TRANSFER might be CSC's backlog reduction plan !?

kashmir · Dec 14, 2003

This weekend scan of Project Kashmir was completed last night.
I checked the result quickly this morning.

Here is the number of transfers.

Code:

116 - Sep 2003
168 - Oct 2003
215 - Nov 2003
689 - Dec 2003 as of 12/12/2003

 44 - 1st week of Dec 2003
645 - 2nd week of Dec 2003

kashmir · Dec 14, 2003

detail of transfers in December 2003

Attached.

getmeout · Dec 14, 2003

wiered

It is really wiered. They are transfering WAC02289 series. but not the early ones.

i don't know what is the basis of transfer. i assume transfer is good. atleast local centers are less crowded compare to CSC.

thanks a lot kashmir. great job!

02-157
ND/RD: Apr 10,2002
FP : July 13, 2002

kashmir · Dec 14, 2003

WAC02 I485 status table as of 12/14/2003 HTML - Emergency Edition

I wanted to wait until the release of Project Anaconda,
but this week's situation is emergent,
so I post the report of Project Kashmir for your investigation.
If you find something, please post it.
-kashmir

getmeout · Dec 14, 2003

Analysis

Looks like, Valid FP cases are transfered to local offices.
these cases looks like falling this kind of category

2nd finger prints done recently
Valid first finger print ( less than 15 month)
FP and RFE is done recently
[/list=1]

if you have expired finger print, you might still processed by CSC.
That is the reason you can see either see new cases( 02-287 series) or second FP cases.

But you never know what is their intentions are!

kashmir · Dec 14, 2003

Re: wiered

Originally posted by getmeout
It is really wiered. They are transfering WAC02289 series. but not the early ones.
i don't know what is the basis of transfer. i assume transfer is good. atleast local centers are less crowded compare to CSC.
thanks a lot kashmir. great job!

Hi, getmeout,

> ... They are transfering WAC02289 series. but not the early ones. i don't know what is the basis of transfer. ...
At first, I thought that unexpired fngerprint cases had been transferred, but it seems not to be related.

> thanks a lot kashmir. great job!
My pleasure,
-kashmir

P.S.
After posting the above message, I found your second message.
I may need to check it again.
Thanks.

c610 · Dec 14, 2003

looks like a whole range of cases have been transfered. not just 02 289 cases onwards.

digdugxy · Dec 14, 2003

If the tfr maintains this rate, it could achieve the "reduce backlog to 1 yr without half year" goal. I remember Kashmire did some calculation that the weekly rate should be around 500 in order to achieve such goal.

getmeout · Dec 14, 2003

local centers

does any one knows how long the local centers take to process transfered cases?. atleast the load would distribute accross the local centers. going in-person interview would avoid RFE related delays atleast.

any one in 02-157 series have any update on their case?

kashmir · Dec 14, 2003

Originally posted by digdugxy
If the tfr maintains this rate, it could achieve the "reduce backlog to 1 yr without half year" goal. I remember Kashmire did some calculation that the weekly rate should be around 500 in order to achieve such goal.

The CSC has been receiving about 3,000 I485 cases each month.
This means the CSC has to process 700 cases per WEEK just to keep a backlog not growing.
The total number of cases transferred and approved last week is almost 700.
The official processing date of I485 at CSC is 12/16/2001.
The CSC seems to want just to keep I485 backlog within 2 years.

kashmir · Dec 14, 2003

Originally posted by c610
looks like a whole range of cases have been transfered. not just 02 289 cases onwards.

The CSC has transferred 398 WAC02 I485 cases on 12/10/2003 only,
and 394 cases are between WAC-02-123 and 289.
ND of WAC-02-123 is 3/1/2002, and ND of WAC-02-289 is 9/30/2002
Maybe, the CSC is targetting I485 cases filed in March 2002 or later.

Also, this weekend scan doesn't include WAC03 cases.
WAC03 cases might have been transferred, too.

getmeout · Dec 14, 2003

kashmir,
mine was 02-157 and not transfered. because i have expired FP. so we can not tell that for sure.
more over, we can see some was 01 cases. so we may better guess if some one with valid FP. that thory would fit

kashmir · Dec 14, 2003

Re: local centers

Originally posted by getmeout
.... atleast the load would distribute accross the local centers. going in-person interview would avoid RFE related delays atleast.

It might be the right decision, however, stupid USCIS CSC should have decided it at latest a half year ago.

