yimnyjeepers

My wife's AOS was transferred to CSC from NBC on August 25th. Now the status has changed to the following:

On September 6, 2005, your I485 Application to Register Permanent Residence or to Adjust Status was received here for processing. It is taking between 270 and 300 days for us to process this kind of case. We will mail you a decision as soon as processing is complete.

On September 6, 2005, your I130 IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR RELATIVE, FIANCE(E), OR ORPHAN was received here for processing. It is taking between 990 and 999 days for us to process this kind of case. We will mail you a decision as soon as processing is complete.

Wonder what happened all of a sudden- 270-300 & 990-999 days?? Have the petitions been put at the rear of the queue? And here I was pretty optimistic having read all the posts on folks whose AOS was transferred to CSC recently, and the chances that an interview wouldn't be required!

Folinskyinla

Hi:

An FAQ -- those estimated times are to be treated as the fiction they are. In fact, my understanding is that CIS is now making efforts to ELIMINATE those projections and instead refer people to the CIS website to see what dates are currently being processed. This will be a much more accurate statement rather than the misleading information now given on the projectoins.

Noorah101

Save yourself some stress by just ignoring the processing dates on those email updates. Instead, keep an eye out for real-life postings on here as to how fast CSC is processing.

Rene

Matthew Udall

I hope that goes through. I've been hoping they would do this for years now. Relying on the wild guess numbers (the Service Centers are directed by CIS HQ to list them) listed on receipt notices is one sure fire way for a petitioner, applicant or beneficiary to develop unrealistic expectations.

And to the OP about the 999 days; while at the CSC I was told by the director herself (back when it was a female) that this number is basically just a placeholder and is meaningless.

Jonathan McNeil Wong

yimnyjeepers wrote:
    > My wife's AOS was transferred to CSC from NBC on August 25th. Now the
    > status has changed to the following:
    >
    > On September 6, 2005, your I485 Application to Register Permanent
    > Residence or to Adjust Status was received here for processing. It is
    > taking between 270 and 300 days for us to process this kind of case. We
    > will mail you a decision as soon as processing is complete.
    >
    > On September 6, 2005, your I130 IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR RELATIVE,
    > FIANCE(E), OR ORPHAN was received here for processing. It is taking
    > between 990 and 999 days for us to process this kind of case. We will
    > mail you a decision as soon as processing is complete.
    >
    > Wonder what happened all of a sudden- 270-300 & 990-999 days?? Have the
    > petitions been put at the rear of the queue? And here I was pretty
    > optimistic having read all the posts on folks whose AOS was transferred
    > to CSC recently, and the chances that an interview wouldn't be required!
    >

Another lawyer chimes in with some additional information.

The "x to y" days language shown on receipt notices (what this group
calls NOA1) is input manually; the CLAIMS software does not calculate
this number. It must be input at the national level. The Service
Centers compile a report; they send it to national; someone at national
plugs these into the receipt notice templates for each petition type.
So they are at best rough estimates. (As to Matt's comment: the field
in the template permits an input of up to three digits. If the wait is
even longer, or if the wait is incalculable, then "999" is the maximum
wait that can be entered, which is why it's a placeholder.)

The California Service Center used to publish what it called a "JIT
Report", where "JIT" stood for "Just In Time." The JIT report format is
approximately what you see on the website today. Once a month, CSC
would look at its staging area, called the "shelf", where it sorted
petitions and applications based on category, oldest on top. It would
report the date filed of the oldest petition or application in the pile
for each category (actually, it would report a modified Julian date of
the oldest petition or application; for those who are interested, the
Julian date is the third set of digits in your receipt/tracking number,
e.g., in "MSC-05-001-51234", the Julian date is 001, meaning the second
day of the fiscal year 2005; unlike true Julian dates, the start date
was not January 1, 4713 BCE but rather October 1 of of the previous
calendar year; the current website uses calendar dates instead, which
seems more comprehensible but entails a little more work). This date
was published in the JIT report, so by looking at the report, one could
see what the oldest case not currently being worked on was, and with
that information extrapolate how much longer the wait might be.


