Citizenship and Immigration Services

Ombudsman

Annual Report 2012

June 25, 2012

Citizenship and 

Immigration Services

Ombudsman

Annual 

Report 2012

June 25, 2012
ii Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

This page intentionally left blank.
Annual Report to Congress – June 2012 iii

June 25, 2012

The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy 

Chairman

Committee on the Judiciary 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

The Honorable Chuck Grassley 

Ranking Member

Committee on the Judiciary

United States Senate

Washington, DC 20510

The Honorable Lamar Smith

Chairman

Committee on the Judiciary

United States House of Representatives

Washington, DC 20515

The Honorable John Conyers, Jr. 

Ranking Member

Committee on the Judiciary

United States House of Representatives

Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairmen and Ranking Members:

The Office of the Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman is pleased to submit, 

pursuant to section 452(c) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, its 2012 Annual Report.

I am available to provide additional information upon request.

Sincerely,

Debra Rogers

Acting Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman 

Office of the Citizenship and Immigration Services

Ombudsman 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security

Mail Stop 0180

Washington, DC 20528-0180

www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman
iv Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

1-7 * Photos courtesy of National Park Service, Statute of Liberty National Monument.

8-15 * Photos courtesy of USCIS and the National Archives.

Cover Photos:

1

2

3

4

5

6 7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15
Annual Report to Congress – June 2012 v

Message from the Acting Ombudsman

It is a privilege to present to you the Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman’s 2012 Annual Report. This report describes the work of the Ombudsman’s Office for the past year and provides insight into our current projects. We hope you find 

it informative. 

I am frequently asked, “What does an ombudsman do?” The term “ombudsman” is generally used to describe individuals serving as independent and impartial intermediaries who receive, investigate and help settle complaints. One translation of ombudsman is “defender of people,” which describes not only a challenging job but a core American value. Although I have served 

as an official ombudsman for only a short time, I have always recognized and appreciated the importance of “ombudsman” 

work in the truest sense. A willingness to take ownership of a problem is the first step towards resolving it. Whether a pro-bono 

representative assisting an unaccompanied minor or an adjudicator dedicated to getting a case back on track and rendering a 

just decision, “ombudsmen” in and outside the government are critical to achieving a fair process. So, too, is the ability to see 

the person behind an application and acknowledge with care the consequences of our decisions. This is a skill that is not easily 

imparted or always appreciated. Throughout my career, I have been fortunate to work with individuals who possess this talent. 

They have made a difference. We have benefited from the results of their contributions in the form of good policy, meaningful 

programs and outstanding case assistance, some of which are described in this report. 

Our mission is to assist individuals and employers who have encountered problems with the immigration benefits system. We 

are constantly striving to find new and better ways to perform this function. In this report, we identify some of the difficulties encountered by USCIS’ customers and offer potential solutions. The Ombudsman’s Office interacts with a wide array of 

stakeholders; this report attempts to clearly and effectively capture their concerns and recommendations. It also details internal 

process improvements and technological advancements we have made this year to better serve our customers. 

In addition to thanking the many individuals and groups who helped shape and inform this report, I also would like to thank 

Director Alejandro Mayorkas, Deputy Director Lori Scialabba and the rest of the USCIS leadership for their dedication and 

constant service to the public. Our appreciation and gratitude extends further to USCIS field office staff and leaders who have 

directly assisted in resolving individual cases, and who have embraced referrals from the Ombudsman’s Office as an important 

opportunity to identify issues and make necessary improvements. I would like to recognize January Contreras who during her 

recent tenure as Ombudsman made significant and lasting contributions to this office. I would also like to thank Secretary Janet 

Napolitano, Deputy Secretary Jane Holl Lute and Congress for supporting our work. 

Finally, I would like to thank our team at the Ombudsman’s Office for their deep commitment to the customers we serve and 

dedication to promoting an efficient and just immigration benefits system. Together, these 32 employees have accomplished a 

great deal and I am proud of this particular example of their outstanding work. 

Sincerely,

Debra Rogers

Acting Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman
vi Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

This page intentionally left blank.
Annual Report to Congress – June 2012 vii

The Office of the Citizenship and Immigration Services 

Ombudsman (Ombudsman’s Office) 2012 Annual Report 

includes the following: 

•	 An overview of the Ombudsman’s Office mission and

services; 

•	 A review of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’

(USCIS) priorities and initiatives; and

•	 Summaries of pervasive and serious problems affecting

the delivery of immigration services within the following 

areas: 1) Employment, 2) Family and Children, 

3) Humanitarian, and 4) Customer Service. 

Overview of the Ombudsman’s Office 

The Ombudsman’s Office, established by § 452 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, assists individuals and employers 

in resolving problems with USCIS. The Ombudsman’s Office 

also makes recommendations to USCIS on ways to fix systemic issues to improve immigration services. The Ombudsman’s 

Office is independent, confidential, and impartial. 

During the April 1, 2011 through March 31, 2012 reporting 

period, the Ombudsman’s Office opened approximately 4,500 

case inquiries, an increase of almost 38% from the previous 

year’s total. 

USCIS Year in Review: 

Promoting Quality and Consistency

This year, USCIS focused on quality, consistency, and improved processes. In line with these goals, USCIS implemented new policies and launched new initiatives to improve 

quality and efficiency. This section of the 2012 Annual Report 

considers USCIS’ ongoing effort to increase quality and consistency in benefit adjudications through enhanced outreach, 

policy review, and technology.

2012 Areas of Study: Pervasive and Serious Problems 

and Recommended Solutions

The Annual Report, as mandated by § 452(c)(I)(B) of the 

Homeland Security Act of 2002, must include a “summary of 

the most pervasive and serious problems encountered by individuals and employers.” This year the Ombudsman’s Office examined issues affecting the delivery of immigration services and 

issued formal recommendations covering the following areas: 

Employment

•	 Formal Recommendation: “Employment Authorization 

Documents: Meeting the 90-Day Mandate and Minimizing the Impact of Delay on Individuals and Employers.” 

On July 18, 2011, the Ombudsman’s Office published a 

formal recommendation discussing the adjudication of 

Form I-765, Application for Employment Authorization.

•	 Formal Recommendation: “Recommendations to Improve the Quality in Extraordinary Ability and Other 

Employment-Based Adjudications.” On December 29, 

2011, the Ombudsman’s Office published a formal recommendation regarding USCIS adjudication of extraordinary ability and other employment-based applications.

•	 Healthcare Immigration Concerns. The Ombudsman’s Office met with stakeholders to discuss issues faced by healthcare professionals applying for immigration benefits. The 

Ombudsman’s Office is formally reviewing these issues and 

plans to publish recommendations within the next 180 days.

•	 Validation Instrument for Business Enterprises. In March 

2011, USCIS began using the Validation Instrument for 

Business Enterprises (VIBE) to evaluate the viability and 

other key characteristics of a petitioning company. The Ombudsman’s Office continues to bring stakeholder concerns 

regarding the effects of VIBE to the attention of USCIS.

•	 EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program. The Ombudsman’s 

Office continues to bring stakeholder concerns regarding 

the EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program to the attention of 

USCIS. Although the EB-5 program’s popularity has increased, a large percentage of available EB-5 visas remain 

unused each year. 

Family and Children

•	 Formal Recommendation: “Special Immigrant Juvenile 

Adjudications: An Opportunity for Adoption of Best 

Practices.” On April 15, 2011, the Ombudsman’s Office 

Executive Summary 
viii Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

published a formal recommendation aimed at improving 

the adjudication of Special Immigrant Juvenile petitions. 

•	 Conditional Permanent Residence. The Ombudsman’s 

Office is formally reviewing stakeholder concerns regarding the adjudication of Form I-751, Petition to Remove 

the Conditions of Residence, and plans to issue recommendations within the next 180 days. 

•	 Survivor Benefits: The Adjudication of Benefits Requests Made Pursuant to Immigration & Nationality Act § 204(l). USCIS has not issued new regulations 

needed to implement Immigration & Nationality Act § 

204(l) and ensure that petitions for eligible surviving beneficiaries are properly adjudicated. The Ombudsman’s Office is formally reviewing stakeholder concerns and plans 

to publish recommendations within the next 180 days.

•	 Addressing the Needs of U.S. Service Members and 

their Families. The Ombudsman’s Office continues to 

review USCIS’ role in serving members of the U.S. military and their families and continues to bring stakeholder 

concerns regarding these issues to the attention of USCIS.

Humanitarian

•	 Formal Recommendation: “Deferred Action: Recommendations to Improve Transparency and Consistency 

in the USCIS Process.” On July 11, 2011, the Ombudsman’s Office published a formal recommendation 

regarding the USCIS deferred action process.

•	 Formal Recommendation: “Employment Authorization for Asylum Applicants: Recommendations to Improve Coordination and Communication.” On August 

26, 2011, the Ombudsman’s Office published a formal 

recommendation regarding the ability of asylum applicants to obtain employment authorization.

•	 Ensuring a Fair and Efficient Asylum Process for Unaccompanied Children. The Ombudsman’s Office is examining the procedures available for unaccompanied children 

who want to file asylum applications with USCIS. The Ombudsman’s Office is formally reviewing this issue and plans 

to publish recommendations within the next 180 days.

•	 Employment Authorization for Vulnerable Populations. The Ombudsman’s Office is examining USCIS’ 

procedures for issuing employment authorization for 

vulnerable populations, as identified in the Violence 

Against Women Act of 2005. The Ombudsman’s Office 

continues to bring stakeholder concerns regarding these 

issues to the attention of USCIS.

Customer Service 

•	 Formal Recommendation: “USCIS Service Requests: 

Recommendations to Improve the Quality of Responses to Inquiries from Individuals and Employers.”

On March 7, 2012, the Ombudsman’s Office published 

a formal recommendation covering the USCIS Service 

Request Management Tool.

•	 Formal Recommendation: “Recommendations Regarding USCIS’ Role in the Petition Information Management Service.” On May 16, 2012, the Ombudsman’s 

Office published a formal recommendation regarding the 

Petition Information Management Service.

•	 The Systemic Alien Verification for Entitlements Program: Improving the Process for Individuals, Employers, and USCIS Customer Agencies. The Systemic Alien 

Verification for Entitlements Program is an inter-governmental initiative designed to aid federal, state, and local 

benefit-granting agencies in determining an applicant’s 

immigration status. The Ombudsman’s Office is reviewing the customer impact of this program and plans to 

issue formal recommendations within 180 days.

•	 Notices to Appear, Removal Priorities, and Immigration Court Docket Efficiency. Legally sound charging 

documents, U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

removal priorities, and careful coordination among 

USCIS, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and 

the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) 

are essential to the efficient processing of immigration 

benefits applications, as well as efficient administration of 

the EOIR docket. The Ombudsman’s Office is reviewing 

measures to enhance interagency cooperation and plans 

to issue formal recommendations within 180 days.

•	 Representation Issues: The Role of Attorneys and Other 

Representatives in a Non-Adversarial Process. On January 17, 2012, USCIS issued a proposed policy memorandum focused on the role of attorneys and other representatives. The Ombudsman’s Office provided comments 

to USCIS regarding the proposed changes and continues 

to monitor this issue.

•	 The USCIS Administrative Appeals Office. The Ombudsman’s Office is examining delays encountered by 

stakeholders when submitting appeals to the Administrative Appeals Office. 
Annual Report to Congress – June 2012 ix

Table of Contents

Letter to Congress...............................................................................................................................................................................iii

Message from the Acting Ombudsman ............................................................................................................................................. v

Executive Summary...........................................................................................................................................................................vii

Table of Contents................................................................................................................................................................................ix

Overview of the Office of the Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman................................................................... 2

USCIS Year in Review.......................................................................................................................................................................... 9

2012 Areas of Study ..........................................................................................................................................................................13

Employment...............................................................................................................................................................................14

Formal Recommendations.................................................................................................................................................15

Employment Authorization Documents: Meeting the 90-Day Mandate and 

Minimizing the Impact of Delay on Individuals and Employers.................................................................. 15

Recommendations to Improve the Quality in Extraordinary Ability and 

Other Employment-Based Adjudications...................................................................................................... 16

Issues the Ombudsman’s Office Plans to Formally Review within the Next 180 Days...............................................17

Healthcare Immigration Concerns...................................................................................................................... 17

Ongoing Concerns ..............................................................................................................................................................17

Validation Instrument for Business Enterprises .................................................................................................. 17

EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program...................................................................................................................... 18

Family and Children ..................................................................................................................................................................20

Formal Recommendations.................................................................................................................................................21

Special Immigrant Juvenile Adjudications: An Opportunity for Adoption of Best Practices ............................... 21

Issues the Ombudsman’s Office Plans to Formally Review within the Next 180 Days...............................................22

Conditional Permanent Residence...................................................................................................................... 22

Survivor Benefits: The Adjudication of Benefits Requests Made Pursuant to 

Immigration & Nationality Act § 204(l)...................................................................................................... 22

Ongoing Concerns ..............................................................................................................................................................23

Addressing the Immigration Needs of U.S. Service Members and their Families............................................... 23
x Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

Humanitarian.............................................................................................................................................................................24

Formal Recommendations.................................................................................................................................................25

Deferred Action: Recommendations to Improve Transparency and Consistency

in the USCIS Process..................................................................................................................................... 25

Employment Authorization for Asylum Applicants: Recommendations to 

Improve Coordination and Communication................................................................................................ 26

Issues the Ombudsman’s Office Plans to Formally Review within the Next 180 Days...............................................27

Ensuring a Fair and Efficient Asylum Process for Unaccompanied Children...................................................... 27

Ongoing Concerns ..............................................................................................................................................................28

Employment Authorization for Vulnerable Populations...................................................................................... 28

Customer Service........................................................................................................................................................................30

Formal Recommendations.................................................................................................................................................31

USCIS Service Requests: Recommendations to Improve the Quality of Responses to 

Inquiries from Individuals and Employers................................................................................................... 31

Recommendations Regarding USCIS’ Role in the Petition Information 

Management Service .................................................................................................................................... 32

Issues the Ombudsman’s Office Plans to Formally Review within the Next 180 Days...............................................33

The Systemic Alien Verification for Entitlements Program: Improving the Process 

for Individuals, Employers, and USCIS Customer Agencies......................................................................... 33

Notices to Appear, Removal Priorities, and Immigration Court Docket Efficiency............................................. 33

Ongoing Concerns ..............................................................................................................................................................35

Representation Issues: The Role of Attorneys and Other Representatives in 

a Non-Adversarial Process............................................................................................................................ 35

The USCIS Administrative Appeals Office ........................................................................................................... 36

The Year Ahead: Priorities and Objectives for the Ombudsman’s Office.....................................................................................37

Appendices.........................................................................................................................................................................................38

Endnotes.............................................................................................................................................................................................45

Table of Contents (cont.)
Annual Report to Congress – June 2012 1

The 2012 Annual Report

The Office of the Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman (Ombudsman’s 

Office) submits an annual report to Congress by June 30 of each calendar year, pursuant 

to § 452(c) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002. The current report focuses primarily 

on information from April 1, 2011 through March 31, 2012 (the reporting period). 

