I-129f June 2017 filers (merged)

[The Squirrel 1,318]

2 hours ago, John & Rose said:

I believe they will use RFE’s to stop the clock when they get to the 6 month area. That is there “official” time for reviews. If you get an RFE, that time constraint goes away. We need to see what the RFEs are about. I’m guessing they will be so minor that they wouldn’t issue RFEs if they weren’t up against their own time estimates. 

Incorrect ! What you said has nothing to do with how things work. First, we need to have little understanding for people that do this job, and not make them out to be clock milking charlatans. What you are suggesting with RFE's is a classic case of "sweeping under the rug".  I don't think that is a fair assumption to the agents. First, there is no such thing as a time constraint. Second, RFE's are still "cases pending", so they still show in quarterly reports as job not done. Now, please my friend, what would be the reason to not just approve cases to beat this "time constraint" (that you invented ) if it exists, and why would any agent leave his work undone for the report? 

[The Squirrel 1,318]

2 hours ago, Naes said:

There are registered cases on 31st. It wasn't in the shoegums list because it was mixed with the June 1sts. 

I'm trying to clear the sheets and I'll publish that with the others. Hopefully by tomorrow

Great, thanks ! So does that mean that you have included them in your June scan, or are those cases just not on any of the lists we have?

 

Also, would it be possible to do April scan sometimes this week, just to see how much attention gets, and what they have left? 

 

Thanks again for everything !

[Naes 12,205]

4 minutes ago, The Squirrel said:

Great, thanks ! So does that mean that you have included them in your June scan, or are those cases just not on any of the lists we have?

 

Also, would it be possible to do April scan sometimes this week, just to see how much attention gets, and what they have left? 

Thanks again for everything !

They are not included any of the scans yet.

I am about to finish September which is the last one I'll be doing. 

After that I will be doing that last part of May daily, and April at least weekly.

 

It is taking a little long because of my computer. It takes the dates as Japanese style and I am trying to change them.

However, automating didn't work because of style differences. So hang on just a little bit more  

Edited October 24, 2017 by Naes

[The Squirrel 1,318]

Awesome @Naes, thank you ! Maybe Friday would be the best, that way we can see all that they did. That day by day breakdown you did was great. If that is possible after the scan it would help, so we can see if they are steady or are winding down.

 

Also, how many May 31st do you think there are, approximately ? 

[Naes 12,205]

1 minute ago, The Squirrel said:

Awesome @Naes, thank you ! Maybe Friday would be the best, that way we can see all that they did. That day by day breakdown you did was great. If that is possible after the scan it would help, so we can see if they are steady or are winding down.

 

Also, how many May 31st do you think there are, approximately ? 

108 all case received

[The Squirrel 1,318]

4 hours ago, DandY said:

I will. Most of the approvals posted were at 167 and 168 days. So the average for Early may is looking like it is going to be somewhere around 162-164 as I predicted. Late May will be around 168 average and early June will be 174 average. That puts many of us into Thanksgiving and pushes to 176-178 (Maybe more).

 

So, the conclusion I draw is that my algorithm is largely validated and early June WILL NOT average 160 days.

Someone will call you out on this algorithm sooner or later, you may have to show it's "complexity" . 

 

@DandY, you are not keeping track of approval times . How can you keep track when we just received April numbers less than a week ago? How can your "algorithm" be "largely validated", when it hasn't changed from before we even knew about 1000+ April cases? And it was predicting June before we knew how many cases it had? Much has changed since you brought your "algorithm" to the table, and the only thing that hasn't changed is you being right, on the wings of your "algorithm" naturally . 

 

[stellamahoo 179]

11 hours ago, Swissmiss82 said:

did anyone realize how happy we are on a monday cos we know we await approvals?

lol and how frustrated we are for friday evenings and know 2 days no actions? 

You are so right with this  speaking out of my mind hahaha

[The Squirrel 1,318]

 

I went to bed, and just remembered the "juicy" post . This quote is the real reason why I wrote what I wrote in the comment above. Just to clarify for others who may have missed it, word "probability" happens to be misleading due to frequent use of world "probably", hence trivial to extent, but carries mathematical weight, and "algorithm" is a lovely expression for a "formula".  

 

5 hours ago, DandY said:

From historical data, I do not believe this is true. If your hypothesis were correct, then there would be a higher probability that the petitions processed in say the last 25% of a day would have more RFEs. Historically, I cannot find that pattern.

What "historical data" are you referring to? How can you find a pattern when you didn't have enough time to look since I wrote my comment, and very possibly didn't know where to look? Tell us the percentage of denied petitions from "historical data", and how you got to it. Than tell me where I am wrong.

