QUOTE(TimsDaisy @ May 1 2007, 03:44 PM)

QUOTE(TracyTN @ May 1 2007, 12:13 PM)

Although what they post on their own site is the 6 month BS. Not sure who all would see that Adobe file that mentioned the 2.9 months.
It isn't an adobe file - it's a page from the federal register, a public document. Something that anyone getting sh*t from their congressional offices should copy and send to them with a big red circle saying "LOOK AT THIS, I'm telling you I'm no longer within the real normal processing times," if, in fact, they have exceeded the 2.9 month average.
I think it's partly our responsibility to make it known that we know this data is out here so they can't put us off longer and hope the problem rectifies itself. I appreciate that these offices must handle a tremendous amount of casework, but it isn't my fault congress is currently limited to 435 members while the population keeps increasing. Thems the breaks. Now WORK, offices, and don't assume we're morons who can't read or research!
I hear what you're saying - I do. I just have trouble getting together how the 6 month wait posted on USCIS' timeline 'jives' with this. Meaning in government 'speak', when does a public document become the guideline that they live by? Knowing the way such things normally go, I bet it'd be quite a process. Perhaps when/if the new fees get approved (have they been approved? I've not paid attention.), then this 2.9 months will move up the totem pole? Or will that 6 month BS timeline remain the gospel according to USCIS?
The folks congressmen/senators offices seem to have little imagination -- heck, when someone calls them, worrying about their NOA2 after 90 + days, the response that's generally given is 'you're still within their timeline'. So getting them to go with the 2.9 month average from the public document - as opposed to the USCIS posted timeline - is going to be difficult. I would love one of you to present this to them and see what response you get.
QUOTE(psho @ May 1 2007, 04:04 PM)

QUOTE(TracyTN @ May 1 2007, 12:40 PM)

QUOTE(psho @ May 1 2007, 02:22 PM)

QUOTE(TracyTN @ May 1 2007, 12:21 PM)

QUOTE(psho @ May 1 2007, 02:20 PM)

QUOTE(lucho562 @ May 1 2007, 10:53 AM)

psho,
Did you get a touch the day or days after the NOA2??
I have a touch on April 13. Do you think that means that's when it was mailed to the NVC?
If it was, why hasn't it gotten there yet? Makes no sense.
:weep:
I'm sorry - I re-read that and noticed it seemed a bit insensitive. I was trying to have a go at the CSC and their utter incompetence more than anything.
Oh no no!! I am weeping that NVC doesn't have the form yet! I didn't perceive any insensitivity or snarkiness.

I'm hoping to have news next week.
Oh ok - whew! I felt like such a jerk!!