• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


geowrian last won the day on March 14

geowrian had the most liked content!

About geowrian

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • State

Immigration Info

  • Immigration Status
    K-1 Visa
  • Place benefits filed at
    California Service Center
  • Local Office
    Philadelphia PA
  • Country

Immigration Timeline

Recent Profile Visitors

3,065 profile views
  1. The extremely abridged version is a 2 step process: 1) Scan a range of case numbers to find the I-129Fs and save those to a CSV. 2) Scan all case numbers in a CSV file and export the results to another CSV file. Step 1 is done once for a given range of cases. For instance, I scanned about 65,000 cases to find the Nov. I-129F filers for CSC. Step 2 is what is done daily to check for updates to those cases found in step #1. All of these are done via Node.JS scripts I developed.
  2. No "argument" here. haha I enjoy the discussion, and you make some good points. It's only speculation, but the running prediction is that each case only takes about 15-30 minutes to process (on average). A case worker is evaluated regularly based on how quickly they work. As such, this does create an incentive to "gloss over" cases that appear to be more complicated. I guess they could switch to evaluation based on (in part) how old their cases are. But then again, somebody with an unlucky set of cases would then be (unfairly) evaluated based on luck instead of their actual performance. While many, many cases are fairly simple, there are some that will likely hold up the line. Cases with a divorce (or multiple) to spouses abroad, cases with multiple filers, cases with a petition that was previously approved but the K-1 visa was denied, etc. The vast array of possibilities they encounter is crazy...and before denying a petition, they need to provide a valid basis for doing so. Sometimes they don't know something or need to research it, so it has to go through review by others, which means no more work on that case until they hear back. Over time, I can imagine that backlog is huge and anything can come back with an update on any day. Even with RFEs, that's the case, albeit likely a shorter lifespan on that waiting for new data. Also, I believe the vast majority of adjudicators are not dedicated to I-129Fs. I-129Fs are the "easy" they may only get to a look at a couple I-129Fs in a day. Also, the adjudicator may have started on a case and then gone for vacation, left, etc., which can cause delays. Other times, background checks require a manual check or otherwise come back inconclusive and need further investigation. Is this a perfect design? Heck no! While it is one way to optimize average utilization (performance) of an adjudicator's time, it is prone to various unwanted side effects such as a high variance in processing times of some individual cases. Most are fine, but that doesn't create a "fair" field either. That potential solution is one approach that I personally would prefer. It does have additional overhead (potential waiting for new cases) and costs (pay for usher(s)), but would provide a more consistent timeline. Maybe more than 3-5 at a time would be needed, but an optimal number of cases could be found to minimize variance and waiting periods. It doesn't address the issue of having a backlog of cases waiting for a response from the petitioner, an external party, or supervisor...but it would be easier to work on those after the much-smaller current batch of cases are processed. There still would be some people who are waiting much longer, but I would imagine that would be much few and farther between. Anyway, the idea is that I'm confident there is a method to their's not just purely random. The data suggests this as well as you can see a clear progression of forward progress from week to week. But I'm also confident that the flow could be improved if there's somebody there who has the means to make changes...or at least decrease the variance. I can't speak for others, but I'm willing to wait an extra couple days or pay a couple dollars more to have the process be more consistent and make my scans mostly irrelevant.
  3. I'll refer to my previous analogy as to why some take longer.
  4. Since you're a USC, it shouldn't matter. If filing for a spouse visa (not fiance like a K-1) and somebody is an LPR via marriage and files a petition for another spouse within 5 years of obtaining their GC, the presumption is that the relationship is not bona fide and it takes a lot of evidence to overcome that. But for a USC, that's all in the past. I wouldn't worry...Dec. filers are still being processed regularly.
  5. USPS themselves are are fine for delivery IMHO (albeit I'm biased as I do non-delivery work for them), but they don't have a presence overseas, obviously. They have to coordinate with the local carriers in the destination country, and that's where all sorts of problems arise. Personally, I'd say go with another carrier if it's important to you.
  6. It should be fine to do it in China then. He just needs to have and maintain legal status there, which a work visa would do (assuming his status there doesn't expire before visa approval).
  7. Depends on the country. Edit: Furthermore, it can even vary within a country (i.e. India does them by region), or by rules within each country (i.e. Pakistan's is valid for 6 months for men and 12 months for women:
  8. Yes, you can switch embassies if catch the petition at NVC. It is only in the hands at NVC for a few days with an I-129F, though. If you don't catch it there, you will need for it to arrive at the embassy and then have them do a transfer, which will delay the process. At that point, it might just be simpler to keep it in China, honestly. Having a wedding date prior to visa in hand is always risky and not recommended.
  9. No. The ban prevents her from obtaining or using any visa. Until the waivers are obtained, she cannot enter the US. I doubt the waivers would be obtained for a tourist visa.
  10. No spouses in this process...fiance only. Using the term "spouse" with a CO is a quick way to get a denial. The petitioner can fill out the DS-160, but it's the beneficiary's form and they are responsible for the information in it, and must be the one to sign it. The police certs are valid for 6 months. The medicals are valid for 6 months. The K-1 visa, upon approval, is valid for up to 6 months after the medical or the interview, whichever comes sooner. Edit: I just read that some countries do have police certs with a 12 month validity. Also, they can be accepted for any duration if you have not returned to said country since it was issued.
  11. Nope. It takes the time that it takes. There are expedites, but they're for very limited cases (usually those that risk the life or general well-being of the beneficiary). A lawyer won't speed anything up other than to maybe double-check your forms to try to limit RFEs. LPRs can petition for family members fine. However, they do not qualify for IR visas and instead go into a preference category. Those visas are limited each year, so after filing the I-130, the petitioner must wait until a visa becomes available. When that happens depends on the number of visas available in their preference category and how many people are already in line. This is done via a Priority Date (PD) obtained upon filing, and then each month a visa bulletin is released that shows which dates have a visa available (i.e. the PD becomes "current"). Once the visa is available, it goes through the rest of processing just like the IR-based visas. A spouse of an LPR is F2A (2nd preference, first subcategory): This currently is estimated ot take about 18 months from PD issued to visa being available ( It's only an estimate, though. Edit: Note that there is no fiance visa available for LPRs either.
  12. ***Today's comprehensive update*** Date: 3/23/2017 Scan ran: 10:42 PM ET Scan finished: 11:41 PM ET Records: 4800 (See Note below) Cases updated today: 198 Approved: 103 RFEs: 72 Other: 23 Today's Data: All data: MS Access Database: *Keep in mind I'm only counting WACs from WAC1790048000 onward. Records untouched prior to this are not included.* NOTE: There was some connection issue going on and I was only able to pull the first 4800 from my list today. I removed 12/23 and 12/27 from my table above, but a few counts may still be off.
  13. I wouldn't go that far...I can't think of any off-hand, but never? I would be surprised if that was the case. "The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". K-3 is would turn into a CR-1 anyway. Good luck!
  14. Not really for the I-129F. The I-129F is mostly about the petitioner, not the beneficiary. I've seen no discernible difference in processing times in the data. Also, the ban (v1 and v2) is not in enforcement.