You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
FBI Criminal Background Check
- Thread starter bashar82
- Start date
bashar82 said:I've read several that USCIS does not schedule an interview until they receive the results of the fingerprint check. Does anyone if this is done because of a law or just internal USCIS policy?
I do not think it is the law thou. However, I wonder if you were trying to if USCIS does not schedule an interview until they receive the results of the "background check", rather than "finger print check"; since you have the FBI Criminal Background check in the title. They are 2 different checks thou.
Hi Bashar82!
Here is what I found on the web regarding FP/background checks. This following text is a part of offical CIS A-file handling policy but as you can read it also "touches" FP/background check. Maybe it is not an exact answer to your question but I think it relates to the question though.
Hope it will help you a bit.
Good luck to everyone!!!!!!!
INS' automated systems also contributed to file movement problems under Direct Mail in other ways. Service centers depended on the district offices to provide them with lists of cases scheduled for particular days so that they would know which files to transfer to the district office. Because of various problems with these automated systems, these lists were often generated within only a few days of the scheduled interview date. As a result, the service center did not have sufficient time to find and send the relevant files—even temporary files—to the requesting district office.
NACS was used not only for file transfer requests but also for scheduling applicants for naturalization interviews. A scheduling clerk would enter into NACS the number of adjudicators available for any given date and how many interviews each adjudicator could handle. NACS would schedule the cases, beginning with the oldest cases first.
The decision that the service centers would be responsible for obtaining and housing the A-file meant that service centers would also be responsible for submitting fingerprint cards and matching FBI responses to appropriate files (see "Criminal History Checking Procedures," below). In order to allow service centers sufficient time to obtain files and process fingerprint cards, Headquarters decided that the service centers would need to "keep" or "own" the case, as far as the computerized inventory was concerned, for a minimum of 60 days before it would be available for scheduling by NACS. Changes were thus made to the NACS/CLAIMS interface so that only cases that were at least 60 days old could be scheduled by NACS.
Once cases were available for scheduling, NACS generated a "pick list" on a special printer at the service centers that identified the A-numbers of the persons to be interviewed on a particular day. The service centers were supposed to receive the pick list with sufficient time to pull and send the files to the appropriate office within the district. Because of problems with the NACS scheduler and the NACS/CLAIMS interface, thousands of cases were scheduled for interviews less than 60 days after data-entry of the application and pick lists were sometimes not generated until a few days before the interview date.
Because of problems with the NACS scheduler and the NACS/CLAIMS interface and because of a data-entry error by service center clerks, cases also in some instances did not become available for interview scheduling at all. When the New York District reported to INS Headquarters in May 1996 that NACS was indicating that no cases were available for scheduling, Michael Aytes acted swiftly to obtain an immediate solution from Headquarters IRM staff. As he wrote to IRM staff employees, NACS "jeopardize[d] the agency's priority and all of Doris' commitments." Indeed, CUSA could never be accomplished if interviews were not scheduled. Adjustments were therefore made to NACS on sufficient occasions to allow it to be used for scheduling on a large scale.
These adjustments did not necessarily mean that cases were scheduled with sufficient time for fingerprint checks to be completed or for service centers to transfer the file. During CUSA, thousands of applicants were interviewed less than 60 days after data-entry of their applications,233 and pick lists were generated so close to their interview date that the service centers were unable to locate the files in time to send them to the districts.
As a result of the service centers' untimely receipt of the pick lists, adjudicators in three of the four Key Cities that went to Direct Mail reported having interviews scheduled and applicants appear but no file—neither permanent nor temporary—available to use.234 In these instances, adjudicators proceeded with the interview, relying on new applications filled out by the applicant on the spot.235
The evidence reveals that adjustments to NACS that would permit production to continue—such as adjustments necessary to schedule cases—received highest priority. Scheduling was achieved regardless of how much time was allotted to service centers to obtain the requisite background checks or to locate and transfer the file. The Direct Mail experience showed that when the principle of obtaining and reviewing an A-file was pitted against production priorities, once again production took precedence.
Here is what I found on the web regarding FP/background checks. This following text is a part of offical CIS A-file handling policy but as you can read it also "touches" FP/background check. Maybe it is not an exact answer to your question but I think it relates to the question though.
Hope it will help you a bit.
Good luck to everyone!!!!!!!
INS' automated systems also contributed to file movement problems under Direct Mail in other ways. Service centers depended on the district offices to provide them with lists of cases scheduled for particular days so that they would know which files to transfer to the district office. Because of various problems with these automated systems, these lists were often generated within only a few days of the scheduled interview date. As a result, the service center did not have sufficient time to find and send the relevant files—even temporary files—to the requesting district office.
