An Idea To Ensure Those Waiting Longer Have Their Petition Adjudicated First

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The service centers could implement a 'take a number' system. A petitioner's receipt number would either follow some numerical order or you would be given a number that you could use to gauge the service centers progress. The service centers could then update on the USCIS which number they are serving instead of the current system of a date that seems arbitrary. Such a method would really make them accountable should someone's number be passed up by hundreds of others. Now granted, there are some petitions that need further review, RFE's, etc., but they could set in place that if your number is at least, say 300 numbers back from the current number being served, you would then be able to call their toll free number and actually speak to live person to inquire about your case.

I'd like to hear from others what they think about this - help sort out the details or potential problems with such a method and then I would like to forward the idea to my congressman.

[michellek1976 0]

I thought that was what NOA1 dates were for! That's what their website says. Did someone forget to tell CSC???

[garya505 2]

Actually I had an idea somewhat like that but mine would be web-based. Your petition would be given a "queue number". You could login any time to the USCIS web site and see you position in the queue and what the current processing status is. Making it web-based would not require a lot of phone people.

This builds on what some people here have done with spreadsheets and such.

[Teachers 12]

Both ideas appeal to me. I think the web based would be better.

They should also post why older files are waiting while more recent ones are being processed. By having to justify sitting on older files, maybe they would do it less.

Tom

[Dean iWait 0]

Since they seem to have no system at the present time anything would be better. I'm glad for peeps that get their NOA2. But when I see someone with an NOA1 on 7/17/06 at CSC and they just got their NOA2 I also think #######!

[MrMrsKnight 0]

Isn't that what a NOA1 is for? We need to make them aware of that.....

[Caladan 19]

Two things:

1) Lawyers are fond of saying "hard cases make bad law." That is, it's bad to take a really rare case or crazy exception and use it as a justification to revamp a law.

The same thing goes for procedures. IMBRA messed up a lot. There were petitions recalled, thousands of RFEs sent out, a new form & procedures to learn, etc.

So I would say that changing things based on IMBRA is probably not ideal.

2) They do adjudicate cases roughly by NOA1 date: look at the data TomandYu (?) has compiled on how fast cases move through. Most of the earlier cases process faster than the later ones. This indicates to me that the process is mostly chronological, but with some differences.

What could those differences be? Here's what I might guess:

There is probably more than one adjudicator. So it probably makes sense to divide up the petitions by specialty & region. Say Steven and I are adjudicators, and he has a lot of experience with divorce-related petitions, and I'm new. Or I am adept at spotting fraud from high-risk countries. So while we both work within our specialty areas chronologically, he might finish his divorce cases before I finish my fraud cases, which could mean that the NOA2 date gets out of order. Add to that a couple of RFEs and now it looks like there's no system at all.

Some cases are more complicated than others. A petition that needs more work might take longer, and again, assuming more than one adjudicator, while Steven works away on X's petition, I polish off A, B, C, and D. D has a much later NOA1 than X. Are we being unfair, or just efficient?

My point is, it's easy to look at the data and conclude they toss them in a pile or down the stairs and process them in whatever order they want. But the process isn't very transparent, so none of us are really sure what's going on.

So I'd like to know what the whole process looks like, first.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Two things:

1) Lawyers are fond of saying "hard cases make bad law." That is, it's bad to take a really rare case or crazy exception and use it as a justification to revamp a law.

The same thing goes for procedures. IMBRA messed up a lot. There were petitions recalled, thousands of RFEs sent out, a new form & procedures to learn, etc.

So I would say that changing things based on IMBRA is probably not ideal.

2) They do adjudicate cases roughly by NOA1 date: look at the data TomandYu (?) has compiled on how fast cases move through. Most of the earlier cases process faster than the later ones. This indicates to me that the process is mostly chronological, but with some differences.

What could those differences be? Here's what I might guess:

There is probably more than one adjudicator. So it probably makes sense to divide up the petitions by specialty & region. Say Steven and I are adjudicators, and he has a lot of experience with divorce-related petitions, and I'm new. Or I am adept at spotting fraud from high-risk countries. So while we both work within our specialty areas chronologically, he might finish his divorce cases before I finish my fraud cases, which could mean that the NOA2 date gets out of order. Add to that a couple of RFEs and now it looks like there's no system at all.

Some cases are more complicated than others. A petition that needs more work might take longer, and again, assuming more than one adjudicator, while Steven works away on X's petition, I polish off A, B, C, and D. D has a much later NOA1 than X. Are we being unfair, or just efficient?

My point is, it's easy to look at the data and conclude they toss them in a pile or down the stairs and process them in whatever order they want. But the process isn't very transparent, so none of us are really sure what's going on.

So I'd like to know what the whole process looks like, first.

Excellent points. I still think that having a queue number that is web based would help petitioners get a sense of where they are line. So for example my queue number is 5 and on the web site, they're showing that they are up to number 400, I should have good cause to call the service center and be able to speak to a live person, especially if I have received no notice as to any problems with my petition. They already state that we may contact them if we haven't received any notice within 30 days (?) , so by having a queue number would make them accountable for adjucating your petition in a timely manner if there are no obvious reasons for it to have not been adjucated. Of course queue numbers will not fall in an exact numerical order, but at some point, as in my example of being number 5 and they're serving number 400, then something is amiss.