Citizenship and 

Immigration Services 

Ombudsman 

Annual 

Report 2009 

June 30, 2009
 
ii 

This page intentionally left blank 

Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman 
 

Annual Report to Congress — June 2009 iii 

Senate & House Judiciary 

Committee Leadership 

The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy, Chairman 

Committee on the Judiciary 

United States Senate 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

The Honorable Jeff Sessions, Ranking Member 

Committee on the Judiciary 

United States Senate 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

The Honorable John Conyers Jr., Chairman 

Committee on the Judiciary 

United States House of Representatives 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

The Honorable Lamar S. Smith, Ranking Member 

Committee on the Judiciary 

United States House of Representatives 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

The Honorable Charles E. Schumer, Chairman 

Committee on the Judiciary 

Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security 

United States Senate 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

The Honorable John Cornyn, Ranking Member 

Committee on the Judiciary 

Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security 

United States Senate 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

The Honorable Zoe Lofgren, Chairwoman 

Committee on the Judiciary 

Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border 

Security, and International Law 

United States House of Representatives 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

The Honorable Steve King, Ranking Member 

Committee on the Judiciary 

Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border 

Security, and International Law 

United States House of Representatives 

Washington, D.C. 20515 
iv 

This page intentionally left blank 

Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman 
Annual Report to Congress — June 2009 v 

Letter from the Ombudsman
 

June 30, 2009 

On behalf of the Ombudsman staff, we hereby submit our 2009 Annual Report to Congress, pursuant to section 452 of the 

Homeland Security Act. 

Richard E. Flowers Wendy E. Kamenshine 

Acting Ombudsman Acting Deputy Ombudsman 
vi Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman 

A Note of Appreciation 

I would like to thank Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and former Secretary Michael Chertoff 

and their staffs for assisting this office in carrying out its statutory mission. Thank you also to Acting USCIS 

Deputy Director Michael Aytes and former Acting USCIS Director Jonathan “Jock” Scharfen for their dedication 

to providing ever-improving immigration benefits services and for assisting this office in furthering its mission. 

In addition, I would like to thank the entire USCIS Ombudsman Liaison Unit for assistance in the work of this 

office. Thank you also to former CIS Ombudsman Michael Dougherty and former Deputy Ombudsman Luke 

Bellocchi, for their dedicated service to the Ombudsman’s office. 

Finally, I thank the Ombudsman’s entire staff and particularly the management team, Wendy Kamenshine, 

Acting Deputy Ombudsman and Annual Report Project Manager, James Reaves, Chief of Intake, Evaluations, and 

Problem Resolution, and Gary Merson, Chief of Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, for their leadership, dedication, and diligence in this Report’s publication. 

Richard E. Flowers 

Acting Ombudsman 
Annual Report to Congress — June 2009	 vii 

Executive Summary and 

Annual Report Recommendations 

This is the sixth Annual Report prepared by the Citizenship 

and Immigration Services Ombudsman (Ombudsman) since 

the office was established in 2003 pursuant to Section 452 of 

the Homeland Security Act. 

During this reporting period, May 1, 2008 through April 30, 

2009, there was a marked decrease in applications and petitions filed with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 

(USCIS). This reduction in receipt levels has provided USCIS 

with the opportunity to work long-pending cases. However, 

with less fee revenue, the agency may now face new challenges. This Annual Report also discusses: 

yyUSCIS processing times and backlogs, as well as a followup review of the 2007 summer surge in immigration 

filings; 

yyUSCIS Transformation, a five-year $491 million initiative 

to modernize USCIS systems; 

yyOmbudsman facilitation of interagency meetings, including between USCIS and the U.S. Department of State – the 

entities charged with processing permanent immigration 

applications and administering the annual numerical limits 

on family and employment-based visas; 

yyOmbudsman outreach, including the public teleconference series “How Is It Working for You?” 

For the Ombudsman, it has been a time of transition with a 

new Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary and a 

change in office leadership. During the reporting period, the 

Ombudsman has continued to expand outreach to stakeholders and review fundamental ways to assist individuals and 

employers in their interactions with USCIS. 

Of particular note, during the reporting period, the 

Ombudsman and USCIS entered into a Memorandum of 

Understanding (MOU), the framework for a constructive durable relationship between the two Department of Homeland 

Security components. Among other provisions, the MOU 

provides for more robust capabilities to resolve case problems. 

The Ombudsman is now better able to perform the statutory 

mission of assisting individuals and employers. 

As required by statute, this Annual Report also summarizes 

the most pervasive and serious problems encountered by 

individuals and employers, including Requests for Evidence, 

USCIS customer service, and FBI name checks. 

During the reporting period, the Ombudsman made eight 

formal recommendations, also discussed in this Report, which 

cover humanitarian, family, and business issues, including: 

(1) improving the motions to reopen/reconsider process; 

(2) expansion of payment methods for USCIS customers; 

(3) streamlining EB-5 investor visa processing; (4) challenges 

in humanitarian categories for victims of trafficking and specified criminal activity; (5) the E-Verify program that checks 

an individual’s employment eligibility; (6) naturalization; 

(7) immigration processing for foreign nurses; and (8) timely 

issuance of Employment Authorization Documents (EADs) for 

eligible applicants. 

The following is a list of new 2009 Annual Report recommendations in summary form: 

Recommendation 1 

The Ombudsman recommends that USCIS immediately 

begin scanning immigration files that are likely to be 

needed for future adjudications. (AR2009-01) 

Justification: Millions of historic paper files are necessary 

for future adjudications. Digitizing current cases for future 

use would lessen USCIS’ burden of storing, tracking, and 

retrieving physical case files and, thereby, increase agency 

processing efficiency and responsiveness to customers. 

Digitization of completed Forms I-485 (Application to 

Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status), for example, 

would streamline the processing of future naturalization 

applications filed by these individuals. 
viii Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman 

Recommendation 2 

The Ombudsman recommends that USCIS establish new 

protocols to ensure that relevant contract staff consistently record all A-file movement as outlined in the Records 

Operations Handbook. (AR2009-02) 

Justification: Inconsistent use of USCIS file tracking systems 

is the primary reason for lost or misplaced A-files. Contract 

staff members are primarily responsible for A-file movement 

within USCIS, as well as to and from other DHS components, and for using USCIS systems to track and transfer 

A-files. 

Recommendation 3 

The Ombudsman recommends that through the TriBureau Working Group (USCIS, Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement (ICE), and Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP)), USCIS expeditiously institute mandatory training of all personnel who work with A-files, 

specifically special agents, investigators, and officers. 

(AR2009-03) 

Justification: Proper use of USCIS file tracking systems by all 

who request or handle A-files is crucial to providing timely 

customer service. While USCIS stores A-files, ICE and CBP 

also use them; files travel between USCIS and these components daily. The Tri-Bureau Working Group has opened 

communication lines among these DHS components, but 

mandatory training is needed to ensure consistent use and 

compliance. 

Recommendation 4 

The Ombudsman recommends that USCIS review processing methods for employment-based petitions between 

the Nebraska and Texas Service Centers to make American 

Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act (AC21) 

portability provisions equally available to all customers. 

(AR2009-04) 

Justification: The Nebraska and Texas Service Centers 

process concurrently filed employment-based petitions and 

green card applications differently, potentially depriving 

certain individuals of the option to take advantage of legislative portability provisions to change employers. 

Recommendation 5 

The Ombudsman recommends that USCIS post a practical 

tip sheet on its website to assist stakeholders in providing 

the necessary and relevant information for complex EB-1 

cases. (AR2009-05) 

Justification: USCIS provides limited information on the 

adjudicative standards for EB-1 cases; additional guidance 

would assist customers to better prepare EB-1 cases for filing. 

Recommendation 6 

The Ombudsman recommends that USCIS remove 

references to obsolete blood testing methods from the 

Adjudicator’s Field Manual (AFM) and other published 

guidance. (AR2009-06) 

Justification: Lack of a definitive preference for non-invasive 

DNA testing – over obsolete forms of blood testing that are 

neither widely available nor considered as reliable as DNA 

tests – may confuse USCIS officers and customers alike. 

Recommendation 7 

The Ombudsman recommends that USCIS continue to 

coordinate with the U.S. Department of State regarding 

DNA testing procedures and execute a Memorandum of 

Understanding (MOU) with DOS for resource allocation 

for DNA evidence gathering and chain-of-custody observance abroad. (AR2009-07) 

Justification: When consular monitoring of DNA testing 

is unavailable, chain-of-custody requirements cannot be 

fulfilled. In the absence of such an agreement, the evidence 

collection necessary to respond to Requests for Evidence or 

Notices of Intent to Deny cannot be submitted. 

Recommendation 8 

The Ombudsman recommends that USCIS designate 

a USCIS DNA liaison to facilitate discussions between 

USCIS and the U.S. Department of State, as well as to 

periodically provide clarifications for DNA laboratories. 

(AR2009-08) 

Justification: The liaison would coordinate DNA issues and 

maintain consistent testing policies among interested parties. 

Focusing specifically on USCIS’ benefits processing role, the 

liaison would monitor and address, as needed, procedural, 

technical, and policy matters. 
Annual Report to Congress — June 2009	 ix 

Table of Contents
 

Letter from the Ombudsman .......................................................................v
 

Executive Summary and Annual Report Recommendations .........................................vii
 

List of Figures .................................................................................... xi
 

I. Introduction and Mission.........................................................................1
 

A. What Is the CIS Ombudsman? ...............................................................1
 

B. Ombudsman’s Accomplishments..............................................................2
 

II. Pervasive and Serious Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
 

A. Moving Past the Surge: Processing Times and Backlogs ........................................3
 

B. USCIS Modernization.........................................................................8
 

C. Managing the Employment-Based Green Card Line ........................................... 14
 

D. Requests for Evidence (RFEs) ............................................................... 17
 

E. Challenges with USCIS Fee Funding Structure ................................................ 19
 

F. Customer Service and Public Inquiries ....................................................... 22
 

G. File Transfers and Tracking ................................................................ 28
 

H. USCIS Workforce and Training .............................................................. 30
 

I. FBI Name Checks.......................................................................... 35
 

III. Recommendations and Studies ............................................................... 37
 

A. Methodology .............................................................................. 37
 

B. Additional Areas of Focus .................................................................. 37
 

1. Military Naturalizations ................................................................ 37
 

2. Employment-Based Petitions (I-140s) ................................................... 39
 

3. First Preference Priority Worker (EB-1) Immigrant Petitions................................ 40
 

4. Special Immigrant Visas (SIVs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
 

5. DNA .................................................................................. 44
 

6. K-3 Family Reunification Process ....................................................... 46
 

7. Family-Based Petitions (I-130s) ......................................................... 47
 

C. 2009 Reporting Period Recommendations .................................................. 47
 

1. Motions Matter: 	Improving the Filing and Review 


Process for Motions to Reopen and Reconsider ......................................... 48
 

2. Improving the Process for Payment of USCIS Filing Fees and Other Costs ................. 51
 
x Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman 

3. Employment Creation Immigrant Visa (EB-5) Program ...................................... 54
 

4. Improving the Process for Victims of Human Trafficking and 


Certain Criminal Activity: The T and U Visa ............................................. 57
 

5. Observations on the E-Verify Experience in Arizona and 


Customer Service Enhancements ...................................................... 61
 

6. Naturalization Oath Ceremonies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
 

7. Improving the Processing of Schedule A Nurse Visas ...................................... 67
 

8. USCIS Processing Delays for Employment Authorization Documents ........................ 69
 

D. 2008 Reporting Period Recommendations .................................................... 72
 

1. USCIS Refunds of Fees for Immigration Benefits .......................................... 72
 

2. Petitions Returned by the U.S. Department of State for Revocation/Revalidation ............ 74
 

E. Recommendations in Previous Years ......................................................... 77
 

IV. Case Problems ................................................................................ 83
 

V. Ombudsman Outreach .......................................................................... 85
 

A. Website..................................................................................... 85
 

B. E-mail ...................................................................................... 85
 

C. Teleconferences ............................................................................. 85
 

D. Ombudsman Updates ........................................................................ 86
 

E. Virtual Ombudsman System .................................................................. 87
 

VI. Ombudsman Priorities and Objectives ........................................................... 89
 

Appendices
 

Appendix 1: Homeland Security Act Excerpts ..................................................... 91
 

Appendix 2: DHS Organizational Chart ........................................................... 93
 

Appendix 3: Form DHS-7001 .................................................................... 94
 

Appendix 4: Glossary of Terms .................................................................102
 

Appendix 5: List of Abbreviations ...............................................................105
 
Annual Report to Congress — June 2009 xi 

List of Figures
 

Figure 1: BASIC Training for New Adjudicators ................................................ 6
 

Figure 2: Naturalization Application Processing Times at 


USCIS Field Offices (Apr. 15, 2008) ................................................. 7
 

Figure 3: Naturalization Application Processing Times at 


USCIS Field Offices (Apr. 15, 2009) ................................................. 7
 

Figure 4: FY 2008 Worldwide Usage of Employment-Based Visas .............................. 15
 

Figure 5: Number of Web Visits for the NBC Tip Sheet......................................... 18
 

Figure 6: RFE Rates for the National Benefits Center (percent) ................................. 18
 

Figure 7: RFE Rates for Selected Nonimmigrant Worker Categories (percent) ................... 18
 

Figure 8: USCIS Fee Revenue (sorted by FY 2009 YTD) (1,000s) ............................... 20
 

Figure 9: Pending FBI Name Checks 2006-2009.............................................. 35
 

Figure 10: Application Process for SIVs ........................................................ 43
 

Figure 11: U.S.-Affiliate and Translator Program Visas .......................................... 43
 

Figure 12: Nurse Immigrant Statistics ......................................................... 67
 

Figure 13: Consular Returns .................................................................. 76
 

Figure 14: CIS Ombudsman Recommendations Chart .......................................... 77
 

Figure 15: Case Problems, 2009 Reporting Period ............................................. 83
 

Figure 16: “How Is USCIS Working for You?” 2009 Reporting Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
 
xii 

This page intentionally left blank 

Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman 
 

Annual Report to Congress — June 2009	 1 

I. Introduction and Mission
 

A. What Is the CIS Ombudsman? 

Section 452 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 established the position of Citizenship and Immigration Services 

Ombudsman (Ombudsman) to be appointed by the Secretary 

of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and report 

directly to the Deputy Secretary. 

The office of the Ombudsman submits this Annual Report 

to Congress pursuant to 6 U.S.C. § 272(c)(1) regarding the 

activities of the Ombudsman1

 from May 1, 2008 through April 

30, 2009.2 

The modern “Ombudsman” was established in Sweden in 

1809 to examine citizens’ complaints about the government 

and advocate for fair process. The Ombudsman provides 

unique perspectives because of its independent status,3 

impartiality, and ability to obtain input directly from customers, stakeholders, and USCIS officials. The Ombudsman also 

provides an informal way to resolve a problem and seeks to 

ensure confidentiality and privacy. 

The statutory mission of the Ombudsman is to:4 

yyAssist individuals and employers in resolving problems 

with USCIS; 

yyIdentify areas in which individuals and employers have 

problems dealing with USCIS; and 

yyPropose changes to mitigate identified problems. 

During the reporting period, the Ombudsman articulated a 

vision for the office: 

yyPromote and expand the office’s ability to assist individuals and employers now and in the future; 

yyDiligently study issues of humanitarian, family, and economic importance across the spectrum of immigration 

benefits and services; 

yyPropose credible solutions, that are impartial and operationally sound, to customer-service barriers; 

yyIdentify best practices and forward-looking business models to meet future challenges for DHS; and 

yyWork cooperatively with government partners to benefit 

the public. 

The Ombudsman encourages efficiency and better customer 

service at USCIS by recommending solutions to systemic problems in the delivery of immigration benefits5

 and by identifying best practices. Working alongside USCIS, the Ombudsman 

also assists in resolving individual cases. 

The Ombudsman meets widely and frequently with nongovernmental stakeholders, such as community-based organizations, legal and employer organizations, as well as with 

USCIS leadership and employees who have insight into agency 

operations. 

The Ombudsman’s website is www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman, and the 

office has three e-mail boxes to receive different categories of 

public correspondence.6 

1	 The term “Ombudsman” refers to the Ombudsman, the staff, and 

the Ombudsman’s office. 

2	 In limited circumstances, this report includes relevant information 

from May and June 2009. 

3	 Section 452 of the Homeland Security Act (6 U.S.C. § 272) mandates that the Ombudsman report directly to the Deputy Secretary 

of DHS (as does the USCIS Director under section 451) and submit 

an annual report to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees 

without comment or amendment from DHS officers or employees 

or from the Office of Management and Budget. 

4	 Homeland Security Act of 2002, § 452; 6 U.S.C. § 272. See Appendix 1 for excerpts of relevant sections of the Act. 

5	 “Immigration benefits” is the term used to describe the service side 

of the immigration benefits system (contrasted with enforcement). 

Primary immigration benefits include lawful nonimmigrant status, 

permanent residence (evidenced by a “green card” and received 

either after arrival at a port of entry on an immigrant visa or, for 

those already present in the United States, upon “adjustment of status”), naturalization, asylum, etc. Secondary immigration benefits 

or interim benefits include work permits (i.e., Employment Authorization Documents, or EADs) and travel documents (e.g., advance 

parole) obtained while awaiting a primary benefit. 

6	 See section V., “Ombudsman Outreach.” 
 

2 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman 

B. Ombudsman’s Accomplishments 

During the reporting period, the Ombudsman made eight 

formal recommendations and numerous informal recommendations to USCIS. The eight recommendations covered 

the following humanitarian, family, and business issues: 

(1) improving the motions to reopen/reconsider process; 

(2) expansion of payment methods for USCIS customers; 

(3) streamlining EB-5 investor visa processing; (4) challenges 

in humanitarian categories for victims of trafficking and specified criminal activity; (5) the E-Verify program that checks 

an individual’s employment eligibility; (6) naturalization; 

(7) immigration processing for foreign nurses; and (8) timely 

issuance of Employment Authorization Documents (EADs) for 

eligible applicants. 

The Ombudsman continued to focus on assisting individuals 

and employers with case problems. As discussed further 

in section IV., “Case Problems,” the Ombudsman received 

approximately 4,100 case problems by U.S. mail or courier 

service. The Ombudsman worked to resolve 3,056 case problems with USCIS and replied directly to the inquirer in the 

remaining 1,038 case problems. In addition, the Ombudsman 

received over 7,200 e-mails during the reporting period.7 

Working alongside USCIS, the Ombudsman initiated a special 

program to assist individuals with the processing of delayed 

EADs, an issue that arose following the 2007 surge in immigration filings and remained a challenge in 2008 and 2009. 

The Ombudsman also continued its public teleconference 

outreach series on issues such as nurse visas, investor visas, 

DNA testing, and motions to reopen. As in previous reporting 

periods, the Ombudsman visited USCIS facilities, including service centers, field offices, and other locations. The 

purpose of these visits was to further understand the issues 

that individuals and employers encountered, identify systemic 

problems, and consult with USCIS field offices on proposed 

solutions. The Ombudsman also held numerous meetings 

with representatives from community-based organizations, 

employer associations, and the immigration legal community. As in prior years, the Ombudsman met with federal 

government agency partners, including representatives from 

the Departments of State, Justice, Commerce, and Labor to 

facilitate interagency coordination and communication. 

To assist Congress in framing comprehensive immigration 

reform, the Ombudsman commissioned a report by the DHS 

Homeland Security Institute (HSI)8

 focused on the resources 

USCIS would require to effectively register, and issue evidence 

of status to, undocumented foreign nationals in the United 

States. This objective, non-partisan study builds on other 

DHS work to prepare for possible enactment of immigration 

reform. 

The HSI study analyzed two implementation approaches: 

paper-based registration and processing, and a hybrid approach to include elements of digitized and paper-based 

processing. The study determined that the hybrid approach 

would be faster, less expensive, more effective, and involve 

fewer implementation risks. The Ombudsman will continue 

to review USCIS’ policies, operations, and workforce issues as 

Congress debates immigration reform. 

Received at cisombudsman@dhs.gov. The Ombudsman also receives 

e-mails at cisombudsman.publicaffairs@dhs.gov, primarily in connection 

with the office’s public teleconferences, and at cisombudsman.trends@ 

dhs.gov, to learn about systemic problems and suggestions for fixing 

them. 

8 HSI now is called the Homeland Security Studies and Analysis 

Institute. 

7 
 

 

 

 

Annual Report to Congress — June 2009	 3 

II. Pervasive and Serious Problems
 

The Homeland Security Act, section 452(c)(1)(B), states that 

the Ombudsman’s annual report shall include a “summary of 

the most pervasive and serious problems encountered by individuals and employers, including a description of the nature of 

such problems.” To identify pervasive and serious problems, 

the Ombudsman meets with nongovernmental stakeholders, 

including community-based organizations, employer associations, and the immigration legal community, as well as USCIS 

personnel at Headquarters, service centers, and field offices. 

The Ombudsman also reviews USCIS statistical reports and 

relevant statutes, regulations, policy memoranda, and operating procedures. Perhaps most importantly, the case problems 

that individuals and employers submit to the Ombudsman 

often reveal systemic problems. 

This year’s Annual Report details pervasive and serious 

problems that have impacted immigration benefits processing 

and initiatives designed to address them, such as challenges 

in managing the green card lines, the USCIS Transformation 

Initiative, customer service, and Requests for Evidence (RFEs) 

that slow adjudications and frustrate customers. Certain 

pervasive and serious problems discussed in previous annual 

reports remain as problems, but are not repeated in this 

Report. These include the need for better USCIS statistics, 

complexity and a lack of standardization of the immigration 

process, and written correspondence as a means for customers 

to contact the agency.9 

In previous years, the Ombudsman also has reported on 

problems with USCIS’ internal communications, including 

those between USCIS Headquarters and the field, as well as 

communications with external stakeholders.10 The agency has 

addressed some of these issues, but many still remain, which 

the Ombudsman does not discuss in detail in this Report. 

However, to assist with interagency communications, during 

the reporting period the Ombudsman facilitated meetings 

between USCIS and federal partner agencies including the U.S. 

Department of State (DOS) on managing the green card line 

and regarding DNA immigration testing issues, as well as with 

Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to ensure that customers receive the right information when they contact USCIS’ 

or CBP’s call center. The Ombudsman anticipates facilitating 

other interagency meetings in the coming year. 

A. Moving Past the Surge: 	Processing 

Times and Backlogs 

In summer 2007, USCIS experienced an unprecedented surge 

in immigration benefits filings that affected various aspects of 

agency operations.11 As the Ombudsman reported last year, 

USCIS encountered a number of challenges in responding to 

the surge.12 The large influx of filings at the service centers 

caused a “frontlog” in intake processing leading to lags in 

data entry, significant delays in issuing receipts, and problems 

securely storing and timely depositing filing fees. In addition, 

the agency announced that processing times in many offices 

had increased, even as USCIS sought to realign existing staff 

and hire new adjudicators.13 

To better understand the surge, the Ombudsman met with 

officials from USCIS Headquarters, the four service centers, the 

9 See Ombudsman’s Annual Report 2008, pp. 33-34, 53-56. 

10 See id., pp. 45-47, and Ombudsman’s Annual Report 2007, pp. 61-65. 

11	 From June to August 2007, USCIS received nearly three million applications compared to 1.8 million filings during the same period 

the previous year. Naturalization applications reached 1.4 million 

in FY 2007, of which 460,000 were received in July. Ombudsman’s 

Annual Report 2008, p. 8. The surge in applications may be attributed to a confluence of factors, including a broad-based increase 

in USCIS fees that took effect in July 2007, grassroots campaigns 

to increase naturalizations prior to the 2008 election season, and 

changes to the July 2007 Department of State Visa Bulletin. Id. 

12	 See id., pp. 8-17. 

13	 For example, estimated processing times for naturalization applications in January 2008 were 16–18 months and 10–12 months 

for green card applications. USCIS, “When Can I Expect USCIS To 

Process My Case,” www.uscis.gov (accessed June 7, 2009). 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4	 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman 

National Benefits Center (NBC), and numerous field offices.14 

The agenda for these sessions included the agency’s major 

challenges during and after the surge, strategies it developed in 

response, and operational changes it has since implemented. 

The Ombudsman concluded that: 

yyWith the expansion of lockbox operations and the centralization of initial processing activities at the NBC, USCIS 

should respond differently to fee intake, receipting, and 

other front-end challenges that may arise in a future surge. 

yyDue to its reliance on fees to fund needed human resources and the difficulties accommodating training for 

new hires, USCIS experienced productivity delays during 

the surge. 

yyThe increase in adjudicatory staff coupled with the current reduction in receipts affords USCIS an opportunity 

to improve processing times and address long-pending 

workloads. 

1.	 Front-End Operations 

a.	 Depositing Fees, Issuing Receipts, and 


Performing Initial Data Entry
 

Prior to the surge, USCIS was aware of the limits on its ability 

to deposit fees timely, issue receipts, and perform initial data 

entry. After 13 years of audits showing the service centers 

unable to timely deposit filing fees,15 USCIS initiated plans to 

shift fee depositing, receipting, and preliminary data entry to 

the Lockbox16 Operations Division, which oversees the expansion and operations of lockbox facilities nationwide. During 

the surge, however, the service centers were still primarily 

responsible for performing intake activities. 

The surge exposed the service centers’ limited intake capabilities. At least two service centers did not have the physical capacity or staff to securely store and promptly process applications. Although the Chicago Lockbox, one of two lockboxes at 

that time, was fully operational during the surge, it could not 

contribute significantly to diminishing the frontlog because of 

its limited capacity.17 

Besides maintaining the Chicago Lockbox, USCIS opened new 

lockbox facilities in Dallas and Phoenix in fall 2008. This 

network of lockboxes not only provides a greater measure of 

security and more efficient depositing of filing fees than the 

service centers, but is also better equipped to respond to both 

anticipated and unanticipated surges. According to USCIS, the 

lockboxes are able to adjust processing capacity to handle disruptions such as a surge in applications or the sudden closure of 

another lockbox facility. The Ombudsman understands that the 

lockbox operator will ramp up contract personnel in the event 

of an unanticipated surge within 90 days with the expectation 

that it process 90,000 filings per day. The lockbox network 

can process up to 36,000 filings daily during regular operations and 68,000 in an anticipated surge, such as Temporary 

Protected Status (TPS) re-registration periods.18 

b.	 Conducting Security Checks and 


Resolving Initial Evidence Issues
 

Since the surge, USCIS has also endeavored to streamline 

initial case processing previously handled by service centers 

or field offices. Prior to the surge, the NBC performed initial 

processing activities, in addition to other duties, for familybased green card applications adjudicated by field offices. 

These activities originally included gathering corresponding 

A-files, as well as underlying approved visa petitions. Over 

time, the NBC’s responsibilities expanded to include conducting background security checks, performing initial evidence 

review, adjudicating ancillary Forms I-864 (Affidavit of 

Support), I-765 (Application for Employment Authorization) 

and I-131 (Application for Travel Document), issuing green 

card application denials to statutorily ineligible applicants, and 

forwarding cases scheduled for an interview to the field.19 

14	 The Ombudsman met with USCIS Domestic Operations and 

Lockbox Operations Division at USCIS Headquarters as well as the 

following field offices: Charleston, Charlotte, Dallas, Hartford, 

Los Angeles, Miami, New Orleans, Newark, Philadelphia, 

San Bernardino, San Francisco, St. Paul, and Washington, D.C. 

15 Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman (Apr. 7, 2009). 

16 A lockbox is “a bank under contract with the Department of 

Treasury that performs fee receipting, fee deposit, and initial data 

entry for specified forms according to business rules established by 

USCIS.” USCIS, “What Role Does the NBC Play?” www.uscis.gov (accessed June 7, 2009). 

17	 However, the Chicago Lockbox was able to deposit fees and perform initial data entry for certain application types, as well as assist 

service centers with standalone Forms I-130 (Petition for Alien 

Relative). Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman 

(Apr. 7, 2009). 

18	 Id. 

19	 Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman (Apr. 17, 

2009); USCIS, “What Role Does the NBC Play?” www.uscis.gov (accessed June 7, 2009). 
 

 

 

 

Annual Report to Congress — June 2009	 5 

While the NBC’s initial processing activities did not change 

markedly during the height of the surge, its responsibilities 

have since expanded. In June 2008, the NBC began processing 

naturalization applications, in addition to green card applications destined for the field for interviews.20 

Continued expansion of the NBC’s involvement in initial processing aims to promote greater consistency in case preparation, minimize the number of continued cases in the field due 

to evidentiary issues, streamline the adjudications process, and 

ultimately reduce processing times. Some of the offices with 

which the Ombudsman met noted that initial processing at the 

NBC has improved the efficiency of adjudications and relieved 

adjudicators of performing routine, often time-consuming 

tasks. Others, however, stated a preference for completing 

initial processing activities in the field to avoid delays as the 

NBC attempts to resolve inefficiencies associated with its new 

responsibilities. 

2.	 Surge Workforce and Training 

a.	 Detailing Existing Personnel, Enlisting Former 

Staff, and Hiring New Adjudicators 

In addition to adding weekend and overtime shifts and increasing processing facilities’ hours of operation, USCIS’ surge 

response involved detailing existing staff to offices with heavy 

workloads and enlisting retired staff to immediately increase 

productivity by avoiding the long training period and learning 

curve of new hires. The success of these efforts varied by 

office. For example, while the Miami Field Office received 

52 detailees in FY 2008 to assist with the surge, other offices 

that were also struggling with the increased workload received 

no detailee help.21 Additionally, because USCIS only rehired 

72 retired adjudicators (or annuitants), the retired annuitant 

program was not entirely successful.22 Although a few offices 

reported that retired personnel were useful in enhancing 

local productivity, several others attributed little benefit to the 

program. 

USCIS also hired new employees via: (1) the 2007 fee 

schedule;23 and (2) a re-programming request to Congress 

for surge hires. However, due in part to USCIS’ reliance on 

increased fees to pay new hire salaries, the first job announcement for the new positions was not posted until October 2007, 

several months after the influx in applications. Because many 

new hires did not begin their jobs until well after several 

field offices began processing surge applications, the extent to 

which new hires assisted with the surge workload is unclear. 

In addition, prioritization of hiring adjudications officers over 

support staff appeared to create a staffing imbalance at many 

field offices. For example, ten field offices received approximately 112 adjudicators funded by the 2007 fee increase, but 

no support staff; likewise, those same offices received 75 

adjudicators under the Federal Career Intern Program, but 

only 16 support staff.24 As a result, many field offices reported 

lacking the clerical help to address the increased workload. 

b.	 Training New Hires25 

Training challenges also delayed new hire productivity. When 

the surge occurred, USCIS was in the process of transferring 

its training program and facility to an Academy dedicated 

solely to training USCIS officers. While the new Academy 

allowed USCIS to increase the number of students trained per 

class from 24 to 48 and hold six concurrent classes, the sheer 

volume of new adjudicator hiring during a concentrated timeframe delayed some new hire training, as shown in Figure 1. 

Due to delays in hiring and the time it takes to train new 

officers, newly hired adjudicators, unable to complete the tasks 

they were hired to perform, assisted with clerical duties and 

shadowed experienced adjudications officers. Moreover, once 

new hires returned from training to their posts in the field, 

they required additional hands-on training, usually involving 

mentoring from a more senior adjudicator. Regarding the 

length of time required to acquire proficiency, one service 

center indicated that its new hires are only now, almost two 

years since the surge, becoming fully productive employees. 

20	 USCIS Update, “Direct Mail Program Adds Form N-400, Application for Naturalization” (Sept. 15, 2008), http://www.uscis.gov/files/ 

article/n-400-sept-15-08-update.pdf (accessed June 7, 2009). 

21	 Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman 

(Apr. 28, 2009). 

22	 Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman (Apr. 2, 2009). 

23	 “Adjustment of the Immigration and Naturalization Benefit Application and Petition Fee Schedule,” 72 Fed. Reg. 29851, 29859 

(May 30, 2007). 

24	 Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman 

(Apr. 29, 2009). 

25	 See section II.H, “USCIS Workforce and Training.” 
 

 

6	 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman 

Figure 1: BASIC Training for New Adjudicators 

Class Start Date Cumulative Total 

of Students 

October 1, 2007 24 

October 15, 2007 47 

January 28, 2008 94 

February 4, 2008 136 

February 11, 2008 175 

February 19, 2008 212 

March 11, 2008 257 

March 18, 2008 298 

March 25, 2008 342 

April 1, 2008 386 

April 15, 2008 434 

April 21, 2008 480 

May 5, 2008 528 

May 12, 2008 574 

May 19, 2008 622 

May 27, 2008 668 

June 3, 2008 716 

June 10, 2008 763 

June 24, 2008 811 

July 9, 2008 858 

July 23, 2008 906 

July 29, 2008 954 

August 5, 2008 1002 

August 12, 2008 1049 

August 19, 2008 1097 

August 26, 2008 1144 

September 3, 2008 1167 

September 3, 2008* 1191 

September 9, 2008 1239 

September 16, 2008 1265 

September 23, 2008 1311 

September 30, 2008 1355 

October 6, 2008 1402 

October 14, 2008 1449 

October 20, 2008 1497 

October 27, 2008 1544 

November 3, 2008 1592 

* USCIS had two classes starting September 3, 2008. 

Source: USCIS Academy 

3. Processing Times and Backlogs 

USCIS set a goal with the May 2007 fee rule “to substantially 

reduce, if not eliminate” its backlog through shorter processing times.26 As part of the fee rule, USCIS announced plans 

to reduce processing times from six to four months for many 

applications, such as green cards, and from seven to five 

months (including the oath) for naturalization applications.27 

The 2007 summer surge brought unprecedented numbers of 

naturalization applications and other filings that interrupted 

these plans. During the surge period, USCIS projections for 

naturalization processing reached 16 to 18 months.28 By 

April 2008, these estimated processing times declined to 13 

to 15 months29 and eight months later had declined to 9 to 10 

months.30 

As of this writing, due to a decline in receipt levels and an 

increase in trained adjudicatory staff, USCIS may achieve the 

processing goals established in the fee rule. Most of the field 

offices with which the Ombudsman met believed they could 

reach agency processing goals for green card and naturalization applications by the end of FY 2009. Figures 2 and 3 

compare processing times during the review of surge cases in 

April 15, 2008 with April 15, 2009. 

USCIS also is positioned to reduce its backlog of pending 

cases. The agency is re-tasking staff at field offices to complete 

long-pending cases from the service centers. Over the last 

few quarters, case completion has exceeded receipts, allowing 

USCIS to gradually diminish its net backlog31 of cases. 

26	 USCIS Production Update, FY 2009, First Quarter, p. 6; Ombudsman’s Annual Report 2008, p. 16 (detailing the agency’s backlog 

definition); section II.E., “Challenges with the USCIS Fee Funding 

Structure.” 

27	 “Adjustment of the Immigration and Naturalization Benefit Application and Petition Fee Schedule,” 72 Fed. Reg. 29851, 29859 

(May 30, 2007). 

28	 USCIS, “When Can I Expect USCIS to Process My Case?” 

(Jan. 16, 2008), www.uscis.gov (accessed June 7, 2009). 

29	 USCIS News Release, “USCIS Updates Projected Naturalization Case 

Processing Time” (Apr. 2, 2008), www.uscis.gov (accessed 

June 7, 2009). 

30	 USCIS Fact Sheet, “USCIS Makes Major Strides in 2008” 

(Nov. 6, 2008), www.uscis.gov (accessed June 7, 2009). 

31	 “Net backlog” refers to the gross backlog minus “the number of 

cases pending once cases cannot be adjudicated due to reasons 

outside USCIS’ control (e.g. FBI name check; visa retrogression)....” 

USCIS Production Update, FY 2008, Fourth Quarter; see also Ombudsman’s Annual Report 2008, p. 16. 
Sacramento,

Cincinna OH

Sacramento,

Cincinna OH

Annual Report to Congress — June 2009 7 

Figure 2: Naturalization Application Processing Times at USCIS Field Offices (Apr. 15, 2008) 

Albany, NY 

9.1 Buffalo, NY 

9.4 

Rochester, NY 

9.4 

Syracuse, NY 

9.4 

Albuquerque, NM 

9.6 

Phoenix, AZ 

11.4 

Tucson, AZ 

12.4 

Los Angeles, CA 

12.8 

Santa Ana, CA 

10.1 

San Bernadino, CA 

8.6 

Dallas, TX 

9.4 

Harlingen, TX 9.3 

Houston, TX 

9.4 San Antonio, TX 

9.4 

Fort Smith, AR 

9.6 

Oklahoma City, OK 

9.6 

New Orleans, LA 

12.4 

Memphis, TN 

12.7 

El Paso, TX 

9.7 

Chula Vista, CA 

9.5 

San Diego, CA 

9.5 

Fresno, CA 

9.4 San Jose, CA 

12.2

 CA 

9.3 

San Francisco, CA 

9.6 

Las Vegas, NV 

11.2 

Reno, NV 

9.1 

Boise, ID 

10.6 

Casper, WY 

9.8 

Helena, MT 

11.0 

Denver, CO 

9.8 

Salt Lake City, UT 

9.2 

Atlanta, GA 

10.2 

Chicago, IL 

9.5 

Milwaukee, WI 

9.4 

Des Moines, IA 

8.6 

Saint Paul, MN 

10.7 

Omaha, NE 

7.1 

ti, 

9.4 

Louisville, KY 

8.8 

Indianapolis, IN 

9.4 

Cleveland, OH 

9.0 

Columbus, OH 

9.0 

Pittsburgh, PA 

9.0 

Detroit, MI 

9.5 

Charleston, SC 11.5 

Jacksonville, FL 9.5 

Orlando, FL 14.7 Tampa, FL 

10.7 

Miami, FL 12.9 

West Palm Beach, FL 10.8 

Kansas City, MO 

9.8 

Wichita, KS 

8.6 

Saint Louis, MO 

11.6 

Charlotte, NC 

12.5 

Greer, SC 

8.6 

Charleston, WV 

9.9 

Baltimore, MD 11.5 

Washington, DC 15.3 

Norfolk, VA 15.0 

Dover, DE 14.0 

Newark, NJ 9.9 

Philadelphia, PA 12.2 

Boston, MA 11.3 

Portland, ME 8.8 

Manchester, NH 11.6 

Saint Albans, VT 

9.3 

Hartford, CT 13.5 

Providence, RI 10.4 

New York, NY 10.8 

Anchorage, AK 10.0 

Agana, GU 9.5 

Charlotte Amalie, VI 9.7 

Christiansted, VI 10.3 

Honolulu, HI 9.4 

San Juan, PR 10.1 

Portland, OR 

9.6 

Seattle, WA 

10.4 

Spokane, WA 

9.4 

Yakima, WA 

9.3 

Source: USCIS Processing Time Data 

Figure 3: Naturalization Application Processing Times at USCIS Field Offices (Apr. 15, 2009) 

Albany, NY 

6.9 Buffalo, NY 

7.8 

Rochester, NY 

7.8 

Syracuse, NY 

7.8 

Albuquerque, NM 

7.7 

Phoenix, AZ 

6.5 

Tucson, AZ 

6.6 

Los Angeles, CA 

7.4 

Santa Ana, CA 

6.5 

San Bernadino, CA 

7.6 

Dallas, TX 

6.8 

Harlingen, TX 12 

Houston, TX 

2.5 San Antonio, TX 

5.5 

Fort Smith, AR 

6.8 

Oklahoma City, OK 

6.1 

New Orleans, LA 

5.4 

Memphis, TN 

8.4 

El Paso, TX 

9.5 

Chula Vista, CA 

6.5 

San Diego, CA 

6.6 

Fresno, CA 

5.7 San Jose, CA 

7.0

 CA 

6.0 

San Francisco, CA 

6.4 

Las Vegas, NV 

7.6 

Reno, NV 

8.1 

Boise, ID 

8.7 

Casper, WY 

6.1 

Helena, MT 

6.2 

Denver, CO 

6.1 

Salt Lake City, UT 

5.5 

Atlanta, GA 

5.5 

Chicago, IL 

6.2 

Milwaukee, WI 

5.6 

Des Moines, IA 

6.0 

Saint Paul, MN 

2.8 

Omaha, NE 

5.5 

ti, 

6.5 

Louisville, KY 

6.0 

Indianapolis, IN 

5.9 

Cleveland, OH 

6.2 

Columbus, OH 

5.5 

Pittsburgh, PA 

5.8 

Detroit, MI 

7.9 

Charleston, SC 5.5 

Jacksonville, FL 6.5 

Orlando, FL 8.2 Tampa, FL 

6.1 

Miami, FL 7.6 

West Palm Beach, FL 8.4 

Kansas City, MO 

6.9 

Wichita, KS 

5.5 

Saint Louis, MO 

7.6 

Charlotte, NC 

5.5 

Greer, SC 

5.5 

Charleston, WV 

5.5 

Baltimore, MD 7.7 

Washington, DC 6.3 

Norfolk, VA 7.6 

Dover, DE 5.5 

Newark, NJ 5.7 

Philadelphia, PA 6.8 

Boston, MA 5.5 

Portland, ME 5.5 

Manchester, NH 5.8 

Saint Albans, VT 

6.4 

Hartford, CT 9.8 

Providence, RI 5.7 

New York, NY 7.9 

Anchorage, AK 8.5 

Agana, GU 5.5 

Charlotte Amalie, VI 5.5 

Christiansted, VI 6.2 

Honolulu, HI 6.4 

San Juan, PR 7.5 

Portland, OR 

5.5 

Seattle, WA 

6.9 

Spokane, WA 

5.5 

Yakima, WA 

5.7 

Source: USCIS Processing Time Data 
 

 

 

 

 

 

8	 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman 

B. USCIS Modernization32 

In previous reporting periods, the Ombudsman emphasized 

the importance of USCIS modernization to address a number 

of agency-wide challenges. Improved case management 

systems, for example, would enhance file tracking capabilities 

to limit the number of lost files.33 Additional data storage 

would enable faster and more thorough security checks.34 

User-friendly, electronic application options would enhance 

customer service.35 However, USCIS solutions were constructed in response to individualized processes throughout 

different branches, rather than to meet operational objectives 

throughout the agency as a whole. USCIS developed the 

Transformation Initiative (Transformation) to integrate the 

mostly decentralized improvements. 

During the reporting period, the Ombudsman monitored the 

following USCIS modernization efforts: 

yyDeployment of the Transformation Initiative – A multiyear solution for modernization through new, proprietary 

systems that would transition USCIS from a fragmented, 

paper-based process to a centralized, electronic environment. 

yyDevelopment of Pilot Projects – These projects – including the Biometrics Storage System, the Secure Information Management Service, the Identity Management Pilot, 

and the Digitization Pilot – seek to modernize a range of 

USCIS systems. 

yyCurrent USCIS Processes – Various USCIS functions – including data collection mechanisms, document and mailing technologies, and fingerprint refresh systems – can 

be improved immediately, while USCIS develops more 

permanent solutions within Transformation. 

1. Looking Ahead to USCIS Transformation 

In November 2008, USCIS awarded a $491 million 

Transformation Solution Architect Task Order contract to 

IBM.36 Transformation addresses three functional areas:37 

yySecurity – Centralization of fragmented systems into one 

robust system will allow USCIS to: (1) store, retrieve, 

and assess greater volumes of biometric data; (2) perform 

faster, more direct security checks; and (3) improve communication among partner agencies.38 

yyCustomer Service – Customers will be able to establish online accounts; update personal profiles; and electronically 

complete, file, and track their applications. The Ombudsman understands that USCIS plans to be able to adjudicate 

cases within specified timeframes, and provide greater 

transparency with regard to case status and immigration 

benefits available to customers. 

yyOperational Efficiency – Central storage of digitized 

cases will facilitate better case management and tracking, 

as well as faster processing, data sharing, and adjudications. 

a. Timeline 

USCIS has structured Transformation for a five-year deployment composed of seven releases. The first four releases will 

be applied to naturalization cases,39 and the final three will 

focus sequentially on immigrant, humanitarian, and nonimmigrant cases. In March 2009, an IBM stop-work order delayed 

Transformation to allow reassessment of certain processes 

specified by DHS, USCIS, and IBM subject matter experts. At 

the time of this writing, due to the stop-work order, USCIS 

could not provide concrete deployment or release dates. 

32	 This Annual Report section incorporates the Better Case Management Through Paperless Applications, Information Technology, 

The Need for Better Statistics, Streamlining the Fingerprint Process, 

and Card Production sections from the Ombudsman’s 2008 Annual 

Report. 

33	 See Ombudsman’s Annual Report 2008, pp. 31-33. 

34	 See id., pp. 44-45. 

35	 See section III.C.2., “Improving the Process for Payment of USCIS 

Filing Fees and Other Costs.” 

36	 USCIS Interoffice Memorandum, “FY 2008 Accomplishments/FY 

2009 Outlook/Transformation Contract Award” (Nov. 6, 2008). 

37	 USCIS Transformation Program: Concept of Operations, Version 1.5 

(Mar. 28, 2007), p. 4, http://www.uscis.gov/files/nativedocuments/TransformationConOps_Mar07.pdf (accessed June 7, 2009). 

38	 Partner agencies include the Departments of State, Justice, Labor, 

and other Department of Homeland Security components, as well 

as intelligence and law enforcement agencies. 

