FBI Namecheck delays may end .. Hopefully soon

[ramaonline]

From ILW:

FBI name check delays that have stalled benefit applications may soon be a thing of the past. We understand that the Executive branch will soon provide name check clearances within a prescribed amount of time. If the clearance is not completed within the designated timeframe, the benefit will be approved by USCIS while the FBI continues to work on the security process in parallel. The rationale to move tothis new process is not just better customer service for benefits applicants but also because it will enhance national security(our security demands that the bad guys be apprehended, not merely be denied immigration benefits). The background for this change of heart by the Executive branch is the fact that many federal courts have been coming down hard on excessive name checkdelays by the FBI. In fact, not only have some courts ordered expedited name check completions but in some cases courts have suggested that the courts have and would use their authority to adjudicate petitions if the Executive branch could not get itsact together. The attorneys and litigants who have sought federal court relief over these last several years deserve credit forforcing the Executive branch to adopt a more effective policy in this area (when it does happen, hopefully very soon).
=======================
Note: These details may be true. Last month we had heard such information but not in detail and thus had not posted it. We were hoping to get this news within 6-8 weeks (As per oour note on http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=14749). There are efforts to make name checks current and that is good news for everyone waiting for several years in the namecheck blackhole. It will also help recent applicants who might be getting into this problem.
IV wants to thank all its members who took up this issue with their lawmakers and also contacted Ombudsman's office to solve this issue.
- IV Team

[485Mbe4001]

yeah, i wish they had responded when the dates were current. :rolleyes:
After waiting for a long time my date becomes current, but then i find out that i am stuck in namecheck for the past 3 years. Now they will fix namecheck and i will wait till the PD becomes current again :p

[lazycis]

It does not matter who will get credit for this. It would not happen without people taking action - IV members or those who took the USCIS to court (BTW, 90% of those did it without attorneys). Nothing happens if you do not do anything!

[sheela]

Does it mean FBI has to clear/decide the case in 120 day time frame and If it fails to report back, uscis is free to adjudicate the aos

[GCHPLC]

From ILW:

FBI name check delays that have stalled benefit applications may soon be a thing of the past. We understand that the Executive branch will soon provide name check clearances within a prescribed amount of time. If the clearance is not completed within the designated timeframe, the benefit will be approved by USCIS while the FBI continues to work on the security process in parallel. The rationale to move tothis new process is not just better customer service for benefits applicants but also because it will enhance national security(our security demands that the bad guys be apprehended, not merely be denied immigration benefits). The background for this change of heart by the Executive branch is the fact that many federal courts have been coming down hard on excessive name checkdelays by the FBI. In fact, not only have some courts ordered expedited name check completions but in some cases courts have suggested that the courts have and would use their authority to adjudicate petitions if the Executive branch could not get itsact together. The attorneys and litigants who have sought federal court relief over these last several years deserve credit forforcing the Executive branch to adopt a more effective policy in this area (when it does happen, hopefully very soon).

I'm wondering where did you get this information?

[harish]

I'm wondering where did you get this information?


From here.... http://www.ilw.com/immigdaily/

[brav]

Does it mean FBI has to clear/decide the case in 120 day time frame and If it fails to report back, uscis is free to adjudicate the aos

The message says designated time frame, without specifying what the "designated time frame" is. I am just curious, where did you find that 120 days is the "designated time frame"?

Thumbs up to IV and everyone involved in making this happen.

[sheela]

The message says designated time frame, without specifying what the "designated time frame" is. I am just curious, where did you find that 120 days is the "designated time frame"?

Thumbs up to IV and everyone involved in making this happen.

As of now, for the background/name check -time frame in FBI rule-book is 120 days. It will be great if uscis can approve AOS if nothing adverse is reported by FBI within 120 days

[GCHPLC]

Thank you harish. I read it. I hope it will work eventually.

[mallu]

If this turns out true, that will be great !!!
One minor side effect is that India EB dates might further retrogress because still there a lot of folks with PD 2001,2002 etc pending namecheck clearance.

[wandmaker]

the EB visa numbers will not go waste any more once its implemented. :)

[satishku_2000]

If this turns out true, that will be great !!!
One minor side effect is that India EB dates might further retrogress because still there a lot of folks with PD 2001,2002 etc pending namecheck clearance.

