After 3 weeks... Is CSC slowing down again?

[Andreea&Kevin 38]

This timeframe caught my eye in your data. How is it that 22 people here on VJ got their NOA2's in this timeframe, but you say only 9 cases were even looked at? I'll give you some amount of error with the VJ timeline data, but that's a big discrepancy.

Re read your post. Was this data only for NOA1's after 9/27/12? If that is true then your data makes a lot more sense.

[A&P_Germany 8]

This timeframe caught my eye in your data. How is it that 22 people here on VJ got their NOA2's in this timeframe, but you say only 9 cases were even looked at? I'll give you some amount of error with the VJ timeline data, but that's a big discrepancy.

I think this is where the data is a bit misleading.. please someone correct me if I am wrong.

They are only looking at petitions that are from 09/27/12 to 02/03/13 so basically those 9 NOA2 are only approvals from this timeframe only which would indicate that they all were expedites since they were processed so quickly.

At least this is my understanding.

[Andreea&Kevin 38]

I think this is where the data is a bit misleading.. please someone correct me if I am wrong.

They are only looking at petitions that are from 09/27/12 to 02/03/13 so basically those 9 NOA2 are only approvals from this timeframe only which would indicate that they all were expedites since they were processed so quickly.

At least this is my understanding.

You are correct and I did notice this after my first post. This data is misleading with only providing 7 months worth of cases when a majority are taking 8-9 months to get an approval.

I look forward to seeing the data when they go back to cases from 6/28/12. It will be much more complete and give a truer picture of the process.

Edited May 6, 2013 by Andreea&Kevin

[TylerDurden 45]

This timeframe caught my eye in your data. How is it that 22 people here on VJ got their NOA2's in this timeframe, but you say only 9 cases were even looked at? I'll give you some amount of error with the VJ timeline data, but that's a big discrepancy.

As we stated prior.

“We have reviewed 385329 CSC petitions, dating from 09/27/2012 through 02/04/2013. This data is accurate as of 05/04/2013.”

The date is based on the date of entry into the USCIS system. This can even be a couple days before the NOA1 date as reflected in VJ by the user.

If we look at your examples:

“2012-11-01 2”

This means that 2 files, that were entered into USCIS between 09/27/2012 through 02/04/2013, received either a NOA2 or RFE on that date.

On the same date only one NOA2 exists on VJ and it was for a file with a NOA1 date of 07/10/2013, outside of the collected date range.

So, that means on the same date and range we show 2 reviewed files while VJ shows 0

2012-10-30 we show 3 files reviewed and VJ shows no activity.

2 other things, VJ data is based on user entry so the date may not be the date of activity but instead the date user received the notice.

Also the USCIS data cannot reflect data that had an RFE but were later approved. Instead the data would reflect only the final approval date. This is the 1 area that can lead to some minor discrepancy but in this case we see none.

On the 26th, VJ shows 1 NOA2.

On the 23rd, VJ shows 1 NOA2 but outside the time range collected.

On the 18th, VJ shows 1 NOA2 but outside the time range collected.

Date K-1 Files Reviewed VJ

---------- ------------------ ------

2012-11-01 2 0

2012-10-30 3 0

2012-10-26 2 1

2012-10-23 1 0

2012-10-18 1 0

We cannot identify where you are seeing where you are seeing 22 NOA2s between 09/27/2012 and 02/04/2013 in the month of October, please enlighten us.

[Andreea&Kevin 38]

My original comment was based on not realizing your timeframe of petitions of the data you presented, so this discussion is probably not worth having. I attached where I got the 22 NOA2's from for the period I referenced. Only 1 case is in your data's timeframe.

I look forward to your future posts with a larger timeframe of petitions.

[TylerDurden 45]

You are correct and I did notice this after my first post. This data is misleading with only providing 7 months worth of cases when a majority are taking 8-9 months to get an approval.

I look forward to seeing the data when they go back to cases from 6/28/12. It will be much more complete and give a truer picture of the process.

Stating that the data is misleading implies that the data is “leading”. The data make no attempt to give any perception.

The question is, what are you trying to infer from the data that is giving you a false perception? Each insight you are trying to determine will require a different view of the data.

My original comment was based on not realizing your timeframe of petitions of the data you presented, so this discussion is probably not worth having. I attached where I got the 22 NOA2's from for the period I referenced. Only 1 case is in your data's timeframe.

I look forward to your future posts with a larger timeframe of petitions.

Ahh, so what is it you are trying to learn from the data so we can provide a more appropriate response.

[A&P_Germany 8]

Ahh, so what is it you are trying to learn from the data so we can provide a more appropriate response.

I for one would like to see how many pending (initial review and RFE) are still in the system from 6/28/12 to end of 2012. Broken down by month if this is easy enough to do. This will give us an idea of where CSC currently stands.

