After 7 months still NOA1 received

[Scandi 3,971]

Some obviously get stuck in background or security checks too, so that will take extra time. Obviously they won't just sit around and wait until they get the answers to the background check, they will work on other cases in the meanwhile. So of course it can happen that people who filed after you might get approved before you for reasons like that.

[TriloByte 1,818]

5 minutes ago, Scandi said:

Some obviously get stuck in background or security checks too, so that will take extra time. Obviously they won't just sit around and wait until they get the answers to the background check, they will work on other cases in the meanwhile. So of course it can happen that people who filed after you might get approved before you for reasons like that.

In that case, I suggest they send out a notification letting the petitioner know what's going on. This deal of keeping us all in limbo silence for months on end is for the birds.

 

Perhaps something like: "Case sent for a background check. Pending results."

Edited June 9, 2017 by TriloByte

[geowrian 22,336]

32 minutes ago, TriloByte said:

That's based on how we think things operate over at the pyramid complex in California. What I am suggesting is that they throw that system of doing things in the garbage and adopt and better strategy. This is the 21st century of awesome technology after all.

 

I have a gold standard approach that I think they should follow. It goes something like this:

 

I think the widely accepted assumption on this forum is that there are a bunch of workers who are given a "stack" of cases to work on. The old "stack". Yes.

 

What they COULD do, theoretically, is have one main center that processes incoming petitions. The receipt numbers would be entered (ordered by date received) into a master database that's shared across all service centers. All documents would be scanned electronically into a database and linked to each receipt number in the master database. Only valid petitions make it into the database. The people processing the incoming would immediately reject any petitions that had incorrect fees, etc. Nobody has a "stack" on their desk. Then, when any worker at any service center finished the petition they were working on, they would query this master database for the next petition in line. This way there never would be a situation where someone who got a receipt at the end of the month gets movement before someone at the start. There would still be situations where an RFE delays a person and causes someone who got a receipt at the end of the month to get APPROVED before someone at the start, but that's acceptable! haha. 

 

With this type of approach, there could be very precise statistics on where the processing is currently at and what the wait time should be. 

I'm certain there are many different options to help even out the wait. The variation in processing is currently excessively large IMO.

 

That said, there are couple complexities to throw into the mix.

1. They need the physical packet. Certain aspects (at least currently) cannot be verified via electronic documents. Things like raised seals, documents with photocopy protections built into them, wet signatures, etc. require the physical document to be reviewed. Plus, they then put marks on certain forms (i.e. the I-129F) for the CO at the embassy to review later (which is handled by DOS, not USCIS).
   1. There are several initiatives to address these items, but it's a slow process because now you're dealing with global processes. Some (only a handful currently AFAIK) embassies will receive the documents electronically, while most require the physical documents as well.
   2. More forms are implementing their 2D barcode design. This lets them scan a barcode with the form's data instead of having to scan and key all the data into their systems.
   3. Eventually, I think they will get to the point where physical stacks are no longer needed, but when you deal with the tens of millions of forms processed every year, trying to do anything too quickly causes massive havoc all the way down the pipeline. NVC alone is making some enhancements the past ffew weeks, and it's causing multi-week delays...which then cause backlogs at the embassies...which then cause backlogs elsewhere. It's a vicious cycle.
   4. My suggestion is having a (or having more?) runner(s) to circulate cases more efficiently. Instead of taking a large stack at once, they can take much smaller stacks and have an employee distributing new cases at the service center throughout the day/week/whatever.
2. A number of hold-ups are because of things not in control of the officer - background and name checks, verification of certain types of documents, etc. An electronic system would make this much easier to handle, but again...getting there is a massive effort that will take a good chunk of time.
3. Funding. Somebody has to pay for all this, and people scream bloody ... about the fees already (especially during the last fee hike in Dec...the first one in 5 years). I'm fine paying a little more to help fix the outdated processes, but I'm not so sure that's the consensus. There would need to be some kind of hefty support to do so in large strides instead of the baby steps they're going at.

I wouldn't call the current design "garbage". Outdated? Sure. But it has lasted longer than I've been alive.

Edited June 9, 2017 by geowrian

[TriloByte 1,818]

10 minutes ago, geowrian said:

I'm certain there are many different options to help even out the wait. The variation in processing is currently excessively large IMO.

 

That said, there are couple complexities to throw into the mix.

