New processing dates
- Thread starter TheyStink
- Start date
Thank you for letting us know.
Select you DO:
https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/jsps/ptimes.jsp
This is crazy, San Diego went back 20 days. June 30, 2007?
Select you DO:
https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/jsps/ptimes.jsp
This is crazy, San Diego went back 20 days. June 30, 2007?
Last edited by a moderator:
seattleliter
Registered Users (C)
Change of wording?
The wording seems to have changed a little bit, didn't it? I don't remember seeing this before
"The processing times shown below are for applications that have just been completed"
And this might explain why processing dates for some DOs went back.
The wording seems to have changed a little bit, didn't it? I don't remember seeing this before
"The processing times shown below are for applications that have just been completed"
And this might explain why processing dates for some DOs went back.
San Jose dates are tracking oaths.
seattleliter is right.
But we have not seen USCIS to climb up that big pile of documents for end of July yet.
It is still a scary period of time.
In San Diego, people who applied end of July are having Interview these day so I should say that June 30 completion day in San Diego might be correct.
But we have not seen USCIS to climb up that big pile of documents for end of July yet.
It is still a scary period of time.
In San Diego, people who applied end of July are having Interview these day so I should say that June 30 completion day in San Diego might be correct.
The delay in publishing these dates had to be because they were double, triple checking to be on the safe side. These look like ultra-conservative dates. USCIS is trying to lower everyone's expectations in this fashion, so as to insulate themselves.
They can hover around June/July 2007 for a few months, and point to the application surge to defend themselves in case of criticism.
OY
They can hover around June/July 2007 for a few months, and point to the application surge to defend themselves in case of criticism.
OY
i really hope you are right and they decided to (or were forced to) use actual oath progress instead of interview letter sending dates.
if it's true - then April 11,07 reported on March 15, 08 makes sense - there were only 2 oath days in March for LA - March 6 for 75 people and March 20 for 1 200 people, and the person who had actual oath on March 20 has priority date April 7, 07
also it's within my initial estimate of 11 months total for April-May 07, later on (unless things really speed up with all latest news) it will become 12 up to 13 month total for end of july (i.e. July 07 having oath in Aug 08), but then it will gradually drop back to 10 month for December 07, and then to initial 7 months by like April 09.
nyc_naturalizer
Registered Users (C)
I think this may be the correct explanation. Some of us have been speculating that the delay in releasing the update was on account of the numbers requested by the Senate Judiciary Committee. The timing of the update confirms this (the letter from Kennedy, Schumer and Leahy had asked for the numbers by March 28, in advance of next Wednesday's hearing).
Agreed 100%. This is quite obviously a move intended to save what's left of their face. However, the dates still seem standardized, as quite a few DOs are reporting June 30th. I hope that the Judiciary Committee decides to initiate a formal investigation into the practices of USCIS.
nyc_naturalizer
Registered Users (C)
Agreed 100%. This is quite obviously a move intended to save what's left of their face. However, the dates still seem standardized, as quite a few DOs are reporting June 30th. I hope that the Judiciary Committee decides to initiate a formal investigation into the practices of USCIS.
The more I look at these date, the more I realize that this is the most F%@$'d up set of dates they've ever published. You're right, most DOs are standardized. This used to be explicable by the "target timeframes," but this is the first time that they've published standardized dates that weren't a multiple of 30 days from the update date (it's 259 days this time, rather than 210 like the last several updates).
Some are speculating that they're tracking oath dates rather than interviews/approvals, but that doesn't make sense, because they don't have oath "targets" - oath practices vary too widely from DO to DO.
I haven't seen a full list yet of the new dates (Feliz? You're always so good about this
), but I've looked at quite a few, and it seems as though all of those that previously had standardized dates still do. Several that didn't previously have standardized dates are also reporting June 30. But from what I see, all the DOs that currently have a date other than June 30 also had a date earlier than July 20 in the February update. It seemed that this meant they were using actual PDs instead of targets for these. But with the new updates, inexplicably, some of these have moved forward and some have moved backward.Chaos.
The more I look at these date, the more I realize that this is the most F%@$'d up set of dates they've ever published. You're right, most DOs are standardized. This used to be explicable by the "target timeframes," but this is the first time that they've published standardized dates that weren't a multiple of 30 days from the update date (it's 259 days this time, rather than 210 like the last several updates).
