I-129f June 2017 filers (merged)

[George & Roth 1,485]

 

 

 

 

[John & Rose 7,239]

5 minutes ago, George & Roth said:

 

 

 

 

Are you concurring with The Squirrel?  Are you saying 160 too? 

[useful89 692]

46 minutes ago, Naes said:

There is an average 16% denial rate ( 20% in the last year) 

 half of these are rejections due to mistakes made at the start of the process like wrong payment, forgot to sign etc. these are, as they also get a wac number for the rejection letter, counted as denials (actually this explanation I still couldn't find openly but this is the only explanation that comes to mind) 

the rest are, when they didn't believe your relationship is bona fide, or you didn't meet the requirements such as meeting in the past two years. 

 Also cases that got rejected at he embassy is sent back to uscis and those also count in the next quarters as rejected. These cases sometimes stay in the uscis waiting to expire so we don't know which denial rate is of he which initial quarter. However the higher denial rates in the last 3 quarters seems like caused by changes in the amount of payment and forms hence people sending the wrong forms or wrong amount of money order during these times.

 

This is the logical outcome I came up with, after too much data, and too much reading. But if anyone has any other description I'd like to know. 

 

Right now checking the approval rates.. it just became a distractive activity at this point.. 

I thought if you send the wrong payment or form they notify you of that from the very beginning?

[George & Roth 1,485]

17 minutes ago, John & Rose said:

Are you concurring with The Squirrel?  Are you saying 160 too? 

@The Squirrel has shown me the light. 160 days!

 

Join the team while we are still taking applications! @John & Rose

[John & Rose 7,239]

1 minute ago, George & Roth said:

@The Squirrel has shown me the light. 160 days!

 

Join the team while we are still taking applications! @John & Rose

I have never been so happy to be wrong!

[Naes 12,205]

1 minute ago, useful89 said:

I thought if you send the wrong payment or form they notify you of that from the very beginning?

Yes but we can see those because they get a case number. Otherwise we wouldn't see them happening.

and in a business, and especially governments, they have to have records, and all those numbers are used in order to send these people their official rejection letter and explanation. So it ends up as a rejected file in the system.

 What I'm eagerly searching now is how they classify those. As they have to count them as received (I checked and it is count) they need to put them under a pile and they have only 3, approved denied and pending. So denied is the only place they can go.

 

 I hope it made sense. 

[George & Roth 1,485]

haha, unfortunately, I just checked my timeline again and it lost another day! Nov 18th. So close yet so far away. Every day I look at it the following is my reaction

 

 

 

[John & Rose 7,239]

Just now, George & Roth said:

haha, unfortunately, I just checked my timeline again and it lost another day! Nov 18th. So close yet so far away. Every day I look at it the following is my reaction

 

 

 

Yes. We are the same. People here say we are moving quicker but the VJ timeline keeps adding days. A bunch of the latest approvals seem to be in the 169 area. That may be why they are tracking November 18 (165 days). 

[useful89 692]

17 minutes ago, George & Roth said:

haha, unfortunately, I just checked my timeline again and it lost another day! Nov 18th. So close yet so far away. Every day I look at it the following is my reaction

 

 

 

I feel like I'm chasing a cat at this point.

[DandY 134]

12 hours ago, The Squirrel said:

Well my dear friends, for some of you for good night, and for some of you for good morning ......

 

 

On the 10th guys, on the 10th! Today is 27th. That is full 17 calendar days. Should that view of the situation seem like nothing, flip it over and try this - they are done through the May 15th, and 17 days from the May 15th is ...... June 1st! Dear friends, time to slowly start getting ready  

WOW, you have changed my whole outlook. Of course one can extrapolate from 3 cases to thousands. Makes perfect sense. You should have been my statistics teacher!

[DandY 134]

2 hours ago, John & Rose said:

Are you concurring with The Squirrel?  Are you saying 160 too? 

He has been concurring with him for awhile.

 

That was an attempt to ridicule me.

 

He has essentially said previously that I was too stupid to know anything and that he could do better math in his sleep than I'd ever be able to do though he has never demonstrated that--I'm still waiting for his approach and results.

 

Naes claimed I was defensive because I was sick of childish attacks like this and preferred not to participate. I've never seen anyone attack the VJ calculations even they there were so bad, but Naes asked me to prove mine as if I was interviewing for a job (his example, not mine). Just like VJ, I posted mine for fun and information based upon calculations from a specific approach. I've had 3 different approaches and described them each time.

 

So even though I have withdrawn for the discussion of predicting average wait times, it seems that I am still the fodder for acrimonious jabs. I'm not sure how posting an approach and results has led to so much animosity, so that is why I stopped.

 

If it makes them feel like big men to keep ridiculing me, then I guess I'm glad I can help them feel good about themselves.

 

As an interesting aside, VJs predictions for early June are up to 168 days now.

Edited October 28, 2017 by DandY

[John & Rose 7,239]

4 minutes ago, DandY said:

He has been concurring with him for awhile.

 

That was an attempt to ridicule me.

 

He has essentially said previously that I was too stupid to know anything and that he could do better math in his sleep than I'd ever be able to do though he has never demonstrated that--I'm still waiting for his approach and results.

 

Naes claimed I was defensive because I was sick of childish attacks like this and preferred not to participate. I've never seen anyone attack the VJ calculations even they there were so bad, but Naes asked me to prove mine as if I was interviewing for a job (his example, not mine). Just like VJ, I posted mine for fun and information based upon calculations from a specific approach. I've had 3 different approaches and described them each time.

 

So even though I have withdrawn for the discussion of predicting average wait times, it seems that I am still the fodder for acrimonious jabs. I'm not sure how posting an approach and results has led to so much animosity, so that is why I stopped.

 

If it makes them feel like big men to keep ridiculing me, then I guess I'm glad I can help them feel good about themselves.

 

As an interesting aside, VJs predictions for early June are up to 168 days now.

I don’t think there are any personal attacks. I’m hoping all this is tongue in cheek. 

 

Personally  I still am with your estimate. That is a big change since I was at 180. Between you and The Squirrel I did pull back to 170 but I can’t go more than a couple days sooner than that. 

 

I expect 169. Not 160 at all. I just don’t see that. 

 

Only time will tell. We are all in this together and no matter when it happens, we will have our NOA2s and we will be closer to the ultimate goal, to be in the arms of our loved ones. 

[DandY 134]

2 minutes ago, John & Rose said:

Personally  I still am with your estimate.

Just like VJs, as you have seen in my posts, mine changes slightly as more data becomes available and we get closer. The closer you get, the greater the accuracy obviously. The trend line is definitely looking a bit better, but as I'm a man of my word, I will comment no further.

[Daniel P 2,022]

1 hour ago, George & Roth said:

haha, unfortunately, I just checked my timeline again and it lost another day! Nov 18th. So close yet so far away. Every day I look at it the following is my reaction

 

 

 

That's so funny. I got my NOA1 not even two weeks ago, but I can see already that soon enough that'll also be my reaction.

[DandY 134]

7 minutes ago, John & Rose said:

I don’t think there are any personal attacks.

As an aside John, you are a far more charitable person than me and I admire you greatly for it. Unfortunately, too much life experience has made me cynical of the motivations of others.