 

Tell us also where will the denied cases come from, "received" pile or from "RFE's", in what ratio. Also what will be the final ratio of good and no good RFE's, and than how that compares to good or bad "received" cases, or do they have to go to the RFE route first? And also very curious, by the "historical data", can you give us a "historical" length of turnaround of RFE, from sent and/or returned to approved or denied, and than naturally it's influence on the constant of the approvals, which I am sure there is a "historical pattern" .     

 

I only explained one possible logical way in trying to figure out how agents get to the "bottom of this", and instead of you helping, you are steady in promoting your "algorithm" . 

 

edit: and what does 25% of anything has to do with last 2 hours in someone's workday

 

Edited October 24, 2017 by The Squirrel

[Allthephils 536]

8 hours ago, The Squirrel said:

 

Which app is that? Before I wrote my comment I checked @Shoegum scan from Friday, and it showed "case received", and I went on my app by Spinach it says "RFE was mailed", and I went on their official website, it also says "RFE was mailed". Can you please take a screenshot of your app? It is not that I don't believe you, but in order for it to expedited, it would have to have been transferred, and the raw scan would have it marked as "another office has jurisdiction". Can you please clarify. 

 

I use case tracker, but have two others that I’ll check every now and then. The top WAC is the May 30th case. I’ve deleted it from my list since then. If you add it to your cases and scroll through, it shows the case history. 

[John & Rose 7,239]

5 hours ago, The Squirrel said:

Incorrect ! What you said has nothing to do with how things work. First, we need to have little understanding for people that do this job, and not make them out to be clock milking charlatans. What you are suggesting with RFE's is a classic case of "sweeping under the rug".  I don't think that is a fair assumption to the agents. First, there is no such thing as a time constraint. Second, RFE's are still "cases pending", so they still show in quarterly reports as job not done. Now, please my friend, what would be the reason to not just approve cases to beat this "time constraint" (that you invented ) if it exists, and why would any agent leave his work undone for the report? 

The time constraint is their own statements that processing will take 6 months. As they approach that the number of RFEs increase. April is seeing that now as they are at 6 months with over 1000 petitions that haven’t been reviewed. 

[John & Rose 7,239]

7 hours ago, The Squirrel said:

Incorrect ! What you said has nothing to do with how things work. First, we need to have little understanding for people that do this job, and not make them out to be clock milking charlatans. What you are suggesting with RFE's is a classic case of "sweeping under the rug".  I don't think that is a fair assumption to the agents. First, there is no such thing as a time constraint. Second, RFE's are still "cases pending", so they still show in quarterly reports as job not done. Now, please my friend, what would be the reason to not just approve cases to beat this "time constraint" (that you invented ) if it exists, and why would any agent leave his work undone for the report? 

I am a consultant in a government (transportation) agency.  I see how they do things.  They can relieve pressure by sending RFEs especially if they are up against a deadline.  I didn't invent the 6 months.  That is on the USCIS website as a guideline for the time required for review and approval.  That is also what the phone reps will tell you when you call.  If less then 6 months they claim you are within review guidelines and you should call back after 6 months.  

 

I don't come here to make things up.  I am here to help people.  There are hundreds if not thousands of petitioners well over the 160 days.  I have 19 days left by your calculations.  So in 19 days they have to clear over 5000 petitions.  So they need to process 264 per day, including weekends and holidays in order to get June to the 160 day threshold.  That is a lot of petitions to process especially if you remove the weekends.  So all they need to do is process 385 petitions a day and we will all be at the 160 threshold.  How many are they averaging a day now?

 

160 is a mathematical long shot for any of us June filers.  DandY's 178 is reasonable and my 180 to 190 is probable.  If I were betting, I would go for 179.  I guess I will know in 19 days!!!  LOL  and I do hope you are right!

[John & Rose 7,239]

Naes just put up links to the raw data for May, June, July, August and September.  It is an interesting read.  It is in the May forum on page 405.

[Naes 12,205]

15 minutes ago, John & Rose said:

Naes just put up links to the raw data for May, June, July, August and September.  It is an interesting read.  It is in the May forum on page 405.

Thank you! I was about to post for you guys too!

[John & Rose 7,239]

1 minute ago, Naes said:

Thank you! I was about to post for you guys too!

You are already doing too much!  Thank you so much for all of your efforts!!!

[John & Rose 7,239]

There is a February filer who waited 231 days for NOA2 with no RFE!!!  Damn.