ice-qube

Nice non-sequitur...passive and cautious? Lol. You have no clue what you are talking about, do you? You think one is “courageous” for taking ill-considered risks? That’s many things, but not courage...

Although people are interpreting your experience to suggest that all you need to do is apply for K3 and this will somehow expedite an approval, I am not sure that is actually what is happening. It could very well be that this K3 had nothing to do with the I-130 getting approved.
 
The reason I think skepticism is warranted is because people should be careful about what they do with these immigration applications, be there *is* something to lose, in theory. There is another element to this discussion that people don't address here, and that is whether the actual act of applying for the K3 might prejudice the outcome of the case in some way that is *not* beneficial, whether it be by opening up another branch of bureaucratic processes that slows down or crosses wires somewhere, or by simply sending an unintended signal to the government that will manifest in some unknown way later.
 
I think people are not accounting for the above risks and everyone here seems to be whipping themselves into a frenzy that this is an easy way to solve the I-130 processing delay problem,  but without due consideration of potential unintended and unforeseen consequences. The stakes seem too high to just make these sorts of presumptions.

Although people are interpreting your experience to suggest that all you need to do is apply for K3 and this will somehow expedite an approval, I am not sure that is actually what is happening. It could very well be that this K3 had nothing to do with the I-130 getting approved.
 
The reason I think skepticism is warranted is because people should be careful about what they do with these immigration applications, be there *is* something to lose, in theory. There is another element to this discussion that people don't address here, and that is whether the actual act of applying for the K3 might prejudice the outcome of the case in some way that is *not* beneficial, whether it be by opening up another branch of bureaucratic processes that slows down or crosses wires somewhere, or by simply sending an unintended signal to the government that will manifest in some unknown way later.
 
I think people are not accounting for the above risks and everyone here seems to be whipping themselves into a frenzy that this is an easy way to solve the I-130 processing delay problem,  but without due consideration of potential unintended and unforeseen consequences. The stakes seem too high to just make these sorts of presumptions.

Although people are interpreting your experience to suggest that all you need to do is apply for K3 and this will somehow expedite an approval, I am not sure that is actually what is happening. It could very well be that this K3 had nothing to do with the I-130 getting approved.
 
The reason I think skepticism is warranted is because people should be careful about what they do with these immigration applications, be there *is* something to lose, in theory. There is another element to this discussion that people don't address here, and that is whether the actual act of applying for the K3 might prejudice the outcome of the case in some way that is *not* beneficial, whether it be by opening up another branch of bureaucratic processes that slows down or crosses wires somewhere, or by simply sending an unintended signal to the government that will manifest in some unknown way later.
 
I think people are not accounting for the above risks and everyone here seems to be whipping themselves into a frenzy that this is an easy way to solve the I-130 processing delay problem,  but without due consideration of potential unintended and unforeseen consequences. The stakes seem too high to just make these sorts of presumptions.

The  USCIS's own page says that I-129F petitions (for spouses already married) are being processed faster (7.5-9.5 months) than the I-130s are (11-14.5 mo). I suppose this is still a fairly significant estimated time gap in processing, but I worry about unintended consequences of adding some new process onto the I-130 process--in the end is this going to be faster or is it actually going to slow it down as it opens up a new branch in the process?

Yeah, and if it isn't random, it clearly has little or nothing to do with the location. That is about all we can rule out there.

Of course we do. Bureaucracies don't care about individuals and their stories, they are systems that operate by inflexible procedures and typically staffed with functionaries who have little incentive to work any harder than normal. This is a pseudo-machine merely with humans employed as some of the cogs and gears.

Well I suppose your hypothesis about this backlog being designed to slow down the immigration process is possibly true. However, playing devil's advocate, one would expect to see that backlog happen across the board, then, with all other service centers also showing markedly worse processing times. I feel what's behind this is not deliberate policy, per se, but some manner of institutional inefficiency and lack of accountability or incentive to work harder, among other things. 

Well I suppose your hypothesis about this backlog being designed to slow down the immigration process is possibly true. However, playing devil's advocate, one would expect to see that backlog happen across the board, then, with all other service centers also showing markedly worse processing times. I feel what's behind this is not deliberate policy, per se, but some manner of institutional inefficiency and lack of accountability or incentive to work harder, among other things. 

I would have suspected as much that something like that was behind it; they face a new unexpected workload and don't have the resources, or incentives, to complete all of it, so start rationing the resources.

Well I suppose your hypothesis about this backlog being designed to slow down the immigration process is possibly true. However, playing devil's advocate, one would expect to see that backlog happen across the board, then, with all other service centers also showing markedly worse processing times. I feel what's behind this is not deliberate policy, per se, but some manner of institutional inefficiency and lack of accountability or incentive to work harder, among other things. 

I just got my notice of action and it says my I-130 petition is with the Nebraska field office. Why why why did they assign me to the seemingly worst one? Does this really mean that it will be a year before they process even the I-130? I am a Canadian citizen spouse of a US Citizen, and that is unbelievable that it would really take this long, if that stat means anything??