How to Shake Your NOA2 Loose from the CSC

[TBoneTX 47,953]

It's true that processes have probably changed since 2005, but it's as likely that processes remain mostly the same.

Well keep in mind that your method really only works if I'm outside the processing time anyway, so no matter what course of action I take I still have 19 days to wait.

Must pleasantly diverge in opinion -- there's so much change in the infrastructure (half the number of processing centers, different layers of screening) that processes MUST have had to change. One example is the different (non) reaction to Congressional inquiries now that Huskerkiev said worked in 2004. And I don't think that anyone whose 2005 case -- from application to marriage -- was wrapped up in 5 months confers any believability when commenting on what is happening now, short of current insider knowledge.

The method will work even if you're inside the 6 months and leave out any comment about "I'm outside the processing window." Dude, what do you have to lose except 19 days?

[TracyTN 237]

Fair points on the surface, but since you filed in 2005 and and certainly since Huskerkiev worked as an adjudicator, things have changed, including procedures, the sheer number of files to be processed, almost certainly the volume and complexity of the paperwork required from the petitioner, and the routing of files on the floor between stations and Divisions. In fact, simply on the basis of the few insights that I gleaned from querying and listening to the several Immigration Officers to whom I spoke (during November & December 2007 rather than in 2005 when you filed or in 2004 when Huskerkiev worked at USCIS), I recommend that the Huskerkiev thread be completely removed from VJ. He himself wrote, more than once, that "things may have changed since I worked there" -- and, by now, his own thread is ancient in itself.

Neither you nor I can say with certainty that "if your check had not truly been complete the file could not have moved." It is equally valid to speculate that "my file wasrouted to Background Check but didn't really need to be there, so the floor people exercised their discretion either independently or at the recommendation of the ImmigOff and took the file back out of Division 9 and up to the supervisor for approval."

Also, unless you have true insider's knowledge of current practices and procedures, you cannot say with true authority that "if a case has not moved from the shelf nobody is going to go dig for it in the storage facility. And it's also not going to be pulled and worked ahead of someone elses." These speculative statements are POSSIBLE but not verifiable.

Finally: "I don't see any advantage to this 'method' other than it might make you feel pro-active." Any number of readers of this thread could smack you down hard for this. Even if the "method" has no other advantage than making otherwise-desperate and stymied petitioners feel proactive, it's worth it to try it, si man? And people could very strongly question why you're throwing cold water here at all when you filed in 2005 under cheaper fees, almost certainly a simpler system, four processing centers instead of two handling petitions, no extra layer of know-nothing screeners to bang your head against, and approval of your I-129f in 15 (FIFTEEN!) days with not an iota of the suffering that so many of the rest of us here are going through. Do other posters agree with me here? Pipe up.

I don't get why someone who didn't 'suffer' can't have valid points. But if suffering is what impresses you, then look at her AOS timeline (and not her K1).

At any rate, I DO know what it feels like to lanquish at the service center beyond the 'VJ norm'. It was hellish - and if someone has not been in that situation, it's hard to say that you can truly understand how it feels.

During that time for me - two main points emerged. The first being I wish I had something I could have done - short of the stone wall of the 800 number. If I had read your thread at that time, I TOTALLY would have tried it. I don't even think it would have mattered to me too much if it didn't work...but at least I would have felt better knowing I tried everything I possibly could.

The second point was that I felt the constant 'tracking' here on VJ (of who filed when/who has NOA2 and who doesn't) was detrimental to my mental health (sounds dramatic, but those of us who have been there know what I mean). It made it difficult for me to enjoy coming here at all when all I was seeing in the K1 forum was those who were whizzing past me. That prompted me to suggest this very subforum to keep the 'tracking' threads all in one place (where they could be avoided if so desired). Since then, it's sort of taken on a life of it's own. I do hope it's helped people, but I also hope it has helped people AVOID the 'filing hype' if they so choose. As we all know with immigration, each case can be SO different - that comparing two cases is often times a lesson in futility.

Thus, I think people in this situation need something they can try -- even if we cannot ever prove that it works. I think it just does your piece of mind a world of good. It would have for me.

I hope that K1 VJers appreciate the fact that they now have the choice - to follow the filing times/NOA2s to their heart's content (and to have others to comiserate with), or avoid them like the plague. Whichever suits.

[rebeccajo 14]

I'm not certain I follow your theory of stations. My recollection of the process is your file remains on a shelf until an adjudicator pulls the entire box over to his desk. The file remains there until he/she has approved it. After approval the file may move over to a clerk who will key for a I797 to be issued - research of the postings of the member huskerkiev might clear up that question.

Random security processing is just that - random - and if your check had not truly been complete the file could not have moved.

