![](media/image1.png){width="1.2194444444444446in" height="0.9in"}

**[CATHOLIC LEGAL IMMIGRATION NETWORK, INC]{.underline}**.

**McCormick Pavilion**

> **415 Michigan Avenue, N.E., Washington, DC 20017 Tel: (202) 635-2556
> Fax: (202) 635-2649**
>
> **E-mail: <NATIONAL@CLINICLEGAL.ORG>**

**NATIONAL OFFICE**

January 25, 2005

The Director

Regulatory Management Division

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

111 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, 3^rd^ Floor

Washington DC 20529

RE: Docket No. DHS-2004-0020, Proposed Rule - Removal of the
Standardized Request for Evidence Processing Timeframe

Dear Sir or Madam:

The Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. (CLINIC) respectfully
submits the following comments to the Proposed Rule referenced above.

**CLINIC's Interest in the Proposed Regulations**

CLINIC, a subsidiary of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
(USCCB), is a legal support agency for the nation's largest and most
productive network of charitable immigration programs. CLINIC currently
supports 155 programs in 248 office locations across the country. These
programs employ roughly 1,000 attorneys and BIA accredited
representatives, who, in turn, represent more than 100,000 low-income
immigrants each year. Of these low-income immigrants, a substantial
number are the petitioners or beneficiaries of applications and
petitions pending before the USCIS. Additionally, CLINIC's Division of
Religious Immigration Services represents hundreds of foreign-born
priests, sisters, seminarians, and laypersons each year. The division's
current caseload includes more than 950 individual cases. As a result of
its work, CLINIC has substantial experience with Requests for Evidence
(RFE) and Notices of Intent to Deny (NOID).

# Comments on the Proposed Rule

CLINIC respectfully objects to the provisions within the proposed rule
that would allow for USCIS to set RFE response periods for less than 12
weeks and that would eliminate the mandatory RFE issuance requirement
where initial evidence is missing.

**The minimum 12-week response period should not be reduced.**

We object to substituting a more flexible approach for the current
12-week response period in 8 CFR 103.2(b)(8). Requested evidence
frequently involves documentation that must be obtained from busy
government and state agencies, overseas agencies, and individuals
residing overseas, often in remote villages or areas where overnight or
expedited mail delivery is not available. Governmental agencies both in
the United States and abroad have no incentive to comply with deadlines
set forth by USCIS. USCIS officers with no experience in obtaining such
documents should not have the authority to select time frames that they
deem appropriate. Having the authority to select

varying time frames will result in a wide range of different response
periods being allotted for similar or identical requests for evidence.
Without a baseline minimum of 12 weeks, discrepant response periods
amongst applicants will abound. Such discrepancies are contrary to
notions of fundamental fairness. The final regulation should not lessen
the current 12-week response period. The 12-week response period should
be the minimum period of time that USCIS should be able to set for the
receipt of additional evidence.

# The mandatory RFE requirement is essential to accountability and fairness.

CLINIC represents many clients who, unfortunately, receive onerous or
unnecessary RFEs. Despite this problem, we do not understand how the
proposed rule will alleviate such errors, reduce processing backlogs, or
otherwise benefit applicants. In our experience, RFEs often involve
requests for duplicative or non-essential documentation. Frequently,
RFEs ask for evidence that is not required by or that is inconsistent
with existing law and regulations. Such RFE issuance often reflects an
adjudicator's failure to adequately examine the submitted evidence or a
lack of familiarity with the requirements and law governing a specific
type of petition or application. We are concerned that once left with no
requirement to issue an RFE, USCIS officers, especially those with
minimal experience, will issue denial notices instead of properly
granting a petition or application that has been filed with adequate
evidence. We believe that the elimination of the mandatory RFE issuance
at 8 CFR 103.2(b)(8) will result in an increase of erroneous application
denials.

There is no evidence that the elimination of the RFE requirement or the
existing minimum 12-week response period will reduce processing times.

The summary of the proposed rule states that the rule will "result in
improved efficiency in the USCIS adjudication process." CLINIC shares
and supports USCIS' goal to reduce the current application processing
times. However, we object to efforts to reduce average case processing
times that erode crucial accountability mechanisms. The requirement to
issue an RFE provides applicants and petitioners with the opportunity to
either respond to an adjudicator's initial (and frequently erroneous)
interpretation that an application is not approvable. It also provides
applicants with an important opportunity to clarify questions
surrounding eligibility by submitting additional evidence. It creates a
record of this dialog, which helps to ensure basic fairness throughout
the application process.

Finally, the idea that shorter RFE response periods will improve
efficiency is unsupported. Applicants have a natural incentive to obtain
and submit requested evidence as soon as possible. They understand that
the adjudication of their application cannot take place until they
submit the requested evidence. Because applicants do not wish to further
delay their application processing, they will submit documentation as
soon as they are able to obtain it. Immediately upon receipt of the
requested evidence, which may be in advance of the expiration of the
12-week response period, the final adjudication of the application may
take place. Therefore, there is no evidence that minimizing response
periods will increase efficiency. Moreover, eliminating RFEs or
shortening the response time to RFEs will contribute to adjudications on
undeveloped records, which will lead to more appeals. This will not
increase efficiency but rather increase the workload of the appeals
unit.

For the reasons outlined above, CLINIC respectfully submits that the
mandatory RFE issuance requirement, as well as the minimum 12-week RFE
response period not be changed. CLINIC appreciates your consideration of
these views.

Very truly yours,

![](media/image2.png){width="1.125in" height="0.29375in"}

Donald Kerwin

Executive Director