wantgcasap
Registered Users (C)
Is That True As We R Seeing Many August'03 485 Approvals
Looks like VSC is processing AUG'03 485 cases?
- Thread starter wantgcasap
- Start date
wantgcasap said:
August, September and October 2003 have all seen increased activity over the last week, along with an uptick in 2004 approvals.
Check the tracker (http://immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?p=985648#post985648) or the scanning thread at http://www.immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?p=985553#post985553 for more information (I'll be scanning 08/25/03 and 10/23/03 cases at the end of the week and nemessis should be doing an update of his scan by next week).
Other useful sites for getting an idea of approval activity (apart from the I-485 forum) include rupnet (http://www.rupnet.net/immigration/reports/approvaltrack.asp?place=100&predefined=1&mplace=1 -- 2 August approvals yesterday, both of which are also in the 2003 tracker tho
) and www.immigrationwatch.com, although they haven't updated their stats recently and I'm once again starting to question their data (see my post here: http://www.immigrationfocus.com/forum/thread.jsp?tid=110175956037&fid=f28).ETA
wantgcasap
Registered Users (C)
I have not seen many Oct'03 cases, mine is also filed in Oct
wantgcasap
Registered Users (C)
Thank you for the info. Please post the scanning results for Sep - Oct whenever you get a chance.
I have not seen many Oct'03 cases, mine is also filed in Oct
I have not seen many Oct'03 cases, mine is also filed in Oct
ETA-GC said:August, September and October 2003 have all seen increased activity over the last week, along with an uptick in 2004 approvals.
Check the tracker (http://immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?p=985648#post985648) or the scanning thread at http://www.immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?p=985553#post985553 for more information (I'll be scanning 08/25/03 and 10/23/03 cases at the end of the week and nemessis should be doing an update of his scan by next week).
Other useful sites for getting an idea of approval activity (apart from the I-485 forum) include rupnet (http://www.rupnet.net/immigration/reports/approvaltrack.asp?place=100&predefined=1&mplace=1 -- 2 August approvals yesterday, both of which are also in the 2003 tracker tho
ETA
That immigrationwatch is notoriously unreliable has been pretty obvious for a while. The ratio of transferred-to-approved cases that they give is a sheer nonsense, as well as their estimate of the completion of my case (some time in 2007).
timaeuti said:
They recently (about 2-3 weeks ago) seemed to update their stats so for a while they seemed to be pretty useful.
What is it about the transferred-approved ratio that you find is nonsense? From what I can tell, they seem to be about in line with what we've been seeing with the sampling scanning (up to 50% or more of cases being transferred, probably mostly non-employment based).
Their estimates on the other hand have always been way off...
ETA
ETA-GC said:
1. The transfer-to-approved ratio for employment-based cases is clearly not what we observe in this forum, where transferred cases are an exception rather than a usual thing. In addition, I find it hard to believe that less than half of Jan.-Apr. 2002 cases, and approximately a quarter of Oct.-Dec. 2002 cases, have been approved.
2. I am not sure what you mean by non-employment based cases. As far as I know, Vermont does not adjudicate nonemployment-based I-485s. I was told so by people who work on non-employment based I-485s (refugees, etc.). The fact that there is no non-employment based I-485 item in Vermont procesing times reports seems to confirm what these people told me.
https://egov.immigration.gov/cris/jsps/Processtimes.jsp?SeviceCenter=Vermont
According to them, all non-employment based cases go to Nebraska, and Nebraska processing time reports seem to confirm that.
https://egov.immigration.gov/cris/jsps/Processtimes.jsp?SeviceCenter=Nebraska
timaeuti said:
Agreed, but I see the same ratio in the scans that we've done on our own (http://boards.immigration.com/showthread.php?p=985989#post985989) so I don't think the numbers are wrong.
The question is: why aren't we seeing as many transfers on this forum / in the various trackers. There are some, but I would guess that these are < 2% so far, at least in the 2003 tracker...
timaeuti said:
Again, we see the same ratios if we scan the cases ourselves (check the scans that nemessis has done for example). If we accept that 40-50% of cases are being transferred then it makes sense that we're going to see at most 60-50% of cases approved. Also, there always seems to be some cases which never get transferred or approved, even going back to 2001 probably due to "abandoned" cases I would assume (e.g. husband got GC through wife or other means and stopped responding to his separately filed I-485).
timaeuti said:
In order to explain the above observation, I was speculating that it must be non-employment based cases which are getting transferred since the majority of the cases here / in the trackers are employment based as far as I know (and we aren't seeing as many transfers among these cases). That mostly leaves family-based, refuge cases I guess...