[fox13 0]

I for one would like to see how many pending (initial review and RFE) are still in the system from 6/28/12 to end of 2012. Broken down by month if this is easy enough to do. This will give us an idea of where CSC currently stands.

I am a Sept 4th filer. My file has not been touched since Sept 10. I would like to see this too.

[Andreea&Kevin 38]

Stating that the data is misleading implies that the data is “leading”. The data make no attempt to give any perception.

The question is, what are you trying to infer from the data that is giving you a false perception? Each insight you are trying to determine will require a different view of the data.

Ahh, so what is it you are trying to learn from the data so we can provide a more appropriate response.

First off I'm not arguing the validity of your data, just that it needs to be more complete to be useful. I know you have already said you are compiling more data.

I'd like to see a truer representation of how many cases were worked on in the past few months. Until you include July - September cases the numbers you have stated are going to be low.

Here is an example:

Your data states: 2013-04-17 86

However there were 30 people who reported getting NOA2's on the same date here on VJ, but only 4 are within your timeframe.

Once you include July - September cases your number would be considerably higher. I think this will more accurately show how bad CSC was from the month of Oct through March and also their capability to approve cases in April. Therefore illustrating a systematic problem with CSC, which is exactly what the Ombudsman office is there to correct. This is also good info for representative's staff when they make inquiries on a petitioner's behalf.

I really don't have a fight in this anymore as I got my NOA2 weeks ago, but if there is another slowdown I want people to be able to present accurate and complete data to the ombudsman or the representative.

[pachacuti 154]

Once you include July - September cases your number would be considerably higher. I think this will more accurately show how bad CSC was from the month of Oct through March and also their capability to approve cases in April. Therefore illustrating a systematic problem with CSC, which is exactly what the Ombudsman office is there to correct. This is also good info for representative's staff when they make inquiries on a petitioner's behalf.

While I agree with this statement and plan on using the information in this manner, I do wish to point out that making the data widely known may eventually cause USCIS to alter how you are able to access information online. Just keep that in mind, my friends (as someone who works in IT, mostly for government agencies, I believe my statements to be accurate). So, I think we need to make the best use of this data we can, while we have access to it.

[TylerDurden 45]

First off I'm not arguing the validity of your data, just that it needs to be more complete to be useful. I know you have already said you are compiling more data.

I'd like to see a truer representation of how many cases were worked on in the past few months. Until you include July - September cases the numbers you have stated are going to be low.

Here is an example:

Your data states: 2013-04-17 86

However there were 30 people who reported getting NOA2's on the same date here on VJ, but only 4 are within your timeframe.

Once you include July - September cases your number would be considerably higher. I think this will more accurately show how bad CSC was from the month of Oct through March and also their capability to approve cases in April. Therefore illustrating a systematic problem with CSC, which is exactly what the Ombudsman office is there to correct. This is also good info for representative's staff when they make inquiries on a petitioner's behalf.

I really don't have a fight in this anymore as I got my NOA2 weeks ago, but if there is another slowdown I want people to be able to present accurate and complete data to the ombudsman or the representative.

While we are collecting older data, and it is ‘nice to see’. However it is relatively useless for creating a productivity model.

Why did we chose initially to collect to the start of the USCIS FY (OCT 1st)?

On August 15 the DACA petitions (I821D) became active, increasing the workload volume by 28.45%. The slowdown in in petition reviews reflects this and has been proven numerous times prior to this data. The alteration in the priority of form types and volume renders the predictive nature of data prior to established reviews of I821D files moot.

USCIS adjudication operates off of a mostly self-sufficient budget based on application fees. This means that USCIS personnel adapts after workload changes within this budget. Changes in budget and personnel would best be reflected by the established USCIS FY.

It is unlikely that at accurate model of the prediction of NOA2 dates can be established for filers prior to February. Once November filers have a more review actions completed a model of December and January may be able to give some approximation.

It is unrealistic to expect to gain any real insight from data prior to October, sorry. We didn’t create the changes at USCIS. Don’t kill the messenger.

The data we are currently collecting shows a near random review pattern of petitions prior to November 1st.

Additionally we are seeing a pattern change in the I821D petitions following February.

We think you may be trying to see something in the data that it cannot provide.

[TylerDurden 45]

While I agree with this statement and plan on using the information in this manner, I do wish to point out that making the data widely known may eventually cause USCIS to alter how you are able to access information online. Just keep that in mind, my friends (as someone who works in IT, mostly for government agencies, I believe my statements to be accurate). So, I think we need to make the best use of this data we can, while we have access to it.

This is an accurate statement.

Keep in mind USCIS does not want you to have access to the totality of the data and they do take measures currently to prevent you from having it!

It is public information, but that does not mean they want you to have it current or usable.

