question about processing time

[Wooderz 314]

Nice summary of the efforts Rob. There's also a letter that was written to the White House. It can be found on the tumblr.

Always great to have another Houstonian join the fight.

Edited February 21, 2015 by April+Daniel

[Jabl2rom 54]

October filers in April/May is a best-case scenario, unfortunately. Unless something drastic crops up, the TSC is projected to continue slowing down during the next few months, if not the remaining of the year. WRT the I-129F petition anyway. June/July for October filers isn't too far fetched of an estimate, or so it would seem.

June/July for October would be a stretch. Quite a handul of August filers have been approved over the last three days, including a mid-August filer. I expect, at this rate, the majority of August filers will receive their NOA2s by mid-March, with a not-so-insignificant amount of September filers approved as well. October filers will begin to hear approvals late April..

[av8or1 246]

June/July for October would be a stretch. Quite a handul of August filers have been approved over the last three days, including a mid-August filer. I expect, at this rate, the majority of August filers will receive their NOA2s by mid-March, with a not-so-insignificant amount of September filers approved as well. October filers will begin to hear approvals late April..

Glad that the view in your crystal ball is so clear. You know it all, so ok.

Nope, I'll stick with the original estimate and be pleasantly surprised if your predictions come to fruition.

Edited February 21, 2015 by av8or1

[Wooderz 314]

Why am I getting such a kick out of this bickering? Both estimates very well could be right, barring any changes to current processing trends, given how TSC seems to start a new month before completing the previous.

Edited February 21, 2015 by April+Daniel

[Pennycat 880]

CharlieTanger-

Yeah retheisen is correct regarding projections based on VJ data. I'm glad he answered first, as your post seemed a bit defensive, perhaps emotionally so, who knows, but whatever, I digress WRT that issue. I won't speculate regarding the amount that we can expect to see the general I-129F slowing phenomenon increase, as retheisen was pretty accurate. That said, the VJ data aside, the primary reason for my commentary regarding the likelihood of increased I-129F wait times at the TSC was and is based on information that I have received from two separate sources (who are reputable and whom I trust) who have been in direct contact with the TSC. Those sources have reported back to me that their opinion based on those conversations with the TSC was that the TSC will - in all probability - continue to decrease the speed with which it processes the I-129F. The reason, though not exclusively, was due to the influx of a large number of work-visa-to-AOS petitions coupled with a petition priority shift within the TSC that places the aforementioned work-visa-to-AOS petitions above the I-129F. Furthermore, the I-129F slid further down the proverbial petition priority ladder due to a decision to focus on yet other petitions, which weren't specified when I spoke with those sources. Finally the work-visa-to-AOS petition filings that have taken place during the past year or so is a phenomenon that is expected to repeat during the remainder of this year for certain, and likely beyond.

So that's why I said what I said. It's also the reason I have been fighting as hard as I have been fighting. I'm no longer fighting so that my fiance can be in TEXAS for the birth of our son, due to these delays I am fighting so that I won't have to leave them behind after his birth in Russia + 2 or 3 months, which is the maximum amount of time I can take off of work to be there. Nope, returning home alone would be monumentally difficult, and so I have continued the fight. For what good it will (or won't) do.

And with that I'm gonna stop there. This will be my last commentary on the issue. If you chose not to believe what has been presented to you, then you are free to do so.

ps-Understand that some miracle could happen and things could change within the TSC; I think we're all hoping for that. All I'm saying is that barring that miracle actually happening, this is what I expect to happen. It's not the wait, it's the imbalance in processing times between the CSC and TSC that I fight against. FWIW

Seriously? Can these sources speak to why USCIS doesn't see it fit to transfer cases to CSC, then? This kind of discrepancy is something that even the government would notice and at least pretend to address (although, logically, no one will care until they get blasted on next year's annual report....but still).

[Wooderz 314]

Seriously? Can these sources speak to why USCIS doesn't see it fit to transfer cases to CSC, then? This kind of discrepancy is something that even the government would notice and at least pretend to address (although, logically, no one will care until they get blasted on next year's annual report....but still).

Who knows if they can speak on it or not, but they definitely aren't lol. In fact, most of the resources we've pursued have just outright denied the processing time difference or dodged the subject entirely.

[av8or1 246]

Seriously? Can these sources speak to why USCIS doesn't see it fit to transfer cases to CSC, then? This kind of discrepancy is something that even the government would notice and at least pretend to address (although, logically, no one will care until they get blasted on next year's annual report....but still).

The sources - who were and are NOT civil servants of the USCIS, just to be clear - told me that the USCIS told them that a backlog in a given SC is not usually justification (in the USCIS's mind anyway) for a bulk transfer. I've seen this stated elsewhere, so I tend to believe what they were telling me. So that's why they don't see fit to transfer: because to them (USCIS) the backlog isn't a good enough reason.

Laughable to us, I realize, but there it is.

[Pennycat 880]

Who knows if they can speak on it or not, but they definitely aren't lol. In fact, most of the resources we've pursued have just outright denied the processing time difference or dodged the subject entirely.

Who are these people? Like, not names, but their connection to USCIS? I cannot get into details publicly, especially with such personally identifying characteristics, but I am theoretically in a position to get some answers (I'd need permission from my boss before going around demanding answers, hence the "in theory" part of things). If they really are behaving in a way that starts to border on ethics violations or anything doing with fraud, waste or abuse (a very key phrase for the executive branch), then folks should know, and it would be easier for me to manage to make this a relevant conversation with the right people.