39	 Releases 1-4 provide the foundation for Transformation by establishing early value projects, account management, case management, and partner agency interface systems that are later expanded 

upon in releases 5-7. Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman (Jan. 29, 2009). 
Annual Report to Congress — June 2009	 9 

Assuming that USCIS is able to get back on schedule, the 

agency informed the Ombudsman that customers’ first tangible Transformation experience will come in February 2011 

with the scheduled rollout of a release allowing naturalization 

applicants to complete, file, and track their applications online. 

Deployment of Transformation requires an effective balance of 

planning and implementation – a challenge USCIS has faced in 

prior modernization efforts. The Ombudsman observes, and 

previous USCIS experience has shown, that the agency should 

work with stakeholder groups to ensure sufficient planning for 

the long-term solution, while setting timelines and benchmarks to keep up with business and systemic advancements. 

b.	 Structure 

The Transformation Program Office (TPO), under the Office 

of Transformation Coordination (OTC), manages the program 

for which both are named. Reporting directly to the USCIS 

Deputy Director, the TPO interacts with USCIS components 

involved in agency-wide modernization efforts. Recently, the 

TPO has also begun to interact with other federal agencies 

that will partner with USCIS in later phases of Transformation. 

The OTC and the TPO collectively have approximately 

40 employees, not including individuals who work with 

Transformation from other components or agencies.40 

c.	 Funding 

Transformation funds originally were provided through 

appropriations; however, since 2008, funding has been, 

and plans to be, derived exclusively from premium processing fees. These fees totaled approximately $212 million 

in FY 2007, $163 million in FY 2008, and $81 million for 

FY 2009 YTD (Oct.-Apr.).41 In March 2009, USCIS informed 

the Ombudsman that a decrease in fee receipts should not 

affect Transformation efforts. 

Although the current IBM contract is valued at $491 million, 

the overall costs of Transformation are unclear. Should USCIS 

uncover the need for additional IT upgrades, the agency 

advised the Ombudsman that the agency could incur substantial additional costs.42 

d.	 Need for Increased Coordination 


and Communication 


Synchronization among the various components tasked with 

designing and implementing Transformation is essential to the 

program’s success. The TPO has established working groups 

with officials from USCIS Headquarters components, service 

centers, and field offices to ensure representation from a crosssection of functions and to assist in planning Transformation 

objectives. 

However, issues with coordination have led to redrafting of 

strategic plans, resulting in delays. For example, in meetings 

with Transformation and the USCIS Office of Information 

Technology (OIT), officials acknowledged a lack of communication between the two components. OIT officials 

indicated to the Ombudsman that the Transformation contract 

contemplated IT capabilities, including adequate bandwidth, 

robust testing environments, and critical systems (such as the 

Biometric Storage System) that were and, in some cases, still 

are not in place (see next section). 

Transformation leadership also acknowledges a communication gap between program officials that plan Transformation 

objectives and IT groups that construct the solutions. Lack 

of understanding between these components on both the 

requirements and obstacles they each face may result in 

redundant work, inefficiencies, and delays. 

2.	 Development of Existing Pilots 

By testing new ideas, pilot projects comprise an intermediary 

step between theoretical models for permanent solutions and 

final adoption of these approaches to systemic problems. 

a.	 Biometric Storage System Pilot 

The Biometric Storage System (BSS) is intended to enhance the 

collection and management of biometric data by consolidation 

into one centralized system.43 When the BSS is fully developed, customers will electronically submit biometric data, 

after which USCIS will use a central conduit – the Enterprise 

40	 Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman 

(Jan. 29, 2009). 

41	 USCIS Fee Collections. 

42	 Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman 

(Mar. 10, 2009). 

43 “Privacy Act; Biometric Storage System of Records,” 72 Fed. Reg. 

17172, 17173 (Apr. 6, 2007). 
 

 

 

 

 

10	 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman 

Service Bus (ESB)44 – to directly forward data for review by 

several government agencies.45 

Development and completion of the BSS is essential to USCIS’ 

goal of becoming a more efficient, electronically-based agency. 

It requires completion before being integrated as a foundational component of Transformation as it: 

yyEnables USCIS to more efficiently assess biometric data, 

allowing the agency to better identify fraud and meet 

national security directives.46 

yyReplaces several antiquated USCIS legacy systems, eliminating duplicative work and simplifying data flow. 

yyIncreases storage capabilities, thereby eliminating the need 

for customers to submit fingerprints every 15 months.47 

yyImproves card and document technologies by storing biometric data and linking with legacy systems to share card 

production data, including identifying card numbers and 

card production status.48 

yyAllows for better communication among government 

databases and personnel through its streamlined functionalities.49 

USCIS continues to face challenges in developing the BSS 

for initial deployment,50 scheduled for August 2009,51 and 

for its full integration into Transformation which is not yet 

scheduled. The OIT now is responsible for the completion 

of the BSS, while the TPO is responsible for its integration 

into Transformation;52 therefore, coordination between 

these offices is essential. However, in discussions with the 

Ombudsman, both groups acknowledged a lack of clarity 

regarding project goals. The TPO is considering the development of a biometrics working group to provide for better 

communication and coordination on how and when the BSS 

will integrate into Transformation.53 

The Ombudsman also understands that the BSS lacks concrete 

timelines for important development goals. Notably, completion of the BSS relies on the absorption of the legacy system, 

the Biometric Benefit Support System,54 into the BSS; yet, 

USCIS informs the Ombudsman that this integration has not 

yet been scheduled. 

b.	 Secure Information Management 


Service (SIMS) Pilot
 

In July 2007, USCIS introduced the SIMS Pilot, an electronic 

case-management system for all international adoption cases. 

In the 2008 Annual Report, the Ombudsman recommended 

that USCIS implement a comprehensive case management 

system and, in particular, evaluate the SIMS pilot as a potential 

model.55 In response, USCIS indicated that it was still determining whether the SIMS pilot could be used for case types 

beyond adoption. USCIS also stated that more information 

would become available following the Transformation contract 

award.56 

USCIS recently indicated that Transformation plans do not 

include development of further versions of the SIMS Pilot, and 

44	 The ESB allows for connectivity among various government agencies, including USCIS, ICE, DOS, and US-VISIT. The ESB supports 

these agencies through returns of “consolidated and correlated 

view[s] of an alien’s past interactions with the Government as he 

or she passed through the U.S. immigration system.” USCIS 2008 

Annual Report Response, p. 7. 

45	 The BSS will interface with numerous internal and external government agencies, including US-VISIT/IDENT, the FBI, and DOS. 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security, “Privacy Impact Assessment for the Biometric Storage System,” p. 11 (Mar. 28, 2007). 

46 See “Privacy Act; Biometric Storage System of Records,” 72 Fed. Reg. 

17172, 17173 (Apr. 6, 2007). 

47 See section II.B.3.c., “Streamlining the Fingerprint Process.” 

48	 See “Privacy Act; Biometric Storage System of Records,” 72 Fed. Reg. 

17172, 17173 (Apr. 6, 2007); see also section II.B.3.b., “Document 

and Mailing Technologies.” 

49	 See “Privacy Act; Biometric Storage System of Records,” 72 Fed. Reg. 

17172, 17173 (Apr. 6, 2007). 

50 Ombudsman’s Annual Report 2008, p. 44. As noted in that report, 

BSS has been in development for several years. 

51 Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman (Mar. 26, 2009). 

52	 The Transformation Program Office was originally tasked with 

developing the BSS, but in October 2008, the pilot was transferred 

to the OIT for completion. Information provided by USCIS to the 

Ombudsman (Nov. 14, 2008). 

53	 This working group will include various components, including 

USCIS, the FBI, and US-VISIT. Information provided by USCIS to 

the Ombudsman (Mar. 10, 2009). 

54	 “[The] BBSS is a legacy system that serves as the conduit from 

USCIS to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) for conducting 

fingerprint biometric background checks and storing the results.” 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security, “Privacy Impact Assessment for the Biometric Storage System,” p. 2 (Mar. 28, 2007). 

55 Ombudsman’s Annual Report 2008, pp. 24-25. 

56 USCIS 2008 Annual Report Response, pp. 6-7. 
 

61

 

 

Annual Report to Congress — June 2009	 11 

that it is unclear whether SIMS will continue to be used for 

future management of adoption cases.57 

c. Identity Management Pilot 

The Identity Management Pilot (also referred to as 

“Enumeration”) uses a randomly generated number to 

link an individual to his or her biometric data, providing a 

person-centric view of an individual’s information throughout 

multiple government agencies. 

Last year, the Ombudsman reported that the Identity 

Management Pilot was fully developed, but that there was no 

timeline for deployment within USCIS.58 USCIS began assigning enumerators to individuals in the SIMS Pilot. However, 

as noted in the previous section, the SIMS Pilot will not be 

further developed. 

Currently, there are no plans to expand the use of enumerators via other USCIS initiatives.59 Instead, USCIS informs 

the Ombudsman that, beginning in July 2009, enumerator 

technology will be used by the DOS for individuals who apply 

for benefits under the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety 

Act of 2006.60 

d. Digitization Pilot 

RECOMMENDATION 1 

The Ombudsman recommends that USCIS immediately 

begin scanning immigration files that are likely to be needed 

for future adjudications.61 (AR2009-01) 

USCIS operates in a largely paper-based environment, as 

customers file applications and petitions on paper forms with 

hard copies of supporting documentation. The nearly six 

million paper immigration files that USCIS receives yearly and 

moves among agency offices raise file tracking issues often 

leading to delayed adjudications, lost files, and the need for 

customers to make case status inquiries with USCIS.62 

Millions of historic paper files are necessary for future adjudications. Digitization of these cases now would provide USCIS 

the means to use scanned case files later in the immigration 

process. Digitization of completed Forms I-485 (Application 

to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status), for example, would streamline the processing of future naturalization 

applications filed by these individuals. Digitizing current cases 

for future use would lessen USCIS’ burden of storing, tracking, 

and retrieving physical case files and, thereby, increase agency 

processing efficiency and responsiveness to customers.63 

In fall 2006, the agency initiated the Paperless Data-Sharing 

Pilot, which provides USCIS the capability to “scan, digitize, 

and make electronic files available to all authorized users.”64 

At the Records Digitization Facility (RDF) in Kentucky, 

USCIS digitizes approximately 50,000 immigration case files 

per month.65 Scanned images are stored in the Enterprise 

Document Management System (EDMS), which provides 

licensed users (e.g., USCIS adjudicators and DHS law enforcement officials) with online access to these digitized immigration case files. 

The RDF initiated digitization services by scanning TPS case 

files and oversized files from the USCIS National Records 

Center. However, most re-registered TPS applications do not 

benefit from digitization, as they are adjudicated using a case 

management program that does not use the scanned files. The 

RDF is currently scanning approximately 350,000 Temporary 

(T-) and A-files from the Law Enforcement Support Center 

57 Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman (May 18 and 

27, 2009). 

58 Ombudsman’s Annual Report 2008, p. 26. 

59 Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman (May 18, 2009). 

60 Pub. L. No. 109-248 (July 27, 2006). 

61	 See generally USCIS, “USCIS Electronic Filing for Immigration Benefits,” www.uscis.gov (accessed June 7, 2009). USCIS currently adjudicates e-filed applications and petitions using existing paper-based 

processes; USCIS does not use digital images of e-filed applications 

and petitions to complete processing. 

62	 See USCIS Annual Report 2008, p. 30; see also section II. G., “File 

Transfers and Tracking.” 

63	 See U.S. Department of Justice News Release, “INS Dedicates National Records Center in Lee’s Summit, Missouri” (Feb. 25, 2000), 

www.uscis.gov (accessed June 7, 2009). 

64 USCIS 2007 Annual Report Response, p. 1. 

65 The RDF, which opened in September 2006, originally received 

$20 million in appropriated funds, and its FY 2008 and FY 2009 

budgets were $28 million and $29 million, respectively. Under 

contractual production goals, the RDF is to digitize 50,000 file 

equivalents per month (a file equivalent is 125 pages, but many files 

are much larger or smaller). As of June 2009, the RDF had digitized a total of approximately 725,500 files. Information provided 

by USCIS to the Ombudsman (June 15, 2009). 
 

 

12	 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman 

(LESC).66 These immigration files have a law enforcement 

nexus and, according to USCIS officials, are ideal files to scan 

because the LESC does not release files during an investigation 

that may be needed by USCIS for adjudications. The RDF also 

has scanned limited numbers of naturalization, petition-based, 

and asylum case files. 

Last year, the Ombudsman issued AR2008-02, a recommendation that USCIS publicize near-term goals for the digitization 

efforts. USCIS responded that it had, “begun to educate other 

DHS and non-DHS components about the initiatives.”67 From 

this beginning, USCIS’ recent upgrade of its EDMS storage 

capacity has allowed for the addition of thousands of users.68 

Finally, on March 16, 2009, USCIS initiated “On-DemandScanning,” which involves phasing in case digitization at the 

National Records Center based on specific requests.69 

The Ombudsman will continue to monitor the progress of 

USCIS’ digitization efforts. 

3. Improving Everyday Processes 

Innovative use of available resources may enhance certain existing systems until Transformation improves future processes. 

a. Obtaining and Maintaining Better Statistics 

In the 2008 Annual Report, the Ombudsman highlighted the 

importance of collecting and maintaining accurate statistics 

and reports.70 For example, statistical data were integral in 

66	 The Law Enforcement Support Center is an ICE program that provides “immigration status and identity information to local, state, 

and federal law enforcement agencies on [individuals] suspected, 

arrested, or convicted of criminal activity.” See generally U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, “Law Enforcement Support 

Center” http://www.ice.gov/partners/lesc/index.htm (accessed May 27, 

2009). 

67	 USCIS 2008 Annual Report Response, p. 9. 

68	 Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman (Sept. 2008) 

(The upgrade increased system capacity from 2,500 users to 15,000 

users. According to USCIS Records Division officials, there are no 

issues with EDMS storage space.) 

69	 Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman (Mar. 16, 

2009). In the first phase, scheduled to run for six months, the 

National Records Center will scan approximately 1,365 files per 

month based on requests e-mailed to its Information Liaison Division. The second phase will include phoned-in expedite requests 

for scanning and will add approximately 7,000 files per month. 

The third phase will add system-generated expedite requests and 

FOIA requests with approximately 16,500 additional requests per 

month for a total of approximately 24,900 per month. 

70	 Ombudsman’s Annual Report 2008, pp. 33-34. 

structuring USCIS’ Backlog Elimination Plan and, later, in 

determining how fees in the USCIS fee review could recover 

the costs of processing and adjudicating immigration cases. 

These data are not only useful for USCIS’ tracking purposes, 

but also to provide Congress and other stakeholders a quantitative basis for making comparisons. 

Since 1991, the agency (or its predecessor, legacy INS) has 

used the Performance Analysis System (PAS) to track and 

maintain statistics and reports. However, PAS relies on 

manual data entry, which has led to inaccurate and inconsistent reporting by field offices and service centers. USCIS has 

contemplated replacing PAS with the enterprise Performance 

Analysis System (ePAS), which by accumulating data electronically, rather than manually, should streamline data collection 

and improve usability.71 USCIS has not yet designed ePAS, and 

has no timeline for deployment. 

b. Document and Mailing Technologies 

One of the final steps for individuals engaged in the immigration benefits process is the receipt of certain identifying cards, 

permits, and documents from the USCIS Integrated Document 

Production (IDP) Branch. Part of the Domestic Operations 

Directorate of USCIS, the IDP Branch is responsible for 

overseeing and managing the facilities that develop, personalize, issue, and deliver secure USCIS documents. It currently 

produces, for example, green cards, EADs, Reentry Permits, 

and Refugee Travel Documents. 

USCIS document production and mailing processes have 

raised concerns, as there is no mechanism by which to track 

delivery of USCIS documents to ensure receipt by the proper 

recipient.72 Last year, the Ombudsman highlighted some of 

the issues that may arise from delivery problems, including 

lost or stolen documents and unnecessary delays.73 

i. Document Production 

In summer 2009, USCIS plans to embed Radio-Frequency 

Identification chips in green cards.74 These chips will allow 

71	 USCIS 2008 Annual Report Response, p. 8. 

72	 See “Adjustment of the Immigration and Naturalization Benefit Application and Petition Fee Schedule, Proposed Rule,” 72 Fed. Reg. 

4888, 4899 (Feb. 1, 2007). USCIS currently delivers secure documents via USPS first class mail. 

73	 Ombudsman’s Annual Report 2008, p. 60. 

74	 Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman 

(Apr. 30, 2009). 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

87

 

 

Annual Report to Congress — June 2009	 13 

DHS to verify an individual’s identity and other data through 

real-time queries against lookout databases, and will aid CBP 

in determining admissibility at a port-of-entry.75 

In fall 2009, USCIS plans to issue a machine-readable Form I-766 

that will act as both an EAD and an advance parole document.76 

This “combo-card” will be available to eligible permanent 

resident applicants who request both interim benefits. 

ii. Mailing Technologies 

The IDP Branch has worked to improve its mailing capabilities 

and enhance delivery of secure USCIS documents through 

the Secure Mail Initiative (SMI).77 Since SMI’s inception in 

July 2008, USCIS has shipped 75,000 travel documents to 

customers via USPS priority mail with delivery confirmation.78 

Currently, the pilot is limited to Reentry Permits and Refugee 

Travel Documents issued by the Nebraska Service Center 

(NSC), but will expand in two phases to include all USCIS 

secure documents. 

Phase 1, scheduled for deployment in summer 2009, will 

allow for two to three day delivery of all secure documents via 

the USPS Priority Mail service with delivery confirmation.79 

During the same timeframe, USCIS will also launch the Card 

Personalization System Technology Refreshment, which links 

individuals to their secure documents through a combination 

of unique identifiers, allowing for increased accuracy and 

security in mailing.80 

Phase 2 will include the addition of a new card production 

facility, as well as provide several avenues through which 

customers may inquire with USCIS as to the status of card 

75	 See U.S. House Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on 

Homeland Security hearing on “Biometric Indentification” (Mar. 

19, 2009) (written testimony of Kathleen Kraninger, DHS Deputy 

Assistant Secretary for Policy, Screening Coordination, and Robert 

A. Mocny, Director of US-VISIT, DHS National Protection and Programs Directorate), http://appropriations.house.gov/Witness_testimony/HS/ 

Kathleen_Kraninger_3_19_09.pdf (accessed June 7, 2009). 

delivery.81 Customers will be able to call the National 

Customer Service Center or access USCIS Case Status Online 

to receive the USPS delivery tracking number, which they can 

then use on the USPS website to track the delivery. Phase 2 is 

tentatively scheduled for deployment in March 2010.82 

c. Streamlining the Fingerprint Process 

Many applications, petitions, and other benefits require that 

customers submit fingerprints for USCIS to conduct fingerprint-based background checks. USCIS considers fingerprints 

valid for 15 months, and requires customers to submit new 

fingerprints if the adjudication of their case is not completed 

during the validity period.83 

In the 2008 Annual Report, the Ombudsman discussed the 

issues associated with the process of resubmitting fingerprints, 

including inconvenient fingerprint appointments for customers and case delays.84 Additionally, FBI fees for individual 

fingerprint refreshes have resulted in the following costs 

to USCIS: $866,933 in FY 2008, $247,360 in FY 2007; and 

$392,224 in FY 2006.85 

The BSS should improve fingerprint processing. Besides 

replacing the legacy fingerprint storage systems with a centralized system that will eliminate the need for resubmission 

of fingerprints, its functionalities include updated security 

features.86 Meanwhile, until the BSS is fully developed, USCIS 

should develop temporary mechanisms to improve fingerprint 

refresh capabilities. 

BEST PRACTICE 

The NSC and Texas Service Center (TSC) can now refresh 

batches of up to 7,000 fingerprints each day, eliminating the 

need for many employment-based customers to return to 

Application Support Centers (ASCs) for new fingerprints.87 

76	 Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman (Apr. 30, 2009 

and May 20, 2009). 

77	 See “Adjustment of the Immigration and Naturalization Benefit Application and Petition Fee Schedule, Proposed Rule,” 72 Fed. Reg. 

4888, 4899 (Feb. 1, 2007). 

78	 Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman 

(Apr. 30, 2009). 

79 Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman (Feb. 9, 2009 

and Apr. 30, 2009). 

80 Id. 

81 Id. 

82 Id. 

83 USCIS National Stakeholder Meeting – Answers to National Stakeholder Questions (Mar. 25, 2008, revised Apr. 3, 2008), http://www. 

uscis.gov/files/nativedocuments/MARCBOQA.pdf (accessed June 7, 2009). 

84 Ombudsman’s Annual Report 2008, p. 44. 

85 Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman (June 2, 2009). 

86 See section II.B.2.a., “Biometric Storage System.” 

87 Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman (May 8, 2009). 
 

 

 

 

14	 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman 

C. Managing the Employment-Based Green 

Card Line 

In previous annual reports, the Ombudsman discussed the 

many complexities impacting the immigrant visa process, i.e., 

the green card line.88 This year’s discussion focuses principally on three issues: USCIS case management limitations; the 

difficult task of coordinating different departments’ activities 

in administering the immigrant visa process; and, the future 

impact of the 2007 surge on the employment-based preference 

categories. 

1. Key Points 

yyUSCIS continues to lack full visibility of its employmentbased green card case inventory due to its antiquated 

case-management IT systems. This well-known problem 

remained a significant operational and planning constraint 

on USCIS in 2008, and may remain so for years to come. 

yyUSCIS’ inability to fully identify its case inventory contributed to fluctuations in the DOS Visa Bulletin89 that, in part, 

led to the 2007 surge in immigration filings.90 

yyBased on current estimates of employment-based green 

card queues, visa wait-times within some preference categories for certain nationals may exceed 10 years. 

2. Employment-Based Immigrant Visa Allocations 

The INA establishes an annual ceiling of 140,000 employmentbased immigrant visas91 and limits the number of such visas 

available within each of the five employment preference 

categories. In addition, the INA limits the number of visas 

that nationals of any single country may use annually to 

approximately 25,620; of this single country total, approximately 9,800 are allocated to employment-based cases, and 

the remaining visas are distributed among the family-based 

categories.92 DOS administers the statutory visa allocation 

process by publishing in the Visa Bulletin cutoff dates for 

each family and employment-based immigration preference 

category.93 

As shown in Figure 4, in FY 2008, USCIS used approximately 

90 percent of all employment-based immigrant visas. In FY 

2008, DOS processed 75 percent of the worldwide total of 

family-based immigrant visas overseas.94 

3. USCIS’ Case Management Challenges Continue 

During the reporting period, USCIS continued to be negatively 

impacted by antiquated case management IT systems that 

impair visibility of its existing case inventories. Data capture 

deficiencies in several product lines – including Form I-140 

(Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker) – deprive USCIS of 

information needed to assess and reconcile mission priorities, engage in short and mid-term planning, and efficiently 

allocate resources. 

The Computer Linked Application Information Management 

System (CLAIMS 3) is one of the primary databases used 

by USCIS adjudicators. Developed for legacy INS in 1990, 

CLAIMS 3 became operational in 1993 and today holds over 

78 million files, including both active and inactive cases.95 

CLAIMS 3’s main strengths have been its reliability and 

scalability. The system’s weakness lies with its inflexibility to 

system upgrading necessary to capture and report new data as 

form types and business needs change. 

88	 Ombudsman’s Annual Report 2008, pp. 18-20; 2007, pp. 32-37; 

2006, pp. 13-16; and 2005, pp. 9-11. 

89	 The Visa Bulletin is a publicly available document used by both 

DOS and USCIS to determine which of the thousands of pending immigrant visa cases may be processed to completion during 

a given month; i.e., those cases where an immigrant visa (either 

family-based or employment-based) may be issued as their place in 

line is reached. 

90 Ombudsman’s Annual Report 2008, pp. 8-9. 

91 INA, § 201(d). 

92	 “Section 202 prescribes that the per-country limit for preference 

immigrants is set at 7% of the total annual family-sponsored and 

employment-based preference limits, i.e., 25,620.” DOS Visa Bulletin (June 2009), http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_1770. 

html (accessed June 8, 2009). 

93	 U.S. employers and family members file petitions with USCIS to 

bring individuals to the United States permanently. Upon the 

initial filing, USCIS, or the Department of Labor for most employment-based cases, provides the foreign beneficiary named in the 

petition a “priority date” – a date establishing that individual’s 

place in line relative to other beneficiaries of the same category and 

nationality. For most preference categories, DOS must establish a 

cutoff date because demand exceeds supply. The term “cutoff date” 

refers to the date published in the Visa Bulletin on or before which 

an immigrant petition must be submitted to be eligible for green 

card issuance during that month. 

94	 “2008 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics,” DHS Office of Immigration Statistics, at Table 7. 

95	 Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman 

(Dec. 19, 2008). 
 

Annual Report to Congress — June 2009	 15 

Figure 4: FY 2008 Worldwide Usage of Employment-Based Visas 

Statutory 

Allocations 

Immigrant Employment Category Worldwide Usage USCIS Consumption of 

Worldwide Visas Used 

DOS Consumption of 

Worldwide Visas Used 

Percent Total Percent Total Percent Total Percent 

28.6 EB-1 Priority Workers 36,678

 • Principals 15,184 41.4 14,638 96.4 546 3.6

 • Derivatives 21,494 58.6 20,444 95.1 1,050 4.9 

28.6 EB-2 Advanced Degree Professional/ 

Exceptional Workers 

70,046

 • Principals 34,535 49.3 34,054 98.6 481 1.4

 • Derivatives 35,511 50.7 34,778 97.9 733 2.1 

28.6 EB-3 Skilled, Professional and Other Workers 48,899*

 • Principals 20,596 42.1 18,983 92.2 1,613 7.8

 • Derivatives 28,303 57.9 19,994 70.6 8,309 29.4 

7.1 EB-4 Special Immigrants including Religious 

Workers 

9,510*

 • Principals 5,164 54.3 3,791 73.4 1,373 26.6

 • Derivatives 4,346 45.7 2,516 57.9 1,830 42.1 

7.1 EB-5 Employment Creation Investors 1,349

 • Principals 427 31.7 123 28.8 304 71.2

 • Derivatives 922 68.3 208 22.6 714 77.4 

Source: “2008 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics,” DHS Office of Immigration Statistics, at Table 7. * Sums corrected by Ombudsman. 

Going forward, USCIS plans to address the difficulties with 

CLAIMS 3 through Transformation (See section II.B. on “USCIS 

Modernization”). Under this program, the agency envisions 

moving to a centralized and consolidated electronic environment. If USCIS achieves its Transformation objectives, the 

paradigm may shift as the agency gains the real-time awareness of case inventory essential to better manage its resources. 

For now, USCIS relies on CLAIMS 3, as well as a patchwork 

of other local case management systems, to provide it with 

metrics on its existing inventory. For the employment-based 

green card line, USCIS knows the gross count of employmentbased green card application cases, but until USCIS adjudicates 

the underlying I-140s, the agency does not know the exact 

number of cases in queue within each preference category 

by country of chargeability. Lacking such data, USCIS has 

difficulty finding and adjudicating cases in response to the visa 

availability changes reflected in the Visa Bulletin. 

4.	 The Surge and Its Immediate Impact on 

the Employment-Based Green Card Line 

the same period in 2006.96 This section addresses one factor 

causing the 2007 surge: an interagency coordination breakdown between USCIS and DOS.97 

Both USCIS and DOS draw from the same statutorily limited 

pool of immigrant visas allocated annually among the 

five employment-based preference categories, as shown in 

Figure 4. USCIS reviews applications and issues green cards 

to beneficiaries in the United States, while DOS reviews and 

grants immigrant visas to those beneficiaries seeking consular 

processing overseas.98 The separate agencies must coordinate 

their parallel immigrant processing activities to facilitate 

maximum lawful visa number usage within the statutory 

limits, so unused numbers are not lost at the end of the fiscal 

year. 

This kind of coordination is especially challenging in light 

of the case management issues discussed above. USCIS and 

DOS each independently manage and allocate resources to 

achieve operational efficiency and distribute workloads evenly 

As noted in the Ombudsman’s 2008 Annual Report, there was 

a surge of nearly three million immigration filings between 

June and August 2007, representing a 72 percent increase over 

96 Ombudsman’s Annual Report 2008, pp. 8-9. 

97 See also section II.A., “Moving Past the Surge.” 

98 Cf. INA, §§ 221-22 and 245. 
 

16	 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman 

throughout the year. However, these choices lead each entity 

to make decisions affecting the entire immigration system. 

DOS shifted the employment second and third preference 

categories to “current” in the July 2007 Visa Bulletin by removing cut-off dates in these two preference categories. This 

development resulted from lower than anticipated demand for 

employment-based immigrant visas through May 2007. 

Tens of thousands of foreign workers present in the United 

States, many of whom were the beneficiaries of approved 

I-140 petitions with priority dates stretching back as far as 

June 2003, immediately filed green card applications. In 

addition, the removal of Visa Bulletin cutoff dates led to an 

increase of new, concurrently filed cases (i.e., I-140 and Form 

I-485 (Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust 

Status) applications filed together). 

5.	 The Employment-Based Third 

Preference Snapshot 

Since the summer 2007 surge, the Visa Bulletin has moved 

ahead in some employment-based preference categories, 

but retrogressed99 in others. A review of the third preference employment category reveals an April 2009 cutoff 

date of March 1, 2003 for applicants of Mexican nationality, 

representing an advance of approximately 22 months from 

its May 2007 pre-surge cut-off, whereas applicants of Indian 

and Chinese nationality have seen slower advancement.100 

However, for third preference applicants from most other 

countries, the cutoff date retrogressed five months. 

Foreign nationals present in the United States who filed 

employment-based green card applications during the 2007 

surge are eligible to seek “interim benefits” – employment 

authorization and travel permission – while awaiting approval 

of their green card applications. Conversely, employmentbased beneficiaries who were, at the time of the surge, 

expecting to consular process (i.e., be interviewed overseas by 

DOS for their immigrant visas) do not have access to interim 

benefits. More importantly, individuals abroad may have seen 

their prospects of completing the immigration process delayed 

by months or years. For the petitioning employers waiting for 

these prospective workers, such delays impact their planning. 

In addition, if an employer withdraws a petition due to such 

delays, the green card process ends for those workers. 

6.	 Implications for Certain EmploymentBased Second and Third Categories 

Absent legislation providing for additional visa numbers, 

the Ombudsman estimates that some individuals under the 

“India” category in the Visa Bulletin now may wait at least 10 

years to complete immigration processing and obtain a green 

card. This estimate assumes maximum annual preference category and per country usage. If these projections are correct, 

affected individuals will spend many years of their working 

lives as applicants for green cards, i.e., as neither temporary 

workers nor lawful permanent residents. 

7.	 Interagency Liaison Meetings 

The Ombudsman continues to chair and facilitate monthly 

meetings between USCIS and DOS, begun in August 2005, to 

discuss developments affecting the green card line. These developments include labor certification processing, immigrant 

visa usage, remaining visa availability, workload estimates, 

and priority dates. Personnel from the DOS National Visa 

Center and Directors of the California Service Center (CSC) 

and Vermont Service Center (VSC) have joined these meetings 

to facilitate increased communications and resource allocation 

planning on family-based cases. 

As a result of these liaison meetings and through the efforts 

of its leadership, USCIS is working to gain greater visibility 

over its employment-based green card inventory to provide a 

more orderly and transparent process. USCIS Acting Deputy 

Director Michael Aytes, in direct response to a customer’s 

remark, stated that the agency is “working to make this 

information available on [its website].”101 The Ombudsman 

will continue to monitor such developments. 

99	 Retrogression refers to the backward movement of cutoff dates; 

i.e., the date on which a petition must have been submitted to be 

currently eligible for a green card moves to an earlier date in the calendar than was previously published in the Visa Bulletin, thereby 

delaying eligibility. 

100	 Cf. May 2007 and April 2009 Visa Bulletins; http://travel.state.gov/visa/ 

frvi/bulletin/bulletin_1770.html (accessed June 8, 2009). 

101 DHS Leadership Journal, “Addressing Employment-Based Visa Wait 

Times” (Apr. 24, 2009), http://www.dhs.gov/journal/leadership/2009/04/ 

addressing-employment-based-visa-wait.html (accessed June 7, 2009). 
 

 

 

 

Annual Report to Congress — June 2009	 17 

D. Requests for Evidence (RFEs) 

The Ombudsman focused last year on the high issuance rate 

of RFEs for family-based green card applications at the NBC.102 

As reported, the NBC accepted the Ombudsman’s recommendation (AR2008-09) to provide guidance to this group of 

customers via a “tip sheet” highlighting common reasons for 

RFEs and offering hints for avoiding them. 

USCIS may issue an RFE to obtain additional information 

essential to adjudicate a case before making a final decision 

regarding immigration benefits sought. For example, an 

RFE may request vaccination records, court records, or proof 

of a bona fide relationship. The most common reasons for 

family-based RFEs at the NBC are unchanged since last year: 

questions about the Form I-864 (Affidavit of Support); medical 

examinations and vaccination records; and marriage and birth 

records. 

Issuance of RFEs is time-consuming and costly for USCIS. 

Adjudicators and contract personnel must prepare the RFE, 

mail it, and physically store the case file while awaiting a 

response. Customers are similarly burdened by having their 

cases delayed, while also being inconvenienced when RFEs are 

poorly drafted, outdated, or unnecessary. The Ombudsman 

heard concerns about RFEs for several different immigration 

benefits during the reporting period. 

CASE PROBLEM 

The customer filed Forms I-130 (Petition for Alien Relative) 

and I-129F (Petition for Alien Fiancé(e)) for her spouse in 

March 2008. The couple married in another country and 

submitted copies of the marriage certificate with the corresponding relative petitions. The USCIS service center issued 

an RFE a few months later, stating the marriage certificate 

was not certified. The customer again sent a copy of the 

marriage certificate the next month. The I-130 and I-129F 

petitions were both denied in July. The customer contacted 

the Ombudsman. The applicant stated that she should 

not have to pay for an appeal since the denial was Service 

error. The I-130 and the I-129F petitions were reopened and 

approved in August. 

USCIS endorsed the use of tip sheets to reduce the RFE 

burden:103 

USCIS agrees the expanded use of “tip sheets” may 

reduce RFE issuance rates. USCIS has begun developing additional “tip sheets” in the form of processing 

worksheets for each type of application and petition. 

These worksheets will make clear the initial evidence 

required and be made available to the public via the 

agency’s website.[104] 

During the reporting period, USCIS made progress toward 

posting tip sheet guidance online and appears committed to 

providing this information to customers, as discussed below. 

In April 2008, the NBC posted on the USCIS website guidance 

for filings it receives. These include not only the familybased green cards, but such applications as the I-130, Form 

I-131 (Application for Travel Document), and Form I-765 

(Application for Employment Authorization).105 USCIS currently publishes on its website other guidance for customers.106 

Figure 5 shows the number of monthly visits to the USCIS 

website for the NBC tip sheet. There were substantially more 

visits immediately following the issuance of the tip sheet, 

perhaps because it was featured on the USCIS home page at 

that time. 

102 Ombudsman’s Annual Report 2008, p. 47. 

103 USCIS 2008 Annual Report Response, p. 16. 

104 For example, the “Processing Worksheet for FY09 H-1B Filings” 

was available on the USCIS website with the I-129 petition (Petition 

for Nonimmigrant Worker), until replaced by the FY 2010 form. 

Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman (May 1, 2009). 

Other posted guidance includes Form M-735 (Optional Processing Worksheet for FY10 H-1B Filings) and Form M-736 (Optional 

Checklist for Nonimmigrant Religious Workers Filing Form I-129). 

In April 2009, USCIS created a special webpage for H-1B filers. In 

addition, the NBC informed the Ombudsman that a detailed Hague 

Adoption Processing document, “Tips for How to Avoid a Processing Delay,” is presently undergoing final clearance. 

105 USCIS, “Tips for Filing Petitions and Applications to the National 

Benefits Center–April 2008,” http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/ 

menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=72a927c382f39 

110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCRD&vgnextchannel=fe529c7755cb9010VgnV 

CM10000045f3d6a1RCRD (accessed May 11, 2009). Customers send 

certain filings to the Chicago Lockbox for receipting and initial 

data entry, which the NBC then receives. 

106	 See generally www.uscis.gov (accessed June 7, 2009): “General Tips on 

Assembling Applications for Mailing;” “Nebraska Service Center 

FILING TIPS;” “Helpful Hints for Filing a FY 2009 H-1B Cap Case: 

Short Version.” 
 

0

18 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman 

Figure 5: Number of Web Visits for the NBC Tip Sheet 

40,000

36,171

35,000

30,000

25,000

17,342

21,865 18,784 17,840

15,387 15,208 14,213

15,000

20,000

17,012 15,312 15,528 13,735 14,036 10,000

5,000

Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr

08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 09 09 09 09

Source: USCIS National Benefits Center 

The NBC indicated to the Ombudsman that outreach which 

better targets family-based filers may yield lower RFE rates. 

USCIS does not yet have a clear strategy to reach these individuals with the tip sheet information. The challenge involves 

the inherent difficulties in identifying persons needing 

guidance. In meetings with the Ombudsman, the NBC noted 

that community-based organizations serving the immigrant 

community may be able to assist. 

Due to the frequency of customer and stakeholder complaints 

about RFEs, the Ombudsman has begun reviewing RFE rates 

for petitions adjudicated at the service centers: those for the 

petition-based nonimmigrant worker categories H-1B, L-1A, 

L-1B, O, and R.107 These visas are issued after approval of an 

underlying Form I-129 (Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker). 

Figure 7 indicates some noticeable differences in the RFE 

rates for the same category as between the VSC and CSC. In 

addition, certain categories appear to have higher RFE rates 

than others. USCIS has stated its willingness to implement 

Source: USCIS National Benefits Center measures to reduce RFE rates and improve processing.108 

Figure 7: RFE Rates for Selected Nonimmigrant Worker Categories (percent) 

Despite hopes for a significant reduction in RFE rates based 

on the April 2008 tip sheet, the NBC has experienced little 

decline in this rate as shown below. 

Figure 6: RFE Rates for the National Benefits Center (percent) 

NBC officials noted to the Ombudsman reasons why drafting 

and publishing the tip sheet was a valuable exercise: 

(1) the exchange of ideas at the NBC, and between the NBC 

and service centers using tip sheets, clarified which areas 

of immigration processing typically cause problems for 

customers; (2) the information exchange enabled the NBC 

to further refine its RFE issuance; and (3) the lack of rate 

decline may illustrate the limited effectiveness of web-based 

guidance in reaching the target audience. The NBC observed 

that family-based filers may have limited English ability, or 

lack the Internet access or technological experience to obtain 

web-based information. 

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

2006 2007 2008 2009

51

56

44

25

30

47 49

41

28

47 45

67

54 63

38

45

47

55

58 56

48

37

49

43

40

44

32

39 39

27

45

36 38

43

50

38

28

50

39

32

Year H-1B L-1A L-1B O R 

VSC CSC VSC CSC VSC CSC VSC CSC VSC CSC 

2006 12.7 7.1 10.0 13.6 4.4 12.6 9.3 15.4 18.1 36.3 

2007 11.4 11.0 11.5 16.9 4.4 32.5 7.2 13.3 0.0 39.2 

2008 11.8 11.6 12.2 20.0 21.9 24.8 8.2 13.2 10.0 22.9 

Source: Data provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman (May 28, 2009) 

107 The nonimmigrant worker categories are defined as follows: H-1B 

(Specialty Workers); L-1A (Intracompany Transferee, Executive/ 

Managerial); L-1B (Intracompany Transferee, Specialized Knowledge); O (Extraordinary Ability); and R (Religious Worker). 

108 USCIS 2008 Annual Report Response, p. 16. 
Annual Report to Congress — June 2009	 19 

In the next reporting period, the Ombudsman intends to 

review RFEs service-wide. Anecdotally, for field offices, the 

Ombudsman observed the following best practices. 

BEST PRACTICE 

The New York Field Office schedules an “RFE day” every 

other week. Applicants are given new appointments to bring 

RFE responses for final adjudication to the same adjudications 

officer who conducted the initial interview. 

BEST PRACTICE 

The Raleigh-Durham Field Office issues a specific date and 

time for customers to return to the office with the documents 

responsive to an RFE. The documents are matched with the 

file that day and, in many cases, the adjudicator is able to 

finalize the adjudication. 

E.	 Challenges with USCIS Fee Funding 

Structure 

USCIS, which is dependent on fees to finance its operations,109 

is impacted by decreases in application/petition receipts, as 

during the reporting period. In discussing revenue stability, 

the GAO notes that “a decrease in application volume could 

significantly affect operations when an agency receives nearly 

all of its funding from application fees.”110 

1.	 Application Filing Fees and Revenue 

As shown in Figure 8, USCIS collected approximately $2.25 

billion for FY 2008 (plus $163 million in premium processing 

revenue), which was $77 million less than projected in the 

May 2007 fee increase.111 Further, in the last several months, 

the agency has received fewer receipts than projected due to 

various factors, including the current economic climate. 

2.	 Fee Reviews 

USCIS conducted a comprehensive fee study for the first 

time in almost 10 years prior to implementing new fees in 

109 INA § 286(m) states, “Notwithstanding any other provisions of 

law, all adjudication fees as are designated by the Attorney General in regulations shall be deposited as offsetting receipts into a 

separate account entitled ‘Immigration Examinations Fee Account’ 

in the Treasury of the United States, whether collected directly by 

the Attorney General or through clerks of courts ....” Provided 

further, “That fees for providing adjudication and naturalization 

services may be set at a level that will ensure recovery of the full 

costs of providing all such services, including the costs of similar 

services provided without charge to asylum applicants or other 

immigrants. Such fees may also be set at a level that will recover 

any additional costs associated with the administration of the fees 

collected.” See also U.S. Office of Management and Budget, “Circular 

A-25, Revised: Memorandum for Heads of Executive Departments 

and Establishments: User Charges,” http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/ 

circulars/a025/a025.html (accessed June 9, 2009). 

110	 U.S. Government Accountability Office Report, “Federal User Fees: 

Additional Analyses and Timely Reviews Could Improve Immigration and Naturalization User Fee Design and USCIS Operations,” 

GAO-09-180, p. 21 (Jan. 2009), http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09180. 

pdf (accessed June 9, 2009). 

111	 “Adjustment of the Immigration and Naturalization Benefit Application and Petition Fee Schedule,” 72 Fed. Reg. 29851, 29874 (May 

30, 2007); see also U.S. GAO Report, “Federal User Fees: Additional 

Analyses and Timely Reviews Could Improve Immigration and Naturalization User Fee Design and USCIS Operations,” GAO-09-180, 

p. 22 (Jan. 2009), http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09180.pdf (accessed 

June 9, 2009). 
20	 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman 

Figure 8: USCIS Fee Revenue (sorted by FY 2009 YTD) (1,000s) 

Form FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2008 YTD 

(Oct. - Mar.) 

FY 2009 YTD 

(Oct. - Mar.) 

I-485 (Application To Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status) $ 277,924 $448,429 $ 226,810 $193,754 

I-765 (Application for Employment Authorization) $ 234,081 $276,137 $ 157,511 $170,412 

N-400 (Application for Naturalization) $ 390,512 $375,081 $ 205,292 $139,986 

I-130 (Petition for Alien Relative) $ 165,887 $225,683 $ 108,249 $111,497 

Biometrics Fee -- Photograph and Fingerprint Fee $ 208,863 $175,056 $ 104,694 $88,398 

I-90 (Application to Replace Permanent Resident Card) $ 120,324 $132,616 $ 82,816 $59,293 

Premium Processing $ 212,117 $162,878 $ 66,226 $54,265 

I-129 (Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker) $ 90,588 $131,138 $ 47,105 $41,552 

I-751 (Petition to Remove the Conditions of Residence) $ 32,993 $96,283 $ 48,337 $39,830 

I-131 (Application for Travel Document) $ 84,699 $89,983 $ 43,631 $30,266 

I-539 (Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status) $ 47,249 $57,356 $ 28,450 $24,596 

I-140 (Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker) $ 46,247 $56,078 $ 36,314 $11,896 

N-600 (Application for Certification of Citizenship) $ 22,032 $20,453 $ 8,834 $10,980 

I-290B (Notice of Appeal or Motion) $ 14,912 $22,965 $ 12,013 $10,302 

I-129F (Petition for Alien Financé(e)) $ 11,449 $18,356 $ 9,165 $8,793 

N-565 (Application for Replacement of Naturalization Citizenship Document) $ 8,298 $9,734 $ 4,954 $4,162 

I-824 (Application for Action on an Approved Application or Petition) $ 7,389 $8,266 $ 4,248 $3,130 

I-192 (Application for Advance Permission to Enter as a Nonimmigrant) $ 1,314 $4,960 $ 2,125 $3,052 

Subtotal $ 1,976,877 $2,311,451 $ 1,196,778 $1,006,164 

All Other Forms $ 102,473 $105,008 $ 54,045 $43,556 

Grand Total $ 2,079,350 $2,416,459 $ 1,250,823 $1,049,720 

Source: USCIS Fee Collections (Data as of April 2009) 

May 2007.112 The Chief Financial Officers (CFO) Act of 1990 

requires an agency’s CFO to review fees every two years.113 In 

2007, USCIS indicated that it was “committed to update its 

fees through a similar analysis [as in 2007] at least once every 

two years.”114 This year, consistent with the CFO Act, the 

agency informs the Ombudsman that it has completed another 

comprehensive fee review and will determine whether any 

increase in fees is required. 

