H-2 Petition Fee 

Structure is 

Inequitable and 

Contributes to 

Processing Errors 

March 6, 2017

OIG-17-42 
 

 

 

 

DHS OIG HIGHLIGHTS
 

H-2 Petition Fee Structure Is Inequitable

and Contributes to Processing Errors 

March 6, 2017 

Why We 

Did This 

Audit 

United States 

Citizenship and 

Immigration Services’ 

(USCIS) H-2 program 

enables employers to 

petition to bring 

temporary nonimmigrant workers into 

the United States. We 

performed this audit to 

determine whether the 

fee structure associated 

with H-2 petitions is 

equitable and effective. 

What We 

Recommend 

We are making three 

recommendations to the 

USCIS Director to 

improve the H-2 petition 

fee structure and vetting 

process. 

For Further Information: 

Contact our Office of Public Affairs at 

(202) 254-4100, or email us at 

DHS-OIG.OfficePublicAffairs@oig.dhs.gov. 

What We Found 

USCIS’ H-2 petition fee structure is inequitable and 

contributes to processing errors. Federal guidelines indicate 

that beneficiaries should pay the cost of services from which 

they benefit. However, USCIS charged employers a flat fee of 

$325 per H-2 petition ($460 as of December 23, 2016), 

regardless of whether it was to bring one or hundreds of 

temporary nonimmigrant workers into the United States. 

Each worker listed on a petition must be vetted through an 

extensive adjudication process, for the most part within 15 

days. 

USCIS officials told us their systems do not capture the time 

to adjudicate petitions with various numbers of workers, 

which is needed to equitably set the H-2 petition fee. As such, 

USCIS instituted the flat fee structure because it is easy to 

manage. USCIS also did not limit the number of named 

temporary nonimmigrant workers that can be included on a 

single H-2 petition, despite the processing time requirement. 

This flat fee structure has created disparities in the costs 

employers pay to bring foreign workers into the United States. 

It can be more burdensome for small employers or others who 

petition to bring in a single worker for whom the fee exceeds 

the processing cost as compared to large petitioners. 

Conversely, employers seeking to bring in multiple named 

workers pay disproportionately less as their petitions can be 

labor intensive, taking days and sometimes weeks to 

complete. Large petitions are complex and error prone when 

adjudicators rush to process them within required time 

frames. Prompt USCIS action to assess a more equitable fee 

structure or limit the number of named workers listed per 

petition would help eliminate disparate costs to employers, 

reduce the potential for errors, and better align agency 

processing costs. 

USCIS Response 

USCIS concurred with all three recommendations. 
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Washington, DC 20528 / www.oig.dhs.gov 


March 6, 2017 


MEMORANDUM FOR: Lori Scialabba 

Acting Director


1:1; C1~?frJ Immigration Services] 


FROM: ~raMcCa~ Assistant Inspector General 

Office of Information Technology Audits 

SUBJECT: 	 H-2 Petition Fee Structure is Inequitable and 

Contributes to Processing Errors 

Attached for your action is our final report, H-2 Petition Fee Structure is 

Inequitable and Contributes to Processing Errors. We incorporated the formal 

comments provided by your office. 

The report contains three recommendations aimed at improving the H-2 

petition fee structure and vetting process. Your office concurred with all three 

recommendations. Based on information provided in your response to the draft 

report, we consider recommendations 1 through 3 open and resolved. Once 

your office has fully implemented the recommendations, please submit a formal 

closeout letter to us within 30 days so that we may close the recommendations. 

The memorandum should be accompanied by evidence of completion of agreedupon corrective actions and of the disposition of any monetary amounts. 

Please send your response or closure request to 

OIGITAuditsFollowup@oig.dhs.gov. 

Consistent with our responsibility under the Inspector General Act, we will 

provide copies of our report to congressional committees with oversight and 

appropriation responsibility over the Department of Homeland Security. We will 

post the report on our website for public dissemination. 

Please call me with any questions, or your staff may contact Tuyet-Quan Thai, 

Director, at (425) 582-7861. 

Attachment 
 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Table of Contents 

Background .................................................................................................... 2 

Results of Audit .............................................................................................. 3 

Federal User Fee Guidelines .................................................................. 4 

H-2 Petition Fee and Adjudication Process ............................................. 4 

Reasons for the H-2 Petition Fee Structure ............................................ 7 

Inequities and Errors in H-2 Petition Processing .................................. 10 

Recommendations......................................................................................... 17 

Appendixes 

Appendix A: Objective, Scope, and Methodology ................................. 20 

Appendix B: USCIS Comments to the Draft Report .............................. 22 

Appendix C: Office of Information Technology Audits Major Contributors 

to This Report ...................................................................................... 24 

Appendix D: Report Distribution.......................................................... 25 

Abbreviations 

CBP U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

CLAIMS 3 Computer Linked Application Information Management 

System 

DOL Department of Labor 

ELIS Electronic Immigration System 

GAO Government Accountability Office 

OIG Office of Inspector General 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

TLC Temporary Labor Certification 

USCIS United States Citizenship and Immigration Services 
 

 

 

 

 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Background 

The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is the primary 

agency in the Department of Homeland Security that oversees lawful 

immigration to the United States. USCIS’ H-2 program enables employers to 

petition to bring temporary nonimmigrant workers into the country. As a feefor-service organization, USCIS has the authority to recover the full cost of 

processing immigration benefits.1 

USCIS processes H-2 visas as well as about a dozen other visa classifications 

using form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker. Five of these visa 

classifications require that the petitioner submit a separate form for each 

worker, such as H-1B specialty occupation workers; O-1 alien of extraordinary 

ability in arts, science, education, business, or athletics; and R-1 religious 

workers. Others, such as P-1 visas for internationally recognized 

athletic/entertainment groups, allow the petitioner to file for multiple workers 

on each form. USCIS sets the petition for a nonimmigrant worker fee using 

historical data and projections to determine the average cost of processing each 

form. In this audit, we focused on H-2 temporary agricultural and 

nonagricultural worker petitions. 