* Photos courtesy of USCIS and the National Archives.
2 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

The Ombudsman’s Office is:

•	 Independent. The Ombudsman’s Office is an independent office within the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that reports directly to the Deputy Secretary of 

DHS. It is not part of USCIS. 

•	 Confidential. The Ombudsman’s Office does not disclose 

confidential information without prior consent.

•	 Impartial. The Ombudsman’s Office does not advocate 

for stakeholders or USCIS; it works impartially to improve the delivery of immigration services by USCIS. 

Case Assistance

Individuals and employers contact the Ombudsman’s Office 

for assistance with problems affecting the adjudication of applications and petitions pending with USCIS. During the April 

1, 2011 through March 31, 2012 reporting period, the Ombudsman’s Office opened approximately 4,500 case inquiries, 

an increase of almost 38% from the previous year’s total.

Case Assistance Form. On December 16, 2011, the Ombudsman’s Office released an updated Case Assistance Form (Form 

DHS-7001), reducing the number of pages and making it 

more user friendly.

Improved Online Services

The Ombudsman’s Office has made considerable efforts to 

improve its customer service through the use of technology. 

In September 2011, the Ombudsman’s Office launched “Ombudsman Case Assistance Online,” which allows customers to 

electronically submit requests for assistance. The new system 

reduces resources needed for data entry, the use of paper and 

case files, and the time required to respond to individuals 

and employers. The Ombudsman’s Office continues to accept 

requests for assistance through email, mail, and fax. 

New Case Management System. The Ombudsman’s Office is 

developing a new case management system. The system will 

capture multiple issues relating to the same individual or employer and will track all phases of the case resolution process. 

It is designed to reduce inefficiencies, improve reporting, and 

transition to a paperless work environment. 

In addition, increased reporting and analytical capabilities will enable the Ombudsman’s Office to formulate case 

management metrics. These metrics will assist the Ombudsman’s Office in providing USCIS with more targeted feedback 

on issues that are unique to local offices, service centers, and 

specialized units, such as the Administrative Appeals Office. 

This feedback will assist USCIS leadership in addressing issues 

before they become serious and pervasive systemic problems.

Overview of the Office of the 

Citizenship and Immigration 

Services Ombudsman

The Ombudsman’s Office, established by the Homeland Security Act of 2002, assists individuals and 

employers in resolving problems with USCIS by addressing case inquiries and recommending ways 

to fix systemic issues to improve immigration services.1

 
Annual Report to Congress – June 2012 3

Figure 1: Ombudsman’s Office Case Assistance Process

Step 1 Before asking the Ombudsman’s Office for help with an application or petition, customers should try to resolve 

the issue with USCIS through the following methods: 

	 • 	Obtain information about the case at USCIS My Case Status at www.uscis.gov.

	 •	 Contact the USCIS National Customer Service Center for assistance at 1-800-375-5283.

	 •	 Make an appointment to speak directly with USCIS through InfoPass at www.infopass.uscis.gov.

Step 2 Complete an online request for case assistance available on the Ombudsman’s Office website at 

www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman.

The Ombudsman’s Office also provides a printable case assistance form (Form DHS-7001) available on our website.

Step 3 Submit a signed request and supporting documentation to the Ombudsman’s Office by one of the following methods:

Ombudsman Case Assistance Online: www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman (Recommended) 

 —or—

 Email: cisombudsman@hq.dhs.gov

 Fax: 202-357-0042

Mail: Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

 U.S. Department of Homeland Security

 Attention: Case Assistance

 Mail Stop 0180

 Washington, D.C. 20528-0180

All information submitted to the Ombudsman’s Office is collected and protected under the provisions of the Privacy Act. 

Helping Individuals and Employers Resolve Problems with USCIS

Individuals and employers can request assistance from the Ombudsman’s Office by taking the following steps:

Systemic Issues

The Ombudsman’s Office identifies systemic issues through: 

•	 Analysis of individual complaints and requests for case

assistance;

•	 Discussions with applicants, petitioners, employers, nongovernmental organizations including community and 

faith-based organizations, and immigration professionals 

across the country; and 

•	 Information and data received from USCIS and other

governmental officials.

The Ombudsman’s Office then makes formal recommendations to the USCIS Director. By statute, USCIS is required to 

submit a response within three months.2

 

Comprehensive Recommendation Review. On February 24, 

2012, the Ombudsman’s Office released the initial phase of its 

Comprehensive Recommendation Review.3

 This project presents 

the results of a comprehensive analysis of formal recommendations the Ombudsman’s Office has submitted to USCIS since 2002. 

Periodic reviews are a necessary part of the Ombudsman’s 

Office mission in order to account for legislative and regulatory changes; alterations to USCIS programs, policies, and 

operational priorities and approaches; and to ensure that the 

Ombudsman’s Office focuses on recommendations and issues 

that continue to require review and analysis.

The Comprehensive Recommendation Review is a multiphase project. The February 24, 2012 version represents 

the initial phase. This project will allow the Ombudsman’s 

Office to focus on continuing areas of concern with USCIS 

operations, and will also provide stakeholders with a central 

location to review all of the formal recommendations made 

by the Ombudsman’s Office. 

The Ombudsman’s Office reviewed each prior formal recommendation and assigned a classification to indicate whether 

the recommendation remains active and whether it requires 

further action by USCIS. The classifications include:

•	 Implemented—Recommendations that USCIS has agreed

to and implemented are designated as “implemented.”
4 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

Figure 2: Case Assistance

Humanitarian 

15% Electronic 

Submissions 

60%

General 

27%

Employment

27%

Family and 

Children

31%

Mail

36%

Fax

4%

* Percentages are approximate and based on a sample of overall caseload.

•	 Active—Recommendations addressing ongoing operations, activities, and business processes still of concern to 

stakeholders are designated as “active.”

•	 Declined—Recommendations rejected or largely rejected

by USCIS are designated as “declined.”

•	 Closed—Recommendations pertaining to obsolete programs, or to activities that have changed significantly, are 

designated as “closed.” 

In the upcoming phases of the project, the Ombudsman’s Office 

will provide further analysis of each formal recommendation, 

including a brief description of its current status, and a discussion of any further activity that may be required by USCIS. 

Communication and Problem Solving with USCIS. The Ombudsman’s Office meets regularly with USCIS. These meetings 

range from informal discussions of specific issues with operational leaders to formal meetings between the Ombudsman and 

the Director of USCIS. Continuous dialogue between the Ombudsman’s Office and USCIS provides opportunities to identify 

potential difficulties before they become problems, and address 

existing issues before they significantly impact customers.

During the reporting period, issues discussed include: 

•	 USCIS procedures to remedy problems caused by administrative error. Previously, the Ombudsman’s Office 

recommended that USCIS establish a process to resolve 

clear service error.4

 USCIS concurred with the recommendation in 2009.5

 On April 4, 2012, USCIS issued an 

instructional memorandum entitled, “Expedited Case 

Review Process for Specifically-Defined Administrative Errors,” establishing an “expedited process for reviewing and 

correcting decisions resulting from certain administrative 

errors.”6

 The Ombudsman’s Office is studying the impact 

of this new policy and welcomes customer feedback. 

•	 Periods of stay for H-2A sheepherders. The Ombudsman’s Office raised with USCIS certain issues regarding H-2A petitions filed on behalf of sheepherders. 

Sheepherders are subject to confusing time-in-status 

limitations that became effective on January 17, 2009.7

Due to these limitations, USCIS granted varying periods 

of stay to sheepherders. As a result, many of the most 

experienced sheepherders were given H-2A expiration 

dates that fell during the critical lambing season, forcing them to depart the United States prior to assisting 

in the delivery of lambs. Stakeholders reported that 

without experienced sheepherders to assist in the lambType Mode of Submission
Annual Report to Congress – June 2012 5

* Reflects cases submitted from within the U.S., each year a small number of cases are submitted by individuals outside the U.S.

Figure 3: Case Assistance by State

373

75

16

3

493

13

12

15

27

1

1

15

18

39

21

38 16 13

5

8

39

16

70

21

211

56

23 72

12

17

4

31

47 122

19

68

393

7

366

106

401

VT 4 7

DE 6

NJ 196

CT 46

RI 10

MA 99

NH 6

DC 77

MD 197

ing process, a large percentage of the lambs would die. 

In March 2012, USCIS issued a temporary extension of 

authorized stay for certain sheepherders, allowing farmers to focus on caring for their livestock and supporting 

the U.S. wool, meat, and speciality products industries.8

Ombudsman’s Office Outreach

The Ombudsman’s Office routinely interacts with a wide 

range of stakeholders. This year outreach focused on emerging immigrant communities that may experience challenges 

in accessing immigration services due to language barriers 

and limited availability of legal assistance. 

During the reporting period, the Ombudsman’s Office conducted a total of 125 outreach activities. Outreach efforts over 

the past year include: 

Stakeholder and Congressional Meetings. During the 

reporting period, the Ombudsman’s Office conducted 70 

stakeholder meetings, and 29 speaking engagements, as part 

of its efforts to connect with attorneys, industry associations, trade groups, faith-based groups, and communitybased organizations that have an interest in immigration 

issues. Stakeholders provided feedback regarding difficulties 

encountered when applying for a wide variety of immigration benefits. The Ombudsman’s Office is able to confidentially relay this information to USCIS at the local, regional, 

and national levels in real time.

The Ombudsman’s Office also regularly meets with Congressional offices across the country. During the reporting period, 

the Ombudsman’s Office conducted 16 Congressional meetings.

Interagency Liaison. The Ombudsman’s Office often facilitates or participates in interagency discussions that promote 

the responsive delivery of immigration services. Recent 

interagency liaison efforts include: 

•	 Co-hosting stakeholder outreach sessions with the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices. These sessions 

provided information to emerging immigrant groups 

regarding immigration-related employment issues.

•	 Leading an interagency working group that monitors the annual 

allocation of immigrant visas. This group includes participants 

from the U.S. Department of State (DOS) and USCIS.

•	 Participating in a working group on Immigration Court docket 

efficiency. This group includes participants from USCIS, U.S. 
6 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR). The group’s 

efforts focused on the efficient adjudication of immigration benefits in order to ensure that immigration proceedings are completed in a timely fashion.

In addition, on behalf of the White House Council on Women 

and Girls, the Ombudsman facilitated a number of activities 

focused on protecting immigrant women and girls in vulnerable situations. They include:

 

•	 Hosting roundtable sessions with stakeholders across the country. These sessions provided a forum to share advancements at DHS that support the protection of immigrant 

women and girls. 

•	 Bringing together DHS officials9

 with local, state, and national law enforcement associations. DHS provided training 

on federal laws offering protection for immigrant victims 

of human trafficking and other crimes, including U and T 

nonimmigrant status and humanitarian parole.

•	 Coordinating the production of the DHS U Visa Law Enforcement Resource Guide. Released in December 2011, this 

guide provides law enforcement officials with information about U visa requirements and answers to frequently 

asked questions from law enforcement agencies.10 

Teleconferences. The Ombudsman’s Office regularly hosts 

public teleconferences. The purpose of the teleconferences is 

to encourage callers to share information on immigrationrelated topics. Typically, a moderator from the Ombudsman’s 

Office will interview a subject matter expert (or experts) 

from USCIS, other government agencies, or the private sector. At the conclusion of the interview, the conference call is 

opened to questions or comments from participants. Recent 

teleconferences have highlighted topics including:

•	 April 25, 2012—Conditional Permanent Residence: How

Is It Working For You?

•	 March 28, 2012—Enforcement and Removal Operations

(ERO) Public Advocate: A Conversation with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

•	 February 7, 2012—TheAdjudication of L1-B “Specialized

Knowledge” Worker Petitions: How Is It Working for You?

•	 January 11, 2012—USCISValidation Instrument for Business Enterprises (VIBE)—How Is ItWorking ForYou? 

•	 November 27, 2011—Change of Address: How Is It

Working For You?

•	 October 25, 2011—Small & Start-Up Business Immigration Issues.

•	 October 6, 2011—Unaccompanied Children:A Conversation with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 

and the Executive Office for Immigration Review.

•	 July 27, 2011—Survivor Benefits under INA §204(l):A

Conversation with USCIS.

•	 June 20, 2011—UVisas:A Conversation with the Department of State and USCIS.

•	 May 25, 2011—Immigration StatusVerification for Drivers’ Licenses, Public Benefits, and Social Security Cards: A 

Conversation with USCIS.

Ombudsman Quarterly Updates. In January 2011, the office 

launched the Ombudsman Quarterly Update, an e-newsletter 

that highlights current projects, casework, and issues that 

have been resolved both formally and informally with USCIS. 

Currently, the Ombudsman Quarterly Update is electronically 

delivered to over 2,290 stakeholders. 

 
Annual Report to Congress – June 2012 7

2011 Annual Conference

On October 20, 2011, the Ombudsman’s Office hosted its 

first Annual Conference, bringing together more than 300 

participants with diverse backgrounds and interests to discuss 

improving the delivery of immigration services. Participants 

included government officials and representatives from community and faith-based organizations, business and industry 

associations, law schools, and legal practices. Issues covered 

during the conference include:

•	 Trends in employment-based immigration adjudications;

•	 Developments in definitions of particular social groups

for asylum applicants;

•	 Processing of waivers of inadmissibility;

•	 Improving coordination between USCIS, ICE, and the

EOIR to ensure immigration benefits are adjudicated efficiently and immigration proceedings are completed in a 

timely fashion;

•	 Impact of Systemic AlienVerification for Entitlements on

access to public benefits, employment, drivers’ licenses, 

and social security; 

•	 The DOS monthlyVisa Bulletin and interagency collaboration regarding the allocation of immigrant visas under 

annual caps; and 

•	 The role of bloggers in influencing immigration policies.

Second Annual Conference

The Ombudsman’s Office will hold its second Annual Conference on October 18, 2012 at the National Archives and 

Records Administration Building. The conference panels will 

feature public and private sector experts, who will focus on 

problem-solving, interagency dialogue, and collaboration in 

the delivery of immigration services.
8 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

This page intentionally left blank.
Annual Report to Congress – June 2012 9

Outreach

Director Mayorkas has steadfastly encouraged outreach and 

public engagement in an effort to define critical agency priorities. The USCIS Office of Public Engagement has hosted an 

array of comprehensive, information-sharing events designed 

to educate and accommodate stakeholders.14 As an organization, USCIS has effectively institutionalized community 

outreach and the dissemination of information through local 

field offices. In addition to hosting interviews, all local offices 

offer information services and public workshops on a range 

of topics including citizenship and adjustment of status requirements. This approach, emphasizing customer service as a 

shared responsibility, has allowed USCIS to provide important 

information in a timely, accurate manner. Similarly, the USCIS 

website and 1-800 line continue to offer users ready access to 

general and case specific information. 

