Leslie

Thanks Cowboy.

When I first started out investigating this process (before I actually go married). The MSC was cranking out I-129f approvals for K3ers within 2 months in many cases. These timelines, combined with the deathly slow timelines for the TSC, influenced my decision to get married overseas instead of going the K1 route. Plus my husband was standing on his head to get married. lol. Anyway, as soon as we got married and I got all of the paperwork together, the MSC came to an almost grinding halt. It went from 2-3 months to 6-8 months, seemingly overnight. Myself, along with a bunch of others that filed around the same time, got caught in what seemed like an abyss............ The best laid plans........

Andrew Defaria

Matthew Udall wrote:

    > If the internal phone lines are down at a Service Center (which they
    > often are for maintenance or a variety of other reasons) the
    > information (that your case was received on..) never makes it to the
    > INS Direct phone system. The computer simply sends out the information
    > to the INS Direct system, but has no way of knowing if that
    > information “made itÂâ€? to the INS Direct phone system. The computer
    > only sends that information out once, and does not keep sending it out
    > over and over again.

This could be easily fixed by making it verify a receipt so that the
sender knows it "made it" and, lacking a receipt, it will continue to
resend it. This is programming 101 and your example here only highlights
the USCIS's ineptness!

--
Out of my mind. Back in five minutes.

Andrew Defaria

Matthew Udall wrote:

    > Originally posted by Andrew Defaria
    >> Agreed the case
    > status on line is an improvement. But there are many
    >> times when it is
    > just inadequate. For example, if you're in the black
    >> hole of Admin
    > Review that site don't do shit for you. Trying to find out
    >> *why* you
    > are in admin review, what they are looking for and yes, how
    >> you can
    > actually help provide them the information so that they can
    >> actually
    > perform the admin review is like pulling teeth with a
    >> toothpick! IOW
    > impossible.
    > If they are investigating your case, it would not make much sense to
    > tip you off as to the subject matter of that investigation.

What "tip off" do they expect?!? This is not international
espionage(sp?) here or anything else like that. If they were concerned
about any aspect doesn't it stand to reason that the people involved are
probably the best people to provide additional information?!? Granted
such information would obviously need to be scrutinized closely and
verifiable but to ignore the people involved would only make sense in
spy stories, hardly the case here.

    > And besides that, it was the "Consulate" that sent your case back to
    > the service center. The task of performing "reconsideration" or
    > "revocation" at a Service Center is not a high priority.

Yes, I've already been round and round on this topic and it's moot now
anyway, however "not a high priority" and "wait for a year and do
nothing" just doesn't sit well with me no matter what you say. It's been
much more than a year now, coming upon two. If it were that important
you'd think that they'd have gotten to it by now. Still nothing.
Ridiculous, simply ridiculous.

    > Originally posted by Andrew Defaria
    >> I
    > suffered through admin review for a year.
    >> Never, I repeat, never
    > heard why there was a review. The review was
    >> never completed or done
    > AFAICT, instead the embassy changed their mind
    >> after a year of total
    > inaction by the service center and gave us a
    >> second change.
    > Most people don't have their cases sent back to the Service Center
    > from the Consulate for reconsideration or revocation.

Doesn't really matter if most people do or do not go through this the
fact is that some do and the information provided is inadequate. I'm
certain that there are many other circumstances where better, accurate
information would do wonders for the petitioners and wonders for the
service center too as people would not feel compelled to hound them
because they got the information.

    > Don't you remember the "hours" I spent going over this with you before
    > while you were going through this?

Yes I do. Sorry I remain unconvinced despite your repetition.

    > This was when you used your asinine argument about UPL being fine and
    > dandy with your analogy about it being perfectly fine to shout "FIRE"
    > in a crowded theater.

I see you're still misunderstanding and misrepresenting that issue too.
Matt you surely are a person of few issues, misguided as they may be,
that you feel no hesitancy beating like a dead horse, I gotta hand you that.

    > That's when I decided it was not worth wasting any more time on an
    > idiot such as you.

Screw you too sunshine! (Ad homien attacks are matched here, at no extra
charge! :-P ).

    > In fact, instead of replying further in this thread as I planned to, I
    > will take my own advice again and stop here.

Good.

[ snip ]

    > Well, I'll post a little more.

Just what I like. A man of his word! ;-)

You're not a politician or a lawyer per chance? ;-)

    > I'll bet most attorneys who practice immigration law are not members
    > of AILA.

The ones I was talking about *were *AILA members!

    > I'll bet most AILA members do not do fiancée cases or visit the
    > service centers.

They advertise that they do. They represented themselves to me as
knowledgeable in that area. Then again isn't honest lawyer an oxymoron? :-)

    > I on the other hand have a keen interest in fiancée cases and service
    > center processing, so naturally I'm going to have insight into these
    > issues that most attorneys won't have.
    > And you have a problem with shelves? What a dork!

