IR1/CR1 Backlog makes the NY Times!

[r060106 109]

Chile, China and Canada (Google is your friend).

Sukie

If I don't know what EP is I can't Google it because it would pull up thousands of letters or acronyms having no relation to the topic. So in that case Google isn't my friend.

[En-oh-eh-to now 147]

Which article are you referring to? Thanks

This one: http://www.christianpost.com/news/obama-favors-illegals-while-separating-american-families-utter-nonsense-sources-say-114329/

It is laughable!

"The unnamed source explained that USCIS "took swift action," and has shortened the waiting period back to eight months. By the summer, it aims to shorten it further — to five months."

This unnamed source has redefined the word "swift". It now means hold off any action for five months, and then overwhelm the service centers with hundreds of thousands of dusty petitions. The slowdown began in May 2013 and nearly came to a standstill from July to mid-Oct, when the workload finally began to service centers. Even then, the service centers didn't start moving petitions until a couple weeks later. USCIS should have detected the problem in May when things began slowing down and been proactive.

[thedude6752000 360]

https://www.numbersusa.com/content/news/february-11-2014/daca-causing-delays-legal-immigrants.html

http://www.christian...ces-say-114329/

[Kaylara 814]

I've been attempting to post the following response with no luck at the Christian Post. So I contacted the author of that article and will give him this information: As one of the people interviewed for the original NY Times piece, I feel the need to respond to this article.

With all due respect to Christopher Bentley, their processing figures do not support his argument. Perhaps he is working from data that they have not yet released to the public, but their current processing time average for the Spouse of a US Citizen shows an average of 8.8 month national average. ( https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152987175979625&set=pcb.1482564878637308 ) (Showing on Facebook, because I can't link directly to the USCIS dashboard information, but this is a screenshot of the information.) The national trend information on their site right now does not show a massive spike in case completions: (https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152987102159625&set=pcb.1482540905306372) In fact, the national volume information Shows that they were still not completing even as many applications in a month as they received. (39,331 application receipts vs. 39,274 case completions) The preceding month numbers were actually much worse, and can be seen in the National Trend chart. Unfortunately, they cleared out their previous months trend chart information about two months ago, but you could actually see the processing numbers plummet month by month. The quarterly numbers reports numbers are equally bad: (http://www.uscis.gov/tools/reports-studies/immigration-forms-data/family-based-benefit-requests/data-family-based-benefit-requests) (http://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Resources/Reports%20and%20Studies/Immigration%20Forms%20Data/Employment-based/I130_performancedata_fy2013_qtr2.pdf) (http://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Resources/Reports%20and%20Studies/Immigration%20Forms%20Data/Family-Based/I130_performancedata_fy2013_qtr3.pdf) The processing averages were all over the place last year, maxing out at 16.6 months. In the months since the USCIS released this email to their stakeholders (http://lawandborder.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/USCIS-Stakeholder-Email-re-I-130-Processing-Times-2013-11-20.pdf) we've actually seen processing times listed that rose from 7.4 months, to the present 8.8 months. In this letter they assert that they had been working hard in the previous months to improve the processing time (when they send that letter, the processing times jumped downwards from about 13 months to the 7.4 month average) However, their processing data, as released by them does not show an increase in adjudication rates. In fact, the processing data released by the USCIS itself seems to show that they had been gerrymandering the processing dates. They were processing well below the number of applications they were receiving in a month when they sent that letter. Again, see the National trend chart.

That being said, we believe that they are gerrymandering the approvals by processing more new applications quicker, and leaving older applications sitting there. We know that there are many people from March 2013 and April 2013 still waiting for an answer on their applications, and several that are older even than that. We also believe that they are issuing needless Requests for Evidence for long-standing I130 applications at at least one Service Center to pull those cases out of the line, and out of the calculations used to figure the average processing time. This is not a new tactic, as the 2006 Ombudsman report mentions this exact thing happening even back then. (http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/CISOmbudsman_AnnualReport_2006.pdf Page 19, paragraph 1) (http://www.uscis.gov/tools/ombudsman-liaison/ombudsman-teleconference-qas/cis-ombudsman-teleconference-application-processing-times-conversation-uscis-wednesday-april-27-2011 Question 2)

I agree that there was probably no intentional malice in causing this backlog. However to state that they had no idea this was going to happen is disingenuous at best. On August 7, 2012, Senator's Grassley and Smith sent a letter to the DHS stating that they believed that processing the DACA applications would have the very effect we are asserting it's had. ( http://judiciary.house.gov/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=1B548AD4-BC8F-D327-66B6-F3C27075BA99)

The fact that the DACA filers did not receive and immigration benefit does not mean that using the USCIS to process those applications didn't effect legal immigrants.

I understand that they'd planned poorly, and are upset that they're now being called out on it. Perhaps if they'd told the I130 petitioners the truth at any point in the process, we wouldn't have felt the need to ask the press for help. While I don't blame the DACA filers in the least, and believe that they should be safe from deportation and able to work, I disagree with the USCIS trying to shrug this off and say "Oops." They could have very well seen this backlog forming for the approximately 7 months they allowed it to grow. They did nothing to mitigate it until it had grown to outrageous numbers in the hundreds of thousands. I do not think giving them a pass on their role in the situation is appropriate. They should be held accountable for their actions. If they were having hiring issues, then they should have taken action at the point that they realized this was the case. What they shouldn't have done was stop sending cases out to the field offices and instead send them to a non-operational Division 8 in Overland Park, KS or the National benefits Center in Lee's Summit, MO to collect dust for months until petitioners became alarmed at the lack of action on their part and contacted them repeatedly about the situation. They should not have lied to us over and over again during that time period, or tried to convince us that we were well within normal processing times because they said that 5 months was only a goal, and they got to determine what the normal processing times were, even if that meant they were doubling or tripling the processing time. Perhaps, if they'd even once behaved in a trustworthy manner, we'd be able to accept what they've told us. But their data doesn't back up what they're saying.

So again, I tell you, my problem is not at all with the DACA filers. It's with the USCIS's administrative decisions that have impacted the immediate relatives of US Citizens very negatively. If US Citizens and their family unity is a priority to the USCIS, they would have devoted appropriate resources to clear the backlog in quick succession when they realized that they were growing a huge backlog in the IR/CR petitions.

Just saying that you were inefficient doesn't give you a pass. You still haven't fixed the backlog. There are still hundreds of thousands of people waiting much longer than they should have to. I don't think you're being malicious, but if you know you're behaving badly and do very little to fix it, it's clear that you don't regret your actions in the least. You're only upset because you're getting bad press.

Edited February 12, 2014 by Kaylara

[Kaylara 814]

I've been attempting to post the following response with no luck at the Christian Post. So I contacted the author of that article and will give him this information: As one of the people interviewed for the original NY Times piece, I feel the need to respond to this article.

With all due respect to Christopher Bentley, their processing figures do not support his argument. Perhaps he is working from data that they have not yet released to the public, but their current processing time average for the Spouse of a US Citizen shows an average of 8.8 month national average. ( https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152987175979625&set=pcb.1482564878637308 ) (Showing on Facebook, because I can't link directly to the USCIS dashboard information, but this is a screenshot of the information.) The national trend information on their site right now does not show a massive spike in case completions: (https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152987102159625&set=pcb.1482540905306372) In fact, the national volume information Shows that they were still not completing even as many applications in a month as they received. (39,331 application receipts vs. 39,274 case completions) The preceding month numbers were actually much worse, and can be seen in the National Trend chart. Unfortunately, they cleared out their previous months trend chart information about two months ago, but you could actually see the processing numbers plummet month by month. The quarterly numbers reports numbers are equally bad: (http://www.uscis.gov/tools/reports-studies/immigration-forms-data/family-based-benefit-requests/data-family-based-benefit-requests) (http://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Resources/Reports%20and%20Studies/Immigration%20Forms%20Data/Employment-based/I130_performancedata_fy2013_qtr2.pdf) (http://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Resources/Reports%20and%20Studies/Immigration%20Forms%20Data/Family-Based/I130_performancedata_fy2013_qtr3.pdf) The processing averages were all over the place last year, maxing out at 16.6 months. In the months since the USCIS released this email to their stakeholders (http://lawandborder.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/USCIS-Stakeholder-Email-re-I-130-Processing-Times-2013-11-20.pdf) we've actually seen processing times listed that rose from 7.4 months, to the present 8.8 months. In this letter they assert that they had been working hard in the previous months to improve the processing time (when they send that letter, the processing times jumped downwards from about 13 months to the 7.4 month average) However, their processing data, as released by them does not show an increase in adjudication rates. In fact, the processing data released by the USCIS itself seems to show that they had been gerrymandering the processing dates. They were processing well below the number of applications they were receiving in a month when they sent that letter. Again, see the National trend chart.

