67% of Interview Cases are Denied

[tuckin14 58]

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.

[TBoneTX 43,020]

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.

[M&R<3 10]

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.

[khwaidee1 196]

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%!

[tuckin14 58]

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.

[sammyboy34 18]

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.

[khwaidee1 196]

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!

[Stevephoto 224]

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.

[tuckin14 58]

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.

[tuckin14 58]

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.

[Stevephoto 224]

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).

[TBoneTX 43,020]

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 June 28, 2015 by TBoneTX

[tuckin14 58]

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%.

[TBoneTX 43,020]

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?

[Cheezees 1,514]

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