221(g) Timelines — Timelines & Processing
Contents
Real timelines for administrative processing 221(g) by consulates: 2023–2025 statistics, what affects duration, whether you can speed it up, and what to do if it drags on.
FAQ on timelines
General questions
Every case is unique: specialty, publications, travel history, State Department workload.
Why does it take 2 months for some and 2 years for others?
Timelines depend on many factors: specialty (TAL fields take longer), publications (sensitive topics), travel history, State Department workload. Every case is unique.
What to do:
- Don’t compare your case directly with others
- Assess risk factors in your profile
- Plan based on averages for your case type
- Be prepared for the worst-case scenario
Common mistake: Expecting the same timeline as an acquaintance.
Correct approach: Factors differ.
The State Department does not provide forecasts, and consulates also don’t know exact timelines.
Can you get a predicted timeline?
No. The State Department does not provide predictions. Consulates also don’t know: they only forward requests. No one can say exactly when a check will be completed.
What to do:
- Use average values for planning
- Build the worst-case into critical decisions
- Don’t believe promises of “exact timelines”
- A Congressional inquiry will give status but not a forecast
Common mistake: Believing lawyers’ promises about exact timelines.
Correct approach: Nobody knows them.
Timelines by visa type
O-1: average around 9 months, range 3–17 months. Sample small (3 cases). TAL specialty increases the duration. Plan at least 6 months; for TAL: one year.
EB-1: average around 9 months, range 2–24 months. Larger sample (22 cases). TAL + PhD can take a year or more. Plan the whole cycle: petition + AP = 2–3 years.
| Visa | Typical timeframe | Extended cases |
|---|---|---|
| B1/B2 | 2–8 weeks | 3–6 months |
| F-1 (student) | 4–12 weeks | 6–18 months (STEM) |
| H-1B | 2–6 weeks | 3–12 months |
| L-1 | 2–8 weeks | 3–9 months |
| K-1 (fiancé) | 2–6 months | 10–18 months |
| J-1 (exchange) | 4–12 weeks | 6–18 months |
CEAC and tracking
Dates change automatically with any update. Look at the status text, not the date.
What does a date change on CEAC mean?
Often: nothing. Dates change automatically with any update in the system. This does not indicate progress or regression. Look at the status text, not the date.
What to do:
- Check CEAC once a week
- Read the status text, not just the date
- Don’t panic at a date change
- Record all changes for your records
Common mistake: Panicking at every date change.
Correct approach: These are automatic updates.
TAL specialties (AI/ML, cybersecurity, nuclear technologies) undergo longer processing.
Does TAL affect timelines?
Yes, significantly. TAL includes 16 categories of critical technologies. Being in a TAL category almost guarantees a check via Visas Mantis. Average for TAL: 6–12 months.
Highest-risk professions:
- AI/ML specialists: a category of particularly high scrutiny in 2024–2025
- Cybersecurity: cryptography is directly on the TAL
- Semiconductors: under watch due to the CHIPS Act
- Nuclear physicists/chemists: interagency checks, the longest timelines
- Aerospace: ITAR restrictions, foreigners not permitted on TRL 4+ projects
- Biotechnologists: gain-of-function, work with pathogens
What to do:
- Prepare a Research Plan explaining that the work has no military application
- For TAL: plan at least 6 months
- TAL + PhD: plan a year
- Have an elevator pitch in English about your work
Common mistake: Hoping for a quick resolution in TAL fields.
Correct approach: Build realistic timelines.
How to track: On CEAC for immigrant visas, via ustraveldocs for nonimmigrant ones. Check once a week, not more often. Record date and status, save screenshots. After status Issued: passport with visa is returned in 2–7 days (depends on courier).
Actions at different stages
First 4–6 weeks: normal even for simple cases. Don’t panic.
What to do during the first month of waiting?
Wait calmly. The first 4–6 weeks are a normal timeframe even for simple cases. Don’t panic, don’t email the consulate every day.
What to do:
- Don’t contact the consulate in the first month
- Check CEAC once a week
- Record the interview date and the 221(g) date
- Prepare documents in case of a request
Common mistake: Pressuring the consulate from day one.
Correct approach: It’s counterproductive.
Congressional inquiry, follow-up employer letters, consultation with an attorney.
