U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

94–287 PDF 2004

FAMILIES AND BUSINESSES IN LIMBO: THE DETRIMENTAL IMPACT OF THE IMMIGRATION BACKLOG

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, 

BORDER SECURITY, AND CLAIMS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

JUNE 17 AND 23, 2004

Serial No. 96

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/judiciary 

(II)

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., Wisconsin, Chairman 

HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee 

CHRIS CANNON, Utah 

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama 

JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana 

MARK GREEN, Wisconsin 

RIC KELLER, Florida 

MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

JOHN R. CARTER, Texas 

TOM FEENEY, Florida 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California

PHILIP G. KIKO, Chief of Staff-General Counsel 

PERRY H. APELBAUM, Minority Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, BORDER SECURITY, AND CLAIMS

JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana, Chairman

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

CHRIS CANNON, Utah 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan

GEORGE FISHMAN, Chief Counsel 

ART ARTHUR, Full Committee Counsel 

LUKE BELLOCCHI, Counsel 

CINDY BLACKSTON, Professional Staff 

NOLAN RAPPAPORT, Minority Counsel 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

HEARING DATES 

Page 

June 17, 2004 ........................................................................................................... 1

June 23, 2004 ........................................................................................................... 25

OPENING STATEMENT 

JUNE 17, 2004

The Honorable John N. Hostettler, a Representative in Congress From the 

State of Indiana, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Immigration, Border 

Security, and Claims ............................................................................................ 1

The Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative in Congress From the 

State of Texas, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims ..................................................................................... 2

The Honorable Steve King, a Representative in Congress From the State 

of Iowa ................................................................................................................... 4

The Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress From the State 

of California .......................................................................................................... 5

The Honorable Linda T. Sa ́nchez, a Representative in Congress From the 

State of California ................................................................................................ 13

JUNE 23, 2004

The Honorable John N. Hostettler, a Representative in Congress From the 

State of Indiana, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Immigration, Border 

Security, and Claims ............................................................................................ 25

The Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative in Congress From the 

State of Texas, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims ..................................................................................... 50

WITNESSES 

JUNE 17, 2004

The Honorable Eduardo Aguirre, Jr., Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 6

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 10

JUNE 23, 2004

The Honorable Prakash Khatri, Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman, U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 27

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 30

Ms. Elizabeth Espin Stern, Managing Partner, Business Immigration Practice 

Group, Shaw Pittman, LLC 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 32

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 34

Mr. Paul Zulkie, President, American Immigration Lawyers Association 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 42

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 43

Page

IV

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

JUNE 17, 2004

Backlog Elimination Plan submitted by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 

Services ................................................................................................................. 59

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative 

in Congress From the State of Texas, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee 

on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims ................................................... 74

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress From the State of California ..................................................................... 75

Letter to U.S. CIS Director Eduardo Aguirre submitted by the Honorable 

Zoe Lofgren ........................................................................................................... 76

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Linda T. Sa ́nchez, a Representative 

in Congress From the State of California .......................................................... 81

Letter to President George W. Bush and the Honorable Tom Ridge, Secretary, 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security, submitted by the Honorable Linda 

T. Sa ́nchez ............................................................................................................. 83

Letter to Robert Bonner, Commissioner, Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, submitted by the Honorable Linda T. Sa ́nchez ......................................................................................... 86

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Steve King, a Representative in Congress From the State of Iowa .............................................................................. 88

JUNE 23, 2004

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative 

in Congress From the State of Texas, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee 

on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims ................................................... 88

Letter from the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA), submitted by Paul Zulkie .......................................................................................... 90

Letter to the Honorable Eduardo Aguirre, Jr., Director, Bureau of Citizenship 

and Immigration Services (BCIS), submitted by Paul Zulkie .......................... 96

Response to Questions submitted by Rep. Anthony Weiner to the Honorable 

Prakash Khatri ..................................................................................................... 99

Response to Questions submitted by Rep. Anthony Weiner to Ms. Elizabeth 

Stern ...................................................................................................................... 100

Response to Questions submitted by Rep. Anthony Weiner to Mr. Paul Zulkie 102

(1)

FAMILIES AND BUSINESSES IN LIMBO: THE 

DETRIMENTAL IMPACT OF THE IMMIGRATION BACKLOG 

THURSDAY, JUNE 17, 2004

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION,

BORDER SECURITY, AND CLAIMS, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:07 p.m., in Room 

2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John N. Hostettler 

(Chair of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. The Subcommittee will come to order. 

‘‘We applaud those immigrants who stand out, men and women 

who labored all their lives so that their children would be well-fed, 

families that went through great hardship yet kept their honor, 

their dignity, and their faith in God.’’

Those are the words of President Ronald Reagan, who the Nation 

bid farewell to last week. Today, the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims will examine a quite different 

subject from our last oversight hearing. Instead of reviewing the 

tools needed to combat illegal human smuggling into the United 

States, we will examine the plight of those legal immigrants working through the immigration and petition process and those seeking to naturalize. Those aliens who follow the law and dutifully 

apply for immigration status with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, or USCIS, should not be stranded in legal limbo 

while waiting for the 6.2 million petition backlog to be cleared. This 

is especially the case for those patiently waiting abroad for their 

legitimate immigration applications to be approved. Some families 

have been kept apart as alien relatives abroad have had to wait for 

USCIS to adjudicate the petition paperwork. In some cases, petitions sit in a pile for literally years, and applicants must periodically refile certain items, like fingerprints, as they expire. And 

when I talk about expiring, I mean the applications, not the applicants. 

American companies have also suffered. American multinationals 

file papers with USCIS to bring employees from abroad or to hire 

graduates of American universities. One must ask what incentive 

there is for aliens abroad to make legal applications for entry only 

to wait lengthy periods in the backlog. 

The immigration backlog also harms our national security. A recent General Accounting Office study describes how poor visa overVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:17 Aug 10, 2004 Jkt 089266 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\IMMIG\061704\94287.000 HJUD1 PsN: 94287
2

stay tracking complicates efforts to ensure domestic security. Indeed, we have seen how 9/11 terrorists took advantage of backlogs, 

workload, and poor record checks to remain undetected and undisturbed in the U.S. A recent Nixon Center study indicates that the 

al Qaeda terrorist network has used and continues its strategies of 

using national immigration systems to place operatives. In fact, 7 

percent of all applications processed result in an initial security or 

criminal hit of some sort. But if checks are not processed for years, 

dangerous aliens may roam free in our communities here in the 

United States. 

We must continue to be ever vigilant and current in all immigration processing so that we have readily accessible information on 

foreign travelers and workers who are in the United States. While 

the immigration backlog was current in fiscal year 1994, various 

subsequent immigration programs, such as the 245(i) programs and 

the expedited naturalization Citizenship USA program, have 

helped create and increase the backlog to its current state of over 

6 million petitions. Some argue that the backlog is only half that 

size because half of the petitions are completed within 6 months. 

Others point to the 77 percent increase in the number of petitions 

filed with USCIS from 1993 to 2001 and inadequate funding. 

Many critics have placed the blame on USCIS tardiness in increasing fees to match requirements. Others point to bureaucratic 

and needless paper exercises, such as returns for evidence in the 

petition process. Still others point to ‘‘overfunded and underperforming’’ data systems to help manage work flow. 

To solve these problems, the President has set a goal to reduce 

the backlog by fiscal year 2006 to a no-longer-than-6-months response time on immigration petitions. 

Our primary guest today is the Director of the U.S. Citizenship 

and Immigration Services, the Honorable Eduardo Aguirre. He will 

be presenting the long-awaited USCIS plan to take control of adjudication backlogs. I appreciate the importance Mr. Aguirre has 

placed on this issue and eagerly look forward to his presentation 

today. 

At this time the Chair recognizes the Ranking Member from 

Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee, for the purposes of an opening statement. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I 

believe that everyone will give 100 percent acclamation and affirmation that this is a very important hearing. 

The Honorable Barbara Jordan once said, ‘‘When they ask what 

do we want, the simple question is America’s promise.’’ The ‘‘we’’ can be anyone. It can certainly be those of us who have come to 

this country from different walks of life, recognizing Director 

Aguirre, who has had his own personal story to tell. There are any 

number of ‘‘we’s’’ but the question is America’s promise is embedded in democracy and fairness and clear procedures and transparency. And so I would simply say that today should be a pronouncement of our recommitment to democracy and fairness and 

certainly transparency. 

As I look at a typical day at USCIS, I see 140,000 national security background checks, 80,000 calls at four national customer service centers, and maybe the ability to process 80,000—or 30,000 applications. But what this does not reflect is the enormous backlog 

3

and frustration of families and those who are seeking legal access 

to legalization and status adjustment. 

What we don’t see is a young lady who I heard from just about 

72 hours ago, who said, ‘‘I get about three or four letters, if you 

will, put out by computers, very smart computers, who continuously suggest, ‘Your fingerprints are not in.’ ’’ Well, her fingerprints 

have been in. It has not yet been communicated to the computer, 

and she remains on the list of a very long, long list. 

And so I would say that all of us have a very personal interest 

in eliminating the immigration benefits applications backlog because we want to see America’s promise work every day. Houston’s 

backlog on benefits applications is one of the longest in the country, 

longer than Boston, Los Angeles, and San Diego. Approximately 

50,000 people in Houston, in the Houston area, are waiting for the 

processing of an immigration benefit application. For some, the 

wait has been as long as 5 years. 

Bianca Springer has a graduate degree in conflict analysis and 

resolution. Last week, as she and her husband, Jerry, sat in an office of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service, she said that 

she should have pursued a degree in bureaucracy. She has been 

trying unsuccessfully to resolve issues around her immigration application since moving to Houston from Miami 18 months ago, 

where she originally filed the paperwork. She sees no end in sight. 

She has not even been able to confirm that her files are at the 

Houston office. 

Again, this reflection of bureaucracy, Mr. Chairman, and to the 

witness, Director Aguirre, is not a reflection on staff that works 

hard every day. It is a reflection on the system, and it is a reflection particularly on securing the homeland and our capability of 

doing so. 

People also are experiencing difficulty in learning about the status of their applications. Mr. Al Rashid is a retired executive with 

Saudi Aramco, an energy company. In 2002, after taking an early 

retirement, he moved from Saudi Arabia to Houston with his wife, 

who is a U.S. citizen, and their infant son. Two years ago, more 

than $7,000 later, he still doesn’t know his status. He has asked, 

‘‘I want to start a business. Am I going to be approved or not? Shall 

I pack up my family and go or stay?’’

New York is another place that is having serious backlog problems. The backlog of pending citizenship cases in New York exceeds 

100,000 which is more than any other district in the country. A letter summoning Errol Taylor to be sworn in as a citizen on May 14 

arrived at his Flatbush home more than a year after his interview 

and 2 years after he applied for citizenship. This was too late for 

Mr. Taylor, a hospital worker who had lived and worked in Brooklyn for decades after leaving Trinidad in 1975, because he had died 

in March. 

The costs and consequences of the delays go beyond personal 

heartache. Businesses that rely on foreign professionals are facing 

logistical headaches and added legal costs to maintain their 

workforces. Some came to me just a few days ago about the inadequacy now of H1–B, another legal status visa. Family members 

sponsoring a relative have died while the process dragged on. SenVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:17 Aug 10, 2004 Jkt 089266 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\IMMIG\061704\94287.000 HJUD1 PsN: 94287
4

ior citizens, 70, 85, 82, 90 years old, who are seeking their citizenship status, are too being delayed, maybe beyond their life span. 

Some immigrants have inadvertently lapsed into illegal illegality 

because work permits or other papers have expired. Part of the 

problem is that additional security checks have been implemented 

in reaction to 9/11. Before 9/11, the Government only ran security 

checks on some kinds of immigration applicants such as those seeking citizenship. Now every applicant must undergo security screening, which has caused the workload to bloom. Also, matches on FBI 

name checks cause substantial delays when paper files must be 

checked to determine whether benefits—whether the benefits applicant is a person in the FBI files. While name matches only occur 

in a small percentage of the applications, we’ve also seen a rise in 

the number of applications. FY 2001 was the peak year for the 

number of immigration and naturalization petitions filed, 7.8 million, but we’ve seen these numbers go up. I would only argue that 

this is a time now for a pronounced benefits package to be bipartisan, to be truly committed by—committed to by the Administration, and, of course, to be implemented as quickly as possible. 

I realize that we are part, I hope, of the solution, meaning the 

United States Congress, and I realize, frankly, that we have a very 

large task. In the backdrop of the 9/11 hearings and the report that 

will be coming out, there’s enough blame for all of us. The tragedy 

of that occurrence, the loss of life, and the inadequate procedures 

that we all have come to understand make this hearing, Mr. Chairman, one of the most important in this United States Congress. I 

believe in securing the homeland, but you’ve heard me say it before: Immigration does not equate to terrorism, and we are a Nation of immigrants and of laws. 

Today, I hope that we will commit ourselves to those virtues, be 

able to secure the homeland, recognize the crisis, and address those 

who are in need of access to legalization with the human dignity 

and America’s promise. 

I yield back my time. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank you, Ms. Jackson Lee. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. King, 

for 5 minutes for purposes of an opening statement. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you holding 

this hearing today, and I look forward to Mr. Aguirre’s testimony. 

I would just make several points here in reflection on some of the 

opening remarks and in anticipation of the testimony and the questions that we’ll bring forward, and that is that—two points that I’m 

concerned about, and one of them is that we want to honor and respect the people who honor and respect our laws, and that means 

we need to expedite their applications consistent with our laws. 

That’s one way that we can encourage people to follow the legal 

path to come into the United States as opposed to the illegal path. 

We need to do that without jeopardizing our homeland security and 

our national defense. All nations are nations of immigrants. All nations need to control their borders. This process that we’re looking 

at here today has that in mind as well, and I believe it’s important 

for us to consider the issue of amnesty and how that affects the 

overtaxation of the system if that policy should move forward. 

5

So those are the things I have in mind, and I think it’s important 

that we—that we accelerate a legitimate, careful program of processing our people, and at the same time we can only do it at the 

rate that we can assimilate them into our society. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank you, Mr. King. 

The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from California, Ms. 

Lofgren, for 5 minutes for purposes of an opening statement. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member 

Jackson Lee, for holding this hearing, and I’d also like to thank the 

Director, Mr. Aguirre, for coming to join us today to go through the 

plan for the reduction of the backlog. 

Since I have been a Member of this Subcommittee, which, unfortunately, now goes over many years, I have endeavored to work on 

this issue with a variety of Commissioners and now the Director, 

because the backlog is a serious problem for real people. Most recently, 44 Members of Congress, bipartisan Members of Congress, 

including Subcommittee Members, Congresswoman Blackburn and 

Congressman Flake and Congressman Hart and Mr. Berman and 

Ms. Sa ́nchez, wrote to you, Mr. Aguirre, talking about the severity 

of the backlog program in—problem. And in my home State of California, I think it’s quite severe, and it goes—it runs the gamut 

from family members separated from each other to Nobel Prize 

winners who are stuck, and we need them here. 

So there are actual hardships that are being undertaken or experienced by American citizens, and also certainly our economy that 

is denied the best and brightest that are stuck outside the United 

States. I am frustrated that even today we are not fully implementing the technology that needs to be implemented. And I’ve 

said not only to you but to your predecessors that we can’t just 

work harder, we need to work smarter in order to get ahead of this 

situation. I know that we are still issuing millions of paper I–94s. 

We should have a system that is entirely computerized, and I believe that you share that goal. 

I can recall a number of years ago asking how much money 

would be necessary to implement this because we don’t need necessarily to design new systems. We need to acquire them and deploy them. 

So I am eager to hear your plan. We just got it this morning so 

I haven’t had a chance to review it yet. But I’m eager to hear your 

comments and to pose any questions that your comments raise for 

us. And I would ask unanimous consent to submit my full statement for the record, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Without objection. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I yield back. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. I thank the gentlelady. 

Now the introduction of our panelist: Mr. Eduardo Aguirre became the Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services on 

August 15, 2003. Prior to his appointment, he served the Administration as Vice Chairman and Chief Operating Officer of the Export-Import Bank of the United States. In the private sector, he became president of International Private Banking for the Bank of 

America and ran a highly profitable unit. 

6

Then-Governor Bush appointed Mr. Aguirre to the Board of Regents of the University of Houston System, and he served as its 

chairman from 1996 to 1998. Mr. Aguirre earned a bachelor of 

science degree from the College of Business Administration at Louisiana State University. He is a graduate of the American Bankers 

Association’s National Commercial Lending Graduate School and 

was awarded an honorary doctorate at the University of Houston. 

Director Aguirre, I ask that you now stand and raise your right 

hand. 

[Witness sworn.] 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank you, Dr. Aguirre. 

Please let the record reflect that the witness responded in the affirmative, and you are recognized. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE EDUARDO AGUIRRE, DIRECTOR, U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Mr. AGUIRRE. Good afternoon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Jackson Lee, and Members of the Subcommittee. 

Today I will report to you on the progress that the U.S. Citizenship 

and Immigration Service, USCIS, has made in its initial 15 months 

and the ambitious goals that we will reach in the months and years 

ahead. The Backlog Elimination Plan, which was submitted to Congress yesterday, reaffirms our commitment to eliminating the backlog while enhancing national security and improving customer 

service. This commitment is not just one of words, but one of action. Since my appointment and confirmation as the first ever Director of USCIS, I have tasked our leadership to immediately review our processes, identify opportunities for streamlining and further improvement, and begin to implement meaningful change. 

To say that this has been a year of change for our agency would 

be an understatement of great proportions. In the past 15 months, 

USCIS brought together components of the former INS to create a 

new, energized, cohesive agency with a single vision: ‘‘To provide 

the right benefit to the right person in the right amount of time, 

and prevent the wrong person from accessing immigration benefits.’’

You see, Mr. Chairman, I understand the importance of this vision and of the changes that we’re making as I am a product of the 

immigration system. I came to this country from Cuba at the age 

of 15 years as an unaccompanied minor and eventually became a 

naturalized citizen of this great country. I have a sense of the high 

responsibility entrusted to me and the daunting challenge of fundamentally transforming the delivery of services by the U.S. immigration system. I appreciate probably better than most that we 

must restore public confidence in the integrity of America’s immigration services. It is this fundamental mission that guides USCIS 

as it faces the challenges of a new era. 

Just as the backlog was created over time, there are no quick 

fixes. Only through our commitment and our perseverance will we 

be able to claim success. 

Thankfully, we have the opportunity, the leadership, and the talent to make an impact. By the end of 2006, we will eliminate the 

application backlog and achieve the 6-month cycle time that was 

7

promised by President Bush, while enhancing national security, 

and in so doing we will deliver on the President’s vision of ‘‘welcoming immigrants with open arms . . . not endless lines.’’ Let me note some accomplishments to date. During the short 

time I have been honored to lead the 15,000 men and women of 

USCIS, we have accomplished a great deal. Let me just cite a few 

examples. 

We have created a new Federal organization. We’ve naturalized 

over 650,000 new citizens. We have welcomed over 1 million new 

immigrants. We’ve conducted over 35 million background security 

checks. We’ve initiated on-line case status and processing status 

updates. We’ve initiated on-line filing for eight application forms 

which represent over 50 percent of the potential total volume of 

benefit applications. We’ve created and began deployment of 

InfoPass, a Web-based information appointment system, which is 

now implemented in Florida, Los Angeles, and Dallas, dramatically 

reducing and eliminating lines outside of our offices. We’ve established the Office of Fraud Detection and National Security, and 

this week, of course, we’ve delivered a Backlog Elimination Plan to 

Congress. 

