U.S. Dcpurtmcnt orHomcl11nd Security 

U.S. Citizenship and lmmigrotion Services 

Office oftire Dirwor (MS 2000) 

WoshinQIOn, DC 20529-2000 

U.S. Citizenship 

and Immigration 

Services 

June 30, 2016 

Maria M. Odom 

Citizenship and immigration Services Ombudsman 

U.S. Department ofHomeland Security 

Mail Stop 0180 

Washington, DC 20528 

Dear Ms. Odom: 

Thank you for the publication ofyour 2015 Citizenship and Immigration Services 

Ombudsman's (CISOMB) Annual Report to Congress (2015 Annual Report). The report 

provided an opportunity for a comprehensive review of current U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 

Services (USCIS) processes, policies, and operations. 

I have reviewed the report and discussed your findings with my senior leadership team. 

We all appreciate your insight on this wide variety ofimmigration issues and l concur with many 

ofthe findings. 

The report documents our ongoing communication and collaboration with the CJSOMB 

throughout this past year. We share your objective to improve the quality of adjudications and 

service delivery across all immigration form types. Thank you for recognizing USCIS' many 

accomplishments last year as we began administering the Executive Immigration Reforms. We 

also recognize that both our internal and external customers deserve timely, professional, and ' 

accurate service each and every day. 

I recognize that there remain opportunities for continuous improvement in USCIS 

programs and engagements with all ofour customers. Thank you again for your valuable 

feedback. I am pleased to present you with USCIS' response to the 2015 Annual Report for your 

further consideration. I look forward to continuing to work with you on these critical 

immigration matters. 

Sincerely, 

www.uscis.gov 
A Message from the Director 

It is my pleasure to present the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 

Services (USCIS) Response to the Citizenship and Immigration 

Services Ombudsman's (CISOMB) 2015 Annual Report to Congress 

(2015 Annual Report). In this response, we seek to address the 

concerns raised in the Annual Report, as well as highlight some of the 

many additional accomplishments of USCIS over the past year. 

In her Annual Report, the Ombudsman, Ms. Maria Odom, noted many 

of our achievements including: 

• 	 Immigration benefits for victims of domestic violence, 


trafficking, and certain other crimes; 


• 	 EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program centralization within the 


USCIS Field Operations Directorate; 


• 	 Additional resources dedicated to the affirmative asylum backlog; and 

• 	 Our continued commitment to public engagement and development of new customeroriented policies and initiatives such as myUSCIS. 

The CISOMB also noted the agency's progress in the successful development of: 

• 	 The Task Force on New Americans as co-chair; 

• 	 Modernizing and streamlining our legal immigration system for the 21 51 century with the 

Department of State and other partners; 

• 	 Work authorization for certain H-4 spouses; 

• 	 Policy guidance clarification for L-1 intracompany transfers; 

• 	 The Central American Minors Refugee/Parole Program and the Haitian Family 


Reunification Parole Program; and 


• 	 "Emma," the USCIS virtual assistant that will interactively answer customer immigration 

questions. 

I have greatly benefitted from my regular meetings with the Ombudsman, participation in the 

CISOMB annual conference, CISOMB-hosted meetings and teleconferences with stakeholders, 

CISOMB communications with USCIS leaders, and CISOMB site visits throughout the agency. 

We, as an agency, stand ready to work with the CISOMB to ensure that USCIS is serving our 

customers, stakeholders, and the American public as well as we possibly can. 

Sincerely, 

Leon Rodrf guez 

Director 

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 

11 
USCIS Response to the Citizenship and 


Immigration Services Ombudsman's 


2015 Annual Report to Congress 


111 
Table of Contents 


I. Legislative Requirement ................................................................................................... 1 


II. Introduction....................................................................................................................... I 


III. Families and Children ...................................................................................................... 2 


IV. Employment. .... .................................................................................................................. 9 


V. Humanitarian .................................................................................................................. 22 


VI. Interagency, Customer Service, and Process Integrity ............................................... 34 


VII. Recommendations Update ................................................................. ............................. 45 


VIII. Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 46 


lX. Appendix A: Acronyms and Abbreviations ................................................................ 47 


lV 
I. Legislative Requirement 

This document responds to the reporting requirements set forth in the Homeland Security Act of 

2002, 6 U.S.C. § 272, which provides in relevant part: 

(f) Responsibilities of Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services 

The Director of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services shall establish 

procedures requiring a formal response to all recommendations submitted to such 

director by the Ombudsman within 3 months after submission to such director. 1 

II. Introduction 

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)2 thanks the Citizenship and Immigration 

Services Ombudsman (CISOMB) for the thoughtful analysis provided in the Annual Report 

2015: Citizenship and Imrnigration. Services Ombudsman (20 J 5 Annual Report). 

3 USCIS 

appreciates the review of the agency's operations and welcomes the opportunity to respond. This 

response provides updates to USCIS programs and the areas of concerns raised by CISOMB, as 

well as the agency's accompUshments in those areas. 

As noted in the 2015 Annual Report, USCIS' primary focus has been the implementation of 

many of the immigration reforms announced by President Obama announcement on November 

20, 2014. These steps will provide significant improvement to the legal immigration system. 

The July 2015 White House report, Modernizing and Streamlining our Legal Immigration 

Systernfor the 21'11 Century, 

4 outlines USCIS' work with Department of Homeland Security 

(OHS) pa11ners. As part of these reforms, USCIS is now providing employment authorization 

for certain H-4 spouses, has clarified options for L-1 intracompany transfers to the United States, 

is protecting additional victims of crime and human trafficking, and is reducing family separation 

for individuals waiting to obtain lawful permanent resident status. 

USCIS has hosted I0 national engagements on various aspects of these reforms. These have 

included stakeholder teleconferences in English and Spanish and meetings with foreign 

embassies and key stakeholders to discuss deferred action for childhood arrivals (DACA), the 

Task Force on New Americans, visa modernization, and business enhancements. In addition, 

USCIS community relations officers have hosted local listening sessions and outreach events 

1 See Pub. L. No. I 07-296, 11 6 Stat. 2 135 (2002); Homeland Security Act of2002, available at 


http://www.c.lhs.gov/xlibrnry/asscts/hr 5005 enr.pdf. 
 2 In this response, "USCIS" and "agency" arc used interchangeably. 
 3 See DHS Report, "Annual Report 2015: Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman" (June 29, 2015), 


available at http://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/filcs/publications/20 15%20ClSOMB%20Annual%20Reporl 508.pdf. 


"See White House Report, "Modernizing and Streamlining Our Legal Immigration System for the 21 51 Century" 


(July 2015), available at https://www.whitchousc. gov/sitcs/dcfault/lilcs/docs/linal visa modernization report I.pdf. 

across the country to share information and solicit stakeholder feedback on various executive 

aclion reforms. 

USCIS is also working toward continuous efficiency improvements for current immigration 

programs. The 20 J 5 Annual Report provides a fresh perspective on many of these issues. The 

CISOMB observations were carefully reviewed by USCIS subject matter experts and leadership 

in the preparation of this response. The collaborative efforts of CISOMB and USCIS will 

continue to ensure that the agencies' unique missions are successful. 

III. Families and Children 

A. Renewals for Def erred Action for Childhood Arrivals 

Accomplishments 

• 	 USCIS intensified efforts to prevent any lapses in previously approved deferred action for 

individuals who timely file their renewal requests and demonstrate that they continue to 

satisfy the guidelines to be eligible for deferred action and merit a favorable exercise of 

discretion. For such cases that did not present unusual circumstances, USCIS issued new 

Employment Authorization Documents (EAD) before the expiration of their EADs in 

98.9 percent of the cases. 

• 	 USCIS updated DACA Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) on June 15, 2015.5 

• 	 USCIS implemented a robust outreach effort to notify DACA recipients about the 

renewal process, including dissemination of educational materials and engagement 

events in multiple languages. The agency is sharing information with community and 

faith-based organizations, advocacy groups, educators, and legal service providers, 

among other stakeholders. 

• 	 As of March 27, 2015, USCIS began issuing notices to DACA recipients whose 

deferred action will expire in less than 180 days to remind them that to avoid a lapse 

in their period of deferred action, they should file a renewal request between 150 days 

and 120 days before the expiration date listed on their Form I-797C approval notice 

and EAD. This is an improvement from the previous recommended period of 

100 days prior to expiration of the period of deferred action.6 

5 USCIS official website, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals: Frequently Asked Questions, 


http://www.uscis.gov/humanilarian/considcration-dcfcrrcd-m:lion-childhood-arrivals-proccss/frcgucn1l y-nskcd­


gucs1icrns (last visited April 22, 20 16). 
 6 USCIS official website, Don't Let Your Work Permit Expire; Follow These DACA Renewal Tips, 


hllp://www.uscis.gov/ncws/dont-le1-your-work-per111it-expirc-follow-thc,o;;c-dncn-rencwal-lips (last visited 


April 22, 2016). 


2 

• 	 USCIS publishes quarterly data on the number of DACA requests received, 

accepted, granted, and denied.7 The data posted most recently since the inception 

ofDACA through the end of September 2015 are as follows: 

o 	 USCIS has received 1,349,875 DACA requests. More than 82,000 of these 

requests were rejected and returned at the outset before being considered. 

Rejections may occur for a variety of reasons; for example, the DACA request 

submitted was incomplete or filed without fee, or the requester failed to meet 

the age guideline. 

o 	 Of the 1,267,761 DACA requests accepted by USCIS, 787,855 were initial 

requests and 479,906 were renewal requests. 

o 	 Of the 787,855 initial requests, USCIS approved 699,832 and denied 51,476; 

36,547 remained pending. 

o 	 Of the 479,906 renewal requests, USCIS aprroved 443,103; USCIS denied 

1,270 ~ and 34,490 requests remain pending. Denials may occur, for example, 

when a DACA requester does not meet the continuous residence criteria, was 

deemed to pose a threat to national security or public safety, or was otherwise 

deemed as a discretionary matter not to warrant deferred action based on the 

case-by-case review of each request. 

Expiration of DACA/EAD 

The USCIS metrics show that an overwhelmfog number of DACA requesters are 

submitting renewal requests fewer than 120 days from expiration of their DACA and 

employment authorization. 

The agency has allocated additional resources at its Nebraska Service Center (NSC) to 

address individual DACA requests that were delayed due to background check issues. 

Individuals may submit an inquisy about the status of their renewal request after it has 

been pending more than 105 days. To submit an inquiry online, individuals should visit 

egov.uscis.gov/e-request.9 

7 USCCS official website, Data Set: Form 182 1D, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, 

hup:// www. uscis.gov/Ioo ls/reports-stud ies/i mmi grati on-forms-dat a/dala-sct-IOrm-i-82 I d-dl.!fcrrcd-acti on-chiId hondarri vats (last visited December 4, 2015). 8 IL is noted that l ,043 renewal request were administratively closed. 9 USClS oflicial website, Reminder for Requesting DACA, http://www.uscis.eov/ncws/remindcr-requesting-daca 

(last visited August 21 , 20 15). 

3 

While each DACA renewal request presents unique circumstances, and USCIS cannot 

discuss specific cases, delays in processing DACA renewal requests are typically due to 

one or more of the following circumstances: 

• 	 A requester's failure to appear at an Application Support Center for a scbeduJed 

biometric services appointment to capture fingerprints, signature, and a photograph to 

produce the EAD. No-shows or reschedules require additional correspondence and 

processing time. 

• 	 Issues of national security, criminality, or public safety discovered during the 

background check process that require further vetting. 

• 	 Issues of unauthorized travel that require additional evidence or clarification. 

• 	 Name or date-of-birth discrepancies that may require additional evidence or 

clarification. 

• 	 The renewal submission was incomplete or contained evidence that a requestor may 

not satisfy the DACA renewal guidelines, leading USCIS to send the requestor a 

request for additional evidence (RFE) or an expJanation. 

USCIS has continually emphasized in public DACA materials and outreach efforts that 

requesters can help prevent gaps in their deferred action by: 

• 	 Filing their complete renewal requests as soon as possible, preferably within the 

150- to 120-day window before their current deferred action expires; 

• 	 IncJuding all required supporting documentation; 

• 	 Responding as quickly and thoroughly as possible to any USCIS requests for 

additional evidence or information; and 

• 	 Attending scheduled biometric services appointments and any interviews, if a 

biometrics appointment or interview notice is sent to the requestor. 10 

DACA Automatic Temporary Extension 

The CISOMB urges USCIS to provide for automatic temporary extension of employment 

authorization upon timeJy receipt of a request for DACA renewal, or to take otber 

measures to ensure that individuals previously granted DACA do not suffer the impact of 

'° For example, see USCIS' Consideration of Deferred Action !Or Childbond Arrivals Process/Frequently Asked 

Questions page onlinc at https://www.uscis.gov/hu mani tarian/considcrat ion-defc1Tccl-action-childhood-arrivalsprocesstrrcqucnlly-askcd-qucst ions (last visited May 23, 201 5). 

4 

a Japse in employment authorization or accrue unlawful presence, both of which carry 

significant adverse consequences. 

• 	 On June 5, 2014, USClS began accepting renewal requests for dererrcd action under 

the DACA process so that individuals can request and receive a renewal of their 

deferred uction. As stated in the revised Form 1-82 1 D instructions, USCIS 

encourages renewal requestors to file as early in the 150-day period as possible or at 

least 120 days prior to the DACA expiration dace. When renewal requestors file in a 

time.ly manner and timely comply with all other renewal requirements, lapses in 

employment documentation arc highly unlikely to occur when the DACA request is 

approvable. There are no automatic temporary extensions for deferred action and/or 

employment authorization possible within the DACA process. When action is 

deferred under DAeA, there is an expiration date to that discretionary action which is 

why the Secretary of Homeland Security's guidelines require filing a request for 

renewal. Additionally, employment authorization is granted to DACA recipients. 

When deferred action under DAeA expires, there is no longer an underlying basis for 

employment authorization. 

B. Provisional and Other Immigrant Waivers of Inadmissibility 

Form I-601A, Application for Provisional Unlawful Presence Waiver 

The CISOMB expressed concerns about summary denials of Form 1-601 A, Application 

for Provisional Unlawful Presence Waiver, when USCIS finds a reason to believe that 

the applicant may be found inadmissible at the time of his or her immigrant visa 

interview. The CISOMB indicated that applicants lack a forum to contest factual or Jegal 

determinations users has made in the denial decision. The eISOMB also expressed 

concerns that RFEs do not assess the particular evidence previously submitted by the 

applicant. Finally, the CISOMB requested that USeIS permit Motions to 

Reopen/Reconsider or adminjstrative appeals to allow for prompt coLTection of errors and 

timely processing of immigrant waivers when USeIS revises and expands the regulations 

governing the Provisional Waiver program. 

The goaJ of the provisional unlawful presence waiver process is to facilitate immjgrant 

visa issuance for immediate relatives who are admissible to the United States except for 

the 3-year and 10-year unlawful presence bars under section 2 l 2(a)(9)(B) of the 

Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. l l 82(a)(9)(B). These bars are 

triggered upon departure from the United States. The U.S. Department of State (DOS), 

not users. determines if an immigrant visa applicant is eligible for an immigrant visa 

and whether there are any grounds of inadmissibility that may bar issuance of the 

immigrant visa. 

