Annual Report 2017

Citizenship and Immigration Services

Ombudsman

June 29, 2017

Annual Report 2017

Citizenship and Immigration Services

Ombudsman

June 29, 2017
ii | ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS JUNE 2017
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES OMBUDSMAN | iii

Office of the Citizenship and Immigration Services 

Ombudsman

U.S. Department of Homeland Security

Mail Stop 0180

Washington, DC 20528-0180

June 29, 2017

The Honorable Charles E. Grassley

Chairman

Committee on the Judiciary

United States Senate

Washington, DC 20510

The Honorable Robert W. Goodlatte

Chairman

Committee on the Judiciary

United States House of Representatives

Washington, DC 20515

The Honorable Dianne Feinstein

Ranking Member

Committee on the Judiciary

United States Senate

Washington, DC 20510

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 2017 Annual Report. 

I am available to provide additional information upon request. 

Sincerely,

Julie Kirchner

Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman
iv | ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS JUNE 2017
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES OMBUDSMAN | v

Message from the Ombudsman

Congress created 

the Citizenship and 

Immigration Services 

Ombudsman out of a 

sincere desire to improve 

the functioning of our 

immigration system. 

That is clear from our 

statutory mission, found 

in Section 452 of the 

Homeland Security Act 

of 2002. In Section 

452, Congress charged 

us with the duty to aid applicants and their sponsors who 

are experiencing difficulties applying for immigration 

benefits with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 

(USCIS). In addition, Congress bestowed on us the 

responsibility of identifying trends and ongoing problems 

in the administration of our immigration system and, 

where possible, making recommendations on how to solve 

those problems. 

Both aspects of our mission are explored in this report. 

The Year in Review offers Congress and the public an 

opportunity to see the important case work our office 

handled in 2016 and how we often function as the last 

resort for prospective immigrants whose applications 

or petitions are stuck in the system. As you will see in 

the following pages, demand for our assistance has been 

steadily growing. In fact, requests to our office increased 

25 percent between 2015 and 2016 and more than doubled 

since 2012. 

While we believe this growth in requests is partly due to 

increasing awareness of the services we provide, it is also 

the result of an immigration system that is expanding, both 

in complexity and in the benefits it offers. Indeed, between 

creating new immigration programs, expanding the classes 

of aliens who qualify for existing programs, and a general 

increase in applications, USCIS’ workload has grown 

significantly over the past several years. In FY 2016 alone, 

USCIS received approximately 8.070 million applications 

for benefits, a 5 percent increase over FY 2015 and a 34 

percent increase over FY 2012. 

The impact of this expanding immigration system is 

examined in the second part of our report, which analyzes 

trends and issues in the administration of our immigration 

system. For example, this report examines growing 

backlogs in naturalization applications and the challenges 

facing USCIS as it digitizes case processing through 

the Electronic Immigration System. It also looks at the 

increasing number of asylum applications, the growing 

demand for U visas, and complexities facing the EB-5 

program. We hope you find it illuminating. 

Before concluding, I would like to thank my staff for 

diligently working on the annual report throughout the 

year, conducting in-depth research and meeting with scores 

of stakeholders. I would especially like to thank them for 

their patience in finishing this publication, as I assumed 

the role of Ombudsman only weeks before the report was 

completed. In addition, I’d like to express my sincere 

gratitude to the staff at USCIS for the time and effort they 

spent gathering data and answering questions. Our work 

is only possible through their ongoing cooperation and 

commitment to public service. 

With that, I am pleased to present the 2017 Citizenship and 

Immigration Services Ombudsman’s report to Congress. 

Sincerely,

Julie Kirchner

Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman
vi | ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS JUNE 2017

Executive Summary

The Office of the Citizenship and Immigration Services 

Ombudsman (Ombudsman) 2017 Annual Report covers 

calendar year 2016, as well as key developments in early 

2017, and contains:

 An overview of the Ombudsman’s mission 

and services;

 A review of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 

Services (USCIS) programmatic and policy 

challenges during this reporting period; and

 A detailed discussion of pervasive problems, 

recommendations, and best practices in the 

humanitarian, employment, and family areas, as 

well as in customer service and process integrity. 

2016 in Review

In 2016, the Ombudsman received 11,900 requests for case 

assistance, an increase of 25 percent from 2015. Just less 

than half (43 percent) of the requests came from individuals 

who were represented in seeking these services, either by 

attorneys or accredited representatives. 

Overall, 26 percent of the requests were for employmentbased matters; 32 percent for humanitarian-based matters; 

21 percent for family-based matters; and 21 percent for 

general immigration matters, such as applications for 

naturalization. In 2016, individuals sought the most 

assistance for problems related to Form I-485, Application 

to Register Permanent Resident Status or Adjust Status, 

which constituted 17.17 percent of the cases received, 

closely followed by Form I-821D, Consideration of 

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, with 17.14 percent. 

The Year in Outreach

In 2016, the Ombudsman conducted 91 stakeholder 

engagements to better understand and discuss ways to 

address concerns about the delivery of immigration services 

and benefits. To inform stakeholders of new initiatives 

and receive feedback on a variety of topics and policy 

trends, the Ombudsman hosted six public teleconferences 

and held its Sixth Annual Conference at the National 

Archives and Records Administration in Washington, D.C. 

on December 6, 2016. 

Key Developments and 

Areas of Focus

Families

The Perfect Storm: Fee Increases, Call to 

Citizenship, and ELIS

In FY 2016, USCIS received over 972,000 naturalization 

applications—nearly 200,000 more than projected 

—in advance of a scheduled fee increase and the 

presidential election. In April 2016, USCIS expanded 

its Transformation initiative to include the processing of 

naturalization applications. Introducing Form N-400, 

Application for Naturalization, into the Electronic 

Immigration System (ELIS), the Transformation platform, 

represented a major undertaking for the agency because 

naturalization processing is the most complex application 

to be incorporated thus far. However, USCIS initiated 

Form N-400 into ELIS at a time when the agency was 

dealing with significantly higher demand. At the same 

time, USCIS also continued to process N-400 applications 

through paper-based adjudications. USCIS suspended 

ELIS processing of new naturalization applications 4 

months after the initial launch because of multiple technical 

problems, which negatively impacted processing times. 

While many of these initial difficulties have been resolved, 

applicants for naturalization continue to face delays in 

obtaining the rights and privileges of citizenship. 

Military Immigration Issues: Immigration Services 

for Those Who Serve

The delivery of military immigration benefits to our service 

members, veterans, and their families is essential to military 

readiness and to national security. Background and name 

checks continue to cause processing delays and hinder 

USCIS from completing military naturalization applications 

in accordance with the Naturalization at Basic Training 

Initiative. Service members continue to experience 

difficulties as their files are transferred among multiple 

jurisdictions. Additionally, the clearance requirements 

imposed by a September 30, 2016 Department of Defense 

Memorandum on the Military Accession Vital to the 
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES OMBUDSMAN | vii

National Interest program has led to substantial delays and 

status issues for those joining the Armed Services through 

this program and applying for naturalization. 

Changes in Policy and Practice for 

Provisional Waivers

The Provisional Unlawful Presence Waiver program was 

implemented in 2013 to “promote and preserve family 

unity” for certain spouses or parents of U.S. citizens who 

are unlawfully present in the United States and must 

depart in order to obtain lawful permanent resident status. 

In 2016, USCIS expanded the program to include all 

statutorily eligible applicants, updated the USCIS Policy 

Manual to expand the extreme hardship standard, and 

updated the form instructions to include a summary of 

extreme hardship factors. USCIS also stopped denying 

provisional waiver applications based on the “reason to 

believe” ground. The majority of the requests for case 

assistance the Ombudsman received involved denials 

(issued prior to the regulation change) that did not provide 

specificity of the “reason to believe” there were other 

grounds of inadmissibility, did not appear to reflect a 

complete review of the documentation supporting the claim 

of extreme hardship, and lengthy processing times. 

Employment

USCIS Administrative Review in Employment-Based 

Decisions: Appeals and Motions

Administrative review, through motions to reopen and 

reconsider to the field and appeals to the Administrative 

Appeals Office (AAO), provides individuals and employers 

an opportunity to obtain reexamination of a USCIS 

denial. The AAO has made significant improvements 

to its processing times, completing most administrative 

appeals within 180 days. However, when the AAO posts 

processing times, they do not include the time the appeal 

is first reviewed by the USCIS field office or service center 

that made the initial decision. There are a variety of steps 

USCIS could take to ensure that administrative review is 

meaningful and timelier, including:

 Establish processing time goals for initial field review 

of motions;

 Publish more accurate processing times for AAO 

appeals that include the time it takes to conduct the 

initial field review. For most form types, the AAO 

processing time is currently 3 months or less; and

 Clarify the Form I-290B by providing more explicit 

instructions, or alternatively, separate motions and 

appeals into two separate forms.

EB-5 Investors 

Congress extended the Immigrant Investor (EB-5) Regional 

Center Program, most recently through September 30, 

2017, but a series of short-term extensions has triggered 

surges in Form I-526, Immigrant Petition by Alien 

Entrepreneur filings in 2015 and 2016. There is a high 

demand for EB-5 visas. Investors and their dependents 

from China who are at the end of the Form I-526 

adjudication queue may have to wait 10 years or longer for 

immigrant visas under the EB-5 program. On November 

30, 2016, USCIS released a six-chapter addition to its 

Policy Manual titled “Investors,” synthesizing and aligning 

the agency’s regulations, decisional law, policies, and 

procedures with the statute. Amidst ongoing legislative 

reform efforts, in January 2017, USCIS published proposed 

rules that would establish a Regional Center compliance 

and oversight program, increase minimum investment 

levels, and amend the methodology for determining 

Targeted Employment Areas. 

The AC21 Regulation 

In November 2016, USCIS published a long-awaited 

final regulation, often referred to as “AC21” after the 

authorizing legislation, intended to improve and modernize 

several employment-based immigrant and nonimmigrant 

programs by increasing flexibility, transparency, and 

certainty for foreign workers and U.S. employers. The 

rule centralized many of USCIS’ long-standing policies 

for the H-1B Specialty Occupation and employment-based 

immigrant visa programs. DHS received tens of thousands 

of comments on the proposed rule and related forms from 

stakeholders, particularly foreign workers, voicing concerns 

over the elimination of the 90-day regulatory processing 

requirement for initial employment authorization 

applications, and over other areas of work authorization. 
viii | ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS JUNE 2017

While it is too early to determine the full effect of the new 

rule, the Ombudsman will continue to track these changes 

and their impact on stakeholders.

Humanitarian

Delays in Asylum Processing 

A confluence of factors, including a spike in applications, 

has led to a significant backlog of affirmative asylum 

cases pending before USCIS; by the end of 2016, more 

than 223,433 affirmative asylum cases were awaiting 

adjudication by USCIS. The agency has taken steps to 

address the asylum backlog, including expanding the 

asylum officer corps and opening satellite asylum offices. 

However, these efforts, building on others implemented 

in 2015, have not yet significantly reduced the asylum 

backlog. A large volume of credible and reasonable fear 

cases with prioritized processing timeframes continues to 

limit the Asylum Division’s capacity to direct its resources 

to the adjudication of pending affirmative asylum cases.

U Visa Backlogs

Demand for U nonimmigrant visas is now so high that 

petitioners and their family members wait nearly 3 years 

before placement on the U visa waiting list if deemed 

approvable, pending an available visa. Correspondingly, 

individuals and their family members seeking U visas must 

wait years before they receive employment authorization; 

they may be living in the United States and subject to 

removal, or residing abroad in vulnerable situations. 

USCIS has taken steps to accelerate nonimmigrant U 

visa processing, most notably by having the Vermont 

Service Center, which has traditionally housed the 

unit that conducts humanitarian benefits adjudications, 

share the adjudication of U petitions with the Nebraska 

Service Center. Stakeholders would benefit from greater 

transparency regarding the backlog, including a clearer 

breakdown of the number of U nonimmigrant petitions 

that are pending adjudication before placement on the 

waiting list.

Interagency, Customer 

Service, and Process Integrity 

The Escalating Cost of Immigration Services 

USCIS case processing and services are almost 

entirely funded by application and petition fees paid by 

applicants and petitioners, rather than by Congressional 

appropriations. USCIS regularly assesses its fee structure 

to reflect the actual cost of processing benefits and services. 

The most recent fee rule, published on October 24, 2016 

and effective December 23, 2016, raised fees by a weighted 

average of 21 percent. When announcing the 2016 and 

prior fee increases, USCIS committed to timely processing 

of applications and petitions, but has been unsuccessful in 

achieving its processing goals. Processing delays at the 

agency are largely due to fluctuations in filing levels, the 

lag time between fee increases and the onboarding of new 

staff, the complexity of case review, and enhanced fraud 

detection and security check requirements. 

The Continuing Challenge of Transformation

USCIS is in the midst of a troubled, years-long 

modernization effort, referred to as “Transformation,” to 

move from paper-based to electronic filing, adjudication, 

and case management across approximately 90 

immigration product lines. After more than 10 years of 

work, at the end of 2016, USCIS stakeholders were only 

able to file online consistently for two immigration benefits 

via ELIS. USCIS internal use of ELIS did advance, with 

the agency now adjudicating five forms through ELIS by 

the end of 2016. Despite substantial planning and training, 

however, USCIS’ major internal launch in ELIS, the Form 

N-400, experienced significant technical problems that 

forced USCIS to temporarily halt ELIS naturalization 

adjudications and delayed the launch of other product 

lines for electronic processing. The slow development 

of Transformation and challenges in ELIS operations are 

being closely scrutinized by the Office of the Inspector 

General (OIG), the Government Accountability Office 

(GAO), Congress, and the media. Both the OIG and GAO 

reviewed the program in 2016 and expressed concern 

with the progress and problems that continue to plague 

the project. 
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES OMBUDSMAN | ix

USCIS Processing Times: Improved 

Accuracy Needed

USCIS processing times set the public’s expectations 

regarding how long the agency is taking to adjudicate 

applications and petitions. However, USCIS’ current 

approach to processing times often does not accurately 

convey the actual time it is likely to take to adjudicate 

cases. Lack of transparency in processing times diminishes 

trust in the agency and hinders stakeholders’ ability to 

make informed decisions impacting their professional 

and personal lives. Processing times are fundamental 

to holding USCIS accountable for timely services, yet 

currently posted processing times do not include the 

agency’s processing time goals. 

Mailing Issues 

Despite recent improvements to USCIS mailing protocols, 

including the agency’s online change of address system, 

thousands of pieces of mail are not received as intended, 

returned as undeliverable, or delivered to someone other 

than the addressee. When notices and documents do not 

reach their intended recipient, individuals miss important 

appointments, deadlines, and documents, with potentially 

significant adverse consequences. Improper delivery of 

notices and documents creates security vulnerabilities, 

including the potential for misuse of secure documents 

such as lawful permanent resident cards. USCIS should 

consider additional options for the delivery of notices and 

documents, including requiring a signature for delivery 

of secure documents, launching a long-planned “hold for 

pickup” pilot, and expanding use of pre-paid courier service 

mailing labels.
x | ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS JUNE 2017

Table of Contents

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

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

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................................... vi

The Office of the CIS Ombudsman: 2016 in Review ............................................................................................... 2

Key Developments and Areas of Focus ......................................................................................................................... 7

Families ............................................................................................................................................................. 8

The Perfect Storm: Fee Increases, Call to Citizenship, and ELIS ................................................................................. 9

Military Immigration Issues: Immigration Services for Those Who Serve ................................................................. 14

Changes in Policy and Practice for Provisional Waivers ............................................................................................... 18

Employment ................................................................................................................................................................... 22

USCIS Administrative Review in Employment-Based Decisions: Appeals and Motions ............................................23

EB-5 Investors ............................................................................................................................................................... 30

The AC21 Regulation .................................................................................................................................................... 33

Humanitarian ................................................................................................................................................................. 36

Delays in Asylum Processing ........................................................................................................................................ 37

U Visa Backlogs ............................................................................................................................................................ 42
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES OMBUDSMAN | 1

Interagency, Customer Service, and Process Integrity .................................................................................. 46

The Escalating Cost of Immigration Services ............................................................................................................... 47

The Continuing Challenge of Transformation .............................................................................................................. 51

USCIS Processing Times: Improved Accuracy Needed ............................................................................................... 55

Mailing Issues ................................................................................................................................................................ 58

Appendices .................................................................................................................................................................... 63

Ombudsman Recommendation Retrospective:

A Review of Ombudsman Recommendations Issued in the Last 5 Years ..................................................................... 63

The Ombudsman by the Numbers ................................................................................................................................. 67

Delegation of Authorities ............................................................................................................................................... 69

Homeland Security Act Section 452 ............................................................................................................................. 71

USCIS Naturalization and Adjustment of Status Processing Times ............................................................................. 73

How to Request Case Assistance from the Ombudsman: Scope of Assistance Provided............................................. 74

Acronyms ....................................................................................................................................................................... 75
2 | ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS JUNE 2017

The Office of the CIS Ombudsman:

2016 in Review

Overview 

The statutory mission of the Office of the Citizenship and 

Immigration Services Ombudsman (Ombudsman)1 is to:

 Assist individuals and employers in resolving 

problems with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 

Services (USCIS);

 Identify areas in which individuals and employers 

have problems in dealing with USCIS; and

 Propose changes in the administrative practices of 

USCIS to mitigate identified problems.2

The Ombudsman is an independent, impartial, and 

confidential resource within the U.S. Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS). 

 The Ombudsman is an independent DHS headquarters 

office, reporting directly to the DHS Deputy Secretary, 

and is neither a part of nor reports to USCIS. 

 The Ombudsman works in an impartial manner 

to improve the delivery of immigration benefits 

and services. 

 Individuals and employers seeking assistance from the 

Ombudsman may do so in confidence. Any release 

of confidential information is based on prior consent, 

unless otherwise required by law or regulation. 

The Ombudsman performs its mission by: 

 Evaluating requests for assistance from individuals 

and employers and recommending that USCIS take 

corrective action, where appropriate;

 Facilitating interagency collaboration and conducting 

outreach to a wide range of public and private 

stakeholders; and

1 In this Report, the term “Ombudsman” refers interchangeably to the 

Ombudsman, the Ombudsman’s staff, and the office. 2 Homeland Security Act of 2002 (HSA) § 452, 6 U.S.C. § 272. 

 Reviewing USCIS operations, researching applicable 

laws, regulations, policies and procedures, and issuing 

recommendations, both formal and informal, to bring 

systemic issues to USCIS’ attention for resolution. 

Requests for Case Assistance

The Ombudsman works directly with USCIS service 

centers, field offices, asylum offices, and other components 

to resolve case issues. The Ombudsman also relies, in 

part, on requests for case assistance to identify trends and 

systemic issues, which may become policy priorities and 

the subject of formal or informal recommendations.

The Ombudsman asks that individuals, employers, and 

their representatives first attempt to resolve issues directly 

with USCIS.3 If USCIS is unable to resolve the issue, 

applicants and petitioners may contact the Ombudsman 

for assistance. The Ombudsman requires applicants and 

petitioners to wait 60 days past USCIS posted processing 

times before submitting requests for case assistance, absent 

exigent circumstances. In addition, the Ombudsman 

accepts requests for case assistance for employment 

authorization applications (Form I-765, Application for 

Employment Authorization) 75 days after filing, or 30 

days before expiration for those who timely filed and 

whose employment authorization has been automatically 

extended for 180 days.4 

3 USCIS service options include: the National Customer Service Center 

(NCSC), InfoPass, and e-Request. See USCIS Webpage, “National 

Customer Service Center;” https://www.uscis.gov/about-us/contact-us/

national-customer-service-center (accessed Mar. 3, 2017), USCIS Webpage, 

“InfoPass;” https://infopass.uscis.gov/ (accessed Mar. 3, 2017), USCIS 

Webpage, “e-Request;” https://egov.uscis.gov/e-Request/Intro.do (accessed 

Mar. 3, 2017). 4 See Retention of EB-1, EB-2, and EB-3 Immigrant Workers and Program 

Improvements Affecting High-Skilled Nonimmigrant Workers, 81 Fed. 

Reg. 82398, 82412 (Nov. 18, 2016). Meanwhile, Deferred Action for 

Childhood Arrivals (DACA) renewal applications, which include employment 

authorization requests, may be submitted after the application has been 

pending for 105 days. See USCIS Webpage, “Renew Your DACA;” https://

www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/consideration-deferred-action-childhoodarrivals-process/renew-your-daca (accessed Mar. 3, 2017). Those seeking 

assistance for DACA-related EADs should still contact USCIS before seeking 

intervention from the Ombudsman.
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES OMBUDSMAN | 3

When submitting a request for assistance, individuals and 

employers should include information about their previous 

attempts to resolve the issue, including the USCIS service 

request number, InfoPass confirmation number, or the date 

and USCIS email address to which they submitted their 

concerns. If the applicant or petitioner contacted another 

U.S. government agency or Member of Congress, the 

Ombudsman asks that they provide this information. The 

Ombudsman’s jurisdiction is limited by statute to matters 

involving USCIS.5 

How the Ombudsman Processes a Request for 

Assistance. The Ombudsman reviews requests for case 

assistance within 7 days of receipt to identify cases that 

warrant immediate action. Using the same criteria as 

USCIS, the Ombudsman will expedite a request for 

assistance based on an emergency or hardship.6 Those 

seeking expedited assistance should include relevant 

evidence with their request for assistance to avoid 

unnecessary delays. USCIS makes an independent decision 

whether to expedite handling of the Ombudsman’s inquiry. 

The Ombudsman also reviews requests for proper consent 

from the petitioner or applicant, a completed Form G-28, 

Notice of Appearance of Attorney or Representative (if 

represented), and other necessary documentation.

Approximately 45 days after receipt, the Ombudsman takes 

action on behalf of the applicant. Actions taken by the 

Ombudsman include:

STEP 1: Evaluate information submitted, and, if necessary, 

contact the applicant for additional information.

5 HSA § 452(b)(1). Jurisdiction may extend to issues involving both USCIS 

and another government entity. The Ombudsman does not provide legal 

advice. When a case assistance request falls outside of the Ombudsman’s 

jurisdiction, the individual or employer is referred to the appropriate 

government agency. 6 USCIS Webpage, “Expedite Criteria” (Jul. 27, 2016); https://www.uscis.gov/

forms/expedite-criteria (accessed Mar. 3, 2017). The criteria are: severe 

financial loss to company or person; emergency situation; humanitarian 

reasons; nonprofit organization whose request is in furtherance of the cultural 

and social interests of the United States, Department of Defense, or national 

interest situation; USCIS error; or compelling interest of USCIS. Individuals 

or employers requesting expedited handling are instructed to clearly state so 

in Section 8 (“Description”) of Form DHS-7001, briefly describe the nature 

of the emergency or other basis for the expedite request, and provide relevant 

documentation to support the expedite request. All expedite requests are 

reviewed on a case-by-case basis.

STEP 2: Review USCIS databases to determine the current 

status of the application or petition. As the Ombudsman is 

not a part of USCIS, analysts have limited, read-only access 

to USCIS databases. 

STEP 3: Analyze relevant laws, policies, and practices 

to assess whether and how the Ombudsman can 

help. Analysts consult with senior policy advisors on 

complicated cases, and identify trends.

STEP 4: Contact the USCIS office of jurisdiction—field 

office, service center, asylum office, etc.—with a request 

for review or action. Initial inquiries are sent individually 

to USCIS.

STEP 5: Notify the individual or employer when USCIS has 

been contacted and responds to the Ombudsman’s inquiry.

STEP 6: Follow-up with USCIS as necessary. When 

engagement does not result in resolution, the request is 

escalated. Inquiries for applications or petitions pending 

longer than 6 months past posted USCIS processing times 

with no action are placed on an “Extended Review” list 

(see below).

STEP 7: Continue to communicate with the individual or 

employer until the issue is resolved.

STEP 8: Close the request for assistance when USCIS 

takes action. USCIS action can include issuing a notice 

or decision, scheduling an interview, or mailing a secure 

document such as a permanent residence card. 

USCIS Responses. USCIS has 15 business days to 

respond to a routine inquiry from the Ombudsman 

and 5 business days to respond to expedited inquiries.7 

Within that timeframe, USCIS is expected to provide a 

substantive response that explains the current status of 

the application or petition, steps being taken to evaluate 

or resolve the inquiry, the rationale for any decision made 

on the application or petition, factors relating to any delay 

in processing, where applicable, and an approximate 

timeframe for resolution of the issue presented. 

7 “Memorandum of Understanding between U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 

Services and the Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman” (Mar. 

30, 2016) (copy on file with the Ombudsman).
4 | ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS JUNE 2017

When USCIS does not provide a specific timeframe for 

resolution, and the case is 6 months or more past USCIS 

posted processing times, the Ombudsman will place the 

application or petition in a queue of long-pending cases, 

referred to as Extended Review. The Ombudsman follows 

up with USCIS headquarters every 3 months and monitors 

these cases until the agency takes action.

To maintain impartiality, the Ombudsman generally does 

not ask USCIS to approve or deny a case. The majority of 

requests involve cases that have fallen outside USCIS case 

processing times for a variety of reasons. See Figure 1.1,

2016 Issues Submitted in Requests for Ombudsman Case 

Assistance. Cases that fall outside normal processing times 

may be due to pending background checks or investigations 

being conducted by another agency. The Ombudsman also 

reviews substantive case issues that involve clear error(s) 

of fact, or gross and obvious misapplication of the relevant 

law by USCIS at any point in the process (Requests for 

Evidence (RFE), Notices of Intent to Deny (NOID), or 

denials). The Ombudsman’s case assistance is never a 

substitute for legal recourse; individuals and employers 

should preserve their rights through Motions to Reopen/

Reconsider and appeals.8 

Figure 1.1: 2016 Issues Submitted in Requests for 

Ombudsman Case Assistance Difficulties with USCIS: 9

Requests for Assistance Received in 2016

Outside Normal 

Processing Times

8,147, 69%

No Difculty Found 

1,184, 10%

Adjudication Issue 

992, 8%

Administrative Issue 

985, 8%

Emergency Circumstance

305, 3%

Multi-Agency Issue

287, 2%

8 See generally 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 9 In previous years, because of the timing of the Annual Report, the 

Ombudsman examined a “reporting year” (April 1 to March 31), which did 

not align with either a fiscal or calendar year. The Ombudsman is now using a 

calendar year (2016) to review and compare data wherever possible, although 

in some instances this report must rely on data from the 2016 federal fiscal 

year (October 1, 2015 to September 30, 2016). The Ombudsman is grateful to 

USCIS for its generous sharing of data used in this Report.

2016 in Review

In 2016, the Ombudsman’s Office was staffed with 

approximately 30 full-time employees with diverse 

backgrounds and subject matter expertise in immigration 

law and policy. Approximately half of the staff are 

Immigration Law Analysts devoted to addressing individual 

requests for case assistance. Their experience includes 

work for not-for-profit organizations, private law firms, and 

government offices such as USCIS, the U.S. Department 

of State (DOS), and the U.S. Department of Labor 

(DOL). In addition, senior policy advisors, with extensive 

immigration law and policy experience, are tasked with 

review of systemic issues. The Senior Advisors lead 

outreach and interagency working groups, research and 

draft recommendations and white papers, and help respond 

to complex case inquiries. 

In 2016, the Ombudsman received 11,900 requests for case 

assistance, an increase of 25 percent from 2015. See Figure 

1.2, Requests for Ombudsman Case Assistance Received 

Annually, 2013–2016. 

Figure 1.2: Requests for Ombudsman Case Assistance 

Received Annually, 2013 – 2016

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

2013 5,623

9,545

6,834

11,900

2014 2015 2016

Just less than half (43 percent) of the requests came from 

individuals or attorneys in connection with the request for 

case assistance submitted to the Ombudsman. 

The following cases demonstrate some of the types of 

assistance provided by the Ombudsman in 2016.

Humanitarian Assistance

A mother sought assistance from the Ombudsman after 

requesting humanitarian parole for her 10-year-old son to 

enter the United States, so he could serve as a bone marrow 
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES OMBUDSMAN | 5

donor for his 5-year-old sister. The Ombudsman contacted 

USCIS to expedite the humanitarian parole request so 

the boy could arrive in time for the urgently needed 

surgery. After the Ombudsman brought the case to USCIS’ 

attention, the agency adjudicated the parole request, 

enabling the boy to temporarily enter the United States to 

ensure a successful bone marrow transplant.

Serving Those Who Serve

The Ombudsman assisted an Army Reservist who 

graduated from Advanced Individual Training (AIT) on 

May 10, 2016. The soldier joined the Army through the 

Military Accessions Vital to the National Interest (MAVNI) 

program. While her naturalization was pending, she was 

not able to work or enroll in school. The Army allowed her 

to remain at the base temporarily, but she was in danger of 

losing her housing before she naturalized. As a result of the 

Ombudsman’s inquiry, the soldier’s background check was 

promptly completed and she naturalized in May 2015. 

Meeting U.S. Employer Needs

An agricultural association received RFEs in connection 

with two separate petitions when it attempted to transfer 

112 employees to a new worksite. As these workers were 

assigned to harvest perishable crops, the association sought 

the Ombudsman’s assistance. The Ombudsman notified 

USCIS of the time-sensitive nature of the petitions and 

worked with USCIS to clarify the information requested. 

In response, USCIS expedited processing of these cases and 

approved both petitions. 

Agency Error

USCIS approved a university’s Form I-129, Petition for a 

Nonimmigrant Worker (H-1B Classification), but shortened 

the requested 3-year validity period to 1 year. The school 

contacted USCIS twice to ask for review of this decision. In 

response, USCIS replied that the validity dates issued were 

correct. The Ombudsman requested that the service center 

conduct an additional review of the file, highlighted concerns 

about the shortened validity period, and escalated its concerns 

to USCIS headquarters. USCIS subsequently confirmed that 

the service center had shortened the validity period in error, 

and USCIS issued an amended approval notice. 

Correcting Improper Denials

When a family-based petitioner contacted USCIS to 

request that a child be granted the same priority date as the 

principal parent, USCIS denied the request, erroneously 

stating that the child had turned 21 after the parent’s visa 

was issued and was therefore ineligible for the earlier 

priority date. The Ombudsman noted that the child had in 

fact turned 21 a year before his parent’s visa was issued and 

otherwise met the requirements to be accorded the same 

priority date and preference classification as his immediate 

relative parent. USCIS acknowledged its error and granted 

the earlier priority date—based on a petition filed 24 

years earlier. 

Preventing Children from “Aging Out” and 

Losing Eligibility 

A young woman filed Form I-601A, Application for 

Provisional Unlawful Presence Waiver, as soon as the 

newly promulgated regulations permitted, but was in 

danger of turning 21 and “aging out” of eligibility for the 

benefit before it was adjudicated. USCIS initially denied 

her request to expedite, incorrectly stating that the agency 

does not expedite provisional waiver applications. The 

Ombudsman then brought the case to the attention of 

USCIS headquarters. USCIS subsequently determined the 

applicant met the expedite criteria and approved the waiver 

just weeks before she would have aged out. 

Preventing Future Problems

USCIS erroneously approved an applicant’s employmentbased adjustment of status (green card) application without 

a medical examination report. Knowing that this could 

cause future problems with the legality of the permanent 

resident status, the applicant filed Form I-290B, Notice 

of Appeal or Motion. Per the applicant’s request, the 

Ombudsman facilitated this process, resulting in USCIS 

reopening the application, accepting the proper medical 

documentation, reapproving the application, and refunding 

the fee the applicant paid for the Motion to Reopen.

Change of Address

An applicant for employment authorization notified USCIS 

of his change of address on the same day that his new 

It feels so good to know that we, 

the people and vulnerable immigrants, 

have an organization such as yours to 

speak on our behalf and to represent 

us when we have a complaint 

against USCIS. 
6 | ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS JUNE 2017

Employment Authorization Document (EAD) was approved 

and ordered produced. Since card production is completed 

at a different facility from the office that adjudicates 

applications and processes address changes, the update was 

not timely shared with the production facility. As a result, 

the applicant’s EAD was mailed to the old address. When 

it was not returned to USCIS by the U.S. Postal Service, 

USCIS informed the applicant he was required to file a new 

application, with the appropriate fee ($365 at that time). As 

the applicant had timely notified USCIS of his move, and the 

non-delivery was not a result of the applicant’s actions, the 

Ombudsman intervened, and USCIS produced a new card 

without a new application or fee. 

Refunds

An entertainment management company contacted the 

Ombudsman for assistance when it did not receive a receipt 

notice for a petition filed on behalf of a group of Haitian 

musicians. USCIS accepted the filing fee, but the petition 

was never processed. The company contacted USCIS 

more than 20 times over the course of 6 months to request a 

refund. The Ombudsman intervened and was able to obtain 

a refund for the company. Unfortunately, the musicians 

were unable to travel to the United States and missed their 

American tour dates. 

The Year in Outreach

In 2016, the Ombudsman conducted over 90 stakeholder 

engagements with state and local officials, Congressional 

offices, national and community-based organizations, 

attorney bar associations, employer associations, and 

individuals and employers.10 The Ombudsman also 

conducted outreach through webinars and teleconferences 

with stakeholders across the country, as well as with USCIS 

service centers and field offices. 

Social Media. The Ombudsman engages with stakeholders 

through Facebook.11 Additionally, stakeholders can 

receive regular email updates from the Ombudsman by 

10 The Ombudsman established a performance measure to conduct 90 outreach 

activities in FY 2016. See DHS Quarterly Performance Report Management 

Measures FY 2016 End of Year (Dec. 13, 2016), p. 58. Ombudsman 

stakeholder engagements were conducted in 2016 in the following locations: 

National: New York, NY; Newark, NJ; Providence, RI; Washington, DC; 

Silver Spring, Rockville, and Baltimore, MD; Durham, NC; Philadelphia, 

PA; Louisville, KY; Destin, Miami, Pensacola, and Tampa, FL; Macon 

and Atlanta, GA; Birmingham and Mobile, AL; New Orleans, LA; Austin, 

El Paso, and Houston, TX; Las Vegas, NV; Westminster, Denver, and 

Boulder, CO; Omaha, NE; Indianapolis, IN; Chicago, IL; Kansas City, MO. 

International: Mexico City, Mexico; San Salvador, El Salvador; Guatemala 

City, Guatemala. 11 https://www.facebook.com/dhs.cisombudsman .

subscribing online.12 The DHS blog13 and Twitter account14

occasionally feature the Ombudsman’s work.

Teleconferences. The Ombudsman hosted the following 

public teleconferences to provide information and to 

receive feedback on issues and policy trends:15

 Fee Waivers (October 26, 2016)

 EADs/H1B Issues (August 31, 2016)

 2016 Annual Conference Recap (July 28, 2016)

 Processing Times (April 27, 2016)

 U.S. Department of Motor Vehicles Benefits 

(February 25, 2016)

 Transformation of USCIS Systems (January 28, 2016)

The Ombudsman’s Annual Conference. On December 

6, 2016, the Ombudsman held a sixth Annual Conference: 

Government and Stakeholders Working Together to 

Improve Immigration Services.

16 The conference included 

over 300 in-person participants, and over 4,000 more 

viewed the conference via YouTube. Then-USCIS Director 

León Rodríguez delivered remarks calling for the agency to 

remain fair and service-oriented. Shelly Pitterman, former 

UNHCR Regional Representative for the USA and the 

Caribbean, followed, reflecting upon the global migration 

crisis and the U.S. role in responding. Juan Osuna, thenDirector of the Executive Office for Immigration Review 

(EOIR), remarked on the role of EOIR, emphasizing that 

“[t]he system is poised to do great things ... protecting due 

process, protecting review.” He noted the importance of 

adequate resourcing to enable the immigration courts to 

function efficiently. A plenary panel, focused on the future 

of the agency and featuring current and former USCIS 

officials, concluded the morning session. The afternoon 

break-out panels included panels on Employment and 

Humanitarian Hot Topics; Temporary Workers; Regional 

Refugee Resettlement Issues and the Central American 

Minors Program; and Citizenship and Naturalization for 

Special Populations. 

12 https://service.govdelivery.com/accounts/USDHS/subscriber/new?topic_

id=USDHS_14 . 13 https://www.dhs.gov/news-releases/blog . 14 https://twitter.com/dhsgov . 15 Recaps of the Ombudsman’s teleconference series can be found at https://

www.dhs.gov/ombudsmans-public-teleconference-series. 16 Links to the conference agenda and YouTube video recording can be found at 

https://www.dhs.gov/event/citizenship-and-immigration-services-ombudsmansixth-annual-conference.
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES OMBUDSMAN | 7

Key Developments 

and Areas of Focus

Under Section 452(c)(1) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, 

the Ombudsman’s Annual Report must include a “summary 

of the most pervasive and serious problems encountered by 

individuals and employers” seeking benefits from USCIS and 

“other information as the Ombudsman may deem advisable.” 

This year’s Annual Report covers issues and developments in 

the following areas:

(1) Families 

(2) Employment 

(3) Humanitarian

(4) Interagency, Customer Service, and Process Integrity
8 | ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS JUNE 2017

Family unification and immigrant integration are a significant 

component of U.S. immigration principles. In 2016, USCIS 

was challenged by a significant increase in naturalization 

applications while attempting to implement a major transition 

to electronic processing. Military immigrants saw increasing 

delays in the processing of their naturalization applications. 

USCIS also made changes to the provisional waiver process, 

including all statutorily eligible applicants and expanding the 

extreme hardship standard, as well as eliminating the “reason to 

believe” denial standard.

Families
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES OMBUDSMAN | 9

The Perfect Storm: Fee 

Increases, Call to Citizenship, 

and ELIS

Responsible USCIS Office: Field Operations Directorate

Key Facts and Findings

 In FY 2016, USCIS received over 972,000 

naturalization applications—nearly 200,000 more than 

projected—in advance of the scheduled fee increase 

and U.S. presidential election. 

 In April 2016, USCIS expanded its Transformation 

initiative to include the processing of naturalization 

applications. Introducing Form N-400, Application 

for Naturalization into the Electronic Immigration 

System (ELIS), the Transformation platform, 

represented a major undertaking for the agency 

because naturalization processing is the most complex 

application to be incorporated thus far in ELIS. 

 However, USCIS initiated Form N-400 into ELIS 

without a full grasp of the business needs or system 

capacity, and at a time when the agency was dealing 

with higher demand.

 USCIS scanned naturalization applications, submitted 

on paper versions of the Form N-400, into ELIS 

to create an electronic record for adjudication. At 

the same time, USCIS continued to process N-400 

applications submitted on the prior form version 

through paper-based adjudications using CLAIMS 4, 

the agency’s legacy case management system for 

naturalization applications. 

 USCIS suspended ELIS processing of new 

naturalization applications 4 months after launch 

due to a wide array of technical problems, all of 

which negatively impacted processing times and 

agency productivity. 

 While many of these initial difficulties have been 

resolved, applicants for naturalization continue to 

face delays in obtaining the rights and privileges 

of citizenship. 
10 | ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS JUNE 2017

Background

In 2016, there was an increase in naturalization 

applications, typical of presidential election years and 

announced fee increases.17 Notwithstanding the likely 

increase in the number of filings, in April 2016, USCIS 

expanded electronic adjudication in ELIS to include Form 

N-400. While the introduction of ELIS processing for 

a key immigration benefit represented a significant step 

forward for the agency, systems issues within ELIS forced 

USCIS to discontinue inputting naturalization applications 

into ELIS in August 2016.18 See Figure 2.1, Naturalization 

Timeline, outlining key events relating to the introduction 

of Form N-400 into ELIS processing. 

In 2016, the Ombudsman received 1,294 requests for case 

assistance related to N-400 applications—almost three 

times more than the prior year. The difficulty experienced 

by customers most often was that of applications pending 

past processing time, often (but not exclusively) awaiting 

completion of FBI name checks. 

Miscalculations in Projecting the Naturalization 

Workload. To make workload projections, USCIS 

considers immigration receipt data from the past 15 

years, historical events, and its own assessment of future 

developments.19 According to data between 2000 and 2015, 

USCIS experienced an overall increase in N-400 receipts 

from 460,916 in FY 2000 to 783,062 in FY 2015.20 

In addition to the historical data, USCIS was in the process 

of announcing a fee increase likely to have an impact 

on receipts. In May 2016, USCIS issued a Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking for a new fee schedule that included 

increasing the standard N-400 filing fee from $595 to $640 

17 See U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Fee Schedule; Proposed Rule, 

81 Fed. Reg. 26904 (May 4, 2016). 18 “Immigration Benefits Vetting: Examining Critical Weaknesses in USCIS 

Systems,” before the Oversight and Management Efficiency Subcommittee

of the U.S. House Committee on Homeland Security, 115th Cong. 1st Sess. 

3 (2017) (statement of then-Acting USCIS Director Lori Scialabba); http://

docs.house.gov/meetings/HM/HM09/20170316/105629/HHRG-115-HM09-

Wstate-ScialabbaL-20170316.pdf (accessed Mar. 27, 2017). See also OIG, 

“Management Alert—U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ Use of 

the Electronic Immigration System for Naturalization Benefits Processing,” 

OIG-17-26-MA (Jan. 19, 2017); https://www.oig.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/

assets/2017/OIG-17-26-MA.pdf (accessed May 22, 2017). 19 U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Fee Schedule; Proposed Rule, 81 

Fed. Reg. at 26916. 20 DHS, “2015 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics,” Table 20, Petitions for 

Naturalization Filed, Persons Naturalized, And Petitions For Naturalization 

Denied: Fiscal years 1907 To 2015 (Dec. 2016); https://www.dhs.gov/

sites/default/files/publications/Yearbook_Immigration_Statistics_2015.pdf

(accessed Dec. 16, 2016). 

(an eight percent increase).21 USCIS also proposed a new 

reduced application fee of $320 (a 50 percent reduction) 

for applicants with family income greater than 150 percent 

but no more than 200 percent of the Federal Poverty 

Guidelines.22 This reduced fee is in addition to the full fee 

waiver for applicants with household incomes below 150 

percent of the Federal Poverty Guidelines.23 Typically, those 

intending to file for a benefit would file at the lower fee, 

but the partial waiver may have been thought to provide an 

incentive to applicants to wait for the rule to take effect.

Finally, USCIS planned this expansion just several 

months prior to a presidential election. This was likely 

to increase receipts as would-be voters sought the benefit 

of naturalization. A similar situation took place in 

2007, preceding an increase in filing fees and the 2008 

presidential elections.24 In fact, in FY 2007, USCIS 

witnessed the single largest increase in applications 

recorded (since the government began tracking 

naturalization applications in 1907). According to Pew 

Research Center, “the number of applications in fiscal 2007 

spiked to nearly 1.4 million, an 89% increase over the 

previous year.”25 

Nevertheless, despite an imminent fee increase and 

the 2016 elections, USCIS projected it would receive 

774,634 naturalization applications in FY 2016, below 

the number of receipts received in FY 2015.26 USCIS 

ultimately received 972,151 applications in FY 2016, 

nearly 200,000 more than anticipated.27 While the increase 

in receipts was not as significant as 2007, it was higher than 

anticipated. In addition to these new receipts, USCIS was 

still processing 362,976 naturalization applications filed 

21 U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Fee Schedule; Proposed Rule, 81 

Fed. Reg. at 26916. 22 81 Fed. Reg. at 26906. The new fee schedule took effect December 23, 2016. 

See U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Fee Schedule; Final Rule, 81 

Fed. Reg. 73292 (Oct. 24, 2016). 23 See USCIS Webpage, “I-912, Request for Fee Waiver” (May 3, 2016); https://

www.uscis.gov/i-912 (accessed May 4, 2017). 24 Jens Manuel Krogstad, “Immigrant naturalization applications climb, but 

not as much as past years” (Pew Research Ctr., Washington, D.C.) (Sep. 

15, 2016); http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/09/15/immigrantnaturalization-applications-up-since-october-but-past-years-saw-largerincreases/ (accessed Sept. 16, 2016). 25 Id. In FY 2007, USCIS received 1,382,993 naturalization applications. DHS, 

“2015 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics” (Dec. 2016), Table 20, Petitions 

for Naturalization Filed, Persons Naturalized, and Petitions For Naturalization 

Denied: Fiscal years 1907 To 2015; https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/

publications/Yearbook_Immigration_Statistics_2015.pdf (accessed Dec. 

16, 2016). 26 Information provided by USCIS (Mar. 24, 2017). 27 Id.
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES OMBUDSMAN | 11

JANUARY

384,850 pending Forms N-400 carry over into 

the new calendar year.

DECEMBER

USCIS has 636,164 naturalization applications 

pending as of December 31.

APRIL

Forms N-400 submitted on new version are 

scanned into ELIS. USCIS has scanned 3,976 

applications into ELIS and loaded 93,238 into 

legacy CLAIMS 4 since January.

JANUARY–APRIL

Latest time period to apply for naturalization in 

order to register to vote in 2016 U.S. election, 

based on USCIS' 5 month N-400 processing 

goal and state voter registration deadlines.

APRIL–DECEMBER

170 ELIS outages documented by USCIS.

AUGUST

USCIS suspends data entry of newly led Forms 

N-400 into ELIS. USCIS has accepted 243,607 

cases in ELIS as of the end of the month.

OCTOBER

All eld ofces have scheduled interviews for 

at least one ELIS case; 576 applicants whose 

cases were completed in ELIS are naturalized.

JANUARY

DHS OIG issues Management Alert 

recommending that USCIS halt plans to revert 

to using ELIS to process naturalization 

applications until identied system deciencies 

are addressed.

MARCH

USCIS releases new version of Form N-400. 

DHS OIG releases audit nding USCIS 

implementation of ELIS remains ineffective.

NOVEMBER

USCIS discovers coding error that resulted in 

incomplete FBI name checks for naturalization 

applicants in ELIS.

MAY

USCIS proposes new ling fees for Form N-400.

SEPTEMBER

Field Ofces begin naturalization interviews in 

ELIS “with a small number of test cases.”

APRIL

As of April 3, 2017, 140,000 cases remained 

incomplete in ELIS.

2016

2017

Figure 2.1: Naturalization Timeline

Source: Information provided by USCIS.

JAN

FEB

MAR

APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

OCT

NOV

DEC

JAN

FEB

MAR

APR
12 | ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS JUNE 2017

in previous fiscal years.28 Combining new receipts and 

previous filings still not adjudicated, USCIS had over 1.3 

million pending applications for naturalization in various 

stages of processing in FY 2016.29

ELIS and Naturalization Processing. Prior to April 2016, 

USCIS processed and tracked paper-based naturalization 

applications and managed interview and oath ceremony 

scheduling through its CLAIMS 4 system.30 After 

preliminary processing, USCIS forwarded the paper 

application and supporting documents from the National 

Benefits Center (NBC) to the responsible field office for 

adjudication and the applicant’s signature at the interview. 

On April 13, 2016, USCIS began processing naturalization 

applications in ELIS. USCIS incorporated naturalization 

applications submitted in hardcopy on the new version of 

the Form N-400 (bearing the validity date of March 26, 

2016) into ELIS for adjudication and file management, 

while applications submitted on the prior version of the 

form (bearing the September 13, 2013 validity date) 

continued to be adjudicated and tracked via the legacy 

CLAIMS 4 system.31 Under the new process, USCIS 

scanned applications and supporting documents into ELIS 

to create an account containing the information entered on 

the form and electronic copies of the documents submitted. 

The field office reviewed the information and documents 

on a monitor and, during the interview, applicants gave 

their signatures on tablet computers. This represented a 

major undertaking as the N-400 is the first field officededicated function and “most complicated” application to 

be incorporated thus far in ELIS.32 

While ELIS is intended to be a fully electronic process, 

paper-based N-400 application submissions remain the 

norm. In 2016, USCIS scanned into ELIS 243,094 paper28 Information provided by USCIS (May 12, 2016). As noted in Figure 2.1, 

Naturalization Timeline, that number increased to 384,850 by January 1, 2016, 

the second quarter of FY 2016. 29 The total is based on information provided by USCIS on May 12, 2016 (total 

pending non-military N-400s) plus information provided by USCIS on March 

24, 2017 (actual N-400 receipts for Fiscal Year 2016). 30 See generally DHS Privacy Impact Assessment, “Computer Linked 

Application Information Management System 4 (CLAIMS 4)” (Nov. 5, 2013); 

https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/privacy-pia-update-uscisclaims4-november2013.pdf (accessed Mar. 21, 2017). 31 Information provided by USCIS (Apr. 12, 2017). USCIS receipts that begin 

with “IOE” indicate that the submission is being processed through the 

Integrated Operating Environment, or the ELIS system. 32 “Immigration Benefits Vetting: Examining Critical Weaknesses in USCIS 

Systems,” before the Oversight and Management Efficiency Subcommittee

of the U.S. House Committee on Homeland Security, 115th Cong. 1st Sess. 3 

(2017) (statement of Lori Scialabba); http://docs.house.gov/meetings/HM/

HM09/20170316/105629/HHRG-115-HM09-Wstate-ScialabbaL-20170316.

pdf (accessed Mar. 27, 2017).

based applications for electronic adjudication, while 

just 513 electronic applications were successfully filed 

online.33 Online filing of Form N-400 continues to be a 

limited option.34 

Challenges with ELIS Processing. The DHS Office 

of Inspector General (OIG) identified significant “technical 

and functional issues” with ELIS before and after 

the introduction of N-400s.35 Problems related to the 

N-400 included: 

 Deficiencies in background and security checks 

for applicants; 

 Inadequate interface between ELIS and 

external systems; 

 Inability to print naturalization certificates; 

 Multiple or erroneous cancellation of naturalization 

interviews; and 

 Lack of contingency planning for continued processing 

of applications during ELIS outages.36 

The agency was challenged first with ensuring all officers 

were fully trained and equipped, then with maintaining 

sufficient vetting of applicants and, finally, with 

establishing parity in processing between applications 

processed in ELIS and CLAIMS 4.

USCIS began training officers in naturalization 

adjudications using ELIS in June 2016.37 Training included 

a week-long live “train-the-trainer session” at the NBC 

and a subsequent virtual training session.38 By the end of 

September 2016, every USCIS office had at least one fully 

trained officer, and “nearly every single [officer] in every 

field office except eight [out of almost 90 offices] had been 

[initially] trained in adjudicating N-400s in ELIS.”39 The 

training was rolled out deliberately: USCIS interviewed 

a small number of applicants in ELIS as test cases at field 

offices in San Francisco, Chicago, Raleigh, Philadelphia, 

33 Information provided by USCIS (Apr. 15, 2017). 34 USCIS has chosen to maintain limited access to an online filing feature 

through the myUSCIS portal on the USCIS website. Information provided by 

USCIS (June 8, 2017). 35 OIG, “Management Alert—U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ Use 

of the Electronic Immigration System for Naturalization Benefits Processing,” 

OIG-17-26-MA at 2 (Jan. 19, 2017); https://www.oig.dhs.gov/sites/default/

files/assets/2017/OIG-17-26-MA.pdf (accessed May 22, 2017). 36 Id. at 3-4. 37 Information provided by USCIS (Apr. 19, 2017). 38 Id. 39 Id.
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES OMBUDSMAN | 13

and Overlook Park, Florida.40 However, the deliberate 

nature of the implementation had consequences; as 

of November 30, 2016, less than two percent of the 

applicants that were part of the new ELIS process had 

been naturalized.41 

Another challenge USCIS experienced during this process 

was system outages. From the inception of N-400 

ELIS processing to the end of December 2016, USCIS 

experienced 118 planned and 52 unplanned ELIS outages.42 

Twelve of the unplanned outages were outside the control 

of USCIS.43

Although some challenges are expected during any major 

technology implementation, then-Acting Director Lori 

Scialabba testified before Congress that these challenges 

were significant enough to force USCIS to suspend the 

entry of N-400s into ELIS in August 2016 and revert to 

“ingesting newly filed N-400s into our . . . legacy system, 

known as CLAIMS 4,” until the agency resolved the 

problems.44 As of April 20, 2017, USCIS informed the 

Ombudsman that it had resolved all of the identified issues.

ELIS Processing Delays. USCIS has worked to address 

disparities in processing times between applications 

done electronically (in ELIS) versus through paper-based 

processes (in CLAIMS 4).45 However, USCIS was not able 

to provide the Ombudsman with distinct cycle time data 

40 Information provided by USCIS (May 12, 2017). 41 Letter from León Rodríguez, then-USCIS Director, to Rep. Robert Goodlatte, 

Chairman, U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee (January 17, 

2017) (copy on file with the Ombudsman). 42 Information provided by USCIS (Apr. 19, 2017). 43 Id. 44 “Immigration Benefits Vetting: Examining Critical Weaknesses in USCIS 

Systems,” before the Oversight and Management Efficiency Subcommittee

of the U.S. House Committee on Homeland Security, 115th Cong. 1st Sess. 3 

(Mar. 16, 2017) (statement of Lori Scialabba, Acting USCIS Director); http://

docs.house.gov/meetings/HM/HM09/20170316/105629/HHRG-115-HM09-

Wstate-ScialabbaL-20170316.pdf (accessed Mar. 27, 2017). 45 Information provided by USCIS (Oct. 5, 2016).

for ELIS and non-ELIS cases.46 Stakeholders with pending 

N-400 filings have informed the Ombudsman, however, 

that it appears cases adjudicated in ELIS are taking longer 

to complete than paper-based applications. 

ELIS and Security Issues. Thorough background 

and security vetting is a critical component of the U.S. 

immigration system. USCIS performs background checks 

on all naturalization applicants that include fingerprint 

and name checks conducted by the FBI, as well as vetting 

through USCIS and interagency systems.47 USCIS cannot 

schedule an applicant’s interview until the background 

check process is complete.48 

On November 28, 2016, USCIS discovered the incomplete 

submission of approximately 15,000 naturalization 

applicants’ names to the FBI.49 USCIS immediately 

suspended the approval of naturalization applications or 

administering the oath of allegiance for any applicant whose 

case was processed in ELIS while the agency determined 

the extent of the problem. USCIS approved 1,098 ELIS 

applications before identifying the coding error, but since 

those applicants had not yet taken the oath of allegiance, the 

agency placed their applications on hold pending the results 

of repeat FBI name checks.50 USCIS received new name 

check results and determined that all the individuals were 

approved properly.51 Subsequent to this incident, USCIS 

proactively conducted background checks on applications 

twice, “once through ELIS and again outside of ELIS,” to 

ensure the integrity of the naturalization vetting.52 These 

redundancies—essential to ensure the integrity of the U.S. 

immigration system—have contributed to processing delays.

46 Information provided by USCIS (Feb. 24, 2017). 47 See generally Ombudsman’s Annual Report 2016, pp.35–39 for an overview

of background and security checks and the Ombudsman’s concerns. 48 USCIS Policy Manual, Volume 12—Citizenship & Naturalization, Part B—

Naturalization Examination, ch 2—Background Check and Security Checks 

(Jan. 5, 2017); https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManualVolume12-PartB-Chapter2.html (accessed Mar. 9, 2017). 49 Letter from Rodríguez to Goodlatte, supra note 41. 50 Id. 51 Id. 52 “Immigration Benefits Vetting: Examining Critical Weaknesses in USCIS 

Systems,” before the Oversight and Management Efficiency Subcommittee 

of the U.S. House Committee on Homeland Security, 115th Cong. 1st Sess. 3 

(Mar. 16, 2017) (statement of Lori Scialabba, Acting USCIS Director); http://

docs.house.gov/meetings/HM/HM09/20170316/105629/HHRG-115-HM09-

Wstate-ScialabbaL-20170316.pdf (accessed Mar. 27, 2017).

Requests for Case Assistance

An applicant received an email from USCIS stating: “On 

September 7, 2016, we scheduled an interview for your 

Form N400, APPLICATION FOR NATURALIZATION .... We 

will mail you an interview notice.” After waiting 10 days to 

receive the notice, the applicant contacted USCIS and was 

told that the email was a mistake and was provided no 

further explanation.
14 | ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS JUNE 2017

Two months later, the OIG outlined its security-related 

concerns in an unusual Management Alert.53 In particular, 

the OIG reported, 

Our subsequent, ongoing review is now 

discovering alarming security concerns 

regarding inadequate applicant background 

checks, as well as significant USCIS problems 

in using ELIS to process naturalization benefits 

for immigration. Because of the problems 

encountered, USCIS decided in August 2016 

to revert to legacy processing and discontinue 

using ELIS to process new naturalization 

applications. We have been informed 

that USCIS is now considering a return to 

processing naturalization applications in ELIS. 

Because of significant unresolved functional 

and technical issues surrounding ELIS, we 

advise against it until corrective actions 

are taken to ensure security and integrity in 

naturalization benefits processing.54

Pursuant to the January 2017 OIG Management Alert, 

USCIS identified the following systems issues that needed 

to be addressed before resuming processing of new 

Forms N-400 in ELIS: (1) inaccurate background checks; 

(2) inconsistent coding associated with naturalization 

certificate production; (3) delays in printing naturalization 

certificates; (4) disruption of operations; and (5) inability 

to scan documents directly to a case in ELIS.55 USCIS 

informed the Ombudsman that as of April 20, 2017, it had 

addressed all of the concerns raised in the Management 

Alert.56 Of the 243,607 naturalization cases that were 

initially received in ELIS, 140,000 remained pending as of 

April 3, 2017.57 

53 OIG, “Management Alert—U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ Use 

of the Electronic Immigration System for Naturalization Benefits Processing,” 

supra note 35 at 3 (“[A]pproximately 175 applicants were granted citizenship 

as of January 11, 2017 before the problem was detected.”). USCIS 

resubmitted the names of those applicants to the FBI for new checks. See 

Letter from Rodríguez to Goodlatte, supra note 41. 54 Id. 55 Information provided by USCIS (Apr. 12, 2017). 56 Information provided by USCIS (Apr. 20, 2017). 57 Information provided by USCIS (May 11, 2017).

Ongoing Concerns 

USCIS initiated Form N-400 into ELIS to take the next 

step forward in electronic processing of applications. The 

agency began implementation of this complex process 

without properly anticipating its impact on the system, 

adjudicators, and applicants. The Ombudsman urges 

USCIS to communicate to stakeholders the current state 

of naturalization cases being processed in ELIS and how 

use of the new system is affecting processing times. The 

Ombudsman will continue to monitor the transition of 

naturalization applications to ELIS processing and its 

impact on stakeholders. 

Military Immigration Issues: 

Immigration Services for 

Those Who Serve

Responsible USCIS Offices: Service Center 

Operations and Field Operations Directorates; Office 

of Policy and Strategy; Office of Chief Counsel

Key Facts and Findings

 Pursuant to a combination of laws and programs, 

foreign nationals who serve in the military are 

eligible for special immigration benefits, including 

naturalization upon completion of basic training.

 Background and FBI name checks are causing 

processing delays and hindering USCIS from 

completing military naturalization applications 

in accordance with the Naturalization at Basic 

Training Initiative.

 Service members continue to experience difficulties as 

their files are transferred among multiple jurisdictions 

due to deployment and change of duty station as well 

as agency processing delays.

 A September 30, 2016 Department of Defense (DOD) 

memorandum on the MAVNI program has led to 

confusion and processing issues for those joining the 

Armed Services through this program and applying 

for naturalization.
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES OMBUDSMAN | 15

 A December 22, 2016 Presidential Memorandum 

regarding the delivery of immigration services to 

members of the U.S. Armed Services, veterans, and 

their families improved interagency information 

sharing and collaboration. 

Background

In previous Annual Reports, the Ombudsman described 

USCIS initiatives for members of the Armed Services 

and their families, including the Naturalization at Basic 

Training Initiative, the MAVNI program, parole-in-place 

for family members, particularized services for military 

members seeking immigration benefits, and expedited 

processing of naturalization applications.58 These services 

and programs came about as a result of mutual interest 

on the part of Congress, military leaders, and DHS in 

supporting the distinct needs of military members and 

their families.

In 2016, the Ombudsman received 168 requests for case 

assistance from members of the Armed Services.59 The 

most common problems faced by service members included 

delays in naturalization processing due, in part, to FBI 

name checks, as well as MAVNI processing issues. The 

Ombudsman also received requests for case assistance to 

expedite the adjudication of naturalization applications due 

to upcoming deployments or changes in duty stations. 

Naturalization and other adjudication delays are 

problematic as service members do not control their 

deployment dates and depend on USCIS to complete 

processing while they are based in the United States. These 

delays also affect service members who are unable to 

obtain the required security clearances needed to perform 

their duties, preventing them from deploying abroad or 

performing specific functions.60

58 Ombudsman’s Annual Report 2016, pp. 75–76; Annual Report 2015, pp. 29–

32; Annual Report 2011, pp. 19–21; Annual Report 2010, pp. 63–66; Annual 

Report 2009, pp. 37–39; and Annual Report 2008, p. 58. See also USCIS 

Webpage, “Naturalization Through Military Service: Fact Sheet” (Dec. 

22, 2016); https://www.uscis.gov/news/fact-sheets/naturalization-throughmilitary-service-fact-sheet (accessed Mar. 15, 2017). USCIS specialized 

resources include a direct help line for military families to receive assistance 

with immigration-related information requests. 59 By contrast, in 2015, the Ombudsman received 44 requests for case assistance 

from members of the Armed Services. 60 See Letter from Lofgren, Thonberry, Conyers, Pence, et. al, Members of 

the House of Representatives to then-Secretary of Homeland Security Janet 

Napolitano (Jul. 9, 2010) (copy on file with the Ombudsman); see Letter 

from then-Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano to Zoe Lofgren, 

Member of the House of Representatives (Aug. 30, 2010), http://cmsny.org/

wp-content/uploads/Napolitano-Letter-08.30.101.pdf (accessed May 11, 

2017).

Military Naturalization Statistics. The Naturalization 

at Basic Training Initiative, established in August 2009, 

seeks to enable non-citizen enlistees to naturalize upon 

graduation from basic training.61 From FY 2002 through 

the end of FY 2015, USCIS naturalized through its various 

military programs (including Naturalization at Basic 

Training) a total of 109,321 service members (98,252 

in the United States, and 11,069 abroad).62 In FY 2016, 

USCIS naturalized 8,707 service members (8,667 in the 

United States and 40 abroad), indicating that this initiative 

has been successful in naturalizing a majority of service 

members domestically.63 

MAVNI. The MAVNI program was authorized in 2009 by 

DOD as a pilot program to enlist certain nonimmigrants 

and other foreign nationals with skills considered vital to 

the national interest of the United States.64 The program is 

currently open to individuals with certain health care skills 

and individuals fluent in select foreign languages.65 In 2016, 

USCIS completed a total of 9,822 MAVNI naturalizations 

with an average processing time of 147 days.66 

61 Naturalization Through Military Service: Fact Sheet, supra note 58. 62 Id. 63 Information provided by USCIS (Apr. 5, 2017). 64 USCIS Policy Alert, “Department of Defense Military Accession Vital 

to National Interest Program” (Aug. 3, 2016); https://www.uscis.gov/

policymanual/Updates/20160803-MAVNI.pdf (accessed Mar. 15, 2017). 65 U.S. Army Webpage, “Military Accessions Vital to the National Interest 

(MAVNI)” (Feb. 17, 2016); http://www.goarmy.com/benefits/additionalincentives/mavni.html (accessed May 10, 2017). 66 Information provided by USCIS (Apr. 5, 2017).

I was amazed learning how you were 

willing to assist to make quality 

changes to happen. I believe that 

is because you and your colleagues 

in DHS are the kind of people who 

are dedicated to participate in 

immigration issues, but part of it also 

are the relationships that you guys are 

developing there with individuals, the 

linkages you take, and the respect 

you develop for other people and 

for other countries, other customs 

and approaches.
16 | ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS JUNE 2017

On May 23, 2016, U.S. Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement (ICE) issued a Guide for Designated School 

Officials explaining how the MAVNI program relates to 

F and M student visa holders, describing the application 

process for foreign students, and providing guidelines 

on how the program affects eligible dependent family 

members.67 On August 3, 2016, USCIS integrated 

existing MAVNI program guidance into the USCIS 

Policy Manual.68 

On September 30, 2016, DOD issued a memorandum 

titled, “Military Accessions Vital to the National Interest 

Pilot Program Extension.”69 The memo is significant 

for several reasons. First, it extends the MAVNI 

program through September 30, 2017, and replaces all 

previously issued program guidance. Second, the DOD 

memorandum requires that MAVNI enlistees maintain an 

immigration status or obtain deferred action and expressly 

provides that Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals 

(DACA) beneficiaries are eligible for MAVNI. Third, 

the memorandum requires that each MAVNI applicant 

satisfactorily complete all security screening requirements 

“[p]rior to shipping to basic training or serving for any 

period of time on active duty in the Armed Forces.”70 

Finally, the memorandum provides that MAVNI enlistees 

are not eligible for an interim security clearance until 

the completion of first enlistment and a positive national 

security eligibility determination is made.

U.S. Military Family Member Immigration Benefits. 

USCIS has statutory authority to streamline the 

naturalization process for U.S. service members, veterans, 

and their qualifying dependents.71 Section 319(e) of the 

INA allows qualifying spouses of U.S. service members 

to naturalize abroad, waiving the physical presence 

requirements. In FY 2016, USCIS processed 2,692 

military spouse naturalization applications, of which 280 

applications were granted abroad.72 Similarly, qualifying 

children of U.S. service members may be naturalized 

67 ICE Webpage, “F and M Nonimmigrants and MAVNI: A Guide for 

Designated School Officials” (May 23, 2016); https://www.ice.gov/sites/

default/files/documents/Document/2016/mavniFactsheetDSO1.pdf (accessed 

Mar. 15, 2017). 68 Department of Defense Military Accession Vital to National Interest Program, 

supra note 64. 69 DOD Policy memorandum, “Military Accessions Vital to the National Interest 

Pilot Program Extension” (Sept. 30, 2016). 70 Id. 71 Naturalization Through Military Service: Fact Sheet, supra note 58. 72 Information provided by USCIS (Apr. 12, 2017).

abroad under section 322 of the INA. In FY 2016, USCIS 

processed 12 such naturalization applications abroad.73

A policy memorandum issued by USCIS on November 

23, 2016, “Discretionary Options for Designated Spouses, 

Parents, and Sons and Daughters of Certain Military 

Personnel, Veterans and Enlistees,” provided guidelines 

on the application of parole-in-place for family members 

of certain military personnel and veterans.74 The 

memorandum provided guidelines on deferred action for 

MAVNI candidates and eligible family members currently 

present in the United States; this includes enlistees 

in the DOD’s Delayed Entry Program (DEP) whose 

nonimmigrant status has expired.75 The memorandum 

also provides guidelines for petitioning relatives and 

work authorization. As this Report is being finalized, 

however, USCIS has not indicated whether parole-in-place 

processing remains operative. USCIS District Directors 

have indicated to the Ombudsman that they are continuing 

to grant parole-in-place, while stakeholders have reported a 

lack of movement or denial of requests. 

Presidential Memorandum. A December 22, 2016 

Presidential Memorandum, “Supporting New American 

Service Members, Veterans, and Their Families, 

Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments 

and Agencies,” directs Executive Branch departments and 

agencies to enhance interagency collaboration to ensure 

that military members, veterans and their dependents 

receive the immigration benefits they earned through their 

service to the United States.76 An interagency working 

group was established and tasked with “coordination 

and sharing of military records; enhancing awareness of 

naturalization and immigration benefits; coordinating 

and facilitating the process of adjudication; and other 

efforts that further support service members, veterans and 

their families.”77 The working group, which includes the 

73 Id. USCIS stated that it does not track the number of children naturalized in 

the United States. 74 USCIS Policy Memorandum, “Discretionary Options for Designated Spouses, 

Parents, and Sons and Daughters of Certain Military Personnel, Veterans and 

Enlistees” (Nov. 23, 2016); https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/

Laws/Memoranda/2016/PIP-DA_Military_Final_112316.pdf (accessed Apr. 

20, 2017). 75 Id. (“The DoD receives approximately 250,000 individuals into the allvolunteer force each year. To effectively sustain this large volunteer force, 

DoD uses the DEP to manage and predictably meet the accession requirements 

of the military services. Individuals who have no previous military experience 

and are seeking to enlist in the U.S. military must sign a contract by which 

they enter into the DEP for a period of up to 365 days while awaiting Basic 

Training.”). 76 Supporting New American Service Members, Veterans, and Their Families; 

Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, 81 Fed. 

Reg. 95849, 95851 (Dec. 22, 2016). 77 Id.
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES OMBUDSMAN | 17

Ombudsman, is tasked with developing a 3-year strategic 

action plan, conducting outreach activities and collecting 

feedback from stakeholders.

Special Immigrant Visa Program (SIV). The SIV 

program was authorized by Congress under section 1059 of 

the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2006.78 The 

program provided the Secretary of Homeland Security with 

authority to grant special immigrant status to Afghan and 

Iraqi individuals who served as translators and interpreters 

with U.S. Armed Forces. The program originally 

authorized 50 visas per fiscal year (status granted to 

spouses and children does not count toward the numerical 

limitation).79 That limitation was increased to 500 visas in 

FY 2007 and FY 2008.80 In FY 2009, the visa limitation 

reverted to the 50 visa per year limit, and the program 

was amended to include Afghan and Iraqi translators 

and interpreters who worked directly with U.S. Armed 

Forces or under the Chief of Mission authority at the U.S. 

Embassies in Baghdad or Kabul.81 Congress reauthorized 

the SIV program in the Consolidated Appropriations 

Act of 2017, making available 2,500 additional visas 

for Afghan nationals who served alongside U.S. troops 

in Afghanistan.82 

Ongoing Concerns

Naturalization at Basic Initiative and Processing 

Delays. Stakeholders report that prolonged processing 

times are preventing service members from naturalizing 

upon graduation from basic training, pursuant to 

the Naturalization at Basic Training Initiative. The 

Ombudsman has received a number of requests for 

assistance for naturalization applications outside normal 

processing times. Members of the military have indicated 

to the Ombudsman that the USCIS military help line 

sometimes provides vague responses. The Ombudsman’s 

review of requests for case assistance reveals that many of 

78 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006, Pub. L No. 109-163, 

119 Stat. 3136 (codified as amended in scattered sections of 8 U.S.C.). 79 DOS Webpage, “Special Immigrant Visas (SIVs) for Iraqi and Afghan 

Translators/Interpreters,” https://travel.state.gov/content/visas/en/immigrate/

iraqi-afghan-translator.html (accessed Apr. 17, 2017). 80 Id. 81 Id. 82 H.R. 244 Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017, Pub. L. No. 115-31, § 7083, 

115th Congress (2017–2018). As of September 30, 2016, 6,733 applications 

for principal applicants were pending in one of the 14 SIV application stages; 

of those, 196 petitions were pending with USCIS. Joint Department of State/

Department of Homeland Security Report: Status of the Afghan Special 

Immigrant Visa Program—January 2017; https://travel.state.gov/content/dam/

visas/SIVs/Afghan%20SIV%20public%20report_Jan%202017.pdf (accessed 

May 22, 2017).

these cases were delayed due to background investigations 

outside USCIS control. 

FBI Name Checks. As discussed in the Ombudsman’s 

2016 Annual Report, FBI name check delays prevent 

USCIS from timely completing a number of naturalization 

applications filed by service members and their 

dependents.83 As of April 2017, a total of 2,125 military 

naturalization applications for service members were 

pending due to FBI name checks.84 Generally, the FBI 

does not treat name checks for military service members 

differently from other pending requests. However, the FBI 

has expedited name checks for military members on a caseby-case basis at the request of USCIS, particularly if there 

is an upcoming deployment or change in duty station.85 

Concerns with MAVNI and Naturalization Processing. 

Stakeholders have expressed concerns that there has been 

a slowdown in the adjudication of MAVNI naturalization 

83 Ombudsman’s Annual Report 2016, pp.75–76. 84 Information provided by USCIS (Apr. 5, 2017). 85 Ombudsman’s Annual Report 2016, pp.75–76.

Request for Case Assistance

A member of the Armed Forces submitted a request for 

case assistance to the Ombudsman after experiencing 

delays in the processing of her Form N-400. Upon 

enlistment in the U.S. Army in February 2016, the service 

member was sent to Basic Combat Training (BCT) in 

South Carolina. Delays in processing prevented her from 

naturalizing after completing BCT; she was assigned to 

an installation in Virginia in May 2016 for her Advanced 

Individual Training (AIT). Upon arrival, the service member 

requested that her file be transferred from the field office 

where it was initially filed to the nearest field office in 

Virginia. Despite contacting the USCIS military help line 

and the field office on multiple occasions, her case was 

never transferred. Five months later, after completing 

AIT, the service member was given her first assignment. 

She requested that her file be transferred to a third field 

office. Despite repeated attempts, the service member 

was unable to resolve the matter directly with USCIS. 

She submitted a request for case assistance to the 

Ombudsman in December 2016. The third field office 

received the file two weeks later. The service member was 

able to naturalize in March 2017, more than 1 year after 

the initial filing and 6 months beyond USCIS posted (nonmilitary) naturalization processing times. 
18 | ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS JUNE 2017

applications since the issuance of the memoranda by DOD 

on September 30, 2016, and by USCIS on November 23, 

2016.86 MAVNI enlistees placed in the reserves are eligible 

for expedited naturalization pursuant to the applicable 

statute and regulations, but are not able to pursue expedited 

naturalization because they are unable to complete security 

and background checks to enable them to attend basic 

combat training.87 Stakeholders have also expressed 

concern that USCIS has denied or placed requests for 

deferred action on indefinite hold, despite the memoranda 

requiring that MAVNI enlistees either maintain their 

prior status or obtain deferred action. These applicants 

are left without lawful immigration status or the ability to 

work while awaiting adjudication of their naturalization 

applications or deployment to basic training. 

The Ombudsman will continue to provide case assistance 

and monitor service members’ concerns about timeliness 

in adjudications of their and their dependents’ immigration 

benefits. Additionally, the Ombudsman will continue 

to engage USCIS and partner agencies to promote more 

effective interagency communication and coordination in the 

delivery of benefits to service members and their families.

86 Frances Robles, Vetting Delays Snarl Path to Citizenship for Thousands 

in Military, The New York Times (Apr. 29, 2017), https://www.

nytimes.com/2017/04/29/us/united-states-citizenship-and-immigrationservicesmilitary-screening.html?_r=1 (accessed May 11, 2017). 87 INA § 329; 8 U.S.C. § 1440; 8 CFR 329.2(a). See also Exec. Order No. 

13269, 67 Fed. Reg. 45287 (July 8, 2002) (designating the period beginning 

September 11, 2001 as a period of hostilities for the purposes of expedited 

naturalization under INA § 329); information provided by stakeholders.

Changes in Policy 

and Practice for 

Provisional Waivers

Responsible USCIS Offices: Field Operations 

Directorate; Office of Policy and Strategy

Key Facts and Findings

 The Provisional Unlawful Presence Waiver program 

was implemented in 2013 to “promote and preserve 

family unity” for certain spouses or parents of U.S. 

citizens who are unlawfully present in the United 

States and must depart in order to obtain lawful 

permanent resident (LPR) status. 

 Form I-601A, Application for Provisional Unlawful 

Presence Waiver waives the 3- or 10-year unlawful 

presence bars prior to the applicant departing the 

United States for the required DOS immigrant 

visa interview. 
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES OMBUDSMAN | 19

 Initially, provisional waivers were available for 

individuals who: (1) entered the United States without 

authorization or overstayed a lawful temporary entry; 

(2) are the spouse or child of a U.S. citizen; (3) have 

no other grounds for inadmissibility (such as multiple 

unlawful entries, criminal history, or fraud); and (4) 

can demonstrate that their U.S. citizen spouse or 

parent would experience extreme hardship if the U.S. 

citizen had to be separated from the individual or had 

to relocate to another country. 

 In 2016, USCIS expanded the program to include all 

statutorily eligible applicants, updated the USCIS 

Policy Manual to expand the extreme hardship 

standard, and revised the form instructions to include a 

summary of extreme hardship factors. 

 Beginning August 29, 2016, by regulation, USCIS 

stopped denying provisional waiver applications 

based on a “reason to believe” the applicant would 

be inadmissible for reasons other than unlawful 

presence. Since USCIS is no longer addressing other 

inadmissibility issues, applicants may not be aware 

that DOS may deny the visa on other grounds until 

after departing the United States for immigrant visa 

interviews. If another waiver is available and needed, 

the applicant may file Form I-601, Application for 

Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility, but must remain 

overseas pending adjudication. 

 The Ombudsman continued to receive requests for 

case assistance relating to provisional waivers in 2016. 

The majority of these requests involved denials (issued 

prior to the regulation change) that did not provide 

specificity for the “reason to believe” there were other 

grounds of inadmissibility, denials that did not appear 

to reflect a complete review of the documentation 

supporting the claim of extreme hardship, and 

processing times beyond those posted. There is no 

administrative or judicial review of a provisional 

waiver denial.

Background

DHS launched the Provisional Unlawful Presence Waiver 

program on March 4, 2013,88 and expanded the program 

to all statutorily eligible applicants on July 29, 2016.89

The program permits individuals who are inadmissible, 

but who qualify for a waiver of inadmissibility, to remain 

in the United States while waiting the resolution of their 

application. Previously, an eligible applicant was required 

to file Form I-601 with USCIS after departing the United 

States and then visit a U.S. consulate for an interview. 

In July 2016, USCIS expanded the program to all 

statutorily eligible applicants.90 The expansion was the 

result of a 2014 policy memorandum issued by thenSecretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson.91

The final rule, which became effective August 29, 2016, 

also expanded the provisional waiver process to permit the 

applicant to show extreme hardship to a permanent resident 

spouse or parent.92 The final regulation also includes the 

following changes to the program:

88 Provisional Unlawful Presence Waivers of Inadmissibility for Certain 

Immediate Relatives, 78 Fed. Reg. 535 (Jan. 3, 2013). The Provisional 

Unlawful Presence Waiver Program only waives inadmissibility of the 3- or 

10-year unlawful presence bars under INA § 212(a)(9)(B) for applicants 

who must depart the United States to complete their immigrant visa process, 

provided they can demonstrate their qualifying relative will be subject to 

extreme hardship with relocation and separation. Applicants cannot apply 

to waive the permanent bar under INA § 212(a)(9)(C). In its response to 

the Ombudsman’s 2015 Annual Report, USCIS stated, “[t]he goal of the 

provisional unlawful presence waiver process is to facilitate immigrant visa 

issuance for immediate relatives who are admissible to the United States 

except for the 3-year and 10-year unlawful presence bars under section 212(a)

(9)(B).” See USCIS 2015 Annual Report Response, p. 5; https://www.dhs.

gov/publication/2015-uscis-response (accessed Apr. 25, 2017). See also

Ombudsman’s Annual Reports for 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016. 89 Expansion of Provisional Unlawful Presence Waivers of Inadmissibility; 

Final Rule, 81 Fed. Reg. 50244 (Jul. 29, 2016). Intending immigrants of any 

preference category with an approved Form I-130, I-140, or I-360 who paid 

the immigrant visa fee, or who were selected for the Diversity Visa Program 

under INA § 203(c), may file an I-601A application if they have a U.S. citizen 

or permanent resident spouse or parent who would experience extreme 

hardship if the applicant is not granted a waiver. 90 Id. 91 DHS Policy Memorandum, “Expansion of the Provisional Waiver Program” 

(Nov. 20, 2014); http://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/14_1120_

memo_i601a_waiver.pdf (accessed Apr. 25, 2017). 92 Expansion of Provisional Unlawful Presence Waivers of Inadmissibility; Final 

Rule, 81 Fed. Reg. 50244, 50245 (Jul. 29, 2016). Prior to the expansion, only 

certain immediate relatives of U.S. citizen spouses or parents could apply for 

the provisional waiver.

Thank you so much for your excellent 

assistance with this case. Your 

office's work is extremely important 

and beneficial.
20 | ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS JUNE 2017

 Provides that USCIS has jurisdiction over all 

provisional waivers, including those filed by an 

applicant who “is or was in removal, deportation, or 

exclusion proceedings;”

 Removes the “reason to believe” basis for denials;93

 Eliminates date restrictions to allow applicants to file 

a provisional waiver request even if DOS already 

scheduled an immigrant visa interview; and

 Clarifies that an applicant may not file a provisional 

waiver request if ICE or U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP) previously reinstated an order of 

removal, deportation, or exclusion.94

In his November 20, 2014 memorandum, then-Secretary 

Johnson directed “USCIS to provide additional guidance 

on the definition of ‘extreme hardship.’”95 On October 21, 

2016, USCIS published this policy guidance in Volume 

9, Part B of its Policy Manual.96 The guidance, which 

took effect on December 5, 2016, expands the definition 

of extreme hardship through several changes. First, it 

provides that USCIS will consider extreme hardship 

to additional qualifying relatives for purposes of the 

provisional waiver.97 A qualifying relative is the U.S. 

citizen or permanent resident spouse or parent of the 

provisional waiver applicant who can demonstrate extreme 

hardship due to separation or relocation. Second, the 

guidance also provides that an applicant can show extreme 

hardship to the qualifying relative if there is relocation 

or separation, rather than both, as required prior to the 

regulation change.98 Finally, the guidance provides a nonexhaustive list of significant factors that USCIS officers 

may consider when adjudicating the waiver, such as family 

ties, social and cultural impact, economic impact, health 

conditions and care, and country conditions.99

Provisional Waiver Data. As a result of the expansion 

in eligibility, the National Benefits Center (NBC), which 

adjudicates all provisional waiver requests, received 57,150 

93 Under prior regulations, provisional waivers were unavailable to applicants 

who USCIS had a “reason to believe” were subject to a ground of 

inadmissibility other than unlawful presence. 8 C.F.R. § 212.7(e)(4)(i) (2016). 94 81 Fed. Reg. at 50262. See also 8 C.F.R. §§ 212.7(e)(2) and 212.7(e)(4)(v). 95 Expansion of the Provisional Waiver Program, supra note 91. 96 9 USCIS Policy Manual, Pt. B; https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/

PolicyManual-Volume9-PartB.html (accessed May 4, 2017). 97 Id. 98 Id. 99 Id.

applications in 2016, a 19 percent increase from 2015 and 

a 35 percent increase from 2014.100 See Figure 2.2, USCIS 

I-601A Receipts and Actions Taken. 

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

Figure 2.2: USCIS I-601A Receipts 

and Actions Taken

2014

Receipts Request 

For Evidence

Approvals Denied Rejections Denials 

That Were

Reopened

2015 2016

42,504

47,888

57,150

32,024

34,281

39,600

21,702

16,908

10,761

13,036

11,477

5,708

9,820

10,288

15,530

638

449

118

Source: USCIS

Ongoing Concerns

The Ombudsman has monitored the Provisional Unlawful 

Presence Waiver program since its implementation in 

March 2013 through review of requests for case assistance, 

as well as engagements with stakeholders and USCIS.101 

The Ombudsman received 434 requests for case assistance 

involving Form I-601A from the time the program was 

implemented through December 31, 2016. During 2016, 

stakeholders reported several issues regarding provisional 

waivers, including denials due to lack of extreme hardship 

100 Information provided by USCIS (Jan. 3, 2017 and Mar. 2, 2017). In 2016, 

USCIS received 12,538 Form I-601A filings between January 1 and March 30; 

13,543 between April 1 and June 30; 12,939 between July 1 and September 

30; and 18,130 between October 1 and December 31. In comparison, in 

2015, USCIS received 11,097 Form I-601A filings between January 1 and 

March 30; 12,409 between April 1 and June 30; 12,192 between July 1 and 

September 30; and 12,190 between October 1 and December 31. During the 

Ombudsman’s Annual Conference in 2016, USCIS noted that Form I-601A 

receipts increased by 25–28 percent since August 29, 2016, the date that the 

provisional waivers program was expanded. 101 See Ombudsman’s Annual Report 2016, p. 24; Ombudsman’s Annual Report 

2015, p. 21; Ombudsman’s Annual Report 2014, p. 10; and Ombudsman’s 

Annual Report 2013, pp. 25–26. The Ombudsman also hosted panel 

discussions on provisional waivers at the Ombudsman’s Annual Conference in 

2013, 2015, and 2016.
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES OMBUDSMAN | 21

or “reason to believe” grounds, and cases pending past 

posted processing times. 

Adjudication Issues. Of the 164 requests for case 

assistance submitted in 2016 involving provisional 

waiver applications, 44 percent pertained to denials 

for lack of extreme hardship to the qualifying relative 

or “reason to believe” there were other inadmissibility 

grounds not waived by the provisional waiver. The 

agency responded that it “encourages all applicants to 

submit all documentation they believe will establish their 

eligibility for the provisional unlawful presence waiver 

including documentation to address potential grounds 

of inadmissibility.”102 USCIS further noted that it “does 

not make inadmissibility determinations” and that such 

decisions are made by DOS at the time of the immigrant 

visa interview.103

102 USCIS 2014 Annual Report Response, p. 2 (June 9, 2015); https://www.dhs.

gov/publication/2014-uscis-response. See also USCIS 2015 Annual Report 

Response, pp. 5–6 (June 30, 2016); https://www.dhs.gov/publication/2015-

uscis-response. As of the time this report was being finalized, the 

Ombudsman has not received USCIS’ response to the 2016 Annual Report. 103 USCIS 2014 Annual Report Response, p. 2. 

Longer Processing Times. USCIS average processing 

times for provisional waiver applications increased 

from 3.3 months in 2015 to 5.75 months in 2016, but 

stakeholders reported adjudications taking as long as 8 

months.104 As of December 31, 2016, the NBC reported 

29,761 pending Form I-601A applications.105 One reason 

for increased processing times appears to be a growing 

number of cases pending FBI name checks. USCIS 

also notes that officers spend approximately 5 to 6 hours 

reviewing an application, compared to 2 hours in 2015, 

and noted that the average physical size of a provisional 

waiver filing has grown to 6.5 inches due to increased 

documentation supporting extreme hardship.106 

The Ombudsman will continue to monitor the 

Provisional Unlawful Presence Waiver program and Form 

I-601 processing. 

104 Information provided by USCIS (Jan. 3, 2017 and Mar. 2, 2017). 105 Information provided by USCIS (Mar. 2, 2017). Form I-601A receipts 

increased by 25–28 percent since August 29, 2016. 106 Information provided by USCIS at Ombudsman’s Sixth Annual Conference 

(Dec. 6, 2016). 
22 | ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS JUNE 2017

U.S. immigration policy helps foster economic growth, seeks 

to respond to labor market needs, and enhances U.S. global 

competitiveness. In this year’s Annual Report, the Ombudsman 

reviews USCIS administrative review of employment-based 

decisions through motions to reopen and reconsider to the 

field and appeals to the USCIS Administrative Appeals Office, 

offering ways to make the review more meaningful. The 

Ombudsman reviewed the EB-5 immigrant investor program’s 

continuing scrutiny and increasing program delays. A new 

regulation, effective in early 2017, consolidated policy in many 

of USCIS’ high-skilled nonimmigrant and immigrant programs, 

but missed opportunities for additional clarification. 

Employment
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES OMBUDSMAN | 23

USCIS Administrative 

Review in EmploymentBased Decisions: Appeals 

and Motions

Responsible USCIS Offices: Service Center 

Operations and Field Operations Directorates; 

Administrative Appeals Office 

Key Facts and Findings

 Administrative review, through motions to reopen 

and motions to reconsider to the field and appeals to 

the USCIS Administrative Appeals Office (AAO), 

provides individuals and employers an opportunity to 

obtain reexamination of USCIS denials. 

 Motions to reopen and motions to reconsider are 

filed with the office that made the initial decision; an 

appeal, by contrast, is filed with the initial field office, 

and will be reviewed by that office before sending the 

appeal to the AAO for review and decision. If the field 

office agrees with the appeal, it may reverse itself and 

not forward the appeal.

 The AAO has made significant improvements to its 

processing times, completing most administrative 

appeals within 180 days. However, when the AAO 

posts its forecasted processing times, the time the 

appeal is first reviewed by the USCIS field office or 

service center is not included. 

 Upon receipt of Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or 

Motion, the initial USCIS field office must review the 

case to determine whether the arguments presented 

overcome the reason(s) for denial regardless of 

whether the case is brought back on motion or appeal. 

 There are a variety of steps USCIS could take to 

ensure that administrative review is meaningful and 

timely, including:
24 | ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS JUNE 2017

n Establish and publish processing time goals 

for motions;

n Publish more accurate processing times for AAO 

appeals that include the time it takes to conduct the 

initial field review. For most form types, the AAO 

processing time is currently 3 months or less; and

n Clarify the Form I-290B by providing more 

explicit instructions, or alternatively, separate 

motions and appeals into two separate forms. 

Background

Form I-290B is used to: (1) request reopening a petition 

based on new evidence; (2) request reconsideration of a 

decision based on incorrect application of law or policy; or 

(3) appeal a decision to the AAO.107 Administrative review 

by USCIS is available for almost all immigration forms.108 

The type of review depends in part upon the benefit type 

and whether a motion or appeal is sought.109 See Figure 3.2, 

Motions to Reopen, Motions to Reconsider, and Appeals.

Due to processing time concerns, some stakeholders and 

their legal representatives choose to refile with USCIS rather 

than pursue administrative review of adverse decisions. 

There is limited transparency for motions to reopen and 

motions to reconsider because USCIS field offices do not 

publicly post these processing times. Meanwhile, AAO 

appeal processing times are uniformly listed at 6 months, 

although most cases are completed in less time.110 

The Ombudsman has issued formal recommendations 

to USCIS on both motions and appeals. In 2005, the 

Ombudsman recommended that the AAO publicize the 

appellate standard of review, the process to designate 

precedent decisions, its oral argument criteria, and 

107 8 C.F.R. §§103.3 and 103.5. 108 The AAO has jurisdiction over most applications and petitions. See 8 C.F.R. 

§ 103.1(f)(iii) (2003). The BIA has appellate authority over most familybased immigrant petitions filed under section 204 of the INA, including Form 

I-130, Petition for Alien Relative, among others. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(b)(5). 

Other applications and petitions, such as Forms I-751, Petition to Remove 

the Conditions of Residence and Form I-485, Application to Adjust Status or 

Register Permanent Residence, are filed pursuant to section 245 of the INA; 

Form I-765, Application for Employment Authorization, cannot be appealed. 

8 C.F.R. §§ 216.4(d)(2), 245.2(a)(5)(ii), 274a.13(c). Most, but not all, denials 

not subject to appeal may still be challenged by filing a motion to reconsider 

or reopen. See USCIS Webpage, “When to Use Form I-290B, Notice of 

Appeal or Motion” (Feb. 23, 2016); https://www.uscis.gov/i-290b/jurisdiction

(accessed Apr. 3, 2017). 109 USCIS Webpage, “When to Use Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion,” 

supra note 108. 110 See Figure 3.3, AAO Appeals Adjudications, Fiscal Years 2012–2016; see also 

information provided by AAO (Mar. 20, 2017).

decision-making statistics.111 In 2009, the Ombudsman 

recommended that USCIS establish uniform filing and 

review procedures for motions and improve public 

communication concerning these processes.112 USCIS has 

implemented some of these recommendations, including 

making the preponderance of the evidence standard clear, 

making more information about motions113 and appeals 

publicly available, and implementing timelines for 

administrative review. However, stakeholders continue 

to express concerns regarding the complexity of Form 

I-290B, the depth of the initial field office’s review, and the 

timeliness of the administrative review process.

Form I-290B provides six options for administrative 

review: three related to motions and three related 

to appeals. See Figure 3.1, Form I-290B Options for 

Administrative Review.

111 Ombudsman Recommendation 20 (Dec. 6, 2005); https://www.dhs.gov/

xlibrary/assets/CISOmbudsman_RR_20_Administrative_Appeals_12-07-05.

pdf (accessed Apr. 6, 2016). 112 Ombudsman Recommendation 42, “Motions Matter: Improving the Filing 

and Review Process for Motions to Reopen and Reconsider” (May 15, 

2009); https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/cisomb/cisomb_

recommendation_42_5-15-09.pdf (accessed Apr. 6, 2016). 113 USCIS Response to Recommendation #20 (Dec. 19, 2005); https://www.

dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/CISOmbudsman_RR_20_Administrative_Appeals_

USCIS_Response-12-19-05.pdf (accessed May 10, 2017).

Figure 3.1: Form I-290B Options for 

Administrative Review

Source: Form I-290B, p. 1, Part 2, Information about the Appeal or Motion, 

1.a-f (Apr. 10, 2017).
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES OMBUDSMAN | 25

Sources: 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.3, 103.5; Form I-290B, Notice of Motion or Appeal, Instructions; AAO Practice Manual Section 3.

AAO. However, an initial eld review by 

the eld ofce or service center that 

denied the underlying form typically 

precedes AAO review. The initial eld 

review should be completed within 45 

days, although USCIS does not publish 

processing times for this review

Review Performed By

A brief or written statement 

identifying the error in the USCIS

decision is required. Appellants may 

submit a supplemental brief to the 

AAO within 30 days of ling the appeal

Briefing Requirement

Processing Time

No. However, initial eld review by the 

eld ofce or service center may (1) 

treat the appeal as a motion to reopen 

or a motion to reconsider and approve 

the application or petition; or (2) forward 

the appeal to the AAO for adjudication 

Able To Combine Request?

No brief is required. However, a brief may be submitted 

at the time of ling the I-290B.

Briefing Requirement

Processing times for motions are not 

public and vary depending on the initial eld ofce 

or service center

Processing Time

Yes, a combined motion to reopen and motion to 

reconsider may be led where new facts are presented and an error in 

the USCIS decision is identied. See Figure 3.1, Form I-290B 

Options for Administrative Review 

Able To Combine Request?

Yes

Able To Submit New Facts?

No

Able To Submit New Facts?

Within 30 days of the date of USCIS decision

Filing Deadline

$675 or fee waiver request on Form I-912

Fee

I-290B

Form

Yes; de novo review

Able To Submit New Facts?

Figure 3.2: Motions to Reopen, Motions to Reconsider, and Appeals

MOTION TO

RECONSIDER

MOTION TO

REOPEN APPEAL

Field ofce or service center that issued 

the initial decision. The same Adjudications 

Ofcer may perform the review of the motion, 

although some ofces assign a different ofcer

Review Performed By

AAO appeal processing times 

are posted online; however, 

they do not include the initial 

eld review processing times
26 | ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS JUNE 2017

Motions to Reopen and Motions to Reconsider. Form 

I-290B and the $675 filing fee (or fee waiver request) must 

be filed within 30 days of the date of the decision with the 

USCIS office that initially performed the adjudication.114 

The applicant or petitioner may file a motion to reopen or a 

motion to reconsider, or, alternatively, may file a combined 

motion to reopen and reconsider.115 The Adjudicator’s Field 

Manual (AFM) contemplates that the officer who rendered 

the initial decision also makes the final determination on 

a motion.116 However, the process differs from office to 

office; some require a supervisory adjudicator or a specially 

designated motions unit to adjudicate the motion.117 

A motion to reopen must state new facts supported by 

affidavits and other documentary evidence to establish 

eligibility and qualification for the benefit sought.118 A 

motion to reconsider, by contrast, must demonstrate that 

the denial was based on an incorrect application of law or 

USCIS policy.119 The latter is a legal review based on the 

record of proceedings at the time of the initial filing.120 A 

combined motion both provides new facts and asserts an 

incorrect application of law or policy. 

114 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.5(a)(1)(ii)-(iii), 103.7(b)(1). If the decision was sent by mail, 

the applicant or petitioner must submit the motion within 33 days of the date 

of the decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5a(b). 115 A motion to reopen or a motion to reconsider a decision may be filed provided 

the request meets the requirements of 8 CFR § 103.5. Motions to the BIA 

must meet the requirements of 8 CFR § 3.2. Ordinarily a motion is adjudicated 

by the same officer who made the original decision. In all cases, the motion 

must be considered by the same USCIS office that most recently decided the 

case. A motion may be filed by the applicant or petitioner or by USCIS. See 

also Form I-290B, Notice of Motion or Appeal, p. 1, pt. 2, question 1(d)-(f). 116 USCIS Adjudicator’s Field Manual (AFM), Ch. 10.17(a), “Motions to Reopen 

or Reconsider: General” (Mar. 2009); https://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/

AFM/HTML/AFM/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-1067/0-0-0-2012.html#0-0-0-304 (accessed 

May 18, 2017). In all cases, the motion must be considered by the same office 

(district, service center, immigration court, AAO, or BIA) which most recently 

decided the case. 8 C.F.R. §103.3(a)(2)(ii). A motion may be filed by the 

applicant or petitioner or by USCIS. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(1)(iii). 117 USCIS AFM, Ch. 10.17(a), “Motions to Reopen or Reconsider: General,” 

supra note 116. Depending on local office policy, a different officer may 

adjudicate the motion if the original adjudications officer is unavailable. See 

also information provided by USCIS (Sept. 9, 2016; Nov. 7, 2016; Apr. 28, 

2017; May 3, 2017). 118 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2); see also 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2)(i)-(iii) (detailing 

additional requirements for filing a motion to reopen when USCIS denies 

a case due to abandonment); 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(b)-(c) (relating to special 

agricultural worker and legalization applications, and replenishment 

agricultural worker petitions). 119 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). 120 Id.

Appeals. Form I-290B is also used to initiate an appeal 

with the AAO. Appeals must be filed within 30 days of 

the date of the decision to the initial USCIS office, either 

by filing a brief at the time of the appeal or within 30 

days of that date.121 Untimely appeals may be treated as 

a motion by the initial adjudication office if it otherwise 

satisfies the substantive requirements for a motion under 

the regulations.122 

When the initial field office receives a Form I-290B appeal, 

it has 45 days to review the case to determine whether the 

arguments presented overcome the reasons for the adverse 

decision.123 If the initial field office determines that the 

appeal is meritorious, it may treat the appeal as a service 

motion to reopen or motion to reconsider and approve 

the case.124 If the initial field office finds the arguments 

do not overcome the basis of the denial, the office must 

“promptly” forward the appeal to the AAO.125 Some 

USCIS field offices conduct a thorough review of the 

appeal; others do not complete their review of the appeal 

within 45 days; some do not conduct a review at all before 

forwarding the appeal to the AAO.126 Current regulations 

allow for submission of a brief and any additional evidence 

at the time of filing Form I-290B, or within 30 days after 

the service of the denial notice.127 

The AAO conducts a de novo review of all issues of 

fact, law, policy, and exercise of discretion,128 applying a 

preponderance of evidence standard of proof.129 Under 

this standard, the appellant must present evidence that 

demonstrates eligibility for the benefit sought based upon 

the facts and evidence presented.130

121 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(2)(i). If the decision was sent by mail, the applicant or 

petitioner must submit the motion within 33 days of the date of the decision. 

See 8 C.F.R. § 103.8. 122 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(2)(v)(B)(2). 123 USCIS AFM, Ch. 10.8(a)(1), “Preparing the Appellate Case Record: 

Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) Cases” (Mar. 2009); https://www.

uscis.gov/ilink/docView/AFM/HTML/AFM/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-1067/0-0-0-1482.

html#0-0-0-286 (accessed May 18, 2017). 124 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(2)(iii). An appeal can only be treated as a motion to issue a 

favorable decision. 125 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(2)(iv); USCIS AFM, Ch. 10.8(a)(1), “Preparing the 

Appellate Case Record: Administrative Appeals (AAO) Cases,” supra note 

123. The regulations and USCIS field guidance do not make clear what 

constitutes “promptly” for purposes of forwarding an appeal to the AAO. 126 Information provided by USCIS (Sept. 9, 2016; May 3, 2017). 127 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(2)(i). 128 AAO Practice Manual, Section 3.4; https://www.uscis.gov/about-us/

directorates-and-program-offices/administrative-appeals-office-aao/practicemanual/chapter-3-appeals (accessed May 18, 2017). 129 AAO Practice Manual, Section 3.6. 130 Id.
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES OMBUDSMAN | 27

Precedent Decisions, Non-precedent Decisions, 

and Adopted Decisions. The AAO issues precedent 

decisions131 that may assert new legal interpretations of 

statute, regulation or policy. In recent years, USCIS has 

issued few precedent decisions, presumably because of 

the cumbersome interagency clearance process.132 AAO 

precedent decisions are binding on all DHS employees in 

cases applying the same statute, regulations, and policy.133

The AAO also issues non-precedent decisions that are 

binding only on the parties involved in the specific case. 

USCIS states that it does not articulate new constructions 

of law or establish agency policy through nonprecedent decisions.134 

In addition, the AAO issues “adopted decisions,” which 

constitute binding interpretations and guidance on all 

USCIS employees. The difference between precedent 

decisions and adopted decisions is that the latter are not 

binding on third-party agencies or their personnel.135 

USCIS has issued ten adopted decisions since 2005.136 The 

clearance process to designate an adopted decision is less 

cumbersome than for precedent decisions. 

Ongoing Concerns

The Ombudsman’s review of the administrative 

review process was prompted by concerns raised by 

stakeholders, including:

 The timeliness and quality of the administrative review 

process; and

 Confusion in completing Form I-290B. 

131 AAO Practice Manual, Section 1.3; https://www.uscis.gov/about-us/

directorates-and-program-offices/administrative-appeals-office-aao/practicemanual/chapter-1-administrative-appeals-office (accessed May 18, 2017). 132 AAO has issued only seven precedent decisions since 2010. See U.S. 

Department of Justice Webpage, “DHS/AAO/INS Decisions” (Dec.27, 

2016); https://www.justice.gov/eoir/dhs-aao-ins-decisions (accessed May 3, 

2017). In a March 20, 2017 meeting with the Ombudsman, the AAO stated 

that precedent decisions require the review and approval of the U.S. Attorney 

General via the U.S. Department of Justice, a lengthy process that prevents 

the AAO from issuing precedent decisions in a timely manner. See also AAO 

Practice Manual at Section 3.15(c). 133 AAO Practice Manual, Section 1.5, 3.15(c). 134 AAO Practice Manual, Section 3.15(a). 135 AAO Practice Manual, Section 3.15(b). 136 USCIS Webpage, “AAO Adopted Decisions” (Apr. 19, 2017); https://www.

uscis.gov/about-us/directorates-and-program-offices/administrative-appealsoffice-aao/adopted-aao-decisions (accessed May 8, 2017).

Timeliness of the Motions and Appeals Process. 

According to USCIS, it does not track the amount of time 

it takes for the agency to adjudicate a motion to reopen 

or motion to reconsider.137 Consequently, USCIS does 

not provide processing times for Form I-290B motions 

to reopen or motions to reconsider at field offices and 

service centers. Meanwhile, although the AAO posts its 

processing times online, USCIS does not track the length 

of the initial field review that precedes the AAO’s review.138 

This leads to a lack of predictability and transparency in the 

administrative review process. 

Stakeholders report they forgo the administrative appeals 

process and instead refile the application or petition 

because of the unpredictability of processing times. They 

believe that by reframing the case with the possibility of 

another adjudicator reviewing the evidence, they may be 

more likely to obtain an approval with the benefit of a more 

predictable processing timeframe. Refiling a petition with 

premium processing, when available, typically results in the 

issuance of a decision within 15 days.139 

Stakeholders would be better informed to make decisions 

regarding administrative review if USCIS established and 

posted accurate processing times for motions and appeals. 

When stakeholders waive review and file new petitions 

because of the perception of lengthy processing times, 

this prevents erroneous decisions from being corrected, 

and may result in repeated service error. It also deprives 

the public from enhanced transparency in the adjudication 

process. The Ombudsman therefore urges USCIS to post 

processing time goals by form type for motions at initial 

field offices.

In January 2017, the AAO improved the display of its 

posted processing times. Where previously all product lines 

had been listed at 6 months, the website now shows the 

percentage of cases for each product line that are completed 

within the 6-month target processing goal.140 The AAO 

informed the Ombudsman that its average processing times 

for some of form types is actually less than 6 months.141 

Finally, initial field review of an appeal may be made more 

effective through the availability of an accompanying legal 

137 Information provided by USCIS (Sept. 9, 2016). 138 Id. 139 USCIS Webpage, “How Do I Use Premium Processing” (Mar. 9, 2017); 

https://www.uscis.gov/forms/how-do-i-use-premium-processing-service

(accessed Mar. 30, 2017). 140 USCIS Webpage, “AAO Processing Times” (Apr. 6, 2017); https://www.uscis.

gov/about-us/directorates-and-program-offices/administrative-appeals-officeaao/aao-processing-times (accessed May 3, 2017). 141 Information provided by AAO (Mar. 20, 2017).
28 | ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS JUNE 2017

brief. Many appellants choose to file their briefs with the 

AAO after first filing Form I-290B, giving themselves 

additional time to develop their arguments. However, 

when the brief is not filed with the I-290B, the initial field 

office does not have the opportunity to consider the briefing 

when conducting its review. The Ombudsman suggests 

that USCIS develop a process that provides the initial field 

office the opportunity to review the appellant’s brief.

Quality of AAO Decisions. Until recently, many nonprecedent AAO decisions dismissing the appeal did not 

include a detailed analysis of the facts and law, preventing 

appellants from understanding why a decision was made.142 

However, in the past year, AAO leadership reports a 

deliberate effort to improve the writing quality of AAO 

decisions.143 There is now an in-depth analysis section in 

most of the AAO’s non-precedent decisions, and a focus 

on using plain language.144 This improvement in decisions 

provides transparency and helps individuals, employers, 

and their representatives better understand the reasoning 

behind the outcome of their appeal. 

Confusion in Completing a Bifurcated Form. USCIS 

published an updated Form I-290B and instructions 

on April 10, 2017. The new form clarified some of 

the information sought and expanded the instructions. 

However, the new form and instructions still do not explain 

or distinguish the various administrative review options 

with sufficient clarity. See Figure 3.1, Form I-290B 

Options for Administrative Review. Further, attorneys and 

142 Id. 143 Id. 144 Id.

accredited representatives are in many cases unaware of the 

initial field review afforded to them by filing an appeal. 

Accordingly, further revisions to Form I-290B and its 

instructions could better clarify the overlapping yet 

distinct review processes for motions to reopen, motions 

to reconsider, and appeals. See Figure 3.2, Motions 

to Reopen, Motions to Reconsider, and Appeals.145 

Alternatively, USCIS could explore creating separate forms 

for motions and appeals.

145 As this Report was being finalized, USCIS published a notice under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act revising the I-290B, and provided the public a 

60-day period in which to comment on the revisions. Agency Information 

Collection Activities: Notice of Appeal or Motion, Form I-290B; Revision of 

a Currently Approved Collection, 82 Fed. Reg. 22557 (May 16, 2017). The 

revised draft form has not yet been posted.

Request for Case Assistance—A Common Mistake

An attorney filed Form I-290B on behalf of his client, 

checking the box for a motion to reconsider and a motion 

to reopen. He had clearly written on the Form I-290B 

that if USCIS denied the motions, the case should be 

forwarded to the AAO. USCIS responded that the form 

allowed for only one option, and that if the attorney 

wanted to appeal the case, he needed to file a second 

Form I-290B. However, if the attorney had simply selected 

the appeal option, the case would have been reviewed by 

the initial field office and forwarded to the AAO within 45 

days if the field declined to change its decision.
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES OMBUDSMAN | 29

Figure 3.3: AAO Appeals Adjudications, Fiscal Years 2012 – 2016

 AAO Appeal Adjudications

FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16

Form 

Type

Dismiss Sustain Remand Dismiss Sustain Remand Dismiss Sustain Remand Dismiss Sustain Remand Dismiss Sustain Remand

I-129F 75 17 0 69 20 0 47 19 2 112 20 3 107 58 0

I-129 

H-1B 904 17 11 751 10 25 509 16 12 504 16 9 369 8 14

I-129 

H-2 35 4 1 14 0 0 7 2 0 12 0 1 29 5 3

I-129 

H-3 12 0 0 3 0 1 6 0 0 9 1 2 7 2 1

I-129 

L-1 246 26 10 435 37 8 166 16 11 233 43 13 178 21 23

I-129O 8 0 2 22 0 1 19 0 0 31 0 2 21 0 1

I-129P 22 0 0 8 0 0 22 0 0 27 0 0 19 0 0

I-129Q 4 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0

I-129R 69 11 29 57 1 12 30 0 22 25 6 11 25 15 3

I-140A 204 14 0 122 8 2 88 5 3 102 13 0 68 17 2

I-140B 38 1 0 18 1 0 2 0 0 5 3 0 4 2 0

I-140C 182 25 7 175 26 15 84 14 8 98 13 9 69 13 12

I-140D 362 20 25 290 39 27 123 15 28 69 18 6 82 15 6

I-140E 1646 76 82 1036 81 117 76 6 12 36 5 8 35 2 7

I-140F 2 0 0 106 10 7 31 5 5 20 3 3 23 1 3

I-140G 61 7 0 29 6 1 9 1 1 2 0 1 1 0 1

I-140I 92 4 1 82 5 0 115 6 3 72 7 1 48 10 0

I-212 136 38 7 77 31 2 43 9 2 44 10 4 36 13 1

I-352 27 3 0 36 1 0 10 1 0 15 5 0 8 4 0

I-360C 5 1 1 10 4 1 3 1 1 41 6 7 62 6 3

I-360D 241 2 44 57 1 6 24 1 11 17 12 2 25 10 4

I-360I 182 17 4 156 23 2 205 30 8 399 49 15 190 9 8

I-485/

LIFE 43 4 2 10 1 2 2 0 0 2 0 1 4 0 1

I-485 

Sect. 

13

48 0 0 118 0 0 78 0 3 37 0 0 22 0 0

I-485/T 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 1 4 0 0

I-485/U 6 0 0 3 0 2 11 2 1 23 1 4 45 6 0

I-526 17 0 0 51 0 13 22 0 3 7 0 1 33 2 0

I-600/I600A 17 1 4 18 0 4 29 3 1 19 1 1 21 4 0

I-601 1730 452 67 1469 383 49 335 114 9 324 85 10 190 153 15

I-612 6 0 0 2 2 0 4 8 0 6 5 0 1 0 0

I-687 486 36 10 84 27 7 16 2 3 8 1 0 11 0 3

I-690 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1

I-698 34 5 9 17 6 7 2 2 2 8 1 3 8 0 3

I-700 3 0 0 3 1 2 5 0 0 16 2 2 4 0 0

I-821 244 15 40 180 23 31 156 9 23 142 18 26 70 2 7

I-914 13 7 0 9 0 0 3 0 0 63 0 1 15 0 0

I-918 141 4 8 89 0 5 130 0 9 337 5 50 122 1 11

I-924 2 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 4 1 1

N-565 9 2 0 20 6 0 21 12 2 10 3 0 25 5 1

N-600 96 9 5 89 9 9 102 26 16 64 31 8 71 20 5

Source: USCIS Webpage, “AAO Decision Data” (Oct. 25, 2016).
30 | ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS JUNE 2017

EB-5 Investors 

Responsible USCIS Office: Immigrant Investor 

Program Office 

Key Facts and Findings

 Congress extended the Immigrant Investor (EB-5) 

Regional Center Program, most recently through 

September 30, 2017.

 There is a high demand for EB-5 visas. There are 

approximately over 88,000 intending EB-5 investors 

with approved or pending I-526 petitions. Investors 

and their dependents from China who are at the end 

of the Form I-526 adjudication queue may have to 

wait 10 years or longer for immigrant visas under the 

EB-5 program. 

 On November 30, 2016, USCIS released a six-chapter 

addition to its Policy Manual titled “Investors,” 

synthesizing and aligning the agency’s regulations, 

decisional law, policies, and procedures with the statute.

 Amidst ongoing legislative reform efforts, in January 

2017, USCIS published proposed rules that would 

establish a Regional Center compliance and oversight 

program, increase minimum investment levels, and 

amending the methodology for determining Targeted 

Employment Areas (TEAs). 

Background

Congress established the EB-5 program in 1990 to 

encourage foreign entrepreneurs to make capital 

investments in the United States.146 Entrepreneurs who 

invest a minimum of $1 million in a new or existing U.S. 

business, or a reduced amount of $500,000 if invested in 

a TEA (a rural area or an area with high unemployment 

rates),147 and who create ten full-time positions for U.S. 

workers, are eligible for an immigrant visa.148 Congress 

allocated approximately 10,000 immigrant visas annually to 

foreign nationals and their immediate family members.149

146 Immigration Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-649, 104 Stat. 4978; as codified in 

scattered section of the U.S. Code. 147 See INA § 203(b)(5)(B)-(C), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(5)(B)-(C). 148 INA § 203(b)(5)(A)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(5)(A)(i). If the investment is 

made into a troubled business, the investor need only show that “the number 

of existing employees is being or will be maintained at no less than the preinvestment level for a period of at least 2 years.” 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(j)(4)(ii). 149 Id. The fifth employment-based preference category receives 7.1 percent of 

visas per year, of which 3,000 are set aside for TEAs.

With low utilization of the EB-5 visa category, Congress 

created the Regional Center program in 2002 to encourage 

the pooling of investments into larger projects expected 

to have a greater economic impact than individual EB-5 

capital investments.150 Under this program, investors in 

a USCIS-designated Regional Center may satisfy the job 

creation requirement through both direct and indirect job 

creation, as demonstrated through the submission of certain 

job-calculation methodologies.151 

Despite the creation of the Regional Center Program, 

underutilization of the EB-5 immigrant visa category 

continued until the financial crisis in late 2008, when 

conventional financing became unavailable. Project 

developers then began recruiting foreign investors and 

using EB-5 funds to finance large-scale projects, most of 

which were in the real estate development and construction 

sectors. In FY 2016, approximately 91 percent of all EB-5 

investments were made through a Regional Center,152 and 

99 percent of all EB-5 projects were located in a TEA.153 

Seventy-six percent of all EB-5 investments were made by 

Chinese nationals.154 

150 The Regional Center program was first enacted as a pilot in 1992. See

Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related 

Agencies Appropriations Act, 1993, Pub. L. No. 102-395, Title VI, § 610, 106 

Stat. 1828, 1874 (1992). Under this program, a certain number of EB-5 visas 

are set aside annually for immigrant investors in Regional Centers. Id. In May 

2017, the program was extended to September 30, 2017. A Regional Center 

is defined as any economic unit, public or private, which is involved with the 

promotion of economic growth, including increased export sales, improved 

regional productivity, job creation, and increased domestic capital investment. 

8 C.F.R. §§ 204.6(e) and (m)(3)(v). 151 Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related 

Agencies Appropriations Act, 1993, Pub. L. No. 102-395, 106 Stat. 1828 

(1992), Title VI, § 610, as amended by the Visa Waiver Permanent Program 

Act, Pub. L. No. 106-396, 114 Stat. 1637 (2000) § 402 (permitting petitioners 

under the Regional Center program “to establish reasonable methodologies 

for determining the number of jobs created by the pilot program, including 

such jobs which are estimated to have been created indirectly through 

revenues generated from increased exports, improved regional productivity, 

job creation, or increased domestic capital investment resulting from the pilot 

program”). 152 DOS, Report of the Visa Office 2016, Statistical Tables, Table V (Part 

3); https://travel.state.gov/content/dam/visas/Statistics/AnnualReports/

FY2016AnnualReport/FY16AnnualReport-TableV-Part3.pdf (accessed Apr. 

25, 2017). 153 U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) Report, “Immigrant Investor 

Program, Proposed Project Investments in Targeted Employment Areas,” 

GAO-17-487T (Mar. 2017); https://www.gao.gov/assets/690/683231.pdf 

(accessed Apr. 25, 2017). 154 Report of the Visa Office 2016, Statistical Tables, Table V (Part 3), supra

note 152.
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES OMBUDSMAN | 31

The USCIS Immigrant Investor Program Office (IPO) 

administers the EB-5 program.155 The IPO is authorized 

to employ up to 247 full-time employees (including 

adjudicators, compliance officers, economists, and fraud 

and national security officers, as well as administrative 

support); approximately 90 unfilled positions remained as 

of March 3, 2017.156 

USCIS,157 stakeholders,158 and Members of Congress159

generally agree that increased compliance is necessary to 

strengthen the integrity of the EB-5 program. Fraud—in 

the form of embezzlement, securities violations, investment 

schemes, and criminal conduct—has plagued the Regional 

155 See USCIS Webpage, “Executive Summary: A Discussion about the EB-5 

Immigrant Investor Program Teleconference” (Feb. 26, 2014); http://

www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Outreach/Notes%20from%20

Previous%20Engagements/PED-EB5-ExecSummary_02-26-14.pdf (accessed 

Apr. 25, 2017). The IPO became operational in March 2013. 156 Remarks by IPO Chief Nicholas Colucci at the USCIS EB-5 National 

Stakeholder Engagement (Mar. 3, 2017); https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/

files/USCIS/Outreach/Notes%20from%20Previous%20Engagements/

PED_EB5NatStakeholderEng072816_ColucciRemarks.pdf (accessed Apr. 

25, 2017). 157 Remarks by IPO Chief Nicholas Colucci at the USCIS EB-5 Miami, Florida 

Stakeholder Engagement (July 28, 2016); https://www.uscis.gov/sites/

default/files/USCIS/Outreach/Notes%20from%20Previous%20Engagements/

PED_EB5NatStakeholderEng072816_ColucciRemarks.pdf (accessed Apr. 25, 

2017). See also “The Distortion of EB-5 Targeted Employment Areas: Time 

to End the Abuse,” before the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 114th 

Cong. 2nd Sess. (Apr. 13, 2016); https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/meetings/

the-distortion-of-eb-5-targeted-employment-areas-time-to-end-the-abuse

(accessed Apr. 25, 2017). 158 See comments of the American Immigration Lawyers Association submitted 

to USCIS, EB-5 Immigrant Investor Regional Center Program, Advance 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 82 Fed. Reg. 3211 (Jan. 11, 2017), 

DHS Docket No. USCIS–2016–0008; https://www.regulations.gov/

document?D=USCIS-2016-0008-0010 (accessed Apr. 25, 2017); “Letter to 

Members of Congress from the EB-5 Industry” (July 5, 2016); https://iiusa.

org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/EB-5-Joint-Industry-Letter-7-5FINAL.

pdf (accessed Apr. 25, 2017). 159 U.S. House Judiciary Committee, Press Release, “Hearing Wrap Up; 

Proposed Reforms to Investor Visa Program” (Mar. 8, 2017); https://

judiciary.house.gov/press-release/hearing-wrap-proposed-reforms-investorvisa-program/ (accessed May 10, 2017); see also “The Distortion of EB-5 

Targeted Employment Areas: Time to End the Abuse” before the U.S. Senate 

Committee on the Judiciary, 114th Cong. 2nd Sess. (Apr. 13, 2016); https://

www.judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/watch?hearingid=CC12FBAE-5056-

A066-60F3-01AABA023C38 (accessed May 10, 2017); “The Failures and 

Future of the EB-5 Regional Center Program: Can it be Fixed?” before the

U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 114th Cong. 2nd Sess. (Feb. 2, 

2016); https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/meetings/the-failures-and-future-ofthe-eb-5-regional-cener-program-can-it-be-fixed (accessed Apr. 25, 2017).

Center program since its inception.160 USCIS has taken 

several steps to address these serious threats to the 

program.161 DHS implemented protocols in 2015 to bolster 

public trust in the integrity and impartiality of government 

officials who administer the program and interact with the 

IPO.162 Additionally, USCIS administers the EB-5 program 

with input from subject-matter experts from the Securities 

and Exchange Commission, Department of Justice (DOJ), 

FBI, DOS, and other components of government.163 The 

IPO disclosed plans to conduct 250 “for cause” and 

“random” site visits of Regional Centers and specific jobcreating enterprises in FY 2017 through its Compliance 

Division, including audits of designated Regional Centers 

that began in April 2017.164 

In November 2016, USCIS released an addition to its 

Policy Manual titled “Investors.”165 This six-chapter policy 

treatment is a significant achievement, as it synthesized 

160 See GAO Report, “Additional Actions Needed to Better Assess Fraud Risks 

and Report Economic Benefits,” GAO-15-696 (Aug. 2015); http://www.gao.

gov/assets/680/671940.pdf (accessed Apr. 25, 2017). In one example, in April 

2016, the SEC announced fraud charges and an asset freeze against Vermontbased ski resort, Jay Peak Inc., and related businesses for allegedly misusing 

millions of dollars solicited through the EB-5 program. The SEC alleged that 

Jay Peak operators made false statements and omitted key information while 

raising more than $350 million from investors to construct ski resort facilities 

and a biomedical research facility in Vermont. In April 2017, the brokerage 

firm that facilitated investments concluded a non-admission settlement of 

$150 million dollars. See Terry Hellenbeck, “Raymond James Firm to Pay 

$145.5 Million to Settle Vermont EB-5 Suit,” Seven Days (Apr. 13, 2017); 

http://www.sevendaysvt.com/OffMessage/archives/2017/04/13/raymondjames-firm-to-pay-1455-million-to-settle-eb-5-suit (accessed Apr. 25, 2017); 

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Press Release, “SEC Case 

Freezes Assets of Ski Resort Steeped in Fraudulent EB-5 Offerings” (Apr. 14, 

2015); https://www.sec.gov/news/pressrelease/2016-69.html (accessed Apr. 

25, 2017). In another example, in 2013 the SEC charged the owner of the 

Chicago Convention Center LLC EB-5 Regional Center with defrauding 290 

investors of approximately $145 million. See Stephen L. Cohen, Associate 

Director, Division of Enforcement, SEC before the Senate Committee on the 

Judiciary, “Testimony on the EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program” (Feb. 2, 

2016); https://www.sec.gov/news/testimony/cohen-testimony-02022016.html

(accessed May 18, 2017). 161 See Remarks by IPO Chief Nicholas Colucci, supra note 157. 162 Letter from Jeh Johnson, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security 

to Senators Grassley and Leahy (Apr. 27, 2015); http://eb5arnstein.com/

wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Homeland-Security-Jeh-Johnson_EB-5-

Letter_4-27-15.pdf (accessed Apr. 25, 2017). 163 See e.g. Remarks by IPO Chief Nicholas Colucci, supra note 157. 164 USCIS Webpage, “EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program” (Mar. 17, 2017); 

https://www.uscis.gov/outreach/eb-5-immigrant-investor-program-0

(accessed Apr. 25, 2017). 165 USCIS Policy Manual, Pt. G, Ch. 1; https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/

HTML/PolicyManual.html (accessed Apr. 25, 2017); see also USCIS Policy 

Alert, “Employment-Based Fifth Preference Immigrants: Investors” (Nov. 30, 

2016); https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/Updates/20161130-Investors.pdf

(accessed Apr. 25, 2017).
32 | ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS JUNE 2017

and aligned the agency’s regulations, decisional law, 

policies, and procedures with enabling statutes. Given 

the complexity of the EB-5 Program, the creation of this 

comprehensive and authoritative resource has been well 

received by EB-5 stakeholders. 

Ongoing Concerns

Short-Term Regional Center Reauthorizations. 

Legislative efforts to reform the EB-5 program have stalled 

over numerous issues, including the methodology for 

determining TEAs, the two-tiered investment framework, 

and effective dates for any new provisions.166

In the meantime, Congress has reauthorized the Regional 

Center program in a series of short-term extensions.167 

These short-term extensions trigger filing surges by 

investors seeking to secure a place in the queue before the 

minimum investment amount is increased or changes are 

made to other provisions. They also contributed to delays 

in updating EB-5 regulations as the agency yielded to 

signals from Congress that it intended to make statutory 

changes to the program. As this report was being finalized, 

166 The following EB-5 reform proposals were introduced in the 114th Congress: 

S. 1501, introduced by Sens. Charles Grassley and Patrick Leahy on June 3, 

2015; H.R. 3370, introduced by Rep. Zoe Lofgren and Luis Gutierrez on July 

29, 2015; S. 2415, introduced by Sens. Jeff Flake, John Cornyn, and Charles 

Schumer on December 23, 2015; and H.R. 5992, introduced by Reps. Robert 

Goodlatte and John Conyers on Sep. 12, 2016. Additionally, EB-5 oversight 

hearings were held before the House and the Senate. See “The Failures and 

Future of the EB-5 Regional Center Program: Can it be Fixed?” before the

U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 114th Cong. 2nd Sess. (Feb. 2, 

2016); Judiciary Committee on Feb.10, 2016; https://www.judiciary.senate.

gov/meetings/the-failures-and-future-of-the-eb-5-regional-center-programcan-it-be-fixed (accessed Apr. 25, 2017); “Is the Investor Visa program an 

Underperforming Asset,” before the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, 114th 

Cong. 2nd Sess. (Feb. 11, 2016); https://judiciary.house.gov/hearing/is-theinvestor-visa-program-an-underperforming-asset/ (accessed May 17, 2017). 

As the 115th Congress commenced, a hearing regarding the EB-5 program 

was held before the House Judiciary Committee on March 8, 2017. See U.S. 

House Judiciary Committee, Press Release, “Hearing Wrap Up; Proposed 

Reforms to Investor Visa Program,” 115th Cong. 1st Sess. (Mar. 8, 2017); 

https://judiciary.house.gov/press-release/hearing-wrap-proposed-reformsinvestor-visa-program/ (accessed Apr. 25, 2017). 167 Pub. L. 112-176, 126 Stat. 1325 (extending the program to September 30, 

2015; Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016, Pub. L. 114-113, 129 Stat. 2242 

(Dec. 18, 2015) (extending the program to December 9, 2016); Continuing 

Appropriations and Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related 

Agencies Appropriations Act, 2017, Pub. L. 114-223, 130 Stat. 857 (Sept. 

29, 2016) (extending the program to April 28, 2017); Further Continuing 

and Security Assistance Appropriations Act, 2017, Pub. L. 114-254, 130 

Stat. 1005 (Dec. 10, 2016) (extending the program to May 5, 2017); Making 

Further Continuing Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2017, and for Other 

Purposes, Pub. L. 115-30 (Apr. 28, 2017) (extending the program to May 5, 

2017; Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017, Pub. L. 115-31 (May 10, 2017) 

(extending the program to September 30, 2017).

the Regional Center Program was extended to September 

30, 2017, without change.168 

Regulatory Reform. In late 2016 and early 2017, USCIS 

advanced two EB-5 regulatory proposals that would: (1) 

adjust the minimum qualifying threshold investment 

amount for inflation from $1 million to $1.8 million; (2) 

increase the investment threshold for TEAs from $500,000 

to $1.35 million; and (3) reform the TEA designation 

process to prevent abuse.169 Members of Congress and 

stakeholders have expressed concern that the current 

regulations unfairly allow some Regional Centers to qualify 

their projects for the reduced EB-5 threshold investments in 

an otherwise low employment area.170 

EB-5 Backlogs. The EB-5 program continues to attract 

high net-worth foreigners on a worldwide basis, and 

disproportionately from China. As a result, processing 

times are long and are getting longer, currently at 16 

months for Form I-526, Immigrant Petition by Alien 

Entrepreneur and 27 months for Form I-829, Petition by 

Entrepreneur to Remove Conditions on Permanent Resident 

Status. As of September 30, 2016, DOS reported there 

are just over 10,000 approved investor petitions awaiting 

an immediately available immigrant visa.171 The IPO 

also reported it received 4,395 Forms I-526 in the first 

quarter of FY 2017,172 and attributed this surge to the thenlooming sunset of the Regional Center program scheduled 

for December 5, 2016. However, the oversubscription 

of the EB-5 category by Chinese nationals specifically is 

significantly larger than it appears. Historical data reveal 

that, on average, two dependents accompany each principal 

EB-5 investor to the United States.173 As such, the roughly 

10,000 approved EB-5 petitions represent approximately 

30,000 foreign nationals (including spouses and qualified 

dependents) currently awaiting immigrant visa issuance. 

Additional examination of Form I-526 data reveals that as 

of September 30, 2016, USCIS had a pending inventory of 

20,804 petitions.174 With an 81 percent petition approval 

168 Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017, Pub. L. 115-31 (May 10, 2017). 169 EB–5 Immigrant Investor Regional Center Program: Advance Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking, 82 Fed. Reg. 3211 (Jan. 11, 2017); EB-5 Immigrant 

Investor Program Modernization, 82 Fed. Reg. 4738 (Jan. 13, 2017). 170 Id. 171 Information provided by DOS (Mar. 22, 2017). 172 See GAO Report, “Immigrant Investor Program, Proposed Project 

Investments in Targeted Employment Areas,” supra note 153. 173 Information provided by DOS (Mar. 22, 2017). 174 USCIS Webpage, “Number of I-526 Immigrant Petitions by Alien 

Entrepreneurs by Fiscal Year, Quarter, and Case Status 2008–2016;” https://

www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Resources/Reports%20and%20

Studies/Immigration%20Forms%20Data/Employment-based/I526_

performancedata_fy2016_qtr4.pdf (accessed Apr. 25, 2017).
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES OMBUDSMAN | 33

rate in the first quarter of FY 2017, using the ratio of three 

immigrant visas for every I-526 petition approved, the 

oversubscription of the EB-5 category grows even larger, 

adding another 58,043 eligible investor immigrants in 

USCIS’ current pending inventory.175 Taking together the 

30,000 likely immigrants currently awaiting immigrant 

visas with DOS176 and the pending petitions at USCIS, there 

are now approximately 88,000 intending EB-5 investor 

immigrants worldwide—far in excess of the maximum 

annual statutory allocation of 10,000 immigrant visas to 

this employment preference category. EB-5 immigrant 

visas remain immediately available to nationals of all 

countries except China, whose nationals will likely wait 

10 years or longer for their EB-5 immigrant visas due to 

oversubscription, absent an increase in or recalculation of 

the annual quota.

The Ombudsman will continue to examine the EB-5 

program, engaging USCIS and stakeholders as the agency 

implements any statutory changes, considers regulatory 

changes, and expands its compliance activities. 

The AC21 Regulation 

Responsible USCIS Offices: Office of Policy and 

Strategy; Service Center Operations Directorate

Key Facts and Findings

 In November 2016, USCIS published a long-awaited 

final regulation, often referred to as “AC21,” intended 

to improve and modernize several employment-based 

immigrant and nonimmigrant programs—with the 

end-goal of increasing flexibility, transparency, and 

certainty for foreign workers and U.S. employers. 

 The rule centralized many of USCIS’ long-standing 

policies for the H-1B Specialty Occupation and 

employment-based immigrant visa programs. 

 DHS received 27,979 comments offering a wide 

variety of opinions and recommendations on the 

proposed rule and related forms177 from stakeholders, 

particularly foreign workers, voicing concerns over the 

following areas:

175 Id. 176 Report of the Visa Office 2016, Statistical Tables, Table V (Part 3), supra

note 152. 177 Retention of EB-1, EB-2, and EB-3 Immigrant Workers and Program 

Improvements Affecting High-Skilled Nonimmigrant Workers, 81 Fed. Reg. 

82398, 82412 (Nov. 18, 2016) (AC21 rule). 

n USCIS’ elimination of the 90-day regulatory 

processing requirement for initial work authorization 

applications; 

n Limited portability options for individuals from 

countries with oversubscribed visa queues, namely 

China and India; and

n No guidance on legal standing for a beneficiary of an 

approved Form I-140, Petition for Alien Worker.

 While it is too early to determine the full effect of the 

new rule, the Ombudsman will continue to track these 

changes and their impact on stakeholders. 

Background

Statutory Framework. Nearly 20 years ago, two laws 

were enacted to regulate employment of high-skilled 

foreign nationals. The first, the American Competitiveness 

and Workforce Improvement Act of 1998178 (ACWIA), 

increased the annual allotment of H-1B nonimmigrant visas 

and introduced new fees dedicated to re-training the U.S. 

workforce and conducting fraud investigations to better 

ensure the integrity of the program.179 The second law, the 

American Competitiveness in the Twenty-first Century 

Act of 2000180 (AC21), added new enforcement measures, 

along with provisions that helped foreign nationals remain 

working in the United States while waiting for an available 

immigrant visa.181 AC21 also increased the fiscal year 

allotment of H-1B visas temporarily to 195,000 starting in 

2001, and then reduced the cap to 85,000 H-1B visas, with 

20,000 being set aside for beneficiaries with a master’s or 

higher degree from an accredited U.S. institution.182

178 American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act of 1998 

(ACWIA), Pub. L. No. 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681; as codified in scattered 

sections of the U.S. Code (1998). 179 Id. 180 Id. 181 American Competitiveness in the Twenty-first Century Act of 2000 (AC21), 

Pub. L. 106-313, 114 Stat. 1251 (2000); as codified in scattered sections of the 

U.S. Code (2000). 182 Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005, Title IV, L-1 Visa and H-1B Visa 

Reform Act of 2004, Pub. L. 108-447, 118 Stat. 3351, 3356 (Dec. 8, 2004); as 

codified in scattered sections of the U.S. Code (2005); see also INA § 214(g)(5),

8 U.S.C. § 1184(g)(5).
34 | ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS JUNE 2017

USCIS published several policy memoranda over the years 

to implement this legislation, but until November 2016, 

had never issued regulations.183 In the intervening years, 

stakeholders voiced concerns, confusion, and at times took 

legal action in response to USCIS’ policy interpretations of 

both statutes. 

Key Provisions of the New AC21 Rule. Effective 

January 17, 2017, the AC21 regulation codifies many 

of the agency’s longstanding policies and practices for 

employment-based programs.184 Specifically, the rule: 

 Expands job portability for beneficiaries of 

approved Form I-140 employment-based petitions 

by maintaining petition validity, under certain 

circumstances, despite an employer’s withdrawal 

of the approved petition or the termination of the 

employer’s business;185 

 Formalizes the process for notifying USCIS of a 

job change, through the creation of Form I-485 

Supplement J, Confirmation of Bona Fide Job Offer or 

Request for Job Portability Under INA Section 204(j)

(Supplement J);186 and 

183 See, e.g., USCIS Interoffice Memorandum, “Interim Guidance for Processing 

Form I-140 Employment-Based Immigrant Petitions and Form I-485 and 

H-1B Petitions Affected by the American Competitiveness in the TwentyFirst Century Act of 2000 (AC21) (Public Law 106-313)” (May 12, 2005); 

https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Laws/Memoranda/

Static_Files_Memoranda/Archives%201998-2008/2005/ac21intrm051205.

pdf (accessed May 16, 2017); USCIS Interoffice Memorandum, “Interim 

guidance for processing I-140 employment-based immigrant petitions and 

I-485 and H-1B petitions affected by the American Competitiveness in the 

Twenty-First Century Act of 2000 (AC21) (Public Law 106-313)” (Dec. 27, 

2005); https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Laws/Memoranda/

Static_Files_Memoranda/Archives%201998-2008/2005/ac21intrm122705.

pdf (accessed May 16, 2017); USCIS Memorandum, “Supplemental 

Guidance Relating to Processing Forms I-140 Employment-Based Immigrant 

Petitions and I-129 H-1B Petitions, and Form I-485 Adjustment Applications 

Affected by the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century 

Act of 2000 (AC21) (Public Law 106-313), as amended, and the American 

Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act of 1998 (ACWIA), Title 

IV of Div. C. of Public Law 105-277” (May 30, 2008); https://www.uscis.

gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Laws/Memoranda/Static_Files_Memoranda/

Archives%201998-2008/2008/ac21_30may08.pdf (accessed May 16, 2017); 

USCIS Policy Memorandum, “Determining Whether a New Job is in ‘the 

Same or a Similar Occupational Classification’ for Purposes of Section 204(j) 

Job Portability” (Mar. 18, 2016); https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/

USCIS/Laws/Memoranda/2016/Final_Same_or_Similar_Policy_Final_

Memorandum_3-18-16.pdf (accessed May 16, 2017). 184 AC21 Rule, 81 Fed. Reg. at 82399. 185 8 C.F.R. § 205.1(a)(3)(iii)(C)-(D). The petition must remain pending for 180 

days before the employee may change employers or the withdrawal of the 

petition. 186 See USCIS Webpage, “I-485 Supplement J, Confirmation of Bona Fide Job 

Offer or Request for Job Portability Under INA Section 204(j)” (Jan. 17, 

2017); https://www.uscis.gov/i-485supj (accessed May 10, 2017).

 Provides for employment authorization for 

nonimmigrants with an approved immigrant 

petition who face “compelling circumstances” and 

cannot obtain an immigrant visa due to statutory 

numerical restrictions.187 

The rule expanded the H-1B extension and renewal policy 

for certain professions requiring a license.188 The rule 

clarifies how the agency counts the time in H-1B status 

remaining from time spent on a previous cap-subject 

H-1B visa.189 The regulation also expanded the use of 

the longstanding 10-day grace period before and after the 

validity period of certain nonimmigrant statuses. Finally, 

the rule establishes a 60-day grace period for individuals 

whose jobs are terminated (and whose status is tied to that 

job).190 While employment is not authorized during these 

grace periods, eligible beneficiaries will be able to use 

the new 60-day grace period to transition to their home 

countries or to find subsequent employment in the United 

States for which they can be sponsored.191

The regulation eliminates the 90-day processing time 

requirement for EAD applications. The new regulation 

provides no mandatory processing time for initial 

employment applications.192 However, it allows for 

continuing employment authorization for certain timelyfiled renewals for up to 180 days after the expiration of the 

existing employment authorization.193 

Ongoing Concerns

The regulations are a consolidation of the many policy 

memoranda and practices cobbled together in the years 

after the passage of both Acts. 

Employment Authorization for Nationals of 

Oversubscribed Countries. Foreign workers, primarily 

Indian and Chinese nationals in H-1B status, have 

expressed concern that the regulations did not allow for 

187 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(p). See also USCIS Webpage, “Employment Authorization 

in Compelling Circumstances” (Apr. 4, 2017); https://www.uscis.gov/

working-united-states/employment-authorization-compelling-circumstances

(accessed May 10, 2017). 188 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(v)(C). 189 8 CFR § 214.2(h)(13)(iii)(C). 190 8 C.F.R. § 214.1(l)(2). Qualifying nonimmigrant programs include: E-1, E-2, 

E-3, H-1B, H-1B1, L-1 or TN status. 191 8 C.F.R. § 214.1(l)(2)-(3). 192 Work authorizations filed under 8 CFR § 274a.12(c)(8) remain under the 

guidance set forth in 8 CFR § 208.7. 193 8 C.F.R. § 274a.13(d). The 180-day automatic extension appears in the 

renewal application subsection of the regulation and applies to the previously 

issued work authorization. This provision omits certain categories, such as 

spouses of G visa holders, from receiving the automatic extension.
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES OMBUDSMAN | 35

work authorization for the beneficiary of an approved Form 

I-140 employment-based petition who is not yet able to file 

Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence 

or Adjust Status. Certain categories of employmentbased immigrant visas are “oversubscribed” (with more 

beneficiaries from certain countries who qualify for these 

visas than there are visas available annually), which leads 

to long visa queues. For example, there are an estimated 

370,000 Indian nationals waiting for an available third 

preference immigrant visa, which translates to wait times 

of up to 70 years.194 In response to this critique, the agency 

stated that the best available solution was to provide 

employment authorization in “compelling circumstances.”195 

Specifically, this section of the rule allows for limited 

work authorization for those who have not yet reached 

the adjustment stage, but places the burden on the foreign 

worker to show such compelling circumstances.196

194 Information provided by DOS (May 3, 2017). See also Cato Institute, “No 

One Knows How Long Legal Immigrants Will Have to Wait” (Jul. 28, 2016); 

https://www.cato.org/blog/no-one-knows-how-long-legal-immigrants-willhave-wait (accessed Apr. 13, 2017); National Foundation for American 

Policy (NAFP), “Still Waiting: Green Card Problems Persist for High Skill 

Immigrants” (June 2012); http://www.kauffman.org/~/media/kauffman_org/

research%20reports%20and%20covers/2012/06/nfap_immigration_brief.pdf

(accessed May 2, 2017) (NFAP 2011 data analysis projected waits for Indians 

of 8 years or more in the EB-2 preference category and up to 70 years for 

EB-3 preference category. The same report projected Chinese nationals in the 

EB-3 category could wait 20 years). 195 AC21 Rule, 81 Fed. Reg. at 82424. In the preamble, DHS went into detail 

on explaining how it selected “compelling circumstances” as a standard. It 

provided four examples of situations that may be considered compelling and 

justify an EAD: (1) serious illness or disability faced by the nonimmigrant 

worker or his or her dependent; (2) employer retaliation against the 

nonimmigrant worker; (3) other substantial harm to the applicant; and (4) 

significant disruption to the employer. 196 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(p). 

Employment Authorization Processing Delays. 

Employers and foreign workers are concerned with 

elimination of the 90-day regulatory processing time 

requirement for employment authorization.197 In spite 

of this change, USCIS stated it will continue to accept 

case inquiries at day 75 for employment authorization 

applications, and the Ombudsman also will continue 

to assist individuals with applications pending 75 days 

or more.

The Ombudsman will continue to evaluate the impact of 

the AC21 rule through both individual requests for case 

assistance and stakeholder engagement. 

197 See generally Cyrus Mehta, “Analysis of Key Provisions of the High Skilled 

Worker Final Rule” (Nov. 21, 2016); http://blog.cyrusmehta.com/2016/11/

analysis-of-key-provisions-of-the-high-skilled-worker-final-rule.html

(accessed May 9, 2017). The prior regulations stated: “Interim employment 

authorization. USCIS will adjudicate the application within 90 days from 

the date of receipt of the application ... Failure to complete the adjudication 

within 90 days will result in the grant of an employment authorization 

document for a period not to exceed 240 days.” 8 C.F.R. § 274a.13(d)(2016).
36 | ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS JUNE 2017

U.S. immigration law provides humanitarian relief for 

immigrant victims of crime, persecution, and abuse. Despite 

efforts by USCIS to address the increasing number of asylum 

requests, applicants are experiencing longer delays—interview 

wait times exceed 5 years in some locations. Due to a statutory 

cap and agency processing delays, U visa applicants must wait 

years; agency initiatives could shorten the wait and the burden. 

Humanitarian
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES OMBUDSMAN | 37

Delays in Asylum Processing 

Responsible USCIS Office: Refugee, Asylum, and 

International Operations Directorate

Key Facts and Findings

 A confluence of factors, including a spike in applications, 

has led to a significant backlog of affirmative asylum 

cases pending before USCIS. Interview wait times 

exceed 5 years in some locations, despite statutory 

processing times. 

 USCIS has taken steps to address the asylum backlog, 

including expanding the asylum officer corps and 

opening satellite asylum offices. However, these efforts, 

coupled with those implemented in previous years, have 

not yet significantly reduced the asylum backlog. 

 A large volume of credible and reasonable fear cases 

with prioritized processing timeframes continues 

to limit the Asylum Division’s capacity to direct its 

resources to the adjudication of pending affirmative 

asylum cases.

Background

By the end of 2016, 223,433 affirmative asylum cases were 

awaiting adjudication by USCIS.198 This high number 

resulted from both a significant existing backlog and a 35 

percent increase in new affirmative asylum cases over the 

previous calendar year.199 Interview wait times at asylum 

offices ranged from 2 to over 5 years,200 far outside the 

statutory processing times.201 As a result of this growing 

backlog, asylum seekers and their family members face 

continuing uncertainty. The large number of asylum 

seekers present in the United States for periods that far 

198 See USCIS Webpage, “Asylum Office Workload, December 2016” (Jan. 

24, 2017); https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Outreach/

Upcoming%20National%20Engagements/PED_2016_12AsylumStats.pdf 

(accessed Feb. 23, 2017). 199 See USCIS Asylum Division Quarterly Stakeholder Meeting, “Questions 

and Answers,” p. 3 (Nov. 4, 2016); https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/

USCIS/Outreach/Notes%20from%20Previous%20Engagements/PED_

AsylumQuarterlyEngagementQA11042016.pdf (accessed Apr. 18, 2017). 200 See USCIS Webpage, “Affirmative Asylum Scheduling Bulletin” (Apr. 

21, 2017); https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-asylum/asylum/

affirmative-asylum-scheduling-bulletin (accessed Apr. 27, 2017). 201 See INA § 208(d)(5)(A)(ii); 8 U.S.C. § 1158(d)(5)(A)(ii) (“in the absence 

of exceptional circumstances, the initial interview or hearing on the asylum 

application shall commence not later than 45 days after the date an application 

is filed”); information provided by USCIS (May 4, 2017).
38 | ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS JUNE 2017

exceed the 180-day adjudication time frame202 has also 

raised concerns regarding asylum fraud.203 It is therefore 

critical for both the government and asylum seekers that the 

backlog be addressed. 

A number of factors have contributed to the backlog. 

Among them are: (1) significant increases of requests 

for credible and reasonable fear determinations;204 (2) 

a consistently large volume of new affirmative asylum 

applications;205 (3) steady but high numbers of asylum 

applications filed with USCIS by Unaccompanied Alien 

Children (UACs) in removal proceedings;206 (4) the 

temporary reassignment in 2016 of 200 asylum officers to 

the Refugee Affairs Division—the equivalent of the annual 

202 See INA § 208(d)(5)(A)(iii); 8 U.S.C. § 1158(d)(5)(A)(iii) (“in the absence 

of exceptional circumstances, final administrative adjudication of the asylum 

application, not including administrative appeal, shall be completed within 

180 days after the date an application is filed”). 203 See GAO Report, “Asylum: Additional Actions Needed to Assess and 

Address Fraud Risks,” GAO-16-50 at 1-2 (Dec. 2, 2015); http://www.gao.

gov/products/GAO-16-50 (accessed May 3, 2017) (“Granting asylum to an 

applicant with a genuine claim protects the asylee from being returned to a 

country where he or she has been or could in the future be persecuted. On 

the other hand, granting asylum to an individual with a fraudulent claim 

jeopardizes the integrity of the asylum system by enabling the individual to 

remain in the United States, apply for certain federal benefits, and pursue a 

path to citizenship.”). See also Saucedo, J. and Rodriguez, D., Penn State 

Dickinson School of Law Center for Immigrants’ Rights for American 

Immigration Council’s Legal Action Center, “Up Against the Clock: Fixing 

the Broken Employment Authorization Asylum Clock,” pp. 5–8 (provides 

historic context for the 1996 changes in asylum law which led to the creation 

of the 180-day adjudicatory and employment authorization time periods);

https://pennstatelaw.psu.edu/_file/Immigrants/Asylum_Clock_Paper.pdf

(accessed May 3, 2017). 204 See, e.g., information provided by USCIS at the Sixth Annual 

Ombudsman’s Conference (Dec. 6, 2016), “Humanitarian Hot Topics 

Panel;” USCIS Webpage, “Credible Fear Workload Report Summary, 

FY 2016 Total Caseload;” https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/

USCIS/Outreach/Upcoming%20National%20Engagements/PED_

CredibleFearReasonableFearStatisticsNationalityReport.pdf (accessed 

Mar. 8, 2017) and USCIS Asylum Division Quarterly Stakeholder Meeting, 

“Questions and Answers,” p. 11 (Nov. 4, 2016) (approximately 40% of the 

Asylum Division workforce is dedicated to credible and reasonable fear cases 

over the course of the year). 205 See, e.g., USCIS Webpage, “Asylum Office Workload, September 

2016” (Oct. 19, 2016); https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/

USCIS/Outreach/Upcoming%20National%20Engagements/PED_

AffirmativeAsylumStatisticsSeptember2016.pdf (accessed Mar. 8, 2017); 

USCIS Webpage, “Asylum Office Workload, December 2016,” supra

note 198. 206 See USCIS Webpage, “MPA and PRL Report 10/01/15-9/30/16” (Oct. 

3, 2016); https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Outreach/

Upcoming%20National%20Engagements/PED_MPA_PRL_ReportOct2015_

Sept2016.pdf (accessed Mar. 22, 2017); USCIS Webpage, “MPA and PRL 

Report 10/01/16-12/31/2016” (Jan. 17, 2017); USCIS Webpage, “MPA and 

PRL Report 10/01/14-9/30/15” (Oct. 1, 2015); https://www.uscis.gov/sites/

default/files/USCIS/Outreach/PED-Minors_FY15.pdf (accessed Mar. 23, 

2017). See also Ombudsman’s Annual Report 2016, p. 14; Ombudsman’s 

Annual Report 2015, pp. 59–60. 

workload of 60 to 65 full-time officers;207 and (5) persistent 

turnover rates among asylum officers. 208

While USCIS has taken many steps in the past few 

years to address the growing backlog, there has been 

no real reduction in the number of pending cases.209 

Correspondingly, stakeholders continue to voice 

concerns about related delays such as adjudication of 

EAD applications.

New Affirmative Asylum Claims. USCIS received 

more than 124,000 new or reopened affirmative asylum 

applications in 2016, bringing the total number of pending 

cases to 223,433 as of December 31, 2016.210 These 

numbers have steadily increased in the last few years. For 

example, USCIS received 44,278 new or reopened cases 

in 2012 and had only 18,966 pending affirmative cases 

at the close of that year.211 This represents nearly a 181 

percent increase in new receipts in 2016 from 2012, with 

the number of pending cases increasing by nearly 1,078 

percent. Additionally, USCIS reports that 20 percent of 

affirmative asylum applications filed in 2016 were from 

people who indicated on their applications that they 

207 See USCIS Asylum Division Quarterly Stakeholder Meeting, “Questions 

and Answers,” supra note 199 at 11. (approximately 60–65 full-time asylum 

officers were allocated to refugee details during 2016). At the May 2, 2017, 

Asylum Division Quarterly Stakeholder Meeting, USCIS stated that since 

early January 2017, asylum officers have not been detailed to the Refugee 

Affairs Division (RAD), although approximately 40 asylum officers were 

detailed to RAD during the first quarter of FY 2017. 208 See Ombudsman’s Annual Report 2016, p. 14; information provided by 

USCIS (Apr. 12, 2017); information provided during public USCIS Asylum 

Division Quarterly Stakeholder Meeting (May 2, 2017) (currently has 515 

asylum officers onboard, down from 527 as of February 2017). 209 See generally Ombudsman’s Annual Report 2016, pp. 13–17; Ombudsman’s 

Annual Report 2015, pp. 59–62; and Ombudsman’s Annual Report 2014, 

pp. 37–41. 210 See USCIS Webpage, “Asylum Office Workload, December 2016” supra

note 198. (2016 new receipts and reopened asylum cases are the highest 

numbers since the 118,195 applications filed or reopened in FY 1996, the 

year following the implementation of the asylum reform regulations); see

“1999 Statistical Yearbook of the Immigration and Naturalization Service,” 

DOJ Immigration and Naturalization Service, at Table 25 (March 2002);

https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/Yearbook_Immigration_

Statistics_1999.pdf (accessed Apr. 11, 2017). See also information provided 

by USCIS (Apr. 12, 2017) (as of April 12, 2017, the affirmative pending 

caseload was 249,395 with projected new affirmative applications filings 

reaching 135,550 in FY 2017), and USCIS Asylum Division Quarterly 

Stakeholder Meeting (May 2, 2017) (the program stated that they received 

16,500 new filings in March 2017, the highest receipts since the mid-1990s). 211 USCIS Webpage, “Notes from Previous Engagements—Asylum Division 

Quarterly Stakeholder Meeting;” https://www.uscis.gov/outreach/notesprevious-engagements?topic_id=9213&field_release_date_value[value]

[month]=&field_release_date_value_1[value][year]=&multiple=&items_per_

page=10 (accessed May 19, 2017) (individual Asylum Division Quarterly 

Stakeholder Meeting Notes and statistics available from 2010 to the present); 

and information provided by USCIS (May 4, 2017) (assorted asylum statistics 

not posted with Asylum Division Quarterly Stakeholder Meetings in 2012, 

2013, and 2014).
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES OMBUDSMAN | 39

had been in the United States 10 years or longer, raising 

concerns that some of these applications were being filed 

as a means to access removal proceedings in order to 

pursue cancellation of removal.212 See Figure 4.1, Asylum 

Division Totals.

Figure 4.1: Asylum Division Totals213

0

25,000

50,000

75,000

100,000

125,000

150,000

175,000

200,000

225,000

250,000

Credible Fear Receipts

Reasonable Fear Receipts

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Asylum Division Totals (Calendar Year 2012 to 2016)

Source: Information provided by USCIS (May 4, 2017). 17,324

Afrmative Asylum Receipts

Afrmative Asylum Petitions Pending (end of calendar year) 5,20344,428 18,966 41,269 8,50346,238 38,892 49,737 8,624 64,876 73,103 60,002 8,393 91,585128,308 100,823

10,006

125,169

223,433

212 See USCIS Asylum Division Quarterly Stakeholder Meeting, “Questions 

and Answers,” supra note 199 at 3. (USCIS also stated that “[t]he 

overwhelming majority of these cases ... appear to be applying simply to 

get work authorization and placement into removal proceedings in order to 

seek cancellation of removal. Frankly, this is an abuse of the U.S. Asylum 

Program’s mission of humanitarian protection.” See USCIS Asylum Division 

Quarterly Stakeholder Meeting, “Questions and Answers,” supra note 199 

at 11. However, stakeholders argue there is no other process or way for 

applicants to voluntarily place themselves into removal proceedings. See

Ombudsman Recommendation 58, “Improving Quality and Consistency 

in Notices to Appear” (June 11, 2014), pp. 11–12; https://www.dhs.gov/

sites/default/files/publications/cisomb-nta-recommendation-2014_0.pdf

(accessed Mar 9, 2017). Prior to 1996, applicants could request to be placed 

in proceedings. This changed under the Illegal Immigration Reform and 

Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), Pub. L. 104-208, 110 Stat. 

3009 (1996). See Sixth Annual Ombudsman’s Conference (Dec. 6, 2016), 

“Humanitarian Hot Topics Panel.” The Asylum Division indicates that, 

in addition to these applications significantly contributing to the backlog, 

cancellation of removal was never intended to be an affirmative filing process. 

Id. 213 USCIS Webpage, “Notes from Previous Engagements—Asylum Division 

Quarterly Stakeholder Meeting,” supra note 211; information provided by 

USCIS (May 4, 2017).

Credible and Reasonable Fear Claims. The number 

of new credible fear cases received by USCIS in 2016 

reached a record high of 100,823 as compared to the 60,022 

cases received in 2015, nearly a 68 percent increase.214 In 

addition, reasonable fear cases have also grown at record 

rates, increasing from 8,393 cases in calendar year 2015 

to 10,006 in calendar year 2016.215 This large volume 

of detained credible and reasonable fear cases with 

prioritized processing timeframes continues to limit the 

Asylum Division’s capacity to direct its resources to the 

adjudication of pending affirmative asylum applications.216

New UAC Claims. The William Wilberforce Trafficking 

Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 (TVPRA) 

specifies UACs in immigration proceedings first file 

asylum applications affirmatively with the USCIS Asylum 

Division, which must prioritize them for interviews before 

other categories of asylum applicants.217 This impacts other 

applicants in the affirmative asylum backlog, as their cases 

are prioritized after Credible Fear, Reasonable Fear and 

UAC adjudications.218 The Ombudsman’s 2016 Annual 

Report noted the significant increase in the number of new 

UAC cases, from 718 in FY 2013 to 14,218 in FY 2015.219 

The number of applications filed in FY 2016 increased 

slightly to 14,711, with 4,330 filed in the last 3 months of 

214 See Ombudsman’s Annual Report 2016, p. 13, and Ombudsman’s Annual 

Report 2015, p. 59. See also USCIS Asylum Division Quarterly Stakeholder 

Meeting, “Questions and Answers,” supra note 199 at 3; (fiscal year credible 

fear and reasonable fear receipts in 2016 doubled from those received in 

2015); Ombudsman’s Sixth Annual Conference, “Humanitarian Hot Topics 

Panel,” supra note 204. 215 Ombudsman’s Sixth Annual Conference, “Humanitarian Hot Topics Panel,” 

supra note 204. 216 See USCIS Asylum Division Quarterly Stakeholder Meeting, “Questions 

and Answers,” supra note 199 at 3 (“Because we were staffing the credible 

fear/reasonable fear workload and overseas refugee details in support of the 

Refugee Affairs Division, two major Departmental priorities, there were once 

again insufficient resources available to allocate to the affirmative asylum 

workload.”). 217 See William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act 

of 2008 (TVPRA), Pub. L. No. 110-457, 122 Stat. 5044 (2008); INA § 208(b)

(3)(C); 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(3)(C); USCIS Webpage, “Affirmative Asylum 

Scheduling Bulletin” (Apr. 21, 2017); https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/

refugees-asylum/asylum/affirmative-asylum-scheduling-bulletin (accessed 

Apr. 27, 2017) (applications filed by children are the second priority for 

interview scheduling). 218 See Ombudsman’s Annual Report 2015, p. 60, and Ombudsman’s Annual 

Report 2013, pp. 13–14 for a general description of UACs. See also USCIS 

Webpage, “Affirmative Asylum Scheduling Bulletin” (Apr. 21, 2017);

https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-asylum/asylum/affirmativeasylum-scheduling-bulletin (accessed Apr. 27, 2017) (“On December 26, 

2014, the USCIS Asylum Division began prioritizing asylum applications 

for interview scheduling as follows: ... 3) All other pending affirmative 

asylum applications in the order they were received, with oldest cases 

scheduled first.”). 219 See Ombudsman’s Annual Report 2016, p. 14.
40 | ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS JUNE 2017

calendar year 2016.220 See Figure 4.2, Unaccompanied 

Alien Child Asylum Applications. As of December 

31, 2016, 13,520 UAC cases remained pending with 

USCIS.221 As a result of these increases, affirmative asylum 

applications filed by non-UAC applicants were pushed 

further down the queue. 

Figure 4.2: Unaccompanied Alien Child 

Asylum Applications222

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

Cases Filed Cases Pending as of Sept. 30

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016

Unaccompanied Alien Child (UAC) 

Asylum Applications (Oct. 1, 2012 to Sept. 30, 2016)

Source: Information provided by USCIS (May 4, 2017). 410 358 718 834 2,797 2,986 14,218

5,814

14,711

11,222

Asylum Officers Temporarily Assigned to the Refugee 

Affairs Division. The annual U.S. Refugee Admissions 

Program cap has steadily increased in the past 3 years 

from 70,000 in FY 2015 to 85,000 in FY 2016223 and was 

220 See USCIS Webpage, “Notes from Previous Engagements—Asylum Division 

Quarterly Stakeholder Meeting,” supra note 211. 221 USCIS Webpage, “MPA and PRL Report 10/01/16-12/31/2016” 

(Jan. 17, 2017); https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/

Outreach/Upcoming%20National%20Engagements/PED_

UACandMinorPrincipalApplicantReportFY17Q1.pdf (accessed Mar. 

22, 2017). 222 See USCIS Webpage, “Notes from Previous Engagements—Asylum Division 

Quarterly Stakeholder Meeting,” supra note 211; and information provided 

by USCIS (May 4, 2017) (assorted asylum statistics not posted with Asylum 

Division Quarterly Stakeholder Meetings in 2012, 2013 and 2014). 223 DOS Webpage, “Proposed Refugee Admissions for Fiscal Year 2016” (Oct. 

1, 2015); http://www.state.gov/j/prm/releases/docsforcongress/247770.htm

(accessed Feb. 29, 2016) (“On the occasion of World Refugee Day, June 20, 

President Obama re-affirmed our nation’s commitment to helping refugees and 

our leading role in providing safe haven. This commitment comes at a time 

when the global community faces an unprecedented crisis of displacement. 

There are currently more refugees, asylum-seekers, and internally displaced 

persons—nearly 60 million—than at any time since World War II. The United 

States leads the world in providing humanitarian aid to crises from which 

innocent people flee and also is the top destination for refugees recommended 

for resettlement by the UN refugee agency.”). 

set to increase in FY 2017 to 110,000.224 In response to 

these increased numbers, the Asylum Division detailed an 

estimated 200 asylum officers for short periods of time to 

the Refugee Affairs Division.225 

Impact of the Backlog. As the backlog grows, the length 

of time applicants must maintain work authorization also 

grows. USCIS cannot approve the initial application for 

employment authorization until the asylum application 

has been pending for 180 days; USCIS also has a 30-day 

period to adjudicate initial EADs.226 Stakeholders report 

that asylum seekers commonly wait longer than the 30-

day regulatory period for adjudication of their initial 

EADs.227 Further, while an asylum applicant applying for 

work authorization for the first time pays no fee, renewal 

applications require a $410 filing fee, unless the individual 

applies and qualifies for a fee waiver.228

Efforts to Reduce the Backlog. Asylum Division staffing 

has almost doubled, from 272 officers in 2013 to 527 as 

of January 1, 2017.229 In addition, the Asylum Division 

increased the frequency with which it offers training, in 

particular the Combined Training and Asylum Division 

Officer Training Course, so that new officers are able to 

complete the multi-week, residential training requirement 

as soon as possible.230 The Asylum Division also expanded 

physically and geographically, opening sub-offices in 

Boston, New Orleans, and Arlington, VA.

USCIS made two recent positive changes to asylum-based 

EADs, which help mitigate harm stemming from the 

backlog. To address difficulties related to obtaining and 

maintaining employment authorization while awaiting 

final adjudication of an asylum application, on October 

5, 2016, USCIS doubled the EAD validity period from 1 

224 See Presidential Determination No. 2016–13 of September 28, 2016, 

Presidential Determination on Refugee Admissions for Fiscal Year 2017, 81 

FR 70315-70316 (Oct. 11, 2016); https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-

10-11/pdf/2016-24736.pdf (accessed Mar. 23, 2017). 225 See USCIS Asylum Division Quarterly Stakeholder Meeting, “Questions and 

Answers,” supra note 199 at 11. 226 INA § 208(d)(2); 8 U.S.C § 1158(d)(2); 8 C.F.R. § 208.7. 227 See USCIS Asylum Division Quarterly Stakeholder Meeting, “Questions 

and Answers,” pp. 5–6 (Aug. 2, 2016); https://www.uscis.gov/outreach/

asylum-division-quarterly-stakeholder-meeting-4 (accessed Apr. 19, 2017) 

(stakeholders report wait times of up to 9 months); and USCIS Asylum 

Division Quarterly Stakeholder Meeting, “Questions and Answers,” pp. 4–5 

(Nov. 4, 2016). 228 See USCIS Form I-765, Application for Employment Authorization, 

Instructions, p. 15 (Jan. 1, 2017 edition); https://www.uscis.gov/i-765

(accessed Apr. 17, 2017). 229 Information Provided by USCIS (Apr. 12, 2017); see also Ombudsman’s Sixth 

Annual Conference, “Humanitarian Hot Topics Panel,” supra note 204. 230 See USCIS Asylum Division Quarterly Stakeholder Meeting, “Questions and 

Answers,” supra note 227 at 1 (reflects two simultaneous trainings scheduled 

for new asylum officers).
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES OMBUDSMAN | 41

to 2 years for both initial and renewal documents.231 In 

addition, a recent regulatory change automatically extends 

employment authorization for those who timely file 

renewal applications.232 

Credible and Reasonable Fear Claims.233 Large numbers 

of credible and reasonable fear claims continue to be 

major contributors to the affirmative asylum backlog. 

Asylum officers are responsible for conducting protection 

screening interviews of individuals who indicate a fear of 

return to their countries of origin. These individuals may 

raise these fears to CBP or ICE personnel when seeking 

to enter the United States at a port of entry, or when 

apprehended within 14 days of entering and within 100 

miles of the border.234 Credible fear and reasonable fear 

screenings identify potentially meritorious asylum claims 

to be adjudicated by an immigration judge.235 In FY 2016, 

231 See USCIS Asylum Division Quarterly Stakeholder Meeting, “Questions and 

Answers,” supra note 199 at 4–5. 232 See Retention of EB-1, EB-2, and EB-3 Immigrant Workers and Program 

Improvements Affecting High-Skilled Nonimmigrant Workers: Final Rule, 81 

Fed. Reg. 82398, 82455 (Nov. 18, 2016). 233 The Ombudsman’s Annual Report 2014, pp. 37–38, provides a statutory and 

regulatory overview of the credible fear and reasonable fear claims process. 

These protection processes were established as part of the expedited removal 

provisions enacted in 1996 under IIRAIRA; INA §§ 235(b), 238(b), 241; 8 

U.S.C. §§ 1225(b), 1228(b), and 1231(b). In addition to the asylum, refugee 

and withholding of removal provisions, the credible fear and reasonable 

fear provisions form part of the protection obligations of the United States 

pursuant to its accession in 1968 to the 1967 United Nations Protocol 

Relating to the Status of Refugees that adopted Articles 2–34 of the 1951 

United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, and provisos 

as part of its ratification of the United Nations Convention Against Torture 

and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, (CAT) as 

implemented by section 2242 of the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring 

Act of 1998, Pub. Law No. 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681, 2681-821. 234 INA § 235(b)(1)(A) and (B); 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(A) and (B); and 8 C.F.R. 

§§ 208.30 and 208.31; see also Designating Aliens for Expedited Removal, 69 

Fed Reg. 48877, 48881 (Aug. 11, 2004). 235 See INA § 235(b)(1)(A) and (B); 8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(1)(A) and (B); and 8 

C.F.R. §§ 208.30 and 208.31; see also U.S. Commission on International 

Religious Freedom, “Barriers to Protection: The Treatment of Asylum 

Seekers in Expedited Removal,” p. 34 (Aug. 2, 2016); http://www.uscirf.

gov/sites/default/files/Barriers%20To%20Protection.pdf (accessed Apr. 12, 

2017). See also U.S. Senate, “Proceedings and Debates of the 104th Cong., 

2d Sess.,” 142 Cong. Rec. S11491-92 (Sept. 27, 1996) (Statement of Senator 

Orrin Hatch, Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee); https://www.congress.

gov/crec/1996/09/27/CREC-1996-09-27-pt1-PgS11491-2.pdf (accessed May 

10, 2017) (“[t]he [credible fear] standard ... is intended to be a low screening 

standard for admission into the usual full asylum process.”).

40 percent of the Asylum Division’s workforce time was 

devoted to processing credible and reasonable fear cases.236

In an effort to accelerate credible and reasonable fear 

processing, the Asylum Division has launched a number of 

initiatives since 2014. Asylum officers now use checklists 

rather than producing written assessments for these claims. 

Additionally, asylum officers may conduct telephonic 

interviews, allowing the adjudication of claims by staff 

located remotely.237 Asylum Division Fraud Detection 

and National Security officers monitor fraud issues and 

asylum officers continue to conduct security checks for this 

caseload; the program has recently enhanced the technology 

it uses for these security checks.238 In addition to these 

measures, in mid-2014 the Asylum Division eliminated the 

requirement that all negative credible fear determinations 

receive headquarters quality assurance review in favor of a 

process in which both positive and negative determinations 

are randomly selected for headquarters review.239 It also 

eliminated the requirement that reasonable fear interviews 

236 See USCIS, Asylum Division Quarterly Stakeholder Meeting, “Questions 

and Answers,” supra note 199 at 11; information provided by USCIS (Apr. 

12, 2017) (As of December 31, 2016, approximately 145 Asylum officers 

adjudicated credible fear cases and 27 officers adjudicated reasonable 

fear cases. Asylum officers may adjudicate several case types in the same 

day.) Note: expansion of expedited removal to the U.S. interior in 2017 

may entail an even higher allocation of asylum officer time to handle any 

increase in caseload, thereby impacting other humanitarian cases handled 

by the Asylum Division. See DHS Secretary Kelly, “Memorandum 

Implementing the President’s Border Security and Immigration Enforcement 

Improvements Policies,” Sections G, H, I, J and L, pp. 5–9 and 10–11 (Feb. 

20, 2017); https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/17_0220_S1_

Implementing-the-Presidents-Border-Security-Immigration-EnforcementImprovement-Policies.pdf (accessed May 19, 2017) (describing changes 

to the expedited removal system that include requirements relating to the 

eligibility for a foreign national’s release from detention; expanding expedited 

removal pursuant to section 235(b)(I)(A)(iii)(I) of the INA to the interior 

of the United States upon publication of a notice in the Federal Register; 

requiring that asylum officers will make credible fear findings only after 

considering all relevant evidence and determining, based on this credible 

evidence, that the applicant has met the statutory criteria; and requiring that 

the Director of USCIS will increase the operational capacity of the Fraud 

Detection and National Security Directorate and continue to strengthen 

the integration of its operations to support all divisions within USCIS to 

detect and prevent fraud in the asylum and benefits adjudication processes, 

and in consultation with the USCIS Office of Policy and Strategy as 

operationally appropriate). 237 Information provided by USCIS (Apr. 12, 2017). 238 Information provided by USCIS (Apr. 12, 2017 and May 2, 2017). 

(enhancements include automating the Defense Department Automated 

Biometric Identification System check). 239 Information provided by USCIS (Apr. 12, 2017).
42 | ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS JUNE 2017

be recorded in sworn statement format and read back to 

the applicants.240 

USCIS initiatives intended to streamline processing led 

stakeholders to voice concerns that the credible fear and 

reasonable fear interviews have in some instances become 

too lengthy and re-traumatize those seeking humanitarian 

protection.241 In response to concerns regarding the length 

of interviews, the Asylum Division indicated that the length 

of an interview depends on many factors. These factors 

include the number of family members associated with 

a case, whether an applicant is represented, the quality 

of and need for interpretation, the officer conducting the 

interview, and the nature of the applicant’s testimony and 

other evidence.242 

Expedite Requests. Asylum offices grant a limited number 

of expedited interview requests on a case-by-case basis.243 

Each asylum office has a process for adjudicating expedited 

interview requests that generally involves drafting a 

written request to the asylum office.244 Stakeholders report 

the process for requesting an expedited interview lacks 

consistency among the various asylum offices and the 

basis for granting expedites also varies.245 Apart from the 

expedite process, many offices also maintain some version 

of a “short-list” or standby list where applicants can request 

to be put on a list to be called for an interview if there are 

last-minute cancellations.246 

240 Id. 241 Some stakeholders reported credible fear interviews lasting more than 4 hours. 

Information provided by stakeholders (Jan. 24, 2017). 242 Information provided by USCIS (Apr. 12, 2017) (note the response addressed 

interviews generally, not specifically credible and reasonable fear interviews). 243 USCIS Asylum Division Affirmative Asylum Procedures Manual 

“Expeditious Processing Required” (Ch. III, section III.B.7); https://www.

uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Humanitarian/Refugees%20%26%20

Asylum/Asylum/AAPM-2016.pdf) (accessed Apr. 18, 2017); see also USCIS 

Webpage, “Affirmative Asylum Scheduling Bulletin” (Apr. 21, 2017); https://

www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-asylum/asylum/affirmative-asylumscheduling-bulletin (accessed Apr. 27, 2016); and Information provided by 

USCIS (Apr. 12, 2017). 244 See USCIS Asylum Division Quarterly Stakeholder Meeting, “Questions and 

Answers,” Notes, p. 4 (Feb. 7, 2017) https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/

files/USCIS/Outreach/Notes%20from%20Previous%20Engagements/PED_

AsylumQuarterlyEngagementQA02072017.pdf (accessed Mar. 9, 2017); see

Ombudsman’s Sixth Annual Conference, “Humanitarian Hot Topics Panel,” 

supra note 204. USCIS Webpage, “Affirmative Asylum Scheduling Bulletin” 

(Apr. 21, 2017); https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-asylum/

asylum/affirmative-asylum-scheduling-bulletin (accessed Apr. 27, 2017); 

information provided by USCIS (Apr. 12, 2017) (factors that offices consider 

include, but are not limited to, emergent medical circumstances or severe 

illness and severe humanitarian concerns, including continuing and immediate 

serious harm to family members outside of the United States. 245 See USCIS Asylum Division Quarterly Stakeholder Meeting, “Questions and 

Answers,” supra note 199 at 3. 246 Id at 4.

The impact of recent changes affecting the affirmative asylum 

adjudication process, such as the 2017 changes to the credible 

fear and reasonable fear lesson plans, is unknown at this 

time. The Ombudsman continues to monitor and review 

concerns raised by stakeholders and will consider solutions 

for addressing the backlog, such as staffing enhancements and 

methods for streamlining the affirmative asylum adjudication 

process that both preserve enhanced vetting and security and 

ensure the protection of asylum applicants’ rights. 

U Visa Backlogs

Responsible USCIS Offices: Service Center 

Operations Directorate; Office of Policy and Strategy

Key Facts and Findings

 Due to high demand and processing delays, petitioners 

and their family members wait nearly 3 years before 

placement on the U visa waiting list if deemed 

approvable, pending an available visa. 

 Correspondingly, individuals and their family 

members seeking U visas must wait years before they 

receive employment authorization; they may be living 

in the United States and subject to removal, or residing 

abroad in vulnerable situations.

 USCIS has taken steps to accelerate nonimmigrant 

U visa processing, most notably by establishing 

an agreement between the Vermont Service Center 

(VSC), which has traditionally housed the unit that 

conducts humanitarian benefits adjudications, and 

the Nebraska Service Center (NSC) to share the 

adjudication of U nonimmigrant status petitions and 

accompanying forms.

 Stakeholders would benefit from greater transparency 

regarding the backlog, including a clearer breakdown 

of U nonimmigrant petitions that are pending 

adjudication before placement on the waiting list and 

the number of cases on the waiting list.
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES OMBUDSMAN | 43

Background

The U visa provides immigration relief and a pathway to 

lawful permanent residence to petitioners who are victims 

of serious crimes committed in the United States.247 To 

be eligible, the petitioner must: (1) be the victim of 

qualifying criminal activity, (2) have suffered substantial 

physical or mental harm, and (3) have been helpful, be 

helpful, or be helpful in the future in the investigation or 

prosecution of that criminal activity.248 An individual may 

apply for U nonimmigrant status by filing Form I-918, 

Petition for U Nonimmigrant Status with USCIS, together 

with Form I-918, Supplement B, U Nonimmigrant Status 

Certification.249 Petitioners with qualifying family 

members may also submit Form I-918, Supplement A, 

Petition for Qualifying Family Member of U-1 Recipient.

250 

The U visa program has an annual cap of 10,000.251 

When visas are unavailable due to the cap, petitioners 

and qualifying family members who are eligible for U 

nonimmigrant status are placed on a “waiting list.”252 

Pursuant to regulation, once on the waiting list, petitioners 

and qualifying family members are eligible for deferred 

action or parole. Those living in the United States are 

eligible for employment authorization.253

247 The U visa was created by Congress through provisions of the Battered 

Immigrant Women Protection Act of 2000 in the Victims of Trafficking and 

Violence Protection Act of 2000 (VTVPA), Pub. L. No. 106-386; 114 Stat. 

1464 (2000) (codified in scattered sections of 8 and 22 U.S.C.). The criminal 

activity must have “occurred in the United States (including Indian country 

and U.S. military installations) or in the territories and possessions of the 

United States, or violated a U.S. federal law that provides for extraterritorial 

jurisdiction to prosecute the offense in a U.S. federal court.” 8 C.F.R. § 

214.14(b)(4). See INA § 101(a)(15)(U)(IV); 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(U)(IV). 248 INA § 101(a)(15)(U)(i)(I)-(IV); 8 U.S.C § 1101(a)(15(U)(i)(I)-(IV). 249 See USCIS Webpage, “Victims of Criminal Activity: U Nonimmigrant 

Status” (July 28, 2016); https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/victims-humantrafficking-other-crimes/victims-criminal-activity-u-nonimmigrant-status/

victims-criminal-activity-u-nonimmigrant-status (accessed Apr. 4, 2017). 250 Id. 251 See INA § 214(p)(2)(A); 8 U.S.C. § 1184(p)(2)(A) (“... individuals who may 

be “issued visas or otherwise provided status as nonimmigrants under section 

1101(a)(15)(U) of this title in any fiscal year shall not exceed 10,000”). 252 8 C.F.R § 214.14(d)(2) (“All eligible petitioners who, due solely to the cap, 

are not granted U-1 nonimmigrant status must be placed on a waiting list 

and receive written notice of such placement”); see also USCIS Webpage, 

“Victims of Criminal Activity: U Nonimmigrant Status,” supra note 249 (the 

waiting list is available to “any eligible principal or derivative petitioners that 

are awaiting a final decision and a U visa”). 253 See 8 C.F.R. § 214.14(d)(2); see also USCIS Webpage, “Victims of Criminal 

Activity: U Nonimmigrant Status,” supra note 249.

Each year since 2009, USCIS has approved the statutorily 

authorized 10,000 U visa petitions.254 During this span of 

time, the number of pending petitions for U nonimmigrant 

status has increased exponentially, with the total number of 

pending cases reaching 150,604 in September 2016.255 

As the number of pending cases grows, the time USCIS 

takes to determine eligibility has grown to almost 3 years.256

As a result, many petitioners remain without resolution 

and often without status for a lengthy period of time due to 

processing delays. 257 

254 USCIS Webpage, “USCIS Approves 10,000 U Visas for 7th Straight Fiscal 

Year” (Dec. 29, 2015); https://www.uscis.gov/news/uscis-approves-10000-

u-visas-7th-straight-fiscal-year (accessed May 5, 2017). See generally INA 

§ 214(p)(2)(A); 8 U.S.C. § 1184(p)(2)(A) (individuals who may be “issued 

visas or otherwise provided status as nonimmigrants under section 1101(a)

(15)(U) . . . shall not exceed 10,000”); INA § 214(p)(2)(B); 8 U.S.C. § 

1184(p)(2)(B) (derivative family members are not subject to the cap). An 

individual may apply to adjust status to lawful permanent residence after 3 

years of continuous physical presence in the United States after the grant of U

nonimmigrant status if certain requirements are met. INA § 245(m)(1)(A); 8 

U.S.C. § 1255(m)(1)(A). 255 USCIS Webpage, “Number of I-918 Petitions for U Nonimmigrant Status 

(Victims of Certain Criminal Activities and Family Members) by Fiscal 

Year, Quarter, and Case Status 2009–2016” (Dec. 23, 2016); https://www.

uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Resources/Reports%20and%20Studies/

Immigration%20Forms%20Data/Victims/I918u_visastatistics_fy2016_qtr4.

pdf (accessed May 11, 2017) (providing data regarding Form I-918 petitions 

including the total number of petitioners and family members pending at the 

end of each fiscal year beginning in 2009; compare FY 2009 (21,138 total 

petitions pending) with FY 2016 (150,604 total petitions pending)). 256 USCIS Webpage, “USCIS Processing Time Information for the 

Vermont Service Center” (Apr. 18, 2017); https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/

processingTimesDisplay.do;jsessionid=abctrJTgHsdH64cxGFqSv (indicating 

that the VSC is currently processing I-918, Petitions for U Nonimmigrant 

Status filed on June 9, 2014) (accessed May 3, 2017). 257 See Pub. L. No. 110-457 (Dec. 23, 2008) (section 201 of the TVPRA states, 

“[t]he Secretary may grant work authorization to any alien who has a pending, 

bona fide application for nonimmigrant status under section 101(a)(15)(U).”).

I wanted to thank you and let you ... know

we truly appreciate all that you’ve done 

to help us in this unexpected tragic time 

in our life ... thank you for all that you do 

and we are grateful to know that there is 

a[n] agency out there that understands.
44 | ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS JUNE 2017

Ongoing Concerns 

Impact of Growing Demand on U Petition Processing. 

In 2016, the Ombudsman received 109 requests for case 

assistance relating to U nonimmigrant petitions. The cases 

largely involved petitioners and qualifying family members 

who are still waiting for adjudication or are having 

difficulties in obtaining a status update from USCIS. 

USCIS Efforts to Address U Petition Processing Delays. 

To address the growing backlog, VSC transferred 3,000 

cases to NSC in July, 2016.258 See Figure 4.3: VSC 

and NSC U Petition Adjudications—Calendar Year 

2016. Subsequently, NSC began to regularly assist VSC 

with the adjudication of U nonimmigrant petitions and 

accompanying forms in September 2016.259 As of early 

February 2017, NSC had 26,000 pending U petitions, 

including 7,000 principal petitioners.260 At NSC, derivative 

beneficiary files are being kept with the principal’s file, 

and adjudicators have a goal of completing one “packet” 

(principal petition and derivatives) every 2 hours.261 U visa 

258 Information provided by USCIS (Feb. 8, 2017); See Figure 4.3 with 

adjudications statistics for NSC and VSC in calendar year 2016. 259 Information provided by USCIS (Apr. 11, 2017). 260 Information provided by USCIS (Feb. 8, 2017). 261 Id.

denials are being reviewed by supervisors before they are 

issued by NSC, though RFEs are not. 262

To help manage the extra caseload, VSC and NSC have 

taken several steps. VSC personnel provided training to 

NSC personnel in August and September 2016,263 and 

service centers are using the same training materials. Since 

July 2016, NSC and VSC have had weekly management 

meetings. Moreover, VSC continues to handle all inquiries 

regarding cases handled at NSC. NSC personnel will be 

trained by VSC personnel in FY 2017, so NSC can directly 

respond to inquiries in the future.264

According to USCIS, with the addition of NSC officers, 

60 full-time adjudicators are now assigned to the U visa 

program.265 Nevertheless, demand for the U visa continues 

to increase the backlog. USCIS expects to receive 35,000 

U visa petitions in FY 2017266 and estimates that the 

additional officers are insufficient to reduce the backlog.

262 Id. 263 Information provided by USCIS (Apr. 12, 2017). 264 Information provided by USCIS (Apr. 11, 2017). 265 Id. 266 Information provided by USCIS (Feb. 8 and Apr. 11, 2017).
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES OMBUDSMAN | 45

Figure 4.3: VSC and NSC U Petition Adjudications—Calendar Year 2016

Form I-918, Petition for U Nonimmigrant Status

USCIS Action Taken Nebraska Service Center Vermont Service Center

Approved 0 3,061

Denied 17 1,953

Request for Evidence 873 2,038

Notice of Intent to Deny 13 98

Waitlist 2,641 6,318

Form I-918A, Petition for Qualifying Family Member of U-1 Recipient

USCIS Action Taken Nebraska Service Center Vermont Service Center

Approved 1 3,538

Denied 13 1,312

Request for Evidence 428 1,077

Notice of Intent to Deny 23 56

Waitlist 1,549 4,351

Source: Information provided by USCIS.
46 | ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS JUNE 2017

Applicants and petitioners continue to experience delays in 

receiving their immigration benefits. Substantial fee increases 

in 2016 were not accompanied by increases in service or 

reduction of processing times. In this Annual Report, the 

Ombudsman continues to focus on efforts in implementing 

Transformation, USCIS’ processing times, and problems in the 

delivery of USCIS notices and documents. 

Interagency, 

Customer Service, 

and Process Integrity
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES OMBUDSMAN | 47

The Escalating Cost of 

Immigration Services 

Responsible USCIS Offices: Office of the Chief 

Financial Officer; Service Center Operations and 

Field Operations Directorates 

Key Facts and Findings

 USCIS case processing and services are almost 

entirely funded by application and petition fees 

paid by applicants and petitioners, rather than by 

Congressional appropriations. 

 USCIS regularly assesses its fee structure to reflect 

the actual cost of processing benefits and services. 

The most recent fee rule, published on October 24, 

2016 and effective December 23, 2016, raised fees 

by a weighted average of 21 percent. This increase 

follows fee rules published in 2007 and 2010 that 

raised fees by weighted averages of 86 and 10 

percent, respectively. 

 When announcing the 2016 fee increases, USCIS 

committed to timely processing of applications and 

petitions, but has been unsuccessful in achieving its 

processing goals. 

 Processing delays at the agency are largely due to 

fluctuations in filing levels, the lag time between 

fee increases and the onboarding of new staff, the 

complexity of case review, enhanced fraud detection, 

and new security check requirements. 

Background

USCIS operations are almost entirely funded by the 

fees paid by applicants and petitioners for immigration 

benefits and services.267 USCIS fees must be sufficient 

“to recover the full cost of services provided by USCIS 

[including] the costs associated with fraud detection and 

national security, customer service and case processing, and 

267 INA § 286(m); 8 U.S.C. § 1356. In accordance with the Chief Financial 

Officers Act of 1990, 31 U.S.C. §§ 901-03, and Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) Circular A-25, “User Charges,” 58 Fed. Reg. 38142 (July 15, 

1993), USCIS may review its fees biennially and propose needed adjustments 

to ensure recovery of the full cost of its activities.
48 | ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS JUNE 2017

providing services without charge to refugee and asylum 

applicants and to other customers eligible for fee waivers or 

exemptions.”268 A biennial fee review is based on historical 

data and future receipt projections, and allows USCIS to 

assess its resource allocations and performance measures.269 

Historically, USCIS has coupled increases in filing fees 

with commitments to reduce processing times. In 2007, 

nearly a decade after the previous immigration fee review, 

USCIS increased its fees by a weighted average of 86 

percent. The agency justified the increase as the only 

way “to afford sufficient capacity to process incoming 

applications and petitions” and avoid backlogs.270 In the 

2007 Fee Rule, the agency “committed to a 20 percent 

average reduction in case processing times by the end of 

FY 2009.”271 This was to be the result of an estimated 4 

percent productivity increase in processing of adjustment 

of status applications and 2 percent increase for all other 

product lines. 

Indeed, USCIS processing times improved. The 2007 fee 

increase enabled USCIS to hire more than 1,000 additional 

adjudications officers.272 According to USCIS, “the FY 2007 

and FY 2008 backlogs were mitigated through a combination 

of factors including increasing management focus and 

attention on case processing, which impacted officer 

productivity, providing increased human and budgetary 

resources, and experiencing a relative stable external 

environment that afforded time to process the pending 

workloads.”273 Thus, despite a surge in adjustment of status 

and naturalization applications in FY 2007, by the end of FY 

2009, USCIS saw a “near elimination” of its backlog.274 

In 2010, USCIS increased fees by a weighted average of 

10 percent.275 Anticipating Congressional appropriations 

268 USCIS Webpage, “USCIS Announces Final Rule Adjusting Immigration 

Benefit Application and Petition Fees” (Oct. 24, 2016); https://www.uscis.

gov/news/news-releases/uscis-announces-final-rule-adjusting-immigrationbenefit-application-and-petition-fees (accessed on Mar. 22, 2017); DHS 

USCIS, “FY 2016/2017 Immigration Examination Fee Account Fee Review 

Supporting Documentation with Addendum (FY 2016/2017 Immigration 

Examination Fee)”, pp. 6–8 (Oct. 2016); https://www.federalregister.gov/

documents/2016/05/04/2016-10297/us-citizenship-and-immigration-servicesfee-schedule (accessed May 15, 2017) (contained in Regulations.gov docket 

“USCIS-2016-0001.”). 269 FY 2016/2017 Immigration Examination Fee, p. 8. 270 U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Fee Schedule: Final Rule (2007 

Fee Rule), 72 Fed. Reg. 29851, 29857 (May 30, 2007); see also information 

provided by USCIS (Apr. 5, 2017). 271 2007 Fee Rule, 72 Fed. Reg. at 29859. 272 Information provided by USCIS (Apr. 5, 2017). 273 Id. 274 Id. 275 U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Fee Schedule, Proposed Rule, 75 

Fed. Reg. 33445, 33446 (June 11, 2010).

for USCIS Refugee, Asylum, and International Operations 

(RAIO), Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements 

(SAVE), and the Office of Citizenship, USCIS removed 

a surcharge imposed on other applications and petitions 

to recover costs related to these programs. Again, in its 

2010 fee rule, USCIS committed to better adjudications 

service and increased accountability and efficiency, 

including expanded electronic processing.276 However, 

the anticipated congressional funding was not granted, and 

USCIS was forced to use existing fee revenue to cover the 

costs of RAIO, SAVE, and the Office of Citizenship.277

In 2016, USCIS again increased its fees, this time by a 

weighted average of 21 percent.278 USCIS stated that 

the most recent fee increases recover more completely 

the full cost of otherwise unfunded activities, including 

RAIO adjudications, the SAVE database and the Office 

of Citizenship, “thereby increasing the resources 

available to fund additional personnel needed to improve 

case processing, reduce backlogs, and to move toward 

processing times that are in line with the commitments in 

the FY 2007 Fee Rule.” While some fees were raised only 

slightly, many increased considerably and far outpaced the 

rate of inflation. For example:

 Form N-400, Application for Naturalization, increased 

incrementally from $595 to $640279 

 Form N-600, Application for Certificate of Citizenship, 

nearly doubled from $600 to $1,170280 

 Form I-924, Application for Regional Center 

Designation under the Immigrant Investor Program, 

nearly tripled from $6,230 to $17,795, in addition 

to a new $3,035 fee for the annual regional 

center certification281 

276 FY 2016/2017 Immigration Examination Fee, p. 10. 277 U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Fee Schedule: Final Rule (2016 

Fee Rule), 81 Fed. Reg. 73292, 73308 (Oct. 24, 2016); information provided 

by USCIS (Apr. 5, 2017). 278 2016 Fee Rule, 81 Fed. Reg. at 73293 n.4; see also U.S. Citizenship and 

Immigration Services Fee Schedule: Proposed Rule (2016 NPRM), 81 FR 

26904, 26905 (May 4, 2016); USCIS Webpage, “USCIS Announces Final 

Rule Adjusting Immigration Benefit Application and Petition Fees,” supra

note 268. 279 2016 Fee Rule, 81 Fed. Reg. at 73294-95; see also 2016 NPRM, 81 Fed. 

Reg. at 26927; USCIS Webpage, “USCIS Announces Final Rule Adjusting 

Immigration Benefit Application and Petition Fees,” supra note 268. 280 2016 Fee Rule, 81 Fed. Reg. at 73294-95; see also 2016 NPRM, 81 Fed. 

Reg. at 26927; USCIS Webpage, “USCIS Announces Final Rule Adjusting 

Immigration Benefit Application and Petition Fees,” supra note 268. 281 2016 Fee Rule, 81 Fed. Reg. at 73295; see also 2016 NPRM, 81 Fed. Reg. 

at 26927; USCIS Webpage, “USCIS Announces Final Rule Adjusting 

Immigration Benefit Application and Petition Fees,” supra note 268.
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES OMBUDSMAN | 49

 Form I-526, Immigrant Petition by Alien Entrepreneur, 

is now subject to a $3,675 fee, up from $1,500282 

USCIS Customer Service and Public Engagement 

Directorate has received an increasing number of case 

inquiries for processing delays in the last 4 years. In FY 

2016 alone, USCIS received 349,452 inquiries relating 

to cases pending outside processing times, amounting to 

over 20 percent of total customer service inquiries.283 The 

majority of requests for case assistance received by the 

Ombudsman also involved processing delays.284 In 2016, 

the Ombudsman received 8,146 requests for case assistance 

involving filings pending past posted processing times, 

almost 70 percent of the total requests for case assistance 

received. Customer-reported adjudication delays, coupled 

with the agency’s 1.5 million case backlog, reflect that 

USCIS is currently unable to meet its processing time 

goals, and unlikely to do so in the near future.285

Although USCIS re-committed to meeting the 2007 Fee 

Rule processing time goals in its 2016 Fee Rule, backlogs 

in the last 4 years have only increased. Since at least 

2012, USCIS has been unable to acquire and maintain 

sufficient adjudication capacity to ensure timely processing 

of its workload in accordance with its stated processing 

goals.286 As reflected in Figure 5.1, 2007 USCIS Processing 

Goals and 2016 USCIS Average Cycle Times, despite 

fee increases, USCIS has been unable to reach its stated 

processing time goals for key benefits such as Form I-90, 

Application to Replace Permanent Resident Card; Form 

I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or 

Adjust Status; Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 

Worker; and Form N-400, Application for Naturalization.

287 

282 2016 Fee Rule, 81 Fed. Reg. at 73294-95; see also 2016 NPRM, 81 Fed. 

Reg. at 26927; USCIS Webpage, “USCIS Announces Final Rule Adjusting 

Immigration Benefit Application and Petition Fees,” supra note 268. 283 Information provided by USCIS (Mar. 24, 2017). 284 Requests for case assistance involving filings beyond posted processing times 

accounted for nearly 70 percent of the requests received by the Ombudsman in 

2016, up from 61 percent of the total requests in 2015, and 58 percent in 2014. 285 Information provided by USCIS (Apr. 5, 2017). 286 Id. 287 Id.

Figure 5.1: 2007 USCIS Processing Goals and 2016 

USCIS Average Cycle Times

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

2007 Goal Sept. 2016 Average Cycle Time

I-90

$370 to 

$540

I-485

$1,010 to

$1,225

Figure 5.__ 2007 Processing Goals 

and 2016 Average Cycle Times

Source: Information provided by USCIS. 3.5

6

4

5.2

4

4.8

5

5.7

I-140

$475 to

$700

N-400

$675 to

$725

Months

USCIS’ challenges in meeting processing time goals 

include resources diverted to unanticipated initiatives such 

as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), which 

generated more than 570,000 new filings within the first 

year.288 Temporary Protected Status (TPS) related filings 

have also increased, with the designation of new countries 

including Nepal289 and Yemen.290

Additionally, processing times have been impacted by 

the introduction of the Quality Workplace Initiative, 

which de-emphasized quantitative productivity measures 

in favor of quality.291 The increased complexity of case 

review and enhanced fraud detection and security checks 

also placed even greater demands on the agency.292 The 

overall increase in applications and petitions received, 

as well as the reassignment of asylum officers to handle 

the increase in credible and reasonable fear screenings, 

has also contributed to the growing inventories across 

product lines.293

288 Id. 289 Designation of Nepal for Temporary Protected Status, 80 Fed. Reg. 36346 

(June 24, 2015). 290 Designation of the Republic of Yemen for Temporary Protected Status, 80 

Fed. Reg. 53319 (Sep. 3, 2015). 291 Information provided by USCIS (Apr. 5, 2017). 292 Id. 293 Id.
50 | ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS JUNE 2017

USCIS acknowledges that “[t]here is not an easy or quick 

fix for reducing the current net backlog.”294 USCIS plans 

to rework its adjudicator performance appraisal system to 

return some emphasis on “quantity” along with quality of 

adjudications.295 Also, USCIS intends to recruit additional 

personnel to address the increasing complexity of its cases 

and any new or emerging initiatives and requirements.296 

USCIS recognizes it will need a comprehensive strategy 

to enhance productivity, reduce backlogs, and achieve its 

targeted processing goals.297

Ongoing Concerns

USCIS stakeholders are required to pay increasingly more 

for submitting applications that will not be adjudicated in a 

timely manner, despite commitments to decrease processing 

times. The agency’s current fee structure—including recent 

increases—barely cover its operating costs and are unlikely 

to lead to a meaningful reduction in processing times. In 

fact, USCIS has indicated that processing times will get 

worse before they get better, reporting to the Ombudsman 

that the agency “is not staffed to meet its cycle time goals 

based on the current levels of productivity.”298 

The backlog of applications and petitions fell from 3.8 

million cases in January 2004 to less than 10,000 in 2007 

(before increasing again), and the processing time for 

nearly all product lines was 6 months or less.299 This 

was due in large part to Congressional appropriations 

specifically directed to backlog reduction, and an agency 

backlog elimination strategy.300 Congressional funding 

for backlog elimination ended in FY 2006.301 USCIS 

does not intend to request appropriations for RAIO, 

SAVE, the Office of Citizenship, or other initiatives for 

which resources might be anticipated.302 Today, with no 

appropriated funds for backlog elimination, USCIS is 

facing additional resource needs, such as enhanced security 

checks, social media vetting, and additional fraud detection 

audits and site visits. 

294 Id. 295 Id. 296 Id. 297 Id. 298 Id. 299 2007 Fee Rule, 72 Fed. Reg. at 29857. 300 See USCIS Webpage, “Backlog Elimination” (Mar. 4, 2010); https://www.

uscis.gov/tools/reports-studies/backlog-elimination (accessed Apr. 20, 2017). 301 “USCIS Production Update, Fiscal Year 2009 report to Congress, 1st Quarter,” 

p. 2 (April 20, 2009). 302 Information provided by USCIS (Apr. 5, 2017).

USCIS’ fee review process does not provide for sufficient 

flexibility to account for unexpected changes that can 

significantly affect the number of incoming filings. 

For example, USCIS received 972,151 naturalization 

applications in FY 2016, nearly 200,000 more than the 

774,634 it projected.303 Likewise, since 2012, over one 

million applications have been submitted under the DACA 

program.304 Unpredictable fluctuations in case receipts, 

and the ensuing reallocation of staff and resources, require 

a more dynamic fee review process, one that recognizes 

the potential need for additional resources to respond to 

changing circumstances.

USCIS’ premium processing service may also be 

contributing to growing backlogs and adjudication delays. 

Since 2001, USCIS has accepted certain employmentbased petitions for premium processing where, for an 

additional fee (currently $1,225), it will grant, deny, or 

issue an RFE within 15 days.305 The revenue generated 

by the premium processing fee was initially earmarked for 

the hiring of additional adjudicators and customer service 

representatives, as well as infrastructure improvements.306 

However, most premium processing revenue has been used 

to fund Transformation,307 while non-premium processing 

times generally have increased or not reached the agency’s 

goals. The U.S. Department of Justice Office of the 

Inspector General noted as far back as 2003 that premium 

processing may divert resources from other product lines 

303 Information provided by USCIS (Mar. 24, 2017). 304 See Janet Napolitano, Secretary of Homeland Security, Memorandum, 

“Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion with Respect to Individuals Who 

Came to the United States as Children” (June 15, 2012); https://www.dhs.

gov/xlibrary/assets/s1-exercising-prosecutorial-discretion-individuals-whocame-to-us-as-children.pdf (accessed May 15, 2017); DHS Press Release, 

“Secretary Napolitano Announces Deferred Action Process for Young People 

Who Are Low Enforcement Priorities” (June 15, 2012); https://www.dhs.gov/

news/2012/06/15/secretary-napolitano-announces-deferred-action-processyoung-people-who-are-low (accessed March 23, 2017); USCIS Webpage, 

“Data Set: Form I-821D Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals” (Dec. 23, 

2016); https://www.uscis.gov/tools/reports-studies/immigration-forms-data/

data-set-form-i-821d-deferred-action-childhood-arrivals (accessed Mar. 23, 

2017). 305 See USCIS Webpage “How Do I Use the Premium Processing Service?” (Mar. 

9, 2017); https://www.uscis.gov/forms/how-do-i-use-premium-processingservice (accessed Mar. 22, 2017). Petitions that are eligible for premium 

processing include nonimmigrant treaty traders and investors (E-1 and E-2), 

aliens in specialty occupations (H-1B), temporary workers (H-2B), and 

intracompany transferees (L-1 and L-2), as well as certain employment-based 

immigrant petitions. 306 Establishing Premium Processing Service for Employment-Based Petitions 

and Applications; Interim Rule, 66 Fed. Reg. 29682, 29683 (June 1, 2001). 307 GAO Report, “Immigration Benefits: Consistent Adherence to DHS’s 

Acquisition Policy Could Help Improve Transformation Program Outcomes,” 

GAO-12-66 (Nov. 22, 2011); https://www.gao.gov/assets/590/586461.html 

(accessed May 22, 2017).
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES OMBUDSMAN | 51

and further exacerbate backlogs.308 Noting that the 2016 

fee increase is not expected to generate sufficient revenue 

to support its staffing needs, USCIS plans to partially 

address its staffing shortfall by seeking approval from 

Congress to use premium processing fee revenue to fund 

additional adjudicator positions.309 

While the agency continues to raise fees, it has been unable 

to reduce or even maintain processing times. It remains 

to be seen if, without appropriated funding, USCIS can 

make a meaningful impact on its growing backlog by 

relying solely on increased user fees. The Ombudsman will 

continue to hold USCIS accountable for its commitments 

made as a part of fee increases by monitoring processing 

times, and identifying and recommending ways to 

minimize the impacts of adjudication delays.

The Continuing Challenge 

of Transformation

Responsible USCIS Offices: Transformation Delivery 

Division; Office of Information Technology

Key Facts and Findings

 USCIS is in the midst of a troubled, years-long 

modernization effort, referred to as “Transformation,” 

to move from paper-based to electronic filing, 

adjudication, and case management across 

approximately 90 immigration benefit product lines.

 After more than 10 years of work, at the end of 2016, 

USCIS stakeholders were only able to consistenly 

file online for two immigration benefits via ELIS, the 

Transformation platform. 

 Internal use of ELIS did advance with USCIS now 

adjudicating five forms through ELIS by the end 

of 2016. 

 Despite substantial planning and training, USCIS’ 

major internal launch of Form N-400 in ELIS 

308 U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, “Immigration 

and Naturalization Service’s Premium Processing Program,” OIG 03-14 at 

19 (Feb. 2003); https://oig.justice.gov/reports/INS/a0314/final.pdf (accessed 

Mar. 23, 2017) (explaining that “premium cases further prolong[] processing 

times for routine cases because staffing and resources must be pulled from the 

general adjudication areas to meet the demands of Premium Processing”). 309 Information provided by USCIS (Apr. 5, 2017).

experienced significant technical problems that forced 

the agency to temporarily halt ELIS naturalization 

adjudications and delayed the launch of other 

product lines. 

 The slow development of Transformation 

and challenges in ELIS operations are being 

closely scrutinized by the OIG, the Government 

Accountability Office (GAO), Congress, and the 

media. Both the OIG and GAO reviewed the program 

in 2016 and expressed concern with the progress 

and problems that continue to plague the project. 

Transformation has been identified by the GAO as one 

of ten high-risk federal investments. 

Background

Since 2006, USCIS has expended significant time, 

money, and effort to replace its paper-based systems with 

electronic filing, receipting, handling, adjudication, and 

storage of the millions of petitions and applications it 

receives annually.310 When fully implemented, the agency 

expects the $3.1 billion Transformation project to improve 

service, operational efficiency, and security.311 However, 

the decade-long effort to accomplish this initiative has 

thus far yielded minimal positive impact to applicants, 

who can now fully perform just two functions online in 

ELIS, accounting for less than ten percent of the agency’s 

workload: filing Form I-90, Application to Replace 

Permanent Resident Card, and paying the Immigrant 

Fee associated with entry and LPR card production after 

consular processing.312 During 2016, the Ombudsman 

received 2,263 case assistance requests involving ELISprocessed filings that stakeholders reported they were 

unable to resolve with the agency. 

310 Transformation is expected to integrate all filing, managing, and adjudication 

functions. This includes hosting supporting evidence, conducting background 

checks and fraud or risk investigations, transmitting notice, and updating 

systems with final adjudication decisions in an electronic environment. ELIS 

systems are distinct from the earlier system of electronic filing, which only 

provided for initial form filings and payments on-line but required the separate 

submission of any supporting evidence by mail. 311 “Immigration Benefits Vetting: Examining Critical Weaknesses in USCIS 

Systems,” before the Subcommittee on Oversight and Management Efficiency 

of the U.S. House Homeland Security Committee, 2017, 115th Cong. 1st 

Sess., 1–2 (Mar. 16, 2017) (written statement of Lori Scialabba, Acting USCIS 

Director); http://docs.house.gov/meetings/HM/HM09/20170316/105629/

HHRG-115-HM09-Wstate-ScialabbaL-20170316.pdf (accessed May 

15, 2017). 312 OIG Audit, “USCIS Automation of Immigration Benefits Processing Remains 

Ineffective,” OIG-16-48 (Mar. 9, 2016); https://www.oig.dhs.gov/assets/

Mgmt/2016/OIG-16-48-Mar16.pdf (accessed May 10, 2017).
52 | ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS JUNE 2017

Transformation Timeline. USCIS previously committed 

to complete the Transformation project by 2013; that 

date was then extended to 2016, and is now slated 

for March 2019.313 After planned rollouts did not 

meet their designated milestones in 2016, and USCIS 

imposed a “strategic pause” on form and case processing 

development,314 it is likely the Transformation completion 

date will be postponed again. In Congressional testimony 

in early 2017, the DHS Inspector General observed, “[w]e 

do not have confidence in USCIS’ estimates for completion, 

given past experience.”315 

ELIS in 2016: Several Milestones, Many Challenges. 

USCIS made progress in Transformation in 2016. The 

forms being adjudicated in ELIS as of January 2017 are: 

 Form I-90, Application to Replace Permanent 

Resident Card

 Submission/processing of the Immigrant Fee 

 Form I-821, Application for Temporary 

Protected Status

 Form I-821D, Consideration of Deferred Action for 

Childhood Arrivals 

 Form N-400, Application for Naturalization 

 Form N-336, Request for Hearing on a Decision in 

Naturalization Proceedings 

 Form N-565, Application for Replacement 

Naturalization/Citizenship Document316 

ELIS platform functionality now includes internal case 

processing and management functions such as the ability to 

schedule biometric appointments and interviews, interface 

with external systems for background checks, manage 

313 Id. at 8 (“USCIS estimates that it will take three more years—overfour years 

longer than estimated—and an additional $1 billion to automate all benefit 

types as expected”). 314 Information provided by USCIS (Apr. 19, 2017). 315 See generally “Immigration Benefits Vetting: Examining Critical 

Weaknesses in USCIS Systems” before the Subcommittee on Oversight and 

Management Efficiency of the U.S. House Homeland Security Committee, 

2017, 115th Cong. 1st Sess. (Mar. 16, 2017) (written statement of John 

Roth, DHS Inspector General); http://docs.house.gov/meetings/HM/

HM09/20170316/105629/HHRG-115-HM09-Wstate-RothJ-20170316.pdf

(accessed May 15, 2017). 316 Information provided by USCIS (Apr. 19, 2017). The N-565 is being 

processed in ELIS “in a limited manner.”

scanned documents and case evidence, and produce 

LPR cards.317 

At the same time, with the expansion of ELIS in 2016, new 

challenges emerged. The rollout of the N-400, a major 

undertaking for the agency, was fraught with technical and 

logistical difficulties. At the end of 2016, USCIS placed 

development of all other product lines in what is described 

as a “strategic pause” to conduct technical remediation and 

re-align project management milestones.318 

During 2016, USCIS began adjudicating (but not accepting 

online) Form I-821, Application for Temporary Protected 

Status, and Form I-821D, Consideration of Deferred 

Action for Childhood Arrivals.319 Applicants continued to 

mail paper forms, which the agency scanned into ELIS. 

However, as with other product lines in ELIS, USCIS 

did not inform the affected community or their legal 

representatives that it would use ELIS to adjudicate these 

filings. They learned their applications were entered into 

ELIS by USCIS when they were provided receipt numbers 

that began with “IOE” (Integrated Operating Environment). 

Both forms suffered data coordination challenges, which 

led to delays in issuance of associated EADs. 

Also in 2016, USCIS began adjudicating naturalization 

applications in ELIS, a new level of form complexity 

and processing for the agency, which required significant 

training and an adjustment period.320 The initial 

implementation—done at a time of increasing N-400 

receipts—revealed sluggish system performance and 

frequent outages. Paper files were still being used by 

adjudicators alongside ELIS during interviews as they 

became accustomed to the new processes and as a backup to the frequent outages. Redundancies in personnel 

and costs, as well as problems with security vetting, 

mounted before the agency stopped scanning new paper 

N-400 applications into ELIS. At the end of 2016, more 

than 185,000 naturalization applications were pending 

317 Information provided by USCIS (Apr. 19, 2017). 318 Id. 319 GAO Report, “Immigration Benefits System: Significant Risks in USCIS’ 

Efforts to Develop its Adjudication and CaseManagement System,” GAO-17-

486T (Mar. 16, 2017); https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-17-486T (accessed 

May 17, 2017); information provided by USCIS (May 2016). 320 For a more complete discussion of the rollout of Form N-400 in ELIS, see

“The Perfect Storm: Fee Increases, Call to Citizenship, and ELIS,” infra

at 9–14. 
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES OMBUDSMAN | 53

adjudication in ELIS.321 Widespread electronic filing for 

Form N-400 has been delayed indefinitely. 

The scheduled implementation of three additional forms 

in ELIS was also halted due to system glitches and 

development delays. These glitches included network 

outages, internal data-merging errors, and printing delays, 

errors, and duplications. Form I-485, Application to 

Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, Form 

N-600, Application for Certificate of Citizenship, and the 

military naturalization portal rollouts were delayed past their 

original 2016 implementation milestones; USCIS does not 

currently have a timeline for the integration of these forms 

into ELIS. 

ELIS Immigrant Fee Processing. In prior Annual 

Reports, the Ombudsman reviewed problems with payment 

of the Immigrant Fee via ELIS, including extended 

processing times, administrative errors, and card delivery 

problems.322 In 2016, the agency refined online stakeholder 

accounts for new immigrants paying the Immigrant Fee so 

321 “Immigration Benefits Vetting: Examining Critical Weaknesses in USCIS 

Systems” before the Subcommittee on Oversight and Management Efficiency 

of the U.S. House Homeland Security Committee, 2017, 115th Cong., 1st Sess. 

(Mar. 16, 2017) (statement of John Roth, DHS Inspector General); http://

docs.house.gov/meetings/HM/HM09/20170316/105629/HHRG-115-HM09-

Wstate-RothJ-20170316.pdf (accessed May 10, 2017). 322 Ombudsman Annual Reports, 2016, pp. 41–42, and 2015, pp. 86–88.

they may track their progress.323 The agency also started 

using an online identity verification process to remotely 

validate an applicant’s identity.324 

Stakeholder Engagement. Stakeholders have experienced 

frustrations with ELIS-processed applications and petitions, 

as well as a lack of stakeholder engagement. While USCIS 

created a help desk within its National Customer Service 

Center to serve electronic filers, it is only able to assist with 

technical filing issues.325 Applicants being introduced to 

ELIS filings complained they did not receive meaningful 

assistance with ELIS processing problems through service 

requests, many of which were closed without resolution. 

After months of delays and confusion about who could 

assist with DACA processing issues, for example, 

applicants often sought assistance from the Ombudsman. 

Oversight of ELIS. As of January 2017, the OIG 

has issued six full reports and one management 

communication to USCIS expressing specific concerns 

with Transformation.326 The GAO has issued six audit 

323 USCIS Webpage, “File Online,” https://www.uscis.gov/file-online (accessed 

Apr. 1, 2017). 324 Information provided by USCIS (Oct. 13, 2016). 325 USCIS Webpage, “Experiencing Technical Difficulty with Electronic 

Immigration System (ELIS),” https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/

About%20Us/Electronic%20Reading%20Room/Customer%20Service%20

Reference%20Guide/ELIS_Technical_Difficulty.pdf (accessed June 22, 2017). 326 OIG, “Management Alert—U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ Use 

of the Electronic Immigration System for Naturalization Benefits Processing,” 

OIG-17-26-MA (Jan. 19, 2017); https://www.oig.dhs.gov/sites/default/

files/assets/2017/OIG-17-26-MA.pdf (accessed May 22, 2017); “USCIS 

Automation of Immigration Benefits Processing Remains Ineffective,” 

OIG 16-48 (Mar. 9, 2016); https://www.oig.dhs.gov/assets/Mgmt/2016/

OIG-16-48-Mar16.pdf (accessed May 1. 2017); “USCIS Information 

Technology Management Processes and Challenges,” OIG-14-112 (July 

3, 2014); https://www.oig.dhs.gov/assets/Mgmt/2014/OIG_14-112_Jul14.

pdf (accessed June 22, 2017); “U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ 

Progress in Transformation,” OIG-12-12 (Nov. 2011); “U.S. Citizenship and 

Immigration Services’ Progress in Modernizing Information Technology,” 

OIG-09-90 (July 13, 2009); https://www.oig.dhs.gov/assets/Mgmt/OIG_09-

90_Jul09.pdf (accessed June 22, 2017); “U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 

Services’ Progress in Modernizing Information Technology,” OIG-07-11 

(Nov. 30, 2006); https://www.oig.dhs.gov/assets/Mgmt/OIG_07-11_Nov06.

pdf (accessed June 22, 2017); “USCIS Faces Challenges in Modernizing 

Technology,” OIG-05-41 (Sep. 2005); https://www.oig.dhs.gov/assets/Mgmt/

OIG_05-41_Sep05.pdf (accessed June 22, 2017). 

Request for Case Assistance

An individual who filed Form I-821D and an application 

for employment authorization in May 2016 was issued a 

new EAD in October 2016, but did not receive a decision 

on the underlying I-821D filing. The lack of an approval 

notice is significant, as it serves as the only evidence of 

approval of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). 

The individual called the USCIS call center several times 

for assistance without success before contacting the 

Ombudsman. Upon review, the Ombudsman determined 

that the applicant’s A-file had been sent to storage at the 

National Records Center without issuance of a decision on 

the I-821D. USCIS headquarters assisted in resolving this 

case, noting that ELIS was experiencing systemic problems 

in generating Forms I-797, Notice of Decision. Within two 

weeks of the Ombudsman’s inquiry, the applicant received 

the approval notice. 
54 | ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS JUNE 2017

reports regarding Transformation as well, the latest in 

March 2017.327 

In July 2016, the GAO released findings that 

Transformation continued to suffer management and 

development challenges hindering its performance.328 

These findings were the latest conclusions in a series 

of studies, at least six reports, and 30 recommendations 

issued since 2006 concerning Transformation management, 

acquisitions, development, and operations. As of March, 

2017, the GAO found that USCIS had “fully addressed” 

17 out of their 30 recommendations and that 13 remained 

open.329 One completed task included overhauling 

Transformation management by eliminating the Office 

of Transformation Coordination and moving the newly 

designated Transformation Delivery Division under the 

USCIS Office of Information Technology.330

327 GAO Report, “Immigration Benefits System: Significant Risks in USCIS’ 

Efforts to Develop its Adjudication and Case Management System,” GAO-17-

486T (Mar. 16, 2017); https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-17-486T (accessed 

May 17, 2017); GAO Report, “Immigration Benefits System: U.S. Citizenship 

and Immigration Services Can Improve Program Management,” GAO-16-

467 (Jul. 7, 2016); http://www.gao.gov/assets/680/678266.pdf (accessed May 

10, 2017); GAO Report, “Immigration Benefits System: Better Informed 

Decision Making Needed on Transformation Program,” GAO-15-415 (pub. 

May 2015, released June 2015); https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-15-415 

(accessed May 17, 2017); GAO Report, “Immigration Benefits: Consistent 

Adherence to DHS’s Acquisition Policy Could Help Improve Transformation 

Program Outcomes,” GAO-12-66 (Nov. 22, 2011); http://www.gao.gov/

products/GAO-12-66 (accessed May 17, 2017); GAO Report, “USCIS 

Transformation: Improvements to Performance, Human Capital, and 

Information Technology Management Needed as Modernization Proceeds,” 

GAO-07-1013R (July 17, 2007); http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-

1013R (accessed May 17, 2017); GAO Report, “Information Technology: 

Near-Term Effort to Automate Paper-Based Immigration Files Needs Planning 

Improvements,” GAO-06-375 (Mar. 31, 2006); http://www.gao.gov/products/

GAO-06-375 (accessed June 23, 2017). 328 See generally GAO, “Immigration Benefits System: U.S. Citizenship and 

Immigration Services Can Improve Program Management,” GAO-16-467 

(July 7, 2016); http://www.gao.gov/assets/680/678266.pdf (accessed May 

10, 2017). 329 “Immigration Benefits System: Significant Risks in USCIS’ Efforts to 

Develop its Adjudication and Case Management System,” before the 

Subcommittee on Oversight and Management Efficiency of the U.S. 

House Homeland Security Committee, 115thCong. 1st Sess. 2 (Mar. 

16, 2017) (statement of Carol C. Harris, GAO Director Information 

Technology Acquisition Issues); http://docs.house.gov/meetings/HM/

HM09/20170316/105629/HHRG-115-HM09-Wstate-HarrisC-20170316.pdf

(accessed May 10, 2017). 330 “Immigration Benefits Vetting: Examining Critical Weaknesses in USCIS 

Systems,” before the Subcommittee on Oversight and Management Efficiency 

of the U.S. House Homeland Security Committee, 2017, 115th Cong. 1st 

Sess. 1 (Mar. 16, 2017) (written statement of Lori Scialabba, Acting USCIS 

Director); http://docs.house.gov/meetings/HM/HM09/20170316/105629/

HHRG-115-HM09-Wstate-ScialabbaL-20170316.pdf (accessed May 15, 

2017); and information provided by USCIS (Apr. 12, 2017).

In November 2016, the OIG issued additional findings 

on system challenges, both from a customer service and 

a security standpoint.331 The OIG found that 19,001 LPR 

cards had been issued with incorrect information, including 

some being sent to incorrect addresses. Most of these 

errors were identified as being the result of “design and 

functionality problems in ELIS.”332 The OIG referenced 

specifically ELIS functionality or legacy data migration 

problems that allowed 750 duplicate LPR cards to be issued 

in 2016 alone.333 The OIG concluded that “USCIS efforts 

to address the errors have been inadequate.”334 USCIS 

has had no choice but to turn to technology workarounds, 

including modernization of its antiquated, DOS-based 

CLAIMS 3 system to ensure that legacy systems are 

“maintainable and supportable” for up to 10 years.335

Use of Local Systems for Temporary Fixes. Among the 

many benefits intended to be delivered by Transformation 

were efficiencies from the heightened coordination of 

information and business processes. The delays that 

continue in the initiative have hampered the agency in 

realizing these benefits. As the GAO recently noted, the 

program’s “delays in delivering system functionality have 

limited USCIS’ ability to realize its planned cost savings 

and operational improvements.”336 In particular, systems 

and databases within the agency experienced integration 

issues, requiring adjudicators to continue to employ old 

methods and keep legacy systems online.337

The delays and challenges of Transformation and, in 

particular with ELIS, have led some USCIS offices to search 

for temporary fixes. Increasingly, USCIS components 

are seeking to resolve issues through the use of local and 

potentially incompatible systems, and purchasing “off-theshelf” solutions for information management.338 Many 

offices are using interim systems to manage correspondence 

331 OIG Audit, “Better Safeguards are Needed in USCIS Green Card Issuance,” 

OIG-17-11 at 5 (Nov. 16, 2016); https://www.oig.dhs.gov/assets/Mgmt/2017/

OIG-17-11-Nov16.pdf (accessed May 10, 2017). 332 Id. 333 Id. at 8. 334 Id. at 5. 335 USCIS noted that this expense “is not part of the agency’s overall 

Transformation effort. The CLAIMS 3 modernization is being undertaken 

now to assure that the system remains available to USCIS for case 

management purposes over the next 5 to 10 years.” Information provided by 

USCIS (Apr. 12, 2017). 336 GAO, “Immigration Benefits System: Significant Risks in USCIS’ Efforts 

to Develop its Adjudication and Case Management System,” supra note 327 

at 10. 337 Id. 338 Information provided by USCIS (Mar. 16, 2017).
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES OMBUDSMAN | 55

and applicant inquiries.339 These are not permanent 

solutions because they do not interface with other USCIS 

systems as envisioned by Transformation. 

Ongoing Concerns

Transformation remains hampered by process reengineering, security concerns, and increasing internal 

and external frustration with communication and problem 

resolution. Implementation in 2016 revealed significant 

problems with the adjudication of both simple and complex 

form types, gaps in service for cases received electronically, 

and a lack of outreach to the affected community. Despite 

these significant challenges, ELIS holds substantial 

potential for adjudicators and applicants alike. 

To improve ELIS system rollouts and usability, USCIS 

should continue to include, and expand the participation 

of, line adjudicators and local office managers in case 

management process development. USCIS also needs to 

engage more with external stakeholders. Testing should 

be expanded to provide stakeholders the opportunity 

to experience the electronic filing environment, and to 

enable the agency to properly identify and correct issues 

in real time and across the spectrum of user capability. 

In addition, engaging directly with private-sector 

representatives who develop and use case management 

software will help ensure usability and process integrity. 

The Ombudsman will continue to monitor Transformation 

impacts on immigration benefits processing. 

USCIS Processing Times: 

Improved Accuracy Needed

Responsible USCIS Offices: Office of Performance 

and Quality; Customer Service and Public 

Engagement Directorate 

Key Facts and Findings

 USCIS posts processing times to set the public’s 

expectations regarding how long the agency is taking 

to adjudicate immigration applications and petitions.340 

However, USCIS’ current approach to reporting 

processing times often does not accurately convey the 

actual time it is likely to take to adjudicate cases.

339 Id. 340 See USCIS Webpage, “USCIS Processing Time Information;” https://egov.

uscis.gov/cris/processTimesDisplayInit.do (accessed Mar. 7, 2017). 

 Posted processing times have cascading impacts. 

They dictate when a stakeholder can submit a service 

request for a case that is outside of processing times 

through the USCIS National Customer Service 

Center (NCSC). 

 Lack of transparency in processing times diminishes 

trust in the agency and hinders stakeholders’ ability to 

make informed decisions impacting their professional 

and personal lives. 

 Processing times are fundamental to holding USCIS 

accountable for timely services, yet currently 

posted processing times do not include the agency’s 

processing time goals. 

Background

For many years, the Ombudsman has urged USCIS to 

explore new ways to improve its calculation of case 

processing times.341 USCIS has acknowledged that its 

methods of calculating and posting processing times 

need improvement, and is working to implement a new 

methodology that will enable the agency to display 

processing time data that is more accurate and timely.342 

The processing times that USCIS posts publicly are used 

for multiple purposes. For individuals and employers, 

processing times are an essential tool for planning their 

futures. For USCIS, these processing times dictate, among 

other things, when an applicant or petitioner can inquire 

about a pending case.343 In addition, the Ombudsman asks 

individuals and employers to wait 60 days past the posted 

processing time before seeking case assistance, absent 

emergency circumstances. 

On January 5, 2017, USCIS announced that it would post 

processing times using a specific date format rather than 

reporting weeks or months. The agency stated that this is 

the “first step in providing processing times that are timelier 

341 Ombudsman’s Annual Report 2016, pp. 31-35; Ombudsman’s Annual Report 

2015, pp. 84–86; Ombudsman’s Annual Report 2014, pp. 48–51. 342 U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Fee Schedule: Final Rule (2016 

Fee Rule), 81 Fed. Reg. 73292, 73308 (Oct. 24, 2016); see also USCIS 2015 

Annual Report Response, p. 40 (June 30, 2016). 343 See USCIS Webpage, “Outside Normal Processing Time;” https://egov.uscis.

gov/e-request/displayONPTForm.do?entryPoint=init&sroPageType=onpt 

(accessed May 11, 2017) (“For most applications, you can send [USCIS] an 

inquiry if your case has been pending longer than the processing time posted 

on our website”). In Fiscal Year 2016, USCIS received 349,181 Service 

Request Management Tool (SRMT) inquiries related to cases pending outside 

normal processing times. Information provided by USCIS (Mar. 24, 2017).
56 | ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS JUNE 2017

and easier to understand.”344 On February 15, 2017, USCIS 

held a public engagement on processing times, seeking 

feedback from its stakeholders both during and after this 

call on how to improve processing time accuracy, clarity, 

and transparency.345 

USCIS calculates processing times using the number of 

active pending cases in the responsible office against the 

monthly completion rate.346 Prior to adopting its new 

processing time format, USCIS displayed charts with the 

processing time goal (e.g., 5 months for N-400, Application 

for Naturalization347) if the field office or service center was 

meeting the processing time goal.348 If the office had fallen 

behind its processing time goal, the chart listed “the actual 

receipt date of the application or petition currently being 

processed” in the respective office or service center.349 

Although RFEs and NOIDs are removed from the active 

pending case total, the posted processing times do not 

include the extra time this adds to processing.350 USCIS 

also does not factor in processing time delays on account of 

file transfers. Stakeholders have been advised to reference 

344 USCIS email to stakeholders, “USCIS Now Uses Specific Dates to Show 

Case Processing Times” (Jan. 5, 2017). 345 USCIS email to stakeholders, “USCIS Invitation: Online Processing Times, 

02/15/2017.” (sent Feb. 9, 2017); see also “USCIS Online Processing Times 

Feedback Questionnaire” (Feb. 15, 2017); https://content.govdelivery.com/

attachments/USDHSCISINVITE/2017/02/15/file_attachments/771487/Pr

ocessing%2BTimes%2BQuestions%2B-%2BFeb%2B2017.pdf (accessed 

Mar. 7, 2017); “USCIS Idea Community, Promoting Change through Online 

Collaboration” (Feb. 2, 2017); https://www.uscis.gov/outreach/uscis-ideacommunity (accessed May 11, 2017). 346 Ombudsman’s Annual Report 2015, pp. 84–86; information provided by 

USCIS (Apr. 11, 2017). 347 Adjustment of the Immigration and Naturalization Benefit Application and 

Petition Fee Schedule: Final Rule, 72 Fed. Reg. 29851, 29858-59 (May 

30, 2007). 348 Ombudsman Teleconference, “Processing Times” (Apr. 27, 2016); https://

www.dhs.gov/uscis-processing-times-teleconference-recap# (accessed Mar. 

7, 2017). 349 Id. 350 Cases that cannot be adjudicated due to reasons beyond USCIS’ control are 

deducted from the active pending case total. This includes cases pending a 

response to an RFE or Notice of Intent to Deny, naturalization applications 

pending re-examination, applications impacted by visa retrogression, and 

petitions where a visa is not immediately available. Cases pending FBI name 

checks are included within the active pending case total. See Ombudsman 

Teleconference, “Processing Times,” supra note 348.

the posted processing times for the office to which their 

files have been transferred.351 

As of January 4, 2017, USCIS posts all processing times 

using a specific date format rather than weeks or months.352 

For form types outside of the processing time goals, the 

chart continues to reflect the receipt date of the most recent 

case that the office completed at the time of reporting. If a 

field office or service center is meeting the processing time 

goal, the specific date posted now reflects that processing 

time goal in a date format (for N-400 applications, the date 

displayed on the processing time chart will be 5 months 

prior to the reporting date). See Figure 5.2, Sample Current 

USCIS Processing Chart, Annotated. 

If the date posted falls after the date listed on the receipt 

notice, the application or petition is outside of the posted 

processing time. USCIS states that applicants should 

expect agency action (e.g., issuance of a decision, interview 

notice, RFE, etc.) within 30 days from the date their cases 

fall outside of the posted processing times.353 

While the new approach to posting processing times is an 

improvement, the revised processing times do not provide 

clarity into how the agency processes certain filings, 

such as concurrent filings and oversubscribed visas. For 

example, when Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 

Worker, is filed concurrently with Form I-485, Application 

to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, the 

processing time for each form type must be combined 

to calculate the true anticipated processing time.354 In 

contrast, stakeholders who file Form I-130, Petition for 

Alien Relative, concurrently with Form I-485 are not 

subject to aggregate processing times. The processing 

time for concurrently filed Forms I-130 and I-485 is 

reflected by the posted processing time for the I-485 at the 

respective field office.355 For Form I-918, Petition for U 

Nonimmigrant Status, the posted processing time does not 

reflect the time it takes for completion of the adjudication; 

rather, these dates reflect the time it takes to place selfpetitioners on the waiting list for U visas.356

USCIS indicated that it is considering various methods 

for revamping the methodology for calculating and 

351 See Ombudsman Teleconference, “Processing Times,” supra note 348. 352 USCIS email to stakeholders, “USCIS Now Uses Specific Dates to Show 

Case Processing Times,” supra note 344. 353 Id. 354 Ombudsman Teleconference, “Processing Times,” supra note 348; see also 

Ombudsman’s Annual Report 2015, pp. 85–86. 355 Information provided by USCIS (Apr. 11, 2017). 356 See 8 CFR § 214.14(d)(2); see also “U Visa Backlogs” in this Report supra at 

42–45; information provided by USCIS (May 9, 2017).

 Thanks and I do appreciate your 

response to my request for help. What 

you do is always give any petitioner like 

me a hope when we need it.
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES OMBUDSMAN | 57

Figure 5.2: Sample Current USCIS Processing Chart, Annotated

Source: USCIS Webpage, “USCIS Processing Time Information” (March 14, 2017)

FORM FORM NAME PROCESSING CASES 

AS OF DATE

JUNE 2, 2016

JULY 2, 2016

AUGUST 9, 2016

AUGUST 31, 2016

Last Updated: March 14, 2017

Immigrant Petition 

for Alien Worker

Application to 

Register Permanent 

Residence or to 

Adjust Status

Petition for 

Alien Relative

Application for 

Naturalization

I-140

I-485

I-130

N-400

When Form I-140 is led concurrently with 

Form I-485, the processing time for each 

form must be combined. The chart reects 

that this ofce is taking 7 months to 

process Form I-140, and 8 months to process 

Form I-485. Accordingly, the processing 

time for a concurrently led I-140/I-485 

is 15 months.

A

When Form I-130 is led concurrently with 

Form I-485, the ling is subject to the I-485 

processing time. The chart reects that this 

ofce is taking 8 months to process Form I-485. 

Therefore the processing time for both the 

I-130 and the I-485 is 8 months.

B

As of January 4, 2017, USCIS posts 

all processing times using a specic 

date format.

C

This ofce is not meeting the 

4-month processing time goal for 

Form I-140. June 2, 2016 reects 

the ling date of the last case 

the ofce completed.

D

If your Form I-485 receipt date is 

July 1, 2016, or earlier, your case is 

outside of USCIS processing times, 

and you should expect to hear from 

USCIS within 30 days. You may also 

submit an inquiry to USCIS.

E

If an RFE was issued in connection 

with your case, this date does not 

take into consideration the time 

expended responding to the RFE.

F

This date is 5 months prior to the 

January 31, 2017 reporting date. 

As such, this eld ofce is meeting 

the N-400 processing time goal.

G

This chart was last updated on 

March 14, 2017 using data reported 

on January 31, 2017. USCIS typically 

takes 45 days to receive, review, and 

post processing times.

H

Field Ofce Processing Dates as of: January 31, 2017

The chart reflects processing times this Field Office reported as of January 31, 2017.
58 | ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS JUNE 2017

posting processing time information. In its response to the 

Ombudsman’s 2015 Annual Report, USCIS stated it was 

working toward developing statistically-based methods for 

calculating processing times to account for deviations, and 

the intended outcome was to provide the filing community 

with a time range for the processing of their forms.357 

USCIS echoed this in its 2016 Fee Rule, indicating that it 

was considering publishing processing times using a range 

rather than a specific date.358 In February 2017, USCIS 

requested feedback from stakeholders concerning the 

following ways it is considering presenting case processing 

times: (1) time to complete a specific percentage of cases; 

(2) time range for completing most cases; and (3) average 

time to complete a case.359 

USCIS is also attempting to change the way it gathers 

processing time data from field offices and service 

centers. Due to the amount of time it currently takes 

USCIS to compile and process a responsible office’s 

statistics—typically 45 days—posted processing times 

are always based on outdated data.360 Rather than having 

these facilities self-report data, USCIS is experimenting 

with using data generated directly from case management 

systems, which will improve the timeliness and frequency 

of posting processing times on its website.361 

Ongoing Concerns

USCIS has experienced substantial challenges to 

developing a more timely and accurate methodology for 

calculating processing times. Field offices and service 

centers use multiple case management systems, and older 

systems do not capture all of the data points needed to 

perform accurate calculations. Also, the USCIS Office 

of Performance and Quality, tasked with calculating 

processing times, does not have access to these local 

systems, and must rely on offices to submit data.362 

USCIS conducts production planning, staffing analysis, and 

resource allocation through carefully tracking the receipt, 

progress, and inventory of cases, but these reports and 

data are not the same as the publicly available processing 

357 USCIS 2015 Annual Report Response, p. 40 (June 30, 2016). 358 2016 Fee Rule, 81 Fed. Reg. at 73308. 359 “USCIS Online Processing Times Feedback Questionnaire,” supra note 345. 360 Ombudsman Teleconference, “Processing Times,” supra note 348. 361 2016 Fee Rule, 81 Fed. Reg. at 73308; see also information provided by 

USCIS (Apr. 11, 2017). 362 Information provided by USCIS (Apr. 11, 2017).

time calculations.363 USCIS already relies upon this 

information to determine the resources necessary for the 

timely processing of petitions and applications, and should 

consider using it as part of its processing time calculations. 

More accurate and transparent processing times will assist 

in setting more realistic expectations for individuals and 

employers, preventing unnecessary customer service 

calls and requests, and measuring the agency’s success in 

meeting its processing goals. 

Mailing Issues 

Responsible USCIS Offices: Office of Intake and 

Document Production; Field Operations, Service 

Center Operations, and Customer Service and Public 

Engagement Directorates

Key Facts and Findings

 USCIS sends millions of notices and documents by 

mail every year. Despite recent improvements to 

USCIS mailing protocols, thousands of pieces of mail 

are not received as intended, returned as undeliverable, 

or delivered to someone other than the addressee. 

 When notices and documents do not reach their 

intended recipient, applicants and petitioners miss 

important appointments, deadlines, and documents. 

They may consequently fall out of status or be left 

without evidence of legal status or employment 

authorization—at times causing significant 

adverse consequences. 

 Improper delivery of notices and documents creates 

security vulnerabilities, including the potential for 

misuse of secure documents such as LPR cards 

or EADs. 

363 See “Oversight of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services: Ensuring 

Agency Priorities Comply with the Law” before the Senate Committee on 

the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest, 114th 

Cong. 1st Sess. 9 (Mar. 3, 2015) (joint written testimony of Joseph Moore, 

Senior Financial Official, USCIS; Donald Neufeld, Associate Director, 

Service Center Operations, USCIS; and Daniel Renaud, Associate Director, 

Field Operations, USCIS); https://www.uscis.gov/tools/resources-congress/

presentations-and-reports/oversight-us-citizenship-and-immigrationservices-ensuring-agency-priorities-comply-law-senate-committee-judiciarysubcommittee-immigration-and-national-interest-march-2015 (accessed Mar. 

8, 2017); see also USCIS Webpage, “Workload Transfer Updates;” https://

www.uscis.gov/workload-transfers (“On occasion, we transfer cases between 

our five service centers in order to balance our workload and promote timely 

processing”) (accessed May 1, 2017). 
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES OMBUDSMAN | 59

 USCIS should consider additional options for the 

delivery of notices and documents, including requiring 

a signature for secure documents, launching its 

planned “hold for pickup” pilot, and expanding use of 

pre-paid courier service mailing labels.

Background

Mailing issues continue to be a source of USCIS 

stakeholder frustration.364 More than half of the stakeholder 

service requests received by USCIS in FY 2016 related 

to changes of address or the delivery of notices or 

documents.365 USCIS reports that in FY 2016, 43,516 

LPR cards, 12,794 EADs, and 1,680 other documents were 

returned by the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) to USCIS as 

undeliverable.366 While a total of 57,990 lost documents 

is a small percentage of the yearly volume of millions of 

documents that successfully reach their intended recipients, 

it remains a significant number. In 2016, as in previous 

years, the Ombudsman received a number of requests for 

case assistance relating to mailing issues, many involving 

claims of missing documents. 

The regulations require that USCIS deliver “by ordinary 

mail” routine “notices, decisions, and other papers” to 

the applicant’s or petitioner’s “last known address.”367 In 

some cases, USCIS may deliver notices and decisions “by 

certified or registered mail, return receipt requested.”368 

Notably, the regulations also authorize USCIS to send 

notices and decisions, upon the stakeholder’s request, 

“by [email or by] posting the decision to the [applicant’s] 

USCIS account.”369 

Most non-U.S. citizens who are present in the United 

States must notify USCIS of any change of address 

within 10 days of moving.370 Such notification can be 

accomplished by submitting Form AR-11, Alien’s Change 

of Address, by mail or through the USCIS website. See

364 See Ombudsman’s Annual Report 2016, p. 40 and Ombudsman’s Annual 

Report 2015, pp. 81–82. 365 Information provided by USCIS (Mar. 24, 2017). 366 Id. 367 8 C.F.R. § 103.8(a)(1)(i). 368 8 C.F.R. § 103.8(a)(2)(iv). 369 8 C.F.R. § 103.8(a)(2)(v). 370 INA §§ 265 and 266, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1305 and 1306; 8 C.F.R. § 265.

Figure 5.3, USCIS Change of Address Webpage.371 

Filing the Form AR-11, however, does not update 

mailing addresses for any pending or recently approved 

applications or petitions. In fact, the individuals must 

submit through a separate process any updates to the 

mailing address associated with pending applications or 

petitions.372 Stakeholders are required to call the USCIS 

NCSC373 or, if applicable, update their address through a 

USCIS ELIS account online.374 

Figure 5.3: USCIS Change of Address Webpage

Source: USCIS Webpage, “Change of Address.”

371 USCIS Webpage, “Change of Address Information” (Feb. 23, 2017); http://

www.uscis.gov/addresschange (accessed Mar. 13, 2017). Service Requests for 

a change of address can be initiated by either calling the NCSC or completing 

a request on USCIS’ webpage at http://www.uscis.gov/addresschange. 

Service Requests are sent through USCIS’ Service Request Management Tool 

and routed to the USCIS office of jurisdiction. 372 Information provided by USCIS (May 8, 2017); see also USCIS Webpage, 

“Change of Address Information,” supra note 371. Service Requests for a 

change of address can be initiated by either calling the NCSC or completing a 

request on USCIS’ webpage at http://www.uscis.gov/addresschange. 373 USCIS reports receiving 501,672 service requests relating to change of 

address issues in FY 2016, which represented about 34% percent of the total 

service requests received. Information provided by USCIS (Mar. 24, 2017). 374 Information provided by USCIS (May 8, 2017) (explaining that “calling 

the NCSC will only update the mailing address for pending applications, 

and submitting a paper Form AR-11 will only update the residential address 

[to] satisfy statutory requirements); see also USCIS Webpage, “Change of 

Address;” https://egov.uscis.gov/coa/displayCOAForm.do (accessed Mar. 

13, 2017).
60 | ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS JUNE 2017

USCIS considers any document or notice not returned 

by USPS as having been properly delivered, regardless 

of whether there was an address change.375 Therefore, it 

becomes incumbent upon the petitioner or applicant to 

obtain from USPS proof of non-receipt. Absent proof that 

the document was improperly delivered, USCIS requires 

that the applicant file a new application—with filing fee—in 

order to obtain a replacement. Applicants must then wait 

for the new application to be adjudicated, which often takes 

several months. 

Since 2011, USCIS has delivered immigration documents, 

such as LPR cards and EADs, via USPS Priority Mail 

with Delivery Confirmation.376 This allows stakeholders 

to obtain a tracking number from USCIS and ascertain 

delivery status via the USPS website. USPS records and 

website, however, only show delivery confirmation to a 

city, state, and zip code, and not to a specific address. 

Pre-paid Courier Service Mailing Labels. USCIS began 

accepting some pre-paid courier service mailing labels with 

375 Information provided by USCIS in response to requests for case assistance. 376 USCIS Webpage, “USCIS Improves Delivery of Immigration Documents 

through Secure Mail Initiative” (May 2, 2011); http://www.uscis.gov/news/

uscis-improves-delivery-immigration-documents-through-secure-mailinitiative (accessed Mar. 13, 2017).

envelopes submitted with certain filings in late 2014.377 

USCIS does not accept pre-paid mailers for LPR cards 

or EADs, as the cards are almost always produced at a 

different facility from the offices where the applications 

are adjudicated. However, service centers may accept 

pre-paid mailers for mailing final decisions, including 

approval notices.378 

“Hold for Pickup” Pilot. In 2014, USCIS announced 

plans to launch a “hold for pickup” pilot allowing 

applicants to pick up LPR cards and EADs at their local 

U.S. Post Office.379 Under this pilot, USCIS would notify 

participating applicants via email that their cards are 

available for pickup. As of April 2017, USCIS did not have 

a start date for this pilot.380 The Ombudsman encourages 

USCIS to accelerate the launch of this pilot program, 

believing it will offer a welcome opportunity for exploring 

alternatives to the current process.

377 See USCIS Webpage, “Clarification: USCIS Customers Can Select Delivery 

Service to Receive Certain Documents” (Aug. 20, 2014); http://www.uscis.

gov/news/alerts/clarification-uscis-customers-can-select-delivery-servicereceive-certain-documents (accessed Mar. 13, 2017); USCIS Webpage, 

“USCIS Service and Office Locator: Use of a Courier Service to Receive 

Certain Notices, Decisions or Travel Documents”; https://egov.uscis.gov/

crisgwi/go?action=offices.type&OfficeLocator.office_type=SC (accessed Mar. 

13, 2017). 378 Information provided by USCIS (Apr. 12, 2017) (noting further that pre-paid 

courier mailing labels for travel authorization documents were accepted 

when adjudication of the applications and production of the documents were 

co-located, but this practice will be discontinued once production of these 

documents shifts to the production facility). 379 Ombudsman’s Annual Report 2016, p. 40. 380 Information provided by USCIS (Apr. 12, 2017).
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES OMBUDSMAN | 61

Address Changes in ELIS. As noted in previous reports, 

the anticipated benefits of electronic processing in ELIS, 

including the ability to maintain accurate change of 

address information, have been undermined by a myriad 

of technological problems and implementation delays.381 

In its March 2016 report, the OIG found that since ELIS 

was deployed in 2012, USCIS had delivered “potentially 

hundreds” of LPR cards to the wrong addresses.382 The 

OIG concluded that a system limitation in ELIS prevented 

the timely updating of address changes.383 According to the 

OIG, “[e]ven in cases where customers requested address 

changes, adjudicators were unable to update the system.”384 

In its November 2016 report, the OIG noted that ELIS 

“did not always accurately display address information, 

often eliminating or cutting off critical elements such as 

apartment numbers.”385 The OIG found that the number of 

LPR cards sent to the wrong addresses had “incrementally 

increased since 2013 due in part to complex processes for 

updating addresses, ELIS limitations, and factors beyond 

the agency’s control.”386 USCIS recently implemented a 

system correction in ELIS to enable applicants to change 

their address online and prevent the mailing of the LPR 

cards to a previous address.387 

381 See The Continuing Challenge of Transformation” in this Report supra at 

51–55; see also 2016 Annual Report, p. 41. 382 OIG Audit, “USCIS Automation of Immigration Benefits Processing Remains 

Ineffective,” OIG-16-48 at 28 (Mar. 9, 2016); https://www.oig.dhs.gov/assets/

Mgmt/2016/OIG-16-48-Mar16.pdf (accessed Mar. 13, 2017) (explaining 

that personnel at the Texas Service Center handling the correction of the 

erroneous deliveries were reported as saying “their only option for addressing 

the problem of incorrect addresses was to manually send out notices [to the 

erroneous addresses] with instructions on how to mail the cards back, but this 

was not effective”). See also OIG Audit, “Better Safeguards Are Needed in 

USCIS Green Card Issuance,” OIG-17-11 at 4 (Nov. 16, 2016); https://www.

oig.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/assets/2017/OIG-17-11-Nov16.pdf (accessed 

June 21, 2017). 383 OIG Audit, “USCIS Automation of Immigration Benefits Processing Remains 

Ineffective,” supra note 382 at 28. See also “The Continuing Challenge of 

Transformation” in this Report supra at 51–55. 384 Id. 385 OIG Audit, “Better Safeguards Are Needed in USCIS Green Card Issuance,” 

supra note 382 at 17. 386 Id. at 15. 387 “Immigration Benefits Vetting: Examining Critical Weaknesses in USCIS 

Systems,” before the Subcommittee on Oversight and Management Efficiency 

of the House Committee on Homeland Security, 115th Cong. 1st Sess. 4 

(2017) (Written testimony of Lori Scialabba, Acting USCIS Director); http://

docs.house.gov/meetings/HM/HM09/20170316/105629/HHRG-115-HM09-

Wstate-ScialabbaL-20170316.pdf (accessed May 10, 2017). 

Request for Case Assistance

An applicant contacted the Ombudsman because he did 

not receive his LPR card. Although he called the NCSC 

to submit a change of address prior to his card being 

mailed, USCIS mailed the LPR card to his old address. 

In response to the Ombudsman’s inquiry, USCIS stated 

that because USPS did not return the card to USCIS 

as undeliverable and because the address change was 

received after USCIS sent the card to production, the 

applicant would be required to file Form I-90, Application 

to Replace Permanent Resident Card, with the required 

$540 filing fee to obtain a replacement card.388 This 

applicant was forced to wait months to obtain evidence of 

LPR status, and pay an additional $540 filing fee, simply 

because he sought to change his address during the 

window of time between the approval of his application 

and the mailing of his card. Additionally, an LPR card with 

his personal information was issued and never returned to 

USCIS, leaving him vulnerable to identity theft and raising 

fraud and security concerns. 

Proposed Legislation to Mitigate Mailing Issues. 

Congress took up legislation in 2016 to address USCIS 

mailing issues. H.R. 4712 would have required USCIS to 

offer delivery with signature at the expense of the USCIS 

stakeholder.389 It passed the House on a voice vote, but 

went no further. Requiring a signature for delivery would 

help ensure that secure documents are delivered to their 

rightful recipients. 

Ongoing Concerns

Requests for case assistance regarding mailing problems 

are sometimes the result of USCIS error in entering the 

address, agency failure to timely record a change of 

address across its various systems, or technical errors 

such as incomplete addresses and mailing label printing 

errors. Regardless of the nature of the error, at times 

neither USCIS nor USPS are able to account for the 

document. While USPS may return a notice or document 

as undeliverable to USCIS, it may also improperly deliver 

it, leaving USCIS with no record of a mis-delivered 

document. 

Notice and document delivery problems are exacerbated 

by USCIS change of address procedures. The submission 

of Form AR-11 does not automatically update all USCIS 

388 Information provided by USCIS in response to request for case assistance. 389 H.R. 4712, 114th Cong. 2nd Sess. 3 (2016).
62 | ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS JUNE 2017

systems where there are pending applications or petitions, 

and changes of address requests submitted by mail “may 

take 3 to 7 days to process.”390 Due to system limitations, 

USCIS is not able to change the mailing address once a card 

or document goes into production.391 Further, there is no 

process for staff at card production facilities to verify that 

a document is being mailed to the correct address.392 As 

such, USCIS applicants who move while a case is pending 

may wish to ask their local post office to hold their mail. 

Change of address requests should be fully incorporated 

and linked to cases in process, including even after a card or 

document goes into production. USCIS also needs to rectify 

lingering ELIS issues that prevent systems from properly 

and timely recording changes of address. 

As in years past, the Ombudsman again encourages 

USCIS to consider alternative mailing options, including 

mailing secure documents with signature required for 

delivery to allow for more accurate tracking, implementing 

electronic delivery or online posting of notices and 

decisions, implementation of the proposed pilot program, 

390 Information provided by USCIS (May 8, 2017). 391 Id. But see OIG Audit, “Better Safeguards Are Needed in USCIS Green Card 

Issuance,” supra note 382 at 17 (noting that “[a]fter a card enters production, 

an address update can sometimes be accomplished during the 72-hour 

hold before printing and mailing, but only by certain individuals with the 

appropriate case access level”). 392 OIG Audit, “Better Safeguards Are Needed in USCIS Green Card Issuance,” 

supra note 382 at 10–11.

and expanded use of pre-paid couriers across offices 

and product lines.393 Additionally, the Ombudsman 

recommends USCIS advise the public that it will take up 

to 5 days to record a change of address; notify stakeholders 

promptly when their notices or documents are returned 

as undeliverable; and provide notice that the agency is 

currently unable to change mailing addresses once a card 

or document is sent to the production facility. To address 

both applicant frustration and security vulnerabilities, 

USCIS should continue to work closely with USPS to test 

improved protocols for delivering secure documents.394

393 See Ombudsman’s Annual Report 2016, p. 40. See also Ombudsman’s Annual 

Report 2015, p. 83. 394 The Ombudsman is encouraged by USCIS’ concurrence in the 

recommendations of the OIG regarding its card recovery plan. The agency 

engaged in a review of processes for card recovery efforts and lessons learned 

in order to develop a Standard Operating Procedure for these efforts. See OIG 

Audit, “Better Safeguards Are Needed in USCIS Green Card Issuance,” supra

note 382 at 27.
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES OMBUDSMAN | 63

Appendices

Ombudsman Recommendation Retrospective:

A Review of Ombudsman Recommendations Issued in the Last 5 Years

In conformity with statutory requirements, the Ombudsman makes formal recommendations to the USCIS Director. The 

agency has 3 months to respond in writing. This chart represents the Ombudsman’s recommendations issued since the last 

major review of recommendations in 2012, including the USCIS response and the current status. All of the Ombudsman’s 

recommendations and the USCIS responses can be found on the Office of the CIS Ombudsman’s website at 

https://www.dhs.gov/recommendations.

Recommendation

Date Issued: September 20, 2012 USCIS Response Implemented Active Declined Closed

54: Ensuring a Fair and Effective Asylum Process for 

Unaccompanied Children (UACs)

April 18, 2013

1. Accept jurisdiction of UAC cases referred by EOIR. Concurs in principle x x

2. Accept jurisdiction of cases filed by children in federal 

custody under HHS.

Concurs in principle x x

3. Follow established UAC-specific procedures, expand 

implementation of certain best practices, and enlist 

experts for quality assurance and training. 

Concurs in principle x x

4. Limit Headquarters review to a process that can be 

managed within 30 days.

Concur Implemented through case 

consolidation at the National 

Benefits Center.

5. Issue as soon as possible regulations regarding the 

UAC asylum process. 

Concur As of May 2017, regulations 

have not been issued but 

remain on the Federal 

Register Unified Agenda and 

Regulatory Plan.

x

Recommendation

Date Issued: November 26, 2012 USCIS Response Implemented Active Declined Closed

55: Adjudication of Applications and Petitions Under INA 

Section 204(l)

July 8, 2013

1. Conduct rulemaking to create or designate a standard 

form, establish a receipt protocol and describe an 

adjudication process consistent with the plain language 

of INA section 204(l).

Non-concur x

2. Train USCIS staff to interpret and apply properly INA 

section 204(l) and stop regarding survivor benefit 

requests as a form of discretionary reinstatement.

Non-concur USCIS stated it would send 

a reminder to officers on 

applying section 204(l) 

consistent with policy.

x

3. Publish instructions for applicants and petitioners as 

to the nature and extent of INA section 204(l) coverage 

and related benefit request processes.

Concur x

4. Track and monitor the processing of survivor 

benefit requests.

Concur As of May 2017, no 

public tracking.

x
64 | ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS JUNE 2017

Recommendation

Date Issued: February 28, 2013 USCIS Response Implemented Active Declined Closed

56: Improving the Process for Removal of Conditions 

on Residence for Spouses and Children

July 10, 2013

1. Provide timely, effective and accurate notice to 

petitioners and their attorneys or accredited 

representatives on I-751 receipt, processing and 

adjudication requirements and decisions.

Partially Concur USCIS committed to: (1) extracting 

the address from the AR-11 change 

of address information system; 

(2) updating the tracking system 

to give copies of notices to the 

petitioner and attorney of record; 

(3) providing additional guidance if 

an officer’s RFE is not clear; and (4) 

making processing improvements 

via Transformation. As of this time 

the I-751 is not being processed via 

ELIS (Transformation).

x

2. Ensure USCIS Adjudicator Field Manual (AFM) 

Chapter 25 is updated, accurate and complete, 

or create a superseding source of consolidated 

information for I-751 adjudications.

Concur The Policy Manual has not yet 

been updated for family-based 

conditional permanent residents. 

3. Train USCIS staff to apply the updated AFM or 

superseding guidance with emphasis on waiver 

standards and procedures.

Concur Updates to the Policy Manual have 

yet to be finalized. 

Recommendation

Date Issued: March 24, 2014 USCIS Response Implemented Active Declined Closed

57: Employment Eligibility for Derivatives of Conrad State 

30 Physician Program

July 14, 2014

1. Publish regulations that permit independently eligible 

J-2 dependents of J-1 physicians approved for a 

Conrad State 30 program waiver to change to other 

employment-authorized nonimmigrant classifications.

Concur There has been no regulatory 

movement on this issue, nor 

has it been added to the 

Unified Regulatory Agenda. 

x

2. Issue new policy guidance clearly explaining that 

J-2 visa holders, who are derivative beneficiaries of 

a Conrad State 30 program waiver, may change to 

any nonimmigrant status for which they are otherwise 

qualified and eligible.

Non-concur x
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES OMBUDSMAN | 65

Recommendation

Date Issued: June 11, 2014 USCIS Response Implemented Active Declined Closed

58: Improving Quality and Consistency in Notices to 

Appear (NTAs)

October 6, 2014

1. Provide additional guidance for NTA issuance with input 

from ICE and EOIR.

Concur USCIS sought input from ICE as it 

reviewed and updated its agency 

guidance for NTA issuance. This 

guidance remains under DHS 

review. USCIS updated the NTA 

section of the Consolidated 

Handbook of Adjudications 

Procedures to clarify NTA 

issuance to P.O. Boxes.

x

2. Require USCIS attorneys to review NTAs prior to their 

issuance and provide comprehensive legal training.

Partially Concur USCIS did not concur with the 

recommendation to have USCIS 

attorneys review all NTAs prior 

to issuance, but did concur on 

legal training. 

x

3. Create a working group with representation from ICE 

and EOIR to improve tracking, information-sharing, and 

coordination of NTA issuance.

Concur x

Recommendation

Date Issued: December 11, 2015 USCIS Response Implemented Active Declined Closed

59: Ensuring Process Efficiency and Legal Sufficiency in 

Special Immigrant Juvenile Adjudications

September 28, 2016

1. Centralize SIJ adjudications in a facility whose 

personnel are familiar with the sensitivities surrounding 

the adjudication of humanitarian benefits for 

vulnerable populations.

Concur Starting November 1, 2016, 

USCIS centralized processing 

of SIJ petitions and SIJ-based 

adjustment of status applications 

at the NBC.

x

2. Take into account the best interests of the child when 

applying criteria for interview waivers.

Partially Concur USCIS stated that referrals for 

interviews would occur only 

when necessary to secure 

information through an in-person 

assessment and sought input 

on interview waiver criteria from 

agency components.

x

3. Issue final SIJ regulations that fully incorporate all 

statutory amendments.

Partially Concur USCIS stated it would continue 

the rulemaking process, and 

update the USCIS Policy Manual 

in the interim.

x

4. Interpret the consent function consistently with the 

statute by according greater deference to State 

court findings.

Non-concur USCIS stated it “will generally 

defer to State court orders that 

(1) have been properly issued 

under State law; and (2) include 

or are supplemented by a 

reasonable factual basis that 

establishes the court order was 

sought for relief from abuse, 

neglect abandonment or a 

similar basis under State law, 

and not solely or primarily to 

obtain an immigration benefit.” 

x
66 | ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS JUNE 2017

Recommendation

Date Issued: June 16, 2016 USCIS Response Implemented Active Declined Closed

60: Parole for Eligible U Visa Principal and Derivative 

Petitioners Residing Abroad

September 29, 2016

1. USCIS should afford parole to eligible U visa petitioners 

on the waiting list and qualifying derivative family 

members who reside abroad by creating a policy to 

facilitate entry into the United States while waiting for a 

visa to become available.

Concur Although USCIS initially agreed 

with this recommendation, 

as of April 11, 2017, USCIS 

stated that it no longer plans 

to implement a parole process 

for principal and derivative 

petitioners residing abroad.

x

2. Allow for concurrent filings of the U visa petitions and 

requests for parole.

See #1 x

3. Cases should be adjudicated at the VSC to ensure 

consistent and effective adjudication.

See #1 x

Recommendation

Date Issued: December 12, 2016 USCIS Response Implemented Active Declined Closed

61: Recommendation on the Central American Minors 

(CAM) Refugee/Parole Program

Pending 

(due March 21, 2017)

1. USCIS, in coordination with DOS, should increase the 

volume of interviews and associated Refugee Access 

Verification Unit processing of CAM cases.

2. USCIS should permit access to counsel in 

CAM interviews.

3. USCIS, in coordination with DOS, should create a plain 

language, comprehensive CAM “Information Guide.”

4. USCIS, in coordination with DOS, should publish and 

regularly update CAM case processing times. 
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES OMBUDSMAN | 67

The Ombudsman by the Numbers

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

January February March April May June July August September October November December

Requests for Ombudsman Case Assistance Received by Month for 2015 and 2016 804 800899 845 8539361,002 1,2991,494

1,323

927

718

2015 (9,545) 2016 (11,900)

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

11,000

12,000

13,000

2013 2014 2015 2016

Requests for Ombudsman Case Assistance Received by Year

5,623

6,834

9,545

11,900

Requests for Ombudsman Case Assistance—Submission by Category 

2016

Family 

21% General

21%

Humanitarian

32%

Employment 

26%

2015

Family 

23%

General

17%

Humanitarian

35%

Employment 

26%

General form types include Form N-400, Form I-90, 

Form I-131, Form AR-11, Form N-600, and Form G-639.
68 | ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS JUNE 2017

California

Requests Received: 1,987

Top Primary Form Types: Count % of 

Total

I-821D, Consideration of Deferred Action for 

Childhood Arrivals 590 30%

I-485, Application to Register Permanent 

Residence or Adjust Status 289 15%

I-765, Application for Employment Authorization 239 12%

N-400, Application for Naturalization 158 8%

I-130, Petition for Alien Relative 109 5%

Texas

Requests Received: 1,254

Top Primary Form Types: Count % of 

Total

I-821D, Consideration of Deferred Action for 

Childhood Arrivals 289 23%

I-485, Application to Register Permanent 

Residence or Adjust Status 248 20%

N-400, Application for Naturalization 155 12%

I-765, Application for Employment Authorization 155 12%

I-130, Petition for Alien Relative 101 8%

New York

Requests Received: 1,214

Top Primary Form Types: Count % of 

Total

I-485, Application to Register Permanent 

Residence or Adjust Status 264 22%

I-765, Application for Employment Authorization 193 16%

I-130, Petition for Alien Relative 96 8%

N-400, Application for Naturalization 58 5%

I-821D, Consideration of Deferred Action for 

Childhood Arrivals 57 5%

Illinois

Requests Received: 774

Top Primary Form Types: Count % of 

Total

I-485, Application to Register Permanent 

Residence or Adjust Status 188 24%

I-130, Petition for Alien Relative 137 18%

I-765, Application for Employment Authorization 120 16%

I-821D, Consideration of Deferred Action for 

Childhood Arrivals 97 13%

N-400, Application for Naturalization 81 10%

Florida

Requests Received: 607

Top Primary Form Types: Count % of 

Total

I-485, Application to Register Permanent 

Residence or Adjust Status 104 17%

I-821D, Consideration of Deferred Action for 

Childhood Arrivals 83 14%

N-400, Application for Naturalization 82 14%

I-765, Application for Employment Authorization 79 13%

I-130, Petition for Alien Relative 66 11%

Top Primary Form Types # 

Received

% Increase from 

2015

I-821D, Consideration of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals 2,042 21%

I-765, Application for Employment Authorization 1,832 135%

N-400, Application for Naturalization 1,294 198%

I-130, Petition for Alien Relative 1,103 31%

I-485 (Other Classification), Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status (Other Classification) 745 21%

I-485 (Based on an I-130), Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status (Family-Based) 651 22%

I-485 (Based on an I-140), Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status (Employment-Based) 650 14%

I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker 285 18%

I-131, Application for Travel Document 248 23%

I-751, Petition to Remove the Conditions of Residence 245 31%

Top Five States Where Customers Reside and the Top Five Primary Form Types
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES OMBUDSMAN | 69

Delegation of Authorities
70 | ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS JUNE 2017
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES OMBUDSMAN | 71

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.

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 
72 | ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS JUNE 2017

for such administrative action as may be appropriate 

to resolve problems encountered by individuals 

and employers.

(e) PERSONNEL ACTIONS—

1) IN GENERAL—The Ombudsman shall have the 

responsibility and authority—

(A) To appoint local ombudsmen and make available at 

least 1 such ombudsman for each State; and

(B) To evaluate and take personnel actions (including 

dismissal) with respect to any employee of any local 

office of the Ombudsman.

2) CONSULTATION—The Ombudsman may consult 

with the appropriate supervisory personnel of the Bureau 

of Citizenship and Immigration Services in carrying out 

the Ombudsman’s responsibilities under this subsection.

(f) RESPONSIBILITIES OF BUREAU OF 

CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES—

The Director of the Bureau of Citizenship and 

Immigration Services shall establish procedures 

requiring a formal response to all recommendations 

submitted to such director by the Ombudsman within 3 

months after submission to such director.

(g) OPERATION OF LOCAL OFFICES—

1) IN GENERAL—Each local ombudsman—

(A) shall report to the Ombudsman or the delegate thereof;

(B) may consult with the appropriate supervisory personnel 

of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services 

regarding the daily operation of the local office of 

such ombudsman;

(C) shall, at the initial meeting with any individual or 

employer seeking the assistance of such local office, 

notify such individual or employer that the local offices 

of the Ombudsman operate independently of any other 

component of the Department and report directly to 

Congress through the Ombudsman; and

(D) at the local ombudsman’s discretion, may determine 

not to disclose to the Bureau of Citizenship and 

Immigration Services contact with, or information 

provided by, such individual or employer.

(2) MAINTENANCE OF INDEPENDENT 

COMMUNICATIONS—Each local office of the 

Ombudsman shall maintain a phone, facsimile, and 

other means of electronic communication access, 

and a post office address, that is separate from 

those maintained by the Bureau of Citizenship and 

Immigration Services, or any component of the Bureau 

of Citizenship and Immigration Services.
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES OMBUDSMAN | 73

Average Processing Times for USCIS Field Offices for Forms N-400, Application for Naturalization 

July–Sep. 2016 (FY 2016 4th Quarter)

Agana GU, 5.7

Charlotte Amalie VI, 5.0

Christiansted VI, X.X

San Juan PR, 6.1

Seattle, WA 5.4

Spokane WA, 5.5

Portland OR, 5.1 Yakima WA, 4.8

Portland ME, 5.2

Manchester NH, 5.1

Boston MA, 5.7

Providence RI, 4.6

Hartford CT, 5.5

Long Island NY, 6.3

Queens NY, 5.5 New York City NY, 7.2

Albany NY, 5.8

Buffalo NY, 5.8

Saint Albans VT, 5.5

Mount Laurel NJ, 5.4

Baltimore MD, 6.6

Philadelphia PA, 3.5

Newark NJ, 5.3

Washington DC, 6.6

Norfolk VA, 6.7

Raleigh NC, 4.8

Charlotte NC, 5.0

Atlanta GA, 5.7

Charleston SC, 5.4

Jacksonville FL, 6.0

Orlando FL, 5.7

Tampa FL, 5.3

West Palm Beach FL, 5.1

Oakland Park FL, 5.4

Miami FL, 5.4

Kendall FL, 5.1

Hialeah FL, 5.1

Pittsburgh PA,

5.6

Cleveland OH, 5.1

Detroit MI, 5.4 Milwaukee WI, 5.3

Chicago IL, 6.3

Saint Paul MN, 8.2

Columbus OH, 5.4

Louisville KY, 5.5

Cincinnati OH, 5.3 Indianapolis IN, 5.4

Des Moines IA, 8.3

Omaha NE, 4.7

Kansas City MO, 5.4

Saint Louis MO, 10.4

Memphis TN, 5.8

New Orleans LA, 5.7 Houston TX, 6.6

Dallas TX, 6.3

San Antonio TX, 6.4

Fort Smith AR, 5.1

Oklahoma City OK, 6.3

Wichita KS, 5.4

Denver CO, 5.6

Salt Lake City UT, 5.6

Helena MT, 5.3

Boise ID, 5.2

Albuquerque NM, 5.5

El Paso TX, 6.7

Tucson AZ/SUB, 5.5

Phoenix AZ, 6.6

Las Vegas NV, 5.8

Reno NV, 5.9

Sacramento CA, 5.3

San Francisco CA, 6.4

San Jose CA, 6.1

Fresno CA, 5.3

San Fernando Valley CA, 5.5

Santa Ana CA, 5.5

Los Angeles CA,4.9

Los Angeles County CA, 5.9

Harlingen TX, 6.5

San Diego CA, 4.3

Imperial CA, 5.0

San Bernardino CA, 5.2

Anchorage AK, 6.1

Honolulu HI, 5.1

Average Processing Times for USCIS Field Offices for Forms I-485, Application to Register Permanent 

Residence or Adjust Status

July–Sep. 2016 (FY 2016 4th Quarter)

Source: Information provided by USCIS.

Lawrence MA, 5.8

Agana GU, 6.6

Charlotte Amalie VI, 8.0

Christiansted VI, 8.0

San Juan PR, 8.2

Seattle, WA 6.5

Spokane WA, 10.5

Portland OR, 4.8 Yakima WA, 4.8

Portland ME, 7.4

Manchester NH, 5.8

Boston MA, 6.7

Providence RI, 5.4

Hartford CT, 7.5

Long Island NY, 9.5

Queens NY, 9.9 New York City NY, 9.4

Albany NY, 6.0

Buffalo NY, 5.7

Saint Albans VT, 7.7

Mount Laurel NJ, 5.9

Baltimore MD, 7.8

Philadelphia PA, 8.1

Newark NJ, 11.0

Washington DC, 8.4

Norfolk VA, 5.9

Raleigh NC, 4.4

Charlotte NC, 5.3

Atlanta GA, 5.6

Charleston SC, 5.2

Jacksonville FL, 4.8

Orlando FL, 6.4

Tampa FL, 5.4

West Palm Beach FL, 4.8

Oakland Park FL, 7.5

Miami FL, 7.0

Kendall FL, 5.2

Hialeah FL, 4.4

Pittsburgh PA,

5.8

Cleveland OH, 4.7

Detroit MI, 4.4 Milwaukee WI, 6.1

Chicago IL, 6.2

Saint Paul MN, 9.1

Columbus OH, 4.4

Louisville KY, 4.2

Cincinnati OH, 4.9 Indianapolis IN, 4.7

Des Moines IA, 10.4

Omaha NE, 9.6

Kansas City MO, 4.4

Saint Louis MO, 13.5

Memphis TN, 5.8

New Orleans LA, 7.0 Houston TX, 9.9

Dallas TX, 9.9

San Antonio TX, 6.5

Fort Smith AR, 6.6

Oklahoma City OK, 8.0

Wichita KS, 6.5

Denver CO, 9.4

Salt Lake City UT, 4.9

Helena MT, 15.8

Boise ID, 4.5

Albuquerque NM, 5.4

El Paso TX, 7.1

Tucson AZ/SUB, 8.9

Phoenix AZ, 6.0

Las Vegas NV, 7.5

Reno NV, 24.0

Sacramento CA, 5.1

San Francisco CA, 7.8

San Jose CA, 9.8

Fresno CA, 4.6

San Fernando Valley CA, 6.8

Santa Ana CA, 7.4

Los Angeles CA, 5.7

Los Angeles County CA, 6.7

Harlingen TX, 7.0

Imperial CA, 6.3

San Bernardino CA, 4.8

Anchorage AK, 7.1

Honolulu HI, 6.5

Source: Information provided by USCIS.

Lawrence MA, 5.3

Calexico CA, 7.5

= 0–5 months = 5–7 months = 7+ months

= 0–5 months = 5–7 months = 7+ months

USCIS Naturalization and Adjustment of Status Processing Times
74 | ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS JUNE 2017

How to Request Case Assistance from the Ombudsman: 

Scope of Assistance Provided

AFTER RECEIVING A REQUEST FOR 

CASE ASSISTANCE, THE OMBUDSMAN:

STEP 1

Provides a case 

submission number to 

conrm receipt.

STEP 5

Communicates to the 

customer the actions taken 

to help.

STEP 4

Contacts USCIS eld ofces, 

service centers, asylum ofces, 

or other USCIS ofces to help 

resolve difculties the individual 

or employer is encountering.

Submit an online request for 

case assistance available on 

the Ombudsman’s website at 

www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman.

Individuals submitting a request 

from outside the United States 

cannot use the online request 

form and must submit a hard copy 

case assistance request form.

Download a printable case 

assistance form (Form DHS-7001) 

from the Ombudsman's website 

www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman.

Mail:

Ofce of the Citizenship and 

Immigration Services Ombudsman

U.S. Department of 

Homeland Security 

Attention: Case Assistance

Mail Stop 0180

Washington, DC 20528-0180

Email: 

cisombudsman@hq.dhs.gov

Fax:

(202) 357-0042

STEP 3

Assesses the current status of the 

application or petition, reviews relevant 

laws and policies, and determines how 

the Ombudsman can help.

STEP 2

Reviews the request for completeness, 

including signatures and a Form G-28, 

Notice of Entry of Appearance as 

Attorney or Accredited Representative, 

if submitted by a legal representative.

Helping Individuals and Employers Resolve Problems with USCIS

Before asking the Ombudsman for help with an application or petition, try to resolve the issue with USCIS by:

▪ Obtaining information about the case at USCIS My Case Status at www.uscis.gov.

▪ Submitting an e-Request with USCIS online at https://egov.uscis.gov/e-Request.

▪ Contacting the USCIS National Customer Service Center (NCSC) for assistance at 1-800-375-5283.

▪ Making an InfoPass appointment to speak directly with a USCIS Immigration Services Ofcer in a eld ofce at www.infopass.uscis.gov.

SUBMIT A SIGNED CASE ASSISTANCE FORM 

AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION BY: 

If you are unable to resolve your

issue with USCIS, you may 

request assistance from the 

Ombudsman. Certain types of 

requests involving refugees, 

asylees, victims of violence, 

trafcking, and other crimes 

must be submitted with a 

handwritten signature for 

consent purposes. This can be 

done using Option 1 to the left 

and uploading a signed Form 

DHS-7001 to the online request 

for case assistance.

Option1 Option2

>

>

Request Assistance

> RECOMMENDED PROCESS
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES OMBUDSMAN | 75

AAO Administrative Appeals Office 

AC21 American Competitiveness in the 

21st Century Act 

ACWIA American Competitiveness and Workforce 

Improvement Act of 1998

AFM Adjudicator’s Field Manual 

AIT Advanced Individual Training

BIA Board of Immigration Appeals

CLAIMS Computer Linked Application Information 

Management System

CSC California Service Center 

DACA Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals

DEP Delayed Entry Program

DHS U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

DOD U.S. Department of Defense

DOL U.S. Department of Labor 

DOJ U.S. Department of Justice 

DOS U.S. Department of State 

EAD Employment Authorization Document 

ELIS Electronic Immigration System

EOIR Executive Office for Immigration Review 

FY Fiscal Year

GAO U.S. Government Accountability Office 

HSA Homeland Security Act

ICE U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

INA Immigration and Nationality Act 

INS Immigration and Naturalization Service 

MAVNI Military Accessions Vital to the National Interest 

MOU Memorandum of Understanding 

NBC National Benefits Center 

NCSC National Customer Service Center 

NOID Notice of Intent to Deny 

NRC National Records Center 

NSC Nebraska Service Center 

NTA Notice to Appear 

NVC National Visa Center 

OIG Office of Inspector General 

OPT Optional Practical Training

PRA Paperwork Reduction Act

PSC Potomac Service Center

RAIO Refugee, Asylum, and International Operations

RFE Request for Evidence 

SAVE Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements 

SMI Secure Mail Initiative 

SRMT Service Request Management Tool

TPS Temporary Protected Status 

TSC Texas Service Center 

TVPRA Trafficking Victims Protection 

Reauthorization Act 

UAC Unaccompanied Alien Children

USCIS U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 

USPS U.S. Postal Service 

VAWA Violence Against Women Act

VSC Vermont Service Center 

Acronyms


Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

U.S. Department of Homeland Security

Mail Stop 0180

Washington, DC 20528

Telephone: (202) 357-8100

Toll-free: 1-855-882-8100

http://www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman

Send your comments to: cisombudsman@hq.dhs.gov