I thought the same but they need to get out of the queue before you and I can get our turn :) .. Good for them finally ...

In the longer run I guess it makes predicitions easy :)

[mallu]

I thought the same but they need to get out of the queue before you and I can get our turn :) .. Good for them finally ...

In the longer run I guess it makes predicitions easy :).

One thing , did any other reputed site report this news ?

[sroyc]

People with '01/'02 PD's getting GCs before the rest is a bad thing because .....?


One minor side effect is that India EB dates might further retrogress because still there a lot of folks with PD 2001,2002 etc pending namecheck clearance.

[WeShallOvercome]

.

One thing , did any other reputed site report this news ?

It's on Greg Siskind's blog as well

[mallu]

People with '01/'02 PD's getting GCs before the rest is a bad thing because .....?.

[lacrossegc]

Guys,

off late we have been getting a steady stream of good news, updates , changes mostly to our favor.

It is not because someone in govt thought of giving us a break (if they did then I say give him/her a promotion/ merit increase what ever)....
It IS because people just like YOU fought for it....

Support IVs efforts ... these guys are putting their heart and soul into it... these guys are trying to help you fight.... these guys are one of YOU.

We ALL share a common goal,
Piece by piece, amendment by amendment, exec order by exec order, slowly but surely they will try and do the best they can to make your lives easier, OUR lives easier.

Please help .... donate to sustain OUR efforts.

[pappu]

Note: These details may be true. Last month we had heard such information but not in detail and thus had not posted it. We were hoping to get this news within 6-8 weeks (As per oour note on http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=14749). There are efforts to make name checks current and that is good news for everyone waiting for several years in the namecheck blackhole. It will also help recent applicants who might be getting into this problem.
IV wants to thank all its members who took up this issue with their lawmakers and also contacted Ombudsman's office to solve this issue.
- IV Team

[needhelp!]

Thanks for this update. Seems like good news is finally trickling in. Thanks to the IV team.

Those who are yet to participate, join in! We can make it happen together.

[walking_dude]

Once the FBI Name Check delays issue is resolved, only thing that would be withholding your GCs will be insufficient Visa Numbers. IV is already working to recapture and increase those.

What are you waiting for? Contribute to IV, many already have - http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=15493

[arun397]

It does not matter who will get credit for this. It would not happen without people taking action - IV members or those who took the USCIS to court (BTW, 90% of those did it without attorneys). Nothing happens if you do not do anything!

Hi Lazycis,
We have been hearing this from different sources for while now. When do you think this will come true?Hopefully it happens before the judge dismiss my WOM:)

[h1techSlave]

Mallu, I think the opposite would be the case.

Right now the PD is kept at an artificially low range, since neither the USCIS nor the DOS has a clue about how many GCs they are processing. So for the last several years, they were ultimately issuing only around 80,000 GCs even though the quota is 140,000 + 80,000 (from family quota). A wastage of around 140,000 visas per year.

If USCIS can approve a GC after waiting for 120 days (with our with out a response from the FBI), then the GC approval would become much more predictable. Then the PD cut off will be much more realistic, resulting in a much lower wastage of visa numbers.

The end result, the PD would move upward quickly.

If this turns out true, that will be great !!!
One minor side effect is that India EB dates might further retrogress because still there a lot of folks with PD 2001,2002 etc pending namecheck clearance.

[h1techSlave]

The other bottleneck is USCIS' inefficiency, not a lack of visa numbers.

If you go thru the statistics of last few years, the annual quota for EB is 140,000 + 80,000 from family other category.

IV might want to convince us otherwise, but looking at the numbers, I do not see a shortage of visa numbers.

Once the FBI Name Check delays issue is resolved, only thing that would be withholding your GCs will be insufficient Visa Numbers. IV is already working to recapture and increase those.

[mallu]

http://www.durrani.com/docs/FBI%20Process.pdf

It says some applications will still be delayed . I assume of one is stuck with namecheck where FBI is waiting for response from native country, he will be waiting for eternity. Nowhere it says applications will be approved while the namecheck is pending.

[lazycis]

Congress never thought that I-485 processing would take more than 1 year (I-485 pending for 180 days is called "long-delayed" in 8 USC 1154(j), see also 8 USC 1571). If the USCIS was able to process all I-485 in one year time frame, there would be no retrogression!