The H-2 program entails the participation of multiple Federal agencies. 

Typically, an employer has to first obtain an approved temporary labor 

certification (TLC) from the Department of Labor (DOL) to hire temporary 

agricultural and nonagricultural workers. Upon DOL certification, the employer 

files with USCIS the TLC along with a petition to bring in workers up to the 

maximum number certified by DOL. The employer may request specific 

workers by name (named workers), indicate that a certain number of workers 

are needed without providing specific names (unnamed workers), or petition for 

a combination of both.2 Following USCIS approval of the petition, workers 

lacking visas generally report to the Department of State for interviews to 

obtain their visas. Other workers who already have visas—generally workers 

already in the United States who are extending their employment period or 

applying to work for a new employer—can report directly to work at the time 

the petition is filed on their behalf or on the date authorized by DOL and 

USCIS. 

1 In 1988, Congress created the Immigration Examinations Fee Account, establishing the
 

authority to recover the full cost of immigration benefits processing.
 2 There are certain situations where H-2A and H-2B workers are required to be named, 

specifically, workers who 1) are currently in the United States, 2) are from non-eligible
 

countries, 3) must meet minimum job requirements, or 4) are exempt from the H-2B cap as 

returning workers.
 

www.oig.dhs.gov 2 OIG-17-42
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the DHS Office of Inspector 

General (OIG) have both reported previously on issues related to the H-2 

program. In 2009, GAO reported that costing methodology improvements 

would provide USCIS with a more reliable basis for setting fees.3 GAO made six 

recommendations to help USCIS improve its costing methodology. In 2011, 

DHS OIG reported that USCIS could improve fraud training to support its 

adjudication of nonimmigrant workers petitions.4 USCIS concurred and 

subsequently implemented all GAO and OIG recommendations. 

We performed this audit to determine whether the fee structure associated with 

H-2 petitions is equitable and effective. 

Results of Audit 

USCIS’ H-2 petition fee structure is inequitable and contributes to processing 

errors. Federal guidelines indicate that beneficiaries should pay the cost of 

services from which they benefit. However, during our audit fieldwork, USCIS 

charged employers a flat fee of $325 per H-2 petition, regardless of whether an 

employer petitioned to bring one or hundreds of temporary nonimmigrant 

workers into the United States.5 Each named worker on a petition then has to 

be vetted through an extensive adjudication process, for the most part within 

15 days. 

USCIS officials told us their systems could not capture the time spent to 

adjudicate petitions with various numbers of workers. This information is 

needed for USCIS to equitably set the H-2 petition fee. Consequently, USCIS 

instituted the flat fee structure because it is easy to manage. With this 

decision, USCIS did not limit the number of named temporary nonimmigrant 

workers that can be included on a single H-2 petition, despite the standard 

time required to process multiple-worker petitions. 

USCIS’ flat fee structure has created disparities in the costs employers pay to 

bring foreign workers into the United States. It can be more burdensome for 

small employers or others who petition to bring in a single worker for whom the 

fee exceeds the processing cost as compared to large petitioners. Conversely, 

3 Costing Methodology Improvements Would Provide More Reliable Basis For Setting Fees (GAO09-70, January 2009) 4 The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ Adjudication of Petitions for Nonimmigrant
 

Workers (I-129 Petitions for H-1B and H-2B visas) (OIG-11-105, August 2011)
 5 On December 23, 2016, USCIS increased the fee to $460 to adjudicate form I-129 Petition for
 

a Nonimmigrant Worker. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Fee Schedule, 81 Fed. Reg.
 

73294 (Oct. 24, 2016). All references to the petition fee in this report refer to the $325 fee that 

was in place at the time of our fieldwork.
 

www.oig.dhs.gov 3 OIG-17-42
 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

employers seeking to bring in multiple named workers pay disproportionately 

less though their petitions are generally labor intensive, taking days and 

sometimes weeks to complete. Large petitions are also complex and error prone 

when adjudicators rush to process them within required time frames. Prompt 

USCIS action to assess a more equitable fee structure or limit the number of 

named workers allowed on each petition would help eliminate disparate costs 

to employers, reduce the potential for errors, and better align agency 

processing costs. 

Federal User Fee Guidelines 

According to Federal law, fees should be fair and based on the cost to the 

government and the value of the service provided to the recipient.6 Federal user 

fee principles state that agencies should assign costs in a way that is equitable 

to those who use and benefit from the services provided. Specifically, Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-25 implements the law by requiring 

that each identifiable recipient be assessed a user charge that is at least as 

great as the cost to the Government for providing such services.7 Similarly, 

GAO’s user fee principles recommend that agencies charge different fees to 

different users commensurate with the costs of providing services to these 

users. We believe that in the case of USCIS, the fees employers pay for 

individual H-2 petitions, whether to bring one or multiple foreign workers into 

the United States, should be commensurate with the time and effort required 

to adjudicate the requests. 

H-2 Petition Fee and Adjudication Process 

Instead of formulating the H-2 fee based on the cost of the services to the 

Government or its value to the employer, USCIS charges employers a flat fee for 

each H-2 petition, regardless of whether an employer petitions to bring one or 

hundreds of temporary nonimmigrant workers into the United States. Each 

named worker on a petition then has to be vetted through an extensive 

adjudication process. 