3. May 2007 Fee Rule Objectives 

In the May 2007 fee rule, USCIS outlined a number of goals 

and enhancements to improve application processing and 

customer service.115 Among these goals, USCIS committed to a 

20 percent reduction in overall processing times by the end of 

FY 2009, and to four month processing on four key benefits116 

by the end of FY 2008: 

yyForm I-90 (Application to Replace Permanent Resident 

Card) 

yyForm I-485 (Application to Register Permanent Residence 

or Adjust Status) 

yyForm I-140 (Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker) 

yyForm N-400 (Application for Naturalization) 

112	 “Adjustment of the Immigration and Naturalization Benefit Application and Petition Fee Schedule, Proposed Rule,” 72 Fed. Reg. 

4888 (Feb. 1, 2007). 

113	 Pub. L. No. 101-576 (Nov. 15, 1990). 

114	 “Adjustment of the Immigration and Naturalization Benefit Application and Petition Fee Schedule, Proposed Rule,” 72 Fed. Reg. 

4888, 4895 (Feb. 1, 2007). 

115	 “Adjustment of the Immigration and Naturalization Benefit Application and Petition Fee Schedule,” 72 Fed. Reg. 29851, 29853 (May 

30, 2007). 

116	 USCIS Press Release, “USCIS Sets Final Fee Schedule to Build an 

Immigration Service for the 21st Century” (May 30, 2007) (“These 

four applications types represent one-third of all applications 

filed.”) http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/FinalFeeRulePressRelease052907. 

pdf (accessed June 9, 2009). 
 

 

Annual Report to Congress — June 2009	 21 

In last year’s Annual Report, the Ombudsman expressed 

concern that the agency might be unable to meet all of these 

goals due to the increase in workload during the 2007 surge, 

and identified the reduction in processing times as particularly 

problematic.117 

USCIS recently commented on this subject: 

In our 2007 fee rule we committed to improving 

service .... Although we knew we could not reach 

[the goals] in FY 2008 because of the large surge, 

we believed it was important to remain true to the 

commitments we made ....118 

As of March 31, 2009, USCIS reported the following processing times119 regarding the forms targeted for processing time 

reduction to four months or less: 

yyI-90 (4.3 months) 

yyI-140 (8 months) 

yyI-485 (7.1 months – family-based) 

yyN-400 (6.1 months) 

With six months remaining to meet its goal, USCIS is close to 

reaching the target only for green card renewals. However, 

USCIS reports that it has met its FY 2009 goal of reducing 

processing times by 20 percent for certain other frequently 

used forms.120 

4. Unfunded Programs 

In 2006, the Ombudsman described certain programs for 

which USCIS collects no fees and receives no additional 

appropriations.121 For example, USCIS funds the asylum and 

refugee program, military naturalizations, and fee waivers 

with a surcharge that applicants for other benefits must pay. 

The Ombudsman has described that paying for unfunded 

programs with fees from other petitions and applications 

exacerbates USCIS funding problems, and notes that USCIS 

requested appropriations for its unfunded programs in DHS’ 

2010 budget request.122 

5. Premium Processing 

During the reporting period, USCIS continued to offer its 

premium processing service for an additional $1,000 fee on 

certain applications.123 The agency must respond within 15 

days with a grant, denial, or request for evidence, or return 

the $1,000 fee. USCIS provides premium processing for 

Forms I-129 (Petition for A Nonimmigrant Worker) and 

certain I-140 beneficiaries. The Ombudsman reported last 

year that with the influx of applications in summer 2007, 

USCIS suspended premium processing for I-140s.124 As of this 

writing, premium processing for I-140s is available in limited 

circumstances.125 

As shown in Figure 8, in FY 2009 YTD (Oct. - Mar.) USCIS 

received almost 20 percent less premium processing revenue than for the same period in FY 2008. For the month 

of April, USCIS received nearly 10 percent less premium 

processing revenue in 2009 than 2008.126 In the 2008 

Annual Report, the Ombudsman suggested that a decline in 

premium processing revenue may have a negative impact on 

the agency’s Transformation efforts and that USCIS should 

consider other sources of funding. In its 2008 Annual Report 

Response, USCIS stated that it could use “revenue from other 

Immigration Examinations Fee Accounts (IEFA) for transformation purposes ... as long as appropriate notification is 

provided to Congress.”127 

Finally, in the 2007 Annual Report, the Ombudsman recommended that USCIS conduct a thorough, transparent, and independent analysis of premium processing costs as compared 

with regular processing.128 Specifically, the analysis should 

122	 See DHS, “Budget-in-Brief, FY 2010,” pp. 129-30, www.dhs.gov (accessed June 9, 2009). 

123	 See 8 U.S.C. § 1356(u). Note that USCIS “may adjust this fee according to the Consumer Price Index.” Id. 

124 Ombudsman’s Annual Report 2008, p. 23. 

125 USCIS Fact Sheet, “USCIS Offers Premium Processing Service for 

Certain Form I-140 Petitions Starting June 16, 2008” (June 11, 

2008), www.uscis.gov (accessed June 9, 2009). 

126 In April 2009, USCIS received approximately $26 million and in 

April 2008, approximately $29 million. USCIS Fee Collections. 

127 USCIS 2008 Annual Report Response, p. 6; see also section II.B., 

“USCIS Modernization.” 

128 Ombudsman’s Annual Report 2007, p. 50 (Recommendation #7). 

117	 Ombudsman’s Annual Report 2008, p. 22. 

118	 “USCIS Processing Time Goals,” last updated April 2, 2009, www. 

uscis.gov (accessed June 5, 2009). 

119	 “USCIS Operating Performance – March 2009,” http://www.uscis.gov/ 

files/nativedocuments/operating_performance_mar2009.pdf (accessed 

June 5, 2009). 

120	 Id.; see also section II.A., “Moving Past the Surge.” 

121	 Ombudsman’s Annual Report 2006, p. 28. 
22 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman 

include a comparison for each stage, including: contractor 

costs, federal employee costs, and all other associated costs. 

USCIS began implementation of this recommendation during 

the last reporting period. In March 2009, at USCIS’ request, 

the Ombudsman provided comments on USCIS’ draft study 

of this issue. The Ombudsman understands that the agency is 

continuing work on this study. 

F. Customer Service and Public Inquiries 

USCIS provides information to the public in several ways, 

including: the USCIS website; the web-based Case Status 

Online; the National Customer Service Center (NCSC) toll-free 

telephone line; INFOPASS appointments at field offices; and 

written correspondence. USCIS’ customer service personnel 

are a devoted team of professionals and the agency dedicates 

considerable resources to customer service. However, the 

inability to communicate directly with USCIS supervisors and 

adjudicators means that those seeking immigration benefits 

can seldom obtain immediate resolution to problems. As a 

result, individuals and employers use the resource intensive 

customer service avenues, such as the NCSC toll-free line and 

INFOPASS appointments, on multiple occasions for the same 

question. Overall, USCIS customer service remains a pervasive 

and serious problem. 

The following case problems illustrate difficulties customers 

encounter when they contact multiple customer service 

avenues: 

CASE PROBLEM 

A customer filed Form I-485 (Application to Register 

Permanent Residence or Adjust Status) in March 2002. 

During an INFOPASS appointment in winter 2008, USCIS 

informed him that two family member’s cases had been 

transferred from one service center to another and that 

his application was administratively closed the previous 

summer. He never received any information regarding the 

movement of the case or detailing why the case was closed. 

Moreover, Case Status Online indicated that the closed case 

was pending. The applicant contacted the Ombudsman in 

January 2009. USCIS approved the case after it had been 

pending for seven years, and he received his green card a 

few months later. 
 

 

Annual Report to Congress — June 2009 23 

CASE PROBLEM 

A naturalized citizen lost his naturalization certificate in 

2008. The citizen filed Form N-565 (Application for a 

Replacement Naturalization/Citizenship Document) in July 

2008. USCIS approved the application and, in fall 2008, 

mailed the replacement. The customer never received the 

document and learned that his new certificate was returned 

to a service center. The NCSC informed him that USCIS 

would re-send the document. For five months, he called 

the NCSC on multiple occasions, as he still did not have the 

document. When the NCSC instructed him to file another 

N-565 and again pay the $380 fee, the customer contacted 

the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman recommended that the 

replacement naturalization certificate be sent to the applicant 

without a new fee and the agency sent the replacement 

certificate in spring 2009. 

In the 2008 Annual Report, the Ombudsman recommended 

that USCIS standardize proactive dissemination of information 

to all customer service avenues to ensure USCIS personnel can 

provide consistent and accurate information to customers.129 

During the reporting period, the Ombudsman understands 

that the NCSC did receive more advance information, which 

better enabled its customer service personnel to address 

callers’ concerns. The Ombudsman encourages the agency to 

continue such efforts. 

In its Annual Report Response, USCIS acknowledged that 

providing accurate and comprehensive information is critical. The agency stated that senior managers conduct weekly 

meetings to provide updates and inform field managers about 

upcoming guidance and/or issues that may impact operations. 

Specifically, USCIS stated: 

Employees are notified daily regarding specific administrative, procedural and/or operational changes. 

The Office of Communications (OCOMM) assists 

employees who have questions or concerns regarding internal broadcast announcements. 

New guidance and policies are disseminated electronically through internal mechanisms such as the 

agency’s intranet. USCIS believes that the Office of 

Field Operations and Information and Customer 

Service Division (ICSD) could strengthen their communication to ensure ICSD knows as soon as possible 

of new information to facilitate its incorporation into 

Call Center Scripts.130 

1. Improving the USCIS Website 

The USCIS website is a critical tool for customers to obtain 

general immigration information, make INFOPASS appointments, review case status, and access the latest USCIS policies 

and procedures. Continued improvement to the site may 

reduce customers’ visits to field offices and calls to the NCSC, 

as well as diminish the agency’s issuance of RFEs and rejections of applications/petitions. 

In the 2008 Annual Report, noting the website’s importance 

to customers, the Ombudsman recommended that USCIS 

examine whether it has devoted adequate resources to the 

website.131 In response, USCIS indicated that it: (1) filled two 

staff positions, one assigned to develop the website’s Spanish 

language version; (2) hired two contractors to work on content management and development; (3) continues improving 

navigation and search engine capabilities; and (4) “will soon 

introduce a new survey to the agency’s website that applies the 

American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) standards.”132 

During the reporting period, stakeholders continued to complain to the Ombudsman about the site’s complexity, limited 

search capability, and complicated language. For example, 

the USCIS webpage, “How Do I Use the Premium Processing 

Service?”133 is lengthy and quite complicated. Moreover, 

premium processing information provided contradicts another 

webpage: one indicates premium processing is available for 

certain Form I-140 (Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker) 

petitions, while the other page states that premium processing 

is not available for I-140s.134 The Ombudsman shares such 

inconsistencies with USCIS, and the agency welcomes this 

input. 

129 Ombudsman’s Annual Report 2008, p. 34. 

130 USCIS 2008 Annual Report Response, p. 10.
 

131 Ombudsman’s Annual Report 2008, p. 36.
 

132 USCIS 2008 Annual Report Response, p. 12. 


133 See www.uscis.gov (accessed June 9, 2008). 


134 See USCIS, “Request for Premium Processing Service, www.uscis.gov
 

(accessed June 9, 2009) 
 

 

 

 

24 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman 

Despite noting such shortcomings, the Ombudsman recognizes several website improvements, either implemented or in 

development, during the reporting period: 

yySpanish Language Website – USCIS developed a Spanish 

language version of its website, which it expects to launch 

in summer 2009.135 

yyHome Page Redesign – As of this writing, USCIS was 

in the process of redesigning its home page. Changes 

planned include streamlining the way that customers find 

information on the website. USCIS expects to launch 

the redesign by the end of FY 2009.136 The Ombudsman 

understands that USCIS will begin using the ACSI survey 

at the same time as it launches the new home page. 

yyImmigration Forms Page – This section, now referred 

to as the online information center, breaks down forms 

by general categories: employment-based, family-based, 

green card applications, humanitarian benefits, and citizenship and naturalization forms.137 

Going forward, the Ombudsman encourages USCIS to continue evaluating whether it has provided sufficient resources to 

the website, given the importance of this tool. 

2. Case Status Online 

The Internet-based Case Status Online remains a key venue 

to obtain information on pending applications and petitions. 

USCIS customers who have a receipt number for their application/petition can use this tool to check the status of their 

cases.138 

However, customers continue to voice dissatisfaction with the 

limited information offered through Case Status Online. For 

example, for many applications/petitions, it only indicates that 

the case is “received and pending;” it does not specify where 

the case is in the adjudications process. Moreover, the system 

only provides the most recent event, which makes it difficult 

for customers to follow the progress of their cases. 

Another recurring complaint the Ombudsman hears from 

customers is that the information in Case Status Online is 

not current. USCIS informed the Ombudsman that case 

status generally updates when USCIS systems interface with 

Case Status Online. CLAIMS 3, the USCIS mainframe case 

management system which contains all immigration benefits 

applications except N-400s (Application for Naturalization), 

interfaces every 15 minutes.139 CLAIMS 4, which does contain 

N-400 applications, interfaces once a day.140 However, USCIS 

indicated to the Ombudsman that these updates do not always 

occur. USCIS informed the Ombudsman that improvements 

to Case Status Online should correct the interface problem and 

are scheduled for fall 2009. 

In addition to correcting the interface problem, Case Status 

Online will offer another feature with the implementation 

of Phase 2 of the Secure Mail Initiative.141 Customers will be 

able to check the delivery status of their documents through 

Case Status Online where they will receive a USPS Delivery 

Confirmation Tracking Number. 

3. National Customer Service Center (NCSC) 

Communicating with USCIS via the NCSC remains a source 

of frustration for individuals and employers. Although some 

customers report positive experiences, the Ombudsman continues to hear from many others that the NCSC is not helpful, 

or provides incorrect or inconsistent information, as compared 

with other USCIS customer service avenues. 

The NCSC operates on a two-tier model for live assistance 

from six call center locations nationwide.142 Tier 1 is 

managed by two contractors employing Customer Service 

Representatives (CSRs) in Indiana, Kentucky, New Mexico, 

and Texas. Tier 2, located in New York and California, 

consists of USCIS Immigration Information Officers (IIOs) 

who answer calls transferred from Tier 1. 

Last year’s Annual Report included a detailed review of call 

center issues; in this reporting period the Ombudsman 

conducted a follow-up study. Field research included visiting 

135 Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman 

(Apr. 16, 2009). 

136 Id. 

137 USCIS, “Immigration Forms,” www.uscis.gov (accessed June 9, 2009). 

138 USCIS Case Status Service Online, https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/jsps/index.jsp 

(accessed June 9, 2009). 

139 Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman (Mar. 9, 2009).
 

140 Id.
 

141 See section II.B., “USCIS Modernization.”
 

142 The National Customer Service Center can be reached at 


1-800-375-5283. 
 

 

 

Annual Report to Congress — June 2009 25 

Tier 1 in Ft. Worth, TX; meeting with both Tier 1 contractors; 

listening to randomly selected Tier 1 calls to both contractors; 

visiting Tier 2 in New York to meet with Tier 2 IIO supervisors 

and leadership, and listen to calls; and meeting with USCIS 

Headquarters officials who address issues at both call centers. 

a. Previous Call Center Recommendations 

In the 2008 Annual Report, the Ombudsman made three call 

center-specific recommendations. 

First, the Ombudsman recommended that USCIS develop an 

exchange program for USCIS staff – including personnel at 

Tiers 1 and 2 of the NCSC and IIOs who handle INFOPASS 

appointments – who routinely work directly with USCIS 

customers.143 USCIS agreed in part and disagreed in part with 

the recommendation by drawing a distinction between Tier 

1 and Tier 2. The agency said such an exchange would not 

benefit Tier 1 representatives, because they are contractually 

prohibited from deviating from USCIS’ scripted information. 

However, “USCIS finds merit to an exchange program for Tier 

2 personnel and IIOs who handle [INFOPASS] appointments 

and has already conducted several such exchanges.”144 

The Ombudsman understands that during the reporting 

period Tier 2 supervisors and quality assurance staff visited 

a Tier 1 location to better understand the work of the CSRs. 

In addition, three CSRs and three Tier 1 supervisors visited a 

field office to learn what information USCIS provides during 

INFOPASS appointments. Finally, the INFOPASS staff visited 

a Tier 1 location to understand the type of information CSRs 

provide. The Ombudsman encourages USCIS to continue 

these exchanges to enhance the ability of customer service 

personnel to provide helpful information to customers. 

Second, the Ombudsman recommended that USCIS ensure 

its Tier 1 contractors follow the scripted information and are 

properly notified of changes to scripts.145 USCIS agreed with 

this recommendation and stated that: 

[S]everal information quality controls are already in 

place .... 

...Tier 1 representatives are contractually obligated 

to adhere to the scripts. Tier 1 CSRs are continually 

reminded that the information in the scripts may 

change. As such, they are instructed not to memorize the scripts and not to deviate from them.146 

However, in this reporting period, the Ombudsman continued 

to find that Tier 1 CSRs do not consistently follow the scripts. 

Failure to do so sometimes results in negative consequences 

for customers, as well as added agency costs when customers 

make multiple calls to the NCSC or visits to field offices seeking clarification. 

During the reporting period, USCIS replaced the independent 

third party contractor responsible for monitoring Tier 1 via 

“mystery shopper” calls: “the contractor calls the NCSC and 

grades all aspects of the conversation – from showing proper 

respect to the caller to providing accurate and comprehensive 

responses.”147 However, few of the 22 competencies evaluated relate to the content of information provided to the 

customer.148 

The Ombudsman encourages USCIS to ensure that this recommendation, AR2008-07, is followed as well as: (1) review 

separately each contractor’s performance to determine adherence to scripted information, and (2) reconsider the valueadded by Tier 1 to the customer service program when CSRs 

often do not provide the information in the scripts. 

Finally, the Ombudsman recommended that USCIS ensure all 

of its systems used by customer service personnel to provide 

information to the public are consistent and accurate.149 

143 Ombudsman’s Annual Report 2008, p. 39. 

144 USCIS 2008 Annual Report Response, p. 12. 

145 Ombudsman’s Annual Report 2008, p. 40. 

146 USCIS 2008 Annual Report Response, p. 13.
 

147 Id., p. 14.
 

148 The 22 competencies include: “Greeted Customer,” “Verified 


Customer,” “Established Rapport,” “Used Customer’s Name,” “Expressed Empathy,” “Maintained Composure,” “Expressed Commitment to Assist,” “Offered Additional Assistance,” “Terminated Call 

Appropriately,” “Obtained Information,” “Listened Actively,” “Took 

Responsibility,” “Summarized Actions,” “Projected Enthusiastic 

Tone,” “Conveyed Confidence,” “Spoke with Clarity,” “Used Appropriate Language,” “Controlled Call,” “Used Time Efficiently,” 

“Minimized ‘Dead Air,’” “ Extended Hold Courtesies,” and “Transferred Call Appropriately.” See Tier 1 Monthly Mystery Shopper 

Report. 

149 Ombudsman’s Annual Report 2008, p. 42. 
 

 

 

26 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman 

USCIS agreed with this recommendation. The agency stated 

it was working to correct recently discovered data interface 

problems between the CLAIMS systems and the customer 

service systems. USCIS acknowledged that the customer 

service IT system “needs modernization” and provided 

information on plans to update the system.150 In addition, 

USCIS described a planned 24-month project to use current 

technology as follows: (1) Phase 1 – CSRs and IIOs will have 

“an integrated view of the customer’s inquiry;” (2) Phase 2 – 

introduction of real-time status reporting of service requests; 

(3) Phase 3 – offices able to update data online in real time; 

and (4) Phase 4 – more customer service options, including 

customers’ ability to submit service requests online.151 

b. Tier 1 

During the reporting period, the Ombudsman noted certain 

positive developments regarding Tier 1 such as USCIS: 

(1) provided information prior to certain events so Tier 1 

could better prepare to assist customers, and worked closely 

with Tier 1 to expeditiously update scripted answers as questions arose; (2) continued work toward posting on its website 

the scripts used by CSRs; and (3) introduced new E-Verify 

scripts that are more user-friendly for CSRs than other scripts. 

USCIS is reviewing whether the E-Verify approach to scripts 

can be used in other contexts. 

Concerns regarding Tier 1 include: 

yyLengthy, Complicated Scripted Information – The 

Ombudsman understands that scripts are often unrelated 

to the person’s inquiry, redundant, and not user-friendly. 

As a result, callers conclude that CSRs are not listening 

to their inquiries when they provide such information, 

although the CSRs may be reading the information designated as responsive to a certain issue. 

yyInteractive Voice Response – In 2008, USCIS implemented a new version of the automated information – referred 

to as the Interactive Voice Response (IVR) – at the start of 

an NCSC call. Callers push a series of telephone buttons to 

try to reach live assistance and, as a result, make recorded 

menu selections that may not reflect their inquiry. Because 

the corresponding pop-up computer screen that gives the 

CSR information selected by the caller does not correspond 

with the caller’s question, the CSR must re-start the series 

of scripted questions often further delaying the inquiry. 

According to USCIS, the new IVR is still under review. 

yyScripts in English Only – As reported last year, all scripts 

are still only in English. Some CSRs are fluent in English 

and Spanish and, upon receiving inquiries from Spanishspeaking callers, must perform a simultaneous translation of the relevant scripts. USCIS is currently developing 

Spanish scripts. 

c. Tier 2 

Customers generally report better experiences if/when they 

are able to reach Tier 2. While call centers often have substantial turnover, Tier 2 is staffed not by contractors, but by 

experienced IIOs with immigration knowledge. During the 

reporting period, other USCIS components were more proactive in sharing with Tier 2 new agency developments that 

affect the public, thereby enabling the IIOs to provide more 

timely information to customers. In addition, within the last 

year, Tier 2 obtained greater access to USCIS systems allowing 

them to provide additional information to callers. 

Tier 2 facilities now collect statistics on the types of calls received and share this information with the USCIS Information 

and Customer Service Division. 

Most criticism of Tier 2 reflects the need for additional support 

from the agency itself, rather than concern about the information provided. In many instances, the problems are reported 

by the IIOs themselves: 

yyLack of Information Once File is Transferred – Once a 

file is transferred from a service center to a local office, 

IIOs can no longer see in the USCIS database systems what 

is happening with the case and can only refer individuals to the local office. IIOs explained that there are times 

when customers visit the local office at the NCSC’s suggestion only to have the local office refer them back to the 

NCSC. 

yyLack of Visibility of RFEs – IIOs cannot electronically 

view the actual RFEs sent to customers; they only can 

view that an RFE was mailed. Lacking the ability to 

review the RFE language itself, IIOs must send a request 

to field offices for them to respond to customers’ RFE 

inquiries. Due to the timeframe for this process – field 

offices generally have 30 days to respond to such service 

150 USCIS 2008 Annual Report Response, p. 15. 

151 Id., p. 15. 
 

 

Annual Report to Congress — June 2009 27 

requests – the time to respond to an RFE often lapses before customers receive a reponse. 

yyLack of Information about Field Office Practices – IIOs 

lack access to much of the specific information about 

field offices. As a result, they sometimes cannot provide 

requested clarification about variations in local practice, 

which partly results from a lack of standardization. IIOs 

often learn about local office distinctions from the customers themselves. 

yyStaffing – Tier 2 still has multiple unfilled positions, as 

described in the 2008 Annual Report.152 Moreover, Tier 

2 still does not have a permanent supervisor over both 

Tier 2 locations, as USCIS continues to rotate this position. 

Despite challenges posed by this continual change, Tier 2 

continues to make progress. 

USCIS indicated in its 2008 Annual Report Response: 

[The agency] believes that it is meeting a majority of its customer service goals at the NCSC. To 

provide perspective, the NCSC answered 1,313,740 

phone calls from April 1 through June 30 of this 

year. During that time, USCIS received fewer than 

10 formal complaints about the service provided by 

the NCSC. 

In the next reporting period, the Ombudsman intends to 

continue review of the NCSC’s effectiveness and, additionally, 

the USCIS complaint process. 

4. INFOPASS 

INFOPASS is a free online service for customers or their 

representatives to schedule in-person appointments at USCIS 

field offices. 

BEST PRACTICE 

The New York District Office provides a survey to the public 

to gather feedback on INFOPASS. Managers monitor and 

review the survey weekly to address concerns raised. 

a. Availability of Appointments 

During the reporting period, the Ombudsman tested the 

availability of INFOPASS appointments by trying to schedule 

appointments at various field offices. Generally, INFOPASS 

appointments are available. However, there are a few offices 

where customers periodically experience delays in making 

appointments. 

BEST PRACTICE 

The San Diego District Office allows customers to schedule 

an INFOPASS appointment at any of the three full-service 

field offices within the district regardless of the customers’ 

residential zip code. 

b. Delays at INFOPASS Appointments 

INFOPASS eliminated the long lines outside USCIS field offices, 

but delays continue inside some field offices where applicants 

wait to be seen for appointments. Delays may be due, in 

part, to IIOs’ lack of immediate access to case files when 

providing information at the field office counters. Prior to 

recent changes in USCIS position classifications, officers who 

provided information at the counter did not have authority 

to adjudicate cases. As described in section II.H. on “USCIS 

Workforce and Training,” USCIS’ new position classifications 

provide for Immigration Service Officers with adjudicatory 

authority to staff these appointments. 

Some offices schedule designated times for customers to 

return to the office with additional information requested by 

the Immigration Service Officer adjudicating the case. Those 

customers do not need to schedule INFOPASS appointments. 

c. Kiosks 

In 2005, USCIS agreed with an Ombudsman recommendation 

for USCIS to provide each field office with kiosks or computers 

for customers to make INFOPASS appointments.153 As of this 

writing, USCIS informed the Ombudsman that 76 kiosks are 

currently working nationwide, as compared with 33 at this 

time last year.154 USCIS has 19 more offices in which to install 

kiosks and expects to complete all installations by the end of 

FY 2009.155 

152 Ombudsman’s Annual Report 2008, p. 41. 

153 See USCIS second response to Recommendation #12, p. 6 

(May 25, 2005). 

154 Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman 

(Mar. 24, 2009); see also Ombudsman’s Annual Report 2008, p. 43. 

155 Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman 

(May 20, 2009). 
 

G. File Transfers and Tracking 

RECOMMENDATION 2 

The Ombudsman recommends that USCIS establish new 

protocols to ensure that relevant contract staff consistently 

record all A-file movement as outlined in the Records 

Operations Handbook. (AR2009-02) 

RECOMMENDATION 3 

The Ombudsman recommends that through the TriBureau Working Group (USCIS, Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement (ICE), and Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP)) USCIS expeditiously institute mandatory training 

of all personnel who work with A-files, specifically special 

agents, investigators, and officers. (AR2009-03) 

As discussed in the 2008 Annual Report, challenges remain 

with the transfer and tracking of A-files.156 The Ombudsman 

described the various instances in which A-files are transferred 

from one location to another and provided information on the 

National File Tracking System (NFTS),157 the primary means by 

which USCIS locates A-files. The Government Accountability 

Office also has described the issues with file tracking, stating 

that “missing A-files can hinder USCIS’ ability to uncover 

immigration benefit fraud and limit DHS’ ability to take 

enforcement actions.”158 

The availability of A-files is crucial to ensure that the “right 

applicant receives the right benefit in the right amount of 

time, while preventing the wrong applicant from obtaining 

[immigration] benefits.”159 When an A-file is lost or misplaced, customer service suffers. Without the A-file, USCIS 

generally cannot make decisions on pending immigration 

benefits applications for green cards or naturalization. 

Not only are customers’ lives disrupted while USCIS locates 

missing A-files, but individuals and employers also spend 

significant time contacting USCIS, making recurring inquiries 

through the USCIS Case Status Online system, calling the 

National Customer Service Center, and arranging to be away 

from their jobs to attend INFOPASS appointments at local 

USCIS offices. 

CASE PROBLEM 

In March 2004, a principal applicant and her spouse filed 

Forms I-485 (Application to Register Permanent Residence 

or Adjust Status). After an interview in fall 2005, USCIS 

informed the couple that they would receive their green 

cards within a few weeks. As of 2007, the couple still had 

no green cards. For two years, they made several inquiries 

with USCIS. In June 2008, the spouse received his approval 

notice, but the other application remained pending. At an 

INFOPASS appointment, her A-file was listed as lost since 

2007. Even with a lost file, she and her spouse received 

a field office letter indicating that their green cards were 

approved. After some time, USCIS informed her that her 

case was still pending and her spouse should not have been 

approved first. She contacted the Ombudsman in January 

2009. A few months later, USCIS found her file and approved her green card. 

BEST PRACTICE 

Related to file management, the VSC now will accept duplicate copies of final court dispositions in TPS cases where 

previously a certified original was required. This practice 

should result in time and cost savings for affected applicants. 

BEST PRACTICE 

The VSC issues separate “Routing Sheets” for customers to 

use as cover sheets for general correspondence, not RFEs, 

to be added to the file. These Routing Sheets: (1) should 

facilitate the timely and efficient insertion into the file 

of case-related customer updates mailed to VSC’s general 

correspondence mailbox, and (2) are used to notify USCIS 

of changes in the attorney of record information. Timely 

receipting and routing of such information to the file should 

reduce errors and improve the overall delivery of customer 

service. 

28	 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman 

156 Ombudsman’s Annual Report 2008, pp. 28-32.
 

157 Id., p. 31. 


158 U.S. GAO Report, “Immigration Benefits: Additional Efforts 


Needed to Ensure Alien Files Are Located when Needed,” GAO07-85 (Oct. 2006), http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-85 (accessed 

June 7, 2009). 

159	 “USCIS Strategic Plan – Securing America’s Promise,” p. 7 

(July 2005), www.uscis.gov (accessed June 7, 2009). 
 

Annual Report to Congress — June 2009	 29 

1.	 Previous File Transfers and 

Tracking Recommendations 

In the 2008 Annual Report, the Ombudsman recommended 

that USCIS convene a working group to define and implement 

near-term, national file tracking goals.160 In its response to 

the Ombudsman’s recommendation, USCIS agreed and stated 

that it convened a Tri-Bureau working group composed of 

representatives from USCIS, ICE, and CBP.161 The Ombudsman 

understands from USCIS that, since its formation, the 

working-group has developed six initiatives.162 Of the six 

initiatives, two have been implemented, one is the long-term 

digitization project which is part of Transformation, and the 

remaining three initiatives have not yet been implemented.163 

The first initiative to be implemented was the issuance of 

policy guidance outlining safeguards for storing empty file 

jackets or “unassigned” A-files. It establishes that any office 

receiving unassigned A-files must designate an empty file 

jacket coordinator to account for all such unassigned A-files.164 

The second initiative was the formation of a “National File 

Tracking System (NFTS) Working Group to define requirements for system improvements/enhancements.”165 According 

to USCIS, the NFTS working group is now reconciling 

information from NFTS and the Central Index System, another 

system that provides information on the location of A-files. 

As of April 2009, USCIS had identified as lost 156,092 of the 

approximately 60 million A-files it manages.166 

The NFTS Working Group is purging computer systems of all 

file numbers that do not correspond to existing A-files. For 

example, the computer system sometimes assigns temporary 

numbers to EADs. The Central Index System recognizes those 

temporary numbers as A-file numbers when no A-file exists. 

USCIS indicated to the Ombudsman that the agency expects 

the number of lost files to drop once it reconciles the two 

computer systems. Computer system glitches are the cause for 

some lost file reports. For example, the Central Index System 

often shows a seemingly lost A-file as located at a particular 

office, while NFTS shows that the same A-file is located 

elsewhere. 

2.	 Inconsistent Use of NFTS 

The Ombudsman has noted the inconsistent use of NFTS as 

the primary reason for lost or misplaced A-files, despite the 

system’s many features and capacity to store information.167 As 

a result, thousands of A-files are not available at the location 

shown in NFTS.168 The GAO identified this persistent problem 

in an October 2006 report reviewing the availability of A-files 

during USCIS processing of applications for U.S. citizenship.169 

According to the GAO report, USCIS officials stated that the 

unavailability of A-files is because “staff are not using the 

automated file-tracking system.”170 In the same report, agency 

officials suggested that this may be due to “lack of sufficient 

training on how to use the system, while local management may not be adequately emphasizing the importance of 

complying with A-file tracking policies and procedures.”171 

Proper use of NFTS by all who request or handle A-files is 

crucial to providing timely customer service. While USCIS 

stores A-files, ICE and CBP also use them; files travel between 

USCIS and these components daily. The Tri-Bureau Working 

Group has opened the communication lines among these DHS 

components, but more work is needed to ensure consistent use 

of NFTS. 

Contract staff members working with A-files are responsible 

for using NFTS to track and transfer A-files. They are primarily responsible for A-file movement within USCIS, as well as 

160 See Ombudsman’s Annual Report 2008, p. 28. to and from other DHS components, including ICE and CBP. 

161 See USCIS 2008 Annual Report Response, pp. 9-10. 

162 Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman 

(Apr. 14, 2009). 

163 The three that remain to be implemented include: (1) training for 

Record Managers on NFTS reports, which also will be offered to 

ICE and CBP; (2) procedures for yearly audits; and (3) a team to 

address file issues in case of a natural disaster. 

164 USCIS Interoffice Memorandum, “Revised Guidance for Requesting 

and Managing Empty A-file Jackets” (Oct. 16, 2008). 

165 Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman 

(Apr. 14, 2009). 

166	 Id. 

167	 See generally USCIS Interoffice Memorandum, “Case Management 

Timelines” (Oct. 27, 2006) (In addition to tracking and transferring A-files, NFTS is a tool to work towards meeting case processing time goals), www.uscis.gov (accessed June 7, 2009). 

168 U.S. GAO Report, “Immigration Benefits: Additional Efforts 

Needed ...,” GAO-07-85, p. 4 (Oct. 2006), http://www.gao.gov/ 

products/GAO-07-85 (accessed June 7, 2009). 

169	 Id., p. 2. 

170	 Id., “Highlights” page. 

171	 Id. 
 

 

30 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman 

Contractors pull A-files from shelves, coordinate almost all 

A-file transfers, and prepare A-files to make them available for 

customer interviews. 

The Records Operation Handbook, which governs file movement and audits, identifies a primary cause of losing an A-file: 

“someone moves it and does not record the move in NFTS.”172 

The Handbook highlights the importance of tracking files and 

provides step-by-step procedures to follow when A-files are 

moved.173 

The 2006 GAO Report174 stated that numerous lost files were 

found at ICE and CBP offices. USCIS Headquarters informed 

the Ombudsman that USCIS still faces challenges with ICE and 

CBP not consistently using NFTS. Moreover, the Ombudsman 

has learned that ICE does not always agree to additional 

training offered by USCIS on the use of NFTS. Until all three 

components have an equal appreciation for the importance 

of tracking file movement, the problem of lost or misplaced 

A-files will remain. 

H. USCIS Workforce and Training 

1. Workforce 

In the last few years, USCIS managed the largest agency-wide 

hiring campaign in its history and began to implement a 

Workforce Restructuring Initiative. USCIS was authorized 

to hire 2,731 federal employees and restructured all of its 

employees into new generalist position ladders.175 The agency 

informed the Ombudsman that most of the new hires were 

entry-level adjudicators, while fraud and security positions 

received the next highest number of new personnel during the 

first stage of expanded USCIS hiring. 

The USCIS hiring processes included new measures for 

identifying qualified personnel. However, according to USCIS 

offices and officials, challenges involved in funding and implementing new screening measures, as well as training and 

integrating new staff, delayed by months or years some new 

hires’ full productivity. These issues are elaborated further in 

the “Moving Past the Surge” section of this Annual Report. 

USCIS also unveiled restructuring initiatives, in development since 2006, such as one for establishing a career path 

that includes cross-training and advancement opportunities 

designed to retain employees who perform the agency mission 

well.176 These measures are consistent with the Ombudsman’s 

previous recommendations that the agency develop a proactive 

staffing plan that serves customers by enhancing the number, 

type, and capabilities of individuals employed at the agency.177 

a. Unprecedented Workforce Expansion 

Beginning in April 2007, USCIS started preparing for largescale hiring to assist with an expected 2007 surge in filings.178 

USCIS established a Growth Management Oversight Unit to 

review the implementation of new programs detailed in the 

May 2007 fee rule, including the hiring of new staff. The 

agency also streamlined the hiring process itself by adding 60 staff to its personnel security division to assist with 

172 USCIS Records Operations Handbook Part II-22 § A.
 

173 Id., Part II-10 § B.
 

174 U.S. GAO Report, “Immigration Benefits: Additional Efforts Needed ...,” GAO-07-85, p. 11 (Oct. 2006), http://www.gao.gov/products/ 

GAO-07-85 (accessed June 7, 2009). 

175 Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman 

(Mar. 17, 2009). 

176 USCIS Interoffice Memorandum, “IIO Information Regarding 

Workforce Restructuring Model” (July 30, 2008). 

177 Ombudsman’s Annual Report 2008, p. 50; 2007, pp. 71-72. 

178 Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman 

(Mar. 17, 2009). 
 

Annual Report to Congress — June 2009	 31 

background screening of persons selected for employment; 

however, hiring did not begin until late fall 2007.179 

As discussed in the “Moving Past the Surge” section, USCIS 

hired new employees using two initiatives. First, the 2007 

fee schedule180 provided resources for 1,500 new permanent 

positions.181 Second, USCIS requested Congress to authorize a 

reprogramming of the agency budget to add 1,231 temporary 

two-year positions under the Federal Career Intern Program 

(FCIP), about half of which were adjudication positions.182 

Congress authorized this request in February 2008 and FCIP 

personnel were hired by mid-FY 2008 and into FY 2009. 

Several delays in the hiring process lengthened the agency’s 

advertising for, screening of, and placement of new hires. For 

example, the 1,500 permanent positions under the fee rule 

announcements were approved for posting by June 4, 2007 to 

start early recruitment,183 but were not actually posted until 

late October 2007. These delays were due to the agency’s 

reliance on forthcoming fee receipts to fund hiring processes, 

including the administration of thousands of new tests 

designed to screen for qualified applicants.184 

The Ombudsman understands that recent USCIS hiring has not 

kept pace with personnel losses due to retirement and other 

reasons. With agency receipts currently on an overall decline, 

it is unclear what, if any, impact such increased retirements 

will have on workforce planning. 

b.	 USCIS’ After-Action Report and 


Workforce Restructuring Initiative
 

In the 2008 Annual Report, the Ombudsman recommended 

that USCIS review the workforce elements of its 2007 surge 

plan and make public an after-action report of its findings, 

including best practices. USCIS concurred with the recommendation and stated the report would highlight “the significant administrative and operational achievements realized 

through the development of a comprehensive production and 

staffing plan.”185 The USCIS “Growth Management Report” 

chronicles best practices, steps taken, and lessons learned. 

However, USCIS indicated to the Ombudsman that this report 

will not be made public. 

In the 2007 Annual Report, the Ombudsman made a series of 

workforce related recommendations, among them, that USCIS 

reduce dependency on temporary employees and assignments 

by establishing a table of standard staffing levels and office 

organization, and that USCIS comprehensively merge core 

job career paths. USCIS indicated to the Ombudsman that 

the Office of the Chief Financial Officer uses the Table of 

Organization Position System (TOPS), an electronic system 

that informed the surge-era hiring allocations. For example, 

the agency sent immediate hires to offices showing the 

greatest need and assigned those hires delayed due to security 

checks to offices showing less need. 

During the reporting period, USCIS implemented the second 

recommendation from 2007 by developing a new series of 

three generalist positions that encompass all USCIS field positions within them, each with a corresponding career ladder. 

Those positions handling core duties, including adjudications 

and customer service, are now called Immigration Service 

Officers (ISOs) and perform at various levels of seniority in 

that career ladder.186 

Daily duties for ISOs now combine functions previously 

separated between Adjudications Officers and Immigration 

Information Officers (IIOs). The use of generalist positions 

may lead the USCIS workforce toward cross-trained and flexible officers able to perform a range of duties. For example, 

certain ISOs who have authority to make final decisions are 

179	 Id. (Once jobs were posted, 48,000 people applied for the entrylevel adjudicator positions; 27,000 tests were administered and 

USCIS selected 2,000 applicants.) 

180	 See “Adjustment of the Immigration and Naturalization Benefit Application and Petition Fee Schedule,” 72 Fed. Reg. 29851 

(May 30, 2007). 

181	 See U.S. House Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Immigration, 

Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law hearing on “Naturalization Delays: Causes, Consequences, and Solutions” 

(Jan. 17, 2008) (written testimony of Emilio T. Gonzalez, former 

USCIS Director), http://www.uscis.gov/files/testimony/testimony_ETG_ 

17jan08.pdf (accessed June 8, 2009). 

182 Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman, 

(Mar. 17, 2009) (FCIP employees can become eligible to convert to 

permanent status without further competition, if there is on-going 

need for their services. USCIS posted recruiting advertisements on 

3,800 electronic bulletin boards and college-recruitment networks). 

183 Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman (Mar 17, 2009). 

184	 Id. 

185 USCIS 2008 Annual Report Response, p. 17. 

186	 See USCIS Internal Memorandum, “What is the New Workforce 

Model?” (Apr. 2008). 
 

 

 

32	 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman 

now scheduled on a rotating basis to meet with customers at 

the INFOPASS counter, which was previously staffed exclusively by IIOs. 

According to USCIS, the Workforce Restructuring Initiative 

will assist in balancing personnel resources and shifting 

agency workloads, while retaining qualified employees seeking advancement within the agency. 

2.	 Training: Job-Readiness for New Hires 

& Training for New Information 

USCIS trains adjudicators to review applications, perform 

interviews, conduct security checks, and determine eligibility 

for various benefits. Adjudicators have the dual responsibility of providing timely and courteous service to the public, 

and being alert to national security issues and the possibility 

of fraud. In addition to deciding cases in accordance with 

regulation and law, adjudicators must apply new laws, regulations, policies, and guidance. BASIC training is mandatory for 

all new USCIS adjudicators. 

In previous annual reports,187 the Ombudsman discussed 

the need for USCIS to establish comprehensive training for 

its workforce, to improve the skills and knowledge of nonadjudicators, and to evaluate training for non-adjudicators. 

This year’s Annual Report examines: (1) whether new hires 

are job-ready upon completion of BASIC training, and (2) how 

USCIS determines the training adjudicators receive for new/ 

changed laws, regulations, and policies. 

For this review, the Ombudsman met with: (1) the USCIS 

Chief Learning Officer and Chief Human Capital Officer; 

(2) field office management; (3) leadership, instructors, 

and students at the training facilities in Dallas, TX; and 

(4) graduates of the Dallas training facilities at selected field 

offices nationwide. The Ombudsman also visited the National 

Conference Center in Lansdowne, VA, to observe new supervisor training. 

a.	 New USCIS Academy 

Former USCIS Director Emilio Gonzalez announced the new 

USCIS Academy in July 2007.188 According to Gonzalez: 

[T]he Academy would start with an enhanced basic 

training that provides a solid foundation for entrylevel employees and future immigration officers, 

while other components of the Academy would 

provide advanced skills training, offer continuous 

learning opportunities for professional and workforce development, promote leadership and career 

development, and encourage staff to further their 

education during their careers at USCIS through 

reimbursement of expenses for college-level courses 

and studies.189 

In the last few years, USCIS has devoted substantial resources 

to its training programs. In FY 2007, USCIS budgeted $13 

million for training. After the May 2007 fee rule,190 USCIS’ 

training budget increased to $55 million each for FY 2008 and 

2009.191 

As part of the new emphasis on training, USCIS created the 

USCIS Academy. It consists of five main components:192 

yyNew Employee Orientation Program – New adjudicators receive a mentor, learn local policy/procedures, and 

complete mandatory online training. 

yyContinuous Learning (Professional and Workforce 

Development) – Eligible employees take short courses 

or pursue non-degree certificates to enhance job performance. 

yyThe Leadership Education and Development (LEAD) 

Program – This program focuses on current and future 

executives, managers, and leaders for grades GS-5 through 

GS-15.193 

187 See Ombudsman’s Annual Report 2008, pp. 50-52; 2007, pp. 70-75. 

188 USCIS Academy, “Message from Director Emilio Gonzalez: USCIS 

Academy Announcement” (July 12, 2007). 

189 USCIS, “Monthly Newsletter” (Sept. 2007). 

190	 “Adjustment of the Immigration and Naturalization Benefit 

Application and Petition Fee Schedule,” 72 Fed. Reg. 29851 

(May 30, 2007); see also “Adjustment of the Immigration and Naturalization Benefit Application and Petition Fee Schedule, Proposed 

Rule,” 72 Fed. Reg. 4888, 4901 (Feb. 1, 2007). 

191	 Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman 

(Apr. 30, 2009). 

192 USCIS 2007 Annual Report Response, p. 4; USCIS Academy, “USCIS 

Academy-Breakdown of Programs by Component with Brief Description;” USCIS Academy, “Guide to USCIS Academy Programs 

and Learning Opportunities.” 

193 The GS, or General Schedule, is a federal government system used 

to identify a range of difficulty and responsibility levels, ranging 

from GS-1 to GS-15, for many positions. 
 

