rpulipati
09-26 09:44 AM
If you guyz like it, please use it.
===========================
Dear Editor,
I'm a skilled worker and attended the rally mentioned in the article. But as per the article, our intention was NOT to get attention to H1-B visas, instead
---------
the rally is for the skilled legal immigrants already present in United States, requesting Congress to speed up the permanent resident applications by re-suing the previous years unused visas and/or increasing the annual cap.
---------
There is a lot of difference between these two agenda's and this article really sends a wrong message to the entire American community.
So, I request you to please act immediately and correct the article. Also, please do sufficient investigation before you post things that are important to community (such as immigration).
Thanks
===========================
===========================
Dear Editor,
I'm a skilled worker and attended the rally mentioned in the article. But as per the article, our intention was NOT to get attention to H1-B visas, instead
---------
the rally is for the skilled legal immigrants already present in United States, requesting Congress to speed up the permanent resident applications by re-suing the previous years unused visas and/or increasing the annual cap.
---------
There is a lot of difference between these two agenda's and this article really sends a wrong message to the entire American community.
So, I request you to please act immediately and correct the article. Also, please do sufficient investigation before you post things that are important to community (such as immigration).
Thanks
===========================
wallpaper etta fish fungus fin
anilsal
12-12 03:40 PM
Here is an article that has some info on the non-ability to file 485.
http://www.visapro.com/Immigration-Articles/?a=327&z=63
But still, what rule says that until visa numbers are available, one cannot file 485. Most probably, we never realized this pattern because until retrogression hit, the visa numbers were always available.
http://www.visapro.com/Immigration-Articles/?a=327&z=63
But still, what rule says that until visa numbers are available, one cannot file 485. Most probably, we never realized this pattern because until retrogression hit, the visa numbers were always available.
rpatel
07-24 08:59 AM
We could pose this question to the USCIS Director today. He will be at Ask the White House at 4pm ET today. Pose your question at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/ask
I just posted this very question on the website above. I hope it gets selected for the chat
http://www.whitehouse.gov/ask
I just posted this very question on the website above. I hope it gets selected for the chat
2011 fin rot pictures
ronhira
04-09 05:29 PM
You don't like members blaming CIS, could have said in one line
i don't..... becoz i' not in sarah palin brigade of mindless freaks who have to find someone to blame others for the sake of it..... we live in a complicated world..... just becoz we applied with uscis..... & just becoz they've to approve applications..... it doesn't mean
backlogs & delays is uscis fault..... the least amongst us can easily figure out that the problem is with the congress, not with cis.....
y the hell do u blame cis...... r they not allocating 140K per year..... what more do u want from them....... oh well...... for the sarah palin brigade on this forum i'm now an outcast.....
i don't..... becoz i' not in sarah palin brigade of mindless freaks who have to find someone to blame others for the sake of it..... we live in a complicated world..... just becoz we applied with uscis..... & just becoz they've to approve applications..... it doesn't mean
backlogs & delays is uscis fault..... the least amongst us can easily figure out that the problem is with the congress, not with cis.....
y the hell do u blame cis...... r they not allocating 140K per year..... what more do u want from them....... oh well...... for the sarah palin brigade on this forum i'm now an outcast.....
more...
meimmi
03-09 04:52 PM
Hi! I am planning to apply EAD on my own as I could no longer afford to pay my expensive lawyer, but there I am not sure how to answer question 13 in the form which says, "Have you ever before applied for employment authorization from USCIS? Since I was and still am on H1, should I answer yes? Please help. Thanks.
You can e-file(online) for EAD and AP. I applied online and received EAD within 45 days. I had to go to ASC for fingerprinting again though. The answer to that question is No if you are applying for EAD for the first time.
You can e-file(online) for EAD and AP. I applied online and received EAD within 45 days. I had to go to ASC for fingerprinting again though. The answer to that question is No if you are applying for EAD for the first time.
kpchal2
07-18 12:17 PM
hi tapukakababa, the number is for the national customer service center but you mentioned you called the nebraska service center. so did u ask them to transfer to that service center or ???. i would like to talk to those guys and see what they did wityh my application. i guess we already had a painful ride and if it does not yield the right fruit then it really hurts us bad.
more...
svr_76
02-18 08:57 PM
It will not cause backlog for the undocument. Check my previous posting on this thread. The bill states that aliens adjustment by DHS sec. using this bill will not affect from the numercial visa numbers. In short- No backlog for undocumented folks whereas per country quote of existing application India, China continues...