If USCIS determines that there is reason to believe that the individual may be 

inadmissible to the United States at the time of his or her immigrant visa interview based 

on a ground of inadmissibility other than unlawful presence, USeIS will deny the request 

for the provisional unlawful presence waiver. users· determination of the provisional 

5 

unlawful presence waiver is not a conclusive finding of inadmissibility. It is a lso not an 

assessment of whether a particular crime or pattern of conduct would ultimately bar an 

individual from obtaining a legal status under the immigration laws. 

USCIS encourages applicants to submit all documentation they believe will establish 

their eligibility for the provisional unlawful presence waiver, and that will establish that 

they warrant a favorable exercise of discretion. It is the applicant's burden to establish 

eligibility for the waiver. Ifthe applicant has not established eligibility, including 

demonstrating that his or her U.S. citizen spouse or parent would experience extreme 

hardship if the applicant is denied admission to the United States, USCIS officers may 

issue an RFE. In response to the CISOMB concerns regarding standardized language, 

USCIS has begun including an assessment of the evidence and arguments presented by 

the applicant in the RFE if additional evidence is needed to establish extreme hardship. 

Regarding revisions to the program to include Motions to Reopen/Reconsider or 

administrative appeals, DHS initially considered this recommendation when preparing 

the original final rule implementing the Provisional Unlawful Presence Waiver program. 

See 78 FR 536, at 553-555 (January 3, 2013). DHS did not incorporate these options into 

the provisional unlawful presence waiver process at the time because DHS believed that 

such options would have undercut the efficiencies USCIS and DOS gained through the 

streamlined provisional unlawful presence waiver process. These options would also 

have significantly interfered with USCIS' and DOS' carefully coordinated operational 

agreement processes, and would have caused substantial delays in waiver and immigrant 

visa processing. 

Additionally, DHS did not incorporate an appeals option because, among other things, 

appeals should be reserved for actions that are based on a comprehensive assessment of 

the applicant's admissibility. See 78 FR, at 555. A provisional waiver does not provide a 

comprehensive assessment because jurisdiction for immigrant visa eligibility, which 

includes inadmissibility, lies with DOS. IfDOS denies the immigrant visa, and if the 

ineligibility is based on inadmissibility at the time of the immigrant visa interview, 

jurisdiction to review a denial of a waiver of inadmissibility is with the USCIS 

Administrative Appeals Office (AAO). It would have been inefficient for DHS to allow 

an interlocutory administrative appeal of a provisional unlawful presence waiver 

decision, which does not take into consideration the full inadmissibility determination or 

any other factor(s) that may be discovered dming the course of the immigrant visa 

process. 

USCIS is currently working on a revision to the regulations governing the provisional 

unlawful presence waiver process. The proposed rule was published for public comment 

on July 22, 2015. See 80 FR 43338 (July 22, 2015). The ruJe proposes to expand 

eligibility for provisional unlawful presence waivers to all foreign nationals who are 

statutorily eligible to obtain a waiver of the unlawful presence ground and are seeking 

such a waiver in connection with an immigrant visa application. USCIS anticipates the 

publication of the final rule later in 2016. 

6 

C. Extreme Hardship 

The CJSOMB raises concerns about the extreme hardship determination when 

adjudicating Forms I-601A and Forms 1-601, Applicationfor Waiver ofGrounds of 

Tnadmissibility. Extreme hardship is not a term with a fixed and inflexible meaning. The 

elements to establish extreme hardship are dependent upon the facts and circumstances of 

each case. When USCIS assesses whether an applicant has established extreme hardship, 

USCIS looks at the totality of the applicant's circumstances and any supporting evidence 

to determine whether the qualifying relative will experience extreme hardship. USCJS 

cannot make a presumption of extreme hardship because the law places the burden on the 

applicant to demonstrate that extreme hardship would occur if the requested benefit were 

not granted. 

As indicated in the 2015 Annual Report, the Secretary's November 20, 2014 

memorandum, Expansion ofthe Provisional Waiver Program, 11 directs DHS to issue 

clarifying guidance on extreme hardship to improve consistency in adjudications. Draft 

clarifying guidance was issued on October 7, 20 L5. USCIS has reviewed all of the public 

comments it received and is in the process of finalizing the guidance. Additionally, 

users directorates are working together to address possible inconsistencies in extreme 

hardship adjudications. 

D. Military Immigration Issues 

Military Parole-in-Place 

In the CJSOMB's 2015 Annual Report to Congress, the CISOMB suggested that USCIS 

had not shared clear field guidance regarding how USCIS evaluates and processes 

requests for Parole-in-Place for military family members. On November 15, 2013, 

USCIS issued Policy Memorandum 602-0091, Parole ofSpouses, Children and Parents 

ofActive Duty Members ofthe U.S. Armed Forces, the Selected Reserve ofthe Ready 

Reserve, and Fonner Members ofthe U.S. Armed Forces or Selected Reserve ofthe 

Ready Reserve and the Effect ofParole on Inadmissibility under Immigration and 

Nationality Act§ 212(a)(6)(A)(i). 12 

This policy memorandum (PM) provides for amending the Adjudicator's Field Manual 

(AFM) to ensure consistent adjudication of parole requests made on behalf of aliens who 

11 See DHS Memorandum, "Expansion of Provisional Waiver Program" (November 20, 2014), available at 

hllp://www.dhs.2ov/silcs/<lcfault/liles/publications/ 14 11 20 memo i60 Ia waivcr.p<lf. 12 USCIS PM, "Parole of Spouses, Children and Parents of Active Duty Members of the U.S. Armed Forces, the 

Selected Reserve of the Ready Reserve, and Former Members of the U.S. Armed Forces or Selected Reserve of the 

Ready Reserve and the Effect of Parole on Inadmissibility under Immigration and Nationality Act§ 212(a)(6)(A)(i)" 

(November 15. 2013), available at 

h1tps://www.uscis.gov/si1cs/dcfaulllliles/USCIS/Laws/Memoranda/2013120 13-1115 Parole in Place Memo .pdf. 

7 

are present without admjssion or parole and who are spouses, children, and parents of 

those serving on active duty in the U.S. Armed Forces. 

Additionally, the PM amends the AFM where it concerns the effects of parole on an 

alien's inadmissibility under the INA. 

The PM builds on those important initiatives USCIS has launched in partnership with the 

U.S. Department of Defense (DoD). 

Technical Corrections 

USCIS respectfully offers the following technical corrections to the CISOMB's 


discussion on military immigration issues in its 2015 Annual Report: 


• 	 The term "MAVNI" is an acronym for "Military Accessions Vital to the National 

Interest"; 13 and 

• 	 The 2015 Annual Report states that USCJS is looking into establishing co-located 

USCIS offices in Fort Knox, Kentucky, and Fort Sill, Oklahoma, where the DoD 

conducts basic training for new recruits. Fort Knox is not a basic training site and 

although USCIS' Louisville Field Office conducts frequent outreach in Fort Knox, 

USCIS has not conducted naturalization adjudications or ceremonies at this location 

within the past 12 months. USCIS, however, does regularly conduct seminars and 

other outreach engagements at various military installations across the United States, 

such as Fort Knox. 

E. The Haitian Family Reunification Parole Program (HFRP) 

Invitations to apply to the HFRP Program14 are issued to eligible Form J-130 petitioners 

whose beneficiaries' immigrant visas are expected to become available within 18 to 

36 months. The first round of invitations to apply to this program was issued in March 

and April 2015. The second round ofinvitations to apply to this program was issued in 

November and December 2015 to the entire group of petitioners that met these criteria. 

In totaJ, roughly 7,600 petitioners representing about 14,000 potential beneficiaries have 

been invited to apply to the program thus far. Interviews in Port-au-Prince, Haiti, began 

in August 20 15 and the first HFRP beneficiaries arrived in the United States in September 

2015. 

13 DoD official website, Fact Sheet: Military Accessions Vital to the National Interest (MAVNI) Fact Sheet, 


http //www fc gov/ ~ws/ av -fa -s cct. dl' (last visi ted April 22, 2016). 
 14 USCIS official website, The Haitian Family Reunification Program, hllp://www.uscis.g()v/HFRP 


(last visited April 22, 2016). 


8 

IV. Employment 

A. The H-2 Temporary Worker Programs 

USCIS has improved communication between sister agencies, participated in stakeholder 

engagements and contributed to various public outreach efforts. 

Improved Communication 

During the H-2B cap season (the period during which USCIS accepts H-2B petitions that 

are subject to the next fiscal year's cap), USCIS worked with DOS to improve 

information sharing in order to ensure that relevant H-2B data regarding visa issuance 

was communicated. This improvement provided USCIS with a more accurate number of 

H-2B visas issued and allowed it to better manage its responsibility to approve an 

appropriate number of H-2B petitions and beneficiaries within the biannual numerical 

cap. 

Stakeholder Engagements and Public Outreach 

In addition to improved communication between our sister agencies, USCIS has 

participated in various stakeholder engagements such as the annual DOS stakeholder 

conference, the CISOMB annual conference, and the California Service Center (CSC) 

Open House. USCJS joined U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) for an 

August 24, 2015 meeting with representatives of the seafood industry in New Orleans, 

Louisiana, to listen to views and concerns regarding the H-2B program amongst program 

users in the Gulf Coast area. 

USCIS has also responded to many inquiries from media outlets, stakeholders, and 

congressional offices regarding various aspects of the H-2B visa program. 

Redundant RFEs 

The CISOMB reported that some H-2 stakeholders believe they are receiving 

unnecessary or redundant RFEs scrutinizing the "temporariness" or "seasonality" of 

occupations. USCIS continues to stiive for overall consistency in the adjudicative 

process and understands these stakeholder concerns. By statute, USCIS makes the 

deter11Unation on eligibility for the H-2 classification, including questions of 

temporariness and seasonality, based on the totality of the evidence provided at the time 

of filing. users has consistently maintained that customers should file properly 

prepared petitions in order to avoid any type of delay in the adjudication process. 

15 

15 As supported in the official USCIS website, Tips for Filing Forms with USCIS, htlns://www.uscis.gov/l'onm ­


fi lirnH ips (last visited May 23, 2016). 


9 

Additionally, USCIS routinely share filing tips at stakeholder engagements, and 

stakeholders are encouraged to alert the Service Center Operations Directorate (SCOPS) 

of any RFEs that do not appear to comply with statutory and regulatory requirements. 

Most recently, in response to stakeholder concerns over an increase in RFEs, USCIS 

issued public clarifying guidance regarding the type of information necessary to establish 

temporary need. (See https://www .uscis.gov/working-united-states/temporary-workers/h2b-non-agricultural-workers/h-2b-clarif ying-guidance). Internally, USCIS continues to 

provide training to officers in both the specific H-2 nonimmigrant classification and in 

the overall legal process, including the "preponderance of the evidence" standard. Both 

the California and Vermont Service Centers have undergone recent changes in staffing, 

and have accordingly provided H-2B related training to the new officers. Additionally, 

USCIS issued internal clarifying guidance regarding the H-2B program to ensure that 

adj_udicators apply existing law correctly. 

Agents 

According to Section 214.2(h)(2)(i)(F) of Title 8, Code of Federal Regulations (8 CPR), 

agents are permitted to file Form I-129 petitions as petitioners as long as they meet the 

requirements in the provision. By way of review, a U.S. agent may be: 

• 	 The actual employer of the beneficiary; 

• 	 The representative of both the employer and the beneficiary; or 

• 	 A person or entity authorized by the employer to act for, or in place of, the employer 

as his or her agent. 

Additionally, a U.S. agent can only file an H-2 petition in cases: 

• 	 Involving workers who are traditionaJly self-employed; 

• 	 Involving workers who use agents to arrange short-term employment on their behalf 

with numerous employers; or 

• 	 Where a foreign employer authorizes the agent to act on his or her behalf. 

USCIS does not currently plan to capture information on agents in its electronic case 

management systems while H-2 petitions remain a paper-based adjudication. USCIS has 

received feedback from H-2 stakehoJders requesting that a specific "Designated Agent of 

Record" form be created just for H-2 representatives or H-2 agents. Since the provision 

on agent-petitioners is located in the general H provision and is not limited to only the 

H-2 classification, the creation of a specific form for this type of petitioner would affect 

agent-petitioners in other classifications as well. USCIS bas established a public website 

to address frequently asked questions on H-2A petitions, which includes information on 

who may qualify as an agent for filing a petition with USCIS. 

16 

16 USCIS official website, H-2A Petitioners Questions and Answers, hllp://www.uscis.gov/ncws/gucstions-andanswcrs/h-2a-pctitioncrs-ques1ions-answcrs (last visited April 22, 2016). 

10 

H-2B Processing in the Wake of Litigation 

On March 5, 2015, USCIS announced it was temporarily suspending adjudication of 

H-2B petitions while the Government considered the appropriate response to the court 

order entered on March 4, 2015, in Perez v Perez, No 3: 14-cv-682 (N.D. Fla. Mar. 4, 

2015). 17 The Perez court order vacated the Department ofLabor's (DOL) H-2B 

regulations on the grounds that DOL had no authority under the INA to issue them. 

Shortly after issuance of the Court's order, DOL filed an unopposed motion to stay the 

Court's order until April 15, 2015. On March 17, 2015, as stated in the motion, DHS 

resumed adjudicating H-2B petitions based on temporary labor certifications issued by 

DOL. 

Additionally, in response to the com1 decision, DOL and DHS jointly published an 

interim final rule18 to reinstate and make improvements to the H-2B program, and a final 

rule19 to establish the prevailing wage methodology for the program. These rules 

strengthen protections for U.S. workers, ensuring that they have the opportunity to find 

and apply for jobs for which employers are seeking H-2B workers, while also allowing 

employers to access foreign workers on a temporary basis. 

H-2 Interagency Working Group Findings 

USCIS has been a participant of the H-2 Interagency Working Group with the CISOMB, 

DOL, and DOS, and has discussed a variety of topics affecting the H-2 programs. During 

the course of the meetings, users listened to some of the challenges that are unique to 

the H-2 classification and clarified the petition process from initial intake to final 

adjudication, as appropriate. USCIS also was able to note which steps in the adj udicative 

process involve other agencies, such as the consular return process, and explain how 

adequate time is needed in order to ensure that each petition is given full and fair 

consideration consistent with all applicable laws, rules, and regulations. 

Specifically, one of the stakeholder concerns of which USCIS took note was the 

requirement that a Form I-J 29 H-2B petition be submitted with a temporary labor 

certification (TLC) that bears original signature(s). This modification in procedure 

occurred as a result of the changes to the DOL iCERT Visa Portal, which took place on 

October 15, 2012. When DHS and DOL published the joint Interim Final Rule on 

April 29, 2015, DHS and DOL eliminated the requirement that the TLC be submitted 

17 USCIS official website, USCIS Temporarily Suspends Adjudications of H-2B Pclitions Following Court Order, 

http://www.uscis.gov/ncws/uscis-tcmpnrarily-suspends-adjudicalion-h-2b-petitions-rollowing-court-ordcr (last 

visiled April 22, 2016). 