Flat H-2 Fee Structure 

USCIS charged a standard processing fee of $325 for each petition that an 

employer submitted for seasonal and temporary agricultural workers (H-2A) 

6 31 United States Code 9701(b)
 7 OMB Circular A-25 Revised, User Charges (July 8, 1993)
 

www.oig.dhs.gov 4 OIG-17-42
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

and nonagricultural workers (H-2B) to work in the United States.8 There is no 

limit on how many named temporary nonimmigrant workers an employer can 

request to bring in on a single USCIS petition. The same fee applies whether 

the petition is small (1 to 10 workers), medium (11 to 40 workers), or large 

(more than 40 workers); or whether the petition takes minutes, days, or weeks 

to adjudicate.9 Effectively, some employers pay $325 to petition to bring in one 

worker each while other employers pay as little as 50 cents per named worker 

for their multiple-worker petitions. As such, the flat fee is not consistent with 

Federal guidelines that beneficiaries pay for the full (or actual) cost of services 

provided or that established user fees be based on costs and benefits. 

Complex Adjudication Process 

USCIS follows a complex process to adjudicate temporary nonimmigrant 

worker petitions. USCIS must vet each employer who submits a petition as well 

as the name of each worker listed on the petition. According to USCIS’ 

adjudication procedures, each named worker on a temporary worker petition 

has to be vetted for national security, criminality, and immigration issues. 

The USCIS adjudicative process includes: 

•	 entering petition data such as petitioners name and address and 

identifying information for each worker requested into the Computer 

Linked Application Information Management System (CLAIMS 3);10 

•	 vetting the employer exists and potentially derogatory information; 

•	 reviewing copies of passports, visas, and other documentation to validate 

the identity of each worker, if included; 

•	 identifying and verifying the potential worker’s aliases; 

•	 vetting the potential worker through applicable criminal and immigration 

databases, such as TECS,11 to ensure that the worker is admissible; 

8 H-2B employers must also pay a $150 fraud prevention and detection fee for each petition, 

which is set by statute. Funding generated by this fee is used for fraud prevention and 

detection in immigration benefit requests and not used to recover USCIS processing costs. 

9 The additional effort is particularly important for petitions with named workers that USCIS 

must vet as part of the adjudication process. The Department of State is responsible for vetting 

unnamed workers included in H-2 petitions, requiring no additional effort by USCIS. 

10 CLAIMS 3 is a case management application used by USCIS to track the adjudication of 

applications and petitions for most immigration benefits and services except those related to 

asylum and naturalization. 

11 TECS (not an acronym) is an automated enforcement and inspections system that provides 

access to a large database of information for law enforcement and border inspection purposes. 

TECS supports DHS and other Federal users, and can exchange information automatically 

with several U.S. Government systems. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 5	 OIG-17-42
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

•	 resolving instances where the potential worker is linked to derogatory 

terrorist or criminal information; 

•	 examining details of each worker’s previous entry and exit information to 

ensure that the worker spent at least 3 months outside the United States 

for every 3 years of work inside the United States; 

•	 reviewing the petition for potential fraud; and 

•	 approving or denying the petition based on the information reviewed. 

Figure 1 illustrates the extensive USCIS adjudication procedures for temporary 

H-2 nonimmigrant worker petitions. 

Figure 1: General Adjudication Process for H-2 Nonimmigrant Worker 

Petitions 

Adjudication 

Verify petition is complete, a certified 

DOL TLC is attached, and there is a 

temporary need for workers 

Vet to ensure employer exists, is 

financially stable, has legitimate need 

for workers, and has not been 

debarred from the H-2 program 

Vet named workers against supporting 

evidence (e.g., copies of passport, 

current and previous visas, entry 

documents) and identify any aliases. 

If aliases are identified, enter aliases 

into TECS for vetting. 

Otherwise continue adjudication 

TECS 

System 

Vet named workers and 

aliases for potential 

national security threat, 

criminal history, and 

inadmissibility 

Create Record of TECS 

Inquiry Results 

Center Fraud Detection Operations 

Investigates potential fraud 

Issues a Statement of Findings 

Decision 

Adjudicate the petition based on the 

preponderance of evidence in the file 

Receipt/Data Entry 

Receive petition, deposit $325 fee 

Enter data from petition, including 

identifying information on each named 

worker, into CLAIMS 3 

Physical file sent for adjudication 

CLAIMS 3 sends information on named 

workers to TECS 

Background Check Unit 

Review and de-conflict all derogatory hits 

- Enter on the Record of TECS Inquiry 

whether or not the hit relates to the worker 

Create a resolution memo if hit relates to the worker 

Review for potential fraud 

Hit? No – Record of TECS Inquiry Review TECS Record of Inquiry results, 

including resolution memo, if any 

- Resolve inadmissibility 

- Confirm eligibility 

Review Statement of Findings, if any 

Review that each worker has not 

exceeded the maximum 3-year stay 

authorized for temporary workers 

using various DHS and Department 

of State systems 

Request and review additional evidence 

from petitioner if necessary 

No - Resolution memo, 

Record of TECS Inquiry result 

Yes 

Yes 

Statement of findings 

Aliases 

File 

Suspected 

Fraud? 

Source: DHS OIG analysis of USCIS H-2 adjudication procedures 

www.oig.dhs.gov 6 OIG-17-42
 

 

 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Although these procedures are extensive, nearly all H-2 petitions must be 

adjudicated within 15 days. Specifically, due to the seasonal nature of 

agricultural work and the need for timely processing, USCIS’ goal is to 

adjudicate within that established time frame all H-2A agricultural petitions 

listing named workers. The normal processing time for H-2B non-agricultural 

petitions is 30 days; however, 82 percent of employers elect to pay a $1,225 

premium processing fee, set by statute, to have their petitions adjudicated 

within 15 days.12 The 15-day time frame applies equally to petitions to bring in 

1 worker, 10 workers, or hundreds of workers. The availability of this flat fee, 

no matter how many named workers USCIS has to vet, contributes to 

additional inequities. 

Reasons for the H-2 Petition Fee Structure 

USCIS officials cited a number of reasons for instituting the flat fee structure. 