[Wooderz 314]

Who are these people? Like, not names, but their connection to USCIS? I cannot get into details publicly, especially with such personally identifying characteristics, but I am theoretically in a position to get some answers (I'd need permission from my boss before going around demanding answers, hence the "in theory" part of things). If they really are behaving in a way that starts to border on ethics violations or anything doing with fraud, waste or abuse (a very key phrase for the executive branch), then folks should know, and it would be easier for me to manage to make this a relevant conversation with the right people.

see Av8or's reply above. These are various congress/senate staff who have inquired with uscis and reported what they've been told back to us. Cannot say who at uscis they spoke to, but my assumption is they spoke to whoever at uscis is assigned to deal with congressional inquiries.

Edited February 23, 2015 by April+Daniel

[Pennycat 880]

see Av8or's reply above. These are various congress/senate staff who have inquired with uscis and reported what they've been told back to us. Cannot say who at uscis they spoke to, but my assumption is they spoke to whoever at uscis is assigned to deal with congressional inquiries.

Got it. And USCIS is stonewalling them? Because that's where we start to get borderline with red flags, and I'm a little surprised that the congressional staff hasn't seen that. At an early point in my career, I worked in a district office (the ones in the Members of Congress's home states--that handle constituent services) and have been the one calling the BCIS (back then) and writing (usually fruitless) letters of support for B-2 visas to various embassies (among a myriad of other things. There was a huge dust-up over falconry one month and we wound up having some major miscommunication with the Department of Interior) .

Anyway, if the people on the other end of the congressional inquiry line are stonewalling, this is a big deal. Not quite as big if USCIS actually received money from the government, but still pretty significant. I know that you can't push these folks to keep pushing for you (and that's a bad idea anyway), but really this should have raised some eyebrows.

[Wooderz 314]

Got it. And USCIS is stonewalling them? Because that's where we start to get borderline with red flags, and I'm a little surprised that the congressional staff hasn't seen that. At an early point in my career, I worked in a district office (the ones in the Members of Congress's home states--that handle constituent services) and have been the one calling the BCIS (back then) and writing (usually fruitless) letters of support for B-2 visas to various embassies (among a myriad of other things. There was a huge dust-up over falconry one month and we wound up having some major miscommunication with the Department of Interior) .

Anyway, if the people on the other end of the congressional inquiry line are stonewalling, this is a big deal. Not quite as big if USCIS actually received money from the government, but still pretty significant. I know that you can't push these folks to keep pushing for you (and that's a bad idea anyway), but really this should have raised some eyebrows.

I would say stonewalling is the appropriate description. With the exception of av8or's congressman who was the one to report that they acknowledged the processing difference but that it wasn't adequate for a transfer. All other inquiries seem to have denied the processing time difference entirely or completely brushed it off/ignored it.

Edited February 23, 2015 by April+Daniel

[Pennycat 880]

I would say stonewalling is the appropriate description. With the exception of av8or's congressman who was the one to report that they acknowledged the processing difference but that it wasn't adequate for a transfer. All other inquiries seem to have denied the processing time difference entirely or completely brushed it off/ignored it.

Awesome (sarcastic). The biggest problem with these fee-funded agencies is that Congress has relatively little power over them. USCIS is the executive branch (which, as I'm sure you've noticed, doesn't always have the most functional of relationships with the legislative branch). So really, USCIS's boss is the president. Congress can and does frequently throw its weight around, mostly through money (as you're seeing with the threatened withholding of DHS which *hilariously* as far as I know won't do a thing because it's USCIS that would process DACA applicants and doesn't need that funding to continue operations), but because USCIS gets most of its money from user fees, that means very little in this situation. What they can do is demand answers about ethics violations and fraud, waste and abuse.

Now, I personally think that this is an issue of sheer incompetence, both in the structure of USCIS and possibly a fair few employees there. But if you have it in writing that one USCIS rep is denying the existence of a backlog, while another admits to a backlog but says it's not a priority, THEN you have a red flag that something's not right. Why would USCIS lie to Congress in the first place? Again, the answer is more than likely incompetence, miscommunication (I'd bet a dollar whoever claimed there's no backlog doesn't actually know), or a "cover your ###" move, but it COULD have been a deliberate lie. And deliberate lies are designed to cover something....

[av8or1 246]

Meh, it is what it is. It's their ballpark, their rules, their policies. We can only hope to make enough noise that they'll do a little sumpin'-sumpin' to shut us up. That's why we've been encouraging everyone to sign the petitions, submit the DHS complaint form, writing letters and emails to everyone under the sun, calling everyone under the sun, etc.

[Pennycat 880]

Meh, it is what it is. It's their ballpark, their rules, their policies. We can only hope to make enough noise that they'll do a little sumpin'-sumpin' to shut us up. That's why we've been encouraging everyone to sign the petitions, submit the DHS complaint form, writing letters and emails to everyone under the sun, calling everyone under the sun, etc.

Yeah. I'm doing what I can but I can't sign petitions and stuff (silly, but true). Does anyone think that it may actually be faster to get married and do CR1?

[av8or1 246]

Yeah. I'm doing what I can but I can't sign petitions and stuff (silly, but true). Does anyone think that it may actually be faster to get married and do CR1?

Ok you've got my curiosity going, why can't you sign petitions and stuff? If you don't mind sharing, of course. No pressure, only curious.

Traditionally the spousal visa requires longer to process, which is why we went the fiancé visa route. Unless you filed very recently, say within a month or so, it will likely be longer to go the spousal route at this point. Knowing what I know now, I would have gone that way last September. As wbeem had pointed out however, the I-129F was being processed quicker back then, so there's no way any of us could have known that it would have become this bad.

Anyway.

Edited February 24, 2015 by av8or1