An interesting "why" question...

[Yodrak 7]

dj,

Why should physical distance between petitioner or applicant and Service Center be a factor? It's not at all meaningful. More meaningful would be balancing case load v staffing (and the physical size of the facility to accomodate staff)

In the beginning there were 2 SCs, east and west (hence the acronyms in the case number designations for the VSC and the CSC). As case load grew Texas and Nebraska were added. Note that Vermont's service territory, while geographically the smallest, is the most densely populated region of the country. Some small eastern cities have larger populations than large western states, so the amount of work handled by the VSC may be larger than one might think.

Without knowing the staffing levels at the CSC and the VSC assigned to handle the family cases, and the size of the family case loads at the 2 SCs, one cannot say that the transfer of TSC and NSC cases to the CSC does not make sense. It may make perfect sense.

Yodrak

Why on earth is somebody who lives on the East Coast of the USA, North Carolina to be exact, required to send their paperwork to Texas, which then forwards application to California, wasting one week of time, and which is known to take an inordinate amount of time to approve applications. Vermont is a heck of a lot closer to NC than even Texas (I think), not to mention much quicker than CA. Why California, and why couldn't I just have bypassed Texas altogether since they don't process the stuff there anyway? That would have made me a February filer if it had been straight next-day aired to CA...now I'm thrown in with March 6th crowd (no offense to other March 6thers). OK, I feel better now.

[dj1206 0]

Since this is a government agency and our monies are going toward supporting them, shouldn't they at least be responsible to tell us 1) what their current caseload is, numerically, and 2) how many persons they have processing each type of form/application? Yeah, the "latest date of application" thing helps, but it doesn't give us hard numbers to go by. I see the Sept. 12 or so date on the USCIS update, but in reality it tells me very little. What if the apps from that date are ones that have been held over due to RFE's, but they're actually working on applications from say mid-December, too? One would think they'd report their earliest dated application for K1, not the latest date they've started working on...

Location has everything to do with my original question. One of my subquestions/comments was why couldn't I just forward all of my stuff to CA, and not wait a week for TSC to forward it to CA. I mailed my petition with the hope that I could be among the ranks of Feb. filers...as in Feb. 27 or Feb. 28, but my NOA date is 3/6 because of the week delay!That's one week less that me and Jacki will get to be together!

Another "why" question, which can probably be answered due to $$ issues, is why can't they implement a web-based system that gives us exact status updates on our application, as in a History of actions to-date and where the app is currently located. If it's going to off-site storage, why can't they indicate that to us via the CRIS web site/email notifications? If Joe Smith is reviewing page 1 of my G-325 form and Sally Smith is reviewing Jackis' G-325 form, why can't I be informed of that? After all, there should be accountability there, and it should be transparent to the customer, in my opinion. The last update on their web site for me is from 3/9, three days before I received NOA1 in the mail...nothing since. I would have much better peace of mind knowing where it is during this 10 day hiatus of updates. Some people have had touches on their app 7-10 days after the check is cashed. Last touch on mine was two days after mine was cashed, before payment cleared my bank!

I'm a very hands-on person, and maybe I just want to be too hands on with this paperwork process...but me and my fiancee are apart right now...and as I'm sure is the case with most everybody else in this waiting limbo, we want to be together...badly!

[Yodrak 7]

dj,

Resources are limited and you want the USCIS to spend more time and money developing and publishing real-time statistics.

If I wanted to be toghether with my wife sooner rather than later, I'd prefer that they spend more of their limited resources processing petitions and applications than generating statistics.

Yodrak

Since this is a government agency and our monies are going toward supporting them, shouldn't they at least be responsible to tell us 1) what their current caseload is, numerically, and 2) how many persons they have processing each type of form/application? Yeah, the "latest date of application" thing helps, but it doesn't give us hard numbers to go by. I see the Sept. 12 or so date on the USCIS update, but in reality it tells me very little. What if the apps from that date are ones that have been held over due to RFE's, but they're actually working on applications from say mid-December, too? One would think they'd report their earliest dated application for K1, not the latest date they've started working on...

Location has everything to do with my original question. One of my subquestions/comments was why couldn't I just forward all of my stuff to CA, and not wait a week for TSC to forward it to CA. I mailed my petition with the hope that I could be among the ranks of Feb. filers...as in Feb. 27 or Feb. 28, but my NOA date is 3/6 because of the week delay!That's one week less that me and Jacki will get to be together!