Specifically, they said USCIS systems were not designed to capture the time it 

takes to adjudicate petitions of differing size and complexity, which is 

necessary to equitably set the H-2 petition fee. According to USCIS, prior to 

1998 the H-2 fee structure had been set somewhat arbitrarily. In response to 

the Chief Financial Officer Act of 1990 and subsequent Federal Accounting 

Standards Advisory Board publication that requires the use of activity-based 

costing to set fees, USCIS instituted the flat fee structure in 1998 because it 

was easier and simpler for their system to capture processing time at the 

aggregated I-129 form level instead of by visa type. With this decision, USCIS 

did not limit the number of temporary nonimmigrant workers that can be 

included on a single H-2 petition, despite the added time needed to process 

each petition. As of the time of our audit, 18 years later, USCIS still has not 

designed a system to capture cost data at a finer level of detail. 

USCIS Systems Did Not Capture Needed Data 

USCIS charges a flat fee as its systems were not designed to capture the time 

necessary to process, review, and adjudicate petitions with different numbers 

of workers. Specifically, USCIS designed the legacy CLAIMS 3 to track 

petitions, not capture data in a way that provides timely and reliable 

management information. For example, CLAIMS 3 captures information from 

H-2 petitions such as the petitioner’s name and address, the number of 

workers requested, and their names as appropriate. CLAIMS 3 also tracks 

processing information including the dates of receipt and adjudication decision, 

12 The premium processing service fee was established by Congress to provide certain 

premium-processing services to business customers and to make infrastructure improvements 

in the adjudications and customer service processes. It was not designed to recover USCIS’ 

processing costs. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 7 OIG-17-42
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

or dates of request for additional evidence or referral to the fraud unit. 

However, CLAIMS 3 does not capture the time an adjudicator spends 

processing a petition, which is the information needed to equitably structure 

the H-2 fee and provide better assurance of processing cost recovery. 

USCIS’ Performance Reporting Tool also did not capture the needed processing 

information. USCIS uses the Performance Reporting Tool to track adjudication 

hours charged to process specific forms, such as a petition for a nonimmigrant 

worker. However, the tool does not collect data on the number of workers listed 

on a petition or the time required to adjudicate petitions of various sizes. 

In 2015, USCIS’ California and Vermont Service Centers implemented 

additional procedures to better track the time adjudicators spent processing H2A and H-2B petitions for staffing allocation purposes. The new process 

aggregated local production hours each day by benefit type, but did not contain 

the details necessary to enable equitable fee-setting. For example, the local 

production data for a single day could show that an officer spent 3.5 hours 

processing six H-2A petitions or 4 hours processing six H-2B petitions. 

However, if the workload of 6 petitions contained 4 single-worker petitions, 1 

petition for 7 workers, and 1 petition for 12 workers, the new tool was unable 

to derive accurately the time it took to process each type of petition. 

USCIS officials recognized the limitations inherent in the H-2 fee structure and 

supporting systems. They discussed plans to perform more in-depth analysis of 

immigration benefit requests and the H-2 fee structure once petitions could be 

processed in the new Electronic Immigration System (ELIS).13 This new case 

management system was intended to eventually replace CLAIMS 3 and other 

USCIS legacy systems, with the capability to collect and provide the data 

needed to equitably structure the H-2 petition fee. However, at the time of our 

2016 audit, the temporary worker petition was not expected to transition to 

ELIS for at least another 3 years. Consequently, USCIS’ plans to conduct a new 

fee study based on more robust information from ELIS would not be possible 

for several more years. Recent OIG reports show that USCIS faces tremendous 

challenges with ELIS; therefore, the 3-year estimate is likely optimistic.14 

13 ELIS is a centralized, web-based, electronic case management system being developed to
 

automate USCIS processing of certain immigration benefit requests. ELIS is designed to
 

transform USCIS business operations from a “transaction-centric” model to a “person-centric”
 

model using unique customer accounts.
 14 Better Safeguards Are Needed In USCIS Green Card Issuance (OIG 17-11, November 2016);
 

USCIS Automation of Immigration Benefits Processing Remains Ineffective (OIG 16-48, March
 

2016); and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Information Technology Management
 

Progress and Challenges (OIG 14-112, July 2014).
 

www.oig.dhs.gov 8 OIG-17-42
 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

USCIS Management Decisions 

In 1998, USCIS established the flat fee to simplify the H-2 filing process. Since 

2010, this fee has been set at $325. Prior to 1998, USCIS calculated the H-2 

fee based on the number of workers an employer sought to bring into the 

United States. Specifically, USCIS charged a base fee as well as an additional 

fee for each named worker on the petition. In some instances, however, the 

graduated fee structure resulted in the submission of petitions with the wrong 

fees, resulting in USCIS returning the erroneous petitions, which incurred 

delays in the adjudication process and, according to USCIS, added costs to the 

agency in the areas of mailing, time, and manpower returning erroneous 

payments. 

USCIS officials explained that the 1998 change to the flat fee structure was to 

improve administrative efficiency and avoid petitioner confusion on how much 

to pay. With this decision, USCIS did not limit the number of temporary 

nonimmigrant workers that could be included on a single H-2 petition. 

Previously, petitioners claimed difficulties with a graduated fee structure; clear 

directions from USCIS should eliminate this confusion. According to USCIS, 

although prior to 1998 the H-2 fee structure had been set somewhat 

arbitrarily, the post-1998 fee schedule was USCIS’ first attempt at complying 

with the Chief Financial Officer Act of 199015 by setting fees using activitybased cost estimates. This act requires that USCIS review its fees on a biennial 

basis to ensure full recovery of the projected costs of adjudicating all immigrant 

and nonimmigrant applications and petitions. To accomplish this, USCIS 

collects performance information at the form level to establish its fees which, 

according to USCIS, allows them to determine the full cost of processing form I129. Specifically, based on historical performance data and projections, USCIS 

averages the cost of processing all form I-129 nonimmigrant worker petitions 

across the range of small and large petitions in efforts to recover the cost of 

processing all nonimmigrant worker requests. Given that USCIS cannot predict 

how many named workers will be included on each H-2 petition, USCIS cannot 

ensure total cost recovery. Without the information needed to set a fee based 

on the number of named workers requested on one petition or the time 

required to process a petition with multiple named workers, setting a limit on 

the number of named workers per petition could potentially help address the 

inequity, at least as a temporary measure. 

