A Florida caller on the Immigration Answer Show described sitting through his own marriage green card interview while the officer questioned only his U.S. citizen wife. Because he was born in one of the “39 countries,” she told him there was no movement on those cases and she would not interview him on the I-485, only on the I-130. Jim Hacking’s read was that the officer had just exposed the whole pause.
mic What the Attorney Says
“They claim in court that they’re doing all the work, but that … the last step, which is to click approve or deny, is the one thing they’re not doing, right? So, I think they’re liars when they say that. Your situation, the fact that she refused to conduct your interview, sort of proves that.”
The pause came from the May 21, 2026 USCIS adjustment guidance. In litigation, the agency’s position was that it was completing every step of each case and only holding the final decision. Skipping the applicant’s own interview is hard to square with that. Adjustment interviews run under 8 U.S.C. § 1255, and on a marriage case the immigrant is the applicant, the person with the most to say about the bona fides of the marriage.
mic What the Attorney Says
“A foreign national, the beneficiary definitely has information to provide in support of the I-130. So, this was this was dumb.”
A later caller, a Canadian citizen born in Eritrea, married to a U.S. citizen, asked whether she could refuse to be waved through if the same thing happened at her interview. She wanted to know why her Canadian passport bought her no goodwill. Hacking was blunt that birthplace, not conduct, was driving the delay.
mic What the Attorney Says
“None. None. Cuz they’re … racist. No no leniency at all.”
His practical advice was to insist on the full interview and escalate on the spot if the officer balks.
mic What the Attorney Says
“I would insist on it. If they schedule me for an interview and I show up and they say, ‘Yeah, we’re not going to do it,’ I tell them, ‘Yes, you are. Give me a supervisor.’”
He was clear about the limit, too: an officer can end the encounter, and pushing too far can get you removed from the building. “They could arrest you for trespassing and kick you out, but that’s what they’re supposed to do,” he said, “but you have to document that stuff.” Note who refused, when, and the exact reason given, in writing, the same way you would document any bad immigration advice.
Two days after this broadcast, the ground shifted. On June 5, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island vacated the 39-country pause in Dorcas International Institute of Rhode Island v. USCIS. An officer who deferred an interview solely because of an applicant’s birthplace no longer has that basis, and cases in that bucket are supposed to move again. The broader memo and its three interview questions still stand, so the interview itself matters. That is exactly why letting an officer skip yours is the wrong move.