Addendum: I find from my astronomical friends that the so-called Julian
Date formerly used by the CSC is not in fact a Julian Date at all but
rather a "DOY" (date of year) calculation. But CSC did call it a Julian
Date.

--
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 URL: http://www.donahue.com
Oakland, CA 94604-2979 E-mail: [email protected]
================================================== =============

Folinskyinla

Jonathan:

CIS is talking in terms of inventory control and flow terminology. A long long time ago, the US Army saw fit to train me for the "MOS" of "76P" with a supplemental MOS of 76S -- the training being at Quartermaster School at Fort Lee VA [right outside of Petersburg, VA -- I didn't dare tell any locals that I had graduated from US Grant High School -- but I digress].

However, in our MANUAL tracking and control systems, we always used the "Julian Date" which was the DOY calculation. I mention this becuase it is NOT the CIS that is being weird. From my college astronomy class, we discussed the "Julian" and "Gregorian" calendars -- which is a diffrent issue. BTW, somewhat OT on the subject -- How many US presidential elections were NOT held in a leap year and what years were those elections held?

Elvira

[QUOTE=Jonathan McNeil Wong]... it would report a modified Julian date of
the oldest petition or application; for those who are interested, the
Julian date is the third set of digits in your receipt/tracking number,
e.g., in "MSC-05-001-51234", the Julian date is 001, meaning the second
day of the fiscal year 2005; unlike true Julian dates, the start date
was not January 1, 4713 BCE but rather October 1 of of the previous
calendar year;
Addendum: I find from my astronomical friends that the so-called Julian
Date formerly used by the CSC is not in fact a Julian Date at all but
rather a "DOY" (date of year) calculation. But CSC did call it a Julian ]


Trust USCIS (or whatever they call themselves today) to find the most complicated way of doing something simple...

Folinskyinla

It ain't all that complicated and in many systems can actually ease things up.

Matthew Udall

Hi Johathan,
I agree with your discussion about CIS HQ (National) determining what numbers a given Service Center “must� list on their receipt notice. I go to the Service Centers for meetings every chance I get (especially the CSC as its figuratively in my own back yard), and I recall Donna Coultice (Former Director of the CSC) telling me that the CSC does not have the authority or ability to determine “or change� the estimates listed on their receipt notices. Some bureaucrat at CIS HQ determines this and tells each service center what they must list on receipt notices for each application/petition type.

I’ve been posting the CSC JIT Report numbers since the very first JIT Report came out (although a few years ago, I deleted some of the old numbers from my list) and Ms. Coultice herself told the 200 or so AILA attorneys in attendance about the JIT Report system that was being implemented that very day… and she handed me the first JIT Report. She told us how to read the report, how to calculate an overdue date, etc. During the years I’ve posted the JIT Reports, I’ve noticed that the dates on the reports change with almost every report (indicating they sped up or slowed down) however the boilerplate “wild guess� time estimates on the receipt notices only changed perhaps every year or so. So it was easy to see that the wild guess estimates listed on the receipt notices were highly inaccurate and were not changed to reflect the reality of current processing times at any given service center.

Back when the JIT Report first came out for the CSC (and back then, they provided these reports only to AILA, not to the general public via the CIS website), IBIS was not yet a reality so naturally Ms. Coultice didn’t mention that “cases that receive an IBIS hit� cannot use the report to determine if the case is likely with an officer yet, or calculate a realistic overdue date (found that out later [was it while at the TSC, NSC or NBC?… can’t remember now] when IBIS was first introduced).

The CSC was basically the “guinea pig� where the JIT Report system was first tested. Since that time (because the CSC experiment was such a success), the other service centers have followed suit and all issue their own reports (but for the longest time, perhaps the first two or three years, the NSC reports “did not� list numbers for I-129f, but I kept bugging them to add it so they finally did).