I’d like to bring up a slide of a typical day at USCIS. Let’s see 

if the technology is up to speed. Here we go. Thank you. 

As Congresswoman Jackson Lee was mentioning, a typical day 

at USCIS can be viewed in this slide, and I’ll just touch on a few. 

We do 140,000 national security background checks on a typical 

day. We receive over 80,000 phone calls at four national customer 

service centers. We get over 100,000 hits at our website on a daily 

basis. And we welcome 190 refugees and so forth and so on. 

The purpose of this slide is to make sure that we understand 

that on a daily basis our operation is very intensely involved with 

a huge amount of volume. We—I’m sorry. We have—we have a tremendous amount of business, and that is what we’re trying to deal 

with as we implement our changes. 

Okay. I’m sorry. The backlog of applications is a serious problem 

and, until recently, a growing problem. 

Early in 2001. President Bush charged the INS, the old INS, 

with reducing the processing times for benefit applications to less 

than 6 months. He proposed funding of $500 million over 5 years 

to achieve and maintain this ambitious goal. 

It is important to understand the magnitude of this challenge. 

Backlogs of immigration benefit applications began to grow during 

the 1990’s. Overall, there was a 77 percent increase from fiscal 

year 1993 to fiscal year 2001. The primary factors contributing to 

the backlogs were a dramatic increase in applications received, 

delays in adjusting our fees, the time it takes to recruit, hire, and 

train adjudicators, and the lack of a comprehensive approach to 

monitoring, supporting, and maintaining timely processing. 

Let me show you in a slide, the backlog picture. The Backlog 

Elimination Plan was drafted in response to the President’s initiative. However, the tragic events of September 11, 2001, and the resulting focus on national security, including the NSEERS program 

and enhanced background checks on processing of all immigration 

benefit applications, posed additional challenges to achieving a 6-

month cycle time standard for all applications. 

8

From this slide, you can see how the backlog grew significantly 

and steadily after 9/11. However, you can also see that we have recently crested the peak and are now making headway in the backlog. USCIS is now on a trajectory to meet our backlog elimination 

goals. I’d like to note that since December of 2003, we have reduced 

the backlog by over 360,000 cases, and that’s demonstrated on that 

slide. 

Let me take a moment to clarify for you what is backlog. A case 

that is filed today is considered pending, not backlog. We have set 

target cycle times for our applications. For most cases, including 

naturalization and adjustment of status, the cycle time should be 

6 months. For some others, such as the employment authorization 

card, the target cycle time should be 3 months. If a case is not adjudicated within the target cycle time, then it becomes part of the 

backlog. 

USCIS calculates the current backlog to be approximately 3.7 

million cases out of a total pending of about 6.1 million cases. Put 

another way, 60 percent of our pending cases are a backlog problem. 

Our Backlog Elimination Plan focuses on three objectives: achieving a high level of performance by establishing clear, concrete milestones and actively monitoring and managing progress toward 

these milestones; two, transforming business practices by implementing significant information technology improvements and 

identifying processing improvement to transform the current way 

of doing business; and, three, ensuring integrity by instituting comprehensive quality assurance measures. 

We fully realize that the increased funding requested in the 

budget alone will not be able—will not enable us to realize our 

goals. We must fundamentally change the way we conduct our 

business. We’re aggressively working to modernize our systems and 

increase our capacity through the reengineering of processes, the 

development of implementation of new information technology systems, and the development of mechanisms to interact with customers in a more forward-reaching manner. 

Given current data on the backlog, productivity, and workload, 

USCIS must achieve a 19.6% increase in production to achieve 

cycle time goals and eliminate the backlog by the end of 2006. 

In order to achieve these productivity increases, USCIS is reengineering our processes and better utilizing technology to achieve 

greater efficiencies. We’re updating policies and procedures to 

streamline adjudications and increasing the percentage of cases 

completed at initial review by an adjudicator. We’re managing production against milestones, beginning with collaboratively setting 

goals, reporting progress, and identifying additional improvement 

opportunities. And we’re working cooperatively with the Office of 

the Ombudsman to test alternative processing approaches and new 

applications of proven off-the-shelf technology. 

I’d like to show a slide of reversing the trend. USCIS has already 

begun to show progress during the first 6 months of the fiscal year. 

Production is up. Pending and backlog figures are down. In this 

slide you can see the point in time when our completions began to 

exceed our receipts. This is fundamentally how we make headway 

in the backlog. 

9

We have begun to institute the first of several good-government 

initiatives as part of our aggressive business redesign efforts. By 

the end of the month, we plan to publish a regulation to allow us 

to issue Employment Authorization Documents, known as EADs, 

for periods greater than 1 year. Over time this will enable us to 

eliminate the unnecessary repetition of applicants for renewed 

cards. 

We’re also expediting the adjudications of simple applications. 

With green card renewals, we will utilize technology to search 

databases to provide critical information, such as status 

verifications and background checks, so that in this way the adjudication is a simple yes or no based on the information before the 

adjudicator. 

We’re working to eliminate the need for unnecessary requests for 

evidence. For example, recently we issued guidance advising adjudicators that in most cases it’s not necessary to request updates of 

financial information that was current at the time of filing. Other 

improvements requiring regulatory changes are being drafted. And 

many other improvements are coming. 

Maintaining national security is paramount. Let me be perfectly 

clear about one thing. Productivity gains will not be at the expense 

of our national security responsibilities. USCIS clearly understands 

the responsibility to the Department of Homeland Security, the 

Congress, the President, and the American people. 

From our point of view, compromising our national security is 

simply not an option. 

In addition to enhanced security checks, USCIS has established 

the Office of Fraud Detection and National Security to work with 

the appropriate law enforcement agencies to respond to national security hits on aliens who pose a threat and for identifying systemic 

fraud in the application process. 

This component will screen, identify, and refer cases involving 

suspected fraud and threats to public safety or national security to 

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement—of course, known as 

ICE—for field investigation and enforcement action. 

The next slide, please. I would like to think of our daunting task 

like climbing Mount Everest. It is a great challenge, but it can be 

done. It is also not a task for the naysayers. You need the right 

team and tools, a strong commitment, some patience, a lot of motivation, perseverance, and in my case, a healthy optimism. We have 

already reached our base camp and are well on our way. We have 

a clear vision of the top of the mountain and how we’re going to 

get there. 

During our first year, USCIS stood up an organization of which 

I am very proud. We have established accountability in our leadership team and improved many of our operational processes. We 

have submitted a Backlog Elimination Plan and continue to strive 

to make further improvements. We will be measuring against milestones and providing quarterly updates to Congress on our progress 

toward those milestones. 

The progress that we have made and the reputation we have 

built over the past 15 months will provide the momentum for continued success in the months and years ahead. 

10

With the last slide, I’ll conclude my remarks. I’m confident that 

we will reach our goal of 6 months for every case type at every office without compromising national security. 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, this concludes my remarks, 

and thank you for the invitation to testify before this Committee, 

and I look forward to answering your questions. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Aguirre follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF EDUARDO AGUIRRE, JR. 

Good afternoon Chairman Hostettler, Ranking Member Jackson Lee and Members 

of the Subcommittee. Today I will report to you the progress that U.S. Citizenship 

and Immigration Service (USCIS) has made in its initial fourteen months and the 

ambitious goals that we will reach in the months and years ahead. The Backlog 

Elimination Plan submitted to Congress this week reaffirms USCIS commitment to 

eliminating the backlog. This commitment is not just one of words, but one of action. 

Since my appointment and confirmation as the first-ever Director of USCIS, I have 

worked closely with the leaders in USCIS to immediately review our processes, identify opportunities for streamlining and further improvement, and begin to implement meaningful change. 

To say that this has been a year of change for this agency would be an understatement of great proportions. In the past fourteen months, USCIS has brought together components of the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to 

create a new, energized, cohesive agency with a single vision:

‘‘Provide the right benefit to the right person in the right amount of time, and 

prevent the wrong person from accessing immigration benefits’’

USCIS is committed to building and maintaining an organization that provides 

immigration information and benefits in a timely, accurate, consistent, courteous, 

and professional manner. It is this fundamental mission that guides USCIS as it 

faces the challenges of a new era. 

The Backlog Elimination Plan focuses on three objectives:

• Achieve a high-level of performance by establishing clear, concrete milestones 

and actively monitoring progress towards these milestones;

• Transform business practices by implementing significant information technology improvements and identifying processing improvements to transform 

the current way of doing business; and,

• Ensure integrity by instituting comprehensive quality assurance measures.

USCIS will increase its focus on information technology to ensure that long-term 

Backlog Reduction is sustained, customer service is improved, new fee for service 

business models are enabled, and a technology environment is deployed to support 

new processes and workflow aligned with the DHS mission and Presidential mandate for eGov standards. 

These objectives have started USCIS in the right direction and have begun to deliver improvements, but there is much more to be done. Just as the backlog was 

created over time, we must recognize that there is no quick fix to all our challenges—only through our commitment will we be able to claim success. 

Thankfully, we have the opportunity, the leadership, and the talent to make an 

impact. By the end of 2006, we will eliminate the application backlog and achieve 

six-month cycle times, and in doing so will deliver on the President’s vision of ‘‘welcoming immigrants with open arms . . . not endless lines.’’

ACCOMPLISHMENTS TO DATE

During the short time I have been honored to lead the men and women of USCIS, 

we have accomplished much. We have:

• Created a new organization and self-standing structure with a leadership 

team;

• Re-energized and redirected the legacy INS benefits workforce of 10,000 government and 5,000 contract employees:

• Created a customer-oriented culture incorporating Dignity, Respect and Ingenuity as core values;

• Established a new Office of Citizenship;

• Launched the USCIS Website;

11

• Established separate goals within the DHS strategic plan;

• Created a new Refugee Officer Corps;

• Streamlined the certificate of citizenship process for adopted children;

• Naturalized 670,000 new citizens;

• Welcomed over one million new immigrants;

• Initiated on-line case status and processing status updates;

• Initiated on-line filings for 8 applications forms, representing over 50% of the 

total volume of benefit applications annually;

• Created and began national implementation of a web-based information appointment system (InfoPass);

• Expanded the customer service line to overseas callers;

• Revised the fee schedule;

• Initiated four pilot projects aimed at improving customer service and reducing 

backlogs;

• Established the Office of Fraud Detection and National Security to be responsible for working with the appropriate law enforcement entities in responding 

to national security hits on aliens who pose a threat and for identifying systemic fraud in the application process; and,

• Revised the Backlog Elimination Plan that includes measurable milestones to 

gauge progress toward backlog elimination goals.

All this has been accomplished in the context of the work we do every day:

• Process 140,000 national security background checks;

• Receive 100,000 web hits;

• Take 50,000 calls at our Customer Service Centers;

• Adjudicate 30,000 applications for immigration benefits;

• See 25,000 visitors at 92 field offices;

• Issue 20,000 green cards; and

• Capture 8,000 sets of fingerprints and digital photos at 130 Application Support Centers; and,

• Receive 450 Freedom of Information Act requests. 

BACKLOG ELIMINATION PLAN

The backlog of applications is a serious problem and until very recently, growing. 

Early in 2001, President Bush charged the INS with reducing the processing 

times for benefits applications to less than six months. The President proposed funding of $500 million to achieve and maintain this ambitious goal. 

It is important to understand the magnitude of this challenge. Backlogs of immigration benefit applications began to grow during the 1990s. Overall, there was a 

77% increase from FY 1993 to FY 2001. The primary factors contributing to the 

backlogs were a dramatic increase in the number of applications and petitions received, delays in adjusting our fees and filling positions to process this increasing 

number of applications, the lengthy amount of time it takes to recruit, hire and 

train adjudicators, and the lack of a comprehensive approach to monitoring, supporting and maintaining timely processing. 

The original Backlog Elimination Plan drafted in response to the President’s initiative was intended to serve as the foundation for a renewed backlog elimination 

effort. However, the tragic events of September 11, 2001 and the resulting focus on 

national security, including the National Security Entry Exit Registration System 

(NSEERS) Program and enhanced background checks on processing of all immigration benefits applications, posed additional challenges to achieving a six-month cycle 

time standard for all applications. 

Nevertheless, the USCIS is on track to meet its goals to eliminate the backlog by 

the end of 2006. The Backlog Elimination Plan will:

• Report on the current size of the application backlog;

• Identify the next steps to eliminate the backlog and achieve a six-month or 

less cycle time target for all forms by the end of 2006;

• Establish annual production goals; and,

• Provide a plan to measure progress through quarterly reports and on-line information available on each district office and service center.

12

USCIS defines the backlog as the number of cases that exceed their cycle time. 

Naturalization and adjustment of status, for instance, have a 6-month cycle time 

while applications for nonimmigrant workers, change of status, and employment authorization have shorter 3-month cycle-time targets. 

USCIS calculates the current backlog, based on cases exceeding these cycle times, 

to be approximately 3.4 million cases as of the end of 2003. The inclusion of Asylum 

Division cases raises the backlog to about 3.7 million cases out of a total pending 

of about 6.1 million cases. 

THE WAY AHEAD

We fully realize that the increased funding requested in the budget alone will not 

enable us to realize our goals. We must fundamentally change the way we conduct 

our business. We are aggressively working to modernize our systems and increase 

our capacity through the reengineering of processes, the development and implementation of new information technology systems, and the development of mechanisms to interact with customers in a more forward-reaching manner. 

Given current data on the backlog, productivity, and workload, USCIS must 

achieve a 19.6% increase in non-Asylum production to achieve cycle time goals and 

eliminate the backlog by the end of 2006. In addition, the Asylum Division must 

realize a 3% increase in production in order to achieve the same result. 

In order to achieve these productivity increases, USCIS will:

• Reengineer processes and automate manual workflow processes to achieve 

greater efficiencies;

• Update policies and procedures to streamline adjudications and increase the 

percentage of cases completed at initial review by an adjudicator;

• Manage production against milestones—beginning with collaboratively setting 

goals, reporting progress, and identifying additional improvement opportunities; and,

• Work with the Office of the Ombudsman on pilot projects to test alternative 

processing approaches and new applications of proven off-the-shelf technology.

USCIS has already begun to show progress in this direction during the first six 

months of this fiscal year. Production is up, pending and backlog figures are down. 

We have begun to make progress by instituting the first of several Good Government Initiatives designed to reduce the number of times an application is handled, 

and through the efforts of every employee rededicating himself or herself to the task 

at hand. 

USCIS has begun an aggressive process redesign effort in the following areas: 

Card Issuance—By the end of the month we plan to publish an interim final rule 

to allow ourselves to issue Employment Authorization Documents (EADs) for periods greater than 1 year. Over time this will enable us to eliminate the unnecessary 

repetition of applications for renewed cards. 

Expediting the adjudication of easy applications—With green card renewals we 

will utilize technology to search databases to provide critical information, i.e. status 

verifications and background checks, so that in this way the adjudication is a simple 

yes or no based on that information. 

Requests For Evidence (RFEs)—Recognizing the costs, of both time and human 

capital in the processing of RFEs, we have been working to eliminate the need for 

unnecessary RFEs. Some of this improvement has been accomplished by memoranda, such as the recently issued memorandum advising adjudicators that in most 

cases it is not necessary to request updates of financial information that was current at the time of filing. Other improvement requires regulatory changes that are 

being drafted. 

In the months ahead, USCIS will:

• Enhance data-sharing and inter-agency process improvements to eliminate 

steps in the processes that add little or no value;

• Modify regulations to clarify requirements for adjudicators and for applicants;

• Reduce pending Asylum cases that have been likely abandoned or overcome 

by other events;

• Use systems capabilities to run batch queries against data systems rather 

than spending time manually checking systems; and,

• Continue to manage production against targets.

But we have further to go. The weeks and months ahead are key to continuing 

this positive trend and making the successes we have realized become the new baseline for the bureau rather than temporary blips on a production chart. 

13

USCIS will ensure that all customers are provided an opportunity to receive a decision within six months or less. However, we recognize that even after the backlog 

is eliminated, some cases may take longer than six months, such as those cases 

where security checks have indicated a possible significant terrorist risk or criminal 

activity. 

MAINTAINING NATIONAL SECURITY

But let me be perfectly clear about one thing. Productivity gains will not be at 

the expense of our National Security responsibilities. USCIS clearly understands its 

responsibilities to the Department of Homeland Security, the Congress, the President and the American people. Compromising on National Security is not an option. 

In addition to enhanced security checks, USCIS understands that maintaining national security and deterring fraud are critical elements of its mission. To process 

these workloads, USCIS has established the Office of Fraud Detection and National 

Security (FDNS) to be responsible for working with the appropriate law enforcement 

entities in responding to national security hits on aliens who pose a threat and for 

identifying systemic fraud in the application process. 

This component, in cooperation with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

(ICE), will screen, identify, and refer cases involving suspected fraud and threats 

to public safety or national security to ICE for field investigation and enforcement 

action. Anti-fraud efforts will include developing standard operating procedures to 

aid field Adjudications staffs in identifying suspected fraud. These initiatives will 

better enable USCIS to identify applications that may involve fraud, deny benefits 

to aliens who commit fraud, and place those aliens in removal proceedings. 

CONCLUSION

USCIS is committed to this goal and will work cooperatively with our stakeholders, including Congress, to see it to its successful completion. 

During our first year, USCIS stood up an organization of which we are very 

proud. We have established a leadership team, improved many of our operational 

processes, and continue to strive to make further improvements. 

The progress that we have made and the reputation we hope we have built over 

the past fourteen months will provide the momentum for continued success in the 

months and years ahead. 

This concludes my prepared remarks. I thank you for the invitation to testify before this subcommittee and I would be happy to answer any questions.

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank you, Director Aguirre. 

At this point, out of order, without objection, the gentlelady from 

California, Ms. Sa ́nchez will have 5 minutes for an opening statement. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Thank you, Chairman Hostettler, and also Ranking Member Jackson Lee, for today’s hearing. The issue that we’re 

examining today, the immigration backlog and its detrimental impacts is an issue that my Democratic colleagues and I have said 

over and over again is critical—is a critical component to fixing our 

broken immigration system. We made backlog reduction one of the 

top priorities in the SOLVE Act, H.R. 4262, that was introduced in 

May, on May 4th, and I urge the Chairman to follow this hearing 

on reducing the immigration backlog with a markup of the SOLVE 

Act so we can make immigration backlog reduction the law. 

We need to reduce the backlog because the processing delays are 

keeping families apart for years and sometimes even decades. 

Thousands of immigrants follow the rules and submit their visa applications like they’re supposed to, only to end up waiting for years 

to reunite with their spouses, children, or parents because of the 

backlog. One of the main reasons why immigrants come here illegally is to reunite with members of their family. And, simply put, 

the visa backlog is one of the main causes of illegal immigration 

in this country. 

14

And what is the current Administration doing about the backlog 

problem? If you’ve read the papers lately, you’d think their solution 

was to perform random immigration sweeps. Last week, there were 

several newspaper reports that more than 200 immigrants were arrested in the Inland Empire in Southern California, close to my 

neck of the woods. According to reports, Federal agents were interrogating and arresting immigrants outside of supermarkets, restaurants, as they got off buses on their way to work, and even as 

they were stopping—they were even stopping cars at roadside 

checkpoints. 

Any person of Hispanic appearance or descent was a target of the 

sweeps. The agents stopped a Pasadena City College student legally in the U.S. on a student visa and interrogated him on the 

street about his immigration papers. The agents then drove the 

student home and forced him to produce his student visa papers to 

prove he was legal. 

In another incident, a Latino waitress named Lourdes Rangel, a 

U.S. citizen, witnessed men in white vans stopping cars and interrogating drivers. Some of the agents questioned her and demanded 

that she show them proof of her citizenship. These very extreme arrests do nothing to fix the current immigration system. The only 

thing that they serve to do is to create fear and panic in local communities. 

A school in Pasadena reported that 30 percent of the students 

skipped school after the reports were made public. Restaurants, 

stores, and doctors’ offices were empty last week, and my office continues to receive phone calls about that. And many said—many 

doctors said that they were inundated with calls asking if it was 

safe to come by and get medical care or even to go and buy simple 

necessities at the supermarket. 

It’s not really in question that the sweeps were based on racial 

profiling and not on any evidence that the particular arrestees 

were in the country illegally. The U.S. Bureau of Customs and Border Protection claims the sweeps were neither racial profiling nor 

an agency-wide policy. But I find it hard to believe that race didn’t 

play a factor in the interrogations when 90 percent of the arrests 

were of Mexican nationals. Currently, MALDEF is investigating 

the sweeps to see if the sweeps violated the victims’ due process 

rights or were unreasonable searches and seizures. 

Constitutional violations and random race-based arrests are not 

the way to deal with illegal immigration in this country. The Administration’s $500 million initiative to reduce the visa backlog to 

a 6-month processing time by 2006 is an excellent idea, and I urge 

the President and his Administration to make sure that this idea 

becomes, in fact, a reality. Likewise, I urge the President to give 

the same priority to backlog reduction that he does in the efforts 

to deport hard-working, law-abiding immigrants, and even citizens. 

The last time Mr. Aguirre testified before this Subcommittee, we 

discussed how only $60 million in additional funds were proposed 

for the backlog reduction in the President’s fiscal year 2005 budget 

proposal. This sum paled in comparison to the $281 million for enforcement programs in the President’s budget proposal. 

We need to make visa backlog reduction a much higher priority. 

There are 6 million visa applications waiting to be processed. That 

15

equates to millions of separated families and the possibility for millions of immigrants to fall into illegal status. 

Processing these applications in a timely way is just as important as enforcement efforts to fixing our immigration system and 

making our borders safe and secure. I hope that this time next 

year Mr. Aguirre is testifying before this Subcommittee and telling 

us how successful the reduction plan is, that the backlog has already been dropped by 50 percent and will be at zero in 2006. 

I want to thank our witness for taking the time to come here and 

give us testimony before this Committee about what steps are 

being taken to produce a visa backlog program, and, Mr. Chairman, I’m also working on a letter to President Bush and Secretary 

Ridge expressing concern about the immigration sweeps in Los Angeles. The letter should be completed shortly, and I ask unanimous 

consent to submit that letter, as well as a letter from the Congressional Hispanic Caucus addressing the same issue, into the record 

for this Subcommittee hearing. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Without objection. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Thank you. I yield back my remaining time. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. I thank the gentlelady. The panel will now go 

to questions on a 5-minute basis. 

Director Aguirre, on your first day on the job as Director, what 

was the condition of the adjudication system you inherited? Would 

it be fair to say that it was dysfunctional? 

Mr. AGUIRRE. Mr. Chairman, I’m not sure that I would use that 

word. I think it was contrary to efficiency because after 9/11, under 

the Immigration and—INS tenure, many of the adjudicators had to 

be redeployed to do tasks that were inherent toward national security, not toward the adjudication of cases. A case in point would be 

NSEERS program. A number—hundreds of our adjudicators were 

redeployed to handle the NSEERS situation. 

Since I took over the operations, we worked our way to transfer 

the responsibility of the NSEERS program to ICE, and, therefore, 

we’ve been able to reclaim the adjudicators to do what they’re supposed to do. 

Additionally, I think it’s worthy to note that post-9/11, there was 

a significant concern by our adjudicators to adjudicate, just somewhat of a paralysis of fear that a mistake might be made and that 

zero tolerance may be in effect. We have empowered our adjudicators to make sure that they follow the rules, but also use their extensive experience and managerial access to make sure that they 

continue to process the cases. 

So dysfunctional, I don’t think I would use that word, but inefficient, certainly I would. And I think our task has been to bring efficiency and effectiveness into the process without compromising the 

integrity of the system. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Very good. Thank you. You’ve explained a lot 

about the backlog, but can you tell me more about the history of 

the backlog. Did not the backlog—was not the backlog created in 

large part as a result of new and large numbers of immigrant applications taking subsidiary of the 245 program to allow mainly 

out-of-status aliens a chance to get a green card? 

Mr. AGUIRRE. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Of course, there is a cause and 

effect, as I think you’re alluding to. There was a period of time a 

16

number of years ago where an amnesty program was in effect that 

allowed a number of people to come into a green card and then ultimately citizenship status, which in itself then created a new availability for demand for some of the products that we offer. And then 

that has simply mushroomed into a very large operation. 

What I think is significant to note is that before Congress decided to separate the responsibilities of service and enforcement, 

the typical Commissioner was faced with competing priorities, with 

allocation of human and monetary resources to either enforcement 

or service. Currently, we’re able to focus and laser-focus our attention toward very basic services. We’re here to reduce the backlog, 

improve customer service, and do it in an environment of national 

security. All of that is without being concerned with, as Congresswoman Sa ́nchez was mentioning, the issue of enforcement. I’m sure 

she’s directing her comments to the enforcement side of Homeland 

Security or the rest of the Nation because, of course, we do not 

have any enforcement authority or responsibility, other than if we 

identify a potential terrorist or somebody who is trying to defraud 

the system, we refer them to the enforcement side of the Government for appropriate action. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. And going along with that, does the backlog encourage aliens to file frivolous petitions? In other words, do legal 

aliens who want to stay permanently in the U.S. figure that it will 

take so long for CIS to adjudicate their case that they would find 

in some cases bogus claims to stay in the United States? 

Mr. AGUIRRE. There is some of that, and we’re trying to—through 

technology and otherwise, we’re trying to identify frivolous applications so that they can be promptly adjudicated in the negative or, 

for that matter, low-risk applications to be adjudicated in the positive, as the case may be. 

Indeed, I think you’re very much aware of the fact that the Immigration and Nationality Act is perhaps the most complex set of 

laws that our Congress has bestowed upon our Nation. And, therefore, we understand that the complexity of that problem lends itself 

to a lot of litigation opportunities for unscrupulous as well as scrupulous lawyers. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Director Aguirre, you are anything if not diplomatic in your relations with Congress when you refer to the complexity of the INA and what we have bestowed upon the American 

people. 

At this the Chair recognizes the gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee, for 5 minutes. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you very much. 

I know that sometimes we have something called ‘‘funny math,’’

and I appreciate—I’m going to ask probably a funny math question. 

For a long time, we’ve been talking about 6 million backlog, and 

I would be concerned that we be as accurate as we can be in the 

numbers. And so one of my first questions will be—and I want to 

just pursue this discussion for a little bit. One of my first discussions will be is that this very—I think very neat day in USCIS, as 

it reflects the numbers that we’ve been working with now for almost a year, and I know that some numbers that have been cited 

is about a 3.2 million—— Mr. AGUIRRE. 3.7. 

17

Ms. JACKSON LEE. 3.7 million backlog, but the numbers that we 

have been working with have been 6 million. And I think it is important that before we pursue a line of questioning, that this be established. Benefits is, of course, a question that impacts people accessing legalization. So it is part of the constitutional process of 

giving people the opportunity to seek citizenship. And for those 

who may be negative about immigrants or immigrant laws or too 

many immigrants, this is the wrong place to be, because what 

we’re suggesting is that there is a process to deal with people who 

are seeking legalization. And when we hear the word ‘‘benefits,’’ I 

know someone is somewhere looking at this and suggesting that 

there goes my job, there goes my opportunity. That is not the case. 

In certain instances, the individuals trying to access legalization 

are, in fact, creating jobs. Some of them are going against the tide 

of what we abhor, some of us, something called ‘‘outsourcing,’’ where jobs go overseas. Some of them are preventing those jobs 

from going overseas by being here and creating jobs or bringing the 

particular expertise here to the United States. 

And so in the course of not being able to move these individuals 

quickly, we’re, in fact, putting a knife in our economy to a certain 

extent; we’re, in fact, dividing families, children; and certainly 

what we’re doing is we’re not in any way, I believe, meeting America’s promise. 

So my first question would be to the Director—and I thank you 

for your testimony—is about these numbers. The second question 

would be, if I may share this, is to hear more about the milestones 

that you’re going to use to measure your progress in eliminating 

the benefits application backlog. I’m particularly interested in what 

you plan to do if these milestones are not achieved. And might you 

also include the question that my colleague raised, is I believe that 

this is going to take a sizable increase in funding. And the question 

is: Do we have not only the commitment that you have certainly 

offered with your expertise, but really the Administration prepared 

to bring forward a reasonable request that tracks this amount of 

change that you’re expecting? And I guess my last point is you say 

that we’re going to spend more time on what we call moderate to 

high risk. My concern is: Who’s going to discern low and moderate, 

and are we really going to have a transparent and fair system 

when we begin to do that? And I thank you for listening to the litany questions, but I know that you’re able and prepared. 

Mr. AGUIRRE. Congresswoman, as I get older, my memory gets 

shorter, so I hope I’m not going to miss anything. I am sure you 

will remind me if I do. Let me go to the numbers, if I will. 

If somebody files an application today, that’s not part of the 

backlog. It doesn’t become part of the backlog until 6 months and 

a day later when we are not processing it in an efficient and effective fashion. The President has set 6 months as the appropriate 

cycle time. Actually, with time, we hope to improve upon that. But, 

therefore, I’m distinguishing the pending file from the backlog file, 

and we’re saying that in the pending file we have 6.1 million—6.1 

million applications pending, whereas 3.7 of them, or approximately 60 percent, are beyond 6 months. 

I think that’s a very fundamental understanding. We cannot 

call—because, otherwise, we would never meet the backlog goal. 

18

Every day we’d be behind any kind of a backlog establishment. So 

that’s a fundamental difference, and, therefore, that’s where we’re 

working on both the backlog as well as the pending applications. 

Now——

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Milestones that you’re going to use to measure 

your progress. 

Mr. AGUIRRE. We have multiple milestones, and what we’re 

doing is we’re managing application by application, we’re managing 

office by office, service center by service center, almost adjudicator 

by adjudicator. We have established management systems today 

that were just simply not in place before. And we’re using some of 

our technology systems to allow us for timely assessment on where 

we are. 

If we should miss any of our milestones—and, in fact, I predict 

that we will be missing milestones here and there—we’re now in 

a position to redeploy our internal resources to address those shortcomings that may come up. In other words, if one particular city 

finds itself behind the eight ball in terms of milestones, it could be 

because it’s a small city and people are on maternity leave or may 

have taken excused absence for a long period of time, bringing 

down the percent of the personnel. We are then looking to other offices where there is a certain amount of flexibility and redeploying 

human resources to be able to respond to that situation. So from 

a milestone standpoint, the most important thing for me is that it’s 

a management tool that allows us to deal with the unexpected. 

We will be reporting to Congress, as I mentioned in my comments, on a quarterly basis. Therefore, you’ll be able to see whether or not, along with us, whether or not we’re on target and what 

we’re doing about it. And the money. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. The money and deciphering low risk from 

high risk. 

Mr. AGUIRRE. Follow the money. Quite frankly, Congresswoman, 

I really do believe that our budget has been very carefully crafted, 

and that my challenge lies not in taking more money and figuring 

out what to do with it—it’s more a challenge of making my staff 

working, as it was mentioned earlier by Congresswoman Lofgren, 

working smarter not harder. I am very, very comfortable that the 

budget that has been put forth is adequate to serve our needs. And 

if I felt otherwise, I would tell you. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. King, for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and recognizing we have 

a vote coming up across the street, I’ll try to move through here 

quickly. 

First of all, I would pose the question to Mr. Aguirre: Does the 

United States of America have any record or any history of inadvertently or not legally deporting U.S. citizens to other nations by 

mistake? 

Mr. AGUIRRE. Congressman, I’m sorry. I’m just not equipped to 

answer that question. I’m not in the law enforcement business, so 

I wouldn’t really know. I’d be happy to look into that and see if we 

can respond to you. 

19

Mr. KING. But if that happened, wouldn’t it be reasonable that 

those people would come back before you for readmittance? 

Mr. AGUIRRE. Well, if someone was deported inappropriately, 

then I suppose it would come back to us to verify the naturalization 

of the individual, and we would then respond accordingly. 

Mr. KING. Does that happen? 

Mr. AGUIRRE. I just don’t know, sir. 

Mr. KING. Okay. And I never hear of that happening, and that 

is why I took the opportunity to ask that question. And what 

sparked the question was the testimony of Ms. Sa ́nchez that there 

are people that don’t show up for work or for medical care or for 

education because there’s been activity on the part of the INS in 

the region, which concerns me if people don’t show up, then it 

would indicate that either they were being unjustly adjudicated or 

maybe they were illegal. So I would just ask unanimous consent to 

submit a rebuttal to those opening remarks of Ms. Sa ́nchez to the 

record and then make a point to Mr. Aguirre. 

This is a complete document, and you’ve made your point very 

clear, and I appreciate that. I like it when I can understand it in 

black and white. And I hope we can come back and visit this 

maybe in a year and see how things are going, and then in 2 years 

and see that it’s completed. But for 2006, does that mean the first 

day or the last day? 

Mr. AGUIRRE. Congressman, the President’s commitment and 

promise of the $500 million over 5 years ends on September 2006. 

And it is our focus and our goal to get to that date in eliminating 

the backlog on that day or before. And that’s—that’s what it is. 

Mr. KING. The fiscal year. Thank you for that clarification, Mr. 

Aguirre, and your testimony. I appreciate it very much. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. AGUIRRE. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. I thank the gentleman. 

The Chair will now recess the Subcommittee for a series of three 

votes. Director Aguirre, will you be able to hang around for about 

another half an hour for Members to come back? 

Mr. AGUIRRE. Nothing could make me happier, sir. [Laughter.] 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Diplomacy. Diplomacy. Thank you. 

We are recessed. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. The Subcommittee will come to order. 

Director Aguirre, I apologize for your wait. The half-hour was a 

little longer than a half-hour, and I apologize for that. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from California, Ms. 

Lofgren, for 5 minutes for questions. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Director, for your testimony. And I was mentioning to Mr. Smith as we 

were walking back from the vote that I don’t want you to take this 

personally because we have heard promises about backlogs many, 

many, many times, and it’s engendered a certain skepticism on the 

parts of the Members of Congress, and it’s not about you. It’s just 

how many times can the football be taken away from Charlie 

Brown. So here are some questions I have. 

Mr. AGUIRRE. I used that same metaphor the other day. 

20

Ms. LOFGREN. Aha. I’m interested in some very specific issues 

that I think could help smooth processing in important ways, and 

I’ve mentioned this in the past. I actually believe that ultimately 

immigrants and nonimmigrants will have or should have their 

cases, both in the case of nonimmigrant applications or applications 

for permanent residents, be filed by whatever biometric is used because then you won’t end up with duplications of names and it 

would save time. 

It’s my understanding that the agency is now electronically gathering signatures in most cases, which is a big improvement, and I 

want to give you credit for that, and that we are also electronically 

taking photographs, which is an improvement, and I want to acknowledge that. 

However, I think we are still not retaining the fingerprints, and 

we are still—or if I’m wrong, you tell me, but we have had cases 

in my office where the fingerprints age-out. I don’t dispute the need 

to get a new criminal review through the FBI. What I’ve never understood is why we need a new set of fingerprints, because the reason why we get the fingerprints is they’re immutable. 

I was led to believe that it’s because the FBI does not have—explain—is what I’ve been told, is my understanding correct or incorrect on this? 

Mr. AGUIRRE. Congresswoman, that was then, this is now. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Okay. 

Mr. AGUIRRE. We started storing and retaining the fingerprints 

a number of months ago. And, therefore, those who would have 

come before us before that date will have to continue to come back 

because fingerprints would have—— Ms. LOFGREN. I see. So we’re going to see the tail end, but that’s 

going to go away. 

Mr. AGUIRRE. Absolutely. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I see. 

Mr. AGUIRRE. The issue was a storage capacity from a biometric 

standpoint. We have resolved that issue, and everything that we 

take in now is stored electronically in perpetuity. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Very good. I have a question on your improvement 

initiatives. You’re talking about precertification, and that’s an interesting concept, and I think a promising one, on page 8. I’m interested if any progress has been made on precertification beyond 

the business sector. And I’m particularly interested in the science 

and academic sector. I think I mentioned this the last time you 

were here, and I know we did to Secretary Ridge and Secretary 

Powell. But we have very high-powered scientists, both doctoral 

students as well as professors, who travel frequently to scientific 

conferences, and if they can’t go, they’ll go to Oxford instead of 

Stanford. And we want those people, we want those hotshots here. 

Because whenever—if they’re from a part of the world that we’re 

suspicious about, they need to be cleared. None of them object to 

that, but the problem is that they have to be cleared every time 

they come in and out, and so it takes a long time. And I see a need 

of collaboration between the State Department, your agency, and 

Homeland Security, to make sure that, you know, once you’ve investigated somebody and you know it’s okay, that we can somehow 

give preclearance and smooth that out for these scholars. 

21

Do you think that could be examined? 

Mr. AGUIRRE. It is being examined, Congresswoman, and let me 

just draw the distinction between the apple and the orange, if I 

could. 

The precertification that you were referring to is a 

precertification of employers so that IBM doesn’t have to demonstrate every time—— Ms. LOFGREN. Right. No, I understood that, but I grabbed the 

name to make my point. 

Mr. AGUIRRE. I appreciate that. Perhaps you’re making reference 

to people that are coming here as visitors and—— Ms. LOFGREN. Right, where they’re students, where they’re O’s. 

Mr. AGUIRRE. Okay. Well, the O’s and the P’s are quite different 

from those who are coming here for—on a nonimmigrant basis. The 

bottom line is that we recognize that this is a problem and that 

people are choosing not to come to our country because of the difficulty of coming here. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Right. 

Mr. AGUIRRE. And I’m participating with Secretary Ridge——

Ms. LOFGREN. Very good. 

Mr. AGUIRRE.—who’s inviting us to look for ways to make it better. 

Ms. LOFGREN. If I could, just one final question. I know my time 

is up, but in looking at the backlogs, the elimination milestones, I 

noticed—sometimes I think if we just focused on a few things that 

cause problems when they don’t work, it would give us time. And 

one of those, to wait 11 months for a reentry permit or 3 months 

for advanced parole is inevitably going to cause problems because 

you can’t plan the funeral, I mean, or the death, and so then somebody gets stuck, and then their family calls the Congress Member 

and then we call you and you have to respond. If there were just 

a way to ease that, this whole mass of work would disappear. And 

I’m wondering if you’ve done that kind of functional analysis. You 

want to get all the backlog done, but the lack of some of these 

things just inevitably creates a whole mess of problems so that you 

might really get a bang for your buck on specific elements. 

