meladee

1 hour ago, Quimat said:

I saw in a group on Facebook that they processed two March cases already. I know , I know, it’s not much. But very interesting to see that so early. 

One of the March approvals was a VJ member 🎉🎉🎉

@Elays Yayyyy, I love it! 💜

3 hours ago, GinoNiña said:

I’m watching this website too. I noticed there is no February and march.  
 

Can you clarify where you don't see Feb & March on the site? I haven't had that issue.

1 hour ago, Ngillet said:

Hi! Does anyone know how often NVC updates this:

It's usually updated weekly on Mondays, weird that it hasn't been updated this week.

13 hours ago, Mark Hancock said:

Where do I find find LIVE CHAT with Emma? Do you have a link you could share? Thank you.

If you scroll down on a USCIS page, a box saying "Need help? Ask Emma" should pop up like this:

11 hours ago, Lynxyonok said:

So, I need to 'fess up.

 

I'm lost.

 

My VJ timeline (a mid-May-2022 filer) keeps shortening. It's now pointing to a second half of July 2022 for approval.

 

My dataset though, one comparing all unresolved cases, is pointing at a minimum of September 2022 approval for the first-wave May 2022 applicants; and the reason I say first-wave is because cases can take months and months to be touched.

 

Like X-files show said, I want to believe.

 

And I'd love to be wrong. However, for now, I can't comprehend the plethora (a fancy word for multitude, numerousness, or a large number of something) of RFEs issued (as that's got to slow down the case closure rate) and the resulting shortening of processing timelines (as I genuinely fail to see why, how, where).

 

I want to be proven wrong.

 

Because all I see for now is processing times lengthening much further, where VJ numbers are meaningless (please prove me wrong).

Can you share your dataset for comparison? Or at least a little more detail on how you're doing your own calculation that results in a longer date. I have done something similar on my own that I've poked at a lot, so maybe I can poke at yours a little to see the differences.

1 hour ago, Mycookie said:

Clearly the spelling is not the issue. You are helping so much thank you 

They meant in the email address -- if you sent it to jorden-support@ustraveldocs.com as you wrote in your post, they won't receive it. The correct address appears to be Support-Jordan@ustraveldocs.com based on this site. Can you clarify which address you emailed?

5 hours ago, serret said:

This is so depressing. My heart hurts.

I think everyone should contact their senator immediately and let them know about the unfair processing system. We should point out that this is not only about our individual situation but a disturbing trend to make USCIS metrics appear better.

I've written some versions of letters people can send here in case it's helpful. Happy to help people write others too, I know not everyone has the time or energy to write, but it's helpful if more people are contacting Senators and Representatives.

4 hours ago, ChiuA said:

About the processing stats is what I have also been wondering about, like what is going on there. About the processing times, I do think it'll reduce mid year at the current speed to maybe 13Months, I am assuming it hit 16 months because of the 2 months last year that were still very very slow....I am more concerned about the RFE situation. If someone can wait 2 months to fill out the RFE, that is where it'll get critical if everyone is gonna do it slow, it'll delay the time overall again correct?

I wonder what the standard deadline is for an RFE, I feel like I remember it being 30 days? This week they removed the flexibility to respond to the RFE up to 60 days past the due date, (which was added during COVID) so I think we'll see them start closing more cases that haven't recieved timely responses in the next couple months. https://www.uscis.gov/newsroom/alerts/uscis-announces-end-of-covid-related-flexibilities

5 minutes ago, New Romantics said:

When are fees being increased?

Here are all the details on the proposed fee increases: https://www.uscis.gov/newsroom/news-releases/uscis-issues-proposed-rule-to-adjust-certain-immigration-and-naturalization-fees

48 minutes ago, New Romantics said:

Thank you! It's interesting because if that's the case then they must have not followed it the first year as we can see here https://egov.uscis.gov/processing-times/historic-pt

I think this is due to the first part, where it only applies IF they are proposing fee increases. They weren't increasing fees last year, but they are now, so now it applies.
 

Quote

if USCIS publishes a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking or Final Rule that proposes or adopts any amendment to 8 C.F.R. 103.7(b), (October 1, 2020), that would impact fee levels ...

9 minutes ago, New Romantics said:

Can anyone find the part they talk about the median in the 2023 report? I can only see it in the 2022 one

Here's the 2023 report. It just says "Application Processing.--The Committee continues direction provided under this heading in House Report 117-87 related to the timely processing of applications, changes to fee levels, and reporting on processing performance." House Report 117-87 is the 2022 report, which says :
 

Quote

  Application Processing.--USCIS is directed to prioritize the timely processing of citizenship and other applications, with a goal of adjudicating all requests within six months of submission. Further, if USCIS publishes a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking or Final Rule that proposes or adopts any amendment to 8 C.F.R. 103.7(b), (October 1, 2020), that would impact fee levels, USCIS shall include the following information in its associated publications in the Federal Register:
(1) a detailed plan for reducing the aggregate median processing time for all applications at least 25 percent by not later than one year from the date of publication of the notice and each year thereafter until median processing times are fewer than six months; and
(2) a detailed estimate of any discretionary funding requirement for enabling USCIS to limit future fee increases to not more than the rate of inflation.

You can see more of my rambling about this earlier in this thread here and here.

2 hours ago, AndiB said:

Yeah but they got the number from the linked spreadsheet

If you are just looking for an alternative source, Lawfully says 314 untouched in November as of yesterday.

Here is my theory, and it's a mixed bag: Yes, they are processing quicker, and eventually that will be good. But in the Appropriations Act, which is law, they are required to reduce the median processing rate by 25% this year, which is a slight deviation from the wording in the previous years -- because they used the word median. They are not beholden to the processing times on this page that consider 80% of cases processed; these are the median processing times they care about.

Which is great, that means the median this year should get to ~9 months. But what about the other 50% that come after the median? That is why, in this fiscal year, we have seen them consitent move on to processing the next month at 50%, and the remaining 50% get stretched out. They aren't required by law to adjudicate them as speedily as the median, so they are deprioritised as they try to get the next batch to 50% as quickly as possible. Long term, it will be better for everyone, but short term you're really going to feel it if you're in the first 50% vs second 50%.

47 minutes ago, Elisab24 said:

I would recommend reviewing this spreadsheet. It has a lot of great data.

 

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1sN2bo1xZhs8oVU6-QDUdBXBX2_ci8_QJ0wiz59Gp6H4/edit

Oh yeah I'm a daily visitor to that spreadsheet, it's fantastic for overall processing trends! But it doesn't have the detailed monthly data that most of the filer threads have, like RFEs, or daily processing numbers for that month specifically, or even broken down into filing groups of 500. For example, we can see that yesterday 291 cases were processed, but not that 21 were February approvals (😵). Here's the February sheet for comparison. I do this daily tracker too, but it's just "Case Complete" numbers and not any more granular than that.

On 7/12/2022 at 3:20 PM, GPJB said:

Hi everyone! I know it's wicked early but I decided to make this file for the group in advance. I will not do any bulk scans till the end of the year because considering the backlog it's just not worth it.

 

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1worFuR3iwHjir9xvpZSbgmYDxVzNH0PAJ9LfKkegysE/edit?usp=sharing

I see that this spreadsheet has been deleted now. Is anyone interested in having a June '22 spreadsheet?

34 minutes ago, biscoito1r said:

Every embassy is different

https://vn.usembassy.gov/visas/immigrant-visas/required-documents/

The cover sheet they link to on the page says "Uploaded & submitted to CEAC account" is "Not Applicable for K-1")

13 hours ago, biscoito1r said:

I found out that I need the NVC invoice number to upload the documents to the CEAC website or the embassy will reject us on interview day. However NVC never sent us the number. I went through everything and I can't find it. So I sent an inquiry to the NVC. Hopefully they'll respond with the number on time.

Can you share where you found out that you need the invoice number? Everything I read up to now has indicated that the invoice number is needed to log into CEAC, but CEAC is only for immigrant visa cases like CR1/IR1. For K1 we should just need a case number to check CEAC status via https://ceac.state.gov/CEACStatTracker/Status.aspx.

I've been tracking the daily case completed numbers from the Lawfully dashboard. I think it's useful to see some of the processing trends. What is standing out to me right now is this trend of denials happening for the August 2022 filers (65 denials since last week). On Tuesday there were also 10 June filers with "Termination Notice Sent", which isn't a status I'm familiar with.

I really like the layout & visuals of the Lawfully dashboard and the level of information it shows, but it doesn't exactly match Obllak's numbers. Where there are differences, I would defer to their Obllak's spreadsheet instead of the Lawfully dashboard because we have more information on the underlying data. The Lawfully numbers also change daily and disappear after 3 days.

11 hours ago, ChiuA said:

I think with the current speed and information we can most likely expect 12 months at most, i honestly don't see less than that.

I agree, and that's in line with the 25% improvement in the appropriations bill.

On 2/27/2023 at 8:15 PM, FromMexico W/Love said:

I found this document and it sheds some light as to why we are probably seeing a bump in productivity in processing. USCIS has ~1,400 more full time equivalent employees, and ~1,700 more overall employees in FY2023 compared to FY2022. 

 

https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/reports/U.S._Citizenship_and_Immigration_Services’_Budget_Overview_Document_for Fiscal_Year_2023.pdf 

Yeah the above post by @FromMexico W/Love is what sent me looking for this info! What I vaguely understand from the process is that this is USCIS' Congressional Justification for the budget they were requesting, but not what the committee actuall accepted for the appropriations bill.

Appropriation, fiscal year 2022.......................      $389,504,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2023......................       903,622,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       653,293,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2022...................      +263,789,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2023..................      -250,329,000

So the subcommittee put forward -$250MM vs what USCIS asked for, but it's still +$263MM vs the previous year. And that decrease is mostly in hiring, with the reasoning "... because the budget request assumes an unrealistic hiring strategy for asylum-related operations, the recommendation reduces the Application Processing PPA by $229,336,000 below the request..." Still +$215MM over last year, but the emphasis seems to be on asylum application processing.

I've gone deeper into the rabbit hole and it's not quite as rosy -- in the 2022 report (House Report 117-87) they changed the first point to:

Quote

          (1) a detailed plan for reducing the aggregate median processing time for all applications at least 25 percent by not later than one year from the date of publication of the notice and each year thereafter until median processing times are fewer than six months; and

So while we should see reductions, it does feel like 6 months is off the table. Also, because it's based on the median that might be why we're seeing so many get left behind, they only care about that 50% mark. I don't expect much change in this in the short term, the 2023 report basically says to keep doing what they said in 2022.

The 6 month goal originated in House Report 116-458:

Quote

Processing Times.--USCIS is directed to prioritize the timely processing of citizenship and other applications, with a goal of adjudicating all requests within six months of submission. Further, if USCIS publishes a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking or Final Rule that proposes or adopts any amendment to 8 C.F.R. Sec.  103.7(c)(3-5) that would impact fee levels, USCIS shall include the following information in its associated publications in the Federal Register:
         (1) a detailed description of steps the agency will take to reduce all average processing times to fewer than six months within one year of publication; and
         (2) an analysis of the amount of discretionary funding needed, if any, to enable USCIS to limit fees to rates that do not exceed appropriate inflation rates.

That would have come from the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security. Below are the current members of that subcommittee (the members who were there when that passage was written are in bold). If any of these are your representative, I would recommend contacting them -- they should have a particular interest in USCIS falling short of the requirements their subcomittee set forth.

•     David Joyce, Ohio, Chair
•     Henry Cuellar, Texas, Ranking Member
•     John Rutherford, Florida
•     Andy Harris, Maryland
•     Dan Newhouse, Washington
•     Ashley Hinson, Iowa
•     Michael Cloud, Texas
•     Michael Guest, Mississippi
•     Rosa DeLauro, Connecticut
•     Lauren Underwood, Illinois
•     Ed Case, Hawaii
•     David Trone, Maryland

48 minutes ago, Bh_sarah said:

how many people got into this and either decided to take another route

Haha, I also enjoy reading into the data like that! But based on what you said above, if you consider that "Withdrawls" includes people who take another route, then "benefit received by other means" would fit nicely in that category I think.