I don’t think its really possible to extrapolate how much longer a case might be if the report indicates the case is still sitting on the shelf waiting its turn for adjudication. We see reports all the time where there is no movement from one report to the next, or massive movement. What the report tells us is, “has my case ‘likely’ been given to an officer for adjudication [taking into account the IBIS wrinkle]�, and if so, it then gives one the ability to calculate a realistic overdue date (to know when to start inquiring about the case if it becomes overdue).

I’ve seen the “shelves� for I-129f cases at each of the service centers, plus on one tour of the CSC (was just me, one other AILA member and Geoff V. who at that time was the Ombudsman at the CSC), Geoff showed me the “other� shelves where they place “approved� I-129f petitions where cable is to be sent to the U.S. Consulate. They had cubbies marked, “Moscow�, “Warsaw� and “All Other Posts�(I hope I’m remembering that correctly… that tour was a number of years ago). He pulled a case and showed us the cable they prepare and place on the top of the file, for a contract worker to later come along and take care of the faxing required in those cases (and I have a blank copy of the cable, and I routinely fill it out for the CSC and include it with my I-129f submissions so I can rest assured it is done correctly).

One little interesting tidbit about the reports: Lets say a report indicats that the last case taken off of the shelf and given to an officer had a notice date of say…. June 15, 2005. Now lets assume you are a do-it-yourselfer or attorney who monitors the reports and you notice that your “NOTICE� date (not the “Received date�… one uses the notice date when applying it to the reports) is also June 15th, 2005.

Does that mean you can now assume (barring no IBIS hit) that the case is likely with an officer, and that you can now calculate an overdue date? No, absolutely not.

Just because the “last case they pulled from the shelf� had a notice date of June 15th 2005, does not mean that there are no more June 15th cases still on the shelf. In other words, when they pull cases off the front of the shelf, they don’t make sure they pull “all� of the June 15th cases. There could be a number of June 15th cases that are next in line at the front of the shelf. Found that out by asking about it at the CSC during a tour while standing in the file room in front of the I-129f shelf.

So the person with the June 15th 2005 notice date will have to wait for the “next� report to come out that shows they have moved “past� June 15th, and then use the date of publication for that new report to calculate a realistic overdue date.

I have a page where I post the JIT Report numbers for the CSC and an explanation how to use the reports. http://members.aol.com/MDUdall/cscjit.htm

Matthew Udall

Actually, its a very logical method to help people keep informed about how they are progressing in moving cases off of the shelf (and given to an officer). If they "always" moved the same amount of cases in a linear manner each and every week, maybe they would have come up with a different system, however the amount of cases they move over time changes and this way they can give a report that actually reflects that reality.

Elvira

Thank you (and Mr. F!) for all the interesting insight one how these cases are processed.

Practical question: Since May, the status of our family's employment-based I-485 application (received by CA SC on 31 March), has been that... "On April 29, 2005, the results of your fingerprint review for your I485 Application to Register Permanent Residence or to Adjust Status were received, and processing has resumed on your case. We will mail you a notice if further action is needed, or when a decision is made."

For several months, also, the CA Center has stated that they are "currently" (!!!) processing such applications received by April 1.

What does this actually mean in practical terms, i.e. when are we likely to be approved?

TIA!

