Citizenship and Immigration Services

Ombudsman

Annual Report 2011

June 29, 2011

Citizenship and 

Immigration Services

Ombudsman

Annual 

Report 2011

June 29, 2011
ii Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

This page intentionally left blank.
Annual Report to Congress – June 2011 iii

Office of the Citizenship and Immigration Services

Ombudsman 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security

Mail Stop 1225

Washington, DC 20528-1225

June 29, 2011

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 2011 Annual Report. 

I am available to provide additional information upon request. 

Most sincerely, 

January Contreras 

Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

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

This page intentionally left blank.
Annual Report to Congress – June 2011 v

Message from the Ombudsman

Serving as the Ombudsman is a privilege. In this role, I have had the opportunity to interact with people from around the world 

who have immigrated, or are trying to immigrate, to the United States. They never cease to inspire me. They come as spouses, 

parents, children, brothers, and sisters seeking to reunite with family. They come as healthcare professionals, who aid our rural and 

underserved communities. They come as entrepreneurs and innovators. They come fleeing trafficking, violence, or persecution, and 

seeking haven from natural disasters. Still others come to serve in the U.S. Armed Forces of their adopted homeland and become 

U.S. citizens.

At the Department of Homeland Security, the Ombudsman’s Office has the responsibility for and privilege of helping all of these 

individuals, along with those who petition on their behalf, to navigate the citizenship and immigration process. On a one-on-one 

basis, we help resolve problems encountered by those seeking immigration benefits, and we make solution-oriented proposals to 

help improve the immigration benefits system.

In our 2011 Annual Report, we discuss the challenges that immigrants, families, and employers face in the humanitarian, family, 

and employment-based areas. We examine problems in customer service, opportunities for greater consistency in adjudications, 

and the need for modernized systems and processing. We also highlight areas – such as new public engagement initiatives, and 

other advancements and best practices – where citizenship and immigration services have improved, becoming more transparent, 

efficient, and customer-friendly. 

I thank U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Director Alejandro Mayorkas and USCIS officials in Headquarters and in offices around the country. Each time the Ombudsman’s Office helps resolve issues with pending applications 

and petitions, it does so with the help of USCIS adjudicators and supervisors. In addition, on issues ranging from attorney 

representation regulations to foreign investor adjudications, USCIS leaders have engaged with the Ombudsman’s Office in 

problem-solving dialogue and actions. 

I am thankful for the continued support of Secretary Janet Napolitano, Deputy Secretary Jane Holl Lute, and Congress, who 

are critical to our ability to serve the public.

Finally, I want to thank my staff for their dedication to our mission and for their work to help individuals and employers 

navigate the sometimes rough waters of the immigration benefits system. I have never before served in a role where I so 

consistently accept words of appreciation and blessings. I attribute this entirely to the deep commitment of my colleagues 

in the Ombudsman’s Office. We will continue to work diligently to identify systemic problems and improve the quality of 

services provided by USCIS.

Most sincerely,

January Contreras

Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman
vi Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

This page intentionally left blank.
Annual Report to Congress – June 2011 vii

Executive Summary 

The Office of the Citizenship Immigration Services 

Ombudsman 2011 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) major public engagement and policy initiatives; 

and

•	 A detailed discussion of pervasive and serious problems

and best practices in the humanitarian, family, and employment areas, as well as challenges in customer service 

and Transformation, the agency-wide effort to move 

immigration services from a paper-based model to an 

electronic environment. 

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. The Ombudsman’s Office is independent, confidential, and impartial. 

During the April 1, 2010 through March 31, 2011 reporting 

period, the Ombudsman’s Office opened 3,247 case inquiries. The Ombudsman’s Office also recommends ways to fix 

systemic issues to improve immigration services. 

USCIS Year in Review: Public Engagement and Policy 

Initiatives. During the reporting period, USCIS has pursued 

ambitious goals for public engagement and an agency-wide 

review of the policy and procedures that guide USCIS’ administration of immigration benefits. These efforts have demonstrated USCIS’ commitment to providing better immigration 

services. At the same time, many announced goals and initiatives remain outstanding. 

2011 Areas of Study: Pervasive and Serious Problems and 

Best Practices

The Ombudsman’s Annual Report, as mandated by section 

452(c)(1)(B) of the Homeland Security Act, must include a 

“summary of the most pervasive and serious problems encountered by individuals and employers.” 

Humanitarian. U.S. immigration law provides humanitarian 

avenues for immigrants in the most vulnerable and desperate 

of situations. 

•	 Enhancing Protections for Trafficking and Crime Victims through Humanitarian Programs and Training for 

USCIS and Law Enforcement. The U.S. Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS) has fostered initiatives focused 

on combating violence and enhancing protection for victims of human trafficking, domestic violence, and other 

crimes, while strengthening law enforcement’s ability 

to investigate and prosecute perpetrators. Interagency 

efforts, dedicated personnel, collaboration with external 

partners, and community outreach have led to major 

developments that further ensure victim safety. 

•	 USCIS Processing of Deferred Action Requests. Deferred action is a discretionary form of relief delegated 

by the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security to USCIS, as well as to ICE and CBP. Stakeholders 

have expressed concerns regarding delayed processing of 

deferred action requests submitted by Haitian nationals 

following the earthquake in January 2010. The Ombudsman’s Office is reviewing USCIS processing of deferred 

action requests. 

•	 The Asylum Clock: Asylum-Based Employment Authorization. The Ombudsman’s Office is examining a 

number of options for resolving difficulties encountered 

by asylum seekers attempting to obtain employment 

authorization, an issue commonly known as the “asylum clock.” Calculating time accrued for EAD eligibility 

presents a set of complex issues for applicants, advocates, 

USCIS personnel, and Immigration Court staff. 

Family and Children. Family unity has long been a foundation of U.S. immigration policy. The majority of individuals 

who obtain lawful permanent resident status in the United 

States do so based on a family relationship.

•	 Family-Based Visa Retrogression and the USCIS Response. The Ombudsman’s Office has devoted significant attention to the interagency administration of the 
viii Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

visa lines for both employment and family-based immigration. This section focuses on family-based visa lines, 

the backward movement of the U.S. Department of State 

Visa Bulletin cut-off dates (referred to as retrogression), 

the impact on individuals and families, and the USCIS 

response. 

•	 Survivor Benefits: Implementation of New Statutory 

Provisions. Enacted in 2009, Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) section 204(l) provides relief when the 

petitioner seeking an immigration benefit on behalf 

of a beneficiary dies before final adjudication of the 

beneficiary’s case. Historically, such beneficiaries lost 

eligibility to become a permanent resident upon the 

petitioner’s death. Following enactment of the statute, 

stakeholders reported to the Ombudsman’s Office that 

USCIS field offices were often unaware of the new 

provisions. This situation was not completely remedied 

by publication of USCIS policy guidance and requires 

additional USCIS action. 

•	 Military Immigration Issues: Supporting Those Who 

Serve. USCIS continues to enhance and refine outreach 

efforts to service members, and their spouses and children. Despite USCIS efforts, problems persist regarding 

certain discretionary relief for military families.

•	 Recommendation: “Special Immigrant Juvenile 

Adjudications: An Opportunity for Adoption of Best 

Practices.” On April 15, 2011, the Ombudsman’s Office published a multi-part recommendation to improve 

adjudications involving Special Immigrant Juvenile (SIJ) 

petitions. Establishing dedicated USCIS units to adjudicate 

and, where necessary, administer interviews would help 

fully realize the intention of the SIJ provisions. 

Employment. An efficient employment-based immigration 

system enhances overall U.S. economic growth; responds to 

labor market needs; and improves U.S. global competitiveness. 

•	 VIBE: USCIS’ New Business Validation Tool. USCIS Service Center Operations designed the Validation Instrument 

for Business Enterprises (VIBE) to help Immigration Services Officers evaluate the viability and other key characteristics of a petitioning company. USCIS has informed the 

Ombudsman’s Office that it is not tracking the issuance of 

VIBE-related Requests for Evidence (RFEs) or Notices of 

Intent to Deny, raising questions about USCIS’ ability to 

assess VIBE’s impact. The Ombudsman’s Office is closely 

monitoring stakeholder experiences with VIBE.

•	 Revisiting the Immigrant Investor Visa Program. The 

Ombudsman’s Office continues to hear concerns from 

stakeholders regarding USCIS administration of the 

fifth employment-based (EB-5) preference category for 

immigrant investors. Stakeholders report that inconsistent administration of the EB-5 program is undermining 

confidence in the program and, ultimately decreasing the 

job growth potential that it was designed to create.

•	 Ongoing Issues with Requests for Evidence. Employers 

continue to express a high level of frustration with USCIS 

issuance of RFEs, and provide the Ombudsman’s Office 

with examples of inappropriate and unduly burdensome 

RFEs. Elevated RFE rates are impeding legitimate business operations. Focused and timely efforts are needed 

to address unclear and conflicting guidance, insufficient 

training on the application of the preponderance of the 

evidence standard, and quality assurance. This section also 

provides updated RFE data.

•	 E-Verify Update. During the 2011 reporting period, 

USCIS made upgrades to E-Verify that improved interoperability with the U.S. Social Security Administration and 

U.S. Department of State. While the accuracy of E-Verify 

has improved, challenges remain, including E-Verify’s 

susceptibility to identity fraud and USCIS’ ability to ensure employer compliance. 

•	 USCIS Processing of Employment Authorization 

Documents. When employment authorization applications remain pending beyond USCIS’ 90 day regulatory 

processing period, applicants and employers experience 

negative effects ranging from job disruption to termination, and any resulting financial burden. The Ombudsman’s Office is reviewing USCIS processing of EADs and 

possible solutions.

Customer Service. As a component of DHS that interacts 

with millions of customers each year, USCIS continues to 

invest resources to improve its timeliness and responsiveness 

to customer service requests. 

•	 USCIS Processing Times. During the reporting period, 

processing times generally met agency goals in the key 

areas of naturalization and adjustment of status; this report provides nationwide data for these processing times. 

However, certain applications and petitions continue to 

experience ongoing or sporadic delays, despite an overall 

decline in receipts for the entire agency. 
Annual Report to Congress – June 2011 ix

•	 USCIS Call Centers and Service Requests. USCIS has 

made significant improvements in customer service, yet 

stakeholders continue to report frustration with the call 

centers and the service request process. 

•	 Interagency Coordination and Cooperation. In order 

for USCIS to make timely and legally appropriate decisions on certain immigration benefits applications, it 

must communicate accurately and quickly with other 

DHS and Federal entities. 

•	 Recommendation: “Customer Complaints: A Tool for 

Quality Customer Service and Accountability.” On 

March 23, 2011, the Ombudsman’s Office published a 

recommendation regarding standardized USCIS processing of customer service complaints.

USCIS Transformation: The Promise of Modernization 

for USCIS Systems and Immigration Benefits Processing. 

Transformation is USCIS’ comprehensive modernization initiative to convert business processes to an integrated, digitized 

environment. Until Transformation meaningfully improves 

the experience of customers interacting with USCIS, its potential remains unrealized. 

Previously Made Recommendations. This report includes 

a chart summarizing recommendations issued during the 

2009 and 2010 reporting periods. Of the 38 recommendations the Ombudsman’s Office issued during this time, USCIS 

implemented nine, accepted but did not implement 18, and 

declined to implement 11. For a more detailed discussion of 

previously made recommendations, see Appendix 3. 

Looking Ahead: Ombudsman’s Office Objectives and 

Priorities for the Coming Year. In the 2012 reporting year, 

the Ombudsman’s Office will continue to enhance its ability 

to help individuals and employers through case assistance, 

policy work, and outreach. The Ombudsman’s Office is 

redesigning its current case assistance process to improve outcomes and minimize its response time to case inquiries. The 

Ombudsman’s Office will conduct a comprehensive review of 

previously issued recommendations to ensure that problemsolving and operationally sound proposals that have not been 

implemented are given renewed consideration. In addition to 

other outreach initiatives, the Ombudsman’s Office will host 

its first annual conference on October 20, 2011. 
x Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

This page intentionally left blank.
Annual Report to Congress – June 2011 xi

Table of Contents

Message from the Ombudsman v

Executive Summary vii

Table of Contents xi

Overview of the Office of the Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman 1

USCIS Year in Review: Public Engagement and Policy Initiatives 5

2011 Areas of Study: Pervasive and Serious Problems and Best Practices 7

Humanitarian 8

Enhancing Protections for Trafficking and Crime Victims through Humanitarian

Programs and Training for USCIS and Law Enforcement 9

USCIS Processing of Deferred Action Requests 11

The Asylum Clock: Asylum-Based Employment Authorization 13

Family and Children 14

Family-Based Visa Retrogression and the USCIS Response 15

Survivor Benefits: Implementation of New Statutory Provisions 17

Military Immigration Issues: Supporting Those Who Serve 19

Recommendation: “Special Immigrant Juvenile Adjudications: 

An Opportunity for Adoption of Best Practices” 21

Employment 22

VIBE: USCIS’ New Business Validation Tool 23

Revisiting the Immigrant Investor Visa Program 25

Ongoing Issues with Requests for Evidence 26

E-Verify Update 29

USCIS Processing of Employment Authorization Documents 30

Customer Service 34

USCIS Processing Times 35

USCIS Call Centers and Service Requests 35

Interagency Coordination and Cooperation: USCIS, ICE, CBP, and EOIR 39

Recommendation: “Customer Complaints: A Tool for Quality Customer Service and Accountability” 40

USCIS Transformation: The Promise of Modernization for USCIS Systems and Immigration Benefits Processing 42

Previously Made Recommendations 47

Looking Ahead: Ombudsman’s Office Objectives and Priorities for the Coming Year 49

Appendices 51
xii Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

This page intentionally left blank.
Annual Report to Congress – June 2011 1

Overview of the Office of the 

Citizenship and Immigration 

Services Ombudsman

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

established by the Homeland Security Act of 2002, assists individuals and employers in resolving 

problems with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). The Ombudsman’s Office 

addresses individual case inquiries and recommends ways to fix systemic issues to improve 

immigration services.1

The Ombudsman’s Office is:

•	 Independent. The Ombudsman’s Office is an independent office within Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS) Headquarters that reports directly to the Deputy 

Secretary of DHS. It is not a part of USCIS.

•	 Confidential. The Ombudsman’s Office treats information received from stakeholders and customers as confidential. It does not disclose such information without 

prior consent.

•	 Impartial. The Ombudsman’s Office works in an impartial manner to improve USCIS’ delivery of immigration services.

Case Assistance

Individuals and employers seek case assistance from the 

Ombudsman’s Office by submitting Form DHS-7001, Case 

Problem Submission Worksheet. The Ombudsman’s Office 

evaluates the case matter, legal authorities, and selected USCIS 

electronic information systems, and then may make a recommendation to USCIS to resolve the matter. See Figure 1: 

Ombudsman’s Office Case Assistance Process.

During the April 1, 2010 through March 31, 2011 reporting 

period, the Ombudsman’s Office opened 3,247 case inquiries.

Systemic Issues

The Ombudsman’s Office identifies systemic issues through: 

•	 Individual complaints and requests for case assistance;

•	 Discussions with applicants, petitioners, employers,

non-governmental organizations, including community 

and faith-based organizations, and immigration professionals; and 

•	 Information received from USCIS and other government

officials.

The Ombudsman’s Office may then make formal recommendations to the USCIS Director. By statute, USCIS must respond 

in writing within 90 days to such formal recommendations. 

In addition to issuing formal recommendations, the Ombudsman’s Office utilizes informal channels to monitor 

many areas and help shape developments. Among the issues 

the Ombudsman’s Office addressed with USCIS during the 

reporting year were stakeholder concerns about relief for 

victims of the earthquake in Haiti; national training needs 
2 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

Figure 1: Ombudsman’s Office Case Assistance Process

Helping Individuals and Employers Resolve Problems with USCIS

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

STEP 1 Fill out and sign Form DHS-7001, Case Problem Submission Worksheet, which allows the Ombudsman’s 

Office to share confidential information with USCIS. 

STEP 2 Include on Form DHS-7001 all USCIS receipt numbers related to the application or petition.

STEP 3 Make copies of important documentation, such as:

•	 Paperwork submitted to USCIS; 

•	 Documents received from USCIS; and

•	 Any other documentation important to the application or petition.

STEP 4 Submit the signed Form DHS-7001 and any related documentation to the Ombudsman’s Office by one 

of the following:

Email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov (Recommended)

Fax: 202-357-0042

Mail: Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman 

 Department of Homeland Security

 Attention: Case Assistance

 Mail Stop 1225

 Washington, D.C. 20528

* Due to security measures with the government mail system, cases mailed (even those sent by express mail) may be delayed for up to 14 days.

After receiving a request for assistance, the Ombudsman’s Office:

STEP 1 Acknowledges receipt of the inquiry.

STEP 2 Reviews the inquiry to make sure that we are able to help.

•	 If we are not able to help, we may provide information to the customer on the appropriate

government office to contact. 

STEP 3 If we are able to help, the Ombudsman’s Office:

•	 Researches USCIS databases for current status of the application or petition.

•	 Identifies customer issue(s).

•	 Reviews laws, regulations, policies, and procedures.

•	 Makes a recommendation to the appropriate USCIS field office, service center, or Headquarters

office on how to resolve the case.

•	 Follows-up with USCIS until the issue is resolved.

STEP 4 Ensures the individual or employer is contacted with the result of the inquiry and current status of the 

application or petition. 

All information submitted to the Ombudsman’s Office is collected and protected under the provisions of the Privacy Act. 
Annual Report to Congress – June 2011 3

for adjudicators who interview victims of violence and 

other forms of trauma; EB-5 immigrant investor issues; the 

new USCIS business verification tool Validation Instrument 

for Business Enterprises (VIBE); and the DHS interim rule, 

“Professional Conduct for Practitioners: Rules, Procedures, 

Representation and Appearances,” and its requirements for 

Form G-28 filings.

Outreach

The Ombudsman’s Office interacts with a wide range of stakeholders. Outreach activities include:

Stakeholder Meetings. The Ombudsman’s Office regularly 

engages with a variety of stakeholders from the private 

sector, faith-based organizations, grassroots coalitions, and 

industry associations across the country. In meetings and 

roundtable discussions, stakeholders give feedback about 

systemic issues across a wide spectrum of immigration 

benefit programs. Concerns, as well as best practices, are 

regularly discussed. In addition, these outreach sessions 

often bring to the attention of the Ombudsman’s Office 

interagency problem areas, where the functions of multiple 

Federal entities require coordination. Learning about the 

public’s experience with USCIS, DHS, and other government 

organizations is key to helping the Ombudsman’s Office 

identify areas in need of improvement. 

Teleconferences. The Ombudsman’s Office regularly hosts 

public teleconferences. Callers participate anonymously and 

include individuals, employers, attorneys, congressional 

staff, and other stakeholders. During the teleconferences, the 

Ombudsman’s Office shares information relating to specific 

topics, often by interviewing officials from USCIS and other 

government agencies, and then opens the conference call 

to participant questions or comments. Teleconferences have 

highlighted topics including the Freedom of Information Act; 

the Child Status Protection Act; family-based visa retrogression; export control requirements; application and petition 

processing times; and the Systematic Alien Verification for 

Entitlements (SAVE) Program. Participation in these teleconferences has grown during the reporting period with high 

interest topics drawing over 200 callers. 

Interagency Liaison. The Ombudsman’s Office serves as an 

interagency liaison among various DHS components and 

Federal agencies, including the U.S. Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, to facilitate discussions that promote 

responsive delivery of immigration services.

Ombudsman’s Quarterly Updates. In January 2011, the office launched the Ombudsman’s Quarterly Updates, a newsletter that highlights current projects, casework, and issues that 

have been informally addressed by the Ombudsman’s Office. 

It also encourages stakeholders to provide feedback.

Improved Online Services

In May 2011, the Ombudsman’s Office launched a redesigned website that includes new resource pages to help individuals and employers find information about and address 

problems relating to citizenship and immigration services. 

Additionally, the Ombudsman’s Office successfully initiated 

internal testing of expanded online services that will allow 

customers to electronically submit a request for individual 

case assistance.

The Ombudsman’s Annual Report

The Ombudsman submits an annual report to Congress by 

June 30 of each calendar year, pursuant to section 452(c) of 

the Homeland Security Act. The current report references data 

from April 1, 2010 through March 31, 2011, but also includes significant developments outside the reporting period. 
4 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

This page intentionally left blank.
Annual Report to Congress – June 2011 5

USCIS Year in Review: Public 

Engagement and Policy Initiatives 

During the reporting period, USCIS pursued ambitious goals for public engagement and an agencywide review of the policy and procedures that guide USCIS’ administration of immigration benefits. 

With public engagement, USCIS sought to be “open and transparent” about the delivery of services.2

Regarding the policy review, Director Alejandro Mayorkas stated, “As an agency, we must achieve 

consistency in the policies that guide us and in how we implement them for the public benefit.”3

USCIS has committed to the objectives of consistency, integrity, transparency, and efficiency. Over the 

past year, the agency has achieved some of these goals. 

Public Engagement

USCIS’ public engagement ushered in a new era of outreach 

and raised expectations that the agency would resolve longstanding programmatic issues. For the first time, the agency 

held a nationwide series of open houses at its offices in an 

effort to “enhance [its] presence in the community and 

strengthen its partnership with stakeholders.”4

 USCIS also took 

the following actions: launched a Spanish-language engagement series;5

 held numerous meetings in response to the 

ongoing humanitarian concerns surrounding Haiti;6

 engaged 

with stakeholders regarding employment eligibility verification programs, such as E-Verify;7

 and continued development 

of the Transformation initiative.8

 Additionally, USCIS met 

with stakeholders in advance of issuing a new fee rule that 

increased filing fees for most applications and petitions by a 

weighted average of 10 percent effective November 23, 2010.9

Public engagement has allowed more members of the public 

to hear firsthand about agency initiatives and pose questions 

about USCIS developments. Some stakeholder engagement 

sessions have led to important policy developments such as 

ameliorative action related to the H-IB cap exceptions for 

university-affiliated healthcare and research organizations.

While stakeholders have been encouraged by USCIS’ efforts, 

many have described the sessions as more unidirectional 

than expected. Individuals, employers, and organizations 

report that they provided input, but found USCIS hesitant to 

engage in problem-solving dialogue in these public forums. 