[anilnag]

http://www.shusterman.com/
It says good news can come as early as end of this year. Thanks to all for bringing this to lawmaker's attention.

[walking_dude]

Where did you get this number 80,000 FB numbers given to EB immigrants? Please show me the source !

Also, you are forgetting about 7% country quota and the demand from ROW (which itself is retrogressed!).

So no matter what you may think, without IV it's going to be a long wait


The other bottleneck is USCIS' inefficiency, not a lack of visa numbers.

If you go thru the statistics of last few years, the annual quota for EB is 140,000 + 80,000 from family other category.IV might want to convince us otherwise, but looking at the numbers, I do not see a shortage of visa numbers.

[h1techSlave]

http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/CISOMB_Annual_Report_2007.pdf

Look at page 52. Page 53 explains, why USCIS is wasting visa numbers even though there is huge demand for the same.

The 7% country limit does not exist for the last quarter. But it does exist during the first 3 quarters. Since USCIS is moving the PD drastically only in the last quarter, they are unable to process all the applications in the last quarter resulting in wastage of EB visas.

Where did you get this number 80,000 FB numbers given to EB immigrants? Please show me the source !

Also, you are forgetting about 7% country quota and the demand from ROW (which itself is retrogressed!).

So no matter what you may think, without IV it's going to be a long wait

[walking_dude]

I asked you for the proof that 80,000 FBs are reserved for EB immigrants ( or somehow available !). You did not show me any !

There is no law that states USCIS should not consider country quotas during the last quarter. As per AC21 law USCIS should relax the quotas if the numbers are getting wasted (not already assigned to ROW). If USCIS works efficiently and assigns the visa numbers to EB3 ROW - which is retrogressed - before the end of third quarter, they don't need to relax country quotas in the fourth quarter.

In a way USCIS inefficiency is helping applicants from retrogressed countries get GCs faster (4th quarter relaxation) :).


http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/CISOMB_Annual_Report_2007.pdf

Look at page 52. Page 53 explains, why USCIS is wasting visa numbers even though there is huge demand for the same.

The 7% country limit does not exist for the last quarter. But it does exist during the first 3 quarters. Since USCIS is moving the PD drastically only in the last quarter, they are unable to process all the applications in the last quarter resulting in wastage of EB visas.

[BharatPremi]

IV Team,

Thanks for this much eagerly waited update. Now I can again start quoting Shakespeare's famous quot "What's in a name?" again

[h1techSlave]

I never said 80,000 FB visas are reserved for EB. Then those numbers would not be called as FB visas, would they?

Any way, if you look at the statistics (page 52, http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/CISOMB_Annual_Report_2007.pdf), USCIS has not fully utilized all available EB visas for 12 years out of the 15 years. Hence I said, USCIS is THE bottleneck. For the 3 years (out of the total of 15 years), unavailability of visa numbers is THE issue. But for the majority of the years, lack of visa numbers is NOT the issue.

I asked you for the proof that 80,000 FBs are reserved for EB immigrants ( or somehow available !). You did not show me any !

[mallu]

I never said 80,000 FB visas are reserved for EB. Then those numbers would not be called as FB visas, would they?

Any way, if you look at the statistics (page 52, http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/CISOMB_Annual_Report_2007.pdf), USCIS has not fully utilized all available EB visas for 12 years out of the 15 years. Hence I said, USCIS is THE bottleneck. For the 3 years (out of the total of 15 years), unavailability of visa numbers is THE issue. But for the majority of the years, lack of visa numbers is NOT the issue.

When is this name check reform getting implemented. Why is is so difficult to implement ?

[lazycis]

When is this name check reform getting implemented. Why is is so difficult to implement ?

Because the USCIS did not implement name check procedures properly in the first place - they are not required by law and are not codified in the regulations, the USCIS can implement new procedures simply by issuing inter-office memorandum. One day is enough to do this. I anticipate this may happen within the next two months, more likely early next year. But one can never predict the USCIS, it does not have logical behavior :)

[mallu]

Because the USCIS did not implement name check procedures properly in the first place - they are not required by law and are not codified in the regulations, the USCIS can implement new procedures simply by issuing inter-office memorandum. One day is enough to do this. I anticipate this may happen within the next two months, more likely early next year. But one can never predict the USCIS, it does not have logical behavior :)

Meanwhile one of the comments to the blog , http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2007/11/immigration-dai.html#comment-91879090

[lazycis]

FYI: The number of name check related lawsuits increased 10 times from January 2006 to January 2007 :) I estimate the total number for this year will be 3-4 times bigger than 2006 number.