1. They need the physical packet. Certain aspects (at least currently) cannot be verified via electronic documents. Things like raised seals, documents with photocopy protections built into them, wet signatures, etc. require the physical document to be reviewed. Plus, they then put marks on certain forms (i.e. the I-129F) for the CO to review later (which is handled by DOS, not USCIS).
   1. There are several initiatives to address these items, but it's a slow process because now you're dealing with global processes. Some (only a handful currently AFAIK) embassies will receive the documents electronically, while most require the physical documents as well.
   2. More forms are implementing their 2D barcode design. This lets them scan a barcode with the form's data instead of having to scan and key all the data into their systems.
   3. Eventually, I think they will get to the point where physical stacks are no longer needed, but when you deal with the tens of millions of forms processed every year, trying to do anything too quickly causes massive havoc all the way down the pipeline. NVC alone is making some enhancements the past ffew weeks, and it's causing multi-week delays...which then cause backlogs at the embassies...which then cause backlogs elsewhere. It's a vicious cycle.
   4. My suggestion is having a (or having more?) runner(s) to circulate cases more efficiently. Instead of taking a large stack at once, they can take much smaller stacks and have an employee distributing new cases at the service center throughout the day/week/whatever.
2. A number of hold-ups are because of things not in control of the officer - background and name checks, verification of certain types of documents, etc. An electronic system would make this much easier to handle, but again...getting there is a massive effort that will take a good chunk of time.
3. Funding. Somebody has to pay for all this, and people scream bloody ... about the fees already (especially during the last fee hike in Dec...the first one in 5 years). I'm fine paying a little more to help fix the outdated processes, but I'm not so sure that's the consensus. There would need to be some kind of hefty support to do so in large strides instead of the baby steps they're going at.

I wouldn't call the current design "garbage". Outdated? Sure. But it has lasted longer than I've been alive.

Hey, at the very least, they could be more verbose, right? Let's use your background check example. I wouldn't take much to update the case status online to "Sent for a background check.".  It's the absolute dead silence limbo for months that drives myself and others mad. Most of us who are "patiently" waiting, are more than happy to wait. It's when we add wait and silence together that we get a new molecule called "rage".

 

A lot of good points there BTW.

Edited June 9, 2017 by TriloByte

[geowrian 22,336]

2 minutes ago, TriloByte said:

Hey, at the very least, they could be more assertive, right? Let's use your background check example. I wouldn't take much to update the case status online to "Sent for a background check.".  It's the absolute dead silence limbo for months that drives myself and others mad. Most of us who are "patiently" waiting, are more than happy to wait. It's when we add wait and silence together that we get a new molecule called "rage".

 

A lot of good points there BTW.

Agreed

[TriloByte 1,818]

7 minutes ago, geowrian said:

Agreed

Hey, they still are not doing it good, fast or cheap. 

[A'n'L 735]

39 minutes ago, TriloByte said:

Hey, at the very least, they could be more assertive, right? Let's use your background check example. I wouldn't take much to update the case status online to "Sent for a background check.".  It's the absolute dead silence limbo for months that drives myself and others mad. Most of us who are "patiently" waiting, are more than happy to wait. It's when we add wait and silence together that we get a new element called "rage".

 

A lot of good points there BTW.

Well, increasing the information flow required would increase the workload, which would increase the wait time and potentially the cost. I'm happy to wait in silence while they process the cases, since I understand some of what goes in to the process. Most or all cases are subject to background checks, so it's not so much about if/when they are sent for that, but how long it takes to get the data back. That can vary greatly depending on individual specific factors.

[Unshakable Faith 493]

4 hours ago, Bendite said:

Me too! Got an RFE over two months ago and still waiting for a response 298 days 😩

Your case is a bit different given that you're going the spousal visa route.  The processes and timeframes are much different than K1's.

 

The waiting still stinks for all of us though! 

Edited June 9, 2017 by Unshakable Faith

[Unshakable Faith 493]

2 hours ago, TriloByte said:

That's based on how we think things operate over at the pyramid complex in California. What I am suggesting is that they throw that system of doing things in the garbage and adopt and better strategy. This is the 21st century of awesome technology after all.

 

I have a gold standard approach that I think they should follow. It goes something like this:

 

I think the widely accepted assumption on this forum is that there are a bunch of workers who are given a "stack" of cases to work on. The old "stack". Yes.

 

What they COULD do, theoretically, is have one main center that processes incoming petitions. The receipt numbers would be entered (ordered by date received) into a master database that's shared across all service centers. All documents would be scanned electronically into a database and linked to each receipt number in the master database. Only valid petitions make it into the database. The people processing the incoming would immediately reject any petitions that had incorrect fees, etc. Nobody has a "stack" on their desk. Then, when any worker at any service center finished the petition they were working on, they would query this master database for the next petition in line. This way there never would be a situation where someone who got a receipt at the end of the month gets movement before someone at the start. There would still be situations where an RFE delays a person and causes someone who got a receipt at the end of the month to get APPROVED before someone at the start, but that's acceptable! haha. 

 

With this type of approach, there could be very precise statistics on where the processing is currently at and what the wait time should be. 

I've often thought about this type of process myself and wondered why they haven't adopted something similar. 

[Unshakable Faith 493]

I've seen improvements over time with the processes, although process changes can get really messy!

My first I-129f had an NOA1 date in March of 2015 and at that time all petitions were being routed to the Texas service center if you were on the east coast and the California service center if you are on the West Coast.  At the end of March they realized there was such a large backlog in the Texas service center that they were sending all NEW I-129f's to the California service center.  Everyone that was sent to Texas before the new routing was in a backlog.  

When it first started people at the California service center were getting approved and getting their NOA2 in two to three months while people were still waiting in an eight month backlog and Texas.  It was frustrating because people were sending their petitions after me, having them approved and getting their visa in hand while I was still waiting in the backlog to receive NOA2.  I believe some people had even filed and were in the US and married before I was able to get my petition alone approved.  

 

Thank God things are moving faster now.  In 2015 my NOA1 was at the beginning of March and NOA2 was at the end of November.

Edited June 9, 2017 by Unshakable Faith

[TriloByte 1,818]

1 hour ago, A'n'L said:

Well, increasing the information flow required would increase the workload, which would increase the wait time and potentially the cost. I'm happy to wait in silence while they process the cases, since I understand some of what goes in to the process. Most or all cases are subject to background checks, so it's not so much about if/when they are sent for that, but how long it takes to get the data back. That can vary greatly depending on individual specific factors.

Would it increase the wait and workflow? I contend that in the current dysfunctional system that better/more status updates would actually decrease the wait because people would stop calling UCSIC constantly in a panic wondering if there is something wrong with their case. 

 

I'm sure a background check could slow things down, but that's definitely not the case for me, my background is plain vanilla. I'm going on 5 months now, and still not NOA2. Additionally, I have worked for organizations where I saw sensitive government data, and have had all levels of background checks ran on me. All came back in a week or less. I don't buy it. I just think the system they use stinks and you won't see me defending it or making up excuses. 

 

This is all within the context of the current "system" they use, which I think should be thrown away and replaced with something that's at least five hundred thousand percent more efficient.

 

Edited June 9, 2017 by TriloByte

[geowrian 22,336]

2 minutes ago, TriloByte said:

Would it increase the wait and workflow? I contend that in the current dysfunctional system that they use it would actually decrease the wait because people would stop calling UCSIC constantly in a panic wondering if there is something wrong with their case. 

Not quite, actually. Not every USCIS employee has the same job. haha Less people calling decreases the load on the CSRs, but doesn't impact the CO's processing or mail room. Adding more notifications would increase the load on the mail room in a nontrivial degree, meaning either more $ for workers or a slower response. You can't just take a CSR and put them in the mail room for the day (not to mention they may be in different parts of the country). The challenge here is I don't think many USCIS CSRs would no longer be needed since that aspect is already fairly efficient - 1 call center that handles all types of requests (not just I-129Fs). The service center's mail rooms would likely need more people than the number of CSRs that would eventually no longer be needed. At least that's my prediction.

 

A better approach (IMHO) is to make better use of the electronic notifications and Case Tracker tool to put in updates like that, then the only additional manual burden is somebody flagging the record as waiting on background checks. That is probably an oversimplification, but I think the main idea is there. A major drawback would be people who did not signup for electronic notifications, don't get them (for various reasons), or when the case tracker has issues and doesn't update for certain cases (something I hope they fix soon).

 

2 minutes ago, TriloByte said:

I'm sure a background check could slow things down, but that's definitely not the case for me, my background is plain vanilla. I'm going on 5 months now, and still not NOA2. Additionally, I have worked for organizations where I saw sensitive government data, and have had all levels of background checks ran on me. All came back in a week or less. I don't buy it. I just think the system they use stinks and you won't see me defending it or making up excuses.