In a day and age where the undeniable benefits of automation when
applied to the problems of processing many pieces of information (and
yes documents and forms too) with limited resources, often using
computers and systems to eliminate such antiquated manual processes and
things like shelfs, etc, why yes you your sweet ass I do! I'm amazed you
don't! Any rational person would be. And to throw in an ad homien attack
of dork just shows that you're an idiot! Why do you defend them so?
Could it be because you stand to benefit from their ineptness? While I
tend not to believe such malicious intent without real evidence I'm
leaning more and more that way...

(Then again you've already stated your done with this thread so I should
expect a response...)
--
Do illiterate people get the full effect of alphabet soup?

amol_k3

I think that is what it really comes down to. The USCIS is probably doing the best they can given the systems and resources they have. Their systems are probably antiquated, and they're way understaffed. And the only reason that this is still acceptable is that most people don't have to deal with the USCIS, and therefore it isn't a high priority for politicians. The system as it stands would not be considered "acceptable" by a majority of the citizens (and I'm sure if you polled people that have had to deal with them, a majority would not rate it a positive experience).

With the volumes that they process, given the right computer systems and the right statistical analysis, they should easily be able to approximate how long their processing times are to within a week. And looking at patterns over the years, you can factor in seasonal variations as well. I work for a phone company, and we can approximate based on past data how many customer calls we are going to get on a daily basis, right down to hour by hour. Ofcourse there are unexpected things like when a major phone cable gets cut the volumes are much higher than predicted, but those are few and far between. My guess is that the USCIS probably doesn't even have systems to collect the sort of data that would allow for analysis like this, and they obviously don't have the money or manpower to improve them even if they do. It's sad that that's the case, but till we have enough people taking the issue up with the people that matter (congress), I don't see things improving anytime soon.

Regards,
Amol

Andrew Defaria

amol_k3 wrote:

    > Originally posted by Andrew Defaria
    >> However, any way
    > you slice it it is clear to me that to most people such waits are an
    > indication of a *BROKEN PROCESS IN DIRE NEED OF FIXING AND/OR MORE
    > RESOURCES!!!* Hell and it's
    >> not just me or them that is saying that -
    > the president also says it vowing to get all immigration processing done
    > within at least 6 months (now if they could just achieve that... :-( ).
    >> more like they are today than they ever were before.
    > I think that is what it really comes down to. The USCIS is probably
    > doing the best they can given the systems and resources they have.
    > Their systems are probably antiquated, and they're way understaffed.
    > And the only reason that this is still acceptable is that most people
    > don't have to deal with the USCIS, and therefore it isn't a high
    > priority for politicians. The system as it stands would not be
    > considered "acceptable" by a majority of the citizens (and I'm sure if
    > you polled people that have had to deal with them, a majority would
    > not rate it a positive experience).

I agree wholeheartedly.

    > With the volumes that they process, given the right computer systems
    > and the right statistical analysis, they should easily be able to
    > approximate how long their processing times are to within a week. And
    > looking at patterns over the years, you can factor in seasonal
    > variations as well. I work for a phone company, and we can approximate
    > based on past data how many customer calls we are going to get on a
    > daily basis, right down to hour by hour. Of course there are
    > unexpected things like when a major phone cable gets cut the volumes
    > are much higher than predicted, but those are few and far between. My
    > guess is that the USCIS probably doesn't even have systems to collect
    > the sort of data that would allow for analysis like this, and they
    > obviously don't have the money or manpower to improve them even if
    > they do. It's sad that that's the case, but till we have enough people
    > taking the issue up with the people that matter (congress), I don't
    > see things improving anytime soon.

Again, I totally agree. However I must say that I still believe that a
large part of the USCIS' ineptness is due mainly to there own fault by
sticking steadfastly to their antiquated culture and ways of doing
things. They lack vision, vision necessary to improve their processes up
to, I believe, 10 fold based much more on culture than reality. I am
positive, based on experiences in the business environment, that they
could very well improve their efficiency many times over if they just
shift in their culture toward the modern, 21st century way of doing
things. Examples abound of many, many business entities who have managed
to process way, way more data than they ever process everyday and yet
they do not adopts such a mentality. Inefficiency is often engrained in
government agencies and the USCIS is a much more than prime example of
this.than even many other government agencies. What always amazes me is
who lawyers and other people seem to jump to the USCIS' defense WRT
their inadequatices instead of demanding the kind of service they would
argue to no end of the typical business entity they deal with. IOW they
would not stand for such crappy service from say SBC but jump to defend
the USCIS - totally amazing!

--
I got a new shadow. I had to get rid of the other one -- it wasn't doing
what I was doing.