[mallu]

FYI: The number of name check related lawsuits increased 10 times from January 2006 to January 2007 :) I estimate the total number for this year will be 3-4 times bigger than 2006 number.

There may be a slight decrease in number because of retrogression, but i believe the bros&sis in the citizenship queue will compensate for that.

[satishku_2000]

There may be a slight decrease in number because of retrogression, but i believe the bros&sis in the citizenship queue will compensate for that.


Naturalization queue is much bigger than AOS queue now and it has political clout. I guess probably thats the reason why they are expediting the namecheck now. USCIS dont want to be dragged into voter suppression mess.:)

[mallu]

12/02/2007: News of DHS Plan to Approve Immigration Applications Without FBI Name Check Results After Certain Months Stirs Confusion

A couple of sources reported lately that DHS was planning to place a cap on the FBI fingerprint check period and should the agency fail to receive the FBI report within certain undisclosed period of time, the agency will proceed with adjudication of pending immigration applications. Reportedly, the information was released at a DHS meeting with the immigration stakeholders but there are no details of information available about the so-called plan of change of course in managing homeland security matter.
This reminds of the agency's past history in 1998 acting on the backlogs in CIA clearance for over one year causing a huge I-485 backlogs for years and announcing that the INS would adjudicate pending I-485 applications without waiting for the CIA completion of the security clearance on a condition that should the CIA report indicate a negative information, the INS would "revoke" the approved I-485 applications. The people who suffered the most from the lack of coordination betweren the INS and the CIA at the time were Chinese. The INS stop-gap action stirred some political concern and short-lived. The CIA clearance backlogs gradually improved afterwards helping the INS to remove the 485 backlogs over a period of time.
Such unusual stop-gap action was taken "before" 9/11. Since 9/11, the security and name checks have presented the DHS with a challenging task of balancing betweein securing homeland and reducing clearance time. The FBI name checks have presented a serious problem of backlogs particularly in two areas: One is name check backlogs in the new hires of federal government employees and the other is the immigration backlogs. According to the CIS Ombudsman reports, in 2006 the DHS had about 82,824 backlogs pending more than one year. and in 2007 the number increased to 106,738 cases. Such backlogs induced federal litigations in the form of mandamus actions by the applicants with some successful results. The burden of such litigations on the DHS financial and litigation resources has mounted over the years. In order to deal with the problem, the USCIS one time "informally" handled such problem by approving applications (I-485 and natulalization cases) when the applicants brought mandamus actions in the federal courts. Such action had brought a boom of business for some immigration lawyers rushing to filing of a sort of "massive" mandamus actions. Obviously, this action raised a serious polical outcry for the agency compromising the nation's security by adjudicating applications without the name check results, leading to suspension of the DHS informal policy and a subsequent announcement that the agency would not give any favorable consideration in adjudication of applications where a federal lawsuit was pending.
The environment of the agency's security management indeed changed before and after 9/11 and the precedent of INS approving I-485 applications without name check results without prejudice to potential revocation of such approved I-485 applications afterwards may not be that easily reintroduced as the agency will have to overcome two hurdles: A political pressure in the upcoming national election and a potential compromise of security. There was a legislative proposal in the Congress in one of the FY 2008 appropriation bills (CJS Appropriation Bill) which mandated the DHS to adjudicate immigration and naturalization applications, should the FBI fail to clear the name checks within six months from the effective date of the legislation. This legislation has yet to be finalized. Please stay tuned.

[InTheMoment]

Finally something concrete: :D

Secretary Chertoff Advises of Changes in FBI Name Check Clearance Process
AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 07113061, Nov 30, 2007
In a meeting with AILA and other organizations, DHS Secretary Chertoff indicated that USCIS and the FBI are changing parts of the name check process, with the expected result that a large proportion of the backlog should be cleared within six months. The changes are consistent with Secretary Chertoff's risk management approach. The Secretary hopes that, in addition to clearing the backlog, a large percentage of the kinds of applications and situations that have previously been caught in name check delays will, in the future, be cleared quickly. However, he cautions that some checks still will be delayed by investigations, but that that number should represent a small proportion of the numbers previously delayed.

