CSC Delay Projection Graphs

[Bugs 455]

1. They basically stopped processing I-129Fs in meaningful numbers in November. This wind down was the result of their intense focus on quickly processing DACA petitions. There is past precedent for them slowing down the processing of one petition type temporarily and then ramping up approvals later in order to maintain a completion rate that allows them to keep a set time frame. In fact, mathematically, this approach makes a ton of sense: so long as they can keep the cycle (boom and bust) within the set processing time frames, the boom will cancel out the bust and no petition will be negatively affected; to the contrary, they would be able to apply the efficiency gains of focusing on one petition type towards completing all petitions more quickly using this system. I highly, highly suspect this is exactly what their operating plan is.

But it went terribly wrong this time. The bust far outstripped the boom and thus you see the rise in the average processing time for all I-129Fs. Note how returning to the median processing time only then locks in a steady rate at a longer average delay. That's because the median completion rate, not coincidentally, is roughly equally to the median receipt rate, which is more evidence that the system is designed for balanced booms and busts. Right now, however, we just need a really big boom to drive down the average rate. And, as you can see, even with very large booms over several months, July, August, September, and December filers will not realistically be able to get approved near the 5 month mark (unless, like the recent spate of december petitions, they are processed out of order).

2. According to posts today, the CSC claims that was a mistake. If it was, it was an unbelievably negligent one that demonstrates very poor situational awareness on the part of at least some of the managers and staff. And that actually makes me kinda believe them, haha.

After reading a lot of the other threads on there on the topic, here is my take.

It would seem to me that maintaining a steady pace is nearly impossible for an agency that must handle such a wide range of application types, and politically charged at that. The boom and bust method that you talk about almost cannot be helped in such a setup. I don't blame them.

It also seems to me that they have started the "boom" phase, and it is probably about time, given the long focus they had on the DACA, which makes your middle graphs the likely projection. I'm thinking 8 months will indeed be the new norm. Granted, they may really ramp things up in an attempt to bring it back to 5, but it appears that is unlikely due to the incredible backlog they created with the recent bust, unless the government gives them more budget money (yeah right).. My fiance pointed this out right away, asking me specifically before I had a chance to research all this if the fact they need to catch up with those will set us back to a longer wait than the 4-6 months that was the norm last year.

I don't fault them for the December filings, as I, too, think their explanation is legit. It's unfortunate that they had an accident in March, so in my opinion, nobody can blame them for that. At least they can be credited for processing applications even if they were out of sequence rather than allow such an accident to further hold up the applications while they tried to sort though the mess.

Of course I haven't been sitting and waiting for movement for 4 months like a lot of you have, so I might feel otherwise if I did, but I really do think they are trying as hard as they can, given the resources and the workload they have to maintain with it. If anybody is to blame for this, it should be our political leaders, who really are the bosses of such agencies, as they set the demands and decide how much in terms of money and resources that agencies like the CSC get.

Great job on the graphs. Now we shall wait and see which path the CSC takes on this.

Edited April 17, 2013 by Leon & Mylen

[I & B 273]

After reading a lot of the other threads on there on the topic, here is my take.

It would seem to me that maintaining a steady pace is nearly impossible for an agency that must handle such a wide range of application types, and politically charged at that. The boom and bust method that you talk about almost cannot be helped in such a setup. I don't blame them.

It also seems to me that they have started the "boom" phase, and it is probably about time, given the long focus they had on the DACA, which makes your middle graphs the likely projection. I'm thinking 8 months will indeed be the new norm. Granted, they may really ramp things up in an attempt to bring it back to 5, but it appears that is unlikely due to the incredible backlog they created with the recent bust, unless the government gives them more budget money (yeah right).. My fiance pointed this out right away, asking me specifically before I had a chance to research all this if the fact they need to catch up with those will set us back to a longer wait than the 4-6 months that was the norm last year.

I don't fault them for the December filings, as I, too, think their explanation is legit. It's unfortunate that they had an accident in March, so in my opinion, nobody can blame them for that. At least they can be credited for processing applications even if they were out of sequence rather than allow such an accident to further hold up the applications while they tried to sort though the mess.

Of course I haven't been sitting and waiting for movement for 4 months like a lot of you have, so I might feel otherwise if I did, but I really do think they are trying as hard as they can, given the resources and the workload they have to maintain with it. If anybody is to blame for this, it should be our political leaders, who really are the bosses of such agencies, as they set the demands and decide how much in terms of money and resources that agencies like the CSC get.

Great job on the graphs. Now we shall wait and see which path the CSC takes on this.

Yah, I basically agree with the thrust of what you are saying, but the devil is definitely in the details. The other data analysis thread I did showed pretty well that the recent slowdown of I-129Fs (a slowdown that inarguably outstripped its normal, scheduled bust time) was due to a desire to complete DACA petitions at a very quick rate. DHS and the USCIS may have been under some political pressure to get that done, but, at the end of the day, its the job of the management there to stand up to such pressure when it unduly affects a class of petitioner. The management made a conscious choice to single out I-129Fs to bear the brunt of the DACA processing and then let them bear that brunt for far longer than their current time frames allowed. And to make it worse, no one at the USCIS even made one mention of this to the public, though it they should have known it was coming by September or October when DACA ramped up. As I'm sure you know, the logistics of moving to the US are not easy. They should have at least told us the extent of the delay as soon as possible, and there is no compelling reason why they should have to withhold the reason for that delay from the public. All of their actions in this regard stink of bad motives, a lack of accountability, and poor leadership.

Moreover, when you really boil all of the immigration processing problems down, it's a matter of fees, which the USCIS leadership gets to set. Is there anyone that goes through this process who wouldn't gladly pay double to get their fiance here twice as quickly? Heck, many couples on here have to lose multiples of the $340 every month by virtue of maintaining separate households for an extended period. That's just burning money in a way that neither the couples nor the government benefits from. It makes no sense that they maintain fee levels that put them in such a ridiculous and predictable processing predicament due to restrictions on staff hours. It's a catastrophic failure of supply and demand that could only occur at a government agency run by numb skulls. At a bare minimum, they should have tier pricing that allows some to go pay to go through the system more quickly, so long as their payments also subsidize quicker processing times for those paying the minimum (i.e., the premium user doesn't get the full benefit of the premium service to the detriment of the standard user). And don't even get me started about how crazy and kafka-esque their whole customer service regime is. No sensible manager would allow such nonsense to persist for long.

So, yah, tons of blame needs to fall on the current DHS and USCIS management. If what they are doing is their best, then they need to be fired so that someone competent can be in charge of such an important service.

Edited April 17, 2013 by I & B

[Bugs 455]

Yah, I basically agree with the thrust of what you are saying, but the devil is definitely in the details. The other data analysis thread I did showed pretty well that the recent slowdown of I-129Fs (a slowdown that inarguably outstripped its normal, scheduled bust time) was due to a desire to complete DACA petitions at a very quick rate. DHS and the USCIS may have been under some political pressure to get that done, but, at the end of the day, its the job of the management there to stand up to such pressure when it unduly affects a class of petitioner. The management made a conscious choice to single out I-129Fs to bear the brunt of the DACA processing and then let them bear that brunt for far longer than their current time frames allowed. And to make it worse, no one at the USCIS even made one mention of this to the public, though it they should have known it was coming by September or October when DACA ramped up. As I'm sure you know, the logistics of moving to the US are not easy. They should have at least told us the extent of the delay as soon as possible, and there is no compelling reason why they should have to withhold the reason for that delay from the public. All of their actions in this regard stink of bad motives, a lack of accountability, and poor leadership.

Moreover, when you really boil all of the immigration processing problems down, it's a matter of fees, which the USCIS leadership gets to set. Is there anyone that goes through this process who wouldn't gladly pay double to get their fiance here twice as quickly? Heck, many couples on here have to lose multiples of the $340 every month by virtue of maintaining separate households for an extended period. That's just burning money in a way that neither the couples nor the government benefits from. It makes no sense that they maintain fee levels that put them in such a ridiculous and predictable processing predicament due to restrictions on staff hours. It's a catastrophic failure of supply and demand that could only occur at a government agency run by numb skulls. At a bare minimum, they should have tier pricing that allows some to go pay to go through the system more quickly, so long as their payments also subsidize quicker processing times for those paying the minimum (i.e., the premium user doesn't get the full benefit of the premium service to the detriment of the standard user). And don't even get me started about how crazy and kafka-esque their whole customer service regime is. No sensible manager would allow such nonsense to persist for long.

So, yah, tons of blame needs to fall on the current DHS and USCIS management. If what they are doing is their best, then they need to be fired so that someone competent can be in charge of such an important service.

That is a good point in that people are shelling out $340 a pop for the service, and so, with that, comes responsibility on their part, not to mention honest communication. But that's government for you, isn't it? I'm certainly not excusing it, but I am saying that it is a sad fact. It's almost expected. Again, probably because they are at the mercy of politicians and their wishes, P.R., and budget, which is why I say, if you are going to go after anyone, go after them. As a public school educator, I experience this all the time of course.

And I do hear you on the fact that lives and money are being held hostage in this as well. My fiance and I prepared for the worse, even before we found out about this particular problem with CSC, as, again, I know how government works - so we have made long term plans in the event that it truly does take over a year - her keeping her job there, me saving for and making regular visitation plans, etc. Hope for the best, plan for the worse. I think it will help us get through such things as this.

Granted, not everyone has the luxury though, and, who knows, maybe after 4 months of no activity, we too would feel the way a lot of you are over this by now. So we are grateful that we didn't have to go through what you guys are and offer our sympathies to all of you.

Edited April 17, 2013 by Leon & Mylen

[JBForever 12]

Wow, CSC could have finished up more than half of the remaining July cases instead of last weeks Nov-Dec approvals (based on the 5% VJ/USCIS correlation), but they chose not to.

that would have been lovely Bayareaguy...so we can finally be on our way and your files would be up next. but the CSC decided to make good their stats? oh well...

[I & B 273]

That is a good point in that people are shelling out $340 a pop for the service, and so, with that, comes responsibility on their part, not to mention honest communication. But that's government for you, isn't it? I'm certainly not excusing it, but I am saying that it is a sad fact. It's almost expected. Again, probably because they are at the mercy of politicians and their wishes, P.R., and budget, which is why I say, if you are going to go after anyone, go after them. As a public school educator, I experience this all the time of course.

And I do hear you on the fact that lives and money are being held hostage in this as well. My fiance and I prepared for the worse, even before we found out about this particular problem with CSC, as, again, I know how government works - so we have made long term plans in the event that it truly does take over a year - her keeping her job there, me saving for and making regular visitation plans, etc. Hope for the best, plan for the worse. I think it will help us get through such things as this.

Granted, not everyone has the luxury though, and, who knows, maybe after 4 months of no activity, we too would feel the way a lot of you are over this by now. So we are grateful that we didn't have to go through what you guys are and offer our sympathies to all of you.

Again, I think you are approaching the topic from exactly the right sort of cool-headed, realistic stand point. It's just when you've looked at it that way for as long as I have, almost all the plausible excuses for the way the USCIS is managed just fall apart. Case-in-point, the USCIS is self-funded. It does not rely upon the congressional budget at all; it only draws its operating budget from fees. It should thus be very insulated from the political process in how it meets its statutory mandate. And, again, it should be using a realistic fee structure that allows it more flexibility in turning petitions around in a timely manner and providing at least a modicum of competent customer service and communication. The failures in these fundamental areas are all on the USCIS, even if the current administration exacerbated them by mandating the DACA program.

[B&L 19]

I&B, I'd very much like to see/hear your take on the recent surge in approvals from the CSC. It's been pretty consistent for about a week now, whether that's enough to throw off any projections or not, I have no idea. I also forgot what percentage of VJ members represents in the entirety of K1 applications, but if I remember correctly, I think it was about 5%, but don't quote me on that.

[Andreea&Kevin 38]

I&B, I'd very much like to see/hear your take on the recent surge in approvals from the CSC. It's been pretty consistent for about a week now, whether that's enough to throw off any projections or not, I have no idea. I also forgot what percentage of VJ members represents in the entirety of K1 applications, but if I remember correctly, I think it was about 5%, but don't quote me on that.

5% is a good conservative estimate, but I think it's closer to 6-7%. Of course as people wait longer more people discover VJ, and you end up with CSC August filers being just over 10%. This is making the recent surge seem even more impressive. No doubt CSC is working a very fast pace this past week with us seeing 20+ approvals a day, but some of that is due to the higher percentage here on VJ. In comparison I think VSC October filers is around 6.5%.

If you want to calculate the percent look at the receipts here http://dashboard.uscis.gov/index.cfm?formtype=6&office=2&charttype=1 and compare to the NOA1's on VJ.

[Louis and Aya 17]

If you would like some more data to refine your plots a bit, I can tell you there are still 550 cases still open from July 18 - July 31. I am Aug 2, with 26 cases open between us and Aug 1.

Where do you see with such accuracy the open cases?

[dmck 80]

Where do you see with such accuracy the open cases?

I spent the last several months finding all the 129F applications at the CSC from Aug 6 till July 18. Wrote them down, and every day, check their status What else to do while we wait

[Lenny&Sanna 114]

Question for you guys, how often do these charts update? It has been about a month and nothing has changed with any of the data? Also why has March or april been added yet?

http://dashboard.uscis.gov/index.cfm?formtype=6&office=5&charttype=1