Stage 3: Interview Letter (IL) Drops

Wait times from DQ to Interview Letter vary and change over time. See the data page for current community averages.

Based on 25 drops tracked by this community, March 2025 – July 2026. Updated 3 September 2026.

Drops follow a monthly rhythm. London releases one main batch of interview letters roughly every 4–5 weeks, with smaller top-up drops of a handful of letters in between. Each main drop fills about one calendar month of interview slots. The May 29 drop, for example, booked interviews across the whole of July.

They land on weekday afternoons, and look automated. No drop has ever arrived on a weekend. Nearly all appear between about 1:50pm and 4pm UK time, and the timing shifts by an hour when the clocks change: consistent with a system running on a fixed US morning schedule. One drop even landed on New Year's Day.

The queue is mostly first-come, first-served. Drops generally cover a recent block of DQ dates in order. But every third or fourth drop is a wide "catch-up" sweep that also picks up people who've been waiting far longer than average, so if you feel skipped, history says you're most likely to be picked up in one of those.

The wait from DQ to IL has grown. In summer 2025, letters were going to people DQ'd just 2–5 weeks earlier. By the final drop in July 2026 they were reaching DQ dates about 13 weeks old, and the average DQ-to-IL wait over the preceding six months was 77 days, up from 63 all-time. Anyone still waiting has been waiting longer than that since drops stopped.

The one dependable stage: IL to interview. Whatever month your letter arrives, your interview will almost certainly be two calendar months later. This held across the entire history up to July 2026, but it describes the date you are given, and interviews scheduled that way are currently being canceled. See the interview cancellation notice.

Right now: drops have stopped. The last one was on 14 July 2026 and it was small. By the usual pattern a larger drop was due in early-to-mid August; nothing came, and as of 3 September that is seven weeks of silence: longer than any gap in the 16 months above. Members waiting at other posts report the same, so this does not appear to be specific to London. Everything in this card describes how drops behaved up to 14 July. None of it is a forecast of when the next one will land, because we do not know that there will be one on the old pattern.

Based on the volume of data submitted, the tracker's IL drop figures reflect Immediate Relative (IR) cases: that's what nearly all of our members hold. Family-Sponsored Preference (F category) cases go through the same London process but are currently tracking about a month behind IR.

You can see this on the State Department's NVC immigrant visa scheduling status tool: as of its 8 July 2026 update, NVC was scheduling documentarily complete IR cases at London with visas available from April 2026, while Family-Sponsored Preference cases were at March 2026. Remember the tracker can only count the people who submit their information. Use the NVC tool for broader official scheduling data.

1. Book your medical via VisaMedicals: appointment windows open monthly and fill quickly. The medical must be 10 working days before your interview date. You are required to attend the same-day embassy document check afterwards (window: 11:45 AM – 2:30 PM). Currently canceled: see the interview cancellation notice.

2. Register your interview via AIS. You must select your passport return method at this stage: home delivery or Mail Boxes Etc collection (Holborn, Angel, or Belfast). If you do not complete this, the embassy has no way to return your passport to you. Note: registration may take a few days to appear after the IL arrives.

1. Visit id.me and click "Sign up"
2. Choose to verify with your IRS account or use your driver's license, state ID, or passport
3. Follow the identity verification prompts. You may need to take a selfie and photos of your ID
4. Once verified, you will have instant access to the IRS Get Transcript tool
5. Download your Tax Return Transcript and upload it to CEAC as described above

The assessment used to rest almost entirely on the petitioner's income and the I-864. That is no longer the whole picture. The statute behind it, INA 212(a)(4)(B), requires the officer to consider five minimum factors, and every one of them is about the beneficiary:

• Age: applicants at advanced age, and at the other end under 16, are expected to show credible plans for support. Officers weigh whether you can work long enough to fund your own retirement and avoid expensive long-term care, so pension provision and household resources matter. Posts also ask the petitioner’s age, because a sponsor near retirement has fewer working years left to deliver the income the I-864 promises.
• Health: taken from the panel physician's report and any Class B certification. Chronic or high-cost conditions: cardiovascular disease, diabetes, cancers, neurological disorders, serious mental health conditions: are assessed against your ability to fund lifelong care without public assistance. Officers are not confined to the report; visible risk factors, obesity among them, are named in the guidance. If you plan to rely on an employer’s plan, expect the officer to weigh how likely you are to obtain and keep such a job, and how you would stay covered after retiring. Expect the question to be about cost, not just coverage: officers have asked applicants what their own medication costs in the US. Price yours before you go.
• Family status: your household size, and who depends on whom. Minor children, elderly parents and other dependents can weigh against you. Even with no dependents, the officer gauges whether you will be able to care for yourself as you age rather than needing government-funded residential care. Two sub-questions catch people out. Posts ask whether any of the petitioner’s dependents have a medical condition under treatment, or a disability or special need requiring long-term care, because those draw on the same income meant to support you. And they define dependents more widely than Form I-864 does: all of them, including extended family or friends the petitioner supports financially, who appear nowhere on the affidavit. Work out both numbers and be ready to explain the difference.
• Assets, resources and financial status: household income first and foremost. Savings and property are counted, and debts set against them, but see the warning below: at London, assets do not stand in for predictable income. Where they do carry weight is resilience: officers look for liquid, documented assets that could absorb a job loss, a medical emergency or long-term care, and may ask for bank records, retirement accounts and life insurance, and verify them independently.
• Education and skills: degrees, certifications, licenses, and skills gained through work experience, including unpaid and volunteer work; formal education is not the only acceptable evidence. At post this factor carries an extra edge. English proficiency is treated as central, interviews are conducted in English wherever possible, and for a non-native speaker the officer estimates how long fluency would take. Officers also weigh whether your qualifications will be recognized in the US, and whether relicensing requirements stand between you and work in your field. Have both histories as lists, not sentences: every position title with the years worked, and every qualification with subject, institution and year. Posts request them in exactly that form.

The I-864 is weighed alongside these, not instead of them: a sufficient I-864 no longer ends the inquiry. It cuts the other way too, and sharply: where an I-864 is required, failing to produce a sufficient one is the single thing that sinks a case on its own. Every other factor is weighed in the round, and no one of them decides the outcome by itself.

This shift is documented, not just anecdotal. The State Department is not bound by the USCIS reading. It works from its own manual, 9 FAM 302.8, but a November 2025 cable to all consular posts substantially expanded the factors and evidence officers apply to immigrant visa applicants, and puts the burden squarely on you to show affirmatively that you will not become a public charge at any time after admission. Community reporting from London matches: this questioning is now routine at the window. See CLINIC’s analysis. Our statement template covers all five factors.

Public charge has two limbs, and almost all guidance covers only the first. Alongside dependence on means-tested support sits long-term institutionalization at government expense, which has been part of the definition for decades. Written questionnaires ask it as a numbered question of its own: has either the petitioner or the beneficiary ever been institutionalized at government expense, a long-term stay in a mental health facility or a nursing facility being the examples given.

For a UK applicant this is not the NHS. Ordinary NHS treatment is free to everyone, is not means-tested, and is not institutionalization for long-term care. What the question reaches is a prolonged stay in a facility funded by the state because you could not fund it yourself: a local-authority-funded care or nursing home place, NHS continuing healthcare funding a residential placement, a long-term inpatient stay under the Mental Health Act and s.117 aftercare, or long-term residential care for a disabled adult or child. A short hospital admission is not this.

Where something does fall within it, handle it exactly as a benefit history: dates, reason, what changed, and the position now. A resolved episode explained plainly is a far smaller problem than one the officer finds in the medical report having not found it in your statement. Full detail and template wording: public charge, section 6.

Clearing 125% of the Federal Poverty Guidelines gets the affidavit accepted. It does not settle the public charge question. Officers look behind the figure at the sponsor’s financial stability and history rather than just the latest return, the sponsor’s own use of public benefits, the genuineness of the relationship and whether the sponsor is realistically likely to make that money available to you, and whether the affidavit plausibly keeps you off public support for life.

