VSC Processing Times Update
- Thread starter timaeuti
- Start date
The key here is to reduce the AVERAGE processing time to their target for VSC. They have to process a lot recent cases to bring down the AVERAGE processing time. As for those old cases, unfortunately, they have to keep waiting...
---------------
RD: 03/12/2002
FP: 05/21/2002
FP2: 11/12/2003
RFE: 03/11/2004
AD: ???????
---------------
RD: 03/12/2002
FP: 05/21/2002
FP2: 11/12/2003
RFE: 03/11/2004
AD: ???????
timaeuti said:https://egov.immigration.gov/cris/jsps/Processtimes.jsp?SeviceCenter=Vermont
The processing date keeps leaping forward. Compared with the stagnation of previous year and a half, these leaps are almost breathtaking. The processing time now stands at 25,5 months.
If VSC keeps moving like that, it will reach Aguirre's stated goal of cutting the processing time to 20 months by October 1. Judging from the current trends, the only other Service Center with a fighting chance of reaching that goal is California.
Hopefully, the processing date will keep moving at reasonable pace until October 1. After that, it will probably slow down as CIS will need to process H-applications once again.
I do not think VSC will FP those July 03 and later filers who have not been FPed yet until October 1. On the positive side, those of us who filed in April 02 and earlier can now kick CIS in the rear
What was the basis for the Expedite Request?
CS001 said:
I do not think this is the reason. Where is their VSC target? Plus their Processing Dates are a sham. Only fools should believe them. What was your RFE all about and why? Do you think it was a valid RFE or not?
By giving you an RFE, your case got out of their Backlog definition. It may be O.K. with you but certainly not for others.
I recall reading somewhere that the basis for determining the processing date is as follows: no more than 10% of cases should be filed earlier than the processing date. If this is correct, the processing date is not entirely sham, even though there are and will be unadjudicated cases filed earlier than the processing date.
To answer cinta's question about the expedite request: mine is a religious worker case, and the religious worker law was going to expire in a few weeks before the expedite request was filed. As you may remember, at that time CIS issued a memo instucting service centers to adjudicate religious worker cases on an expedited basis. My request was declined because I am an ordainded minister, and the statute for ordained ministers was not going to expire.
My wife's 2EAD was approved today, appr. three weeks after it was filed. I think it will be another one-year EAD. Mine 2EAD application is still pending, even though I mailed both of our applications in the same envelope.
To answer cinta's question about the expedite request: mine is a religious worker case, and the religious worker law was going to expire in a few weeks before the expedite request was filed. As you may remember, at that time CIS issued a memo instucting service centers to adjudicate religious worker cases on an expedited basis. My request was declined because I am an ordainded minister, and the statute for ordained ministers was not going to expire.
My wife's 2EAD was approved today, appr. three weeks after it was filed. I think it will be another one-year EAD. Mine 2EAD application is still pending, even though I mailed both of our applications in the same envelope.
timaeuti said:
I will find out about the definition of Processing Dates. In the meantime, I believe the definition is : All applications before the Processing Date have been assigned to adjudicators, which is off course not true.
I believe the Religious Workers were extended by the Congress eventually.
See this story:
http://www.immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?p=872348#post872348
OneMoreStupid
Registered Users (C)
Oh... This is a very old link.
cinta said:
In the director's backlog reduction plan addressed to Congress dated June 16, 2004, the target was to shrink the average processing time to 6 month by the end of 2006.
My RFE was employment verification, plus two month's pay stubs. And I did not mean it was OK for others to wait if you read my post from different viewpoint. I was not praising US CIS at all...
My point is that US CIS is manipulating the average cycle time by processing the later cases while leaving the old cases waiting. By doing so, their current processing date is meaningless. They should do it in FIFO way.
Last edited by a moderator:
CS001 said:In the director's backlog reduction plan addressed to Congress dated June 16, 2004, the target was to shrink the average processing time to 6 month by the end of 2006.
My RFE was employment verification, plus two month's pay stubs. And I did not mean it was OK for others to wait if you read my post from different viewpoint. I was not praising US CIS at all...
My point is that US CIS is manipulating the average cycle time by processing the later cases while leaving the old cases waiting. By doing so, their current processing date is meaningless. They should do it in FIFO way.
Does not make sense mathematically. The average processing time depends on the number of cases adjudicated, not on how long the adjudicated cases have been filed.
Besides, when Aguirre spoke of reducing the processing time to six months by the end of 2006, he did not speak of AVERAGE processing time. You may want to read his testimony to congress carefully.
timaeuti said:
Actually, it is stated in the report as 6 month "projected cycle time" for all cases by the end of 2006 and 20 month "projected cycle time by the end of 2004. It was also stated in the report, dated 06/17/2004, that US CIS will eliminate all the backlogs by the end of 2006.
If the total number of cases are fixed while the cycle time of the cases are shorter, the average processing/cycle time will be shorter, wouldn't it?
My original post was meant to be mocking the efficiency of US CIS. While it is posting the much later processing date, it does not bring much comfort to those old pending cases.
CS001 said:
You are right, my friend. However, that does not support your earlier claim that CIS adjudicating later cases in order to decrease the average processing time. The fact of the matter is that adjudicating later cases does not decrease the average processing time. Let me give you an illustration.
Suppose there are three cases: the first filed 6 months ago, the second -- 4 months ago, and the third -- 2 months ago. Suppose CIS can adjudicate only one case in a month.
Suppose CIS adjudicates them on "first-come-first-served" basis. Then it will adjudicate the first case now (6 months processing time), the second case -- in a month (5 months processing time), and the third case -- in two months (4 months processing time). The the average processing time would be 6+5+4 divided by three, or 5 months.
Suppose, following your logic, CIS decides to adjudicate them in reverse order. Will it get a lesser average processing time? Let's see: The third case would be adjudicated now (2 months processing time), the second case -- in a month (5 months processing time), and the third case -- in two months (8 months processing time). The average cycle would be 2+5+8 divided by three, or 5 months, which is the same as CIS would do it on the "first-come-first-served basis".
Like I said, The average processing time depends in reverse proportion on the number of cases adjudicated in a given time, not on how long ago the adjudicated cases have been filed. It will make no difference for the average processing time whether CIS adjudicates earlier or later cases first.
timaeuti said:
I certainly wish your theory is true and mine is simply my illusion. However, your claim is based on that CIS finishes all the pending cases. Given enough time and let CIS finishes all the pending cases -- who knows when, the average processing time would not be affected by the manner they process just like your example illustrates.
However, given their target of 20 month cycle time by the end of 2004, they can keep the old cases pending while adjudicate the later cases.
Using your example, if they do it in FIFO and adjudicate two cases, the first (6 mon) + the second (5 mon) = 11 mon. The average is 11/2=5.5 months.
If CIS does not do it in FIFO and still adjudicate two cases, the third (2 mon) + the second (5 mon) = 7 mon. The average is 7/2=3.5 months.
My point is actually borrowed from dsatish's sticky on this board, Complaint to congressman: CIS is currently adjudicating the later and newer cases to reach their goal of 20 month cycle time by the end of 2004.
If CIS eliminates all the backlog cases AND achive 6 month cycle time by the end of 2006 as they claimed, only then we can truthfully say that their processing manner did not matter. Given CIS's track record that they also targeted 6 month cycle time by the end of 2003, I doubt they can reach this goal without additional funding and/or manpower. The tightened security check does not help the situation, either.
Nonetheless, mine was just another speculation during the long wait.
other factors that could favor adjudication of newer cases
Hi guys,
If we consider other reasons (apaft from which cases will reduce the average adjudication time), it may be little more convenient for them to adjudicate newer cases. They, for sure, will have to dust-off less dust that gathered on the files and who knows older files are buried where!! I am sure they can do it if they want to and the fact that they do not process older cases first points to their lack of accountability. They have a sea of files in front of them. Evern if there is logic in picking some of the files, a dominant factor is how they could show that they are doing a lot of work. It is a different matter if they are being unfair to most of their clients. Their end result is not customer satisfaction. Their end result is the satisfaction of their authorities and show some improved adjudications.
Hi guys,
If we consider other reasons (apaft from which cases will reduce the average adjudication time), it may be little more convenient for them to adjudicate newer cases. They, for sure, will have to dust-off less dust that gathered on the files and who knows older files are buried where!! I am sure they can do it if they want to and the fact that they do not process older cases first points to their lack of accountability. They have a sea of files in front of them. Evern if there is logic in picking some of the files, a dominant factor is how they could show that they are doing a lot of work. It is a different matter if they are being unfair to most of their clients. Their end result is not customer satisfaction. Their end result is the satisfaction of their authorities and show some improved adjudications.
CS001 said:I certainly wish your theory is true and mine is simply my illusion. However, your claim is based on that CIS finishes all the pending cases. Given enough time and let CIS finishes all the pending cases -- who knows when, the average processing time would not be affected by the manner they process just like your example illustrates.
However, given their target of 20 month cycle time by the end of 2004, they can keep the old cases pending while adjudicate the later cases.
Using your example, if they do it in FIFO and adjudicate two cases, the first (6 mon) + the second (5 mon) = 11 mon. The average is 11/2=5.5 months.
If CIS does not do it in FIFO and still adjudicate two cases, the third (2 mon) + the second (5 mon) = 7 mon. The average is 7/2=3.5 months.
My point is actually borrowed from dsatish's sticky on this board, Complaint to congressman: CIS is currently adjudicating the later and newer cases to reach their goal of 20 month cycle time by the end of 2004.
If CIS eliminates all the backlog cases AND achive 6 month cycle time by the end of 2006 as they claimed, only then we can truthfully say that their processing manner did not matter. Given CIS's track record that they also targeted 6 month cycle time by the end of 2003, I doubt they can reach this goal without additional funding and/or manpower. The tightened security check does not help the situation, either.
Nonetheless, mine was just another speculation during the long wait.
Thank you for your response, my friend.
1. Yes, my calculations are based on the assumption that CIS will sooner or later complete all, or almost all, pending cases. Anything wrong with this assumption?
2. The type of analysis you present disregards pending cases and is thus faulty in the sense that it does not give the accurate average processing time for all the cases on file. Therefore, if CIS employs this type of calculation, which I very much doubt, its result will be the average processing tyime for the cases already approved rather than the average processing time for all the cases.
3. Furthermore, it follows directly from your type of calculus that delaying adjudication of older cases helps CIS decrease the average processing time, which is absurd.
4. Moreover, according to your logic, the delay with adjudicating older cases does not do CIS any good on the long run. Sooner or later CIS will have to adjudicate them, and the later it is, the more dramatic the subsequent drag on the average processing date will be.
5. Finally, on your own admission, Aguirre never promised to take down the AVERAGE processing time to six months by the end of FY 2006, for projected cycle time is not the same as the average processing time.
Based on all of the above, it seems to me that you and dsatish (who is he, by the way?) are a bit off the track.
Hope you and your family get approved soon.
Interesting discussion
1: AC-21. It is clear that USCIS is violating the Congress mandate for AC-21 and Portability.
2: It is clear that USCIS is not meeting the Immigration numbers per INA and EB Immigration.
3: It is clear that USCIS is violating the Federal Administrative Procedure Act.
Timely, consistent, fair, high quality and within "reasonable time" processing. Wrt the latest "concurrent processing memo"
Aguirre should be responsible as the director of the USCIS, a federal agency.
Furthermore, the USCIS definition is convenient for them. It does not take into account RFEs and Transfers, so it is flawed. (see DHS / Issues thread and AILA's Congressional testimony).
USCIS wants to have it both ways: i.e. sending letters and excuses that they do not have additional resources and people and not asking for additional money from Congress and getting away with it. So by 2006 let us hope that Aguirre goes back top the Import/Export Bank where he came from and where numbers manipulations may be the order of business.
In addition there is a real question as to whether USCIS has the mandate to face the problem. It looks like the brothers and sisters (DOS, DOJ amd DOL) play a bigger role here. See PERM and all the delays artificially introduced step by step.
1: AC-21. It is clear that USCIS is violating the Congress mandate for AC-21 and Portability.
2: It is clear that USCIS is not meeting the Immigration numbers per INA and EB Immigration.
3: It is clear that USCIS is violating the Federal Administrative Procedure Act.
Timely, consistent, fair, high quality and within "reasonable time" processing. Wrt the latest "concurrent processing memo"
Aguirre should be responsible as the director of the USCIS, a federal agency.
Furthermore, the USCIS definition is convenient for them. It does not take into account RFEs and Transfers, so it is flawed. (see DHS / Issues thread and AILA's Congressional testimony).
USCIS wants to have it both ways: i.e. sending letters and excuses that they do not have additional resources and people and not asking for additional money from Congress and getting away with it. So by 2006 let us hope that Aguirre goes back top the Import/Export Bank where he came from and where numbers manipulations may be the order of business.
In addition there is a real question as to whether USCIS has the mandate to face the problem. It looks like the brothers and sisters (DOS, DOJ amd DOL) play a bigger role here. See PERM and all the delays artificially introduced step by step.
Last edited by a moderator:
Processing date goes to August 26, 2002
https://egov.immigration.gov/cris/jsps/Processtimes.jsp?SeviceCenter=Vermont
The processing time in VSC, therefore, crosses the two-year mark in the direction of decreasing!
The big story, however, is California. Their JIT took a super leap and is now at January 15, 2003. Now their official processing time is 19 months!
https://egov.immigration.gov/cris/jsps/Processtimes.jsp?SeviceCenter=California
Lucky Californians!
https://egov.immigration.gov/cris/jsps/Processtimes.jsp?SeviceCenter=Vermont
The processing time in VSC, therefore, crosses the two-year mark in the direction of decreasing!
The big story, however, is California. Their JIT took a super leap and is now at January 15, 2003. Now their official processing time is 19 months!
https://egov.immigration.gov/cris/jsps/Processtimes.jsp?SeviceCenter=California
Lucky Californians!
3LC's NoGC
Registered Users (C)
All of this assumes that they want a true measure
All of these arguments assume that some is actually trying to measure productivity accurately. I don't think that's true
Reminds of Disraeli’s famous quote:
There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
Your truly:
3LC's 2 TN's 10 TD's 3 H1B's 15 H4's 1 I140 12 AP's 6 EAD's NoGC
That's 52 compete, plus 6 485's pending.
Perhaps I'm the cause of the backlogs
All of these arguments assume that some is actually trying to measure productivity accurately. I don't think that's true
Reminds of Disraeli’s famous quote:
There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
Your truly:
3LC's 2 TN's 10 TD's 3 H1B's 15 H4's 1 I140 12 AP's 6 EAD's NoGC
That's 52 compete, plus 6 485's pending.
Perhaps I'm the cause of the backlogs