[mallu]

.....However, he cautions that some checks still will be delayed by investigations, but that that number should represent a small proportion of the numbers previously delayed....

Some WOM attorneys were worried that they will be jobless. But there is still "scope" for WOM.

[bindaas]

Regardless of what Oh's website says, I think it will happen.

It is all about politics. The Dems are trying to speed this up with bills etc., so that more GC holders can be naturalized as citizens and could vote for them (most immigrants genrally vote democratic) in Nov 2008. We (GC contenders) will simply hitch the ride.

Check NPR report on name check delays.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9958267

[mallu]

From that article:

""We should remember, these are people who've been living here in the U.S. with green cards for at least five years. And so it doesn't make sense that a delay is going to protect us from any national security threats," Wang said."

That is how stupid current system. I think it is to satisfy a bunch of paranoid conservative voters.

[mallu]

http://www.ilw.com/immigdaily/news/2007,1204-FBI.shtm

[cliffmacnab]

FBI Name Checks Latest

Immigration Daily's recent comment (11/30/07 ID) on the status of FBI name check delays resulted in the following response from USCIS Office of Communications Bill Wright:

Immigration Daily's 11/30/07 comment, "FBI Delays to End," is not telling the entire story. USCIS and the FBI are working together to process name checks as quickly as possible without compromising security or public safety. To this end, we have examined the existing name check system and acted to address the problem through two strategies: (1) first, USCIS and the FBI conducted a joint risk assessment which resulted in process improvements that permit us to focus on cases of concern (2) second, USCIS and FBI have allocated additional resources to the process. Over the next year, USCIS is planning to commit a total of $15.5 million to address the backlog of FBI name checks. Please note, however, USCIS continues to require FBI name checks for the same categories of applications and no case will be approved without a cleared name check. We will continue to work with the FBI to reduce waiting times; but, not at the expense of national security and public safety.

Separately, Immigration Daily has learned that USCIS expects a 40% reduction in FBI name check delays by year-end. This reduction will be achieved largely through the allocation of additional resources and a more streamlined process. This information supports DHS Secretary Chertoff's earlier statement that applications that were previously ensnared in the name check delays will be cleared quickly. However, he cautioned that a small number of checks will still be delayed by investigations.

We welcome readers to share their opinion and ideas with us by writing to editor@ilw.com.

[ssnd03]

(1) first, USCIS and the FBI conducted a joint risk assessment which resulted in process improvements that permit us to focus on cases of concern (2) second, USCIS and FBI have allocated additional resources to the process. Over the next year, USCIS is planning to commit a total of $15.5 million to address the backlog of FBI name checks.

Number (1) is so darn ambiguous. Typical USCIS, FBI bullshit.

[InTheMoment]

...and may I know what is bad in this ?!

I would say this is definitely good as 1.) They have acknowledged the issue AND 2.) acted upon it.

We will know the veracity of their actions as more people report of their NC getting cleared over the next few months.

I think (1) in the statement made by USCIS refers to "DHS Secretary Chertoff indicated that USCIS and the FBI are changing parts of the name check process, with the expected result that a large proportion of the backlog should be cleared within six months" source: AILA Infonet

[ssnd03]

I guess it is just hard to be optimistic with USCIS, FBI processes

...and may I know what is bad in this ?!

I would say this is definitely good as 1.) They have acknowledged the issue AND 2.) acted upon it.

We will know the veracity of their actions as more people report of their NC getting cleared over the next few months.

I think (1) in the statement made by USCIS refers to "DHS Secretary Chertoff indicated that USCIS and the FBI are changing parts of the name check process, with the expected result that a large proportion of the backlog should be cleared within six months" source: AILA Infonet

[lazycis]

I guess Michael Cannon was right after all. He did not promise any improvements regarding name check situation until 2010... Let's hope the court system will continue to put pressure on the USCIS/FBI.

[richshi]

Get one thing done is better than spreading limited resources on multiple topics. To increase immigration quotas is not achievable before presidential election is done.

