"First in, first out" discussion

[LuckyDucky 0]

Hi everyone,

I've seen the phrase "first in, first out" being tossed around a lot. While I think it's a decent theory, I'd like to get people's thoughts on exactly what they mean.

In the literal sense, "first in, first out" means that if application (shortened to "app") A comes in before app B, app A should be completed before app B.

Now what happens when you start getting a variety of apps that take varying times to process? (This could be from issued RFEs, criminal history, and variances with the workers at USCIS, security checks, etc?)

So now you have apps A and B come in. They are given to USCIS worker 1 and 2 respectively. Maybe app A has some issues because the petitioner's name is "Manson" and one form was filled out in crayon. Not only that, but the USCIS worker is new and isn't sure if "Carnation Pink" is an acceptable "ink" color. A background check is called and RFE issued for a new form.

On the other hand, app B is a pretty straightforward case. Worker 2 finishes before the worker 1 even gets the information from the RFE back.

Now what? I assume people wouldn't expect NOA2 for app B to be put on hold until app A is completed.

One potential solution would be to stick the worker 2 onto app A. Now this is where it gets a little murky because I have no idea what goes on within USCIS walls. But in this case, worker 2 would spend some time familiarizing themselves with app A, but would still have to wait for the RFE to come in. So now what do they do? Do they move on to the next "oldest" application to try to help out?

What I suspect actually happens is that an application comes in and is given to a worker from the pool of workers. Hopefully, the system is set up so that everyone has roughly the same backlog. (ie, even if worker 1 works faster than worker 2, worker 1's hopper is being filled faster.) Now each worker processes their "stack" as efficiently (or inefficiently, as it were) as they can.

So now worker 1 has apps A, B, and C to process. What if the same scenario pops up: an RFE is issued for app A. I would assume that the worker will move on to app B. What if he completes app B before completing app A? It seems natural that he would go ahead and issue NOA2 for app B and move onto app C while he's waiting for app A.

Now you have workers 1 - 10 doing this and you'll end up with some variances in getting applications processed.

I'd like to hear people's thoughts on this.

[MactanLove 0]

Hi everyone,

I've seen the phrase "first in, first out" being tossed around a lot. While I think it's a decent theory, I'd like to get people's thoughts on exactly what they mean.

In the literal sense, "first in, first out" means that if application (shortened to "app") A comes in before app B, app A should be completed before app B.

Now what happens when you start getting a variety of apps that take varying times to process? (This could be from issued RFEs, criminal history, and variances with the workers at USCIS, security checks, etc?)

So now you have apps A and B come in. They are given to USCIS worker 1 and 2 respectively. Maybe app A has some issues because the petitioner's name is "Manson" and one form was filled out in crayon. Not only that, but the USCIS worker is new and isn't sure if "Carnation Pink" is an acceptable "ink" color. A background check is called and RFE issued for a new form.

On the other hand, app B is a pretty straightforward case. Worker 2 finishes before the worker 1 even gets the information from the RFE back.

Now what? I assume people wouldn't expect NOA2 for app B to be put on hold until app A is completed.

One potential solution would be to stick the worker 2 onto app A. Now this is where it gets a little murky because I have no idea what goes on within USCIS walls. But in this case, worker 2 would spend some time familiarizing themselves with app A, but would still have to wait for the RFE to come in. So now what do they do? Do they move on to the next "oldest" application to try to help out?

What I suspect actually happens is that an application comes in and is given to a worker from the pool of workers. Hopefully, the system is set up so that everyone has roughly the same backlog. (ie, even if worker 1 works faster than worker 2, worker 1's hopper is being filled faster.) Now each worker processes their "stack" as efficiently (or inefficiently, as it were) as they can.

So now worker 1 has apps A, B, and C to process. What if the same scenario pops up: an RFE is issued for app A. I would assume that the worker will move on to app B. What if he completes app B before completing app A? It seems natural that he would go ahead and issue NOA2 for app B and move onto app C while he's waiting for app A.

Now you have workers 1 - 10 doing this and you'll end up with some variances in getting applications processed.

I'd like to hear people's thoughts on this.

I couldn't agree with you more. In fact, I said this exact same thing last month when my fellow July filers were complaining that the I129fs are not "processed in order". No one would want all processing held up while Applicant A's problems are being resolved. I made the point - what if App A got an RFE and took two months to respond. Do applicants want their NOA2s held up while App A responds? I don't think so. That would never work. I think people confuse "processing in order" with "first in first out". USCIS begins processing applications in the order they are received, but they don't complete them all in the order they are received. They do, however, process them in a very consistent time frame. Most of the July filers were getting their NOA2s at approximately the same time. I thought that was quite amazing. Good post!

[tnh9479 1]

I think a huge problem is different service centers being SOOOOO incongruent. I really feel specific service centers should be assigned to specific types of applications (for example all AOS cases dealt with my one, K visas by another, etc).

[geezer 1]

What I suspect actually happens is that an application comes in and is given to a worker from the pool of workers. Hopefully, the system is set up so that everyone has roughly the same backlog. (ie, even if worker 1 works faster than worker 2, worker 1's hopper is being filled faster.) Now each worker processes their "stack" as efficiently (or inefficiently, as it were) as they can.

That seems to be the process. Large groups of petitions are assigned to each adjudicator from one or two month batches of received applications. The variation within a month or two is due to whether your application is on the top or bottom of the pile, much like cutting a deck of cards.

The variation between the batches seems to be due to the fact that they dont seem to consistantly process a particular application they stop and start based on possibly staffing..

But I could be wrong

Edited December 31, 2008 by geezer

[Amby 490]

I can barely get people to follow FIFO in a kitchen so the government isn't going to be able to manage getting it right.

[natty bumppo 297]

I can barely get people to follow FIDO in a kitchen so the government isn't going to be able to manage getting it right.

you have a dog in the kitchen?

[NickD 203]

I can barely get people to follow FIDO in a kitchen so the government isn't going to be able to manage getting it right.

you have a dog in the kitchen?

Country of origin plays a big factor in FIFO and always has to some extent or the other with immigration, even ones coming here via marriage. For a country that claims to be the big melting pot, certainly very racist.

[AlHayatZween 2]

Having had the displeasure of working in civil service for a short period of time, i would guess that like some mentioned above, large groups of petitions/applications are assigned to adjudicators to process. They are supposed to be processed in order, but if it were me doing it... i'd do all the easy stuff first just to get it off my desk. Then i'd work on the more complicated applications, those written in crayon or stuck together with gum. Anything needing more evidence has to get pushed aside until the requested evidence is received and then i'd do the same thing... work on the easiest stuff first just to finish... it might not be right, but i bet that's how they do it.

And of course, i'd have to space out the difficult applications with long lunch breaks and surfing the internet.