Recommended for approval but sec. check not complete?

M

mario123

Registered Users (C)
Is is possible to be Congratulated and recommended for approval after the interview, but still have a pending FBI check even after filing in July 2006?? I called the 800# at 3 different times today because I kept getting different stories each time I called. Each time I asked (insisted) to be transferred to an actual immigration officer (IO). Here is how that went:

1) Officer #1:
My case is in "the queue". I asked which queue. He said "well it's in queue for oath" but he can't see all the details. He then poked around a little more and said, that it looks like the FBI checks are not complete!! When he said that I was shocked bec. I thought that since May 2006 they only schedule interviews after the FBI security checks have been completed! He then said that even if you are congratulated at your interview and are "recommended for approval" there can be additional "checks" that are done on the appl. To that I asked "like what checks", and he said that it might need to go through additional FBI sec. checks. I then asked "aren't they only scheduling interviews after the sec. checks are complete"? And he said, no - that's not the case!! He also went on to tell me that they randomly select people for sec. checks!!! I said WOW! You mean not everyone goes through sec. checks? He said, no, just the name check/full blown check. He also made some real interesting comments that "everyone goes through a FP check but not the full blown sec. check" (I guess name check, but he didn't use that term). He also said that my wife was pending sec. checks too (so much for believing that women have it a lot easier!).

2) Officer #2:
Said that I am in line for oath scheduling. I then told her that earlier I was told that my case is still pending an FBI check. She poked around some more and then came back and said that I am all set and approved and that all security checks are complete!! I asked again and she said yes, "you & your wife are approved and just waiting for oath scheduling".

3) Officer #3:
Said that both my wife and I are in line for oath scheduling but not scheduled for oath - big difference. According to him the reason I am "not scheduled" vs. "being in line" for oath is because the FBI checks are not complete. Amazing stuff! At this point I was sooooo frustrated that I told him about the other 2 officers giving me 2 different stories. He said that what he sees is updated info but..... the San Antonio DO could have "more updated info." but it's unlikely. He then said that the only way Officer #2 could be correct is if the FBI checks cleared today and did't update the system. I asked what does being "congratulated" and "being recommended for approval" mean and he said that it's "standard stuff that all IO's say after passing the interview", but does not mean that the FBI checks are complete. Zing!

From what I could gather, there could be a variety of things at play, like:

1) The IO's are not very well trained in using the computer system
2) There are a bunch of screens with diffferent info. - some being updated - some not.
3) Shear stupidity - not knowing what to look for, etc.

All I can say from this bizzarre set of events is that I am now more confused than I've ever been. What seemed to be a simple straight forward case for my wife and I *could* turn out to be a total mess. After all this, I now feel very silly and almost defeated. Why? Well, because
1) I thought that passing the interview was the end of the process. "Congratulations! You have been recommended for approval..." WHAT? Yeah right!
2) I was given to believe (by reading the USCIS bulletins and reading the posts here and in other places) that since 5/2006 they only schedule interviews after all security checks are complete.

Now, I'm not sure who/what to believe anymore about this nonsense!
 
Don't alarm yourself. I see that the three CIS employees told you the same thing in different ways. Take a Quaalude.:D
 
Need_Immi_Help said:
After your N-400 interview, what did the officer tell you?

Congratulations or they cannot make a decision at that time?
Click to expand...

This is what was checked on my N-652:

"Congratulations! Your application has been recommended for approval. At this time it appears that you have established your eligibility for naturalization. If final approval is granted, you will be notified when & where to appear for oath"

This is a standard check box thats checked when you pass the interview. My wife had the same thing.
The IO also congratulated me 2-3 times...... but I never asked about security checks being complete because I thought that since 5/2006 interviews were not being scheduled without completed background checks (incl. name checks or whatever). Also, the IO didn't mention a darn thing about sec. checks not being complete. That's why I'm befuddled!:eek:
 
WorkingMan06 said:
Don't alarm yourself. I see that the three CIS employees told you the same thing in different ways. Take a Quaalude.:D
Click to expand...

Not sure I see your point about all 3 saying the same thing....
Are you saying that the sec. checks are not complete? If so, then doesn't that put a strange twist into the whole process and scheduling interviews before the FBI checks are complete? Worse still, why didn't the IO mention that and instead check the "Congratulations..." box?
 