Jonathan McNeil Wong

Folinskyinla wrote:
    >>yimnyjeepers wrote:
    >>>My wife's AOS was transferred to CSC from NBC on August 25th. Now
    >>>the
    >>>status has changed to the following:
    >>>On September 6, 2005, your I485 Application to Register Permanent
    >>>Residence or to Adjust Status was received here for processing. It
    >>>is
    >>>taking between 270 and 300 days for us to process this kind of case.
    >>>We
    >>>will mail you a decision as soon as processing is complete.
    >>>On September 6, 2005, your I130 IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR RELATIVE,
    >>>FIANCE(E), OR ORPHAN was received here for processing. It is taking
    >>>between 990 and 999 days for us to process this kind of case. We
    >>>will
    >>>mail you a decision as soon as processing is complete.
    >>>Wonder what happened all of a sudden- 270-300 & 990-999 days?? Have
    >>>the
    >>>petitions been put at the rear of the queue? And here I was pretty
    >>>optimistic having read all the posts on folks whose AOS was
    >>>transferred
    >>>to CSC recently, and the chances that an interview wouldn't be
    >>>required!
    >>Another lawyer chimes in with some additional information.
    >>The "x to y" days language shown on receipt notices (what this group
    >>calls NOA1) is input manually; the CLAIMS software does not calculate
    >>this number. It must be input at the national level. The Service
    >>Centers compile a report; they send it to national; someone at
    >>national
    >>plugs these into the receipt notice templates for each petition type.
    >>So they are at best rough estimates. (As to Matt's comment: the field
    >>in the template permits an input of up to three digits. If the wait
    >>is
    >>even longer, or if the wait is incalculable, then "999" is the maximum
    >>wait that can be entered, which is why it's a placeholder.)
    >>The California Service Center used to publish what it called a "JIT
    >>Report", where "JIT" stood for "Just In Time." The JIT report format
    >>is
    >>approximately what you see on the website today. Once a month, CSC
    >>would look at its staging area, called the "shelf", where it sorted
    >>petitions and applications based on category, oldest on top. It would
    >>report the date filed of the oldest petition or application in the
    >>pile
    >>for each category (actually, it would report a modified Julian date of
    >>the oldest petition or application; for those who are interested, the
    >>Julian date is the third set of digits in your receipt/tracking
    >>number,
    >>e.g., in "MSC-05-001-51234", the Julian date is 001, meaning the
    >> second
    >> day of the fiscal year 2005; unlike true Julian dates, the start
    >> date
    >> was not January 1, 4713 BCE but rather October 1 of of the
    >> previous
    >> calendar year; the current website uses calendar dates instead,
    >> which
    >> seems more comprehensible but entails a little more work). This
    >> date
    >> was published in the JIT report, so by looking at the report, one
    >> could
    >> see what the oldest case not currently being worked on was, and
    >> with
    >> that information extrapolate how much longer the wait might be.
    >>Addendum: I find from my astronomical friends that the so-called
    >>Julian
    >>Date formerly used by the CSC is not in fact a Julian Date at all but
    >>rather a "DOY" (date of year) calculation. But CSC did call it a
    >>Julian
    >>Date.
    >>--
    >>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 URL: http://www.donahue.com
    >>Oakland, CA 94604-2979 E-mail: [email protected]
    >>================================================ ===============
    >
    >
    > Jonathan:
    >
    > CIS is talking in terms of inventory control and flow terminology. A
    > long long time ago, the US Army saw fit to train me for the "MOS" of
    > "76P" with a supplemental MOS of 76S -- the training being at
    > Quartermaster School at Fort Lee VA [right outside of Petersburg, VA --
    > I didn't dare tell any locals that I had graduated from US Grant High
    > School -- but I digress].
    >
    > However, in our MANUAL tracking and control systems, we always used the
    > "Julian Date" which was the DOY calculation. I mention this becuase it
    > is NOT the CIS that is being weird. From my college astronomy class, we
    > discussed the "Julian" and "Gregorian" calendars -- which is a diffrent
    > issue. BTW, somewhat OT on the subject -- How many US presidential
    > elections were NOT held in a leap year and what years were those
    > elections held?
    >

My astronomical friends say that the "DOY" Julian Date isn't the real
Julian Date. Apparently this is one of those you say potayto I say
potahto issues. Or maybe it's just how the swabbies do it:

http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/JulianDate.html

--
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 URL: http://www.donahue.com
Oakland, CA 94604-2979 E-mail: [email protected]
================================================== =============