EmmyUK

Hi all,

For some reason the processing date page (https://egov.immigration.gov/cris/js...ter=California) has jumped BACK in time! Here's a listing of all dates posted:

1st November 2003 (posted on 15th July 2004)
1st April 2004 (posted on 18th August 2004)
1st August 2004 (posted on 17th September 2004)
2nd August 2004 (posted on 22nd September 2004)
31st August 2004 (posted on 6th October 2004)
2nd September 2004 (posted on 21st October 2004)
2nd September 2004 (posted on 8th November 2004)
2nd September 2004 (posted on 19th November 2004)
September 13 2004 (posted on December 06 2004)
September 13 2004 (posted on December 17 2004)
September 22 2004 (posted on January 06 2005)
October 21 2004 (posted on January 21 2005)
September 22 2004 (posted on January 13 2005)

As you can see at the end, it went back from Oct 21st to Sept 22nd, and the "posted on" date just jumped back too (which should be impossible, as you would have to have done that in the past)... Not sure if they are running maintenance or something, but I hope it changes back again soon!

S.

Rete

This is not at all unusual for any of the service centers and/or district offices. It happens all the time. Remember the numbers are not written in cement or even reliable. Consider them only a simple crutch for legless man.

EmmyUK

Hi,

Just seems a little odd it hasn't happened in well over a year (looking at reports back to 2003)... The posting date at least shouldn't change - thats *just* the date that they release that information - and they definately did NOT release that info on Jan 13th! All the other posting dates were accurate. Only thing I can think of is (a) it's a mistake and they'll fix it, or (b) they previously made a mistake and now they've fixed it.

Oddly enough though, my application falls right between the dates of Sept 22nd and Oct 21st, and it was definately touched last week (according to the online case monitor) - and that is the first time since we filed that it had been touched. That being the case, I'd hope that the info on the site is just a mistake and will be corrected soon....

Thanks!

S.

sarina

Its not only CSC.. all of the service center show dates for the last update.. I think it is a mistake and they will update it soon...

Trent

It is not just California, it's all four service centers switching their dates backward. I believe they made a mistake previously and fixed it. (That's just my personal opinion. I could be wrong.)

Trent

And it is not just the service centers.. it's all district offices as well. Dates are going backward. Did Y2K bug hit the USCIS computer systems only now after 5 years? (It was probably backlogged as well)

Lorenzo Rojo

The processing dates should be updated on a weekly basis. It just hints at the ineffecieny of the system. San Francisco issues Advanced Parole based on their own calculated processing times. Listed as 3 weeks on their website, and then listed at 3 months on the updated list.

This could be related to the FBI's new inept computer system that is being evaluated, and quite possibly being scrapped.

Folinskyinla

Hi:

The January 21, 2005 Sheet is available at www.aila.org

EmmyUK

Yea, I saw that all the other offices had changed to Jan 13th... Lets hope that this is a mistake and it will be rectified soon!

Thanks!

S.

1Duckie

Wouldn't it be nice if they would let us know how many records were processed that time frame? I know they have their hands full but it does not seem like they are not processing very many applications I-130s.

It would also be nice to have a weekly report not bi-weekly.

Jonathan McNeil Wong

1Duckie wrote:
    >>Yea, I saw that all the other offices had changed to Jan 13th... Lets
    >>hope that this is a mistake and it will be rectified soon! :)
    >>Thanks!
    >>S.
    >
    >
    > Wouldn't it be nice if they would let us know how many records were
    > processed that time frame? I know they have their hands full but
    > it does not seem like they are not processing very many
    > applications I-130s.
    >
    > It would also be nice to have a weekly report not bi-weekly.
    >

When one realizes that these numbers are calculated by hand rather than
just being run as a computerized report (unless something has recently
changed), a biweekly or even a monthly report does not seem unreasonable.

--
Above intended as general commentary, not specific legal
advice. Your mileage may vary.

================================================== =============
Jonathan McNeil Wong Voice: 510-451-0544
Donahue, Gallagher Woods LLP Facsimile: 510-832-1486
P.O. Box 12979 http://www.donahue.com
Oakland, CA 94604-2979 E-mail: [email protected]
================================================== =============

Trent

Report dates are now back to January 21st and the processing dates are back to what these were a few days ago.

EmmyUK

Yep! Panic over They must of just made a mistake...

As for the reports, they really should be able to give a case-by-case update on processed I-130's (or any other app)... Everything is data entried into their computers, and when it gets approved, I'm sure they just change a flag from "In progress" to "Approved" (or declined, RFE, whatever)... Why can't another system data harvest that information and produce daily, even hourly, reports on their progress? As you've possibly guessed, I'm in IT - and I know this is simplistically and economically achieved - they probably just don't want people watching over their backs, Big Brother style... Might even put the people that make the "reports" out of a job, hence another reason for not doing it.

I've also come to think that the "black box" style of the USCIS (i.e. something goes in for X amount of time and you don't know nothing until it comes out again) and the extreme time scales acts as a deterrent to people filing any sort of application - if things were a lot quicker and efficient I'm sure a lot more people would try to get into the US!

Thanks!

S.