July approvals in one fell swoop

[Teachers 12]

Just a guess, but here goes.

Suppose CSC gets evaluated on average approval time, just as VJ measures. They've approved lots of March/April/May people in the last few weeks, as they should. But it means their average wait unitl approval time has gone up dramatically, especially compared to Vermont. How to get it down fast? Approve some of the straight forward July applicaitons on the new forms.

Then once their measurement date passes (who knows when), maybe they'll go back to the NOA1 date, they way they should have.

The idea of putting new staff on straight forward cases also sounds reasonable to me.

Tom

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Just a guess, but here goes.

Suppose CSC gets evaluated on average approval time, just as VJ measures. They've approved lots of March/April/May people in the last few weeks, as they should. But it means their average wait unitl approval time has gone up dramatically, especially compared to Vermont. How to get it down fast? Approve some of the straight forward July applicaitons on the new forms.

Then once their measurement date passes (who knows when), maybe they'll go back to the NOA1 date, they way they should have.

The idea of putting new staff on straight forward cases also sounds reasonable to me.

Tom

There was a bunch of us June NOA1's who had used the old pre-IMBRA form but never got RFE's when they seemed to be bulk mailing them. Since there were some who got RFE's despite using the new forms, my hunch is that CSC designated a cut off date in June sometime (12th?) and assumed any petitions received after that date used the new forms which explains why we never got an RFE. Then, for awhile there, it seemed they were consistent about approving only the petitions that were affected by IMBRA (March - June).

Looking at Gary's latest table on approvals, there's only a handful here on VJ that are left from March, April and May. Then this weekend, several of Juner's got emails stating that an RFE was mailed to us. Perhaps, they are really down to July petitions left that they know for sure were filed using the new form?

[garya505 2]

Just a guess, but here goes.

Suppose CSC gets evaluated on average approval time, just as VJ measures. They've approved lots of March/April/May people in the last few weeks, as they should. But it means their average wait unitl approval time has gone up dramatically, especially compared to Vermont. How to get it down fast? Approve some of the straight forward July applicaitons on the new forms.

Then once their measurement date passes (who knows when), maybe they'll go back to the NOA1 date, they way they should have.

The idea of putting new staff on straight forward cases also sounds reasonable to me.

Tom

There was a bunch of us June NOA1's who had used the old pre-IMBRA form but never got RFE's when they seemed to be bulk mailing them. Since there were some who got RFE's despite using the new forms, my hunch is that CSC designated a cut off date in June sometime (12th?) and assumed any petitions received after that date used the new forms which explains why we never got an RFE. Then, for awhile there, it seemed they were consistent about approving only the petitions that were affected by IMBRA (March - June).

Looking at Gary's latest table on approvals, there's only a handful here on VJ that are left from March, April and May. Then this weekend, several of Juner's got emails stating that an RFE was mailed to us. Perhaps, they are really down to July petitions left that they know for sure were filed using the new form?

Ya, that's a good theory and you could be on to something there.

[mybackpages 0]

Just a guess, but here goes.

Suppose CSC gets evaluated on average approval time, just as VJ measures. They've approved lots of March/April/May people in the last few weeks, as they should. But it means their average wait unitl approval time has gone up dramatically, especially compared to Vermont. How to get it down fast? Approve some of the straight forward July applicaitons on the new forms.

Then once their measurement date passes (who knows when), maybe they'll go back to the NOA1 date, they way they should have.

The idea of putting new staff on straight forward cases also sounds reasonable to me.

Tom

There was a bunch of us June NOA1's who had used the old pre-IMBRA form but never got RFE's when they seemed to be bulk mailing them. Since there were some who got RFE's despite using the new forms, my hunch is that CSC designated a cut off date in June sometime (12th?) and assumed any petitions received after that date used the new forms which explains why we never got an RFE. Then, for awhile there, it seemed they were consistent about approving only the petitions that were affected by IMBRA (March - June).

Looking at Gary's latest table on approvals, there's only a handful here on VJ that are left from March, April and May. Then this weekend, several of Juner's got emails stating that an RFE was mailed to us. Perhaps, they are really down to July petitions left that they know for sure were filed using the new form?