What to do after 6 months of waiting?
Become active. If you haven’t already: file a congressional inquiry. Send follow-up letters from the employer. Consult an immigration attorney. This is the time for active steps.
What to do:
- File a Congressional inquiry if not already done
- Send a follow-up letter from the employer
- Consult an immigration attorney
- Consider mandamus if approaching a year
Common mistake: Passively waiting a year.
Correct approach: After 6 months, take active steps.
Additional questions
Technically the clock doesn’t reset, but each additional request adds time.
Does the timeline reset with additional requests?
Technically no, but responding to a request can extend the overall timeline. Each additional request (documents, DS-5535) adds processing time.
What to do:
- Respond quickly and fully to requests
- A high-quality response saves time
- A partial response may prompt new questions
- Keep copies of all submitted documents
Common mistake: Delaying responses to requests.
Correct approach: This prolongs the process.
Petition approvals do not automatically expire because of 221(g), but visas have different validity periods.
Does approval expire if 221(g) is prolonged?
Petition approval does not automatically expire because of prolonged 221(g). But different visas have different approval validity windows.
What to do:
- Check the validity of your approval notice
- O-1 approvals usually remain valid until the date indicated
- EB-1/EB-2: monitor priority date and the Visa Bulletin
- For prolonged 221(g), an attorney may extend a petition
Common mistake: Assuming 221(g) voids the approval.
Correct approach: Approval stays valid per its own terms; 221(g) does not change that.
Types of checks and statistics
SAOs are coordinated with the FBI, CIA, DHS. Mantis for technologies, Condor for terrorism.
What types of checks (SAO) exist?
Security Advisory Opinions (SAO) are coordinated with the FBI, CIA, DHS and other agencies. The applicant is not told which type of check applies.
Four main SAO types and their timelines.
| SAO type | Reason | Typical timeframe |
|---|---|---|
| Visas Mantis | Access to technologies with military applications | 2–3 weeks |
| Visas Condor | Terrorism ties | 1–2 weeks |
| Visas Donkey | Specific checks | Months (unpredictable) |
| Visas Eagle | Immigration status check | Several days |
Common mistake: Thinking you can learn the type of check.
Correct approach: SAO type is not disclosed to the applicant.
80% of SAOs clear in 2 weeks, 97% within 120 days. ~17% of applications receive 221(g).
What are the official State Department statistics?
The U.S. State Department position: “The duration of administrative processing will vary depending on the individual circumstances of each case.”
Official timelines:
- 60 days: most cases resolved within this period
- 80% of SAO: cleared within 2 weeks
- 97% of SAO: completed within 120 days (FBI data)
- 180 days: timeframe after which inquiries can be made (for immigrant visas)
221(g) statistics:
- ~17% of all visa applications receive 221(g)
- Over 1,000,000 applications annually fall under 221(g)
- In 2025 the share rose to ~19% due to increased social-media screening
Historical stats (2003–2004): 87% of cases resolved within 30 days, 2% took more than 120 days.
Current timelines by category (2024–2025).
| Category | Typical timeframe |
|---|---|
| Simple cases (missing documents) | 7–20 days |
| Standard security check | 2–8 weeks |
| STEM, sensitive technologies | 2–6 months |
| Complex cases (interagency) | 12–18 months |
| Extreme cases | Years or never |
Approval probability: 70–80%. The vast majority of 221(g) cases are overcome. A Refused status on CEAC during AP does not mean a final refusal. However: AP is technically a refusal (to be reported in future applications), affects ESTA. If not resolved within a year: permanent refusal. After prolonged AP, the visa is often issued for 1 year instead of the usual 3 years.
Documented cases of 16, 28 months and up to 7 years exist.
Are multi-year delays possible?
Yes. Public sources documented multi-year AP cases.
Documented long AP cases.
| Visa | AP duration | Country |
|---|---|---|
| L1-B | 16 months | Not specified |
| B1/B2 | 28 months | Pakistan |
| K-1 | 5 years | Pakistan |
| IR (immigrant) | 5 years | Afghanistan |
| F-1/F-2 | >1 year | Iran |
| Immigrant | 7 years | Reddit, 2024 |
| Immigrant | 3.5 years | Reddit, 2024 |
| B1/B2 | 12–16 months | Russia |
| Family | 28 months | Court cases |
Record from the Vinski forum: over 150 days (~5 months), after which the visa was issued.
