Citizenship and Immigration Services

Annual Report 2010

June 30, 2010

Ombudsman

Citizenship and 

Immigration Services

Ombudsman

Annual 

Report 2010

June 30, 2010
ii

This page intentionally left blank.

Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman
Annual Report to Congress – June 2010 iii

Office of the Citizenship and Immigration 

Services Ombudsman

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

Mail Stop 1225 

Washington, DC 20528-1225 

June 30, 2010 

The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy The Honorable John Conyers, Jr. 

Chairman Chairman 

Committee on the Judiciary Committee on the Judiciary 

United States Senate United States House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20510 Washington, DC 20515 

The Honorable Jeff Sessions The Honorable Lamar Smith 

Ranking Member Ranking Member 

Committee on the Judiciary Committee on the Judiciary 

United States Senate United States House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20510 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 2010 Annual Report. 

I am available to provide additional information upon request. 

Most sincerely, 

January Contreras 

Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman 

www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman 

 
iv Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

This page intentionally left blank.
Annual Report to Congress – June 2010 v

Message from the Ombudsman

I am pleased to present the 2010 Annual Report for the Office of the Citizenship and Immigration Services 

Ombudsman, Department of Homeland Security. 

It is my privilege to serve as the Ombudsman. On a daily basis, my colleagues and I have the opportunity and 

the responsibility to help improve the public’s experience with our nation’s citizenship and immigration delivery 

system. We accomplish this on a one-on-one basis by assisting individuals and employers with resolving pending 

cases when they have exhausted other efforts, and we accomplish this systemically by recommending changes to 

U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) that can lead to more effective delivery of services. 

Over the past year, and particularly since the tenure of Director Alejandro Mayorkas began, USCIS has established 

an ambitious agenda. In acknowledgement of the significant work that must be done, USCIS established priorities 

that if achieved would lead it firmly on a path to providing more responsive government. These objectives include 

increasing engagement with the public, providing greater transparency, operating more efficiently, and creating 

agencywide uniformity and consistency in administering benefits. Key initiatives have begun in support of these 

objectives, many of which are addressed in this report. 

The immediate actions so far taken by USCIS are important ones. USCIS is now posting advance copies of draft 

policy guidance on its website for public comment, dedicating staff to engage stakeholders and obtain feedback 

on issues of concern, and, through an agencywide policy review, trying to identify the many inconsistent ways in 

which it may be evaluating applications and petitions. 

The challenge that USCIS now has is to ensure that these initiatives and others, such as working to address 

widespread concerns about Requests for Evidence, are carried through to a timely and meaningful result. This 

will require that USCIS leadership provide critical new directives and guidance, both internally and externally. As 

importantly, change will require new training, and aligned quality assurance and performance indicators to help 

individual employees – no matter which office, service center, or program they are a part of – work consistently 

with leadership priorities as they make decisions that impact lives and businesses every day. 

I extend my deep appreciation to my colleagues in the Ombudsman’s office for the commitment they bring to our 

work. It is through their case assistance, and research and analysis that this report is developed and our mission is 

carried out. Together, we look forward to continuing to provide thoughtful research and proposals that can help 

USCIS to best meet its objectives, and we make ourselves available to USCIS and the public to provide or obtain 

insight at anytime. 

We could not accomplish our work without input from the many community-based, faith-based, employmentfocused, and other national and local organizations focused on helping USCIS applicants and petitioners. 
vi Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

In addition, Director Mayorkas and USCIS staff members, at many levels, have facilitated dialogue to inform our 

work. I have interacted with many USCIS employees within various service centers, district and field offices, and 

directorates who are proud of their work and committed to serving customers. Furthermore, the continued support 

of Secretary Janet Napolitano, Deputy Secretary Jane Holl Lute, and Congress are critical to our ability to serve the 

public. 

Finally, I thank the applicants and petitioners themselves, whether they have reached out to our office or they have 

waited after a public event to share their story with me personally. Each time that I interact with a person or an 

employer who has stepped forward to navigate our nation’s complex citizenship and immigration system, I am 

reminded of how far we have to go, and left feeling a greater sense of inspiration and urgency in our collective work 

to be the responsive government that they are expecting.

Most sincerely,

January Contreras

Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

Department of Homeland Security
Annual Report to Congress – June 2010 vii

Executive Summary and

Annual Report Recommendations

This Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman 

(Ombudsman) Annual Report, the seventh since the office 

was established in 2003 pursuant to Section 452 of the 

Homeland Security Act, examines the road to responsive 

government in the delivery of immigration services by 

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). 