18 See Interim Final Ruic, "Temporary Non-Agricullural Employmenl or H2B Aliens in the United States" 

(April 29, 2015), available at hllps://wwwJ cdcralrcgister.gov/arlicles/20 15/04/29/20 15-09694/tcmporarv-nonagricullural-employmcnt-of-h-2b-alicns-in-thc-unitcd-s1a1cs. 19 See Final Ruic, "Wage Methodology for lhc Temporary Non-Agricultural Employment H-2B Program" (April 29, 

20 15), available at hll ps://www. federal register. gov/ar1 ic les/2015/04/29/20 I 5-09692Jwa gc-mclhodology-for-t hctcmpornry-non-aericu Ilural-cmploymcn t-h-2b-progrnm. 

11 

with the "originaJ signature." As a result, H-2B petitions may now be submitted to 

USCIS with an original TLC on blue security paper, but with a signed copy of 

Appendix B (the signature page of the TLC). 

USCIS looks forward to continuing the H-2 lnteragency Working Group and continuing 

to create professional and transparent programs. 

Prioritizing H-2B Petitions 

USCIS wishes to clarify the H-2B petition process as the 2015 Annual Report states that 

H-2B filings are not prioritized. Unlike other classifications, there is no overarching 

regulatory requirement that provides a specific timeframe in which H-2B petitions must 

be completed. Instead, USCIS has established internal processing goals and H-2B 

petitions are generaJly adjudicated in a time-sensitive fashion. Processing times are 

routinely updated on the USCIS website. Since each petition is adjudicated on a case-bycase basis, however, some petitions may require additional review as needed. As noted 

in the 2015 Annual Report, the H-2B classification is also eligible for the premium 

processing service, which means that an adjudicative action will take place within 

J5 calendar days. The vast majority of H-2B petitions utilize premium processing. The 

availability of premium processing is intended to help petitioners receive a decision in an 

expedited manner. 

H-2B Electronic Processing 

The CISOMB also expressed concern that the H-2B program is a paper-based 

adjudicative process, and emphasized that USCIS should enhance its electronic case 

processing and communication. 

USCIS understands the time-sensitive nature of H-2B non-agricultural work, and 

continues to adjudicate cases in a time sensitive fashion and within the premium 

processing timeframe, as applicable. In addition, USCIS bas engaged in discussions wilh 

the USCIS Office ofTransformation Coordination (OTC) about the inclusion of H-2B 

petitions in the USCIS Electronic Immigration System. USCIS will continue to keep the 

affected public informed of program developments. 

B. High-Skilled Adjudications Issues 

USCIS received a record number of H-1B cap-subject petitions (H- 1 B petitions subject to 

the upcoming fiscal year's numerical cap) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2016, totaling nearly 

233,000 during the 5-business-day filing period, which began April J. This total also 

included petitions fi led for the advanced degree exemption from the cap. On 

May 4, 2015, USCIS announced it had successfully completed data entry of all FY 2016 

H-IB cap-subject petitions that were selected in the computer-generated random selection 

process. On July 14, 2015, USCIS announced that it completed processing the return of 

FY 2016 H-lB cap-subject petitions that were not selected in the computer-generated 

random selection process. 

12 

On March 24, 2015, USCIS posted PM-602-0111, L-JB Adjudications Policy, for public 

feedback. 20 During the feedback period, which ended on May 8, 2015, USCIS received 

31 comments. USCIS reviewed and considered the feedback from stakeholders prior to 

issuing the final PM on August 17, 2015. 

21 Additionally, USCIS hosted a conference at 

the CSC, which included participants from DOS and CBP, that provided training 

consistent with the PM. 

Use of the Occupational Outlook Handbook COOH) in H-IB Adjudication 

USCIS is currently in the process of creating a policy manual for the H-lB classification 

that, in part, clarifies the proper standards for using various tools such as the OOH and 

the deference that should be afforded such materials. 

Requests for Evidence CRFE) Rates 

While USCIS has noted previously that a 100-percent review of all RFEs is not 

operationally feasible, the agency continues to stress that all decisions made by newly 

trained officers, including the issuance of RFEs, are reviewed until the officer 

demonstrates adjudicative proficiency in the classification. SCOPS regularly conducts 

quality analysis on all RFEs. 

USCIS continues to work diligently to ensure that appropriate and consistent 

adjudication, including the proper issuance of RFEs for the H-lB and L-1 workloads, 

takes place at the service centers. USCIS has not detected any significant spikes in RFE 

rates as they relate to the H-lB classification. Additionally, a review of the CISOMB's 

H-JB RFE Rate Graph in the 2015 Annual Report shows that RFE rates for the H-IB 

classification appear to have remained fairly consistent over the last 4 fiscal years 

(2010-2014). As noted in our response to the FY 2014 report, it is common for RFE rates 

to slightly increase during H-lB cap season, as most petitions are for initial employment 

and thus may require additional evidence to establish the beneficiary's eligibility. 

Finally, in response to concerns about L-lB RFEs, USCJS posted, on July 17, 2015, a 

draft L-lB RFE template on its website for public feedback.

22 The feedback period 

concluded on July 31, 2015. USCIS received seven comments from the public, which 

were reviewed and considered prior to finalizing the current L-IB RFE template. 

20 See USCIS PM for Feedback, "L-IB AdjudicaLions Policy," PM-602-0111 (March 24, 2015), available at 

hup://www. uscis. gov /si Les/defau I IiIiI cs/US CIS/OuIreach/Draft %20Mcmorandu m %20for%20Co m mcnt120 15-0 324­

D raft-L- 1 B-Mcmo.pdf. 21 See USCIS PM, "L-I B Adjudications Policy," PM-602-0111 (Augusl 17, 2015), available at 

hllp://www.uscis.gov/sitcs/dcfault/lilcs/USCIS/LawsfMemorandn/20 I SILi B Memnrandum 8 14 15 dral'l for FINAL 4pmAPPROVED.pdf. 

22 See USCIS Drafl Template for Comment, "L-1 B RFE Notice" (July I 7, 2015), available at 

http://www.uscis.gov/sitcs/defaultlli les/USCfS/Ou1rcach/Drafl%20Rcqucst%20for%20Evidcncc%20%28RFE%29 

%20Tcmplate%20for%20Commcnt/PED-Specialir.ed-Knowlcdgc-L I B-RFE-Tcmplatc-2015.pdf. 

13 

On August l7, 2015, USCIS also issued a PM that provides guidance on the adjudication 

of the L-lB classification, permitting multinational companies to transfer employees who 

possess "specialized knowledge" from their foreign operations to their operations in the 

United States. It provides consolidated and authoritative guidance on the L- LB program, 

superseding and rescinding certain prior L-lB memoranda. This memorandum also 

updates the AFM by replacing AFM chapter 32.6(e) with the version included in this 

memorandum. 

L-lB Extensions 

The CISOMB cites a report23 indicating that USCIS denies L-lB extension petitions 

more often than it denies initial L- lB petitions. There are several factors that may make 

the adjudication of an L-lB extension petition different from the adjudication of a 

petition for initial L- lB status. USCIS notes that many L-1 beneficiaries apply for visas 

associated with approved "blanket" L petitions, which allow them to present their initial 

petitions for L-1 classification at U.S. consulates. In such cases, USCIS' first opportunity 

to review the L-lB worker's qualifications and actual duties does not occur until the time 

a petition to extend the worker's L-lB stay is fil ed. L-lB petitions also may be 

adjudicated by CBP at a port of entry or designated pre-flight inspection station. Here 

too, USCJS' first opportunity to review the worker' s qualifications may not occur until 

the time an extension request has been fi led. In some cases, USCIS may determine at the 

extension stage that, based on facts not available to the DOS consular officer or CBP 

inspector at the initial petition stage, the extension petition may not be approvable. 

In addition, some L-IB employees initially obtain their status based upon a " new office" 

petition, which is prospective in nature and granted before a business entity is fully 

operational. After l year, if an extension is desired, the petitioner is required to file for 

an extension and establish that it has been able to meet the objectives set forth in the 

initial petition. In some cases, USCIS may determine that the extension petition may not 

be approvable. 

As applicable, USCIS continues to give deference to prior USCIS determinations in 

petitions requesting extension ofL-lB status, as directed in the William R. Yates memo 

of April 23, 2004,24 as long as there was no material error in the previous approval, there 

has been no substantial change in circumstances, and there is no new material 

information impacting the petitioner's or beneficiary's eligibility, if such objectives are 

not met. 

Preponderance of the Evidence 

23 Nalional Foundation for American Policy, "L-1 B Denial Rale Increases Again for High Skill Foreign Nationals" 

(March 2015); http://nfap.com/wp-contcnt/uploads/20 15/03/NFAP-Policy-Bricf.L-1-Denial-Rates-JncrcaseAgain.March-20 151.pdf (accessed May 25, 2016). 

24 Memorandum from William R. Yates, Associate Director for Operations, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 

Services, The Sig11ifica11ce ofa Prior CIS Approval ofa No11i111111igra11t Petition in the Context ofa S11bseq11enr 

Determi11atio11 Regarding Eligibility for Exte11sio11 ofPetition Validity, HQOPRD 72/ 11 .3 (April 23, 2004). 

14 

As noted in the CISOMB report, USCJS has accepted the recommendation to develop 

new training materials for adjudicators on the "preponderance of the evidence" legal 

standard. Furthermore, USCIS' SCOPS created an internal working group in 

August 2014 that is developing hypothetical case scenarios for specific form types and 

classifications that are based on real life examples to augment the current preponderance 

of evidence training. The working group has completed development of hypothetical 

scenarios for the E ll and the E21 immigrant classifications and the B-1, B-2, 0-1, P-1, 

and P-3 nonimmigrant classifications. Hypothetical scenarios for the L-lB, F-1, and J-1 

classifications are presently under review at SCOPS Headquarters. The working group is 

in the process of creating scenarios for the E 12 and E l3 immigrant classifications. 

C. The EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program 

Processing Times 

As the CISOMB noted in the 2015 Annual Report, USCIS has experienced a tremendous 

surge in EB-5 applications and petitions in recent years. As of March 8, 2016, there were 

more than 800 approved regional centers, a 37-pe rcent increase from the number of 

regional centers that existed at the d ose of FY 2014. Between FY 2014 and FY 201 5, 

receipts ofForm I-526, Immigrant Petition by Alien Entrepreneur, increased by 

approximately 32 percent from 10,923 to 14,373, while receipts for Form I-829, Petition 

by Entrepreneur to Remove Conditions, increased by approximately 10 percent from 

2,516 to 2,767. During this same time period, receipts ofForm I-924, Applica!ion.for 

Regional Center under the Immigrant Investor Pilot Program, increased by 

approximately 190 percent from 277 to 803. 

In response to the signifi cant increase in application and petition receipts, USCIS has 

taken many actions to improve overall efficiency, includjng: 

• 	 Concentrating resources to review and adjudicate aging cases. With this effort, 

the Immigrant Investor Program Office (IPO) has reduced the number of aging 

cases-those outside of processing time-and continues to focus on reducing 

processing times. 

• 	 Continuing to hire additional adjudicators and economists to reduce the 

backlog. As of December 2015, IPO is staffed with 110 full-time employees and is 

recmiting and hiring to reach its FY 2016 approved staffing Jevel of 17 1 by the end of 

calendar year 2016. 

• 	 Nearly doubling the number of adjudicative actions between the 2nd and 3rd 

quarter of FY 2015. USCIS anticipates that the additional staff coupled with 

improved efficiencies wHI increase the number of actions taken and result in 

decreased processing times. 

USCIS is aware of the potential implication of processing time delays, but notes that 

existing regional centers are permitted to utilize strategies such as bridge or temporary 

15 

financing- as described in USCIS' May 30, 2013 EB-5 Adjudications Policy 

Memorandum25-to help mitigate the impact of delays as USCIS works diligently to 

improve processing times. 

USCJS continues to engage its customers through frequent stakeholder engagements, 

informing them of operational updates, offering suggestions for avoiding adjudicative 

delays, and providing the latest statistics on each form type. Improvements made 

operationally and through regularly scheduled engagements with stakeholders will, over 

time, reduce delays in processing of EB-5 applications and petitions. 

Stakeholder Engagement 

In 2014, IPO established the Stakeholder Engagement Branch, a team dedicated to 

promoting and enhancing stakeholder engagements with EB-5 customers and the publicat-large. As of December 2015, the branch has facilitated more than 25 engagements for 

both internal and external stakeholders. These national engagements highlight USCIS' 

efforts to increase staffing levels, reduce the backlog, and promote opportunities for 

customers to submit questions, concerns or comments regarding the EB-5 program. 

In FY 2015, IPO launched two new series of engagements, in addition to IPO's ongoing 

EB-5 engagement efforts, to increase dialogue with the EB-5 community. In 

February 2015, IPO introduced "EB-5 Interactive," which provides thoughtful 

examination of specific areas of the EB-5 adjudicative process based on officers' 

observations and customer feedback. IPO held two successful interactive engagements 

by teleconference, each with more than 600 participants. USCIS posts written remarks 

following engagements to its website to increase public awareness and program 

transparency. Stakeholders can provide input into upcoming interactive topics by 

submitting suggestions and voting using the agency's online ldeaScale Community 

portal. This helps target discussions on those areas most important to the EB-5 

community. 

In addition, USCIS introduced "EB-5 In-Touch." These engagements aJlow USCIS to 

meet in-person with national, state, and local government agencies and other stakeholders 

to increase awareness of the program and hear directly from a broader segment of the 

community. The next EB-5 In-Touch engagement is planned for Miami, Florida, in 

July 2016. 

EB-5 Visa Queues 

25 See USCIS PM, "EB-5 Adjudications Policy" (May 30, 20 13), available ar 

//rtp.l':!/w11•w. uscis. gol'lsi fesldefa11 /tlfiles/USCJS!Ln111.1'/Memora11da/2013/Mny!EB· 

5%20Adiudicnt ions%20PM%20(Apprm•ed%20as%20final%205· 30-13 ).pdf 

16 

Following DOS' announcement in the May 20J 5 Visa Bulletin that the EB-5 visa 

category bas become oversubscribed for individuals born in mainland China, USCIS 

published draft policy on EB-5-related visa issues that addressed visa queues and cutoff 

dates. The draft PM, Guidance on the Job Creation and Sustainment ofthe In.vestment 

for EB-5 Adjudication ofForm 1-526 and Form l-829,26 

was made available to the public 

on August 10, 2015, to allow stakeholders an opportunity to provide feedback regarding 

the adjudication of the job creation and investment sustainment requirements, two key 

eligibility requirements that may be significantly impacted by visa cut off dates. USCIS 

intends to incorporate the final policy into the EB-5 policy manual section to be 

published in FY 2016. 