Sounds reasonable to me and I hope you are right. But it is CSC so who knows?

Hope your NOA2 is just around the corner!

[Teachers 12]

Sounds reasonable to me and I hope you are right. But it is CSC so who knows?

Hope your NOA2 is just around the corner!

Thanks! But even if they are doing a bunch of folks with the new forms to get their average down, the June people deserve to go first! (And of course, I think they should go in order and clear March, then April, then May.) I'm willing to wait my turn. But I'm sure not happy about having newer applications being processed before mine.

Tom

[a&o 4]

Mine was approved this week and I had a July NOA1 date. My theory is that they looked at the backlog at CSC and decided to transfer a batch of cases to Vermont. They had to chose a batch that hadn't been opened yet, so they chose July NOA1s to send and then the Vermont people just raced through them, as they are known to get things done fast!

This is COMPLETE HYPOTHETICAL IMAGINATION on my part, but it could explain things....

I am so happy we had this surprise, but I do think it should be fair and we should have had to wait our turn.

[SirLancelot 1]

Mine was approved this week and I had a July NOA1 date. My theory is that they looked at the backlog at CSC and decided to transfer a batch of cases to Vermont. They had to chose a batch that hadn't been opened yet, so they chose July NOA1s to send and then the Vermont people just raced through them, as they are known to get things done fast!

This is COMPLETE HYPOTHETICAL IMAGINATION on my part, but it could explain things....

I am so happy we had this surprise, but I do think it should be fair and we should have had to wait our turn.

If VSC approves them, then it'll show a Vermont number, not a WAC number. I don't think your hypothesis is correct.

For all the conspiracy theorists, please read the detailed reports issued by the GAO and the USCIS Ombudsman. They clearly explain the issues with name/security checks. Some people will inevitably wait a long time due to name checks. The name checks are done by the FBI. USCIS has NO control over the speed of the name checks. If the FBI delays the name checks for whatever reasons, USCIS has to wait just like us. That also explains why some VSC members have waited since March and still haven't gotten approvals either.

I strongly believe all these delays are due to name checks. It's not like they're purposely leaving certain files behind. They're all being processed, but some petitions have no problems with name checks and thus are approved very quickly. Others have more of a problem with name checks and thus have to wait longer. It sucks, but I don't think the blame lies with USCIS on this. It lies with the FBI.

Just my 2 cents.

[Alex+R 0]

Mine was approved this week and I had a July NOA1 date. My theory is that they looked at the backlog at CSC and decided to transfer a batch of cases to Vermont. They had to chose a batch that hadn't been opened yet, so they chose July NOA1s to send and then the Vermont people just raced through them, as they are known to get things done fast!

This is COMPLETE HYPOTHETICAL IMAGINATION on my part, but it could explain things....

I am so happy we had this surprise, but I do think it should be fair and we should have had to wait our turn.

If VSC approves them, then it'll show a Vermont number, not a WAC number. I don't think your hypothesis is correct.

For all the conspiracy theorists, please read the detailed reports issued by the GAO and the USCIS Ombudsman. They clearly explain the issues with name/security checks. Some people will inevitably wait a long time due to name checks. The name checks are done by the FBI. USCIS has NO control over the speed of the name checks. If the FBI delays the name checks for whatever reasons, USCIS has to wait just like us. That also explains why some VSC members have waited since March and still haven't gotten approvals either.

I strongly believe all these delays are due to name checks. It's not like they're purposely leaving certain files behind. They're all being processed, but some petitions have no problems with name checks and thus are approved very quickly. Others have more of a problem with name checks and thus have to wait longer. It sucks, but I don't think the blame lies with USCIS on this. It lies with the FBI.

Just my 2 cents.

Yeah, but that's just ignoring the facts. Plus, my congressman's immi liason told me that name checks actually SPEED UP the process many times because they only have to run one instead of two something-or-others (obviously I'm a little vague on this.)

I'm especially upset because I have a June 29 NOA1 and I filed with the new form. So close yet so far.