2020s trend: whereas AP rarely exceeded 3–4 months before, now 6–9 months and more is common for complex categories.
Special cases:
- Some cases remain “frozen” indefinitely (indefinite hold)
- “8 months is still early; some people got visas after 12–16 months”
- After one year the case may “expire” and require reapplication
NNU Immigration: “Some cases can take many months or years to complete or never reach resolution.” Source: Administrative Processing: Visa Delays, Denials & Options | NNU Immigration
Legal options
Mandamus: after filing, a decision usually within ~60 days. Success rates 87–99%.
What is Mandamus and when to file?
Writ of Mandamus: a federal lawsuit compelling the government to decide your case. It does not guarantee approval, only that a decision be made.
When to file:
- 6–12 months for consular AP (AILA recommendation)
- At least 6 months beyond published processing times
- Volume of suits grew 5x: from 1,295 cases (2020) to ~6,800 (2023)
Success statistics:
- 87–99.6% per law firm data
- “Success” = government takes action (schedules interview, issues decision)
- Decision usually within 30–60 days after filing
Cost: federal filing fee $405 + attorney fees $2,000–$10,000 = $3,000–$15,000
Example of success: “K-1 visa in Warsaw, 10 months waiting. After filing Mandamus ($4,000) visa approved within three weeks.” Source: VisaJourney forum, 2023
Status inquiry: after 60 days (NIV) or 180 days (IV). Congressional inquiry does not guarantee acceleration.
What other legal options exist?
1. Status inquiry:
- Nonimmigrant visa: after 60 days
- Immigrant visa: after 180 days
- Inquiry via a member of Congress or senator
- Does not guarantee acceleration
- The State Department treats AP as a national security matter
3. Refiling:
- After one year expires
- Requires new fees
- Does not guarantee a different outcome
Common mistake: Expecting a congressman to speed up the check.
Correct approach: Congressional inquiry provides status, not speed.
Russia & CIS
Russian citizens are in a higher-risk group for AP along with China, India, Israel, Pakistan and Iran. Reason: non-proliferation agreements and access to dual-use technologies.
Physicists, chemists, IT in AI/cybersecurity, working in closed research institutes.
What factors increase the likelihood of AP for Russians?
- Profession: physicists, chemists, engineers, IT specialists in AI, cybersecurity, nuclear technologies
- Employment: work at closed research institutes or defense enterprises
- Publications: scientific articles in sensitive fields
- Prior refusals: any past visa issues
- Common surname: leads to matches in databases
Consequences of AP: a visa for 1 year (instead of 3), a “Clearance Received” stamp in the passport, inability to use streamlined procedures in the future, full interview every time. 2023–2024 unofficial stats: unofficially, refusal rates for Russians on tourist visas rose to ~60%.
From June 2025 social media must be public for F/M/J visas, and from December for H-1B.
2025 trends
Tougher screening:
- June 2025: all F, M, J applicants must make social media public
- December 2025: requirement expands to H-1B and H-4
- Increased use of DS-5535 (expanded questionnaire)
- Rise in 221(g) share to ~19%
Legal trends:
- Mandamus suits increased 5x (from 1,295 to ~6,800 per year)
- Supreme Court decision Munoz (2024): courts cannot review denials but can demand decisions
- Government increasingly contests suits instead of settling
Country specifics:
- Iranian cases effectively frozen under 212(f)
- Russians are not under a direct 212(f) ban yet, but AP is lengthening
- State Department aggressively revokes visas of Chinese students
Consulates for Russians
| Consulate | Appointment wait | AP after interview | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Warsaw | <2 weeks | 5–10 months | Schengen required. Russian-speaking staff |
| Almaty | 1.5–2 months | 3–6 months | Visa-free entry. IR-5 visas |
| Yerevan | 1–3 months | 3–6 months | Visa-free entry |
| Tbilisi | ~1 month | 3–6 months | Visa-free entry |
| Belgrade | 2–6 weeks | 3–6 months | Visa-free entry |
| London | Limited | 6–9+ months | UK visa required |
| Astana | 1–2 months | 6–9+ months | Visa-free entry |
More in our guide: Consulates and interviews.