Likewise if a case has not moved from the shelf nobody is going to go dig for it in the storage facility. And it's also not going to be pulled and worked ahead of someone elses.

If everybody in the box is outside of processing times - then yes, if there is somehow a way to truly reach the 'floor' as you call it, they might pull your case out of the box and work it. Otherwise I don't see any advantage to this 'method' other than it might make you feel pro-active.

Fair points on the surface, but since you filed in 2005 and and certainly since Huskerkiev worked as an adjudicator, things have changed, including procedures, the sheer number of files to be processed, almost certainly the volume and complexity of the paperwork required from the petitioner, and the routing of files on the floor between stations and Divisions. In fact, simply on the basis of the few insights that I gleaned from querying and listening to the several Immigration Officers to whom I spoke (during November & December 2007 rather than in 2005 when you filed or in 2004 when Huskerkiev worked at USCIS), I recommend that the Huskerkiev thread be completely removed from VJ. He himself wrote, more than once, that "things may have changed since I worked there" -- and, by now, his own thread is ancient in itself.

Neither you nor I can say with certainty that "if your check had not truly been complete the file could not have moved." It is equally valid to speculate that "my file was routed to Background Check but didn't really need to be there, so the floor people exercised their discretion either independently or at the recommendation of the ImmigOff and took the file back out of Division 9 and up to the supervisor for approval."

Also, unless you have true insider's knowledge of current practices and procedures, you cannot say with true authority that "if a case has not moved from the shelf nobody is going to go dig for it in the storage facility. And it's also not going to be pulled and worked ahead of someone elses." These speculative statements are POSSIBLE but not verifiable.

Finally: "I don't see any advantage to this 'method' other than it might make you feel pro-active." Any number of readers of this thread could smack you down hard for this. Even if the "method" has no other advantage than making otherwise-desperate and stymied petitioners feel proactive, it's worth it to try it, si man? And people could very strongly question why you're throwing cold water here at all when you filed in 2005 under cheaper fees, almost certainly a simpler system, four processing centers instead of two handling petitions, no extra layer of know-nothing screeners to bang your head against, and approval of your I-129f in 15 (FIFTEEN!) days with not an iota of the suffering that so many of the rest of us here are going through. Do other posters agree with me here? Pipe up.

TBoneTX -

You aren't the first here to make note of my timeline. You won't be the last. Despite these occasional hissy-fits that I have to endure, I persist in remaining a member of this community, continually expanding my knowledge of how the system works, and doing the best I can to make the VisaJourney more manageable for others.

As you mention, I processed in 2005. I began studying the process in late 2004. Which makes my learning curve about three years ahead of yours. I don't involve myself in the intracacies of each petition type. My 'areas of expertise' involve the K1, consulate studies with an emphasis on the I134; and adjustement of status especially the I864 and namecheck clearances. I stay abreast of changes within the service and am politically active regarding immigration overall. Over the course of my time on VJ, I have aided dozens if not hundreds of couples in their search for information. My experience is based on factual, real-time experiences of other petitioners, and boatloads of research.

Contrary to what you may believe, the amount of time one spends 'suffering' while waiting for their approval does not equal knowledge of the process. If you want to continue to take the piss over my timeline, feel free to do so. Back in 2005, it wasn't uncommon for Vermont K1 petitioners to receive a 15 day approval. It also wasn't uncommon for Nebraska petitioners to wait 6 to 10 months. If you want to cry foul with me, go right ahead. It is nothing new under the sun with me.

When your method has been proven (in more than one instance) to yield real results, we will be able to say it has real merit. Until then, I maintain your petition was moving along normally, and you happened to make your call on the right day of the right week. Rather like throwing darts and happening to hit the bullseye. And I know for 100% absolute fact that if your random security check were not complete, your file would not have moved forward. Even 'back in the days' of 2005, persons who found themselves in that situation could not budge their file till the check was complete. The mandate of Homeland Security from the President of the United States is to protect the American people from threats beyond our borders; if you happen to be the target of one of those checks - tough luck. That takes precedence over processing your case.

Pipe up.

[TracyTN 237]

Must also pleasantly disagree. The very foundations of this site are built on older members who have the benefit of experience. Remember that although the process may have changed, anyone that's been on these boards for 3+ years has been reading and keeping up on the traffic. After their fiance(e) arrives and they're done with all the waiting and agonizing, their knowledge is not hermetically sealed in stasis. Which is not to say that an older member is automatically right or wrong, only that I believe their opinion is still relevant when it comes to weighing in. 3 years from now if I'm still haunting these hallowed halls, I'd like to think my opinion is still worthy of consideration from the newer generations of whipper-snappers.