Unlike USCIS, the Department of State and DOL each structure their user fees 

to be more reflective of their costs. Both Departments have roles in H-2 visa 

processing and apply fees that are dependent on the number of workers 

15 Public Law 101–576, Nov. 15, 1990. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 9 OIG-17-42
 

 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

requested by the petitioners. For example, in 2016, the Department of State 

charged $190 for each visa it issued. As of fiscal year 2015, DOL charged a 

base fee of $100 to process each labor certification for temporary agricultural 

workers, plus a graduated fee of $10 per worker added to the certification, up 

to a maximum of $1,000. Although the DOL fee was not intended to recover 

processing costs, this graduated fee reflects the additional costs associated 

with processing labor certifications with multiple workers. 

Inequities and Errors in H-2 Petition Processing 

The flat fee structure has created inequities in the costs employers pay to bring 

foreign workers into the United States. The complexity of multiple-worker 

petitions directly contributes to increased processing time and adjudication 

effort for multiple-worker petitions compared to single-worker petitions. This 

means disparities in processing time, effort, and complexity for single versus 

multiple-worker petitions, with no assurances of full cost recovery for all 

adjudication services provided. Rushed adjudication to meet the 15-day 

processing time standard, especially in the case of multiple-worker petitions, 

has led to errors that can have national security implications. Prompt USCIS 

action to set a more equitable fee or limit the number of named workers per 

petition would help eliminate disparate costs to employers, better align agency 

processing costs, and reduce the potential for errors. 

Disparities in Costs to Employers 

USCIS’ H-2 flat fee has created inequities in the amounts employers pay to 

bring foreign workers into the United States. By not charging a fee based on 

the number of named workers requested on a petition, USCIS is effectively 

allowing large petitioners to pay only a fraction of what it costs to adjudicate 

their petitions, while charging small petitioners disproportionately more. In 

some instances, for every dollar a small petitioner paid for named workers, 

certain large petitioners paid less than one cent. We made this determination 

based our analysis of CLAIMS 3 data for the period October 2012 through 

February 2016. During this time frame, USCIS received a total of 13,293 

petitions from employers seeking H-2 visas for 111,328 named workers.16 We 

did not include unnamed workers in our analysis, as they do not represent a 

national security and admissibility processing or vetting burden for USCIS. 

16 In addition to the named workers, USCIS processed about 31,500 petitions for over 590,000 

unnamed workers. In the case of petitions with unnamed workers, USCIS vets the employer 

but relies entirely on the Department of State to vet these workers for issues of security and 

immigration. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 10 OIG-17-42
 

 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Figure 2 depicts the total 13,293 H-2 petitions grouped into categories of small, 

medium, and large based on the number of workers named in each petition. 

Figure 2: Frequency of H-2 Petitions by Size, Based on the Number of 

Named Workers Included in Each Petition 

50,000 

45,000 

40,000 

35,000 

30,000 

45,323 

36,239 

29,766 

11,011 

1,780 502 

Number of 

25,000 Petitions 

20,000 Number of 

Workers 

15,000 

10,000 

5,000 

0 

Small - Medium - Large -

1-10 Workers 11-40 Workers > 40 Workers 

Number of Named Workers Per Petition 

Source: DHS OIG analysis of USCIS CLAIMS 3 data related to H-2 petitions processed from 

October 2012 through February 2016 

As Figure 2 illustrates, the frequency of H-2 petitions decreased (from 11,011 

to 502) as the number of named workers included on the petitions increased 

(from 29,766 to 45,323) across our groupings of small, medium, and large 

petitions. Our analysis of CLAIMS 3 data disclosed that medium-sized petitions 

for 11 to 40 workers, and large petitions including more than 40 workers, 

accounted for the vast majority (73 percent) of the named workers that USCIS 

vetted from October 2012 through February 2016. However, they accounted for 

only $741,000 of the fees collected. 

We found huge inequities between the small and large petitions filed. In effect, 

small petitioners filing for one or a few named workers subsidized companies 

that submitted large petitions. Specifically, 11,011 of the total 13,293 H-2 

petitions (83 percent) were small requests to bring in 1 to 10 workers. 

Collectively, these employers paid $325 per petition, for a total of over $3.5 

million. These small petitions covered only 29,766 of the 111,328 workers (27 

percent) named in the petitions we reviewed. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 11 OIG-17-42
 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Conversely, employers seeking to bring in multiple named workers per petition 

paid disproportionately less per worker. Specifically, 502 of the total 13,293 H2 petitions (4 percent) were large petitions for 40 or more named workers.17 On 

average, the small petitioners paid $120 per worker, compared to the large 

petitioners who paid just $3.60 per worker. 

We also found that a small number of employers tended to file very large 

petitions with more than 100 named workers. In fiscal year 2015 alone, 23 

employers requested over 9,000 named workers in 43 petitions, or an average 

of 213 workers per petition. This represented nearly a 55 percent increase over 

the number of very large petitions filed during each of the previous two years 

and a 70 percent increase in the number of workers requested. Two employers 

in particular submitted petitions requesting more than 600 named workers per 

petition. On average, these employers paid USCIS 50 cents to vet each named 

worker. In other words, these employers paid a fraction of a penny for every 

dollar that a small petitioner paid for foreign workers. This disparity can be 

more burdensome and unfair for small employers or others who petition to 

bring in a single worker at a time, especially when the fee exceeds the 

processing cost when compared with large petitioners. 