Another "why" question, which can probably be answered due to $$ issues, is why can't they implement a web-based system that gives us exact status updates on our application, as in a History of actions to-date and where the app is currently located. If it's going to off-site storage, why can't they indicate that to us via the CRIS web site/email notifications? If Joe Smith is reviewing page 1 of my G-325 form and Sally Smith is reviewing Jackis' G-325 form, why can't I be informed of that? After all, there should be accountability there, and it should be transparent to the customer, in my opinion. The last update on their web site for me is from 3/9, three days before I received NOA1 in the mail...nothing since. I would have much better peace of mind knowing where it is during this 10 day hiatus of updates. Some people have had touches on their app 7-10 days after the check is cashed. Last touch on mine was two days after mine was cashed, before payment cleared my bank!

I'm a very hands-on person, and maybe I just want to be too hands on with this paperwork process...but me and my fiancee are apart right now...and as I'm sure is the case with most everybody else in this waiting limbo, we want to be together...badly!

[TimsDaisy 0]

It is interesting to note - and bear in mind - that USCIS has a federal mandate to be entirely self-funded. With the exception - *I think* - of special funding to reduce the backlog a few years back, everything they spend, they have to get from petition fees. (Hence the upcoming increase to improve services).

I should ask the powers that be here to pin the link to the federal register information related to the fee increase proposal at the top of the page. It has most of the data requested here - staffing levels, processing times, case loads, money, etc. All that information is public, you just have to go look for it. (not too hard, either).

[Yodrak 7]

TimsDaisy,

"All that information is public, you just have to go look for it. (not too hard, either)."

Bears repeating. And not just in the context of USCIS statistics. Thanks for the concise summary of many VJ situations.

Yodrak

It is interesting to note - and bear in mind - that USCIS has a federal mandate to be entirely self-funded. With the exception - *I think* - of special funding to reduce the backlog a few years back, everything they spend, they have to get from petition fees. (Hence the upcoming increase to improve services).

I should ask the powers that be here to pin the link to the federal register information related to the fee increase proposal at the top of the page. It has most of the data requested here - staffing levels, processing times, case loads, money, etc. All that information is public, you just have to go look for it. (not too hard, either).

[etripke 0]

So, the public comment time on the "proposed" fee increase is supposed to be through the end of April right? Then when do we expect the increase to occur? The beginning of the new fiscal year on October 1st?

[TimsDaisy 0]

Check the document. I can't recall.

[DA BOMB 1]

Check the document. I can't recall.

Well thats the thing I was looking for as I really dont want to file a $600 waiver. All I could find was that the proposal is displayed for 60 days with request for public comment (where the hell do I comment - who do I comment to - does it even matter?) then the proposal goes into motion April 1st BUT that doesnt mean it goes into effect. (#######??) So does it not go into effect pending the "comments" ? Who the heck can understand this #######.

Here's the link to the 29 pages of rubbish - Agency - USCIS (very bottom of list) Document Type - Proposed Rules Keyword - Fee Increase

Fee Increase

[Yodrak 7]

MRS BILLY BONG,

Instructions on how to comment can be found at the link you posted.

Yodrak

Well thats the thing I was looking for as I really dont want to file a $600 waiver. All I could find was that the proposal is displayed for 60 days with request for public comment (where the hell do I comment - who do I comment to - does it even matter?) .....

Here's the link to the 29 pages of rubbish - Agency - USCIS (very bottom of list) Document Type - Proposed Rules Keyword - Fee Increase

Fee Increase

[Minya's wife 25]

OK, I read the proposed Fee Increase document, and did a little math (I know, I probably shouldn't since I was never very good at it.) What I came up with, taking into considerations some very general assumptions, does not make the proposed Fee Increase look so bad. If I've misunderstood the whole 30 page document I just read, please somebody correct me.

I'm assuming that a vast majority of K-1 applicants (from what I'm seeing on the forums) apply for all 3 benefits once they begin the AOS procedure...I-485, I-192 and I-765.

The fees for these currently are:

I-192 --- $265

I-485 --- $325

I-765 --- $185

Biometrics $70 (not sure if this is always required)

TOTAL: $845

The proposed new fees will change how things are filed. For AOS, one fee of $905 will be required, but it will include the Advance Parole and the Employment Authorization, so no separate filing fees will need to be paid for these documents.

That said, the increase comes out to $60, which is not that much of a hike. ($905-$845=$60) Is that really such a big increase? Or am I just completely mis-reading this fee increase proposal?

I know that this process is already not cheap but while we bi^&% and moan about the fees, we cough up the money anyways in order to get those "benefits". The last time fees were increased was in 2004 right? So its been 3 years (almost 4 by the time the increases take effect) I don't see that a $60 increase after that much time is that horrible. What is bad, as many have mentioned is the amount of time we wait and wait and wait some more, while going through the process. If I could be guaranteed that this increase would speed up and streamline the process, I would be comforted to know that my money well spent. Just my opinion....comments, responses anyone?

-P

[Yodrak 7]

-P,

No I-192. Perhaps an I-131 for a K1, currently $170, but a K3 would very rarely be interested in I-131.

So the present K1 total would be as much as $680 not including the biometrics fee. For a K3 the present total would be as much as $510. That makes the proposed fee a 33% increase for K1 and a 77% increase for K3.

Presently K2 and K4 have a discounted I-485 fee of $225 for children under 14. There is a similar $100 discount with the proposed fee. And one would not typically apply for EA for a child under 14. So the K2 increase would be 104% and the K4 increase would be 258%

Does the proposed $905 'all inclusive' fee for adjustment of status include the biometrics? My impression is that it does not, and the biometrics fee is proposed to increase from $70 to $80.

Yodrak

OK, I read the proposed Fee Increase document, and did a little math (I know, I probably shouldn't since I was never very good at it.) What I came up with, taking into considerations some very general assumptions, does not make the proposed Fee Increase look so bad. If I've misunderstood the whole 30 page document I just read, please somebody correct me.

I'm assuming that a vast majority of K-1 applicants (from what I'm seeing on the forums) apply for all 3 benefits once they begin the AOS procedure...I-485, I-192 and I-765.

The fees for these currently are:

I-192 --- $265

I-485 --- $325

I-765 --- $185

Biometrics $70 (not sure if this is always required)

TOTAL: $845

The proposed new fees will change how things are filed. For AOS, one fee of $905 will be required, but it will include the Advance Parole and the Employment Authorization, so no separate filing fees will need to be paid for these documents.

That said, the increase comes out to $60, which is not that much of a hike. ($905-$845=$60) Is that really such a big increase? Or am I just completely mis-reading this fee increase proposal?

I know that this process is already not cheap but while we bi^&% and moan about the fees, we cough up the money anyways in order to get those "benefits". The last time fees were increased was in 2004 right? So its been 3 years (almost 4 by the time the increases take effect) I don't see that a $60 increase after that much time is that horrible. What is bad, as many have mentioned is the amount of time we wait and wait and wait some more, while going through the process. If I could be guaranteed that this increase would speed up and streamline the process, I would be comforted to know that my money well spent. Just my opinion....comments, responses anyone?

-P

Edited March 21, 2007 by Yodrak

[Minya's wife 25]

-P,

No I-192. Perhaps an I-131 for a K1, currently $170, but a K3 would very rarely be interested in I-131.

So your K1 total would be as much as $680 not including the biometrics fee. For a K3 it would be as much as $510.

Does the proposed $905 'all inclusive' fee for adjustment of status include the biometrics?

Yodrak

OK, I read the proposed Fee Increase document, and did a little math (I know, I probably shouldn't since I was never very good at it.) What I came up with, taking into considerations some very general assumptions, does not make the proposed Fee Increase look so bad. If I've misunderstood the whole 30 page document I just read, please somebody correct me.

I'm assuming that a vast majority of K-1 applicants (from what I'm seeing on the forums) apply for all 3 benefits once they begin the AOS procedure...I-485, I-192 and I-765.

The fees for these currently are:

I-192 --- $265

I-485 --- $325

I-765 --- $185

Biometrics $70 (not sure if this is always required)

TOTAL: $845

The proposed new fees will change how things are filed. For AOS, one fee of $905 will be required, but it will include the Advance Parole and the Employment Authorization, so no separate filing fees will need to be paid for these documents.

That said, the increase comes out to $60, which is not that much of a hike. ($905-$845=$60) Is that really such a big increase? Or am I just completely mis-reading this fee increase proposal?

I know that this process is already not cheap but while we bi^&% and moan about the fees, we cough up the money anyways in order to get those "benefits". The last time fees were increased was in 2004 right? So its been 3 years (almost 4 by the time the increases take effect) I don't see that a $60 increase after that much time is that horrible. What is bad, as many have mentioned is the amount of time we wait and wait and wait some more, while going through the process. If I could be guaranteed that this increase would speed up and streamline the process, I would be comforted to know that my money well spent. Just my opinion....comments, responses anyone?

-P

No, the proposed new $905 fee only includes the AP and EAD, and you're right, I was looking at the wrong form(I-192). So for a K-1 the new fee would be an increase of $225, which is significant. But still, if the fee would streamline things, and allow for easier and dare I say quicker processing during AOS then the fee increase is worth it to me.

For those of us living on any sort of budget it may just mean having to wait a little more time to file (closer to the end of the 90 day validity of the K-1) rather than marrying quickly after entry and filing AOS. This issue is particularly interesting to me because by the time my K-1 goes through the pipeline and my man is here (under the best of circumstances w/ no RFE) it will be past that Oct. 1 deadline, so we will probably be filing for AOS having to pay the new fees. So no alternative for me, but to factor this in and increase my savings for this.

-P

[TimsDaisy 0]

Check the document. I can't recall.

Well thats the thing I was looking for as I really dont want to file a $600 waiver. All I could find was that the proposal is displayed for 60 days with request for public comment (where the hell do I comment - who do I comment to - does it even matter?) then the proposal goes into motion April 1st BUT that doesnt mean it goes into effect. (#######??) So does it not go into effect pending the "comments" ? Who the heck can understand this #######.

Here's the link to the 29 pages of rubbish - Agency - USCIS (very bottom of list) Document Type - Proposed Rules Keyword - Fee Increase

Fee Increase

Wow is it ever NOT rubbish. It's actually CHOCK FULL of the kind of data a lot of VJers moan about not getting their hands on - as well as that golden 2.9 month average that I still think we should all be using to pound the hell out of USCIS when a particular petition gets lapped in line by, say, Vermont.

And, as pointed out, the process for submitting a comment is very, very simple. Mail, online. And when in doubt, call your congressman/woman's office and register a comment with them and/or ask them how to make the public comment. They'll walk you through it.

As the proposal says, the increase is very large, no doubt. But one of the main reasons for it is to combat the public's impression that USCIS purposely drags its heels during the AOS process and requires a lot of stop-gap paperwork to keep people in status and able to travel, etc, etc. Along the way, people have to pay out for each additional service. So, since they need them all, include everything in one price and make the process more transparent and less seemingly patched-together.

All of this gets tied back to the USCIS's mandate to be self funding (ie: public thinks since they have to raise their own funds, they have to nickel and dime us to exist). Since they DO have to be self-funding, they need to be clear about how/when/why fees are collected.

And, if memory serves, part of the fee increase should increase efficiency and part of it should just keep levels up to what they are now - which is FAR BETTER than during the dark, huge backlog days. Extra, one-time funding helped erase most of the backlog, but that funding is gone. So they either adjust their fee schedule or watch the backlog grow again.

[TimsDaisy 0]

The comment process is on the first page of the document - and there are a ton of ways to comment. To wit:

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,

identified by DHS Docket No. USCIS–

2006–0044 by one of the following

methods:

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the

instructions for submitting comments.

• E-mail: OSComments@dhs.gov.

Include the docket number in the

subject line of the message.

• Facsimile: Federal eRulemaking

portal at 866–466–5370.

• Mail: Director, Regulatory

Management Division, U.S. Citizenship

and Immigration Services, Department

of Homeland Security, 111

Massachusetts Avenue, NW., 3rd Floor,

Washington, DC 20529. To ensure

proper handling, please reference DHS

Docket No. USCIS–2006–0044 on your

correspondence. This mailing address

may also be used for paper, disk, or CD–

ROM submissions.

• Hand Delivery/Courier: Regulatory

Management Division, U.S. Citizenship

and Immigration Services, Department

of Homeland Security, 111

Massachusetts Avenue, NW., 3rd Floor,

Washington, DC 20529. Contact

Telephone Number (202) 272–8377.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul

Schlesinger, Chief, Office of Budget,

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration

Services, Department of Homeland

Security, 20 Massachusetts Avenue,

NW., Suite 4052, Washington, DC

20529, telephone (202) 272–1930.

Comments are due on or before April 2, 2007. Go nuts. And I guarantee you, that it is several unfortunate souls' jobs to review ALL comments received.

[DA BOMB 1]

Wow is it ever NOT rubbish. It's actually CHOCK FULL of the kind of data a lot of VJers moan about not getting their hands on - as well as that golden 2.9 month average that I still think we should all be using to pound the hell out of USCIS when a particular petition gets lapped in line by, say, Vermont.

And, as pointed out, the process for submitting a comment is very, very simple. Mail, online. And when in doubt, call your congressman/woman's office and register a comment with them and/or ask them how to make the public comment. They'll walk you through it.

As the proposal says, the increase is very large, no doubt. But one of the main reasons for it is to combat the public's impression that USCIS purposely drags its heels during the AOS process and requires a lot of stop-gap paperwork to keep people in status and able to travel, etc, etc. Along the way, people have to pay out for each additional service. So, since they need them all, include everything in one price and make the process more transparent and less seemingly patched-together.

All of this gets tied back to the USCIS's mandate to be self funding (ie: public thinks since they have to raise their own funds, they have to nickel and dime us to exist). Since they DO have to be self-funding, they need to be clear about how/when/why fees are collected.

And, if memory serves, part of the fee increase should increase efficiency and part of it should just keep levels up to what they are now - which is FAR BETTER than during the dark, huge backlog days. Extra, one-time funding helped erase most of the backlog, but that funding is gone. So they either adjust their fee schedule or watch the backlog grow again.

You cant "pound the hell" out of the USCIS when the 2002 mandate is 6 months.