The Ombudsman assists members of the public – ranging 

from individuals and families to employers to national and 

international non-governmental organizations – to navigate 

the immigration benefits system. 

In keeping with the attributes of an ombudsman’s office, 

the Ombudsman is committed to working impartially, 

independently, and confidentially. Each of these 

characteristics is essential to ensuring that the office can 

effectively carry out its statutory mission to: 

• Assist individuals and employers in resolving problems 

with USCIS;

• Identify areas in which individuals and employers 

encounter problems dealing with USCIS; and 

• Propose changes to mitigate identified problems.

In this reporting year, USCIS has made progress toward 

reducing pending caseloads and increasing public 

engagement and transparency. Nonetheless, substantial 

challenges remain. As required by statute, this Annual 

Report summarizes the most pervasive and serious 

problems encountered by individuals and employers, which 

this year include:

Declining Receipts, Declining Revenue

• Due to the constraints of the current fee funded 

structure, USCIS obtains additional revenue by raising 

filing fees, redistributing monies, adding surcharges 

on applications, or by finding savings through reduced 

costs.

• A drop in receipts and corresponding revenue for an 

agency with a fixed federal workforce and ongoing 

contracts results in some programs being put on hold, 

such as the Secure Mail Initiative, and may put other 

efforts at risk in the future. 

• Low receipts allow USCIS to devote resources to 

improving processing times, for example, for 

Forms I-130 (Petition for Alien Relative) and I-601 

(Application for Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility). 

USCIS Modernization

• USCIS has reprioritized systems overhaul and process 

modernization, referred to as the Transformation 

Initiative. 

• Antiquated technology and case management systems 

continue to hinder USCIS personnel in their efforts to 

provide efficient and transparent immigration services 

and impede their resource allocation decisions. 

• Individuals and employers, as well as adjudicators, have 

yet to see tangible results of this critical initiative.

Employment and Family Green Card Queues

• Employers and families in the United States and 

throughout the world rely on a variety of immigration 

services to obtain legal temporary or permanent status 

for employees or relatives. 

• During the reporting period, USCIS took advantage 

of declining receipts and excess capacity to adjudicate 

(or pre-adjudicate, where there are visa queues due to 

annual statutory limits) pending employment-based 

green card applications. 

• USCIS and the U.S. Department of State (DOS), which 

manages the employment and family green card queues 

through the Visa Bulletin, now have near full visibility of 

the pending inventory of employment-based cases. 
viii Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

• Providing transparency to the public, USCIS published 

employment-based data, for the first time providing 

detailed information on the employment-based green 

card queues. 

• The Ombudsman has been working alongside 

USCIS and DOS to address low demand in the family 

categories. In FY 2010, the family-based cut-off 

dates advanced rapidly making many families eligible 

to apply for green cards, yet demand remains low and 

thousands of family-based visa numbers may go unused 

this fiscal year.

Requests for Evidence (RFEs)

• USCIS may issue RFEs before granting or denying 

the immigration benefit sought, but only to obtain 

additional information where that already provided is 

insufficient for adjudication.

• Stakeholders continue to express concerns with lack 

of standardization in adjudications, along with what 

they term unnecessary, inappropriate, overly-broad, or 

unduly labor-intensive RFEs. 

• The Ombudsman reviews and makes recommendations 

on RFE issues in the H-1B Specialty Occupation and L-1 

Intracompany Transferee categories.

Customer Service and Public Inquiries

• During the reporting period, USCIS has bolstered its 

outreach, establishing an Office of Public Engagement 

with senior leadership charged with proactively seeking 

public feedback on USCIS policy issues and new 

initiatives such as modernization of USCIS systems. In 

May 2010, USCIS established a website where it is now 

posting draft policy memoranda for public comment 

prior to final issuance. 

• The USCIS National Customer Service Center tollfree telephone line, in particular Tier 1 contractors 

who are required to read from scripts, continues to 

be a major source of frustration. Many customers are 

unable to correct a service error or receive meaningful 

information regarding their cases from the USCIS call 

centers. 

• During the reporting period, USCIS launched a new 

website designed to be more user-friendly and unveiled 

a Spanish language website for the first time. 