That being said, we believe that they are gerrymandering the approvals by processing more new applications quicker, and leaving older applications sitting there. We know that there are many people from March 2013 and April 2013 still waiting for an answer on their applications, and several that are older even than that. We also believe that they are issuing needless Requests for Evidence for long-standing I130 applications at at least one Service Center to pull those cases out of the line, and out of the calculations used to figure the average processing time. This is not a new tactic, as the 2006 Ombudsman report mentions this exact thing happening even back then. (http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/CISOmbudsman_AnnualReport_2006.pdf Page 19, paragraph 1) (http://www.uscis.gov/tools/ombudsman-liaison/ombudsman-teleconference-qas/cis-ombudsman-teleconference-application-processing-times-conversation-uscis-wednesday-april-27-2011 Question 2)

I agree that there was probably no intentional malice in causing this backlog. However to state that they had no idea this was going to happen is disingenuous at best. On August 7, 2012, Senator's Grassley and Smith sent a letter to the DHS stating that they believed that processing the DACA applications would have the very effect we are asserting it's had. ( http://judiciary.house.gov/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=1B548AD4-BC8F-D327-66B6-F3C27075BA99)

The fact that the DACA filers did not receive and immigration benefit does not mean that using the USCIS to process those applications didn't effect legal immigrants.

I understand that they'd planned poorly, and are upset that they're now being called out on it. Perhaps if they'd told the I130 petitioners the truth at any point in the process, we wouldn't have felt the need to ask the press for help. While I don't blame the DACA filers in the least, and believe that they should be safe from deportation and able to work, I disagree with the USCIS trying to shrug this off and say "Oops." They could have very well seen this backlog forming for the approximately 7 months they allowed it to grow. They did nothing to mitigate it until it had grown to outrageous numbers in the hundreds of thousands. I do not think giving them a pass on their role in the situation is appropriate. They should be held accountable for their actions. If they were having hiring issues, then they should have taken action at the point that they realized this was the case. What they shouldn't have done was stop sending cases out to the field offices and instead send them to a non-operational Division 8 in Overland Park, KS or the National benefits Center in Lee's Summit, MO to collect dust for months until petitioners became alarmed at the lack of action on their part and contacted them repeatedly about the situation. They should not have lied to us over and over again during that time period, or tried to convince us that we were well within normal processing times because they said that 5 months was only a goal, and they got to determine what the normal processing times were, even if that meant they were doubling or tripling the processing time. Perhaps, if they'd even once behaved in a trustworthy manner, we'd be able to accept what they've told us. But their data doesn't back up what they're saying.

So again, I tell you, my problem is not at all with the DACA filers. It's with the USCIS's administrative decisions that have impacted the immediate relatives of US Citizens very negatively. If US Citizens and their family unity is a priority to the USCIS, they would have devoted appropriate resources to clear the backlog in quick succession when they realized that they were growing a huge backlog in the IR/CR petitions.

Just saying that you were inefficient doesn't give you a pass. You still haven't fixed the backlog. There are still hundreds of thousands of people waiting much longer than they should have to. I don't think you're being malicious, but if you know you're behaving badly and do very little to fix it, it's clear that you don't regret your actions in the least. You're only upset because you're getting bad press.

Ha! It won't let me post, because it says that it's either sexually explicit or derogatory. I even tried taking out the last paragraph, to no avail.

[Kaylara 814]

Also, how does the USCIS square this statement: http://www.scribd.com/doc/145514197/2013-HQFO-00304-Combined-Redacted-Part1#page=37 with their assertion that the DACA applications were not impacting the I130's?

[Kaylara 814]

This one: http://www.christianpost.com/news/obama-favors-illegals-while-separating-american-families-utter-nonsense-sources-say-114329/

It is laughable!

"The unnamed source explained that USCIS "took swift action," and has shortened the waiting period back to eight months. By the summer, it aims to shorten it further — to five months."

This unnamed source has redefined the word "swift". It now means hold off any action for five months, and then overwhelm the service centers with hundreds of thousands of dusty petitions. The slowdown began in May 2013 and nearly came to a standstill from July to mid-Oct, when the workload finally began to service centers. Even then, the service centers didn't start moving petitions until a couple weeks later. USCIS should have detected the problem in May when things began slowing down and been proactive.

They should have realized it was going to be a problem when they stopped sending applications out to the field offices in the beginning of Feb.

[En-oh-eh-to now 147]

They should have realized it was going to be a problem when they stopped sending applications out to the field offices in the beginning of Feb.

Yes. I was being generous! If USCIS had been the least bit proactive, they would have either continued sending them to field offices, or began diverting them to service centers. They did neither. When did management finally figure out that Division 8 hiring was not working out? Sure wish we could see some more internal emails from those months.

[Kaylara 814]

Could always ask Judicial Watch to do another FOIA request.

[Gee&Cee 41]

Could always ask Judicial Watch to do another FOIA request.

Kaylara, would you please help me read the data at the USCI quarterly reports, for i130 immediate family? (http://www.uscis.gov/tools/reports-studies/immigration-forms-data/family-based-benefit-requests/data-family-based-benefit-requests)

Ok, so the last three quarters in fiscal year Oct 12- June 13 had:

Receipts: 411,939

Completion: 260,009

Pending: 1,844,312

Fiscal year 2010 - 4 quarters had:

Receipts: 193,216

Completion: 216,778

Pending: 77,154

Fiscal year 2011 - 3 quarters had:

Receipts: 202,479

Completion: 221,188

Pending: 91,879

Fiscal year 2012 - 3 quarters had:

Receipts: 150,548

Completion: 164,088

Pending: 79,149

1) Why is there so much more receipts this past year? (412K vs ~200K early on) There're not like ~200K filed in the 4th quarter of 2011-2012, are there?

2) How do they come up with 1,844,312 pending?

3) I'm looking at the completion 260K last year vs ~200K in previous years. From this data I would say they're pretty consistent in the amount of cases the get completed. Is the problem completing cases or getting a huge volume of cases unexpectedly?

I don't understand these data! Thank you

[Kaylara 814]

I've been puzzling that about, myself. I do know that they'd seen a large reduction in the number of petitions they got because of the economy tanking. So the numbers from 2009, 2010, 2011 might have been lower than normal volumes. But don't hold me to that, because I'm working off a vague recollection, and don't have the data to back that up. I'll have to go looking to confirm that.

Some theories may be a influx of petitions before the implementation of the New Immigrant Fee, or them reopening cases because DOMA was struck down. But we don't see a huge spike in their dashboard information in receipts. Something is definitely off in the numbers.

Salo, do you have a take on this? I know that we'd mentioned that the numbers were off, and it was possible that the backlog was way worse than we'd originally thought because we were basing it on the Dashboard information.

This may require more digging to understand properly. Or we could include this as a question in the letter we're writing to the Press Secretary over at the USCIS.

[Salo&Romashka 83]

My methodology for looking at available data:

Pick a random field office - I looked at NYC Field office in honor of the recent article and because service center numbers are not available in one report.

Pick a recent timeframe - April-May-June 2013 (Quarter 3 FY 2013)

Processing volume total

April Receipts 7,625

May Receipts 7,136

June Receipts 5,685

Total Receipts 20,445

Performance report total

Total Receipts 0

Processing volume completions

April Completions 4184

May Completions 4038

June Completions 4778

Total Completions 13000

Performance report completions

Total approvals 12014

Total denials 690

Total completions (?) 12704

Obviously the numbers do not match up

Since the processing volumes are usually late, it's possible we see a difference of a couple days work versus final tally.

Receipts are being counted differently. It would be a data mining project for someone to add up all the field office and service center values to see if they equal the official report. 1) Download all the .csv files for the service centers and field offices for a control period. 2) Separate the relevant data to match one quarter. 3) Sum totals to see if they match the reports or even national processing volume numbers for the respective period.

Numbers from one performance report to another also fail to match up. Consider the numbers from I-130 performance report to all form type report:

I-130 performance report

Total Receipts 411,939

Total Completions* 260,009

All forms report:

Total Receipts 413,317

Total Approvals 369,476

Even when counting denials vs. just approvals, the I-130 completion number is more than 100,000 off.

USCIS is capable of tracking this data for DACA. That 'immigration benefit' receives enough attention to merit regular updates, most recently February 6, 2014. USCIS should be reporting for all casework according to the law. Last month I drafted a letter that we should have all sent out while waiting for the New York Times article. It's not too late now.

Interesting read for someone beginning to look at numbers:

http://www.cis.org/uscis-approach-to-data-release-flood-em-with-unreadable-numbers

[Kaylara 814]

Could you repost that letter here again? I'll gladly send it out, as well as whatever new letter we decide to send out. I'm a little bit burnt out after responding to all the NY Times related stuff this week, and the kids mini valentines day party yesterday with their cousin. (3 little girls under the age of 5 = very tired Mommy/Aunt.) I think I should be back to being able to process immigration things and form a decent sentence later tonight or tomorrow.

[Salo&Romashka 83]

The letter is on this thread:

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/475277-new-i-130-data-and-the-next-letter-campaign/?p=6760874

VisaJourney even improved it with a flower and a heart. We should send something tomorrow on St. Valentine's Day on behalf of separated loved ones.

[Gee&Cee 41]

Thank you Kaylara and Salo&Romashka. What a mess, hu? I'll keep reading some more, and I'm willing to help with data mining that you find useful. You mentioned one, Salo&Romashka, I'll see if I can get that done.