Other CIS countries
Kazakhstan: apply locally (Almaty, Astana). Appointment waits 1.5–2 months, interviews in Russian/Kazakh. AP frequency moderate, depends on profession.
Ukraine: as of October 2024 immigrant visa processing resumed in Kyiv. The “Uniting for Ukraine” program for displaced persons (up to 2 years). More favorable treatment due to humanitarian reasons.
Belarus: embassy in Minsk suspended since February 2022. Options: Vilnius or Warsaw for nonimmigrant, Warsaw for immigrant visas. From late 2024 visa renewal by waiver resumed.
Checklist
- Recorded interview date and 221(g) date
- Check CEAC once a week (no more)
- Keep a log of status changes
- Save all correspondence with the consulate
- Do not write to the consulate more than once a month
- Plan timelines with a buffer
- After 6 months: take active steps
Common mistakes
| Mistake | Correct approach |
|---|---|
| Checking CEAC daily | Once a week is enough |
| Panicking at date changes | Dates change automatically |
| Expecting 2–3 months for TAL | Plan 6–12 months |
| Passively waiting after 6 months | Time for active measures |
| Comparing with others’ timelines | Each case is unique |
| Delaying response to requests | Respond quickly and fully |
Real cases from Telegram (2023–2025)
Data from chats “Administrative Processing (Talent in Everyone)” and “Administrative Processing (tractor)”. Confirmed cases with specific durations.
Three AP levels
From the Telegram AP chat
Observation from the Administrative Processing chat
Timelines by visa types (from chats)
| Visa type | Typical AP timeframe | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| DV (lottery) | Until Sept 30 or cancellation | “Lottery applicants are usually released en masse in August” |
| O-1 (sports) | Weeks–months | “Sports O-1 cleared in a month or two for some” |
| O-1 (IT/STEM) | 6–18 months | “IT folks sit for a year” |
| EB-1 | 8–12 months on average | “Currently 8–12 months” |
| EB-3 | 3–4 months | “3.5 months, we had an EB-3” |
| L-1 | 4–16 months | Cases up to 16 months |
| B1/B2 | “Longest timelines” | Up to 2.5+ years |
| K-1 (fiancée) | Up to 6 months | “Up to half a year, but can’t be sure” |
Quick resolutions (up to 3 months)
| Visa | Consulate | AP duration | Details |
|---|---|---|---|
| O-1 | Slovenia | 3 days | “Less than 4 days — they asked to send passport” |
| O-1 | Yerevan | 8 days | “Interview May 21, happy letter May 29” |
| DV | - | 12 days | “AP lasted 12 days” |
| O-1 | Warsaw | 3 weeks | “First AP cleared in 3 weeks with clearance” |
| B1/B2 | Astana | 1 month | “Exactly one month AP in Astana” |
| E-1 | - | 3 months | “E1 visa, AP 3 months, athlete” |
| EB-3 | - | 3.5 months | “3.5 months, we had an EB-3” |
| EB-1A | Tashkent | 3.5 months | “Interview 23.12.2024, letter 01.04, passports 16.04” |
Average timelines (6–18 months)
| Visa | Consulate | AP duration | Details |
|---|---|---|---|
| H-1B | Tashkent | 12 months | “Longest was a year” |
| EB-1 | Almaty | 14 months | “After 14 months of waiting… EB-1 (medicine)” |
| L-1 | Yerevan | 16 months | “1 year 4 months, Yerevan, L1 (extension)” |
| EB-1 | - | 18 months | “Exactly one and a half years from AP start” |
| EB-1 | Almaty | 18.5 months | “Engineer, 3 kids. Interview April 2024, AP finished Nov 2025” |
Long cases (18+ months)
| Visa | Consulate | AP duration | Details |
|---|---|---|---|
| O-1 | Yerevan | ~20 months | “Product manager. Interview 22.11.2023, visa 08.2025” |
| B1/B2 | Munich | 22.5 months | “Munich, 22.5 months, almost 2 years waiting” |
| EB-1A | - | 23+ months | “Metallurgy TAL + both PhDs” |
| EB | Munich | 24 months | “AP will be 2 years in 14 days” |
| B1/B2 | Warsaw | 25 months | “I have 2 years and 1 month already” |
| B1/B2 | - | 27 months | “Picked up the visa today. Issued for one year B1/B2” |
| EB/O | Vienna | 28 months | “Yesterday I submitted passport in Vienna, today status Approved” |
| B1/B2 | Munich | ~30 months | “Parents applied 2.5 years ago, still not finished” |