Addressing Abuse and Increasing Integrity in the EB-5 Program 

users thanks the eISOMB for noting USCIS' collaborative partnerships with Federal 

agencies and its termination of several regional centers, as these directly tie into USCIS' 

efforts to increase program integrity. USCIS continues to focus on collaborative 

partnerships and EB-5 regulatory compliance in its efforts to identify and remove bad 

actors from the EB-5 stakeholder community. Recent and ongoing efforts include: 

• 	 Hosting an EB-5 interagency symposium. In September 2014, USCIS hosted 

representatives from more than 20 Federal agencies to encourage collaboration 

among the Government partners that have a stake in the EB-5 program. 

• 	 Removing regional centers that no longer meet program requirements. users 

termjnated more regional centers in FY 2014 than in the prior history of the program. 

The number of regionaJ centers terminated in FY 2015 exceeded all prior 

terminations through FY 2014. 

• 	 Creating a unit that is dedicated to increasing regional center compliance. IPO 

expects this unit will be fully staffed by the end of June 2016. 

26 See USCIS Draft PM, "Guidance on the Job Creation Requirement and Sustainment of the Investment for EB-5 

Adjudication of Form 1-526 and Form I-829" (August 10, 2015), available ar 

lmp://www.uscis.gov/sitcs/default/lilcs/USCIS/Outreach/Draft%20Mcmorandum%20for%20Comment/PEDDraft Policy Memo Guidance on the Job Creation Requirement and Su!;tainmc.pdf. 

17 

• 	 Continuing to train IPO staff to increase awareness and understanding of 

potential fraud schemes and scenarios that might be found in the EB·S program. 

USCIS understands the impact that fraud can have on legitimate investors and will talce 

into consideration CISOMB's suggestion to allow victims of fraud to reinvest and retain 

their original priority date when developing new regulations for the program. 

Additionally, USCIS implemented the EB-5 protocols shared during Secretary of 

Homeland Security Jeh Johnson's testimony before the Senate Committee on the 

Judiciary on April 28, 2015.27 This directive mandates training for all OHS employees 

and contractors who handle EB-5 cases and provides specific guidance on how senior 

managers must respond when asked to intervene in EB-5 cases. These protocols address 

concerns that were raised in the DHS Office of Inspector General's report28 and were 

fully implemented as of October 1, 2015. 

D. Employment Authorization Document (EAD) Processing 

USCIS' SCOPS successfully implemented the new H-4 EAD category for spouses of 

certain H-l B nonimmigrants. In addition, the Field Operations Directorate (FOD) 

successfully expanded the Employment Authorization expedited processing capabilities 

for the Cuban-Haitian Entrant Program, from l to 12 field offices last year, thus 

significantly reducing time and costs related to travel for participants. 

In FY 2015, of the Form 1-765 applications received, USCIS has achieved the goal of 

90 days or less in 82 percent of the cases even though significantly more EAD requests 

were received than in the past. USCJS also works closely with applicants (and 

representatives) to provide employment authorization to students, humanitarian relief 

applicants, and a variety of other stakeholders. 

USCIS works diligently to provide an adjudicative response for each request for 

employment authorization within the time periods stated in regulations. As noted, 

however, USCIS has experienced an increase in the number of Form 1-765 receipts. In 

the first half of FY 2015, USCIS received almost as many requests for employment 

authorization as it did for all of FY 2014.

29 When cases approaching the regulatory 

period are identified, processing steps are in place to adjudicate them as expeditiously as 

possible. 

27 DHS official website, Wriuen Testimony of DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson for a Senate Committee on the Judiciary 


hearing titled "Oversight of the Department of Homeland Security" (April 28, 201 5), 


http://www.dhs.gov/ncws/2015/04/28/wri t ten-test i mony-dhs-sccretury-jch-johnson-scnatc-comm i tlec-j udiciary­


hcaring (last visited April 22, 201 5). 


28 See OHS Office o f Inspector General (OJG), /11 vesrigario11 into Employee Co111plai111s about Management of 


U.S. Citizenship and /111111 igratio11 Services' EB-5 Program, (Washington, DC, March 24. 2015), available at 


hups://www.oig.dhs.gov/asscts/Mga/OJG mga-0324 15.pd r. 


29 Total Form I-765 receipts were 2,030,896 from October 2014 through September 2015, compared to 1,370,404 for 


FY 2014. 


18 

If an applicant's Form 1-765 has been pending more than 75 days, the applicant may 

contact the National Customer Service Center (NCSC) at 1-800-375-5283 and ask that an 

Approaching Regulatory Timeframe service request be created. The NCSC will route the 

service request to the appropriate office for review. 

Customers who are interested in the status of their application may also contact the 

NCSC. While the USCIS website explains application pendency times, inquiries may 

include those by customers not aware of the regulatory timeframe as well as inquiries 

from customers for whom the regulatory period has been stopped or reset due to the 

issuance of an RFE, background check issue, or another matter. Customers are also able 

to make an InfoPASS appointment with a field office for an in-person inquiry on the 

status of their EAD. 

E. Employment-Based Immigrant Petition Processing 

Employment-based imntigrant petition processing is an area that has received significant 

agency attention in FY 2015. Secretary Johnson's November 20, 2014 Memorandum, 

Policies Supporting U.S. High-Skilled Businesses and Workers,30 directed USCIS to 

develop new policies and regulations to improve the employment-based immigration 

system in a number of areas. Many of the specific initiatives aim to improve aspects of 

the employment-based immigration process that the CISOMB expressed concerns about 

in its 2015 Annual Report to Congress. USCIS components have been working diligently 

to develop and implement the Secretary's directives outlined in this memorandum. 

users is committed to modernizing and streamlining the employment-based immigrant 

visa process. However, as the CISOMB notes, many of the delays in employment-based 

immjgration are the result of congressionally mandated employment-based visa caps. 

USCIS continues to provide technical assistance to members of Congress seeking to 

improve immigration laws. 

Specific SCOPS initiatives 

In addition to assisting with the initiatives related to the President's Executive Actions on 

Immigration, SCOPS has continued to explore ways to improve the efficient processing 

of Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker. In FY 2015, SCOPS began working 

with the relevant service centers to transition all Form I-140 adjudicative notices to the 

Enterprise Correspondence Handling Online (ECHO) system. This project involves a 

concerted effort between SCOPS and the service centers to develop consistent 

Form I-140 standards for all Form I-140 classifications and every type of Form I-140 

adjudicative notice. SCOPS believes the implementation of the ECHO system will 

improve the consistency and efficiency in which Form I-140 adjudicative notices are 

handled. Furthermore, the transition of Form I-140 correspondence to the ECHO system 

will allow SCOPS and the service centers to electronically retrieve and analyze more 

30 See DHS Memorandum, "Policies Supporting U.S. High-Skilled Businesses and Workers" (November 20, 20 14), 

available ar hup://www.dhs.gov/sitcs/dcfaull/fi les/publicalionsf l4 11 20 memo business actions I .pdr. 

19 

detailed data on various Form I-140 adjudicative notices such as RFEs and denial notices, 

which will help SCOPS and the service centers identify Form 1-140 adjudicative trends. 

In FY 2015, SCOPS participated in an agency-wide initiative to develop comprehensive 

training regarding the preponderance of the evidence standard. The training not only 

provided general guidance on the preponderance of evidence standard, but also provided 

preponderance of the evidence training using practical exercises specific to individual 

form types, including Form I-140 petitions. SCOPS believes the preponderance of 

evidence training will be extremely beneficial to Form 1-140 adjudicators, and will lead 

to greater consistency in Form I-140 adjudications overall. 

Form I-140 Processing Times 

USCIS strives to adjudicate all Form I-L40 petitions in a timely manner. During 

FY 2015, the Texas Service Center (TSC) reorganized its Employment Based Division 

with the goal of improving efficiency in the adjudication of Form I-140 petitions and 

employment-based Form I-485 applications. Additionally, the Form 1-1 40 workload was 

rebalanced between the TSC and NSC in FY 2015 in an effort to better align workload 

volumes with existing service center resources. Thrnugh the first 9 months of FY 2015, 

USCIS received approximately 14,000 more Form 1-140 petitions than during the same 

time period in FY 2014. 

While USCIS strives to process all Form I-140 petitions within the public processing 

ti me goals, there are a variety of reasons why some Form 1- 140 petitions may take longer 

to process than the processing times posted on the USCIS website. USCIS must balance 

the important goal of timely processing Form I-140 petitions with the equal Iy important 

goal of ensuring that legally correct decisions are rendered in each case. Some 

Form I-140 petitions require more time to review to ensure the proper decision is made 

and the integrity of the employment-based immigrant visa process is maintained. SCOPS 

will continue to explore ways to improve the efficient processing of Form I-140s. 

Petition Upgrades and Downgrades 

When considering modifying the initial basis of eligibility for filing a pending 

Form 1-485 application to a different basis of eligibility, USCIS service centers use the 

guidance set out in the Michael A. Pearson memo of May 9, 2000.31 USCIS service 

centers also rely on guidance in AFM Section 23.2(1)(2). 

USCJS service centers have several processes in place to identify petitions for upgrade or 

downgrade. The service centers use the Service Request Management Tool (SRMT), 

31 Memorandum from Michael A. Pearson, Executive Associate Commissioner 

Office of Field Operations, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Tra11sferri11g Secrio11 245 Adjustment 

Applications ro New or Subseq11e11t Fc1111ily or Employment-Based Immigrant Visa Petitions, HQ70/23. l-P, HQ 

70/6.13P (May 9, 2000). 

20 

created based on customer inquiries, to initiate reviews of particular cases. In addition, 

the service centers use monthly system sweeps of pending Form I-485 applications, from 

both the principal applicant andlor derivative spouse, that may be associated with other 

Form I-140 petitions to identify cases where a different basis for eligibility may apply. 

Once identified, the standard procedure to handle petition upgrades and downgrades is 

that if the Form I-485 principal applicant or derivative spouse has another Form 1- 140 

that will afford him or her another classification and priority date that is more favorable 

in obtaining an immigrant visa, then USCIS will consider that Form 1-485 adjudication 

ready if the priority date is cmTent, and the application will be routed to a service officer 

for adjudication. 

USCIS does not have a centralized process whereby USCIS can respond to all applicant 

requests for an upgrade or downgrade change. In many instances, USCIS will only be 

able to determine the eligibility of a specific pending Form 1-485 for a petition upgrade or 

downgrade at the time of adjudication. The approval of the application is USCIS' 

response that the upgrade/downgrade request was granted. An SRMT provides a 

response to the applicant that we received the request, but it does not state whether the 

request was granted. 

Applicant's Rights and Approved 1- 140 Petitions 

As the CISOMB notes in her report, USCIS is currently reviewing the issue of whether 

beneficiaries of certain immigrant visa petitions may have legal standing to participate in 

the administrative adjudication process. 

Also, on April 7, 2015, the AAO posted a public solicitation for amicus curiae briefs on 

this topic32 and is currently reviewing submitted briefs. 

Clarification on Certain EB-3 Form 1-140 Data in the Ombudsman's Report 

USCIS believes the FY 2014 EB-3 Form I-140 data listed in Table 3.3 on page 51 of the 

CISOMB report is inaccurate. Based on internal data regarding 1- 140 EB-3 approval 

rates, data for FY 2014 shows an approval rate of 93 percent, which differs significantly 

from the 18-percent approval rate reflected in the 201 5 Annual Report. SCOPS believes 

this new data represents a more accurate picture of the EB-3 approval and denial rates for 

FY 2014. Therefore, USCIS finds that valid inferences cannot be made based on the 

EB-3 data contained in Tables 3.3 and 3.5. USCIS does not agree that there has been a 

significant spike in revocations or denial notices for EB-3 Form I-140 petitions as a 

whole. AdditionaJly, USCIS is not aware of any significant spikes in revocations or 

denial notices for the three individual classifications within the EB-3 category 

(Professionals, Skilled Workers, and Other Workers). 

32 USCIS official website, Request for Amicus Brief, 

htlp://www.uscis.gov/sitcs/defaullllilcs/USCIS/About%20Us/Dircctoratcs%20and%20Proeram%200flices/AA0/3­

27-15-AA0amicus.pdf(last visited April 22, 2015). 

21 

V. Humanitarian 

A. Special Immigrant Juveniles 

The eISOMB detailed ongoing concerns with the Special Immigrant Juvenile (SU) 

program that included inconsistencies in the application of USeIS' consent function, 

processing times, and interviewing practices that are not age-appropriate. In addition, the 

eISOMB announced the intent to issue formal recommendations to users including: 

(l) centralize SIJ adjudication to improve the quality and consistency of decisions;

33 and 

(2) issue updated regulations to clarify policy guidance and the limitations of USeIS' 

consent function. 

SU Accomplishments 

During FY 2015, USeJS received a total of 11,500 SU-based Form 1-360 petitions, of 

which 8,739 were approved and 412 denied. The filings for FY 2015 substantially 

increased from FY 2014 when there were 5,776 filings, of which 4,606 were approved 

and 247 were denied.34 

In FY 2015, USeIS continued to expand the SU outreach initiative with the intent to 

educate state juvenile court judges and child-welfare professionals about the SIJ program, 

including the role of state juvenile courts and the role of USeIS. Informational resources 

aimed specifically at juvenile comt judges and child-welfare professionals have been 

made available on the SIJ pages of the useIS website. One goal of the outreach effort is 

to ensure that juvenile court stakeholders understand the current requirements for SD 

eligibility, including guidelines for juvenile court orders, and to decrease the number of 

RFEs and Notices of Intent to Deny (NOID) issued by USCIS in relation to SIJ petitions. 

On June 25, 2015, users published updated guidance on the im~lementation of the 

Special Immigrant Juvenile Perez-Olano Settlement Agreement. 5 The guidance 

provides detailed instructions for handling certain cases that were denied for age-related 

reasons. The instructions provide a mechanism for denied cases of class members that 

meet the eligibilily requirements to be reopened and reconsidered. 

33 The CISOMB noted recent awareness or USCIS' intent for centralization but remained concerned that, even with 

cenLralization, USCIS will still need to provide service orficers with the appropriate tools and techniques including 

the correct legal standards of the review of the petition and underlying principles associated with this vulnerable 

category. 

3

·• It is noted the number of approvals and denials in a given fiscal year will not total the number of fiscal year 

filings, as not all of the filings are adjudicated in the same fiscal year. 

35 See PM-602-0117. 

22 

SU Centralization 

Since June 20 l5, USCIS has taken steps to centralize the processing of Form 1-360 SIJ 

petitions and Form 1-485 SU-based adjustment of status applications. Centralization 

means that both SU-based Form 1-360 and Form I-485 will be adjudicated at one central 

location, with USCIS retaining the discretion to interview petitioners as needed. USCIS 

is currently working on the organizational planning necessary for the transition. 

Centralization will allow USCIS to improve consistency in the SU program, including 

consistency in which cases USCIS requires an interview, and will provide an enhanced 

ability to monitor cases and track processing times. Centralization of the SU program 

will provide the agency with a better ability to identify inconsistencies and to enhance the 

integrity of the program. 