USCIS doesn't actually run the background checks. They request them from various agencies and have to wait until they all come back with conclusive results. As much as it sucks, this really isn't USCIS's fault. The big one is the comprehensive (and black box) FBI checks...they can be really fast or take months, with no indicator when they will be done or why they are taking longer than others. I currently do IT work for USPS and we all have FBI checks on us regularly...and sometimes we see the same kind of thing where it takes months for one person but less than a week for others. We've also seen some people's checks take a week and then subsequently take several weeks at a renewal for clearances.

[TriloByte 1,818]

9 hours ago, Andrea&Henry said:

I do agree with you completely but that is not the reality unfortunately. My now husband and I filed for my k1 visa on fall 2011 and through vermont service center and it took us only 3 months to get the NOA2 and less than 8 months after filing  we were already married and living together. Total opposite situation for California service center that had processing time of 6-8 months just for the NoA 2. 

 

I remember back then, somebody shared a post about an ex USCIS employee who handled this type of visa. I don't remember to well (this was 6 years ago) but he said something about it depends on many many things how fast or how slow they worked. They have a bunch of people in different shifts and each one of them handled certain amount of petitions. Some people are faster than others so it was pretty much like winning a lottery. He also share that the time of the year you file, is also a huge influence. He said that december- february and june-july are the busiest because is when people file the most. 

 

Also if you get an RFE, you basically are taken out of the line and you go back to the end of the line. He shared many many things that might be happening. He also said that they transfer cases from Service center to others so that explains why sometimes vermont is faster than others, and then california is the fast one. Bck then we didn't have Texas Service center (no that I can remember).

 

I've been here in this community for 6 years and I think I've seen it all...including like 3 years ago a bunch of people were getting the NoA 2 within 1 months (like a BUNCH). It all depends

I think we painfully understand the reality. What we want is that reality to change, and like the person said, we paid 500+ dollars for this process. Money aside, it's not like we are getting impatient over the delay of a new DVD release, we're talking about being separated from our fiancee for months.

[TriloByte 1,818]

17 minutes ago, geowrian said:

Not quite, actually. Not every USCIS employee has the same job. haha Less people calling decreases the load on the CSRs, but doesn't impact the CO's processing or mail room. Adding more notifications would increase the load on the mail room in a nontrivial degree, meaning either more $ for workers or a slower response. You can't just take a CSR and put them in the mail room for the day (not to mention they may be in different parts of the country). The challenge here is I don't think many USCIS CSRs would no longer be needed since that aspect is already fairly efficient - 1 call center that handles all types of requests (not just I-129Fs). The service center's mail rooms would likely need more people than the number of CSRs that would eventually no longer be needed. At least that's my prediction.

 

A better approach (IMHO) is to make better use of the electronic notifications and Case Tracker tool to put in updates like that, then the only additional manual burden is somebody flagging the record as waiting on background checks. That is probably an oversimplification, but I think the main idea is there. A major drawback would be people who did not signup for electronic notifications, don't get them (for various reasons), or when the case tracker has issues and doesn't update for certain cases (something I hope they fix soon).

 

USCIS doesn't actually run the background checks. They request them from various agencies and have to wait until they all come back with conclusive results. As much as it sucks, this really isn't USCIS's fault. The big one is the comprehensive (and black box) FBI checks...they can be really fast or take months, with no indicator when they will be done or why they are taking longer than others. I currently do IT work for USPS and we all have FBI checks on us regularly...and sometimes we see the same kind of thing where it takes months for one person but less than a week for others. We've also seen some people's checks take a week and then subsequently take several weeks at a renewal for clearances.

I was about to say in my previous comment that it's not just USCIS and all of the separate agencies that I am unhappy with. I am dissatisfied with all of the systems being used including the concept of government all the way to the ethos of society itself. I want it gutted and started over from the ground up to be in alignment with current science and technology. This is getting too deep for this thread and off topic, but we do so many background checks because of the gross inequality / unmet needs which force people down paths they normally would not have gone down given their needs were met. Technological inefficiency from the bottom all the way to the top. Several thousand-year-old thoughts clashing with the technology that has left them behind.

Edited June 9, 2017 by TriloByte

[NYCruiser 423]

Received NOA1 on June 9th 2017. Probably was mailed one day after documents receipt. No email nor text despite including the document in the application