| EB-1 | - | 769 days | “Our AP lasted 769 days or 2 years, 1 month, 1 week and 1 day” |
| H1B | - | 2+ years | Petition expired during AP. New petition = $100k fee. |
Record timelines
Records from the Telegram chat
From the Administrative Processing chat
Timelines by consulate (from chats)
| Consulate | Typical timelines | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Munich/Frankfurt | 1.5–3 years | “This is currently the standard” |
| Warsaw | 6–18 months | Main hub for Russians, busy |
| Tashkent | 3–14 months | “Tashkent has been unresponsive for half a year” |
| Almaty | 3–15 months | “In 2023–24 they were sending many cases” |
| Astana | 1–4 weeks / 12+ months | Consulate quick, State Dept slow. IT = TAL. |
| Yerevan | 1 week–20 months | Wide range |
| Vienna | up to 28 months | - |
| Slovenia | days–weeks | Requires a spotless history |
TAL professions and timelines {#tal}
| Profession | Typical timeframe |
|---|---|
| AI / Machine Learning | 12+ months |
| Cybersecurity | 12+ months |
| Metallurgy | 20+ months |
| Nuclear technologies | Years |
| Aerospace sector | Years |
| Semiconductors | 12+ months |
| Biotechnology | 12+ months |
| Blockchain | 12+ months |
Consul, Warsaw (from Telegram chat)
Reality: in practice TAL specialties take from a year to indefinitely long.
Without TAL: “Recently a dentist calmly received EB1 without checks”
Validity periods of documents
| Document/Check | Validity |
|---|---|
| Nonimmigrant clearance | ~120 days |
| Medical exam | 6 months |
| Police certificates | 2 years |
| O-1 petition | 3 years |
| EB petition | No expiration |
Mandamus: timelines from practice
| Recommendation | Source |
|---|---|
| After 6 months | Minimum for collective suits |
| After 12–18 months | Typical recommendation |
| After 2+ years | Conservative approach |
From discussions of case law
From Telegram chat. More on court decisions: Red Eagle Law
Mandamus outcomes: release before trial (“they sent it for review almost immediately after filing”), judge dismissal (“2 years is too short to wait”), release after denial. Cost: individual $5,000, class $1,300–3,000 per person.
Key quotes about timelines
- “AP lasting less than a year is not AP, but AP-containing product”
- “At any moment they can release someone after months, a year, two, three, or leave them waiting longer. Total randomness.”
- “Within 60 days you can still hope for a quick decision. After several years, probably not.”
- “If there’s no result in 6 weeks, you can relax and stop worrying”
- “If you’re not out within 12 months, consider [mandamus]”
- “Very rarely, once every couple months someone exits AP with timelines near two years. So rare we celebrate in the chat”
- “After year two it gets calmer. Maybe in five years it will be completely calm. But that’s uncertain”
- “After month 36 there is 37…38….”
Source: Telegram chats 2023–2025
Change in timelines 2024–2025: “In 2024 the average was 8–12 months. Now 2–3 years and unclear. Some exit by 12 months, then a gap.”
Applicants’ observations
- Factors matter more than visa type. Timelines depend on a mix: subject area, completeness of data, employer check, route. Prepare consistent answers.
- Planning reduces stress. Record what and when you submitted; check only key events.
- Frequent emails don’t help. Write rarely and briefly, with a clear request for status.
- Technical vs real signals. Real signals: document request, passport request, instruction letter, status “Issued”.
- Data errors = delay. Check data before sending; don’t add new facts “for aesthetics.”
Important
Data based on a limited sample from the “Talent in Everyone” community. Your case may differ. Use as guidance, not guarantee.
Revealed for the first time: how the check really works
Toktam Hosseinnezhad Ariani, Iran. She waited more than two years for a visa. Interview completed, documents submitted, and the response: silence. CEAC status: “Refused.” Every day the same. No explanations, no timelines.