Have you done that kind of analysis? 

Mr. AGUIRRE. Yes, ma’am, we have. I cannot respond to the particular one that you’re referring to, but we have done extensive reengineering analysis to determine which are the processes that will 

give us the best bang for the buck, quickest bang for the buck, and 

compare them to something else and something else. I think you’re 

absolutely right. We’re not going to be able to do everything at 

once. We’re going to have to take priorities, and we’re doing just 

that, not to the exclusion of everything else but to the level of attention. 

You know, I like to think we’re smart, and we’re trying to solve 

this problem one big chunk at a time, if possible, as opposed to just 

all little ones at a time. We have very, very good people working 

on this, and I think we have found the numbers to begin to work 

in our favor. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I see my time has expired, and I don’t want to 

abuse the Chairman’s indulgence. I did have one question on the 

chief information officer. Have you filled that? 

22

Mr. AGUIRRE. Ma’am, we have. We have always had a chief information officer. The previous one was on—I’m not sure of the technical terms—temporary or interim basis. We have Tarrazzia Martin who has come to us from the Chief Information Officer in the 

Department of Homeland Security, and she is now working fulltime to address the issue of information. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much. 

Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. I thank the gentlelady. 

The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Member, Ms. Jackson 

Lee, for a closing statement. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the Chairman very much. I want to 

thank Congresswoman Lofgren for some of the very pointed questions that she asked, and as well, Congressman Berman’s office, his 

apologies, because he was scheduled to be at another meeting, and 

Congresswoman Sa ́nchez as well offered a very important statement that I hope that we’ll be working on. 

I wanted to congratulate you for the Ombudsman that you have. 

I hope and look forward to scheduling him because I think in the 

course of this new major effort, getting him to be seen and heard 

in places outside the Beltway may be very important inasmuch as 

he reflects on how your interagency—intra-agency is able to work 

more effectively together. And my point is—and if we can dialogue 

after this hearing in the next week and days as we look at this. 

I’m a little concerned about the money question because there is an 

increase of funds available for backlog reduction from the $100 million level, it was, to about $160 million. And it’s about a 60 percent 

increase. But, frankly, we have a daunting job. I think it’s important that if you’re conveying messages, that you take back to the 

Administration and you will tell them, you know, get the convener 

or conveyor of the message, don’t convey, or to destroy you, the 

messenger. But I think it’s important when you come here that we 

be very honest with you. I don’t think this is going to be enough 

money, particularly when you’ve been gracious enough to say that 

you are shipping people around and you may want to use Peter and 

Paul in different locations. I can, frankly, tell you that the Texas 

center is, you know, at a high peak and also probably at a very 

shrill point right now with overworked staff. And so let me just 

say, Mr. Chairman, I’m going to be looking at drafting a letter 

about funds. I think—I’m not sure if Congresswoman Sa ́nchez, 

maybe joining her if that was her point and I may have missed it. 

But, in any event, I believe that we’re going to have shortfalls, and 

I’m also going to be looking at this question of shifting, not in any 

way believing that there’s not good intention. I just know that 

there’s just so much that you can get out of in this instance a turnip, and I don’t consider any of the employees such, but the metaphor just came to me. 

So I’m very concerned about how much you can get out of those 

hard-working employees, and for those who are listening that represent employees, hard-working employees, I just want them to be 

able to have all the resources that they need. 

And the last point, Mr. Chairman, is most of us come from arts 

cities, and if you’ve ever heard a shrill voice, it’s the Houston 

Grand Opera or the New York Symphony, when they can’t get 

23

their talent here. And so we’ve been having a backlog on those J 

visas, and I would hope that when we talk about benefits that we 

sort of look at those in a keen manner, and I’m saying J. I meant 

to say P. But they’ve all got alphabet—I’m like you. I’ll leave it on 

those visas that categorize professional, doctors, lawyers, entertainers, our wonderful violinists and operatic artists. This is a crisis, and we just got through dealing with the physician at the 

Texas Medical Center, one of many. So I would appreciate it, Mr. 

Chairman, if these points can be put on the Director’s plate for a 

response and discussion. 

I yield back. Thank you. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. I thank the gentlelady. 

Before I bring the hearing to a close, I’d like to mention that this 

hearing is actually the first of two hearings. Next week at 4 p.m. 

on Wednesday, we will hear from the Department of Homeland Security Ombudsman to give his report on the backlog as required by 

the Homeland Security Act. 

Director Aguirre, the Committee, the Subcommittee very much 

thanks you for being here today, for your insight, for your service, 

and that of the folks at CIS, and wants you to realize that we are 

here to help. And, finally, we apologize for the air-conditioning situation and keeping you too long today. 

The Subcommittee’s work being done, we are adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:04 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

(25)

FAMILIES AND BUSINESSES IN LIMBO: THE 

DETRIMENTAL IMPACT OF THE IMMIGRATION BACKLOG 

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 23, 2004

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION,

BORDER SECURITY, AND CLAIMS, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 4:50 p.m., in Room 

2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John Hostettler (Chair 

of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. The Subcommittee will come to order. 

Vania Carvalho contacted my office with the kind of problem I 

hear all too often—about someone who is trying to do the right 

thing and follow the law by filing the right papers, and getting 

caught in a bureaucratic nightmare. Vania came to the U.S. with 

her mother when she was 13 years old on a Portuguese passport, 

but when her mother married someone from my district, her family 

filed I–130 papers in February 2001 so she could become a permanent resident. She is still waiting for her green card. 

This is why 2 years ago Congress created the Office of the Ombudsman in the Homeland Security Act—to make sure that someone is fighting to ensure that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 

Services process immigration applications in a timely and fair manner. 

As Members of this Committee mentioned at last week’s hearing, 

legal immigration processing delays send the wrong message to everyone, especially when we are trying to combat illegal immigration. According to Congressional Research Service, 7.8 million immigration and naturalization applications were received in 2001, 

up from 5.9 million in 2000. The annual receipts since the 9/11 

tragedy have stayed in the 7 million range. In the year since its 

creation, USCIS has begun to report progress in reducing the backlog. It is reported that 5.1 million immigration cases were pending 

in April 2003, and a year later, this April, the number was reduced 

to 4.8 million. 

Last week, this Subcommittee received the USCIS’s blueprint for 

further reducing the application backlog so all applications meet 

the President’s target of a 6-month cycle by fiscal year 2006. No 

one wants USCIS to succeed more than the Members of this Subcommittee. 

26

This week we will hear the DHS Ombudsman provide his reaction to USCIS’s plan and his own ideas on backlog reduction. Further, we will hear from private sector attorneys representing both 

family and business clients on what they think of the plan and provide further suggestions on how to get the job done and reduce the 

backlog. 

But before that, I have one observation from last week’s hearing: 

For one, despite the difficulties of a large-scale merger comparable 

to joining together the largest corporations of America, it is apparent that USCIS is cutting into the application backlog created by 

its predecessor agency. In fact, I am happy to have received word 

it has reduced the immigration backlog by hundreds of thousands 

of petitions since the beginning of the year. 

Although USCIS is a better and more efficient organization than 

its predecessor agency, it has inherited a backlog that has grown 

with each new immigration program passed by Congress, including 

the Nicaraguan and Central American Relief Act of 1997, the Haitian Refugee and Immigrant Fairness Act of 1998, the American 

Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act of 1998, and a 

similar law in 2000—both dramatically increased H–1B caps—and 

the LIFE Act of 2000, which provided for new and V and K visa 

categories, and multiple extensions of 245(i). 

Another issue I was also interested to hear about was broached 

by our witness last week, USCIS Director Aguirre. He believed that 

fraudulent or bogus petitions were adding significantly to the backlog, and that immigration attorneys used bogus petitions to delay 

removals. Director Aguirre stated that USCIS is developing technology to inhibit such behavior. 

His testimony also noted that the tragic events of September 11, 

2001 forced USCIS to commit significant additional resources to 

national security checks on applicants. I am glad to hear that security concerns remain a top priority for USCIS when I hear of cases 

like that of Nuradin Abdi, who was charged last week with plotting 

to bomb a shopping mall in Columbus, Ohio, and with receiving 

asylum through a bogus but successful application. 

The quarterly progress reports that USCIS has promised this 

Committee will ensure that we have an accurate picture of the 

Agency’s progress in attacking the backlog. I am anxious to hear 

what ideas our witnesses have to reduce the backlog further. 

Without objection, all Members’ opening statements will be entered into the record, and the Chairman will reserve the right to 

recognize the Ranking Member for an opening statement when she 

arrives. 

Without further delay, I want to introduce our witnesses today. 

The Honorable Prakash Khatri was appointed by Secretary Tom 

Ridge in July 2003 to serve as the first U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman at the Department of Homeland Security. He has extensive experience in the area of immigration law, 

having spent the past 20 years representing individuals and companies in immigration proceedings and related matters. In his 5 

years as manager of immigration and visa processing for Walt Disney World in Florida, Mr. Khatri traveled to U.S. consular posts in 

more than 18 countries. At Disney, he developed and implemented 

an automated, high-volume visa processing system and other innoVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:17 Aug 10, 2004 Jkt 089266 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\IMMIG\061704\94287.001 HJUD1 PsN: 94287
27

vations that reduced unnecessary paperwork and improved efficiencies relating to handling employee visa applications. 

Mr. Khatri was admitted to the Florida State bar in 1984 and 

at the age of 22 was the youngest attorney in the State bar’s history. He earned his bachelor’s and juris doctor degrees from 

Stetson University. 

Elizabeth Stern is managing partner of the Business Immigration Practice Group at Shaw Pittman, LLC. She represents clients 

in a variety of industry sectors in midsized businesses to Fortune 

500 companies. Ms. Stern has previously testified before this Committee in 2001 on the restructuring of the Immigration and Naturalization Service. 

Ms. Stern was selected as one of the 75 best lawyers in the District of Columbia by Washingtonian Magazine. She is also a board 

member of the Bar Association of the District of Columbia. 

Ms. Stern graduated from the University of Virginia with juris 

doctor and bachelor degrees. 

Paul Zulkie is the president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association. He is the author of Immigration Compliance in 

Employment and Business, which analyzes employer sanctions, enforcement and business-related visa issues. In addition, he is a regular lecturer at national legal education seminars and has published several articles in nationally distributed publications. He 

has been named a leading practitioner in the field of immigration 

law by The Best Lawyers in America. Mr. Zulkie is a 1977 graduate of the University of Illinois College of Law. 

At this time before, we begin testimony, it is the practice of this 

Committee to administer the oath to all witnesses. Will you please 

stand and raise your right hand. 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Please let the record reflect that the witnesses 

responded in the affirmative. 

Before the Chair recognizes Mr. Khatri for 5 minutes, I would 

like to recognize the fact that Mr. Khatri’s family is here, and if 

they would like to stand, we would be glad to recognize them so 

you can be thoroughly embarrassed. Thank you for being here. 

Thank you for all your service. 

Also we would like to note for the record that his report came 

to Congress one week earlier than required by statute, which is 

very good for Government work. 

Mr. Khatri, you now have 5 minutes for an opening statement. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE PRAKASH KHATRI, CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES OMBUDSMAN, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Mr. KHATRI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, Congressman King and Congresswoman Lofgren. My name is Prakash 

Khatri, and I have the honor of serving as the first Citizenship and 

Immigration Services Ombudsman at the United States Department of Homeland Security. 

As a naturalized citizen myself, I have a deep appreciation for 

this Nation’s immigration history. I believe that the United States 

still represents the ‘‘golden door’’ for people around the world who 

share the American dream and who want to contribute to the culVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:17 Aug 10, 2004 Jkt 089266 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\IMMIG\061704\94287.001 HJUD1 PsN: 94287
28

tural richness and economic strength of this country. I am truly 

honored to serve as the first Citizenship and Immigration Services 

Ombudsman and to have the opportunity to repay a small amount 

of the priceless gift that immigration has been to my family and 

me. 

Since my appointment on July 28, 2003, I have worked closely 

with my fellow leaders at the Department of Homeland Security in 

identifying opportunities for recommending meaningful changes to 

the existing immigration services system. I have been encouraged 

in these efforts by the commitment of Secretary Tom Ridge and 

Deputy Secretary Jim Loy to solve many of the problems that have 

plagued the legal immigration system. In addition, I have worked 

with my colleagues at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 

USCIS, and they have embarked on a series of pilot programs to 

test some of the recommendations made by my office. 

Before I go into detail about these recommendations, let me step 

back a moment and discuss the mission of my office. We have three 

primary functions as outlined in section 452 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002. First, the Ombudsman’s Office assists individuals 

and employers in resolving problems with USCIS. In addition, we 

identify areas where individuals and employers are having problems in dealing with USCIS with an eye toward developing systemic changes that will benefit citizens and immigrants across the 

board. Finally, we propose changes in the administrative practices 

of USCIS in an effort to avoid and mitigate problems and hopefully 

to eliminate them once and for all. 

In fulfilling the statutory mandate, I am committed to keeping 

an open mind with respect to innovative solutions, and I will not 

accept the status quo. The recommendations from my office will 

promote national security and the integrity of the legal immigration system; they will increase efficiencies in administering citizenship and immigration services; and they will primarily focus on 

welcoming immigrants while reducing the problems encountered by 

individuals and employers seeking legal benefits under our laws. 

I approach this task in a holistic manner, identifying opportunities broadly, while assigning priorities in order to maximize significant, short-term results. In the first 10 months of my tenure, I 

have focused my efforts and recommendations primarily on changes 

to existing policies and procedures rather than on recommending 

new regulatory or statutory solutions. This approach has resulted 

in the rapid implementation by USCIS of pilot programs aimed at 

immediate and dramatic benefits. In the upcoming year, I will introduce additional recommendations of this nature, but will increasingly focus on formulating broader recommendations that will 

require more time-intensive regulatory, statutory and/or infrastructure modifications. 

Let me outline the most pervasive and significant issues which 

I have identified to date: First, prolonged processing times or backlogs; second, limited availability of case status information to applicants and beneficiaries; third, immigration benefit fraud, which 

contributes to processing delays; fourth, insufficient standardization in processing among the different USCIS district offices and 

regional service centers; and last, inadequate technology and facilities. 

29

Of the issues identified, clearly the most pervasive problem faced 

by USCIS is the prolonged processing times or backlogs. In the 

first few weeks I quickly realized that two-thirds of the volume of 

work generated from the six fee-based forms used in three key 

processes. Thus, I focused on these three areas, and I recommended 

three specific initiatives designed first to streamline family-based 

immigrant processing; second, to reengineer the green card replacement process; and three, to streamline employment-based immigrant processing. 

I discussed these recommendations in depth in my first annual 

report to Congress, copies of which have been provided to the Subcommittee and have been submitted as my written testimony for 

the record. 

In response to these recommendations from my office, USCIS has 

developed and implemented four corresponding pilot programs. My 

office is committed to monitoring these new programs to determine 

their effectiveness at solving the underlying problems, and we hope 

that the positive new practices can be expanded quickly to improve 

immigration services nationwide. 

I would like to highlight one particular new and innovative pilot 

project being tested by USCIS in Dallas. The current process of adjudicating applications for green cards for immediate relatives of 

U.S. citizens is undergoing a dramatic transformation. The pilot 

project is testing one of my recommendations whereby a process 

that currently takes from 4 months in some jurisdictions to 3 or 

more years in others now will take less than 75 days from application to receipt of a green card. 

This is quite significant. This will be accomplished in a way that 

will not only enhance security by reducing fraud, ineligible applicants and temporary interim documents, it will also increase efficiency by reducing the amount of time from a few hours of processing in some jurisdictions because of the extended backlogs to as 

little as 1 hour of processing time. 

This is highly significant. It will dramatically increase customer 

service by reducing the waiting times and virtually eliminating all 

applications for interim benefits. This will be a substantial savings 

for many applicants. For many of these applicants, this program 

could result in lower total fees because many applicants would no 

longer have to pay for interim benefit applications such as employment authorization or travel permits. 

The pilot program began in May, and we expect that as we celebrate our Independence Day on July 4 in a little over a week, the 

first immigrants will start receiving their green cards under this 

new program in Dallas. It is the commitment of Secretary Ridge 

and Deputy Secretary Loy to backlog reduction and the true spirit 

of cooperation exhibited by USCIS that needs to be recognized for 

this effort. 

In addition to developing recommendations and preparing the 

first annual report to Congress, I faced the challenge of establishing a brand new office and laying the groundwork for its effectiveness in the future. After identifying office space, hiring and 

training our initial staff, our office created an information collection and processing system in the Ombudsman’s Office. This system will provide automated data collection and tracking of cusVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:17 Aug 10, 2004 Jkt 089266 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\IMMIG\061704\94287.001 HJUD1 PsN: 94287
30

tomer complaints and concerns, allowing for more efficient identification of the systemic changes needed for the efficient and secure 

delivery of immigration services. 

I have devoted a substantial amount of time to meeting with key 

stakeholders. I have visited over 20 USCIS facilities around the 

country, encouraging input from local managers and staff. I have 

also met with a wide variety of nongovernmental stakeholders, including individuals, community-based organizations, business leaders, immigration advocates, and members of the bar. 

Over the last 10 months as Ombudsman, I have kept in mind the 

sentiments of President Bush when he said ‘‘as a Nation that values immigration and depends on it, we should have immigration 

laws that work and make us proud.’’ Although considerable 

progress has been made to that end during the course of the last 

year, much remains to be done. Continued diligence is required on 

the part of my office and USCIS. Our shared goal is the creation 

of a more efficient, secure and responsive method for providing immigration services that respect the dignity and value of individuals 

while simultaneously protecting us against those who seek to do us 

harm. 

This concludes my prepared remarks. I thank you for the invitation to testify before this Subcommittee, and I would be happy to 

answer any questions. I also would like to thank Congresswoman 

Jackson Lee, the Ranking Member. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank you, Mr. Khatri. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Khatri follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PRAKASH KHATRI

Good afternoon Chairman Hostettler, Ranking Member Jackson Lee, and Members of the Subcommittee. My name is Prakash Khatri, and I have the honor of 

serving as the first Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman at the 

United States Department of Homeland Security. 

As a naturalized citizen myself, I have a deep appreciation for this nation’s immigration history. I believe that the United States still represents the ‘‘golden door’’

for people around the world who share the American Dream and who want to contribute to the cultural richness and economic strength of this country. I am truly 

honored to serve as the first Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman and 

to have the opportunity to repay a small amount of the priceless gift that immigration has been to my family and me. 

Since my appointment on July 28, 2003, I have worked closely with my fellow 

leaders at the Department of Homeland Security—DHS—in identifying opportunities for recommending meaningful changes to the existing immigration services system. I have been encouraged in these efforts by the commitment of Secretary Tom 

Ridge and Deputy Secretary Jim Loy to solve many of the problems that have 

plagued the legal immigration system. In addition, I have worked with my colleagues at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, and they have embarked on 

a series of pilot programs to test some of the recommendations made by my office. 

Before I go into more detail about these recommendations, let me step back a moment and discuss the mission of my office. We have three primary functions, outlined in Section 452 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002.

