After 3 weeks... Is CSC slowing down again?

[Bugs 455]

We will gladly provide you any information that we can to assist your efforts with the Ombudsman.

We are not in communication with any officials.

Who are you?

[TylerDurden 45]

Who are you?

Who we are is not important. We are no one. We are like you. We are your brothers. We are your sisters.

The information is what is important. The information is accurate. It was collected in a legal manner and comprises only of information that could be collected publicly by other means.

[Lynkali 163]

No real point in being cloak-and-dagger about it. It just adds fuel to the fire, despite the fact that I'm laughing at your choice of user name! Nice job indeed. I'm very much in approval of the info you collected!

To prevent this thread from getting out-of-hand with speculation, though -- which isn't the point, the data is clearly accurate and exactly follows what we see on VisaJourney and Igor's List, just in full numbers rather than the percentages registered here -- I think it's best to assume that the data was collected from the USCIS dashboard by entering case numbers. Most likely, given the volume involved, some sort of automated script was used, and there is the possibility that USCIS would not be happy about "harvesting" data in that manner. Thus the anonymity and mystery.

I don't blame the poster for staying anonymous, at all. But I hope this doesn't turn into a focus on HIM/THEM rather than on the data, which is the most important thing.

[Bugs 455]

Who we are is not important. We are no one. We are like you. We are your brothers. We are your sisters.

The information is what is important. The information is accurate. It was collected in a legal manner and comprises only of information that could be collected publicly by other means.

Very well then hahaha. But yes, your data is helpful and I do thank you for it.

Might I suggest you expand it from the date range of 9/27/12 through 02/04/13, that you are using, to, say, 7/1/12 through the present (or the end of April), as it would give us a much better picture as to whether or not they are working on i-129Fs and by how much.

For instance, the single digit numbers at the bottom of your listings may simply be due to the fact they were working on earlier i-129Fs, and not necessarily due to a massive slowdown. And the numbers in April are actually a lot larger, as they were processing July and August petitions then as well. Same could be said of the present or any future figures - they may be out of your date range rather than due to a slowdown.

Edited May 5, 2013 by Leon & Mylen

[Bugs 455]

No real point in being cloak-and-dagger about it. It just adds fuel to the fire, despite the fact that I'm laughing at your choice of user name! Nice job indeed. I'm very much in approval of the info you collected!

To prevent this thread from getting out-of-hand with speculation, though -- which isn't the point, the data is clearly accurate and exactly follows what we see on VisaJourney and Igor's List, just in full numbers rather than the percentages registered here -- I think it's best to assume that the data was collected from the USCIS dashboard by entering case numbers. Most likely, given the volume involved, some sort of automated script was used, and there is the possibility that USCIS would not be happy about "harvesting" data in that manner. Thus the anonymity and mystery.

I don't blame the poster for staying anonymous, at all. But I hope this doesn't turn into a focus on HIM/THEM rather than on the data, which is the most important thing.

Yeah, that is my thought - a program of some sort. But it is legal if done that way, as it is just taken from data that is public anyways.

[TylerDurden 45]

No real point in being cloak-and-dagger about it. It just adds fuel to the fire, despite the fact that I'm laughing at your choice of user name! Nice job indeed. I'm very much in approval of the info you collected!

To prevent this thread from getting out-of-hand with speculation, though -- which isn't the point, the data is clearly accurate and exactly follows what we see on VisaJourney and Igor's List, just in full numbers rather than the percentages registered here -- I think it's best to assume that the data was collected from the USCIS dashboard by entering case numbers. Most likely, given the volume involved, some sort of automated script was used, and there is the possibility that USCIS would not be happy about "harvesting" data in that manner. Thus the anonymity and mystery.

I don't blame the poster for staying anonymous, at all. But I hope this doesn't turn into a focus on HIM/THEM rather than on the data, which is the most important thing.

Thank you.

Our motives are the same as yours.

USCIS intentionally maintains a degree of obscurity. We want this information made public for the same reasons as you.

We shall remain anonymous.

[TylerDurden 45]

Very well then hahaha. But yes, your data is helpful and I do thank you for it.

Might I suggest you expand it from the date range of 9/27/12 through 02/04/13, that you are using, to, say, 7/1/12 through the present (or the end of April), as it would give us a much better picture as to whether or not they are working on i-129Fs and by how much.

For instance, the single digit numbers at the bottom of your listings may simply be due to the fact they were working on earlier i-129Fs, and not necessarily due to a massive slowdown. And the numbers in April are actually a lot larger, as they were processing July and August petitions then as well. Same could be said of the present or any future figures - they may be out of your date range rather than due to a slowdown.

USCIS operates with a FY staring October 1st. Due to internal USCIS delays in processing, files received a few days prior to the FY are included.

This effort was done at our expense and we provide it to the public freely. We collected information on nearly 400,000 files. To expand to the level you suggest would require adding over an additional 600,000 files. Adding those files would serve no additional advantage because the proof of what is occurring at CSC currently is visible in the collected data.

If you wish to fill in the gaps and collect additional data we would welcome the assistance.

[PandaMaker 24]

Wow! Impressive!!

Could you start your own thread in regards to your findings? I think this information is really worthy of its own thread.

[TylerDurden 45]

Wow! Impressive!!

Could you start your own thread in regards to your findings? I think this information is really worthy of its own thread.

We plan to once we have analyzed the data in detail and can provide graphs and more easily digestible data.

[Bugs 455]

USCIS operates with a FY staring October 1st. Due to internal USCIS delays in processing, files received a few days prior to the FY are included.

This effort was done at our expense and we provide it to the public freely. We collected information on nearly 400,000 files. To expand to the level you suggest would require adding over an additional 600,000 files. Adding those files would serve no additional advantage because the proof of what is occurring at CSC currently is visible in the collected data.

If you wish to fill in the gaps and collect additional data we would welcome the assistance.

Fair enough, and I do agree with your conclusions. I just wanted to point out that the numbers are larger than what's on the listings, but for the most part I think your figures do reflect what is going on now in terms of workload because they are supposedly currently processing applications within your time frame. But no, if it requires additional time or resources, then I certainly cannot ask you to do more than what you didn't have to do in the first place. Especially since I do not have that myself. Thank you very much for your help.

Edited May 5, 2013 by Leon & Mylen

[TylerDurden 45]

We suggest that you, as a person currently in the legal immigration process, ask these questions.

Considering that close to 300000 DACA petitions was able to basically stop all I129F reviews for 3 months, what will happen when immigration reform adds an estimated 11 million new petitions?

What does “go to the end of the line” mean?

No need to debate it here. It’s just food for thought.

Edited May 5, 2013 by TylerDurden

[Bugs 455]

We suggest that you, as a person currently in the legal immigration process, ask these questions.

Considering that close to 300000 DACA petitions was able to basically stop all I129F reviews for 3 months, what will happen when immigration reform adds an estimated 11 million new petitions?

What does go to the end of the line mean?

No need to debate it here. Its just food for thought.

Yeah, I hear you, and actually already have thought about this, discussed this scenario with my fiance. Immigration reform appears imminent and likely to cover those millions in some form of relief. So the only thing we both can wish for is to hope that the "do-nothing" Congress of ours holds up passing any reform and relief long enough so that it occurs after our petition has been processed, or that additional money and personnel gets allocated to these centers so it not hinder the processing times of I-129Fs.

Doesn't look good, though. It is definitely something to bark at the lawmakers in Washington about, but something tells me they won't listen to us as much as they are eager to get something passed.

Edited May 5, 2013 by Leon & Mylen

[Bayareaguy 156]

Do you have data on what % of DACA applications are RFEs or denied?

[A&P_Germany 8]

We have determined that there is a clear line of activity focused on files filed prior to 11/01/2012. We will provide supporting data for this at a later date.

Do you have how many pending (either still initial review, or ones not approved or denied) petitions there are before 11/1 still. This would help me a lot and would give us an idea how long before they start early Nov filers. PLEASE

Side question on your numbers, if a petition has an RFE and then gets approved that petition shows up in the numbers twice right?

[TylerDurden 45]

Do you have how many pending (either still initial review, or ones not approved or denied) petitions there are before 11/1 still. This would help me a lot and would give us an idea how long before they start early Nov filers. PLEASE

Side question on your numbers, if a petition has an RFE and then gets approved that petition shows up in the numbers twice right?

Keep in mind this data only covers what would be viewed as October filers.

Status Count Percent

------------------------------------ ----------- ---------------------

Post Decision Activity 940 52.48%

Request for Evidence 578 32.27%

Initial Review 187 10.44%

Decision 65 3.62%

Request for Evidence Response Review 17 0.94%

Acceptance 4 0.22%