Disparities in Processing Time for Large Versus Small Petitions 

Employers pay the same fee regardless of how long it takes USCIS to process, 

review, and adjudicate a petition. Processing voluminous information and 

vetting multiple named workers in a large petition can be labor intensive, 

taking days and sometimes weeks to complete. The $325 petition fee is not 

effective because it is not commensurate with the time and effort required to 

process such large petitions. Figure 3 depicts the considerable difference in the 

amount of documentation that can be included in individual H-2 petitions, 

often based on the number of named workers contained in the petition 

packages, although employers pay the same $325 processing fee. 

17 Within this population, 39 employers filed 104 very large petitions each requesting over 100 

workers for a total of 20,603 named workers. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 12 OIG-17-42
 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Figure 3: Example of a Petition for One Worker as Compared with a 

Petition for Hundreds of Named Workers 

Source: DHS OIG photo of two petitions, a single petition (left) requesting 1 worker compared 

with a request for over 600 named workers 

In the photo, the small binder on the left shows a petition for one worker, 

which took minutes to process. In contrast, the 35 thick binders on the right 

represent a petition including more than 600 named agricultural workers. This 

employer paid about 50 cents per worker for USCIS to process, which required 

reviewing tens of thousands of pages of supporting documentation. Although a 

petition with more than 600 named workers was not the norm, we reviewed 

more than 100 medium-to-large petitions during our audit. Of the files we 

reviewed, a petition for more than 50 named workers typically comprised 3 to 4 

thick binders. 

Our analysis showed the disparity in processing time required for a small 

petition versus a multiple-worker petition can be significant. For example, 

according to USCIS production data, one adjudicator charged 8 hours and 45 

minutes to process a petition with 29 named workers in one day. The next day, 

the same individual adjudicated 14 small petitions in slightly less than 8 

hours. On the first day, USCIS collected $325 for a petition that required a full 

www.oig.dhs.gov 13 OIG-17-42
 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

day to process while the following day USCIS collected $4,500 for processing 14 

petitions.18 

Large petitions with named workers may be more complex to process than a 

series of small petitions. This is because, for large petitions, USCIS 

adjudicators have to examine reams of documents to identify each passport 

and visa for review. They also are more likely to have to resolve TECS hits for 

criminality or inadmissibility issues among multiple named workers included 

in a large petition. For example, a petition including 298 named workers that 

we reviewed contained nearly 120 TECS hits, which required substantial effort 

and time to resolve the derogatory information on the hits. Adjudication 

supervisors informed us that large petitions sometimes require that 

adjudicators be taken “off line” for days at a time to adjudicate just one 

petition. In extreme cases, to meet the processing time standard, USCIS has to 

split up the petition among several officers so that the vetting process might be 

less overwhelming and repetitive for a single officer. 

USCIS adjudicators expressed frustration concerning the flat H-2 fee regardless 

of petition size. Almost every adjudicator we interviewed believed there should 

be an upper limit to the number of workers per petition. They believed that a 

reasonable number of workers would allow them to better manage their 

workloads, at the same time ensuring more equitable treatment of petitioners. 

When asked what they considered a reasonable petition size for multiple 

named workers, one officer told us that a maximum of 10 workers was usually 

manageable within a normal workday. Other officers generally agreed. 

Error Prone Processing 

The expectation that USCIS adjudicate all H-2 petitions within a standard time 

frame is not realistic and can lead to improper processing. As previously 

discussed, USCIS procedures require that adjudicators complete processing of 

the vast majority of H-2 petitions within 15 calendar days, no matter how many 

named workers are requested on each petition. USCIS immigration officers 

generally took time and due care to review temporary worker petitions in detail. 

For example, we found disclosed evidence that visas and passports were 

manually compared to each other and to the petition and other information 

that the petitioner submitted. 

However, adjudication of large petitions with hundreds of named workers had 

resulted in errors that can have national security implications. Specifically, our 

review of 107 medium to large H-2 case files found that 24 percent contained 

18 In this example, all 15 petitions were for temporary agriculture workers. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 14 OIG-17-42
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

errors, ranging from incomplete vetting of employers and workers to 

immigration fraud and failure to conduct background checks. For example, we 

found that USCIS failed to vet four named workers for criminality and 

admissibility issues, and had approved the renewal of visas for workers who 

had committed fraud to obtain their original visas.19 Table 1 summarizes the 

errors we encountered during our file review. 

Table 1: Summary of Errors in H-2 Petition Processing 

Error Remarks 

Number of 

Separate 

Petitions 

Background 

check 

Either USCIS did not conduct background checks on all 

named workers, or evidence did not exist confirming TECS 

hits were resolved. 

• 3 petitions contained 4 workers whose names were not 

vetted in TECS. 

• 1 large petition contained no evidence that 90 workers 

were vetted in TECS. The file had no Record of TECS 

Inquiry to show if hits occurred or resolution 

memoranda to verify their resolution. 

• 4 petitions contained no evidence that TECS hits were 

resolved. 

• 1 petition had 4 resolution memoranda but no record 

of TECS inquiry to confirm only 4 hits existed. 

9 

Fraud Individuals obtained their visas fraudulently. USCIS approved 

them for extensions. Documentation confirming the fraud had 

been filed prior to the visa renewals. 

2 

3-Year Stay Evidence suggested that workers had exceeded the 3-year stay 

allowed for H-2 visas without returning home for the 

mandatory 3-month period as required. 

9 

Employer 

Vetting 

USCIS failed to resolve unacceptable results after vetting the 

employer through USCIS’ vetting system or evidence that 

unacceptable results had been resolved did not exist. 