USCIS has not made clear how the agency implemented the 

feedback received, causing stakeholders to question whether 

USCIS duly considered their input. 

Policy Review

This reporting year, USCIS announced an agency-wide policy 

review. The initial review addressed ten broad areas, including 

customer service, employment-based preference categories, 

and inadmissibility waivers.10 USCIS collected approximately 

5,600 public survey responses, as well as internal responses 

from agency personnel.11

USCIS stated the review would be divided into four stages: 

(1) assembling and categorizing all existing policy documents; (2) prioritizing the issue areas for review, with input 

from surveys of the workforce and external stakeholders; (3) 

completing review of policies in each identified issue area; 

and (4) consolidating and publishing updated policy documents (as appropriate). This review is ongoing but has not yet 

resulted in published policy revisions.

Posting Draft Policy Memoranda for Stakeholder Comment. In the last reporting period, USCIS announced that it 
6 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

would begin posting draft policy memoranda on its website 

and accept public comments generally for ten days. Many 

stakeholders welcomed this commitment as a significant 

departure from USCIS’ historical approach to policy-making. 

Since April 2010, USCIS has posted 36 memoranda for public comment and finalized 12.12 Stakeholders report that the 

public comment process could be improved by providing 

stakeholders with more time to comment and by publishing 

USCIS responses. Specifically, stakeholders express concern 

both with the effort required to respond constructively in 

short timeframes and with the lack of USCIS feedback on 

the comments they provided. USCIS has indicated to the 

Ombudsman’s Office that the agency will be providing 

more time for comment for complex draft policy. While 

stakeholders recognize that not all suggestions will be accepted, they report being discouraged when final policy 

guidance does not reflect their input or USCIS consideration 

of it.

Stakeholders have described the new USCIS process as a notable move towards transparency and engagement, but have 

also identified the continued need for agency adherence to 

the formal notice and comment process of the Administrative 

Procedure Act.13

Action Following Public Engagement 

Request for Evidence Project. Stakeholders nationwide have 

expressed concerns with unnecessary or unduly burdensome 

Requests for Evidence (RFEs) and the delays associated with 

them. In response, USCIS initiated a review of RFEs, held 

stakeholder listening sessions, and issued new RFE templates 

for select product lines, after posting them for public comment. Further, USCIS indicated that it will be conducting 

training on the evidentiary burdens and standards of proof 

used in adjudications, as recommended in the Ombudsman’s 

2010 Annual Report. Despite these efforts, stakeholders continue to report and have provided examples of inappropriate 

RFEs that are inconsistent with applicable law and policy. 

Fee Waiver Initiative. USCIS realized one of its many public 

engagement and policy review goals through the introduction of Form I-912, Request for Fee Waiver.14 On July 16, 

2010, USCIS published the first-ever proposed fee waiver 

form.15 Prior to the creation of Form I-912, USCIS met with 

stakeholders who expressed concern that the absence of 

a standardized fee waiver form had caused confusion and 

inconsistent adjudication standards. USCIS both solicited 

stakeholder feedback during the creation of the form and 

posted the draft form for comment. On November 23, 2010, 

the form went into effect with the new USCIS fee schedule.16

Conclusion

The 2011 reporting period marks a year of firsts for USCIS: 

increasing public engagement efforts and involving stakeholders in policy decisions. These achievements have demonstrated USCIS’ commitment to providing better immigration 

services. At the same time, many announced goals and initiatives remain outstanding. 
Annual Report to Congress – June 2011 7

2011 Areas of Study: Pervasive and 

Serious Problems and Best Practices

The Ombudsman’s Annual Report, as mandated by section 452(c)(1)(B) of the Homeland 

Security Act, must include a “summary of the most pervasive and serious problems encountered 

by individuals and employers.” In previous reports, the Ombudsman’s Office has discussed 

certain pervasive and serious problems, such as the USCIS funding structure and intra-agency 

communications, that remain unresolved but which are not reviewed again in this annual report. 

This year’s annual report details pervasive and serious problems and best practices in the 

following areas: 

•	 Humanitarian;

•	 Family; 

•	 Employment;

•	 Customer service; and

•	 Transformation.
8 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

Humanitarian

U.S. immigration law provides humanitarian avenues for immigrants in the most vulnerable and 

desperate of situations. This practice acknowledges that the United States has served as a beacon to 

individuals fleeing oppression and mistreatment. 
Annual Report to Congress – June 2011 9

Enhancing Protections for Trafficking and Crime 

Victims through Humanitarian Programs and Training 

for USCIS and Law Enforcement

Over time, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 

has fostered initiatives focused on combating violence and 

enhancing protection for victims of human trafficking, domestic violence, and other crimes, while strengthening law 

enforcement’s ability to investigate and prosecute perpetrators. Interagency efforts, dedicated personnel, collaboration 

with external partners, and community outreach have led to 

major developments that further ensure victim safety. The following is a brief summary of these efforts. 

Background

The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), landmark legislation enacted in 1994 to combat domestic violence; the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA); and various reauthorizations provide critical immigration protections for victims 

of trafficking and other violent crimes.17 VAWA and TVPA 

established three remedies that support law enforcement in 

investigating and prosecuting crimes while enabling victims 

to seek immigration relief. The specific remedies are: (1) the 

VAWA self-petition (domestic violence victims); (2) the T visa 

(trafficking victims); and (3) the U visa (victims of specified 

crimes). DHS, including USCIS and the Ombudsman’s Office, 

have developed resources to further the effectiveness of VAWA 

and TVPA. 

DHS Efforts 

In 2010, DHS established an intra-agency task force, led by 

the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, in response to 

public concern that DHS personnel were unaware of immigration remedies available to support criminal investigations and victims of crime, as well as VAWA confidentiality 

provisions. This collaboration included USCIS, U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection (CBP), U.S. Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement (ICE), the DHS Office for Civil Rights and Civil 

Liberties, the DHS Office of Policy, and the Ombudsman’s 

Office. The task force developed the “Violence Against Women 
10 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

Act (VAWA): Confidentiality Provisions and Immigration 

Remedies” training module to inform DHS personnel about 

VAWA confidentiality requirements and the special immigration remedies available for immigrant victims of trafficking 

and certain crimes. The training is expected to debut in late 

summer 2011. 

USCIS Initiatives

In 2000, USCIS established the VAWA Unit at the Vermont Service Center (VSC) to promote consistency in adjudications.18 

Over the past ten years, USCIS expanded the VAWA Unit from 

ten officers to approximately 65 and renamed it the Crime 

Victims Unit. This unit has reduced processing times and 

accommodated new workloads such as the adjudication of 

T and U nonimmigrant visas. At the same time, the unit has 

made itself publicly accessible by establishing a dedicated 

email account to receive questions regarding VAWA, T, and U 

matters. Stakeholders regularly express appreciation for the 

access that the Crime Victims Unit affords both through email 

and via stakeholder engagement sessions.

USCIS provides VAWA, T, and U visa program training to 

local, state, and Federal law enforcement agencies as well as 

to victim advocates. Additionally, certain USCIS staff receive 

training on VAWA confidentiality provisions. 

In FY 2010, USCIS granted 10,000 U visas, for the first time 

exhausting the full statutory allotment.19 To lessen the impact 

on those whose U visa petitions were pending when the cap 

was reached, as well as on applicants who subsequently filed, 

USCIS adopted a new approach: qualified applicants receive a 

supplemental notice of deferred action, placing them in line 

for the next available U visa, and become immediately eligible to apply for employment authorization.20

On December 1, 2010, USCIS issued an alert for its database systems to ensure DHS personnel identify and maintain VAWA-mandated confidentiality. The alert informs DHS 

personnel that the applicant-victim’s information must not be 

compromised. Further, it provides notice to DHS personnel 

about the applicant’s status, so the individual is not erroneously subjected to an immigration enforcement action. 

During the past year, USCIS issued guidance on statutory 

changes enacted in the 2005 and 2008 reauthorizations of 

VAWA and TVPA.21 Through these policy memoranda, USCIS 

has implemented crucial relief: for example, extending eligibility for VAWA self-petitions to the abused parents of U.S. 

citizens, and providing employment authorization for certain 

trafficking victims during civil litigation of their cases. 

Continuing USCIS Challenges Connected with the VAWA, T, 

and U Programs

In an effort to serve victims of violence, the Ombudsman’s 

Office regularly meets with stakeholders who have raised the 

following issues:

Need for Updated Regulations. USCIS states it is in the 

process of updating VAWA and TVPA regulations to ensure 

that victims of violence receive the full benefit of the updated legislation. The Ombudsman’s Office has highlighted to 

USCIS areas in need of regulatory action, including the T visa 

“trauma exception” to the requirement that victims cooperate with law enforcement and employment authorization for 

abused spouses in certain nonimmigrant categories. 

Status Issues for Derivatives (Age-Outs). According to the 

current USCIS interpretation, when a derivative of a U visa 

holder reaches the age of 21, the individual “ages out” and is 

no longer eligible to remain in derivative U status.22 Therefore, USCIS will only authorize U status until a derivative’s 

21st birthday. Similarly, USCIS will deny a U visa petition filed 

by a derivative who turns 21 while it is pending. 

Congress extended U visa status to derivatives to ensure that 

victims of violence feel secure knowing that their families 

will remain intact and safe from retribution.23 The Ombudsman’s Office urges USCIS to issue guidance to preserve the 

derivative’s eligibility based on the age at the time of filing.

OMBUDSMAN CASE ASSISTANCE

A longtime victim of domestic violence and 

mother of three children cooperated with police in the investigation and prosecution of her 

abuser. She applied for and was granted a U 

visa. She included her three sons on her petition 

and her two youngest sons received U visas. 

However, the oldest son, a college student who 

is helping his mother become independent from 

the abuser, turned 21 while the petition was 

pending and, therefore, was denied a visa. He 

now faces the prospect of returning alone to his 

home country.
Annual Report to Congress – June 2011 11

VAWA Permanent Residence Interviews. Stakeholders nationwide have reported to the Ombudsman’s Office concerns 

regarding insensitive and inappropriate questioning by USCIS 

adjudicators conducting VAWA permanent residence interviews. The Ombudsman’s Office has addressed these concerns 

with USCIS and, as part of the interaction, has been reviewing 

best practices. 

Thus far, the Ombudsman’s Office has identified two USCIS 

district offices with practices that serve as effective models for 

training on this issue. First, in November 2009, the Washington District Office conducted a training entitled “Working 

with Immigrant Survivors of Violence” for its adjudications 

staff. This training was a partnership between the Washington 

District Office and a local community-based organization. 

An attorney and a social worker from the local organization 

discussed their experiences working with victims of violence 

and how to approach victim applicants during an immigration interview. Second, the New York District Office created 

a VAWA unit comprised of five dedicated officers and approximately ten additional officers trained to perform VAWA 

adjudications, as needed. The New York District Office has 

designated two officers with special training to answer questions the VAWA adjudicators may have.

The Ombudsman’s Office understands that USCIS will be 

starting a nationwide adjudicator training program on techniques appropriate for interviewing victims of violence. The 

Ombudsman’s Office suggests that USCIS pair this training 

initiative with designation of points of contact knowledgeable 

about VAWA in each field office. 

OMBUDSMAN CASE ASSISTANCE

A woman from Eastern Europe married a U.S. 

citizen who constantly threatened to kill himself 

if she left him. He also was physically abusive to 

her. To prevent her from leaving, he refused to 

file her permanent residency application. After 

enduring years of abuse, she obtained a protective order against him. On returning to the marital home with a police escort to retrieve her belongings, she found her husband had committed 

suicide. At her VAWA interview, the adjudicating 

officer asked if she had driven her husband to 

commit suicide, whether his death was a suicide, and repeatedly said that her role in the 

suicide was relevant to the adjudication of her 

permanent residence application. The applicant 

left the interview crying and traumatized. 

Conclusion

USCIS has been proactive in many of its crime victims programs. It has strengthened resources and accessibility at the 

Vermont Service Center, and advanced policy through the 

USCIS Office of Policy and Strategy to carry out congressional 

intent. At the same time, stakeholders have expressed the need 

for additional adjudicator training and updated regulations 

that accurately reflect legal provisions added by reauthorizations to VAWA and TVPA. Examples of such legislative changes 

include the derivative issue discussed above; guidance on the 

“trauma exception” to the requirement that victims cooperate 

with law enforcement; and language allowing abused spouses 

on A, E-3, G, and H visas to obtain work authorization.24

USCIS Processing of Deferred Action Requests

The Ombudsman’s Office is reviewing USCIS processing of 

individual deferred action requests submitted at local offices. 

Background

When USCIS grants deferred action, it permits a person to 

remain temporarily in the country by declining to initiate removal proceedings. For decades, the government has 

exercised this discretionary authority in order to promote 

the efficient and effective enforcement of immigration laws 

and in the interest of justice.25 The employment authorization 

regulations describe deferred action as “an act of administrative convenience to the government which gives some cases 

lower priority....”26 A deferred action request is decided 

based on the positive and negative factors of an individual’s 

case, including humanitarian concerns, criminal history, and 

family ties to the United States.27

Stakeholder Concerns

Stakeholders have expressed concerns to the Ombudsman’s 

Office regarding the delayed processing of numerous deferred action requests submitted by Haitian nationals following the earthquake in January 2010. Stakeholders reported 

to the Ombudsman’s Office that individuals have waited for 

more than seven months for decisions on their requests.28 

While awaiting USCIS action, many individuals accrued 

unlawful presence that could impact their eligibility for 

future immigration benefits. These concerns led to broader 

conversations among stakeholders about the way that USCIS 

processes deferred action requests. 

The Ombudsman’s Office met with various USCIS field and 

regional offices, and obtained deferred action request data 

from USCIS Headquarters. The Ombudsman’s Office found 

that USCIS was not comprehensively tracking deferred action 
12 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

decisions prior to 2011.29 These meetings revealed that 

USCIS is not communicating essential guidance on how to 

make or renew a deferred action request. General guidance 

from USCIS would help stakeholders determine whether to 

advise clients to seek this temporary relief. Stakeholders further note that preparing a deferred action request is complex 

and costly. 

USCIS Processing of Individual Deferred Action Requests 

While USCIS does not provide public information about how 

to seek deferred action, the agency has long accepted deferred 

action requests through local offices. Generally, a district 

director evaluates these requests on a case-by-case basis, and 

forwards them for review by the regional director. While 

deferred action is an exercise of discretion, greater transparency would further the goals of accessibility, fairness, and 

efficient use of resources. 

USCIS has granted deferred action in cases involving individuals with serious medical conditions and persons temporarily 

prevented from returning to their home country by a natural 

disaster. No form exists for seeking deferred action and no 

fee is collected for a deferred action request. Deferred action 

tolls accrual of further unlawful presence and individuals 

granted deferred action are able to apply for employment 

authorization.30 USCIS usually grants deferred action for one 

to two years.31 

There is no formal, agency-wide procedure for handling 

deferred action requests and no standardized timeframe in 

which to deliver a decision. Accordingly, when a local office 

experiences an increase in submissions, that office must adapt 

its procedures to accommodate the change in demand. It 

appears that solutions developed locally are not systematically 

shared with other offices.

USCIS field offices receive a range of submissions, from two 

to 65 per month.32 Offices faced with an unexpected surge in 

deferred action requests often experience significant delays in 

the delivery of a final decision on such requests. 

Prior Ombudsman’s Office Recommendations

On April 9, 2007, the Ombudsman’s Office issued the following recommendations on deferred action: (1) post general 

information on the USCIS website; (2) maintain deferred 

action statistics; and (3) designate a Headquarters official to 

review decisions.33 

USCIS responded that deferred action requests are reviewed 

on a case-by-case basis, and that published guidance would 

not be a meaningful addition to USCIS’ website.34 Nor did the 

agency find it necessary to review deferred action decisions at 

USCIS Headquarters. USCIS did commit to collecting deferred 

action statistics on a quarterly basis. 

Recent inquiries to the Ombudsman’s Office and comments 

during stakeholder meetings have identified the ongoing 

need for public guidance regarding deferred action.

Conclusion

The Ombudsman’s Office is examining the following options 

for improved processing of deferred action requests: 

(1) issuing public information describing deferred action and 

the procedures for making a request to USCIS for this temporary form of relief; (2) establishing internal protocols for 

accepting and processing deferred action requests to promote 

consistency and assist local offices in responding to periodic 

increases in the demand for this form of relief; (3) taking 

inventory of all pending deferred action requests to verify 

that each received a confirmation of receipt with estimated 

processing timeframes and USCIS contact information; and 

(4) reporting statistics on deferred action requests and decisions.

The Asylum Clock: 

Asylum-Based Employment Authorization

During the past year, the Ombudsman’s Office received requests for assistance from asylum applicants seeking Employment Authorization Documents (EADs). Asylum seekers are 

individuals who have come to the United States seeking protection because they have suffered persecution or fear that they 

will suffer persecution due to their race, religion, nationality, 

political opinion, or membership in a particular social group.35

The Ombudsman’s Office is reviewing issues with the employment eligibility process for asylum applicants and focusing specifically on what is commonly known as the “asylum clock.”

Background

Absent exceptional circumstances, individuals are to receive a 

decision from USCIS on their asylum claim within 180 days 

of filing their Form I-589, Application for Asylum and for 

Withholding of Removal.36 After the 180 days, qualified applicants37 may seek employment authorization.38
Annual Report to Congress – June 2011 13

Stakeholders and USCIS personnel attribute many of the 

difficulties concerning the asylum clock to communication 

problems between USCIS and the Executive Office for Immigration Review. Stakeholders also report a lack of internal 

communication between the USCIS Asylum Division and service centers. Asylum applicants and attorneys note that there 

is limited information available regarding how the asylum 

clock works and who to contact when there are problems in 

determining employment authorization eligibility. 

Impact on Asylum Seekers. Without the ability to work, 

many applicants are without sufficient financial resources to 

support themselves and their families in the United States. 

Addressing asylum clock issues would ensure that applicants 

receive appropriate benefits in a timely manner. 

Conclusion

Calculating time accrued for EAD eligibility presents a set 

of complex issues for applicants, advocates, USCIS personnel, and Immigration Court staff. The Ombudsman’s Office 

is examining a number of options for resolving difficulties 

encountered by asylum seekers attempting to obtain employment authorization. Considerations include increased 

transparency, access, notice, and interagency cooperation. The 

Ombudsman’s Office continues to review the employment 

authorization process for asylum seekers and the efficiency of 

USCIS adjudications.
14 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

Family and Children

Family unity has long been a foundation of U.S. immigration policy. The majority of 

individuals who obtain lawful permanent resident status in the United States do so based on a 

family relationship.39 The United States has a vested interest in a transparent, easy to navigate 

immigration benefits system for families. 
Annual Report to Congress – June 2011 15

Family-Based Visa Retrogression and 

the USCIS Response

The Ombudsman’s Office has devoted significant attention 

to the interagency administration of the visa lines for both 

employment and family-based immigration. The office hosts 

monthly interagency meetings with USCIS and the U.S. Department of State (DOS) to facilitate information sharing and 

to improve predictability and transparency in the visa allocation process. This section focuses on family-based visa lines, 

the backward movement of the DOS Visa Bulletin cut-off 

dates (referred to as retrogression), the impact on individuals 

and families, and the USCIS response. 

Background

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) regulates immigration to the United States based, in part, on formulas and 

numerical limits. Visas are allocated among preference categories defined by the status of the petitioner and the closeness 

of the family relationship. Where demand exceeds the annual 

allotment of visas, individuals and their families must wait to 

obtain permanent residence in the United States. 

DOS oversees the distribution of visa numbers and publishes 

a Visa Bulletin that is adjusted monthly to reflect the usage 

of visas. Each family-based application is assigned a priority date, generally the same date that USCIS receives Form 

I-130, Petition for Alien Relative. Eligibility for a visa number 

is determined by an individual’s priority date. An individual 

may apply for permanent residence and obtain a visa number 

when the priority date precedes the date listed in the Visa 

Bulletin, which is referred to as a cut-off date. When high demand for immigrant visas in a particular time period causes 

visa usage to accelerate, the Visa Bulletin may be adjusted so 

that cut-off dates move backward instead of forward. This 

backward movement is called retrogression. 

People typically wait years in the family preference categories 

for the cut-off date to move forward to their priority date. 

Waiting times for permanent residence visas vary by category 

and country. In 2010, a visa applicant who is the adult son or 
16 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

daughter of a lawful permanent resident from certain countries, such as the Philippines, typically had to wait more than 

ten years to receive permanent residence. The spouse or minor child of a permanent resident from most other countries 

had a waiting period of less than a year by December 2010, 

but other family members, such as siblings, typically have 

waiting periods that span several years. 

Family-Based Retrogression

Family-based cut-off dates for nearly all categories and countries retrogressed significantly in January 2011. This broad 

backward movement in so many family categories is unusual. 

No similar retrogression has happened since 2001.40

In FY 2010 and at the beginning of FY 2011, low demand 

for immigrant visas created the prospect that thousands of 

family-based visas would go unused. To help inform the 

public, the Ombudsman’s Office issued an Ombudsman 

Update on Unused Family-Based Visas on June 23, 2010. 

DOS advanced the Visa Bulletin dates to make more applicants eligible to apply. By December 2010, demand had 

increased beyond the number of available visas. As a result 

of increased demand, DOS retrogressed the dates in the Visa 

Bulletin to ensure a fair distribution of visas in FY 2011. In 

response to inquiries regarding retrogression, the Ombudsman’s Office hosted a public teleconference on March 15, 

2011, in which the office interviewed DOS officials to explain why the retrogression occurred and inform the public 

about these changes.

Impact on Families

Retrogression delays case processing and family reunification 

until cut-off dates advance. Individuals and families eligible to 

complete processing prior to the December 2010 retrogression may now have to wait months or years to immigrate. 

See Figure 2: Example of Visa Retrogression for Family-Based 

Second Preference (F2A). 

Moreover, stakeholders have reported confusion about the effect of retrogression on their applications and petitions.41

USCIS Response

While USCIS does not control the movement of priority dates, it plays a critical role in providing information to 

family-based petitioners and applicants. USCIS issued a January 11, 2011 memorandum to staff governing file movement 

for retrogressed cases, and issued public guidance on June 14, 

2011 addressing the retrogression.

Figure 2: Example of Visa Retrogression for Family-Based Second Preference (F2A)

WORLDWIDE 

 

CHINAmainland born DOMINICAN 

REPUBLIC INDIA MEXICO PHILIPPINES

 December 2010 August 1, 2010 August 1, 2010 August 1, 2010 August 1, 2010 March 1, 2010 August 1, 2010

 January 2011 January 1, 2008 January 1, 2008 January 1, 2008 January 1, 2008 April 1, 2005 January 1, 2008

 Approximate 

 Retrogression 2.5 years 2.5 years 2.5 years 2.5 years 5 years 2.5 years

Note: The Ombudsman’s Office created the approximate retrogression times using data provided by the U.S. Department of State’s Visa Bulletin 

for December 2010 and January 2011.

Source: U.S. Department of State, Visa Bulletin for December 2010 and January 2011. 
Annual Report to Congress – June 2011 17

The USCIS policy memorandum informs offices that, for 

applicants with retrogressed cases filing Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, 

interviews will be done locally, after which files are to be 

moved to the USCIS National Benefits Center (NBC) for 

storage.42 The memorandum references the USCIS Adjudicator’s Field Manual, Chapter 20.1(e), which states that 

applicants with retrogressed visa cases who are already present in the United States may remain in the country until a 

visa number again becomes available. Their applications are 

held in abeyance and they are eligible for employment authorization and advance parole during this waiting period. 

Further Public Information Needed and the Importance of 

Address Changes

Individuals have informed the Ombudsman’s Office that it is 

important to know: (1) what will happen after an interview 

on a retrogressed case; (2) where their files will be located; 

(3) what documents they may need to update; (4) and how 

best to ensure that their addresses are kept current in USCIS 

databases so that all notifications in the case will be received 

by the applicant.43

It is important to file a change of address for each type of 

pending application or petition, for each family member. 

Besides being a legal requirement, maintaining a current 

address on file with USCIS has practical implications: it is 

particularly critical for retrogressed cases because USCIS 

may send out notices when a priority date becomes current. 

Due to the lack of an updated address, a notice may not be 

received. In turn, the individual may miss an interview or filing date, the application or petition may be subject to denial, 

and other adverse immigration consequences may ensue. To 

emphasize the importance of address changes and clarify the 

process, the Ombudsman’s Office issued on June 25, 2010 an 

update entitled, “Change of Address with USCIS.”44 A focused 

change of address campaign by USCIS would be of great 

value to both family and employment-based petitioners and 

beneficiaries.

Conclusion

Lack of timely information increases the likelihood of individuals with pending applications losing eligibility or priority 

dates. While USCIS does not control the DOS Visa Bulletin’s 

movement of cut-off dates, the agency should ensure its own 

processes and communications serve families waiting in the 

visa lines. 

Survivor Benefits: Implementation of 

New Statutory Provisions 

Enacted in 2009, Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) 

section 204(l) provides relief when the petitioner seeking an 

immigration benefit on behalf of a beneficiary dies before 

final adjudication of the beneficiary’s case. Historically, such 

beneficiaries lost eligibility—and their place in line—to become a permanent resident upon the petitioner’s death. 

Prior to enactment of section 204(l), only spouses of U.S. 

citizens and their children had a statutory right to continue 

seeking permanent residence after death of the petitioner. 

Congress made two major changes relating to immigration 

survivor benefits on October 28, 2009:45 

•	 Amended the definition of immediate relative spouse

at INA section 201(b)(2)(A)(i) to allow the surviving 

foreign national spouses of a U.S. citizen to apply for 

lawful permanent residence even if married for less than 

two years prior to the death of the petitioning spouse. 

•	 Added a new list of potential survivor beneficiaries at

section 204(l) that includes certain relatives in the family and employment preference categories, asylees, and 

those who have T (trafficking) or U (victim of specified 

crimes) nonimmigrant status. 

Section 204(l) applies only to beneficiaries residing in the 

United States at the time of the petitioner’s death. 
18 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

Background

Prior to 2009, USCIS did not permit the beneficiary of a visa 

petition to obtain approval of the petition if the petitioner 

died while the petition remained pending.46 Revocation of 

approved visa petitions was automatic upon the petitioner’s 

death.47

Reinstatement on humanitarian grounds was available to a 

limited class of beneficiaries, but was infrequently granted.48

As a result, the surviving relatives of a deceased petitioner 

were often required to cope with the demise of a loved one, 

while simultaneously facing the potential loss of immigration 

benefits and possible relocation abroad. 

Section 204(l) was intended to lessen the adverse immigration impact on surviving beneficiaries. It permits the approval of a visa petition or refugee/asylee relative petition, as 

well as any adjustment application and related application in 

certain circumstances.49 The initial petition, asylum application, or T/U nonimmigrant status application must have been 

filed by a “qualifying relative.”50 USCIS now has the authority 

to continue processing, and approve, a petition or application 

filed by a deceased individual, provided that such processing 

is not determined to be against the “public interest.”51

Beneficiaries of petitions approved prior to the petitioner’s 

death but before the availability of visa numbers that allowed 

for filing of a permanent residence application, as well as 

beneficiaries residing outside the United States at the time of 

the petitioner’s death, must still seek humanitarian reinstatement of their petitions.

Issuance of USCIS Policy Memorandum

Section 204(l) became effective October 28, 2009. For 14 

months after the statute was enacted, USCIS did not implement section 204(l) with final guidance and, therefore, 

was not granting benefits contemplated under the new law. 

Stakeholders regularly reported to the Ombudsman’s Office that USCIS field offices were often unaware of the new 

survivor provisions and that guidance on the handling of 

survivor benefits was needed.52

USCIS provided guidance via the publication of a December 

16, 2010 memorandum entitled “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).”53 Issues with the adjudication of survivor benefits were not completely remedied by 

the publication of this policy memorandum. Subsequent 

to its issuance, stakeholders expressed concern that, despite 

the clear intent of the 2009 law, automatic revocation of approved petitions upon the death of the petitioner continued. 

In addition, the process for seeking humanitarian reinstatement of petitions not covered under section 204(l) remains 

confusing, especially for pro se applicants.54

Needed Clarification 

Clarification would be helpful in several areas:

Implement Conforming Regulations to Address Automatic Revocation. Under the new provision, approved 

petitions should proceed as if the petitioner were alive, 

unless the Secretary of Homeland Security determines that 

such adjudication is not “in the public interest.”55 However, USCIS appears to have continued acting in accordance with the existing regulations, automatically revoking 

approved petitions upon the petitioner’s death. Updated 

regulations are required in order to properly implement 

section 204(l). 

Fees for Denied Cases. USCIS stated that it would reopen, 

upon motion, with applicable fee, survivor cases denied prior 

to enactment of the new law on October 28, 2009, if new 

section 204(l) would now allow approval of a petition or application. Some survivors filed such motions for petitions denied prior to enactment of the new law. They sought coverage 

after the new statute passed, but before USCIS published the 

memorandum. USCIS denied these motions. Absent guidance 

applicable to these motions to reopen, it appears that survivors must re-file their motions and again pay the $630 fee. 

Requiring another fee for these second motions to reopen is 

inconsistent with the remedial intent of the statute.

Case Tracking. USCIS stated in its memorandum that it would 

reopen and review cases that were affected by the enactment 

of section 204(l), but that were denied after October 28, 

2009. As such, it is unclear how USCIS will find and review 

cases that may have been erroneously decided between the 

effective date of section 204(l) and the issuance of the 

December 16, 2010 policy memorandum. Additionally, there 

is no specified method for individuals or counsel to bring 

such cases to USCIS’ attention.56
Annual Report to Congress – June 2011 19

OMBUDSMAN CASE ASSISTANCE

A lawful permanent resident filed a petition for her 

husband, a citizen of Mexico. The petitioning wife 

died in a tragic accident. USCIS denied the petition 

after being informed of the death by the widower. 

The government began removal proceedings against 

him, and he then filed a motion to reopen based on 

INA section 204(l), which provides relief to surviving 

spouses. USCIS denied the motion without reference 

to the new law. The widower sought the assistance 

of the Ombudsman’s Office, and the petition was 

reopened and approved. 

Conclusion

When a petitioner dies, leaving surviving beneficiaries residing in the United States, INA section 204(l), protects those 

beneficiaries from automatic revocation of the visa petitions 

filed on their behalf. USCIS has issued a memorandum instructing adjudicators how to apply Section 204(l). However, 

inconsistencies between the new law and existing regulations 

have led to decisions by USCIS that seem contrary to legislative intent. In addition, certain beneficiaries must still seek 

humanitarian reinstatement when the relative who filed a visa 

petition on their behalf dies, and the process for such humanitarian reinstatement is vague and confusing. Stakeholders 

indicate that additional clarification and training are needed, 

particularly conforming regulations to implement section 

204(l), as well as public outreach materials to provide pro se

applicants with instructions. Prioritizing the implementation 

of conforming regulations would ensure that adjudicators 

are able to make decisions in survivor benefits cases that are 

consistent, correct, and accomplish congressional intent.

Military Immigration Issues: 

Supporting Those Who Serve 

In previous years, the Ombudsman’s Office has reviewed and 

commented on the USCIS military naturalization process and 

the delivery of immigration services to military family members.57 Through site visits to field offices, teleconferences with 

USCIS staff, and stakeholder engagement, the Ombudsman’s 

Office has learned that USCIS continues to enhance and refine 

outreach efforts to service members, and their spouses and 

children. Stakeholders report that problems persist regarding 

certain discretionary relief for military families. 

Background

During FY 2010, USCIS naturalized 11,146 military service 

members both in the United States and overseas.58 This represents an ongoing increase in military naturalizations: in FY 

2009, USCIS completed 10,505 military naturalizations, and 

in FY 2008, the agency completed 7,865.59 It also constitutes 

the largest number of military naturalizations completed in 

any year since 1955.60

Providing Immigration Services to 

Military Members and Their Families

Throughout the reporting period, USCIS has taken steps to 

improve the delivery of immigration services to military members and their families. These steps include the following:61

•	 USCIS naturalizes U.S.Army recruits during basic training

at five sites: (1) Fort Benning, GA; (2) Fort Jackson, SC; 

(3) Fort Knox, KY; (4) Fort Leonard Wood, KS; (5) and Fort 

Sill, OK; USCIS naturalizes U.S. Navy recruits during basic 

training at the Great Lakes Naval Training Center, MI.62

•	 In 2010, USCIS amended the regulations to eliminate

the Form G-325B, Biographic Information requirement, 

simplifying the naturalization filing process.

•	 Beginning in 2010, fees are now waived for all military

applicants filing Forms N-600, Application for Certificate 

of Citizenship and N-336, Request for a Hearing on a 

Decision in Naturalization Proceedings. Form N-400, 

Application for Naturalization fees have been waived for 

military personnel since October 1, 2004.63
20 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

In districts with large military populations, USCIS now has 

designated Immigration Services Officers (ISOs) who coordinate with military liaison officers to provide immigration benefits information; expedite fingerprinting; perform interviews; 

and conduct naturalization ceremonies for service members 

and their families at most major military installations.64

Plans for Continued Improvement

USCIS plans to continue expanding the services offered to 

military members and their families and reports that the following programs will be implemented during FY 2011:65

•	 Based on its successful collaboration with the U.S.Army

and Navy, USCIS is coordinating with the U.S. Air Force to 

establish a program to naturalize recruit airmen during 

basic training at Lackland Air Force Base, TX and with the 

U.S. Marine Corps to establish a Marine naturalization 

program at the U.S. Marine Corps Schools of Infantry at 

Camp Lejeune, NC and Camp Pendleton, CA.

•	 USCIS plans to propose changes to the Civil Surgeon

program to give physicians employed by the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) and working on military 

installations a “blanket designation” to conduct physical examinations for military personnel and their family 

members applying for permanent residence. This change 

would allow military families to have military doctors 

complete their medical examinations, thereby sparing 

them additional costs associated with having nonmilitary 

personnel perform these exams.66

•	 USCIS is currently assessing the need for USCIS “satellite

offices” on military installations. This assessment is based 

on the positive response USCIS received after it assigned 

two ISOs full-time to a sub-office on the grounds of Fort 

Jackson, SC. 

Areas of Ongoing Concern

While USCIS has successfully implemented several special 

programs in collaboration with the U.S. Armed Forces, areas 

of concern remain:

Coordination with the U.S. Department of Defense. Both 

USCIS and stakeholders have identified the need for a highlevel point of contact and coordination of military immigration matters from within DOD. 

Liaison with Military Legal Offices. Both USCIS and stakeholders have noted the importance of greater liaison, regarding immigration matters, with the internal legal offices in 

each branch of the U.S. Armed Forces, known as the Judge 

Advocate General.

Discretionary Relief for Military Families. Members of 

Congress and U.S. military leaders have consistently emphasized to the Department of Homeland Security that military 

immigration issues (e.g. military naturalization; regularization 

of military dependent immigration status; preserving military family unity) are aspects of military readiness that USCIS 

must address.67 Assistance to military family members who 

do not have immigration status remains a challenge.

On a case-by-case basis, USCIS uses parole and deferred action to minimize periods of family separation and to facilitate 

applications for permanent residence by immigrant spouses, 

parents, and children of military members.68 Where military 

dependents have already departed the United States to seek 

an immigrant visa through consular processing, USCIS collaborates with the U.S. Department of State to expedite the 

adjudication of all necessary waivers.69 Finally, as a matter of 

policy, USCIS will not initiate removal proceedings involving 

a military dependent, absent serious negative factors, such as 

threats to public safety or national security.70

USCIS has committed to issuing policies on the use of 

discretionary relief for military family members.71 To date, 

however, the agency has not indicated when it will publish 

these policies. Stakeholders report a great deal of confusion 

regarding the exact nature of the relief available to military 

family members and how to request it. Meanwhile, overseas deployments of military members continue, as do their 

concerns regarding the immigration status of dependent 

spouses, children, and parents who remain in the United 

States during such deployments.

Conclusion

The Ombudsman’s Office supports USCIS efforts to assist the 

Armed Forces of the United States in their essential mission, 

and will continue to monitor the actions taken to support 

military personnel and their families.

Recommendation: “Special Immigrant Juvenile 

Adjudications: An Opportunity for Adoption of 

Best Practices” 

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

multi-part recommendation for improving efficiency and 

standardization of interviews and adjudications involving 

Special Immigrant Juvenile (SIJ) petitions.

The Ombudsman’s Office reviewed four aspects of USCIS 

handling of petitions for SIJ status: (1) timeliness and consistency of adjudications; (2) officer expertise in conducting 

interviews and performing adjudications; (3) Requests for 

Evidence (RFEs) improperly seeking evidence relating to the 
Annual Report to Congress – June 2011 21

facts and circumstances underlying a juvenile court determination of dependency; and (4) the need for public guidance 

indicating how USCIS will process these cases under expanded eligibility criteria.

Background

Through SIJ status, U.S. immigration law provides a method 

for abused, abandoned, or neglected children without legal 

status to remain lawfully in the United States. USCIS is required by statute to adjudicate SIJ petitions within 180 days 

of filing. Nonetheless, the Ombudsman’s Office has received 

a number of SIJ cases showing adjudication delays beyond 

180 days. 

If problem areas such as adjudication delays and inappropriate interview techniques are not properly addressed, eligible 

child applicants may be discouraged from seeking a benefit 

specifically designed to help them rebuild their lives in the 

United States. Such an outcome contravenes the spirit of the 

law that expanded SIJ status eligibility.72

 Formal Recommendations

 The Ombudsman recommended that USCIS:

(1) Standardize its practice of: (a) providing specialized 

training for those officers adjudicating SIJ status; (b) 

establishing dedicated SIJ units or points of contact at 

local offices and; (c) ensuring adjudications are completed within the statutory timeframe;

(2) Cease requesting the evidence underlying juvenile 

court determinations of dependency; and 

(3) Issue guidance, including 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 its 

website.

Conclusion

Establishing dedicated USCIS units to adjudicate and, where 

necessary, administer interviews for these cases would help 

fully realize the intention of the SIJ provisions. By standardizing training, USCIS will improve the efficiency and consistency of SIJ adjudications. USCIS should provide specific guidance informing petitioners how to show their eligibility with 

the initial filing. Implementation of these recommendations 

would better serve children and conserve USCIS resources.
22 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

Employment

An efficient employment-based immigration system fosters U.S. economic growth; responds to 

labor market needs; and improves U.S. global competitiveness. In the context of employmentbased immigration, the U.S. Government seeks to enhance domestic job security, while stimulating 

new business development and encouraging foreign investment in the United States. In a time of 

economic turmoil, the Ombudsman’s Office has focused on ways to use the employment-based 

immigration system to help the economy.
Annual Report to Congress – June 2011 23

VIBE: USCIS’ New Business Validation Tool

USCIS Service Center Operations designed the Validation 

Instrument for Business Enterprises (VIBE) to help Immigration Services Officers (ISOs) adjudicate employment-based 

petitions. ISOs use VIBE to evaluate the viability and other 

key characteristics of a petitioning company.73 According to 

USCIS, VIBE is a first step in leveraging both technology and 

information to yield increased integrity, consistency, and efficiency in the adjudication process.

Background

USCIS uses VIBE to generate a report containing publicly 

available business information about employers filing immigrant and nonimmigrant petitions.74 USCIS runs a VIBE 

status report as part of pre-adjudication processing. When 

assigned a file for adjudication, the ISO accesses the report 

through a web-based portal and uses it as part of the review 

of most employment-based filings including, Form I-140, 

Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, Form I-360, Petition 

for Amerasian, Widow(er) or Special Immigrant when filed 

for religious workers, and Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker. 

From July 2010 through mid-January 2011, USCIS beta tested VIBE. Beginning in March 2011, ISOs at all service centers started using VIBE as part of their standard adjudication 

routine.75 USCIS demonstrated VIBE for the Ombudsman’s 

Office and answered questions on various operational issues 

that ISOs and stakeholders may encounter. The Ombudsman’s 

Office also attended VIBE training sessions for ISOs held at the 

Texas Service Center in February 2011.

USCIS plans to update VIBE reports with adjudicator notes 

and other information. Over time, USCIS expects that VIBE 

will reduce the need for Requests for Evidence (RFEs) that 

question an employer’s bona fides. It even has the potential 

to reduce the burdens on petitioners of submitting paper 

documentation to validate the legitimacy of their business.756

This outcome, if realized, would decrease costs for both 

petitioners and the agency, enable ISOs to focus solely on the 
24 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

merits of the petition, such as the job offer and the proposed 

beneficiary’s eligibility, and allow USCIS to perform adjudications in a more environmentally friendly manner.

VIBE’s Information Provider: Dun & Bradstreet

Pursuant to an approximately $35.5 million contract awarded 

on September 29, 2009, VIBE will access source data collected 

by an independent information provider, Dun & Bradstreet 

(D&B).77 D&B’s sources include company financial statements, banking information, court and legal filings, and business websites. According to D&B data are generally no more 

than three months old.78 Although D&B updates its information regularly, up to 30 calendar days may pass before newly 

formed businesses appear in the database. 

How USCIS Adjudicators Will Use VIBE

VIBE has a scoring system that helps adjudicators interpret its 

reports. The VIBE report may:

•	 Indicate that there are no concerns regarding the petitioner’s viability;

•	 Flag certain elements concerning the petitioner on which

the ISO should focus when reviewing the record; or

•	 Return a “low match confidence” concern (i.e., the information in the system marginally matches the information submitted). 

ISOs use RFEs and Notices of Intent to Deny (NOIDs) based 

on templates, to inform petitioners that a VIBE report raised 

issues that must be resolved. The templates also alert petitioners that they may wish to correct or update information about 

their company with D&B.79

According to USCIS, even when VIBE casts doubt on a petitioner’s submission, this result alone should not automatically 

trigger the issuance of an RFE, a NOID, or a denial.80 Rather, 

as instructed during training, and in written guidance materials, ISOs are expected to review the entire record, of which 

the VIBE report is one aspect. Adjudicators should continue 

to exercise judgment and act in accordance with established 

guidance in determining how to proceed in a given case.81

Preliminary Concerns with VIBE

The Ombudsman’s Office has identified the following 

concerns: 

Unincorporated Enterprises. Employers filing petitions 

under unofficial trade names that do not appear in VIBE 

have received VIBE-related RFEs. The D&B database underlying VIBE provides limited data on unincorporated entities 

such as sole proprietorships and certain types of partnerships.82 Therefore, it may fail to identify an entire range of 

legitimate businesses. USCIS has informed its adjudicators of 

this issue and instructed them not to issue RFEs solely due 

to the absence of a VIBE report. Agricultural employers filing 

H-2A petitions for temporary workers appear to have been 

disproportionately impacted. The Ombudsman’s Office has 

worked to resolve a number of VIBE-related H-2A cases involving the agricultural growing season and potential losses, 

and USCIS has taken action to address such concerns. 

On June 1, 2011, USCIS announced that it would temporarily 

suspend the use of VIBE in the H-2A program for 45 days.83 

USCIS also issued an H-2A Optional Checklist, Questions and 

Answers, established a dedicated email address to expedite 

the review of pending petitions delayed due to a VIBE-related 

issue,84 and held a public teleconference on VIBE for H-2A 

petitioners.85 The Ombudsman’s Office continues to monitor 

the situation.
Annual Report to Congress – June 2011 25

OMBUDSMAN CASE ASSISTANCE

An employer encountered difficulties obtaining 

timely approval of petitions for 120 H-2A 

agricultural workers from Mexico to harvest 

fruit. The orchard owner was facing significant 

economic losses because an unusual frost had 

placed his entire harvest at risk. Although the 

employer had received approvals for temporary 

workers every year since 2006, the employer 

received a VIBE-related RFE and, after responding, received a NOID. The Ombudsman’s 

Office worked with the employer to provide 

USCIS with supporting information, and USCIS 

approved the petition. 

Joint Ventures. VIBE may not successfully identify and match 

U.S. companies with their foreign-based affiliates, if one of 

the two businesses operates as a joint venture. 

New Companies. It may take several weeks for D&B to 

construct a profile, as it seeks to gather and verify public 

information on a new company’s trade activity and business 

attributes. Petitions filed by such companies may draw VIBErelated RFEs.

Accommodation Addresses. Historically, USCIS has permitted the use of accommodation addresses (e.g., those of an 

attorney or other agent). However, USCIS has advised the 

Ombudsman’s Office that VIBE is likely to return a mismatch 

if a petitioner fills out the address portion of a form using an 

accommodation address.86 

Old Data and Reports of D&B Marketing. Employers have 

expressed concerns regarding D&B’s data and the company’s 

marketing practices. Upon receiving a VIBE-related RFE, employers have contacted D&B and learned that D&B had failed 

to note an address change, or other data change. In some 

cases, D&B told employers that they can expedite the process 

to have a company profile established or updated by purchasing various commercial D&B services, ranging in price from 

$299 to $1,500. The Ombudsman’s Office has discussed 

these emerging issues with USCIS, and the agency stated that 

it is in discussions with D&B to address these concerns. 

Conclusion

Recently, USCIS has informed the Ombudsman’s Office that it 

is not tracking the issuance of VIBE-related RFEs or NOIDs,87

which raises questions regarding USCIS’ ability to conduct an 

assessment of VIBE’s performance, impact, and efficacy. Issues 

with VIBE, discussed in this report, reveal shortcomings. The 

Ombudsman’s Office expects to closely monitor stakeholder 

experiences with VIBE during the next reporting period. 

Revisiting the Immigrant Investor Visa Program

The Ombudsman’s Office continues to hear concerns from 

stakeholders regarding USCIS administration of the fifth 

employment-based (EB-5) preference category for immigrant 

investors. Stakeholders report that inconsistent administration of the EB-5 program is undermining confidence in the 

program and, ultimately hindering the job growth potential 

that it was designed to create.

Background

Congress established the EB-5 category in 1990 to encourage immigrant entrepreneurs to make large investments in 

the United States that create new commercial enterprises 

benefitting the U.S. economy and, directly or indirectly, create 

jobs for U.S. workers.88 Usage of this category historically has 

remained far below the statutory allotment. From 1992 to 

2010, EB-5 visa usage averaged approximately 700 visas out 

of the 10,000 available per year.89

On May 19, 2011, USCIS proposed changes to EB-5 processing.90 Specifically, for certain regional center petitions, USCIS 

plans to offer adjudications performed by a review panel, 

composed of two EB-5 adjudicators and a USCIS economist, 

as well as premium processing for select filings. 

Prior Ombudsman’s Office Recommendations

In March 2009, the Ombudsman’s Office proposed eight 

recommendations to USCIS to stabilize and reinvigorate this 

important job-creation program.91 USCIS concurred with 

several recommendations and deferred others, such as premium processing adjudications.92

Stakeholder Concerns

The Ombudsman’s Office has relayed the following EB-5 

stakeholder concerns to USCIS.

New Regulations Needed. The economy has changed, and 

financial practices have changed, yet EB-5 regulations written 

nearly 20 years ago have not. The existing EB-5 rules consist of a patchwork of regulations, precedent decisions, and 

policy guidance. Updated regulations are needed to clarify 

new requirements in a centralized body of law, taking into 

account new economic and financial practices.
26 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

Policy Interpretations and Case Decisions Destabilize the 

Program. USCIS reconsideration at later stages in the EB-5 

process, of issues believed to have been settled, generates 

uncertainty for investors. This uncertainty may push them to 

seek investment-based immigration opportunities in other 

countries. 

Pursuant to the USCIS December 2009 guidance memorandum,93 USCIS does not allow for amendments to the regional 

center business plan subsequent to approval. Material changes 

to the approved regional center project require that investors abandon Conditional Lawful Permanent Residence status 

and restart the two-year conditional period. Requiring a new 

petition in the case of material changes denies protection 

to investors’ children who, after turning 21, are no longer 

eligible for immigration benefits based on the parents’ status 

(commonly referred to as “aging-out”). 

Additionally, the Ombudsman’s Office has been provided 

with case examples indicating that USCIS is not consistently 

accepting state high unemployment Targeted Employment 

Area determinations that can qualify an area for the lower 

$500,000 investment requirement, versus $1 million.94

Meaningful Pre-filing Engagement for Regional Centers. 

Despite USCIS’ quarterly EB-5 public engagement events, 

regional centers report that providing them with a role in 

the process would lead to more informed petitions and plans 

being filed. Specifically, they seek an opportunity to explore 

with USCIS the details of their business models and other 

legal issues prior to filing for regional center designation.

Representation Issues and Challenges to Approved Regional 

Center Business Models. On occasion, even after approving a 

regional center proposal, USCIS issues to individual investors 

RFEs or NOIDs questioning the underlying regional center 

proposal, rather than the merits of the investor’s petition. In 

such cases, the affected regional center developers are not 

notified because USCIS does not consider them parties-ininterest in adjudications of Forms I-526, Immigrant Petition 

by Alien Entrepreneur, and I-829, Petition by Entrepreneur to 

Remove the Conditions. However, regional centers do have a 

stake in the outcome, and may be better able than the investors to explain the merits of regional center business models.

Processing Times for Regional Center Project Developer and 

Investor Petitions. According to the USCIS March 17, 2011 

Quaterly EB-5 stakeholder engagement, petitions for regional 

center designation, filed both before and after the November 

23, 2010 implementation of Form I-924, Application for Regional Center Under the Immigrant Investor Pilot Program, are 

exceeding the four month processing time goal.95

Recent Ombudsman’s Office EB-5 Activities

Since last year’s annual report, the Ombudsman’s Office has 

continued to engage EB-5 stakeholders and has learned of 

concerns that USCIS policy interpretations not only appear 

to be unnecessarily restrictive, but that they also conflict 

with existing law and regulations. The Ombudsman’s Office 

met with USCIS management, legal staff, and senior leadership to voice these concerns. Following the meetings, USCIS 

issued an important clarification confirming that regional 

center job methodologies and economic analyses may legitimately “rely on jobs indirectly created outside of [their] 

geographic boundaries.”96 Additionally, on December 10, 

2010, USCIS posted for public comment its December 11, 

2009 Guidance Memorandum.97

Conclusion

Most recently, USCIS has announced potential changes to the 

EB-5 program. Given the complex nature of the EB-5 program and related business plans, the Ombudsman’s Office 

encourages USCIS to continue to engage with stakeholders, 

including practitioners, municipalities, investors, and regional 

centers, to improve the adjudication process. USCIS would 

better serve investors by initiating formal rulemaking to address the concerns highlighted herein, and implementing the 

eight EB-5 recommendations made in March 2009, which 

remain applicable in 2011. 

Ongoing Issues with Requests for Evidence 

Much like stakeholders across the humanitarian and family 

areas, employers and their attorneys continue to express a 

high level of frustration with USCIS issuance of Requests for 

Evidence (RFEs). The Ombudsman’s Office continues to receive requests for assistance with reportedly inappropriate or 

unduly burdensome RFEs connected with employment-based 

applications and petitions. 
Annual Report to Congress – June 2011 27

Background 

The Ombudsman’s Office has made recommendations regarding RFEs in previous years.98 In the Ombudsman’s 2010 

Annual Report, the Ombudsman’s Office examined, in detail, 

USCIS’ use of RFEs in three nonimmigrant product lines: (1) 

H-1B Specialty Occupation Workers, (2) L-1A Intracompany 

Executives and Managers, and (3) L-1B Specialized Knowledge Workers.99

RFE Data

This section provides updated RFE data on the same three 

nonimmigrant product lines examined last year. The data 

reveal that RFE rates in all three categories remain high. See

Figure 3: RFE Rates for Certain Employment-Based 

Nonimmigrant Categories.

Stakeholder Concerns

Stakeholders continue to express concern to the Ombudsman’s Office with the lack of consistency in adjudications. Attorneys report they cannot effectively advise employers about 

RFEs that are delaying or preventing the hiring or transfer 

of personnel to the United States. Multinational employers 

report choosing to place personnel abroad, or relocate key 

facilities outside the United States, due to USCIS policy and 

adjudications they believe undermines U.S. competitiveness 

in global markets. 

Ombudsman’s 2010 RFE Recommendations 

and USCIS’ Response

The Ombudsman’s Office recommended that USCIS:

•	 Develop expanded training on applying the “preponderance of the evidence” standard;100

•	 Specify the facts, circumstances, and/or derogatory information necessitating an RFE;

•	 Create a uniform checklist and require officers to complete it prior to issuing an RFE; 

•	 Initiate a pilot program requiring 100 percent supervisory review of one or more product lines; and,

•	 Establish clear adjudicatory L-1B guidelines through the

structured notice and comment process of the Administrative Procedure Act.101

Figure 3: RFE Rates for Certain Employment-Based Nonimmigrant Categories

H-1B Requests for Evidence—FY 1995 – 2010 
28 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

Figure 3 (cont.)

L-1A Requests for Evidence—FY 1995 – 2010 

California Service Center Vermont Service Center

L-1B Requests for Evidence—FY 1995 – 2010 

Source: Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman’s Office (Nov. 23, 2009; Jan. 26, 27, 2011; May 18, 2011).
Annual Report to Congress – June 2011 29

USCIS responded102 that it initiated an RFE template project 

and would specifically engage stakeholders regarding RFEs.103

To date, USCIS has not engaged in a thorough examination of 

the factors causing stakeholder RFE concerns. 

Upon inquiry by the Ombudsman’s Office, USCIS indicated 

it has not yet collected and analyzed RFE data, or developed 

a comprehensive plan of action to address RFE concerns. 

The agency has indicated that there is no one person or office leading the RFE project. USCIS acknowledged it must do 

more to enhance education and training on the preponderance of the evidence standard and, while unable to provide 

a concrete timeline on when this will occur, confirms that 

such training will be provided.104

USCIS has posted several RFE templates for public comment,105 specifically for the P (Artists, Athletes, and Entertainers) and Q (Cultural Visitors) nonimmigrant categories, as 

well as for the EB-1(1) (Aliens of Extraordinary Ability)106

immigrant category. Yet, the agency has not reviewed or issued new RFE templates for the higher filing volume H-1B, 

L-1A, and L-1B categories that were the specific focus of the 

Ombudsman’s 2010 Annual Report discussion of RFEs.107

The Ombudsman’s Office has provided comments directly 

to USCIS on several of the RFE templates posted for public 

comment. Stakeholders have reported their concern with the 

RFE template review process. Specifically, they note that USCIS 

does not post for public consideration all template review 

comments received, nor does the agency indicate why it accepts or rejects suggested modifications offered during the 

public review process.

Notably, in the 2010 Annual Report, the Ombudsman’s Office 

recommended that USCIS engage stakeholders in formal notice and comment rulemaking.108 USCIS rejected this recommendation, stating:

... USCIS believes that its current approach, which 

includes issuance in the near future of one or a series 

of L-1B precedent decisions, in combination with an 

updated “specialized knowledge” memorandum and 

a corresponding revision of Chapter 32 of the AFM, 

is sufficient, without a notice and comment process.... (emphasis added).109

USCIS held an outreach teleconference on May 12, 2011, 

inviting stakeholders to provide input on the “interpretation 

of the term specialized knowledge and what standards and 

evidentiary requirements should be followed in determining eligibility for L-1B classification.”110 However, USCIS has 

issued neither new L-1B precedent decisions nor an updated 

“specialized knowledge” memorandum. 

Conclusion

Elevated RFE rates are impeding legitimate business operations. Specifically, they have a corrosive impact on the “specialized knowledge” category as a viable means for employers 

to access essential personnel for U.S. operations. Focused and 

timely efforts are needed to address unclear and conflicting 

guidance, insufficient training on the application of the preponderance of the evidence standard, and quality assurance. 

The Ombudsman’s Office is examining additional options 

for USCIS to address RFE concerns, including, for example, 

appointing an agency-wide RFE project manager who reports 

to a senior USCIS leader (such as the Deputy Director, Chief of 

Staff, or Director). The Ombudsman’s Office will continue to 

engage with USCIS on its RFE template review project, but this 

project alone will not address the root causes of many RFEs. 

E-Verify Update

In December 2008, the Ombudsman’s Office issued recommendations on E-Verify to USCIS, and has commented on EVerify developments in subsequent annual reports.111 According to USCIS, as of February 11, 2011, more than 246,000 

employers were enrolled in E-Verify, representing more than 

850,000 locations. During the 2011 reporting period, USCIS 

made upgrades to E-Verify that improved interoperability 

with the U.S. Social Security Administration (SSA) and U.S. 

Department of State.

Background

Since June 2008, USCIS has more than doubled its monitoring and compliance capabilities by hiring additional staff, 

opening new offices, conducting educational outreach, and 

implementing faster technology. These activities strengthen 

system integrity by identifying employers or individuals 

seeking to exploit E-Verify and ensuring that employers are 

using E-Verify correctly.

Currently, USCIS’ E-Verify Monitoring and Compliance 

branch staff manually reviews E-Verify data to identify six 

employer behaviors: (1) multiple use of the same Social 

Security Number; (2) failure to use E-Verify; (3) termination 

of an employee who receives a Tentative Non-Confirmation 

(TNC); (4) failure to perform verification within three business days of hire; (5) verification of existing employees; and 

(6) verification of employees hired prior to 1986.112 The 

Ombudsman’s Office understands, however, that USCIS soon 
30 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

expects to implement an advanced data review system to assess employer behaviors.113 According to USCIS, this upgrade 

should result in a faster and more uniform review process.

E-Verify Self-Check

On March 21, 2011, USCIS launched its E-Verify Self Check 

(Self Check) feature, a free service that allows individuals to 

check their employment eligibility status.114 If a problem is 

detected, Self Check will provide information on how to address the issue either with USCIS or with SSA.

Self Check is being released in phases, with its initial roll-out 

covering individuals who reside in Arizona, Colorado, the 

District of Columbia, Idaho, Mississippi, and Virginia. Use of 

Self Check is voluntary. USCIS expects Self Check to clarify the 

employment eligibility confirmation process and, thereby, to 

reduce the incidence of TNCs due to name and other database 

mismatches on otherwise work eligible individuals.

OMBUDSMAN CASE ASSISTANCE

A longtime lawful permanent resident contacted 

the Ombudsman’s Office requesting assistance. 

The woman had received a Tentative Non-Confirmation from her employer, but did not understand how to remedy the issue. She feared she 

would lose her job. The Ombudsman’s Office 

referred the woman to USCIS’ E-verify webpage 

and guided her through the process of responding to the TNC. The woman worked with her 

employer and the issue was resolved. Access to 

the Self Check system would have allowed her 

to verify her employment authorization status 

and correct any inconsistencies before submitting her documentation to her employer, thus 

avoiding a stressful and complicated experience 

to correct the problem. 

Identity Fraud

USCIS informed the Ombudsman’s Office that it is exploring 

ways to address, within E-Verify, identity theft and inappropriate use of Social Security Numbers. Additional tools and 

authorities may be needed to realize this goal. 

State and Local E-Verify Legislation

In the past several years, a number of states and municipalities 

have passed legislation mandating that employers use E-Verify.115

In a May 26, 2011 decision, the U.S Supreme Court upheld the 

constitutionality of one such law enacted in 2007 in Arizona.116

With other states enacting or considering similar legislation, 

stakeholders have raised concerns regarding the capacity of 

E-Verify and Federal staffing necessary to expand rapidly and 

provide practical guidance. 

Conclusion

DHS and USCIS continue to work collaboratively with SSA to 

improve E-Verify. While the accuracy of E-Verify has improved, challenges remain, including E-Verify’s susceptibility to identity fraud and USCIS’ ability to ensure employer 

compliance. Combating identity theft will require effort and 

cooperation among multiple Federal entities. 

USCIS Processing of Employment 

Authorization Documents

When employment authorization applications remain pending beyond USCIS’ 90 day regulatory processing period, 

applicants and employers experience negative effects ranging 

from job disruption to termination, and any resulting financial burden.117 The Ombudsman’s Office is reviewing USCIS 

processing of Employment Authorization Documents (EADs).

Background

USCIS is required by regulation to adjudicate applications for 

EADs within 90 days of receipt or issue an interim EAD valid for 

240 days.118 However, customers continue to report EAD processing delays, the impact of which USCIS local offices cannot 

mitigate because they no longer produce interim documents. 

Impact on EAD Applicants

Applicants with expired EADs are unable to continue employment while waiting for renewal. Many applicants report being placed on unpaid leave and are understandably concerned 

about job security. Some have also experienced suspension of 

medical benefits and loss of drivers’ licenses. Employers have 

also been negatively affected, with some subject to the disruption of their workforce and operations, and the ensuing 

loss of productivity and revenue. 
Annual Report to Congress – June 2011 31

Ombudsman’s Office Prior Recommendations 

In October 2008, the Ombudsman’s Office recommended 

that USCIS improve compliance with its 90 day adjudication 

requirement, and provide customers reasons for processing 

delays and the agency’s efforts to address them.119 In response, 

USCIS acknowledged the concerns raised in the recommendation, and instituted measures to reduce delays. These measures 

included routine system sweeps to find cases pending for 60 

days that were not yet assigned to an Immigration Services 

Officer, the acceptance of service requests via the National Customer Service Center at day 75, and the adjudication, within 10 

days, of expedite requests for cases pending past 90 days.120

Ombudsman’s Office Case Assistance with EAD Applications

The Ombudsman’s Office assists individuals whose EAD applications have been pending close to 90 days by working 

directly with USCIS to resolve these cases.121 During the summer of 2010, USCIS received an increased number of service 

requests relating to EADs. See Figure 4: EAD Service Requests.

Similarly, during this period, the Ombudsman’s Office received an increased number of requests for assistance related 

to long pending EAD applications. While the volume of inquiries fluctuated during the reporting period, the Ombudsman’s Office has continued to receive a steady number of case 

problems related to EAD processing delays. 

While assisting applicants, the Ombudsman’s Office became 

aware of a number of procedural and operational challenges 

in USCIS EAD processing. These challenges include: (1) lack 

of consistent and reliable capability for monitoring processing times at service centers; (2) unclear and inconsistent expedite request procedures; and (3) inappropriate delays due 

to background checks associated with underlying benefits 

applications.

Figure 4: EAD Service Requests
32 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

Figure 4 (cont.)

Conclusion

The Ombudsman’s Office is examining the following 

options for USCIS to improve processing of EADs: 

(1) re-establishing procedures for “interim” EAD adjudications at local offices; (2) establishing a uniform 

processing time goal of 30 days for adjudication and 60 

days for issuance of an EAD; and, (3) following existing internal procedures for issuing interim EADs in cases 

where background checks are pending.

OMBUDSMAN CASE ASSISTANCE

A woman filed for a renewal EAD 120 days 

before the expiration of her then current EAD. 

USCIS approved the application and submitted a 

request for card production on day 93. However, 

the applicant never received her EAD, and was 

later informed that USCIS destroyed the card on 

day 110, for reasons that were never specified. 

Meanwhile, the applicant’s EAD expired. As a 

result, the applicant was unable to work for her 

current employer and unable to accept a pending offer of new employment tendered by another employer. After being informed that USCIS 

had destroyed her EAD, the applicant contacted 

the NCSC and visited the local USCIS office multiple times. When none of these efforts resulted 

in her receiving the EAD, the applicant contacted the Ombudsman’s Office on day 136. The 

Ombudsman’s Office staff worked with USCIS to 

expedite card production, and a new EAD was 

produced and delivered to the applicant nine 

days later. 
Annual Report to Congress – June 2011 33

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

Customer Service

Secretary Janet Napolitano of the Department of Homeland Security stated, “[T]ransparency and 

openness are critical to effective immigration and citizenship policies.”122 As a component of DHS 

that interacts with millions of customers each year, USCIS continues to invest resources to improve 

its timeliness and responsiveness to customer service requests. However, transitioning to new ways 

of achieving this goal creates challenges for some stakeholders who report a decrease in accessibility 

and one-on-one problem solving. 
Annual Report to Congress – June 2011 35

USCIS Processing Times

During the reporting period, processing times generally met 

agency goals in the key areas of naturalization and adjustment 

of status. However, certain application categories, such as Form 

I-601, Application for Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility, 

and Administrative Appeals Office filings, continue to experience significant delays despite an overall decline in receipts 

for the entire agency.123 In addition, the Ombudsman’s Office 

received during this time sporadic reports of longer processing times for certain employment-based nonimmigrant and 

humanitarian categories. See Figure 5: Application Processing 

Times at USCIS Field Offices. 

USCIS Call Centers and Service Requests

Background

Past Ombudsman’s annual reports made recommendations 

regarding the policies of the USCIS National Customer 

Service Center (NCSC).124 In preparing this year’s report, the 

Ombudsman’s Office observed operations at USCIS facilities, met 

with field office and Customer Service Directorate leadership 

and staff, and monitored USCIS stakeholder meetings. The 

Ombudsman’s Office also receives information on customer 

service issues when individuals and employers contact the office 

after being unable to resolve problems directly with USCIS. 

Call Centers

USCIS encourages customers seeking general or case specific 

information to contact the NCSC toll free number (1-800-

375-5283), which offers recorded and live assistance options. 

Regardless of the nature of the call, USCIS customers must 

first listen to automated messages organized by an Interactive 

Voice Response (IVR), which sorts calls by broad information 

categories. The NCSC also includes two tiers of live assistance: 

Tier 1, staffed with Customer Service Representatives (CSRs) 

who have access to scripted information provided by USCIS, 

and Tier 2, staffed with USCIS Immigration Services Officers 

(ISOs) with access to certain USCIS systems. The NCSC averages about 12 million calls a year.125
Field Office Number of Months:

Agana, GU 4

Albany, NY 4 2

Albuquerque, NM 5

Anchorage, AK 4

Atlanta, GA 6.2

Baltimore, MD 5.2

Boise, ID 4

Boston, MA 4.8

Buffalo, NY 4.2

Casper, WY 4.6

Charleston, WV 4

Charleston, SC 4.5

Charlotte Amalie, VI 4

Charlotte, NC 4

Chicago, IL 4

Christiansted, VI 4.7

Chula Vista, CA 4

Cincinnati, OH 5.4

Cleveland, OH 4

Columbus, OH 4

Dallas, TX 4.7

Denver, CO 4.6

Des Moines, IA 5.6

Detroit, MI 4

Dover, DE 4

El Paso, TX 4.7

Fort Smith, AR 4.3

Fresno, CA 4

Greer, SC 4

Harlingen, TX 5

Hartford, CT 5.4

Helena, MT 4

Hialeah, FL 4

Honolulu, HI 5.2

Houston, TX 4

Indianapolis, IN 4

Jacksonville, FL 4

Kansas City, MO 4

Las Vegas, NV 4

Los Angeles, CA 5.8

Louisville, KY 4

Manchester, NH 4

Memphis, TN 4.1

Miami, FL 4.8

Milwaukee, WI 4

New Orleans, LA 4.4

New York City, NY 6.1

Newark, NJ 4.2

Norfolk, VA 4.7

Oklahoma City, OK 4.7

Omaha, NE 4

Orlando, FL 4.4

Philadelphia, PA 4.5

Phoenix, AZ 4

Pittsburgh, PA 4.1

Portland, ME 6.1

Portland, OR 4.8

Providence RI 4

Raleigh, NC 5

Reno, NV 4

Rochester, NY 4.2

Sacramento, CA 4

Saint Albans, VT 5

Saint Louis, MO 5.4

Saint Paul, MN 4.7

Salt Lake City, UT 4

San Antonio, TX 4

San Bernardino, CA 4

San Diego, CA 4

San Francisco, CA 4.3

San Jose, CA 4

San Juan, PR 4.4

Santa Ana, CA 4.6

Seattle, WA 4

Spokane, WA 4

Syracuse, NY 4.2

Tampa, FL 4

Tucson, AZ 4.2

Washington DC 8.8

West Palm Beach, FL 4

Wichita, KS 4

Yakima, WA 4

Processing Times Data I-485, As of March 31, 2011

Field Office Number of Months:

Agana, GU 5

Albany, NY 5

Albuquerque, NM 5

Anchorage, AK 5.3

Atlanta, GA 5.8

Baltimore, MD 5

Boise, ID 5

Boston, MA 5.3

Buffalo, NY 5.3

Casper, WY 5

Charleston, WV 5

Charleston, SC 6

Charlotte Amalie, VI 5

Charlotte, NC 5

Chicago, IL 5.6

Christiansted, VI 6.2

Chula Vista, CA 5

Cincinnati, OH 6.3

Cleveland, OH 5

Columbus, OH 5

Dallas, TX 5

Denver, CO 5

Des Moines, IA 7.5

Detroit, MI 5

Dover, DE 5

El Paso, TX 5

Fort Smith, AR 6

Fresno, CA 5

Greer, SC 5

Harlingen, TX 5.6

Hartford, CT 5.6

Helena, MT 5

Hialeah, FL 5

Honolulu, HI 5

Houston, TX 5

Indianapolis, IN 5

Jacksonville, FL 5

Kansas City, MO 5

Las Vegas, NV 5

Los Angeles, CA 5.3

Louisville, KY 5

Manchester, NH 5

Memphis, TN 5.5

Miami, FL 6.1

Milwaukee, WI 5

New Orleans, LA 5

New York City, NY 5.6

Newark, NJ 5

Norfolk, VA 5

Oklahoma City, OK 5.4

Omaha, NE 5

Orlando, FL 5.2

Philadelphia, PA 5

Phoenix, AZ 5

Pittsburgh, PA 5

Portland, ME 5

Portland, OR 5

Providence RI 5

Raleigh, NC 5

Reno, NV 5

Rochester, NY 5.3

Sacramento, CA 5

Saint Albans, VT 5

Saint Louis, MO 6.3

Saint Paul, MN 7

Salt Lake City, UT 5

San Antonio, TX 5.6

San Bernardino, CA 5

San Diego, CA 5

San Francisco, CA 5

San Jose, CA 5

San Juan, PR 5

Santa Ana, CA 5

Seattle, WA 5

Spokane, WA 5

Syracuse, NY 5.3

Tampa, FL 5

Tucson, AZ 5

Washington DC 7

West Palm Beach, FL 5

Wichita, KS 5

Yakima, WA 5

Processing Times Data N-400, As of March 31, 2011

Figure 5: Application Processing Times at USCIS Field Offices 

Source: USCIS Processing Time Data.
Annual Report to Congress – June 2011 37

Stakeholders continue to report a high level of frustration 

when interacting with the NCSC. In a USCIS Quarterly National Stakeholder Engagement in February 2011, USCIS cited 

the following stakeholder remark:

Individuals indicate that they often get the “runaround” or are told a response is pending and they 

should receive something soon, but never do. This 

then prompts [individuals] to escalate their questions or issues to their congressional representatives, 

ambassadors....126

In the USCIS response to last year’s annual report, the agency 

committed to addressing such concerns. Specifically regarding the IVR, USCIS stated it would take the following steps: 

•	 Improve the current IVR structure by deleting lengthy

messages contained within existing menus and streamlining menu selections;

•	 Remove all “dead end” scenarios providing easy access to

live assistance throughout the IVR; and 

•	 Launch a completely new IVR with direct routing toTier

1 CSRs or Tier 2 ISOs based on the type of inquiry.127

During this reporting period, USCIS completed the first two 

enhancements and began working on the third.128 Despite 

these changes, negotiating the automated menu options to 

reach live assistance remains difficult.

Customers also have expressed frustration at having to reexplain their issue each time a call is transferred between 

tiers. As of March 2011, USCIS has addressed this concern 

with a technological fix permitting the Tier 1 CSR to transfer 

information directly to the Tier 2 ISO. Critical information 

such as A-number, name, and a narrative of the problem will 

be available to the ISO immediately after the transfer. Additionally, attorneys and accredited representatives who identify 

themselves at Tier 1 are immediately transferred to Tier 2 

where specific problems may be resolved.129

Although the Ombudsman’s Office recommended phasing out 

Tier 1 scripts‚—during a transitional period of time sufficient 

to allow USCIS to train staff to answer basic immigration 

questions—USCIS did not accept this recommendation.130 The 

Ombudsman’s Office continues to receive stakeholder complaints about the scripted answers read by CSRs. 

The Ombudsman’s Office also recommended that USCIS provide Tier 2 ISOs with full access to relevant USCIS data systems 

so they can provide better responses to case specific inquiries. 

Earlier this year, USCIS expanded access to these systems, a 

positive change that promotes both improved customer service 

and more efficient use of government resources. 

While recognizing the improvements made to the NCSC, the 

Ombudsman’s Office will continue to gauge the success of 

USCIS’ ongoing efforts. 

Service Request Management Tool

When NCSC personnel are unable to resolve a customer’s 

inquiry, USCIS uses an electronic inquiry system called the 

Service Request Management Tool (SRMT) to transfer an 

inquiry to the USCIS office best able to assist with the issue 

and respond to the customer.131 After a CSR or ISO generates 

a service request, the electronic inquiry is sent to the appropriate USCIS facility and assigned to an ISO. USCIS received 

975,292 service requests during the reporting period.132 See

Figure 6: NCSC Service Requests by Category.

On August 2, 2010, USCIS introduced a self-service feature 

to the SRMT, which allows customers to initiate an inquiry 

without assistance from the NCSC.133 The USCIS Customer 

Service Directorate launched the online “e-request” for 

Forms I-90, Application to Replace Permanent Resident 

Card, and N-400, Application for Naturalization, piloted 

for customers whose cases were outside normal processing 

times and customers whose I-90 filings did not generate 

a biometric appointment notice. From July 2010 through 

February 2011, USCIS received a total of 3,680 “e-requests,” the majority for cases outside normal processing 

times.134 In FY 2012, USCIS plans to expand the customer 

online request feature to the following areas: cases outside 

normal processing times for all form types; non-delivery 

of certain notices for Forms I-130, I-485, and I-765; and 

typographical errors for all form types. 135

Improved Timeliness. Since the SRMT was introduced in 

2005, stakeholders’ two main concerns have been with the 

timeliness and quality of responses. USCIS has made strides in 

providing timely responses to customer inquiries. The agency 

has reduced the average response time from 30 to 15 business days.136 USCIS continues to maintain a five day response 

time for expedited handling or a change of address, and a 

seven day response time to make reasonable accommodations 

to schedule interviews or biometrics.137

Nonresponsive Answers to Service Requests. Despite USCIS’ 

improvements in the timeliness of responses, stakeholders 

regularly express to the Ombudsman’s Office their frustration 

with responses that are incomplete or unhelpful. Stakeholders report that service request responses do not answer their 
38 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

questions and simply state that their case is “pending” or 

“under review.”138 In these situations, customers who have 

already invested time trying to resolve an issue through the 

NCSC increasingly turn to other sources to find a solution. 

This problem appears to stem, at least partly, from the USCIS 

method for handling customer inquiries that ISOs are unable 

to resolve within the target 15 day timeframe. If they cannot 

fully resolve the customer inquiry within the allotted time, 

ISOs typically close the service request with an interim response to the customer. Processing times for service requests 

are often maintained at the expense of the usefulness of the 

response. Closing the service request with such a pro forma

response often does not address customer concerns. 

USCIS is aware of complaints about response quality, but 

has not yet instituted a consistent approach to address the 

problem. Some regional offices and service centers have 

established local quality assurance (QA) programs for 

SRMT responses. However, a national quality assurance 

program would improve the service request responses. The 

Ombudsman’s Office encourages USCIS to focus on metrics 

that capture the quality of responses to service requests. 

Secure Mail Initiative

In 2007, USCIS launched the Secure Mail Initiative, one of the 

programs funded by the 2007 fee increase. This program replaced U.S. Postal Service (USPS) first-class mail delivery with 

USPS Priority Mail and Delivery Confirmation, as described in 

the Ombudsman’s 2010 Annual Report. In December 2010, 

USCIS expanded this initiative to deliver Permanent Resident 

Cards, Employment Authorization Documents (EADs), and 

travel documents by USPS priority mail. 

Secure Mail ensures that most documents are delivered in two 

or three days to mailboxes and post office boxes. This service 

does not require a signature to complete delivery, but does 

allow for USCIS and USPS to track and record the delivery of 

documents by date and address. 

Those aware that a Permanent Resident Card, EAD, or travel 

document has been produced may call the NCSC to receive a USPS tracking number in order to check with USPS 

whether it is en route or has been delivered.139 Sixty days 

after the applicant is notified of card production, an ISO can 

submit a service request to check the status of the document.140 Ultimately, if the document was not returned to 

USCIS as undeliverable, the applicant must file and pay for 

a replacement. The Ombudsman’s Office will continue to 

monitor this initiative.

Conclusion

USCIS has made significant improvements in customer service, yet stakeholders continue to report frustration with the 

call centers and the service request process. 

Figure 6: NCSC Service Requests by Category (April 2010 – March 2011)

Expedite Processing (72,013)

Other (91,709)

Typo Error (83,083)

Pending Beyond Processing Time 

(149,564)

Non-Delivery Issues (263,697)

Change of Address (315,226)

Source: Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman’s Office (May 27, 2011).
Annual Report to Congress – June 2011 39

Interagency Coordination and Cooperation: 

USCIS, ICE, CBP, and EOIR

A critical responsibility facing USCIS is improved interaction 

with its government partners: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and the Executive Office for Immigration Review 

(EOIR). In order for USCIS to make timely and legally appropriate decisions on certain immigration benefits applications 

and petitions, it must communicate accurately and quickly 

with ICE, CBP, and EOIR. The need for increased systematic 

communication continues to impede coordination among 

these agencies.

Background

Under the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), removal matters were the responsibility of the legacy Immigration and 

Naturalization Service and the EOIR. When the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was created in 2002, 

EOIR, which conducts removal hearings, remained within 

the DOJ and responsibility for the operational aspects of 

the immigration process was divided among three DHS 

components. USCIS has jurisdiction over the adjudication of 

applications and petitions for immigration benefits.141 ICE 

bears responsibility for the prosecution of removal proceedings.142 CBP is responsible for controlling passage through 

the borders of the United States.143 All three agencies may issue Notices to Appear (NTA), placing individuals in removal 

proceedings.144

The net effect of this structure is that USCIS, ICE, CBP, and 

EOIR all impact—directly or indirectly—the immigration 

benefits process. Yet, each agency exercises similar authorities, creating overlapping spheres of responsibility. USCIS and 

ICE have attempted to manage their overlapping responsibilities via the publication of policy memoranda. CBP has been 

engaged in some aspects of the interagency coordination 

process with regard to immigration benefits, but additional 

coordination is necessary. 

ICE and USCIS Memoranda: Removal Proceedings and 

Immigration Benefits Filings before USCIS

On August 20, 2010, ICE published, “Guidance Regarding the 

Handling of Removal Proceedings of Aliens with Pending or 

Approved Applications or Petitions.”145 This document mandated that local ICE Offices of the Chief Counsel (OCC), in 

coordination with USCIS, develop standard operating procedures (SOPs) to identify removal cases involving an application or petition pending before USCIS. The memorandum also 

indicated that USCIS would issue complementary guidance.

Approximately six months later, USCIS issued its corresponding policy memorandum, “Guidance for Coordinating the 

Adjudication of Applications and Petitions Involving Individuals in Removal Proceedings.”146 This document directed 

all USCIS district directors to immediately contact their local 

counterparts in ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations 

and the ICE OCC to begin drafting local SOPs for coordinating the adjudication of applications and petitions necessary to 

facilitate the completion of removal hearings.

According to USCIS, all districts have produced a draft or 

interim SOPs. Stakeholders await final implementation of the 

SOPs and report concerns that local procedures, as opposed to 

a uniform national procedure, may result in widely varying 

adjudication practices for pending applications and petitions 

filed by similarly situated individuals.

Other Coordination Efforts

While USCIS, ICE, CBP, and EOIR have not produced comprehensive guidelines for effective interoperability, several efforts 

by local USCIS personnel to engage their ICE and EOIR partners serve as models for effective nationwide engagement: 

•	 Many USCIS field offices coordinate regular meetings of

local U.S. government agencies involved in immigration 

issues.147

•	 USCIS is participating in a joint Docket EfficiencyWorking Group with both ICE and EOIR. This working group, 

chaired by the Assistant Chief Immigration Judge, meets 

monthly to identify and close gaps in collaboration 

between the agencies, with the goal of reducing backlogs 

where both EOIR and USCIS are involved in a particular 

case. The Ombudsman’s Office also participates in this 

working group. 

•	 On June 9, 2011, USCIS unveiled a multi-agency, nationwide initiative to combat immigration services scams.148

DHS, DOJ, and the Federal Trade Commission are leading 

this effort. DOJ, through United States Attorneys’ Offices 

and the Civil Division’s Office of Consumer Protection 

Litigation, is investigating and prosecuting dozens of 

cases against so-called “notarios.” In the last year, USCIS 

has worked with DOJ and ICE on these unauthorized 

practice of law cases. 

Continued partnerships among USCIS, ICE, CBP, and EOIR 

at the local level are crucial to serving the needs of USCIS’ 

customers.
40 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

Continued Need for Comprehensive 

Guidance on Agency Interoperability

The Ombudsman’s 2010 Annual Report included a recommendation that USCIS coordinate with ICE and EOIR to provide the public with one document specifying each agency’s 

responsibilities within the removal process and the basic 

information that respondents need to know about the jurisdiction of each agency.149 USCIS agreed with this recommendation, but to date, has not issued such a public document.

Conclusion

Interagency partnerships offer an effective means to provide 

stakeholders with accurate information about the role that 

each agency will play in both the benefits adjudication and 

removal processes. The Ombudsman’s Office reiterates its 

2010 recommendation and encourages USCIS to draft a joint 

document with ICE, CBP, and EOIR defining the manner in 

which these agencies will coordinate the adjudication of applications and petitions involving individuals in removal proceedings. The Ombudsman’s Office will continue to monitor 

implementation of related SOPs and policies.

Recommendation: “Customer Complaints: A Tool for 

Quality Customer Service and Accountability”

On March 23, 2011, the Ombudsman’s Office published a 

recommendation regarding standardized USCIS processing of 

customer service complaints, entitled “Customer Complaints: 

A Tool for Quality Customer Service and Accountability.”

Background

While USCIS has devoted significant resources to customer 

service, the agency does not yet have a uniform procedure for 

managing non-case specific feedback.150 Feedback can include 

comments about:

•	 USCIS facilities or an interaction with USCIS staff;

•	 Quality and responsiveness of customer service resources;

•	 Inaccuracy or lack of clarity in USCIS resources; and

•	 Appropriateness of questions posed in interviews.

When seeking to register a complaint or comment, instead 

of finding ready guidance, USCIS customers encounter a 

confusing process. Available avenues include notifying a 

supervisor immediately; making an INFOPASS appointment; 

contacting the Department of Homeland Security Office of 

Inspector General; telephoning the USCIS National Customer Service Center; writing the relevant USCIS facility, congressional representative, or the White House; or contacting 

the Ombudsman’s Office. USCIS does not provide agencywide direction on tracking, responding, or measuring the 

effectiveness of actions taken. Without a centralized reporting system, USCIS leadership does not have visibility over 

issues or trends that may be developing. 

In November 2010, the USCIS Office of Security and Integrity (OSI) rolled out an internal tracking initiative for noncase specific complaints. However, this mechanism does not 

yet fully address stakeholder needs; for example, OSI does not 

provide an email for the public to submit such complaints. 

Ideally, USCIS will implement an agency-wide complaint 

monitoring system. The agency could expand the OSI initiative or introduce an alternative means of monitoring complaints at the district, regional or customer service level. 

This recommendation advances the goals of President 

Obama’s April 27, 2011 Executive Order entitled, “Streamlining Service Delivery and Improving Customer Service.” This 

Executive Order reinforces the Federal government’s commitment to “reducing the overall need for customer inquiries 

and complaints.” While improving the customer experience 

is the order’s ultimate goal, its theme is leveraging the power 

of technology to streamline processing and establish better 

feedback mechanisms and improve service.151

 Formal Recommendations

 The Ombudsman’s Office recommended that USCIS:

(1) Establish a better means of informing the public how 

to submit general complaints; and

(2) Publish the collected complaint data for public scrutiny.
Annual Report to Congress – June 2011 41

Conclusion

On June 6, 2011, USCIS responded, generally concurring 

with the recommendations. Better use of customer feedback 

would allow the agency to improve customer service. The 

Ombudsman’s Office identified several ways to build upon 

existing USCIS processes for implementing these recommendations: issue formal complaint guidance, establish protocols 

for handling complaint inquiries, and make statistical data 

available on its website. Implementation of these recommendations would enable USCIS to analyze relevant data and 

increase transparency, thereby improving accountability.
42 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

USCIS Transformation: The Promise of Modernization for 

USCIS Systems and Immigration Benefits Processing

Transformation is an agency-wide effort to move immigration services from a paper-based model to 

an electronic environment. Last year, the Ombudsman’s Office provided a preview of Transformation, 

reporting on its projected timeline, goals, funding sources, outreach efforts, and challenges.152 Until 

Transformation meaningfully improves the experience of customers interacting with USCIS, its 

potential remains unrealized. 
Annual Report to Congress – June 2011 43

Background

Transformation is USCIS’ comprehensive modernization initiative to convert business processes to an integrated, digitized 

environment. It is designed to address systemic challenges 

arising from USCIS’ paper-based process including file tracking issues, inefficient customer service, and inaccurate data. 

See Figure 7: Transformation Website Screen Shot.

Through Transformation, USCIS is seeking to change the way 

it conducts business operations and reports the following:153 

•	 Customer Accounts. Individuals and representatives 

will be able to create online immigration accounts with 

USCIS and submit filings, fees, and supporting evidence 

electronically.

•	 Adjudicator Resources. Adjudicators will have a consolidated user platform with up-to-date customer information and the latest USCIS policies and procedures. 

•	 Automated Background Checks. The new system will 

interface with multiple existing databases and relieve adjudicators from having to check multiple legacy systems. 

•	 Electronic Adjudications. Select cases, such as Temporary Protected Status re-registration applications, will be 

decided without referral to an adjudicator through an 

automated System Qualified Adjudication process.154

•	 Management and Accountability. Managers will monitor performance with real-time data to provide operational transparency and accountability. 

•	 Electronic Case Files. USCIS will review and transfer 

cases electronically to prevent loss and delay resulting 

from paper file transfers.
44 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

Figure 7: Transformation Website Screen Shot

Source: Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman’s Office (May 11, 2011).

Transformation Timeline

Release D, scheduled to launch in FY 2013, will support 

Transformation is scheduled to be implemented in five re- humanitarian cases. 

leases with a completion goal of FY 2014. As of April 2011, 

the goal is to launch the first phase, Release A, in December Release E, set for FY 2014, will complete Transformation by 

2011. Release A will introduce immigration accounts and core adding naturalization and other citizenship related applications. 

functions to manage cases and information electronically. 

See Figure 8: Transformation, Forms Included for Release A.155 Concerns Regarding Transformation

Release B, set for launch in FY 2012, will establish immigra- The Ombudsman’s Office has become aware of a number of 

tion accounts for organizations, law firms, and other immi- concerns connected with the Transformation program. 

gration service providers, and provide case management capabilities for the remaining nonimmigrant benefit types, such Budget and Costs. The total cost of Transformation, inas Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker. cluding the Solution Architect contract and other IT costs, 

remains to be seen. According to USCIS, the Solution ArchiRelease C, set for launch in FY 2012-13, will add benefit forms tect contract value is $475 million. As of May 2011, USCIS 

related to permanent resident status, including Form I-485, Ap- has obligated $201.3 million on this contract. Additionally, 

plication to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status. from 2006 to present, USCIS obligated a total of $357.5 
Annual Report to Congress – June 2011 45

Figure 8: Transformation, Forms Included for Release A

Form Number and Title I-539 Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status

Permissible Electronic Filings All categories, including those dependent on I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker 

for Spouse and Children of a Lawful Permanent Resident

Form Number and Title I-539A Supplement A for Extension of V Status

Permissible Electronic Filings 

Form Number and Title I-821 Application for Temporary Protected Status (TPS) 

Permissible Electronic Filings Initial and re-registration filings

Form Number and Title I-821A TPS for applicants from Honduras and Nicaragua 

Permissible Electronic Filings 

Form Number and Title I-765 Application for Employment Authorization

Permissible Electronic Filings All categories, initial, and extensions 

Form Number and Title I-131 Application for Travel Document 

Permissible Electronic Filings All filings: advance parole, reentry permits, refugee travel documents, humanitarian parole 

Form Number and Title I-134 Affidavit of Support 

Permissible Electronic Filings In support of Humanitarian Parole I-131s 

Form Number and Title I-824 Application for Action on an Approved Application or Petition 

Permissible Electronic Filings Only those related to benefit requests in the new system 

Form Number and Title I-601 Application for Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility 

Permissible Electronic Filings Only those related to benefit requests in the new system 

Form Number and Title I-102 Application for Replacement/Initial Nonimmigrant Arrival-Departure Document 

Permissible Electronic Filings All applications

Form Number and Title I-290B Notice of Appeal or Motion

Permissible Electronic Filings Only those related to benefit requests in the new system 

Form Number and Title I-612 Application for Waiver of the Foreign Residence Requirement

Permissible Electronic Filings Electronic DS-3035 recommendations from U.S. Department of State only 

Form Number and Title G-28 Notice of Entry of Appearance as Attorney or Accredited Representative 

Permissible Electronic Filings For those accounts and benefits initiated in the new system 

Form Number and Title I-20 Certificate of Eligibility for Nonimmigrant Student 

Permissible Electronic Filings Evidence

Form Number and Title I-508 Waiver of Rights, Privileges, Exemptions and Immunities 

Permissible Electronic Filings Evidence: Only those related to benefit requests in the integrated operating environment 

Form Number and Title DS-2019 Certificate of Eligibility for Exchange Visitor (J-1) Status 

Permissible Electronic Filings Evidence

Form Number and Title I-566 Interagency Record of Request 

Permissible Electronic Filings Evidence

Source: Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman’s Office (Feb. 7, 2011).
46 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

million on related activities including IT infrastructure, 

digitization and pilots, and Transformation-related program 

management support contracts.156

Accessibility and Usability. USCIS conducted an internal 

demonstration of the new operating system, showing how 

customers will file applications for Temporary Protected Status 

and how these applications will be adjudicated. However, 

concerns remain about the accessibility and usability of the 

new system. For example, beginning with Release A, USCIS 

will require applicants to submit certain benefits filings electronically. USCIS states that immigration benefits seekers who 

may not have access to a computer or the internet may request exemption from the mandatory e-filing requirement.157

Attorneys have commented that Release A appears not to be user 

friendly because it does not interface with private immigration 

case management software.158 Release A will have a data entry 

and storage function only for individual applicants. USCIS states 

that Release B will provide interface capability and organizational accounts for attorneys and organizations.

Similar concerns exist about how Transformation will affect 

USCIS’ daily business operations and, about possible negative 

impact on customers. For example, while in the new system, 

adjudicators can verify the authenticity of documents by reviewing scanned copies, they also have the option of requesting the original, hardcopy document from another USCIS 

office or directly from the customer.159 Since USCIS employees are accustomed to paper-based adjudications, stakeholders 

worry that adjudicators may unnecessarily request hardcopy 

documents, which will delay adjudications. 

Conclusion

USCIS continues to gather comments and recommendations 

from its employees, stakeholders, and Federal partners. USCIS 

intends for Transformation to tangibly improve the delivery 

of immigration services, and stakeholders continue to await 

changes that demonstrate how it will achieve this goal. 
Annual Report to Congress – June 2011 47

Previously Made Recommendations

Figure 9 summarizes the Ombudsman’s Office recommendations issued during the 2009 and 2010 

reporting periods. Of the 38 recommendations the Ombudsman’s Office issued during this time, 

USCIS implemented nine, accepted but did not implement 18, and declined to implement 11.

For a more detailed discussion of previously made recommendations, see Appendix 3. Please 

visit the Ombudsman Office’s website at www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman for the full text of the 

recommendations and the USCIS responses. See Figure 9: Ombudsman Recommendations Chart.
48 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

n

A

Figure 9: Ombudsman Recommendations Chart

 Request for Evidence (RFE) Recommendations (June 30, 2010) 

 Preponderance of the Evidence Training (AR2010-01) Accepted, but not implemented

 Improve Detail and Facts in RFEs (AR2010-02) Implemented 

 Specify Adjudicatory Standards for L-1B Petitions (AR2010-03) Accepted, but not implemented

 Supervisory RFE Reviews (AR2010-04) Declined to implement

 National Customer Service Center (Call Center) Recommendations (June 30, 2010) 

 Live Representative Option for Interactive Voice Response (IVR) (AR2010-05) Declined to implement

 Develop an Immediate Connection Option for Call Center Inquiries (AR2010-06) Declined to implement

 Eliminate IVR Scripts (AR2010-07) Declined to implement

 Designate Field Office Points of Contact for Call Center Supervisors (AR2010-08) Implemented

 Identify and Resolve Customer and Stakeholder Call Center Issues (AR2010-09) Implemented 

 Immigration Services for Military Families (June 30, 2010) 

 Allow Military Families the Option of Keeping their Pending Files with the Office Having Original Jurisdiction (AR2010-10) Implemented 

 Agency Coordination within the Removal Process (June 30, 2010) 

 Provide Public Guidance for Agency Responsibility within the Removal Process (AR2010-11) Accepted, but not implemented

 Form N-648, Medical Waivers (June 30, 2010) 

 Establish a Point of Contact for Field Offices Adjudicating N-648, Medical Waivers (AR2010-12) Declined to implement

 Provide Public Guidance for Completing Form N-648 (AR2010-13) Accepted, but not implemented

 Medical Experts Review of Form N-648 (AR2010-14) Declined to implement

 Create a Data Collection and Tracking System for Forms N-648 (AR2010-15) Accepted, but not implemented

 Form I-824, Duplicate Approval Notices (June 30, 2010) 

 Modify Processing Guidelines for Form I-824 (AR2010-16) Accepted, but not implemented

 Transfer Form I-824 to the Underlying Pending Case File (AR2010-17) Implemented 

 Issue Standard Operating Procedures and Training for Adjudicating Form I-824 (AR2010-18) Accepted, but not implemented

 Secure Delivery of Approval Notifications to the U.S. Department of State (DOS) (AR2010-19) Accepted, but not implemented

 Develop Electronic Communications Options Between USCIS and DOS (AR2010-20) Accepted, but not implemented

 Revising Form I-601 Processing (June 10, 2010) 

 Centralize Processing of Form I-601 (FR2010-45:1) Accepted, but not implemented

 Permit Concurrent Filing of Forms I-601 and I-130 (FR2010-45:2) Accepted, but not implemented

 Develop a Case Management System for Forms I-601 Filed Overseas (FR2010-45:3) Accepted, but not implemented

 Publish Guidance on Expedite Requests for Forms I-601 (FR2010-45:4) Implemented 

 Increase Coordination between DOS and USCIS in Ciudad Juarez (FR2010-45:5) Implemented 

 Digitize A-Files for Cases Pending at Ciudad Juarez (FR2010-45:6) Accepted, but not implemented

 Guidance and Processing Emergent Refugee Cases (April 14, 2010) 

 Publicize Criteria for Expediting Emergent Refugee Cases (FR2010-44:1) Accepted, but not implemented

 State the Reason for Denying a Refugee Application (FR2010-44:2) Declined to implement

 Issue Guidance on Filing a Request for Review (FR2010-44:3) Implemented 

 Implement a Receipt Procedure for Request for Review Filings (FR2010-44:4) Accepted, but not implemented

 Management of A-Files (June 30, 2009) 

 Digitization of Immigration Files (AR2009-01) Accepted, but not implemented

 A-File Tracking Protocol (AR2009-02) Declined to implement

 Tri-Bureau Working Group Training (AR2009-03) Declined to implement

 Processing Methods for AC21 Portability Provisions (AR2009-04) Declined to implement

 EB-1 Tip-sheet (June 30, 2009) 

 EB-1 Tip-sheet (AR2009-05) Implemented 

 DNA Testing Updates (June 30, 2009) 

 Update the Adjudicator’s Field Manual to Reflect a Preference for DNA Testing (AR2009-06) Accepted, but not implemented

 Continue to Coordinate with the U.S. Department of State (DOS) Regarding DNA Testing Procedures (AR2009-07) Declined to implement

 Designate a USCIS DNA Liaison to Facilitate Coordination between USCIS and DOS (AR2009-08) Accepted, but not implemented

ot implemented

ccepted, but 

Declined to 

implement

Implemented

 Recommendation

Source: Prior Ombudsman’s Office Recommendations and USCIS Responses for Reporting Years 2009-2010. 
Annual Report to Congress – June 2011 49

Looking Ahead: Ombudsman’s 

Office Objectives and Priorities for 

the Coming Year

In the 2012 reporting year, the Ombudsman’s Office will continue to help individuals and 

employers through case assistance, policy work, and outreach. The Ombudsman’s Office will 

meet regularly with national and community-based organizations, including faith-based, legal, 

and employer associations. The Ombudsman’s Office will also promote and facilitate interagency 

coordination in the immigration process, between USCIS and the U.S. Departments of Commerce, 

Justice, Labor, State, and other Homeland Security components.

Case Resolution: Improving the Process for Those Seeking 

Assistance. The Ombudsman’s Office is redesigning its current case assistance process to improve outcomes and shorten 

response times for individual case inquiries. 

The Ombudsman’s Office is simplifying Form DHS-7001, 

Case Problem Submission Worksheet, and providing instructions in Spanish to make it easier for those seeking assistance 

to access the office’s services. Additionally, the Ombudsman’s 

Office is continuing to develop its online capabilities to allow 

for electronic submission of Form DHS-7001. 

Policy Work: Comprehensive Review of Past Recommendations and Regulatory Review. The Ombudsman’s Office 

will conduct a comprehensive review of previously issued 

recommendations with the goal of ensuring that problemsolving and operationally sound proposals that have not 

been implemented are given renewed consideration. 

Consistent with Presidential Executive Order No. 13563 

entitled “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” the 

Ombudsman’s Office will review USCIS regulations and make 

recommendations to promote predictability and reduce uncertainty for individuals and employers seeking immigration 

benefits.160

The Ombudsman’s Office will remain focused on the following areas: humanitarian; family; employment; customer 

service; and, process integrity. The Ombudsman’s Office plans 

to review USCIS verification programs; USCIS policy review; 

progress of the Transformation program; and training for 

USCIS personnel. 

Outreach: The 2011 Annual Conference. In addition to 

other outreach initiatives, the Ombudsman’s Office will host 

its first annual conference on October 20, 2011. This conference will provide an opportunity for government and private 

sector leaders to come together to discuss immigration issues 

that impact individuals and employers. 
50 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

This page intentionally left blank.
Annual Report to Congress – June 2011 51

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.
52 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

 2) REPORT TO BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY—Each report required under this subsection shall be provided directly 

to the committees described in paragraph (1) without any prior comment or amendment from the Secretary, 

Deputy Secretary, Director of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services, or any other officer or 

employee of the Department or the Office of Management and Budget.

(d) OTHER RESPONSIBILITIES—The Ombudsman—

 1) shall monitor the coverage and geographic allocation of local offices of the Ombudsman;

 2) shall develop guidance to be distributed to all officers and employees of the Bureau of Citizenship and 

Immigration Services outlining the criteria for referral of inquiries to local offices of the Ombudsman;

 3) shall ensure that the local telephone number for each local office of the Ombudsman is published and available 

to individuals and employers served by the office; and

 4) shall meet regularly with the Director of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services to identify serious 

service problems and to present recommendations for such administrative action as may be appropriate to 

resolve problems encountered by individuals and employers.

(e) PERSONNEL ACTIONS—

 1) IN GENERAL—The Ombudsman shall have the responsibility and authority—

 (A) To appoint local ombudsmen and make available at least 1 such ombudsman for each State; and

 (B) To evaluate and take personnel actions (including dismissal) with respect to any employee of any 

local office of the Ombudsman.

 2) 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.
Appendix 2: 

 DHS Organizational Chart 

SECRETARY 

DEPUTY SECRETARY

CHIEF OF STAFF

EXECUTIVE SECRETARIAT

MILITARY ADVISOR

MANAGEMENT

SCIENCE & 

TECHNOLOGY

NATIONAL

PROTECTION

& PROGRAMS

POLICY GENERAL 

COUNSEL

LEGISLATIVE

AFFAIRS

PUBLIC

AFFAIRS

INSPECTOR

GENERAL

CHIEF 

FINANCIAL 

OFFICER

HEALTH AFFAIRS INTELLIGENCE & 

ANALYSIS

OPERATIONS 

COORDINATION 

& PLANNING

CITIZENSHIP & 

IMMIGRATION 

SERVICES 

OMBUDSMAN

CIVIL RIGHTS & 

CIVIL LIBERTIES

CHIEF 

PRIVACY 

OFFICER

COUNTERNARCOTICS 

ENFORCEMENT

INTERGOVERNMENTAL 

AFFAIRS

FEDERAL LAW 

ENFORCEMENT 

TRAINING 

CENTER

DOMESTIC 

NUCLEAR 

DETECTION 

OFFICE

TRANSPORTATION 

SECURITY 

ADMINISTRATION

U.S. CUSTOMS 

& BORDER 

PROTECTION

U.S. CITIZENSHIP 

& IMMIGRATION 

SERVICES

U.S. IMMIGRATION 

& CUSTOMS 

ENFORCEMENT

U.S. SECRET 

SERVICE

FEDERAL 

EMERGENCY 

MANAGEMENT 

AGENCY

U.S. COAST 

GUARD
54 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

Appendix 3: 

Recommendations in Previous Years

Request for Evidence (RFE) Recommendations (June 30, 2010)

Preponderance of the Evidence Training: Implement new and expanded training to ensure that adjudicators understand 

and apply the “preponderance of the evidence” standard in adjudications. 

USCIS Response (November 9, 2010): USCIS recognized the benefit of additional training on this standard of review and 

agreed to implement the recommendation. USCIS identified its RFE project as an example of developing uniform standards. It 

also cited its efforts to update the Adjudicator’s Field Manual (AFM) as guidance to accompany training.

Current Status: The Ombudsman’s Office continues to receive complaints about adjudicators improperly applying the legal and 

evidentiary standard of review. USCIS has not conducted additional training on the preponderance of the evidence standard, but 

is planning on doing so.

Improve Detail and Facts in RFEs: Consistent with applicable regulations, require adjudicators to specify the facts, 

circumstances, and/or derogatory information necessitating the issuance of an RFE.

USCIS Response (November 9, 2010): According to USCIS, the RFE template project addressed this recommendation. USCIS 

plans to review and rewrite, as needed, all current RFE templates. USCIS predicted that the project will improve standardization, 

particularly in the H and L nonimmigrant classifications. 

Current Status: USCIS has posted for public comment RFE templates for selected applications, but has not done so for the 

higher volume H and L classifications. The Ombudsman’s Office continues to receive complaints regarding RFEs. Additional 

efforts beyond the RFE template review project are necessary. 

Specify Adjudicatory Standards for L-1B Petitions: Establish clear adjudicatory L-1B (Intracompany Transferees with 

Specialized Knowledge) guidelines through the structured notice and comment process of the Administrative Procedure Act. 

USCIS Response (November 9, 2010): USCIS responded that “the term ‘specialized knowledge’ was deliberately left 

open-ended by Congress to recognize the fact-specific nature of the term.” USCIS is working on new guidance, rather than 

rulemaking that would provide further explanation of what might satisfy the statutory definition of “specialized knowledge.” 

USCIS also stated that it is updating the AFM and publishing Administrative Appeals Office precedent decisions. 

Current Status: USCIS has not issued new guidance, updated the AFM, or issued new precedent decisions on “specialized 

knowledge.”

Supervisory RFE Reviews: Implement a pilot program requiring: (1) 100 percent supervisory RFE review of one or more 

product lines; and (2) an internal uniform checklist for adjudicators to complete prior to issuance of an RFE. 

USCIS Response (November 9, 2010): USCIS responded that its current quality control practices are sufficient and the cost 

of implementation would be too burdensome. USCIS noted that, in some circumstances, when issuing new guidance, it may 

implement 100 percent supervisory review for a limited time to ensure adjudicators are properly applying the new guidance or 

training. 

Current Status: While USCIS claimed that implementing this type of pilot program would be too costly, it did not provide 

the Ombudsman’s Office information in support of this assertion, such as a cost-benefit analysis. The Ombudsman’s Office 

continues to receive requests for assistance with RFEs and affirms its original recommendation.
Annual Report to Congress – June 2011 55

National Customer Service Center (Call Center) Recommendations (June 30, 2010)

Live Representative Option for Interactive Voice Response: Provide a selection in the Interactive Voice Response (IVR) 

to connect immediately to a live representative who can respond to or direct a call when none of the IVR options is 

appropriate. 

USCIS Response (November 9, 2010): USCIS recognized the importance of providing individuals with a representative who 

is able to assist with inquiries. However, USCIS stated that the current system is cost-effective and rejected the recommendation.

Current Status: When a caller requiring live assistance cannot connect directly with a Customer Service Representative, the 

call must be rerouted or individuals schedule INFOPASS appointments at field offices, delaying resolution and adding costs. The 

Ombudsman’s Office continues to support this recommendation. 

Develop an Immediate Connection Option for Call Center Inquiries: Utilize commercial technology that would enable 

more efficient and direct access to live assistance by providing an option in the IVR to immediately connect callers to: 

(1) Tier 1 Customer Service Representatives (CSRs) for basic, informational questions; and (2) a Tier 2 Immigration 

Services Officer (ISO) for questions on pending cases. 

USCIS Response (November 9, 2010): USCIS stated that it would implement a new IVR system to route callers directly to a 

CSR or an ISO, based on the type of inquiry. However, USCIS declined to provide a direct connection option.

Current Status: USCIS implemented the new IVR system without a direct connection option. The Ombudsman’s Office 

continues to support its recommendation to allow callers to go directly to a live representative.

Eliminate IVR Scripts: Eliminate the scripted information over a targeted period of time to enable the agency to train staff 

to answer basic immigration inquiries. 

USCIS Response (November 9, 2010): USCIS committed to creating a task force to review and revise the scripted information 

used by Tier 1 contract staff, but declined to eliminate scripts for all calls.

Current Status: The Ombudsman’s Office continues to hear stakeholder frustration with Tier 1 scripts.

Designate Field Office Points of Contact for Call Center Supervisors: Designate a point of contact within each field 

office and service center to be available to Tier 2 supervisors: (1) to answer time-sensitive inquiries including, for example, 

missing or lost RFEs; and (2) to provide information on individual field office operations and procedures to respond to 

customer inquiries. 

USCIS Response (November 9, 2010): USCIS verified that it has provided Tier 2 Supervisory Immigration Services Officers 

with points of contact for each field office and service center. According to USCIS, most questions pertaining to RFEs require 

technical advice that cannot be provided over the telephone. 

Current Status: USCIS has implemented this recommendation.

Identify and Resolve Customer and Stakeholder Call Center Issues: Obtain information from Tier 2 Immigration 

Services Officers to identify trends and resolve issues of concern to customers and stakeholders. 

USCIS Response (November 9, 2010): USCIS agreed with this recommendation. USCIS implemented a pilot program at the 

call centers to track customer inquiry trends. Using this information, USCIS has issued guidance and revised policies to improve 

customer service.

Current Status: USCIS has implemented this recommendation.
56 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

Immigration Services for Military Families (June 30, 2010)

Allow Military Families the Option of Keeping their Pending Files with the Office Having Original Jurisdiction:

Provide military families the option to have the office with initial jurisdiction complete adjudications for family members 

of active duty personnel, even when the family relocates outside the district. 

USCIS Response (November 9, 2010): USCIS agreed to review on a case-by-case basis the request to have the application or 

petition remain with the originating office. USCIS stated that it is always looking for new ways to encourage military applicants 

to notify the agency when they find out about an upcoming deployment or transfer. USCIS stated that in some instances 

jurisdictional limitations might require relocation to another district.

Current Status: On a case-by-case basis, USCIS has implemented this recommendation.

Agency Coordination within the Removal Process (June 30, 2010)

Provide Public Guidance for Agency Responsibility within the Removal Process: Coordinate with U.S. Immigration 

and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) to provide the public with one 

document that specifies each agency’s responsibilities within the removal process and the basic steps and information that 

respondents need to know about the jurisdiction of each agency. 

USCIS Response (November 9, 2010): USCIS agreed with this recommendation and highlighted its partnership with ICE’s 

Secure Communities initiative. USCIS indicated that it was issuing internal guidance and promised to engage the public in order 

to make the document as useful and accessible to the intended users.

Current Status: While USCIS and ICE issued memoranda for handling cases for individuals in removal proceedings, USCIS has 

yet to issue a document outlining agency responsibilities. 

Form N-648, Medical Certification for Disability Waivers Processing (June 30, 2010)

Establish a Point of Contact for Field Offices Adjudicating N-648, Medical Waivers: Assign an expert or supervisory 

adjudicator as the public point of contact in each field office, in accordance with the USCIS September 2007 N-648 

guidance memorandum.

USCIS Response (November 9, 2010): USCIS stated its 2007 guidance established a point of contact to assist Immigration 

Services Officers and provide public outreach and training, rather than providing a contact for the public. USCIS recommended 

that customers with inquiries contact the National Customer Service Center or schedule an INFOPASS appointment with a local 

field office. USCIS stated that it was reviewing and amending Form N-648 and would engage with stakeholders to be responsive 

to public concerns.

Current Status: This recommendation has not been implemented.

Provide Public Guidance for Completing Form N-648: Distribute, and make publicly available on the USCIS website, a 

training module for medical professionals who complete Form N-648. 

USCIS Response (November 9, 2010): USCIS agreed to provide general training for interested stakeholders, but declined to 

specifically target medical professionals.

Current Status: The Ombudsman’s Office supports the continued efforts USCIS has made to educate and inform stakeholders 

regarding Form N-648 by holding public training sessions. The Ombudsman’s Office continues to encourage USCIS to provide 
Annual Report to Congress – June 2011 57

specific guidance and directions for medical professionals. Such guidance would ensure that medical professionals correctly 

complete the form.

Medical Experts Review of Form N-648: Revise current practices for processing Form N-648 to utilize experts to 

adjudicate the Medical Certification for Disability Exceptions. 

USCIS Response (November 9, 2010): USCIS found this recommendation cost-prohibitive and declined to implement it. 

Current Status: The Ombudsman’s Office continues to support this recommendation; submitting waivers to medical experts 

would ensure consistent and accurate results.

Create a Data Collection and Tracking System for Forms N-648: Track the number of Forms N-648 filed, approved, and 

rejected, as well as other key information. 

USCIS Response (November 9, 2010): USCIS agreed to include in Transformation a tracking mechanism for medical waivers. 

However, USCIS cited difficulties in tracking paper medical waivers.

Current Status: The Ombudsman’s Office continues to recommend use of a tracking system to monitor Form N-648 

processing. Without a tracking system, USCIS cannot track Form N-648 trends and is unable to adapt the program to respond to 

stakeholder concerns.

Form I-824, Application for Action on an Approved Application 

or Petition Processing (June 30, 2010)

Modify Processing Guidelines for Form I-824: Establish a goal to process Forms I-824 requesting duplicate approval 

notices within days of receipting, and to process all other I-824s more expeditiously. 

USCIS Response (November 9, 2010): USCIS agreed that it is a priority to adjudicate Form I-824 requests expeditiously, but 

found unavoidable delays due to officers not having the information necessary to render a decision.

Current Status: This recommendation has not been implemented. 

Transfer Form I-824 to the Underlying Pending Case File: Evaluate the benefit of transferring Form I-824 to the USCIS 

facility with physical possession of the underlying case file for adjudication. 

USCIS Response (November 9, 2010): USCIS stated that it complies with this recommendation whenever possible but that 

delays occur when the underlying A-file is located at the National Records Center. 

Current Status: This recommendation appears to have been implemented but the Ombudsman’s Office continues to receive 

complaints regarding Form I-824 processing delays that may be resolved by transferring the Form I-824 to the office in 

possession of the underlying case file. 

Issue Standard Operating Procedures and Training for Adjudicating Form I-824: Develop a national standard 

operating procedure (SOP) for processing Forms I-824 and institute mandatory training for all USCIS adjudicators. 

USCIS Response (November 9, 2010): USCIS agreed with this recommendation and stated that an SOP providing guidance 

for Form I-824 processing would be forthcoming. 

Current Status: USCIS has not yet issued an SOP or instituted training on the processing of Form I-824.

Secure Delivery of Approval Notifications to the U.S. Department of State (DOS): Ensure the timely and accurate 

delivery of notifications to the DOS National Visa Center through the use of a tracked mail delivery service. 
58 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

USCIS Response (November 9, 2010): USCIS stated that this recommendation is infeasible due to its delivery agreement with DOS.

Current Status: USCIS has not implemented this recommendation. Discussions with DOS indicate that they are amenable to 

working with USCIS on the use of a courier service. 

Develop Electronic Communications Options Between USCIS and DOS: Develop an electronic communication channel 

between USCIS and DOS capable of securely sending formal notifications on various immigration-related matters, including 

Form I-824. 

USCIS Response (November 9, 2010): USCIS agreed with this recommendation and indicated that it referred the 

recommendation to its Office of Information Technology.

Current Status of Recommendation: USCIS has not yet implemented this recommendation. 

Revising Form I-601, Application for Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility Processing

in the USCIS Ciudad Juarez Office (June 10, 2010)

Centralize Processing of Form I-601: Centralize Form I-601 adjudications.

USCIS Response (October 12, 2010): USCIS stated that it is evaluating enhancements to its processing of Forms I-601 filed 

overseas. USCIS declined to eliminate the current triage system that takes place at the filing location. USCIS agrees with the 

importance of addressing inconsistency in adjudications and expects to complete its analysis in FY 2011. 

Current Status: USCIS has not implemented this recommendation, but the agency indicates that it plans to centralize filing in 

early FY 2012.

Permit Concurrent Filing of Forms I-601 and I-130: Allow applicants to concurrently file Forms I-601 and I-130, 

Petition for Alien Relative.

USCIS Response (October 12, 2010): USCIS presented this recommendation to its Office of Policy and Strategy to explore 

available options. 

Current Status: USCIS has not implemented this recommendation.

Develop a Case Management System for Forms I-601 Filed Overseas: Complete development of the USCIS overseas case 

management system in order to collect statistical data on Forms I-601, post processing times online, and track applications 

via the “My Case Status” online feature on the USCIS website.

USCIS Response (October 12, 2010): USCIS agreed with this recommendation. On August 16, 2010, USCIS released its 

overseas case management system, Case and Activity Management for International Operations (CAMINO). USCIS promised a 

second release of CAMINO that would expand the capabilities of the system to allow applicants to check case status for overseas 

filings. USCIS also noted that many of its overseas offices manually post case-specific processing information on the local DOS 

website. 

Current Status: The Ombudsman’s Office continues to support this recommendation and understands that USCIS is working to 

post processing times. 

Publish Guidance on Expedite Requests for Form I-601 Waivers: Publish filing instructions to guide customers in need 

of expedited Form I-601 processing.

USCIS Response (October 12, 2010): USCIS stated that it was in the process of updating the International Operations 

Division’s guidance and would provide customers with specific updates. USCIS committed to sharing with stakeholders draft 

guidance on the criteria used to expedite Form I-601 adjudications prior to publishing it in FY 2011.
Annual Report to Congress – June 2011 59

Current Status: On May 9, 2011, USCIS published a final memorandum governing the processing of expedited requests for 

Form I-601 waivers overseas. 

Increase Coordination between DOS and USCIS in Ciudad Juarez: Increase coordination between DOS consular officers 

and USCIS adjudicators who review and adjudicate Forms I-601.

USCIS Response (October 12, 2010): USCIS agreed with this recommendation, but stated that there currently is sufficient 

coordination. USCIS agreed to discuss coordinating communications with DOS for cases presenting certain criminal convictions. 

Current Status: While USCIS and DOS supervisors in Ciudad Juarez meet on a regular basis, this recommendation has not been 

formally implemented at the adjudicator level.

Digitize A-Files for Cases Pending at Ciudad Juarez: Allow USCIS employees to request digitized A-files upon receipt of 

interview schedules.

USCIS Response (October 12, 2010): USCIS agreed with the recommendation, but stated that its current systems do not 

have this capability. USCIS stated that it could create disks containing a copy of the file and ship them to the post. However, this 

process could take approximately nine to ten work days. USCIS agreed to explore the costs and benefits of digitizing waiver 

cases that are scheduled with the Ciudad Juarez Consulate. 

Current Status: USCIS has not implemented this recommendation, but does try to make A-files available to assist with waiver 

processing.

Guidance and Processing Emergent Refugee Cases (April 14, 2010)

Publicize Criteria for Expediting Emergent Refugee Cases: Publicly state, on the USCIS website and to stakeholder 

groups, the criteria by which USCIS expedites certain emergent refugee cases and how to access that expedited process.

USCIS Response (July 10, 2010): USCIS committed to providing to the public information on how to request expedite 

processing for certain emergent refugee cases. It further indicated that it is identifying program partners and collecting 

information to provide its stakeholders. 

Current Status: USCIS currently is working with the U.S. Department of State to develop expedite criteria and procedures. 

State the Reason for Denying a Refugee Application: (a) Identify issues of concern during refugee interviews to enable 

the applicant to address, at that time, any potential grounds for denial; and (b) Articulate in the Notice of Ineligibility for 

Resettlement clear and case-specific information regarding the grounds for denial.

USCIS Response (July 10, 2010): USCIS indicated that due to certain security issues or additional case review needs, it may be 

impossible to notify each applicant of all possible ineligibilities during the interview. USCIS also committed to ensuring that its 

officers receive comprehensive, ongoing training on how to carefully gather testimony and facts to support their analysis. 

Current Status: USCIS does not intend to take any additional action on this recommendation, aside from ongoing training 

assessing the efficacy of the new notice.

Issue Guidance on Filing a Request for Review: (a) Provide a tip-sheet on relevant supporting documents, outlining the 

information applicants should include; and (b) Publish mailing address(es) for Request for Review submissions.

USCIS Response (July 10, 2010): USCIS committed to issuing guidance, by the second quarter of 2011, on how to file a 

Request for Review of a denied refugee application.

Current Status: On March 8, 2011, USCIS posted a refugee tip-sheet identifying how to file a Request for Review. 
60 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

Implement a Receipt Procedure for Request for Review Filings: Acknowledge receipt of each Request for Review (RFR).

USCIS Response (July 10, 2010): USCIS indicated that it was developing a case management system to track overseas 

adjudications, including RFRs, which also would provide the capability to generate receipt notices. USCIS also stated that it was 

considering alternative ways of delivering the receipt notice, including in person, standard mail, or via electronic mail. 

Current Status: USCIS implemented an overseas adjudications case management system and has been working to refine it. 

USCIS now has the capability to track RFR processing activities and expects to have the capability to issue RFR receipt notices in 

FY 2011. 

Management of A-Files (June 30, 2009)

Digitization of Immigration Files: Immediately begin scanning immigration files that likely are to be needed for future 

adjudications.

USCIS Response (October 16, 2009): USCIS indicated that it met this recommendation in 2006 through its program Scan 

on Demand Application (SODA) at the National Records Center (NRC). USCIS also indicated that it plans to respond to A-file 

transfer requests by scanning and electronically transmitting within a designated timeframe. 

Current Status: USCIS has not yet fully implemented this recommendation.

A-File Tracking Protocol: Establish new protocols to ensure that relevant contract staff consistently record all A-file 

movement as outlined in the Records Operations Handbook.

USCIS Response (October 16, 2009): USCIS stated that its existing protocols were sufficient to comply with its A-file tracking 

requirements and that its Records Operation Handbook provided clear guidance on the management of A-files and other 

immigration records. 

Current Status: The Ombudsman’s Office continues to receive complaints regarding delays in case adjudications due to missing 

A-files. 

Tri-Bureau Working Group Training: Institute, through the Tri-Bureau Working Group (USCIS, U.S. Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection), mandatory training of all personnel who work with 

A-files, specifically special agents, investigators, and officers.

USCIS Response (October 16, 2009): USCIS stated that it currently provides the necessary training for the Tri-Bureau Working 

Group to meet its current A-file management policies and procedures. 

Current Status: The Ombudsman’s Office recommends that USCIS continue its training programs and improve the consistency 

of procedures through the Tri-Bureau Working Group. 

Processing Methods for AC21 Portability Provisions: Review processing methods for employment-based petitions used 

by the Nebraska and Texas Service Centers in order to make American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act 

(AC21) portability provisions equally available to all customers.

USCIS Response (October 16, 2009): USCIS did not acknowledge the existence of any problem stemming from disparate 

procedures in use at the Nebraska and Texas Service Centers. USCIS also indicated that both service centers take steps to ensure 

prompt final adjudication of Form I-485 once a visa number becomes available.

Current Status: The Ombudsman’s Office will continue to monitor AC21 portability issues.
Annual Report to Congress – June 2011 61

EB-1 Tip-sheet (June 30, 2009)

Recommendation: Post a practical tip-sheet on the USCIS website to assist stakeholders in providing relevant evidence in 

support of complex EB-1 cases.

USCIS Response (October 16, 2009): USCIS posted guidance on its website indicating the types of evidence that should be 

submitted in support of complex EB-1 cases. 

Current Status: USCIS has implemented this recommendation. 

DNA Testing Updates (June 30, 2009)

Update the Adjudicator’s Field Manual to Reflect a Preference for DNA Testing: Remove references to obsolete testing 

methods from the Adjudicator’s Field Manual (AFM) and other published guidance.

USCIS Response (October 16, 2009): USCIS stated that it was working to remove obsolete references to blood testing from 

the AFM and was drafting updates to 8 C.F.R. § 204.2(d)(2)(vi). 

Current Status: USCIS has not yet implemented this recommendation.

Continue to Coordinate with the U.S. Department of State (DOS) Regarding DNA Testing Procedures: Continue 

to coordinate with the U.S. Department of State (DOS) regarding DNA testing procedures. Execute a Memorandum of 

Understanding (MOU) with DOS regarding overseas resource allocation for DNA evidence gathering and chain-of-custody 

observance. 

USCIS Response (October 16, 2009): USCIS recognized the various concerns connected with the collection of DNA samples, 

including chain-of-custody control and updates to the Foreign Affairs Manual. However, USCIS stated that an MOU was not 

necessary.

Current Status: USCIS continues to negotiate with DOS regarding DNA testing methods and procedures. 

Designate a USCIS DNA Liaison to Facilitate Coordination between USCIS and DOS: Designate a USCIS DNA liaison 

to: (a) Facilitate discussions between USCIS and DOS; and, (b) Provide clarifications for DNA laboratories.

USCIS Response (October 16, 2009): USCIS stated that it had designated a subject matter expert within the agency to field 

questions and liaise with the U.S. Departments of Justice (DOJ) and State. 

Current Status: Although USCIS has DNA subject matter experts, the agency has not designated a DNA liaison.
62 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

Endnotes 

1 Homeland Security Act of 2002, § 452. See Appendix 1.

2 USCIS Webpage, “Office of Public Engagement;” http://www.uscis.

gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6

d1a/?vgnextoid=0d0cbd85ef149210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCR

D&vgnextchannel=0d0cbd85ef149210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRC

RD (accessed May 27, 2011). 

3 USCIS News Release, “USCIS Announces First Ten Areas of Focus for 

Agency-wide Policy Review Public Survey Informs Selections” (July 

26, 2010); http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9

bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=3205d06dcebf9210

VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=68439c7755cb90

10VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1RCRD) (accessed May 27, 2011). 

4 USCIS News Release, “USCIS to Host Open Houses Nationwide” 

(Oct. 5, 2010); http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.

5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=95a921e7bcc7b

210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=68439c7755c

b9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1RCRD) (accessed May 27, 2011). 

5 USCIS Outreach, “‘Enlace’ Public Engagement;” http://www.uscis.

gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543

f6d1a/?vgnextoid=49731bf8d43ee210VgnVCM100000082ca60aR

CRD&vgnextchannel=994f81c52aa38210VgnVCM100000082ca60

aRCRD) (accessed May 27, 2011). 

6 USCIS activities included holding meetings at local offices, hosting 

public teleconferences, and establishing service center contacts for 

assisting customers. See also USCIS Outreach, “USCIS Teleconference 

to Discuss the Help Haiti Act of 2010” (Feb. 9, 2011); http://www.

uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176

543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=2fc9f8a40b8bd210VgnVCM100000082ca60

aRCRD&vgnextchannel=994f81c52aa38210VgnVCM100000082ca6

0aRCRD (accessed May 27, 2011). 

7 See USCIS Outreach, “Notes from Previous Public Engagements, 

Verification;” http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb

1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=27bb5fae4be5e21

0VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=27bb5fae4be5e2

10VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD (accessed May 27, 2011).

8 See USCIS Outreach, “Notes from Previous Public Engagements, 

Transformation;” http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/

menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=06e1

2376a3e5e210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=06e

12376a3e5e210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD 

(accessed May 27, 2011).

9 “U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Fee Schedule,” 75 Fed. 

Reg. 58961, 58964 (Sept. 24, 2010). USCIS did not raise the fees for 

naturalization applications.

10 USCIS News Release, “USCIS Announces First Ten Areas of Focus for 

Agency-wide Policy Review—Public Survey Informs Selections” (July 

26, 2010); http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9

bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=3205d06dcebf9210

VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=68439c7755cb90

10VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1RCRD) (accessed May 27, 2011). 

11 Id.

12 Information provided by USCIS (May 10, 2011). See also USCIS 

Webpage, “Feedback Updates;” http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/

uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoi

d=60a67e8cba5d8210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD&vgnextcha

nnel=60a67e8cba5d8210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD(accessed 

June 1, 2011); USCIS Webpage, “Immigration Policy and Procedural 

Memoranda;” http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb

1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=7dc68f236e16e01

0VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCRD&vgnextchannel=7dc68f236e16e0

10VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCRD) (accessed June 1, 2011). 

13 5 U.S.C. 500 (1946).

14 USCIS News Release, “USCIS Introduces First-Ever Fee Waiver Form” 

(Nov. 22, 2010); http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/

menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=

2a1c003cf147c210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel

=68439c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1RCRD) 

(accessed May 27, 2011). 

15 USCIS Fact Sheet, “USCIS Publishes First-Ever Proposed Fee Waiver 

Form—Agency Actively Seeks Public Comment” (July 16, 2010); 

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f3

5e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=2e15ac6b49cd9210VgnVCM10

0000082ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=68439c7755cb9010VgnVCM

10000045f3d6a1RCRD (accessed June 1, 2011). 

16 USCIS News Release, “USCIS Introduces First-Ever Fee Waiver Form” 

(Nov. 22, 2010); http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/

menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=

2a1c003cf147c210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel

=68439c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1RCRD) 

(accessed June 1, 2011). 

17 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 

103-322, 108 Stat. 1796 (1994); see also Victims of Trafficking and 

Violence Protection Act of 2000, Pub. L. No. 106-386, 114 Stat. 1464 

(2000); Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2003, 

Pub. L. No. 106-386, 117 Stat. 2875 (2003).

18 USCIS Report to Congress, “Report on the Operations of the Violence 

Against Women Act Unit at the USCIS Vermont Service Center,” p. 3 

(Oct. 22, 2010); http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Resources/

Resources%20for%20Congress/Congressional%20Reports/

vawa-vermont-service-center.pdf (accessed May 27, 2011). 

19 Id., p. 30. 

20 USCIS Interoffice Memorandum, “Assessment of Deferred Action 

in Requests for Interim Relief from U Nonimmigrant Status 

Eligible Aliens in Removal Proceedings” (May 6, 2004); 

http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Laws/Memoranda/Static_Files_
Annual Report to Congress – June 2011 63

Memoranda/Archives%201998-2008/2004/uprcd050604.pdf 

(accessed May 27, 2011). 

21 The policy memoranda USCIS has released in the past year include: 

“Extension of U Nonimmigrant Status for Derivative Family 

Members Using the Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant 

Status (Form I-539)” on June 22, 2010; “William Wilberforce 

Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008: 

Changes to T and U Nonimmigrant Status and Adjustment of Status 

Provisions” on July 21, 2011; “Revocation of VAWA-Based 

Self-Petitions (Forms I-360)” on December 15, 2010; the draft 

policy memo “Eligibility to Self-Petition as a Battered or Abused 

Parent of a U.S. Citizen” on January 7, 2011; and the Interim Policy 

Memorandum “Extension of Status for T and U Nonimmigrants” 

on March 8, 2011.

22 This interpretation is consistent with the statutory language for most 

nonimmigrant visas, which states that a derivative ages out at 21 

years of age. INA §§ 203(h)(2)(B) and 203(h)(4); USCIS Fact Sheet, 

“Child Status Protection Act” (Mar. 30, 2011); http://www.uscis.

gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f

6d1a/?vgnextoid=1f0c0a5659083210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRC

RD&vgnextchannel=1f0c0a5659083210VgnVCM100000082ca60a

RCRD, (accessed May 27, 2011). The current “age out” interpretation 

for U visa derivatives seems to conflict with the congressional intent 

of the U visa, suggesting that U visas should similarly be eligible 

for CSPA coverage. Section 107 of the Victims of Trafficking and 

Violence Prevention Act of 2000 provides clear congressional intent 

that protections and assistance be available for victims of trafficking 

as well as their family members, so that they could live free “from 

intimidation, threats of reprisals, and reprisals from traffickers and 

their associates.” Victims of Trafficking and Violence Prevention Act of 

2000, Pub. L. No. 106-386, 114 Stat. 1464.

23 Congressional Record, 106th Cong., 1st Session S7781 (2000). 

24 These are types of nonimmigrant visas: the A is for diplomats and 

foreign government officials; the E-3 allows Australian nationals to 

work in specialty occupations in the United States; the G permits 

employees of international organizations to visit the United States 

on official business; and the various forms of H are issued to people 

coming to the United States to work temporarily. See INA § 101 (a)

(15)(A), (E)(iii) and (G) (2011).

25 Homeland Security Act of 2002, § 442(c), Pub. L. No. 107-296 

(2002); Delegation to the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration 

Services (BCIS), former DHS Secretary Tom Ridge (Mar. 1, 2003) 

(delegating authority to grant voluntary departure under section 

240B of the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1229c, and deferred action); See INS 

Memorandum from Commissioner Doris Meissner to Regional Directors, et al. (“Meissner Memorandum”), “Exercising Prosecutorial 

Discretion,” HQ OPP 50/4 (Nov. 17, 2000); See also U.S. Department 

of Justice, Immigration Naturalization Service Fact Sheet, “Prosecutorial Discretion Guidelines” (Nov. 28, 2000). 

26 8 C.F.R. § 274a.12(c)(14) (2011).

27 The Meissner Memorandum provides a more comprehensive list. 

USCIS reports that the memo is used as informal guidance for local 

offices reviewing a deferred action request. Information provided by 

USCIS (Apr. 15, 2011). 

28 Information provided by stakeholders (Mar. 29, 2011). Recently, DHS 

Secretary Napolitano announced the extension and re-designation 

of Haiti for Temporary Protected Status. 76 Fed. Reg. 29000 

(May 19, 2011).

29 The Ombudsman’s Office received basic submission statistics. USCIS 

has not provided the Ombudsman’s Office the exact number of cases 

submitted over the past five years or the number of cases denied 

before 2011. Information provided by USCIS (Apr. 15, 2011).

30 8 C.F.R. § 274a.12(c)(14). 

31 Information provided by USCIS (Mar. 30, 2011).

32 Information provided by USCIS (Mar. 29, 2011; Apr. 15, 19 and 

20, 2011). 

33 Recommendation #32 (Apr. 9, 2007), http://www.dhs.gov/

xlibrary/assets/CISOmbudsman_RR_32_O_Deferred_Action_04-06-07.pdf (accessed June 16, 2011).

34 USCIS Response to Recommendation #32 (Aug. 7, 2007), http://

www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/cisombudsman_rr_32_o_deferred_action_uscis_response_08-07-07.pdf (accessed June 16, 2011).

35 See generally INA § 208. 

36 INA § 208(d)(5)(A)(iii). 

37 8 C.F.R. § 208.7(a)(1), § 1208.7(a)(1), § 274a.12(c)(8), § 

274a.13(a) (2011).

38 INA § 208(d)(2) (2009). 

39 See DHS Office of Immigration Statistics, “Annual Flow Report—U.S. 

Legal Permanent Residents: 2010” (Mar. 2011); http://www.dhs.

gov/files/statistics/publications/gc_1301497627185.shtm 

(accessed May 27, 2011). 

40 Department of State, Visa Bulletin Webpage, linking to 

“Comprehensive Lists of Cut-Off Dates;” http://travel.state.gov/visa/

bulletin/bulletin_1360.html (accessed May 27, 2011). 