Toktam didn’t give up. She became a lead plaintiff in a class action joining dozens in the same situation: Iranians, Pakistanis, Chinese, Russians. All stuck in “administrative processing” endlessly.
Irsa Jamil, Pakistan. The petition was approved. In August 2021 she attended an interview at the Islamabad consulate.
The interview went normally. But they said: “You’ve been placed in administrative processing. Wait.”
She waited, wrote letters, inquired. They replied: “You cannot influence this. Just wait.” Two and a half years passed. The check did not conclude. Source
These stories are not unique. Thousands are stuck. Their suits changed everything: for the first time a court forced the State Department to disclose its internal workings. How many people are in queue, how many analysts work, why there’s no first-in-first-out. What had been hidden for years became public.
The case is led by Jesse Bless, former director of federal litigation at AILA (the largest association of U.S. immigration lawyers). Hundreds joined suits across the U.S.
Why this case matters: for the first time a court compelled the State Department to disclose internal statistics on administrative processing. Carson Wu, director of SAC in Washington, testified under oath. Those data explain why checks take so long and why consulates cannot influence them.
Case 1:23-cv-03486-CKK, D.C. District Court - Ariani v. Blinken - CourtListener
What the case revealed
66,000 requests in the queue. As of January 2024, that many cases await review in SAC (Screening, Analysis and Coordination). SAC is the State Department office in Washington that reviews applicants for national security concerns. SAC decides who to vet and which agencies to involve. [declaration §17, §19]
37 analysts nationwide. The entire backlog is processed by 37 people: 22 in the Counterterrorism Division and 15 in the Screening Division. Each analyst covers a specific region or country. [declaration §16, §18]
130,000 new requests per year. Counterterrorism Division handles 55,000 SAO requests annually; Screening Division: 75,000. SAO (Security Advisory Opinion) is a consular request to Washington to vet a specific applicant. Total 130,000 new cases per year. Analysts are insufficient; backlog grows. [declaration §17, §19]
Official timelines from Carson Wu’s declaration
Carson Wu, SAC director, testified under oath in January 2024:
Declaration of Carson Wu, §21 - PDF
Translation: "Security checks conclude for approximately 75% of cases in about 120 days. Over 90% of all checks conclude in less than 24 months."
- 75% of cases finish within 120 days (4 months)
- 90% of cases finish in less than 24 months (2 years)
- 10% of cases may last for years without a set timeframe
Important context: these timelines are based on pre-COVID statistics. They are a guideline, not a guarantee.
Why “Refused” is not a refusal
Important: understand
When you check your visa status online and see "Refused", this is not a real visa denial.
Even the 221(g) notice from the State Department explicitly states:
"Your visa application is temporarily refused... However this refusal may be overcome once the missing documentation and/or administrative processing have been met."
The government admitted under oath: this is a "procedural label." They write "refused" so you cannot treat it as a final decision. In practice the visa is not denied: the case is simply on hold until AP concludes.
The court accepted this argument from plaintiffs and denied the government’s attempt to dismiss the case based on "consular decisions are not reviewable."
Why there is no first-in, first-out queue
For years government lawyers told judges nationwide that mandamus plaintiffs “try to jump the queue.” That was the main argument to dismiss suits.
But when the court demanded SAC documents, it turned out: no FIFO queue exists. The government argued accelerating one plaintiff would be unfair to others. The court reviewed SAC’s internal documents and found:
Court decision, Ariani v. Blinken
This is corroborated by Carson Wu’s declaration:
Declaration of Carson Wu, §21 - PDF
Translation: "Due to the complexity of the process, SAO requests cannot be processed on a 'first come, first served' basis."
This is key: if your check began 3 years ago, it does not mean it will finish before someone who applied a month ago. Especially long waits affect those in Visas Mantis technical categories. Priority goes to:
- Cases tied to national interests (diplomats, U.N.)
- Urgent foreign policy matters
- New security threats
Ordinary applicants can be deferred indefinitely.
The consulate CANNOT issue a visa without SAC’s response
Carson Wu’s testimony revealed a critical rule:
Declaration of Carson Wu, §13 - PDF
Translation: "Consular officers cannot issue the visa until they are satisfied of the applicant’s eligibility. If an SAO is required, the consular officer must await the response."
