TSC Anxiety Kicking In

[TheAndies 50]

No. They're not government funded. They're funded by user fees, aka customers, aka us. USCIS is about 95% funded by user fees. It has a minimal amount of taxpayer money, and I'm guessing most of that is for HQ stuff like the Director's social fund or something along those lines.

And those applications from illegal immigrants will also have fees that will pay for the additional workforce needed. The USCIS is so flush with funds that it already has made a lease for a new center to specifically process those applications, and they're looking to hire 1,000 government workers.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/26/us/politics/little-noticed-in-immigration-overhaul-a-government-hiring-rush.html?_r=0

So if they're understaffed, then it is their fault. They have a team strictly devoted to figuring out the fees we all pay. It has the authority to raise those fees in order to be fully staffed and functional.

I'm not saying it is entirely USCIS' fault. Congress gave them that authority, and we the voters put up with it. Politicians love user fees since it raises revenue without raising taxes on everyone. Unfortunately it also makes USCIS less accountable than other (taxpayer funded) agencies.

Well, I stand corrected. Thanks for that info

It really is just an awful situation for everyone dealing with this. I'm just glad ours has been processed and we're done with the nightmare that was waiting for our NOA2.

Here's hoping USCIS gets their stuff together soon...

[av8or1 246]

Sorry but this is getting annoying. Anyone who thinks that the USCIS is going to revamp their I-129F distribution model to a balanced load curve for low-priority petitions simply because it's the first quarter of the new year...

Sorry, I'm just gonna stop there, or as they say on shark tank, "I'm out."

Edited January 29, 2015 by av8or1

[acgmph 42]

Sorry but this is getting annoying. Anyone who thinks that the USCIS is going to revamp their I-129F distribution model to a balanced load curve for low-priority petitions simply because it's the first quarter of the new year...

Sorry, I'm just gonna stop there, or as they say on shark tank, "I'm out."

Using the same logic, your statement is also ridiculous.

Nobody's forcing you to come back if it's so annoying

[Pennycat 880]

I noticed, based on VJ's data (which is not a representative sample), that it started going above 100 days last year in May, so about 8 months ago. This is corroborated with a big influx of other petitions directed at TSC, and CSC saw none of these other petitions, hence the lower time to process I-129F at CSC. Come January 1st, new quarter, probably internal policy will change in terms of how they distribute new petitions between the service centers, redirecting more of them them to CSC to balance things out, and I expect CSC to see an increase in processing times and TSC to come back to a "normal" 5 months. Now, I hope my case (and seeing we both have close dates) and yours too will benefit from this.

Now, this is pure speculation, but I do intend to have a statistical model in the coming weeks based on petitions directed at CSC and TSC (number of I-129F versus other petitions) and predict how processing time will change. For this I will need some time to mine petition information from USCIS and build a little Excel.

The government's fiscal year begins in October. There's not generally a huge amount of change between quarters, sadly. I'm trying to wrap my head around what on earth the problem in Texas is. I was a consultant for several years, consultant to a federal agency that deals with application type things (not USCIS, not even close to the same category of agency) and things pretty much live and die by October, largely but certainly not exclusively because of the contracts.

I think your plan to do a not legally binding wedding is more than likely your best bet, and then hey, if the visa comes through and it CAN be legally binding, all the better. I know that some people say that's a bad idea, and maybe it is, but if you can't/won't/don't want to change that date, I get it. Just know that your worst case scenario is that they think you're already married somehow and you have to live apart while doing CR1. Or you live there. Or you visit a lot. Do keep the photos off of social media just in case (I don't think it's policy for them to check, but I wouldn't be surprised if they check), don't start using "husband/wife" terms, especially not at the port of entry.

This whole entire thing is a nightmare, I'm with you on that. I'd try to do some silver lining of "at least they allow fiance visas" or "at least you're VWP and can actually visit" but none of that helps when you're faced with the absurdity that are these timelines and this process. Sorry

[acgmph 42]

The government's fiscal year begins in October. There's not generally a huge amount of change between quarters, sadly. I'm trying to wrap my head around what on earth the problem in Texas is. I was a consultant for several years, consultant to a federal agency that deals with application type things (not USCIS, not even close to the same category of agency) and things pretty much live and die by October, largely but certainly not exclusively because of the contracts.

I think your plan to do a not legally binding wedding is more than likely your best bet, and then hey, if the visa comes through and it CAN be legally binding, all the better. I know that some people say that's a bad idea, and maybe it is, but if you can't/won't/don't want to change that date, I get it. Just know that your worst case scenario is that they think you're already married somehow and you have to live apart while doing CR1. Or you live there. Or you visit a lot. Do keep the photos off of social media just in case (I don't think it's policy for them to check, but I wouldn't be surprised if they check), don't start using "husband/wife" terms, especially not at the port of entry.

This whole entire thing is a nightmare, I'm with you on that. I'd try to do some silver lining of "at least they allow fiance visas" or "at least you're VWP and can actually visit" but none of that helps when you're faced with the absurdity that are these timelines and this process. Sorry

Whatever happens, we are preparing for every scenario. Fortunately we do see each other very often, as we're flying back and forth about every month, so separation anxiety is not as bad as in other, less fortunate cases. So CBP sees us every month and our passports are filled with admission stamps. Should be no problem for USCIS to adjudicate, whenever that is.

But will steer clear of social media

[racheal&david 108]

Whatever happens, we are preparing for every scenario. Fortunately we do see each other very often, as we're flying back and forth about every month, so separation anxiety is not as bad as in other, less fortunate cases. So CBP sees us every month and our passports are filled with admission stamps. Should be no problem for USCIS to adjudicate, whenever that is.

But will steer clear of social media

Every month...WOW! I'm jealous, I wish I had the time let alone the money to fly my son and I out to the U.S. to see his daddy every month. You guys are lucky for that, not many of us on here could manage that I imagine. Whatever you decide to do, good luck with it

[msbau764 245]

Whatever happens, we are preparing for every scenario. Fortunately we do see each other very often, as we're flying back and forth about every month, so separation anxiety is not as bad as in other, less fortunate cases. So CBP sees us every month and our passports are filled with admission stamps. Should be no problem for USCIS to adjudicate, whenever that is.

But will steer clear of social media

I wish USCIS could seperate the cases based on probability of fraud or something along those lines. I have freaking known my fiance for 4 years, I've lived with her for two of those 4 years, and have tons of visa stamps of us travelling, photos, etc to prove our relationship -- is it necessary for my case to take 8 months to adjudicate compared to others who have seen their SO once in their entire lives (and I am not knocking on those who have had one encounter, just stating the facts any reasoanble person would assume)?

[acgmph 42]

Every month...WOW! I'm jealous, I wish I had the time let alone the money to fly my son and I out to the U.S. to see his daddy every month. You guys are lucky for that, not many of us on here could manage that I imagine. Whatever you decide to do, good luck with it

Yes, we are very lucky, and in the same time made and making huge sacrifices to make that happen. Nothing is more important than being together

I wish USCIS could seperate the cases based on probability of fraud or something along those lines. I have freaking known my fiance for 4 years, I've lived with her for two of those 4 years, and have tons of visa stamps of us travelling, photos, etc to prove our relationship -- is it necessary for my case to take 8 months to adjudicate compared to others who have seen their SO once in their entire lives (and I am not knocking on those who have had one encounter, just stating the facts any reasoanble person would assume)?

We're exactly in the same boat as you guys - we just need someone to have a look at the paperwork and stamp the approval, then print the NOA2

[Pennycat 880]

I wish USCIS could seperate the cases based on probability of fraud or something along those lines. I have freaking known my fiance for 4 years, I've lived with her for two of those 4 years, and have tons of visa stamps of us travelling, photos, etc to prove our relationship -- is it necessary for my case to take 8 months to adjudicate compared to others who have seen their SO once in their entire lives (and I am not knocking on those who have had one encounter, just stating the facts any reasoanble person would assume)?

Yeah, but then...how? Warning: imagination at work but very much based in reality-on-the-ground from a career's worth of working for/with the government.

So what they'd do is hire a consultant who would build some sort of risk criteria/ points system and it would all go into a database to spit out who gets looked at first and quickest (only 5 minutes per application, say for a crazy imaginary example). But first the USCIS folks would have to read all the applications when they come in so that they know who has what risk criteria to put into the system in order to determine whose application gets "really" read first. Trust me. Things *have* to be done with criteria and documentation to prevent fraud and promote accountability. So you're not really saving any time....possibly making more time even for low risk folks because now you've made it so every application is read twice (one to see who's high risk and who's low risk, and once to actually adjudicate). But no one will notice or care that this effectively doubled the workload because they just paid some contractor $2 million for this thing, plus they've been told to speed up the process AND make sure there's no fraud so this is what they came up with.

