Petition to the Sub-Commitee on Immigration?

M

MartinAub

Registered Users (C)
I have been pondering this since a lot of guys/gals here have contacted "higher-ups" with few to no result.

In light of the green-card background process, the bottleneck doesn't go away. The FBI still does the name check, even if the GC has been approved.

Where I see a solution would actually be to delay the process of new applications (Visa's) until the FBI backlog is reasonably cleared.

As observed in the press, N-400 shortest filing time is 3 years after the GC.
Add to this how long the GC process takes, it probably makes that 5 to 6 years since people came here. If you add possible sponsorship through employment, it would add the H1B queue on top.

That means the average time people have been here is way past 6 years.

Now, if people should go to the end of the line (as often expressed), then new applications should only be accepted once the bottleneck is cleared.

That is NOT what the press is reporting. What they report is that after 180 days, USCIS issues the GC, but name check is still performed till the bitter end, thus the bottleneck is not eleminated, but rather moved out of plain sight. At least for GC and other Visa applicants. I wonder how much employers had their hands in this. They wouldn't care about N-400 as we can already legally work.

So, considering that most likely we already paid more in taxes, have more adjusted to the American life, shouldn't be more people put into the name check process (for N-400's), rather then doing something cosmetic?

Besides, I feel the urge to vote.

Your thoughts?
 
I think you are absolutely correct. As the saying goes: "out of sight, out of mind", and effectively what the USCIS is doing is simply moving the name check process out of site for 99% of GC applicants. While the name check will still be completed, it will no longer impact overall GC processing times. However, since they have not eliminated the name check, the FBI must continue to do the same amount of work.

The only bright spot I can see for N-400 applicants is that we are now the most "visible" within the name check process, meaning that a delayed name check can still noticeably delay our applications. That being said, the FBI may shift some of its resources to deal with the N-400 cases that have been outstanding the longest, since these are clearly having the greatest impact on people's lives. However, this is just pure speculation. Nobody knows how the FBI works, and they are very secretive about the entire name check process.

From what I have read, approximately 70% of name checks are completed within 72 hours of being filed, and the "vast majority" are completed within 6 months. So, given the government's own reporting metrics, the actual number of GCs that will be issued without the name check being complete, is actually quite small. In that regard, I am not sure how much this will affect the "average" GC applicant whose name check clears within several weeks of receipt by the FBI.
 
You bring up excellent points yummyk. This will positively impact those individuals who's GC applications are adjudicated at the service centers. So depending on the percentage, it could be a good move or an insignificant move. Also, did USCIS think of the cost and hours associated with rescinding GCs once the name check comes back with derogatory information? The courts will certainly be overwhelmed with cases and most of the IOs will focus on rescinding rather than adjudicating. So I hope they have thought through this and that the percent of negative results minimal.

For those who have to go in for an interview, the overall process time line may not decrease because the problem isn't just the name check process; it is also at the DO level. There you encounter understaffed offices, employees that don't have metrics and motivation to complete the work, and management that isn't centered on quality of work. I know for a fact that some DOs are slow because they are slow - not because most of the applicants are stuck in name check.
 
Hmm,

interesting. So many are frustrated with the name check, yet only 2 responses thus far.
Makes one wonder, if it is all that bad then.
 
If our government and/or policy maker would have 1/100 of average individual's logical thinking processes when the policies were created, we won't be here to talk about that..... IMHO, most of us who has being so frustrated with the name check process, has become less and less sensitive about the subject. That is why the resonses were so lower.......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top