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

[pachacuti 154]

Well maybe we should sent the timelines and Igor's list, and make them aware that we know what they are and are not doing. Yes it is just a small sample size however it has proven to be representative of what CSC is doing...

Edit -> just realized I am at 6 months today... sigh...

No one should really doubt Igor's List as a representative sample of what is going on. It's size (roughly 5% of the total) is very in line with representative samples. Igor's List's greatest downfall is that it is not being collected in a rigorous scientific manner. So, while from a statistician's point of view, it may be argued against, it is clearly indicative of the problem at large. Further, it is FAR better than purely anecdotal examples.

Eventually, when we are prepared to lose access to the data, we should make known the dataset that is being compiled. Let 'em chew on that one for a while. I think, however, that it is still premature for this particular step. As more people become aware of the dataset, its general public knowledge will become unavoidable. I just hope that it gets to a particular critical mass so that its impact can truly be felt and perhaps some more long-lived institutional change might take place; USCIS is in dire need of such change.

[Bayareaguy 156]

This is an interesting response.

USCIS seems arrogantly proud and confident in the level of obscurity they have established. The lack of transparency allows them to give any answer they wish because they know you cannot verify anything they say.

Yes, and as our government, we have a right to know the data as well as any correspondence related to how these decisions impacting the processing of K-1's, DACA, or any of the other visa types. I don't think any of this would be exempted from the FOIA.

And this is the ombudsmans office! If anyone should be interested in poor operation of the USCIS service centers it should be them!

I fully support any and all data that you can provide. Keep up the good work!

[TylerDurden 45]

We need the advice of you the VJ membership and the forum moderators and administration.

We will have completed our data collection in about another 2 days.

Currently we have identified and collected 12974 I-129F petitions and expect to discover approximately another 1996 files.

Perhaps those of you who have dealt with officials or the forum moderators can advise us.

The first question. There is an internal debate about how to release the data. Do we release data with or without the Receipt Numbers?

There are two schools of thought.

One view is that Receipt Numbers should be included in the data because it allows officials to verify that the data is real and accurate. Without a means to show the veracity of the data USCIS can continue to dismiss complaints and obfuscate the information that they provide. Congressional representatives and other officials may be reluctant to do anything more than a minor inquiry without rock solid evidence. A smoking gun.

The other view is that the filers themselves may not want every Receipt Number and be under the perception that this number is private information even though it contains no relevant individual information.

Second question. We plan to create a thread to post where members can download the data as well as provide periodic updates to the data. We also plan on providing some reports and graphs based on the data. Where would be the best place to start such a thread?

[pachacuti 154]

We need the advice of you the VJ membership and the forum moderators and administration.

We will have completed our data collection in about another 2 days.

Currently we have identified and collected 12974 I-129F petitions and expect to discover approximately another 1996 files.

Perhaps those of you who have dealt with officials or the forum moderators can advise us.

The first question. There is an internal debate about how to release the data. Do we release data with or without the Receipt Numbers?

There are two schools of thought.

One view is that Receipt Numbers should be included in the data because it allows officials to verify that the data is real and accurate. Without a means to show the veracity of the data USCIS can continue to dismiss complaints and obfuscate the information that they provide. Congressional representatives and other officials may be reluctant to do anything more than a minor inquiry without rock solid evidence. A smoking gun.

The other view is that the filers themselves may not want every Receipt Number and be under the perception that this number is private information even though it contains no relevant individual information.

Second question. We plan to create a thread to post where members can download the data as well as provide periodic updates to the data. We also plan on providing some reports and graphs based on the data. Where would be the best place to start such a thread?

On the receipt numbers, the question needs to be: is this information confidential? Or rather, can this information reasonably be used by a third party to obtain otherwise protected confidential information?

Personally, if I were USCIS, I believe I would treat the receipt number with more care than they do, worrying that this information could be used to compromise other systems. However, having said that, the mere fact that I can go to the online case page and enter any old receipt number I want, USCIS themselves have made the decision, perhaps inadvertently, to treat this information as not being sensitive. While they take this viewpoint, I believe we are safe in continue to allow this information to be public.

[TylerDurden 45]

We have posted a separate thread with a poll in regards to this question.

[Bayareaguy 156]

We need the advice of you the VJ membership and the forum moderators and administration.

Well, since they nuked the other thread, I guess we know where the mods and admin stand on this.

[TylerDurden 45]

Well, since they nuked the other thread, I guess we know where the mods and admin stand on this.

They have remove it pending advice of administration. It is only fair to allow them to decide. We had hoped to hear from them before we posted the data, but that option was taken out of our hands.

We have faith that the administration will operate in the interest of the members.

[Andreea&Kevin 38]

They have remove it pending advice of administration. It is only fair to allow them to decide. We had hoped to hear from them before we posted the data, but that option was taken out of our hands.

We have faith that the administration will operate in the interest of the members.

I hope they will allow the data to be posted here. I'm sure you have a plan B for a place to post the info after all the work your group has done. Are you planning on posting the raw data or something that has been condensed down like some graphs & charts?

[TylerDurden 45]

We plan to do both, but we will wait to see what the response of the admin is first.

The cat is out of the bag, members have the information already. Its too late to put the genie back in the bottle.

We see ourselves as having the same overall goals as the administration of VJ.

We will see what they do.

[Possiblymaybe 371]

In the rush to get the data out, the NOA1 dates were not "reconciled". At least for my case, NOA1 date is incorrect in this data. Not sure how meaningful the data will be to people if the data doesn't accurately reflect when the petitions were filed.

[TylerDurden 45]

In the rush to get the data out, the NOA1 dates were not "reconciled". At least for my case, NOA1 date is incorrect in this data. Not sure how meaningful the data will be to people if the data doesn't accurately reflect when the petitions were filed.

The NOA1 dates are easy to fix. Was the NOA1 date the correct month?

[Possiblymaybe 371]

yep, correct month

[squirrelisan 23]

Tyler...out of curiosity, do you have anything regarding the other service centers?

[TylerDurden 45]

yep, correct month

Good that would be what we expected. We did not have a chance to correctly correlate the NOA1 dates.

Are you checking the based on your NOA1 in October?

May we ask what date is attributed to your record?

Does your date say 10/01/2012 or another date?

Files given the 1^st day of the months are mostly non-correlated. Other dates should be within 1 or 2 days USCIS business days of what the perceived NOA1 date is. USCIS entry dates are the basis of the WAC number and can vary slightly from the NOA1. The entry date however is more important than the date of notice within the USCIS system.

[TylerDurden 45]

yep, correct month

The exception to this is some older records with a later Alien Registration number assignment. Those records are also non-correlated.