 

Annual Report to Congress — June 2009 33 

yyBack-To-School Tuition Assistance Program (TAP) – 

Employees complete their undergraduate degree or graduate study in fields that support DHS and USCIS missions. 

yyBASIC Training – This training program includes mandatory classroom and practical training for new adjudicator 

hires and immigration training for non-adjudicators. 

Recent developments in USCIS’ training program also include 

streaming video and downloadable podcasts. USCIS now 

has approximately 21,000 learning opportunities for its 

employees.194 

b. BASIC Training 

BASIC training,195 provided to new adjudicator hires, consists of 

four elements: (1) introduction and new employee orientation 

completed at the local office prior to BASIC training; (2) fundamental principles; (3) law, policies, and best practices; and 

(4) hands-on practical training. The classroom portion of the 

training curriculum is currently 28 training days.196 

In January 2008, USCIS moved its training for new adjudicators from the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center 

(FLETC), a former military base in Glynco, GA, to two 

commercial residential training facilities in Dallas, TX.197 

The agency changed its location for BASIC training because: 

(1) it had to compete for classroom space with approximately 

95 other agencies having access to the facility; (2) it is not a 

law enforcement agency and, therefore, does not require the 

special features of a converted army base; (3) of a lack of flexibility to accommodate training for the large numbers of new 

personnel hired as a result of the 2007 surge; (4) of logistical difficulties at FLETC; and (5) former Director Gonzalez 

preferred an academic setting for training.198 

The seven weeks of classroom instruction with 24 students 

per class at FLETC was replaced with a doubled class size of 48 

students attending BASIC training in Dallas starting January 

28, 2008. At the outset, USCIS conducted six concurrent 

48-person classes to maximize the number of trained new 

hires available to assist in adjudicating the high volume of 

petitions and applications received in the 2007 surge.199 

USCIS designed the curriculum to train “a first-class officer 

corps that is job-ready and cross-trained in a wide-range of 

disciplines and competencies.”200 The revised curriculum, 

rolled out in September 2007,201 was to consist of six weeks 

in the classroom, one-week practicum at the NBC, one-week 

practicum at a district office, and one-week practicum at a 

service center. However, because USCIS was training such 

high numbers of new hires, the agency only implemented the 

NBC practicum and, then, sometimes for just three days. 

For calendar year 2008, the agency graduated over 1,500 new 

hires from BASIC, as shown in Figure 1.202 Currently, the 

Academy Training Center is pursuing “validation” of its BASIC 

training curriculum. Validation is the process of confirming 

that courses offered provide skills training matching required 

job duties. As of this writing, the Academy expects to complete the validation process within four to five months.203 

Because the program is not yet validated, students who do 

not meet the minimum grade average for BASIC training can 

repeat courses until they achieve passing scores. 

During the reporting period, the Ombudsman met with 

BASIC training management, instructors, graduates, and 

194 Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman 

(Dec. 17, 2008). 

195 IIOs who completed the six-week BASIC Immigration Information Officer Basic Training Course (IIOBTC) “will also be required 

to complete a three-week bridge basic training that will focus on 

adjudication laws, policies, and procedures.” See USCIS Interoffice 

Memorandum, “IIO Information Regarding Workforce Restructuring Model” (July 30, 2008). 

196 Visitor’s Booklet, “The USCIS ACADEMY: Building the Workforce 

of Tomorrow” (Mar. 2009). 

197 USCIS Update, “USCIS Awards Contracts for Training Services” 

(Nov. 20, 2008), www.uscis.gov (accessed June 9, 2009). 

198 Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman 

(Apr. 30, 2009). 

199 U.S. House Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Immigration, 

Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law hearing on “Naturalization Delays: Causes, Consequences, and Solutions” 

(Jan. 17, 2008) (written testimony of Emilio T. Gonzalez, former 

USCIS Director), http://www.uscis.gov/files/testimony/testimony_ETG_17jan08.pdf (accessed June 8, 2009) (“The new capacity 

will support bringing well-trained new hires on board as quickly 

as possible. Classroom training will occur at select USCIS Academy Training Center locations throughout 2008 and into 2009.”) 

http://www.uscis.gov/files/testimony/testimony_ETG_17jan08.pdf (accessed 

June 9, 2009). 

200 Visitor’s Booklet, “The USCIS ACADEMY: Building the Workforce 

of Tomorrow” (Mar. 2009). 

201 USCIS 2007 Annual Report Response, p. 4. 

202 Visitor’s Booklet, “The USCIS ACADEMY: Building the Workforce 

of Tomorrow” (Mar. 2009). 

203 Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman 

(Apr. 30, 2009). 
34 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman 

current students to better understand the program and its 

success in producing “job-ready” graduates. These individuals 

discussed: (1) how training material errors are corrected and 

whether they are corrected timely; (2) the differing environments between FLETC and the new facilities; (3) effectiveness 

of the restructured BASIC training program; and (4) what, if 

any, additional training is needed upon completion of BASIC. 

Instructors’ opinions varied as to whether the first design of 

BASIC training would provide job-ready new hires. Graduates’ 

comments also varied about job readiness. For example, 

some graduates thought that the practicum in the first BASIC 

design had little applicability to everyday responsibilities at 

their home office, keeping in mind that most, if not all, only 

completed one phase of the originally planned practicum. 

Most graduates also responded that additional practical training would be helpful, particularly more hands-on computer 

training. 

In July 2009, the USCIS Academy is scheduled to introduce 

a re-design of BASIC. New hires will begin attending BASIC 

for seven weeks (rather than six weeks under BASIC’s original 

design). Practicums will take place in Dallas for most new 

hires.204 The Ombudsman understands that the revised 

training will further job-readiness by including more practical 

components, such as expanded interviewing training. USCIS 

also will be providing additional coaching for instructors, 

with the assistance of supervisors and contractors, to enhance 

instruction. 

c. Training on New Information 

The Ombudsman also reviewed how adjudicators learn about 

changes in laws, regulations, and policies, and understands 

that USCIS determines on a case-by-case basis the kind of 

training necessary. The agency states in its 2008 Annual 

Report Response that “[e]mployees are notified daily regarding specific administrative, procedural, and/or operational 

changes.” However, adjudicators in different offices described 

to the Ombudsman how they learn of such changes in a 

variety of ways: on their own initiative by reviewing USCIS 

e-mail broadcasts; during local office training; by asking a 

supervisor; from e-mails sent by the local office; and, through 

training organized from USCIS Headquarters.205 USCIS does 

not have guidelines in place for determining whether a 

developing issue warrants formal training or if adjudicators 

are expected to educate themselves on their own time. The 

Ombudsman will monitor this issue further in the next 

reporting period. 

204 Refugee, asylum, and Fraud Detection and National Security new 

hires may continue to travel to the NBC for practicum training on 

certain computer programs. 

205 The Ombudsman gathered this information during a series of visits 

to the following field offices: Raleigh-Durham (Feb. 5, 2009), 

Houston (Mar. 4, 2009), and St. Paul (Mar. 10, 2009). 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Annual Report to Congress — June 2009 35 

I. FBI Name Checks 

In previous annual reports, the Ombudsman detailed pervasive and serious problems related to long-pending FBI name 

checks,206 one of several security screening tools used by USCIS. 

This year, the Ombudsman reports that USCIS has worked with 

the FBI to address its backlog of long pending name checks. FBI 

name checks used to comprise the single largest category of case 

problem inquiries received by the Ombudsman, but were not a 

substantial source of case problems during the reporting period. 

The Ombudsman no longer considers FBI name checks to be a 

pervasive and serious problem. 

The FBI provides information to USCIS regarding anyone who 

is the principal subject of an investigation or is a person referenced in an FBI file. USCIS adjudicators and the agency’s Fraud 

Detection and National Security unit use this information to 

determine if applicants are ineligible for benefits. Completion 

of the name check process takes considerable time where a 

manual review of FBI hardcopy files is necessary. 

As of May 5, 2009, USCIS reported 4,485 FBI name check cases 

pending with only 60 cases more than 30 days old. In contrast, 

on May 6, 2008, there were 269,943 name checks pending; on 

May 4, 2007, there were 329,160 name checks pending; and on 

May 17, 2006, there were 235,802 name checks pending. 

Figure 9: Pending FBI Name Checks 2006-2009 

Age of 

Pending 

Response 

Total Count 

(May 5, 

2009) 

Total Count 

(May 6, 

2008) 

Total Count 

(May 4, 

2007) 

Total Count 

(May 17, 

2006) 

< 3 months 4,485 50,328 117,819 82,636 

3 - 6 months 0 34,453 55,749 33,450 

6 - 9 months 0 85,955 28,029 20,047 

9 - 12 months 0 24,947 20,825 16,845 

12 - 15 months 0 17,860 14,133 15,064 

15 - 18 months 0 13,489 13,931 10,636 

18 - 21 months 0 11,759 11,035 8,144 

21 - 24 months 0 13,102 12,398 8,325 

24 - 27 months 0 5,836 11,765 9,754 

27 - 30 months 0 4,461 6,600 4,435 

30 - 33 months 0 2,924 5,732 4,896 

>33 months 0 4,829 31,144 21,570 

Total Pending 4,485 269,943 329,160 235,802 

Source: USCIS Aging Reports for FBI Name Checks 

In a March 4, 2009 USCIS Update, “USCIS Meets Another 

Milestone in Eliminating FBI Name Check Backlogs,” the 

agency announced that the backlog of name checks pending 

more than six months was eliminated.207 USCIS further stated 

that, working with the FBI, it is “on schedule to meet the next 

two goals: all name checks requests pending longer than 90 

days are to be completed by May 30, 2009 and, by the end of 

June 2009, the FBI will complete 98 percent of USCIS name 

check requests within 30 days and process the remaining two 

percent within three months.”208 

As discussed in last year’s Annual Report, most of the improvements in name check processing times and backlog 

reductions have resulted from increases in resources and 

personnel.209 In FY 2007 and FY 2008, USCIS transferred to 

the FBI nearly $30 million in additional funds the FBI used 

mainly to hire more contract staff.210 This funding allowed 

the FBI to increase contract staff from 38 to over 250 personnel. At the peak of its efforts to address long-pending name 

checks, the FBI had over 290 contractors processing name 

check requests.211 This number has declined due to attrition 

of contract staff, reduction of the name check backlog, and 

decline in USCIS receipts and corresponding name check 

work.212 

In February 2008, USCIS announced a policy initiative 

permitting adjudication of green card and other applications 

in which the FBI name check had been pending over 180 days 

and where the application was otherwise approvable.213 One 

year later, after addressing the name check backlog, USCIS 

206 Ombudsman’s Annual Report 2008, pp. 5-7; 2007, pp. 37-45. 

207 USCIS Update, “USCIS Meets Another Milestone in Eliminating FBI 

Name Check Backlog” (Mar. 4, 2009), http://www.uscis.gov/files/article/ 

Namecheck_4Mar09.pdf (accessed June 7, 2009); see also DHS Leadership Journal, “USCIS and FBI Achieve Interim Backlog Elimination 

Goals” (Mar. 20, 2009), http://www.dhs.gov/journal/leadership/2009/03/ 

uscis-and-fbi-achieve-interim-backlog.html (accessed June 7, 2009). 

208 USCIS Update, “USCIS Meets Another Milestone in Eliminating 

FBI Name Check Backlogs” (Mar. 4, 2009), http://www.uscis.gov/files/ 

article/Namecheck_4Mar09.pdf (accessed June 7, 2009). 

209 Ombudsman’s Annual Report 2008, p. 7. 

210 Information provided by the FBI to the Ombudsman 

(Mar. 18, 2009). 

211 Id. 

212 Id. 

213 USCIS Interoffice Memorandum, “Revised National Security Adjudication and Reporting Requirements” (Feb. 4, 2008), www.uscis.gov 

(accessed June 7, 2009). 
36	 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman 

rescinded this guidance.214 USCIS stated in a January 2009 

memorandum, “National Security Adjudication and Reporting 

Requirements-Update,” that a “definitive FBI name check, FBI 

fingerprint check, and IBIS [Interagency Border Inspection 

System security] check [must] be resolved before approving” 

green card and other applications. The Ombudsman will 

continue to monitor FBI name check aging reports to determine whether substantial future backlogs arise. 

214	 USCIS Memorandum, “National Security Adjudication and Reporting Requirements-Update” (Feb. 9, 2009), www.uscis.gov (accessed 

June 7, 2009). 
 

Annual Report to Congress — June 2009 37 

III. Recommendations and Studies
 

A. Methodology 

In keeping with standard ombudsman practices, this office 

reviews issues impartially. Specifically, the Ombudsman 

seeks and regularly receives representative viewpoints from a 

wide spectrum of individuals, organizations, and government 

entities. 

The Ombudsman also uses multiple resources to identify and 

research systemic issues for recommendations to USCIS. For 

example, case problems or e-mail inquiries submitted by individuals and employers may be the starting point for analysis, 

or can inform ongoing recommendations and studies. In 

addition, the Ombudsman has regular in-person meetings 

with community-based organizations, employer associations, 

and the immigration legal community nationwide, as well as 

with USCIS personnel at Headquarters, service centers, and 

field offices. Other outreach tools, such as the office’s monthly 

teleconference series “How Is USCIS Working for You?” 

provide information for this research. 

The Ombudsman analyzes USCIS data and reports for trends 

in the agency’s workloads and production. In addition, the 

Ombudsman engages with other DHS components, other 

government agencies, and Congress, where appropriate, to foster interagency cooperation and to gain a better understanding 

of the unique challenges to better delivery of immigration 

benefits to qualified applicants. 

Finally, at the end of the process of problem identification and 

research, data gathering and analysis, and internal review, the 

Ombudsman may issue a recommendation to USCIS on how 

to improve a process or operation to better assist individuals 

and employers. 

B. Additional Areas of Focus 

1. Military Naturalizations 

In March 2006, the Ombudsman recommended that USCIS 

improve the naturalization process for active duty U.S. 

military personnel and, specifically, that USCIS eliminate the 

fingerprint requirement.215 While USCIS did not eliminate 

the requirement, it has made significant improvements to 

the military naturalization process in the last two years. Last 

year’s Annual Report noted the establishment of a toll-free 

telephone number to address concerns raised by service 

members and their families, as well as a webpage dedicated to 

these issues.216 USCIS also created an e-mail address exclusively for their use. 

Currently, USCIS processes nearly 60 percent of all military 

naturalization cases to completion within 120 days.217 USCIS 

has naturalized “[45,048] service men and women since 

September 2001,” of whom “38,852 service members naturalized in the United States and 6,196 service members naturalized in ceremonies overseas and onboard Navy flagships at 

sea.”218 In calendar year 2008, there were 8,342 military 

naturalization applications and USCIS completed 9,953; as 

of this writing, approximately 1,100 military naturalization 

cases are at the NSC awaiting fingerprints or receipt of other 

military file information.219 

215 Recommendation #23 (Mar. 20, 2006), www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman 

(accessed June 9, 2009). 

216 Ombudsman’s Annual Report 2008, pp. 38, 45. 

217 Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman (Apr. 6, 2009). 

218 DHS Today, “After Serving in Iraq, Marine Begins New Journey as 

A U.S. Citizen” (Mar. 9, 2009). 

219 Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman (Apr. 6, 2009). 
 

 

 

38 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman 

CASE PROBLEM 

In August 2008, the Ombudsman received an inquiry from a 

representative of two military naturalization applicants. Two 

USCIS offices, apparently adopting a new interpretation of 

INA section 329, were delaying decisions or denying military 

naturalization cases for individuals who had not yet been “in 

combat.” INA section 329 does not require that the applicant 

serve in combat or in a combat zone. One case involved a 

National Guard soldier who had completed active duty training, but had not yet been deployed. The other case involved 

an officer-in-training who could not be sent into combat as 

an officer until he naturalized. After the applicants contacted 

the Ombudsman, Department of Defense (DOD) representatives met with USCIS in October 2008 to determine the 

correct application of section 329. USCIS naturalized the two 

military servicemen. 

a. Recent Legislation 

In 2008, Congress passed and the President signed into law 

legislation requiring USCIS to further review and modify its 

military naturalization procedures. The Kendell Frederick 

Citizenship Assistance Act220 mandates that USCIS use fingerprints and other biometric information already on file with 

the DOD when military personnel apply for citizenship. The 

Act also requires that USCIS use biometric information collected during the green card application process if the applicant 

meets all other requirements for military naturalization.221 

Military personnel are fingerprinted as part of the enlistment 

process. However, USCIS considers fingerprints valid for 

15 months,222 after which individuals must be re-printed. 

Although DOD does not consider its fingerprint information to 

expire, USCIS requires new fingerprints if they are older than 

15 months. 

The NSC receives and processes all military Form N-400 

(Application for Naturalization) applications. The NSC 

indicated that it uses DOD fingerprints and biometrics from 

green card applications whenever possible, thereby meeting 

the requirements of Kendell Frederick.223 If DOD fingerprints 

or biometrics captured in the green card process are no longer 

valid for USCIS: (1) the NSC will schedule applicants for 

biometric collection at an ASC near where they are stationed; 

or (2) the nearest U.S. embassy will collect new fingerprints 

for applicants abroad who are unable to travel to an ASC. 

The Military Personnel Citizenship Processing Act224 establishes a six-month deadline for processing and adjudicating 

naturalization applications filed by current or former members 

of the Armed Forces and their spouses and children. If USCIS 

cannot meet this deadline, it must provide a written explanation to the applicant and an estimated date by which the 

application will be completed.225 During the last reporting 

period, the FBI name check continued to significantly delay 

adjudication of immigration benefits for many customers.226 

However, name checks are no longer an issue for military 

personnel. The FBI automatically expedites those applicants’ 

name checks and now completes them within 60 days.227 

Military naturalization cases that take longer than three 

months usually are waiting for military records for past and 

present military service periods.228 The two forms that DOD 

personnel must complete are: (1) the G-325B (Biographic 

Information), which supplies military background check information, and (2) the Form N-426 (Request for Certification 

of Military or Naval Service), which certifies military service 

periods. The Ombudsman understands that the N-426 may 

take up to three months to arrive from DOD. The N-400 

application remains on hold with USCIS until receipt of this 

information. 

b. USCIS Recent Memoranda 

220 Pub. L. No. 110-251 (June 26, 2008). 

221 USCIS Fact Sheet, “Naturalization Through Military Service” (May 

16, 2008), http://www.uscis.gov/files/article/mil_natz_051608.pdf (accessed June 9, 2009). 

222 USCIS National Stakeholder Meeting – Answers to National Stakeholder Questions (Mar. 25, 2008), http://www.uscis.gov/files/nativedocuments/MARCBOQA.pdf (accessed June 9, 2009). 

On April 29, 2009, USCIS issued a memorandum to Field 

Office Directors to address the N-426 processing delay.229 

223 Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman 

(Apr. 21, 2009). 

224 Pub. L. No. 110-382 (Oct. 9, 2008). 

225 Id. 

226 Ombudsman’s Annual Report 2008, p. 5; see also section II.I., “FBI 

Name Checks.” 

227 Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman 

(Apr. 21, 2009). 

228 Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman (Apr. 6, 2009). 

229 USCIS Interoffice Memorandum, “Acceptance of DD 214 as Certification of Military or Naval Service for Veterans of the U.S. Armed 

Forces” (Apr. 29, 2009), www.uscis.gov (accessed June 9, 2009). 
232

 

Annual Report to Congress — June 2009 39 

To assist naturalization applicants who are veterans, USCIS 

will begin accepting N-400 packets that include uncertified 

N-426s, if accompanied by DD Form 214 (Certificate of 

Release or Discharge from Active Duty). Upon receipt of such 

N-400 packets, the NSC will ensure that Form N-426 covers 

all periods of service.230 

In the past year, USCIS has taken other steps to more effectively process immigration benefits for service members and 

their families. A June 2008 memorandum directs field offices 

to: (1) make and maintain contact with designated military 

officials or points of contact at each installation within each 

military branch, and (2) regularly bring immigration services 

to service members and their families at their military installations.231 The memorandum also calls for qualified service 

members to naturalize domestically as soon after enlistment as 

possible and before deployment overseas. 

The Ombudsman learned of several instances of USCIS 

compliance with the June 2008 directive. For example, the 

Los Angeles District Office has had outreach efforts to military 

personnel stationed at 29 Palms Marine Corps Base and Port 

Hueneme. District office supervisors and adjudication officers 

visited these military bases to conduct interviews in the morning and hold naturalization ceremonies in the afternoon. 

2. Employment-Based Petitions (I-140s) 

RECOMMENDATION 4 

The Ombudsman recommends that USCIS review processing methods for employment-based petitions between the 

Nebraska and Texas Service Centers to make American 

Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act (AC21) 

portability provisions232 equally available to all customers. 

(AR2009-04) 

Between June 2008 and February 2009, the Ombudsman 

received numerous inquiries and case problems regarding 

delays in processing Form I-140 (Immigrant Petition for Alien 

Worker). Most of these inquiries were from individuals with 

petitions pending at the TSC. 

Generally, there are three steps in the employment-based 

immigration process: (1) the employer files a Labor 

Certification Application with the U.S. Department of Labor;233 

(2) the employer files the I-140 with USCIS to verify that the 

foreign worker meets the minimum requirements for the 

open position;234 and (3) the individual files the Form I-485 

(Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status) 

green card application.235 USCIS may adjudicate the I-140 

immediately; however, it cannot adjudicate the I-485 until the 

visa is available. The priority date is often assigned at the time 

of the Labor Certification filing.236 Employers and individuals 

may file the I-140 and the I-485 concurrently, thus allowing 

the worker to apply for interim benefits such as employment 

authorization or advance travel authorization while the green 

card application is pending with USCIS.237 

On October 17, 2000, the President signed the American 

Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act (AC21) into 

law. AC21 provides job portability, thereby giving flexibility 

to foreign workers experiencing labor certification and immigration processing delays. By operation of AC21, an employee 

with an approved I-140 petition may change employers as long 

as the new job is the “same or similar” to the job for which 

the I-140 was approved and the I-485 has been pending over 

180 days.238 

230 Id. 

231 USCIS Interoffice Memorandum, “Military Outreach: Bringing Immigration Services to the Troops” (June 10, 2008). 

232 The American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 

2000, Pub. L. No. 106-313 (Oct. 17, 2000); INA § 204(j). 

233 See generally INA § 212(a)(5)(A); 20 C.F.R. pt. 656 (2008).
 

234 See generally INA § 203(b).
 

235 See generally INA § 245. 


236 See 8 C.F.R. § 245.2(a)(5)(ii) (2008). 


237 See 8 C.F.R. §§ 212.5(f), 274a.12(c)(9) (2008).
 

238 The American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 


2000, Pub. L. No. 106-313 (Oct. 17, 2000); INA § 204(j). 
40	 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman 

CASE PROBLEM 

E-mail received by the Ombudsman in January 2009. In 

August 2007, during the 2007 surge, a customer concurrently 

filed an employment-based I-140 and I-485 with a USCIS 

service center. In January 2009, the customer contacted the 

Ombudsman because both the petition and application had 

been pending for over 17 months. The customer’s petition 

was one year outside of the processing times for that service 

center. The customer complained that he was unable to 

capitalize on other job opportunities in accordance with 

AC21 portability provisions, because USCIS did not adjudicate the petition timely. USCIS eventually approved the I-140 

petition in February. 

In July 2006, USCIS instituted “bi-specialization,” an initiative to centralize filings and align similar workloads between 

“sister” service centers. USCIS stated that, “[p]airing work 

between service centers will allow [the agency] to better 

manage cases and improve customer service.”239 USCIS paired 

the NSC and TSC to process I-140 petitions and green card 

applications. 

The NSC and TSC process concurrent filings differently. The 

NSC adjudicates I-140 petitions even if the concurrently filed 

I-485 green card applications are not yet ripe for processing 

due to a lack of visa numbers. However, TSC processes such 

concurrently filed petitions and applications together by waiting until visa numbers are available. As a result, petitions filed 

with the TSC may not be adjudicated as quickly as those filed 

with the NSC. Such variation may deprive certain individuals 

of portability benefits to which they are entitled under AC21. 

3.	 First Preference Priority Worker 

(EB-1) Immigrant Petitions 

RECOMMENDATION 5 

The Ombudsman recommends that USCIS post a practical 

tip sheet on its website to assist stakeholders in providing the 

necessary and relevant information for complex EB-1 cases. 

(AR2009-05) 

There are approximately 40,000 visas240 available annually for 

individuals with extraordinary ability,241 outstanding professors and researchers,242 and certain multinational executives 

and managers.243 In FY 2008, 36,678 visas were used: 

15,184 by principal applicants and 21,494 by their derivative 

family members.244 These visas require high thresholds of 

achievement, distinction, and fame. Individuals in these 

immigrant visa categories submit petitions to USCIS under the 

employment-based first preference classification for priority 

workers (EB-1).245 In creating this classification, Congress 

stated that pairing these workers with an employer in the 

United States would “... substantially benefit prospectively the 

national economy, culture, educational interests and welfare of 

the United States.”246 

During the reporting period, the Ombudsman received 

complaints from individuals, employers, and stakeholders 

concerning EB-1 adjudications. 

Specifically, the concerns included: 

yyLack of Information to Customers – As USCIS provides 

limited information on the adjudicative standards for EB-1 

cases, there is little guidance to help customers better 

prepare EB-1 cases for filing. 

yyLack of Uniformity in Adjudications – The Ombudsman 

has found operational differences between the two service 

centers adjudicating EB-1 cases. USCIS pairs service centers under bi-specialization and tasks them with processing similar work. However, the manner in which EB-1 

cases are processed is not uniform due to each service 

center’s different operational structure.247 For example, 

the NSC has one division separated into different teams 

that process either Form I-140 (Immigrant Petition for 

Alien Worker) or Form I-485 (Application to Register Per240 INA § 203(b) (2008). 


241 INA § 203(b)(1)(A); 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h) (2008).
 

242 INA § 203(b)(1)(B); 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i) (2008).
 

243 INA § 203(b)(1)(C); 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j) (2008).
 

244 See Figure 4. In FY 2007 and FY 2006, 26,697 and 36,960 EB-1 


visas were issued, respectively. See 2007 and 2006 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, DHS Office of Immigration Statistics, at Table 7. 

245	 See generally USCIS, “Immigration through Employment,” www.uscis.gov 

(accessed June 9, 2009). 

246 The Immigration Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-649 (Nov. 29, 1990). 

247	 See USCIS Fact Sheet, “Updated Bi-Specialization Filing Instructions” 

(June 30, 2006), www.uscis.gov (accessed June 9, 2009). 

239 USCIS Fact Sheet, “Updated Bi-Specialization Filing Instructions” 

(June 30, 2006), www.uscis.gov (accessed June 9, 2009). 
 

 

Annual Report to Congress — June 2009	 41 

manent Residence or Adjust Status), whereas the TSC has 

at least three divisions that process both I-140s and I-485s. 

yyRequests for Evidence 248 – RFEs issued by USCIS in EB-1 

cases appear to be arbitrary and generic.249 According to 

stakeholders, who view EB-1 cases as particularly complex, adjudications officers need a high degree of knowledge and experience to process them. Therefore, stakeholders perceive the frequency of RFE issuance to increase 

when less experienced officers process EB-1 cases. 

At a USCIS National Stakeholder Meeting on March 31, 

2009, participants voiced their concern about the increase 

in the number of RFEs. USCIS informed stakeholders that 

“[w]hile there was no appreciable difference year to year, 

we have experienced an increase of approximately 9 [percent] during the last 5 months as we have added officers. 

New officers have a traditionally higher RFE rate as they 

work their way through their training cycle.”250 

The Ombudsman notes that USCIS has trained large numbers of newly hired staff at the Academy. However, USCIS 

should provide all staff processing EB-1 cases with the same 

post-Academy training to ensure consistent case processing. Additionally, stakeholders noted that some RFEs seek 

evidence already provided with the initial filing, or do not 

specifically indicate where the case is deficient in meeting 

the required criteria. As a result, the customer does not 

know what additional evidence to provide. 

In November 2008, the Ombudsman facilitated a teleconference251 with stakeholders and the NSC to address concerns 

raised by customers and stakeholders concerning the EB-1 

product line. The NSC maintains an e-mail address for stakeholders to alert the service center of any EB-1 irregularities 

248	 See section II.D., “Requests for Evidence (RFEs).” 

249	 See Questions and Answers, “USCIS American Immigration Lawyers 

Association (AILA) Meeting,” p. 10 (Mar. 19, 2009), www.uscis.gov 

(accessed June 9, 2009); see also “USCIS-AILA Liaison Committee 

Agenda,” p. 3 (Oct. 28, 2008), www.uscis.gov (accessed June 9, 2009). 

250	 See Questions and Answers, “USCIS National Stakeholder Meeting,” 

p. 1 (Mar. 31, 2009), www.uscis.gov (accessed June 9, 2009). 

251 This teleconference was not part of the monthly CIS Ombudsman’s 

Community Call-In Teleconference Series. 

or RFEs that appear to be “boilerplate” or “broad brush.” 252 

The Ombudsman also traveled to the NSC and TSC to review 

the operations for EB-1 processing. In addition, stakeholders 

provided sample cases for the Ombudsman to review. 

The Ombudsman will continue to monitor EB-1 adjudications 

issues in the coming reporting period. 

4. Special Immigrant Visas (SIVs) 

This reporting year, the Ombudsman reviewed the underutilization of SIV petitions and visa issuances in the U.S.-affiliate 

program for Afghani and Iraqi nationals employed by or on 

behalf of the U.S. Government. The legislative intent of this 

SIV program was to serve persons made vulnerable by their 

service to the United States.253 

In studying this program, the Ombudsman spoke with SIV 

self-petitioners in Amman, Jordan and the United States, 

tracked case problems, reviewed processes of the NSC where 

these petitions are adjudicated, visited the DOS National Visa 

Center where subsequent administrative proceedings are 

conducted, and spoke with private attorneys, law school clinic 

members, and other non-governmental stakeholders. In addition, the Ombudsman learned about U.S. military personnel 

who, on their own time, personally help petitioners apply for 

resettlement. 

The Ombudsman observed USCIS processing initiatives 

tailored to these particular petitioners’ needs, and reviewed 

process and policy concerns that, left unaddressed, may 

continue to hinder issuance of SIVs. 

252 Response time is usually 48 hours, but in some cases, may take 

longer if research requires obtaining files found off-site. On April 

13, 2009, the NSC clarified that the e-mail box was established 

several years ago as a “means for ... [community] based organizations (CBOs) to submit inquiries on any form type directly to 

[NSC].” Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman (Apr. 

13, 2009). 

253	 “To Increase the Number of Iraqi and Afghani Translators and 

Interpreters Who May be Admitted to the United States as Special 

Immigrants,” House Committee on the Judiciary, HR Rep. No. 110­

158, (May 21, 2007) (“Iraqi and Afghani translators and interpreters provide vital assistance in their home countries to the mission 

of the United States Armed Forces and Department of State. Their 

work for the United States government often makes them targets 

of death squads, militias, and al-Qaeda. Many translators and 

interpreters are forced into hiding and are unable to escape this 

threat.”); see also Press Release, “Kennedy, Smith, Levin, Brownback 

on the Iraqi Refugee Provisions in the Defense Authorization Conference Report” (Dec. 7, 2007). 
 

 

 

42	 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman 

a.	 “Translator” Program 

The SIV program, established under section 1059 of the 

National Defense Authorization Act in FY 2006, is commonly 

referred to as the “translator” program. It authorized 50 Iraqi 

and Afghani translators to self-petition to immigrate to the 

United States with their dependants and immediately obtain 

green cards.254 Subsequent legislation also made visa recipients eligible for the same relocation assistance and resettlement benefits available to admitted refugees.255 Petitioners pay 

a $375 filing fee, but can request a waiver. 

Subsequent legislation increased the annual visa allotment 

from 50 to 500 for principal petitioners during FY 2007 and 

FY 2008.256 The full visa allocation was used in FY 2007 and 

the Ombudsman understands that all available visas were 

issued for FY 2008. The annual allotment returned to 50 visas 

in FY 2009.257 

b.	 “U.S.-Affiliate” Program 

New legislation enacted in January 2008, under section 1244 

of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2008, created 

what is commonly referred to as the “U.S.-affiliate” program. 

This legislation authorized up to 5,000 immigrant visas per 

year for FY 2008-2012 for Iraqi nationals who provided “faithful and valuable service” for at least one year (including noncontiguous periods) for or on behalf of the U.S. Government 

and who are endangered or threatened as a consequence.258 

There are no filing fees under this program.259 Unused visas 

carry forward year to year until, at the end of FY 2014, any 

visas still unused will expire. Afghanis who also qualify 

under the translator SIV program may be converted to the 

U.S.-affiliate program if a translator SIV visa is not available.260 

This section focuses on the state of the U.S.-affiliate program, 

now in its second year. 

c.	 USCIS’ Role in SIV Programs 


for Iraqis and Afghanis
 

Figure 10 depicts the application process for SIVs. To initiate an SIV claim, the Iraqi or Afghani petitioner submits 

Form I-360 (Petition for Amerasian, Widow(er), or Special 

Immigrant) with supporting evidence. Such evidence must 

include a letter from a supervisor attesting to the petitioner’s 

good character, as well as a letter from the DOS Chief of 

Mission. The letter must state the period(s) of employment, that the employment was faithful and valuable to the 

United States, and that the employee is experiencing or has 

experienced an ongoing or serious threat as a result of such 

employment.261 USCIS has established at the NSC a dedicated 

unit of subject matter experts to adjudicate these petitions 

and to correspond with individuals and their representatives. 

Once USCIS approves the case, the file is forwarded to DOS’ 

National Visa Center, which may initiate final security reviews 

that can cause delays. Next, the petitioner is scheduled for an 

interview at a nearby consulate. Finally, the petitioner arrives 

in the United States. 

254 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006, § 1059, 

Pub. L. No. 109-163 (Mar. 11, 2009). Visas issued to SIV dependants 

are not counted against annual numerical limits. 

255	 “Refugees” under INA § 207; Consolidated Appropriations Act, 

Pub. L. No. 110-161 (Dec. 26, 2007). 

256 Pub L. No. 110-36 (June 15, 2007) amended Pub. L. No. 109-163 

(Jan. 6, 2006). 

257	 Id. 

258 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, § 1244, 

Pub. L. No 110-181 (Jan. 28, 2008), as amended by Pub. L. No. 

110-242 (June 3, 2008), established a new special immigrant 

category under INA § 101(a)(27) for those qualifying Iraqis serving 

U.S. interests after March 20, 2003. In addition, the Afghan Allies 

Protection Act of 2009, § 602(b), established a new SIV program 

authorizing 1,500 visas per fiscal year until 2013 for certain nationals of Afghanistan who have been employed by, or on behalf of, the 

U.S. Government. 

259 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, § 1244(d), 

Pub. L. No 110-181 (Jan. 28, 2008). 

260 Pub. L. No 110-242 § (2)(a) (June 3, 2008). 

261	 See National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, 

§ 1244(b)(4), Pub. L. No 110-181 (Jan. 28, 2008). 
 

 

 

 

STEP 1. Obtain Chief of Mission letter 

from Embassy Baghdad via e-mail

STEP 3. Petition Approved by USCIS: 

Sent to DOS NVC

STEP 2. File Form I-360 at USCIS NSC

[ NATIONWIDE ]

STEP 4. Visa interview at 

Embassy/Consulate near petitioner

STEP 5. Arrive in the United States 

Annual Report to Congress — June 2009	 43 

Figure 10: Application Process for SIVs 

[ PORTSMOUTH, NEW HAMPSHIRE ] [ LINCOLN, NEBRASKA ]

[ WORLDWIDE ]

There are no official estimates on the number of individuals eligible for status under these SIV programs. The 

Congressional Budget Office stated: 

[A]s of early 2008 at least 190,000 contractor personnel, including subcontractors, were working on 


U.S.-funded contracts in the Iraq theatre. Just under 


40 percent of them are citizens of the country where 


the work is being performed (primarily Iraq); about 


20 percent are U.S. citizens.262
 

During the first two quarters of FY 2009, USCIS approved 

214 U.S.-affiliate program petitions for Afghani petitioners, 

who had applied under the translator program and whose 

applications were approved after the cap had been reached.263 

[ BAGHDAD, IRAQ ]

During this same period, USCIS approved 1,018 Iraqis under 

both programs. In FY 2008, USCIS approved a total of 1,525 

SIV applications for both the translator and U.S.-affiliate 

programs,264 and DOS issued 931 total principal visas for both 

programs.265 

Figure 11: U.S.-Affiliate and Translator Program Visas 

6,000 5,500 

5,050 

5,000 

4,000 

3,000 

2,000 1,463 

1,000 500 

1,025 

526 371 560 

844 

388 

673 

0 FY 2007 

N/A N/A 

FY 2008 

62 

FY 2009 YTD (Oct.-Mar.) 

N/A* 

USCIS Translator Program Approvals 

U.S.-Affiliate Programs 

Total Visas Available for Translator & 

DOS Issuance of U.S.-Affiliate Visa 

USCIS U.S.-Affiliate Program Approvals DOS Issuance of Translator Visa 

* Data Available for First Quarter Only 

262	 “Contractors’ Support of U.S. Operations in Iraq,” (Aug. 2008), 

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/96xx/doc9688/08-12-IraqContractors.pdf (accessed June 9, 2009). The Act also requires three Executive Branch 

reports to Congress on, among other issues, Iraqi nationals employed by the U.S. Government, expediting the processing of Iraqis 

for resettlement, and enhancing existing systems for conducting 

background and security checks. The Ombudsman understands 

that these reports, due 120 days after the January 28, 2008 date of 

enactment, have not yet been submitted as of this writing. 

263 Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman (May 13, 

2009). For further information on the rollover criteria, see “Questions and Answers: USCIS National Stakeholder Meeting” (Aug. 26, 

2008), www.uscis.gov (accessed June 9, 2009). 

Source: Data provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman; U.S. Department of 

State,www.state.gov (accessed June 18, 2009) 

264 Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman (Apr. 6, 2009 

and May 13, 2009). 

265 See http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/SQNumbers0409.pdf and http://www.travel. 

state.gov/pdf/SINumbers0109.pdf (accessed May 21, 2009). 
 

44	 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman 

USCIS does not publish processing times for these SIV cases. 

The Ombudsman understands from USCIS that average 

processing times would be skewed by how long USCIS holds 

apparently abandoned petitions before denying them for lack 

of needed evidence. USCIS indicated to the Ombudsman that 

the agency processes these cases as expeditiously as possible. 

Attorneys representing Iraqi and Afghani SIV self-petitioners 

observed average case cycle times of 8-12 months.266 

d. SIV Petitioner Experience 

Many potential petitioners have told the Ombudsman that 

they may be dissuaded from filing for an SIV due to qualification requirements, security review delays, and slow official 

responses to requests for information. Additionally, certain 

evidentiary requirements may necessitate a visit to Baghdad or 

another U.S. embassy or consulate. Undertaking such travel 

may be logistically challenging or even life-threatening. Many 

would-be SIV petitioners, who lead clandestine lives in remote 

areas with their U.S. military units, fear that exposure of 

their U.S. service is inevitable, if they travel to the embassy to 

pursue the immigration benefit to which that service entitles 

them. 

Individuals may abandon their petitions for several reasons. 

Representatives of petitioners, and petitioners themselves, have 

told the Ombudsman that they cannot or prefer not to endure 

the psychological stress of waiting for SIV adjudications or 

security reviews. Alternatively, individuals may relocate from 

country to country seeking safe haven, or apply for relief 

under the U.S. refugee program.267 

Those who do persist in filing petitions encounter lack of a 

standardized or transparent review process both for denied 

petitions and for delayed SIV petitions and refugee applications. USCIS told one law school clinic assisting a denied 

petitioner to submit a “Request for Reconsideration.” The 

Ombudsman understands that the agency treats such a request 

as correspondence that is neither provided a receipt nor 

subject to a standardized adjudication process. In the next 

reporting period, the Ombudsman intends to further analyze 

requests for review and reconsideration in this context. 

USCIS has continually added innovations to its customer 

service processes for these petitions. For example, the agency 

created a dedicated e-mail account268 for replying to petitioner 

inquiries about filing these petitions, RFEs, and how to appeal 

denials. USCIS has regularly fine-tuned its processes to meet 

the many challenges faced by this group of petitioners. 

5. DNA 

Since late summer 2008, the Ombudsman has been revisiting 

the subject of DNA relationship testing269 in the immigration 

context. 

a. Previous DNA Recommendations 

The Ombudsman previously addressed the need for modernizing DNA testing rules and policies in an April 2006 recommendation that USCIS: (1) accept DNA testing as secondary 

evidence of biological relationship; (2) provide authority to 

officers to require DNA testing; and (3) study the impact of 

268 Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman (Apr. 21, 2009) 

(USCIS initiated this e-mail account when postal mail to Iraqi and 

Afghani petitioners was continually returned as undeliverable. 

Petitioners previously had to await military dispatch pouches, 

which can be delayed or prohibited in covert operations or remote 

locations, or travel into Baghdad to send responses via private 

courier from the airport. USCIS also allows for scanned documents 

from SIV petitioners, rather than requiring originals or an original 

signature on Form I-360). 

269	 “Relationship testing” is the terminology preferred by the biological testing industry; it is broader in scope than previously used 

terms such as “parentage testing” or “paternity testing,” as well as 

more explanatory than the term “genetic testing.” In the immigration context, relationship testing refers to any test yielding evidence 

of a legally recognizable family relationship under which immigration to the United States or, for those already here, on which 

acquisition of a green card may be based. Cf. Department of Justice 

Notice of Final Rule, OAG Docket No. 108, 109, 119; AG Order No. 

3023-2008RIN 1105-AB09, -AB10, -AB24, “DNA-Sample Collection 

and Biological Evidence Preservation in the Federal Jurisdiction.” 

“DNA testing” refers to the most accurate form of such testing. 

266 Information provided to the Ombudsman (May 12, 2009). Some 

attorneys reported advising their clients to seek other forms of 

relief, such as the P-2 refugee classification, where they can be processed outside of the country without having to return to obtain 

supporting evidence. The trade-off is that, whereas an SIV-holder 

may obtain a green card on arrival at a port-of-entry, refugees must 

wait one year to apply. 

267 Pursuant to the Refugee Assistance Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110­

181 (Jan. 28, 2008), DOS expanded the P-2 direct access refugee 

program for persons of “special humanitarian concern” to include 

certain Iraqi nationals. These individuals do not apply first to the 

UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) for designation 

as a refugee, but may seek status directly from the DOS Refugee 

Processing Center, saving substantial time. All such applicants are 

subject to relevant numerical refugee caps. Notably, in-country 

refugee processing is newly permitted at Embassy Baghdad for 

these P-2 applicants, although refugees are typically processed 

outside the country from which they have fled. 
Annual Report to Congress — June 2009	 45 

requiring DNA testing as evidence of relationship in a pilot 

program.270 The Ombudsman was concerned that USCIS 

viewed obsolete venipuncture-based Blood Group Antigen 

or Human Leukocyte Antigen (HLA) testing (drawing blood 

with a needle) as the types of relationship testing field office 

directors could require. 

USCIS responded in July 2006 that such actions were unnecessary.271 Specifically, USCIS: (1) pointed to a legacy INS 

Policy Memo from 2000 issued by Michael Cronin272 (Cronin 

Memo) as allowing field office directors to “suggest” DNA 

testing as secondary evidence; (2) stated that it was “already 

in the process of drafting regulations to update the regulations 

at 8 C.F.R. § 204.2(d)(vi) to require DNA testing” in specific 

instances (e.g., suspected fraud, lack of primary or secondary 

evidence) to be completed in December 2006; and (3) noted it 

was considering an overseas pilot. USCIS left open the possibility of requiring “DNA testing for all family petitions” when 

such testing is more available and affordable worldwide.273 

In addition to the Cronin Memo, USCIS issued a memorandum 

in 2008 entitled “Genetic Relationship Testing: Suggesting 

DNA Tests – Revisions to the AFM Chapter 21” (Aytes 

Memo).274 The Aytes Memo revisits the Cronin Memo without 

advancing USCIS policy regarding “suggested” testing.275 

b. Comparison with Department of State 

Other agencies, most notably DOS, have moved to formalize 

DNA as state-of-the-art evidence and established noninvasive 

buccal swab collection (i.e., gently scraping cells from the 

inside of the mouth with a cotton bud) as the preferred specimen gathering technique. By updating its rules on DNA testing, USCIS would be harmonizing its procedures with those of 

DOS in a way that facilitates evidence gathering abroad. 

Nearly three years after stating an intention to update its 

regulations, USCIS has not modified 8 C.F.R. § 204.2(d)(vi). 

In addition, only two pilot programs to date have been 

conducted, both in Africa. 

Since April 2006, DOS has adopted significant revisions to 

its policy and practice regarding DNA testing. These updates 

to the Foreign Affairs Manual collectively recognize DNA 

testing as the state-of-the-art in biological relationship testing, 

articulate the need to maintain strict procedural safeguards 

to protect the integrity of this powerful tool, and establish 

noninvasive buccal swab collection as the preferred collection 

technique. 

c. Asylees and Refugees 

The Ombudsman discussed DNA testing with communitybased and international relief organizations. All expressed 

dissatisfaction with the Nairobi pilot DNA program. They 

voiced a shared concern that greater availability of DNA testing 

would lead to it becoming mandatory, even if proposed 

as an alternative to assist refugee families in meeting their 

evidentiary burden. These organizations fear that mandatory 

testing will prejudice P-3 applicants by: (a) leading consular 

adjudicators to rely on DNA testing in lieu of exercising 

their judgment based on interview and document review; 

(b) infringing privacy rights where confidentiality is difficult 

to ensure and chain-of-custody or data retention policies 

ill-defined; and (c) imposing unrealistic costs on those least 

able to afford them. 

d. 2009 Annual Report Recommendations on DNA 

RECOMMENDATION 6 

The Ombudsman recommends that USCIS remove references 

to obsolete blood testing methods from the Adjudicator’s 

Field Manual (AFM) and other published guidance. 

