USCIS Averts Furlough of Nearly 70% of Workforce (merged)

[Neickers 46]

I really dont get their reasoning, first they said they were running low on funding. Then they said applications have decreased due to covid, therefor causing the first thing I said which was funding followed by saying they needed to furlough 13000 people because they  would not be able to sustain operations for this year. They were confronted with the matter and  found out that they were actually ending the year with a surplus, USCIS then turns around and say They are no longer going to furlough all the 13000 employees because there are enough applications to sustain the operations,  and now theyre slowing down everything? It just doesnt make sense to me, How do you go from not having enough, to maybe running out to now having enough to sustain but have to slow down like wth!!! sounds to me like theres more to this because I feel like theyre piling lie on top of lie on top of lie. 

[Pats5415 97]

6 minutes ago, Neickers said:

I really dont get their reasoning, first they said they were running low on funding. Then they said applications have decreased due to covid, therefor causing the first thing I said which was funding followed by saying they needed to furlough 13000 people because they  would not be able to sustain operations for this year. They were confronted with the matter and  found out that they were actually ending the year with a surplus, USCIS then turns around and say They are no longer going to furlough all the 13000 employees because there are enough applications to sustain the operations,  and now theyre slowing down everything? It just doesnt make sense to me, How do you go from not having enough, to maybe running out to now having enough to sustain but have to slow down like wth!!! sounds to me like theres more to this because I feel like theyre piling lie on top of lie on top of lie. 

And on top of that there's no sense of urgency to bail out USCIS from Congress to the administration. I have the feeling that it's just the perfect storm to slow legal immigration because of budget and now covid. Just today they are try to prevent furloughs for airlines by executive order...but not a government agency?? Just my thoughts.

Edited August 26, 2020 by Pats5415

[millefleur 5,046]

2 minutes ago, Pats5415 said:

And on top of that there's no sense of urgency to bail out USCIS from Congress to the administration. I have the feeling that it's just the perfect storm to slow legal immigration because of budget and now covid. Just my thoughts.

I'm not even getting where the budget part comes in still. USCIS has always been mostly funded by fees, and the fees were already planned to up in October (so FY 2021). It just isn't making sense.

[Neickers 46]

2 minutes ago, Pats5415 said:

And on top of that there's no sense of urgency to bail out USCIS from Congress to the administration. I have the feeling that it's just the perfect storm to slow legal immigration because of budget and now covid. Just my thoughts.

And I dont even think they have an explanation as to why they need the funding when you are still receiving applications. I just dont get it. to be honest As much as I love our president and the administration, I blame all of them for not prioritizing  this matter that Democrats and Republicans and everyone else involved.

[SalishSea 17,829]

2 hours ago, JFH said:

Which is excellent news for us Seattle filers - not! Already I’ve been waiting almost a year for my N-400 to be adjudicated. I’ll be retired before they get to my case if they go any slower. 

Yikes!    I had wondered if decreased H1Bs in this region would clear up some of the backlog.

[Neickers 46]

1 minute ago, millefleur said:

I'm not even getting where the budget part comes in still. USCIS has always been mostly funded by fees, and the fees were already planned to up in October (so FY 2021). It just isn't making sense.

Exactly, No explanation whatsoever.

[Pats5415 97]

3 minutes ago, Neickers said:

And I dont even think they have an explanation as to why they need the funding when you are still receiving applications. I just dont get it. to be honest As much as I love our president and the administration, I blame all of them for not prioritizing  this matter that Democrats and Republicans and everyone else involved.

They both have the power to fix but no one can compromise these days for the common good. I agree and disagree but if the administration can perform potential executive action to prevent furloughs for airlines why not USCIS?

Edited August 26, 2020 by Pats5415

[Neickers 46]

I just pray our cases got to get revised or on someones table before this mess. My estimated completion time still shows December 2020. I shouldve had my Biometrics taken if that was the case. Im just going to leave in God's hands. 

[JFH 12,190]

1 hour ago, Cndn said:

I’m in Seattle and I’m about to move just to get out of this inhumane processing time zone. 18 months since filing AOS next week, which isn’t even abnormal as it was the median before covid but still way too long. I can’t imagine what Seattleites will have to endure now if they’re saying more delays. 

I had considered relocating to Buffalo, NY for 3 months just to get through N-400 there. I work entirely from home so all I need is an internet connection and I’m good. But it shouldn’t have to come to this, should it? There are AOSers in Seattle who are still waiting from 2017. 

[JFH 12,190]

3 minutes ago, Neickers said:

I just pray our cases got to get revised or on someones table before this mess. My estimated completion time still shows December 2020. I shouldve had my Biometrics taken if that was the case. Im just going to leave in God's hands. 

I filed in September 2019 (N-400) and mine is currently showing January 2021 for an estimated completion date. Ridiculous! 

[geowrian 22,337]

1 minute ago, millefleur said:

I'm not even getting where the budget part comes in still. USCIS has always been mostly funded by fees, and the fees were already planned to up in October (so FY 2021). It just isn't making sense.

They've been using incoming fees to fund current operations. So when new fee-based forms fell significantly (supposedly...the next quarterly data set is due to come out soon to verify this), the funds used for current operations had to borrow from what they had accumulated via past surpluses. That was expected to mostly dry up, hence the urgent need for the furloughs as a means to avoid it going completely dry.

(The need to "borrow" from new cases to pay for existing ones comes from factors like changes in operation costs, increases in fee-less forms (i.e. Asylum and such + fee-waivered filings), etc. Part o the change in the fee structure starting in October is to address those issues moving forward so new filings actually pay for themselves again.)

 

Via reductions is costs (not sure what exactly was cut offhand, although I do know of several initiatives impacted) - and possible (?) uptake in new forms since their previous analysis (even if not back to "normal" levels) - they are solvent through at least the end of FY 2020.

To maintain continued solvency, they are claiming the need to continue large cost cutting measures. This is business-speak for letting go of contractors, halting projects and not funding new contracts, etc.

 

Not justifying anything...just trying to clarify what their statements mean.

[Cndn 98]

1 hour ago, JFH said:

I had considered relocating to Buffalo, NY for 3 months just to get through N-400 there. I work entirely from home so all I need is an internet connection and I’m good. But it shouldn’t have to come to this, should it? There are AOSers in Seattle who are still waiting from 2017. 

Absurd. I don’t understand why they feel they’re in a position to be initiating a new requirement such as an AOS interview when they’re already struggling but there you go. 🤦🏼‍♀️

[DaveAndAnastasia 2,092]

5 hours ago, millefleur said:

I also find it suspicious. I don't quite follow the logic because usually if a company, for example, has decreased business, staff are let go because there just isn't the need for them anymore. So what gives here? It sounds like it's some kind of a jobs program to just keep everyone on board despite a decreased workload?

Eh; it's usually the case that contractors are let go before full-time employees for private companies.

 

Though I had thought that the massive furlough plan ought to have been tabled once the new fee structure was approved; surely they could survive on reduced revenues for a month, and if the new fees aren't high enough to fund operations going forward, why were they set at that level?

[ManCharsey 254]

2 hours ago, Neickers said:

Has nothing to do with the administration, it has to do with the budget. dont get caught up in the BS. Jeezz. 🤦‍♂️ People are too damm quick to blame whos not at fault, just because CNN says it.

No one mentioned CNN here. I gave an opinion based on what my observation. If you have a problem with CNN, go address it with them. 

[Claire6 26]

1 hour ago, ManCharsey said:

No one mentioned CNN here. I gave an opinion based on what my observation. If you have a problem with CNN, go address it with them. 

Edited August 27, 2020 by Claire6