Additional Areas of Focus 

The Report also covers other relevant issues including:

• Military Immigration Issues 

• Special Immigrant Visas (SIVs)

• International Adoptions

• Separation of Derivatives/Principals 

• USCIS Adjudications for Individuals in Immigration 

Court Proceedings 

• Form N-648 (Medical Certification for Disability 

Exceptions)

• Haitian Temporary Protected Status (TPS)

Reporting Period Recommendations

During the reporting period, the Ombudsman made 

formal recommendations to improve USCIS services 

and responsiveness, also discussed herein, which 

cover humanitarian, family, and employer issues. This 

section of the report also includes the complete text 

of the recommendation regarding Form I-824, as that 

recommendation was ready for issuance shortly before the 

annual report due date.

Form I-824 (Application for Action on an Approved 

Application or Petition)

Individuals, families, and employers may file Form I-824 to 

obtain formal verification of USCIS’ approval of a previously 

submitted application or petition. The verification is often 

sought to trigger another benefit or process, including 

DOS processing of eligible family members (spouse 

and children) for issuance of derivative immigrant visas 

overseas, referred to as “following-to-join.” Processing 

times vary among USCIS facilities that adjudicate these 

filings, and the national three month processing goal is too 

long given the ministerial nature of this adjudication. In 

this study, the Ombudsman makes recommendations to 

standardize Form I-824 processing and notification delivery 

to improve customer service.
Annual Report to Congress – June 2010 ix

Waivers of Inadmissibility

Individuals seek inadmissibility waivers as a form of relief 

available to certain foreign nationals otherwise ineligible 

to enter the United States or adjust their status to that of a 

lawful permanent resident (green card holder). Challenges 

in the waiver process often discourage those who may 

otherwise seek a waiver. The Ombudsman identifies 

several ways to improve the inadmissibility waiver process, 

including permitting concurrent filing of Form I-601 

(Application for Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility) and 

Form I-130 (Petition for Alien Relative).

Emergent or Denied Refugee Applications 

Persons displaced from their home country by war or other 

qualifying reasons, including fleeing persecution, may 

seek refugee status. The Ombudsman reviewed, and made 

recommendations regarding three aspects of USCIS refugee 

adjudications: (1) expedited processing for applicants who 

find themselves in an exigent circumstance; (2) interviews 

leading USCIS to deny an application; and 

(3) denials prompting the filing of a Request for 

Reconsideration (RFR).

Temporary Acceptance of Filed Labor Condition 

Applications (LCAs) for Certain H-1B Filings 

Petitioners seeking an H-1B petition must first file an 

LCA with the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL). The 

Ombudsman made recommendations to mitigate the 

impact of DOL’s LCA processing difficulties. Coupled with 

USCIS’ H-1B petition initial filing requirements, these DOL 

problems were prejudicing employers and individuals by 

impairing their ability to timely file original or extension 

H-1B visa petitions.

The Ombudsman makes 20 recommendations in this 

Annual Report summarized on the following two pages:
x Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

Annual Report Recommendations

Requests for Evidence 

Recommendation 1

The Ombudsman recommends that USCIS implement 

new and expanded training to ensure that adjudicators 

understand and apply the “preponderance of the evidence” 

standard in adjudications. (AR2010-01)

Recommendation 2

The Ombudsman recommends that, consistent with 

applicable regulations, USCIS require adjudicators to specify 

the facts, circumstances, and/or derogatory information 

necessitating the issuance of an RFE. (AR2010-02)

Recommendation 3

The Ombudsman recommends that USCIS establish clear 

adjudicatory L-1B (Intracompany Transferees – Specialized 

Knowledge) guidelines through the structured notice and 

comment process of the Administrative Procedures Act. 

(AR2010-03)

Recommendation 4

The Ombudsman recommends that USCIS implement a 

pilot program requiring: (1) 100 percent supervisory RFE 

review of one or more product lines, and (2) an internal 

uniform checklist for adjudicators to complete prior to 

issuance of an RFE. (AR2010-04) 

USCIS Call Centers 

Recommendation 5

The Ombudsman recommends that USCIS provide a 

selection in the Interactive Voice Response (IVR) to 

immediately connect to a live representative who can 

respond or direct a call when none of the IVR options is 

appropriate. (AR2010-05)

Recommendation 6

The Ombudsman recommends that, first, USCIS utilize 

commercial technology that would enable more efficient 

and direct access to live assistance by providing an option 

in the IVR to immediately connect callers to: 

(1) Tier 1 Customer Service Representatives for basic, 

informational questions and (2) a Tier 2 Immigration 

Services Officer for questions on filed or pending cases. 