This speculation would appear to be wrong if you are correct that non-employment based applications don't even go through the VSC.
So the question remains: what are all these transfers that we're seeing if we scan for I-485's...? Maybe these are all nurses and for some reason nurses don't tend to post their info here
?ETA
Last edited by a moderator:
ETA-GC said:
I went ahead and did a mid-week scan of the 08/25/03 cases. Buckets of activity in the last 7 days: 16 (!) approvals...
http://boards.immigration.com/showthread.php?p=986799#post986799
ETA
ETA-GC said:
Well, I decided to check it out myself by scanning 40 cases with 8/8/03 ND, which also happens to be my ND. Here's what I got, and how it compares to the immigrationwatch (IW) data for the month of August, 2003.
TOTAL – 40 cases
Approved – 8 (20%) -- IW 3.6%
Transfer – 5 (12.5%) -- IW 22.1%
FP received resumed – 12 (30 %) -- IW 31.8 %
RFE received resumed – 1 (2.5%) -- IW 1.1%
Received – 11 (27.5 %) -- IW 37.5%
Responded to request for more information -- 1 (2.5%)
Reopened – 1 (2.5%)
Status not found – 1 (2.5%)
These four categories go at IW at others and stand at 3.1%. In my scan they are at 7.5%.
Granted, I did a one day sample, while IW shows data for the whole month.
Still, the data I got is so much more in line with what we see at the forum that, IMHO, it is a lot more reliable than IW outlandish statistics.
There is another question creeping up as one looks at IW numbers. One can suppose that, after a successful interview, one's online status changes from "transferred" to "approved". If this assumption is correct, as it most likely is such, then, according to IW, 40% of 2002 applicants are still waiting for an interview, which I find awfully hard to believe.
timaeuti said:
Check the scan that nemessis did in post #171 here (http://www.immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?t=125115&page=12&pp=15).
This is a much more statistically significant sample (he's tracking over 20,000 cases in all) and it shows pretty much exactly what immigrationwatch.com is showing (both sets of data are about equally out of date at this point).
timaeuti said:
I don't think those ever get updated, although I've seen one case cycle between "transferred" and "FP recvd" a couple times for some reason. I'm pretty sure that once the case is transferred out of the regional center, it's status will forever remain as "transferred". I would guess that many of those 2002 transfers have had their interviews by now (at one point the 2001 stats were available and those also showed pretty high transfer numbers which never went down). Also, if you look at nemessis' earlier stats (the ones where he posted the "diff" with the previous stats), you'll see that the number of cases transferred pretty much only ever increases.
Interestingly, even rupnet.com shows stats which are similar to IW and the nemessis scans. I thought those were based on people who entered their case information just like here so I don't know why so many more of those cases appear to have been transferred...
I'm still not sure what is special about the cases from this site...
ETA
Another interesting observation...
The most recent scan for 08/26/03 that nemessis did shows 64/391 cases were transferred (16.37%) whereas my scan for 08/25/03 shows only 5/189 cases were transferred (2.65%). And my scan is more recent by a couple of weeks -- the % transfers for the 08/26/03 cases is probably quite a bit higher at this point...
So what could explain this...?
Nemessis probably has most / all of the cases for 08/26/03. I stopped when I reached about 200 cases and most of them are in the range of EAC0323951000 - EAC0323953961. I wonder if nemessis has many cases outside of this range and maybe certain types of cases (those which for some unknown reason tend to be transferred much more often) are given numbers in that range?
Nemessis: is it possible to tell if the majority of your transfers for 08/26/03 fall outside of the range of cases that I'm looking at?
FWIW though, from this thread (http://www.immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?t=153065) there were a bunch of consecutive transferred cases all within the 52107 to 52279 range which overlaps with the one I'm looking at. Might just be a random abberation...
Definitely a mystery at this point...
ETA
The most recent scan for 08/26/03 that nemessis did shows 64/391 cases were transferred (16.37%) whereas my scan for 08/25/03 shows only 5/189 cases were transferred (2.65%). And my scan is more recent by a couple of weeks -- the % transfers for the 08/26/03 cases is probably quite a bit higher at this point...
So what could explain this...?
Nemessis probably has most / all of the cases for 08/26/03. I stopped when I reached about 200 cases and most of them are in the range of EAC0323951000 - EAC0323953961. I wonder if nemessis has many cases outside of this range and maybe certain types of cases (those which for some unknown reason tend to be transferred much more often) are given numbers in that range?
Nemessis: is it possible to tell if the majority of your transfers for 08/26/03 fall outside of the range of cases that I'm looking at?
FWIW though, from this thread (http://www.immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?t=153065) there were a bunch of consecutive transferred cases all within the 52107 to 52279 range which overlaps with the one I'm looking at. Might just be a random abberation...
Definitely a mystery at this point...
ETA
Last edited by a moderator:
Here is an old scan that I have at home (only 61 transfers), the most updated I have it at work but this should be significant enough for your theories:
data for 8/26/2003:
EAC# transfers
1-500 2
500-1000 4
1000-1500 12
1500-2000 11
2000-2500 4
2500-3000 6
3000-3500 6
3500-4000 2
4000-4500 4
4500-5000 6
5000-5500 3
5500-6000 0
6000-6500 1
6500-7000 0
7000-7323 0
data for 8/26/2003:
EAC# transfers
1-500 2
500-1000 4
1000-1500 12
1500-2000 11
2000-2500 4
2500-3000 6
3000-3500 6
3500-4000 2
4000-4500 4
4500-5000 6
5000-5500 3
5500-6000 0
6000-6500 1
6500-7000 0
7000-7323 0
ETA-GC said:
nemessis said:
Now I'm more confused than ever since you just shot a hole in my only remaining theory.
Your scan above shows a high rate of transfers *and* the transfers are spread throughout the possible range for case #'s. Your other scans and the IW statistics show similarly high numbers of transfers.
Per the above, my scan of 189 cases from 08/25/03 (last updated yesterday) shows only 5 transfers (2.65%). And, the entire 2003 tracker (440 cases last time I checked) at http://immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?p=988335#post988335 has only 7 transfers (1.6%).
I believe that both sets of stats are accurate (for when they were done) but I'm at a complete loss as to why we are seeing this discrepancy.
ETA
Last edited by a moderator:
Let me explain you my theory then:
I think the cases are sorted by ND, and different adjudiciators are assigned for a specific day. If that day is one of the day I sampled will show activity, if not ... bad luck. The priority of assigning adjudiciators may depend of the number of total cases filled in that day, probably when they see a day with > 7000 applic (like 8/26/2003) they assign somebody to that day as a priority ... fortunately the ND was ending in a multiple of 5 and I included it in my scans. There are days back in Feb-April 2003 that didn't show same activity compared with the neighbouring dates ...
Another thing: how many of you introduced in our tracker theirs spouses and children? Because for June-Aug I'm scanning every day to monitor the progress of the main wave and I notice that when an approval/transfer happens, sometimes up to 5-6 neighbouring cases change in the same way, being approved or transferred in the same day to the same location. I assume then that they are the spouses/kids whatever ... it will show in my scan as 6-7 transfers, but in the 2003 tracker as 1 transfer. So which scan should you follow? Neither shows exactly what's going on, both are just approximations. The only good info was the one sbctsublc was posting, but with the reducing of the nr of cases scanned to max 200, that's impossible now. My scans are biased by sampling, the 2003 tracker is biased by the fact that there are only ppl with Internet access, who work in IT probably and not that many 245 cases like the ones that were at Labor Depart in 2002 when my applic got stuck for 18 months: thousands of gardners, janitors etc. Also check the "Transfers to the local office" thread ... how many of the ppl there are in the 2003 tracker?
So there are several sources indicating that the ratio of transfers:approvals is almost constantly 2:1, but still there are gurus here scanning 40 cases once in a month and question my scans ... that's OK, in order to verify the validity of my data and acuse me after that of faking the data, I think it's much easier to scan one of my dates and see if you get the same results ... so ETA-GC why don't you scan 8/26/2003 to make sure that it's impposible to have so many transfers ... I don't know why I'm doing this, I'm pretty happy with the info I get by my scans, I don't feel I get any new info from all the approvals/transfers reported here, I already see thar there are some cases even in Sept that are approved, but a minority ... and I won't feel the need anymore to explain my scans since there are so many gurus who know better everything that happens. It usually takes me 2 days to do the update, now when there is the full 2003 years in the database. Anyway this is my last post here ... I wish you good luck and speedy approvals.
I think the cases are sorted by ND, and different adjudiciators are assigned for a specific day. If that day is one of the day I sampled will show activity, if not ... bad luck. The priority of assigning adjudiciators may depend of the number of total cases filled in that day, probably when they see a day with > 7000 applic (like 8/26/2003) they assign somebody to that day as a priority ... fortunately the ND was ending in a multiple of 5 and I included it in my scans. There are days back in Feb-April 2003 that didn't show same activity compared with the neighbouring dates ...
Another thing: how many of you introduced in our tracker theirs spouses and children? Because for June-Aug I'm scanning every day to monitor the progress of the main wave and I notice that when an approval/transfer happens, sometimes up to 5-6 neighbouring cases change in the same way, being approved or transferred in the same day to the same location. I assume then that they are the spouses/kids whatever ... it will show in my scan as 6-7 transfers, but in the 2003 tracker as 1 transfer. So which scan should you follow? Neither shows exactly what's going on, both are just approximations. The only good info was the one sbctsublc was posting, but with the reducing of the nr of cases scanned to max 200, that's impossible now. My scans are biased by sampling, the 2003 tracker is biased by the fact that there are only ppl with Internet access, who work in IT probably and not that many 245 cases like the ones that were at Labor Depart in 2002 when my applic got stuck for 18 months: thousands of gardners, janitors etc. Also check the "Transfers to the local office" thread ... how many of the ppl there are in the 2003 tracker?
So there are several sources indicating that the ratio of transfers:approvals is almost constantly 2:1, but still there are gurus here scanning 40 cases once in a month and question my scans ... that's OK, in order to verify the validity of my data and acuse me after that of faking the data, I think it's much easier to scan one of my dates and see if you get the same results ... so ETA-GC why don't you scan 8/26/2003 to make sure that it's impposible to have so many transfers ... I don't know why I'm doing this, I'm pretty happy with the info I get by my scans, I don't feel I get any new info from all the approvals/transfers reported here, I already see thar there are some cases even in Sept that are approved, but a minority ... and I won't feel the need anymore to explain my scans since there are so many gurus who know better everything that happens. It usually takes me 2 days to do the update, now when there is the full 2003 years in the database. Anyway this is my last post here ... I wish you good luck and speedy approvals.
ETA-GC said:
nemessis said:
If you are referring to me, then
1. I never questioned your scans, and I still do not.
2. I never accused you of faking the data, and I still do not. Your data simply did not enter my mind when I made my point.
3. The discrepancy pointed out by ETA, as well as the obvious disparity in regard to the transfer-to-approval ratio between the IW data (and yours for that matter), on the one hand, and what we actually see in this forum, on the other, still remain unexplained.
And, by the way, if your scan shows abount 16% of cases as transferred, then it is actually pretty close to what I got by sampling 40 cases (12.5%). In fact, it is close to the results of my sample than to IW data (22.1%).
You are certainly entitled not to post on this thread anymore if you do not wish to do so.
You are certainly entitled not to post on this thread anymore if you do not wish to do so.
nemessis said:
Presumably my 08/25/03 and 10/23/03 scans included families since I didn't do anything special to filter these out. The tracker has some spouses. But, unless derivative applicants tend to be transferred more than others (?) this wouldn't affect the ratios.
Yes, I think the best approach is just to look at all the various scans and trackers and take all of these into account.
Whoa!? Where did this come from? Nobody suggested that anyone was faking their data -- why would you think this? You said something about this in your earlier PM to me and I assumed you were joking
.The main reason I brought up your stats earlier in this thread is because I thought these *confirm* the data that immigrationwatch is posting to some extent.
The discrepancy in the numbers of transfers is interesting, and I'm sure there is a reason for this (not that it really matters anyway), but nobody has suggested that the numbers themselves are wrong (let alone *faked*).
Your stats are probably the single best source that we have for figuring out what the VSC is up to and everyone appreciates the effort that has gone into these...
Anyway, given that all my other theories have been shot down my best guess at this point is that the discepencies between the various scans are just random. It's *possible* that the reason the trackers don't show high #'s of transfers is because families aren't included but this would imply that many family members tend to get transferred while the primary doesn't and I haven't seen any indication of that.
ETA