It seems that the standard response from a USCIS officer when asked "why is this taking so long" is "well, it is the FBI's fault".

As far as I can tell, my application breezed through name check and then was fumbled by the USCIS. Every time I asked what was going on I'd get "Well, it's probably name check". They told the same story to aids from both my congressman and one of my senators the first time they called.

The 800 number folks have (as far as I can tell) very little visibility of applications after the interview letter goes out and before the oath letter is sent. During that period, the application is entirely in the control of the DO.

If you really want to find out what is going on, you'll probably need to go for an InfoPass. If you press the InfoPass person hard enough (politely) they can find out everything - during one of mine, the agent requested to see my file, and, about a half hour later, it showed up in her booth.
 
mario123 said:
I just checked.... my valves are fine :p

So, what do you think about what these officers told me?
Click to expand...

I think what flydog has told you is good advice. It is probably better to schedule an Infopass to find out more. I guess that they probably randomly take applications for a more thorough appraisal, but I would doubt that both yours and your wife's could have randomly been chosen. Anyway, it is pure speculation.

Good luck, and I hope you get your oath letters soon.
 
Huracan said:
I think what flydog has told you is good advice. It is probably better to schedule an Infopass to find out more. I guess that they probably randomly take applications for a more thorough appraisal, but I would doubt that both yours and your wife's could have randomly been chosen. Anyway, it is pure speculation.

Good luck, and I hope you get your oath letters soon.
Click to expand...

Thanks Huracan....

One thing I forgot to mention was that everytime I called and talked to an officer (not the phone rep), they seemed oblivious to the 5/2006 rule (no interview before all sec. checks are complete). Infact all of them said that the FP checks need to be complete BEFORE interview but NOT the FBI background checks!! One officer actually told me that they check where you went to school (unless it's w/in the lst 5 yrs.) and also contact your native country to inquire about you!! The strange thing is that no where in the N-400 does it ask "where you went to school". As far as contacting the native country .... how efficient/streamlined would that process be?

For those of you who are up on this: What's the deal on "name check", "background check" and "FP" - are they all collectively known as the "background check" or is each one a separate process with some happening before int. and some after? Maybe that's where all the confusion is.

I guess I'll just have to do an infopass. The problem with that is San Antonio is 65 miles from Austin (1 way)

Sigh:mad:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
WorkingMan06 said:
Calling your country (and who are they calling?!) as part of your background check seems farfetched. The checks they do are pretty procedural such as the name check and I do not think CIS has the time, money or willingness to go that deep into it. Unless you're applying for a Security clearance as part of a job or you raise some kind of flag, noone should be calling your school or someone in you birth country. Sometimes I think CIS officers like to toy with applicants and maintain the mysteries.
Click to expand...


You know what - I'm starting to believe that now. What I'm starting to read here and in other articles in newspapers, etc. is that this has turned into "bureaucratic fingerpointing" - each one blames the other, and in USCIS's case, the easy scape goat is the name check or background check. The amazing thing is that it's supposedly the law now that interviews cannot/should not be scheduled until the whole enchilada (background check) is complete. So how in the heck can all these officers simply dismiss that when I talk to them? Where's the accountability?

Check this out:
http://www.sbsun.com/search/ci_3725658
http://newsinitiative.org/story/2006/08/02/los_angeles_civil_rights_groups
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The amazing thing is that it's supposedly the law now that interviews cannot/should not be scheduled until the whole enchilada (background check) is complete.
Click to expand...
There is no such law. It's a procedural preferance that was intended to minimize the possible lawsuits against USCIS. There have been a number of people on this board who stated they were pending name checks even though their interviews were after May 2006.

Also it's been known that IO could order a second security clearance for whatever reasons they deem necessary after interviews. Are you and your wife changing names? One instance was that IO initiated a name check for applicant's intended new names.
 
equate said:
There is no such law. It's a procedural preferance that was intended to minimize the possible lawsuits against USCIS. There have been a number of people on this board who stated they were pending name checks even though their interviews were after May 2006.

Also it's been known that IO could order a second security clearance for whatever reasons they deem necessary after interviews. Are you and your wife changing names? One instance was that IO initiated a name check for applicant's intended new names.
Click to expand...

Check this out: http://www.murthy.com/news/n_delcer.html
 
equate said:
There is no such law. It's a procedural preferance that was intended to minimize the possible lawsuits against USCIS. There have been a number of people on this board who stated they were pending name checks even though their interviews were after May 2006.

Also it's been known that IO could order a second security clearance for whatever reasons they deem necessary after interviews. Are you and your wife changing names? One instance was that IO initiated a name check for applicant's intended new names.
Click to expand...

equate,

regarding the name change: my wife's name was incorrectly written in her passport, GC, etc. as "Jane Barb LastName". Unfortunately, we didn't bother to fix it all these years and also didn't ask to change it in her N-400, but during the int., the topic came up and my wife thought - cool - if the IO is okay with it, now's my chance! So, she asked him to make it "Jane Correct LastName" (because that's her real birth name) and that was it. 2 days later, the IO called and asked her to fax her birth certificate. Unfortunately, she does not have one, but she did have a baptisimal certificate. She faxed it to him. He called back saying he needs a BC.... So, at that point, my wife said - okay, just drop the "Correct" middle name and leave it as "Jane LastName". He said okay and that was it.

We wondered WHY he wanted a BC bec. a name change is a name change - what does it have to do with a BC? Well, I think it's a case of my wife simply asking that her real name be reflected on the docs. and not a "name change" per se!

So do you think this is causing a problem and making them redo the NC? Also, if you have read the 3 links I posted above - one clearly says that it's the LAW now to only schedule interviews after the NC.
 
As I already said, it is a procedural preferance, based on internal "USCIS memo" as stated in the article.

It's like your boss would send you a "memo" to do a certain task a certain way. Is that a law? Hardly not.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
mario123 said:
equate,

regarding the name change: my wife's name was incorrectly written in her passport, GC, etc. as "Jane Barb LastName". Unfortunately, we didn't bother to fix it all these years and also didn't ask to change it in her N-400, but during the int., the topic came up and my wife thought - cool - if the IO is okay with it, now's my chance! So, she asked him to make it "Jane Correct LastName" (because that's her real birth name) and that was it. 2 days later, the IO called and asked her to fax her birth certificate. Unfortunately, she does not have one, but she did have a baptisimal certificate. She faxed it to him. He called back saying he needs a BC.... So, at that point, my wife said - okay, just drop the "Correct" middle name and leave it as "Jane LastName". He said okay and that was it.

We wondered WHY he wanted a BC bec. a name change is a name change - what does it have to do with a BC? Well, I think it's a case of my wife simply asking that her real name be reflected on the docs. and not a "name change" per se!

So do you think this is causing a problem and making them redo the NC? Also, if you have read the 3 links I posted above - one clearly says that it's the LAW now to only schedule interviews after the NC.
Click to expand...

It is certainly POSSIBLE that it could be an issue in your wife's case. Here is a story of a person who got pulled out 2 days before the oath ceremony because his new name got caught in security check.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/military/20051227-9999-1n27name.html
 
mario123 said:
This is what I was referring to:

"Under federal immigration law, USCIS must receive the FBI check before the interview."
Last sentence in 2nd. para: http://www.sbsun.com/search/ci_3725658
Click to expand...
Apparently the rule has been in place for a long time well before May 2006, but the service centers have been ignoring it. Now we are right back to where we started. Are the service centers following the rule more strictly now or are they still allowing the loophole cases, albeit less frequentely than previsouly?

What it comes down to - none of us know how strictly the rule is followed, thus there is no guarentees of the security clearance before interviews.
 
equate said:
Apparently the rule has been in place for a long time well before May 2006, but the service centers have been ignoring it. Now we are right back to where we started. Are the service centers following the rule more strictly now or are they still allowing the loophole cases, albeit less frequentely than previsouly?

What it comes down to - none of us know how strictly the rule is followed, thus there is no guarentees of the security clearance before interviews.
Click to expand...

I agree. Moreso, from talking to the different officers it sure seems like they all have very different interpretations about what the procedures are. It's appalling that such a basic and important rule/law can be so widely misinterpreted and disregarded. The million $ question is HOW are places like Atlanta, Newark, NY, VA, etc able to conduct same day interviews as a practice while other places need to go through this seemingly elaborate "supervisor approval" process even after a successful interview. Also, I wonder WHY the IO never told me or my wife about the pending NC (if that's indeed the case now)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top