We 'oldsters' appreciate that!

[rebeccajo 14]

Must also pleasantly disagree. The very foundations of this site are built on older members who have the benefit of experience. Remember that although the process may have changed, anyone that's been on these boards for 3+ years has been reading and keeping up on the traffic. After their fiance(e) arrives and they're done with all the waiting and agonizing, their knowledge is not hermetically sealed in stasis. Which is not to say that an older member is automatically right or wrong, only that I believe their opinion is still relevant when it comes to weighing in. 3 years from now if I'm still haunting these hallowed halls, I'd like to think my opinion is still worthy of consideration from the newer generations of whipper-snappers.

We 'oldsters' appreciate that!

Who's your daddy?

[TBoneTX 47,953]

TBoneTX -

You aren't the first here to make note of my timeline. You won't be the last. Despite these occasional hissy-fits that I have to endure, I persist in remaining a member of this community, continually expanding my knowledge of how the system works, and doing the best I can to make the VisaJourney more manageable for others.

As you mention, I processed in 2005. I began studying the process in late 2004. Which makes my learning curve about three years ahead of yours. I don't involve myself in the intracacies of each petition type. My 'areas of expertise' involve the K1, consulate studies with an emphasis on the I134; and adjustement of status especially the I864 and namecheck clearances. I stay abreast of changes within the service and am politically active regarding immigration overall. Over the course of my time on VJ, I have aided dozens if not hundreds of couples in their search for information. My experience is based on factual, real-time experiences of other petitioners, and boatloads of research.

Contrary to what you may believe, the amount of time one spends 'suffering' while waiting for their approval does not equal knowledge of the process. If you want to continue to take the piss over my timeline, feel free to do so. Back in 2005, it wasn't uncommon for Vermont K1 petitioners to receive a 15 day approval. It also wasn't uncommon for Nebraska petitioners to wait 6 to 10 months. If you want to cry foul with me, go right ahead. It is nothing new under the sun with me.

When your method has been proven (in more than one instance) to yield real results, we will be able to say it has real merit. Until then, I maintain your petition was moving along normally, and you happened to make your call on the right day of the right week. Rather like throwing darts and happening to hit the bullseye. And I know for 100% absolute fact that if your random security check were not complete, your file would not have moved forward. Even 'back in the days' of 2005, persons who found themselves in that situation could not budge their file till the check was complete. The mandate of Homeland Security from the President of the United States is to protect the American people from threats beyond our borders; if you happen to be the target of one of those checks - tough luck. That takes precedence over processing your case.

Pipe up.

(Up-piping) You could have mentioned some of these things in the initial message; thank you for your contributions, which we can all benefit from if you tell us where your crucial posts reside on the VJ site. Also, the inevitable partial-or-more "don't type to me in that tone of voice" misinterpretation of e-mail correspondence (not being completely certain of someone's motives, sincerity, vocal inflections, body language, etc.) affected my interpretation of your post, and for that I apologize. Finally, if your AOS process was unduly long, my sympathies. However, for the sake of credibility, please refrain from using profanity on these boards.

I can't buy the idea that my calls were like (to use another analogy) firing my gun into the air just when a duck happened to be flying overhead. My file had been sitting at a transit station for some time, according to the Immigration Officer; my call prompted someone to locate it and move it. While I concede that the random security check had to be completed before the file could be moved, the file was in Division 9 for a total of one week between my first call and second call, so one of three possibilities applies: It was time to move it to the supervisor regardless of my second call; my second call caused the reviewer to handle it sooner than otherwise would have been (meaning, it was handled that same day); or my second call caused the reviewer to move the completed file to the supervisor sooner than otherwise would have occurred (meaning, it was sent to the supervisor that same day).

I did not intend to imply that length of "suffering" equals knowledge of the process. I objected to what I perceived as a questioning of an alternate approach that worked for me (and possibly at least one other known petitioner) beyond all hope or previous recommendations. Because you long ago received your NOA2 and have no current NOA1 receipt number, I'm guessing that you have had no cause to call USCIS in recent months to test the efficiency or responsiveness of the system as it exists today. It was my length of suffering that allowed me to glean (in bits & pieces, or in clumps from particularly helpful ImmigOffs) precisely the information that enabled me to recommend what I recommended for optimal effect -- or at least for different effect than the usual no-information stonewalling. If you know of an even better system, by all means suggest it here.

I respectfully yet firmly disagree that my file was "moving along normally." Several (more than a few, less than a lot) of petitions filed at NSC and routed to CSC around my date were approved weeks before mine -- and weeks before others that had gone TSC-to-CSC. The USCIS Case Status Log-In site flatly states "we process applications in the order we receive them," when it's obvious to all that this is NOT true. To a man, the contract screeners refused to acknowledge that point, and tried to tell me that a 6-month wait with out-of-order processing was standard. In contrast, the ImmigOffs reacted quite differently. The effect of my phone calls is outlined above. The net effect was to impel USCIS action SOONER than might have otherwise occurred. In any area of life, we rarely get what we don't ask for.

On the basis of the above, I maintain that my suggested approach IS effective, or, if not proven robustly enough yet, at least worth a try. If, on the basis of your superior knowledge, experience, study, and time-in-grade, you have an even better or more effective suggestion, everyone here will praise your name from here to Sunday if you post it. Sincere thanks in advance.

[TracyTN 237]

(Up-piping) You could have mentioned some of these things in the initial message; thank you for your contributions, which we can all benefit from if you tell us where your crucial posts reside on the VJ site. Also, the inevitable partial-or-more "don't type to me in that tone of voice" misinterpretation of e-mail correspondence (not being completely certain of someone's motives, sincerity, vocal inflections, body language, etc.) affected my interpretation of your post, and for that I apologize. Finally, if your AOS process was unduly long, my sympathies. However, for the sake of credibility, please refrain from using profanity on these boards.

Where did she use profanity??? And as far as telling you where her 'crucial' posts reside - there's this lovely thing called the search feature. Has always worked great for me.

[rebeccajo 14]

The 'profanity' is brit slang. Blame it on my husband rubbing off on me.

I'm not looking for my name to be praised till Sunday. That's not why I hang around here. I work in a law office and my fascination with immigration stems off of that. Plus I love seeing couples reunite. It gives me happy-bumps.

People who are interested in my posts can research them through my post history. Just like they do any other contributing member. You don't have to be 'pinned' around here to be useful. You can check with Captain on that one if you like.

You yourself said your file was in extra checks. Doesn't that explain to you why others who filed around you managed to get ahead of you? This is why I contend your file was moving 'normally' - if there is such a thing.

I'm not suggesting your idea has absolutely no merit. But likewise I do not think you have uncovered the Holy Grail. From what you have posted, I believe your method might be helpful in moving a case off a desk if it has already been completed/adjudicated but just hasn't moved on yet.

Insofar as what Tracy has posted, I do think this 'method' would help alleviate any worry that a case file has been lost or mislaid. Oftentimes I believe this fear is the most debilitating one for petitioners whose files aren't reaching conclusion.

Edited February 20, 2008 by rebeccajo

[TBoneTX 47,953]

Where did she use profanity??? And as far as telling you where her 'crucial' posts reside - there's this lovely thing called the search feature. Has always worked great for me.

[edited] She just explained it, acceptably. It would be nice if she would point the direction toward the posts that she considers most applicable to those in the waiting-for-NOA2 phase.

Edited February 20, 2008 by TBoneTX

[TracyTN 237]

Where did she use profanity??? And as far as telling you where her 'crucial' posts reside - there's this lovely thing called the search feature. Has always worked great for me.

[edited] She just explained it, acceptably. It would be nice if she would point the direction toward the posts that she considers most applicable to those in the waiting-for-NOA2 phase.

I didn't realize she had alluded to specific posts of hers. Did I miss that?

[TBoneTX 47,953]

I didn't realize she had alluded to specific posts of hers. Did I miss that?

Nope, but if she remembers something of particular value...

[rebeccajo 14]

I didn't realize she had alluded to specific posts of hers. Did I miss that?

Nope, but if she remembers something of particular value...

I can't think of a specific one.

I can give you one here though.

"When you think you're at the end of your rope - tie a knot and hang on".

Edited February 20, 2008 by rebeccajo

[Minya's wife 25]

(Up-piping) You could have mentioned some of these things in the initial message; thank you for your contributions, which we can all benefit from if you tell us where your crucial posts reside on the VJ site. Also, the inevitable partial-or-more "don't type to me in that tone of voice" misinterpretation of e-mail correspondence (not being completely certain of someone's motives, sincerity, vocal inflections, body language, etc.) affected my interpretation of your post, and for that I apologize. Finally, if your AOS process was unduly long, my sympathies. However, for the sake of credibility, please refrain from using profanity on these boards.

Where did she use profanity??? And as far as telling you where her 'crucial' posts reside - there's this lovely thing called the search feature. Has always worked great for me.

Perhaps the word "piss" qualifies as profane these days...dunno but that's about the only word that could be [loosley]termed 'profanity'.

-P

[TracyTN 237]

Right - I gather that now from the subsequent replies.

[Minya's wife 25]

Dunno how you can take exception w/ someone using the word piss...but there you go.