USCIS's official word on TSC wait times

[elizanbnt 1]

So, as many of you here have, I contacted my senators and congressman a few weeks ago to tell them about the TSC/CSC wait time discrepancies. I've talked a couple of times with someone from Angus King's office and they've been really interested (yay!), but today his staff person informed me that USCIS told him that there's no way the wait time at CSC is that low (< one month), that it's 5 months (yes, I know that's what their site says, officially) and that the wait times at the two offices just aren't that different and that Texas isn't consistently behind California in the long-term, and that the data on Visa Journey is just plain wrong (in fact, laughed about how "wrong" it was), and that if it was true of course they'd do something to even out the wait times.

Anyway, just thought I'd share this bit of official revisionism with you all who have been talking with officials about these issues. Unfortunately I don't see anything changing if USCIS doesn't even acknowledge there's a problem and dismisses all data that doesn't come from them (and doesn't release any of their own actual data).

[Kastrs 723]

Just WOW

[D.Ba 85]

So now we're all lying about our NOA dates from CSC?? They can come and look at my NOA1 and NOA2 from CSC (from January/February of this year, VERY recent).

42 days between the two - that is not quite 5 months!

[wbeem 567]

This isn't surprising. It's infuriating, but not surprising.

First thoughts when USCIS posted TSC’s updated processing stage report at August 2^nd was that they were trying to reduce the wait time by statistics published, whilst actually doing nothing. I believe that the wait times for CSC are inflated and they are projecting processing times for TSC which fall beyond where they realistically are. We all know that at January 21^st, August was not being processed.

Governments invest a great deal more effort into hiding and skewing information to avoid confrontation than they do in providing any of value. This way they can dismiss any grievances by simply referring the complainer to the official statistics. It sucks, but sadly it is fact and this is nothing new.

In short, this is USCIS saying "Speak to the hand."

To those who have worked tirelessly at trying to make our voices heard and have this disparity addressed, your work is not wasted. If nothing else, during this painfully long wait, being able to do something and see others fighting to raise awareness on the problem has given hope and has been a welcome distraction from the endless waiting in the dark.

Edited March 12, 2015 by wbeem

[TBoneTX 43,058]

*** Thread moved from K-1 Process forum to the USCIS Service Centers forum -- topic involves processing-times. ***

[Pennycat 880]

So, as many of you here have, I contacted my senators and congressman a few weeks ago to tell them about the TSC/CSC wait time discrepancies. I've talked a couple of times with someone from Angus King's office and they've been really interested (yay!), but today his staff person informed me that USCIS told him that there's no way the wait time at CSC is that low (< one month), that it's 5 months (yes, I know that's what their site says, officially) and that the wait times at the two offices just aren't that different and that Texas isn't consistently behind California in the long-term, and that the data on Visa Journey is just plain wrong (in fact, laughed about how "wrong" it was), and that if it was true of course they'd do something to even out the wait times.

Anyway, just thought I'd share this bit of official revisionism with you all who have been talking with officials about these issues. Unfortunately I don't see anything changing if USCIS doesn't even acknowledge there's a problem and dismisses all data that doesn't come from them (and doesn't release any of their own actual data).

Here's (one of the) data tricks they're playing. I'm sure most of us have figured this out long ago, but maybe it is worth passing along. In the "instructions for chart" it says "If the field office or service center is meeting its goal for processing a form, you will find the timeframe listed in months. For example, if the office is processing Form N-400 naturalization applications in five months or less, then the chart will say "5 months." However, if the office is experiencing a processing delay, you will find the filing date of the last case that the office completed before updating the chart."

California currently says "5 months". Because they ARE within the "goal" processing time (4 weeks is shorter than 5 months), they write 5 months. If the goal was 12 months, they'd write 12 months. For whatever reason the goal is 5 months and they're beating it by a lot. However, instead of showing off how much they are beating the goal by, they merely write down the goal time. They could have a day's turnover and they'd say "5 months".

Texas is longer than 5 months and so must give a date. Who knows why they do it this way? To keep from needing to update it frequently, for cover of big discrepancies, for ease of use, I don't know. It is clear that CSC isn't taking anywhere near the full 5 months, but that someone somewhere is confused, or trying to confuse others.

[av8or1 246]

I addressed the issue of data integrity in my letter to the President:

CREDIBILITY OF DATA

Understandably, it is easy to regard the data presented in this letter and the data on any of the at-large websites that are related to the I-129F petition process as being unreliable. We suspect that the USCIS would make such a claim if presented with this data. However our counterargument to such a dismissal follows:

1. Lack of incentive. There is no motivation for petitioners to post fraudulent data regarding the filing of their petition on these websites. The petitioner will not benefit by claiming that they received their NOA2 before the actual date. All of the information and data contained in these websites is voluntary and used to assist others. Users receive no compensation for their feedback.

2. History. The imbalance in the I-129F processing times between service centers is not a new development. Rather, this is simply the most recent instantiation of the phenomenon. During the I-129F petition history, there have been many processing time differences, though few of this magnitude. With such data to substantiate our claims, any suspicion of that data’s reliability is easily refuted. Again, our complaint is not simply that there is a difference in service center processing times, but that the difference is excessive and unfair.

3. Strength in numbers. The feedback from petitioners who are reporting rapid processing times in the CSC and those who are reporting excessive wait times in the TSC is both large in number and unwavering in content. Such data is indicative of a reliable and repeatable pattern that has persisted over time. It is difficult to dismiss our claims of an imbalance in I-129F processing times when those claims are supported by a large number of petitioners whose petitions are on file with both the CSC and TSC. Simply put, a few people who fabricate data or information about a particular subject is one thing, but consistent fabrication on a large scale is quite another; it is in fact, an impossible endeavor to achieve with any degree of consistency.

Given these factors we ask you to give serious consideration to the accuracy of the information we have presented. This is a significant issue that warrants your intervention, thus the reason behind our letter and request.

Apparently they didn't read this, or don't care, or both. Probably the latter. LOL

Anyway, as wbeem has stated, it's no surprise that this response was given to an inquiry from a senator or congressman. They've been doing that to all of us who have inquired via that route, so nothing new there. However the data presented on VJ is accurate and correct. As I mentioned above, folk like D.Ba have no reason to lie.

[yuna628 9,528]

Okay, so do they want to play hardball? I'm sure the congressperson wouldn't want box upon box of NOA1's/NOA2's (all with redacted info) from California as proof to the claim?

USCIS could hardly argue with that right?

That is if we could even organize such a thing.

[CowBoE 429]

Yup...it figures...denial is the best defense not solving the problem...

[Elizabeth+Fred 35]

Yep.. you're all liars !

Oh. Wait. That includes me, too!

I was lucky enough to have gone through CSC, and we only had a delay because

of the CADA stuff.. that kicked in a week before they "got" to our NOA1 date, and,

sure enough, right after they picked up where they left, our number was up. So,

CSC seems to be doing a good job, unlike TSC.

Keep lying in the timelines all, just so we know what the timeframes REALLY are !!

[LoveMyTico 999]

Here's (one of the) data tricks they're playing. I'm sure most of us have figured this out long ago, but maybe it is worth passing along. In the "instructions for chart" it says "If the field office or service center is meeting its goal for processing a form, you will find the timeframe listed in months. For example, if the office is processing Form N-400 naturalization applications in five months or less, then the chart will say "5 months." However, if the office is experiencing a processing delay, you will find the filing date of the last case that the office completed before updating the chart."

California currently says "5 months". Because they ARE within the "goal" processing time (4 weeks is shorter than 5 months), they write 5 months. If the goal was 12 months, they'd write 12 months. For whatever reason the goal is 5 months and they're beating it by a lot. However, instead of showing off how much they are beating the goal by, they merely write down the goal time. They could have a day's turnover and they'd say "5 months".

Texas is longer than 5 months and so must give a date. Who knows why they do it this way? To keep from needing to update it frequently, for cover of big discrepancies, for ease of use, I don't know. It is clear that CSC isn't taking anywhere near the full 5 months, but that someone somewhere is confused, or trying to confuse others.

there is also an "as of" date listed . The USCIS operators read off the screen. They have no idea what the process is or how long it takes. They just plain "read off a screen" . Whatever the "AS OF" date is, just add that time to whatever date they are posting. You still might not even be close to the actual date.

Also, everyone needs to realize that VJ is not all that accurate. Its for entertainment purposes only. There are alot of trolls out there that create fake profiles and fake info. Plus, there are tons of people who create a profile and never come back .

Then, there are people who have no clue how to create a timeline and never add anything.

[AverysMom 76]

I can't believe that BS response! I filed in and I'm finally at the step where my fiance is waiting to go and pick up his visa. Meanwhile, those that filed in June and were at the California Service Center are coming up on their ONE year anniversaries of being married! How's that for perspective? ?

[kql1975 0]

good topic guys!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[AverysMom 76]

I can't believe that BS response! I filed in and I'm finally at the step where my fiance is waiting to go and pick up his visa. Meanwhile, those that filed in June and were at the California Service Center are coming up on their ONE year anniversaries of being married! How's that for perspective? ?

I filed in June*

[rob999 51]

If VJ is so wrong then how about them sharing their database that has the date records for every application so we can compare? .....yeah right ....