Jason32903

2 hours ago, Naes said:

I have no faith where uscis is concerned. But I have positivity and august numbers do not show the same pattern with neither May nor june at the moment

 so fingers crossed we will see some new dates tomorrow with more touches to the dates came out so far.. and also  a few mail only noa2s would be great!

Hello @Naes,

Do you think that the Christmas/New year's holidays where senior adjudicators may have taken vacation time could have caused the May/June bottleneck? Maybe, now that the holidays are over the process will go quicker?

45 minutes ago, Naes said:

I'm a sarcasting being, so bear with me for this comment first: This is not yet a conversation but a corresponding... I feel like I'm answering a full level letter with the old school seal and everything

 

Dear Jason;

 

Although I also do think WAC numbers are does not contain information, I did see a post being deleted in front of me with the addition of "Do not post WAC numbers".

 

However I am going to explain why I am not posting those numbers, as "having the ability to immediately see your Scan Postings and see that you do not have an RFE and also see the proximity of approvals around your particular case has great utility." this comment is extremely wrong and also people thinking this way is one of the reasons I stopped posting it.

 

1) I am not a personal scanner.

   People who are note in the forum for a good time, will start asking to add their WAC numbers to the scan, for me to check their case numbers, or what happened to their case. Personal case status is an information that should be checked by the person by their own means using not even apps but USCIS web site.

 

2) People start waiting for scans to get information. 

  Again as the update on USCIS will be first and not my posting, everyone should check their cases by themselves.

 

3) That whole sentence I just quoted contains wrong information and unfortunately people still think they go by WAC order or proximity has anything to do with it. Which is extremely incorrect.

  Now I will give you an example actually I will even show you this happening by just checking the last scan list I posted.

 You will see an August 8 case there right before August 22 and after August 15. The reason is because dates do not go in the WAC order and they do go by the dates and not the WAC numbers.

  You can see a case date is dated August 10 for example at the very end of the list. When normally most August 10 is actually at a number of let's say WAC179041xxxx, There are also cases that are at number WAC179045xxxx. And both of these cases would be processed and get RFE or approvals or any movements at the same time. This happened in May, June, July.... So eventually we saw that there is no correlation between a WAC numbers proximity to any other case with its process but the received dates has a connection. 

 

Some people here, screen shots my posts and posts it in the facebook k1 visa related pages. As this is all public. And I am not going to give a huge load of information even if it does not contain direct personal information here. Because on facebook with the addition of real names, it becomes a private information.

 

 Hence I won't be posting it. Because it is not necessary. 

 I understand why you would think it was, but that thought actually only causes people stress thinking, OMG they touched 1 case before mine but didn't touch mine (which is not related to their processing) If one wishes to pursue this thought, I would say get case tracker app, because it lets you scan cases before and after the number you put. There fore if you put your number you can see what's happening around it.

 

As they do not update the tracker everyday, or update all rfes and approvals, the only important info we should expect from these updates would be what/if they update, and which date they are doing.

 

Good luck on the journey!

Hi @Naes,

While I believe the WACs are public information and including them in scans would be helpful in my own and others’ hopeful yet incorrect analyses (ha ha), I absolutely see how you would want to control your posts and what others may share on other social media.

Keep up your important contributions to VJ. We all appreciate you very much

Thanks much!

Jason

14 minutes ago, Naes said:

Apart from everything etc. my question first, what will posting wac numbers give to you?

 

because I know for once it contains nothing important for anyone here.

 

Hello @Naes! It is so nice to finally converse with you! Best of luck with your September filing.

The rationale for needing the WAC numbers to be reflected in the Scan Postings is expressed at the end of my successive posting:

I read the TOS again in closer detail, although, as yet, have not contacted VJ legal counsel directly on the matter. With all due respect for our wonderful moderators, I see nothing in the TOS that would prohibit under its terms or current law the disclosure of WACs. Remember that Moderators are members of VJ, not employees. If a moderator made a decision without consulting VJ legal and that decision is wrong, based on the TOS, this decision is reversible.

There is language in the TOS that states:

 if a member disagrees with a Moderators use of these "moderation" abilities they may contact VisaJourney and request that the Moderators actions be reviewed. The final decision on whether to reverse or alter a Moderator's action(s) will be decided at the sole discretion of VisaJourney.

My initial thought is this: If USCIS did not want the WACs disclosed publicly they would not include them in publicly-accessible data (of course, USCIS terms also apply). But again, there is no specific language in the TOS that prohibits posting WAC numbers.

The only issue that many VJers have with the Scan Postings currently is that it is generally hard to decipher which cases surrounding their own are being touched and how to anticipate their approvals.

Your question concerning why the WAC numbers have a significant utility to members is an excellent  query. I don't know about other Vjers, but assuming that I am correct in saying that posting WAC numbers is not a violation of the TOS, having the ability to immediately see your Scan Postings and see that you do not have an RFE and also see the proximity of approvals around your particular case has great utility.

Thanks for reading, and nice to meet you! I appreciate everything you are doing!

Thank you @Naes

Jason

5 minutes ago, Michelle M said:

I'm thinking it's either for an intent to marry letter or my divorce decree.  Hopefully it's the letter of intent. 

Hi, I consulted my attorney on this very issue of whether a letter of intent to marry from both the Petitioner and Beneficiary is required by USCIS. In a word the short answer is no. So long as the Petitioner in his or her cover letter (which in this case a cover letter is different than a letter of intent to marry) expresses his or her intent to marry the Beneficiary, the petition is sufficient. I have read the VJ checklist but in trusting my attorney who told me he has filed many I-29F petitions in the past without letters of intent to marry, I believe this is accurate info.

1 minute ago, JSCGPV said:

 

Although it didn't happen too me at the start, but in earlier months, many posts containing WAC numbers were deleted. The members were warned by VJ moderators that we are Not to post WAC numbers due to Terms of Service (TOS) and privacy issues.

I read the TOS again in closer detail, although, as yet, have not contacted VJ legal counsel directly on the matter. With all due respect for our wonderful moderators, I see nothing in the TOS that would prohibit under its terms or current law the disclosure of WACs. Remember that Moderators are members of VJ, not employees. If a moderator made a decision without consulting VJ legal and that decision is wrong, based on the TOS, this decision is reversible.

There is language in the TOS that states:

 if a member disagrees with a Moderators use of these "moderation" abilities they may contact VisaJourney and request that the Moderators actions be reviewed. The final decision on whether to reverse or alter a Moderator's action(s) will be decided at the sole discretion of VisaJourney.

My initial thought is this: If USCIS did not want the WACs disclosed publicly they would not include them in publicly-accessible data (of course, USCIS terms also apply). But again, there is no specific language in the TOS that prohibits posting WAC numbers.

The only issue that many VJers have with the Scan Postings currently is that it is generally hard to decipher which cases surrounding their own are being touched and how to anticipate their approvals.

I will dig deeper if necessary to confirm.

Jason

Hello to all August filers. We’re August 14 filers and are just now getting involved in the forum after having read all postings very closely.

I have a question for @Naes regarding the privacy issues in including WAC numbers: Did VJ legal team advise that you can not include WAC numbers in Scan Postings on VJ or has that been your self-imposed practice to protect VJ members’ privacy?

I ask this because, although there may be a privacy issue with the disclosure of personal information within a petition, case numbers are generally public information. That said, because of my very limited time on VJ, I am not privy to any VJ members expressing concern with their WACs being included in Scan Postings.  I am interested in your input regarding recontinuing the inclusion of WACs in Scan Postings going forward.

Thanks for reading!

Jason