Other noteworthy outreach efforts include:

Expanded Information Services. USCIS added to its awardwinning website, www.uscis.gov, enhanced tools including a 

news ticker, live streaming and improved data tracking.15 

Multilingual Engagements. With the success of USCIS’ quarterly engagement series entitled “Enlace” (the Spanish term 

for engagement), USCIS also launched a Chinese-language series called “Jiao Liú.”16 Each multilingual engagement focuses 

on a different immigration or citizenship topic. This year, USCIS has coordinated more than 30 national and local events in 

Spanish, Arabic, French, Amharic, Chinese and Vietnamese.17

Immigration Services for the U.S. Military. USCIS has 

demonstrated an impressive commitment to ensuring access to immigration information and services for military 

members and their families. Through outreach to bases and 

other military installations, the agency has offered valuable 

training to legal and human service personnel. USCIS further maintains a toll free military help line, 1-877-CIS-4MIL 

(1-877-247-4645).18

USCIS has fully implemented the “Naturalization at Basic 

Training Program”19 in partnership with the U.S. Department 

of Defense (DOD). Since the program began in 2010, more 

than 3,800 U.S. service members have become U.S. citizens 

upon graduation from basic training.20

USCIS Year in Review: An Effort 

to Increase Quality and Consistency 

in Benefit Adjudications

During this reporting period, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) stated in various 

forums that its priorities should be guided by a commitment to quality, consistency, and improved, 

more transparent processes.11 Director Mayorkas announced in a February 17, 2011 press conference 

that USCIS’ strategic goals and initiatives would focus on “promoting quality and consistency” 

in the adjudication of immigration benefit applications.12 He added, “[T]here are areas in which 

our policies are not necessarily consistent or consistently applied. We are one agency and we are 

dedicated to realizing the legislative intent of the laws that we administer. And consistency is a 

critical attribute.”13 This section considers USCIS’ ongoing effort to increase quality and consistency 

in benefit adjudications through enhanced outreach, policy review and technology. 
10 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

As of 2012, the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines have undertaken to provide U.S. service members the opportunity to 

apply for naturalization during basic training. This initiative 

embodies a true partnership between DOD and USCIS. Prior to 

implementation of the Naturalization at Basic Training Program, many service members experienced difficulty becoming 

U.S. citizens due to overseas deployments and repeated station 

changes. As a result of this initiative, the number of service 

members naturalizing overseas has decreased substantially. 

Processing naturalization requests stateside is far safer for all 

involved and also cost-effective. 

The Unauthorized Practice of Immigration Law Initiative. 

In June 2011, USCIS launched this “national, multi-agency 

initiative to combat immigration services scams.”21 Since the 

inception of this initiative, USCIS has distributed more than 

260,000 brochures in 14 different languages, and hosted 88 

dedicated engagements.22 By providing information to immigrant communities on risks associated with obtaining legal 

advice from individuals who are not bar-certified attorneys 

or accredited representatives, USCIS is helping its customers 

make “smart choices.”23 Commenced as a pilot program in 

Atlanta, Baltimore, Detroit, Fresno, Los Angeles, New York, 

and San Antonio, USCIS plans to expand the Unauthorized 

Practice of Immigration Law Initiative (UPIL) in 2012.24

The Entrepreneurs in Residence Program. On October 

11, 2011, USCIS announced together with the President’s 

Council on Jobs and Competitiveness, the Entrepreneurs in 

Residence (EIR) program to bring private sector insights and 

expertise into the government.25 Through the U.S. Department 

of Homeland Security (DHS) Loaned Executive Program, USCIS 

has enlisted entrepreneurs and academics with expertise in 

business innovation and information technology to help refine 

USCIS policies, practices and training.26 The EIR program illustrates the commitment of DHS and USCIS to spur job creation 

and promote startup enterprises where possible.27

Policy Review

In last year’s Annual Report, the Ombudsman’s Office indicated that stakeholders reacted favorably to USCIS’ scheduled 

policy review and related public engagement efforts,28 but expressed concern that it frequently takes months, if not years, 

for USCIS to implement substantive regulations, whether 

interim or final. In this reporting period, USCIS issued approximately 30 policy and procedural memoranda, including 

updates. While several of these documents are clarifying or 

administrative in nature, a few are substantively significant.

In June 2011, in support of the UPIL initiative, USCIS issued 

guidance clarifying the roles and responsibilities of District 

Directors in the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) recognition and accreditation process.29 Stakeholders have reported 

that USCIS’ role in this process has not always been clear or 

timely addressed. The guidance responds to these concerns by 

requiring District Directors to participate in the recognition 

and accreditation process, and sets forth the specific steps they 

are required to take vis-à-vis applications submitted to the BIA. 

On November 7, 2011, USCIS issued a memo entitled 

“Revised Guidance for the Referral of Cases and Issuance of 

Notices to Appear (NTAs) in Cases Involving Inadmissible and 

Removable Aliens.”30 The guidance superseded “Policy Memorandum No. 110, Disposition of Cases Involving Removable Aliens,” previously in effect since July 11, 2006.31 Many 

aspects of the new NTA guidance are of interest to stakeholders. The Ombudsman’s Office is reviewing this memorandum and stakeholder concerns, and plans to formally review 

USCIS’ NTA procedures later this year.

On January 17, 2012, USCIS published proposed revisions to 

its Adjudicator’s Field Manual (AFM) on “The Role of Private 

Attorneys and Other Representatives.” This long overdue 

completion of AFM Chapter 12 expressly “provides guidance 

to adjudicators and balances the meaningful role of attorneys 

and representatives in the interview process with the important responsibility of adjudicators to conduct fair, orderly 

interviews.”32

On April 4, 2012, USCIS issued an instructional memorandum 

entitled, “Expedited Case Review Process for SpecificallyDefined Administrative Errors” that invites customers to contact 

the National Customer Service Center to report data entry and/
Annual Report to Congress – June 2012 11

or administrative errors resulting in adverse adjudicative action.33 

The memorandum addresses four specific types of administrative 

error, all involving USCIS’ failing to register receipt of information submitted by an applicant or petitioner in response to a 

Request for Evidence (RFE), Notice of Intent to Deny, or Notice 

of Intent to Revoke. Customers must be able to demonstrate 

that they timely submitted the required information. USCIS, in 

turn, has promised to “make every possible effort to respond to” 

expedited case review requests within five business days. While 

a definite step in the right direction, stakeholders thus far report 

delays in implementation of the memorandum. 

USCIS committed to implementing a series of policy, operational, and outreach efforts to promote foreign investments 

and to grow the U.S. economy.34 This followed the White 

House-led “Startup America”35 initiative and the Secretary’s 

own pledge to “continue to attract the best and the brightest from around the world” to invest in America.36 In August 

2011, USCIS issued a job creation fact sheet identifying 

ways it hopes to attract entrepreneurs to the United States.37 

USCIS issued Frequently Asked Questions for entrepreneurs 

applying for employment-based second preference national 

interest immigrant visas.38 The agency has further promised 

to expand premium processing for employment-based first 

preference multinational executives and managers.39 

In an effort to address a common challenge facing entrepreneur applicants, USCIS issued guidance on establishing the 

“employee-employer relationship” in H-1B petitions.40 It proposed for public comment enhancements to the EB-5 Investor 

Visa program, specifically, accelerated processing times, the hiring of a specialized intake team to assess new EB-5 filings, and 

creation of an expert decision board.41 Also, USCIS launched 

new engagement opportunities to share information and learn 

from the business and entrepreneur community.42 These initiatives show great promise and stakeholders await results. 

Finally, on January 9, 2012, USCIS published a Notice of 

Intent in the Federal Register considering a regulatory change 

that would allow certain immediate relatives of U.S. citizens 

to request provisional waivers of inadmissibility prior to 

departing the United States for consular processing.43 This 

proposed change was supplemented by a second posting on 

April 2, 2012.44 The stated goal of the new rule is to allow 

“certain immediate relatives of U.S. citizens to apply for a 

provisional waiver of the unlawful presence ground of inadmissibility while still in the United States if they can demonstrate that being separated from their U.S. citizen spouse or 

parent would cause that U.S. citizen relative extreme hardship.”45 Many stakeholders welcome the proposed change, 

but urge USCIS to consider offering provisional waivers to 

relatives of lawful permanent residents.46

Technology

USCIS has embraced and effectively utilized, cutting-edge 

technology to perform its duties. While these improvements 

have clearly helped USCIS provide better services, they cannot replace the experience and sound judgment of qualified 

adjudicators, supervisors, and those tasked with eliciting and 

responding to customer concerns. At its core, USCIS exists to 

serve the public; technology offers an important, but ultimately limited, tool toward that end. 

Validation Instrument for Business Enterprises. In February 2011, USCIS deployed the Validation Instrument for 

Business Enterprises (VIBE) at all four service centers.47 VIBE 

was intended to enable USCIS to rapidly and easily vet businesses filing employment-based petitions.48 Immediately 

following its rollout, stakeholders reported that the Dun & 

Bradstreet database underlying VIBE, at times, contained inaccurate and outdated information.49 Throughout the current 

reporting period, stakeholders continued to note problems 

connected with VIBE that have led to burdensome RFEs and 

erroneous denials. 

Transformation. USCIS has experienced a number of setbacks and delays in its attempt to change from a paper-based 

organization with a fragmented information technology 
12 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

structure to a customer-centric electronic environment. On 

May 22, 2012, USCIS launched the first phase of the Electronic Immigration System (ELIS), which, in its initial phase, is 

limited to facilitating filing of Form I-539, Request to Extend 

or Change Nonimmigrant Status.50 The Ombudsman’s Office 

will continue to monitor progress related to USCIS’ Transformation, including its potential to alter fundamentally the 

manner in which the organization receives and adjudicates 

immigration benefit requests.

Over the past year, USCIS has proposed many programs and 

initiatives, some of which remain in a developmental stage. 

Other efforts appear to have lost momentum or suffered serious setbacks. This Annual Report examines these programs and 

initiatives, and offers recommendations for improvement. Understanding the inherent, even daunting challenges associated 

with full-scale implementation, the Ombudsman’s Office and 

immigration stakeholders remain hopeful that USCIS’ ambitious programs and initiatives will be realized.

* Photo courtesy of USCIS and the National Archives.
Annual Report to Congress – June 2012 13

2012 Areas of Study: 

Pervasive and Serious Problems 

and Recommended Solutions

Under the Homeland Security Act of 2002,51 the Office of the Citizenship and Immigration Services 

Ombudsman (Ombudsman’s Office) Annual Report must include a “summary of the most pervasive 

and serious problems encountered by individuals and employers.” Consistent with its mandate 

to assist individuals and employers in resolving problems with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 

Services (USCIS), the Ombudsman’s Office continues to identify and monitor areas in which 

individuals and employers experience delays, difficulties, errors, and gaps in service when seeking 

immigration benefits. 

The 2012 Annual Report covers issues and developments affecting the delivery of immigration 

services within the following areas: 1) Employment, 2) Family and Children, 3) Humanitarian, 

and 4) Customer Service. Within each section, the report emphasizes formal recommendations 

submitted to USCIS, issues the Ombudsman’s Office plans to formally review within the next 

180 days, and areas of ongoing concern.
14 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

Employment

A landscape contractor encountered difficulty hiring sufficient U.S. workers. In light of this shortage, the contractor 

began looking for workers to assist during the busy season, between April and November, and filed a petition with 

USCIS for several H-2B temporary workers. The petition was approved and the H-2B workers began to apply for 

visas through the U.S. Department of State. Due to concerns relating to the workers’ inability to clearly explain their 

intended job functions, the consular official returned the petition to USCIS for possible revocation. Concerned about 

a delay, and with contract obligations in excess of $1 million at risk, the contractor turned to the Ombudsman’s 

Office for assistance. The Ombudsman’s Office worked with the contractor, the consulate, and USCIS to facilitate 

interagency coordination to ensure a timely review of the returned petition. The contractor was able to address the 

government’s concerns, and the temporary workers were issued visas, allowing the contractor to meet its obligations 

and sustain its business. 

* Photo courtesy of New York Public Library.
Annual Report to Congress – June 2012 15

Formal Recommendations

Employment Authorization Documents: Meeting the 

90-Day Mandate and Minimizing the Impact of Delay 

on Individuals and Employers

The Ombudsman’s Office found that certain procedural 

challenges persist in the processing of Employment Authorization Documents (EADs). These challenges include: 

1) failure to process EADs in 90 days or issue interim EADs; 

2) the lack of a mechanism for rapid issuance of an EAD 

when an application has been pending significantly longer 

than 90 days; and 3) processing delays related to the resolution of security background checks.

Many immigration benefits applicants cannot legally work 

without an EAD. When EAD processing is delayed, individuals 

and employers often experience adverse consequences such 

as job loss and the disruption of business operations. 

On July 18, 2011, the Ombudsman’s Office made recommendations to help USCIS reduce EAD processing delays, meet its regulatory mandate, and improve customer 

service. The Ombudsman’s Office recommended that USCIS:

1. Establish methods at local offices to facilitate

immediate resolution;

2. Establish a uniform processing time goal 

of 45 days for adjudication and 60 days for 

issuance of an EAD;

3. Improve monitoring and ensure real-time 

visibility through an automated system for 

tracking processing times;

4. Follow established internal procedures 

for issuing interim EADs in cases where 

background checks are pending; and
16 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

5. Issue replacement EADs with validity dates 

beginning on the date the old EAD expires.

USCIS responded to these formal recommendations on April 

11, 2012, and initiated a data review to better understand the 

scope of the problem. USCIS also agreed that local field offices 

play a role in assisting customers with employment authorization issues, and should notify the appropriate service center 

or National Benefits Center of inquiries, so that it may prioritize cases for review. The agency also noted that an automated 

system to track processing times will be implemented as part 

of USCIS Transformation. 

USCIS stated that its goal is to comply with the regulations and 

adjudicate all EAD applications within the mandated 90-day 

period. USCIS did not concur with the recommendation that it 

establish an internal processing goal of 45 days for adjudication 

and 60 days for issuance of an EAD. USCIS also advised that it 

is exploring the feasibility of issuing replacement EADs with 

validity dates beginning on the date the old EAD expires. 

The Ombudsman’s Office continues to closely monitor a variety of issues connected with employment authorization and 

provide information and assistance to stakeholders as needed.

Recommendations to Improve the Quality in 

Extraordinary Ability and Other Employment-Based 

Adjudications

On December 29, 2011, the Ombudsman’s Office published 

recommendations for improving the quality of extraordinary 

ability and certain other employment-based adjudications. 

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) permits employers and individuals to petition USCIS for an immigrant 

visa based on job skills or potential contributions to the 

U.S. economy. There are five employment-based preference 

categories that are used to determine whether a foreign national is eligible for an immigrant visa.52 The first preference 

category includes individuals with extraordinary ability; and 

outstanding professors, and researchers. The second preference category includes individuals of exceptional ability in 

the sciences, the arts, or business.53 

On March 4, 2010, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued 

a decision, Poghos Kazarian v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (Kazarian), reviewing USCIS’ application of 

the regulations governing extraordinary ability petitions.54

On December 22, 2010, USCIS issued a policy memorandum based on the Kazarian holding entitled, “Evaluation 

of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form I-140 Petitions; 

Revisions to the Adjudicator’s Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 

22.2, AFM Update AD11-14.”55 This memo provides a new 

two-pronged test to determine eligibility for the extraordinary ability, outstanding professor or researcher, and exceptional ability categories. The test requires: 1) an evaluation of 

whether the petitioner provided the requisite evidence; and 

2) a final merits determination. 

Stakeholders raised the following concerns: 1) the subjective 

nature of a final merits determination; and 2) consistency 

in the application of the new policy. Stakeholders contended that the policy memorandum permitted Immigration 

Services Officers (ISOs) too much discretion in making the 

final merits determination, leading to arbitrary decisions by 

adjudicators. In response to these concerns, USCIS invited 

stakeholders to submit amicus curiae briefs to the USCIS Administrative Appeals Office (AAO).56 

The Ombudsman’s Office published the following recommendations: 

1. Conduct formal rulemaking to clarify the 

regulatory standard, and if desired, explicitly 

incorporate a final merits determination into 

the regulations;

2. In the interim, provide public guidance on the 

application of a final merits determination; and

3. In the interim, provide ISOs with additional 

guidance and training on the proper 

application of preponderance of the evidence 

standard when adjudicating EB-1-1, EB-1-2, 

and EB-2 petitions. 
Annual Report to Congress – June 2012 17

As of the publication of the 2012 Annual Report, USCIS had 

not yet issued a formal response to these recommendations.

Issues the Ombudsman’s Office Plans to 

Formally Review within the Next 180 Days

Healthcare Immigration Concerns

Approximately a quarter of U.S. physicians are international 

medical graduates that require USCIS authorization to work 

in the United States.57 The Ombudsman’s Office is examining 

issues related to the continuity of medical services provided 

by foreign national physicians.58

Each fiscal year, there are a limited number of new H-1B visas 

available (referred to as the “cap”).59 In recent years, the entire annual allotment of new H-1B visas has been exhausted 

early into the filing period.60 Some employers are not subject 

to the cap, such as: institutions of higher learning, or related/

affiliated nonprofit entities or research organizations, or governmental research organizations.61

Many international medical graduates are employed by capexempt institutions while completing their residencies and, 

subsequently, wish to accept positions with cap-subject employers. Consider a physician working for a university hospital on an H-1B cap-exempt nonimmigrant visa scheduled 

to complete her residency in June. If the H-1B cap has been 

reached for the current fiscal year, the physician may not start 

new employment with a cap-subject employer until the next 

fiscal year begins on October 1. As a result, certain foreign 

national physicians encounter gaps in employment authorization when transferring to cap-subject employers. 

Without a corrective provision, foreign national physicians facing this gap in employment are not only unable to work, but 

many are required to leave the United States until the approved 

start dates for their positions with the cap-subject employers. 

The Ombudsman’s Office is reviewing this issue and plans to 

publish recommendations within the next 180 days. 

Ongoing Concerns

Validation Instrument for Business Enterprises

In March 2011, USCIS service centers began using the 

Validation Instrument for Business Enterprises (VIBE) as 

part of their standard adjudication routine.62 VIBE allows 

USCIS to verify business information submitted in support 

of employment-based petitions using source data collected 

by Dun & Bradstreet, a commercial provider of business 

information services.63 VIBE was intended to reduce the 

amount of time required to adjudicate those petitions, and 

reduce the amount of fraud encountered in employmentbased immigration.

Stakeholders have reported that, at times, VIBE data on joint 

ventures, new companies, and entities with complex corporate structures is inaccurate. As a result, USCIS has been 

issuing burdensome Requests for Evidence (RFEs), often to 

companies with a long history of petition approval. 

In addition, stakeholders report that Dun & Bradstreet applies aggressive marketing tactics when contacted to correct 

outdated or inaccurate information that served as the basis for 

a VIBE-related RFE. Stakeholders have also expressed concerns 

that USCIS’ use of VIBE forces employment-based immigration petitioners to purchase services from a private enterprise, 

in order to ensure that information listed for their business 

entities is up-to-date and accurate. 

In its 2011 Annual Report, the Ombudsman’s Office addressed a variety of stakeholder concerns regarding VIBE.64 

For 45 days, beginning on June 1, 2011, USCIS suspended 

the use of VIBE in the H-2A program.65 This suspension was 

based largely on feedback from stakeholders indicating that 

Dun & Bradstreet’s information on small agricultural business was inaccurate and that VIBE checks on H-2A petitions 

were leading to an inordinate number of RFEs being issued to 

established business entities with extensive histories of successful H-2A petitions. 
18 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

Applications

I-526 Receipts I-526 Approvals I-526 Denials

2005

0

4,000

2,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Source: USCIS Office of Performance and Quality (OPQ), Immigrant Petition by Alien Entrepreneur (I-526) and Petition by Entrepreneur to 

Remove Conditions (I-829) Service-wide Receipts, Approvals, Denials Fiscal Year(s): 2005-2012 (2nd Quarter) (April 23, 2012).

Form I-526, Immigrant Petition by 

Alien Entrepreneur 

Form I-829, Petition by Entrepreneur 

to Remove Conditions

On January 11, 2012, the Ombudsman’s Office held a nationwide teleconference on VIBE.66 Nearly all the participants 

expressed concern over the impact VIBE is having on the 

adjudication of employment-based petitions. 

The Ombudsman’s Office continues to bring concerns about 

VIBE to the attention of USCIS.

EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program

In 1990, Congress established the fifth employment-based 

(EB-5) preference category for immigrants seeking to enter 

the United States to engage in a commercial enterprise that 

will benefit the U.S. economy and directly create at least 

ten67 full- time jobs.68 The minimum qualifying investment 

amount is $500,000 for commercial enterprises located 

within a rural area69 (or targeted employment area),70 and is 

otherwise $1,000,000.71 This investment-based immigration 

category attracts individuals to the United States to supply 

venture capital, create jobs for U.S. workers, and stimulate the 

U.S. economy.72 

In March 2009, the Ombudsman’s Office made recommendations to USCIS regarding improvements to the EB-5 program.73 At that time, the Ombudsman’s Office reported that 

many of the 10,000 available EB-5 visas remained unused74

due to “a confluence of factors, including program instability, the changing economic environment, and more inviting 

immigrant investor programs offered by other countries.”75 

Throughout 2012, USCIS conducted extensive public engagement regarding the EB-5 program.76 Although the program has increased in popularity, stakeholders continue to 

note that many of the same challenges encountered in 2009 

continue today. Stakeholders also report receiving RFEs seeking information that is not related to the individual investor, 

but attempting to revisit issues settled during the adjudication of associated regional center applications. In addition, 

stakeholders also report delays in adjudication and increased 

processing times. 

The Ombudsman’s Office continues to monitor USCIS 

progress concerning the EB-5 program, and stakeholders are 

encouraged to contact the Ombudsman’s Office with case 

specific challenges as well as suggestions for future recommendations to improve the EB-5 program. Applications

I-829 Receipts I-829 Approvals I-829 Denials

2005

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Figure 4: USCIS Receipts, Approvals, and Denials—Fiscal Years 2005-2011
Annual Report to Congress – June 2012 19

This page intentionally left blank.
20 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

Family and Children

A mother and child came to the United States as refugees. The mother became a permanent resident, but did not 

realize that she needed to file separately for her daughter. As an adult, the daughter needed proof of her lawful 

status and filed with USCIS to obtain a green card. Unfortunately, she filed the wrong form. USCIS accepted 

this form in error and improperly issued her a green card. After marrying a U.S. serviceman, she decided to 

pursue U.S. citizenship. When she contacted USCIS to ask how to become a U.S. citizen, USCIS advised 

her to file an application for a Certificate of Citizenship as her mother became a U.S. citizen when she was a 

child. She filed and paid the required fee. USCIS denied her application. Confused by the denial, the couple 

sought assistance from the Ombudsman’s Office, which requested that USCIS review the file to determine her 

status. USCIS identified the previous error, recalled the green card, and encouraged the military spouse to file for 

adjustment of status. She is now on the right path and understands the steps needed to become a U.S. citizen.

* Photo courtesy of USCIS and the National Archives.
Annual Report to Congress – June 2012 21

Formal Recommendations

Special Immigrant Juvenile Adjudications: 

An Opportunity for Adoption of Best Practices

On April 15, 2011, the Ombudsman’s Office published a 

formal recommendation aimed at strengthening the Special 

Immigrant Juvenile (SIJ) program.77 The Ombudsman’s Office recommended that USCIS:

1. Standardize its practices of: 

a. Providing specialized training for those 

officers adjudicating SIJ status;

b. Establishing dedicated SIJ units or points

of contacts at local offices; and

c. Ensuring adjudications are completed 

within the statutory timeframe.

2. Cease requesting the evidence underlying 

state court determinations of foreign child 

dependency.

3. Issue guidance, including agency regulations, 

regarding adequate evidence for SIJ filings, 

including general criteria for what triggers an 

interview for the SIJ petition, and make this 

information available on the USCIS website.

USCIS responded to the Ombudsman’s recommendations 

on July 13, 2011, verifying that it will continue to develop 

specialized training for officers who adjudicate SIJ status.78 In 

addition, USCIS concurred with the recommendation that SIJ 

adjudications be completed within the statutory timeframe 

and advised that it has taken proactive measures to ensure that 

SIJ filings are adjudicated within the 180-day requirement. 

USCIS also concurred with the recommendation to issue 

guidance regarding adequate evidence for SIJ filings.
22 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

However, USCIS rejected the Ombudsman’s Office recommendation that it “[c]ease requesting the evidence underlying state court determinations of foreign child dependency.”79 

Although USCIS appears to have only limited authority to 

request information underlying state court juvenile dependency orders, it has described its review of such orders as a 

“discretionary determination” that the petition is bona fide.

80

Approximately two months later, on September 6, 2011, DHS 

published a proposed rule for SIJ petitions.81 The proposed 

rule would significantly expand USCIS’ ability to review a 

state court order, permitting it to consider additional evidence before issuing consent to the SIJ classification. Stakeholders continue to note that such an increase in USCIS’ 

authority to request the evidence underlying a state court 

dependency order appears to be directly contrary to the 

expanded protections enacted via the William Wilberforce 

Trafficking Victims’ Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 

(TVPRA 2008), which permits broader findings by a juvenile 

court to serve as the basis for an SIJ status application.82

As of the publication of the 2012 Annual Report, DHS had 

not issued a final rule for the SIJ program. 

Issues the Ombudsman’s Office Plans to 

Formally Review within the Next 180 Days

Conditional Permanent Residence

Under INA § 216, the spouse of a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident, married for less than two years at the date 

of admission, receives conditional permanent resident status 

for a period of two years.83 In order to remove the conditions, the petitioner and beneficiary must file Form I-751, 

Petition to Remove the Conditions of Residence, within 90 

days of the second anniversary of the grant of conditional 

residence.84 If the parties cannot file jointly,85 the beneficiary must file a waiver of the joint petition requirements.86

Failure to file Form I-751 may result in the termination of 

conditional permanent resident status, and may cause the 

beneficiary to be placed in removal proceedings. USCIS has 

discretion to accept a late filed Form I-751 where the conditional resident can establish that there was good cause for 

the failure to file.87

During the reporting period, the Ombudsman’s Office met 

with stakeholders to discuss concerns with conditional 

residence adjudications. Some of the issues raised by stakeholders were: 1) absence of any notification that conditional 

resident status is expiring;88 2) problems in obtaining proof 

of status while a Form I-751 is pending; 3) lack of guidance 

on how a conditional resident can change a petition from a 

joint filing to a waiver application; 4) problems connected 

with files being unavailable to adjudicators; 5) issuance of 

unclear Requests for Evidence (RFEs); 6) inconsistent decisions; and 7) insufficient training regarding the adjudication of battered spouse waiver petitions.89

The Ombudsman’s Office is committed to working with 

USCIS and stakeholders to identify solutions to conditional 

residence issues and plans to publish recommendations 

within the next 180 days. 

Survivor Benefits: The Adjudication of Benefits 

Requests Made Pursuant to Immigration & 

Nationality Act § 204(l)

On October 28, 2009, Congress enacted INA § 204(l), which 

expanded immigration benefits for certain surviving relatives 

in the family and employment preference categories, asylees, 

and those who have T (trafficking) or U (crime victim) nonimmigrant status. In the past, only widows and widowers of 

U.S. citizens could continue to seek permanent resident status 

following the death of a petitioning spouse.

The new law became effective as of the date of enactment. 

For approximately 14 months after the statute was enacted, 

USCIS did not implement INA § 204(l) and was not granting 

the benefits contemplated under the law. USCIS did not provide guidance instructing adjudicators how to implement the 
Annual Report to Congress – June 2012 23

law until January 2011, when the agency published a policy 

memorandum entitled, “Approval of Petitions and Applications after the Death of the Qualifying Relative.”90 

To date, USCIS has not issued new regulations and has advised the Ombudsman’s Office that it does not intend to do 

so.91 The limited guidance that has been made available thus 

far has generated many questions regarding the processes for 

filing and adjudicating survivor benefits applications. The lack 

of sufficient information on how to proceed has had a particularly onerous effect on pro se applicants, although many 

attorneys and accredited representatives have also found the 

USCIS memorandum to be complicated and confusing.92

The Ombudsman’s Office is engaging with both USCIS and 

stakeholders in order to address various problems that affect 

individuals applying for survivor benefits and plans to issue 

recommendations within the next 180 days.

Ongoing Concerns

Addressing the Immigration Needs of U.S. Service 

Members and their Families

On July 9, 2010, 18 members of Congress sent a letter to 

Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, urging 

her to address the immigration needs of U.S. service members.93 In addition, the letter encouraged DHS to join in 

motions to reopen where legal relief may be available, consider deferred action where no permanent relief is available 

but strong equities exist, and consider favorably exercising 

parole authority for close family members who entered 

without inspection.

In response to this letter, Secretary Napolitano outlined a 

number of options available to members of the military and 

their families, including the Naturalization at Basic Training 

program, and the use of discretionary authorities to help 

military dependents secure permanent immigration status.94 The letter states that, on a case-by-case basis, DHS will 

consider parole and deferred action to minimize periods of 

family separation and to facilitate adjustment of status for 

spouses, parents and children of military members. Most of 

the programs and initiatives, outlined in the Secretary’s letter, 

fall within the authority of USCIS. 

To date, USCIS has not provided its field offices with guidance 

on how to administer discretionary relief for family members 

of U.S. service members. The lack of guidance has led to troubling inconsistency in the application of these options.

The Ombudsman’s Office has repeatedly raised these issues 

with USCIS, emphasizing the impact on military families. On 

May 22, 2012, the Acting Ombudsman sent a letter to Director Mayorkas, urging him to issue guidance to field offices, 

in order to ensure that critical services available to military 

families are fully and consistently administered.95

* Image courtesy of the National Archives.
24 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

Humanitarian

A single mother was the victim of domestic violence. Her abusive ex-husband kidnapped their U.S. citizen 

children and returned to their country of origin. She immediately followed to rescue her children and applied 

for a U visa from abroad. While the application was pending, her ex-husband threatened her, and the police 

in her home country could not ensure her safety. She was forced into hiding with her children, and contacted 

USCIS and the Ombudsman’s Office seeking assistance in expediting her application. With the cooperation 

of USCIS and the U.S. Department of State, she was able to submit fingerprints and the documents 

necessary to make a decision on her case. Her U visa application was ultimately approved and she worked 

with the U.S. consulate to enter the United States with her children. She finally feels safe and is working to 

provide a loving and stable home for her children, free from violence. 

* Photo courtesy of USCIS and the National Archives.
Annual Report to Congress – June 2012 25

Formal Recommendations

Deferred Action: Recommendations to Improve 

Transparency and Consistency in the USCIS Process

On July 1, 2011, the Ombudsman’s Office published a formal 

recommendation aimed at improving consistency in processing deferred action requests filed with USCIS. 

USCIS, along with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

(ICE) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), holds 

the authority to consider deferred action.96 When granting 

deferred action, USCIS declines to exercise its authority to place 

an individual in removal proceedings, thereby allowing an 

individual to remain temporarily in the United States.

 

Stakeholders have reported a lack of clear, consistent information regarding who may request deferred action and 

how a request should be submitted. USCIS offices often lack 

the standardized process necessary to manage requests in a 

consistent manner, particularly when there is a change in 

the type or number of submissions. Stakeholders have also 

reported that deferred action requests remain pending for 

extended periods of time. 

The Ombudsman’s Office recommended that USCIS take the 

following actions to improve the processing of requests for 

deferred action:

1. Issue public information describing deferred 

action and the procedures for making a request 

for this temporary form of relief with USCIS;

2. Establish internal procedures for accepting 

and processing deferred action requests 

in order to promote consistency and assist 

local offices in responding to urgent, periodic 

increases in the demand for deferred action;

* Photo courtesy of U.S. Coast Guard.
26 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

3. Inventory all pending deferred action 

requests to verify that each request received 

confirmation of receipt with estimated 

processing timeframes and USCIS contact 

information; and

4. Consistently track data related to deferred 

action requests and make available statistics 

identifying the number of requests received and 

the numbers of requests approved and denied.

On October 27, 2011, USCIS issued a response, and committed to the following actions:97

1. USCIS will issue internal standard operating procedures 

to ensure consistency in the processing and determination of deferred action requests; and

2. USCIS will continue to track data regarding the number of deferred action requests, the disposition of those 

requests, and other relevant metrics.

Information regarding deferred action should be easily accessible to the public so that eligible individuals may request this 

type of relief. At this time, the process for requesting deferred 

action is not clearly defined. 

Employment Authorization for Asylum Applicants: 

Recommendations to Improve Coordination and 

Communication

Regulations require that USCIS or the Executive Office for 

Immigration Review (EOIR) adjudicate an asylum application 

within 180 days.98 If more than 180 days have passed since 

the filing of an application and the delay is not the fault of the 

asylum seeker, he/she may apply for employment authorization.99 USCIS and EOIR commonly refer to the monitoring of 

the time the asylum application has been pending as the “asylum clock.”100 If the asylum application is before USCIS, the 

asylum clock is managed by the USCIS Asylum Office where 

the application is pending. If an individual is in immigration 

court proceedings, the asylum clock is managed by EOIR. 

USCIS adjudicates Form I-765, Application for Employment 

Authorization, regardless of whether the applicant filed for 

asylum with USCIS or EOIR. When reviewing employment 

authorization applications submitted by asylum seekers, USCIS 

must determine whether the applicant’s asylum application 

has been pending for 180 days or more. USCIS relies on the 

asylum clock calculations recorded in USCIS and EOIR systems. 

Stakeholders reported concerns regarding information sharing and communication problems between EOIR and USCIS. 

These concerns were compounded by the fact that USCIS does 

not control the asylum clock when an asylum case is pending 

before EOIR. Asylum applicants and their representatives have 

expressed frustration at the scarcity of public information about 

how the asylum clock functions and the lack of avenues available to promptly and effectively resolve asylum clock problems.

With these concerns in mind, the Ombudsman’s Office recommended that USCIS:

1. Engage in ongoing interagency dialogue to

clearly define the roles of USCIS and EOIR 

regarding the asylum clock.

 2. Establish more effective internal 

communication channels to improve 

coordination on asylum clock issues:

a. Increase communication between USCIS 

components regarding asylum clockrelated issues; and

b. Provide updated asylum clock training to 

appropriate USCIS personnel.

3. Make asylum clock information easily 

available to asylum applicants:

a. Provide direct public access to USCIS 

service centers on asylum clock issues; 

b. Allow customers to view their asylum

clock online; and

c. Give clear, written notice when a clock 

has been stopped.
Annual Report to Congress – June 2012 27

On January 4, 2012, USCIS issued a response concurring 

with the Ombudsman’s Office recommendations.101 USCIS 

stated that it meets periodically with EOIR regarding problems connected with the calculation and maintenance of 

the asylum clock and methods for correcting asylum clock 

errors. USCIS also stated it is engaged in talks with EOIR regarding a Memorandum of Agreement intended to facilitate 

the exchange of immigration case data to more accurately 

calculate the asylum clock. 

In order to improve notice to the public on asylum clock issues, 

the USCIS Asylum Division conducted a comprehensive review 

of its notices, and created updated form letters that provide more 

useful information regarding work authorization eligibility. The 

USCIS Asylum Division also provided the public with points of 

contact who deal specifically with asylum clock matters. 

USCIS noted various training opportunities provided to its employees on the handling of employment authorization applications filed by asylum seekers, and indicated that it will review 

scripts used by the National Customer Service Center as they 

relate to the asylum clock.102 USCIS also noted that the Office of 

Policy and Strategy leads an Employment Authorization Policy 

Working Group that is developing a national work authorization 

policy manual. The Service Center Operations Directorate, the 

Asylum Division, and the Office of Chief Counsel are drafting a 

national standard operating procedure providing guidance for 

adjudications based on the asylum clock. As of publication of the 

2012 Annual Report, USCIS had not issued the aforementioned 

guidance. Since the issuance of the Ombudsman’s recommendations, EOIR released further guidance on this matter.103 

Stakeholders continue to report concerns regarding overlapping jurisdiction, incompatible information systems, and 

cumbersome internal policies that create challenges for applicants, attorneys, and adjudicators alike. The Ombudsman’s 

Office will continue to monitor this issue.

Issues the Ombudsman’s Office Plans to 

Formally Review within the Next 180 Days

Ensuring a Fair and Efficient Asylum 

Process for Unaccompanied Children

With the passage of the William Wilberforce Trafficking 

Victims’ Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 (TVPRA), 

Congress identified specialized needs for “unaccompanied 

alien children” (UACs) seeking asylum, and recognized the 

importance of governing regulations.104 The term “unaccompanied alien child” means a child who has no lawful immiFigure 5: UAC Countries of Origin

Ecuador 3%

Other 4%

Honduras 20%

Mexico 12%

Guatemala 36%

El Salvador 25%

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children & Families, Office of Refugee Resettlement, 

Unaccompanied Alien Children (UAC) Program Overview (April 23, 2012).
28 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

gration status in the United States; has not attained 18 years 

of age; and with no parent or legal guardian in the United 

States, or no parent or legal guardian in the United States 

available to provide care and physical custody.105

UACs apprehended by CBP, ICE, or another federal agency are 

placed into the custody of the Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Refugee Resettlement.106 Pursuant to 

§ 235(d)(7)(B) of the TVPRA, an Asylum Officer has initial 

jurisdiction over any asylum application filed by a UAC.107 

After receiving an asylum application from a UAC, an Asylum 

Officer interviews the UAC on the merits of the child’s asylum 

claim and verifies the child’s UAC status. Upon conclusion of 

the interview, the Asylum Officer prepares an assessment for 

review by USCIS Asylum Division headquarters.108 Following 

headquarters review, the case is returned to the Asylum Officer 

to prepare the decision and provide it to the UAC. If USCIS 

determines that the child is not a UAC, the child must pursue 

the asylum claim before an Immigration Judge.109

When the UAC asylum provisions of the TVPRA took effect, 

USCIS issued guidance regarding the UAC asylum process.110

Stakeholders have raised concerns regarding the policies governing UAC determinations made by USCIS, indicating that 

the process can be confusing and inconsistent. USCIS has not 

yet published regulations regarding UACs in accordance with 

Congressional intent.111

The Ombudsman’s Office is formally reviewing these issues 

and plans to publish recommendations within the next 

180 days. 

Ongoing Concerns

Employment Authorization for Vulnerable Populations 

T and U Visa Applicants. In 2009, the Ombudsman’s Office 

recommended that USCIS implement procedures to provide 

T and U visa applicants with employment authorization during the pendency of their applications.112

At the time of its response, USCIS explained that there was 

no backlog of T visa applications, and, therefore, the issuance 

of interim employment authorization documents was not 

necessary.113 USCIS further explained that if processing times 

for T visa applications “exceed 90 days, the agency would 

conduct bona fide determinations for the purpose of issuing 

employment authorization.”114 USCIS also stated that “once 

USCIS has worked through the U visa application backlog, 
Annual Report to Congress – June 2012 29

USCIS would assess the possibility of issuing interim employment authorization to those individuals whose cases were 

held in abeyance while awaiting visa availability.”115

As of May 2, 2012, the USCIS posted processing time is seven 

months for T visa applications, and nine months for U visa 

applications.116 Stakeholders continue to express concerns 

regarding the inability of T and U visa applicants to work 

during the pendency of their applications.117

The Ombudsman’s Office plans to follow up on its 2009 

recommendation regarding employment authorization for 

vulnerable populations and provide further recommendations 

to USCIS. 

Abused Spouses of Nonimmigrant Visa Holders. The Violence Against Women Act of 2005 (VAWA) includes important protections for nonimmigrant spouses and children who 

are victims of domestic violence.118 INA §106(a) authorizes 

the Secretary of Homeland Security to provide nonimmigrant 

spouses with employment authorization when the spouse or 

children have been the victim of battery or extreme cruelty.119 

As of the publication of the 2012 Annual Report, USCIS had 

not published regulations, or policy guidance, implementing 

INA §106(a).
30 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

Customer Service

A U.S. company petitioned for a temporary worker to become a permanent resident based on his job skills. 

While this petition was pending, the employee’s wife became a naturalized U.S. citizen and also filed a 

petition for him to qualify for an immigrant visa as her spouse. The customer requested that USCIS convert 

his pending employment-based application to a family-based application. He waited for months, but did 

not receive an acknowledgement of his request from USCIS. The customer then called the USCIS customer 

service line on numerous occasions and visited the closest USCIS office, which was over 300 miles from his 

home. Unfortunately, he was unable to get his case back on track. The Ombudsman’s Office requested that 

the USCIS offices involved coordinate action on his case. USCIS offices around the country worked together 

to resolve his case. He received his green card, allowing him to continue working and living in the United 

States with his family. 

* Photo courtesy of USCIS and the National Archives.
Annual Report to Congress – June 2012 31

Formal Recommendations

USCIS Service Requests: Recommendations to 

Improve the Quality of Responses to Inquiries from 

Individuals and Employers

On March 7, 2012, the Ombudsman’s Office made recommendations regarding USCIS’ Service Request Management 

Tool (SRMT). The SRMT is an electronic system used to 

manage inquiries submitted to USCIS by customers requiring assistance. The system tracks the customer’s inquiry from 

origination to completion; logs the customer issue and the 

form type; and provides USCIS an opportunity to identify 

real-time trends. In 2011, USCIS generated approximately 

78,000 service requests each month,120 and regularly met its 

15-day response target for most inquiries.121

While SRMT has enhanced USCIS’ ability to quickly respond 

to customer inquiries, stakeholders report that many of the 

responses fail to address the underlying issues or provide a 

substantive response. 

The Ombudsman’s Office made the following recommendations regarding increased efficiency and effectiveness in the 

use of the SRMT: 

1. Implement national quality assurance review 

procedures for service requests;

2. Establish a follow-up mechanism in the

SRMT system so that USCIS employees can 

provide customers with multiple responses 

(e.g. initial, follow-up, final) under the same 

service request; 

3. Complete the expansion of self-generated

e-Requests to all form types; 

* Photo courtesy of USCIS.
32 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

4. Pilot mandatory supervisory review of certain 

SRMT responses; and 

5. Post SRMT reports on the USCIS website 

and standardize the use of SRMT reports 

to identify spikes, trends or other customer 

service issues. 

On June 14,2012, USCIS issued a response, outside of the 

2012 reporting period.

Recommendations Regarding USCIS’ Role in the 

Petition Information Management Service

In 2007, the U.S. Department of State (DOS) began using the 

Petition Information Management Service (PIMS) to improve 

the security and efficiency of the visa issuance process.122

PIMS enables consular officers to electronically verify employment-based, nonimmigrant petition approval. Petitioners are 

required to file employment-based, nonimmigrant petitions 

and supporting documents (petition packages) in duplicate 

with USCIS.123 Upon approval, USCIS sends the petition 

packages to the DOS Kentucky Consular Center (KCC) for 

scanning and uploading into PIMS. When information is 

transmitted properly, consular officers are able to use PIMS to 

quickly call up and review petition approval data and certain 

documents submitted in support of the petition. This allows 

officers to conduct more thorough visa interviews, thereby 

enhancing the integrity of the visa interview process.

Since the implementation of PIMS, stakeholders have reported that DOS has refused visas or delayed issuance to some 

nonimmigrant worker beneficiaries because required petition 

information was not found in PIMS. According to DOS, in 

approximately nine percent of employment-based nonimmigrant cases, petition information is not available to DOS 

officers overseas.124 

USCIS does not forward a petition package to the KCC 

when the petitioner fails to submit a duplicate copy of 

their petition package. In some cases, this failure to transmit petition information causes a delay in the issuance of 

nonimmigrant visas to eligible applicants. As a result, many 

individuals and employers experience increased travel expenses, additional relocation costs, and possible economic 

losses due to an employee’s inability to begin employment in the United States. Similarly, the government incurs 

increased costs when resources and officer time must be 

dedicated to the rescheduling of interviews and PIMS 

work-around procedures. 

Figure 6: USCIS Service Requests (April 1, 2011 – March 31, 2012)

Beyond Processing Time (154,601)

Typographical Error (83,737)

Non-Delivery Issues (100,248)

Other (294,618)

Change of Address (306,695)

Source: Information provided to the Ombudsman’s Office by USCIS (May 30, 2012).
Annual Report to Congress – June 2012 33

In May 2012, the Ombudsman’s Office made the following 

recommendations to USCIS to improve communication with 

DOS in ways that would enhance the accuracy and effectiveness of PIMS:

1. Instruct USCIS service centers to make 

a copy of the Form I-129, Petition for a 

Nonimmigrant Worker, submission (petition 

package) regardless of whether a duplicate 

petition package has been submitted with the 

filing, and send it to the KCC for uploading 

into PIMS; or, 

2. Send the original petition package to the

KCC, for scanning of documents, data entry, 

and—upon completion—forward the original 

petition package to the USCIS National 

Records Center for storage; or,

3. Scan all approved petition packages at a 

USCIS facility, so electronic copies can be 

forwarded to the KCC for uploading into PIMS.

As of the publication of the 2012 Annual Report, USCIS had 

not yet issued a response.

Issues the Ombudsman’s Office Plans to 

Formally Review within the Next 180 Days

The Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements 

Program: Improving the Process for Individuals, 

Employers, and USCIS Customer Agencies 

Established by statute in 1986, the Systematic Alien Verification 

for Entitlements (SAVE) Program is an inter-governmental 

initiative designed to aid federal, state, and local benefitgranting agencies in determining an applicant’s immigration 

status. Use of the SAVE Program is mandatory for certain 

federal, state and local agencies that administer select federally funded benefits.125 

SAVE currently provides services to over 980 benefit-granting 

agencies, including entities that administer benefits such as 

Medicaid, food stamps, drivers’ licenses, and Supplemental Security Income.126 SAVE verifications are conducted to 

ensure that only eligible individuals receive public benefits, 

licenses, permits, etc. 

Stakeholders have reported various concerns regarding SAVE 

to the Ombudsman’s Office, particularly with regard to data 

integrity. When experiencing problems connected with SAVE 

queries, individuals seeking public benefits are advised to 

contact the agency that owns the record in question.127 This 

typically requires a visit to a CBP Deferred Inspection Site,128

or an InfoPass appointment at a USCIS office.129 

Many stakeholders contact the Ombudsman’s Office for 

information about how to correct erroneous information. The 

Ombudsman’s Office is formally reviewing these issues and 

plans to issue recommendations within the next 180 days.

Notices to Appear, Removal Priorities, and 

Immigration Court Docket Efficiency 

Legal Sufficiency Review of Notices to Appear. USCIS has 

the authority to issues Notices to Appear (NTAs) placing 

individuals into removal proceedings.130 NTAs lodge charges 

that may result in a person’s removal from the United States. 

These documents require careful review prior to being filed 

with the Immigration Court. 

On November 7, 2011, USCIS issued a policy memorandum entitled, “Revised Guidance for the Referral of Cases 

and Issuance of Notices to Appear (NTAs) in Cases Involving Inadmissible and Removable Aliens.”131 The revised 

* Image courtesy of the National Archives.
34 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

guidance does not require any NTA to undergo a legal 

sufficiency review, or any other type of review, prior to 

filing the documents with the immigration court. NTAs 

are sometimes reviewed by USCIS supervisors, or teams of 

designated adjudicators who are not employed by USCIS 

in attorney positions. By contrast, ICE submits 100% of its 

NTAs to their attorneys for legal sufficiency review.132

Removal Priorities. On June 17, 2011, ICE issued a policy 

memorandum entitled, “Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion 

Consistent with the Civil Immigration Enforcement Priorities 

of the Agency for the Apprehension, Detention, and Removal 

of Aliens.”133 This memorandum outlines the criteria that ICE 

will use to determine who it will place in removal proceedings and under what circumstances it will do so. 

USCIS established new guidelines for referring cases to ICE 

in a manner that promotes the sound use of the resources 

of DHS and the U.S. Department of Justice.134 The guidance 

does not directly establish priorities for the use of prosecutorial discretion in the same manner as the June 17, 2011 

ICE memorandum.

Immigration Court Docket Efficiency. USCIS plays several 

essential roles connected with the fair administration of removal proceedings: 

•	 When a respondent in immigration proceedings has an

application or petition pending with USCIS that may 

serve as the basis for relief from removal, or provide an 

immigration status that renders removal proceedings 

unnecessary, USCIS coordinates the processing of 

that application/petition with ICE’s Office of the 

Chief Counsel.135

 

•	 USCIS Application Support Centers capture biometrics on

behalf of the Immigration Court.

•	 USCIS fees-in, provides a receipt for, and processes (but

does not adjudicate) certain applications that are filed 

with the Immigration Court and that will be reviewed 

and adjudicated by the Immigration Judge.

•	 USCIS works with the ICE Office of Enforcement

and Removal Operations to capture biometrics and/ 

or provide immigration benefit interviews for individuals who are detained pending the outcome of 

removal proceedings.136 

Delays in the processing of immigration benefits applications 

filed by individuals in proceedings can cause backlogs both at 

USCIS and at the Immigration Court. Delays in the delivery of 

services needed by individuals in removal proceedings—such

as the collection of biometrics, or the provision of receipts for 

applications filed with the Immigration Court—can extend the

time necessary to complete removal proceedings. 

Early in 2009, USCIS, ICE, and EOIR began negotiations to 

establish policies for the efficient use of resources and to 

coordinate sub-functions within the removal process.137 An 

August 20, 2010 ICE Memorandum entitled, “Guidance Regarding the Handling of Removal Proceedings of Aliens with 

Pending or Approved Applications or Petitions,”138 established 

priorities to address docket inefficiency and delay. USCIS issued companion guidance in February 2011, in the form of 

an update to the Adjudicator’s Field Manual (AFM), entitled, 

“Guidance for Coordinating the Adjudication of Applications 

and Petitions Involving Individuals in Removal Proceedings; 

Revisions to the Adjudicator’s Field Manual (AFM) New 

Chapter 10.3(i): AFM Update AD 11-16.”139

Legally sound charging documents, DHS-wide removal 

priorities, and careful coordination among USCIS, ICE, and 

EOIR are essential to the efficient processing of immigration 

benefits applications, as well as efficient administration of the 

EOIR docket. The Ombudsman’s Office is reviewing measures 

to enhance interagency cooperation and plans to issue formal 

recommendations within 180 days.
Annual Report to Congress – June 2012 35

Ongoing Concerns

Representation Issues: The Role of Attorneys and 

Other Representatives in a Non-Adversarial Process

On January 17, 2012, USCIS issued a proposed policy memorandum entitled, “The Role of Private Attorneys and Other 

Representatives; Revisions to Adjudicator’s Field Manual 

(AFM) Chapters 12 and 15; AFM Update AD11-4”140 and solicited comments from interested parties. This policy memorandum touched on several areas affecting the appearance of 

attorneys and other representatives during USCIS interviews. 

It provided a proposed update to AFM Chapter 12: Attorneys 

and Other Representatives, which was unavailable due to ongoing revisions that USCIS began on June 16, 2006.141 Thus, 

Immigration Services Officers (ISOs) were interacting with 

attorneys and other representatives during USCIS interviews 

without a clear set of guidelines.

Attorneys and accredited representatives have raised concerns 

that USCIS interviews can become adversarial. Clarifying the 

role of attorneys and other representatives during the interview process through guidance and training will allow ISOs 

to effectively and efficiently adjudicate applications and petitions for immigration benefits without unnecessary conflicts

or interruptions.

On February 14, 2012, the Ombudsman’s Office provided 

feedback regarding the policy memorandum and suggested 

that USCIS:

•	 Clearly define what is meant by “inappropriate line of

questioning” to allow attorneys and other representatives 

to better identify when it is appropriate to object to an 

ISO’s line of questioning during interviews;

•	 Clearly define what is meant by “clarifying questions”

so that attorneys and other representatives have a clear 

understanding of when to respond to an ISO’s question 

during interviews;

•	 Provide guidelines on submitting a Form G-28, Notice

of Entry of Appearance as Attorney or Accredited Representative, at the time of interview; 

•	 Explain how representatives may present evidence during

interviews; and

•	 Provide further guidance and training to ISOs on how to

conduct non-adversarial interviews.

After the close of the current reporting period, on May 23, 

2012, USCIS issued an update to the AFM, entitled, “Representation and Appearances and Interview Techniques; 

Revisions to Adjudicator’s Field Manual (AFM)Chapters 12 

and 15.”142

The Ombudsman’s Office will continue to solicit feedback 

from stakeholders regarding USCIS’ implementation of this 

policy memorandum, and will continue to work with USCIS to ensure that the role of attorneys and other representatives is defined in a manner that fosters a non-adversarial 

interview process. 
36 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

The USCIS Administrative Appeals Office

When USCIS denies certain applications or petitions, affected 

individuals and employers may appeal the denial to the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO). The Ombudsman’s Office 

is examining the AAO’s role in ensuring an effective and efficient appeals process. 

The amount of time required to receive an appellate decision from the AAO varies depending upon the type of benefit 

sought and can take up to 36 months. USCIS reports AAO 

processing times for intra-company transferee petitions as 22 

months. Such extensive delays severely disadvantage businesses attempting to compete in today’s dynamic business 

environment. As a result of such delays many stakeholders 

have elected to avoid the appeals process all together. In this 

case, justice delayed is, in fact, justice denied.

The Ombudsman’s Office will be conducting a thorough review of AAO procedures during the coming reporting period.

Form Type

Months

Number of Months Past Processing Time Goal

AAO Processing Time Goal of Six Months

I-601 Application for Waiver of Inadmissibility

I-360 EB4 Petition for Religious Worker

I-140 EB3 Skilled or Professional Worker

I-140 EB2 Advanced Degree Professional

I-140 EB1 Multinational Manager or Executive

I-140 EB1 Outstanding Professor or Researcher

I-140 EB1 Alien with Extraordinary Ability

I-129 L Nonimmigrant Intracompany Transferee

I-129 H1B Nonimmigrant Specialty Occupation Worker

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Figure 7: AAO Processing Times

AAO Processing Times

Source: USCIS, Administrative Appeals Office Processing Times (April 10, 2012). 
Annual Report to Congress – June 2012 37

The global movement of people is a complex process, influenced by everything from economic success to natural disasters. In

order to accommodate the changing needs of the United States, immigration law and policy must not become static, or mired 

in administrative red tape. Consistent with its statutory mission, over the course of the next year, the Ombudsman’s Office will 

continue to review USCIS’ policies and processes, with an emphasis on: 

•	 Use of technology to enhance the adjudication process.

•	 Improving customer service provided to applicants and petitioners.

•	 Ensuring access to immigration benefits for vulnerable and “at-risk” groups.

•	 Implementing rules and regulations in a fair, consistent, and effective manner.

Immediately prior to the publication of this report, Secretary Janet Napolitano announced that certain young people, who 

were brought to the United States as children, who do not present a risk to national security or public safety, and who meet 

several key criteria will be considered for relief from removal. The Ombudsman’s Office will observe USCIS’ implementation 

of the Secretary’s directive and offer recommendations to ensure a sound process. 

Finally, improvements to our internal processes, including a new case management system and expanded outreach, will enhance 

the ability of the Ombudsman’s Office to serve individuals and employers experiencing difficulties in navigating the immigration 

benefits process. 

The Year Ahead: Priorities and 

Objectives for the Ombudsman’s Office
38 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

Appendix 1: Homeland Security Act Excerpts 

Homeland Security Act—Section 452—

Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

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 recommendation 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;

 (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.
Annual Report to Congress – June 2012 39

	 	 2)	 REPORTTO 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)	 CONSULTALTION—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.
40 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

Appendix 2: Prior Formal Recommendations Chart

The following chart lists each prior formal recommendation and its current classification. 

Recommendation Date Implemented Active Declined Closed

53. Recommendations Regarding USCIS’ Role in the Petition Information 

Management Service 05/16/12 Active

52. USCIS Service Requests: Recommendations to Improve the Quality of 

Responses to Inquiries from Individuals and Employers 03/07/12 Active

51. Recommendations to Improve the Quality in Extraordinary Ability and 

Other Employment-Based Adjudications 12/29/11 Active

50. Employment Authorization for Asylum Applicants: Recommendations to 

Improve Coordination and Communication 08/26/11 Active

49. Employment Authorization Documents: Meeting the 90 Day Mandate and 

Minimizing the Impact of Delay on Individuals and Employers 07/18/11 Active

48. Deferred Action: Recommendations to Improve Transparency and 

Consistency in the USCIS Process 07/11/11 Active

47. Special Immigrant Juvenile Adjudications: An Opportunity for Adoption of 

Best Practices 04/15/11 Active

46. Customer Complaints: A Tool for Quality Customer Service and 

Accountability 03/23/11 Active

45. Waivers of Inadmissibility: Additional Improvements Needed to Enhance 

the Current Filing Process and Minimize Reluctance to File 06/10/10 Active

44. Emergent or Denied Refugee Applications: Expediting Cases, 

Articulating Reasons for Denial, and Issuing Guidance for Requests for 

Reconsideration

04/14/10 Active

43. Temporary Acceptance of Filed Labor Condition Applications (LCAs) for 

Certain H-1B Filings 10/23/09 Closed

42. Motions Matter: Improving the Filing and Review Process for Motions to 

Reopen or Reconsider 05/15/09 Active

41. Improving the Process for Payment of USCIS Filing Fees and Other Costs 04/01/09 Active

40. Employment Creation Immigrant Visa (EB-5) Program Recommendations 03/18/09 Active

39. Improving the Process for Victims of Human Trafficking and Certain 

Criminal Activity: The T and U Visa 01/29/09 Implemented

38. Observations on the E-Verify Experience in Arizona and Recommended 

Customer Service Enhancements 12/22/08 Implemented

37. Study and Recommendations on Naturalization Oath Ceremonies 12/16/08 Implemented

36. Improving the Processing of “Schedule A” Nurse Visas 12/05/08 Declined

35. Recommendations on USCIS Processing Delays for Employment 

Authorization Documents 10/02/08 Declined

34. Recommendation that USCIS Clarify its Refund of Fees Procedures and

Revise the Adjudicator’s Field Manual, Section 10.10 “Refund of Fees” 

Accordingly

04/08/08 Implemented

33. Petitions Returned by the U.S. Department of State to USCIS 08/24/07 Active
Annual Report to Congress – June 2012 41

Recommendation Date Implemented Active Declined Closed

32. Deferred Action 04/06/07 Active

31. Advance Notice for Changes in USCIS Policy 02/08/07 Declined

30. Freedom of Information Act Issues 07/12/06 Active

29. O Petition Regulations 06/30/06 Declined

28. Online Change of Address Procedure 06/09/06 Implemented

27. Family-Based Processing 05/19/06 Closed

26. DNA Testing 04/12/06 Active

25. Employment Authorization 03/20/06 Active

24. Asylum Procedures 03/20/06 Closed

23. Military Fingerprint Requirements 03/20/06 Closed

22. Notice to Appear Procedures 03/20/06 Closed

21. Asylum Grant (I-94 Issues) 12/07/05 Closed

20. AAO Procedures 12/06/05 Active

19. Asylum Decision Mail Procedures 10/12/05 Declined

18. H-1B Cap Notice 08/28/05 Implemented

17. Removal of “Return Service Requested” from USCIS Correspondence 07/29/05 Closed

16. Refugee Travel Documents 06/10/05 Declined

15. Lock-Box Operations Number Two 05/09/05 Closed

14. Termination of Pilot Programs 02/25/05 Closed

13. Permanent Resident Card Issuance 12/15/04 Implemented

12. Lock-Box Operations Number One 11/29/04 Closed

11. InfoPass Implementation 11/29/04 Implemented

10. Naturalization (Section 319(a) of the INA) 10/06/04 Implemented

9. Availability of USCIS Forms 10/06/04 Closed

8. Expansion of Premium Processing 09/27/04 Closed

7. E-filing Fee Structure 08/16/04 Declined

6. I-9 Electronic Storage 08/16/04 Closed

5. Customer Service Training 08/16/04 Implemented

4. Modification of Fee Instructions 06/29/04 Implemented

3. Legal Permanent Resident Card Replacement Procedures 06/18/04 Closed

2. Streamlining Employment-Based Adjudications 06/18/04 Closed

1. Streamlining Family-Based Adjudications 06/18/04 Closed

TOTAL (53) 11 19 7 16
42 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

TRANSPORTATION 

SECURITY 

ADMINISTRATION

U.S. SECRET 

SERVICE

U.S. 