Key point
Until SAC sends an advisory letter, the consulate has no authority to issue the visa. Even after two years the consul cannot say "apparently the check found nothing, let’s issue the visa." The consulate is fully dependent on Washington.
How the screening works internally
Carson Wu’s testimony clarified the process:
The consul sees a “trigger”
At the interview something raises suspicion: a surname matches a database entry, a technical education (e.g., “chemical-technology university”), work in certain industries. The consul does not Google it themselves: they send a request to Washington.
SAC receives the request
SAC does not decide "issue/deny". It determines which agencies should weigh in on the case.
Request to agencies
The range is broad: FBI, CIA, NSA, DHS, Department of Defense, human rights bodies, sanctions/export-control offices—whatever SAC deems relevant. [declaration §15]
Collecting responses
SAC waits for each requested agency to send its recommendation and compiles them into one letter.
Coordination
If agencies disagree, the matter is escalated to leadership. Until consensus is reached, the consul cannot proceed. [declaration §20]
Response to the consul
SAC sends an advisory recommendation: whether there are grounds for denial under INA 212(a)(3). The consul makes the final decision, but only after receiving that advisory letter.
The CLASS database: 36 million records
CLASS (Consular Lookout and Support System) is the State Department database used to screen all visa applicants:
Declaration of Carson Wu, §11 - PDF
Translation: "All applicant data are checked against CLASS: an online database with about 36 million person records."
CLASS contains information on:
- People previously denied visas
- People with negative intelligence or law-enforcement information
- Persons in the Terrorist Screening Database
The system uses name-matching algorithms. If your name is similar to a record, additional verification may be required. This is one reason people with common names often get checked.
Current case status and judicial trend
Ariani v. Blinken is in the U.S. District Court for D.C., but it’s not unique: federal judges across the country are denying the government’s motions to dismiss similar cases.
Important trend
Dozens of federal judges in various states issued similar rulings: 221(g) is not a final denial, and applicants can challenge unreasonable delays. Full list of decisions at Red Eagle Law.
What courts found:
- 221(g) is not a final decision. It’s a “temporary refusal” or a placeholder. The case remains open.
- Consular nonreviewability doctrine does not apply. That doctrine protects only final consular decisions. Without a final decision, courts can intervene.
- TRAC test (Telecommunications Research & Action Center v. FCC) requires facts. Courts refuse to dismiss early because reasonableness of delay requires detailed analysis.
- Karimova (favoring government) is not controlling. Many courts explicitly declined to follow it.
This means: if your AP is prolonged, judicial remedies exist. More: Mandamus: federal suit.
Backlog dynamics: growth then reduction
Court documents show how the backlog changed:
- September 2023: 59,000 cases in queue
- January 2024: 66,000 cases (+11% in 3 months)
- April 2024: backlog decreased by 7.5%
The jump from 59,000 to 66,000 showed the system choking. But after public attention, congressional inquiries and waves of mandamus suits, the situation began to change.
Lawyers link the decrease to two factors:
- Dozens of mandamus suits pressuring the system
- Media attention (Fox News Special Report)
What this means for you
Practical takeaways
1. "Refused" on CEAC: not a denial, but a hold pending Washington’s response.
- The consulate does not control timelines: SAC does.
- There is no queue: earlier filing does not mean earlier release.
- 75% within 120 days: a guideline, not a guarantee.
- Mandamus works: judicial pressure reduces backlog.
Sources and documents
Case 1:23-cv-03486-CKK - Document 9-2 - 5 pages - January 2024
Official sworn testimony of the SAC director. Contains internal stats: 66,000 backlog, 37 analysts, 130,000 new cases per year. Explains why no FIFO queue exists and why consulates cannot speed up AP.
Download PDF | All case documents | Alternate link
Other sources:
- Declaration of Carson Wu (April 2024): Taherian v. Blinken case, updated backlog numbers.
- Red Eagle Law: Judges deny dismissal — case analysis.
- Red Eagle Law: Analysis of Carson Wu’s declarations with links to originals.
- Global Practice: Video analysis of Irsa Jamil’s case — detailed lawyer breakdown.
See also: