The differences between CSC and VSC NOA 2's

[pachacuti 154]

Wow, I didn't realize that about the receipt numbers. I just checked a bunch before my number, and none had NOA2s.

Haha, a script is quite a bit beyond my capabilities, I just cut and paste columns on excel. I like the idea about populating a database. Then you would have a sample of the actual data instead of the self reported VJ data (which I still think is fine for seing the basic trends occurring).

I could make a script to do this, but I think it would be in violation of federal law. I haven't gone to the site in a while, but doesn't it ask you if you have rights to get information on the case in question. Even if it doesn't, I wouldn't want to hack them off.

Let me know what y'all think...

[pachacuti 154]

There does NOT appear to be any restriction of use that would prevent this type of activity. If it is not abusive, then it is probably an okay use of this service. I will have to think about whether I want to go down that path or not...

[Bayareaguy 156]

OK, here is my predicted Completed I-129F (NOA2) for CSC Dec-Feb. Of course, this is a guess, .based on VJ data, and some assumptions of error, as well as a factor (guess) on delay of updating timelines:

It should drop way down in december.

Now since I have estimated the completed applications, I can also estimate the all others pending, based on the last value in November, adding the average # of received applications, and subtracting the completions:

When I did that, I see a possible reason why CSC completions are lagging compared to VSC (besides the DACA effect, which may or may not be a factor). Since the VSC's "all others pending" pile is a lot larger than CSC's pile (~18,000 vs 10,000, respectively in Nov2012), perhaps they (some high up in USCIS) wants to see more parity between the service centers, so instead of bringing VSC numbers down by working harder on completing VSC applications, the easier way is to have less people working on CSC applications to get their number higher.

I'm not sure I really buy that, but I'm just throwing that out there.

[Andreea&Kevin 38]

December info now posted http://dashboard.uscis.gov/index.cfm?formtype=6&office=2&charttype=1

How good was your prediction?

[Bayareaguy 156]

December info now posted http://dashboard.uscis.gov/index.cfm?formtype=6&office=2&charttype=1

How good was your prediction?

I predicted 244 completions and 11,168 pending (compared to 484 and 10,489 respectively), so it's far from perfect, but the trend is there. 484 is lower than any month in the last 2 years, and Jan and Feb don't look much better. And if it picks up this last week of February, that will boost the numbers...I hope it does and proves me wrong.

Heres the updated Dec data included:

Interesting also to note, that VSC December NOA2 was the best month in 2 years, so the observation of VJ data is correct, CSC is very much slower than VSC at the moment.

Edited February 24, 2013 by Bayareaguy

[Bayareaguy 156]

Here is the USCIS data CSC vs VSC. VSC NOA2 was 7X the amount of CSC NOA2 in december.

Quite interesting that they receive about the same amount (giving credence that they can send to either center depending on the load of applicants, and try to even them up), they just aren't processing them at the same pace.

Too bad for CSC applicants, other than the lucky few that are slipping by. Someone obviously didn't get the memo to stop working on I-129F's completely at CSC, haha

[lost_at_sea 995]

There does NOT appear to be any restriction of use that would prevent this type of activity. If it is not abusive, then it is probably an okay use of this service. I will have to think about whether I want to go down that path or not...

I was sort of joking. I could do it too (I'm a web developer by trade) but if they saw spikes in activity they could well pull the system down and then we'd all be none the wiser so please don't That's why I suggested a manual pool - loads of people on here look up the previous 50 or so receipts and could report in a centralised place, and that's a fairly non-harmful amount of activity.

[lost_at_sea 995]

When I did that, I see a possible reason why CSC completions are lagging compared to VSC (besides the DACA effect, which may or may not be a factor). Since the VSC's "all others pending" pile is a lot larger than CSC's pile (~18,000 vs 10,000, respectively in Nov2012), perhaps they (some high up in USCIS) wants to see more parity between the service centers, so instead of bringing VSC numbers down by working harder on completing VSC applications, the easier way is to have less people working on CSC applications to get their number higher.

I'm not sure I really buy that, but I'm just throwing that out there.

The only thing about that assessment is they're physically separate offices - if we saw evidence that they were shipping boxes of files from VSC to CSC, or visa versa, then that would make sense (folks would no doubt get info that that had happened to their petitions for contact reasons). Unless you mean they're sending fewer new cases to the slower service centre?

Edited February 25, 2013 by lost_at_sea

[Bayareaguy 156]

The only thing about that assessment is they're physically separate offices - if we saw evidence that they were shipping boxes of files from VSC to CSC, or visa versa, then that would make sense (folks would no doubt get info that that had happened to their petitions for contact reasons). Unless you mean they're sending fewer new cases to the slower service centre?

Actually what I mean is they are not switching cases to the other service center, the are merely "putting the brakes" on the CSC applications until the pending cases pile gets bigger and in line with VSC's pending cases.

Of course it would be better to just process the VSC cases at a faster rate to get their number of pending cases down, but that's not the lazy mans way. It's easier just to slow down the CSC processing. "Who cares about those K1's, it's not that many of them".

And again, that is just a theory which is not neccisarily true, just as the "DACA effect" may or may not be.

Edited February 25, 2013 by Bayareaguy

[lost_at_sea 995]

Actually what I mean is they are not switching cases to the other service center, the are merely "putting the brakes" on the CSC applications until the pending cases pile gets bigger and in line with VSC's pending cases.

Of course it would be better to just process the VSC cases at a faster rate to get their number of pending cases down, but that's not the lazy mans way. It's easier just to slow down the CSC processing. "Who cares about those K1's, it's not that many of them".

And again, that is just a theory which is not neccisarily true, just as the "DACA effect" may or may not be.

Yeah, I had a feeling you might mean that. I'm trying not to have such a tin-foil hat wearing paranoia so don't want to believe they'd artificially "fix things" that way. I kind of hope it *is* DACA, because that's at least understandable from a work-load perspective. I'd rather it was "we are overwhelmed and can't cope at the old rate" than "we're just screwing you all over to make our stats look more even". Who knows.

Wish someone had a friend who worked there that they could just ask.

[Bayareaguy 156]

Yeah, I had a feeling you might mean that. I'm trying not to have such a tin-foil hat wearing paranoia so don't want to believe they'd artificially "fix things" that way. I kind of hope it *is* DACA, because that's at least understandable from a work-load perspective. I'd rather it was "we are overwhelmed and can't cope at the old rate" than "we're just screwing you all over to make our stats look more even". Who knows.

Wish someone had a friend who worked there that they could just ask.

Yes, the data seems to imply that "someone" or "some people in some meeting" consciously decided to have less I-129F processed at CSC, for "some" reason, be it for allocating resources for DACA applications, getting the numbers in line, or something else. When it's 3 months in a row, you have to think it is a conscious decision, not a random or seasonal effect. You can see some possible seasonal effect earlier where both centers' processing tends to go up or down at the same time, but even that trend diverges in april 2012, and has been off since then.

Haha, but yeah, the last thing I want is to be seen as a tin-foil hat wearing loony. Though I guess if I was, I wouldn't realize it...would I?

So I suggest people look at the data and make their own conclusions.

What the data says so far: December has a 2 year historical low in I-129F processing (USCIS data).

This coincides with a 2 year high of NOA2 at VSC (USCIS data).

VJ data suggests that for CSC, the processing remains at a historically low rate for 3 months in a row, up until now, and if there isn't any increase in the rate of NOA2's, this low rate may be extended beyond 3 months (until ?).

This reduction in rate also happens to coincide with the introduction and increasing number of processed DACA applications (USCIS data).

[Andreea&Kevin 38]

I hope you will update your graphs after today with VJ data for the month of February. It really puts things in perspective when you can see the data. It would be a great thing for VJ to add as a feature to their timeline trends.

[Bayareaguy 156]

I hope you will update your graphs after today with VJ data for the month of February. It really puts things in perspective when you can see the data. It would be a great thing for VJ to add as a feature to their timeline trends.

I had already estimated for CSC VJ data would get 15 in February, based on the rate of the last 2 months. Even with that little "spurt" of activity at the end, VJ only logged 14 CSC NOA2's in february. The data is already based on 15 NOA2's is already in my charts. Contrast that with 107 VSC VJ NOA2's in February.

I'm not so much worked up because I'm at 200 days since my NOA1, I'm worked up because I am at 200 days and the data shows that I am still going to have a long time before my NOA2, unless I am one of the lucky few. It is not looking good.

[tylerilyn 2]

I was sort of joking. I could do it too (I'm a web developer by trade) but if they saw spikes in activity they could well pull the system down and then we'd all be none the wiser so please don't That's why I suggested a manual pool - loads of people on here look up the previous 50 or so receipts and could report in a centralised place, and that's a fairly non-harmful amount of activity.

Or do it from various servers/IPs, rotating the post requests between them at longer random intervals (no spikes). I pulled millions of Zillow records from their API in a matter of days for statistical analysis somewhat using this method (and a ton of their API keys). Never got any messages from Zillow or banned accounts to this day.

JK, I don't advocating doing any of this for USCIS and it would be a lot of work if you tried.

[mysweetlips 5]

Or do it from various servers/IPs, rotating the post requests between them at longer random intervals (no spikes). I pulled millions of Zillow records from their API in a matter of days for statistical analysis somewhat using this method (and a ton of their API keys). Never got any messages from Zillow or banned accounts to this day.

JK, I don't advocating doing any of this for USCIS and it would be a lot of work if you tried.

I contacted my senator for assistance. My case worker emailed me this:

I have received the following response from an officer at the USCIS California Service Center regarding your case:

USCIS electronic records indicate the referenced I-129F case, WACXXXX-XXX-XXXX, was filed on 8/22/2012. Our current processing time is approximately 5 months from the date the petition was received. However, please note that our office has received a high volume of submissions in this workload. There is a current backlog and the petition is currently located with the adjudication division for the assigned I-129F workload (pending action).

Do our data analysts here agree that there is a high volume of submissions on this workload???

"There is a current backlog" (You don't say )