NACS was used not only for file transfer requests but also for scheduling applicants for naturalization interviews. A scheduling clerk would enter into NACS the number of adjudicators available for any given date and how many interviews each adjudicator could handle. NACS would schedule the cases, beginning with the oldest cases first.
The decision that the service centers would be responsible for obtaining and housing the A-file meant that service centers would also be responsible for submitting fingerprint cards and matching FBI responses to appropriate files (see "Criminal History Checking Procedures," below). In order to allow service centers sufficient time to obtain files and process fingerprint cards, Headquarters decided that the service centers would need to "keep" or "own" the case, as far as the computerized inventory was concerned, for a minimum of 60 days before it would be available for scheduling by NACS. Changes were thus made to the NACS/CLAIMS interface so that only cases that were at least 60 days old could be scheduled by NACS.
Once cases were available for scheduling, NACS generated a "pick list" on a special printer at the service centers that identified the A-numbers of the persons to be interviewed on a particular day. The service centers were supposed to receive the pick list with sufficient time to pull and send the files to the appropriate office within the district. Because of problems with the NACS scheduler and the NACS/CLAIMS interface, thousands of cases were scheduled for interviews less than 60 days after data-entry of the application and pick lists were sometimes not generated until a few days before the interview date.
Because of problems with the NACS scheduler and the NACS/CLAIMS interface and because of a data-entry error by service center clerks, cases also in some instances did not become available for interview scheduling at all. When the New York District reported to INS Headquarters in May 1996 that NACS was indicating that no cases were available for scheduling, Michael Aytes acted swiftly to obtain an immediate solution from Headquarters IRM staff. As he wrote to IRM staff employees, NACS "jeopardize[d] the agency's priority and all of Doris' commitments." Indeed, CUSA could never be accomplished if interviews were not scheduled. Adjustments were therefore made to NACS on sufficient occasions to allow it to be used for scheduling on a large scale.
These adjustments did not necessarily mean that cases were scheduled with sufficient time for fingerprint checks to be completed or for service centers to transfer the file. During CUSA, thousands of applicants were interviewed less than 60 days after data-entry of their applications,233 and pick lists were generated so close to their interview date that the service centers were unable to locate the files in time to send them to the districts.
As a result of the service centers' untimely receipt of the pick lists, adjudicators in three of the four Key Cities that went to Direct Mail reported having interviews scheduled and applicants appear but no file—neither permanent nor temporary—available to use.234 In these instances, adjudicators proceeded with the interview, relying on new applications filled out by the applicant on the spot.235
The evidence reveals that adjustments to NACS that would permit production to continue—such as adjustments necessary to schedule cases—received highest priority. Scheduling was achieved regardless of how much time was allotted to service centers to obtain the requisite background checks or to locate and transfer the file. The Direct Mail experience showed that when the principle of obtaining and reviewing an A-file was pitted against production priorities, once again production took precedence.
VivaLasVegas
Volunteer Moderator
Pretty cool. Can you post the url for this document?
Thanks
Thanks
Hi Guys..
I ve just came back from USCIS office. I made and Infopass appointment to ask why my case is taking longer to be approved than the average of the cases that are being processesing in my Local Office.
They told me that they cannot complete my case in the normal time due my Name check is still pending ( my fingerprints were cleared the same day that i submitted them).
Now its been 3 months since i did my biometrics/fingerprints.
Questions:
1)IS NORMAL THAT THE NAME CHECK IS STILL PENDING 3 MONTHS LATER?
2) WHATS THE AVERAGE TIME TO HAVE YOUR NAME CHECK CLEANED?
I am a guy from south america and have an uncommon german surname.....
Ill appreciate any kind of answers.
thanks so much!
I ve just came back from USCIS office. I made and Infopass appointment to ask why my case is taking longer to be approved than the average of the cases that are being processesing in my Local Office.
They told me that they cannot complete my case in the normal time due my Name check is still pending ( my fingerprints were cleared the same day that i submitted them).
Now its been 3 months since i did my biometrics/fingerprints.
Questions:
1)IS NORMAL THAT THE NAME CHECK IS STILL PENDING 3 MONTHS LATER?
2) WHATS THE AVERAGE TIME TO HAVE YOUR NAME CHECK CLEANED?
I am a guy from south america and have an uncommon german surname.....
Ill appreciate any kind of answers.
thanks so much!