A Guide to Writing Your Elected Representative(s) About the I-129F Slowdown at the CSC

[arcticrobot 11]

pin this please!

[I & B 273]

[Longer letter post]

I think the letter is well organized and solid. My only suggestions would be to remove any talk about the national average processing time. As someone who has spent more hours than I can count pouring through the data, I can tell you that the national average figure is completely meaningless. As far as I can tell, it is based on the average processing times of the various field offices, which do not accept more than 1 or 2 I-129Fs a year. I don't know why they even publish it on the dashboard, honestly.

Also, you should note that I do not think the average completion time figures for the service centers are likely to be a terribly good or reliable metric either. One problem I have with the USCIS is that they publish means instead of medians, which may allow them to skew their statistics. First, since they expedite some cases where there are hardship and many military members' petitions, the published means cannot truly reflect the average time for an ordinary filer. Second, there is evidence on Igor's list that the USCIS randomly chooses some non-military, non-hardship applications for expedited processing. I believe the second practice is likely actually done to artificially depress the mean processing time, something that cannot be done with a median processing time. It's just another layer of opaqueness on top of all the other murkiness at the USCIS.

[pachacuti 154]

This thread brings tears to my eyes, tears of joy. I want to express my extreme gratitude to each and every one of my fellow travelers who are pushing and prodding to get some change. Thank all of you and keep up the good fight.

[Hao 1]

I just mailed in a letter to Senator Dianne Feinstein today. I hope our collective effort will amount to something.

[serioja123 2]

I just mailed in a letter to Senator Dianne Feinstein today. I hope our collective effort will amount to something.

I email to here too, she already respond, and asked me to fill out a form, I my letter to her I was complain about CSC slowdown, but she asked to fill out a form and mail it to her. I dont know what to do I have one month since I received NOA1, so my letter to her might not do any good.

[B&L 19]

I was just wondering. How early do you think is too early? For example, my fiance and I have only had our NOA1 for a little over a month. But things are obviously looking fairly daunting for the future of CSC processing, would it be too early for us to contact people or is it a good idea to try to get them involved as early as possible? Not that we're trying to jump ahead of anyone, of course.

[ChristianZane 70]

All of you contacting congressmen after one or two months of your NOA1 is a big mistake. The USCIS clearly states that the CSC waiting time is 6.6 months, when your range falls beyond that then I would consider contacting your representative. But doing that before will probably just put a stain on your application, slow it down and further delay it.

[Rob & Rachel 24]

All of you contacting congressmen after one or two months of your NOA1 is a big mistake. The USCIS clearly states that the CSC waiting time is 6.6 months, when your range falls beyond that then I would consider contacting your representative. But doing that before will probably just put a stain on your application, slow it down and further delay it.

I'm of a divided opinion on that. Yes, if you are only a couple of months in, it wouldn't be proper to complain about your own application, but I don't think there is anything wrong with addressing your concerns of the backlog, and that it will likely delay your application beyond the posted wait time.

[pachacuti 154]

I'm of a divided opinion on that. Yes, if you are only a couple of months in, it wouldn't be proper to complain about your own application, but I don't think there is anything wrong with addressing your concerns of the backlog, and that it will likely delay your application beyond the posted wait time.

That's not a divided opinion. That is a reasonable opinion and one I share with you.

[F&N 7]

I was just wondering. How early do you think is too early? For example, my fiance and I have only had our NOA1 for a little over a month. But things are obviously looking fairly daunting for the future of CSC processing, would it be too early for us to contact people or is it a good idea to try to get them involved as early as possible? Not that we're trying to jump ahead of anyone, of course.

I don't think it is too early at all! But I agree you should not complain about your own application yet, rather address the slow down and how concern you are etc.... The more pressure that our Reps put on CSC should help in some way!

[ChristianZane 70]

I'm not addressing complaining about the slowdown in general, I think it's a great idea and I'll contribute to that. But I wouldn't call USCIS or a politician before your 6.6 months is up, or they might get

[I & B 273]

All of you contacting congressmen after one or two months of your NOA1 is a big mistake. The USCIS clearly states that the CSC waiting time is 6.6 months, when your range falls beyond that then I would consider contacting your representative. But doing that before will probably just put a stain on your application, slow it down and further delay it.

There is no basis for thinking this whatsoever. There is not a single person I have seen on this site who has claimed his or her petition was held up due to inquiring about it, and there are many who claim their congressional office their petition expedited in one way or another.

Look, I've said before and I'll say it again: the writing is on the wall, no matter where you are in the process.

It is obvious that the CSC has deliberately chosen not to process I-129Fs for over 5 months now. It's a policy they have implemented in order to fulfill a political mandate that they quickly process DACA applications. Whether you agree with the aims of DACA or not (I actually do), it was a program implemented by the Obama administration for nakedly political reasons on the eve of a presidential election. It was meant to court Hispanic voters and all accounts are that it went over extremely well with them. That's all good and great, but it still remains that the program and it's current implementation were not the result of legislation. Pres. Obama could not get enough support for his Dream Act legislation, so he directed DHS to implement an equivalent through internal policy changes. What we call "DACA" is thus nothing more than a DHS memorandum. Congress had no role in its creation or implementation.

Well, I have documented what happened next extensively and you all know it. The administrative implementation of the so-called "Dream Act" procedures has become something of a "Nightmare Act" for I-129F petitioners, as I have outlined at great length. We are now looking at expected processing times that are 100-120% longer than the target processing times for I-129Fs. Why the hell should we be content to wait through a year of separation from our loved ones under these ignominious circumstances? It is truly outrageous how they are treating I-129F petitioners in this way, all so they can implement a discretionary, nakedly-political, non-statutory program; it is so ridiculous and patently unfair that I can barely even see straight when I get down to typing it all out.

And our elected representatives are not likely to magically figure out the scope of this problem on their own. There are many competing issues that require their attention. So our only option is to inform them about it, at length and often. The idea that we should sit silently while a bunch of political hacks mismanage a federal agency to our detriment is, frankly, ludicrous. And the idea that we need to stay silent for an arbitrary period of time (set by the same agency that does not want to be accountable for how it is actively screwing us) before complaining is equally ludicrous.

At this point I think all I-129F petitioners being processed by the CSC should be reaching out to their elected representatives. If you are early in the cycle, I would just focus less on asking for redress for your individual case. But do make it clear that you want your representative to start holding the USCIS accountable now because the USCIS needs to drastically change its policies. I can hardly think of a time when it would be more appropriate for a constituent to work with their representative on a federal issue that directly effects them.

[Hunnie 3]

Wow

[ChristianZane 70]

CSC processing time is 6.6 months... you're not going to make much headway with CSC before that unless you can file an expedite with a legitimate reason.

[I & B 273]

CSC processing time is 6.6 months... you're not going to make much headway with CSC before that unless you can file an expedite with a legitimate reason.

That may be true, but you are only looking at half the rationale for writing to elected representatives. DACA's implementation needs to be changed through political pressure. If we get a few congressmen and senators invested in this issue, it may not mean that any given application is expedited per se, but political pressure is the only thing that will get all of our applications moving again. Given the delays that are building up now, getting the applications moving again should be just as important to a petition as getting his or her own application expedited; if we get attention drawn to this boondoggle even one month earlier than it would be drawn otherwise, we have effectively expedited 11,000+ I-129Fs, including our own, by a month. I'd say it's worth a shot.

Edited March 30, 2013 by I & B