(AR2010-06)

Recommendation 7

The Ombudsman recommends that, second, USCIS 

eliminate the scripted information over a targeted period 

of time to enable the agency to train staff to answer basic 

immigration inquiries. (AR2010-07)

Recommendation 8

The Ombudsman recommends that USCIS designate a point 

of contact within each field office and service center to be 

available to Tier 2 supervisors: (1) to answer time sensitive 

inquiries including, for example, missing or lost Requests 

for Evidence (RFEs) in an individual’s file, and 

(2) to provide information on individual field office 

operations and procedures to respond to customers’ 

inquiries. (AR2010-08)

Recommendation 9

The Ombudsman recommends that USCIS routinely obtain 

information from all Tier 2 Immigration Services Officers 

as a resource to identify trends and resolve these issues of 

concern to customers and stakeholders. (AR2010-09)

Military Immigration Issues 

Recommendation 10

The Ombudsman recommends that USCIS provide military 

families the option to have the office with initial jurisdiction 

complete adjudications for family members of active duty 

personnel, even when the family relocates outside of the 

district. (AR2010-10)
Annual Report to Congress – June 2010 xi

USCIS and Removal Proceedings

Recommendation 11

The Ombudsman recommends that USCIS coordinate with 

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the 

Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) to provide 

the public with one document that specifies each agency’s 

responsibilities within the removal process and the basic 

steps and information that respondents need to know about 

the jurisdiction of each agency. (AR2010-11) 

Form N-648 (Medical Certification for Disability 

Exceptions) Processing

Recommendation 12

The Ombudsman recommends that USCIS assign one 

expert or supervisory adjudicator as the point of contact 

in each field office for the public, in accordance with the 

USCIS September 2007 N-648 guidance memorandum. 

(AR2010-12) 

Recommendation 13

The Ombudsman recommends that USCIS distribute, and 

make publicly available on the website, a training module 

for medical professionals who complete Form N-648. 

(AR2010-13)

Recommendation 14

The Ombudsman recommends that USCIS revise the 

current practices for processing Form N-648 to utilize 

experts to adjudicate the Medical Certification for Disability 

Exceptions. (AR2010-14)

Recommendation 15

The Ombudsman recommends that USCIS track the number 

of Forms N-648 filed, approved, and rejected, as well as 

other key information. (AR2010-15)

Form I-824 (Application for Action on an Approved 

Application or Petition) Processing

Recommendation 16

The Ombudsman recommends that USCIS establish a goal 

to process Forms I-824 requesting duplicate approval 

notices within days of receipting, and to process all other 

I-824s more expeditiously. (AR2010-16)

Recommendation 17

The Ombudsman recommends that USCIS evaluate 

the benefit of transferring Form I-824 (and related 

adjudicatory responsibility) to the USCIS facility that has 

physical possession of the underlying case file, if access 

to documents or information in the case file is necessary. 

(AR2010-17) 

Recommendation 18

The Ombudsman recommends that USCIS develop a 

national standard operating procedure (SOP) for the 

processing of Form I-824 (inclusive of adjudication 

and transmission of the final documents or notifications 

requested), and institute mandatory Form I-824 

adjudication and post-adjudication processing training for 

all USCIS adjudicators. (AR2010-18) 

Recommendation 19

The Ombudsman recommends that USCIS ensure the timely 

and accurate delivery of notifications to the DOS National 

Visa Center through the use of a tracked mail delivery 

service. (AR2010-19) 

Recommendation 20

The Ombudsman recommends that USCIS explore 

the development or enhancement of an electronic 

communication channel between USCIS and DOS capable 

of securely sending formal notifications on various 

immigration-related matters, including Form I-824. 