Some are speculating that they're tracking oath dates rather than interviews/approvals, but that doesn't make sense, because they don't have oath "targets" - oath practices vary too widely from DO to DO.
I haven't seen a full list yet of the new dates (Feliz? You're always so good about this
Chaos.
It's a definite possibility that they are now reporting PDs that have already HAD their interviews, instead of PDs for which ILs have been sent out. Bottom line is, we can speculate all we want, but there's no sure-fire way to accurately predict anything to that has to do with the USCIS. I wouldn't be surprised if the dates retrogressed even more with the next update. Also, the current 259 days that they are reporting are equal to exactly 8.5 months. Another conveniently rounded number, by any chance?
nyc_naturalizer
Registered Users (C)
Quite possible. The senate letter asks for numbers on "completed" applications, the usual meaning of which is approved/denied (rather than scheduled, or oath taken).
I don't think so. From what I've seen, USCIS always defines a "month" as exactly 30 days, so 8.5 months would be 255 days. And I've never seen them round numbers to half a month. 30 days seems to be the smallest unit of time in their universe.
Bear in mind that "March 15" is a bogus date for the update anyway, and has nothing to do with the numbers they're submitting to congress. The website update actually came on line March 27, and if they submitted numbers to congress that say "effective March 26," then June 30 would actually amount to 270 days - exactly 8 months by the 30 day definition (the charts provided by the senators, attached to their letter, also ask for estimates in 30 day intervals).
True. If they can't accurately predict what they do, how can we?
Yes Feliz-LA, we had a similar trend in San Jose around Mar'15th, for which the processing date is publoished as May8th
1. applicants from late April and early May had received letters for oath on Mar'20th
2. some applicants from April and remaining may applicants were scheduled for oath on April'24 (but had not received letters yet), as per INFOPASS reports
3. late June applicants were being interviewed
4. late July applicants were receiving interview letters
The same trend was observed for dates published on Feb15th.
This may vary from DO to DO, but San Jose has been tracking oath dates.
Last edited by a moderator:
Actually, 270 days is 9 months.
On the other hand, I didn't even think to start counting the days from March 26th. The more we discuss this, the more obvious it becomes that USCIS is cooking numbers to more closely resemble the 14-16 months that they are predicting. I wouldn't be surprised if the next update moved by a week or so, until it progressively stretched to 14-16 months. My theory is that they are hedging themselves against the possibility of negative repercussions from Congress, as well as an influx of service inquiries from applicants with retrogressed PDs.
nyc_naturalizer
Registered Users (C)
Actually, 270 days is 9 months.
Oops my bad.
Apparently USCIS are not the only ones with math problems.I've also always suspected that the DOs have a bit of autonomy in determining these dates, so they could mean quite different things from DO to DO. Amicus's and Feliz's conclusions about their own DOs seem to indicate this.
It seems those processing dates on the USCIS website are either interview dates or oath dates (could mean "completed dates")
In fact, my friend and his wife filed their N-400 applications on May 31, 2007 (Note date is June 5, 2007 for both him and his wife). They completed their citizenship interview in Baltimore, MD on Feb 7, 2008. They got their oath and received their US citizenship certificates on the same day of the interview. Their intervew went very smooth. so it took 7-8 months for Maryland applicants.
In fact, my friend and his wife filed their N-400 applications on May 31, 2007 (Note date is June 5, 2007 for both him and his wife). They completed their citizenship interview in Baltimore, MD on Feb 7, 2008. They got their oath and received their US citizenship certificates on the same day of the interview. Their intervew went very smooth. so it took 7-8 months for Maryland applicants.
Agreed 100%. This is quite obviously a move intended to save what's left of their face. However, the dates still seem standardized, as quite a few DOs are reporting June 30th. I hope that the Judiciary Committee decides to initiate a formal investigation into the practices of USCIS.
Yes, I believe this dates ARE ultra conservative. I have a friend who applied in November through the VSC and has been scheduled for an interview in NYC in May. Also, someone who applied in June has passed and has had her interview on Feb 27th in Garden City, NY.