• First, the Ombudsman’s office assists individuals and employers in resolving 

problems with USCIS—that is, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

• In addition, we identify areas where individuals and employers are having 

problems in dealing with USCIS, with an eye towards developing systemic 

changes that will benefit citizens and immigrants across the board.

• And finally, we propose changes in the administrative practices of USCIS in 

an effort to avoid and mitigate problems.

In fulfilling this statutory mandate, I am committed to keeping an open mind 

with respect to innovative solutions, and I will not accept the status quo. The recVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:17 Aug 10, 2004 Jkt 089266 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 G:\WORK\IMMIG\061704\94287.001 HJUD1 PsN: 94287
31

ommendations from my office will promote national security and the integrity of the 

legal immigration system; they will increase efficiencies in administering citizenship 

and immigration services; and they will primarily focus on welcoming immigrants 

while reducing the problems encountered by individuals and employers seeking 

legal benefits under our laws. 

I approach this task in a holistic manner, identifying opportunities broadly, while 

assigning priorities in order to maximize significant, short-term results. In the first 

10 months of my tenure, I have focused my efforts and recommendations primarily 

on changes to existing policies and procedures rather than on recommending new 

regulatory or statutory solutions. This approach has resulted in the rapid implementation by USCIS of pilot programs aimed at immediate and dramatic benefits. In 

the upcoming year, I will introduce additional recommendations of this nature, but 

will increasingly focus on formulating broader recommendations that will require 

more time-intensive regulatory, statutory and/or infrastructure modifications and 

thus must be able to be implemented within the budgetary resources of USCIS. 

Let me outline the most pervasive and significant issues that I have identified to 

date:

• prolonged processing times;

• limited availability of case status information to applicants and beneficiaries;

• immigration benefit fraud, which contributes to processing delays;

• insufficient standardization in processing among the different USCIS district 

offices and regional service centers; and

• inadequate technology and facilities.

Of the issues identified, clearly the most pervasive problem faced by USCIS is the 

prolonged processing times or ‘‘backlogs.’’ In the first few weeks, I quickly realized 

that two-thirds of the volume of work is generated from the six fee-based forms used 

in three key processes. Thus I focused on these three areas and I recommended 

three specific initiatives designed to 1) streamline family-based immigrant processing, 2) reengineer the ‘‘green card’’ replacement process, and 3) streamline employment-based immigrant processing. 

I discuss these recommendations in depth in my first annual report to Congress, 

copies of which have been provided to this subcommittee and have been submitted 

as my written testimony for the record. 

In response to these recommendations from my office, USCIS has developed and 

implemented four corresponding pilot programs. My office is committed to monitoring these new programs to determine their effectiveness at solving the underlying 

problems, and we hope that the positive new practices can be expanded quickly to 

improve immigration services nationwide. I would like to highlight one particular 

new and innovative pilot project being tested by USCIS in Dallas. The current process of adjudicating applications for ‘‘green cards’’ for immediate relatives of United 

States Citizens is undergoing a dramatic transformation. The pilot project is testing 

one of my recommendations whereby a process that currently takes from four 

months in some jurisdictions to as much as three or more years in others, now will 

take less than 75 days from application to receipt of a ‘‘green card.’’ This will be 

accomplished in a way that will:

• enhance security by reducing fraud, ineligible applicants and temporary interim documents,

• increase efficiency by reducing the amount of time from a few hours of processing in some jurisdictions to as little as one hour of processing time, and

• dramatically increase customer service by reducing the waiting times and virtually eliminating applications for interim benefits. For many applicants, this 

program could result in lower total fees because many applicants would no 

longer have to pay for interim benefit applications such as employment authorization or travel permits.

The pilot program began in May and we expect that as we celebrate our Independence Day in a little over a week, the first immigrants will start receiving their green 

cards under this new program in Dallas. It is the commitment of Secretary Ridge, 

Deputy Secretary Loy to backlog reduction and the true spirit of cooperation exhibited by USCIS that needs to be recognized for this effort. 

In addition to developing recommendations and preparing the first annual report 

to Congress, I faced the challenge of establishing a brand new office and laying the 

groundwork for its effectiveness in the future. After identifying office space, hiring, 

and training our initial staff, our office created an information collection and processing system in the Ombudsman’s office. This system will provide automated data 

32

collection and tracking of customer complaints and concerns, allowing for more efficient identification of the systemic changes needed for the efficient and secure delivery of immigration services. 

I have also devoted a substantial amount of time to meeting with key stakeholders. I have visited over 20 USCIS facilities around the country, encouraging 

input from local managers and staff. I have also met with a wide variety of nongovernmental stakeholders, including individuals, community-based organizations, 

business leaders, immigration advocates, and members of the bar. 

During my tenure as CIS Ombudsman over the last 10 months, I have kept in 

mind the sentiments of President Bush when he said ‘‘[a]s a nation that values immigration and depends on it, we should have immigration laws that work and make 

us proud.’’ Although considerable progress has been made to that end during the 

course of the last year, much remains to be done. Continued diligence is required 

on the part of my office and USCIS. Our shared goal is the creation of more efficient, secure and responsive methods for providing immigration services that respect 

the dignity and value of individuals while simultaneously protecting us against 

those who seek to do us harm. 

This concludes my prepared remarks. I thank you for the invitation to testify before this subcommittee, and I would be happy to answer any questions.

Mr. HOSTETTLER. The Chair recognizes Ms. Stern for the purpose 

of an opening statement. 

TESTIMONY OF ELIZABETH STERN, MANAGING PARTNER, 

BUSINESS IMMIGRATION PRACTICE GROUP, SHAW PITTMAN, 

LLC 

Ms. STERN. Mr. Chairman, distinguished Members, last week before this Subcommittee, Director Aguirre introduced the backlog 

elimination plan, indicating that USCIS has at last crested the 

peak and expressing the Agency’s commitment to attain a realistic 

time frame for immigration processing. I believe the plan is excellent, and focus my remarks today on building from this proposal 

and adding a commercial perspective. 

The underlying problem is that the current time frames are completely devoid from the reality of the users’ needs. In the business 

sector, we see many examples of the debilitating impact of these 

delays. A recent study by eight renowned associations indicate that 

visa delays alone are responsible for some $31 billion in lost dollars 

to U.S. businesses. 

For backlog reduction to succeed, USCIS must infuse a commercially driven approach to the effort. As detailed in my statement, 

five key areas are essential: a clear mission with unambiguous adjudication standards; an effective communication and training program; application of IT and risk management to streamline processes; and uncompromising commitment to quality assurance and 

proper resource allocation. 

The mission is now clear; the ambiguity lingers in the Agency’s 

adjudication criteria. In recent years the field has increasingly implemented inconsistent standards. Companies and families have 

been subjected to RFEs requesting proof that is not required by the 

statute or the regulations. 

Similarly troubling is the reliance on external sources for interpretation. Some field offices have routinely used Webster’s dictionary to augment their definition of key standards. To fill the 

void, the Agency must establish explicit and transparent parameters for each immigration category. These national standards 

must then be communicated and enforced throughout the management chain and in all field offices. USCIS staff must be trained on 

33

all categories and have electronic access to relevant guidance. 

Intra-agency communications and training are vital to counter the 

‘‘deer in the headlights’’ syndrome that the field has exhibited since 

9/11. 

Only with ongoing and specific direction from the Agency’s leadership and from the Ombudsman can this negative outlook be 

transformed so that the field can successfully surmount bureaucratic inefficiency and a daunting backlog. 

External communications are equally necessary. The Agency’s 

user database should be dynamic with usable milestone tracking as 

opposed to formalistic references to data processing times. E-mail 

communications of official decisions should augment paper notices 

in all cases, not just when a premium processing fee is paid. 

In addition, the adjudication process must be reengineered to reduce cycle time while maximizing accuracy. Managers should perform basic triage by determining if incoming petitions warrant intensive scrutiny, or if the case should be handled more routinely. 

IT enhancement is unquestionably a part of the solution. There 

is no reason why the Agency cannot maintain the type of smart 

software that allows express couriers like FedEx or DHL to track 

packages as they move point to point in the delivery process. 

Furthermore, it is crucial to achieve quality control. Top-down 

management techniques, firm lines of authority, and clear allocation of responsibility are essential at each level in the Agency. Consistent adjudication must be the norm with required reporting to 

headquarters when backlogs exceed the stated time lines. 

Measurable progress will reduce the need for the Agency to rely 

on the Agency’s $1,000 premium processing fee, so this becomes a 

supplement, not a surrogate for timely processing. 

And end-product review, an action item in the Agency’s plan, is 

critical to ensure the field adjudicates cases fairly. Finally, as new 

immigration programs are launched, an analysis of whether current resources suffice to meet new demands is essential. Both HR 

and budgetary allocations must be addressed in advance. 

In conclusion, our diversity has been the very lifeblood of this 

country. We must be conscious of the fact that the United States 

does not exercise a monopoly on the best and the brightest. We are 

already losing talent to our neighbors abroad. The commitment of 

Congress and the Administration to eliminating the backlog is essential to stem that tide. The Agency’s plan recognizes that our 

country’s immigration policy encompasses two overarching principles, facilitating entry of the eligible, and barring entry to those 

who pose a threat to our populace. Those two goals are inextricably 

linked. Security and service are components of the same machine. 

Neither can function unless the other one is working properly. 

Bottom line, if we do not advance service, we cannot advance security. The former INS was dismantled to launch a separate agency 

fully dedicated to service. USCIS was empowered by Congress and 

the President to confirm America’s promise to foreign nationals 

seeking residency and citizenship within our borders. A commercial 

goals-oriented approach is essential to success. With pragmatism, 

the goal articulated by Director Aguirre last week, ‘‘to provide the 

right benefit to the right person in the right amount of time,’’ is 

attainable. I thank you. 

34

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank you, Ms. Stern. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Stern follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ELIZABETH ESPIN STERN


Stern1.eps
35


Stern2.eps
36


Stern3.eps
37


Stern4.eps
38


Stern5.eps
39


Stern6.eps
40


Stern7.eps
41


Stern8.eps
42

Mr. HOSTETTLER. The Chair recognizes Mr. Zulkie for an opening 

statement. 

TESTIMONY OF PAUL ZULKIE, PRESIDENT,

AMERICAN IMMIGRATION LAWYERS ASSOCIATION 

Mr. ZULKIE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee. 

I am Paul Zulkie, president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, and I am honored to be here today representing 

AILA at this hearing. AILA is an immigration bar association of 

more than 8,000 attorneys who practice immigration law. The association applauds this Committee’s interest in the effects of backlogs 

and your understanding of their importance. 

Through no fault of their own, families remain separated, businesses cannot acquire the workers they need, and doctors with lifesaving skills are stranded abroad. My written testimony contains 

numerous examples of how United States citizens, families, and 

American businesses have been hurt by these backlogs. I would 

like to highlight two of these cases for you this afternoon. 

A woman from Rwanda who witnessed the torture and killing of 

her parents and siblings applied for asylum 7 years ago and has 

yet to be so much as scheduled for an interview. She suffers from 

post-traumatic stress disorder and lives in constant fear of being 

sent back to her native country. She was brought here from a refugee camp by a trafficker who attempted to enslave her into prostitution, but because she never received an interview and has been 

uncertain of her future here, she never went to the police with information about this sex trafficker. The evidence is now lost, and 

this perpetrator is still at large. 

A second example, one of the top 10 U.S. medical centers had to 

lay off one of its best surgeons because USCIS was taking 5 

months to renew his work authorization card even though the 

Agency’s own regulations require that these cards be processed 

within 90 days. The hospital, the surgeon, and his patients all suffered from his forced unavailability. 

These backlogs impact real people, real businesses. No one is immune. This is why the search for a solution must include an honest 

assessment of the magnitude of the problem as well as the remedies proposed by USCIS. 

Let me begin with our definition of backlogs. The time that a 

case spends on the shelf with no review by an adjudicator is what 

we would term the ‘‘primary backlog,’’ but there is also a ‘‘secondary,’’ a hidden backlog. 

A case becomes part of the secondary backlog when a security 

agency simply fails to respond to USCIS in a timely manner or 

when an adjudicator requests additional evidence. Any meaningful 

backlog reduction plan must address the secondary backlogs as 

well. AILA welcomes the efforts of Ombudsman Khatri to develop 

creative new approaches to the processing of benefit applications, 

and we do look forward to working with him in the future. 

Unfortunately, not all recent USCIS initiatives have served to 

decrease the backlogs. In fact, some have been setbacks. USCIS recently announced a new initiative called Decision At First Review, 

addressing the proliferation of complex demands for documentation 

43

issued by its own personnel. Frequently, the documentation requested was already provided, was not relevant to the application 

at hand, or was necessitated by the sheer length of time the application has sat on the shelf. The new Agency guidance encourages 

summary denials of the application in lieu of request for documentation. This does, in our opinion, no more than shift parts of 

the primary backlog from where it is counted to an office where it 

will not be counted, the Administrative Appeals Office. That is not 

backlog reduction, that is hiding the backlog. 

Mr. Chairman, AILA believes the time has come to acknowledge 

the 800-pound gorilla in the room. No matter how many initiatives 

and innovations USCIS undertakes, in the end it is all about resources. The Administration believes that with a little more ingenuity and a little better management, the backlogs can be brought 

under control. This Agency needs more money to do its job, and the 

funding needs to come from direct congressional appropriations, not 

increased user fees. 

A myth has developed that immigration processing should be entirely funded by filing fees. The truth is fee-based funding is nothing more than a giant Government-endorsed pyramid scheme always on the brink of collapsing under its own weight. The Agency 

is in the constant situation of using new filing fees to pay for the 

adjudication of applications filed in previous years. 

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, AILA believes that a fresh look 

should be taken at what resources are really needed, and that 

money be authorized and appropriated by Congress to do the job 

right. Thank you. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank you, Mr. Zulkie. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Zulkie follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PAUL ZULKIE

Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, I am Paul 

Zulkie, President of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA). I am 

honored to be here today representing AILA to testify on ‘‘Families and Businesses 

in Limbo: the Detrimental Impact of the Immigration Backlog.’’

AILA is the immigration bar association of more than 8,000 attorneys who practice immigration law. Founded in 1946, the association is a nonpartisan, nonprofit 

organization and is an affiliated organization of the American Bar Association 

(ABA). AILA takes a very broad view on immigration matters because our member 

attorneys represent tens of thousands of U.S. families who have applied for permanent residence for their spouses, children, and other close relatives to lawfully enter 

and reside in the United States. AILA members also represent thousands of U.S. 

businesses and industries that sponsor highly skilled foreign professionals seeking 

to enter the United States on a temporary basis or, having proved the unavailability 

of U.S. workers, on a permanent basis. Our members also represent asylum seekers, 

often on a pro bono basis, as well as athletes, entertainers, and foreign students. 

Each day, AILA members confront the many problems that result from the backlogs. These problems are of major concern to families, businesses and communities 

nationwide. Through no fault of their own, families remain separated, businesses 

cannot acquire the workers they need, doctors with life saving skills are prevented 

from entering the country, skilled professionals who are sought by American business to create American jobs remain stranded abroad . . . and these examples could 

go on and on. 

Backlogs not only harm the people directly caught in their web, they undermine 

public trust in the immigration system. AILA applauds this subcommittee’s interest 

in the effects of backlogs and its understanding of their importance. 

I hope in my testimony to document the problem and propose solutions that require the commitment of both the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and Congress. 

44

1 AILA supports security checks as an important tool to enable our government to identify and 

pursue the tiny handful of intending immigrants and visitors who wish to do us harm, and separate them from the overwhelming majority who wish only to contribute to this country and build 

a better life for themselves and their families. 

WHAT IS THE BACKLOG?

Before we discuss the impact of backlogs and lengthy processing times, or how 

to best address them, we need to define them. Director Aguirre of the USCIS has 

provided one definition, based on cycle times. That is a valid view from a government operations perspective. But we need to look at this issue from the user’s viewpoint. A processing time is the time from when the application arrives at the agency 

until a final decision is reached and the benefit is either granted or denied. For the 

sake of this discussion, we will treat multi-step processes as though they were separate applications. 

For example, the current processing time for an adjustment of status application—the final step in the green card application process—is 26 to 29 months at the 

service centers. This does not mean that an adjudicator spends 26 months reviewing 

and considering a case. Indeed, that process is measured in minutes or hours. Instead, it means that the case sits on a shelf for 26 months until an adjudicator picks 

it up and begins to consider it. 

The time that that case spends on the shelf with no review by an adjudicator is 

what we would term the ‘‘primary backlog.’’ However, the story does not end when the adjudicator picks up the case and begins to consider it. Security checks first must be performed.1 Depending on the type 

of check, most can be cleared within 72 hours. However, in enough cases to be noticeable, a ‘‘hit’’ occurs or the security agency simply fails to get back to USCIS in 

a timely manner. Usually, the ‘‘hit’’ is caused by the person’s name being similar 

to the name of someone with a problem (this is a particular problem with some common names), and eventually will be cleared. These cases become part of a ‘‘sec- ondary backlog,’’ which we also refer to as the ‘‘hidden backlog’’ because the agency 

usually does not account for this delay in its processing time reports. 

A case also becomes part of the secondary or hidden backlog when the adjudicator 

requests additional evidence. If the adjudicator does not reach a decision when initially reviewing the case, but instead asks for more documentation, additional time 

is added to the process. Depending upon how much documentation is requested (a 

request asking for 45 different items of sometimes obscure documentation has not 

been uncommon), this exchange can add considerable time to the process. 

The secondary backlog also includes the little-discussed but increasingly important Administrative Appeals Office (‘‘AAO’’). For reasons that I will detail later, an 

unintended consequence of one of USCIS’ initiatives may be to shift more cases to 

an already-bursting AAO. While the AAO’s backlog is rarely counted in evaluating 

USCIS performance, its increasing importance requires attention to its already critical backlog. 

Any meaningful backlog reduction plan must address the secondary backlogs as 

well as the primary ones, or public confidence in the system will continue to erode. 

WHAT IS THE IMPACT OF THE BACKLOGS?

The U.S. immigration system allows long-term, work-authorized statuses in two 

situations: compassionate circumstances where we might be literally saving a person’s life by offering the protection of our borders, or circumstances in which an 

American citizen or permanent resident with a family or business interest in a person petitions on that person’s behalf. Examples abound of where the purposes underlying this system are undermined or even defeated by the backlogs. For instance:

• A Rwandan woman who witnessed the torture and killing of her parents and 

siblings applied for asylum seven years ago, and has yet to be so much as 

scheduled for an interview. She suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder, 

and lives in constant fear of being sent back to Rwanda. She had been 

brought here from a refugee camp by a trafficker who attempted to enslave 

her into prostitution. But because she never received an interview and has 

been uncertain of her future here, she never went to the police with information about this sex trafficker. The evidence is now lost, and this perpetrator 

is still at large.

• A Sales & Marketing Vice President for a U.S. owned Fortune 500 company 

is in charge of Latin American accounts, and oversees multi-millions of dollars in exports from the United States to that region. He has had an application for adjustment of status to permanent residence pending since April 

45

2002, and must regularly renew simple travel permissions in order to travel 

to perform his job. In 2003, when processing times for the travel permissions 

slipped to seven months, he had to cancel many trips, thus interfering with 

his company’s export pipeline. For this year, he filed over five months ago, 

and still has six weeks left on his travel permit, but his company is worried 

that he may not receive his new permit in time. Between the backlog on the 

permanent residence application and the backlog on travel permissions while 

his permanent residence application is pending, his company is at constant 

risk of disruption of its international trade.

