles(!).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know about any statute, but I know what the Adjudicator's Field Manual says. Very clearly, some cases with no apparent issues to go interviews. Also clearly, you are more likely to get called to an interview if there are already problems.

What is not known is what percentage of cases overall are approved. If only 5% are called for interviews, this would mean the overall approval rate (assuming all non-interviews are approved) is 96.7%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then the title of this thread should probably be changed, in order not to scare people unnecessarily. How about "Interesting Memo from USCIS" or similar?


06-04-2007 = TSC stamps postal return-receipt for I-129f.

06-11-2007 = NOA1 date (unknown to me).

07-20-2007 = Phoned Immigration Officer; got WAC#; where's NOA1?

09-25-2007 = Touch (first-ever).

09-28-2007 = NOA1, 23 days after their 45-day promise to send it (grrrr).

10-20 & 11-14-2007 = Phoned ImmOffs; "still pending."

12-11-2007 = 180 days; file is "between workstations, may be early Jan."; touches 12/11 & 12/12.

12-18-2007 = Call; file is with Division 9 ofcr. (bckgrnd check); e-prompt to shake it; touch.

12-19-2007 = NOA2 by e-mail & web, dated 12-18-07 (187 days; 201 per VJ); in mail 12/24/07.

01-09-2008 = File from USCIS to NVC, 1-4-08; NVC creates file, 1/15/08; to consulate 1/16/08.

01-23-2008 = Consulate gets file; outdated Packet 4 mailed to fiancee 1/27/08; rec'd 3/3/08.

04-29-2008 = Fiancee's 4-min. consular interview, 8:30 a.m.; much evidence brought but not allowed to be presented (consul: "More proof! Second interview! Bring your fiance!").

05-05-2008 = Infuriating $12 call to non-English-speaking consulate appointment-setter.

05-06-2008 = Better $12 call to English-speaker; "joint" interview date 6/30/08 (my selection).

06-30-2008 = Stokes Interrogations w/Ecuadorian (not USC); "wait 2 weeks; we'll mail her."

07-2008 = Daily calls to DOS: "currently processing"; 8/05 = Phoned consulate, got Section Chief; wrote him.

08-07-08 = E-mail from consulate, promising to issue visa "as soon as we get her passport" (on 8/12, per DHL).

08-27-08 = Phoned consulate (they "couldn't find" our file); visa DHL'd 8/28; in hand 9/1; through POE on 10/9 with NO hassles(!).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would the title need to be changed? It clearly represents what is in the file.


 

 

AOS

03/24/11 - Got married in the Boogie-Down Bronx, NYC!
04/21/11 - Mailed I-130,I-765, I-485, I-864 and I-693 - Day 00

04/23/11 - Application delivered - Day 02
04/28/11 - NOA (most forms) - Day 07
05/03/11 - Checks cashed - Day 12
05/31/11 - Biometrics completed in the Bronx, NYC - Day 40
06/24/11 - Received someone else's employment authorization card!!! What the...? - Day 64
07/01/11 - Mailed the poor lady's card back after calling USCIS - Day 71
07/07/11 - Received poor lady's interview notice! What??? - Day 77
07/15/11 - Received my own EAD card - Day 85
08/12/11 - Interview. Approved on the spot! - Day 113
08/18/11 - Received card in the mail - Day 119

ROC
05/28/13 - Mailed I-751 - Day 00

05/30/13 - Application delivered - Day 02

05/31/13 - NOA I-797 - Day 03
06/04/13 - Check cashed - Day 07

06/06/13 - NOA delivered to my home/Biometrics letter generated - Day 09

06/10/13 - Received Biometrics letter in the mail - Day 13

06/27/13 - Biometrics completed in Milwaukee, WI - Day 30

09/10/13 - Application approved! - Day 105

09/14/13 - 10 year Green Card received! - Day 109

Citizenship

05/10/16 - Mailed N-400 - Day 00

05/12/16 - Application delivered - Day 02

05/13/16 - Credit card payment accepted - Day 03

05/17/16 - Received text & email update - Day 07

05/20/16 - Received 1st NOA (dated 05/13/16) & created ELIS acct - Day 10

05/21/16 - Received 2nd NOA (dated 05/16/16) confirming my DOB and address - Day 11

05/22/06 - Biometrics scheduled (online update) and appt letter was mailed on 05/20/16 - Day 12

05/24/06 - Biometrics letter became viewable online (appt scheduled for 06/07/16) - Day 14

05/27/16 - Received Biometrics letter in mail - Day 17

05/31/16 - Was denied walk-in fingerprints with just 1 person left in line. Milwaukee office, boo! - Day 21

06/07/16 - Biometrics completed in Milwaukee, WI - Day 28

12/21/16 - Passed Citizenship test/Interview was successful! - Day 197

01/26/17 - I am a US citizen!!! - Day 233

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Didn't find the answer you were looking for? Ask our VJ Immigration Lawyers.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
- Back to Top -


Important Disclaimer: Please read carefully the Visajourney.com Terms of Service. If you do not agree to the Terms of Service you should not access or view any page (including this page) on VisaJourney.com. Answers and comments provided on Visajourney.com Forums are general information, and are not intended to substitute for informed professional medical, psychiatric, psychological, tax, legal, investment, accounting, or other professional advice. Visajourney.com does not endorse, and expressly disclaims liability for any product, manufacturer, distributor, service or service provider mentioned or any opinion expressed in answers or comments. VisaJourney.com does not condone immigration fraud in any way, shape or manner. VisaJourney.com recommends that if any member or user knows directly of someone involved in fraudulent or illegal activity, that they report such activity directly to the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. You can contact ICE via email at Immigration.Reply@dhs.gov or you can telephone ICE at 1-866-347-2423. All reported threads/posts containing reference to immigration fraud or illegal activities will be removed from this board. If you feel that you have found inappropriate content, please let us know by contacting us here with a url link to that content. Thank you.
×