But, I wonder if each local office has capability to adjudicate a lot of transferred EB I485 cases.

kashmir · Dec 14, 2003

Originally posted by getmeout
kashmir,
mine was 02-157 and not transfered. because i have expired FP. so we can not tell that for sure.
more over, we can see some was 01 cases. so we may better guess if some one with valid FP. that thory would fit

Please check the previous status of attached file "transfer-200312.txt".
The CSC has transferred a lot of cases which fingerprint seems to be expired, especially on 12/10/2003.
It doesn't seem to matter whether fingerprint is valid or expired.

Dadagiri · Dec 14, 2003

This is good and bad news. This is similar to what VSC is doing
if you look at VSC scan reports 40-50% from all months are transferred. It is good that they are transferring later months so they dont hav to wait long but transfer is a bad thing since local centers will be backlogged. They are tricking people in believing they are ""procesing"" and absolving themselves of responsibilities of processing. I think so it is bad news considering the fact that local centers are not fast to respond. look at Atlanta and newyork they are processing may 2001 filers even slower than USCIS. i think so we are heading in that direction.
My take

Dadagiri · Dec 14, 2003

http://boards.immigrationportal.com/attachment.php?s=&postid=640424

This is VSC report
the report says the following

Jan2002 7400 cases of this 33 % transferred
Feb 2002 6400 cases of this 28% transferred
March2002 7000 cases of this 22% transferred
April 2002 cases 7000 cases of this 12% transferred
this is only for these months

the % says that in Jan alone more than 2000 + cases are transferred. Seems like CSC is following VSC in transferring cases.
I am afraid the local service centers will get backlogged.

kashmir · Dec 14, 2003

WAC03 cases had been transferred, too !!

Originally posted by kashmir
The CSC has transferred 398 WAC02 I485 cases on 12/10/2003 only,
and 394 cases are between WAC-02-123 and 289.
ND of WAC-02-123 is 3/1/2002, and ND of WAC-02-289 is 9/30/2002
Maybe, the CSC is targetting I485 cases filed in March 2002 or later.

Also, this weekend scan doesn't include WAC03 cases.
WAC03 cases might have been transferred, too.

I485 cases of WAC-03-001 (ND 10/1/2002) thru 022 (ND 10/29/2003) have been just scanned.
-kashmir

Code:

case #*  scanned    status        touched date    previous scanned status
--------^----------^------------^----------------^-----------------------
WAC03006 2003-12-14 transferred   2003-12-12  <-  2002-10-08  received
WAC03006 2003-12-14 transferred   2003-12-12  <-  2002-11-20  resumed
WAC03006 2003-12-14 transferred   2003-12-12  <-  2002-11-20  resumed
                                    subtotal 3

WAC03001 2003-12-14 transferred   2003-12-10  <-  2002-11-16  resumed
WAC03001 2003-12-14 transferred   2003-12-10  <-  2002-11-15  resumed
WAC03001 2003-12-14 transferred   2003-12-10  <-  2002-11-15  resumed
WAC03002 2003-12-14 transferred   2003-12-10  <-  2002-10-02  received
WAC03002 2003-12-14 transferred   2003-12-10  <-  2002-11-14  resumed
WAC03002 2003-12-14 transferred   2003-12-10  <-  2002-11-14  resumed
WAC03002 2003-12-14 transferred   2003-12-10  <-  2002-11-14  resumed
WAC03003 2003-12-14 transferred   2003-12-10  <-  2002-12-13  resumed
WAC03003 2003-12-14 transferred   2003-12-10  <-  2002-11-19  resumed
WAC03003 2003-12-14 transferred   2003-12-10  <-  2002-10-03  received
WAC03003 2003-12-14 transferred   2003-12-10  <-  2002-12-13  resumed
WAC03003 2003-12-14 transferred   2003-12-10  <-  2002-12-13  resumed
WAC03003 2003-12-14 transferred   2003-12-10  <-  2002-12-13  resumed
WAC03003 2003-12-14 transferred   2003-12-10  <-  2002-11-20  resumed
WAC03003 2003-12-14 transferred   2003-12-10  <-  2002-12-13  resumed
WAC03003 2003-12-14 transferred   2003-12-10  <-  2002-12-13  resumed
WAC03003 2003-12-14 transferred   2003-12-10  <-  2002-12-13  resumed
WAC03003 2003-12-14 transferred   2003-12-10  <-  2002-12-13  resumed
WAC03008 2003-12-14 transferred   2003-12-10  <-  2002-12-13  resumed
WAC03008 2003-12-14 transferred   2003-12-10  <-  2002-12-18  resumed
WAC03008 2003-12-14 transferred   2003-12-10  <-  2002-12-13  resumed
WAC03008 2003-12-14 transferred   2003-12-10  <-  2002-12-13  resumed
WAC03009 2003-12-14 transferred   2003-12-10  <-  2002-12-13  resumed
WAC03009 2003-12-14 transferred   2003-12-10  <-  2002-10-30  resumed
WAC03009 2003-12-14 transferred   2003-12-10  <-  2002-10-30  resumed
WAC03009 2003-12-14 transferred   2003-12-10  <-  2002-11-20  resumed
WAC03009 2003-12-14 transferred   2003-12-10  <-  2002-11-20  resumed
WAC03009 2003-12-14 transferred   2003-12-10  <-  2002-12-13  resumed
WAC03009 2003-12-14 transferred   2003-12-10  <-  2002-12-13  resumed
WAC03012 2003-12-14 transferred   2003-12-10  <-  2003-06-30  unknown
WAC03012 2003-12-14 transferred   2003-12-10  <-  2003-04-16  unknown
WAC03012 2003-12-14 transferred   2003-12-10  <-  2002-12-13  resumed
WAC03012 2003-12-14 transferred   2003-12-10  <-  2002-12-13  resumed
WAC03016 2003-12-14 transferred   2003-12-10  <-  2002-11-08  resumed
WAC03017 2003-12-14 transferred   2003-12-10  <-  2002-12-13  resumed
WAC03017 2003-12-14 transferred   2003-12-10  <-  2002-12-12  resumed
WAC03017 2003-12-14 transferred   2003-12-10  <-  2002-12-13  resumed
WAC03017 2003-12-14 transferred   2003-12-10  <-  2002-10-23  received
WAC03018 2003-12-14 transferred   2003-12-10  <-  2002-12-17  resumed
WAC03018 2003-12-14 transferred   2003-12-10  <-  2002-12-17  resumed
WAC03018 2003-12-14 transferred   2003-12-10  <-  2003-01-08  resumed
WAC03018 2003-12-14 transferred   2003-12-10  <-  2003-01-08  resumed
WAC03019 2003-12-14 transferred   2003-12-10  <-  2002-12-17  resumed
WAC03021 2003-12-11 transferred   2003-12-10 
WAC03021 2003-12-11 transferred   2003-12-10 
                                    subtotal 45

kashmir · Dec 14, 2003

CA District Office I-485 Processing Date as of 11/14/2003

Code:

#       District Office         I-485
20      Chula Vista CA          02/01/2003
31      Fresno CA               04/02/2003
42      Los Angeles CA          12/13/2002
63      Sacramento CA           04/23/2003
69      San Bernadino CA        12/16/2003 <- ?
70      San Diego CA            02/01/2003
71      San Francisco CA        03/30/2003
72      San Jose CA             05/09/2003
74      Santa Ana CA            06/17/2003

kashmir · Dec 14, 2003

If TRANSFER is the CSC's backlog reduction plan,
we need to know the answers for the following questions.

1) Does each district office have capability enough to process transferred EB I-485 cases timely ?
Is the number of transferred EB I-485 cases much smaller than the number of family based I-485 cases ?

2) How is a transferred EB I-485 case put into the I-485 queue at each district office ?
Is it put at the last of the queue, or should ND of I-485 be considered ?

If USCIS cannot give us reasonable answers,
we have to ask Congressinal offices to discuss with not only Don Neufeld but also
- Eduardo Aguirre, Director of USCIS
- Carolyn Muzyka, Western Regional Director.
- David Still, San Fransicso District Director
- Jane Arellano, Los Angeles District Director
http://uscis.gov/graphics/publicaffairs/newsrels/appoint092403.pdf

GreenWaiter · Dec 14, 2003

Kashmire,

I am a WAC02277 case in CSC and I live in IL. As per your recent transfer report, this series of WAC02277 have been transferred. Can we find out any further details of this transfer?. How do we actually know that our case has been transferred?.

Any thoughts?

Thanks
GW

TRANSFER might be CSC's backlog reduction plan !?

Registered Users (C)

Registered Users (C)

Registered Users (C)

Registered Users (C)

Registered Users (C)

Registered Users (C)

Registered Users (C)

Registered Users (C)

Registered Users (C)

Registered Users (C)

Registered Users (C)

Registered Users (C)

Registered Users (C)

Registered Users (C)

Registered Users (C)

Registered Users (C)

Registered Users (C)

Registered Users (C)

Registered Users (C)

Registered Users (C)