• One of the top ten U.S. medical centers had to lay off one of its best surgeons 

because the USCIS was taking 5 months to renew his work authorization 

card, even though USCIS’ own regulations require that these cards be processed within 90 days. The hospital, the surgeon and his patients all suffered 

from his forced unavailability.

• More than two years ago, a specialty cook in Manhattan was granted permanent residence by an immigration judge. Even though the gentleman is, by 

law, a permanent resident, DHS has been unable—despite extensive efforts 

by his attorney—to provide him with a green card or other evidence of his 

status. He lost his job, and is unable to find another, because he does not 

have evidence of his status.

• A Brazilian married to a United States citizen had an approved immigrant 

petition (the first stage of the green card process), and filed an application 

to adjust status to permanent residence in New York some two years ago. 

Like so many Americans, she and her husband moved during this waiting period. She dutifully submitted a change of address to the official address for 

such changes, and also sent two confirming letters to the New York office of 

what was then INS. She inquired at the USCIS customer service 800 number, 

but on her third inquiry was told that she had ‘‘used up’’ her maximum allowance of two inquiries, and would not be able to inquire again. Unfortunately, 

while she was prohibited from inquiring, she received a notice denying her 

case due to failure to appear for an interview. Her failure resulted from the 

agency sending her appointment notice to her old address, notwithstanding 

her efforts to notify the agency of her change of address. She is attempting 

to reopen her case, but now is in a position in which she would be barred 

from reentry if she were to travel, and she has a sick parent in Brazil.

• A Canadian applicant for permanent residence, after already waiting seven 

months for a simple travel permission, learned that his brother had fallen ill. 

Although, to their credit, the local USCIS office made every effort to persuade 

the service center to issue the permission, it did not come until 21⁄2 weeks 

later. Unfortunately, the brother had died in the meantime and this gentleman missed not only seeing his brother one last time, but also missed his 

funeral.

• A highly-rated nephrologist has been waiting outside the U.S. since December 

2002 for a decision on his application for a waiver of a foreign residence requirement, notwithstanding his specialization—much-needed in the United 

States—in a field with unusually high mortality rates.

• A young nurse from Mexico works for a Massachusetts family with a severely 

handicapped child. The child’s doctors have been amazed at the child’s 

progress under this young woman’s care. For example, she has made it her 

mission to teach the child to walk when doctors thought this never would be 

possible. The family sponsored the nurse’s permanent residence in December 

2000, and due to the length of waiting times at Department of Labor and 

USCIS, she has now fallen out of status. The family worries constantly that 

they will lose the caregiver who has become their child’s salvation.

• Sometimes the problem involves simply getting a document into someone’s 

hands. An employment-based immigrant petition was approved some months 

ago, but the approval notice was never received by the employer or employee. 

They are now being told that they must file an application for a replacement 

document. The processing time for applications for replacement documents is 

two years, which renders meaningless the approval of the initial petition.

• The backlogs have lead to still other negative consequences:

• Many college scholarships are available only to permanent residents or 

U.S. citizens. A group of Kakuma ‘‘lost boys’’ from the Sudan currently residing in South Dakota have progressed rapidly in the United States. They 

could attend college, but for their lack of resources. They are unable to receive scholarships because of their current immigration status. They may 

46

lose the opportunity altogether to attend college because their permanent 

residence applications are trapped in the backlog.

• Some states grant drivers licenses for only as long as a person’s non- immigrant status is valid. When a person applies to extend their nonimmigrant status, USCIS often goes beyond the expiration date of the previous status in processing the extension. The result is that the applicant 

loses his ability to drive.

• Backlogs have negative impacts beyond the processing of applications. The 

Social Security Administration will not issue a social security number until 

the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) verifies an individual’s immigration status. People have waited months for their verifications to come 

through. This delay complicates not only their ability to get on payroll, but 

also some states (like my own state of Illinois) will not give them a driver’s license until they can show a social security number. Thus, everyday acts 

of living are barred by backlogs at DHS.

Clearly, the backlogs are having negative consequences for individuals, families 

and businesses throughout the country. No one supports these backlogs, but they 

now commonly occur and have grown exponentially over the years. The pressing 

issue is what efforts has the USCIS undertaken to eliminate these backlogs, and 

what can Congress do to facilitate their elimination. 

IMPROVING POLICIES AND PROCESSES

Steps in the Right Direction: USCIS recently has made some changes that are distinct steps in the right direction, and that we anticipate will help to decrease the 

backlogs. However, taken alone, or even together, they will not ‘‘get us there’’ but 

they certainly get us headed down the right road. These steps include:

• No readjudication of established facts. Recent guidance to adjudicators instructed that, in extensions of status where no facts or law have changed and 

there was not a material error or fraud in the previous adjudication, deference should be given to the prior adjudication. This is an important step 

forward, as it complies with existing regulations that do not require review 

of extensive documentation in these circumstances and prevents adjudicators 

from slowing the process by demanding additional documentation where none 

is needed. It is an effective form of risk management.

• Storage of biometrics. For too long, every time a card needed a biometric, the 

alien would have to return to the agency to provide it, thus requiring the 

alien to travel often long distances and using up agency resources that would 

be unnecessary if the biometrics could have been kept on file. The agency now 

has the capability to keep these biometrics on file. This is particularly important for naturalization and permanent residence applications. In order to 

have the necessary security checks performed, the alien must provide fingerprints of all ten fingers, which are then run through the FBI database. These 

checks are valid only for 15 months. In all too many instances, the fingerprints must be taken and re-taken two or three times while the naturalization or permanent residence application is pending. If these fingerprints are 

stored, then the alien will not have to return to be re-printed every time, thus 

saving resources on both sides. While the elimination of the need for refingerprinting is not in effect yet, we look forward to the day in the near future when it does take effect.

• Infopass. We congratulate Director Aguirre on looking to his field for ideas 

to improve service. Some of the best innovations come from the USCIS staff 

in the field who face the everyday challenges of moving volumes of applications through the system, and often come up with practical ideas to work 

around the problems that they encounter. Infopass was one such innovation. 

Already implemented in three of USCIS’ busiest districts, this on-line appointment system has, after a few of the inevitable start-up glitches, proven 

to be almost revolutionary in getting lines and appointments under control. 

We look forward to its rollout to other offices in the coming months.

• Case status on-line. One of the best innovations USCIS has implemented has 

been the feature that allows applicants to check the status of their cases 

using the internet. This has undoubtedly cut the number of calls and inquiries to USCIS exponentially, freeing staff for other duties.

• Employment authorization documents. We understand that, very shortly, the 

USCIS will publish a regulation that will allow the agency to issue work authorization cards for validity periods that are more in line with the actual 

47

time needed, rather than the current lock-step one-year period. This change 

will significantly reduce the number of applications that must be processed, 

freeing personnel to process other application types. 

We urge USCIS to take this initiative one step further, and apply the extended validity period to travel permissions, generally known as advance paroles. Ideally, the requirement of an advance parole should be eliminated for 

persons holding valid nonimmigrant visas. For those who otherwise would require such permission, the permission document should be valid for as long 

as is necessary to see the individual through the underlying adjustment of 

status process and, better yet, should be on the employment authorization 

card, thus necessitating only one document and being contained on a more 

tamper-resistant document.

• Pilot programs. USCIS has, in conjunction with its Ombudsman, initiated 

some pilot programs that could elicit information about processes that would 

be particularly useful in keeping further backlogs from developing. We look 

forward to learning the results of these programs and to the implementation 

of the ideas that could emerge from them.

Changes that Have Not Helped or that Have Hurt Backlog Reduction Efforts: Unfortunately, not all of USCIS’ initiatives have helped decrease the backlogs. In fact, 

some have been setbacks. While we congratulate the agency for experimenting with 

a variety of initiatives, we hope that it will recognize when a reform has failed or 

when one needs further work, and either abandon the idea or make the necessary 

changes. Some initiatives that need revisiting include:

• Electronic filing. The movement to e-government is admirable, but care must 

be taken to ensure that it is not an empty shell that provides no meaningful 

improvements. Unfortunately, most aspects of the USCIS e-filing initiative 

have had a negligible impact on the backlog and, and, with one exception, 

show little prospect of enhancing efficiency in the two-year time period in 

which this agency strives to bring its backlogs under control. Under e-filing, 

forms are filed electronically, but the required supporting documentation 

must be mailed in separately and then matched with the file, itself creating 

an additional piece of work. And, more importantly, the process is just e-filing, not e-adjudication: the adjudication process is manual, providing no efficiencies on the processing end where it is most needed. 

The one possible exception lies in a pilot project in California. The agency 

here is experimenting with green card replacement applications filed electronically serving as a conduit for direct production of the new card. We urge 

USCIS to find other similar ways in which the electronic filing can be used 

meaningfully, such as capturing data for the adjudicator’s use.

• Decision at first review. Here is a prime example of a good idea gone bad. 

AILA and other stakeholders have long urged USCIS and its predecessor to 

get under control its ever-proliferating volume of Requests for Evidence 

(RFEs), which are too often multi-page, multi-item demands for documentation that often were either already provided, were not relevant to the application at hand, or were necessitated by the sheer length of time the application 

had sat on the shelf. The volume of RFEs has grown in recent years as adjudicators, nervous about whether they might be criticized for a decision, became increasingly paralyzed and chose to make a show of demanding further 

documentation before they would approve an approvable case. 

USCIS finally addressed these RFEs in a recent guidance to the field. However, this guidance unfortunately may make the situation worse instead of 

better. Failing to tell adjudicators that they can go ahead and approve a case 

if the documentation is complete, the memo instructs adjudicators to deny 

cases that previously would have received an RFE. While this instruction will 

make cases move faster initially, it really does no more than shift parts of 

the primary backlog to a part of the secondary backlog: the AAO. The AAO 

already has a backlog measurable in years for some case types, and USCIS 

is not including AAO in its backlog reduction initiative. Thus, the effect of 

the ‘‘decision at first review’’ initiative is to simply shift some of the backlog 

from where it is counted to an office where it will not be counted. That is 

not backlog reduction: that is hiding the backlog.

• National Customer Service Center. This 800 number for customer service 

must have seemed like a good idea at the time. Give people a toll-free number 

that they can actually get through on, and improved customer service will result. Unfortunately, it has not worked out that way, particularly with respect 

to solving problems on applications already on file and with respect to proVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:17 Aug 10, 2004 Jkt 089266 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 G:\WORK\IMMIG\061704\94287.001 HJUD1 PsN: 94287
48

viding misguided and ultimately harmful advice to members of the public. To 

its credit, USCIS has acknowledged that the 800 number is not a workable 

means to resolve problems on cases already on file, and has indicated that 

they are working on a solution that would put the problem-solving process 

back in the hands of the USCIS-employed Immigration Information Officers 

who have access to the files and knowledge of the system. We eagerly await 

this solution.

• Outsourcing the Immigration Information Officer Function. But, a current Administration initiative may serve to undermine this planned solution. It is important to note that the 800 number is answered by an outside contractor, 

and that many of the problems that have developed are inherent in the fact 

that an outside contractor is not fully trained in immigration, is not fully accountable for performance, and does not have access to case files. We understand that the agency is soliciting bids from contractors to privatize the Immigration Information Officer function. If this initiative is successful, the reform of the 800 number may be rendered meaningless, as these functions will 

again be placed in the hands of contractors who lack the knowledge and information to provide the service on a fully-informed basis. AILA believes that 

both the 800 number system and the IIO function are inherently governmental activities and should not be contracted out. 

We also urge USCIS to replicate what it did with respect to Infopass by 

looking to its own field for innovative solutions. In order to provide effective 

problem-solving on already-filed applications, the California Service Center of 

USCIS put in place an additional operational division, known as Division XII, 

designed solely to address problems raised by people with applications and 

petitions pending at that office. It contains the right mix of people, expertise 

and systems to deliver one of the most effective customer service solutions in 

the field. We urge Director Aguirre to look at implementing a similar approach in other offices.

Policies that Punish Applicants for the Backlogs: Immigration statutes are complex and often leave areas open to agency interpretation. USCIS has been interpreting some statutes restrictively when a broad interpretation was equally possible 

or even the better interpretation. While USCIS is working toward its backlog reduction goals, it needs to re-think these policies so that the public is not punished for 

its own slowness. At the risk of oversimplification, here are three examples where 

other reasonable readings of the law would ameliorate the impact of the agency’s 

own delays:

• It is too often the case that an individual will apply for a change or extension 

of a nonimmigrant status, and the initial status expires while she is awaiting 

action on the application. After the status expires, but before the application 

is processed, life happens, and the person, for instance, gets another job offer 

or decides to start school, requiring yet another application. But, because her 

initial status expired, through no fault of her own, the USCIS has been taking the position since April 2003 that the second application can be denied 

because the first application was not approved before it was filed. This punishes the applicant for the agency’s own slowness in processing the first application.

• The USCIS has recently changed its view and taken the position that if, during the years that it takes for an adjustment of status to permanent residence 

application to be adjudicated, the applicant’s work authorization lapses, the 

applicant is no longer eligible for adjustment to permanent residence if he 

works during the lapse. This despite the fact that the lapse is usually due 

to the USCIS’ slowness in processing the work authorization application.

• In October 2000, Congress enacted the American Competitiveness in the 

Twenty-First Century Act (‘‘AC21’’) in order to ameliorate some of the effects 

of the backlogs that existed even then. As no regulations have been issued, 

USCIS offices have been interpreting this legislation on their own. Some offices have followed policies that essentially eviscerate the ameliorative provisions of this legislation, essentially rendering them useless in the face of 

backlogs that have only worsened since the statute’s enactment. 

OTHER PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS

In addition to the initiatives that have been announced, AILA suggests that 

USCIS look at some other areas that have contributed to the problems and implement some additional reforms. 

49

Guidance and Training: We have discussed elsewhere the problem of adjudicator 

paralysis. There has been a similar paralysis with respect to providing adjudicators 

with adequate guidance and training. Not a single regulation on a substantive issue 

has been promulgated since the advent of the Department of Homeland Security. 

Yet, legislation dating back to 1996 and 2000 have yet to be the subject of even a 

proposed regulation. There have been some guidances to field, but they do not begin 

to touch on all of the issues involved in the body of immigration law that adjudicators must apply. 

Because of this lack of guidance, adjudicators are forced to come up with their 

own interpretations that they often develop in a vacuum. Because of their uncertainty about the law, Requests for Evidence have proliferated and cases are being 

put aside while further guidance is sought. The USCIS needs to overcome its policymaking paralysis, and issue regulations and guidance, to help its adjudicators overcome their decision-making paralysis. 

Secondary backlogs: USCIS must integrate into its backlog reduction efforts a 

plan to address the secondary backlogs previously addressed. As long as innocent 

applicants see their applications delayed for months or years beyond even the regular backlogged processing times, as long as RFE waits are not counted in the overall processing times, and as long as policies send more and more cases into a badly 

backlogged AAO, the public will view any claims of success in backlog reduction as 

disingenuous or misleading. 

All of these secondary backlogs are important, but the delays in the security 

checks are probably the most important. As Director Aguirre demonstrated last 

week, the then-INS was making progress in backlog reduction until September 11 

brought home the utter necessity of implementing a strict regimen of background 

checks. Now that the checks are in place, it is vital that the agencies through which 

the checks are processed appreciate the importance of a prompt and thorough response. This is critical not only to ensure a timely and legitimate immigration process, but to enable security and law enforcement agencies to act immediately when 

a person is identified who could be a danger to our security. These lengthy delays 

are beneficial to no one: not to the impacted individuals, not to the agency, and not 

to our nation’s security interests. 

Improve coordination: Since the formation of DHS, a number of issues have arisen 

that straddle the lines between USCIS and its sister bureaus, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP). We have seen 

in recent months some improvement in selected areas, such as the development of 

processes by USCIS and CBP to correct erroneous entry documents. We urge the 

bureaus to continue and intensify these efforts. 

RESOURCES

There is an 800-pound gorilla sitting in this room. Let’s talk about it. No matter 

how many initiatives and innovations USCIS undertakes, in the end it’s all about 

resources. Immigration petitions and applications are individual cases that require 

a thoughtful human being to consider the merits and reach a decision. No amount 

of management systems can, in the end, eliminate that factor. And the fact is, there 

simply are not enough of those human beings in place to accomplish the job. AILA 

has watched as INS Commissioner after INS Commissioner has been harshly criticized over the backlogs (and, indeed, we have done more than our fair share of the 

criticizing). We now see a USCIS Director undergo the same experience. Surely not 

all, or even a majority of, these smart, well-meaning people have been incompetent. 

Indeed, AILA has seen the opposite—competence and even brilliance—in these offices. But, somehow the backlogs continue. 

Perhaps it is time to see, as Julius Caesar pointed out to Brutus, that the fault 

lies not in the stars, but in ourselves. Or, as a more modern hero, Pogo, said, ‘‘we 

have seen the enemy and he is us.’’ We have long pretended that with a little more 

ingenuity and a little better management, the backlogs can be brought under control. Let’s end the pretence here and now: This agency needs more money to do its 

job. And this funding needs to come from direct Congressional appropriations, not 

increased user fees. 

Over the past couple of decades, the myth has developed that immigration processing should be entirely funded by filing fees. The truth is, fee-based funding is 

nothing more than a giant, government-endorsed pyramid scheme, always on the 

brink of collapsing under its own weight. Let me give just a few examples of the 

weaknesses inherent in relying on user fees to fund the USCIS.

• Because of the backlogs, the agency is in the constant situation of using new 

filing fees to pay for adjudication of applications filed in previous years. EsVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:17 Aug 10, 2004 Jkt 089266 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 G:\WORK\IMMIG\061704\94287.001 HJUD1 PsN: 94287
50

2There was an increase in filing volume in April, but this was due to applicants rushing to 

get their filings in before a large fee increase took effect at the beginning of May.

sentially, the agency is using new sales to purchase old inventory, with no 

visible means to pay for the new inventory that continues to come in.

• The Administration has requested a backlog reduction budget of $140 million 

for the next fiscal year, ostensibly to pay for this old inventory. However, this 

budget request is illusory. In previous years, directly appropriated funds paid 

for USCIS’ overhead (fixed expenses such as file maintenance, payroll functions, etc.). This amount, which this fiscal year totals $155 million, is now to 

be paid out of the fee account. Thus, far from getting an appropriations ‘‘shot 

in the arm’’ to help the backlogs, USCIS will be losing at least $15 million 

if the budget is passed as proposed.

• Paying overhead out of the fee account is a particularly dangerous action and 

could be the factor that finally causes the pyramid to fall. Overhead does not 

rise and fall with the number of applications: it remains fixed whether the 

agency gets one application or one million. But if, as has happened in the first 

part of this year, the volume of applications decreases,2 so does the income 

generated from fees. And there is no reliable stream of income to continue to 

maintain the fixed expenses. Overhead is an amount that must come from directly appropriated funds. 

