I-129F Delay at the CSC: A Comprehensive Analysis of the Data

[Darnell 8,478]

It may be the case. However, what is the problem of giving priority to DACA?

Alas, it IS a money issue, but not like you've written about.

There is a set number of adjudicators. USCIS did not ramp up that first month and hire new adjudicators. The same set of adjudicators has been used,

AND

the priority of 'which type to adjudicate' was shifted , giving DACA applications priority over every other type, priority set by the CSC director, who was told to do this by his bosses and ultimately, The President.

Since petitions and applications have a fee, one would think that the fees are actually utilized to hire more humans, train more humans. The hiring did not pick up at CSC, but instead has picked up at MSC - where they have ramped up on new hires. Eventually, the shift will occur again, and another casetype will be given priority - but please remember there's always an attempt at 'load balancing' for adjudication - where each casefile type does have SOME adjudicators assigned.

Anyway - since we paid our fees for this, we expect a human to touch it - as our fees paid for the desk and the human and our position in the queue. DACA has screwed that over, royally - more importantly, a human (the CSC Director) decided to screw over the rest of us.

OK - end of response.

[Zipline 23]

NUmber of K1 applicants are not even close to number of DACA. This is why DACA has greater macroeconomic impact.

Yeah I'm sure it's having a nice economic effect in southern California, where a hight number of the DACA-eligible illegals reside. And what a coincidence, that's the location where these DACA's are being processed. Can a conflict of interest be much more obvious?

[I & B 273]

NUmber of K1 applicants are not even close to number of DACA. This is why DACA has greater macroeconomic impact.

You are providing assertions but no evidence and very superficial analysis. Yes, there are more DACA apps than I-129Fs. But that's pretty much where your analysis begins and ends.

First, DACA, by design, only affects a group of relatively young individuals. Many of them are students who will be working campus jobs and other low wages positions that are no better paying than illegal waitstaff jobs.

Second, DACA applicants are getting their approvals in under a month. In comparison, I-129F petitioners are waiting 6-7 months if they are lucky. A fast I-129F processing is 5 months; a fast DACA processing is a few weeks. Now think in terms of percentages what that means for relative fluctuations of completions per receipts. You want to talk about relative hardship? Well you should be talking about weeks versus months.

Third, as has been pointed out, the I-129F is just the beginning of a longer process for K-1 applicants. Moreover, what follows the I-129F involves a ton of logistics and thus requires a great deal of planning. Not having a set approval time frame (or even any transparency) for I-129Fs is a huge problem. Having a few days fluctuation for DACA approvals, on the other hand, poses no such problems on DACA applicants.

Fourth, as has been pointed out, the economic and emotional impact on I-129F petitioners is substantial. Supporting two separate households is no easy thing, not to mention how it negatively affects the job prospects for the beneficiary on both ends of the process.

The point is not that we should be choosing one or the other--I-129Fs or DACA. And it's not that the USCIS shouldn't process DACAs in a timely manner. I and most other posters here are totally fine with DACAs being completed more quickly than I-129Fs because DACA apps are simpler and should be easier to finish. But what is not ok is for DACA apps to be completed at a higher completions to receipts ratio than both I-129Fs and the two year average for all application types, all while I-129Fs get processed at their slowest rate in two years. As I have shown, I-129Fs are not just getting slowed down so that DACAs can get processed; they are being practically brought to a halt so that DACAs can get processed quickly. It's not defensible.

[Zipline 23]

Here's articles citing that DACA itself, in the worlds of California politicians, benefit that state by increasing tax revenue to help out with their state budgeting problem. The second article shows that more than 25% of DACA-eligibles live in California.

SanDiego does have a point that it likely does add up nicely for California, particularly southern LA where the CSC is headquarted. This smells like a backroom deal between the state of California and the USCIS.

But it's a big-time conflict of interest because the CSC consumes California infrastructure and jobs and this warrants an unbiased investigation.

<http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/california-politics/2012/08/california-lawmakers-illegal-immigrants.html>

<http://www.ppic.org/main/publication_show.asp?i=818>

Edited March 27, 2013 by Zipline

[Zipline 23]

You are providing assertions but no evidence and very superficial analysis. Yes, there are more DACA apps than I-129Fs. But that's pretty much where your analysis begins and ends.

First, DACA, by design, only affects a group of relatively young individuals. Many of them are students who will be working campus jobs and other low wages positions that are no better paying than illegal waitstaff jobs.

Second, DACA applicants are getting their approvals in under a month. In comparison, I-129F petitioners are waiting 6-7 months if they are lucky. A fast I-129F processing is 5 months; a fast DACA processing is a few weeks. Now think in terms of percentages what that means for relative fluctuations of completions per receipts. You want to talk about relative hardship? Well you should be talking about weeks versus months.

Third, as has been pointed out, the I-129F is just the beginning of a longer process for K-1 applicants. Moreover, what follows the I-129F involves a ton of logistics and thus requires a great deal of planning. Not having a set approval time frame (or even any transparency) for I-129Fs is a huge problem. Having a few days fluctuation for DACA approvals, on the other hand, poses no such problems on DACA applicants.