(AR2009-06) 

USCIS should state a definitive preference for non-invasive 

DNA testing over the obsolete forms of invasive relationship 

270 Recommendation #26 (Apr. 12, 2006), www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman (accessed June 10, 2009). 

271 USCIS Response to Recommendation #26 (July 5, 2006), www.dhs. 

gov/cisombudsman (accessed June 10, 2009). 

272 INS Interoffice Memorandum from then Acting Executive Associate Commissioner of the INS, Michael D. Cronin, “Guidance on 

Parentage Testing for Family-Based IV Petitions,” (July 14, 2000) 

(Cronin Memo), http://www.immigrationlinks.com/news/news413.htm (accessed May 4, 2009). 

273 Economies of scale have not dramatically decreased the cost of 

DNA testing. Rather, despite laboratory processing cost reductions due to streamlined, automated processing of samples, overall 

customer savings have leveled off due to more inelastic, fixed costs 

involved in transporting and safeguarding DNA test kits to and 

from collection sites. These fixed costs can be drastically higher for 

less developed countries than for the domestic U.S. testing market. 

274	 http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/genetic_testing.pdf (accessed 

June 9, 2009). 

275 In addition to the Cronin and Aytes memoranda, 8 C.F.R. § 204.2 

pertains to this issue. 
46 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman 

blood testing that are neither widely available any longer, nor 

considered as reliable as DNA tests.276 

RECOMMENDATION 7 

The Ombudsman recommends that USCIS continue to 

coordinate with the U.S. Department of State regarding 

DNA testing procedures and execute a Memorandum of 

Understanding (MOU) with DOS for resource allocation for 

DNA evidence gathering and chain-of-custody observance 

abroad. (AR2009-07) 

USCIS and DOS277 should enter into a written agreement 

regarding allocation of monitoring and other administrative 

costs of DNA evidence gathering abroad, whether conducted 

at the request of USCIS or DOS. When consular monitoring is unavailable, chain-of-custody requirements cannot 

be fulfilled; without such oversight, the evidence collection 

essential to answer RFEs or Notices of Intent to Deny cannot 

be completed. 

RECOMMENDATION 8 

The Ombudsman recommends that USCIS designate a USCIS 

DNA liaison to facilitate discussions between USCIS and the 

U.S. Department of State, as well as to periodically provide 

clarifications for DNA laboratories. (AR2009-08) 

The liaison would coordinate DNA issues and focus on maintaining consistent testing policy among a number of interested 

parties: (1) various USCIS offices; (2) USCIS and consulates 

abroad, as well as more generally between USCIS and DOS 

officials engaged in immigration processing; and (3) USCIS, 

applicants/petitioners and their counsel, and DNA testing 

laboratories. DOS currently divides this function between two 

officers within the Bureau of Consular Affairs. 

The USCIS component currently taking the lead on DNA testing issues is the Office of Policy and Regulation Management 

within the Domestic Operations Directorate. Focusing 

specifically on USCIS’ benefits processing role, the liaison 

would monitor and address procedural, technical, and policy 

matters.278 

e. Going Forward 

The Ombudsman continues to monitor USCIS DNA testing 

policy and practice. Although current USCIS rules establish 

DNA testing as a choice by customers, its current practice 

suggests otherwise. The Ombudsman notified USCIS of at 

least one service center that issued RFEs containing language 

stating that “only DNA evidence will be sufficient to support 

the approval of this petition.” USCIS stopped issuing these 

RFEs shortly thereafter. 

For three years, since responding to the Ombudsman’s 2006 

recommendations, the agency has recognized the need to revise regulations about DNA testing.279 By eliminating outdated 

processes and organizing its piecemeal approaches to testing, 

USCIS would provide guidance for individuals and harmonize 

USCIS-DOS immigration processing rules on DNA. 

6. K-3 Family Reunification Process 

In previous annual reports, the Ombudsman discussed issues 

with the K-3 visa family reunification process.280 The Legal 

276 The Cronin Memo recognized in 2000 that, “[a]s a result of technological advances, field offices should be aware that Blood Group 

Antigen and HLA tests are no longer widely available for testing by 

laboratories, and are not considered to be as reliable as DNA tests.” 

277 USCIS and DOS are the major governmental entities interested in 

biological relationship testing for immigration benefits purposes. 

By terms of the “Memorandum Of Understanding Between The 

Secretaries Of State And Homeland Security Concerning Implementation Of Section 428 Of The Homeland Security Act Of 2002,” 

signed September 29, 2003, by Colin Powell and Tom Ridge, DOS 

has authority for visa processing abroad, including for immigrant 

visas based on family relationship. See DHS Press Release, “Departments of State, Homeland Security Reach Agreement on Visa Oversight Rule to Better Secure America’s Borders” (Sept. 29, 2003), 

http://www.dhs.gov/xnews/releases/press_release_0270.shtm (accessed June 

10, 2009); see also DHS OIG Report, “An Evaluation of DHS Activities 

to Implement Section 428 of the Security Act of 2002,” OIG-04-33 

(Aug. 2004). 

278 For example, procedural matters could include where to send DNA 

kits abroad; who to contact at a USCIS office to clarify DNA RFEs; 

how to resolve problems obtaining samples overseas where a DOS 

official must be present for a test initiated at USCIS’ request; and 

suggesting when policy revisions warrant process updates. Technical matters could include giving guidance to adjudicators regarding probability thresholds for different kinships and appropriate 

individuals to be tested. Policy matters could include interpreting 

existing policy; monitoring adherence of officers to policy; and 

revising policy as warranted by changed circumstances (e.g., by 

technological advances). 

279 The agency reports that it is “considering various options that may 

speed up the adjudication process.” Ombudsman Teleconference, 

“Biological Relationship Testing: Opportunities and Challenges” 

(Oct. 30, 2008) and USCIS Response (Mar. 20, 2009), www.dhs.gov/ 

cisombudsman (accessed June 10, 2009). 

280 Ombudsman’s Annual Report 2008, p. 60; 2007, pp. 56-7; and 

2006, pp. 46-7 (Recommendation #10). 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Annual Report to Congress — June 2009 47 

Immigration Family Equity (LIFE) Act of 2000, enacted in 

response to immigration benefits processing delays, established the K-3 visa category for foreign spouses of U.S. citizens 

to obtain a nonimmigrant visa and more quickly join their 

spouses in the country.281 During the reporting period, the 

Ombudsman continued to hear concerns from communitybased organizations, the immigration legal community, and 

directly from customers that the spirit of the LIFE Act is not 

fulfilled because processing times for K-3 nonimmigrant 

visas equal those for immigrant visas for spouses of U.S. 

citizens.282 As of this writing, the two USCIS service centers 

that adjudicate the relevant forms, Form I-129F (Petition for 

Alien Fiance(é)) and I-130 (Petition for Alien Relative), show 

a processing time for I-129Fs equal to or greater than those 

for I-130s.283 As the LIFE Act sought to make the K-3 a faster 

means of reuniting American citizen families, the legislative 

intent is not being fulfilled.284 

The Ombudsman notes that USCIS has improved the processing times and addressed the receipting delays for I-130s 

discussed in the 2008 Annual Report.285 Yet, even the posted 

processing time for issuing K-3 visas continues to frustrate the 

USCIS customer community, which seeks a swift process for 

foreign spouses. 

7. Family-Based Petitions (I-130s) 

U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents file Form I-130 

(Petition for Alien Relative) as a first step for eligible family 

member beneficiaries to immigrate to the United States.286 

USCIS classifies the beneficiary either as an immediate relative, 

or in one of the four family-based preference categories, based 

on the petition. Immediate relative petitions filed by U.S. citizens on behalf of a parent, spouse, or unmarried child under 

the age of 21 are not subject to annual quotas.287 Preferencebased petitions are subject to annual numerical limitations; 

upon receipt, they are issued a “priority date” denoting the 

place in line for a visa.288 

Since July 15, 2004, USCIS policy has been to hold preferencebased petitions and process them just prior to visa availability.289 Due to this policy, many petitions remained pending unadjudicated for years while awaiting a visa number. Currently, 

there are approximately 1.1 million I-130 petitions pending 

with USCIS.290 

With receipts significantly lower in FY 2009, USCIS informed 

the Ombudsman that it decided to use available staff to adjudicate many long-pending I-130 petitions. In March 2009, the 

CSC began shipping pending I-130 petitions to field offices in 

the southeast, northeast, and western regions to take advantage of capacity in field offices. As of this writing, 223,288 

petitions have been relocated to field offices for processing.291 

USCIS will continue to ship these petitions until the end of 

FY 2009. The agency anticipates processing approximately 

600,000 of the 1.1 million I-130 petitions currently pending.292 

In addition, USCIS has told the Ombudsman it will process 

the additional I-130 petitions received in FY 2009; projected 

receipts for FY 2009 are 650,000.293 

C. 2009 Reporting Period 

Recommendations 

During the reporting period, the Ombudsman issued eight 

recommendations to USCIS, as described on the following 

pages in reverse chronological order. By statute, USCIS has 

three months to respond to these recommendations.294 

281 Pub. L. No. 106-553 (Dec. 21, 2000). 

282 K-3 visas are issued upon approval of Form I-129F (Petition for 

Alien Fiancé(e)), while IR-1 visas are issued after approval of Form 

I-130 (Petition for Alien Relative). 

283 “Processing Times and Case Status,” www.uscis.gov (accessed 

June 17, 2009). 

284 See generally LIFE Act, Pub. L. No. 106-553 (Dec. 21, 2000). 

285 Ombudsman’s Annual Report 2008, p. 60. 

286 INA §§ 201(b), 203(a). 

287 INA § 201(b). 

288 INA § 203(a). 

289 USCIS Public Notice, “Notice to All Customers with A Pending I-130 Petition” (July 15, 2004), http://www.uscis.gov/files/ 

pressrelease/I_130_07_01_04.pdf (accessed June 8, 2009). 

290 Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman (Apr. 2, 2009). 

291 Id. 

292 Id. 

293 Id. 

294 Homeland Security Act of 2002, § 452(f). 
 

 

48 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman 

1. Motions Matter: Improving the Filing and Review 

Process for Motions to Reopen and Reconsider 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

1. Establish uniform filing and review procedures that: 

a. Articulate a standard procedure to make no-fee 

motions based on Service error 

b. Include a uniform tracking mechanism for motions 

c. Announce agency-wide completion goals for motions 

2. Communicate motion filing and review information more 

effectively by: 

a. Consistent use of standardized language in nonappealable denials 

b. Revising information provided by Tier 1 of the NCSC 

c. Posting more specific information on motions 

REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS 

•	 Simplified and more publicly disseminated explanatory 

information is needed 

- Processing inconsistencies exist at different USCIS 

venues 

- Processing times for motions vary dramatically and 

are not published 

- No uniform tracking mechanism to determine status 

of motions 

•	 Lack of uniform procedures results in varying levels of 

customer service 

•	 Lack of easily understood information inhibits customer 

access to motions practice 

HIgHLIgHTS 

•	 MTRs are a procedural mechanism to review adverse decisions based upon new evidence or error of law/policy 

•	 Provide additional measure of quality assurance to USCIS 

decisions 

More Information? 

Review the full text of the Ombudsman’s recommendations at: 

http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/cisomb_recommendation_42_5-15-09.pdf 

Summary 

The Ombudsman observed through case problems, customer 

correspondence, and a public teleconference that the filing 

and review procedures for motions to reopen and reconsider 

are not well understood by USCIS’ customer base. Much of 

the confusion appears to stem from unarticulated procedural 

variations across USCIS offices and informational deficiencies 

regarding the filing, intake, and review process. 

By regulation, motions to reopen or reconsider (MTRs) permit 

customers to obtain review or reexamination of an adverse 

USCIS decision. A motion to reopen must state the new facts to 

be provided in the reopened proceeding and be supported 

by affidavits and other documentary evidence.295 A motion 

to reconsider, on the other hand, must state the reasons for 

reconsideration of a decision and be supported by pertinent 

precedent decisions to show that the decision was based on an 

incorrect application of law or USCIS policy.296 

Customers must file a motion on a Form I-290B (Notice of 

Appeal or Motion) within 30 days of issuance of the disputed 

USCIS decision, and must either pay a $585 filing fee or 

request a fee waiver based on inability to pay. USCIS officers 

are also vested with the authority to reopen or reconsider a 

decision at any time on their own motion.297 Service motions 

initiated by USCIS are generally used to correct agency errors, 

approve a case, notify a customer of the intent to deny a case, 

or clarify the language of a previous decision.298 

295 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2) (2008). Applicants and petitioners may 

file a motion to reopen any application or petition, with certain 

exceptions. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2)(i)-(iii) (2008) (detailing 

additional requirements for filing a motion to reopen when USCIS 

denies a case due to abandonment); see also 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(b)-(c) 

(2008) (relating to special agricultural worker and legalization applications, and replenishment agricultural worker petitions). 

296 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3) (2008). 

297 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(5) (2008). 

298 Adjudicator’s Field Manual (AFM), Chapter 10.17(b), “Motions to 

Reopen or Reconsider: Motion Filed by Applicant or Petitioner” 

(Mar. 2009). 
 

 

 

 

Annual Report to Congress — June 2009 49 

Motions differ from appeals in that the review request goes 

to the original decision-maker rather than a higher administrative authority. Additionally, motions do not forestall 

the consequences of a USCIS decision and have no effect on 

the disposition of a case unless the motion is granted.299 An 

appeal, on the other hand, places the disposition of a case on 

hold until the appeal is resolved. 

Notwithstanding these differences, motions do play a role 

in certain appeals processes. For example, the original 

adjudicating USCIS office treats most appeals to the USCIS 

Administrative Appeals Office (AAO)300 first as an MTR. 

When the USCIS office receives an appeal, it must review the 

complete case to determine whether the arguments presented 

clearly overcome the reasons for denial.301 If within 45 days 

of the appeal’s filing the office finds the appeal meritorious, 

it may treat the appeal as an MTR and approve the case.302 If 

after 45 days the office finds the appeal meritorious, it may 

reopen or reconsider the case on a Service motion.303 If, 

however, the arguments fail to clearly overcome the basis of 

the denial, the office must “promptly”304 forward the appeal to 

the AAO for review. 

Analysis 

On May 15, 2009, the Ombudsman issued recommendations 

to improve the filing and review process for motions to 

reopen and reconsider USCIS decisions. The Ombudsman’s 

recommendations focused on four major issues affecting the 

quality and efficiency of the motions process: (1) correcting clear Service error;305 (2) tracking the status of motions; 

(3) timely resolving motions; and (4) providing consistent, 

more detailed information about motions. By statute, USCIS’ 

response is due on August 13, 2009. 

Recommendation 1: Establish more uniform filing and 

review procedures for motions to reopen and reconsider 

among field offices and service centers by: (a) standardizing and clearly articulating to the public the procedures by 

which an applicant or petitioner may bring a clear Service 

error to the attention of the agency without incurring the 

$585 MTR filing fee; (b) developing and implementing a 

uniform tracking mechanism for MTRs; and (c) instituting, 

publishing, and monitoring agency-wide completion goals 

for the adjudication of MTRs. Disparities exist in the quality 

of customer service for motions processing across USCIS 

offices. For example, several offices have adopted the practice 

of reviewing decisions without charging the filing fee in cases 

where customers allege clear error. Other offices require 

customers to file fees with MTRs and only issue refunds upon 

verification of clear error. Many offices issue receipts with 

tracking numbers or acknowledge the filing of an MTR, while 

other offices do not. Regarding speed of processing, some 

offices have implemented local 30- to 90-day completion goals 

to resolve motions. In at least one case, an office took more 

than a year to adjudicate a motion.306 

299 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(iv) (2008). 

300 Generally, these appeals are procedurally similar to motions in that 

they must be filed on a Form I-290B with a $585 filing fee within 

30 days of the disputed decision date. 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.3(a)(2)(i); 

103.7(b) (2008). 

301 AFM, Chapter 10.8(a)(1), “Preparing the Appellate Case Record: 

Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) Cases” (Mar. 2009). 

302 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(2)(iii) (2008). An appeal can only be treated as 

a motion to issue a favorable decision. 

303 Id. 

304 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(2)(iv) (2008); AFM, Chapter 10.8(a)(1), “Preparing the Appellate Case Record: Administrative Appeals (AAO) 

Cases” (Mar. 2009). The regulations and USCIS field guidance do 

not define “promptly” for purposes of forwarding an appeal to the 

AAO. However, prompt forwarding may depend on the manner in 

which a USCIS office processes motions and appeals. Some offices 

forward decisions to the AAO within two to three weeks, while 

others do not monitor the length of time it takes to forward appeals 

to the AAO. 

305 While formally defining “clear Service error” presents a significant 

challenge given the breadth of possible interpretations, USCIS has 

previously provided examples of what it has described as “obvious 

error” by the agency. See “Adjustment of the Appeal and Motion 

Fees to Recover Full Costs,” 70 Fed. Reg. 50954 (Aug. 29, 2005). 

Obvious errors include an erroneous determination that an appeal 

or motion was not timely filed, or an improper finding relating to 

statutory eligibility such as age or marital status. Id. USCIS officials 

have also provided the Ombudsman with two specific examples of 

clear Service error that directly result in the denial of an application or petition: (1) validity data errors, which usually result from 

the inadvertent transposition of numbers relating to biographical 

or other information; or (2) scheduling mistakes. Scheduling mistakes may occur when an individual fails to appear for an interview 

or biometrics appointment after USCIS schedules the appointment 

without timely notifying the individual. 

306 USCIS recently instituted a policy allowing customers to call the 

National Customer Service Center to place a service request for any 

motion pending more than 90 days. See “Questions and Answers 

from January 28, 2009 Teleconference on Motions to Reopen: How 

Are They Working for You?” (May 7, 2009), http://www.dhs.gov/ 

xabout/structure/gc_1236024971749.shtm (accessed June 8, 2009). 
 

50 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman 

Recommendation 2: Communicate the MTR filing 

and review process more effectively to customers and 

stakeholders by: (a) consistently incorporating standard 

language on how to file an MTR into written denials that 

cannot be appealed; (b) revising the information on MTRs 

provided by Tier 1 of the USCIS National Customer Service 

Center (NCSC); and (c) posting on the USCIS website more 

specific information about the filing and review procedures 

for MTRs. The Ombudsman found that USCIS customers 

have disparate access to reliable information and often do not 

understand the motions process. For example, USCIS does not 

always notify the customer of the option to file an MTR for 

denials that cannot be appealed.307 In addition, Tier 1 of the 

NCSC has advised inquiring customers of their ability to file 

a motion to dispute a denial, but misinformed them that no 

USCIS form exists to file a motion.308 Meanwhile, other offices 

regularly include in written denials information about how to 

file an MTR, as well as a copy of Form I-290B. 

307 Only certain applications and petitions may be appealed to a higher 

administrative authority. The AAO has jurisdiction over most applications and petitions. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.1(f)(iii) (2003). The 

Board of Immigration Appeals has appellate authority over most 

family-based immigrant petitions filed under section 204 of the 

INA, including Form I-130 (Petition for Alien Relative). See 8 C.F.R. 

§ 1003.1(b)(5) (2008). Other applications and petitions, such as 

Forms I-751 (Petition to Remove the Conditions of Residence), 

I-485 (Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust 

Status) filed pursuant to section 245 of the INA, and I-765 (Application for Employment Authorization) cannot be appealed. 8 C.F.R. 

§§ 216.4(d)(2), 245.2(a)(5)(ii), and 274a.13(c) (2008). 

308 Specifically, National Customer Service Center Tier 1 scripts 

instructed customer service representatives to tell customers that, 

“[t]here is no form for a motion, but it must be in writing.” 
 

 

 

 

 

Annual Report to Congress — June 2009	 51 

2. Improving the Process for Payment of USCIS 

Filing Fees and Other Costs 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

1. Allow batch online payment system for high volume filers 

2. Use an online shopping cart mechanism to simplify form, 

fee, and payment choices 

3. Expand e-Filing option to allow fee payments on other 

forms 

4. Add visual and written aids to instructions to increase 

correct payment submissions 

REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS 

•	 Paper-based payments often contain common errors – no 

amount written, incorrect amount, missing signature, 

incorrect payee, etc. 

•	 Such mistakes can cause rejections, delays, added costs, 

and worse – loss of benefits 

•	 An electronic payment option would reduce errors & 

enhance customer service 

HIgHLIgHTS 

•	 Most payments received through check or money order 

•	 Thousands of filings rejected annually due to fee mistakes 

•	 USCIS customers regularly use 40+ forms requiring fee 

payment 

•	 Electronic filing and payment options only available for 

eight forms 

•	 USCIS has not expanded its offering of electronic filing and 

payment since 2004 

More Information? 

Review the full text of the Ombudsman’s recommendations at: 

http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/CIS_Ombudsman_Recommendation_ 

41_4-1-09.pdf 

Summary 

This study examines current payment methods and recommends options to improve customer service and enhance efficiency in the processing and disbursement of funds to USCIS. 

USCIS operates as a fee-for-service agency, receiving filing and 

other supplemental fees from customers to fund the administration of immigration benefits and services. Customers 

pay most USCIS fees309 by check or money order.310 For eight 

forms,311 customers may access the USCIS e-Filing system312 to 

pay filing fees by credit card or by entering bank account information. Research conducted by the Ombudsman indicates 

309 For the purpose of this study, “USCIS fees” encompasses filing, 

supplemental, biometric, and derivative costs, unless otherwise 

specified. Filing fees are costs associated with specific forms. 

Supplemental fees are additional fees, aside from filing fees, that 

may be required for certain forms, such as charges for specified employers filing H1-B or L-1 petitions. See INA § 214(c)(9), 

(c)(12). Biometric fees are required to cover the costs of fingerprinting, photographing, and required security checks. Derivative 

costs include any additional fees required to process certain family 

members included on an application or petition. 

310	 The Chicago Lockbox only accepts payment of fees via money 

order, cashier’s check, or personal check. USCIS, “Tips for Filing 

Petitions and Applications to the National Benefits Center” (Apr. 

2008), www.uscis.gov (accessed June 8, 2009). 

311	 The eight forms currently accessible through the e-Filing system include: Form I-90 (Application to Replace Permanent Resident Card), 

Form I-129 (Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker), Form I-131 (Application for Travel Document), Form I-140 (Immigrant Petition for 

Alien Worker), Form I-539 (Application to Extend / Change Nonimmigrant Status), Form I-765 (Application for Employment Authorization), Form I-821 (Application for Temporary Protected Status), 

and Form I-907 (Request for Premium Processing Service). USCIS, 

“Forms Currently Available for e-Filing and Form-Specific e-Filing 

Instructions” (Apr. 8, 2008), www.uscis.gov (accessed June 8, 2009). 

312	 The USCIS e-Filing system is operated by Pay.gov, a program 

developed by the U.S. Department of Treasury to allow individuals 

to complete and submit forms online, as well as make electronic 

payments to government agencies. The USCIS e-Filing system is 

an Open Collections Interface (Interactive), a Pay.gov proprietary 

interface that provides connectivity from agency websites to the 

Pay.gov collection service. See generally www.pay.gov (accessed June 8, 

2009). USCIS accepts credit card, debit card, checking account, 

and savings account payments for these eight forms. USCIS, “Paying Fees for E-filed Applications,” www.uscis.gov (accessed June 8, 

2009). USCIS offers electronic payment options (i.e., credit/debit 

card) at certain field offices. 
 

 

 

52	 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman 

that deficiencies in the current payment system cause systemic 

problems for both customers and USCIS. These shortcomings 

include the lack of a user-friendly payment structure, failure 

to expand the e-Filing system, and use of confusing payment 

instructions. 

Most USCIS customers pay filing fees and other costs through 

paper-based payment methods (i.e., check or money order), 

while others pay filing fees electronically through the e-Filing 

system.313 If the payment is submitted improperly, a USCIS 

receipting location will not accept it; this non-acceptance may, 

and often does, result in rejection of an application or petition. 

In time-sensitive cases, the need for a customer to resubmit 

rejected applications or petitions can result in the denial or 

loss of the immigration benefit that was originally timely 

sought. Rejections can cause a customer to miss important 

filing deadlines without recourse or remedy. For example, 

a customer could either miss the annual numerical cap for 

certain nonimmigrant categories, or even lose a favorable 

priority date.314 Moreover, USCIS is negatively affected by 

fee-rejected cases, as the agency incurs extra administrative 

costs associated with mailing tens of thousands of rejection 

notices annually, thus, shifting resources away from eligible 

applications and petitions.315 

While USCIS must accept traditional forms of payment,316 it 

is also important to offer customers payment options that are 

modern and convenient. Electronic payment options offer 

customers several important benefits not available through 

paper-based payment methods, including immediate confirmation of payment, convenience, and accuracy in calculating 

total costs. Additionally, studies indicate that electronic 

payment systems are generally more cost-effective than paperbased payments.317 

USCIS has previously explored improved payment methods, 

but difficulties arose in implementing and finalizing these 

initiatives. Recently, USCIS issued two directives that included 

improvements to payment methods. The USCIS Lockbox 

Operations Division318 began an expansion initiative, which 

includes a plan to replace the current e-Filing system with a 

more streamlined solution.319 USCIS officials acknowledge, 

however, that high costs of the e-Filing system, failure to 

improve the agency case management system, and delays in 

making cost estimates and assigning system ownership have 

prolonged the implementation process.320 In November 2008, 

USCIS announced its award of the Transformation Solution 

Architect Task Order contract,321 which proposes improvements to electronic filing and payment processes.322 

Analysis 

On April 1, 2009, the Ombudsman recommended that 

USCIS provide modernized, user-friendly payment options 

and clearer instructions on submitting filing fees. USCIS 

responded to this recommendation on June 3, 2009, after the 

close of the Ombudsman’s reporting period. 

313	 See “USCIS Transformation Program: Concept of Operations, Version 1.5,” p.15 (Mar. 28, 2007), http://www.uscis.gov/files/nativedocuments/TransformationConOps_Mar07.pdf (accessed June 8, 2009). 

314	 The filing of certain petitions (or of a labor certification application 

for employment-based petitioners) establishes a “priority date.” 

Priority dates determine a beneficiary’s “place in line” for a visa, 

relative to other beneficiaries of the same category and nationality. 

See generally 22 C.F.R. § 42.53 (2008). 

315	 See Ombudsman’s Annual Report 2006, p. 45. 

316	 Approximately 60 percent of paper-based payments are money 

orders, and USCIS reasons that this percentage is understandable 

because many applicants may not have U.S. checking accounts. 

Information provided by Chicago Lockbox facility to the Ombudsman (Oct. 24, 2008). 

317	 See, e.g., David B. Humphrey, Moshe Kim, & Bent Vale, “Realizing 

Gains from Electronic Payments: Costs, Pricing, and Payment 

Choice,” 33 Journal of Money, Credit and Banking 216, 220 (2001) 

(Paper checks incur associated expenditures such as the cost of 

accepting a check, required postage, and check distribution. Experts estimate that the “average payment cost for a payor, payee, 

and bank sums to $2.93 for a check but only $1.31 for a [Automated Clearing House] transfer,” or electronic payment, based on 

weighted comparisons of costs associated with consumer, business, 

and government payments.) 

318	 The Lockbox Operations Division manages the USCIS lockbox facilities, which provide general intake services including: receiving, 

opening, and sorting mail; accepting or rejecting applications and 

related fees; and processing receipt notices for accepted applications 

and returning rejected applications. 

319	 Information provided by the U.S. Department of Treasury to the 

Ombudsman (Nov. 25, 2008). 

320 Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman 

(Sept. 25, 2008). 

321	 See section II.B., “USCIS Modernization.” 

322 USCIS Memorandum, “FY 2008 Accomplishments/FY 2009 Outlook/Transformation Contract Award,” www.uscis.gov (accessed Apr. 

22, 2009); see “USCIS Transformation Program: Concept of Operations, Version 1.5,” p. 26 (Mar. 28, 2007), http://www.uscis.gov/files/ 

nativedocuments/TransformationConOps_Mar07.pdf (accessed June 8, 2009). 
 

 

 

 

Annual Report to Congress — June 2009	 53 

Recommendation 1: Implement a batch filing system that 

would enable high volume filers to pay USCIS fees online. A 

batch filing system would allow high volume filers (i.e., major 

corporations, large employers, and law firms) to enroll in a 

master account from which all filing fees could be disbursed 

directly to USCIS through a secure, online system. A high 

volume filer would be able to pay USCIS fees on behalf of 

clients, sort payment history, check payment status, and make 

enrollment changes online.323 

USCIS would benefit as batch filing would facilitate agency 

compliance with federal mandates to modernize systems and 

improve customer service.324 Customers would benefit as 

batch filing would limit the rate of rejection due to mistakes 

on checks and money orders. The Internal Revenue Service’s 

batch filing system has been a success, streamlining the 

process of filing taxes to the degree that customers have 

increased their use of the system by approximately 38 percent 

since inception.325 Batch filing complies with rules of professional conduct that govern attorney accounts326 and electronic 

payments,327 making it an effective, operationally sound 

payment option. 

Recommendation 2: Implement an online shopping cart 

mechanism that would simplify the process of identifying 

appropriate USCIS forms, calculating related fees, and 

submitting payments. Customers also have expressed interest 

in a more user-friendly payment system to allow for payment 

of immigration benefits through an online shopping cart 

structure.328 Rather than requiring customers to navigate the 

USCIS website for different immigration forms, USCIS could 

pose questions that would guide them to complete the appropriate forms and pay the corresponding filing fees through 

various electronic media, including credit cards and bank 

account withdrawals. 

Recommendation 3: Expand the payment options within 

the e-Filing system to include all USCIS fees. Currently, 

eight filing fees may be paid through the e-Filing system. 

They correspond to the highest-volume and most basic forms 

received. However, as there are over 50 existing USCIS fees, 

an expansion to include all USCIS fees would enable customers 

to make more payments in a fast and convenient manner. 

The option to pay USCIS fees online would not require 

e-Filing of the immigration benefit application itself. Rather, 

customers could submit an electronic payment, print out the 

payment confirmation sheet, and attach it to the corresponding application or petition. 

Recommendation 4: Include additional visual and written 

aids within current instructions to ensure that payments 

are submitted correctly. To limit the number of application 

and petition rejections based on fee mistakes that occur upon 

completing a check or money order, USCIS should provide 

aids to customers making payments. 

For example, the Ombudsman recommends providing 

translations of form instructions and including visual aids, 

such as pictures of correctly completed checks and money 

orders, to improve the clarity of instructions. In addition, 

just as USCIS instructions for several forms include checklists 

to ensure customers provide certain filing information (e.g., 

supporting evidence and photographs), a separate checklist for 

payments detailing common fee mistakes would be helpful 

in preventing unnecessary rejections. For the eight forms 

currently available for e-Filing, USCIS should provide a link to 

the e-Filing system within each form’s corresponding payment 

instructions to increase customer awareness of this option. 

323 Information provided by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to the 

Ombudsman (Nov. 6, 2008); see also “Electronic Federal Tax Payment System (EFTPS),” https://www.eftps.gov/eftps/ (accessed 

June 8, 2009). 

324	 See generally “E-Government Strategy, Implementing the President’s 

Management Agenda for E-Government,” (Apr. 2003), http://contacts. 

gsa.gov/graphics/fts/President_E-Gov_Strategy.pdf (accessed June 8, 2009). 

325 Information provided by the IRS to the Ombudsman 

(Dec. 17, 2008). 

326 Information provided by the American Immigration Lawyers Association to the Ombudsman (Mar. 13, 2009) (Implementation 

of a batch filing system within USCIS would comply with rules of 

professional conduct that govern attorney accounts, provided the 

new system allows for individual payments to be made on behalf 

of individual clients from a lawyer’s trust account, rather than an 

aggregation of fees for multiple clients.) 

327	 See NACHA – The Electronic Payments Association, http://www.nacha. 

org/about/default.htm (accessed June 8, 2009) (EFTPS complies with 

banking standards established by the National Agency Clearing 

House Association (NACHA), regarding the transferring of funds. 

“NACHA is a not-for-profit association that oversees the Automated 

Clearing House (ACH) Network, an electronic payment network. 

NACHA is responsible for the administration, development, and 

enforcement of the NACHA Operating Rules and management practices 

for the ACH Network.”) 

328 Ombudsman Teleconference, “USCIS E-Filing and Filing Fee Payment Options: How Are They Working for You?” (Nov. 25, 2008). 
54	 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman 

3. Employment Creation Immigrant Visa (EB-5) Program 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

1. Finalize special regulations for a limited class of EB-5 

investors 

2. Direct EB-5 adjudicators not to re-adjudicate indirect job 

creation methodology, absent error or fraud 

3. Designate more EB-5 AAO precedent/adopted decisions 

4. Use rulemaking to update EB-5 regulations 

5. Form an inter-governmental advisory group to consult on 

complex business, economic, and labor issues 

6. Offer a fee-for-service option to investors to accelerate 

adjudications 

7. “Prioritize” processing of Regional Center filings 

8. Partner with Departments of State & Commerce to 

promote program overseas 

REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS 

•	 Complex regulatory scheme 

•	 Key terms and principles incongruent with commonly 

accepted business practices 

•	 Agency reversal of previous policy guidance undermines 

program predictability 

•	 Perception of overly restrictive adjudications 

•	 Concern with USCIS demands for extensive documentation 

•	 Lack of visible agency support for EB-5 program 

HIgHLIgHTS 

•	 Program created in 1990 

•	 Approximately 10,000 green cards available annually, 

approximately 1,000 used 

•	 46 pilot Regional Centers – pilot authority expires Sept. 30, 

2009, absent extension 

•	 Denial rates have fluctuated significantly 

•	 Recent centralization of all EB-5 adjudications at the CSC 

Summary 

In 1990, Congress passed and the President signed into law 

legislation to attract entrepreneurial-minded immigrants 

who would invest capital to create jobs for U.S. workers and, 

thereby, stimulate the economy.329 To qualify for a green 

card under the fifth employment-based category (EB-5), 

an applicant must invest a minimum of $500,000 or in 

some cases $1,000,000 in a new commercial enterprise that 

directly creates at least ten new full-time jobs.330 Congress 

also authorized an EB-5 pilot program331 whereby foreign 

investors can pool their monies in Regional Centers332 which 

make large-scale investments. EB-5 Regional Center investors 

can demonstrate that their investment indirectly333 meets the 

job creation requirement. In FY 2008, 68 percent of the EB-5 

visas issued were used by foreign entrepreneurs who invested 

through a Regional Center.334 

Congress allocated approximately 10,000 immigrant visas per 

year to this category to make the program an important job 

creating engine for the United States.335 However, EB-5 usage 

More Information? 

Review the full text of the Ombudsman’s recommendations 

at: http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/CIS_Ombudsman_EB-5_ 

Recommendation_3_18_09.pdf 

329 Immigration Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-649 (Nov. 29, 1990). 


330 INA § 203(b)(5).
 

331 See Departments of Commerce, Justice, State, the Judiciary, and 


Related Agencies Appropriation Act of 1993, Pub. L. No. 102-395, 

§ 610 (Oct. 6, 1992). 

332 A “Regional Center” is defined as “any economic unit, public 

or private, which is involved with the promotion of economic 

growth, including increased export sales, improved productivity, 

job creation and increased domestic capital investment.” 8 C.F.R. 

§ 204.6(e) (2008). 

333	 See Departments of Commerce, Justice, State, the Judiciary, and 

Related Agencies Appropriation Act of 1993, Pub. L. No. 102-395, 

§ 610(c) (Oct. 6, 1992). 

334 DHS Office of Immigration Statistics, “2008 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics,” Table 7, http://www.dhs.gov/ximgtn/statistics/publications/ 

LPR08.shtm (accessed June 8, 2009). 

335 The fifth employment-based category is 7.1 percent of the annual 

worldwide allocation of employment-based visas, which is approximately 10,000 visas annually. INA § 203(b)(5)(a). 
 

 

 

 

 

Annual Report to Congress — June 2009	 55 

rarely has exceeded 1,000 per year.336 EB-5 underutilization is caused by a confluence of factors, including program 

instability, changing economic conditions, and more inviting 

immigrant investor programs offered by other countries. 

Especially due to the current state of the U.S. economy, USCIS 

should seek to facilitate and optimize a smooth-running 

employment-creation immigrant visa program. 

Analysis 

On March 18, 2009, the Ombudsman made the following recommendations regarding the EB-5 program. USCIS responded 

to this recommendation on June 12, 2009, after the close of 

the Ombudsman’s reporting period. 

Recommendation 1: Finalize regulations to implement 

the special 2002 EB-5 legislation offering certain EB-5 

investors337 a pathway to cure deficiencies in their previously submitted petitions. The Ombudsman understands 

that proposed regulations have been drafted, but have been 

stalled in USCIS’ internal rulemaking review process. As these 

regulations have been in the drafting and review process for 

over six years, they are long overdue. 

Recommendation 2: Direct EB-5 adjudicators not to reconsider or re-adjudicate the indirect job creation methodology in Regional Center cases, absent clear error or evidence 

of fraud. Repeat questioning, debate, and re-adjudication of 

economic models and analyses used to prove the ten full-time 

job creation requirement deplete USCIS resources, cause 

delays, and erode investor confidence. 

Recommendation 3: Designate more EB-5 Administrative 

Appeals Office (AAO) decisions as precedent/adopted 

decisions to provide stakeholders, investors, and adjudicators a better understanding of the application of existing 

USCIS regulations to given factual circumstances. Many key 

EB-5 terms and concepts have never been clearly defined by 

USCIS, contributing to entrepreneur anxiety and uncertainty. 

Additional precedent/adopted decisions would assist the business community, investors, and adjudicators as such terms and 

concepts are considered under varying fact patterns. 

Recommendation 4: Engage in formal rulemaking to develop regulations that will promote stakeholder and investor confidence by improving predictability and consistency 

of adjudications. USCIS could reinvigorate the EB-5 program 

by modernizing its regulations to better align with acceptable 

business practices and principles of due diligence. 

Recommendation 5: Form an inter-governmental advisory 

group to consult on domestic business, economic, and labor 

considerations relevant to EB-5 adjudications. An advisory 

group composed of representatives from the Departments 

of Commerce, Treasury, State, and Labor, and possibly the 

Small Business Administration, would be available to consult 

on business, economic, and labor issues impacting the EB-5 

program. 

Recommendation 6: Offer a “special handling package” 

option to EB-5 investors for faster adjudication of Forms 

I-526, I-829, and related applications for a higher fee. 

High net-worth individuals who are willing to risk in excess 

of $500,000 require program predictability and efficiency. 

Stakeholders and investors regularly criticize as excessive the 

time USCIS takes to adjudicate these filings. While it may be 

impractical for USCIS to institute the standard 15-day $1,000 

premium processing option338 for these complex EB-5 filings, the agency should be able to formulate an appropriately 

priced, operationally sound, special handling option to 

expedite processing. 

Recommendation 7: “Prioritize” the review and processing of all Regional Center EB-5 related petitions and 

applications. By statute, USCIS has discretionary authority 

to prioritize EB-5 petitioners seeking admission under the 

Regional Center pilot program.339 The agency should exercise 

this discretion and prioritize Regional Center filings to the 

maximum extent possible. In the current economic climate, 

338 INA § 286(u); 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(f)(1) (2008). 

339 The Secretary of DHS is authorized to give priority processing to 

petitions filed by foreign entrepreneurs seeking admission under 

the Basic Pilot Program Extension and Expansion Act of 2003, Pub. 

L. No. 108-156 (Dec. 3, 2003). 

336	 See DHS Office of Immigration Statistics, “2008 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics,” Table 6, http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/ 

yearbook/2008/table06d.xls (accessed June 8, 2009) and DHS Office of 

Immigration Statistics, “2004 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics,” 

Table 4, http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/yearbook/2004/table4. 

xls (accessed June 8, 2009). 

337 This subgroup includes only those EB-5 investors whose Forms 

I-526 (Immigrant Petition by Alien Entrepreneur) were filed and 

approved between January 1, 1995, and August 31, 1998. See 21st 

Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act, 

Pub. L. No. 107-273, §§ 11031-36 (Nov. 2, 2002). 
56 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman 

many communities nationwide could benefit from Regional 

Center investments. 

Recommendation 8: Promote the EB-5 program overseas 

in coordination with the U.S. Departments of State and 

Commerce. Visible support of the EB-5 program by USCIS 

would send a signal to entrepreneurs, financiers, and stakeholders worldwide that the United States is open for business 

and intends to welcome immigrant investors. Just as other 

countries actively promote their immigrant investor programs 

globally, USCIS should partner with other components of the 

federal government to actively support and promote the EB-5 

program overseas. 

Ombudsman’s Follow-Up 

Since issuance of the EB-5 recommendations, the Ombudsman 

has heard repeatedly from stakeholders that USCIS has no 

formal communication channel to facilitate consultation and 

review of EB-5 proposals before they are filed. The opening of 

such a channel may lead to fewer adjudication delays and/or 

denials, and may make the program more attractive to larger 

project developers and financiers. 

USCIS indicated to the Ombudsman that, on April 1, 2009, 

it completed EB-5 processing centralization. As of that date, 

it transferred to the CSC all remaining unadjudicated EB-5 

cases at the TSC, including pending green card applications.340 USCIS also advised the Ombudsman that approval 

rates for both Form I-526 (Immigrant Petition by Alien 

Entrepreneur) and Form I-829 (Petition by Entrepreneur to 

Remove Conditions) were 80 to 90 percent for the first and 

second quarters of FY 2009. At the time of this writing, I-526 

processing times in FY 2009 have been cut to less than six 

months. 

Additionally, USCIS informed the Ombudsman that the CSC 

received 13 applications for Regional Center Designation transferred from Headquarters in January 2009, and an additional 

27 applications were filed at the CSC between January 1 and 

March 30, 2009.341 However, the Ombudsman also learned 

that CSC has issued RFEs on each of the new Regional Center 

Designation applications. 

340 Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman 

(Apr. 29, 2009). 

341 Id. 
 

Annual Report to Congress — June 2009 57 

4. Improving the Process for Victims of Human Trafficking 

and Certain Criminal Activity: The T and U Visa 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

1. Issue public guidance on new filing procedures in 

December 2008 regulations & trafficking reauthorization 

legislation 

2. Find alternatives for work authorization for T nonimmigrant applicants 

3. Implement procedures/issue guidance for U nonimmigrant applicants seeking work authorization 

4. Provide adequate staff at VSC unit to ensure prompt 

adjudications 

5. Post processing times for Forms I-914 and I-918 

REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS 

•	 Difficulty obtaining work authorization while nonimmigrant applications pending 

•	 Continued confusion/uncertainty regarding new T/U 

procedures 

•	 Inconsistent law enforcement understanding and 

cooperation 

•	 Inadequate staffing of VSC given backlog 

•	 Unknown processing times 

HIgHLIgHTS 

•	 Congress established T/U visa for victims of trafficking 

and enumerated crimes who assist with investigation and 

prosecution of crimes 

•	 VTVPA enacted in 2000, but full implementation delayed 

•	 Final regulations issued December 2008 defining process 

to convert T/U status to green cards 

•	 Congress reauthorized the VTVPA in December 2008 

adding new T/U provisions 

•	 Backlog of T/U nonimmigrant filings 

Summary 

The Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 

(VTVPA) created the T and U nonimmigrant visa classification 

to provide temporary lawful status for victims of trafficking 

and enumerated crimes and for those who assist with the investigation and prosecution of trafficking and certain criminal 

activity.342 On December 23, 2008, President Bush signed 

VTVPA reauthorization legislation enhancing some measures 

to protect victims.343 

Recognizing the special nature of T and U applicants, USCIS 

adjudicates the T and U nonimmigrant applications, as well as 

T and U green card applications, through a dedicated unit at 

the VSC. The unit’s staff is specially trained to process these 

cases and respond to applicants’ inquiries. USCIS also has 

conducted a national outreach campaign to train law enforcement officials on the U visa certification process.344 

After passage of the original 2000 legislation, USCIS did not 

issue regulatory guidance for those seeking status as T and 

U nonimmigrants until 2002 and 2007, respectively. After 

further delay, on December 12, 2008, USCIS published regulations regarding adjustment of status by T and U nonimmiMore Information? 

Review the full text of the Ombudsman’s recommendations at: 

http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/cisomb_tandu_visa_ 

recommendation_2009-01-26.pdf 

Review the full text of USCIS’ response at: http://www.dhs.gov/ 

xlibrary/assets/uscis_response_cisomb_rec_39.pdf 

342 See generally VTVPA, Pub. L. No. 106-386 (Oct. 28, 2000). 

343 Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA), Pub. 

L. No. 110-457 (Dec. 23, 2008). 

344 See Questions and Answers from CIS Ombudsman’s Teleconference, 

“U Visa: One Year after the Interim Final Rule” (Aug. 26, 2008) 

(“[USCIS] has been conducting nationwide outreach for local law 

enforcement about the certification process for the U-visa. There 

has been outreach to and liaison with individual police officers, 

victim-witness coordinators at police departments, and management authorities at police departments and other law enforcement 

agencies in order to educate and help police plan coordinated strategy for victims, and to facilitate the certification process. These 

efforts so far have spanned the greater California area, the state of 

Texas, the Pacific Northwest, the south, the Metropolitan New York 

City area, and the metropolitan Washington, D.C. area.”) www.dhs. 

gov/cisombudsman (accessed June 9, 2009). 
 

 

 

 

 

58	 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman 

grants.345 These and other delays in the implementation of the 

VTVPA of 2000 caused a multi-year delay in case processing.346 

Analysis 

On January 29, 2009, the Ombudsman issued recommendations to USCIS to improve the processes for victims of trafficking (T visa) and victims of certain criminal activity (U visa). 

USCIS responded on May 22, 2009. 

Recommendation 1: Expeditiously provide more detailed 

public guidance on new filing procedures outlined in 

the December 2008 adjustment regulations as well as the 

trafficking reauthorization legislation for T and U visa applicants. Issuance of clearer guidance could decrease inquiries 

to the VSC, reduce USCIS’ need to issue RFEs, and improve 

customer service. 

USCIS Response: USCIS agrees with this recommendation 

and indicates that, “[b]ecause the provisions of TVPRA 2008 

and the T and U adjustment regulations have only recently 

been published, USCIS is still in the process of identifying 

areas where additional guidance is necessary. Future guidance 

will be issued as appropriate.” 

Recommendation 2: Find alternatives for T visa nonimmigrant applicants to obtain work authorization while 

their applications are pending. The current avenues for T 

nonimmigrant visa applicants to obtain work authorization, 

the granting of “continued presence” or a determination that 

an applicant has a bona fide case, are not readily accessible. 

USCIS Response: USCIS indicates that there is no need to find 

alternatives for T nonimmigrant visa applicants because there 

are established ways for them to obtain work authorization. 

Going forward, the agency specifically notes that, should 

processing times exceed 90 days, USCIS “will conduct [bona 

fide] determinations for the purpose of issuing employment 

authorization.” 

Recommendation 3: Expeditiously implement procedures 

and provide public guidance for U visa nonimmigrant 

applicants to apply for work authorization as outlined in 

the December 2008 reauthorization legislation. Congress 

recognized the importance for U visa applicants to be able to 

work while their applications are pending.347 

USCIS Response: USCIS created a production plan to devote 

resources to the actual adjudication of U visa cases, obviating 

the need to separately adjudicate a request for employment 

authorization. However, the agency indicates that, after working the backlog of cases, USCIS will “assess the possibility of 

issuing interim employment authorization to those cases that 

are held in abeyance while awaiting visa availability.” 

Recommendation 4: Provide adequate staff at the T and 

U visa unit to ensure prompt adjudication of the existing 

backlog and anticipated T and U visa applications.348 As of 

October 2008, USCIS had assigned only a few adjudicators to 

work on T and U visa cases.349 

USCIS Response: USCIS has implemented this recommendation. The agency plans to increase the size of the T and U 

visa adjudication unit by immediately reassigning 31 trained 

officers to this workload. 

Recommendation 5: Post processing times for Form I-914 

(Application for T Nonimmigrant Status) and Form I-918 

(Petition for U Nonimmigrant Status). Posting processing times would inform the public and applicants of USCIS 

progress in adjudicating these cases. 

345	 See USCIS Interim Final Rule, “Adjustment of Status to Lawful 

Permanent Resident for Aliens in T or U Nonimmigrant Status,” 73 

Fed. Reg. 75540 (Dec. 12, 2008). 

346 Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman (Oct. 28, 

2008). T-1 and U-1 indicate principal petitioners, who are the 

individuals seeking the immigration benefit, as compared to 

derivatives, who are immediate family members of the principal 

applicant. As of October 22, 2008, there were 212 T-1 cases, 202 T 

derivatives cases, 12,092 U-1 visa cases, and 8,156 U visa derivative 

cases pending with USCIS. As of April 2009, USCIS had approximately 80 T-1 visa cases pending, approximately 185 T derivative 

cases, over 13,000 U-1 visa cases pending, and over 9,000 U visa 

derivative cases pending. Information provided by USCIS to the 

Ombudsman (Apr. 28, 2009). 

347 TVPRA, § 201 (“The Secretary may grant work authorization to 

any alien who has a pending, [bona fide] application for nonimmigrant status under section 101(a)(15)(U).”) 

348	 See TVPRA, § 238 (Recognizing the importance of adequate staffing 

at the Vermont Service Center (VSC) by requiring in a report to 

Congress the following elements: “detailed information about the 

funds expended to support the unit at VSC;” a description of training for adjudicators, victim liaison officers, managers, and others 

working in the VSC unit; and measures to ensure the retention of 

specially-trained staff within the VSC units.) 

349 Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman 

(Oct. 28, 2008). 
 

Annual Report to Congress — June 2009	 59 

USCIS Response: USCIS agrees with this recommendation. 

The agency now publishes the processing times for I-914 on 

its website, but is not currently posting the times for I-918 

because “many of these cases will not be adjudicated in the order in which they were filed.” Instead, USCIS will adjudicate 

cases “in chronological order as they become ‘adjudication 

ready....’” USCIS plans to post I-918 processing times once 

they are standardized. 

Ombudsman’s Follow-up 

The Ombudsman has continued to review the T and U visa 

programs, specifically the law enforcement certification 

process. 

Eligibility for T and U classification requires the applicant to 

assist with a criminal investigation or prosecution. A U visa 

certificate is required for U visa eligibility, and applicants must 

include Form I-918, Supplement B (U Visa Nonimmigrant 

Status Certification), a certification of helpfulness from a law 

enforcement agency, as part of the application. Additionally, 

regulations state that U visa holders applying for a green card 

must submit evidence of whether the law enforcement agency 

has requested assistance after the individual’s admission as a U 

nonimmigrant and include the response to any such request. 

To facilitate the adjudication of the application, the individual 

may provide an additional law enforcement certificate as part 

of the application.350 Success in obtaining the certificate has 

varied. 

To gain a better understanding of the certification process and 

how it affects applicants, the Ombudsman: (1) discussed T 

and U visa issues with local police nationwide and also spoke 

with community-based organizations about their experiences 

with local police; (2) met and discussed relevant issues with 

several members of the Department of Justice’s federally 

funded Trafficking Task Force; (3) conducted field visits to 

several states and visited local police and stakeholders; 

(4) met with ICE agents handling human trafficking issues; 

(5) met with CBP to gain a better understanding of its human 

trafficking policies and training efforts; and (6) met with 

USCIS policymakers charged with drafting implementing 

regulations. 

The Ombudsman’s follow-up review revealed several issues, 

including: 

yyInconsistent cooperation from law enforcement officials. Some law enforcement agencies are helpful and 

have an understanding of human trafficking laws and 

immigration options for victims. Other agencies are unfamiliar with the laws and regulations and are reluctant to 

assist possible victims. 

yyVarying policies regarding the law enforcement certification process. The Ombudsman learned that law 

enforcement agencies follow widely differing policies regarding the law enforcement certification process.351 For 

example, some law enforcement officials try to identify a 

victim and provide the certificate early in the process so 

that the individual may receive benefits. Other agencies 

do not sign the certificate early in the process due to the 

likelihood that victims may not yet be ready to reveal facts 

and may change their story several times due to distrust of 

authority, fear of revenge, or lack of understanding; 

yyInsufficient training on the T and U visa process nationally. Few law enforcement officials or agencies with 

which the Ombudsman met had undergone T and U visa 

training. Some received training sponsored by community-based organizations, but they told the Ombudsman that 

government training would be more beneficial; these officials were concerned that training by community-based 

organizations is presented solely from a victim advocate’s 

perspective. Without proper training on issues such as 

the definition of “helpfulness,” law enforcement agencies 

are employing inconsistent standards. 

yyWillingness to assist. Victims, distrusting authority and 

fearing deportation, may initially be unwilling to share 

their story with officers, and stories told under duress 

may evolve over time. As a result, applicants may be less 

likely to come forward, and law enforcement officials 

may be less willing to support their case. In addition, 

some law enforcement agencies worry that signing U 

351 One stakeholder noted that some agencies have created policies for 

signing the I-918 Supp. B certificate that go above and beyond what 

the regulations require. 

350	 See USCIS Interim Final Rule, “Adjustment of Status to Lawful 

Permanent Resident for Aliens in T or U Nonimmigrant Status,” 73 

Fed. Reg. 75540 (Dec. 12, 2008) (An applicant may also submit “an 

affidavit describing the applicant’s efforts, if any, to obtain a newly 

executed Form I-918, Supplement B, or other evidence describing 

whether the [applicant] received any request” to assist in the investigation or prosecution.) 
60	 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman 

certificates will lead to rampant abuse because the visa is 

perceived as providing a path for undocumented individuals to obtain legal status. 

yyStatus of the criminal case and the decision to sign 

the law enforcement certificate. According to several 

stakeholders, law enforcement agencies are more likely 

to sign the U visa certificate if they initiate the related 

investigation or prosecution; delays or reluctance to sign 

a certificate are often attributed to the fact that a case has 

been referred by a community-based organization, has 

been closed, or because the crime occurred several years 

earlier. 

The Ombudsman plans to continue discussing ways to 

improve the T and U visa process with USCIS and other DHS 

components, as well as with federal, state, and local partners. 
 

Annual Report to Congress — June 2009	 61 

5. Observations on the E-Verify Experience in Arizona and 

Recommended Customer Service Enhancements 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

1. Simplify E-Verify instructions and documentation 

2. Make all registration & operational documents available 

online 

3. Ensure education & outreach to small business 

communities 

4. Develop a reminder system to prompt employers to act 

5. Announce intention to replace current Form I-9 process for 

E-Verify users 

REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS 

•	 System concerns: accuracy, reliability, robustness and 

user-friendliness 

•	 Legal concerns: privacy, anti-discrimination, identity theft 

•	 Education and outreach 

•	 Monitoring and compliance 

HIgHLIgHTS 

•	 E-Verify currently voluntary at federal level 

•	 Mandatory usage by federal contractors delayed 

•	 Various states mandate use of E-Verify 

•	 $100 million FY 2009 appropriations for federal program 

•	 3.6 million queries run, FY 2009 YTD (Oct.-Mar.) 

•	 Tentative nonconfirmations on naturalized citizens & new 

lawful permanent residents now reduced 

•	 U.S. passport data now another source for employment 

verification 

•	 E-Verify contact information: Telephone 1-888-464-4218; 

E-Mail: e-verify@dhs.gov 

•	 Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related 

Violations 1-800-255-7688 

Summary 

E-Verify is an Internet-based program that permits registered 

employers to confirm a new hire’s eligibility to work legally 

in the United States. USCIS developed E-Verify in partnership 

with the Social Security Administration (SSA), and USCIS 

manages the system.352 While use of E-Verify remains optional 

at the federal level, some states have passed laws requiring that 

their employers use E-Verify.353 Beginning January 1, 2008, 

Arizona became the first state in the nation to require all 

private and public sector employers to use E-Verify regardless 

of the number of workers employed.354 

The Ombudsman met with employers and stakeholders in 

Arizona and elsewhere to gain insights into how E-Verify is 

working from employer user and affected employee perspectives. On December 22, 2008, the Ombudsman completed this 

initial review of E-Verify and issued recommendations to USCIS. 

At the time of the recommendations, E-Verify was operating 

with a 99.6 percent accuracy rate for confirming work-eligible 

individuals; the overwhelming majority were verified in 

five seconds or less.355 The Ombudsman also observed that 

most large- and mid-sized employers appeared satisfied with 

E-Verify, but that more education and outreach was necessary 

with small employers. Employers expressed varying concerns, 

including: E-Verify action deadlines, perceived redundancy 

and confusion relative to their Form I-9 (Employment 

Eligibility Verification) obligations, and more broadly, issues 

of user-friendliness. 

More Information? 

Review the full text of the Ombudsman’s recommendations at: 

http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/cisomb_everify_recommendation_ 

2008-12-22.pdf 

Review the full text of USCIS’ response at: 

http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/uscis_response_cis_ombudsman_ 

recommendation_38.pdf 

352 USCIS Fact Sheet, “E-Verify Strengthening the Employer Eligibility Document Review Process for the Nation’s Employers” (Jan. 8, 

2009), www.uscis.gov (accessed June 9, 2009). 

353 Certain states require the use of E-Verify for one or more public 

and/or private employer groups, including: Arizona, Colorado, 

Georgia, Idaho, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, 

Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, and Utah. 

354 Legal Arizona Workers Act HB 2779 (July 2, 2007), www.azleg.gov 

(accessed June 9, 2009). 

355	 See “E-Verify Statistics” (Apr. 23, 2009), www.uscis.gov (accessed June 

9, 2009); see also E-Verify User Manual for Employer, p. 14 (Mar. 

2009), http://www.uscis.gov/files/nativedocuments/E-Verify_Manual.pdf (accessed June 4, 2009). 
 

 

 

 

62 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman 

Analysis 

The Ombudsman made five recommendations on December 

22, 2008, which USCIS responded to on March 3, 2009. The 

Ombudsman expects to continue monitoring and reporting on 

E-Verify as the program expands. 

Recommendation 1: Simplify the language used in 

E-Verify instructions and supporting documentation. The 

Ombudsman found that some of the language and legal terminology in E-Verify documents may be confusing. Consistent 

with other efforts to eliminate complexity when possible, the 

Ombudsman encourages USCIS to simplify the language in 

these publicly disseminated documents. 

USCIS Response: USCIS agreed with this recommendation 

and indicated that it has already begun a “Plain Language” 

initiative to simplify the E-Verify terminology, language, and 

documents. 

Recommendation 2: Make all registration and operational 

documents publicly available online for review by prospective E-Verify end-users and employees. USCIS has posted 

several important E-Verify documents on its website for public 

viewing. Others, however, including the E-Verify tutorial, 

remain unavailable until after formal E-Verify registration. 

Full and free access to such documentation prior to registration may increase understanding of E-Verify. 

USCIS Response: USCIS agreed with this recommendation 

and committed to making more E-Verify documents and 

information available onto its website. 

Recommendation 3: Ensure its education and outreach 

efforts reach small business communities. The Ombudsman 

concluded that USCIS is not yet effectively reaching small 

employers with its existing education and outreach campaign. 

USCIS Response: USCIS agreed with this recommendation, 

and pointed out initiatives that are intended to address this 

need. 

Ombudsman’s Comments: USCIS leadership has demonstrated a commitment to improving all aspects of E-Verify. Perhaps 

the greatest potential for misunderstanding, confusion, and/or 

possible misuse of E-Verify is with smaller employers that by 

their nature operate with fewer internal control mechanisms. 

Therefore, the Ombudsman suggests that USCIS devote 

proportionately more resources to its outreach and education 

for this audience. 

Recommendation 4: Develop and add a tickler/calendar 

system into E-Verify capable of issuing timely system 

prompts to employers to advise them of their next appropriate course of action for each specific open and 

unresolved Tentative Nonconfirmation (TNC). Currently, 

users must log on to the system to see whether further action 

is required. Implementing an automatic notification system 

would enhance customer service and improve employer 

compliance. 

USCIS Response: USCIS agreed that such a feature is desirable 

and has begun exploring how it might use e-mail notifications 

for this purpose. 

Recommendation 5: Announce an intention to replace the 

current Form I-9 process for employers that voluntarily 

use E-Verify. The I-9 process is mandated by statute. Many 

employers believe that, if they run E-Verify, they no longer 

need to complete an I-9. E-Verify users who understand that 

they still are required to complete an I-9, question this redundancy. Several private technology vendors address this issue 

by offering employers a fee-for-service online system that 

delivers one-step data collection: it both meets the I-9 legal 

requirements and seamlessly runs an E-Verify query in the 

background. USCIS, in coordination with ICE, should devise a 

method to eliminate the redundant collection and retention of 

employment verification data. 

USCIS Response: USCIS pointed out that “eliminating the 

I-9 for employers who use E-Verify would require a statutory 

change.” Statutory language establishing the E-Verify program 

specifically requires employees to record information “on the 

I-9 or similar form,” and requires employers to comply with 

I-9 retention requirements.356 However, USCIS further advised 

that it is exploring “the development of its own electronic 

I-9 to help streamline the I-9 and E-Verify processes.” Upon 

implementation (currently scheduled for FY 2010), the 

electronic I-9 would be capable of automatically populating 

the E-Verify data field, and would provide employers the 

capability to save and/or print the I-9. 

356 The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act 

of 1996 (IIRIRA), Pub. L. No. 104-208, § 403(a), at Title IV, Subtitle A (Sept. 30, 1996). 
 

 

Annual Report to Congress — June 2009	 63 

Ombudsman’s Follow-Up 

Following the December 22, 2008 issuance of these recommendations, the Ombudsman returned to Arizona on March 

9, 2009, to hear additional feedback provided during a USCIS 

E-Verify stakeholder meeting.357 

Also in March, the Ombudsman met with representatives of 

USCIS’ E-Verify Monitoring and Compliance team, whose 

mission is to conduct internal audit programs and routines 

designed to strengthen and ensure system integrity. This 

group will act to identify suspicious user activity, as well as 

employer and employee anomalies, and will take appropriate 

steps to deter misuse through a mix of education and escalating monitoring activities, including potential site visits. USCIS 

is establishing a Monitoring and Compliance Regional Office 

in Buffalo, New York,358 and expects it to be fully staffed by 

the end of 2009.359 

In April, the Ombudsman met with government, private 

sector, and non-profit stakeholders in South Carolina and 

Mississippi, states that also have passed legislation to require 

employers of certain sizes to use E-Verify.360 The Ombudsman 

learned from these meetings that some aspects of each state’s 

laws conflict with E-Verify’s compliance provisions. For 

example, Mississippi law requires covered employers to use 

E-Verify to determine the work eligibility of persons who will 

receive compensation as independent contractors, i.e., those individuals who will be issued an IRS Form 1099 (Miscellaneous 

Income). Under the federal format, employers are not permitted to run E-Verify for true independent contractors. For 

its part, South Carolina law provides employers five days to 

conduct employment verification of their new hires, which is 

inconsistent with the federal three-day requirement. 

The effect of such inconsistencies is magnified for employers 

who operate in multiple states. State-by-state, incremental 

E-Verify rollout may present compliance challenges to these 

employers. 

Regarding the possible extension of an E-Verify requirement 

for federal contractors and subcontractors, implementation of 

the 2008 Executive Order 13465 imposing this requirement 

remains delayed; the most recent postponement moved the 

implementation date to September 8, 2009.361 

357	 “Announcement of a Stakeholder Meeting on the E-Verify Program 

in Arizona,” 74 Fed. Reg. 7698, 7699 (Feb. 19, 2009), http://edocket. 

access.gpo.gov/2009/pdf/E9-3543.pdf (accessed June 9, 2009). 

358 USCIS Press Release, “E-Verify Program Surpasses 52,000 Employers” (Feb. 12, 2008), http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/everify12022008.pdf (accessed June 9, 2009). 

359 Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman 

(Mar. 25, 2009). 

360	 See http://www.mmrs.state.ms.us/imported/docs/lib/DFA/MMRS%20FAQs/EVerify%20FAQs.pdf (accessed June 9, 2009) (Mississippi Senate Bill 

2988 of the 2008 Legislative Session, known as the Mississippi 

Employment Protection Act (MEPA), phases in the mandatory use 

of E-Verify for Mississippi employers based on the employer’s public/private status and the number of workers employed.) See http:// 

www.scstatehouse.gov/sess117_2007-2008/bills/4400.htm (accessed June 9, 

2009) (South Carolina’s legislation, HB 4400, passed in 2008 as the 

South Carolina Illegal Immigration Reform Act, phases in E-Verify 

for certain public/private employers beginning January 1, 2009 

or, alternatively, requires new hires to provide a South Carolina 

driver’s license or identification card as evidence of work eligibility 

status.) 

361	 See “FAR Case 2007-013: Employment Eligibility Verification,” 73 

Fed. Reg. 67651, 67651-705 (Nov. 14, 2008). With few exceptions, when implemented, this new rule will mandate that all new 

and existing federal contracts must contain a provision requiring 

government contractors (and subcontractors) to use E-Verify to 

ensure that new hires, and all existing employees who are directly 

performing federal contract work, are legally authorized to work in 

the United States. However, the effective date of this final rule has 

been rescheduled for September 8, 2009; see USCIS Update, “Rule 

Requiring Federal Contractors to Use E-Verify System Delayed” 

(June 3, 2009), www.uscis.gov (accessed June 9, 2009). 
 

 

 

 

 

64 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman 

6. Naturalization Oath Ceremonies 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

1. Issue guidance to district offices on prerogatives and 

obligations in working with courts 

2. Notify new citizens to update their status with SSA 

3. Digitally produce photographs on Certificates of 

Naturalization 

4. Post pending naturalization case statistics monthly 

REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS 

•	 Courts inconsistently adhere to terms in the IAA 

•	 Inappropriate conduct of judges at certain judicial naturalization ceremonies 

•	 Naturalization certificate production is labor-intensive 

•	 Applicants unaware of their “place in line” 

•	 New citizens need consistent guidance on how to update 

status for E-Verify, passports, and voting 

•	 Special applicants not subject to court’s exclusive jurisdiction, but courts often required they wait for court 

ceremony 

HIgHLIgHTS 

•	 USCIS naturalized more than 1 million people in FY 2008 

•	 41 of 74 court districts retain exclusive jurisdiction to 

administer oath 

•	 Naturalization processing times averaging 6 months as of 

March 2009; projected to be 5 months by end of FY 2009 

•	 USCIS allocated $30 million to reimburse courts, FY 2006 

through FY 2010 

More Information? 

Review the full text of the Ombudsman’s recommendations at: 

http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/cisomb_naturalization_ 

recommendation_2008-12-16.pdf 

Review the full text of USCIS’ response at: http://www.dhs.gov/ 

xlibrary/assets/uscis_response_cis_ombudsman_recommendation_37.pdf 

Summary 

This study examined the naturalization oath ceremony when 

presided over by a court. 

Naturalization, the formal mechanism whereby a foreign 

national acquires citizenship of the United States, represents 

the culmination of the immigration process for an individual. 

U.S. citizenship conveys the rights to vote, obtain a passport, 

hold certain federal positions, be exempt from deportation, 

and petition for certain family members to reside in the 

United States. Former USCIS Acting Director Jonathan “Jock” 

Scharfen reflected on the significance of naturalization and 

stated, “USCIS has no mission of greater importance than that 

of naturalizing citizens.”362 

USCIS informed the Ombudsman that the agency naturalized more than one million applicants in FY 2008. In June 

2008, the Ombudsman initiated a study of naturalization 

ceremonies. The Ombudsman observed 19 large- and smallscale administrative and judicial ceremonies nationwide and 

interviewed customers, agencies, and USCIS staff who were 

present. 

USCIS is responsible for naturalization processing, from 

receiving a green card holder’s Form N-400 (Application for 

Naturalization) and conducting background checks, through 

interviews involving testing of English language proficiency 

and knowledge of U.S. civics and history. In many cases, 

USCIS officers also conduct the last step, the oath ceremony, 

wherein a person recites an oath, or affirmation, of allegiance to the United States. These are called administrative 

oath ceremonies.363 In 41 of 74 federal court jurisdictions 

362 DHS Leadership Journal, “Citizenship Day: An Opportunity to 

Reflect” (Sept. 17, 2008), www.dhs.gov (accessed June 9, 2009). 

363 Federal courts have authorized 33 USCIS district offices to conduct 

both large- and small-scale ceremonies, as well as individualized 

administrative oath ceremonies for elderly, infirm, or special needs 

applicants. These offices follow the protocol contained in the USCIS 

Adjudicator’s Field Manual requiring USCIS officials to observe the 

“dignity of the occasion.” Chapter 75.2 (Redacted Public Version). 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Annual Report to Congress — June 2009	 65 

nationwide,364 however, courts retain the sole authority365 to 

oath all approved naturalization applicants in judicial naturalization oath ceremonies.366 Moreover, all applicants wishing 

to change their names are oathed judicially. All new citizens, 

whether oathed judicially by the court or administratively by 

USCIS, receive the N-550 (Certificate of Naturalization). 

Analysis 

The high number of USCIS FY 2008 naturalizations resulted 

both from large-scale measures, such as increased personnel 

and work hours, and from local and organizational innovations that improved efficiency to reach an “unprecedented” 

outcome for the agency.367 

Despite this achievement, there were bottlenecks and customer service problems. These included delayed processing 

times, collaboration issues affecting scheduling of judicial 

ceremonies, and certificate production burdens that consumed 

USCIS adjudicator time as N-400 processing times reached 

18 months in some offices.368 Nearly half of all approved 

applicants waited more than 30 days for an oath ceremony.369 

During the extended processing times,370 lack of customer 

awareness about their place in line fostered criticism that 

USCIS was not doing enough to naturalize the record number 

of applicants who sought U.S. voting rights for the 2008 

elections. 

On December 16, 2008, the Ombudsman made four recommendations to address challenges in conducting the naturalization oath ceremony. USCIS responded on March 27, 2009. 

Recommendation 1: Issue formal guidance to district 

officials clarifying their prerogatives and obligations 

under controlling law, regulations, and the Interagency 

Reimbursable Agreement (IAA) between USCIS and the 

Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AOUSC). 

While USCIS officials generally report that the federal courts 

are responsive to USCIS requests to schedule and make judges 

available for naturalization ceremonies, USCIS conveyed to the 

Ombudsman concerns regarding the impact of several courts’ 

restrictions on scheduling ceremonies and non-compliance 

with the IAA. In these instances, the Ombudsman observed 

that the courts sometimes engaged in conduct inconsistent 

with the letter or spirit of the IAA, as well as applicable law 

and regulations.371 

USCIS Response: USCIS concurred in part with the recommendation, noting its Office of Field Operations is working 

on issuing formal guidance to district officials and that this 

study “brought attention to key service issues.” USCIS stated, 

in response to the Ombudsman’s description of instances 

where the court violated the IAA, that these were “isolated” 

incidents. 

Ombudsman’s Comments: The agency noted that it is 

exploring the possibility of a Memorandum of Understanding 

with the AOUSC, which oversees the nation’s federal court 

system. 

Recommendation 2: Consistently include information at 

naturalization ceremonies for new citizens to update their 

status with the Social Security Administration (SSA). Given 

364 Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman 

(Nov. 18, 2008). 

365	 See generally INA § 310(b). 

366 USCIS reimburses courts for their costs in administering the oath 

at a per capita rate of $14.09 which is deducted from the N-400 filing 

fee. See “Inter/Intra Agency Reimbursable Agreement Analysis of 

Alternatives (IAA), USCIS Interagency Agreement No: HSSCCCG06-X-00071” (June 28, 2005); see also “U.S. Department of Homeland 

Security Reimbursement Agreement Between Agencies, AOUSC/ 

USCIS, effective September 1, 2007 – September 30, 2008.” 

367	 See USCIS Fact Sheet, “USCIS Makes Major Strides During 2008” 

(Nov. 6, 2008), www.uscis.gov (accessed June 9, 2009). 

368	 Id. 

369 Data provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman (July 30, 2008) (A 

USCIS study of oath ceremonies nationwide found that same-day 

administrative ceremonies serve an estimated 11.5 percent of all 

oath-takers. Of those who do not oath the same day as approved, 

eight percent wait 8-14 days after decision, 25 percent wait 15-30 

days, and 49 percent wait more than 30 days. The study did not 

address the remaining 6.5 percent.) 

370 USCIS Working Group, Naturalization Certificate IPT (Aug. 24, 

2008) (USCIS reported that as of late FY 2008, approximately 

475,000 naturalization applications were pending for more than 

nine months, 192,000 for more than 18 months, and 118,000 for 

more than 24 months.) 

371 For example, district directors were paying for venues by order of 

the court. Second, based on reports by USCIS officials on court 

delays for military oathing, the Ombudsman is concerned whether 

certain special applicants who file for naturalization pursuant to 

INA §§ 319(b), 328(a), or 329 are receiving timely oathing. These 

special applicants include foreign born spouses of certain U.S. 

citizens, all members currently serving in the U.S. Armed Forces 

and certain individuals who have been honorably discharged from 

service, and those U.S. Armed Forces Reserves members who 

currently serve or have served in active-duty reserve status during 

authorized periods of conflict as outlined in the INA. 
 

 

 

 

66 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman 

the increased utilization of E-Verify for employment eligibility 

verification, new citizens should promptly update their status 

with the SSA, which provides status data to the USCIS systems. 

USCIS Response: USCIS concurred with this recommendation. The agency stated that applicants can find this information on Form M-476 (A Guide to Naturalization), a resource 

noted on the first page of the N-400. USCIS also stated it is 

developing a standardized information packet for all newly 

naturalized citizens to take home from the oath ceremony. 

Finally, “when a naturalized citizen has not updated his or her 

SSA records after naturalizing, E-Verify has begun confirming citizenship status by verifying the passport information 

against Department of State... data.” 

Recommendation 3: Implement plans to digitally produce 

the photograph on the Certificate of Naturalization (Form 

N-550). Digitization of the naturalization certificate would 

improve USCIS efficiency by eliminating the current timeintensive production method of hand-gluing a passport-style 

photo onto each certificate; it would also enhance a certificate’s tamper-resistance and durability. 

USCIS Response: USCIS concurred with this recommendation; the agency stated that the efforts to digitize the certificate 

remain underway and “will be implemented fully as soon 

as printing and security standards are established and the 

required technology is ascertained.” 

Recommendation 4: Post statistics monthly on the number 

of individuals naturalized and pending naturalization 

applications. Posting naturalization processing data on the 

USCIS website would help address concerns about the pace 

of adjudications, make clear to customers and stakeholders 

the number of pending applications and individuals USCIS 

is naturalizing on a monthly and yearly basis, and illustrate 

whether or not the agency is meeting stated goals. 

USCIS Response: USCIS declined to implement this recommendation. “We recognize that there is an interest in knowing 

how many individuals USCIS has naturalized and this information is published annually; but we believe that the information we are providing monthly, processing times of N-400 for 

each office, is the most useful information for the applicant 

and provides the most direct benefit to the applicant.” 

However, as of this writing, USCIS has begun publishing the 

requested data on its website.372 

Ombudsman’s Follow-Up 

The Ombudsman continued to monitor judicial naturalizations during the winter and spring of 2009 by visiting eight 

additional ceremonies nationwide. In many districts, USCIS 

personnel described positive working relationships with court 

officials; however, in other districts challenges remain. The 

Ombudsman understands that the AOUSC and USCIS are now 

meeting to discuss these challenges and enhance their working 

relationship. 

372 See “Monthly Statistical Reports on Applications for Benefits and 

N-400 Naturalization Benefits,” www.uscis.gov (accessed June 9, 2009). 
 

 

Annual Report to Congress — June 2009 67 

7. Improving the Processing of Schedule A Nurse Visas 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

1. Separate and prioritize Schedule A green card nurse 

applications 

2. Centralize Schedule A nurse applications at one service 

center 

REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS 

•	 Few nonimmigrant options available 

•	 Immigrant visa numbers limited 

•	 Lengthy processing times result in nurses going to other 

countries 

•	 Inconsistent processing times and adjudications 

•	 Nursing shortage threatens quality of patient care 

HIgHLIgHTS 

•	 Demand for nurses continues to grow 

•	 Nonimmigrant Visa Options 

- H-1C limited to 500 annually, restrictive qualifiers, 

widely underutilized 

- NAFTA not widely used for nursing positions 

- H-1B only available for “specialty occupations” – very 

few nurses qualify 

•	 Immigrant Visa Options 

- Obtaining a green card is the most common route for 

foreign nurses 

- RNs listed by DOL as a Schedule A shortage occupation 

- Ability to immigrate dependent on visa availability 

More Information? 

Review the full text of the Ombudsman’s recommendations at: 

http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/cisomb_recommendation_36.pdf 

Review the full text of USCIS’ response at: http://www. 

dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/USCIS_Response_to_CIS_Ombudsman_ 

Recommendation_36.pdf 

Summary 

The nursing shortage in the United States may begin to 

adversely affect patient care and the health care industry. 

According to a U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 

2007 study, the United States will require 1.2 million new 

Registered Nurses (RNs) by 2014 to meet demand: approximately 500,000 RNs to replace nurses leaving the field, and 

“an additional 700,000 to meet growing demand for nursing 

services.”373 

Figure 12: Nurse Immigrant Statistics 

FY 

2005 

FY 

2006 

FY 

2007 

FY 

2008 

FY 2009 YTD 

(Oct.–Apr.) 

I-140 Petition 

Approvals 

343 6,834 5,276 3,791 9,383 

RN Lawful 

Permanent 

Resident 

Admissions 

983 2,763 364 13* 0* 

* The Ombudsman understands that USCIS is reviewing whether these 

data were properly captured in the agency databases. 

Source: Data provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman 

Visa availability continues to be the principal obstacle for nurses seeking employment in the United States, and the number 

of visas available can only be addressed through legislation. 

Apart from visa limitation issues, the Ombudsman noted 

procedural concerns with USCIS, including inconsistencies in 

processing times and adjudications at USCIS service centers. 

Analysis 

On December 5, 2008, the Ombudsman issued two recommendations and a suggestion to improve immigration process373 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “Toward a Method for Identifying Facilities and Communities with Shortages of 

Nurses, Summary Report” (Feb. 2007), http://bhpr.hrsa.gov/ (accessed 

June 9, 2009) (Factors contributing to the increase in demand 

include an increase in population, a larger proportion of elderly 

population, medical advances, and the number of RNs retiring.) 
 

 

 

 

68	 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman 

ing for Schedule A nurse petitions.374 USCIS responded to the 

recommendation on March 13, 2009. 

Recommendation 1: Prioritize Schedule A green card nurse 

applications, without the requirement of a written request, 

upon immigrant visa availability. The rationale for automatically expediting Schedule A applications upon visa availability 

is found in a 2001 INS memorandum regarding expedite 

requests.375 Three of the listed criteria – “extreme emergent 

situation,” “humanitarian situation,” and “compelling interest 

of the Service”376 – apply to Schedule A nurse applications. 

USCIS Response: USCIS stated that its ability to rectify 

the situation is “more limited than the CIS Ombudsman’s 

recommendation suggests.” USCIS explained that “Schedule 

A designation creates a process to streamline the labor certification process, it does not create a process to bypass the petition 

review, adjudication process, or the statutory rules for visa 

allocation.” USCIS noted that “[a] Schedule A nurse must 

still wait in the same line with other ‘skilled workers’(EB-3 

category) for his or her priority date to become current before 

applying for an immigrant visa or adjustment of status.” 

USCIS determined that the “automatic expediting of Schedule 

A petitions for nurses could circumvent the visa allocation 

process.” 

Ombudsman’s Comments: The Ombudsman met with 

USCIS’ subject matter experts while drafting this recommendation to address any concerns and clarify data. However, 

the Ombudsman is concerned that USCIS’ response does not 

reflect a full understanding of the recommendation. 

USCIS’ response focuses on limitations regarding visa availability and states that expediting Schedule A cases may 

circumvent the visa allocation process. In the recommendation, the Ombudsman specifically acknowledged the visa 

availability issues and focused on expanding procedures 

within USCIS’ control. 

Recommendation 2: Centralize Schedule A nurse applications at one designated USCIS service center to facilitate 

more efficient and consistent processing of applications. 

Centralization would result in more efficient processing and 

improved consistency in adjudications. 

USCIS Response: USCIS disagreed with the Ombudsman’s 

recommendation and stated that Schedule A petitions are 

processed at two service centers to ensure consistent and 

efficient processing. It noted that having trained teams at two 

service centers instead of one provides “continuity of operations should an emergency, such as a hurricane, close one of 

the facilities for an extended period.” However, USCIS noted 

that it will take this recommendation under consideration. 

Ombudsman’s Comments: USCIS’ reluctance to centralize 

the Schedule A adjudication process conflicts with USCIS’ 

recent decisions to centralize other application types, such as 

the EB-5 product line at the CSC and the T and U visa applications at the VSC. As discussed in the recommendation, USCIS 

has noted the benefits of centralizing other application types. 

Suggestion. Regularly communicate with Department of 

Labor (DOL) and develop points of contacts at DOL to discuss concerns and direct inquiries regarding the processing 

of nurse immigration applications. Enhanced interagency 

communication would improve coordination and customer 

service. 

USCIS Response: USCIS agrees with this suggestion, noting 

that such a forum would assist in identifying concerns and 

issues. 

Ombudsman’s Follow-up 

Until there is legislation to address the nursing shortage, 

USCIS should develop strategies, within its control, to facilitate the processing of Schedule A nurse applications. The 

Ombudsman will continue to monitor these issues. 

374	 “Schedule A” precertification is a determination that there are 

insufficient U.S. nurses who are able, willing, qualified, and available, and that the wages and working conditions of U.S. workers 

similarly employed will not be adversely affected by the employment of foreign nationals. There are two groups within Schedule 

A. Group 1 consists of physical therapists and professional nurses. 

Group II consists of foreign nationals of exceptional ability. 20 

C.F.R. § 656.15 (2008). 

375 Department of Justice INS Memorandum, “Service Center Guidance 

for Expedite Requests on Applications and Applications” 

(Nov. 30, 2001). 

376 The nursing shortage is an “extreme situation” and a “humanitarian situation” directly linked to the decrease in quality care for 

American patients, which decline makes the United States vulnerable in emergency preparedness. It also is a “compelling interest 

of the Service” to be aligned with DOL’s determination that the 

United States has a critical nursing shortage and to implement measures in keeping with DHS’ mission. 
Annual Report to Congress — June 2009 69 

8. USCIS Processing Delays for Employment Authorization Documents 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

1. Adjudicate applications within 90 days or issue interim 

EADs 

2. Inform the public why EADs are delayed and how delays 

will be addressed 

3. Ensure NCSC and local offices provide consistent guidance 

on EADs 

4. Reconsider the wider use of multi-year EADs 

REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS 

•	 Many applicants cannot legally work without an EAD 

•	 Processing delays cause loss of jobs and job opportunities 

•	 Work interruptions hurt both families and businesses 

•	 EAD delays increase demands on INFOPASS, NCSC, etc. 

HIgHLIgHTS 

•	 Form I-765 (Application for Employment Authorization) 

•	 $340 Filing Fee 

•	 USCIS EAD regulation requires 

- Adjudication within 90 days 

- Issuance of interim EAD if processing time exceeds 

90 days 

More Information? 

Review the full text of the Ombudsman’s recommendations at: 

http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/cisomb_ead_recommendation_35.pdf 

Review the full text of USCIS’ response at: http://www.dhs.gov/ 

xlibrary/assets/uscis_response_to_cisomb_recommendation35_01_02_09.pdf 

Summary 

This study examines USCIS’ delay in adjudication and issuance 

of EADs and includes recommendations and suggestions for 

USCIS to correct these problems. 

To obtain authorization to work legally in the United States, 

certain individuals must file Form I-765 (Application for 

Employment Authorization). Individuals often file the I-765 

with other applications, such as the Form I-485 (Application 

to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status). Upon 

receipt of an employment authorization application, USCIS 

sends an I-797 Receipt Notice; upon approval, USCIS sends an 

EAD. Generally, EADs are valid for renewable periods of one 

year. Due to an unusually large influx of employment-based 

visa applications in summer 2007,377 many applicants had 

to reapply for EADs in summer 2008 while their green card 

applications remained pending. 

Many foreign nationals complained to the Ombudsman that 

they lost, or were in danger of losing, their jobs in the United 

States because USCIS did not issue EADs timely (within 90 

days of receipt).378 Furthermore, most, if not all, applicants 

could not immediately obtain an interim EAD on the 91st 

day, as required by regulation.379 Numerous complaints also 

indicated that USCIS customer service avenues offered applicants inconsistent and unclear guidance regarding how to 

address delays. 

In June 2008, the Ombudsman noted a significant increase 

in the number of inquiries regarding EADs pending over 

90 days. By September 2008, the number of EAD inquiries 

377 According to USCIS, the agency received nearly three million applications from June to August 2007, compared to 1.8 million filings 

during the same period of the previous year. See “USCIS Monthly,” 

p. 3 (Apr. 2008), www.uscis.gov (accessed June 9, 2009). 

378 8 C.F.R. § 274a.13(d) (2008) (“The district director shall adjudicate 

the application within 90 days from the date of receipt ....”) 

379 Id. (“Failure to complete the adjudication within 90 days will 

result in the grant of an employment authorization document for 

a period not to exceed 240 days.”) Field offices no longer issue 

interim EADs. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

70 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman 

peaked at approximately four times the numbers received 

prior to June. 

For an EAD pending more than 90 days, USCIS directed individuals to call the National Customer Service Center (NCSC), 

or schedule an INFOPASS appointment with a field office. The 

NCSC would issue service requests through the Service Request 

Management Tool (SRMT) system to expedite processing, or 

ask callers if they wanted to request an interim EAD. The field 

offices could request that a service center issue an interim 

EAD. However, the Ombudsman learned through meetings 

with USCIS and in field visits that service centers rarely issued 

interim EADs, but rather focused on processing the actual 

EAD application. As a result, numerous applicants waited well 

beyond the 90-day processing time and some applicants, no 

longer authorized to work, reported to the Ombudsman that 

they lost their jobs. 

CASE PROBLEM 

In January 2008, a customer filed the I-765 with USCIS. 

In May 2008, the customer called the NCSC to check the 

status of her application. The customer then scheduled two 

INFOPASS appointments in May and July 2008, but USCIS 

did not issue her an EAD. The customer expressed concern 

that without an EAD authorizing her to work, she would 

suffer significant hardship. In August 2008, over 180 days 

after she applied, USCIS approved her application and issued 

the customer an EAD. 

Analysis 

In a recommendation dated October 2, 2008, the Ombudsman 

addressed the issues raised by EAD processing delays. The 

recommendations and suggestions aimed to ensure adherence 

to USCIS’ own regulations, provide an alternative and secure 

interim relief process, and prevent financial harm to applicants 

during any future application surges. 

USCIS responded on January 2, 2009, stating that for FY 2008, 

the agency received 1,144,374 EAD applications and 15,551 

service requests through the NCSC for those applications 

pending beyond normal processing time. USCIS concluded 

that these requests constituted only 1.3 percent of the total 

applications received. The agency indicated that these requests 

represented at least a 98.7 percent compliance rate, and, therefore, there was no “systemic problem.”380 The Ombudsman 

requested the precise number of EAD applications pending 

over 90 days, but USCIS did not have the data.381 

Recommendation 1: Adhere to regulations that state USCIS 

shall issue Employment Authorization Documents (EADs) 

within 90 days, or issue interim EADs, to prevent loss of 

employment. USCIS’ failure to process EADs within the 

regulatory 90 day timeframe negatively impacts individuals and 

employers by causing both fear of job loss and actual job loss. 

USCIS Response: USCIS indicated that there are new processes in place to ensure adherence to regulations to issue 

EADs within 90 days, including: (1) routine system sweeps 

or reviews of those applications which have been pending for 

at least 60 days and have not been assigned for adjudication; 

(2) updated NCSC scripts stating that service requests can be 

accepted after an application is pending 75 days; and (3) guidance to the field clarifying that applicants with no decision 

after 90 days can call the NCSC for expedited processing, or 

schedule an INFOPASS appointment at a local office. Within 

10 days of receiving a request, service centers and the NBC 

must adjudicate the I-765 or issue an interim card. 

Ombudsman’s Comments: The additional 10-day timeframe 

for an applicant to obtain an EAD or interim card is not 

contemplated by the USCIS regulation. 

Recommendation 2: Expeditiously provide information to 

the public stating the cause of EAD processing delays and 

how the delays will be addressed. Providing this information to the public would likely reduce inquiries and add 

transparency to the adjudication process. 

USCIS Response: USCIS indicated in its response that it 

will provide public guidance on how RFEs affect the 90-day 

process. 

Ombudsman’s Comments: The USCIS response does not 

address the EAD processing delays aside from RFE issuance. 

Recommendation 3: Ensure USCIS provides consistent 

guidance to the public regarding EADs pending more than 

90 days via the National Customer Service Center (NCSC) 

toll-free number and local offices. Providing consistent in380 USCIS Response to Recommendation #35, p. 2 (Jan. 2, 2009). 

381 Id., p. 2. 
 

 

 

Annual Report to Congress — June 2009 71 

formation about pending EADs would ensure good customer 

service and may reduce the number of inquiries to USCIS’ 

customer service avenues. 

USCIS Response: USCIS agreed and, “[o]n August 28, 2008, 

[the agency] issued and posted on its website at www.uscis.gov 

an EAD fact sheet which explains the steps an applicant may 

take if his or her Form I-765 application has been pending for 

more than 90 days.” 

Recommendation 4: Reconsider Ombudsman recommendation FR2006-25 to issue multi-year EADs. Multi-year 

EADs would enhance customer service and reduce USCIS’ 

workload. 

USCIS Response: USCIS noted that it currently issues multiyear EADs in some circumstances. “The [two-] year EAD is 

available to pending [green card] applicants who have filed 

for an EAD under [8 C.F.R. § 274.a.12(c)(9) (2009)] and who 

are currently unable to adjust status because an immigrant visa 

number is not currently available .... USCIS will continue 

to grant EADs that are valid for [one] year for adjustment 

applicants who have an available immigrant visa number and 

are filing for employment authorization under 8 C.F.R. 

§ 274a.12(c)(9). In order to be eligible for an EAD with 

a [two-]year validity period, an applicant’s Form I-140, 

Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, must be approved.” 

“USCIS also currently issues EADs valid for 18 months to 

applicants with valid Temporary Protected Status (TPS) .... 

Many employment authorization categories are linked to 

specific periods of eligibility which can vary greatly from case 

to case and are very often for periods of less than a year in 

duration.” 

Ombudsman Comments: As discussed in section III.B.2., 

“Employment-Based Petitions (I-140s),” the TSC does not 

separately adjudicate I-140 petitions from I-485 applications 

at this time. Consequently, it appears that those petitioners 

would not be eligible for two-year EADs based on USCIS’ 

response. 

Suggestion 1. Modify USCIS I-797 Receipt Notices for Form 

I-765 (Application for Employment Authorization) to provide for continued employment authorization. Modifying 

the receipt notices would prevent loss of employment for the 

customer while the application is pending. 

USCIS Response: USCIS did not agree with this suggestion. 

The agency stated that since 2006, USCIS has streamlined its 

approach and enhanced its ability to process I-765 applications 

within the 90 day timeframe, which minimizes the need for 

an interim EAD. USCIS stated that it is “unable to modify an 

I-797 Receipt Notice to serve as an interim extension of an 

[EAD] for several reasons, including fraud which would pose 

a threat to national security and confusion that this action 

would likely cause employers.” 

Suggestion 2. Affix fraud-proof stickers to expired EADs 

upon determination of an applicant’s eligibility for an 

extension. Applying an extension sticker of limited duration 

would eliminate the need for an interim card and allow the 

customer to continue employment while the application is 

pending. 

USCIS Response: USCIS did not agree, stating that it would be 

“more efficient, secure, and customer-friendly to issue a new 

EAD rather than to place a sticker on an expired one.” 

Ombudsman’s Follow-Up 

Shortly before issuance of the EAD recommendation, the 

Ombudsman issued an “Ombudsman Update” on the website 

to address concerns of applicants with delayed EAD applications.382 The Ombudsman coordinated with USCIS to expedite 

the processing of all inquiries where the EADs were pending over 90 days. As of March 2009, hundreds of pending 

EAD applications were expedited using this method. The 

Ombudsman still received nearly daily e-mails in April 2009 

regarding pending EAD applications, but at a reduced rate. 

The Ombudsman continues to follow the issue of delayed EAD 

processing, including: (1) review of Temporary Protected 

Status EAD applicants who are issued EAD extension letters 

that some employers do not recognize, and (2) issuance of 

an RFE that re-starts the EAD 90-day processing clock when 

USCIS determines that initial application evidence is missing. 

382 See section V., “Ombudsman Outreach.” 
 

72 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman 

D. 2008 Reporting Period Recommendations
 

1. USCIS Refund of Fees for Immigration Benefits 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

1. Clarify fee refund procedure and revise Adjudicator’s Field 

Manual 

2. Provide customers a way to track refund requests 

REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS 

•	 Lack of publicly available information on USCIS refund 

policy/process 

•	 Customers do not know how or where to begin 

•	 Customers have no means to track refund requests 

•	 Confusing description of refund process in Adjudicator’s 

Field Manual 

HIgHLIgHTS 

•	 USCIS issued almost 5,500 refunds service-wide in 

FY 2008 

•	 USCIS will consider a refund for Service error 

More Information? 

Review the full text of the Ombudsman’s recommendations at: 

http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/cisombudsman_uscis_ 

recommendation_refund_of_fees_4-8-08.pdf 

Review the full text of USCIS’ response at: http://www.dhs.gov/ 

xlibrary/assets/cisomb-uscis-response-rec-34.pdf 

Summary 

In April 2008, the Ombudsman recommended that USCIS 

address the process for refunding immigration benefits filing 

fees. There were no clear, concise USCIS guidelines publicly 

available to request a refund, and there was no mechanism for 

a customer to track or follow-up on a refund request. 

The Ombudsman heard concerns about the lack of clarity in the refund process from customers who submitted 

case problems. In a January 31, 2008 Ombudsman public 

teleconference, callers expressed concern that USCIS has no 

clear procedures for requesting a refund.383 There is no way 

to follow up on a refund request filled out by USCIS, or to 

determine the component within the USCIS office that is 

processing it. Teleconference participants also pointed out 

that, in some cases, USCIS employees were themselves unsure 

of the agency’s refund procedures. 

CASE PROBLEM 

A customer filed Form N-400 (Application for 

Naturalization) in August 2008. USCIS deposited the $675 

filing and biometrics fees. According to special statutory 

provisions for military personnel, no fees are required for 

the Form N-400 as of September 2004. The applicant wanted 

to request a refund of the $675 filing fee, but could not find 

the correct procedures to do so. The applicant contacted the 

Ombudsman in January 2009 and, with the assistance of 

USCIS, the refund process began a few months later. 

USCIS refunds filing fees only in the case of Service error.384 

For example, USCIS returns filing fees to customers where a 

Service official incorrectly instructed an individual to file for a 

certain benefit. 

383 Ombudsman Teleconference, “USCIS Refunds: How Is the Process 

Working for You?” (Jan. 31, 2008), http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/ 

gc_1171038701035.shtm (accessed June 9, 2009). 

384 USCIS Adjudicator’s Field Manual §10.10, “Refund of Fees” (June 

18, 2007). 
Annual Report to Congress — June 2009 73 

Prior to April 2008, applicants or petitioners could request 

a refund by making a written request to their local USCIS 

district or field office. They had to describe the error, provide 

their A-number, and list the form type. Section 10.10 of the 

Adjudicator’s Field Manual (AFM) indicated that the customer 

must complete Form G-266 (Refund of Immigration and 

Naturalization Fees) to obtain a refund. However, Form 

G-266 was available only on the USCIS Intranet; it was not 

publicly available. Rather, adjudicators reviewed the written refund requests. If USCIS confirmed a Service error, an 

authorized adjudicator prepared Form G-266 for submission 

to the Debt Management Center in Vermont. Even though the 

policy was in effect for many years, it was not widely known 

to the public and not clearly stated in any USCIS publications 

or on the website. 

Analysis 

On April 8, 2008, the Ombudsman issued two recommendations regarding refund request processing. USCIS responded 

on May 23, 2008. 

Recommendation 1: Clarify its refund of fees procedures 

and revise the Adjudicator’s Field Manual, Section 10.10 

“Refund of Fees” accordingly. Clarifying the AFM language 

would aid USCIS employees and customers in understanding 

refund policies and procedures. 

USCIS Response: USCIS stated that it had revised section 

10.10 “Refund of Fees” of the AFM. The applicant or petitioner now is instructed to request a refund by contacting 

the National Customer Service Center (NCSC) or submitting 

a written request to the office having jurisdiction over the 

application or petition. “USCIS will make a determination to 

approve or deny the request based on the available information. If the request is approved, USCIS – and not the applicant 

or petitioner – will complete Form G-266” and forward it for 

processing. 

Recommendation 2: Provide customers with a way to track 

the status of their requests for refunds. At the time of the 

recommendation, there was no mechanism to determine the 

status of a refund request after filing. Establishing a system to 

receipt and track refund requests would improve transparency 

and customer service. 

USCIS Response: As of this writing, USCIS does not issue 

receipts for refund requests. Consequently, USCIS stated that it 

is not capable of tracking the status of a refund request in the 

same manner as it tracks the status of an application or petition. As an interim solution, customers may contact the NCSC 

to initiate an update on their refund requests. The NCSC will 

submit a “service request” to the local office or service center 

asking for a status update. The appropriate office will respond 

to the customer within 30 days. USCIS will continue to keep 

the Ombudsman’s Office apprised of the agency’s progress 

with these efforts. 

Ombudsman’s Follow-Up 

Recently, USCIS indicated to the Ombudsman that the agency 

is in the process of updating its refund policy service-wide. 

The agency plans to provide information on this new policy 

on its website. 
74 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman 

2. Petitions Returned by the U.S. Department of State 

for Revocation/Revalidation 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

1. Issue service center receipt notices for returned petitions 

2. Establish a nationwide processing goal for re-adjudication 

of returned petitions; add “REVOCATION” as a field on 

public processing time reports 

3. Provide additional information on website 

REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS 

•	 Receipts not always sent to petitioners 

•	 Inconsistent and long processing times 

•	 Lack of transparency over file location and case status 

HIgHLIgHTS 

•	 U.S. Department of State 

- Issues visas abr oad 

- Returns certain pet itions to USCIS for revocation or 

revalidation 

•	 USCIS 

- Reviews petition & determines whether to revalidate/ 

revoke it 

- Multiple petitions filed with DOS due to lack of USCIS 

information & lengthy processing times 

More Information? 

Review the full text of the Ombudsman’s recommendations 

at: http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/cisomb_Recommendation33_ 

aug_24_07.pdf 

Review the full text of USCIS’ response at: http://www.dhs.gov/ 

Summary 

The Ombudsman received complaints from customers and 

stakeholders about the manner in which USCIS processes 

petitions returned by DOS for revocation or revalidation. 

Information about this process, in general, was not available 

to customers and stakeholders. When a petition was returned 

to USCIS, the agency did not always issue notices to petitioners 

informing them the petition was within USCIS jurisdiction. Many times, the petitioner first learned that a returned 

petition had reached USCIS only upon receipt of a Notice of 

Intent to Revoke (NOIR) the previously approved petition. 

The Ombudsman understands that sometimes petitioners, 

who have provided information in response to a NOIR, do 

not receive additional communications from USCIS for long 

periods of time. As a result of this lack of communication, 

these petitioners often file a second or third petition to start 

the process anew. 

CASE PROBLEM 

E-mail received by the Ombudsman. A U.S. citizen petitioner filed Form I-130 (Petition for Alien Relative) on behalf 

of his wife and son in March 2006. USCIS approved the 

petitions in June 2006. However, DOS returned the petitions for review by a USCIS service center in the fall of 2007. 

The long processing delays caused the petitioner and his 

family hardship. The petitioner contacted the Ombudsman 

in March 2009. USCIS sent a notice of intent to revoke the 

petition in April 2009. 

xlibrary/assets/cisomb_uscisresponse_recommendation33_2008-05-23.pdf 

Even after USCIS approves a petition, the agency can revoke 

it for “good and sufficient cause.”385 Types of revocations 

include: (1) automatic revocation;386 (2) revocation due to 

failure to apply for an immigrant visa within one year fol385 INA § 205. 


386 8 C.F.R. § 205.1(a) (2008). 

 

 

 

Annual Report to Congress — June 2009 75 

lowing notification of the availability of such visa;387 and 

(3) revocation on notice.388 

Generally, a petition approved by USCIS is a prerequisite for 

DOS to issue an immigrant or nonimmigrant visa to a beneficiary residing abroad. USCIS does not approve a petition until 

the petitioner establishes, through the submission of documentary evidence, that the required relationship or qualifications exists. After approving a petition, USCIS forwards it to 

DOS for visa processing. 

DOS conducts preliminary processing of the approved petition 

at its National Visa Center in the United States. After preliminary processing is completed, an interview is scheduled at a 

consular office, generally in the country of nationality of the 

beneficiary. After the interview, a consular officer: (1) issues 

the visa; (2) denies the visa for cause pursuant to INA section 

212; or (3) provisionally denies the visa under INA section 

221(g) and returns the visa petition to USCIS for further action 

(either revocation of the underlying approved petition or 

revalidation). 

In general, DOS returns a petition to USCIS for revocation 

where fraud, misrepresentation, or ineligibility is likely 

to lead to revocation, not where it is merely suspected.389 

Usually, consular officers must support petition returns with 

factual and concrete reasons previously not considered by 

USCIS, because the revocation process should not be a DOS 

re-adjudication.390 When consular officers return petitions, 

they are required to give beneficiaries a written explanation 

of the legal basis for non-issuance of the visa and return of the 

petition to USCIS. 

Upon the petition’s return to the USCIS facility, the status of 

the petition is logged into USCIS’ system. The “re-locating” 

of the petition into the system updates the national USCIS 

database, as well as the Case Status Online system available to 

customers via the agency’s website. Some, but not all, service 

centers send receipt notices to individual petitioners informing them where the petition is located. A USCIS adjudications 

officer then evaluates the reasons provided by the consular 

officer for the return. If the adjudicator concurs with the 

consular officer’s reasoning, USCIS issues a NOIR to give the 

petitioner the opportunity to respond. USCIS then will either 

reaffirm the petition and send it back to DOS for processing, 

or deny the petition thereby revoking it. 

Analysis 

On August 24, 2007, the Ombudsman issued three recommendations to increase transparency and improve information 

regarding the status of returned petitions. USCIS responded to 

the Ombudsman’s recommendations on May 23, 2008. 

Recommendation 1: Issue receipt notices to customers 

when the petition file is returned and received by USCIS 

Service Centers. Often the first time a petitioner receives 

written information about the case is when the petitioner 

receives the NOIR. 

USCIS Response: In its response, the agency indicated that 

when a petition is returned by DOS and received by USCIS, 

USCIS updates its CLAIMS 3 database to reflect the arrival of 

the petition. Thereafter, the database sends a Form I-797C 

(Notice of Action) to the petitioner indicating that DOS has 

returned the petition for review. 

Recommendation 2: Establish a nationwide standard 

for the re-adjudication of petitions returned by consular 

officers for revocation or revalidation and amend the 

Operating Instructions/Adjudicator’s Field Manual accordingly; include a “REVOCATION” entry in the processing 

time reports. Standardizing the revocation/revalidation process would result in a more efficient and transparent process. 

Without publicly available processing time reports specific 

to petitions returned by DOS for revocation or revalidation, 

USCIS customers have no indication as to when cases may be 

completed and no way to gauge whether their cases are on 

track. 

USCIS Response: USCIS did not agree with this recommendation. Specifically, the agency determined: (1) national 

standards are not practical because processing depends on DOS 

information; (2) the AFM already includes general procedures 

for revocations and what to do with derogatory information; 387 See INA § 203(g).
 

388 8 C.F.R. § 205.2 (2008). 


389 See DOS ALDAC Cable, State 130268 (July 6, 2002); see also U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual – 9 FAM 42.43 Notes. 

390 See 9 FAM 42.43 Notes. 

(3) a “REVOCATION” entry is not needed because petitions 

returned by DOS for revocation or revalidation are treated as 

RFEs or Notices of Intent to Deny. 
 

 

76	 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman 

Recommendation 3: Provide additional information about 

revocation or revalidation processes on USCIS’ website. At 

the time of the recommendation, the USCIS website did not 

provide information about the revocation/revalidation process. 

Customers had only the information from DOS. 

USCIS Response: USCIS agreed with this recommendation. 

Ombudsman’s Follow-Up 

The Ombudsman traveled to the eastern and western regions 

of the United States and met with USCIS officials, communitybased organizations and stakeholders on these issues. The 

Ombudsman learned that processing times for returned 

petitions range from 12 to over 48 months and that processing 

of returned petitions is inconsistent between service centers.391 

Although USCIS indicated that issuance of receipt notices 

regarding returned petitions was in place since 2006, during 

the reporting period this practice remained inconsistent. 

Returned petitions are not all immediately re-entered into 

the USCIS CLAIMS 3 database, which would generate such a 

receipt notice. 

Stakeholders have informed the Ombudsman that they sometimes receive NOIRs two to three years after petitions arrive 

back at USCIS from DOS. 

Although USCIS processes the majority of these petitions at 

the CSC and VSC, some petitions are processed at field offices 

when forwarded by service centers. If USCIS approves a 

petition at a field office and DOS subsequently returns it for 

revocation or revalidation, that petition will be sent to the 

field office that originally processed it. With USCIS relocating 

increasing numbers of petitions from service centers to field 

offices to optimize resource utilization, assuming that consular return rates remain merely constant, future returns may 

be finding their way to field offices for reconsideration in ever 

higher numbers. 

Petitions returned by DOS to USCIS field offices pose even 

more challenges for customers because: (1) standalone 

petitions returned by DOS are not part of the usual field office 

workload, so USCIS makes special arrangements for adjudicators to work on these petitions rather than their regular workload; (2) field offices do not provide petitioners with receipt 

391	 See Figure 13. 

notices to alert them that a previously approved petition has 

been returned by DOS, and cannot update CLAIMS 3; and (3) 

Case Status Online will not reflect that the returned petition is 

at the field office. 

On April 9, 2009, USCIS published a Fact Sheet on its website.392 The Fact Sheet provides general information about the 

common reasons a previously approved petition would be 

returned to USCIS for revocation/revalidation. It also provides 

information about what a petitioner should expect. 

Figure 13 below depicts data from the CSC and VSC where 

USCIS processes most of these cases. In spring 2009, the 

VSC had over 20,000 more returned petitions pending to be 

processed than the CSC. Moreover, the VSC’s processing time 

was at least four times as long as the CSC. The VSC plans to 

allocate 20 percent of available officers to consular return 

cases. By comparison, the CSC projected that its processing 

time for these cases would be reduced to six months by the 

end of FY 2009.393 

Figure 13: Consular Returns* 

Year Petition 

Status 

California Service 

Center 

Vermont Service 

Center 

Returned Petitions Awaiting Processing 

2009 24,412 

(as of Mar. 2009) 

47,625 

(as of Apr. 2009) 

Petitions Returned from DOS 

2008 25, 873 15,946 

2007 26,259 11,113 

USCIS Action Taken on Returned Petitions 

2008 Revoked 537 3,860 

Reaffirmed 395 531 

2007 Revoked 10,267 1,746 

Reaffirmed 832 514 

Processing Times 

12 months 

(as of Mar. 2009) 

48 months 

(as of May 2009) 

* Excludes petitions returned to field offices. 

Source: Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman 

392	 See USCIS Fact Sheet, “Immigrant Visa Petitions Returned by the 

State Department Consular Offices” (Apr. 9, 2009), www.uscis.gov 

(accessed June 9, 2009). 

393 Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman 

(Mar. 19, 2009). 
 

Annual Report to Congress — June 2009 77 

E. Recommendations in Previous Years 

This section includes summaries of the Ombudsman’s recommendations for the 2008 and 2007 reporting periods.394 For the full 

text of the recommendations and USCIS’ responses, please visit the Ombudsman’s website at www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman. 

Figure 14: CIS Ombudsman Recommendations Chart 

Key 

AR Annual Report recommendation. 

FR Formal recommendation during the reporting year. 

 USCIS implemented the recommendation. 

 USCIS has not yet fully implemented the recommendation. 

 USCIS disagrees and does not plan to implement the recommendation. 

Title Recommendations Status of USCIS Implementation 

AR2008-10 

Workforce After-Action Report 

(6/30/08) 

Recommendation: Review the workforce elements of its 2007 surge 

plan, and make public an after-action report on its findings, including 

best practices, for possible future application surges. 



USCIS has not made public an after-action 

report. 

AR2008-09 

Issuance Rates for Requests for 

Evidence are High 

(6/30/08) 

Recommendation: Expand the use of filing guidance “tip sheets” to 

reduce the current “Request for Evidence” (RFE) issuance rates. 

USCIS has continued developing additional “tip sheets” in the form of processing 

worksheets for each type of application and 

petition. 

AR2008-08 

Consistent Information 

in USCIS Systems 

(6/30/08) 

Recommendation: Ensure that all its systems used by customer 

service personnel to provide information to the public are consistent 

and accurate. 



USCIS IT personnel have already started 

working to correct the interface problems. 

The agency is scheduled to implement a 

complete rewrite of those interfaces by the 

end of this calendar year. 

AR2008-07 

Tier 1 Scripted Information 

(6/30/08) 

Recommendation: Ensure its Tier 1 Customer Service 

Representatives (CSRs) of the NCSC follow the scripted information 

and are properly notified of changes to scripts. 



CSRs frequently fail to follow scripts. 

AR2008-06 

Exchange Program 

(6/30/08) 

Recommendation: Develop an exchange program for USCIS staff who 

routinely work directly with USCIS customers, including staff at Tiers 

1 and 2 of the NCSC, and IIOs who handle INFOPASS appointments. 



AR2008-05 

Website 

(6/30/08) 

Recommendation: Examine whether USCIS has devoted adequate 

resources to the agency’s website given the importance of the 

website to customers. 



AR2008-04 

Proactive Customer Service 

(6/30/08) 

Recommendation: Standardize proactive dissemination of information 

to all customer service avenues to ensure USCIS personnel can 

provide consistent and accurate information to customers. 



USCIS has made efforts to ensure greater 

uniformity of information. 

AR2008-03 

Working Group to Improve 

File Tracking 

(6/30/08) 

Recommendation: Convene a working group to define and implement 

near-term, national file tracking goals. 

USCIS has convened a working group, which 

will provide periodic updates. 

394 Section III.D., “2008 Reporting Period Recommendations,” 

describes the formal recommendations for the 2008 reporting 

period and subsequent follow-up. 
78 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman 

Title Recommendations Status of USCIS Implementation 

AR2008-02 

Digitized Entry, File, and 

Adjudication 

(6/30/08) 

Recommendation: Publicize near-term goals for the “digitization initiative” (electronic form filing and case processing). 

USCIS agrees to publicize near-term goals 

for digitization and has begun to educate 

other DHS and non-DHS components about 

the initiatives. 

AR2008-01 

Comprehensive Case 

Management System 

is Overdue 

(6/30/08) 

Recommendation: Expeditiously implement a comprehensive and effective case management system. USCIS should determine whether 

the Transformation Program Office (TPO) pilot has the necessary 

capabilities and, if so, implement agency-wide. 



USCIS has piloted the Secure Information 

Management Service (SIMS), a web-based 

case management system to enable endto-end electronic processing of intercountry 

adoption applications. USCIS will not 

expand usage of SIMS for agency-wide case 

management. 

AR2007-25 

Asylum Application Redraft 

Recommendation: Redraft Form I-589, the asylum application, so that 

it is less complicated and more understandable by the intended 



(6/11/07) audience – persons who have been persecuted based on race, 

religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or 

political opinion. 

AR2007-24 

End the Dallas Office Rapid 

Recommendation: End the now three-year old DORA pilot. USCIS 

should evaluate the different up-front processing programs to 



Adjustment (DORA) Pilot, determine the comparative value of each program and whether they 

Evaluate and Implement should be expanded. The USCIS findings and empirical data should 

National Program be made available to the public. The agency should either imple­

(6/11/07) ment a version of DORA nationwide or another program which will 

achieve the same objectives with equal or better results. 

AR2007-23 

Training in Field Offices 

(6/11/07) 

Recommendation 1: Consider amending job requirements to include 

basic knowledge of certain commercially available computer programs used in the offices. 



USCIS provides training on an as needed 

basis. 

Recommendation 2: Provide all interviewing officers with Interviewing 

Techniques Training. Adjudicators who received this training indicated it helped them conduct better interviews. 



AR2007-22 

Personnel Recruitment 

Recommendation: Establish actionable multi-year milestones that 

lead to fulfilling the objectives of the Strategic Workforce Plan and 



and Development ensure a systemic and sustained effort to recruit and develop its 

(6/11/07) personnel. Responsibility to implement the plan should be included 

as a specific job requirement for the Chief Human Capital Officer 

and in the job requirements statements of the senior officers in the 

Office of Human Capital and Training. 

AR2007-21 

Training for Office Supervisors 

Recommendation: The Human Capital and Training Office, in collaboration with field offices and service centers, should determine the 



(6/11/07) skills and knowledge sets required for supervisors to be effective in 

their daily managing of people and resources. Specific resources or 

training programs should be identified on diversity requirements, discipline issues, handling problem employees, evaluating workflows, 

and budget management. Headquarters funds should be provided 

to field offices for employees to attend these sessions. 

AR2007-20 

Office Communication 

(6/11/07) 

Recommendation: Expand the opportunities for vertical and horizontal communication among offices by supporting conferences 

focused on specific work issues and providing funds for travel of 

working level staff to share best practices. 



USCIS is committed to sharing best practices among various offices through the use of 

conferences and promoting fiscal responsibility through greater use of web-based video 

conferencing. 

AR2007-19 

Standardize Staffing Levels 

(6/11/07) 

Recommendation: To reduce USCIS’ dependency on temporary 

employees and assignments, the agency should establish a table 

of standard staffing levels and office organization to provide the 

requisite staff at any particular office. 



AR2007-18 

Training 

(6/11/07) 

Recommendation 1: Expand USCIS’ blended approach to training. 

USCIS should establish, regulate, and evaluate core training needs 

through its operations in the same manner as its review of the 

Basic Officer Training Course for adjudicators. 


Annual Report to Congress — June 2009 79 

Title Recommendations Status of USCIS Implementation 

Recommendation 2: USCIS should establish a certification process 

for both federal and contract instructors. 



AR2007-17 

Career Paths 

(6/11/07) 

Recommendation: Ensure there is a comprehensive merger of core 

job career paths with necessary training requirements – mandatory, 

technical, and leadership – oriented to future needs and groups, as 

well as transparency from entry to executive levels. 



AR2007-16 

Chief Human Capital Officer 

(6/11/07) 

Recommendation: The Chief Human Capital Office should have a 

rank position equal to the Chief Human Information Officer and 

Chief Financial Officer. USCIS should establish the role as a career 

reserved SES position. 



AR2007-15 

Information Technology 

Network Solutions 

(6/11/07) 

Recommendation 1: Ensure that a computer refresh does not 

adversely impact local systems. 

USCIS is balancing between improving IT systems through Transformation and ensuring 

local business practices are not adversely 

impacted. 

Recommendation 2: Make available to each local office software that 

is authorized to enable offices to continue to use previously created 

documents in those systems. 



USCIS tries to ensure that previously created 

documents remain accessible with new 

technology initiatives. 

Recommendation 3: Consider a long-term solution to the onsite support issue such as a central system. 

USCIS planned to use fee increase funding 

to create a viable central IT system and 

controls. 

AR2007-14 

Records Management 

(6/11/07) 

Recommendation: Define a program to ensure proper handling and 

monitoring of its records. The program should be assigned to a 

USCIS Headquarters office element. 



USCIS has convened a working group to 

implement this recommendation. 

AR2007-13 

Fund Headquarters Staff Visits 

to the Field 

(6/11/07) 

Recommendation: The budget for each Headquarters element should 

include sufficient funds for detailed visits with field office and 

service center line and supervisory staff to enable Headquarters to 

better understand the needs of these offices. 



AR2007-12 

Request for Evidence (RFE) 

Issuance 

(6/11/07) 

Recommendation 1: Create clearer application instructions so that 

applicants provide the required documentation at the outset. 

USCIS Information and Customer Service 

Division (ICSD) has focused its Content Team 

to include reviews of all instructions. 

Recommendation 2: Publish transparent and easily understandable 

rejection criteria. 

USCIS has not yet implemented this 

recommendation. 

Recommendation 3: RFEs written in simple, more direct language 

with less legalese and personalized to the recipient for the limited 

instances in which RFEs would be issued. 



USCIS is attempting to provide more tailored 

RFEs to customers. 

AR2007-11 

Chicago Lockbox 

(6/11/07) 

Recommendation 1: Implement a procedure so the Lockbox will not 

accept a new filing if a case already has been denied and a Notice 

to Appear (NTA) issued. 



USCIS will work with the Executive Office for 

Immigration Review to establish appropriate 

procedures for filings where an NTA has been 

issued. 

Recommendation 2: Institute a process to notify a field office when 

an application is rejected. 



Recommendation 3: Implement quality review measures to ensure 

that errors do not occur in mailings to applicants. 



AR2007-10 

Quality Assurance (QA) Training 

(6/11/07) 

Recommendation: The Ombudsman strongly endorses a plan 

whereby employees responsible for quality assurance at the local 

level receive uniform and comprehensive training in QA procedures. 



AR2007-09 

Fraud Investigation Time Limits 

(6/11/07) 

Recommendation 1: Produce an Aging Report on pending fraud 

investigations by officer and district. 


80 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman 

Title Recommendations Status of USCIS Implementation 

Recommendation 2: Establish a reasonable limit to the time allotted 

for investigation by the fraud unit. 



USCIS does not support placing limits on the 

time allotted for investigations. 

AR2007-08 

Fraud Interviews 

(6/11/07) 

Recommendation: Institute same-day fraud interviews in all field 

offices. 

Same-day fraud interviews are taking place 

at many USCIS field offices. USCIS has found 

that rescheduling an interview where fraud is 

suspected to allow USCIS to conduct a site 

visit can also detect and prevent fraud. 

AR2007-07 

Premium Processing Costs 

Recommendation: Conduct a thorough, transparent, and independent 

analysis of premium processing costs as compared with regular 



Compared with Regular processing. 

Processing Costs 

(6/11/07) 

AR2007-06 

FBI Name Check 

(6/11/07) 

Recommendation 1: Evaluate the value of the name check in its 

current format and establish a risk-based approach to screening for 

national security concerns. 



USCIS and the FBI undertook a pilot project 

to test a variety of approaches to improve 

the quality of information developed through 

the name check process. 

Recommendation 2: Work with the FBI to provide the necessary 

resources to perform name checks in a timely manner. 



Recommendation 3: Provide greater transparency by publishing 

monthly the number of long-pending FBI name check cases. 



USCIS does not publish this information. 

AR2007-05 

Application Redress 

(6/11/07) 

Recommendation: Adopt a national process similar to that in the San 

Diego Field Office wherein an applicant who has not received a decision after an interview can contact the District Adjudications Officer 

(DAO) via e-mail. 



The National Customer Service Center 

provides a phone inquiry system and 

forwards inquiries via the Service Request 

Management Tool (SRMT). 

AR2007-04 

FAQ List 

(6/11/07) 

Recommendation 1: Adopt the frequently asked questions format 

used by CBP, incorporating a dynamic search feature on the website, 

rather than a static FAQ list. 



USCIS’ website currently offers a search 

capability. 

Recommendation 2: Provide a service on the website whereby customers can e-mail a question and receive an answer within a short 

period of time. 



The National Customer Service Center offers 

a 1-800 phone inquiry system to accept 

questions. 

AR2007-03 

Processing Times 

(6/11/07) 

Recommendation: Return to providing the public with 

actual processing times for each field office. 



USCIS states that unless shorter processing 

times remain constant for a period of time, 

it would be inappropriate to report those 

times. 

AR2007-02 

Pending Cases 

(6/11/07) 

Recommendation: Provide a clearer picture of the current backlog by 

providing information on the number of pending cases by form type 

with receipts that are: (1) less than 90 days; (2) less than 180 days; 

(3) less than one year; (4) less than two years; (5) less than three 

years; (6) less than four years; and (7) greater than four years. 



USCIS agrees it would be useful to track 

cases based on their processing age, and 

that continues to be a goal of the new case 

processing system being developed. 

AR2007-01 

Transformation 

(6/11/07) 

Recommendation 1: Publish transformation timelines, goals, and 

regular updates on the public USCIS website. 

USCIS has provided some information on its 

website regarding Transformation. 

Recommendation 2: Establish transparency as a goal for USCIS 

processing and services. 

USCIS Transformation Program Office has 

published on uscis.gov the Transformation 

Concept of Operations (CONOPS) describing 

the end-state of a transformed USCIS. 
Annual Report to Congress — June 2009 81 

Title Recommendations Status of USCIS Implementation 

FR2007-32 

Deferred Action 

(4/6/07) 

Recommendation 1: Post general information on deferred action on 

its website. 



USCIS does not believe this information 

would be a meaningful addition to the 

website. 

Recommendation 2: Maintain statistics on the issuance and denial of 

deferred action requests. 



Recommendation 3: Designate a Headquarters official to review 

grants and denials of deferred action requests on a quarterly basis 

to ensure that like cases are decided in like manner. 



USCIS does not believe that a review by 

Headquarters is necessary. 

FR2007-31 

30-day Advance Notice 

for Changes in Policy and 

Operations Instructions 

(2/8/07) 

Recommendation: Adopt an SOP under which there would be at 

least 30-day advance notice to the public and posting on the USCIS 

website of changes to policy and operations instructions, absent 

exigent circumstances. 



USCIS has expanded efforts to give public 

notice as standard practice, but rejects 

adopting a 30-day notice requirement for all 

policy or procedural changes. 

FR2006-30 

Improvement of FOIA Operations 

(7/12/06) 

Recommendation: USCIS to improve Freedom of Information Act 

(FOIA) operations while ensuring that information is provided timely 

by implementing seventeen actions and requirements which will 

result in a substantially reduced backlog. 



USCIS has accomplished many of these 

recommendations, and is working on those 

others it has not rejected. 

FR2006-29 

Extraordinary Ability “O” Petition 

Extension 

(6/30/06) 

Recommendation: Amend O petition rules to facilitate “extraordinary 

ability” aliens’ employment in the United States by extending the 

maximum initial validity of O petitions from three to five years, and 

increasing the maximum extension length from one to five years. 



USCIS stated that five years is too long 

between extensions of the “O” nonimmigrant 

visa, but is willing to consider some period 

of time. 

FR2006-28 

Online Address Change (AR-11) 

(6/9/06) 

Recommendation: Supplement current change-of-address procedures 

with an online process. 


82 

This page intentionally left blank 

Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman 
 

 

 

 

Annual Report to Congress — June 2009 83 

IV. Case Problems 


The Ombudsman receives letters, e-mails, and telephone 

calls from individuals and employers regarding their 

problems with USCIS. For privacy reasons, the Ombudsman 

currently only accepts case problems with an original 

signature, which includes scanned signatures under 

certain circumstances. Case problems are based on facts 

provided to the Ombudsman by individuals or employers 

seeking assistance. By reviewing USCIS data systems, 

Immigration Law Analysts in the Ombudsman’s office 

validate the facts provided. For matters within USCIS’ 

jurisdiction, the Ombudsman coordinates action and 

resolution with the USCIS Customer Assistance Office 

(CAO), and often recommends a specific course of action. 

Most customers complete Form DHS-7001 (Case Problem 

Submission Worksheet), available at www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman, 

to initiate a case problem inquiry (see also Appendix 3). It is 

a fillable form that customers can complete online, print, and 

mail to the Ombudsman. 

During the reporting period, the Ombudsman opened 4,094 

case problems and referred 3,056 of them to the CAO for 

further action or resolution. The Ombudsman may accept 

by telephone or e-mail (with hard copy to follow) emergent 

cases, where time constraints or humanitarian concerns are 

an issue, and relay them directly to USCIS. Alternatively, the 

Ombudsman may address the issues in emergent cases directly 

with the USCIS office where the problem exists. Many case 

problems involve multiple issues ranging from long processing 

times to lack of response from the agency to USCIS Service 

errors, as reflected in Figure 15. 

Since the establishment of the office in July 2003, the 

Ombudsman has received over 20,500 e-mail inquiries at its 

cisombudsman@dhs.gov e-mail box of which approximately 7,200 

arrived during the reporting period. If an e-mail inquiry is 

within the office’s jurisdiction and indicates that the individual has exhausted all avenues with USCIS, the Ombudsman 

usually requests submission of a case problem via U.S. mail or 

courier service. In addition, the office often provides individuals with links to resources available on USCIS’ website, 

as well as to other federal agencies, such as the DOS and 

the SSA. The Ombudsman also receives hundreds of Public 

Affairs e-mails addressing teleconferences and other issues and 

maintains a Trends e-mail box for comments and concerns 

regarding systemic issues. 

Figure 15: Case Problems, 2009 Reporting Period 

Total Received 4,094 

Number Referred to CAO 3,056 

Long Processing Delays 3,034 

Unidentified Processing Delays 1,086 

Service Error 774 

Lack of Response from USCIS/Customer 

Did Not Receive Document 

406 

Incorrect Legal/Factual Decision 130 

Other Service Errors 111 

Paperwork Lost 66 

Inaccurate Information Provided by USCIS 61 

Customer Service 627 

FBI Name Check 309 

As illustrated by Figure 15, the most common type of complaint 

received during this reporting period involved processing times, 

with 3,034 or 74 percent identifying long processing delays as a 

concern. By comparison, during the previous reporting period, 

87 percent of complaints were due to processing delays. The 

other significant decline in this year’s numbers concerns FBI 

name checks. Last year 1,670, or 36 percent of all case problems 

involved FBI name check or security check processing issues.395 

For the 2009 reporting period, there were 309 name check 

processing delay inquiries, representing 7.5 percent of all case 

problems. 

Approximately 19 percent of case problems involved instances 

of reported Service error as one of the problems, as compared 

with approximately 16 percent in 2008. General customer 

service complaints were an issue in approximately 15 percent 

of the case problems of which more than half pertained to the 

service centers. 

395 Ombudsman’s Annual Report 2008, p. 75. 
84 

This page intentionally left blank 

Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman 
 

Annual Report to Congress — June 2009 85 

V. Ombudsman Outreach 


During this reporting period, the Ombudsman continued 

to find ways to be open and accessible to customers and the 

general public. To better assist individuals and employers 

resolve problems with USCIS, the Ombudsman traveled to 

USCIS facilities nationwide, met with stakeholder organizations, held numerous in-person and telephonic meetings with 

interested parties, addressed thousands of e-mail inquiries, 

and held monthly public teleconferences. 

A. Website 

The Ombudsman’s website is www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman. The 

Ombudsman encourages use of the website to learn about 

how this office can assist with resolving immigration benefits 

concerns with USCIS, new recommendations, USCIS responses 

to those recommendations, teleconferences, and other activities of the office. 

Website visitors can sign-up to receive e-mail notification 

whenever the site is updated. 

B. E-mail 

The office maintains three public e-mail accounts: 

y cisombudsman@dhs.go v – Ask the Ombudsman general questions such as how the office can provide assistance. 

yycisombudsman.publicaffairs@dhs.go v – Sign-up for public teleconferences, provide the office with feedback after a teleconference, or send the Ombudsman comments or questions about Ombudsman Updates posted on the website. 

yycisombudsman.trends@dhs.go v – Write the Ombudsman to 

suggest solutions to systemic USCIS problems. Customers’ and stakeholders’ main concerns submitted via the 

trends e-mail box during the reporting period pertained 

to: (1) perceived lack of “first in first out” case processing396 for concurrent Form I-140 (Immigrant Petition for 

Alien Worker)/I-485 (Application to Register Permanent 

Residence or Adjust Status) filings at certain service centers, and (2) significant processing time inconsistencies 

between service centers adjudicating Form I-129F (Petition for Alien Fiancé(e)). 

The Ombudsman invites individuals and employers needing assistance in resolving a particular immigration benefits 

problem to complete Form DHS-7001 (Appendix 3). 

C. Teleconferences 

During the reporting period, the Ombudsman continued the 

series of public teleconferences entitled “How Is It Working 

for You?” These teleconferences are an opportunity for USCIS 

customers and stakeholders to ask questions, express concerns, 

and identify best practices on specific topics or regarding 

particular USCIS offices. 

Figure 16: “How Is USCIS Working for You?” 2009 Reporting Period 

Discussion Topics Date 

Visas for Nurses: How Does This Impact Your 

Medical Facility? 

May 30, 2008 

USCIS Summer 2007 Application Surge: How is 

it Affecting You Now? 

May 30, 2008 

CIS Ombudsman's 2008 Annual Report to 

Congress: Your Questions and Comments 

July 29, 2008 

U Visa: One Year After the Interim Final Rule August 26, 2008 

EB-5 Investor Visas: Opportunities and 

Challenges 

September 26, 2008 

Biological Relationship Testing: Opportunities 

and Challenges 

October 30, 2008 

USCIS E-Filing and Filing Fee Payment Options: 

How Are They Working For You? 

November 25, 2008 

Motions to Reopen: How Are They Working For 

You? 

January 28, 2009 

Refugee Processing: Your Questions and 

Comments 

February 25, 2009 

Practical Immigration Consequences for Foreign 

Workers in a Slowing Economy 

March 31, 2009 

Recommendation Follow-ups: Revocations, 

Refunds, and Employment Authorization 

Documents 

April 27, 2009 

USCIS Change of Address: How Is It Working 

For You?" 

May 26, 2009 

396 USCIS, “Employment-Based Immigration Process,” www.uscis.gov (accessed June 9, 2009). 
86	 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman 

Topics, dates, and times are posted on the Ombudsman’s 

website, along with instructions on how to participate. The 

Ombudsman encourages submission of ideas for future 

teleconferences to cisombudsman.publicaffairs@dhs.gov. 

USCIS officials listened-in to all teleconferences during the 

reporting period. For some teleconferences, USCIS provided 

the Ombudsman in advance with information to share with 

callers. The Ombudsman continued to reserve 10 telephone 

lines for USCIS representatives from Headquarters and relevant 

offices to listen-in and gain additional understanding of 

customer and stakeholder issues. Although the Ombudsman 

provided USCIS the opportunity to actively participate in 

all calls, the agency elected to do so only once during the 

reporting period: a USCIS official shared helpful information 

with callers on the September 26, 2008, teleconference, “EB-5 

Investor Visas: Opportunities and Challenges.” 

The Ombudsman posts on the website selected questions 

raised and comments made during the teleconference for the 

benefit of participants and individuals who did not join the 

calls. As noted in the 2008 Annual Report, the usefulness of 

these postings is limited by the delay in obtaining answers 

once the Ombudsman forwards the questions to USCIS. 

D. Ombudsman Updates 

This reporting year, the Ombudsman provided a new outreach 

tool on the website entitled “Ombudsman Updates.” These 

periodic updates share information on current trends and issues to help individuals and employers resolve problems with 

USCIS. This year there were three updates: 

“AC21 Issues: Did USCIS Immediately Deny Your 

Adjustment of Status Application Following a Change 

of Employment?”397 As described in section III.B.2., 

“Employment-Based Petitions (I-140s),” AC21 gives the ability 

to change jobs (“portability”) to any foreign national who 

is the beneficiary of an approved I-140, where an I-485 has 

been pending 180 days or more and provided that the new 

offer of employment is in the same or similar occupation as 

the original offer of employment.398 When a foreign national 

does not notify USCIS of a job change, adjudications officers 

must issue a Notice of Intent to Deny (NOID) or RFE to the 

customer before denying a pending I-485. Inquiries to the 

Ombudsman stated that USCIS did not consistently issue these 

documents following a change of employment, but instead 

was immediately denying green card applications. 

CASE PROBLEM 

E-mail received by the Ombudsman in January 2009. A 

customer sent an inquiry regarding the denial of an I-485 

following a change in employment. The customer never 

received a Request for Further Evidence or Notice of Intent 

to Deny the I-485 application and, therefore, filed a motion 

to reopen his case costing additional legal and filing fees. 

While USCIS reviewed the motion, the customer was unable 

to travel, and his wife, a derivative of the I-485 application, 

had to resign from her job due to the invalidation of her 

EAD. The Ombudsman addressed this case with USCIS and 

the agency ultimately resolved the issue to the benefit of the 

applicants. 

This Ombudsman Update addresses customer concerns, 

provides guidance and links to clarify USCIS processing of 

AC21 portability cases, and encourages individuals to submit 

case problems to the Ombudsman if cases seem to be erroneously denied. 

“Child Status Protection Act:399 Was your child previously 

denied CSPA benefits? Does your child qualify?”400 This 

update provides information on the availability of CSPA relief 

and how to obtain more information on this Act. Signed 

into law on August 6, 2002, CSPA permits certain applicants 

for specified immigration benefits to keep their classification 

as a “child” even after reaching age 21. In 2007, the Board 

of Immigration Appeals held that, contrary to prior USCIS 

interpretation, children need not have I-485s or immigrant 

visa applications pending on August 6, 2002 to benefit from 

397	 http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/gc_1221837986181.shtm#1. 

398 American Competitiveness in the Twenty-first Century Act of 2000, 

Pub. L. No. 106-313 (Oct. 17, 2000). 

399 Child Status Protection Act (CSPA), Pub. L. No. 107-208 (Aug. 6, 

2002); see also USCIS Update, “USCIS Issues Revised Guidance on 

the Applicability of the Child Status Protection Act (CSPA)” (May 

6, 2008), http://www.uscis.gov/files/article/CSPA_update_050608.pdf (accessed June 9, 2009). 

400	 http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/gc_1221837986181.shtm#2 (accessed 

June 9, 2009). 
 

 

Annual Report to Congress — June 2009 87 

CSPA.401 In May 2008, USCIS revised its guidance and now 

applies CSPA benefits retroactively.402 

“2007 Summer Surge A Year Later: Employment 

Authorization Document (EAD) Processing Delays”403 

USCIS must adjudicate EAD applications within 90 days from 

the date of USCIS receipt of the application.404 However, the 

Ombudsman received numerous inquiries from customers 

about EAD applications pending more than 90 days.405 To 

address these concerns, the Ombudsman Update offered three 

suggestions: (1) contact the USCIS National Customer Service 

Center and ask the representative to issue a service request 

or request an interim card; (2) if you prefer to visit a local 

office, make an INFOPASS appointment and request an interim 

EAD; as local offices no longer issue interim EADs, they will 

forward these requests to a service center; and (3) if you 

tried steps one and two and still have not received an EAD, 

e-mail the Ombudsman at cisombudsman.publicaffairs@dhs.gov for 

assistance. In response, the Ombudsman received hundreds 

of these e-mails and worked to resolve these cases with the 

assistance of USCIS staff. 