Other resource issues also plague USCIS. DHS currently is reportedly under a 

hiring freeze. Thus USCIS cannot bring in the new personnel needed to address the 

backlog. It takes considerably longer to bring a new agency employee on board than 

would be conceivable in the private sector or even in Congress, so the substantial 

lead time needed is being lost. And we cannot look to getting extra help from existing personnel, as overtime within USCIS has been severely capped for the year. 

Some offices of USCIS also face an imminent personnel crisis. Many of the adjudication positions within the agency are ‘‘term’’ positions—in other words, temporary 

positions, generally available only for four years. Many of these terms are now expiring—with the backlog no further in hand—and these experienced and trained 

personnel are departing at a rapid rate as they find steadier employment. Congress 

needs to act immediately to extend these terms or, better yet, convert the jobs to 

permanent. 

Finally, we cannot ignore another false solution that has been proposed: the 

outsourcing of the Immigration Information Officer (‘‘IIO’’) function. One need only 

look at the deeply flawed, contractor operated, National Customer Service Center 

to see that outside contractors do not have the knowledge, training or accountability 

necessary to deliver effective information on the complexities of immigration to the 

public. Also, the outsourcing proposal ignores an important role of the IIOs in many 

offices: they act as junior adjudicators, reviewing and deciding on cases. To 

outsource this function would be to further starve an already resource-deprived operation. 

It is well past time that Congress and the Administration gave this agency the 

resources it needs to do its job. AILA urges that a second look be taken at what 

resources are really needed, and the money be once and for all authorized and appropriated to do the job right.

Mr. HOSTETTLER. The Chair now recognizes the gentlewoman 

from Texas for the purposes of an opening statement. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the distinguished Chairman, and I 

will take this time to be very brief. Let me, first of all, ask unanimous consent that my entire statement be placed into the record. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Without objection. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And let me do a minor bit of housekeeping on 

behalf of Mr. Weiner, a Member of the full Committee. Mr. Weiner 

asks these questions—

Number one: How many additional employees would it take to 

completely reduce the backlog? 

Number two: How much would this cost? 

Number three: Are there bureaucratic obstacles to hiring these 

employees? 

Number four: Why have past plans for backlog reduction failed? 

51

I ask unanimous consent for a response by witnesses. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Without objection. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me thank the witnesses. Each have a 

unique and special perspective to add. This has been long in coming. We spent time last week with Director Aguirre, and I know 

that Members could account for any number of times that they 

have been confronted with stories such as that that Mr. Zulkie has 

indicated occurred with the tragic situation of the woman in Rwanda. 

Right now in Houston I have two individuals who are presently 

being detained. I would suggest that their plight has come about 

because of the extensive backlog. One had been a law enforcement 

officer for 19 years attempting to access the process, but got awry, 

and finds himself in a difficult predicament. My point is that he 

worked in law enforcement for 19 years, and so he is a contributing 

individual to this community and would like to remain here, but, 

of course, because of the backlog and delay of accessing the situation, he finds himself in this predicament. 

Another individual has received three degrees in this country 

and now has a 3-week-old on life support, and he, too, serving as 

a paralegal got awry because of the backlog and inability to access 

the system. There are painful stories to be told. 

What my concern is as we move toward this process of 

unclogging the backlog are questions of due process and fairness. 

One, if we are to unclog the backlog, and that means we will not 

waste time trying to secure lost fingerprints and other materials 

without kicking it up to the next level, is that a fair process, because once you kick it up to the next level, then you are in an appeal process, which is a slower process, as most realize. I am concerned that we will then ignore the second call to get the fingerprints and simply kick that incomplete file up to the next level, 

which makes it a more difficult hurdle to overcome. 

The other point I would like to make, and I will put my complete 

statement into the record, is the simple process of calling in numbers. I know our distinguished Ombudsman Mr. Khatri will be able 

to respond in kind to these, but I am told that 800-number operators can transfer calls to what we call the second tier, but I have 

also heard claims that the second tier officers frequently just tell 

callers to write a letter to the service center. 

Mr. Chairman, we have a lot of hard-working Federal employees 

but you can be assured when you get kicked up to the service centers in some of our regions, and I might mention that need more 

resources, you are going to be on a long, long haul trying to get 

through or trying to get your letter through. 

Mr. Chairman, I think we have found ourselves through these 2 

years circling around issues of agreement that your constituents, 

who are clearly of a different perspective than mine, would tend to 

agree with, and that is we have done some things in the past, and 

this one I hope has some common degree of agreement, and that 

is that the backlog must be approached head on, we must do it in 

a bipartisan way, and we must not yield to any prisoners, if you 

will, and we must not take no for an answer. And we must gear 

ourselves to fixing this system because we all are better off if the 

52

system of Government works better so individuals who are accessing the rules of citizenship and legalization can do so in a fair way. 

I yield back my time. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. I thank the gentlewoman. 

The Subcommittee will now turn to questions of the witnesses. 

Mr. Khatri, as you know, the Homeland Security Act requires 

that you send your report as Ombudsman to us ‘‘without any prior 

comment or amendment from any officer of the Department of 

Homeland Security or the Office of Management and Budget.’’ Did you have to clear your report with any other party at DHS 

before sending it officially to Congress today, or the OMB? 

Mr. KHATRI. No, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. That must have been why it was here a week 

earlier, as well as your stellar work. 

I am glad that your testimony mentions your recommendations 

will ‘‘promote national security and the integrity of the legal immigration system.’’

Can you expand on that as to how you believe the recommendations that you have made would do those two things? 

Mr. KHATRI. Let me continue with the example that I cited of the 

Dallas pilot project. In that particular project, the pilot really seeks 

to eliminate the need for the interim benefits, the employment authorization cards, the travel documentation that individuals need 

when there is an extended period of processing. 

What my recommendations have done is basically taken what 

used to be a very, very long process and basically turned it upside 

down. By that I mean what USCIS is doing in the pilot in Dallas 

is basically on the day an individual files, an officer actually looks 

at the documentation and determines whether or not the person 

has filed appropriately so we do not get the RFEs and the additional documentation requests in the future, but, more importantly, 

on the same day the individual and their petitioning spouse or parent are interviewed and a determination is made as to whether or 

not they appear to have eligibility, which then leaves simply the security checks and the records checks. 

At the end of that process, what ends up happening is in 60 days 

or so, most people clear security checks. Upwards of 90 percent 

clear security checks within the 60-day process, the four different 

security checks that are conducted. At the end of that, the individual will receive their green card. What this does is it eliminates 

the EADs, the employment authorization documents, which today, 

from my background at Disney, I can tell you there are numerous 

instances where we used to see these documents which had been 

fraudulently created because they are old 1980’s technology which 

basically involves a Polaroid camera picture. So those types of documents will forever not be required for most of the individuals. And 

for those few that may get stuck in the process, they will actually 

receive a better, more enhanced secure card and will be able to be 

processed. But in the meantime, the bulk or the majority of the 

people will have been processed, and that, I suggest, will substantially reduce first and foremost fraudulent applications that might 

have been filed for the purpose of obtaining these interim benefits. 

These people will no longer be able to do that. So we will be able 

to process people faster, more efficiently, and more securely. 

53

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Ms. Stern and Mr. Zulkie, could you comment 

on that? It sounds like the suggestion of turning the process on its 

head may significantly reduce if not the backlog as it exists today, 

then for future applicants. Can you comment on what Mr. Khatri 

has suggested? 

Ms. STERN. Yes, thank you. 

In the commercial sector, any process that becomes more efficient 

reduces the margin of error. When there is a focused attention to 

what the project is, there is less of an aptitude for there to be errors, in this instance, in the Agency context, for there to be fraud. 

There is more an ability on the part of the adjudicator in this instance to be able to give thoughtful attention to each file if they 

are not overburdened. 

So if these projects are implemented with attention to how the 

field handles what is given to them, then they can be quite effective in deterring both fraud and eliminating the security threat. 

What I think cannot be forgotten is there are human beings who 

are line officers who will be handling these files, and they have to 

be trained adequately so that whatever technological help they are 

given, whatever new programs are rolled out from headquarters, 

are implemented in the appropriate fashion so there is accuracy. 

Thank you. 

Mr. ZULKIE. Mr. Chairman, my association has worked with Mr. 

Khatri on brainstorming, if you will, on developing some of these 

pilot programs, and they are very interesting, and I think they do 

offer some promise for the future. 

Two points to remember, the pilot programs, and even if they 

spread, will not address the pending backlog, the millions in the 

pipeline. And one thing that many Congress Members may be concerned about is starting to hear from constituents who are in the 

backlog and not eligible to participate in these pilot programs. 

They will feel very shortchanged by this process, and it is something that the Administration needs to address through the subject 

of this hearing, the broader backlog reduction plan. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank you. 

The Chair recognizes Congresswoman Jackson Lee for 5 minutes. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Khatri, the very fact that you are there 

is a breath of fresh air. I think in time the evidence of your work 

will show itself. But let me restate some of the frustration that occurs beyond Members’ offices here in Congress, but just in terms 

of families trying to reunite, families trying to get information. 

I think the uniqueness of this hearing is we are talking about individuals who are trying to access legalization who are in line, and 

we can account for thousands. And as Director Aguirre said last 

week, he counts 3 million, and we have been using the number 6 

million. That number is still looming large, the 6 million. 

Mr. Zulkie, one of the issues that you comment on in your report 

is limited case status information. That piques our frustration. 

What will be your role with respect to ensuring that people have 

a better access to case status information? 

And this goes from the most minute simple question which it 

seems like someone can get to a more complicated one. I imagine 

the billable hours Mr. Zulkie’s organization spent on phone lines 

calling for a simple inquiry to make his great clients think it is 

54

good to have counsel because finally I have gotten an answer. What 

are we doing to eliminate the frustration and wrongness of not 

being able to access your own information? 

And I will also raise this question: Last week I posed a question 

which I intend to pose which is whether or not we need more resources. I know you did not come here as a legislator or appropriator, but in the vastness of your knowledge and Members’ knowledge across the country in reaching out to various resources, and 

when I say resources, service centers and local offices, would you 

think that we could solve this backlog with what seems to be the 

present level of funding? Or would you believe in order to reorder 

what we are doing, possibly to secure new staffing or training, that 

we would need new resources? 

And I throw another question in, and then I will yield. Are you 

satisfied with the present regional structuring of where we place 

centers so that someone, as I understand it, in New Orleans may 

have to travel to get to an office or central office? Obviously, those 

of us in Houston are traveling somewhere. Are you satisfied with 

that? And I yield to the distinguished gentleman for his questions. 

Mr. KHATRI. Thank you, Ms. Jackson Lee. 

In addressing your concern regarding the access and the ability 

to find out about the case status, obviously that is an important 

issue, and we are really concerned. We are as concerned as everyone else is about the 800 line and its inabilities to answer the questions of individuals. Our office has taken a keen interest in that. 

We will hopefully in the coming weeks come up with some very 

specific recommendations, and we are hoping that USCIS, as they 

have done for our other three recommendations, will take them seriously and will give due consideration and implement hopefully 

right away because that may not require a pilot. 

Mr. ZULKIE. Thank you, Ms. Jackson Lee. The first question in 

the list for me is the determination of whether or not the resources 

the Administration proposes to allocate are adequate. In our opinion they are not. A recently published study by the Government Accounting Office on USCIS backlogs made a finding that USCIS 

does not really know what it costs them to process an individual 

application or petition, and USCIS agreed with that finding. 

So now we have a situation where there is a plan laid out there, 

but there has been no analysis of how many people hours will it 

take to reduce this backlog within the time frame that Director 

Aguirre says it can be done. The Director suggests there will be 

some interesting and helpful information technology improvements. 

We would certainly welcome them. Again, there has been no real 

analysis that we have seen as to what that will cost or where the 

money will come from. 

Respectfully, what we would suggest perhaps is that this Committee mandate the Government Accounting Office to do a followup study: What does it cost the USCIS to process all of its applications and petitions today? What do they think or project it will cost 

to process those applications and petitions 1 year from now, 2 years 

from now when a number of efficiencies and the pilot programs are 

more widespread? What will the new information technology cost? 

And a related issue, and this relates to the questions you read 

into the record earlier from your colleague on the Committee, are 

55

there obstacles to hiring new people? What is it going to take to 

get new people on board? 

Well, there are a couple of obstacles. First of all, we have seen 

media reports that there is a hiring freeze at the Department of 

Homeland Security. I don’t think that has been officially confirmed 

by the Department. I am only going on the media reports, but if 

there is, that makes it difficult to add more people to process cases. 

There is the other problem of background checks that are performed on Federal employees. We have heard anecdotally from 

managers in offices that it is taking 6 to 12 months and in some 

cases more than a year to get the appropriate background clearances before an individual can be hired. It seems to me that is 

going to make it fairly difficult to get quality people to take those 

jobs. 

Back to the issue of case status and accessing information, the 

800 number, while it seemed like a good idea when they rolled it 

out, unfortunately has not worked out very well. We believe the 

principal reason it has not worked out is because the system was 

contracted out to a nongovernmental entity; and, unfortunately, the 

individuals who performed this job just are not trained in immigration law, and the system is really not set up to deal with pending 

cases. It works well if you are calling to get a form number or an 

address of what office to send it to, but it does not work well to 

get information on cases. 

We have suggested with pending cases there be an automatic referral to the service center where a trained Immigration Information Officer can answer the question. They have access to the file, 

and they are trained. Yet, in my final statement on this, the Administration has proposed to outsource or contract out the Immigration Information Officer position, which I believe the House 

voted against the other day. In our opinion, philosophies aside, it 

just will not work sending it out to a private contractor. It has been 

a failure with the 800 number, and the IIO function, if it is contracted out, will reinforce that failure. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. If I might be indulged an additional 30 seconds, Chairman, I think, will allow me to say we voted together in 

opposition to that position of outsourcing, and we might be able to 

join with each other on the idea that you have now suggested 

maybe about an additional review about cost. We may ultimately 

disagree on whether we should move forward. I would say we 

should; the Chairman may say not. But I think the facts would be 

helpful to him and this Committee as to what the cost actually is, 

an independent assessment of what the cost is, because we are all 

in agreement that a backlog does not help anyone. 

Certainly whatever position you happen to take on this question 

you might want to provide me in writing unless you have one sentence to answer about the way we have this system set up, like the 

centers that I mentioned in Memphis and Texas. And I will close 

on this note just to thank you, Mr. Zulkie, for the excellent staff 

that you have visiting with us all the time. I can assure you that 

they are both informed and bipartisan. We look forward to working 

with you. 

Mr. ZULKIE. Thank you. That is very kind of you. 

56

Mr. HOSTETTLER. The Chair recognizes Mr. King of Iowa for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the witnesses for 

their testimony today. 

Ms. Stern, I point out in your testimony words to the general effect of ensuring timely processing for legals and then this quote, 

‘‘barring those who pose a threat to our populace.’’ Would you entertain amending that to ‘‘barring those who would not have legal 

access’’? 

Ms. STERN. Absolutely. Obviously folks who are not eligible for 

benefits also should be denied benefits. 

Mr. KING. Thank you. Just a little cleanup thing that lingered 

in my mind. 

Mr. Zulkie, the President gave a speech on January 6 calling for 

a program that would expand the number of guest workers, was 

the term he used, and the public has used a far different term to 

define that program. There are varying estimates, between 8 and 

14 million illegals in this country, some of whom would be processed if that program were approved. We sit here with a significant 

backlog which we have significant concern about. Should there be 

a program, a guest worker program, approved that may be legalized in some fashion or another, 8 million of those workers? What 

do you think the impact of that would be to the backlog? 

[5:45 p.m.] 

Mr. ZULKIE. Thank you, Congressman. If the Congress were to 

pass such legislation and it was signed by the White House, I think 

it is obvious to everyone that the existing resources provided to 

USCIS could not possibly take that on. Realistically, the Congress 

would have to appropriate funds either for additional resources for 

USCIS to handle it, or perhaps as occurred in 1986, there was a 

freestanding separate unit or units around the country that just 

processed what was called the amnesty applications outside the 

then-INS benefit processing system 

Mr. KING. If we had a freestanding organization like that, do you 

believe that could be funded by employers and guest workers? 

Mr. ZULKIE. That is a decision for Congress to decide. Potentially, yes, it could; or it could also be a unit that is separate from 

USCIS, or under its auspices, but unique and freestanding. 

Mr. KING. Then with regard to national security, do you think 

that that type of a program could risk lowering the bar for national 

security? 

Mr. ZULKIE. Quite the contrary. I think it would enhance our national security, because we do not believe—with the number of people that you cite who are possibly here who are not documented, 

it is much better we know who is here. Every one of these individuals would be subject to a FBI, CIA background clearance and no 

doubt some people would not pass muster. And I think we would 

rather know who is here and give them identity, let them come forward and do the jobs that we need them to do, take care of our 

grandmothers in the nursing homes and take care of our children, 

and our security is much better off knowing who they are. 

Mr. KING. Aside from the concern that if we set up a separate 

entity to deal with this, you still have to have the background 

checks that would have to grow, then, our FBI and security people 

57

to do those background security checks. Once again we end up with 

an administrative problem that is compounded by this issue. 

I will just address the issue of the bogus petitions that was testified to by Mr. Aguirre last week; that the bogus petitions, maybe 

as many as 40 percent of them—of the petitions are bogus. Do you 

believe that we can streamline this process if we could increase the 

punishment on bogus petitions and clean them out of the system 

and disincent those in the process? 

Mr. ZULKIE. Director Aguirre’s testimony to that effect is the first 

time that we have ever heard any USCIS official use a number like 

that. And we find it fairly hard to believe that 40 percent of the 

petitions are fraudulent, particularly given the small level of enforcement or prosecutions undertaken by the Government. Let me 

add that simply because a petition is pending before USCIS, that 

in no way precludes the relevant law enforcement agencies from either pursuing criminal prosecution or removal of an individual 

from the United States. 

Mr. KING. Thank you. And time moving along here, I turn to Mr. 

Khatri; and that is, there has been a request made here for more 

money and more resources, not from fees, but from the general 

fund presumably. And I know that Mr. Aguirre testified last week 

that he had enough resources, he needed to use more innovation 

and more ideas and streamline that. And I am asking this softball 

question today, because you brought your family along and I think 

I will take it a little easy on you. So could you answer that question before time runs out? 

Mr. KHATRI. As regards the USCIS funding issue, I believe Director Aguirre is the word on that. If he stated, as he clearly did, that 

they do have sufficient funding, I believe they do and we should 

give them a chance to show that they do. I cannot dispute that. I 

don’t run his organization. He has access to all of the records and 

I believe he did testify that he does have sufficient funds. 

Mr. KING. And some of the innovation that you brought forward 

here today is some of the innovation he was referencing? 

Mr. KHATRI. Yes. That will assist in helping. Now, obviously one 

of the things that some of our recommendations will do is clearly 

reduce substantially the number of filings that are required for interim benefits, and that will be a reduction in the fees. And this 

is where I think we will have to work with Congress to figure out 

if there is a better way. Maybe there is a way to fund the system 

much like a private entity. If we are expecting USCIS to run like 

a private entity from its own fees, I would think that we may want 

to consider, as we do for any organization coming out of bankruptcy 

or from a reorganization, as you will, that we do provide funding 

and maybe we do create a pool of money for USCIS to draw from, 

so that they don’t have to be in a constant position of predicting 

how many applications are going to come, especially with the innovations and the resources that we are bringing to the table where 

we are actually, hopefully, going to eliminate many of the applications that are required and thus will cause a shortfall in the permanent funding of USCIS. 

