This is disturbing

[Chris Knouse 3]

According to http://dashboard.uscis.gov/index.cfm?formtype=6&office=66&charttype=1 here are some disturbing numbers:

I-129f Processing as of May10,2010:

National Average:

All Other Pending: 15,088

Awaiting customer action: 1,524

Completions: 4,193

Receipts: 3,468

VERMONT:

All Other Pending: 8,304

Awaiting customer action: 755

Completions: 2,741

Receipts: 1,762

HOUSTON:

All Other Pending: 4

Awaiting customer action: 0

Completions: 0

Receipts: 0

LOS ANGELES

All Other Pending: 23

Awaiting customer action: 0

Completions: 0

Receipts: 0

CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER:

All Other Pending: 6,689

Awaiting customer action: 767

Completions: 1,442

Receipts: 1,706

Texas is sitting at almost zero, yet California and Vermont are choke points. Texas has 3 field offices, Dallas, Houston, San Antonio. Seems to me that the workload could be pushed to other divisions.

[Darnell 8,478]

Houston doesn't process I-129F's - to the best of my knowledge, that 'shove off' was to Lewisville, mid May, 2010. I think ya need to dig around some more, forget about Texas Field Offices - you want a 'Texas National Office', instead. Houston is not it.

IMO, Lewisville stats won't be available for another 2 months, if at all, as the 'shunting to Lewisville' - the operations are still cloudy - for what they're actually doing with the casefile (notice receipts vs adjudicating).

The data for the charts you've found (GREAT JOB, BTW) stops at May,2010. Lewisville shunting started in Mid-May, so hopefully will have trackable data in a few more months?

Edited July 19, 2010 by Darnell

[Chris Knouse 3]

Houston doesn't process I-129F's - to the best of my knowledge, that 'shove off' was Lewisville. I think ya need to dig around some more, forget about Texas Field Offices - you want a 'Texas National Office', instead.

The data changes if you select another form. If I select i-817 the list of offices changes. I'm assuming the offices listed can process i-129f if they are listed with that form.

[ryna 132]

OK, I'm not sure I understand this chart...

For example, April 2010 VSC I-129F, shows: 2093 receipts, 1689 completions, and 468 awaiting action.

What do each of these categories mean? Doing the math, if they received 2093 petitions, completed 1689 of them and have 468 awaiting action, that means they've processed 64 more petitions than they received??

I'm sure I must be misunderstanding the categories...

received = total petitions received that month?

completed= approved/denied?

awaiting action=RFE? Or, as of yet, untouched (beyond NOA1)

Edited July 19, 2010 by ryna

[Darnell 8,478]

not for 'national processing of the I-129F', no. is wrong assumption.

I-129Fs are adjudicated elsewhere on 'emergency situation' basis, rarely, if ever, starting with a national processing office.

Those counts, elsewhere, are infintesmally low, as 'that office' is not set up to adjudicate them.

[marlea 84]

OK, I'm not sure I understand this chart...

For example, April 2010 VSC I-129F, shows: 2093 receipts, 1689 completions, and 468 awaiting action.

What do each of these categories mean? Doing the math, if they received 2093 petitions, completed 1689 of them and have 468 awaiting action, that means they've processed 64 more petitions than they received??

I'm sure I must be misunderstanding the categories...

received = total petitions received that month?

completed= approved/denied?

awaiting action=RFE? Or, as of yet, untouched (beyond NOA1)

They won't add up because they might have completed an application that was received a month or two before. These numbers overlap from month to month. Each month doesn't stand alone. I sent my petition in May and it was completed in June, so that means I would be in the "received" category in one month and the completed category in a different month.

[ryna 132]

They won't add up because they might have completed an application that was received a month or two before. These numbers overlap from month to month. Each month doesn't stand alone. I sent my petition in May and it was completed in June, so that means I would be in the "received" category in one month and the completed category in a different month.

Thanks.. That also explains the yellow line (which I missed entirely) of 'all other pending.'

[Hicham♥Sara 15]

Too bad you can't send it to whichever center you want ! WOW!

[NigeriaorBust 4,087]

wasn't Texas a possible K1 processing point pre 2006 or so ?

[Terry Martin 1]

Those numbers are crazy. I'm sure that Darnell is right that not all of these offices process every form, but maybe they should. It won't be a reflection of how many people we give each kind of visa to but certainly for those that are waiting for it, it would help tremendously.

[Brad and Vika 129]

Be careful what you wish for. Sometimes pushing the files back and forth just delays those cases.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Those numbers are crazy. I'm sure that Darnell is right that not all of these offices process every form, but maybe they should. It won't be a reflection of how many people we give each kind of visa to but certainly for those that are waiting for it, it would help tremendously.

In June of this year USCIS began a new system of handling petitions. While (for now) you still send the petitions to The VSC or CSC ONLY, those service centers are distributing them to other service centers for processing as needed to remain within the stated guidelines for processing petitions. This does NOT mean they will be done "faster" though it could mean that. Eventually ALL petitions will be sent to a lockbox and distributed as the workload determines. Some I-129f's are now being done by the Texas Service Center after being fled with the CSC and VSC. In point of fact, this has been occuring to some extent with some petitions since late 2008. VSC also used, for a time, contracted adjudicators that basically did these petitions "at home" for a fee. To the best of my knowledge that has ended now but it was during a time that the VSC was being remodeled after a part of the operation was moved from St. Albans to Essex, Vermont.