6 

Source: DHS OIG review and analysis of USCIS H-2 immigration files 

As Table 1 shows, full vetting of named workers’ current or past actions, such 

as ties to terrorism, was not always done to support visa approvals. For 

example, we found that USCIS approved workers who had exceeded their 3-

year stay or committed visa fraud. Four workers listed on two separate 

petitions, one containing 214 workers and the other containing 99 workers, 

were identified by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) as having 

19 These 4 workers were listed on three large petitions with 76, 87, and 182 named workers. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 15 OIG-17-42
 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

committed fraud after admission into the United States. USCIS’ Background 

Check Unit referred the potential fraud to the agency’s Fraud Detection and 

National Security, Center Fraud Detection Operations, which confirmed 

immigration fraud had occurred and reported the information to 

adjudicators.20 However, officers did not use this information during the 

adjudication process and improperly renewed visas for these individuals. 

Supervisors we interviewed cited the size of the H-2 petitions as well as 

conflicting language in the investigative Statement of Findings as probable 

causes for the errors. 

Apart from these errors, we found that USCIS does not require vetting of 

worker aliases found on CBP’s Arrival/Departure Information System printouts 

for national security, criminality, and immigration issues. If such alias vetting 

were done, it might provide USCIS with additional derogatory information to 

consider during H-2 petition processing. 

We also disclosed evidence that employers seeking to bring foreign workers 

were improperly vetted. USCIS vetting processes should ensure that the 

employers exist, are financially viable, are in need of the number of workers 

requested on their petitions, and are not debarred from participating in the H-2 

program. However, USCIS does not require adjudicators to vet the underlying 

employers for petitions filed by an agent or association on behalf of multiple 

employers. Of the 74 large petitions we reviewed, 20 were filed by agents or 

associations representing as many as hundreds of employers. In these cases, 

USCIS vetted the organizations that filed the petitions, but did not vet the 

underlying employers. Without vetting the underlying employers, USCIS risked 

allowing fraudulent or insolvent employers to use the H-2 program to obtain 

foreign workers. 

Conclusion 

This report illustrates the inequities that occur in H-2 petition processing, both 

in the fees paid by employers for foreign workers and in the disparate time 

USCIS uses to process small and large petitions. Because this report 

represents only a small portion of the benefits that USCIS processes via form I129, which USCIS uses to establish its fee, this report may constitute the first 

in a number of reports to identify inequities in USCIS’ fee structure. 

20 The Center Fraud Detection Operations documents the result of investigations in a 

Statement of Findings that is placed in the H-2 case file. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 16 OIG-17-42
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Recommendations 

We recommend that the USCIS Director: 

Recommendation 1: Track H-2 petitions with named workers, including 

receipt numbers and time necessary for data entry, adjudication, background 

check, and fraud detection, if required, to determine on average how long it 

takes to process each worker so that USCIS can evaluate a more equitable fee 

structure. 

Recommendation 2: Consider limiting the number of named beneficiaries that 

can be listed on each H-2 petition to help address inequity between small and 

large petitions until a more comprehensive resolution can be instituted and to 

limit USCIS’ exposure to large petitions subject to 15-day processing. 

Recommendation 3: Vet underlying employers when an agent or association 

files H-2 petitions on their behalf to mitigate the risk of approving temporary 

nonimmigrant workers for employers who are not eligible for inclusion in the 

H-2 program. 

Management Comments and OIG Analysis 

In the formal written comments on a draft of this report, the Acting Director of 

United States Citizenship and Immigration Services concurred with all of our 

recommendations. Following is a summary of USCIS management’s response 

to each recommendation and our analysis. We included a copy of the 

comments in their entirety in appendix B. We also obtained technical 

comments to the draft report, which we addressed and incorporated in the final 

report, as appropriate. 

Recommendation 1: Track H-2 petitions with named workers, including 

receipt numbers and time necessary for data entry, adjudication, background 

check, and fraud detection, if required, to determine on average how long it 

takes to process each worker so that USCIS can evaluate a more equitable fee 

structure. 

USCIS Comments to Recommendation 1: USCIS concurred with this 

recommendation. USCIS agreed with the OIG’s conclusion that the fees 

employers pay for individual H-2 petitions should be commensurate with the 

time and effort required to adjudicate these requests. However, USCIS stated 

that existing USCIS tracking systems were not designed to capture the time it 

takes to adjudicate petitions of differing size and complexity, including those 

www.oig.dhs.gov 17 OIG-17-42
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

with named beneficiaries. Although a more in-depth analysis of the H-2 fee 

structure could be possible with a new electronic case management system, 

USCIS stated that implementing such a system will take time. Instead, USCIS 

would consider limiting the number of named beneficiaries that can be listed 

on each H-2 petition as an alternate solution to fulfill the intent of this 

recommendation. USCIS expected this process will be completed by June 30, 

2018. 

OIG Analysis of Agency Comments to Recommendation 1: Given prior OIG 

reports highlighting USCIS’ challenges in modernizing through the 

development of the Electronic Information System, we agree that relying on this 

system to provide a more in depth analysis of H-2 fees would take considerable 

time. We further agree that USCIS’ alternative plan to consider limiting the 

number of named beneficiaries that an employer can request on each H-2 

petition would help reduce the inequity between small and large petitions. This 

recommendation is resolved but will remain open until USCIS completes the 

steps described in its response to OIG recommendation 2. In addition, we 

encourage that USCIS continue to seek long-term solutions to increase its 

ability to capture detailed cost data to inform its H-2 petition fee setting 

activities. 

Recommendation 2: Consider limiting the number of named beneficiaries that 

can be listed on each H-2 petition to help address inequity between small and 

large petitions until a more comprehensive resolution can be instituted and to 

limit USCIS’ exposure to large petitions subject to 15-day processing. 

USCIS Comments to Recommendation 2: USCIS concurred with 

recommendation 2 and agreed to consider limiting the number of named 

beneficiaries that can be listed on each H-2 petition. USCIS planned to convene 

a working group consisting of subject matter experts to consider the policy, 

operational, and legal implications of such a change. USCIS stated it would 

explore options, including possible regulatory changes. USCIS expected this 

process will be completed by January 31, 2018. 

OIG Analysis of Agency Comments to Recommendation 2: We agree that 

USCIS’ plan to convene a working group to consider limiting the number of 

beneficiaries that can be listed on each H-2 petition is the necessary first step 

to address inequities between small and large petitions until a more 

comprehensive resolution can be instituted. This recommendation is resolved 

but will remain open until USICS provides evidence that it has implemented 

needed policy or limited the number of beneficiaries that can be named on each 

petition. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 18 OIG-17-42
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Recommendation 3: Vet underlying employers when an agent or association 

files H-2 petitions on their behalf to mitigate the risk of approving temporary 

nonimmigrant workers for employers who are not eligible for inclusion in the 

H-2 program. 

USCIS Comments to Recommendation 3: USCIS concurred with this 

recommendation and agreed to vet underlying employers when an agent or an 

association files H-2 petitions on their behalf. According to USCIS, this should 

include verifying whether employers exist and are financially viable, have a 

legitimate need for workers, and are not debarred from the H-2 program. 

USCIS recognized that such vetting would entail manual system searches, 

require additional resources, and result in USCIS requesting additional 

evidence from the employers themselves to address potential eligibility 

concerns. USCIS expected this process will be completed by January 31, 2018. 

OIG Analysis of Agency Comments to Recommendation 3: USCIS’ proposed 

actions should fulfil the intent of recommendation 3. As such, this 

recommendation is now resolved but will remain open until USCIS provides 

documentation to show the planned actions have been completed. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 19 OIG-17-42
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Appendix A 

Objective, Scope, and Methodology 

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Office of Inspector General (OIG) 

was established by the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Public Law 107−296) by 

amendment to the Inspector General Act of 1978. This is one of a series of 

reports prepared as part of our oversight responsibility to promote economy, 

efficiency, and effectiveness within the Department. 

The objective of our audit was to determine whether the fee structure 

associated with H-2 petitions is equitable and effective. We interviewed USCIS 

officials from Service Center Operations, the Office of the Chief Financial 

Officer, the Office of Performance and Quality, and the California and Vermont 

Service Centers regarding user fees charged for the Petition for a Nonimmigrant 

Worker (Form I-129). We discussed with these officials USCIS’ fee study, the 

final rule that established the current fee in 2010, and adjudication procedures 

and vetting processes. We also reviewed relevant criteria, policies, and 

procedures and conducted a walkthrough of the Form I-129 adjudication 

process for H-2A and H-2B status visas. 

We selected a non-representative sample of 320 transactions (petitions) using a 

stratified methodology to capture petitions that had been processed at both 

service centers and contained multiple levels or ranges of beneficiaries 

(workers). We physically reviewed transactions (petitions) onsite at the service 

center that had adjudicated each file to obtain clarification when necessary. 

During our transaction reviews, we determined whether the files contained an 

approved TLC, assessed USCIS’ vetting of employers and named workers, as 

well as other requirements such as the 3-year maximum stay rule. 

We requested and obtained USCIS’ CLAIMS 3 data for October 1, 2016, 

through February 2016 and conducted a data reliability assessment. Upon 

completion of our assessment, we found the partial FY 2016 data sufficiently 

reliable for the purpose of our audit. We had obtained FY 2013–15 data for 

previous audits and also found the data sufficiently reliable. We requested local 

production data from USCIS service centers related to H-2 adjudication 

processing time. Because USCIS only recently began collecting this data in FY 

2015, our attempt to verify that the data contained all FY 2015 petitions was 

unsatisfactory. However, we found the data sufficient to show specific examples 

of an officer’s time charged to adjudicate certain petitions. Although we 

obtained USCIS’ National File Tracking System data, we did not use the data in 

this report nor did we conduct reliability tests. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 20 OIG-17-42
 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

We conducted this performance audit between April and October 2016 

pursuant to the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, and according to 

generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require 

that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to 

provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based upon our 

audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable 

basis for our findings and conclusions based upon our audit objectives. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 21 OIG-17-42
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Appendix B 

USCIS Comments to the Draft Report 

www.oig.dhs.gov 22 OIG-17-42
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

www.oig.dhs.gov 23 OIG-17-42
 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Appendix C 

Office of Information Technology Audits Major Contributors to 

This Report 

Tuyet-Quan Thai, Director 

Beverly Burke, Audit Manager 

Scott Wrightson, Audit Manager 

Joshua Wilshere, Senior Auditor 

Kevin Burke, Independent Referencer 

www.oig.dhs.gov 24 OIG-17-42
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Appendix D 

Report Distribution 

Department of Homeland Security 

Secretary 

Deputy Secretary 

Chief of Staff 

General Counsel 

Executive Secretary 

Director, GAO/OIG Liaison Office 

Assistant Secretary for Office of Policy 

Assistant Secretary for Office of Public Affairs 

Assistant Secretary for Office of Legislative Affairs 

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 

Director 

Chief of Staff 

Audit Liaison 

Office of Management and Budget 

Chief, Homeland Security Branch 

DHS OIG Budget Examiner 

Congress 

Congressional Oversight and Appropriations Committees, as appropriate 

www.oig.dhs.gov 25 OIG-17-42
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND COPIES 

To view this and any of our other reports, please visit our website at: www.oig.dhs.gov. 

For further information or questions, please contact Office of Inspector General Public Affairs 

at: DHS-OIG.OfficePublicAffairs@oig.dhs.gov. Follow us on Twitter at: @dhsoig. 

OIG HOTLINE 

To report fraud, waste, or abuse, visit our website at www.oig.dhs.gov and click on the red 

"Hotline" tab. If you cannot access our website, call our hotline at (800) 323-8603, fax our 

hotline at (202) 254-4297, or write to us at: 

Department of Homeland Security 

Office of Inspector General, Mail Stop 0305 

Attention: Hotline 

245 Murray Drive, SW 

Washington, DC 20528-0305