Anyways...who said ppl are wanting to fix the legal immi. problem here...Here the interest in more in the other category.
Anyways...who said ppl are wanting to fix the legal immi. problem here...Here the interest in more in the other category.
2010 fin rot pictures
harsh
12-12 02:05 PM
I agree. Who or which department of USCIS has the authority to decide they will disallow concurrent 140/485 filing? If that department has the authority to make such a decision they probably have the authority to
1. allow filing of 485 without visa number availability,
2. allow people to start their name check process once 140 is cleared while everyone is waiting for priority dates to become current.
There should be a way to find out who in USCIS comes up with these new rule suggestions. Where do all the proposed rule changes published? At the USCIS press release? May be the actual press release has some information. There has got be to a way to find out from either press department or someone who or what part of USCIS makes these suggestions and then may be we can make send them our auggestions.
1. allow filing of 485 without visa number availability,
2. allow people to start their name check process once 140 is cleared while everyone is waiting for priority dates to become current.
There should be a way to find out who in USCIS comes up with these new rule suggestions. Where do all the proposed rule changes published? At the USCIS press release? May be the actual press release has some information. There has got be to a way to find out from either press department or someone who or what part of USCIS makes these suggestions and then may be we can make send them our auggestions.
more...
jgh_res
07-05 12:38 PM
My background: I am a desi. I contributed around 300$ or so. I filed my 485 couple of years ago. So I am not that desperate.
Onething about desi's I figured out over a long time, they dont mind spending zillion dollars for attorney fees, USCIS fees, whatever fees. But they really mind paying 20$/month towards IV or anything, if there is a way they can get it for free.
What an epitome of hypocrisy? Non Profit org working towards GC alleviatoon and needs resources for lobbying. Yeah! The Blue skies are showering green on IV every day. How about us working for a Non profit org or EDU for free? They all serve noble causes. Dont they?
Onething about desi's I figured out over a long time, they dont mind spending zillion dollars for attorney fees, USCIS fees, whatever fees. But they really mind paying 20$/month towards IV or anything, if there is a way they can get it for free.
What an epitome of hypocrisy? Non Profit org working towards GC alleviatoon and needs resources for lobbying. Yeah! The Blue skies are showering green on IV every day. How about us working for a Non profit org or EDU for free? They all serve noble causes. Dont they?
hair Siamese+fighter+fin+rot
HawaldarNaik
03-09 12:27 PM
Where is the great predictor :D
Right now he is looking into his globe...and making corrections to his calculations...so lets call him the 'Corrector' for now...and wait for his next predictions or 'pears of wisdom':D
Right now he is looking into his globe...and making corrections to his calculations...so lets call him the 'Corrector' for now...and wait for his next predictions or 'pears of wisdom':D
more...
guy03062
11-11 07:49 PM
This is great find. I am not sure why IV leadership (as an advocacy group) is not pursuing this to USCIS leadership as they are in touch with them regularly for other issues. Are we missing something here?
Under the regulation No reference to Calendar year. It mentions explicitly calendar quarter.
Immigration and Nationality Act: Section ACT 202 - Numerical Limitation to any single foreign state under Sec. 202. [8 U.S.C. 1152]
(3) Exception if additional visas available. - If because of the application of paragraph (2) with respect to one or more foreign states or dependent areas, the total number of visas available under both subsections (a) and (b) of section 203 for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who otherwise may be issued such a visa, paragraph (2) shall not apply to visas made available to such states or areas during the remainder of such calendar quarter.
(5) 2/ RULES FOR EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS
(A) EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS NOT SUBJECT TO PER COUNTRY LIMITATION IF ADDITIONAL VISAS AVAILABLE- If the total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 203(b) for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who may otherwise be issued such visas, the visas made available under that paragraph shall be issued without regard to the numerical limitation under paragraph (2) of this subsection during the remainder of the calendar quarter.
(B) LIMITING FALL ACROSS FOR CERTAIN COUNTRIES SUBJECT TO SUBSECTION (e)- In the case of a foreign state or dependent area to which subsection (e) applies, if the total number of visas issued under section 203(b) exceeds the maximum number of visas that may be made available to immigrants of the state or area under section 203(b)consistent with subsection (e) (determined without regard to this paragraph),in applying subsection (e) all visas shall be deemed to have been required for the classes of aliens specified in section 203(b).
Under the regulation No reference to Calendar year. It mentions explicitly calendar quarter.
Immigration and Nationality Act: Section ACT 202 - Numerical Limitation to any single foreign state under Sec. 202. [8 U.S.C. 1152]
(3) Exception if additional visas available. - If because of the application of paragraph (2) with respect to one or more foreign states or dependent areas, the total number of visas available under both subsections (a) and (b) of section 203 for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who otherwise may be issued such a visa, paragraph (2) shall not apply to visas made available to such states or areas during the remainder of such calendar quarter.
(5) 2/ RULES FOR EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS
(A) EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS NOT SUBJECT TO PER COUNTRY LIMITATION IF ADDITIONAL VISAS AVAILABLE- If the total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 203(b) for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who may otherwise be issued such visas, the visas made available under that paragraph shall be issued without regard to the numerical limitation under paragraph (2) of this subsection during the remainder of the calendar quarter.
(B) LIMITING FALL ACROSS FOR CERTAIN COUNTRIES SUBJECT TO SUBSECTION (e)- In the case of a foreign state or dependent area to which subsection (e) applies, if the total number of visas issued under section 203(b) exceeds the maximum number of visas that may be made available to immigrants of the state or area under section 203(b)consistent with subsection (e) (determined without regard to this paragraph),in applying subsection (e) all visas shall be deemed to have been required for the classes of aliens specified in section 203(b).
hot *Fin rot (?
paskal
07-03 09:51 AM
...that the system is severely backlogged and needs repair but to say it is unfair to limit the number of immigrants from one country does not make sense. Removing the per country limit would allow one or two countries to dominate the EB system because their high populations allow them to produce more skilled labor. So removing the per country limit would remove the "bias" off these countries and move it to the ones with lower populations; so, in essence the discrimination would be reversed? Maybe a point-based system that incorporates a per country score would be better?
i think it's an interesting discussion, but what would you say to the argument that if immigration artificially inflates the numbers of small countries beyond their real populations and ends up penalizing larger countries. in other words it creates and artificial distribution favoring certain parts of the world...is that really the goal? is is good? s it fair? it's a monopoly in the reverse way- excess opportunity for an individual from certain countries.
when the quotas were originally made, they had exactly that idea- and the motive was explicitly racist. times have changed. so should the antiquated laws.
i think it's an interesting discussion, but what would you say to the argument that if immigration artificially inflates the numbers of small countries beyond their real populations and ends up penalizing larger countries. in other words it creates and artificial distribution favoring certain parts of the world...is that really the goal? is is good? s it fair? it's a monopoly in the reverse way- excess opportunity for an individual from certain countries.
when the quotas were originally made, they had exactly that idea- and the motive was explicitly racist. times have changed. so should the antiquated laws.
more...
house Top Fin? Color Enhancing Betta
nomi
12-12 04:28 PM
Please tell me how can USCIS making all these changes without any Bill in Congress or Senate.
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=68439c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1RCR D&vgnextchannel=68439c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=68439c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1RCR D&vgnextchannel=68439c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD
tattoo he just has bad fin rot.
ComputeCompute
07-22 06:39 PM
Did Amendment 4319 not pass? So what happened?
:confused:
:confused:
more...
pictures suffer from some fin rot.
chaukas
05-15 05:14 PM
Sometime ago , I had seen Jack Welch's comments on this ( the last page in Business Week ) where he had mentioned that he respected people who have an online MBA bcoz of the fact that these people were handling a family , kids , a full time job and education, no mean feat ... and that he did not consider their MBA less than another MBA.
To the person, who commented about their CIO being from Univ of Phoenix, I worked at a biotech where the CFO was an MBA from Golden Gate University ... You don't want to know where the company went.
To the person, who commented about their CIO being from Univ of Phoenix, I worked at a biotech where the CFO was an MBA from Golden Gate University ... You don't want to know where the company went.
dresses Does it look like fin rot with
GreenLantern
03-07 07:28 AM
Wow, that is nice grinch. It's pretty detailed. I like the map on the wall.
:thumb:
:thumb:
more...
makeup finrot 15gallon veiltale
alterego
07-14 09:37 PM
The fundamental rule (for getting GC) is the longterm intent of having permanent employment relationship between employer and employee at the time of filing 140 and 485 (see the Q&A). The intet has to be "at the time of filing" only. The employee has worked 3 years in H1B for thr sponser. It clearly establishes the both party's intent at the time of filing. So, even if the employer revokes his approved 140, he is 100% safe.
I do not think what you are saying is correct. Ac21 does not allow you to leave before 180 days of your 485 filing.
The RFE is trying to determine whether your former employer holds a bonafide future job open for you or not. If he/she does not then your application is not valid in your circumstances from what I know.
If you get a letter from him/her then that should be adequate, however you will also need to start work with that employer for a reasonable time afterward to be within the law.
If as the poster above said the intent has to be there at the time of filing, then it would be easy for everyone to intend whatever the needed at the time of filing and then change their minds. It does not work that way.
The revocation of the 140 would not have been a problem if it happened after the 180 days, but would be an issue now.
I can see you are in a difficult spot. I would definitely suggest you stay honest, since they have all of your filing records etc. and if you fudge it, your petition can be denied for fraud, which could harm future applications.
Rather than relying on the advise here, you should seek out a good attorney experienced in AC21.
I do not think what you are saying is correct. Ac21 does not allow you to leave before 180 days of your 485 filing.
The RFE is trying to determine whether your former employer holds a bonafide future job open for you or not. If he/she does not then your application is not valid in your circumstances from what I know.
If you get a letter from him/her then that should be adequate, however you will also need to start work with that employer for a reasonable time afterward to be within the law.
If as the poster above said the intent has to be there at the time of filing, then it would be easy for everyone to intend whatever the needed at the time of filing and then change their minds. It does not work that way.
The revocation of the 140 would not have been a problem if it happened after the 180 days, but would be an issue now.
I can see you are in a difficult spot. I would definitely suggest you stay honest, since they have all of your filing records etc. and if you fudge it, your petition can be denied for fraud, which could harm future applications.
Rather than relying on the advise here, you should seek out a good attorney experienced in AC21.
girlfriend Yet another etta fin thread
Aah_GC
06-06 12:27 PM
After long wait of 4.7 years ( i know it may not sound too long as some of the others), I finally got the card production ordered email yesterday. I was mostly a silent reader on IV but have contributed to IV few times since I started visiting since last year. I wish good luck for everybody waiting out there.
Congratulations and good luck!
Congratulations and good luck!
hairstyles Fin rot (mycobacteria sp.
tooclose
07-12 07:23 PM
understandably so.. but I am now current after a looooong time. EB3 Dec 2001 PD. I can finally file the AOS for my wife who has been on H4 for the last 2 yrs... excellent!
Many congrats! This must be a huge relief to you and your dependents. Enjoy !!!
Many congrats! This must be a huge relief to you and your dependents. Enjoy !!!
willgetgc2005
02-15 08:05 PM
Retrohatao,
You are right. This seems more like a luck factor. If Your stars are good, name check is cleared. Else it just stays stuck. It is ridiculous, they should check a persons background at the time of issuing a visa to come into the USA. Not when he/she has been in the US for several years. IV should raise this issue. This is even more farcical than retrogression. At least in case of retrogression they publish cut off dates. Well, in the case of name check you just don�t know where u stand.
You are right. This seems more like a luck factor. If Your stars are good, name check is cleared. Else it just stays stuck. It is ridiculous, they should check a persons background at the time of issuing a visa to come into the USA. Not when he/she has been in the US for several years. IV should raise this issue. This is even more farcical than retrogression. At least in case of retrogression they publish cut off dates. Well, in the case of name check you just don�t know where u stand.
sat0207
04-27 09:23 AM
Immigration Security Checks
�How and Why the Process Works
Background All applicants for a U.S. immigration benefit are subject to criminal and national security background checks to ensure they are eligible for that benefit. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the Federal agency that oversees immigration benefits, performs checks on every applicant, regardless of ethnicity, national origin or religion. Since 2002, USCIS has increased the number and scope of relevant background checks, processing millions of security checks without incident. However, in some cases, USCIS customers and immigrant advocates have expressed frustration over delays in processing applications, noting that individual customers have waited a year or longer for the completion of their adjudication pending the outcome of security checks. While the percentage of applicants who find their cases delayed by pending background checks is relatively small, USCIS recognizes that for those affected individuals, the additional delay and uncertainty can cause great anxiety. Although USCIS cannot guarantee the prompt resolution of every case, we can assure the public that applicants are not singled out based on race, ethnicity, religion, or national origin. USCIS strives to balance the need for timely, fair and accurate service with the need to ensure a high level of integrity in the decision-making process. This fact sheet outlines the framework of the immigration security check process, explaining its necessity, as well as factors contributing to delays in resolving pending cases. Why USCIS Conducts Security Checks USCIS conducts security checks for all cases involving a petition or application for an immigration service or benefit. This is done both to enhance national security and ensure the integrity of the immigration process. USCIS is responsible for ensuring that our immigration system is not used as a vehicle to harm our nation or its citizens by screening out people who seek immigration benefits improperly or fraudulently. These security checks have yielded information about applicants involved in violent crimes, sex crimes, crimes against children, drug trafficking and individuals with known links to terrorism. These investigations require time, resources, and patience and USCIS recognizes that the process is slower for some customers than they would like. Because of that, USCIS is working closely with the FBI and other agencies to speed the background check process. However, USCIS will never grant an immigration service or benefit before the required security checks are completed regardless of how long those checks take.
To ensure that immigration benefits are given only to eligible applicants, USCIS adopted background security check procedures that address a wide range of possible risk factors. Different kinds of applications undergo different levels of scrutiny. USCIS normally uses the following three background check mechanisms but maintains the authority to conduct other background investigations as necessary:
� The Interagency Border Inspection System (IBIS)
Name Check� IBIS is a multiagency effort with a central system that combines information from multiple agencies, databases and system interfaces to compile data relating to national security risks, public safety issues and other law enforcement concerns. USCIS can quickly check information from these multiple government agencies to determine if the information in the system affects the adjudication of the case. Results of an IBIS check are usually available immediately. In some cases, information found during an IBIS check will require further investigation. The IBIS check is not deemed completed until all eligibility issues arising from the initial system response are resolved.
� FBI Fingerprint Check�FBI fingerprint checks are conducted for many applications. The FBI fingerprint check provides information relating to criminal background within the United States. Generally, the FBI forwards responses to USCIS within 24-48 hours. If there is a record match, the FBI forwards an electronic copy of the criminal history (RAP sheet) to USCIS. At that point, a USCIS adjudicator reviews the information to determine what effect it may have on eligibility for the benefit. Although the vast majority of inquiries yield no record or match, about 10 percent do uncover criminal history (including immigration violations). In cases involving arrests or charges without disposition, USCIS requires the applicant to provide court certified evidence of the disposition. Customers with prior arrests should provide complete information and certified disposition records at the time of filing to avoid adjudication delays or denial resulting from misrepresentation about criminal history. Even expunged or vacated convictions must be reported for immigration purposes.
� FBI Name Checks�FBI name checks are also required for many applications. The FBI name check is totally different from the FBI fingerprint check. The records maintained in the FBI name check process consist of administrative, applicant, criminal, personnel and other files compiled by law enforcement. Initial responses to this check generally take about two weeks. In about 80 percent of the cases, no match is found. Of the remaining 20 percent, most are resolved within six months. Less than one percent of cases subject to an FBI name check remain pending longer than six months. Some of these cases involve complex, highly sensitive information and cannot be resolved quickly. Even after FBI has provided an initial response to USCIS concerning a match, the name check is not complete until full information is obtained and eligibility issues arising from it are resolved. For most applicants, the process outlined above allows USCIS to quickly determine if there are criminal or security related issues in the applicant�s background that affect eligibility for immigration benefits. Most cases proceed forward without incident. However, due to both the sheer volume of security checks USCIS conducts, and the need to ensure that each applicant is thoroughly screened, some delays on individual applications are inevitable. Background checks may still be considered pending when either the FBI or relevant agency has not provided the final response to the background check or when the FBI or agency has provided a response, but the response requires further investigation or review by the agency or USCIS. Resolving pending cases is time-consuming and labor-intensive; some cases legitimately take months or evenseveral years to resolve. Every USCIS District Office performs regular reviews of the pending caseload to determine when cases have cleared and are ready to be decided. USCIS does not share information about the records match or the nature or status of any investigation with applicants or their representatives.
