Regarding the timelines database

[niceguy26 0]

As some of you know, I sent my I-129f on June 21st, and the USCIS didn't "receive" it until JULY 18th, and check was cashed on July 21st, a full month from when i mailed it.

I did a quick test to see what the adjucation date would be if I changed my "sent" date to something similar to other VJ'ers.

When I normally have June 21 as the sent date the adj. date is October 27th (was 17th earlier today)

When I change it to being sent on July 14th for example (as some people have their package received within 4 days) It changes my Adjucation date to November 20th.

I know it would most likely freak some people out, but I think the algorithm or whatever you call it should not have "sent date" as a factor, but rather have "date received by USCIS"

I think this would be extremely more accurate. especially for people in cases similar to mine...

[RosemarieL 0]

Mine took a month to get from received by NSC to NOA1 by CSC. I think a number of people have had a long gap between receipt and notice dates from the end of April until now. Since it happens to a lot of us I am hoping that it won't have that much effect on the estimated adjudication date.

[Captain Ewok 1,857]

That is probably true in some cases and something that I have thought about before. The original thinking is that in most cases the receiving and processing (issuing an NOA1) for everyone is about this same and thus by using the sent day it would give a more tangible time that people would understand more without needing to know the inner details of the process (in essense all someone needs to know is when they mailed it and they would get a rough date based on the timeline data of when people in similar situations are getting approved (time frame wise)). I am open to changes though and welcome the feedback .

[niceguy26 0]

That is probably true in some cases and something that I have thought about before. The original thinking is that in most cases the receiving and processing (issuing an NOA1) for everyone is about this same and thus by using the sent day it would give a more tangible time that people would understand more without needing to know the inner details of the process (in essense all someone needs to know is when they mailed it and they would get a rough date based on the timeline data of when people in similar situations are getting approved (time frame wise)). I am open to changes though and welcome the feedback .

I think it just makes a lot more sense to either start with Date received or NOA1... I actually considered putting a false "sent" date and keeping it that way just so that I will be more accurate compared to the time between sent and received that 99% of other VJ'ers have had. I know if it is changed maybe the 1st week or 2, people would freak out because of their timelines, but in the long run it will be a lot better and more accurate IMO.

[StillThePrettiest 3]

seems like very sound reasoning to me!

obviously I want this all to happen as quickly as possible too, but I'd still rather the estimates were accurate and gave a date a bit further away than inaccurate just to make me feel better

[niceguy26 0]

seems like very sound reasoning to me!

obviously I want this all to happen as quickly as possible too, but I'd still rather the estimates were accurate and gave a date a bit further away than inaccurate just to make me feel better

exactly!

[niceguy26 0]

anyone else wanna back me up on this?

[no name 1]

I'll give you taht date sent is misleading & unnecessary.

NOA1 really should be the first date entered. But many will enter their sent date there & NOT the NOA1, which is far more important.

The adjudicated by date will and can change daily. Pay no attention to it but to other filers from your month.

[StillThePrettiest 3]

having the two dates is fine - to avoid people entering the wrong information - but the calculations should use the 'correct' one, IMHO (ie NOA1)

[niceguy26 0]

having the two dates is fine - to avoid people entering the wrong information - but the calculations should use the 'correct' one, IMHO (ie NOA1)

Yeah having date sent should definitely be listed, but it shouldn't be a factor impacting the calculation of adjucation date at all. Captain Ewok could probably just change the calculation settings (if thats what you call them lol) without affecting the info that people already enter anyways

[TinTin and Samby 11]

Good topic, thanks to the OP. THis is something I have wondered about also.

IMHO:

DATE Petitiioner MAILED (OR REMAILED - see example below) application - IRRELEVANT

DATE application RECEIVED by USCIS - FIRST REAL TRACKING DATE

DATE USCIS ISSUED NOA1 - SECOND REAL TRACKING DATE

The above would also handle the real delays that occur when an incomplete application is RECEIVED by USCIS but returned to the petitioner, hence causing an extended NOA1 ISSUED DATE (subsequent to the second MAILED date after correction has occurred and application is resubmitted by petitioner, etc.).

Warm Regards,

Samby

[RosemarieL 0]

If the NOA1 date is the date that the service centre uses to queue petitions then that is the date I would like to see used for calculations.

[YanJeff 0]

I called USCIS. She told me the " Received Date" is the date that I need to know. Because the notice date is only when the I-797 (NOA1) was sent. And I have Received 4 of those.

My sent date is May 21, 2007

Received Date is May 25, 2007

NOA1 dates 7-9-07, 7-9-07, 7-25-07, 7-26-07 (late because of computer problem in May.)

[TinTin and Samby 11]

Exactly. Which is why my contention is that the MAILED DATE (the date the Petitioner mailed the application to the USCIS) is IRRELEVANT for purposes of tracking and estimating timelines.

Warm Regards,

Samby

[Jamie76 0]

Sounds like a good idea to me.