IMMIGRATION 

& CUSTOMS 

ENFORCEMENT

FEDERAL 

EMERGENCY 

MANAGEMENT 

AGENCY

U.S. COAST 

GUARD

U.S. CITIZENSHIP 

& IMMIGRATION 

SERVICES

U.S. CUSTOMS 

& BORDER 

PROTECTION

DOMESTIC 

NUCLEAR 

DETECTION 

OFFICE

FEDERAL LAW 

ENFORCEMENT 

TRAINING 

CENTER

CIVIL RIGHTS & 

CIVIL LIBERTIES

CHIEF 

PRIVACY 

OFFICER

CITIZENSHIP & 

IMMIGRATION 

SERVICES 

OMBUDSMAN

OPERATIONS 

COORDINATION 

& PLANNING

INTELLIGENCE & 

ANALYSIS

Inter –

governmental

Affairs

HEALTH AFFAIRS

CHIEF 

FINANCIAL 

OFFICER

INSPECTOR

GENERAL

PUBLIC

AFFAIRS

LEGISLATIVE

AFFAIRS

GENERAL 

COUNSEL POLICY

NAT’L PROTECTION

& PROGRAMS

Directorate

SCIENCE &

TECHNOLOGY

Directorate

MANAGEMENT

Directorate

MILITARY ADVISOR

EXECUTIVE SECRETARIAT

CHIEF OF STAFF

SECRETARY 

DEPUTY SECRETARY

Appendix 3: U.S. Department of Homeland Security Organizational Chart 

Source: U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Organizational Chart (April 1, 2012).
Annual Report to Congress – June 2012 43

Appendix 4: Acting Ombudsman Letter to USCIS on Military Immigration Issues
44 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman
Annual Report to Congress – June 2012 45

Endnotes 

1 Homeland Security Act of 2002 (HSA) § 452, Pub. L. No. 107-296.

2 Id.

3 Ombudsman Report, “Comprehensive Recommendation Review” 

(Feb. 24, 2012); http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/cisomb-recrev-final.pdf (accessed May 22, 2012).

4 Ombudsman Recommendation, “Motions Matter: Improving the 

Filing and Review Process for Motions to Reopen or Reconsider” 

(May 15, 2009); http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/cisomb_

recommendation_42_5-15-09.pdf (accessed May 30, 2012).

5 USCIS Memorandum, “Response to Recommendation 42, Motions 

Matter: Improving the Filing and Review Process for Motions to 

Reopen or Reconsider” (Aug. 18, 2009); http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Office%20of%20Communications/Homepage/Ombudsman%20

Liaison%20Unit/OLU%20Responses%20to%20Formal%20

Recommendations/rec42_18aug09.pdf (accessed May 24, 2012).

6 USCIS News Release, “USCIS to Expedite Review for Certain Cases Affected by Specific Administrative Inaccuracies” (Apr. 4, 2012); http://

www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f61

4176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=30e001e301b76310VgnVCM10000008

2ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=68439c7755cb9010VgnVCM1000004

5f3d6a1RCRD (accessed May 22, 2012).

7 USCIS News Release, “USCIS Grants Temporary Extension of Accommodation for Sheepherders in H-2A Status” (Mar. 20, 2012); http://

www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f61

4176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=437c93b551f76310VgnVCM10000008

2ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=68439c7755cb9010VgnVCM1000004

5f3d6a1RCRD (accessed May 22, 2012). 

8 Id.

9 Participants in the creation of this guide included representatives from 

ICE, USCIS, CBP, the DHS Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, 

and the DHS Blue Campaign (an initiative aimed at coordinating and 

enhancing DHS anti-human trafficking efforts).

10 DHS Guide, “U Visa Law Enforcement Certification Resource Guide” 

(Dec. 2011); http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/dhs_u_visa_

certification_guide.pdf (accessed May 22, 2012).

11 USCIS Report, “USCIS Fiscal Year 2011 Highlights Report” (Mar. 

2012); http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/About%20Us/Budget,%20

Planning%20and%20Performance/USCIS%20Fiscal%20Year%20

2011%20Highlights%20Report.pdf (accessed May 22, 2012).

12 USCIS Press Release, “U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 

Press Conference on Strategic Goals and Initiatives for 2011” (Feb. 

17, 2011); http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/News/2011%20New%20

Items/February%202011/transcript_StrategicGoalsInit_2011.pdf (accessed May 22, 2012).

13 Id.

14 USCIS Webpage, “Public Engagement” (Nov. 10, 2011); http://www.

uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a75

43f6d1a/?vgnextoid=ea015fc544007210VgnVCM100000082ca60a

RCRD&vgnextchannel=ea015fc544007210VgnVCM100000082ca60

aRCRD (accessed May 25, 2012).

15 See supra note 11. 

16 See e.g. USCIS Webpage, “Chinese-Language Public Engagement” (Feb. 

24, 2012); http://www.uscis.gov/jiaoliu (accessed May 25, 2012).

17 See supra note 11.

18 USCIS Webpage, “Questions and Answers for Members of the Military” 

(Jan. 6, 2012); http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9b

b95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=51c515ecdd732210Vgn

VCM100000082ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=f1a03e4d77d73210VgnV

CM100000082ca60aRCRD (accessed May 25, 2012).

19 USCIS Fact Sheet, “Naturalization Through Military Service” (Nov. 4, 

2011); http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95

919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=26d805a25c4c4210VgnV

CM100000082ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=ce613e4d77d73210Vgn

VCM100000082ca60aRCRD (accessed May 25, 2012).

20 Information provided to the Ombudsman’s Office by USCIS 

(May 24, 2012).

21 USCIS Fact Sheet, “National Initiative to Combat Immigration Services 

Scams” (Jun. 9, 2011); http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/

menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=3a983ffa

91570310VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=8a2f6d26d

17df110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCRD (accessed May 25, 2012).

22 See supra note 11.

23 See supra note 11.

24 See supra note 11.

25 USCIS Webpage, “Entrepreneurs in Residence (EIR)” (Apr. 13, 2012); 

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac

89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=d44eee876cb85310VgnVCM10000

0082ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=d44eee876cb85310VgnVCM10000

0082ca60aRCRD (accessed May 30, 2012) (“[t]he EIR initiative allows 

federal agencies to engage with outside experts who bring state-of-the 

art thinking in business processes, innovation and information technology. USCIS is the second federal agency to embrace the EIR model. The 

U.S. Food and Drug Administration first piloted an EIR model focused 

on medical devices. Using the DHS Loaned Executive Program to stand 

up EIR, USCIS sought external experts including entrepreneurs, business 

leaders, and academics to work in-house reviewing USCIS policies, 

practices and training. As one of the first federal agencies to embrace 

this tool for government innovation, USCIS will focus this inaugural 

initiative on immigrant entrepreneurs. Internal experts for the tactical 

team come from across the agency and include policy and legal experts 

as well as seasoned operations and fraud professionals.). 
46 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

26 USCIS Press Conference, “USCIS Announces Entrepreneurs In 

Residence Initiative” (Oct. 2011); http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/

News/2011/October%202011/transcript_eir_11Oct11.pdf (accessed 

May 24, 2012).

27 DHS Press Release, “Secretary Napolitano Announces Initiatives to 

Promote Startup Enterprises and Spur Job Creation” (Aug. 2011); 

http://www.dhs.gov/ynews/releases/20110802-napolitano-startupjob-creation-initiatives.shtm (accessed May 24, 2012).

28 Ombudsman Annual Report 2011, (Jun. 2011); http://www.dhs.

gov/xlibrary/assets/cisomb-annual-report-2011.pdf (accessed 

May 22, 2012).

29 USCIS Executive Summary, “USCIS Unauthorized Practice of Immigration Law Initiative” (Jun. 9, 2011); http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/

Outreach/Upcoming%20National%20Engagements/National%20Engagement%20Pages/2011%20Events/June%202011/FINAL%20executive%20summary%20-%20UPIL%20engagement%20sessions%20

%20(6-8-11).pdf (accessed May 25, 2012).

30 USCIS Memorandum, “Revised Guidance for the Referral of Cases and 

Issuance of Notices to Appear (NTAs) in Cases Involving Inadmissible and Removable Aliens” (Nov. 7, 2011); http://www.uscis.gov/

USCIS/Laws/Memoranda/Static_Files_Memoranda/NTA%20PM%20

(Approved%20as%20final%2011-7-11).pdf (accessed May 25, 2012).

31 Id.

32 USCIS Memorandum, “The Role of Private Attorneys and Other Representatives; Revisions to Adjudicator’s Field Manual (AFM) Chapters 

12 and 15; AFM Update AD11-42” (Jan. 17, 2012); http://www.

uscis.gov/USCIS/Outreach/Feedback%20Opportunities/Interim%20

Guidance%20for%20Comment/Role_of_Private_Attorneys_PM_

Approved_122111.pdf (accessed May 25, 2012).

33 USCIS Memorandum, “Expedited Case Review Process for SpecificallyDefined Administrative Errors” (Apr. 2012); http://www.uscis.gov/

USCIS/Laws/Memoranda/2012/April/Correcting_Administrative_

Error.pdf (accessed May 25, 2012).

34 DHS Press Release, “Secretary Napolitano Announces Initiatives to 

Promote Startup Enterprises and Spur Job Creation” (Aug. 2011); 

http://www.dhs.gov/ynews/releases/20110802-napolitano-startupjob-creation-initiatives.shtm (accessed May 30, 2012). 

35 White House Webpage, “Startup America” (Jan. 2011); http://www.

whitehouse.gov/economy/business/startup-america (accessed May 

30, 2012).

36 DHS Fact Sheet, “DHS Reforms to Attract And Retain Highly Skilled 

Immigrants” (Jan. 2012); http://www.dhs.gov/ynews/factsheets/20120131-dhs-retain-highly-skilled-immigrants.shtm, 

(accessed May 30, 2012); see supra note 35.

37 USCIS Fact Sheet, “USCIS Initiatives to Promote Startup Enterprises 

and Spur Job Creation” (Aug. 2011); http://www.uscis.gov/portal/

site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnex

toid=3f412bfb4cf81310VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD&vgnextcha

nnel=8a2f6d26d17df110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCRD (accessed 

May 30, 2012).

38 USCIS Webpage, “Frequently Asked Questions Regarding Entrepreneurs 

and the Employment-Based Second Preference Immigrant Visa Category” (Aug. 2011); http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=93da6b814ba8

1310VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=6abe6d26d17d

f110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCRD (accessed May 30, 2012).

39 USCIS Webpage, “How Do I Use the Premium Processing Service?” 

(Sep. 2011); http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9

bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=971b60657dd68210

VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=db029c7755cb901

0VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1RCRD (accessed May 30, 2012).

40 USCIS Webpage, “Questions & Answers: USCIS Issues Guidance 

Memorandum on Establishing the ‘Employee-Employer Relationship’ 

in H-1B Petitions” (Mar. 2012); http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/

uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=

3d015869c9326210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel

=6abe6d26d17df110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCRD (accessed May 

30, 2012).

41 USCIS Webpage, “USCIS Proposes Significant Enhancements to EB-5 

Visa Processing to Help America Win the Future” (May 2011); http://

www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f61

4176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=a4b57b52e5800310VgnVCM10000008

2ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=68439c7755cb9010VgnVCM1000004

5f3d6a1RCRD (May 30, 2012).

42 See supra note 14.

43 “Provisional Waivers of Inadmissibility for Certain Immediate Relatives of U.S. Citizens” 77 Fed. Reg. 5 (Jan. 9, 2012).

44 “Provisional Unlawful Presence Waivers of Inadmissibility for Certain 

Immediate Relatives; Proposed Rule” 77 Fed. Reg. 63 (Apr. 2, 2012).

45 USCIS News Release, “USCIS Proposes Process Change for Certain 

Waivers of Inadmissibility” (Mar. 30, 2012); http://www.uscis.gov/

portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a

/?vgnextoid=e784875decf56310VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD&v

gnextchannel=68439c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1RCRD 

(accessed May 22, 2012).

46 Information provided to the Ombudsman’s Office.

47 USCIS Webpage, “Validation Instrument for Business Enterprises (VIBE) 

Program” (Jan. 2012); http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/ 

menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=521d735

652f9d210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=521d7356

52f9d210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD (accessed May 30, 2012).

48 Id.

49 See supra note 28.

50 USCIS Webpage, “USCIS Launches Online Immigration System, USCIS 

ELIS” (May 2012); http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=4eaa169ccc47

7310VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=9e991d9c18f

67310VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD (accessed May 30, 2012). 

51 See supra note 1.
Annual Report to Congress – June 2012 47

52 INA § 203(b).

53 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h), (i), and (k) (2012).

54 596 F. 3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010).

55 USCIS Memorandum, “Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with 

Certain Form I-140 Petitions; Revisions to the Adjudicator’s Field 

Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update AD11-14” (Dec. 2010); 

http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Laws/Memoranda/i-140-evidencepm-6002-005-1.pdf (accessed May 30, 2012). 

56 USCIS Webpage, “USCIS Administrative Appeals Office: Request for 

Amicus Curiae Briefs” (Aug. 2011) http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/

Outreach/Feedback%20Opportunities/Amicus%20Briefs/Amicus_

Brief_Request_081611%20v2.pdf (accessed May 30, 2012).

57 Journal of the American Medical Association, September 15, 2010 – 

Vol 304, No. 11, Graduate Medical Education, 2009-2010, Sarah E. 

Brotherton, Ph.D., Sylvia I. Etzel. Citizenship/Visa Status of All Resident Physicians and International Medical Graduates (IMGs) on Duty 

in Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)-

Accredited and in Combined Specialty Programs, Dec. 31, 2009.

58 INA §§ 212(j)(2) and 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b).

59 INA § 214(g). 

60 See generally “Registration Requirement for Petitioners Seeking to File 

H-1B Petitions on Behalf of Aliens Subject to the Numerical Limitations” 76 Fed. Reg. 42 (Mar. 3, 2011).

61 INA § 214(g)(5)(A) - (B).

62 USCIS Webpage, “New Validation Tool Aids Adjudication of Certain 

Employment-Based Petitions Questions and Answers” (Jan. 24, 2012); 

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35

e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=3cb744db86ebd210VgnVCM100

000082ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=521d735652f9d210VgnVCM10

0000082ca60aRCRD (accessed May 30, 2012).

63 Award Notice, Solicitation Number HSSCCG-09-R-00005 (Aug. 5, 

2009); Dun & Bradstreet (D&B), “D&B Briefing for USCIS Information 

Sharing Session” (May 27, 2010).

64 See supra note 28.

65 USCIS Alert, “H-2A Optional Checklist and Questions & Answers in 

Light of USCIS’s Implementation of VIBE” (Jun. 1, 2011); http://

www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66

f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=ff44be4e1c740310VgnVCM1000

00082ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=e7801c2c9be44210VgnVCM1 

00000082ca60aRCRD (accessed Jun. 13, 2011).

66 Ombudsman Teleconference, “USCIS Validation Instrument for Business 

Enterprises (VIBE) — How Is ItWorking ForYou?” (Jan. 11, 2012).

67 A qualifying investment in a new commercial enterprise must create 

full-time employment for at least ten U.S. citizens, lawful permanent 

residents, or other immigrants lawfully authorized to be employed in 

the United States. INA § 203(b)(5)(a)(ii). 

68 Full time employment means “employment in a position that requires 

at least 35 hours of service per week at any time, regardless of who 

fills the position.” INA § 203(b)(5)(D). 

69 “Rural area” is defined as “any area other than an area within a metropolitan statistical area or within the outer boundary of any city or town having 

a population of 20,000 or more (based on the most recent decennial 

census of the United States).” INA § 203(b)(5)(B)(iii). 

70 “Targeted employment area” means that “at the time of the investment, a rural area or an area which has experienced high unemployment (of at least 150 percent of the national average rate).” INA § 

203(b)(5)(B)(ii). 

71 INA § 203(b)(5)(C)(i).

72 See e.g. GAO Report, “Immigrant Investors: Small Number of Participants Attributed to Pending Regulations and Other Factors” GAO-05-

256 (Apr. 2005). 

73 Ombudsman Recommendation, “Employment Creation Immigrant 

Visa (EB-5) Program Recommendations” (May 18, 2009); http://

www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/CIS_Ombudsman_EB-5_Recommendation_3_18_09.pdf (accessed May 4, 2012).

74 Information provided to the Ombudsman’s Office by DOS (May 24, 

2012). In Fiscal Year 2009, 58% of EB-5 visas were unused; in Fiscal 

Year 2010, 81% were unused; in Fiscal Year 2011, 65% were unused. 

75 See supra note 73.

76 USCIS Webpage, “EB-5 Stakeholder Engagement” (Mar. 28, 2012); 

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35

e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=c4d08e0732344310VgnVCM100

000082ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=61ca6ec2ac3ee210VgnVCM100

000082ca60aRCRD (accessed May 30, 2012).

77 Ombudsman Recommendation, “Special Immigrant Juvenile Adjudications: An Opportunity for Adoption of Best Practices” (Apr. 15, 2011); 

http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/Citizenship-and-ImmigrationServices-Ombudsman-Recommendation-Special-Immigrant-JuvenileAdjudications.pdf (accessed May 10, 2012). 

78 USCIS Memorandum, “Response to Recommendation 47, Special 

Immigrant Juvenile Adjudications: An Opportunity for Adoption 

of Best Practices” (Jul. 13, 2011); http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/

Resources/Ombudsman%20Liaison/Responses%20to%20

Formal%20Recommendations/cisomb-2011-response47.pdf 

(accessed May 10, 2012). 

79 See supra note 77.

80 See supra note 78. 

81 “Special Immigrant Juvenile Petitions” 76 Fed. Reg. 54978 (Sep. 6, 2011).

82 William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims’ Protection Reauthorization 

Act of 2008 (TVPRA 2008), Pub. L. No. 110-457 (2008). 

83 INA § 216.

84 8 C.F.R. §216.4 (2012).
48 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

85 Form I-751 can be filed jointly or by the conditional resident alone as 

a waiver of the joint filing requirement when: (a) The marriage was 

entered into in good faith but was terminated (other than through 

death); (b) The marriage was entered into in good faith but the 

petitioning spouse subjected the conditional resident to battery or 

extreme cruelty; or (c) Removal of the conditional resident from the 

U.S. would cause him or her extreme hardship.

86 8 C.F.R. §216.5 (2012).

87 INA §216(d)(2)(B); 8 C.F.R. §216.4(a)(6) (2012).

88 INA §216(a)(2); 8 C.F.R. §216.2(a),(b) (2012).

89 Information provided to the Ombudsman’s Office.

90 USCIS Memorandum, “Approval of Petitions and Applications After 

the Death of the Qualifying Relative under New Section 204(l) of the 

Immigration and Nationality Act; Revisions to the Adjudicator’s Field 

Manual (AFM): New Chapter 10.21 and an Amendment to Chapter 

21.2(h)(1)(c) AFM Update AD-10-51” (Dec. 16, 2010); http://

www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Laws/Memoranda/2011/January/Death-ofQualifying-Relative.pdf (accessed May 30, 2012). 

91 Information provided to the Ombudsman’s Office by USCIS 

(Nov. 4, 2011).

92 Information provided to the Ombudsman’s Office. 

93 Letter from Lofgren, Thornberry, Conyers, Pence, et al., Members of 

the U.S. House of Representatives, to Janet Napolitano, Secretary of the 

Department of Homeland Security (Jul. 9, 2010). 

94 Letter from Janet Napolitano, Secretary of Homeland Security, to Zoe 

Lofgren, Member of the House of Representatives (Aug. 20, 2010).

95 Letter from Debra Rogers, Acting CIS Ombudsman, to Alejandro Mayorkas, Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (May 22, 2012) 

(Appendix 4).

96 DHS Memorandum, “Delegation to the Bureau of Citizenship and 

Immigration Services” (Mar. 1, 2003) (delegating authority to grant 

voluntary departure under § 240B of the INA and deferred action);

see also INS Fact Sheet, “Prosecutorial Discretion Guidelines” 

(Nov. 28, 2000).

97 USCIS Memorandum, “Response to Recommendation 48, Deferred 

Action: Recommendations to Improve Transparency and Consistency 

in the USCIS Process” (Oct. 27, 2011); http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/

Resources/Ombudsman%20Liaison/Responses%20to%20Formal%

20Recommendations/cisomb-2011-response-48.pdf (accessed 

May 30, 2012).

98 INA § 208(d)(2); 8 CFR § 208.7(a)(2011); 8 CFR § 1208.7(a)

(2011); 8 CFR § 274a.12(c)(8)(2011).

99 Id.

100 Ombudsman Recommendation, “Employment Authorization for 

Asylum Applicants: Recommendations to Improve Coordination and 

Communication” (Aug. 26, 2011); http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/

assets/cisomb-employment-authorization-for-asylum-08262011.pdf 

(accessed May 30, 2012).

101 USCIS Memorandum, “Response to Recommendation 50, Employment 

Authorization for Asylum Applications: Recommendations to Improve 

Coordination and Communication” (Jan. 4, 2012); http://www.uscis.

gov/USCIS/Resources/Ombudsman%20Liaison/Responses%20to%20

Formal%20Recommendations/USCIS%20Response%20to%20

Formal%20Recommendation%2050.pdf (accessed May 30, 2012).

102 Id.

103 EOIR Memorandum, “Operating Policies and Procedures Memorandum11-02: The Asylum Clock” (Nov. 15, 2011); http://www.justice.

gov/eoir/efoia/ocij/oppm11/11-02.pdf (accessed May 30, 2012).

104 TVPRA 2008 § 235(d)(8).

105 HSA § 462(g)(2); TVPRA 2008 § 235. 

106 HSA § 462; and see TVPRA 2008 §§ 235(a)(4), (b)(3); and see HHS 

Webpage, “Unaccompanied Children’s Services” http://www.acf.hhs.

gov/programs/orr/programs/unaccompanied_alien_children.htm 

(accessed May 30, 2012).

107 TVPRA 2008 § 235(d)(7)(B).

108 See generally USCIS Manual, “Affirmative Asylum Procedures Manual” 

(Nov. 2007); http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Humanitarian/Refugees%20&%20Asylum/Asylum/2007_AAPM.pdf (accessed May 30, 

2012); and see USCIS Agenda Items, “USCIS Asylum Division Quarterly Stakeholder Meeting” (Mar. 11, 2010); http://www.uscis.gov/

USCIS/Outreach/Upcoming%20National%20Engagements/

National%20Engagement%20Pages/2010%20Events/October%20

2010/Asylum%20Quarterly%20QA.pdf (May 30, 2012).

109 USCIS Memorandum, “Implementation of Statutory Change Providing USCIS with Initial Jurisdiction over Asylum Applications Filed 

by Unaccompanied Alien Children” (Mar. 25, 2009); http://www. 

uscis.gov/USCIS/Laws/Memoranda/Static_Files_Memoranda/2009/

uac_filings_5f25mar09.pdf (accessed May 30, 2012).

110 Id.

111 See supra note 104.

112 Ombudsman Recommendation, “Improving the Process for Victims 

of Human Trafficking and Certain Criminal Activity: The T and U Visa 

Recommendation” (Jan. 29, 2009); http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/

assets/cisomb_tandu_visa_recommendation_2009-01-26.pdf (accessed May 30, 2012).

113 USCIS Memorandum, “Response to Recommendation 39, Improving 

the Process for Victims of Trafficking and Certain Criminal Activity: 

The T and U Visas” (May 2009); http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/

assets/uscis_response_cisomb_rec_39.pdf (accessed May 30, 2012).

114 Id.

115 Id.

116 See USCIS Webpage, “USCIS Processing Time Information” 

https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/processingTimesDisplay.do (accessed 

May 2, 2012).

117 Information provided to the Ombudsman’s Office.
Annual Report to Congress – June 2012 49

118 Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization 

Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-162 (2006).

119 INA § 106(a).

120 Information provided to the Ombudsman’s Office by USCIS 

(Jan.12, 2012). 

121 Information provided to the Ombudsman’s Office by USCIS (May 

25, 2011). USCIS provides a five day target for inquiries requesting 

expedited service or change of address and a seven day target deadline 

for special accommodations during an interview or appointment. 

122 See generally National Association of Foreign Student Advisors Summary, “NAFSA /Department of State Liaison Call” (Sep. 15, 2010); 

www.nafsa.org/uploadedFiles/DOS%20Liaison%20Call%20091510.

doc (accessed May 10, 2012).

123 See USCIS Instructions for Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant 

Worker (Jan. 19, 2011); http://www.uscis.gov/files/form/i-129instr.

pdf (accessed May 24, 2012) (Instructions state, “Submit a duplicate 

copy of the petition and all supporting documentation.”).

124 Information provided to the Ombudsman’s Office by DOS 

(Jun. 21, 2011). 

125 See Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, Public Law 99-603. 

See also Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation 

Act of 1996 (PRWORA), Public Law 104-193; Illegal Immigration 

Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA); Real ID 

Act of 2005; and Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, 

Public Law No. 111-148. 

126 USCIS Webpage, “Who Can Use SAVE?” (Oct. 18, 2011); http://

www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243

c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=36bfd63b1a43b210VgnVCM100000082

ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=36bfd63b1a43b210VgnVCM10000008

2ca60aRCRD (accessed May 30, 2012).

127 USCIS Webpage, “How to Correct Your Records” (Jul. 2011); http://

www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f61

4176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=77d3feb9a2ca8210VgnVCM100000082

ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=1721c2ec0c7c8110VgnVCM10000047

18190aRCRD (accessed May 30, 2012).

128 Id.; see also CBP Webpage, “Deferred Inspection: Overview” (Jan. 2012); 

http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/toolbox/contacts/deferred_inspection/

overview_deferred_inspection.xml (accessed May 30, 2012).

129 See supra note 127; and see USCIS Webpage, “InfoPass” http://

infopass.uscis.gov/ (accessed May 30, 2012).

130 INA §§ 103, 221 and 239.

131 USCIS Memorandum, “Revised Guidance for the Referral of Cases and 

Issuance of Notices to Appear (NTAs) in Cases Involving Inadmissible and Removable Aliens” (Nov. 7, 2011); http://www.uscis.gov/

USCIS/Laws/Memoranda/Static_Files_Memoranda/NTA%20PM%20

(Approved%20as%20final%2011-7-11).pdf (accessed May 25, 2012).

132 Information provided to the Ombudsman’s Office by ICE (Sep. 22, 2011).

133 ICE Memorandum, “Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion Consistent 

with the Civil Immigration Enforcement Priorities of the Agency for 

the Apprehension, Detention, and Removal of Aliens” (Jun. 17, 2011); 

http://www.ice.gov/doclib/secure-communities/pdf/prosecutorialdiscretion-memo.pdf (accessed May 25, 2011).

134 See supra note 131.

135 EOIR Manual, “Immigration Court Practice Manual: Glossary” p. 9 

(Apr. 2008); http://www.justice.gov/eoir/vll/OCIJPracManual/

glossary.pdf (May 30, 2012).

136 See generally USCIS Fact Sheet, “USCIS and ICE Procedures Implementing 

EOIR Regulations on Background and Security Checks on Individuals Seeking Relief or Protection from Removal in Immigration Court 

or Before the BIA” (Aug. 2011); http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Laws/

Laws%20Static%20Files/EOIR_FactSheet_2011_FINAL.pdf (2012).

137 Information provided to the Ombudsman’s Office by USCIS 

(May 27, 2010).

138 ICE Memorandum, “Guidance Regarding the Handling of Removal 

Proceedings of Aliens with Pending or Approved Applications or 

Petitions” (Aug. 20, 2010); http://www.ice.gov/doclib/detention-reform/pdf/aliens-pending-applications.pdf (accessed May 25, 2012).

139 USCIS Memorandum, “Guidance for Coordinating the Adjudication of 

Applications and Petitions Involving Individuals in Removal Proceedings; Revisions to the Adjudicator’s Field Manual (AFM) New Chapter 

10.3(i): AFM Update AD 11-16” (Feb. 4, 2011); http://www.uscis.

gov/USCIS/Laws/Memoranda/2011/April/guidance-adjudicationremove-proceedings.pdf (accessed May 25, 2012).

140 USCIS Memorandum, “The Role of Private Attorneys and Other Representatives; Revisions to Adjudicator’s Field Manual (AFM) Chapters 

12 and 15; AFM Update AD11-4” (Dec. 23, 2011); http://www.

uscis.gov/USCIS/Outreach/Feedback%20Opportunities/Interim

%20Guidance%20for%20Comment/Role_of_Private_Attorneys

_PM_Approved_122111.pdf (May 30, 2012).

141 See USCIS Adjudicator’s Field Manual, “Chapter 12. Attorneys and Other 

Representatives” http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.f6da

51a2342135be7e9d7a10e0dc91a0/?vgnextoid=fa7e539dc4bed010Vgn

VCM1000000ecd190aRCRD&vgnextchannel=fa7e539dc4bed010VgnVC

M1000000ecd190aRCRD&CH=afm (accessed May 30, 2012).

142 USCIS Memorandum, “Representation and Appearances and Interview 

Techniques; Revisions to Adjudicator’s Field Manual (AFM)Chapters 

12 and 15; AFM Update ADII-42” (May 23, 2012); http://www.

uscis.gov/USCIS/Laws/Memoranda/2012/May/AFMs5-23-12.pdf 

(accessed June 11, 2012).

 * The Ombudsman’s Office would like to thank USCIS, the U.S. Coast 

Guard, the National Archives, the U.S. Park Service, and the New York 

Public Library for the use of their images and photographs.
50 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

This page intentionally left blank.

Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

U.S. Department of Homeland Security

Mail Stop 0180

Washington, DC 20528

Tel. 202-357-8100

Toll-free 1-855-882-8100

http://www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman

Send your comments to: cisombudsman@dhs.gov