E. Virtual Ombudsman System 

The Ombudsman is developing a web-based system, the 

Virtual Ombudsman System, to help support the statutory 

mandate to assist individuals and employers encountering 

problems with USCIS. The web-based portal for case problem 

submission and receipt will ensure the efficient and secure 

processing of information and simplify internal processes, 

while providing high quality customer service at a reduced 

cost for the Ombudsman, individuals, employers, and 

stakeholders. 

Specifically, the Virtual Ombudsman System will: (1) streamline and standardize the process for individuals and employers to contact the Ombudsman; (2) enable individuals and 

employers to provide consent for information release through 

an electronic signature, instead of with an original manual 

signature requiring the submission and retention of written 

correspondence; (3) centralize tracking of correspondence 

in all forms (paper, facsimile, e-mail, etc.) within a single 

electronic management tool; and (4) provide for functionality 

and control of data analysis, as well as the development of 

various reports to fulfill mission requirements. 

The system is currently in the final phase of information 

security and engineering validation to ensure confidentiality, 

integrity, and its availability to the public. 

401 In re Rodolfo Avila-Perez, 24 I&N Dec. 78 (BIA 2007). 

402 USCIS Update, “USCIS issues Revised Guidance on Child Status Protection Act (CSPA)” (May 6, 2008), http://www.uscis.gov/files/article/ 

CSPA_update_050608.pdf (accessed June 9, 2009). 

403 http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/gc_1221837986181.shtm#4 (accessed 

June 9, 2009). 

404 8 C.F.R. § 274a.13(d) (2008). 

405 See section III.C.8. for a discussion of the EAD Recommendation. 
88 

This page intentionally left blank 

Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman 
Annual Report to Congress — June 2009	 89 

VI. Ombudsman Priorities 


and Objectives
 

Section 452(c)(1) of the Homeland Security Act requires the 

Ombudsman to submit in the annual report “the objectives of 

the Office of the Ombudsman for the fiscal year beginning in 

such calendar year.” 

In addition to fulfilling the statutory functions, the 

Ombudsman will continue to: 

yyExpand outreach initiatives to USCIS customers and 

stakeholders by meeting regularly with community, employer, and immigration law organizations and by holding 

monthly public teleconferences; 

yyImprove its website and virtual access for individuals and 

employers; and 

yyEngage in productive, open exchanges with USCIS leadership, management, and personnel both at Headquarters 

and in site visits to USCIS facilities nationwide on issues 

affecting customer service. 

Issues for consideration in the next reporting period may 

include: 

yyRequests for Evidence. Stakeholders report substantial 

problems with RFEs that are arbitrary, seek evidence 

already provided with the initial filing, are broad-brush 

and not specific to the case submitted, or do not specifically indicate where the case is deficient in meeting the 

required criteria. 

yyTransformation. The Ombudsman anticipates monitoring ongoing USCIS initiatives critical to agency modernization and efficiency goals. 

yyCustomer Service. The Ombudsman continues to be 

concerned with how USCIS interacts with individuals and 

employers. These customer service concerns range from 

the adequacy of filing instructions and case status information to problem resolution, informal decision review, 

and formal appeals to mitigate delays and correct Service 

error. 

yyInteragency Coordination. Efficient benefits processing 

requires multi-agency collaboration, which the Ombudsman has sought to facilitate since its inception. The office 

expects to continue fostering communication and coordination between USCIS and partner agencies, such as CBP, 

ICE, DOS, the Department of Labor, and the SSA. 

Additional priorities will be set after the new Ombudsman is 

appointed. 
90 

This page intentionally left blank 

Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman 
Annual Report to Congress — June 2009 91 Appendices

Appendices 

Appendix 1: 

Homeland Security Act Excerpts 

116 STAT. 2200 PUBLIC LAW 107–296–NOVEMBER 25, 2002 

(6 U.S.C. §§271, 272, and 273) 

SEC. 451. ESTABLISHMENT OF BUREAU OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES. 

(a) ESTABLISHMENT OF BUREAU.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—There shall be in the Department a bureau to be known as the ‘‘Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration 

Services’’. 

(2) DIRECTOR.—The head of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services shall be the Director of the Bureau of 

Citizenship and Immigration Services ... 

(3) FUNCTIONS.—The Director of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services... 

(E) shall meet regularly with the Ombudsman described in section 452 to correct serious service problems identified by the Ombudsman; and 

(F) shall establish procedures requiring a formal response to any recommendations submitted in the 

Ombudsman’s annual report to Congress within 3 months after its submission to Congress. 

SEC. 452. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES OMBUDSMAN. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Within the Department, there shall be a position of Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman 

(in this section referred to as the ‘‘Ombudsman’’). The Ombudsman shall report directly to the Deputy Secretary. The 

Ombudsman shall have a background in customer service as well as immigration law. 

(b) FUNCTIONS.—It shall be the function of the Ombudsman— 

(1) to assist individuals and employers in resolving problems with the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services; 

(2) to identify areas in which individuals and employers have problems in dealing with the Bureau of Citizenship and 

Immigration Services; and 

(3) to the extent possible, to propose changes in the administrative practices of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration 

Services to mitigate problems identified under paragraph (2). 

(c) ANNUAL REPORTS.— 

(1) OBJECTIVES.—Not later than June 30 of each calendar year, the Ombudsman shall report to the Committee on the 

Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Senate on the objectives of the Office of the Ombudsman for the fiscal 

year beginning in such calendar year. Any such report shall contain full and substantive analysis, in addition to statistical information, and— 

(A) shall identify the recommendations the Office of the Ombudsman has made on improving services and 

responsiveness of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services; 

(B) shall contain a summary of the most pervasive and serious problems encountered by individuals and employers, including a description of the nature of such problems; 

(C) shall contain an inventory of the items described in subparagraphs (A) and (B) for which action has been 

taken and the result of such action; 
 

 

Appendices 92 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman 

(D) shall contain an inventory of the items described in subparagraphs (A) and (B) for which action remains to be 

completed and the period during which each item has remained on such inventory; 

(E) shall contain an inventory of the items described in subparagraphs (A) and (B) for which no action has been 

taken, the period during which each item has remained on such inventory, the reasons for the inaction, and shall 

identify any official of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services who is responsible for such inaction; 

(F) shall contain recommendations for such administrative action as may be appropriate to resolve problems 

encountered by individuals and employers, including problems created by excessive backlogs in the adjudication and processing of immigration benefit petitions and applications; and 

(G) shall include such other information as the Ombudsman may deem advisable. 

(2) REPORT TO BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY.—Each report required under this subsection shall be provided directly to 

the committees described in paragraph (1) without any prior comment or amendment from the Secretary, Deputy 

Secretary, Director of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services, or any other officer or employee of the 

Department or the Office of Management and Budget. 

(d) OTHER RESPONSIBILITIES.—The Ombudsman— 

(1) shall monitor the coverage and geographic allocation of local offices of the Ombudsman; 

(2) shall develop guidance to be distributed to all officers and employees of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration 

Services outlining the criteria for referral of inquiries to local offices of the Ombudsman; 

(3) shall ensure that the local telephone number for each local office of the Ombudsman is published and available to 

individuals and employers served by the office; and 

(4) shall meet regularly with the Director of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services to identify serious service 

problems and to present recommendations for such administrative action as may be appropriate to resolve problems 

encountered by individuals and employers. 

(e) PERSONNEL ACTIONS.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Ombudsman shall have the responsibility and authority— 

(A) to appoint local ombudsmen and make available at least 1 such ombudsman for each State; and 

(B) to evaluate and take personnel actions (including dismissal) with respect to any employee of any local office of 

the Ombudsman. 

(2) CONSULTATION.—The Ombudsman may consult with the appropriate supervisory personnel of the Bureau of 

Citizenship and Immigration Services in carrying out the Ombudsman’s responsibilities under this subsection. 

(f) RESPONSIBILITIES OF BUREAU OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES.—The Director of the Bureau of Citizenship 

and Immigration Services shall establish procedures requiring a formal response to all recommendations submitted to such 

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

(g) OPERATION OF LOCAL OFFICES.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Each local ombudsman— 

(A) shall report to the Ombudsman or the delegate thereof; 

(B) may consult with the appropriate supervisory personnel of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services 

regarding the daily operation of the local office of such ombudsman; 

(C) shall, at the initial meeting with any individual or employer seeking the assistance of such local office, notify 

such individual or employer that the local offices of the Ombudsman operate independently of any other 

component of the Department and report directly to Congress through the Ombudsman; and 

(D) at the local ombudsman’s discretion, may determine not to disclose to the Bureau of Citizenship and 

Immigration Services contact with, or information provided by, such individual or employer. 

(2) MAINTENANCE OF INDEPENDENT COMMUNICATIONS.— Each local office of the Ombudsman shall maintain a 

phone, facsimile, and other means of electronic communication access, and a post office address, that is separate 

from those maintained by the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services, or any component of the Bureau of 

Citizenship and Immigration Services. 
As of April 25, 2007 from www.dhs.gov

_________________

Annual Report to Congress — June 2009 93 Appendices

Appendix 2:
 

DHS Organizational Chart
 

CHIEF OF STAFF 

GENERAL 

COUNSEL 

INSPECTOR 

GENERAL

 LEGISLATIVE 

AFFAIRS 

Assistant Secretary

 SCIENCE & 

TECHNOLOGY 

Under Secretary 

POLICY 

Assistant Secretary 

MANAGEMENT 

Under Secretary 

CHIEF 

FINANCIAL 

OFFICER 

NATIONAL 

PROTECTION & 

PROGRAMS 

Under Secretary

 PUBLIC 

AFFAIRS 

Assistant Secretary 

TRANSPORTATION 

SECURITY 

ADMINISTRATION 

Assistant Secretary/ 

Administrator 

U.S CUSTOMS 

& BORDER 

PROTECTION 

Commissioner 

U.S. CITIZENSHIP 

& IMMIGRATION 

SERVICES 

Director 

U.S. IMMIGRATION 

& CUSTOMS 

ENFORCEMENT 

Assistant Secretary 

FEDERAL

 EMERGENCY 

MANAGEMENT 

AGENCY 

Administrator 

U.S. SECRET 

SERVICE 

Director 

U.S. COAST 

GUARD 

Commandant 

EXECUTIVE SECRETARIAT 

MILITARY ADVISOR 

SECRETARY 

DEPUTY SECRETARY 

INTELLIGENCE 

& ANALYSIS 

Assistant Secretary 

CITIZENSHIP 

& IMMIGRATION 

SERVICES 

OMBUDSMAN 

CHIEF PRIVACY 

OFFICER

 CIVIL RIGHTS & 

CIVIL LIBERTIES 

Officer 

COUNTERNARCOTICS 

ENFORCEMENT 

Director 

OPERATIONS 

COORDINATION 

 Director 

HEALTH 

AFFAIRS 

Assistant Secretary

 Chief Medical Officer 

FEDERAL LAW 

ENFORCEMENT 

TRAINING CENTER 

Director 

DOMESTIC 

NUCLEAR 

DETECTION 

Director 

NATIONAL 

CYBER SECURITY 

CENTER 

Director 

Part of the former INS which was combined with part of U.S. Customs 

Formerly part of the INS Immigration Services Division 

Newly created agency under Homeland Security Act 
 

 

Appendices 94 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman 

Appendix 3:
 

Form DHS-7001
 

OMB No. 1601-0004; Exp. 01/01/10 

Department of Homeland Security Case Problem Submission Worksheet 

CIS Ombudsman (CIS Ombudsman Form DHS-7001) 

Instructions

General Information. 

1. Who May Use This Form? 

If you are experiencing problems during the adjudication 

of an immigration benefit with U.S. Citizenship and 

Immigration Services (USCIS), you can submit this 

worksheet form. You may also use this form to submit a 

case problem on behalf of somebody else who 

experiences a case problem with USCIS. If you submit a 

case problem on behalf of somebody other than yourself, 

you should ensure that the person the case problem is 

about (the applicant for a USCIS immigration benefit, or 

the petitioner who seeks to obtain an immigration benefit 

for a third party) consents to your inquiry (see section 

15). 

2. Do I Have to Use This Form to Submit a 

Case Problem to CIS Ombudsman? 

You do not have to use this form to submit your case 

problem to CIS Ombudsman. However, by submitting a 

properly completed form, the CIS Ombudsman will 

receive the necessary information to process your case 

problem. If you do not use the form and do not provide 

us with the necessary information, you may experience a 

delay in the processing of your case problem. 

3. When Should I Submit a Case 

Problem to CIS Ombudsman? 

You should contact the CIS Ombudsman if you have an 

ongoing or immediate issue with USCIS, such as: 

You are facing, or are about to face, an immediate

adverse action or impact, an emergency or any other type

of significant hardship caused by an action/inaction/delay

in processing by USCIS, or a problem, which could not

be resolved through the normal processes provided for by

USCIS; 

Your case experienced processing delays beyond

anticipated processing times;
 

You will incur, or are about to incur, significant and

unusual costs (including fees for professional

representation that are not normally incurred); 

Have not received a response or resolution within the

anticipated time frames as published by USCIS. 

4. Do I Have to Do Anything Before I Can 

Submit a Case Problem to CIS Ombudsman? 

It is best if you contact our office for assistance after 

utilizing other resources for case problems with USCIS, 

such as: 

USCIS Case Status Service Online at http://www.uscis.gov; 

Made an InfoPass appointment at the local office; 

Contacted the National Customer Service Center (NCSC)

for assistance at (800) 375-5283. 

While we do not require that you take these steps before you 

contact our office, the above listed resources can resolve 

many frequently asked questions such as (1) what forms to 

file; (2) where to file a particular form; (3) how to notify 

USCIS of a change of address; (4) how to inquire about 

processing times at the various service centers or field offices 

or (5) how to receive case status updates. Additionally, 

certain information can be obtained from USCIS directly, 

such as information about individual immigration benefits. 

 NOTICE: Please be aware that CIS Ombudsman cannot 

provide legal advice. Our office does not have the 

statutory authority to tell you what type of immigration 

benefit you may be eligible for or how to remedy your 

particular immigration situation. 

5. What Are the General Filing

Instructions for This Form? 

Type or print legibly in black ink. 

If extra space is needed to complete any item, please attach

a continuation sheet and indicate the item number. 

If you feel that a particular item does not apply, please

indicate by writing "N/A." 

Please attach copies of any documentation you received

from or sent to USCIS or any other government entity in

relation to your case problem. Any additional

documentation that is helpful to your case should be

submitted. Do not send us original applications or original

documentation. 

6. Do I Need to Submit a Fee 

Along With This Form? 

No fee is required. Please do not send us any fees. 

Form DHS-7001 (01/01/10) 
 

 

 

 

Annual Report to Congress — June 2009 95 Appendices

7. Where Should I Send the Completed Form? 

Please mail your completed, signed and dated form, including 

supporting documentation, to the following address: 

Via Regular Mail: 

Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman 

Department of Homeland Security 

Attention: Case Problems 

Mail Stop 1225 

Washington, D.C. 20528-1225 

Via Courier Service: 

Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman 

Department of Homeland Security 

Attention: Case Problems 

245 Murray Lane 

Mail Stop 1225 

Washington, D.C. 20528-1225 

Due to security concerns, mail is screened prior to being 

forwarded to our office. Please allow up to 14 days from the 

mailing date until our office receives your case problem. We 

confirm in writing the receipt of each case problem received 

within two to four business days. 

8. What Assistance Does the Ombudsman 

Provide to Resolving Case Problems? 

Once we receive your case problem, we will review your case, 

determine if we are able to assist you, and if appropriate, forward 

your case to USCIS for resolution. If for some reason we are not 

able to help you obtain a resolution to your case problem, we will 

inform you of the reasons in writing. If another government office 

or agency is better able to assist you with your case problem, we 

will make every effort to provide you with the contact information 

of that office or agency. 

If you believe that our office should have accepted your case for 

assistance, you may resubmit your case problem with additional 

explanations as to why your case problem should have been 

accepted. 

9. Can the Ombudsman Provide Legal Advice? 

CIS Ombudsman cannot: 

Adjudicate immigration applications or petitions; 

Reverse an adverse decision issued by USCIS; 

Serve as a substitute for legal options available to you to

correct a problem; or 

Provide legal advice. 

NOTE: CIS Ombudsman only has jurisdiction to provide 

assistance resolving case problems that arise under the jurisdiction 

of USCIS. The Ombudsman is not able to provide assistance with 

case problems that arise under the jurisdiction of other agencies 

dealing with immigration-related issues, such as: 

The Immigration Courts and the Board of Immigration

Appeals (BIA), which are part of the Executive Office

of Immigration Review (EOIR); 

The Department of Justice (DOJ); 

Customs and Border Protection (CBP); 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE); 

Department of State (DOS), including the National Visa

Center (NVC) and U.S. Embassies and Consulates; or 

Department of Labor (DOL). 

10. Privacy Act Requirements. 

When you submit your information and case problem to the 

office of CIS Ombudsman, you are consenting to our review 

of your information and contacting USCIS on your behalf. 

You also consent to the release of your information to 

authorities within USCIS or any person acting on behalf of 

USCIS. 

In addition, it's the CIS Ombudsman's statutory mandate 

under the Homeland Security Act, Section 452, to capture and 

address systemic problems. As such, individual case problems 

serve as one of the basis to establish current systemic trends 

and problems individuals and employers experience during 

the immigration benefits seeking process. For this purpose, 

we will remove your personal information and use the 

remaining information collected for statistical purposes. 

The scope of your consent to release your information is 

limited to the furtherance of resolving the case problem 

associated with your case, and the capturing of declassified 

data to establish systemic immigration problems occuring at 

USCIS. 

(For additional information, please see Page 3 on these 

instructions, "Legal Notification Requirements: What Is 

Our Authority for Collecting This Information?") 

Specific Instructions. 

The following instructions will assist you in completing 

the form correctly. The items numbered below correspond to 

the section number of the form requesting the particular 

information: 

1. Name of subject: The "subject" is the person the case is

 about. Please enter the person's full legal name (first, 

middle, last name). If the person possesses an alias, 

provide your alias by indicating "aka" and then listing the 

alias and all other legal names. 

2. Contact information: Please provide the contact 

information of the person the case is about. If you are 

submitting the case problem on behalf of somebody else, 

please also complete Section 14. 

3. Subject's date of birth: Self-explanatory. 

4. Subject's country of birth and citizenship: 

Self-explanatory. 

5. Alien ("A") Number: Provide your alien ("A") number, if

 applicable. Note that not every person has an alien number 

assigned by USCIS. For example, if you are seeking nonimmigrant status in the United States, you may or may 

not have an "A" number. The "A" number can be found 

on many frequently issued USCIS documents, such as 

work permits or Notices of Actions. 

Form DHS-7001 (01/01/10) Page 2 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendices 96 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman 

6. Type of case problem: Indicate whether the case problem

 concerns an individual or an employer. 

7. Person preparing this form: Indicate whether the preparer

 of this form is the person the case problem is about ("the 

subject"), an organization, attorney/representative or 

whether you are completing this form in any other capacity 

(such as a friend of the family, friend, uncle, etc.). 

Important: If you are the beneficiary of an immigration 

application and the one submitting the case problem, 

you will need the consent of the individual who submitted 

the petition on your behalf ("the Petitioner"). In this case, 

you are (although the beneficiary) simply a representative 

of the Petitioner, and will need the consent of the Petitioner 

to submit this case problem (please see also Section 15). 

8. Applications and petitions filed: List all applications/

 petitions that are currently pending with USCIS and that 

pertain to the case problem you are experiencing. List the 

applications/petitions by identifying the date when the 

application/petition was received by USCIS (Receive date); 

the form number of the application/petition, which may be 

located on the lower right corner of USCIS form (e.g. , 

Form I-485); and the name of USCIS form (e.g. 

Application to Register Permanent Residence or to Adjust 

Status). 

9. Receipt number: Provide the receipt number(s) for the 

application(s)/petition(s) currently pending with USCIS. 

The receipt number is located on the top left hand corner 

of your Notice of Action (Form I-797) you received from 

USCIS in response to the application/petition you filed. 

Please provide each receipt number associated with 

this case. 

10. Immigration status or interim benefit Applied or 

Petitioned for: Provide information about the 

immigration status or the immigration benefit the person 

of the case problem is seeking (non-immigrant, immigrant, 

citizenship, naturalization, refugee or asylum status, work 

authorization, travel document, etc.) 

Provide also the legal category of the immigration status 

you are seeking. If you are unsure about the category, 

submit as much information as you can in Number 12 

of the form, Description of case problem. If possible, 

provide us with a copy of the application you filed with 

USCIS so that we will be able to determine what 

immigration category you are seeking. 

11. Source of case problem: Please choose the options 

provided that best describe the source of the case problem. 

12. Description of your case problem: Please provide a 

detailed description of your case problem. If additional pages 

are needed, please attach them on separate sheets of paper. 

13. Prior actions taken to remedy the problem: Check all 

the boxes that apply to the subject's or the representative's 

action(s) already taken to remedy the problem. 

14. Designated Attorney/Representative: Please complete this

 section if you are an attorney, organization or designated 

representative who is submitting this case problem. You 

are also a representative if you are, for example, a friend 

of the person the case problem is about, and if you would 

like to assist the individual in resolving the case problem. 

15. Consent: For privacy reasons, if you wish USCIS to disclose 

all the information in the file, we require the consent of the 

petitioner (the person who filed the petition with USCIS). As 

a general rule, the person who filed the application/petition 

with USCIS has to consent to the submission of a case 

problem to our office. This general rule, however, does not 

apply if the beneficiary is a lawful permanent resident or 

U. S. citizen. 

16. Verification: If the person who submitted the inquiry is also

 the subject of the inquiry, this section should be signed and 

dated by the subject of the inquiry. If a person is the 

representative and acts on behalf of the subject the case 

problem is about, the representative should not sign and date 

the verification statement. 

17. Declaration: If you are an attorney or representative submitting the case problem you should sign and date the 

statement. If you are submitting the case problem for 

yourself, and you are the subject of the case problem, you 

should sign this statement. 

18. Submission of the worksheet form: Self-explanatory. 

Legal Notification Requirements. 

1. What Are the Penalties for 

Submitting Incorrect Information? 

Section 1001 of Title 18, United States Code states that whoever 

willfully and knowingly falsifies a material fact, makes a false 

statement or makes use of false documents will be fined up to 

$10,000, imprisoned for up to five (5) years, or both. 

2. What Is Our Authority for

Collecting This Information? 

We request the information on this form to carry out our mandate 

as provided by Section 452 of the Homeland Security Act of 

2002. We need the information to assist individuals and 

employers in resolving problems with USCIS; to identify areas in 

which individuals and employers have problems in dealing with 

USCIS; and to the extent possible, to propose changes in the 

administrative practices of USCIS to mitigate problems identified. 

When you submit your information and case problem to this 

office, you are consenting to our review of your information to our 

office and contacting USCIS on your behalf. With the submission 

of your case problem, you also consent to the release of your 

information to authorities within USCIS or any person acting on 

behalf of USCIS. In addition, it's CIS Ombudsman's statutory 

mandate under the Homeland Security Act, Section 452, to 

capture and address systemic problems. As such, individual case 

problems serve as one of the bases to establish current systemic 

trends and problems. For this purpose, we will remove your 

personal information and use only the remaining information for 

statistical purposes. 

Form DHS-7001 (01/01/10) Page 3 
 

 

Annual Report to Congress — June 2009 97 Appendices

The scope of your consent to release your information is limited 

to the furtherance of resolving the case problem associated with 

your case and capturing statistical data to identify systemic 

immigration problems. 

You do not have to provide us with the particular information 

requested. However, if you omit certain information, our office 

may not be able to assist you, or the resolution of your case 

problem may be delayed. 

3. Paperwork Reduction Act Notice. 

A person is not required to respond to a collection of information 

unless it displays a current valid OMB control number. 

The public reporting burden for this collection of information is 

estimated to average 60 minutes per response, including the time 

for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, 

gathering and maintaing the data needed and completing and 

reviewing the collection of information. 

Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other 

aspects of this collection of information, including suggestions 

for reducing this burden to cisombudsman@dhs.gov. Do not 

mail your case problem to this email address. 

Form DHS-7001 (01/01/10) Page 4 
 

Appendices 98 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman 

OMB No. 1601-0004; Exp. 01/01/10 

Department of Homeland Security Case Problem Submission Worksheet 

CIS Ombudsman (CIS Ombudsman Form DHS-7001) 

NOTE: Please read the attached instructions before submitting this worksheet. In completing this worksheet, the "subject" refers to 

the person whom the inquiry is about. In submitting your inquiry, please provide as much information as possible. Places requiring your 

signature are indicated with the symbol. 

1. Name of subject. 

The person this case problem is

about who is seeking the

immigration benefit. 

First Name: Middle Name: 

2. Contact information. 

The contact information of the 

person the case problem is about.

If you are submitting this form for

someone else, complete number 14. 

3. Subject's date of birth. 

Please indicate in the following

format: (mm/dd/yyyy). 

4. Subject's country of

birth and citizenship. 

Country of Birth: 

5. Alien or "A" number. 

The "A" number appears in the

following format: A123-456-789. 

NOTE: Not every person is

assigned an "A" number by USCIS.

If you do not have an "A" number,

leave this section blank. 

6. Type of case problem. 

Check all that apply. 

7. Person preparing

this form: 

Please indicate who is filing this

case problem. 

8. Applications/Petitions

filed: 

List all applications or petitions

pending with USCIS that pertain

to your case problem. 

9. Receipt Number. 

Please do not include dashes 

between the characters. 

Last Name: 

Street Address: Apartment/Suite: City: State/Province: 

County: Zip Code: E-Mail Address: Phone Number: Fax Number: 

(with Area Code) (with Area Code) 

Date of Birth: (mm/dd/yyyy) 

Country of Citizenship: 

A Number: 

A

Tip: Your "A" number can be found on many USCIS documents including your work permit. 

I am an: a. Individual; 

b. Employer; 

I am: 

a. The person this case problem is about who is seeking the immigration benefit; 

b. An organization on behalf of an individual; 

c. An attorney/representative; 

d. Other (Explain fully); 

Date Application/Petition was USCIS Form Number: USCIS Name of Form: 

received by USCIS: 

Date Application/Petition was USCIS Form Number: USCIS Name of Form: 

received by USCIS: 

Date Application/Petition was USCIS Form Number: USCIS Name of Form: 

received by USCIS: 

Tip: List all forms that are the subject of this case problem. E.g.: If you are filing for a Green Card

and are experiencing a problem with your work permit application that was submitted with your

Green Card application, list both Forms I-485 (Application Adjustment of Status) and I-765

(Application for Employment Authorization Document) above. 

Receipt Number: 

Tip: Your receipt number is located in the top left hand corner of your Notice of Action (USCIS 

Form I-797). 

Form DHS-7001 (01/01/10) 
Annual Report to Congress — June 2009 99 Appendices

a. As a Nonimmigrant (e.g. extension of a stay Category:

for a visitor for pleasure-business, change of (e.g.: H-1B1, J2, status to student, fiance/e, temporary worker, F1, L1A) Temporary Protected Status (TPS) etc.)
 

b. As an Immigrant (often called i. A marital relationship of less than two years; "Green Card" application)

based on:
 ii. A marital relationship of more than two years;

A family relationship and is the parent, child, iii. brother/sister, etc. of the sponsor; 

An employment relationship and is the (future)

employee or the spouse of child of the principle

(future) employee; 

iv. 

v. Refugee/Asylum; 

vi. Other;

c. For Citizenship or Naturalization; 

d. For Refugee/Asylum; 

e. For Interim Benefits Type: i. Employment Work Permit Category:

(Work Permit/Travel Authorization 

Document, etc.)	 Document (e.g.:

Work Permit)
 

ii. Advance Parole Document (Travel Document); 

f. Other (Application for Type:

Waiver, Replacement Waiver (I-601/I-212):

Document, etc.)
 Replacement of a Document 

Citizenship Certificate 

Naturalization Certificate 

Permanent Resident Card 

Other: 

Other: 

a. I am facing or am about to face an immediate adverse action or impact, an emergency or

any other type of significant hardship, caused by an action/inaction/delay in processing by

USCIS, or a problem that could not be resolved through the normal processes provided for

by the USCIS: 

I am experiencing processing delays with a case that are beyond anticipated processing

times; 

b. 

I am incurring or am about to incur significant and unusual costs (including fees for

professional representation that are not normally incurred); c. 

I have brought this case problem to the attention of USCIS and have not received a

response or resolution within the anticipated time frames; 

d. 

e. Other (specify): 

10. Immigration status or

interim benefit applied

or petitioned for: 

The subject of the case problem is

applying for immigration status: 

11. Source of case 

problem: 

Check all that apply. Provide a

description in Number 12 below, 

Description of Your case problem. 

12. Description of your

case problem: 

Describe the case problem you are

experiencing with USCIS. Attach

additional pages if needed. 

Form DHS-7001 (01/01/10) Page 2 
 

Appendices 100 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman 

13. Prior actions taken to a. Contacted my attorney/representative who is representing me regarding this issue for 

remedy the problem: assistance (if represented); 

Check all that apply: 

e. 

d. 

c. 

b. Visited USCIS Case Status Service Online at http://www.uscis.gov. 

Contacted the National Customer Service Center (NCSC) for information and/or

assistance regarding this case at their toll-free telephone number 1-800-375-5283. 

Contacted the following government department/agency for assistance: 

Contacted the following congressional representative for assistance: 

14. Designated Attorney/

Representative: 

First Name: Middle Name: Last Name: 

Please complete this section if you

are an attorney, organization or

designated representative who is 

Street Address: Apartment/Suite: City: State/Province: 

submitting this case problem. 

If you are the beneficiary of a

pending petition and have 

County: Zip Code: E-Mail Address: Phone Number: 

(with Area Code) 

Fax Number: 

(with Area Code) 

obtained consent from the 

petitioner (see Number 15), check

box 3, sign and date. 

1. I am an attorney and a member in good standing of the bar of the Supreme Court of the

United States of the highest court of the following State, territory, insular possession, or

District of Columbia and am not under a court or administrative agency order suspending,

enjoining, restraining, disbarring, or otherwise restricting me in practicing law. 

State of Admission: Name of Court: 

2. I am an accredited representative of the following named religious, charitable, social service

or similar organization established in the United States and recognized by the Board of

Immigration Appeals pursuant to 8 CFR 292.1. 

3. I am the beneficiary of a pending petition and the petitioner is consenting to the release of

information about a pending case to me. 

4. Other (Explain fully): 

5. I have submitted a USCIS Form G-28 as the attorney/representative for the application/

petition for which case problem is being submitted. 

Signature of Attorney/Representative: Date (mm/dd/yyyy): 

15. Consent: 

If you are the beneficiary of a 

pending petition, and you are not a 

lawful permanent resident or U.S. 

citizen, the petitioner must sign 

here to give consent to the release 

of his or her information. 

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Section 552a(b), I authorize U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and

CIS Ombudsman to release any and all information relating to me to: [Print or Type Name]. I

declare under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. 

Signature of Subject: 

Print Subject's Name: Date (mm/dd/yyyy): 

16. Verification: 

This item should be signed and

completed by the subject of the

inquiry. 

I certify, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America, that the foregoing is true

and correct, and that I am the subject of the inquiry and I understand that any falsification of this statement is

punishable under the provisions of 18 U.S.C. Section 1001 by a fine of not more than $10,000 or by

imprisonment of not more than five years or both, and that requesting or obtaining any record(s) under the

false pretenses is punishable under the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552a(i)(3) by a fine of not more than $5,000.

Further, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Section 522a(b), I authorize U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and

CIS Ombudsman to release any and all information relating to me to : [Print or Type Name]. 

Signature of Subject: 

Print Subject's Name: Date (mm/dd/yyyy): 

Form DHS-7001 (01/01/10) Page 3 
 

Annual Report to Congress — June 2009 101 Appendices

17. Declaration: 

If you are an attorney or

representative, you should sign

your name. Otherwise, the subject

should sign his or her name. 

I delcare that I have prepared this document at the request of the person named in Number 14 and 

that the responses are based on all information of which I have knowledge. 

Signature of Representative: Print Subject's or Attorney/Representative's Name: 

Title (if applicable): Date (mm/dd/yyyy): 

18. Submission: Send your completed information to: 

Case problems may be sent via

regular mail or courier service to

the following addresses: Via Regular Mail: 

Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman 

Department of Homeland Security 

Attention: Case Problems 

Mail Stop 1225 

Washington, D.C. 20528-1225 

Via Courier Mail: 

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman 

Department of Homeland Security 

Attention: Case Problems 

245 Murray Lane 

Washington, D.C. 20528-1225 

Form DHS-7001 (01/01/10) Page 4 
 

Appendices 102 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman 

Appendix 4: 

Glossary of Terms 

The following definitions apply to terms used in the 2009 

Annual Report: 

A-File: Common shorthand for the USCIS-held “Alien-file,” 

consisting of all documents relevant to exchanges between 

a foreign national and USCIS, as well as other related communications with other components of DHS. 

A-Number: Common shorthand for “alien number,” which 

is a unique identification number assigned by USCIS to 

foreign nationals who seek immigration benefits with 

USCIS. 

Adjudications Officer: “Adjudications” refers to the scope 

of activities involved in the granting or denying of applications and petitions for immigration benefits, such 

as citizenship, nonimmigrant, and immigrant status. An 

Adjudications Officer is a USCIS employee trained to do 

the primary review of immigration benefits applications 

and petitions, conduct interviews, perform research, and 

determine whether to grant or deny the benefit sought. 

Adjustment of Status: Term for the process whereby a foreign 

national already in the United States acquires status as a 

Lawful Permanent Resident (LPR) (i.e., obtains a “green 

card”), regardless of previous status. Adjustment of Status 

should not be confused with “Change of Status,” which 

refers to the reclassification from one nonimmigrant 

(temporary)category to another (e.g. F-1 to H-1B). See 8 

C.F.R. §§ 245, 248. 

Alien: Defined in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) 

section 101(a)(3) as any person not a citizen or national of 

the United States; also referred to as a foreign national. 

Asylee: A person granted the right to stay permanently in the 

United States, but who is not a citizen. See INA § 208. A 

foreign national who was persecuted or who has a well 

founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, 

nationality, membership in a particular social group, or 

political opinion may be granted asylum in the United 

States by an Immigration Officer or Immigration Judge and 

be considered an asylee. Asylees can apply for a green card 

one year after arrival and for citizenship after five years. 

Backlog: The term commonly refers to long pending cases. 

USCIS calculates its gross backlog as “the total number of 

cases pending that exceeds the total acceptable pending.” 

According to USCIS, acceptable pending “is derived by totaling 

the monthly receipts for the number of months USCIS has 

determined for a cycle time goal.” For example, if a form 

type has a processing goal of six months or less, the gross 

backlog for that form type would be the total number of 

cases pending minus the last six months’ receipts. The net 

backlog is the gross backlog minus the number of cases that 

cannot be adjudicated due to reasons outside of USCIS’ 

control (e.g., FBI name check, visa retrogression). 

Case Problem: Matter submitted by a USCIS customer to 

the Ombudsman and deemed, upon review, to merit 

discussion with USCIS. Customers include individuals 

with pending USCIS benefits applications, as well as their 

employers or other representatives, who send in a completed Form DHS-7001, available at www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman. 

When matters are deemed not referable to USCIS – due to 

lack of jurisdiction, already having been answered, etc. – 

the Ombudsman informs senders in writing and, where 

possible, refers them to useful information sources. 

Employment Authorization Document (EAD): 

Documentary evidence that an alien has an approved Form 

I-765, (Application for Employment Authorization) and is 

allowed to work in the United States. See 8 C.F.R. § 274a. 

The EAD is of limited validity, usually one year, and 

printed on USCIS Form I-688, I-688A, I-688B, or I-766. 

E-Verify: An Internet-based program that permits registered 

employers to confirm a new hire’s eligibility to work 

legally in the United States. 

FBI Name Check: One of many security screening tools used 

by USCIS in which the FBI provides information to the 

agency regarding anyone who is the principal subject of 

an investigation or is a person referenced in an FBI file. 

USCIS uses this information to determine if applicants are 

ineligible for certain immigration benefits. 

Field Office: A publicly accessible USCIS office where adjudications officers conduct interviews, perform research, and 

make determinations to grant or deny benefits. Applicants 

and their representatives can visit the field office by making an INFOPASS appointment. 
 

 

 

 

Annual Report to Congress — June 2009 103 Appendices

Form I-131: The form used to apply for the Advanced Parole Travel 

Document, a permit obtained by foreign nationals prior to 

traveling abroad that allows them to present themselves 

for re-entry (technically, for “parole”) to the United States; 

this re-entry is not guaranteed and, if granted, is not the 

same as being legally “admitted.” The document itself, 

Form I-512 (Authorization for Parole of an Alien), is typically valid for a year, provides for multiple returns to the 

United States, and preserves the status of pending benefits 

applications. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 299, et seq. 

Frontlog: Filings received physically at USCIS offices but for 

which the agency is delayed in issuing receipt notices, 

depositing fees, and completing initial intake. 

Green Card: The common term for USCIS Form I-551 (Alien 

Registration Card), documentary evidence of Lawful 

Permanent Residency. 

Immigrant: Under INA definions, a foreign national except 

for nonimmigrants or temporary visa holders listed at INA 

§ 101(a)(15). In lay terms it refers to an individual who 

intends to permanently reside in the United States. 

Immigration Information Officer (IIO): A USCIS employee 

specially trained to provide information to the public, 

either at a field office or telephonically via Tier 2 of the 

toll-free National Customer Service Center. 

Immigration and Nationality Act (INA): 8 U.S.C. § 101, et 

seq.; the statutory basis for immigration and naturalization 

in the United States. 

Immigration Service Officers (ISOs): USCIS officers at various levels of seniority who perform core duties, including 

adjudications and customer service. 

INFOPASS: A free online service for customers or their 

representatives to schedule in-person appointments at 

USCIS field offices. 

Labor Certification: A document issued by the Department 

of Labor (DOL) to employers that wish to hire foreign 

nationals in certain permanent or temporary positions. 

The traditional process for issuance of a labor certification 

reviews the U.S. labor market to ensure there are no U.S. 

workers able, willing, qualified, and available to fill the 

position. See INA § 212(a)(14). 

Lawful Permanent Resident (LPR): A person with the legal 

status to reside and work permanently in the United States. 

See INA § 101(a)(20). See definitions for “Immigrant” and 

“Green Card.” 

Lockbox: USCIS contractor facilities that receive certain 

types of benefits application. The lockbox performs initial 

review of documents and deposits fees. It then forwards 

filings to the appropriate USCIS facility for further processing and adjudication. 

National Benefits Center (NBC): USCIS facility located in 

Lee’s Summit, Missouri (previously called the Missouri 

Service Center). The NBC was established as the hub 

and conduit for USCIS field offices; it completes all preinterview processing of immigration benefit forms generally requiring an interview. NBC pre-processing includes 

conducting background security checks, performing initial 

evidence reviews, adjudicating associated forms, denying 

adjustment of status cases for statutorily ineligible applicants, and forwarding scheduled cases to the appropriate 

USCIS local office for adjudication. 

National Customer Service Center (NCSC): Term for 

the network of six “call center” facilities accessible by a 

toll-free telephone number, 1-(800) 375-5283. The NCSC 

provides nationwide assistance in English and Spanish to 

customers calling about immigration services and benefits. 

National Records Center (NRC): USCIS archival records 

facility located in Lee’s Summit, Missouri. The NRC 

stores millions of USCIS and legacy INS paper records in 

a centralized repository. Additionally, the NRC processes 

Freedom of Information Act requests. 

National Visa Center (NVC): The NVC is a Department of 

State (DOS) facility that manages the flow of permanent 

residency cases between USCIS and DOS. It receives 

approved immigrant petitions from USCIS and distributes 

them to foreign consular offices where intending immigrants are interviewed for immigrant visas. The NVC 

also receives from abroad “consular returns,” cases in 

which DOS adjudicators send back petitions of candidates 

considered unqualified, and forwards these to USCIS for 

review. DOS officers cannot revoke approved petitions. 

Only where USCIS reaffirms a returned petition is it again 

forwarded to the NVC and the process of sending on for 

consular processing starts anew. See “Revocation.” 

Naturalization: The process by which a foreign national 

becomes a citizen of the United States. 

Nonimmigrant: A foreign national admitted to the United 

States for a specified temporary purpose and time period. 

Common examples include a tourist, principal of a foreign 

government, representative of foreign press, a crewman, a 

student, a foreign professional, or executive. See INA 

§ 101(a)(26) and 8 C.F.R. § 214. 
 

Appendices 104 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman 

Notice of Action: Also commonly known as a “receipt 

notice,” this term refers to correspondence from USCIS on 

Form I-797 generated in several situations. These situations include, most commonly, confirming the filing has 

been received and when it was received, as well as memorializing address changes, status changes, and other USCIS 

acts See 8 C.F.R. §§ 299, et seq. 

Preference Categories: Classification under INA § 203 of 

foreign nationals seeking to immigrate to the United States. 

The preference system is divided between family-based 

(e.g., “first preference” is unmarried sons and daughters of 

U.S. citizens) and employment-based categories (e.g., “first 

preference” is persons of extraordinary ability, outstanding 

professors and researchers, and multinational executives 

and managers). 

Priority Date: Reserves the place in line for immigrant visas. 

Generally, for family-based petitions, the priority date 

is the filing date of the petition. For employment-based 

petitions, the priority date is either the date the labor 

certification petition is filed. 

Region: USCIS divides the country into four administrative 

regions – western, central, eastern, and southeastern. The 

districts and field offices report to their respective regional 

offices. 

Request for Evidence (RFE): A formal response from USCIS 

to a filing, the RFE informs customers of additional 

information needed to complete adjudications. See 8 C.F.R. 

§ 103.2(b)(8). 

Retrogression: Retrogression refers to the movement 

backwards of priority date cutoffs – the date for which a 

petition had to have been submitted to be currently eligible 

for a green card moves to an earlier date in the calendar 

than previously published. 

Revocation/Consular Return: The Department of State’s 

(DOS) provisional denial of a petition, followed by return 

of the petition from the DOS to USCIS with a recommendation to revoke the petition. After reconsideration, 

USCIS either accepts the recommendation and revokes the 

petition, or rejects the DOS recommendation and reaffirms 

approval, and then resends the case to DOS for processing. 

See INA § 205; see also “NVC” definition. 

Service Center: One of four USCIS processing facilities that 

each adjudicate certain petitions and applications, particularly employment-based filings and those that do not 

require an interview (e.g., Form I-130 (Petition for Alien 

Relative) or Temporary Protective Status (TPS) applications). The four service centers are located in California, 

Nebraska, Texas, and Vermont. 

Surge: A large influx of filings with USCIS. In summer 2007, 

USCIS experienced an unprecedented surge in immigration benefits filings that affected various aspects of agency 

operations. 

Transformation: A multi-year solution for long-term modernization of USCIS through new, proprietary systems 

and agency reorganization that plans to transition USCIS 

from a fragmented, paper-based process to a centralized, 

electronic environment. 

Transformation Program Office (TPO): Office within USCIS 

charged with leading a multi-year initiative to modernize 

USCIS information technology infrastructure and immigration processing capabilities. 

Visa Bulletin: Monthly Department of State Visa Office 

document establishing priority date cut-offs for use in 

conjunction with applicant priority dates to determine 

current eligibility for immigrant visa numbers (green 

card numbers). The Visa Bulletin publishes estimates of 

the green card line by immigrant category and country of 

chargeability. 
Annual Report to Congress — June 2009 105 Appendices

Appendix 5:
 

List of Abbreviations
 

AAO Administrative Appeals Office 

AC21 The American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act 

AFM Adjudicator’s Field Manual 

ASC Application Support Center 

BSS Biometric Storage System 

CBP U. S. Customs and Border Protection 

CLAIMS Computer Linked Application Information Management System 

CSC California Service Center 

CSR Customer Service Representative 

DHS U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

DOD U.S. Department of Defense 

DOL U.S. Department of Labor 

DOS U.S. Department of State 

EAD Employment Authorization Document 

EDMS Electronic Data Management System 

FCIP Federal Career Intern Program 

FLETC Federal Law Enforcement Training Center 

GAO Government Accountability Office 

ICE U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

IIO Immigration Information Officer 

ISO Immigration Services Officer 

LIFE Act Legal Immigration Family Equity Act 

MTR Motion to Reopen/Reconsider 

NBC National Benefits Center 

NCSC National Customer Service Center 

NFTS National File Tracking System 

NOIR Notice of Intent to Revoke 

NSC Nebraska Service Center 

NVC National Visa Center 

OIT USCIS Office of Information Technology 

RDF Records Digitization Facility 

RFE Request for Evidence 

SIMS Secure Information Management System 

SMI USCIS Secure Mail Initiative 

SIV Special Immigrant Visa 

SSA U.S. Social Security Administration 

TPS Temporary Protected Status 

TSC Texas Service Center 

TVPRA Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act 

USCIS U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 

VSC Vermont Service Center 

VTVPA Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 
Appendices 106 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman