Accuracy Of VJ Timeline For NOA2???

[Shiran 1,134]

The first part of 129F is pretty much solely background checks on petitioner, not beneficiary. How fast those get resolved if there is a "hit" in some database or other will result in delay. Our 129F approval was about 1 month faster than VJ predicted timeline (back in December) I don't know if the fact that I have rare first/family name combination and no military record helped with it. Process is not at all transparent. 

 

See part of the background check process here: https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/news/testimony/the-fbis-visa-name-check-process

Edited April 17, 2019 by Shiran

[DaveAndAnastasia 2,092]

19 hours ago, GaryK said:

What are you basing the success on?  I wish the VJ timeline was accurate because, if it was, I would have popped my champagne bottle by now.

You're assuming a higher degree of accuracy for "success" than most of us are, I think.

You're exactly three days past the end of your projected NOA2 date range.

[GaryK 39]

3 minutes ago, DaveAndAnastasia said:

You're assuming a higher degree of accuracy for "success" than most of us are, I think.

You're exactly three days past the end of your projected NOA2 date range.

I am not assigning ANY degree of success to it.  I think that estimate is a joke.  That's my point.

[Shiran 1,134]

Humans likes to see numbers, and statistics, but the old adage of "Garbage In, Garbage Out" still applies. Unfortunately, since USCIS websites updates are notoriously bad, and the whole process on USCIS side of thing is completely opaque, the only thing VJ has to go by are self reported numbers, and whatever model site developers put in to analyze them. I do agree that some people seem to put WAY too much weight into them, and it can lead to certain frustration. It might've been better off if date was hidden behind some sort of disclaimer "We can provide you and estimate based on self reported data of the sight users, but it is likely to only have a very low degree of accuracy, and is not to be used for any serious planning" 

 

I do find things like graphs on Igor's list rather useful but once again with understanding the data is solely self reported. 

[DaveAndAnastasia 2,092]

2 hours ago, Shiran said:

I do find things like graphs on Igor's list rather useful but once again with understanding the data is solely self reported. 

Though I really don't think there's any large-scale deliberate inaccurate reporting (there is some inconsistency in NOA1 dates because of the old site / new site / paper received date / paper notice date confusion, and people report their service center incorrectly as Texas enough that graph for the Texas Service Center looks just like the California one), and at least for K1s, I believe the sample size here is large enough to be fairly representative (at least if you're not breaking things down more than by month, or looking at one month for a country other than the Philippines).

[Shiran 1,134]

I don't think inaccuracies are result of malice, no.  There were a few occasions of VERY bad date entry errors (e.g. 3019 year) What data doesn't take into account internal processes that happen at USCIS, for example, currently 129F approvals tend to arrive quite a bit faster then they did 6 months ago. VJ will show this trend in the long term, which is nice, but it does little to predict individual window of approval.