And then you'd need to make it someone's job to make sure that all the adjudicators are following the new guidelines: 5 minutes per application for the low risk and at least an hour is spent on the higher risk. But then it gets all confused because it turns out that you actually never get to the higher risk folks because even at only 5 minutes per, the low risk folks keep showing up in the adjudicator's inboxes and eventually someone figures out this problem and then they spend 6 months coming up with a new system. This involves weekly meetings of various task forces and working groups about this which takes every adjudicator away from their desks for at least two hours a week (that's 40 low risk applications per person right there! 400 in just a little office left undone all for these working group task forces to fix the problem with the fix).

So the new system goes into place but only half of the adjudicators are using it because the other half never came to the task force meetings (if they came to work at all because a whole bunch of folks had 2 months of "use or lose" leave so the office has been pretty quiet since November) or somehow missed the 5 emails a day about all the training for the new system, or saw the emails but thought that it was training for the OLD new system, which really only came out 8 months ago.

And THEN the absolute second that someone from a "low risk" relationship comes into the US and does something dangerous or high profile, the USCIS bosses get hauled in front of Congress to explain themselves and once this "5 minutes per application" thing is found out, USCIS bosses are fired for not protecting our country like they've been tasked to, and the new people come in and completely re-organize things in such a way that this can NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN (or so that they themselves cannot be fired for it), which of course means, do the risk criteria, do the adjudication and a THIRD step to make sure that nothing fell through those first two cracks. Meanwhile morale has dropped, 20% of USCIS workforce has quit or retired and there's not nearly enough people to make these changes and next thing you know it'll be $1000 to file an I-129f and the wait time is 21 months and it's a total mess and no one's fault.

Edited January 29, 2015 by CatherineA

[Pennycat 880]

ack i tried to edit for math mistake but this happened.....sorry guys.

Edited January 29, 2015 by CatherineA

[Marco&Bettina 502]

No. They're not government funded. They're funded by user fees, aka customers, aka us. USCIS is about 95% funded by user fees. It has a minimal amount of taxpayer money, and I'm guessing most of that is for HQ stuff like the Director's social fund or something along those lines.

And those applications from illegal immigrants will also have fees that will pay for the additional workforce needed. The USCIS is so flush with funds that it already has made a lease for a new center to specifically process those applications, and they're looking to hire 1,000 government workers.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/26/us/politics/little-noticed-in-immigration-overhaul-a-government-hiring-rush.html?_r=0

So if they're understaffed, then it is their fault. They have a team strictly devoted to figuring out the fees we all pay. It has the authority to raise those fees in order to be fully staffed and functional.

I'm not saying it is entirely USCIS' fault. Congress gave them that authority, and we the voters put up with it. Politicians love user fees since it raises revenue without raising taxes on everyone. Unfortunately it also makes USCIS less accountable than other (taxpayer funded) agencies.

I did not know about this NYT article at all! Thanks for sharing it. It helps my perspective on this entire fiasco as I was one of the persons claiming that this new DACA & the other new processes designed to make illegals step forward would somehow screw people filing for I-129Fs & I-130s.

[Marco&Bettina 502]

I wish USCIS could seperate the cases based on probability of fraud or something along those lines. I have freaking known my fiance for 4 years, I've lived with her for two of those 4 years, and have tons of visa stamps of us travelling, photos, etc to prove our relationship -- is it necessary for my case to take 8 months to adjudicate compared to others who have seen their SO once in their entire lives (and I am not knocking on those who have had one encounter, just stating the facts any reasoanble person would assume)?

We only had 1 encounter when I filed I-129F & only 1 additional encounter while the case was adjudicating. Now happily married. I don't see our case as any more risky than someone who gets to see each other every month. See the problem there? It's all based on opinions & the innate ability of humans to twist matters to conform to their personal experiences.

[Marco&Bettina 502]

All of that.

Amazing post. I must say. Because that is exactly how government works.

[wbeem 568]

I wish USCIS could seperate the cases based on probability of fraud or something along those lines. I have freaking known my fiance for 4 years, I've lived with her for two of those 4 years, and have tons of visa stamps of us travelling, photos, etc to prove our relationship -- is it necessary for my case to take 8 months to adjudicate compared to others who have seen their SO once in their entire lives (and I am not knocking on those who have had one encounter, just stating the facts any reasoanble person would assume)?

I agree. It seems absurd to spend so much time processing petitions and lettings us all wait before making a fraud detection decision. Better to have the embassy interview first before submitting a petition.

[Keith J 0]

Av8or1 so going to TSC is a normal process just the way they were talking I thought that this was an unordinary procedure, thanks for answering my question