Fourth, as has been pointed out, the economic and emotional impact on I-129F petitioners is substantial. Supporting two separate households is no easy thing, not to mention how it negatively affects the job prospects for the beneficiary on both ends of the process.

The point is not that we should be choosing one or the other--I-129Fs or DACA. And it's not that the USCIS shouldn't process DACAs in a timely manner. I and most other posters here are totally fine with DACAs being completed more quickly than I-129Fs because DACA apps are simpler and should be easier to finish. But what is not ok is for DACA apps to be completed at a higher completions to receipts ratio than both I-129Fs and the two year average for all application types, all while I-129Fs get processed at their slowest rate in two years. As I have shown, I-129Fs are not just getting slowed down so that DACAs can get processed; they are being practically brought to a halt so that DACAs can get processed quickly. It's not defensible.

Good post. And let's also think about the long term jobs outcome, if not on an economic level then on an individual level. The DACA is granting 2-year work permits and beyond that it's anybody's guess. The fiancees of K1 Visa petitioners will have a US Citizen as a sponsor, a clear path to eventual citizenship and an economic foothold to remain in the workforce for the remainder of their career.

[Mrs.Presson 16]

I&B: Thank you so much for this very informative post. It has been very helpful to me and my fiancé. He already contacted his representative yesterday (along with your analysis) and we've gotten a reply from them today. He's going to sign and send out the privacy/release form that has been given to him. We're an October 2012 filer, and is just right on the 5-month mark. We didn't seek help for our case to be expedited though, we simply asked them for an investigation -- an explanation from USCIS about these unfair delays. We know that there are a lot of people who filed before us and we made it a point to mention this in our letter. Again, thank you for your hard work on this file.

~Erika

[GIG-to-SFO 1]

Great post. Very useful information... I was trying to be patient, but no longer. Contacting my senator tomorrow.

Thanks,

-josh

[I & B 273]

Great post. Very useful information... I was trying to be patient, but no longer. Contacting my senator tomorrow.

Thanks,

-josh

Then you may find my post about how to take this info and relay it to elected representatives useful, if you haven't stumbled upon it yet: http://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/421608-a-guide-to-writing-your-elected-representatives-about-the-i-129f-slowdown-at-the-csc/

Good luck and Godspeed!

[Zipline 23]

I created a Tiny URL for this thread (the charts on the first page), a lot easier to give to elected officials in print ...

http://tinyurl.com/cscdata

[gdaf123 1]

How do you access the data? Is there a link on the USCIS website?

[Andreea&Kevin 38]

How do you access the data? Is there a link on the USCIS website?

Enjoy!!

http://dashboard.uscis.gov/index.cfm?formtype=6&office=2&charttype=1

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=1b52d725f5501310VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=1b52d725f5501310VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD

[I & B 273]

How do you access the data? Is there a link on the USCIS website?

Enjoy!!

http://dashboard.uscis.gov/index.cfm?formtype=6&office=2&charttype=1

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=1b52d725f5501310VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=1b52d725f5501310VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD

Thanks, Andreea&Kevin. Yes, that's where I got it all. gdaf123, you can also find all the data in an excel sheet I compiled. It's linked to in the OP.

Edited April 5, 2013 by I & B

[Jose&Jenna 0]

"USCIS Transfers Workload from California Service Center to Texas Service Center, USCIS press release announcing that on 3/8/13, USCIS transferred some casework from California Service Center to Texas Service Center to balance overall workload with processing capacity at the centers related to DACA and Form I-765 Application for Employment Authorization. AILA Doc. No. 13031245."

I am praying this does not mean all the July/August/Sept files were transferred to Texas where 2 years ago the average wait time was 1 year for those files that were transferred. A true black hole in USCIS.

[yebulia 0]

"USCIS Transfers Workload from California Service Center to Texas Service Center, USCIS press release announcing that on 3/8/13, USCIS transferred some casework from California Service Center to Texas Service Center to balance overall workload with processing capacity at the centers related to DACA and Form I-765 Application for Employment Authorization. AILA Doc. No. 13031245."

I am praying this does not mean all the July/August/Sept files were transferred to Texas where 2 years ago the average wait time was 1 year for those files that were transferred. A true black hole in USCIS.

No need to worry about the I-129F forms being sent to the Texas Service Center. Only some I-821Ds and some I-765s have been sent to the Texas Service Center. According to them, customers who's applications have been moved will receive a notification. You can see their post if you just google search "Workload Transfer from California Service Center to Texas Service Center".

[Jose&Jenna 0]

No need to worry about the I-129F forms being sent to the Texas Service Center. Only some I-821Ds and some I-765s have been sent to the Texas Service Center. According to them, customers who's applications have been moved will receive a notification. You can see their post if you just google search "Workload Transfer from California Service Center to Texas Service Center".

Ahh great.. thanks!