41 Information provided to the Ombudsman’s Office (Jan. 6, 2011) and 

Ombudsman’s Office Teleconference, “Family-based Visa Retrogression—What Is It and How Does It Impact Applicants? (Mar. 15, 

2011); http://www.dhs.gov/files/programs/cisomb-teleconfamily-visa-retrogression.shtm (accessed May 27, 2011).

42 USCIS Interim Policy Memorandum, “Instructions for Handling 

Regressed Visa Number (Employment-Based and Family- Based) 

Adjustment of Status Cases Interviewed at USCIS Field Offices 

(Dec. 15, 2010); http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Outreach/

Interim%20Guidance%20for%20Comment/

regressed-visa-12-15-10.pdf (accessed May 27, 2011). 

43 Information provided to the Ombudsman’s Office (Jan.– Feb. 2011). 

44 See CIS Ombudsman Updates, http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/gc_1221837986181.shtm#3 (accessed April 19, 2011). 

45 INA § 204(l), as amended by § 568(d) and (e) of the DHS Appropriations Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-83, 123 Stat. 2142 (2009).

46 See Matter of Sano, 19 I&N Dec. 299 (BIA 1985); Matter of Varela, 13 

I&N Dec. 453 (BIA 1970).
64 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

47 8 C.F.R. § 205.1(a)(i)(C) (2011).

48 Humanitarian reinstatement was in the discretion of USCIS where 

the relative petition had already been approved, and where humanitarian circumstances compelled discretionary reinstatement. In 

addition, the person seeking reinstatement had to have a substitute 

sponsor for the Form I-864, Affidavit of Support. 8 C.F.R. § 205.1(a)

(3)(i)(C) (2011). The substitute sponsor had to be one of the following relatives: spouse, parent, mother-in-law, father-in-law, sibling, 

child at least 18 years of age, son, daughter, son-in-law, daughter-inlaw, sister-in-law, brother-in-law, grandparent, grandchild, or legal 

guardian of the immigrant who is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent 

resident and can otherwise qualify as a sponsoring relative with sufficient income to pledge financial support according to the Affidavit 

of Support requirements.

49 USCIS Policy Memorandum, “Approval of Petitions and Applications 

after the Death of the Qualifying Relative under New Section 204(l) 

of the Immigration and Nationality Act” (Dec. 16, 2010), p. 2.

50 USCIS Policy Memorandum, “Approval of Petitions and Applications 

after the Death of the Qualifying Relative under New Section 204(l) 

of the Immigration and Nationality Act” (Dec. 16, 2010), p. 3.

51 INA § 204(l)(1); See Adjudicator’s Field Manual, Chapter 10.21(b) 

and (c).

52 Information provided by USCIS (Nov. 30, 2010). 

53 USCIS Policy Memorandum, “Approval of Petitions and Applications 

after the Death of the Qualifying Relative under New Section 204(l) 

of the Immigration and Nationality Act” (Dec. 16, 2010); 

http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Laws/Memoranda/2011/January/

Death-of-Qualifying-Relative.pdf (accessed June 14, 2011).

54 USCIS Policy Memorandum, “Approval of Petitions and Applications 

after the Death of the Qualifying Relative under New Section 204(l) 

of the Immigration and Nationality Act” (Dec. 16, 2010); 

http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Laws/Memoranda/2011/January/

Death-of-Qualifying-Relative.pdf (accessed May 27, 2011, p. 15. 

USCIS has indicated that this process may be initiated via the 

submission of a written request. 

55 INA § 204(l)(1). 

56 Information provided by USCIS (Jan. 7, 2011).

57 See Ombudsman’s Annual Reports 2010, pp. 63-66; 2009, pp. 37-39; 

2008, p. 58. 

58 Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman (Mar. 30, 2011). 

59 Id. 

60 Id. 

61 Information provided by USCIS (Mar. 30, 2011 and Apr. 13, 2011). 

62 See The USCIS Beacon Blog, “An Exceptional Day with Newly 

Naturalized Navy Recruits” (Mar. 4, 2011), http://blog.uscis.

gov/2011/03/exceptional-day-with-newly-naturalized.html 

(accessed May 27, 2011). 

63 8 C.F.R. § 103.7 (2011). 

64 Information provided by USCIS (Mar. 30, 2011 and Apr. 13, 2011). 

65 Information provided by USCIS (Mar. 30, 2011). 

66 Ombudsman’s Annual Report 2010, p. 65. 

67 Letter from Lofgren, Thornberry, Conyers, Pence, et al., Members 

of the House of Representatives, to Janet Napolitano, Secretary of 

Homeland Security (July 9, 2010). 

68 Letter from Janet Napolitano, Secretary of Homeland Security, to Zoe 

Lofgren, Member of the House of Representatives (Aug. 20, 2010). 

69 Id.

70 Id. 

71 Information provided by USCIS (Mar. 30, 2011).

72 On December 23, 2008, the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims 

Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 (TVPRA 2008), Pub. L. 

No.110-457 (2008) was enacted. Most TVPRA 2008 SIJ provisions 

took effect March 23, 2009, although some took effect on the date 

of enactment. Section 235(d) amends eligibility for SIJ status at INA 

§ 101(a)(27)(J); adjustment of status eligibility requirements are 

amended at INA § 245(h). 

73 USCIS Questions and Answers, “New Validation Tool Aids 

Adjudication of Certain Employment-Based Petitions” 

(Mar. 3, 2011); http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.

5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=3cb744db86eb

d210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=521d735652

f9d210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD (accessed May 31, 2011). 

74 Id. 

75 Id. 

76 USCIS Webpage, “Validation Instrument for Business Enterprise 

(VIBE) Program) (Mar. 2, 2011); http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/

uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid

=521d735652f9d210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD&vgnextchan

nel=521d735652f9d210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD (accessed 

June 14, 2011). 

77 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), p. 3; 

http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Outreach/Notes%20from%20

Previous%20Engagements/DB%20External%20Stakeholder%20

Briefing_FINAL.PDF (accessed May 31, 2011). 

78 See Dun & Bradstreet (D&B), “D&B Briefing for USCIS Information 

Sharing Session” (May 27, 2010), p. 7; http://www.uscis.gov/

USCIS/Outreach/Notes%20from%20Previous%20Engagements/

DB%20External%20Stakeholder%20Briefing_FINAL.PDF 

(accessed May 31, 2011). 

79 USCIS Questions and Answers, “New Validation Tool Aids 

Adjudication of Certain Employment-Based Petitions” 

(Mar. 3, 2011); http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.

5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=3cb744db86eb

d210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=521d735652

f9d210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD (accessed May 31, 2011). 
Annual Report to Congress – June 2011 65

80 USCIS Fact Sheet, “Validation Instrument for Business Enterprises 

(VIBE) Program” (Mar. 3, 2011); http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/

uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid

=521d735652f9d210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD&vgnextchan

nel=521d735652f9d210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD (accessed 

May 31, 2011). See also USCIS Questions and Answers, 

“New Validation Tool Aids Adjudication of Certain Employment-Based 

Petitions” (Mar. 3, 2011); http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/

menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=

3cb744db86ebd210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel

=521d735652f9d210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD 

(accessed May 31, 2011).

81 USCIS Executive Summary, “Information Sharing Session—Validation 

Instrument for Business Enterprises” (June 4, 2010); 

http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Outreach/Notes%20from%20

Previous%20Engagements/OPE%20Executive%20Summary%20

VIBE%20061510.pdf (accessed June 1, 2011). 

82 Information provided by USCIS (June 15, 2011).

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

Light of USCIS’s Implementation of VIBE” (June 1,2011); 

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f3

5e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=ff44be4e1c740310VgnVCM10

0000082ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=e7801c2c9be44210VgnVCM1

00000082ca60aRCRD (accessed June 13, 2011).

84 Id.

85 USCIS Outreach, “H-2A Petitions: Best Filing Practices 

Teleconference” (June 10, 2011).

86 USCIS Executive Summary, “Information Sharing Session—

Validation Instrument for Business Enterprises” (June 4, 2010); 

http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Outreach/Notes%20from%20

Previous%20Engagements/OPE%20Executive%20Summary%20

VIBE%20061510.pdf (accessed June 1, 2011). 

87 Information provided by USCIS (June 6, 2011).

88 INA § 203 (b)(5). 

89 Data extracted from DHS Office of Immigration Statistics; see “2009 

Yearbook of Immigration Statistics” (August 2010) (Table 6); 

http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/yearbook/2009/

ois_yb_2009.pdf (accessed June 28, 2011). 

90 USCIS Proposed Changes to USCIS Processing of EB-5 Cases (May 19, 

2011), http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Outreach/Feedback%20Opportunities/Operartional%20Proposals%20for%20Comment/

EB-5-Proposal-18May11.pdf (accessed May 31, 2011). 

91 Recommendation #40, http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/

CIS_Ombudsman_EB-5_Recommendation_3_18_09.pdf 

(accessed May 31, 2011). 

92 USCIS Response to Recommendation #40 (June 12, 2009), pp. 

2-4; http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/uscis_response_cisomb_

rec_40.pdf (accessed May 31, 2011). 

93 USCIS Interoffice Memorandum, “Adjudication of EB-5 Regional 

Center Proposals and Affiliated Form I-526 and Form I-829 Petitions” 

(Dec. 11, 2009); http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Laws/Memoranda/

2009/adjudication-eb-5-regional-center-proposals-i-526-i-829.pdf 

(accessed May 31, 2010). 

94 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.6 (i) and (j)(6)(ii)(B) (2011). 

95 USCIS Outreach, “EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program Stakeholder 

Meeting Presentation,” p.15 (Mar. 17, 2011) http://www.uscis.gov/

USCIS/Outreach/Notes%20from%20Previous%20Engagements/

2011/March%202011/EB-5-presentation-March-2011.pdf 

(accessed June 13, 2011).

96 Letter from USCIS Director Alejandro N. Mayorkas to Senator Patrick J. 

Leahy, Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary (Dec. 3, 2010). 

97 See USCIS Interoffice Memorandum, “Adjudication of EB-5 Regional 

Center Proposals and Affiliated Form I-526 and Form I-829 Petitions” 

(Dec. 11, 2009); http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Laws/Memoranda/

2009/adjudication-eb-5-regional-center-proposals-i-526-i-829.pdf 

(accessed May 31, 2010). 

98 Ombudsman’s Annual Report 2010, pp. 38-42; 2009 pp. 17-19.

99 Ombudsman’s Annual Report 2010, pp. 38-42. 

100 Id., p. 47.

101 Id., p. 48.

102 USCIS 2010 Annual Report Response, pp. 9-10 (Nov. 9, 2010). 

103 USCIS Executive Summary, “Listening Session—Request for Evidence 

Review and Revision” (Apr. 19, 2010); http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Outreach/Public%20Engagement/National%20Event%20

Pages/2010%20Events/April%202010/Executive_Summary_

April%2012%20RFE%20Engagement.pdf (accessed May 31, 2011). 

104 Information provided by USCIS (May 9, 2011); see also USCIS 2010 

Annual Report Response, p. 6 (Nov. 9, 2010). 

105 USCIS Webpage, “Request for Evidence (RFE) Templates for Comment” (May 23, 2011); http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/

menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=95e9

2d40ee989210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=95

e92d40ee989210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD 

(accessed May 31, 2011). 

106 USCIS Webpage, “Feedback Updates” (May 19, 2011); http://www.

uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7

543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=60a67e8cba5d8210VgnVCM100000082ca60

aRCRD&vgnextchannel=60a67e8cba5d8210VgnVCM100000082ca6

0aRCRD, (accessed May 31, 2011). 

107 Ombudsman’s Annual Report 2010, pp. 47-48.

108 Id. 

109 USCIS 2010 Annual Report Response, p. 9 (Nov. 9, 2010).

110 USCIS Webpage, “Teleconference: L-1B Specialized Knowledge” (May 

16, 2011); http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9

bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=d36c7faca91af210V

gnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=994f81c52aa38210

VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD (accessed May 31, 2011). 
66 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

111 Recommendation #38 (Dec. 22, 2008), http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/uscis_response_cis_ombudsman_recommendation_38.

pdf (accessed June 16, 2011); Ombudsman’s Annual Reports 2010, 

pp. 104-107, 2009, pp. 61-63, 2008, pp. 57-58. 

112 U.S. Government Accountability Office Report, “Employment 

Verification: Federal Agencies Have Taken Steps to Improve E-Verify, 

but Significant Challenges Remain,” GAO-11-146, p. 25 (Dec. 2010); 

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11146.pdf 

(accessed May 31, 2011).

113 Id., p. 26.

114 USCIS Press Release, “Secretary Napolitano Announces Launch of 

E-Verify Self Check” (Mar. 21, 2011); http://www.uscis.gov/portal/

site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnex

toid=546b59984b9de210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD&vgnextc

hannel=68439c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1RCRD 

(accessed May 31, 2011); USCIS Fact Sheet, “DHS Launches E-Verify 

Self Check” (Mar. 21, 2011); http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/

uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoi

d=9feb59984b9de210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD&vgnextcha

nnel=8a2791daff2df110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCRD (accessed 

May 31, 2011); USCIS Transcript, “Press Conference on E-Verify Self 

Check” (Mar. 21, 2011); http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/News/

Transcript_SelfCheckSecrtry.pdf (accessed June 1, 2011). 

115 See, e.g., Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. §8–17.5–102 (2008); Miss. Code Ann. 

§71–11–3(7)(e) (Supp. 2010); Mo. Rev. Stat. §§285–525, 285–535 

(2009 Cum. Supp.); Pa. Stat. Ann., Tit. 73, §820.311 (Purdon Supp. 

2010); S. C. Code Ann. §41–8–50(D)(2) (Supp. 2010); Tenn. Code 

Ann. §50–1–103(d) (2008); Va. Code Ann. §2.2–4311.1 (Lexis 

2008); W. Va. Code. Ann. §21–1B–7 (Lexis Supp. 2010). Additionally, 

on June 14, 2011, legislation was introduced in the U.S. Senate and 

House of Representatives to make E-Verify mandatory. Senator Chuck 

Grassley introduced S. 1196, the Accountability Through Electronic 

Verification Act; and Representative Lamar Smith introduced H.R. 

2164, the Legal Workforce Act.

116 Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America et.al. v. 

Whiting et.al., 563 U.S. ___ (May 26, 2011),

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-115.pdf 

(accessed June 1, 2011).

117 8 C.F.R. § 274a.13(d) (2011).

118 Id. 

119 USCIS Response to Recommendation #35 (Jan. 2, 2009), http://

www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/uscis_response_to_cisomb_recommendation35_01_02_09.pdf (accessed June 16, 2011). 

120 USCIS Response to Recommendation #35 (Jan. 2, 2009). 

121 See CIS Ombudsman Update, “Mailing Issues: Have You Not 

Received a USCIS Document or Card?;” http://www.dhs.gov/files/

publications/gc_1305653428655.shtm (accessed June 14, 2011).

122 USCIS Press Release, “Secretary Napolitano and USCIS Director 

Mayorkas Launch Redesigned Website” (Sept. 22, 2009); 

http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/New%20Structure/Press%20Releases/

FY%2009/September%202009/website_redesign.pdf 

(accessed May 31, 2011).

123 See DOS Webpage, Ciudad Juarez Consulate, “USCIS Form I-601 – 

Application for a Waiver of Ground of Inadmissibility;” 

http://ciudadjuarez.usconsulate.gov/hcis601.html (accessed June 1, 

2011); USCIS Webpage, “AAO Processing Times;” 

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f3

5e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=8ff31eeaf28e6210VgnVCM100

000082ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=dfe316685e1e6210VgnVCM10

0000082ca60aRCRD (accessed June 1, 2011).

124 See Ombudsman’s Annual Reports 2010, pp. x, 50-59; 2009, 

pp. 24-27; 2008, pp. 37-42; 2007, pp. 25-31; 2006, pp. 33-36.

125 In FY 2010, 59% of calls were completed in the IVR. Between 

October and March FY 2011, 58.4% of calls were completed in the 

IVR. Information provided by USCIS (May 4, 2011).

126 See USCIS Questions and Answers, “USCIS Quarterly National 

Stakeholder Engagement” (Feb. 24, 2011); http://www.uscis.gov/

USCIS/Outreach/Public%20Engagement/National%20

Engagement%20Pages/2011%20Events/February%202011/

QA%20-%20Quarterly%20National%20Stakeholder%20Meeting.pdf 

(accessed May 31, 2011). 

127 USCIS 2010 Annual Report Response, p. 10 (Nov. 9, 2010).

128 Information provided by USCIS (Apr. 27, 2011). 

129 USCIS Service Center National Customer Service Stakeholder 

Engagement (May 31, 2011). 

130 USCIS 2010 Annual Report Response, p. 13 (Nov. 9, 2010). 

131 See USCIS Questions and Answers, “USCIS Quarterly National 

Stakeholder Engagement” (Feb. 24, 2011); http://www.uscis.gov/

USCIS/Outreach/Public%20Engagement/National%20

Engagement%20Pages/2011%20Events/February%202011/

QA%20-%20Quarterly%20National%20Stakeholder%20Meeting.pdf 

(accessed May 31, 2011). 

132 Information provided by USCIS (May 27, 2011). 

133 See USCIS Press Release, “New USCIS.gov Features Improve Customer 

Service” (Aug. 2, 2010); http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/

menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=

1bb8d3e85433a210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel

=8750aca797e63110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCRD 

(accessed May 31, 2011). 

134 Information provided by USCIS (May 18, 2011). 

135 Id. See USCIS Meeting Notes, “USCIS National Stakeholder 

Listening Session, Information and Customer Service (ICS)” 

(Mar. 18, 2010) (“[USCIS] plans to offer this online service for all 

form types currently handled by the call centers”); 

http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Outreach/Public%20Engagement/National%20Event%20Pages/2010%20Events/March%202010/ICS%20

Meeting%20Notes%2003_18_10%20(FINAL).pdf 

(accessed May 31, 2011). 
Annual Report to Congress – June 2011 67

136 Information provided by USCIS (Apr. 27, 2011). 

137 Information provided by USCIS (May 25, 2011). 

138 See USCIS Questions and Answers, “USCIS Quarterly National 

Stakeholder Engagement” (Feb. 24, 2011); http://www.uscis.gov/

USCIS/Outreach/Public%20Engagement/National%20

Engagement%20Pages/2011%20Events/February%202011/

QA%20-%20Quarterly%20National%20Stakeholder%20Meeting.pdf 

(accessed May 31, 2011). 

139 See generally USCIS Webpage, “National Customer Service Center” 

(Oct. 13, 2010); http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/

menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=

943696981298d010VgnVCM10000048f3d6a1RCRD&vgnextchanne

l=aab807b03d92b010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1RCRD 

(accessed June 1, 2011); USPS Webpage, “Track & Confirm,” 

http://www.usps.com/shipping/trackandconfirm.htm 

(accessed June 1, 2011). 

140 Information provided by USCIS (May 5, 2011). 

141 INA § 103; 8 C.F.R. §§ 100, 103 (2011).

142 INA §§ 101, 103; 8 C.F.R. § 103. 

143 INA §§ 235(d), 287(a), et seq.; 8 C.F.R. § 287.5 (2011).

144 INA § 239. 

145 ICE Policy Number 16021.1, “Guidance Regarding the Handling of 

Removal Proceedings of Aliens with Pending or Approved 

Applications or Petitions” (August 20, 2010). 

146 USCIS Interim Policy Memorandum 602-0029, “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 11-6” 

(Feb. 4, 2011).

147 Information provided by USCIS (Mar. 11, 2011). 

148 USCIS News “National Initiative to Combat Immigration Services 

Scams” http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb9

5919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=01083ffa91570310Vgn

VCM100000082ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=68439c7755cb9010V

gnVCM10000045f3d6a1RCRD (accessed June 14, 2011).

149 Ombudsman’s Annual Report 2010, p. 75. 

150 In contrast, USCIS provides instructions for filing case specific 

inquiries, maintains centralized tracking systems such as the Service 

Request Management Tool (SRMT) for telephonic inquiries received 

by the USCIS National Customer Service Center and the Internet 

Quorum system for written inquiries received by USCIS or referred 

to USCIS by outside agencies, and dedicates resources to analyzing 

reports generated. For example, USCIS Headquarters is able to review 

SRMT response time metrics and take appropriate action. No such 

system exists for non-case specific complaints. 

151 Exec. Order No. 13571, 76 Fed. Reg. 24339 (Apr. 27, 2011).

152 Ombudsman’s Annual Report 2010, pp. 16-22. 

153 See USCIS Webpage, “USCIS Transformation Prototype Video,” 

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f3

5e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=160205bc4cefe210VgnVCM10

0000082ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=b1161bf8d43ee210VgnVCM1

00000082ca60aRCRD (accessed June 14, 2011).

154 Information provided by USCIS (Nov. 18, 2010). 

155 Information provided by USCIS (Feb. 7, 2011). 

156 Information provided by USCIS (June 14, 2011)

157 USCIS Executive Summary, “USCIS Transformation: Proposed Rule 

for Mandatory E-Filing” (May 23, 2011); http://www.uscis.gov/

USCIS/Outreach/Upcoming%20National%20Engagements/

National%20Engagement%20Pages/2011%20Events/April%20

2011/Executive%20Summary.pdf (accessed June 1, 2011). USCIS 

is discussing mandatory e-filing in engagement sessions with 

stakeholders, but as of publication of this report, has not yet 

published a rule for review and comment. 

158 Information provided by USCIS (Mar. 4, 2011); See generally USCIS 

Outreach, “USCIS Transformation: Customer And Advocate 

Listening Sessions & Webinars” (May 18, 2011), 

http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Outreach/Upcoming%20

National%20Engagements/National%20Engagement%20

Pages/2011%20Events/March%202011/March%20Listening%20

Sessions_Public%20Report.pdf (accessed June 14, 2011).

159 Information provided by USCIS (Mar. 4, 2011). 

160 Exec. Order No. 13563, 76 Fed. Reg. 3821 (Jan. 18, 2011).
68 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

This page intentionally left blank.

Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

U.S. Department of Homeland Security

Mail Stop 1225

Washington, DC 20528

Tel. 202-357-8100

http://www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman

Send your comments to: cisombudsman@dhs.gov