�How and Why the Process Works
Background All applicants for a U.S. immigration benefit are subject to criminal and national security background checks to ensure they are eligible for that benefit. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the Federal agency that oversees immigration benefits, performs checks on every applicant, regardless of ethnicity, national origin or religion. Since 2002, USCIS has increased the number and scope of relevant background checks, processing millions of security checks without incident. However, in some cases, USCIS customers and immigrant advocates have expressed frustration over delays in processing applications, noting that individual customers have waited a year or longer for the completion of their adjudication pending the outcome of security checks. While the percentage of applicants who find their cases delayed by pending background checks is relatively small, USCIS recognizes that for those affected individuals, the additional delay and uncertainty can cause great anxiety. Although USCIS cannot guarantee the prompt resolution of every case, we can assure the public that applicants are not singled out based on race, ethnicity, religion, or national origin. USCIS strives to balance the need for timely, fair and accurate service with the need to ensure a high level of integrity in the decision-making process. This fact sheet outlines the framework of the immigration security check process, explaining its necessity, as well as factors contributing to delays in resolving pending cases. Why USCIS Conducts Security Checks USCIS conducts security checks for all cases involving a petition or application for an immigration service or benefit. This is done both to enhance national security and ensure the integrity of the immigration process. USCIS is responsible for ensuring that our immigration system is not used as a vehicle to harm our nation or its citizens by screening out people who seek immigration benefits improperly or fraudulently. These security checks have yielded information about applicants involved in violent crimes, sex crimes, crimes against children, drug trafficking and individuals with known links to terrorism. These investigations require time, resources, and patience and USCIS recognizes that the process is slower for some customers than they would like. Because of that, USCIS is working closely with the FBI and other agencies to speed the background check process. However, USCIS will never grant an immigration service or benefit before the required security checks are completed regardless of how long those checks take.
To ensure that immigration benefits are given only to eligible applicants, USCIS adopted background security check procedures that address a wide range of possible risk factors. Different kinds of applications undergo different levels of scrutiny. USCIS normally uses the following three background check mechanisms but maintains the authority to conduct other background investigations as necessary:
� The Interagency Border Inspection System (IBIS)
Name Check� IBIS is a multiagency effort with a central system that combines information from multiple agencies, databases and system interfaces to compile data relating to national security risks, public safety issues and other law enforcement concerns. USCIS can quickly check information from these multiple government agencies to determine if the information in the system affects the adjudication of the case. Results of an IBIS check are usually available immediately. In some cases, information found during an IBIS check will require further investigation. The IBIS check is not deemed completed until all eligibility issues arising from the initial system response are resolved.
� FBI Fingerprint Check�FBI fingerprint checks are conducted for many applications. The FBI fingerprint check provides information relating to criminal background within the United States. Generally, the FBI forwards responses to USCIS within 24-48 hours. If there is a record match, the FBI forwards an electronic copy of the criminal history (RAP sheet) to USCIS. At that point, a USCIS adjudicator reviews the information to determine what effect it may have on eligibility for the benefit. Although the vast majority of inquiries yield no record or match, about 10 percent do uncover criminal history (including immigration violations). In cases involving arrests or charges without disposition, USCIS requires the applicant to provide court certified evidence of the disposition. Customers with prior arrests should provide complete information and certified disposition records at the time of filing to avoid adjudication delays or denial resulting from misrepresentation about criminal history. Even expunged or vacated convictions must be reported for immigration purposes.
� FBI Name Checks�FBI name checks are also required for many applications. The FBI name check is totally different from the FBI fingerprint check. The records maintained in the FBI name check process consist of administrative, applicant, criminal, personnel and other files compiled by law enforcement. Initial responses to this check generally take about two weeks. In about 80 percent of the cases, no match is found. Of the remaining 20 percent, most are resolved within six months. Less than one percent of cases subject to an FBI name check remain pending longer than six months. Some of these cases involve complex, highly sensitive information and cannot be resolved quickly. Even after FBI has provided an initial response to USCIS concerning a match, the name check is not complete until full information is obtained and eligibility issues arising from it are resolved. For most applicants, the process outlined above allows USCIS to quickly determine if there are criminal or security related issues in the applicant�s background that affect eligibility for immigration benefits. Most cases proceed forward without incident. However, due to both the sheer volume of security checks USCIS conducts, and the need to ensure that each applicant is thoroughly screened, some delays on individual applications are inevitable. Background checks may still be considered pending when either the FBI or relevant agency has not provided the final response to the background check or when the FBI or agency has provided a response, but the response requires further investigation or review by the agency or USCIS. Resolving pending cases is time-consuming and labor-intensive; some cases legitimately take months or evenseveral years to resolve. Every USCIS District Office performs regular reviews of the pending caseload to determine when cases have cleared and are ready to be decided. USCIS does not share information about the records match or the nature or status of any investigation with applicants or their representatives.
