New Processing Dates

I still can't see May 15. I guess it'll be permanently up by tomorrow.

While D.C. may be showing Jan. 28, they've been sending out ILs to late March applicants. I guess that somewhat supports the possibility that the listed dates are those that have already had the interview.
 
Clear Your Brower's Cache

yummyk said:
When I checked the website, it is still showing the April 15th updates. Is there a trick to this that I don't know about?

NYC looks like it is doing well, and making up for lost time. They are now almost caught up to where they supposedly were on February 15th!
Click to expand...

For those of you who are unable to view the updates, you need to clear your web browsers cache. Some times the web browsers retain the old information and check cached files of the web site before going out and looking for new material. Try that and see what happens.
 
You might need to restart your browser too. In Firefox clearing the cache and all .gov cookies did not work for me while I was still running the browser. Running a different Firefox session did work.
 
Now I see it in one of my browsers. I am not looking at N-400 I am looking at N-600 in San Jose and the news couldn't be more dismal. Processing time has gone from May 10, 2007 (in the April 15 report) to January 19, 2007 in the May 15 report. This is the second retrogression I've seen on N-600 in San Jose since the fees went up and the number of applications increased. That's so frustrating.
 
What I would like to know is if the USCIS " up to 13-15 months" processing time frame for cases filed after June 1 2007 takes into consideration the name check backlog cases that are supposedly being cleared and slowly making it into the pipeline.
 
I can see May 15 now. Incidentally, the variance has nothing to do with your browser cache, but something to do with the way USCIS updates these dates on their website. The same thing happened last month the day the dates went up. Bobsmyth's theory that it has to do with slow server replication makes sense. We all know how high-tech USCIS is.
 
hmm... what do you think - should i sort new dates by dates or just leave the previous retrogressed order? i guess i try doing both ))) first usual by dates, then may be extended one
 
Thanks so much Feliz!

One interesting thing about the new dates - even though the retrogression seems to be over and they've returned to dates close to the pre-retrogression ones, they seem to have abandoned the previous practice of standardized (target-based / 30 day increments) dates.

I still think the dates are meaningless, but I'm curious to know exactly how they calculate them.
 
nyc_naturalizer said:
,...

I still think the dates are meaningless, but I'm curious to know exactly how they calculate them.
Click to expand...
I agree as every time I call USCIS asking if my interview letter was sent they refer to the posted dates saying that DO is currently processing xxx date. Since interviews are by no means an indication of completed applications, why do IOs refer to processing dates that are supposed to indicate completed applications (ie:eek:ath done) when trying to justify that an interview letter hasn't been sent? Interviews and oath can be separated by as little as same day or several months. IOs always try to come up with some type of explanation or defense, eventhough it does not make sense.
 
nyc_naturalizer said:
I can see May 15 now. Incidentally, the variance has nothing to do with your browser cache, but something to do with the way USCIS updates these dates on their website. The same thing happened last month the day the dates went up. Bobsmyth's theory that it has to do with slow server replication makes sense. We all know how high-tech USCIS is.
Click to expand...

It just so happens that the time elapsed between July 16, 2007 and May 15, 2008 (NYC update) is 10 months. Doesn't it seem a little bit strange that it perfectly matches their projected processing timeframe?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top