SU Guidance and Regulations 

USCIS will issue clarifying SIJ policy guidance in the USCIS policy manual. This 

forthcoming guidance on SIJ classification will provide one set of consolidated and 

comprehensive policies on SIJ classification. It will include additional clarification on 

USCIS policies related to the consent function. USCIS estimates that this policy 

guidance will be issued in 2016. Once published, this policy guidance will be available 

on the USCIS website for comment. 

USCIS is also in the process of amending its regulations governing the SIJ classification 

and related applications for adjustment of status. The final rule will implement updates 

to eligibility requirements and ocher changes made by the Trafficking Victims Protection 

Reauthorization Act of 2008 (TVPRA 2008). Information on the estimated time I ine for 

publication can be found in the Unified Agenda ofFederal Regulatory and Deregulat01y 

Actions,36 which is published on a bjannual basis by the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB). 

USCIS' Consent Function in SIJ Adjudications 

The TVPRA 2008 simplified but did not remove the consent requirement in SU 

adjudications.37 USCIS must determine if the child meets the statutory requirements for 

SIJ classification under federal immigration Jaws; while the state juvenile court makes 

child-welfare related ftndings38 under state law. USCIS no longer expressly consents to 

the juvenile court order but rather reviews the order as part of the determination that the 

eligibility requirements have been met. USCIS continues to interpret its consent function 

in line with the congressional history from when the term "consent" was first added to the 

statute. USCIS will consent to SU classification when it is determined that the request 

for SIJ classification is bona fide, which means the court order was sought for relief from 

36 OMB oflicial website. Current Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions, 

lmp://rcginfo.gov/public/do/eAgcndaMain (last visited August 21, 2015). 

37 See INA I 0 I(a)(27)(J)(iii). 38 Defined as legal decisions. See Merriam-Webster's Dictionary http://w w. rr -w . 

23 

abuse, neglect, or abandonment and not sought solely or primarily to obtain an 

immigration benefit.39 USCIS does not determine whether or not a child has been 

abused, abandoned, or neglected, nor does it reweigh the evidence to form independent 

conclusions about what is in a child's best interests. Orders that include or are 

supplemented by a reasonable factual basis for the required findings wi ll usuaJly be 

sufficient to establish eligibility. The juvenile court findings need not be overly detailed, 

but must reflect that the court made an informed decision for each of the required 

findings. 

B. The Affirmative Asylum Backlog 

Currently, no timeline is available for the elimination of the affirmative asylum backlog. 

In FY 2015, the USCIS Asylum Division continued to implement a strategy of program 

growth and streamlining. The primary goals of this strategy are to reach a capacity 

sufficient to process all new projected receipts of affirmative asylum applications and to 

reduce growing case backlogs. The Asylum Division received approval in FY 2015 to 

hire an additional 150 officers. Affirmative asylum receipts continue to increase, 

including a steady receipt of affirmative asylum applications filed by unaccompanied 

minors. 

The Asylum Division is also experiencing surges in credible-fear and reasonable-fear 

referrals originating at the southwest border. Currently, between 40 to 50 Asylum 

Division personnel (including 30 asylum officers) are continuously detailed at two 

Family Residential Facilities to conduct these screenings. In addition, the Asylum 

Division pledged 200 detailees available to the Refugee Affairs Division in support of the 

Administration's commitment to increase refugee admjssions this fiscal year. 

C. Immigration Benefits for Victims of Domestic Violence, 

Trafficking, and Certain Other Crimes 

USCIS thanks the CISOMB for leadership of the Blue Campaign, the unified voice for 

DHS's efforts to combat human trafficking. USCIS' humanitarian programs provide 

critical relief and protection to victims of certain crimes. USCIS appreciates the sensitive 

nature of these cases and values this work. Despite substantial increases in the number of 

receipts, USCIS strives to provide quality and timely service. To ensure these goals are 

met, users monitors staffing levels and provides ongoing training to officers and 

engages with external stakeholders. 

39 H.R. Rep. No. I 05-405, at 130 (1997). 

24 

Officer Training 

USCIS continues to train officers on adjudicative issues and offers them unique u·ainings 

from non-USCIS entities to ensure they understand the sensitive dynamics associated 

with domestic violence, crime victimization, and human trafficking, as well as the role of 

immigration relief in victim safety. 

The Vermont Service Center (VSC) provides form-specific training to officers assigned 

to the humanitarian workload, which includes: 

• Form I-914, Application for T Nonimmigrant Status; 

• Form I-918, Petition for U Noninimigrant Status; 

• Form 1-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status; 

• Form I-360, Petitionfor Amerasian, Widow( er), or Special Immigrant; 

• Form 1-7651 Applicationfor Employment Authorization; 

• Form I-539, Application. to Extend/Change Nonimmigran.t Status; 

• Form I- 192, Application/or Advance Permission to Enter as Nonimmigrant; 

• Form I-929, Petition for Qualifying Family Member ofa U-1 Non.immigrant; 

• Form I-751 , Petition to Remove Conditions 01i Residence; and 

• Form I-290B, Notice ofAppeal or Motion. 

During these trainings, VSC provides an overview of the Jaws and regulations that pertain 

to the form adjudications as well as the processing procedures involved. Specific form 

type training consists of classroom presentations, mentoring, and regularly scheduled 

roundtables. 

New officers are also assigned a mentor. After the initial training period, the trainees 

continue to work with their mentors for an extended period of time. During that time, the 

mentors review and assist the trainees in drafting RFEs, NOIDs, and denials. The 

trainees continue to receive suppo1t long after the formal training period has ended. 

Also, new officers receive an internal domestic violence training that provides an 

overview of the dynamfos of domestic violence and its impact on individuals, society, 

and adjudications. In addition, officers and supervisors receive training from outside 

sources as opportunity and circumstances permit. In January 2015, all T/UNAWA40 

officers received training from a domestic violence non-profit organization as well as the 

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), and a state law enforcement 

officer. During this training session, domestic violence dynamics, substantial harm, 

workplace crimes, and legislative history were all addressed. 

The VSC has recognized the impact of this particular workload on officers, supervisors, 

and managers. As a result, in April 2015, officers and supervisors received training on 

vicarious trauma by two trained psychologists in the private sector. Vicarious trauma 

0 Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). 

25 

(sometimes referred to as "secondary trauma") is typica!Jy defined as the stress resulting 

from helping or wanting to help a traumatized or suffering person or the cumulative 

transformative effect of working with survivors of traumatic life events. The 

psychologists provided an overview of what vicarious trauma is, how to recognize it, and 

tools for coping with it. By raising awareness of secondary trauma, it is expected that 

officers and supervisors will be better equipped to recognize and respond to the effects 

that it can have. Leadership is planning to implement ongoing training of this type for 

officers, supervisors, and managers. 

USCIS has also developed a Form 1-75 1, Abuse Waivers Training for Immigration 

Service Officers, pursuant to the CISOMB recommendation Improving the Process for 

Removal ofConditions on Residence for Spouses and Children.

41 

Stakeholder Engagements 

USCIS was active in various community and stakeholder events throughout the year: 

• 	 users held I2 engagements on T nonimmigrant status (T visas), U nonimmlgrant 

status (U visas), and relief under VAWA for stakeholders during FY 2015. The 

stakeholder audience typically includes a broad cross-section of attorneys, victim 

advocates, community organizations, Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)­

recognized accredited representatives, and social service providers. These 

engagements occurred via webinar and in-person, and reached more than 

2, 110 people in FY 2015. Since USCIS began tracking its external engagements on 

T and U visas and VA WA in FY 2010, USCIS has held 123 engagements involving 

approximately 39,000 people. 

• 	 In September 2015, the vse hosted its annuaJ stakeholder event. During this event, 

there were two sessions dedicated to the T/U/V AW A-related work. Several subject 

matter experts, as well as senior leadershjp from VSC, were in attendance to answer 

questions and provide information to stakeholders from various locations throughout 

the country. 

• 	 In September 2015, USCIS presented a VAWA webinar to the Office of1mmigration 

Litigation (OIL) on the basic eligibility requirements for self-petitioners and VA WAbased adjustment of status. 

• 	 In April 2015, USeIS participated in the 131h Annual Freedom Network AntiTrafficking Conference in Washington, DC. This conference brought together 

service providers, innovative leaders in Government, experienced law enforcement, 

community organizers, members of the faith-based community, and other experts to 

4 1 See CISOMB RecommcndaLion, "Improving the Process for Removal of Conditions on Residence for Spouses 

and Childrcn" (February 28, 20 13), available ar hllp://www.dhs.gov/publ icalion/i mproving-proccss-rnmovalcondi tions-resiclc ncc-spouscs-and-t:hildrcn. 

26 

share expertise, develop new strategies, and work in collaboration with partner 

agencies. 

• 	 In March 2015, USCIS participated in a meeting for Rescue & Restore grantees 

during the Division of Anti-Trafficking, Health and Human Services, Administration 

for Children and Families, Office of Refugee Resettlement conference. USCIS 

discussed best practices for completing successful applications, VSC guidelines, and 

processing of T visa applications. 

• 	 USCIS presented during the U visa webinar for OIL in March 2015 on the wait-list 

process and the expedite criteria, as well as the best way for OIL attorneys to obtain 

status updates. 

• 	 In October 2014, the VSC hosted its annual stakeholder event. During this event, 

there were two sessions dedicated to the T!UNAWA-related work. Several subject 

matter experts, as well as senior leadership from VSC, were in attendance to answer 

questions and provide information to stakeholders from various locations throughout 

the country. 

• 	 In addition, USCIS continues to support the Ombudsman's engagements related to 

this topic and participated in a number of meetings with the Ombudsman and 

advocacy organizations regarding concerns that they have with the T and U visa 

programs. 

VAWA. T Visa. and U Visa Policy 

In 2015, USCIS published two memoranda on the VAWA 2013 changes to T and U visas 

and one interim memo for comment on VA WA-based Cuban adjustments: 

• 	 New T Nonimmigrant Derivative Category and T and U Nonimmigrant Adjustment of 

Status for Applicants from the Commonwealth ofthe Northem Mariana Islands on 

April 15, 2015.42 

• 	 Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of2013: Changes to U Non.immigrant 

Status and Adjustment ofStatus Provisions on April 15, 2015. 3 

• 	 VAWA Amendments to the Cuban Adjustment Act: Continued Eligibility for Abused 

Spouses and Children on June 19, 2015.44 

•

12 See USCIS PM, "New T Nonimmigrant Derivative Category and T and U Nonimmigrant Adjustment of Status for 

Applicants from the Commonweallh of the Northern Mariana Islands," PM-602-0 I 07, (April 15, 20 J5), available at 

http://www.uscis.gov/sitcs/dcfaull/filcs/filcs/naLi vedocumcnls/2015-04 15-TNonimmi erant-TVPRA.pdf'. 

'

13 See USCIS PM, "Violence Against Women Reauthorization Acl of2013: Changes to U Nonimmigrant Sratus and 

Adjustment of Status Provisions," PM-602-0 I 02, (April 15, 2015), available at 

hlm://www.uscis.gov/sites/de fault/liles/filcs/nativcdocumc nts/20 15-0415-TVPRA-2013-PM.pd r. 

27 

Processing Times 

USCIS has made significant efforts to achieve and maintain processing time goals despite 

increases in the number of filings received. As of March 31 , 2016, processing times were 

22.5 months for U nonimmjgrant petitions (or conditional approvals), 7 months for 

applications for T nonimmigrant status, and 5.3 months for VA WA self-petitions. To 

ensure timely adjudication of Form I-360 VA WA self-petitions, vse reallocated and 

augmented resources and provided additional overtime to the officers adjudicating this 

workload. To improve the processing times for Form 1-914, Application for T 

ncinimmigrant Status, the VSC cross-trained additional officers in early August 20 15. 

These additional resources will assist with improving processing times as welJ as provide 

greater flexibility with the workload. 

With respect to posted processing times for U nonimmigrant status petitions, users 

responded to the CISOMB' s concern that those processing times reflected the date of the 

last petition approved under the FY 2014 U-visa cap and did not accurately reflect the 

processing time for wait-listed U status grants. USCIS revised the website processing 

times. The times now reflect the date the last petition was conditionally approved (or 

wait-listed). 

In addition, the VSC's T!UNAWA Humanitarian Division received approximately 

21,842 inquiries on Forms I-360, r-914, r-9 18, and VAWA-bascd Form r-485 

applications from December 2014 to May 20 15. The section intakes, vets, and processes 

its own customer service work due to the confidentiality protections provided for under 

8 U.S.C. 1367. Due to this increase in volume of inquiries, VSC has trained additional 

officers on the customer service workload. The VSC has made significant gains as a 

result of the customer service initiative and has decreased response times. 

VAWA Employment Authorization for Nonimmigrant Victims 

USCCS is creating a new form, Form r-765V, and instructions to be used to apply for 

employment authorization based on section I 06 of the INA. This provision relates to 

abused spouses of certain nonimmigrants. In the meantime, users is working to finalize 

the policy memo and address stakeholders' comments provided in response to the interim 

memo published for comment in December 2012. 

~·•See USCIS Interim Memo for Comment, "YAWA amendments 10 the Cuban Adjustment Act: Continued 

Eligibility for Abused Spouses and Children," PM-602-0 110, (June 19, 20 I 5), available at 

llp://www.u t:i s.gov/sitcs/dcfau t/fi c~/USC S/Ou1 cach/Fccdback%200p or ni 1ic /T nt %20G ida 20 r 

%20Cnmmcnt/PED-VAWA CAA-Amcndmcnts-PM-602-0 11 O.pdf. 

28 

U and T Visa Law Enforcement Certifications and Declarations 

users understands the need to respond to and work collaboratively with the law 

enforcement community and other certifiers. To that end, users had meetings with 

DOL to provide guidance and suggestions as DOL launched its T visa declaration policy. 

USCIS provided DOL with guidance on T visa declarations and U visa certifications. 

USCIS worked with the CISOMB to revise the draft DHS U Visa Law Enforcement 

Certification Resource Guide. USCJS' goal was to create a document responsive to the 

law enforcement community's questions and concerns. 

users continues to hold quarterly engagements with law enforcement officials to present 

information on the T and U visa programs and law enforcement's role in the declaration 

and certification process. USCIS also provides ongoing training and resources to Federal 

Government agency partners, including DOL, EEOC, the National Labor Relations 

Board, and the Department of Justice, and continues to collaborate with these agencies as 

part of the lnteragency Working Group for the Consistent Enforcement of Federal Labor, 

Employment and Immigration Laws. 

In FY 2015, USCIS hosted eight engagements on T and U visas specifically for law 

enforcement audiences. These were a combination of webinars and in-person 

presentations. During these sessions, USCIS reviewed the forms of immigration relief 

available to victims of human trafficking and certain other crimes and discussed the law 

enforcement certification/declaration in detai I. These sessions reached more than 300 

law enforcement officers around the country, including local police officers, Federal 

agents, and prosecuting offices. users has several more web-based and in-person 

engagements scheduled for FY 2016 and anticipates this will significantly increase our 

outreach goals. 