So, long term, yes, I do believe that Congress will have to work 

with USCIS in finding—maybe, you know, the best thing would be 

a replenishable fund that can be replenished annually. 

58

Mr. KING. I thank the witnesses and the Chairman, and I yield 

back. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. I thank the gentleman. 

The Chair reminds Members that we have 7 legislative days to 

make entries into the record. 

I want to thank Members of the panel for your insightful testimony. It will be very helpful in this process. And this Subcommittee will take your testimony to heart as well as apply it to 

our future actions. 

Before I adjourn the Subcommittee, in keeping with the theme 

of embarrassing attendees, I just discovered that Vlad Cerga, who 

is our Committee’s technical aide in the left corner of the room 

here, has passed his naturalization exam today. So we commend 

you. I am happy to announce that the Subcommittee is doing all 

we can to help reduce the backlog. 

[Whereupon, at 5:50 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(59)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

BACKLOG ELIMINATION PLAN SUBMITTED BY U.S. CITIZENSHIP

AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES


Bklog1.eps
60


Bklog2.eps
61


Bklog3.eps
62


Bklog4.eps
63


Bklog5.eps
64


Bklog6.eps
65


Bklog7.eps
66


Bklog8.eps
67


Bklog9.eps
68


Bklog10.eps
69


Bklog11.eps
70


Bklog12.eps
71


Bklog13.eps
72


Bklog14.eps
73


Bklog15.eps
74

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE SHEILA JACKSON LEE, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS, AND RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE

ON IMMIGRATION, BORDER SECURITY, AND CLAIMS

I have a personal interest in eliminating the immigration benefits applications 

backlog. Houston’s backlog on benefits applications is one of the longest in the country, longer than in Boston, Los Angeles, and San Diego. Approximately 50,000 people in the Houston area are waiting for the processing of an immigration benefits 

application. For some, the wait has been as long as five years. 

Bianca Springer has a graduate degree in conflict analysis and resolution. Last 

week, as she and her husband, Jerry, sat in an office of the U.S. Citizenship and 

Immigration Services (USCIS), she said that she should have pursued a degree in 

bureaucracy. She has been trying unsuccessfully to resolve issues around her immigration application since moving to Houston from Miami 18 months ago, where she 

originally filed the paperwork. She sees no end in sight. She has not even been able 

to confirm that her files are at the Houston office. 

People also are experiencing difficulty in learning about the status of their applications. Suliman Al-Rasheed is a retired executive with Saudi Aramco, an energy 

company. In 2002, after taking an early retirement, he moved from Saudi Arabia 

to Houston with his wife, who is a U.S. citizen, and their infant son. Two years and 

more than $7,000 later, he still doesn’t know his status. He has asked, ‘‘I want to 

start a business, am I going to be approved or not? Shall I pack up my family and 

go, or stay?’’

New York is another place that is having serious backlog problems. The backlog 

of pending citizenship cases in New York exceeds 100,000, which is more than in 

any other district in the country. 

A letter summoning Errol Taylor to be sworn in as a citizen on May 14 arrived 

at his Flatbush home more than a year after his interview and two years after he 

had applied for citizenship. This was too late for Mr. Taylor, a hospital worker who 

lived and worked in Brooklyn for decades after leaving Trinidad in 1975. He died 

in March. 

The costs and consequences of the delays go beyond personal heartache. Businesses that rely on foreign professionals are facing logistical headaches and added 

legal costs to maintain their workforces. Family members sponsoring a relative have 

died while the process dragged on. Some immigrants have inadvertently lapsed into 

illegality because work permits or other papers have expired. 

Part of the problem is that additional security checks have been implemented in 

reaction to 9/11. Before 9/11, the government only ran security checks on some kinds 

of immigration applicants, such as those seeking citizenship. Now, every applicant 

must undergo security screening, which has caused the workload to balloon. Also, 

matches on FBI name checks cause substantial delays when paper files must be 

checked to determine whether the benefits applicant is the person in the FBI files. 

While name matches only occur in a small percentage of the applications, the total 

number of affected cases is substantial. 

We also have seen a rise in the number of applications. FY2001 was the peak year 

for the number of immigration and naturalization petitions filed (7.8 million). Although the numbers have dropped somewhat in FY2002 and FY2003, the 7 million 

petitions filed during each of these periods exceed the levels of the late 1990s. For 

the current year, as of April 2004, a total of 3.5 million immigration and naturalization petitions have been filed. 

I am optimistic that lengthy processing delays will soon be a thing of the past. 

Under the leadership of Director Eduardo Aguirre, Jr., USCIS has developed a plan 

for reducing the backlog and bringing processing times down to no more than 6 

months. Mr. Aguirre is aggressively working to modernize the processing system so 

that it can process benefits applications more quickly without compromising national security, and he has pledged to see that USCIS personnel treat everyone with 

dignity and respect. This is not surprising in view of the fact that he came to the 

United States as an immigrant himself. He has first hand knowledge of the difficulties that immigrants can face in our country. I am anxious to hear his statement 

on the details of the plan that he has developed to achieve these objectives. Thank 

you.

75

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ZOE LOFGREN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Chairman Hostettler and Ranking Member Jackson Lee, thank you for holding 

this very important hearing to discuss a serious problem that affects our constituents all across the country. I would also like to thank Citizenship and Immigration 

(CIS) Services Director Eduardo Aguirre for joining us today to help us understand 

the petition backlog problem that has long plagued the former Immigration and 

Naturalization Services (INS) and now the CIS. 

Since I became a member of the Subcommittee on Immigration, I have tried in 

many ways to work with the former INS and now with the CIS to find ways to 

eliminate the backlog and create a system that could seamlessly adjudicate immigration petitions in a timely fashion. Each time, I have run into what appears to 

be unnecessary roadblocks. 

In my latest attempt, 44 bipartisan Members of Congress from 18 states, including my colleagues in the Subcommittee on Immigration, Representatives Blackburn, 

Flake, Hart, Berman and Sanchez wrote to you, Director Aguirre, indicating the severity of this backlog problem. 

In my home state of California, United States citizens have been separated from 

their spouses, parents, and even their children for at least a year just because of 

the backlog. It’s worse in Nebraska and Texas where the wait is at least one and 

half years. United States companies seeking individuals with extraordinary ability 

have to wait between one to two years. These are scientists and researches with 

Nobel Prizes who will invent the cure for cancer or develop the next new technology 

to help our country lead in areas of research, science, and technology. 

We have reached the twenty-first century, but our immigration services are still 

functioning in the twentieth century. CIS is operating on a paper-based system that 

is completely inefficient. Yet, the technology is available today to bring our immigration systems up to speed with the rest of this country. We continue to issue millions 

of paper I-94’s making it virtually impossible to enter that information in appropriate databases. We have no biometric standard to help us secure the identification 

of immigrants and to provide a much more accurate system of cataloging immigration petitions. We have not been able to consolidate our databases to eliminate duplication, inefficiency, and more importantly, to help us identify those that seek to 

do us harm. 

You can imagine my frustration with this inept system. Fixing immigration services must not only be a priority, it must be accomplished. As you know, each one 

of these backlogged petitions represents a United States citizen simply asking our 

government to allow them to be near their loved family member, or a United States 

company trying to bring in highly-qualified researchers, scholars, and other necessary employees. Every day that goes by with this backlog is another day lost with 

a loved one or another day where a United States business is unable to have a complete workforce that enables a strong American economy. 

I look forward to this hearing and hope that this will finally be the turning point 

towards efficient, accurate, and secure immigration services.

76

LETTER TO U.S. CIS DIRECTOR EDUARDO AGUIRRE SUBMITTED BY

THE HONORABLE ZOE LOFGREN


BKLLet1.eps
77


BKLLet2.eps
78


BKLLet3.eps
79


BKLLet4.eps
80


BKLLet5.eps
81

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

INTRODUCTION

I’d like to thank Chairman Hostettler and also Ranking Member Jackson Lee for 

today’s hearing. The issue that we are examining today, the immigration backlog 

and its detrimental impacts, is an issue that my Democratic colleagues and I have 

said over and over again it critical to fixing our broken immigration system. 

We made backlog reduction one of the top priorities of the SOLVE Act (H.R. 

4262), that we introduced on May 4th. And I urge the Chairman will follow up this 

hearing on reducing the immigration backlog with a markup of the SOLVE Act, so 

we can make immigration backlog reduction the law. 

We need to reduce the immigration backlog because the processing delays are 

keeping immigrant families apart for years, sometimes decades. Thousands of immigrants follow the rules and submit their visa applications like they’re supposed to, 

only to end up waiting for years to reunite with their spouses, children, or parents 

because of the backlog. One of the main reasons why immigrants come here illegally 

is to reunite with members of their family. Simply put, the visa backlog is one of 

the main causes of illegal immigration in this country. 

And what is the Administration doing about the backlog problem? If you’ve read 

the papers lately, you’d think their solution was to perform random immigration 

sweeps. 

STORIES ABOUT SWEEPS

Last week, there were several newspaper reports that more than 200 immigrants 

were arrested in the Inland Empire in Southern California. According to reports federal agents were interrogating and arresting immigrants outside supermarkets, outside restaurants, as they got off buses on their way to work, and they were even 

stopping cars at roadside checkpoints. 

Any person of Hispanic appearance or descent was a target of the sweeps. The 

agents stopped a Pasadena City College student, legally in the U.S. on a student 

visa, and interrogated him on the street about his immigration papers. The agents 

then drove the student to his home and forced him to produce his student visa papers to prove he was legal. In another incident, a latina waitress named Lourdes 

Rangel, a U.S. citizen, witnessed men in white vans stopping cars and interrogating 

drivers. Some of the agents questioned her and demanded she show them proof of 

her citizenship. 

These extreme and senseless arrests do nothing to fix our immigration system. 

The only thing they do is to create fear and panic in our local communities. A school 

in Pasadena reported that 30% of the students skipped school. Restaurants, stores, 

and doctors offices were empty last week. Many said they were inundated with calls 

asking if it was safe to come and buy food and clothes or get medical care. 

The sweeps were obviously based on racial profiling and not on any evidence that 

the victims were in the country illegally. The U.S. Bureau of Customs and Border 

Protection claims the sweeps were neither racial profiling nor an agency-wide policy. 

But I find it hard to believe race didn’t play a factor in the interrogations when 90% 

of the arrests were of Mexican nationals. MALDEF is investigating the sweeps to 

see if the sweeps violated the victims due process rights or were unreasonable 

searches and seizures. 

FAILED ADMINISTRATION EFFORTS TO REDUCE THE BACKLOG

Constitutional violations and random race-based arrests are not the way to deal 

with illegal immigration. The Administration’s $500 million initiative to reduce the 

visa backlog to 6-month processing time by 2006 is an excellent idea, and I urge 

the President and his Administration to make sure this idea becomes a reality. 

Likewise I urge the President to give the same priority to backlog reduction as 

he does to efforts to deport hard-working, law-abiding immigrants. The last time 

Mr. Aguirre testified before this Subcommittee we discussed how only $60 million 

in additional funds were proposed for backlog reduction in the President’s DHS FY 

2005 budget proposal. This sum paled by comparison to the $281 million for ‘‘enforcement’’ programs in the President’s budget proposal. 

We need to make visa backlog reduction a much higher priority. There are 6 million visa applications waiting to be processed. That equates to millions of separated 

families, and the possibility for millions of immigrants to fall into illegal status. 

Processing these applications in a timely way is just as important as enforcement 

efforts to fixing our immigration system and making our borders safe and secure. 

82

I hope that this time next year, Mr. Aguirre is testifying before this Subcommittee 

and telling us how successful the reduction plan is, that the backlog has already 

been dropped by 50%, and will be at zero in 2006. 

CONCLUSION

Again, I thank the Chairman and Ranking Member for convening this hearing. 

I also thank our witnesses for taking the time to come here and give us their testimony about how to fix the visa backlog problem. 

Mr. Chairman, I am working on a letter to President Bush and Secretary Ridge 

expressing concern about the immigration sweeps in Los Angeles. The letter will be 

completed shortly and I ask unanimous consent to submit that letter, as well as a 

letter from the Congressional Hispanic Caucus addressing the same issue, into the 

record for this Subcommittee hearing. 

Thank you and I yield back.

83

LETTER TO PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH AND THE HONORABLE TOM RIDGE, SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, SUBMITTED BY THE HONORABLE LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ


LtoB1.eps
84


LtoB2.eps
85


LtoB3.eps
86

LETTER TO ROBERT BONNER, COMMISSIONER, BUREAU OF CUSTOMS AND BORDER

PROTECTION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, SUBMITTED BY THE HONORABLE LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ


Bonner1.eps
87


Bonner2.eps
88

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE STEVE KING, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IOWA

I make these remarks in response to the opening statement of the gentle lady 

from California, Ms. Sa ́nchez, in the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims Hearing on Immigration Backlog on June 16, 2004. 

I wholly support an immigration policy designed to enhance the economic, social 

and cultural well-being of the United States of America. Immigrants have made, 

and will continue to make, a valuable contribution to our nation. The values shared 

by our civilization, founded on a heritage of western civilization religious freedom 

and free enterprise capitalism, serve immigrants and native-born alike. 

As a sovereign nation, we must control our borders. We must ensure that terrorists do not infiltrate the United States. We must tighten and strengthen border control efforts so that illegal aliens do not enter our country. Perhaps most our important, yet most neglected duty is the enforcement of our immigration laws in the interior of our country. 

Ms. Sa ́nchez stated that, after a recent immigration sweep in which over 200 illegal aliens were arrested, the supermarkets, restaurants, and doctors offices were 

empty, and that thirty percent of students in a school in Pasadena were absent from 

school. I must admit, I am a bit baffled about the point of Ms. Sa ́nchez’s story. If 

people are in our country legally and have the proper, required documentation, they 

should have no fear of immigration law enforcement efforts. If, by chance, they are 

improperly deported, as Director Aguirre explained, they would be the first allowed 

to reenter. In reality, however, we all know how long deportation proceedings last 

and how many opportunities a legal immigrant would have to prove his or her legal 

status before being deported. 

Ms. Sa ́nchez set forth the argument that recent interior enforcement in her home 

state of California has been based solely on racial profiling, not on any evidence that 

those who are stopped were in the country illegally. Here is how I see this situation: 

Our immigration policy exists to distinguish between those who are American citizens or those who are in our country legally and those who are not. Asking those 

who are or appear to be of another nationality to prove their legal status is not racial profiling—it’s smart law enforcement and it protects our nation’s security. 

In order for our immigration laws to have any effect, illegal aliens must know, 

in no uncertain terms, that we intend to enforce those laws. If caught, no matter 

how, they will be deported as soon as possible. Legal immigrants who have the proper documentation have nothing to fear from our system. 

I hope that this Congress will be vigilant in our oversight of the enforcement of 

existing immigration laws and make necessary changes to existing laws. Thank you. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE SHEILA JACKSON LEE, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS, AND RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE

ON IMMIGRATION, BORDER SECURITY, AND CLAIMS

We had a hearing on the backlog of immigration benefits applications last week 

at which the Director of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), 

Eduardo Aguirre, Jr., presented a Backlog Elimination Plan. Today, we will hear 

about how the backlog affects people who are waiting for applications to be processed, and we will hear views on the Backlog Elimination Plan. Also, the Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman, Prakash Khatri, will present the first 

Ombudsman’s Annual Report. His office is a separate entity within the Department 

of Homeland Security (DHS). The benefits applications backlog is one of many 

issues that his office addresses. 

As of the end of 2003, USCIS had more than 6 million benefits applications. It 

would not be appropriate to consider all of these applications backlog cases. USCIS 

defines ‘‘backlog cases’’ as applications that have exceed their cycle time. A ‘‘cycle 

time’’ is the number of months that an application should take to process. The cycle 

time for a naturalization application or an application for adjustment of status is 

6 months. Other applications have shorter cycle times, but none has a cycle time 

that is longer than 6 months. Using this definition, USCIS calculated that the backlog at the end of 2003 was approximately 3.7 million cases. 

In order to eliminate this backlog, USCIS plans to re-engineer and automate 

workflow processes to achieve greater efficiencies; update policies and procedures to 

streamline adjudications and increase the percentage of cases completed at initial 

review by an adjudicator; manage production against milestones; and, work with the 

Office of the Ombudsman on pilot projects to test alternative processing approaches 

and new applications of proven off-the-shelf technology. According to Director 

Aguirre, USCIS will eliminate the backlog by the end of FY2006. 

89

Director Aguirre has assured us that he will include quality controls in implementing the Backlog Elimination Plan. I think that it is particularly important to 

ensure that the increased attention to production rates does not adversely affect the 

quality of initial level decision-making. I would not like to see an increased need 

for appellate review on account of hastily rendered initial decisions. 

The milestone system is one of the most important parts of this plan. USCIS will 

set these production goals for measuring its progress and issue quarterly reports on 

whether the goals are being achieved. I am hopeful that these evaluations will be 

effective in keeping the plan on track. I have some concerns, however, about what 

USCIS will do if the milestones are not reached. It takes time to obtain additional 

resources. For instance, if USCIS needs additional personnel, it will have to recruit 

and train new personnel before they can help in eliminating the backlog. 

I also am concerned about the difficulty that people are having in getting information about their benefits applications. Prior to June 9, 2003, calls could be made to 

immigration officers at Service Centers to ask questions about the status of cases, 

to clarify and correct problems, and to inquire about filing procedures. Now, inquiries are made through an 1–800 number system. This system does not provide a 

meaningful source of information. As outside contractors, the 800 number operators 

usually are unfamiliar with immigration laws and procedures. They are given very 

basic scripts from which to field calls, and they only have access to information already provided on the USCIS website’s case status inquiry pages. 

The 800 number operators can transfer calls to a Second Tier information officer, 

but the operators are restricted as to the types of cases that they can refer to the 

Second Tier. Also, I have heard claims that the Second Tier officers frequently just 

tell callers to write a letter to the Service Center. 

I urge USCIS to work with the Ombudsman, Mr. Khatri, to develop other solutions. For instance, my office has heard considerable praise for a division within the 

California Service Center that is devoted exclusively to answering public inquiries 

about pending cases and helping to resolve problems. 

Thank you.

90

LETTER FROM THE AMERICAN IMMIGRATION LAWYERS ASSOCIATION (AILA), 

SUBMITTED BY PAUL ZULKIE


Let2A.eps
91


Let2B.eps
92


Let2C.eps
93


Let2D.eps
94


Let2E.eps
95


Let2F.eps
96

LETTER TO THE HONORABLE EDUARDO AGUIRRE, JR., DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF

CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES (BCIS), SUBMITTED BY PAUL ZULKIE


Let1A.eps
97


Let1B.eps
98


Let1C.eps
99

RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY REP. ANTHONY WEINER TO

THE HONORABLE PRAKASH KHATRI


Khatri.eps
100

RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY REP. ANTHONY WEINER TO

MS. ELIZABETH STERN


SternA.eps
101


SternB.eps
102

RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY REP. ANTHONY WEINER TO

MR. PAUL ZULKIE

Æ


Zulkie.eps