This is why WE do not reveal OUR identity. This is why we do not detail the methods we use to collect the data. We have been careful to use only legal methods. Eventually we will not be able to collect the data that can be assured.

Edited May 6, 2013 by TylerDurden

[Andreea&Kevin 38]

While we are collecting older data, and it is ‘nice to see’. However it is relatively useless for creating a productivity model.

Why did we chose initially to collect to the start of the USCIS FY (OCT 1st)?

On August 15 the DACA petitions (I821D) became active, increasing the workload volume by 28.45%. The slowdown in in petition reviews reflects this and has been proven numerous times prior to this data. The alteration in the priority of form types and volume renders the predictive nature of data prior to established reviews of I821D files moot.

USCIS adjudication operates off of a mostly self-sufficient budget based on application fees. This means that USCIS personnel adapts after workload changes within this budget. Changes in budget and personnel would best be reflected by the established USCIS FY.

It is unlikely that at accurate model of the prediction of NOA2 dates can be established for filers prior to February. Once November filers have a more review actions completed a model of December and January may be able to give some approximation.

It is unrealistic to expect to gain any real insight from data prior to October, sorry. We didn’t create the changes at USCIS. Don’t kill the messenger.

The data we are currently collecting shows a near random review pattern of petitions prior to November 1st.

Additionally we are seeing a pattern change in the I821D petitions following February.

We think you may be trying to see something in the data that it cannot provide.

Maybe I wasn't clear about the "older data". I meant people who filed in July - September. These cases are far from useless, considering they make up a majority of the K1 workload they have done over the past couple months. So it's not really older data, it's current because CSC has taken so long to approve them. There are still many people who filed in those months waiting for their approval, so to ignore them would make any productivity model useless. If you are talking about looking at number of cases reviewed prior to Oct, I'm in complete agreement that data is useless.

When I was waiting for my NOA2 the problem I had with the ombudsman and congressman was providing up to date information that made CSC transparent. We all know USCIS doesn't publish current data. We only get to see this http://dashboard.uscis.gov/index.cfm?formtype=6&office=2&charttype=1

and

http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Resources/Reports%20and%20Studies/Immigration%20Forms%20Data/All%20Form%20Types/DACA/2013-0412%20DACA%20Final%20Monthly%20Report.pdf

So, if I were somebody waiting longer than the USCIS posted wait time I'd be looking for data to fill in between what they publish and today. To present a better case of why my case should be looked at.

[TylerDurden 45]

I for one would like to see how many pending (initial review and RFE) are still in the system from 6/28/12 to end of 2012. Broken down by month if this is easy enough to do. This will give us an idea of where CSC currently stands.

I am a Sept 4th filer. My file has not been touched since Sept 10. I would like to see this too.

It will still take us a few days to collect this additional data but we plan to release graphs showing exactly this information.

[TylerDurden 45]

Maybe I wasn't clear about the "older data". I meant people who filed in July - September. These cases are far from useless, considering they make up a majority of the K1 workload they have done over the past couple months. So it's not really older data, it's current because CSC has taken so long to approve them. There are still many people who filed in those months waiting for their approval, so to ignore them would make any productivity model useless. If you are talking about looking at number of cases reviewed prior to Oct, I'm in complete agreement that data is useless.

When I was waiting for my NOA2 the problem I had with the ombudsman and congressman was providing up to date information that made CSC transparent. We all know USCIS doesn't publish current data. We only get to see this http://dashboard.uscis.gov/index.cfm?formtype=6&office=2&charttype=1

and

http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Resources/Reports%20and%20Studies/Immigration%20Forms%20Data/All%20Form%20Types/DACA/2013-0412%20DACA%20Final%20Monthly%20Report.pdf

So, if I were somebody waiting longer than the USCIS posted wait time I'd be looking for data to fill in between what they publish and today. To present a better case of why my case should be looked at.

We will reiterate, it is useless from a predictive stand point.

We are already have collected the majority of data filed prior to from 06/28/12 until the establishment of DACA. The reviews are primarily random, a predictive model cannot be established.

The review of applications prior to November 1st, specifically those from July through September do not provide a significant data pattern.

The ONLY thing the data from July through September can realistically expose is the volume of outstanding petitions for those months. But that data can already be extrapolated from the existing data on Igor’s list.

Perhaps, if you clarify a question for the data to answer we could better target our analysis.

Our intention was to provide useful data to CSC filers of I129F petitions.

We do not intend to collect every possible iteration of data. This is an expensive and time consuming process and we receive nothing from providing this data. Nor can we meet the expectations or desires of every petitioner.

If our efforts are only going to result in criticism or demands perhaps we were mistaken in sharing this data.

The data is what it is.

Edited May 6, 2013 by TylerDurden