USCIS also hosts bi-monthly training webinars on T and U visas for community-based 

organizations and law enforcement agencies. These webinars remain very popular 

forums for communicating timely and accurate information to the public on T and U 

visas. USCIS also manages a public email box, T_U_ VAWAtraining@uscis.dhs.gov, 

and responds to hundreds of inquiries and requests for training each year. 

Parole for U Conditional Grantees 

users is actively exploring parole options for conditional grantees of the U visa program 

at this time. 

VAWA Adjustment of Status 

For several years, USeIS has been working to correct delays in transferring VAWA 

adjustment of status applications to the National Benefits Center (NBC). As a result of 

the decrease in delays, the overall adjudication timeline of these applications has 

decreased. 

29 

Requests for Evidence CRFEs) 

USCIS continues to monitor the quality of RFEs for the humanitarian programs. As 

noted previously, the VSC provides classroom training and ongoing mentorship that 

promotes officer development and proficiency. During this process, a new officer 

collaborates with a seasoned officer to develop adjudicative skills, including the ability to 

write quality RFEs. The mentoring process continues until the trainee is ready to work 

independently. In addition to the training, roundtable discussions are held routinely with 

officers on common themes and issues, including RFE best practices. These discussions 

allow officers to continuously learn and grow in their area of expertise. Supervisors also 

attend the classroom training and roundtable discussions to build upon their knowledge in 

order to better guide officers. 

VSC also conducts several quality reviews throughout the year. Each month, supervisors 

review a random selection of cases. While reviewing these cases, the supervisor 

exarrunes all aspects of the adjudication including the RFE. This enables the supervisor 

to provide timely feedback to the officer and enhances the quality of the adjudication. 

D. Fee Waiver Processing Issues 

The 2015 CISOMB Report raises several questions and issues regarding the intake of fee 

waiver requests at the USCIS Lockbox. USCIS understands that it is extremely 

important that every fee waiver request is consistently and timely handled. The majority 

of fee waiver requests are filed at the Lockbox, although a small portion are handled at 

other USCIS offices. Regarding the specific examples in the report. USCIS always 

welcomes specific feedback on cases through the CISOMB to help the agency address 

issues as they are identified. 

Prose Applicants 

Form I-912, Requestfor Fee Waiver, is going through the Paperwork Reduction Act 

(PRA) revision process. USCIS has published a 60-day notice and a 30-day notice in the 

Federal Register requesting public comments on the new form and instructions. In 

addition, USCIS also demonstrated the agency's commitment to engage with 

stakeholders by hosting a national stakeholder engagement on fee waiver requests on 

June 17, 2015. Stakeholders were encouraged to share concerns via the public comment 

process. Both comment periods have closed and USCIS considered all of the public 

comments received. USCIS is currently coordinating with OMB through their review 

process. The revised form will be used immediately upon approval by OMB. 

30 

Template Denial Notices 

As noted in the 2015 CISOMB Report, as well as in reports from previous years, USCIS has 

reviewed its fee waiver denial process and language and edited the denial letters and 

templates that the agency uses to increase clarity by providing more specific information. 

users also continues to encourage stakeholders to use the lockboxsupport@uscis.dhs.gov 

mailbox for information beyond what is received in the denial notices. 

USCIS' goal is to provide Lockbox support responses within 10 business days. Even 

though the volume of jnquiries has almost doubled over the last 2 fiscal years, users is 

currently providing responses within 5 business days. USCIS has dedicated extra 

resources to handle this increased volume and anticipates being able to provide more 

tirnely responses in the future. 

Inconsistent Adjudications 

The Office of Intake and Document Production (OIDP) continues its quality assurance 

program to monitor the work being performed and, consistent with prior years, the 

average quality level has remained over 98 percent tlu·ough FY 2015. The quality 

assurance program ensures consistent administration of the fee waiver program. USCIS 

also welcomes feedback via lockboxsupport@uscis.dhs.gov from stakeholders. The 

agency continues to work directly with CISOMB on any specific cases or issues that 

arise. 

Household Size and Income Calculations 

The concerns relating to household size and income calculations were raised by multiple 

commenters on the revised Form I-912 instructions. In response, USCIS has revised the 

instructions to clarify household income and has reduced the income documentation 

requiremer:its. The revised form and instructions are currently under review and will be 

published once the agency receives finaJ approval through the PRA clearance process. 

Fee Waiver Issues Summary 

users appreciates that the nature ofthe fee waiver request process is stressful for 

applicants because requests are usually filed by those who are concerned with being able 

to afford an immigration benefit. In most cases, these benefits can have a major impact 

on an applicant's life. Thus, USCJS takes the concerns of the CISOMB's office about fee 

waivers very seriously. The agency disagrees that there is a"...large volume of vague 

and unsubstantiated fee waiver rejections ..." as noted in the 2015 Annual Report, and the 

agency has not received any data to support this claim. 

USCIS also disagrees that, "(t]he mechanisms for the public to resolve fee waiver 

problems remain inadequate to address systemic problems." There are multiple 

mechanisms in place to address case-specific concerns that arise. users has pubJicized 

the Lockbox support mailbox email address, lockboxsupport@uscis.dhs.gov, on the 

3 1 

USCJS website, which can provide case specific feedback. Applicants may also make 

general fee waiver inquiries with the NCSC or in person by scheduling an InfoPASS 

appointment at the local field office. 

Historically, approximately 7 percent of inquiries received through the Lockbox support 

mailbox are fee-waiver related. USCIS processed 13,000 inquiries in FY 2013, 19,000 in 

FY 2014 and over 18,000 through the third quarter ofFY 2015. In addition, in FY 20 15, 

USCIS received 15 fee-waiver related inquiries from the CISOMB, and in six of those 

cases USCIS acknowledged the error and worked to resolve the issue. As previously 

noted, response times on inquiries sent to lockboxsupport@uscis.dhs.gov slowed during 

the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd quarters of FY 2015 due to a sharp increase in volume, however, 

USCIS is currently responding within 5 business days and plans to continue improving 

the response times with the help of additional staff. 

E. Humanitarian Reinstatement for Surviving Relatives Under 

INA Section 204(1) and the Regulations 

In the 2015 Annual Report, the CISOMB raises concerns regarding the handling of 

requests for humanitarian reinstatement. USCIS automatically revokes approved familybased petitions upon the sponsoring petitioner's death. To preserve the surviving 

relative's ability to immigrate, the relative may be eligible to request statutory 

reinstatement under INA 204(1) or humanitarian reinstatement under 8 CFR 

205.1 (a)(3)(i)(C). 

USCIS achieved a number of accomplishments during the reporting period that highlight 

its commitment to addressing the CISOMB's concerns regarding variances and delays in 

handling reinstatement requests, template denials, confusion between the types of 

reinstatement, and applicants' difficulty understanding and seeking reinstatement. 

Specifically, USCIS held public engagement events with stakeholders, including an Open 

House at one of its service centers, to discuss, answer questions, and provide information 

regarding reinstatement requests. USCIS also held national roundtable meetings with the 

Office of Chief Counsel (OCC) and service center staff to discuss case examples, thereby 

providing consistent legal advice and guidance to ensure uniformity in the handling of 

reinstatement requests. Appreciating that this is a complex and potentially confusing 

adjudication, SCOPS continues to revise and adapt training materials and to provide 

training, as needed, to ensure consistent adjudication and prevent confusion between 

reinstatement under INA 204(1) versus the regulations. Also, SCOPS created 

standardized adjudications procedures, instructional guidance, and correspondence 

templates. 

Lack of a USCIS Form. Standardized Procedures. and Consistent Instructions 

In the 2014 and 2015 Annual Reports, the CISOMB notes that tbere is no USCIS form to 

request reinstatement under either INA 204(1) or 8 CFR 205. l(a)(3)(i)(C). The CISOMB 

raised concerns with the existing process to request reinstatement, which involves the 

applicant submitting a written request to USCIS. 

32 

In the 20 l5 Annual Report, the CISOMB asserts that USCIS lacks standardized 

procedures for receiving and adjudicating reinstatement requests and lacks consistent 

instructions. When an office receives a reinstatement request, it follows established 

procedures to record the request and take action to process it accordingly. As part of the 

agency's initiative to streamline and standardize correspondence, including RFEs and 

decision notices, USCIS has developed the ECHO system. The ECHO system provides 

standardized correspondence for reinstatement requests regardless ofwhich office 

adjudicates the request. USCIS believes that these efforts will ensure that offices respond 

to reinstatement requests in a uniform and timely manner without sacrificing the quality 

of the adjudication which requires that each case be considered on its own merits. 

Additionally, USCIS provides standard instructions on its website on how to make a 

request for humanitarian reinstatement.45 The agency's website includes information 

about reinstatement requests and how and where to submit such requests.

46 USCIS notes 

that this information includes a chart indicating how and to which office requests should 

be submitted, which may assuage the CISOMB 's concern with the public's difficulty in 

ascertaining which office has jurisdiction. USCIS will review the guidance that is 

available on the agency's website to determine if additional clarity is needed or if the 

guidance should be moved to an area that is more convenient for the public, particularly 

prose applicants, to locate on the website. USCIS is aJso exploring options to issue 

receipt notices. 

The 2015 Annual Report also indicates concern that USCIS does not post processing 

times and notes delays in handling reinstatement requests. While USCIS strives to 

adjudicate promptly all requests in a "first in, first out" manner, it acknowledges delays 

may occur due to extenuating factors such as file location or the need to review additional 

information, Applicants may submit service requests via the NCSC for status updates on 

pending reinstatement requests. 

F. In-Country Refugee/Parole Progra1n for Central American 

Minors 

On December 1, 2014, DOS and DHS announced an in-country refugee and parole 

program for unmarried children under the age of 21 in El Salvador, GuatemaJa, and 

Honduras. The Central American Minors (CAM) Refugee/Parole Program47 allows 

certain nationals of these three countries who are lawfully present in the United States to 

45 USCIS official website, "Humanitarian Reinstatement," available at hup://www.uscis.gov/grcen-card/grccn-cardthrough-family/humanitarian-rein. tatemenl and "Basic Eligibility for Section 204(1) Relief for Surviving Relatives," 

avaifable at hup://www.uscis.gov/grccn-card/grccn-cnrd-1 hmugh-famiIy/hasic-cl i gihiIity-scction-204l-rcl iersurviving-rclati ves (last visited August 21. 2015). 

46 Id. 47 USCIS' official website, In-Country Refugee/Parole Processing for Minors in Honduras, El Salvador and 

Guatemala (Central American Minors - CAM), hllp://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/rcfugcc:-:­

asylumlrcfugccs/country-rcrugccnarolc-processing-minors-honduras-cl-salvador-and-guatcmala-cenlral-umericanminors-cam (last visited August 21 , 20 l 5). Same question as above. 

33 

request that their children be granted interviews for possible resettlement in the United 

States as refugees, and for consideration of parole if they are not eligible for refugee 

status. 

This past year, USCIS hosted national public engagements on CAM with DOS in English 

and Spanish. The engagements provided an overview of the CAM eligibility 

requirements, application process, DNA testing, refugee process, and parole procedures 

for the program. Participants were provided the opportunity to ask questions during the 

engagements. In April 2015, USCIS partnered with DOS to host in-person engagements 

in Dallas and Houston, Texas. Both the USCIS and DOS websites have detailed 

information on the CAM program. 

CAM provides certain qualified children in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras a safe, 

legal, and orderly alternative to the dangerous journey that some children are currently 

undertaking to the United States. 

As of March 14, 20 16: 

• 	 The State Department's Refugee Processing Center reports that Affidavits of 

Relationship had been accepted from parents lawfully present in the United States for 

7,001 cases (7,434 individuals). 

• 	 USClS has completed trips to Central America in which there have been 

608 interviews (representing 636 individuals) and has conditionally approved 

187 cases (representing 205 individuals), or approximately 30 percent, for refugee 

resettlement; 410 cases (representing 419 individuals), or about 67 percent, were 

recommended for parole. 

• 	 There have been 32 refugee and 53 parolee arrivals to the United States. USCIS will 

continue to monitor progress in the implementation of this new program in 2016. 

• 	 On January 13, 2016, the Administration announced plans to expand access to 

resettlement in the United States for vulnerable individuals from Central America in 

partnership with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. This work 

will build and expand on the CAM Program already operating in the region and 

would be separate from the CAM Program. 

VI. Interagency, Customer Service, and Process 

Integrity 

A. Customer Service: CISOMB Case Assistance 

USCIS acknowledges the Ombudsman's recognition of the dedication and expertise of 

numerous officers at various field offices, service centers, asylum offices, Lockbox 

34 

receipting facilities, and other facilities who work directly with the CISOMB to resolve 

the complicated, sensitive, and at times precedent-setting inquiries submitted by 

applicants and petitioners. 

In addition, the Customer Service and Public Engagement Directorate (CSPED) 

continuously enhances its processes and resources related to complex and novel case 

inquiries referred by the CISOMB. The Liaison and Coordination Unit (LCU), which 

serves as the primary agency liaison to CISOMB, was recently reorganized to the 

Customer Assistance Office, creating synergy by combining their unique strengths and 

expertise as the Customer Assistance and Liaison Office (CALO). In addition, a 

dedicated Special Cases Unit was recently created within CALO, staffed with senior and 

experienced case resolution officers dedicated solely to resolving the most difficult cases 

referred by CISOMB. 

The LCU has also made significant progress in reducing the number of extended review 

cases, those that have been pending for at least 6 months outside normal processing time. 

In coordinatfon with FOD, SCOPS, and Refugee, Asylum and International Operations, 

these case inquiries have been reduced from over 1,000 pending inquiries reported on the 

June 20 14 report to 439 pending cases reported during the last March 2015 reporting 

period. This signjficant reduction in case inquiries is the result of a successful 

collaboration between the LCU and the various USCIS components. 

Finally, to demonstrate the agency's conlinued commitment to assist CISOMB in its 

mission, USCIS worked with CISOMB on revising the current Memorandum of 

Understanding (MOU) to more fully address a number of logistical procedures such as 

increased access to information systems access, review and response timeframes, access 

to alien files (A-files), case assistance escalation, and site visits to USCIS offices. The 

MOU was approved on March 7, 2016. 

USCIS looks forward to working together with CISOMB on issues of mutual concern 

and in serving the public through service, engagement, and innovation. 

B. Ensuring Delivery of Notices and Documents Updating 

Addresses 

USCIS recognizes the importance of ensuring proper delivery of notices and secure 

documents to customers. A key element is making certain that USCIS has a current and 

properly formatted address. To that end, USCIS is focused on improving awareness and 

agency tools for address changes, by providing information on how to contact the 

U.S. Postal Service (USPS) as soon as possible if a secure document is not received, 

updating mailing addresses with both USPS and USCIS, and using Change of Address 

Online or ELIS, the USCIS Electronic Immigration System, to update addresses. 

The current version of Change of Address Online was significantly updated to provide 

clearer instructions, easier to fo11ow navigation, and elimination of the need, in most 

35 

cases, to file a separate Form AR- 11 .'48 The next enhancement to Change of Address 

Online will be address validation through USPS. This enhancement will ensure that 

addresses are entered in the proper format. Later phases will build a "change of address" 

service within USCIS that will completely automate the process so that address updates 

are transmitted to the relevant system where an application or petition is being processed . 

The agency is also worklng on an enhancement that will allow for users ELIS to 

automatically update Change of Address Online for all immigrants who pay the USCIS 

Immigrant Fee in USCIS ELIS and all applicants who file Form I-90 at the Lockbox or 

directly by e-filing in USCIS ELIS. This will ensure that USCIS has the most recent 

address for the mailing of secure documents, which should reduce the number of 

documents returned as undeliverable. Additionally, users continues to explore other 

means of delivery for secure documents such as permanent resident cards (PRC) and 

EADs. USCIS bas engaged in discussions with USPS and will keep the CISOMB 

apprised of efforts in this area. 

When an AR- 11 request is received at a field office, USCIS updates the appropriate 

system(s) and the Form AR-I J is sent to the file. When an applicant submits a service 

request, either online or through the NCSC, the address changes are not changed in the 

Service Request Management Tool (SRMT) system. The SRMT merely routes the 

change of address request to the appropriate office, which updates the relevant system. 

For address changes requested through SRMT, which can be completed by calling the 

NCSC or submitting a service request online, the system of record is updated directly and 

a copy of the SRMT is forwarded to the file. 

USCIS' 2005 memorandum, Guidance on Evaluating a Requestfor the Rescheduling of 

an Interview and Handling the Failure ofan Applicant, a Petitioner, a Sponsor, a 

Beneficiary, or other Individual to Appearfor a Scheduled lnterview,

49 

also addresses the 

issue of updating addresses. USCIS added Section B to Chapter 15. l(d)(l)(B) of the 

AFM, "An Alien's Failure to Appear for a Scheduled Interview," which addresses 

procedures for confirmJng if an applicant has submitted a change of address if the 

applicant is scheduled for an interview: 

(B) Notification of Change of Address. The adjudicator must confirm whether the 

individua l required to appear for an interview has submitted notification of a change 

of address. The adjudicator is required to: 

48 Per LNA§ 265, most non-U.S. citizens arc required lo report a change of address within I 0 days of moving 

(regardless or whether they have an application or petition pending). Form AR-11 has been used to satisfy this 

requirement. 9 See USCIS Interoffice Memorandum, "Guidance on Evaluating a Request for the Rescheduling of an Interview 

and Handling the Failure of an Applicant, a Petitioner, a Sponsor, a Beneficiary, or other Individual to Appear for a 

Scheduled Interview" (AFM Update AD06-01 ). (November 23, 2005), available ar 

htIp://www.uscis.gov/sitcs/defaul t/lilcs/USCIS/Laws/IvJ cmomnda/Stat ic Files Memoranda/ Arc hi vcs%20 1998­

2008/2005/noshowi ntrvw 1 2~05.pd f. 

36 

(l) Check local pertinent electronic systems, such as CLAIMS, and pertinent 

physical records, particularly the file of the application or petition under 

consideration and any AR-11 (Change of Address) notices, to verify whether 

any change of address notification was received before or after the interview 

notice was sent. 

(2) Query the USCIS National Systems AR-11 (Change of Address) database by 

name and date of bilth, A-number, and/or I-94 admission number, if 

necessary, to confum whether any changes of address have occurred after the 

interview notice was generated and mailed. 

(3) Contact the NBC by emaiJ at NBC-Failure-to-Appear-Review@uscis.dhs.gov, 

if necessary, to determine if the Service received a change of address 

notification. 

(4) Reschedule the interview and mail a new interview notice to the new address 

if a change of address notification is confirmed. 

The 2015 Annual Report's background information on the Secure Mail Initi.ative (SMI) 

quotes a 2011 memorandum announcing USCIS' full implementation of SMr completed 

on May 2, 2011. The report further states that individuals may contact the NCSC to 

obtain a tracking number and moni.tor delivery status via USPS' website. Individuals no 

longer need to call the NCSC to obtain their tracking number. Once an application is 

approved and the card is mailed, customers can obtain the tracking number directly by 

accessing Case Status Online (https://egov.uscis.gov/casestatus/landing.do). The 

customer can therefore track this mail, and the only time it is necessary to contact the 

NCSC for a tracking number or detailed delivery scan data is if the individual has waited 

60 days beyond the mailing date or if the applicant does not have internet access. users 

will make appropriate edits to the agency's website to clarify the way to obtain a tracking 

number. As correctly noted in the CISOMB report, USCIS is in discussions with USPS 

on address validation and improving delivery services. 

The Pre-Paid Mailing Labels background information provided in the 2015 Annual 

Report is not accurate. USCIS has been accepting pre-paid mailers for Refugee Travel 

Documents and Re-Entry Permit Travel Documents since October 2003, as opposed to 

October 2014, as noted in the report. This is currently possible because the adjudication 

of the application and the creation of the travel document are both completed at the NSC. 

The paper application and the mailer are both housed in a physical fi le that moves 

through the process as the application is adjudicated, and the document is produced and 

then packaged for mailing. 

In FY 2017, users will transfer the travel document production operation from the NSC 

to the Corbin and Lee's Summit Production Facilities. Consolidating the production into 

two facilities instead of three alleviates the need to maintain a contractor team at the NSC 

and provides much needed space for staff at the NSC. The adjudication of the physical 

paper application and the document production will no longer be co-located in the same 

37 

facility. Under the new process, the production of the travel documents will be generated 

elecu·onicaJly through the retrieval of data from USCIS systems. Specific document 

creation will be dictated as the case becomes available in the queue. Since the physical 

file will not be available at the production facility, USCIS anticipates that the use of prepaid mailers for Refugee Travel Documents and Re-Entry Permits will no longer be 

required. 

In addition, CISOMB encourages USCIS to expand delivery service using pre-paid 

mailing labels provided by customers to deliver PRCs and EADs. The adjudication of 

the applications filed that trigger production of a PRC and EAD is similar to the travel 

document flow outlined above. The adjudication and card production process do not take 

place in the same facility; therefore, the prepaid mailer will not be available at the time 

the card is produced and ready for shjpment. 

Additional constraints to using the prepaid mailers are: 

• 	 PRCs and EADs are produced at the Corbin Production Facility and Lee's Summit 

Production Facility. Once a card is approved for production, the card order is placed 

in a 48-hour hold queue to allow tjme for the adjudicator to correct any errors. Once 

this hold period is over, the card is produced the following business day and picked 

up by USPS for delivery. Since the document production time is quick, it would be 

inefficient to hold a produced card pending receipt of a pre-paid mailer from the 

adjudicating site at one of the production facilities, after determining whkh 

production facility actually produced the card. The production facilities are not 

equipped to bold, store, secure, and track specific cards. 

• 	 The configuration of the production line does not allow for prepaid mailers. After the 

card is produced, it electronically moves through quality assurance checks before 

going into the automated mail inserter machine. As a card goes through this machine, 

its data is read, the associated address is placed on the mailer, and the card is placed 

in the USPS Priority Mail envelope. Any card that would need to be pulled from the 

production flow would require manual intervention. 

• 	 A larger percentage of applications are now being filed electronically. lt is not 

feasible to use a hardcopy, pre-paid mailer with electronic fi lings. 

For clarification, the 2015 Annual Report states " [according] to USCIS policy, if the 

USPS does not return a document or notice to USCIS, and there has been no change of 

address submitted, USCIS will consider the notice or document as properly delivered, 

and the applicant must re-file and again pay the filing fee in order to obtain a replacement 

document or continue immigration processing." USCIS does not require that a document 

(e.g., green card or EAD) be returned as undeliverable in order for a replacement 

document to be produced without fee. For example, if the USPS delivery tracking results 

indicate that the last event was "Out for Delivery" (without a final scan event of 

"Delivered"), then this has often been sufficient evidence to support the customer's claim 

that the document was not received. USPS will often provide additional documentation 

38 

to the customer supporting the lost document claim when the customer follows up with 

their local postal facility directly. Each request for a replacement document is reviewed 

to determine whether a fee is required in each situation. 

eJSOMB also encourages USeIS to consider the use of USPS delivery with signanire 

confirmation. eSPED is leading a working group on SMI issues with operational users 

components. The work..ing group is exploring the various options, which will be 

presented to USeIS senior leadership for review and concurrence before implementation. 

USCIS has formed internal working groups and met with USPS to discuss undelivered 

mail and develop recommendations. 

The e ISOMB summary focuses on address changes as a primary cause of undelivered 

cards, when in fact, there are many more reasons for non-delivery. eontribu6ng factors 

may include actions taken by the applicant such as moving, failure to update address with 

USPS, or failure to notify USeIS of new address. USPS factors include mailbox theft, 

courier error in route to residence, misrouted mail, mail delivered to incorrect receptacles, 

mail lost in transit to distribution facilities, and mail received by co-located 

siblings/friends/immigrants. users factors include card production occurring before the 

applicant's new address change is updated in the relevant USCIS source systems. 

C. Issues with USCIS Intake of Form G-28, Notice ofEntry of 

Appearance as Attorney orAccredited Representative 

CISOMB also identified issues related to the lack of notification when a Form G-28 is 

not accepted. Most notably, the report indicated that the current practice complicates the 

customer service process. An attorney who has not received a receipt notice may reach 

out to the NeSC for information. However, if the Form G-28 has not been accepled, the 

Immigration Services Officer at the NCSC is unable to provide information as to whether 

the case has been received or why the Form G-28 was not accepted. The attorney may 

also contact the OIDP Lockbox Support mailbox for assistance for those applications 

filed through OIDP but would encounter the same difficulty in getting information. 

When an attorney or accredited representative submits a Form G-28 that is unsigned, 

USeIS treats the Form G-28 as deficient, and consistent with 8 eFR 103.2(a)(3), treats 

the application, petition, or request as if it were submitted without a Form G-28. Also, if 

users finds that a Form G-28 is not recognized, USeIS generally does not notify the 

attorney or accredited representative (legal representative) or the applicant, petitioner, or 

requestor (the client). The legal representative usually only becomes aware that the 

Form G-28 was not accepted when he or she fails to receive USCIS notfoes or is unable 

to communicate with USCIS because a valid Form G-28 is not on file. 

The most common reasons for not recognizing a Form G-28 are: 

• The client and/or the legal representative did not sign the form; 

39 

• 	 The legal representative did not submit the latest edition of the form; 

• 	 The legal representative did not include his or her business address on the form; or 

• 	 The form is not associated with at least one application, petition, or request within the 

package. 

Although USCIS cannot recognize an improperly filed Form G-28, USCIS accepts the 

underlying application, petition, or request if it is properly filed and meets the acceptance 

criteria. In these instances, USCIS communicates with the client. The legal 

representative is not recognized by USCIS, because the F01m G-28 submitted was not 

properly filed. Therefore, the legal representative does not have the right to access any 

case-specific identifying information, which is protected under privacy rules. 

USCIS is working to develop a means of notifying the petitioner or applicant that the 

Form G-28 submitted on his or her behalf was not recognized. 

As noted in the report, USCIS also published a revised Form G-28 earlier this year and 

updated USCIS filing tips. In addition, USCIS introduced a new website devoted to the 

Form G-28 that provides guidance on how to file a subsequent Form G-28 and how to 

withdraw representation. The agency will continue to add information to this website to 

ensure that both the client and the legal representative have clear and consistent 


information regarding the form. 


D. Calculating Processing Times 

Addressing the issues that stakeholders have with processing time accuracy and the 

timeliness of posting requires a multi-prong approach by USCIS. Posting processing 

times in a timely fashion is an immediate priority that USCIS is pursuing by building a 

better tool to support the program. USCIS is targeting FY 2016 to implement a new 

processing Lime tool for internal use and a better interface for the customer. As far as 

improved accuracy in the processing times, USCIS is working towards developing 

statistically based methods for calculating processing times. This method would account 

for the deviations caused by RFEs, NOIDs, background and security checks, and other 

activities not currently included in USCIS calculations. The intended outcome is to 

provide customers with a range for the processing time of their forms rather than an exact 

date or definitive month, as there are multiple events that may cause case processing to be 

longer than average. 

E. Transformation: Modernizing USCIS Systems, Case 

Processing, and Customer Service 

In 2015, USCIS' OTC focused on deploying Form 1-90, Application to Replace 

Permanent Residen.t Card, as the first release in the new system architecture, which 

included integration with the USCIS Lockbox to support paper filing and incorporation of 

40 

Lhe new Form G-28. As ofApril 2015, Form J-90 workload is processed 100 percent 

electronically in USCIS ELIS. 

OTC is also focusing on simplifying and streamlining the processing of payments of the 

USCIS Immigrant Fee in the new architecture. The new simplified immigrant fee 

payment process will allow customers to pay the $165 fee without having to create a 

USCIS Online account. Any individual, including atlorneys, accredited representatives, 

relatives, friends, and employers will be able to pay the immigrant fee on behalf of a new 

immigrant, using the immigrant's A-number and DOS Case ID. This will also improve 

data integrity by matching the A-number and DOS Case ID to the immigrant's existing 

visa record before proceeding to payment, thus ensuring the immigrant is entering 

accurate information. The process will further streamline the process by giving USCIS 

the ability to use pictures and fingerprints taken by DOS to produce the new immigrant's 

green card, thereby eliminating some processing steps at U.S. ports of entry. 

Starting June 15, 2015, USCIS no longer accepts electronically filed Forms 1-539, 

Application to Extend/Change Non.immigrant Status, and I-526, Immigrant Petition by 

Alien. Entrepreneur. Additionally, USCJS has discontinued the EB-5 Regional Center 

Document Library. The original plan was to decommission Legacy USCIS ELIS after 

the agency rebuilt and incorporated Form I-539, Form 1-526, the Document Library, and 

the USCIS Immigrant Fee functionality into the enhanced architecture. However, due to 

re-prioritization of work in order for USCIS to meet the objectives stated in the 

President's Executive Actions announced November 21, 2014, as well as the decision by 

the USCIS Executive Steering Committee (ESC) to prioritize development of the Form 

N-400, Applicationfor Naturalization, the inclusion of Form I-539, Form I-526, and the 

EB-5 Regional Center Document Library in the new architecture of USCIS ELIS will not 

occur untiI FY 2016 and FY 2017 respectively. 

The decision to no longer accept electronically fil ed Forms 1-539 is based on several 

factors. Recently, USCIS updated the paper Form I-539 and published a new version of 

the Form G-28, which now includes new sections to capture an applicant's preferences 

for mailing of notices and secure documents. Legacy USCIS ELIS would need to be 

modified to accommodate the new versions of both forms. To modify Legacy USCIS 

ELIS to accommodate the new Form G-28 would require a major investment of resources 

and time due to the interconnection of the 29 commercial off-the-shelf software products 

used in processing workload in Legacy USCIS ELIS. Furthermore, there were 

operational concerns about the extra time it takes to adj udicate an electronically-filed 

Form I-539 versus a paper-filed form. The Jow usage rate of the Form 1-539 being filed 

electronically and the feedback from internal users, .including comments expressed in the 

CISOMB report, were also factors in USCIS' decision. The extremely low usage rate of 

the Form I-526 was the major factor in the decision to stop the e lectronic filing of that 

form. 

Those customers who completed filing a Form J-539 or Form I-526 before July 15, 2015, 

are still able to access their accounts, while users processes their cases, to check their 

case status, change their address, and respond to RFEs. In the case of electronic-filed 

4J 

Forms 1-526, customers can review and attest to existing "deal packages"- a set of 

documents relevant to one specific regional center project for use by the petitionerwhich are created by their Document Library Manager. 

The USCIS Transformation initiative has overcome many of the problems it faced during 

the first 4 years. The report states Transformation was slated for completion in 20 13, a 

date that came from the 2007 Government Accountability Office (GAO) Report on 

USCIS Transformation.50 This GAO report was issued before the contract for the 

Solutions Architect was awarded in November 2008. However, the first approved 

baseline of the program was completed in 2014. 

Based on OMB, DHS, and USCIS recommendations from March 2012, USCIS statted 

assessing the move to a simplified architecture. The assessment reviewed the initial 

architecture, considered various strategies for simplification and, in September 2012, 

awarded the Transformation Architecture Pilot to validate and design objectives for a new 

architecture. The USCIS ESC approved the move to the new architecture on 

March 18, 20 13. The change was to an open-source code framework from 

29 proprietary, commercial, off-the-shelf products. The new architecture is using best 

practices, agile development and design patterns, and generalized capabilities where 

possible, and removes products that duplicate other USCIS products. 

The new architecture allows for development and production using cloud services. The 

original system's architeclure was not compatible with many o[ these technological 

advances and development in the original system relied on complex, proprietary software 

that made it difficult to efficiently and effectively customize for agency needs. With the 

new architecture, USC1S' Transformation program was the first within DHS to move to a 

public cloud service, which was approved by the DHS Chief lnformation Officer. 

In April 2012, both contractors and USCIS staff changed from the waterfall methodology 

to an agile methodology. The agile methodology allows for flexibility and 

responsiveness to the changing priorities and dynamics in the development process, 

offering more frequent value-added releases to USCIS ELIS. Incremental pieces of 

functionality will be developed in 4- to 6-month cycles. This change in methodology 

allowed Transformation to comply with the 25-point plan to reform Federal information 

technology (IT) by deploying functionality in release cycles no longer than 12 months, 

and ideally less than 6 months as outlined in a best practice reported in GAO 14-361 

Report: !reformation Technology-Agencies Need to Establish and Implement Incremental 

Development Policies.51 

50 See GAO Reporl, USCIS Transformation: Improvements 10 Performance. Human Capital, and Information 

Technology Management Needed as Modernization Proceeds, GA0-07-10I3R, (July 17, 2007), available ar 

http://www.gao.gov/products/GA0-07-10 I3R. 51 See GAO Reporl, Information Technology: Agencies Need to Establish and Jmplcmcnt Incremental Development 

Policies, GA0-14-36 1, (May I , 20 14), available at h1tp;//www.gao.gov/produc1s/GA0- 14-36 I . 

42 

The CJSOMB report cites changes in the program's life cycle cost estimate (LCCE) 

increasing from $2.l billion to $2.6 billion from July 2011 to September 2014 and from 

approximately $2.6 billion to approximately $2.9 - $3.1 billion in April 2015. The initial 

LCCE was based on a period of performance of 2006 - 2022. The April 2015 LCCE 

covers the period of performance from 2006 - 2033, 4 additional years of development, 

I I additional years for the sustainment period, the change in acquisition strategy, as well 

as a correction from the prior estimate. 

USCIS ELIS Internal and External Customer Service 

USCIS ELIS customer service is not just a responsibility of USCIS' Office of OTC but is 

a strong partnership with CSPED. From establishing the Customer Contact Center 

(CCC) for USCIS ELIS assistance in October 2013, to receiving weekly updates from the 

CCC on the top five issues, OTC and CSPED work together to gather feedback and 

improve the experience with USCIS ELIS. Additionally, external customers are surveyed 

on a monthly basis regarding their USCIS ELIS experience. For the Forms 1-539 and the 

lmmigrant Fee payment process in legacy USCIS ELIS, customer satisfaction rates 

started at 82 percent and 72 percent, and most recently have been around 91 percent and 

88 percent, respectively. For the Form 1-90 that was released in the new architecture, the 

customer satisfaction rate has been at 93 percent for the last 2 months. These results 

meet or exceed the established customer satisfaction goals for FY 2015 of 85 percent and 

above the 66.1 percent of the 2013 citizen satisfaction with the Federal Government 

published by the American Consumers Survey Index. 

For the first form to be deployed in the new architecture, OTC wanted to ensure that the 

agency captured feedback on the system and identified any issues before it was fully 

deployed. A 72-hour limited introduction ofthe Form 1-90 was conducted in November 

2014. OTC sent a team on-site to get feedback from those working the process and made 

improvements prior to the full launch in March 2015. An operational assessment was 

conducted for the 72-hour limited introduction. An internal survey of the adjudicators 

scored 100 percent agreement that USCIS ELIS is effective and timely in searching case 

information, and the majority of the adjudicators agreed that USCIS ELIS updates 

account infonnation successfully and quickly, sharing electronic content and notifications 

is better with USCIS ELIS than with the paper processes. and the USCIS ELIS user 

interface is understandable and easy to navigate. 

USCIS ELIS Oversight 

The 2015 Annual Report referenced the GAO report, "High-Risk Series: An Update," in 

regard to the Transformation Program, stating that the GAO designated the 

Transformation program "high-risk." See GA0-15-290 (February 11, 2015). The 

reference to the Transformation Program being "high risk" is misquoted in that the GAO 

high risk area is the general management ofIT Acquisitions and Operations. The GAO 

report summarizes nine critical factors that underlie successful major acquisitions that 

support the objective of improving the management of large-scale IT acquisitions within 

the Federal Government. None of the nine factors was applied to the USCIS 

43 

Transformation Program when it was placed on a list of ongoing investments with 


"significant issues requiring attention." 


Furthermore, the information in the GAO report was inaccurate, appearing to be the 

result of auditor interpretation of material provided. The GAO repo1t states that key 

requirements were approved in 2011 but were revised in 2013 due to risks with the 

program's approach. The requirements for the USCIS Transformation Program have nor 

changed, although the agency's technical approach to achieving the requirements has 

been adjusted to reduce risk. The GAO report further states USCIS has not yet 

demonstrated the extent to which it can meet six key requirements. The agency had 

provided the GAO with information in meeting key performance parameters for five of 

the six measures. The performance measure for the sixth parameter addresses scalability 

of the system, which will be demonstrated as more workload is added incrementally. The 

GAO report goes on to state the program's LCCE increased from approximately 

$2. 1 billion to approximately $2.6 billion. There was no context provided on the period 

covered by the two separate cost estimates. The first estimated covered the period 

2006-2022 and the second estimate covered 2006-2032. 

USCIS and OTC will continue to work with the GAO team that is currently reviewing the 

program to ensure that GAO receives the most accurate and current information 

available. Should the conclusion at the end of GAO's review be that the program has 

"significant issues requiring attention," USCIS would hope this is based on facts and 

data. 

F. Known Employer Pilot Program 

On March 3, 2016, USCIS launched the Known Employer pilot program, which allows 

an employer to request that USClS predetermine certain requirements of select immigrant 

and nonimmigrant visa classifications that relate to the employer itself. These 

requirements generally relate to the employer's corporate structure, operations, and 

financial health. 

IfUSCIS approves the employer's predetermination request, the employer may then file 

petitions or applications for individual employees without resubmitting evidence with 

respect to any requirements for individual petitions or applications. USCIS will defer to 

the approved predetermination except when it finds that there was a material error or a 

substantial change in circumstances, or that there is new material information that 

adversely affects the validity of the predetermination. 

The following employers have confirmed their participation in the pilot program: 

• Citigroup, Inc. 

• Ernst & Young LLP 

• Kiewit Corporation 

• Schaeffler Group USA Inc. 

• Siemens Corporation 

44 

VII.Recommendations Update 

USCIS welcomes the opportunity to provide the following update on the CISOMB's formal 


recommendation on Notices to Appear (NTA). 


Listed below are the specific recommendations and the current status for each issue: 

l) 	 Provide additional guidance for NTA issuance with input from U.S. Immigrations and 

Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Executive Office for Immigration Review CEOIR) 

On November 20, 2014, DHS published Policy Directive 044-04, Policies f or the 

Apprehension, Detention and Removal ofUndocumented Immigrants. 52 USCIS 

immediately undertook a new review ofPM 602-0050, Revised Guidance f or the Referral 

ofCases and Issuance of Notices to Appear (NTAs) in Cases Involving Inadmissible and 

Removable Aliens,

53 with the goal of indicating how USCIS NTA policies intersect with 

the removal priorities identified in Policy Directive 004-04. USCIS participated in 

discussions with DHS components, including ICE and CBP, as DHS was drafting 

guidelines on the implementation of Policy Directive 044-04. On June 12, 2015, OHS 

issued Instruction Number 044-01-001, Implementing DRS Immigration Enforcement 

Priorities.

54 USCIS is currently finalizing a draft of the proposed new memorandum on 

NTA issuance. 

Sl See DHS Memorandum, "Policies for the Apprehension, Detention and Removal of Undocumen1ed Immigrants," 

(November 20, 2014), available at 

h11p://www.dhs.gov/si1cs/dc fault/li lcs/publicalions/ 14 1120 memo rrosccuLorinl discretinn.pdf. 53 See USCIS PM, "Revised Guidance for the Referral of Cases and Issuance of Notices to Appear (NTAs) in Cases 

Involving Inadmissible and Removable Aliens," PM-602-0050, (November 7, 20 I I), available at 

hitp://www.uscis.gov/si tcs/dclaulLlfilcs/USClS/Laws/Mcmoranda/S 1a1ic Filcs Mcmoranda/NTA %20PM %20%28A 

pprovcd%20as%201innl%20 11-7- 11 %29.pdf. 

~ ICE official website. Priority Enforcement Program, hups://www.icc.gov/pep, (last visited August 21, 2015). 

45 

2) 	 Require USCIS Attorneys to Review NTAs Prior to Their Issuance and Provide 


Comprehensive Legal Training 


OCC and lhe USCIS Academy began work on a new NTA training module in the 2nd 

quarter of FY 2015. The training is composed of seven lessons covering the following 

topics: Types ofProceedings to Remove or Bar an Alien from the United States; When it 

is Appropriate to Issue an. NTA; The Major Elements ofForm 1-862, NTA; Analyzing an 

Alien's Immigration History; Writing NTA Allegations and Charges; Service ofProcess; 

and the Removal Process. Embedded in these lessons are knowledge checks based on 

hypothetical scenarios. 

The training has been completed and will be deployed for the USCIS Academy 

Journeyman Training Course during the week of April 25, 2016, with instruction 

provided by OCC. 

3) 	 Create a working group with representation from ICE and EOIR to improve tracking, 

information sharing, and coordination of NTA issuance 

USCIS continues to work with ICE and EOIR in coordinating issues involving NTAs. 

VIII. Conclusion 

USCIS has risen to the challenges associated with the implementation of many new programs 

this past year. Simultaneously, many of the agency's current programs have experienced a 

significant increase in applications, petitions, and requests. The Potomac Service Center will be 

fully operational in the coming months to further increase USCIS' production capabilities. New 

policies, processes, and technologies have been put into place to help ensure that USCIS will 

maintain both the integrity of the legal immigration system and an exceptional level of customer 

service. The Nation's latest generation of immigrants and newest citizens deserve nothing less 

than the best in public service. 

Most importantly, the dedicated employees ofUSCIS are ready to further implement 

immigration reforms during this critical time. Through USCIS' Quality Workplace Initiative, the 

employees and management are partnering together to identify significant improvements in the 

way the agency conducts business with both external and internal stakeholders. 

The 2015 Annual Report provides another opportunity for USCIS to take stock of the agency's 

progress and identify further refinements to USCIS' current operations. USCIS very much 

appreciates CISOMB's comprehensive and thoughtful evaluation and looks forward to working 

with CISOMB in the new year. 

46 

CCC 

IX. Appendix A: Acronyms and Abbreviations 


AAO 

AFM 

BIA 

CALO 

CAM 

CBP 

CFR 

CISOMB 

CRU 

csc 

CS PED 

DACA 

DHS 

DOD 

DOL 

DOS 

EAD 

ECHO 

ELIS 

EOIR 

ESC 

FAQ 

FOD 

FY 

GAO 

HFRP 

HHS 

ICE 

INA 

IPO 

IT 

LCCE 

LCU 

LPR 

MOU 

NBC 

NCSC 

NSC 

NOID 

NPRM 

NTA 

occ 

OIDP 

Administrative Appeals Office 

Adjudicator's Field Manual 

Board of Immigration Appeals 

Case Assistance and Liaison Office 

Central American Minors Program 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

Customer Contact Center 

Code of Federal Regulations 

Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman 

Case Resolution Unit 

California Service Center 

Customer Service and Public Engagement Directorate 

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals 

Department of Homeland Security 

Department of Defense 

Department of Labor 

Department of State 

Employment Authorization Document 

Enterprise Correspondence Handling Online 

Electronic Immigration System 

Executive Office for Immigration Review 

Executive Steering Committee 

Frequently Asked Questions 

Field Operations Directorate 

Fiscal Year 

Government Accountability Office 

Haitian Family Reunification Parole Program 

Department of Health and Human Services 

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

Immigration and Nationality Act 

Immigrant Investor Program Office 

Information Technology 

Life Cycle Cost Estimate 

Liaison and Coordination Unit 

Lawful Permanent Resident 

Memorandum ofUnderstanding 

National Benefits Center 

National Customer Service Center 

Nebraska Service Center 

Notice of Intent to Deny 

Notice ofProposed Rulemaking 

Notice to Appear 

Office of Chief Counsel 

Office ofIntake and Document Production 

47 
OIL 

OMB 

OOH 

OTC 

PM 

PRA 

PRC 

RFE 

SAVE 

SCOPS 

scu 

SD 

SMI 

SOP 

SRMT 

TLC 

TSC 

TVPRA2008 

UAC 

USC 

users 

users ELIS 

USPS 

VAWA 

VIS 

vsc 

Office of Immigration Litigation 

Ofiice of Management and Budget 

Occupational Outlook Handbook 

Office ofTransformation Coordination 

Policy Memorandum 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

Permanent Resident Cards 

Request for Evidence 

Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements 

Service Center Operations Directorate 

Special Cases Unit 

Special Immigrant Juvenile 

Secure Mail Initiative 

Standard Operating Procedures 

Service Request Management Tool 

Temporary Labor Certification 

Texas Service Center 

Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 

Unaccompanied Alien Children 

U.S. Code 

U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services 

USCIS Electronic Immigration System 

U.S. Postal Service 

Violence Against Women Act 

Verification Information Systems 

Vermont Service Center 

48