Why not just focus on getting name check delay solved. It is under congress scrutiny already, all need are to add more oil to the fire.

[gc_kaavaali]

Hi,
IV is trying to achieve these things...but it cannot do until unless members contribute something...IV need contributions to invest in the omnibus bill Lobbying efforts.. for more details look at below thread...

http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=15905


Get one thing done is better than spreading limited resources on multiple topics. To increase immigration quotas is not achievable before presidential election is done.

Why not just focus on getting name check delay solved. It is under congress scrutiny already, all need are to add more oil to the fire.

[maristella61]

Sorry if this has been addressed before but I'm not really sure how the FBI name check works.
Is that something we all go through or is it at random? Where can we go to see if we are in the process of going through that or if we have gotten passed it already.
Thanks for your help as always.

[logiclife]

Sorry if this has been addressed before but I'm not really sure how the FBI name check works.
Is that something we all go through or is it at random? Where can we go to see if we are in the process of going through that or if we have gotten passed it already.
Thanks for your help as always.

everyone has to go thru namecheck process. Once during greencard process and once again during citizenship process. (if and when you apply for citizenship.)

To find out about namecheck, you can call USCIS and if you get an officer on the line (not the cust service representative ), then you can find out.

You can also find out about the status of your namecheck with infopass appointment. That will take up some of your time.

[maristella61]

everyone has to go thru namecheck process. Once during greencard process and once again during citizenship process. (if and when you apply for citizenship.)

To find out about namecheck, you can call USCIS and if you get an officer on the line (not the cust service representative ), then you can find out.

You can also find out about the status of your namecheck with infopass appointment. That will take up some of your time.

Thank you very much. I will follow up on that.

[nolud]

I received a letter from uscis/DHS on Jan 28.
It was in response to my request about my wifes I-485 being in namecheck for a long time.

The response stated:
"The review of our records indicate that the investigation into your background has been completed. The processing of your case has been delayed because the requirement review is still in process."

Does this mean that the namecheck has been completed?
What is "requirement review"?
Did anyone else get this type of letter?

Wifes Case dates:
PD - Jul 2003
Interview Date - Jan 4 2006
Type - Family based ( on marriage )
Info Pass - Sep 2007
Last FP - Oct 2007
LUD - 10/2007 ( probably because of FP )

Current Status:
On October 7, 2003, we received this I485 APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS, and mailed you a notice describing how we will process your case. Please follow any instructions on this notice. We will notify you by mail when we make a decision or if we need something from you. If you move while this case is pending, call customer service. We process cases in the order we receive them. You can use our processing dates to estimate when yours will be done. This case is at our NATIONAL BENEFITS CENTER location. Follow the link below to check processing dates. You can also receive automatic e-mail updates as we process your case. Just follow the link below to register.

Note: If this is the wrong forum/area, please advise where is this question best suited for...
Thanks to ALL

[lazycis]

It looks like NC was completed. "Requirement review" means that they are trying to determine whether your marriage is still valid after all these years... Do not take it close to your heart, I found out that the USCIS letters are not very credible.

[nolud]

Thanks Lazy
If these these letters aren't that credible, then it's also possible that the application may still be stuck in namecheck.
It's so sad to see how they really operate and they have to stoop to such low standards of ethics.
If I had a job where I needed to blow smoke to cover up for my de·fi·cien·cies, I'd be pounding the pavement the next day.

[Hydro]

Helo Im messaging from India,

I found this site useful so I joined in here, but since they did not have India in the listing I added Calfornia. I have a F2B immigration visa pending filed by my parents in the US. I had interview in Chennai, India on Sep 2007. I fell short of some docs and submitted those on 28 Dec 2007 and was given 221g and told my case will be held up due to administrative processing.

I wanted to know if this new name check ruling helps me in any way. Also how long more should I expect to wait for the visa.

Thanx

Hydro

[Hydro]

Helo all,

My mom had filed for an F2B category immigrant visa for me. Consequently, I attended an interview at the US consulate in Chennai, India and was given 221 (g) blue slip and asked to wait. When I contacted the embassy after 3 months I was asked to wait as my case is under administrative processing due to name check.

Any idea how long more I shud be waiting, andyone in the same boat

thnx