Can the CSC be purposely adjudicating some people faster than others in connection with the class action litigation? From how the CSC adjudicates, we have all observed that some people get adjudicated earlier before the JIT and some people, far behind the JIT . Why would they act in such obvious unfair fashion? Could they be purposely adjudicating some petitions out of order? In the class action litigation, the government argued that each I-485 was different so there was no common backlog trend, consequently, the lawsuit was not appropriate for class action certification. Immigrationportal argued that that the adjudication may be different at the I-140 stage because there were various EB categories but not at the I-485 stage because EB categories does not matter at the I-485 stage. They are in discovery to figure this out. It seems to me that CSC and all other service centers have the incentive to create evidence that there is no general backlog, but only individual case-by-case backlog.
Hypothesis- Explaining why some people get adjudicated early and late
- Thread starter Mayfly
- Start date
I agree that the lawsuit is one of the reasons they are speeding up approvals.
There are however other things to consider - the approval rate that we see now is appropriate for times when there's no backlog. This is just a normal approval rate, as opposed to almost no approvals during 2003.
2003 was a really bad year, supposedly because CIS "officers" were revisiting all recently approved cases, looking for potentioal terrorists. I am not saying that that's what they were doing, it's just one of the reasons that are bouncing around as for why 2003 was so slow. There were Haitian refugees, religious workers, special registration, etc... tons of reasons given to public for CSC slowness.
So what we see now is just normal proecssing, with a caviat - cases are not being processed in chronological order but more based on FP expiration, pilot program and/or CSC director's wishful thinking that as long as JIT is moved, it does not matter how many approvals there are. At the end of fiscal 2004, in October, Mr Neufeld will claim that JIT moved by a year in one year. Some smart guy, eh?
There are however other things to consider - the approval rate that we see now is appropriate for times when there's no backlog. This is just a normal approval rate, as opposed to almost no approvals during 2003.
2003 was a really bad year, supposedly because CIS "officers" were revisiting all recently approved cases, looking for potentioal terrorists. I am not saying that that's what they were doing, it's just one of the reasons that are bouncing around as for why 2003 was so slow. There were Haitian refugees, religious workers, special registration, etc... tons of reasons given to public for CSC slowness.
So what we see now is just normal proecssing, with a caviat - cases are not being processed in chronological order but more based on FP expiration, pilot program and/or CSC director's wishful thinking that as long as JIT is moved, it does not matter how many approvals there are. At the end of fiscal 2004, in October, Mr Neufeld will claim that JIT moved by a year in one year. Some smart guy, eh?
JIT manipulation?
Do you think that there is a manipulation of Just-In-Time (JIT) report? To my understanding JIT is based on the physical files assigned to adjudication officers and taken away from the JIT shelf. Thus, JIT is not completely accurate processing time because it can just mean that the files are stacked up on the adjudication officers’ desks rather than the shelf. If they want to manipulate the JIT, they can employ or reassign adjudication officers to I-485 processing, so that more files will on their desks taken away from JIT shelf and JIT would then move.
Do you think that there is a manipulation of Just-In-Time (JIT) report? To my understanding JIT is based on the physical files assigned to adjudication officers and taken away from the JIT shelf. Thus, JIT is not completely accurate processing time because it can just mean that the files are stacked up on the adjudication officers’ desks rather than the shelf. If they want to manipulate the JIT, they can employ or reassign adjudication officers to I-485 processing, so that more files will on their desks taken away from JIT shelf and JIT would then move.
fine&jadwin
Registered Users (C)
I do not believe in the conspiracy theories. USCIS is terribly unefficient, but I strongly doubt that they would do such things. I remember that long long ago when I just started the whole process I was told that it took 3 months from FP to approval
(2000-2001). In other words FP was done at the end of the process, but even then INS needed 3 months (after FP) to adjudicate the case.
I do think that they touched almost all cases till May 15 (whatever that touch means). The problem is that we know very little about how USCIS kitchen works (and my guess is that it works not very efficiently) to draw reasonable conclusions.
I think that it would be helpful if the guys with long pending cases (Jan- April 2002) would contact FBI and ask about the status of their name check. If we see that most of their cases are still undergoing name checks perhaps we will see a reason for such long wait. For example one guy who posted yesterday on this forum was told by FBI that they are still looking at his file (since mid April).
(2000-2001). In other words FP was done at the end of the process, but even then INS needed 3 months (after FP) to adjudicate the case.
I do think that they touched almost all cases till May 15 (whatever that touch means). The problem is that we know very little about how USCIS kitchen works (and my guess is that it works not very efficiently) to draw reasonable conclusions.
I think that it would be helpful if the guys with long pending cases (Jan- April 2002) would contact FBI and ask about the status of their name check. If we see that most of their cases are still undergoing name checks perhaps we will see a reason for such long wait. For example one guy who posted yesterday on this forum was told by FBI that they are still looking at his file (since mid April).
fine&jadwin
Registered Users (C)
I also doubt that the lawsuit has a lot to do with the faster speed of approvals.
USCIS claimed several times that after a certain date they will start concentrate on I-485. It was not true on several occasions. But last time when they claimed so (Octcober-November 2003) they promised to speed up things in April 2004...
They had to keep thir word at least once.
USCIS claimed several times that after a certain date they will start concentrate on I-485. It was not true on several occasions. But last time when they claimed so (Octcober-November 2003) they promised to speed up things in April 2004...
They had to keep thir word at least once.
cal_aos_waiting
Registered Users (C)
I generally agree with your suggestion on CSC's strategy.
However, I also wonder if there are additional name & security checks that they have to do (apart from the 2nd FP) once they pick the case after 2 or so years. This could further disrupt the approval queue.
However, I also wonder if there are additional name & security checks that they have to do (apart from the 2nd FP) once they pick the case after 2 or so years. This could further disrupt the approval queue.
FairIsFair
Registered Users (C)
Won't it be nice if CSC would tell us excatly what the process is so we can all stop speculating?
Only when IIO told you your file are in name check, then it is; otherwise it is somewhere in the limbo; most likely on shelf or left in the hundred files pile on someone's desk.
The most interesting fact against name check delay thoery is, very often we heard CSC issue approval or RFE or FP notice right after someone's inquiry, either through lawyer or senator/congressman; that means these cases are not in name check and is just sitting. Only in very few cases it comes back as in name check.
The most interesting fact against name check delay thoery is, very often we heard CSC issue approval or RFE or FP notice right after someone's inquiry, either through lawyer or senator/congressman; that means these cases are not in name check and is just sitting. Only in very few cases it comes back as in name check.
fine&jadwin said:
From what I observed, it may not qualify as conspiracy, but does resemble common beauratic strategy. Don't they know more than half of older cases haven't be adjudicated? of cause they do. Compare the approval rate of Feb 2002 in normal processing and Oct 2002 in pilot program, the later one is much higher; I don't believe there is an uneven distribution of percentage of cases that need name check between different month .
fine&jadwin
Registered Users (C)
asdffdsa said:
Really ?
Do you have data to compare Feb 2002 (or say March 2002) and October 2002?
I guess kashmir might have it somewhere... Would you mind to show it to me ?
fine&jadwin
Registered Users (C)
asdffdsa said:
Really ?
Those IIO usually answer in very generic terms...
Myth of FIFO proceesing
According the USCIS Adjudicator’s Field Manual, Section 10.11, there is a general FIFO (First in First out) rule as to processing but also states it may depend on service center policy and commissioner’s fiscal year policy.
But we all know general rule of FIFO is not reality. What is their policy?
According the USCIS Adjudicator’s Field Manual, Section 10.11, there is a general FIFO (First in First out) rule as to processing but also states it may depend on service center policy and commissioner’s fiscal year policy.
But we all know general rule of FIFO is not reality. What is their policy?
Here is the section clipped:
(a) Routine and Expedited Cases. Generally, applications and petitions should be processed in
the order in which they are received by the Service. Exceptions can, and should, be made for a number of different reasons, and sometimes those reasons may appear to conflict with one
another. Reasons for prioritizing certain applications and petitions over others may relate to:
•A statutory requirement, such as the requirement that joint petitions for removal of
conditions under the marriage fraud amendments be interviewed within 90 days of filing
and adjudicated within 90 days of being interviewed (section 216 of the Act), or that L-1
petitions be adjudicated within 30 days of filing (section 214(a)(2)(C) of the Act);
•Service-wide policy pertaining to the type of application or petition being filed, such as a
Commissioner’s fiscal year priority that backlogs in a given type of application or
petition be reduced to a specified level;
•Current events in the homeland of the applicant or beneficiary, such as a natural disaster
or civil war;
•Imminent events which may effect the eligibility of the applicant or petitioner, such as
the termination of a program whose duration is limited by statute or the "ageing out" of a
dependent,
•A need to coordinate actions with other branches of INS, or with other agencies in order
to meet common goals
•To correct an injustice which may have occurred, or to prevent one which may be about
to occur.
(b) Cases Held for Submission of Additional Information. When an application or petition does
not provide sufficient information to make a decision, additional evidence may be requested in
accordance with 8 CFR 103.2(b)(8), and the processing of the case held in abeyance until a
response is received (or the 12 weeks allowed for a response has expired). Upon receipt of the
response (or passage of the allotted time), the case shall be returned to its processing place based
on the original filing date. This will normally make the case ripe for immediate adjudication,
since it had already reached the that point once.
(c) Cases Pending Investigation or Decision Deferred for Other Reasons. When a case is
returned from Investigations, it should be returned to its place chronologically, according to
receipt date, for processing. Cases sent to Investigations should remain on a local call-up system
within Adjudications and reviewed periodically to determine if investigation is still warranted or
if circumstances have changed. Similarly, if a decision on a case is deferred for any other
reason, a call-up system should be maintained locally and the case reviewed to determine if
circumstances have changed sufficiently to warrant final action.
10.11 Order of Processing.Mayfly said:
(a) Routine and Expedited Cases. Generally, applications and petitions should be processed in
the order in which they are received by the Service. Exceptions can, and should, be made for a number of different reasons, and sometimes those reasons may appear to conflict with one
another. Reasons for prioritizing certain applications and petitions over others may relate to:
•A statutory requirement, such as the requirement that joint petitions for removal of
conditions under the marriage fraud amendments be interviewed within 90 days of filing
and adjudicated within 90 days of being interviewed (section 216 of the Act), or that L-1
petitions be adjudicated within 30 days of filing (section 214(a)(2)(C) of the Act);
•Service-wide policy pertaining to the type of application or petition being filed, such as a
Commissioner’s fiscal year priority that backlogs in a given type of application or
petition be reduced to a specified level;
•Current events in the homeland of the applicant or beneficiary, such as a natural disaster
or civil war;
•Imminent events which may effect the eligibility of the applicant or petitioner, such as
the termination of a program whose duration is limited by statute or the "ageing out" of a
dependent,
•A need to coordinate actions with other branches of INS, or with other agencies in order
to meet common goals
•To correct an injustice which may have occurred, or to prevent one which may be about
to occur.
(b) Cases Held for Submission of Additional Information. When an application or petition does
not provide sufficient information to make a decision, additional evidence may be requested in
accordance with 8 CFR 103.2(b)(8), and the processing of the case held in abeyance until a
response is received (or the 12 weeks allowed for a response has expired). Upon receipt of the
response (or passage of the allotted time), the case shall be returned to its processing place based
on the original filing date. This will normally make the case ripe for immediate adjudication,
since it had already reached the that point once.
(c) Cases Pending Investigation or Decision Deferred for Other Reasons. When a case is
returned from Investigations, it should be returned to its place chronologically, according to
receipt date, for processing. Cases sent to Investigations should remain on a local call-up system
within Adjudications and reviewed periodically to determine if investigation is still warranted or
if circumstances have changed. Similarly, if a decision on a case is deferred for any other
reason, a call-up system should be maintained locally and the case reviewed to determine if
circumstances have changed sufficiently to warrant final action.
fine&jadwin said:
You can search the forum if you want to see the scanned statistics. My opinion like I said, as I observed, based on the approval post that comes from pilot program and routine process of older cases. Generally there are one or two cases approved from pilot program daily, compared with 0-1 older case past JIT approved. It may not be as accurate as stats from scanning, but it is first-hand undeniable knowledge.
fine&jadwin said:
Sorry about the wording of only says 'IIO', let's not chew the word and play word game. The intended meaning is only when the information is coming out officially from CSC, from IIO, fax response, message conveyed from your lawyer or local politician, then it can be count as name check; you should not blindly count all cases past JIT as in the process of name check.
There are posts say customer service line are called and were told case is in name check, try search for it I am sure there will be plenty comes up.
fine&jadwin
Registered Users (C)
Sorry, pal,
but your undeniable knowledge without hard data is nothing. I mean, I honestly
(trust me) have an opposite feeling, that most of the approved cases come from Jan-May 2002 range. May case is May 2002, so I am trying to follow this.
Regardless who is correct, let us just admit that USCIS works in misterious (and absolutely unefficient) ways but it got better recently, so here comes some hope.
Good luck.
but your undeniable knowledge without hard data is nothing. I mean, I honestly
(trust me) have an opposite feeling, that most of the approved cases come from Jan-May 2002 range. May case is May 2002, so I am trying to follow this.
Regardless who is correct, let us just admit that USCIS works in misterious (and absolutely unefficient) ways but it got better recently, so here comes some hope.
Good luck.
asdffdsa said: