A Guide to Writing Your Elected Representative(s) About the I-129F Slowdown at the CSC

[ChristianZane 70]

LOL we keep saying the same thing. I agree with you. Anything we can all do to speed up the process is well worth the effort. But specific letters to Congress about specific cases before the 6.6 month window have proven to be fruitless for the most part, based on user experiences.

That may be true, but you are only looking at half the rationale for writing to elected representatives. DACA's implementation needs to be changed through political pressure. If we get a few congressmen and senators invested in this issue, it may not mean that any given application is expedited per se, but political pressure is the only thing that will get all of our applications moving again. Given the delays that are building up now, getting the applications moving again should be just as important to a petition as getting his or her own application expedited; if we get attention drawn to this boondoggle even one month earlier than it would be drawn otherwise, we have effectively expedited 11,000+ I-129Fs, including our own, by a month. I'd say it's worth a shot.

[Oregon Bound 30]

As a beneficiary, is there anything I can do to help our case? My fiance's congressman has a note on his website saying that his office will not respond to anyone outside his constituency

[I & B 273]

LOL we keep saying the same thing. I agree with you. Anything we can all do to speed up the process is well worth the effort. But specific letters to Congress about specific cases before the 6.6 month window have proven to be fruitless for the most part, based on user experiences.

I'm glad you agree with me on the broader point, but we really aren't saying the same thing at all.

You're saying people should not bother complaining about their individual case if it is not yet 6.6 months since their NOA1. You even went further by stating that such early complaints may negatively effect their case.

I'm saying they should complain about the broader situation and their individual case (information about which may be necessary to get attention to the broader issue) as soon as possible, given the tremendous delays already baked into the I-129F cake. I think it would be a gigantic mistake on the part of I-129F petitioners as a class to follow your advice and keep predicating the timing of their complaints on the CSC's own arbitrary number. And I'm further saying the idea that such early complaints will have a negative effect on cases is baseless.

Edited March 30, 2013 by I & B

[I & B 273]

As a beneficiary, is there anything I can do to help our case? My fiance's congressman has a note on his website saying that his office will not respond to anyone outside his constituency

I doubt there is anything you can do directly, honestly. But you can of course help your fiance in drafting a strong, evidence-filled letter for his elected representatives and perhaps other letters for the USCIS Ombudsman and his local news media.

[ChristianZane 70]

Complaining to CSC about your case, before the 6.6 month window, based on user experiences here, results in no action at all. Sorry, you can wish and dream and hope all you want, but I'm just saying this based on previous feedback here. Anyone here, below the 6.6 month window, try calling CSC. You will get the same answer every time, unless you have valid grounds to file an expedite. As I said, you can make up anything you want, but facts are facts. You're dealing with government; some things are just out of your hands. A letter or group action about the overall slowdown I think could be beneficial however.

[ChristianZane 70]

I would help your fiance draft a letter to the local congress person or Senator, they usually have a "Help with Federal Agency" link on their website. I wouldn't bother with local media. There are more important issues facing the US right now other than out of country fiance's not getting into this country fast enough. Listen, I'll be 6.6 months on Monday, I filed early September, I am going to hammer the CSC and all my elected representatives on Monday (although I think is CSC is on vacation Monday). I'll give you an update if I get anywhere.

As a beneficiary, is there anything I can do to help our case? My fiance's congressman has a note on his website saying that his office will not respond to anyone outside his constituency

[I & B 273]

Complaining to CSC about your case, before the 6.6 month window, based on user experiences here, results in no action at all. Sorry, you can wish and dream and hope all you want, but I'm just saying this based on previous feedback here. Anyone here, below the 6.6 month window, try calling CSC. You will get the same answer every time, unless you have valid grounds to file an expedite. As I said, you can make up anything you want, but facts are facts. You're dealing with government; some things are just out of your hands. A letter or group action about the overall slowdown I think could be beneficial however.

When you use reification to excuse institutional action, it's easy to feel helpless. But that's a mistake. In practical terms, we aren't dealing with "the government"; we are dealing with individuals within a congressional office who have relationships with other individuals within a federal agency whose policies are currently working to our detriment. Our goal, first and foremost, therefore, is to think critically about how we persuade those in the congressional office to use their influence with those within the federal agency on our behalf, both as a class and as individuals. I posit that it is simply impossible to achieve that goal if we simply abide by some arbitrary date and do not tell those at the congressional offices our individual cases.

Here is how it's going to work in reality:

A congressional office has liaisons who work on specific issues. One of them is immigration issues. These liaisons are all going to have to write periodic reports on the state of their issue area. Those reports will likely see the eyes of a staff manager, who will them choose highlights from them for the eyes of the elected representative. But it is unlikely your case will even get to a specific liaison unless you provide the office with information that the liaison can act upon.

