Backlog Elimination Strategy - USCIS

[peeved]

I read that backlog reduction plan, and it appears that the 20 months they refer to, is the average cycle time for the FY2004. It need not mean that the JIT will show 20 months backlog. If they approve some recently filed cases (which they are anyway doing), then the average wait time will come down. This is what Rajiv calls "creative accounting". They are playing games not only with us, but also with united states congress

The best thing about this forum is someone always thinks of things other haven't and so many aspects of each subject are covered.

You bring up an interesting point, and I believe I am missing something here. The way see it, processing more recent cases should increase the average wait time not decrease it. Say one person has been waiting 9 months, another 6 months and a third one 3 months. So the average wait time should be (9 + 6 + 3)/3 = 6 months. Now if they approve the third person's application, the average waiting time increases to (9+6)/2 = 7.5 months. So what am I missing here? Can you explain how you arrived at your conclusion?

 

[cinta]

USCIS Director

The Director was researched in the past: Summary:

He has been a Bush family friend for years, from Texas and father Bush. He is a politically connected appointee with Banking background (Import/Export Bank), so he should be good in Numbers and persuation.
He did not ask for more money from Congress. So I guess, the 25% of adjudicators will still be running security checks and FPs and uncovering sleeper cells. The latest maybe coming from Ashcroft so they have to check the "right applicants". Yes, he should have some kind of a Security Clearance, like the adjudicators.
His mention of "low risk" applicants opens a new door officially: Profiling in immigration.

 

[timaeuti]

I read that backlog reduction plan, and it appears that the 20 months they refer to, is the average cycle time for the FY2004. It need not mean that the JIT will show 20 months backlog. If they approve some recently filed cases (which they are anyway doing), then the average wait time will come down. This is what Rajiv calls "creative accounting". They are playing games not only with us, but also with united states congress

The 20 months you are referring to is projected cycle time, and not average cycle time like you said. You may want to go back to the document and read it carefully.

 

[timaeuti]

The Director was researched in the past: Summary:

He has been a Bush family friend for years, from Texas and father Bush. He is a politically connected appointee with Banking background (Import/Export Bank), so he should be good in Numbers and persuation.
He did not ask for more money from Congress. So I guess, the 25% of adjudicators will still be running security checks and FPs and uncovering sleeper cells. The latest maybe coming from Ashcroft so they have to check the "right applicants". Yes, he should have some kind of a Security Clearance, like the adjudicators.
His mention of "low risk" applicants opens a new door officially: Profiling in immigration.

I do not really care about his background. All I care about is whether he delivers.

 

[gcinfo1971]

Actually, the math is little different:

lets say - two applications with waiting times 9 and 6 months and 8 apps below six months

avg wait time is : (9+6)/10 ( USCIS doesn't consider 8 apps are waiting as they are under normal processing time).

if app with 9 months is processed - as a result 1 app in 8 may become waiting : so avg wait time: (9+6+6)/10

--no of apps still 10 even one approved. why?
-- even in your example - it would be (9+6)/3 not (9+6)/2 -why?

The best thing about this forum is someone always thinks of things other haven't and so many aspects of each subject are covered.

You bring up an interesting point, and I believe I am missing something here. The way see it, processing more recent cases should increase the average wait time not decrease it. Say one person has been waiting 9 months, another 6 months and a third one 3 months. So the average wait time should be (9 + 6 + 3)/3 = 6 months. Now if they approve the third person's application, the average waiting time increases to (9+6)/2 = 7.5 months. So what am I missing here? Can you explain how you arrived at your conclusion?

 

[Dadagiri]

dont bitch about this process. whosover said people applied in last 2 years are unlucky is wrong. I thing we are very lucky to apply. Last 2 years the LC process and I-140 approvals are diffcult . Whosover got to 485 stage should consider themselves very lucky considering the scenario in US.
I am positive about the steps taken recently. They are atlast thinking in the right direction

 

[dsatish]

The best thing about this forum is someone always thinks of things other haven't and so many aspects of each subject are covered.

You bring up an interesting point, and I believe I am missing something here. The way see it, processing more recent cases should increase the average wait time not decrease it. Say one person has been waiting 9 months, another 6 months and a third one 3 months. So the average wait time should be (9 + 6 + 3)/3 = 6 months. Now if they approve the third person's application, the average waiting time increases to (9+6)/2 = 7.5 months. So what am I missing here? Can you explain how you arrived at your conclusion?

your own math explains what i have said. In your example, if you include the one with 3 months wait time, the average time has come down to 6 months instead of 7.5 months when you exclude the 3 month old app. Actually we are not sure about how they are calculating these average cycle times. If it is the average wait time of the cases approved, then the figures will be helped by approving recent cases. If the calculation is based on average wait time of backlogged cases (waiting for more than 6 months and still not approved), then it would help them better to approve older cases. I hope the later interpretation is correct and they try to approve the older cases first.

 

[cinta]

Relation

I do not really care about his background. All I care about is whether he delivers.

The two are related, buddy to me. Whether you see the connection is another story.
The background of an official tells somebody whether, how and when he will deliver if he does. If you ask him, he is telling the world and Congress that he is indeed delivering. There is a difference of perception here. I am sure if you ask somebody who got his GC in six months or so (yes, there are cases) he will say he delivered. There were thousands of people with Immigration background to be appointed for this position, but it did not happen.
No wonder he could not tell what an I-485 was in a recent Indian PAC meeting. That is why he never mentions the failures and the reality of the backlogs.
1: No money asked from Congress. He's got enough.
2: Captured a murderer and a sexual predator, through all the Security Clearances. The country is full of them and they are NOT I-485 applicants.
3: National customer phone line. Disaster realised. Changes by the end of the fiscal year.
4: Subcontracting Immigration officers' jobs. Congress intervenes.
5: Weekly, monthly memos on regulations. Proof of a disarray. From concurrent processing to pilots..
6: Finger prints disaster. Realised, attempts to finally store the FPs somewhere.

Bottom line is that he' got no real mandate to lead the agency. He is at the mercy of the Enforcement arm of DHS. I really doubt that he will ever deliver.