Joint sponsors face heightened review: employment, assets and domicile may all be verified. And the NVC document review does not bind the consular officer: clearing NVC means your paperwork was complete, not that your finances were accepted. Cases pass NVC and still draw a 221(g) at London on exactly this ground.

Five things now asked about a joint sponsor, and the beneficiary answers them, not the sponsor: how you are related, described rather than labelled; how long they have known the petitioner and you; whether they live in the same state as the petitioner; whether they have sponsored anyone else for an immigrant visa; and whether they have ever used public assistance. The fourth has arithmetic behind it, not just curiosity: an unterminated I-864 obligation from an earlier case counts toward their household size on yours, raising the income they must show. Check it before you file. See the household decision tree and public charge, section 7.

The statement raises specific questions the officer may ask the beneficiary at the window. Whether or not each detail is written into the statement, the beneficiary should be able to answer all of the following out loud, consistently with what was submitted:

• What does the petitioner do for work? Job title, employer, and roughly what they earn.
• What does the joint sponsor do for work? Where a joint sponsor is required: their job title, employer, and roughly what they earn.
• What will the beneficiary do for work in the US? The intended role or sector, and whether a job is lined up or will be sought after arrival.
• What is the plan for the beneficiary's health insurance? Coverage before and after arrival: a spouse/family employer plan, a private/short-term policy, or the ACA marketplace.
• What is the plan for the beneficiary's housing? A confirmed address, or the area and timeline if not yet secured.
• How will the health insurance and housing be paid for? Which income covers the premiums and the rent/mortgage during any period before the beneficiary is earning.
• What are the estimated salaries? Roughly what the beneficiary expects to earn in the US, compared with what the petitioner and/or joint sponsor earns.
• What is the beneficiary's education and work history? Highest qualification, and how long they have worked in their field: continuity matters as much as the current role.
• Does the beneficiary have savings? Roughly how much is available to draw on during the transition, separate from the sponsor's income.
• Does the beneficiary have any ongoing health condition? If so, how it is managed and, crucially, who pays for that care in the US.
• Who else depends on the household? Any children or other dependents traveling with, or already in, the household, plus anyone the petitioner supports financially who is not a tax dependent. Expect “who else lives at the address?” as a separate question.
• Why was the sponsor’s income low in any given year? Officers read the tax transcript in front of you and ask the beneficiary to explain a weak or below-threshold year, and what happens if the cause of it recurs. Know the reason and know what changed.
• If the sponsor is self-employed: what is the business, and what if it fails? The contingency question is asked directly. Have an answer.
• Is the sponsor’s job unionised? Do they have a mortgage? Union membership and employer benefits speak to job security and health coverage; the mortgage is the largest of the debts the officer weighs.
• Is your own work remote, and will your employer permit you to work from the US? And if not, what is your plan? Do not assume a remote job survives the move: many employers will not allow it, for tax and payroll reasons. Get written confirmation if you are relying on it.
• What does your treatment cost in the US? Asked in those terms, not just “are you insured”. Price your own medication in dollars before you go.
• Can you prove the assets you have named? Officers ask to see a savings balance and proof of each property claimed, co-owned ones included. Bring printed evidence for everything you assert, or do not assert it.

Can the petitioner come to the medical or the interview? The two are different. Not the embassy: petitioners are not permitted inside the US Embassy for either the document check or the interview. The beneficiary attends alone; the only exceptions are an interpreter, or one accompanying person for a visitor with special needs. The medical is more flexible: Visa Medicals will allow a companion to wait, which is worth arranging if you need someone to mind children. Pre-arrange it with the clinic by email, roughly a week ahead. Set expectations, though: the waiting area is small and gets very hot, and the building is not step-free, so a pram needs assistance.

Do I need the original I-864 mailed to me? No. A printed copy is sufficient.

Do I need two separate trips to London? Unless you have an expedited interview, everyone makes two separate trips: one for the medical and document check, one for the interview. There is no exception for distance or cost. Plan accommodation and travel well in advance.