So I'll skip walking through all of the various hypos of the office receiving different combinations of general and specific complaints because it is obvious what the optimal complaint strategy is given these facts: the best chance we have for a liaison's report getting the attention of a manager and then the attention of the representative (whose attention we need for real political pressure) is for the liaisons to consistently receive an abnormally high level of specific complaints. And given the low overall numbers of petitioners with pending I-129Fs at the CSC, I'd say it's really our only strategy if we want to have any chance at playing the political pressure game.

Finally, I don't know what you are basing your claim about congressional offices only helping individual cases after that arbitrary date on. If you browse through the posts on this site, the record is a mixed bag. Some people after the date do not receive help, but many before that date do find their petitions get looked at within a week or two of their representative's inquiry. It may be a ####### shoot, but it's not nearly as strict as you make it out to be. And whatever strictness may exist is certainly no reason to withhold information about individual cases from general complaints for those who are earlier in the process, given the realities above.

[pachacuti 154]

And if anybody thinks that the DACA's aren't going fast, just check out this forum.

http://dreamact.info/forum/index.php

I expect to see July and August folks explode when they read the timelines that many have in their footers.

Inexcusable. And yet there are still apologists here saying that we should just be patient and wait our turn.

[ChristianZane 70]

Who is making "apologies" for CSC? Couldn't even find the word using a text search here.

I really don't see any point in one group of USCIS applicants complaining about another group of USCIS applicants getting petitions approved quicker than one group over another. If that were the case, everyone would be unhappy. Someone in a position of authority is obviously making decisions about priority based on caseload, national security, politics, tax revenue etc just to name a few. Go look at the USCIS processing page, it's endless with all the different applications.

And if anybody thinks that the DACA's aren't going fast, just check out this forum.

http://dreamact.info/forum/index.php

I expect to see July and August folks explode when they read the timelines that many have in their footers.

Inexcusable. And yet there are still apologists here saying that we should just be patient and wait our turn.

[pachacuti 154]

Who is making "apologies" for CSC? Couldn't even find the word using a text search here.

I really don't see any point in one group of USCIS applicants complaining about another group of USCIS applicants getting petitions approved quicker than one group over another. If that were the case, everyone would be unhappy. Someone in a position of authority is obviously making decisions about priority based on caseload, national security, politics, tax revenue etc just to name a few. Go look at the USCIS processing page, it's endless with all the different applications.

a·pol·o·gist

n.

A person who argues in defense or justification of something, such as a doctrine, policy, or institution.

I disagree with you completely. I think if the institution is shifting priorities for whatever reason to the detriment of one class of applicants, it is an injustice. Not to put to fine a point on it, but this is doubly compounded by the fact that in our case it is to the detriment of CITIZENS who have always FOLLOWED THE LAW. I am 100% behind DACA or DreamAct or what have you, but they should not be given precedence over family-based visa types, in my (not so) humble opinion. And as I have pointed out in several places, this has a lot to do with gross mismanagement at USCIS. They are now flush with available resources that could be brought to bear on ALL VISA TYPES, but they were too busy establishing their priorities, instead of utilizing the resources that we applicants (K1, K3, CR1, DACA, AOS, et al) are paying to them.

Edited March 30, 2013 by pachacuti

[ChristianZane 70]

Well you're entitled to your opinion, and I see your point, but your opinion doesn't help speed up the K1 process, so it's best to deal with the situation at hand based on historical data and actual user experiences and what timetables the immigration authorities have set up, not on what we think they should be.

The fact is calling CSC before posted processing times will result in no action, without an expedite request. I'm trying to give out constructive, factually based advice to people here so they can make rational, informed decisions about their K1 CSC visa journey. Inflating this process with opinion and hyperbole and false hope doesn't really help. Folks should be patient, stay in touch with their loved ones and make the most out of the waiting period, which should be approached with much patience. Take concrete action once your case falls out of their posted processing timetable with calls to USCIS and letters to your local representative. Good luck.

a·pol·o·gist

n.

A person who argues in defense or justification of something, such as a doctrine, policy, or institution.

I disagree with you completely. I think if the institution is shifting priorities for whatever reason to the detriment of one class of applicants, it is an injustice. Not to put to fine a point on it, but this is doubly compounded by the fact that in our case it is to the detriment of CITIZENS who have always FOLLOWED THE LAW. I am 100% behind DACA or DreamAct or what have you, but they should not be given precedence over family-based visa types, in my (not so) humble opinion. And as I have pointed out in several places, this has a lot to do with gross mismanagement at USCIS. They are now flush with available resources that could be brought to bear on ALL VISA TYPES, but they were too busy establishing their priorities, instead of utilizing the resources that we applicants (K1, K3, CR1, DACA, AOS, et al) are paying to them.

[Rob & Rachel 24]

I wanted to add one more place to contact, the USCIS Ombudsman's office. Their purpose is to deal with complaints and systemic problems that are happening.

This would be a great place to complain about slowdowns, especially those who are very early in the NOA process, as it may take time untill reccomendations are addressed and dealt with.

The email is cisombudsman@dhs.gov

[I & B 273]

Well you're entitled to your opinion, and I see your point, but your opinion doesn't help speed up the K1 process, so it's best to deal with the situation at hand based on historical data and actual user experiences and what timetables the immigration authorities have set up, not on what we think they should be.

The fact is calling CSC before posted processing times will result in no action, without an expedite request. I'm trying to give out constructive, factually based advice to people here so they can make rational, informed decisions about their K1 CSC visa journey. Inflating this process with opinion and hyperbole and false hope doesn't really help. Folks should be patient, stay in touch with their loved ones and make the most out of the waiting period, which should be approached with much patience. Take concrete action once your case falls out of their posted processing timetable with calls to USCIS and letters to your local representative. Good luck.

You keep saying your advice is factual but, if it is, it is not based on a full set of the facts. There is no clear historical record, on this site or anywhere else that I know of, that supports the notion that congressional office inquiries are only effective after a certain amount of time. There is certainly evidence to support the notion that very early congressional inquiries will not result in a case being expedited, but there are a quite a few cases on Igor's list and attested to in these forums where someone who filed prior to the USCIS's arbitrary cut-off date saw their petition approved very quickly after a congressional inquiry had been extended. So I really don't know how you can keep repeating your assertions about the rules that govern such inquiries as if they were truly based on something. Things are clearly not so cut and dry, especially for those who are approaching 5 months or so in processing.

As far as the historical data goes, I have gone to pretty great length on this site to show that the current I-129F debacle is an aberration from historical norms that will require policy changes to correct. And you miss the nuance of the recent data: the CSC is not so swamped with DACA applications and other petitions that it cannot process I-129Fs; someone there made a conscious choice to drastically slow the processing of I-129Fs in order to ensure that DACA applications can be processed at a completion rate that exceeds the two year average of all other application types. Fixing this by reducing DACA completion times or spreading the delays around to other non-129F petition types more fairly should not be a heavy lift for the USCIS. The only reason they don't do so is their political priorities. So the only real solution is to convince our elected representative that those priorities are wrong and unduly hurting the I-129F petitioners.

I get that you want to try to tamp down people's expectations for individual redress, but I still can't understand why you are so stubbornly encouraging the ultimate counterproductive strategy: that I-129F petitioners merely accept this ridiculous situation and the Kafka-esque timelines that come with it, while those who are not afraid to flex their political muscle get whisked through the system at a brisk pace.

Edited March 30, 2013 by I & B

[pachacuti 154]

Things to keep in mind:

1. The K-1 Visa type was designed to AVOID delay. Even the 5 month processing time was lengthy. But, okay, most of us can accept that.

2. This time has now been extending to some arbitrary, undefined amount (I see 5.5 months, 6.6 months, 10.2 months, 1 year, nothing July 18 and after). It really depends on who you talk to and there is no firmly established guidelines on what the processing time should be and what criteria would cause it to be lengthened. There is no transparency in this process.

3. The processing time change at the whim of CSC. When I started it was 5, now it is July 18, 2012 (which it has been for months now). What will it be tomorrow. If I sit around like an idiot waiting for this processing time to pass, it might never pass based on what appears to be going on.

4. A letter of general complaint to shed light on this issue can and should be sent by any and everyone who cares, whether they started the K1 journey yesterday or have absolutely nothing to do with K1 visas whatsoever. Injustice is injustice no matter how you slice it.

5. The person who is most interested in your case is you. It is your responsibility to stay on top of it.

6. There should be more citizen access to what is going on with our cases.

7. Respectfully inquiring about your case should not negatively affect your case. I have never worked in a government agency where such action was taken, much less tolerated. At worst you will be ignored. At best you will get action to shut you up.

That's all I can think of right now.

[turtlegirl 6]

Has anyone considered contacting the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs directly? The reason I ask is because when I was researching via the link provided for my state Senators, I was reading a press release about the Immigration reform, and at the bottom of the page there was a link to contact the Committee directly. Both of my Senators (Arizona) are involved in Immigration reform, being on the Sub-Committee and The Group of Eight. I am in the process of writing a letter to send to one or both of them, but I hadn't seen any information about contacting the Committee directly. My knowledge on governmental workings are a bit rusty, but I thought I would throw this out there for those who have more knowledge than I do to see if anyone wanted to check it out or if it would be a waste of time. There was no direct link to the Sub-Committee anywhere; all the information from the Sub-Committees led back to the same "Contact the Committee" link. It's basically similar to the form that is found on most Senator's pages where you can fill out information with an e-mail.

Contact Url is the link for the form and I found it while reading this: Press Update

I mainly read and watch so far, but am starting to want to become more proactive, even though I only filed at the end of December.