(AR2010-20) 
xii Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

This page intentionally left blank.
Annual Report to Congress – June 2010 xiii

Table of Contents

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

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

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

List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xv

THE CIS OMBUDSMAN – A STATUTORY MANDATE TO FACILITATE RESPONSIVE 

GOVERNMENT SERVICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

A. The CIS Ombudsman – Impartial, Independent, and Confidential. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

B. Systemic Issues – Identifying Obstacles to USCIS Responsiveness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

C. Case Assistance – Helping Customers Navigate the Immigration Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

D. Outreach – An Impartial Link to the Public . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

USCIS – THE CHALLENGES OF PROVIDING RESPONSIVE GOVERNMENT SERVICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Establishing the Roadmap – Addressing Pervasive and Serious Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

A. Declining Receipts, Declining Revenue – Challenges and Opportunities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

B. Transformation – The Promise of Modernization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

C. Employment and Family Green Card Processing – Newfound Transparency and Concerns. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

D. Requests for Evidence (RFEs) – When Are They Warranted? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

E. Customer Service – Providing Service and Support to the Customer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Destination Points in the Road to Responsive Government – Additional Areas of Focus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

A. Military Immigration Issues – Supporting Those Who Serve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

B. Special Immigrant Visas (SIVs) – A Wartime Congressional Mandate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

C. International Adoptions – Developing Agency Efficiencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

D. Separation of Derivatives/Principals – The Importance of Matching Practice and Policy 

to Facilitate Family Reunification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

E. USCIS Adjudications for Individuals in Immigration Court Proceedings – 

Focusing on Interagency Responsibilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

F. Form N-648 (Medical Certification for Disability Exceptions) Processing – Applicants 

and Adjudicators in Need of New Approaches. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

G. Haitian Temporary Protected Status – Mobilizing to Serve the Public in a Crisis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
xiv Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

Ombudsman 2010 Reporting Period Recommendations – Identifying Opportunities 

for More Responsive Government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

A. Recommendations to Improve the Timely Adjudication and Processing of Form I-824. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

B. Waivers of Inadmissibility: Additional Improvements Needed to Enhance the Current 

Filing Process and Minimize Reluctance to File. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

C. Emergent or Denied Refugee Applications: Expediting Cases, Articulating Reasons for 

Denial, and Issuing Guidance for Requests for Reconsideration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

D. Temporary Acceptance of Filed Labor Condition Applications (LCAs) for Certain H-1B Filings. . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

Selected Ombudsman 2009 Reporting Period Recommendations – Following-up on 

Responsive Government Pathways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

A. Employment Creation Immigrant Visa (EB-5) Program. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

B. Improving the Process for Victims of Human Trafficking and Certain Criminal Activity: 

The T and U Visas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

C. Observations on the E-Verify Experience in Arizona and Customer Service Enhancements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104

D. USCIS Processing Delays for Employment Authorization Documents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

Ombudsman Recommendations in Previous Years – Challenges Met and Those Remaining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

OMBUDSMAN PRIORITIES AND OBJECTIVES FOR THE COMING YEAR – 

MAPPING A COURSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

Appendices 

Appendix 1 – Homeland Security Act Excerpts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

Appendix 2 – DHS Organizational Chart. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

Appendix 3 – USCIS Realignment Organizational Chart. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

Appendix 4 – Glossary of Terms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

Appendix 5 – List of Abbreviations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
Annual Report to Congress – June 2010 xv

List of Figures

Figure 1: Flowchart for Inquiries to the Ombudsman. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Figure 2: Case Problems, 2010 Reporting Period. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 

Figure 3: USCIS Receipts and Fee Revenue (sorted by FY 2010 YTD). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Figure 4: Reimbursement Funds Allocated to USCIS – FY 2004-2010 YTD (Oct. - Mar.). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Figure 5: Naturalization Application Processing Times at USCIS Field Offices (Apr. 15, 2009). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Figure 6: Naturalization Application Processing Times at USCIS Field Offices (Mar. 31, 2010). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Figure 7: USCIS Filing Fee Adjustments – FY 1989-2007. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Figure 8: Premium Processing – FY 2004-2010 YTD (Oct. – Mar.). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Figure 9: Projected Transformation Timeline. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Figure 10: Sample Naturalization Certificate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Figure 11: H-1B Pre-Registration and Lottery System Snapshot. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Figure 12: Top Three Secure Documents Produced by USCIS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Figure 13: Delays in USCIS’ Secure Mail Initiative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Figure 14: FY 2009 Worldwide Usage of Employment-Based Visas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Figure 15: Form I-140 Pending Inventory Data (Jan. 2008 – Dec. 2009). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Figure 16: All Employment-Based I-485 Inventory Pending at Service Centers (as of Dec. 11, 2009). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Figure 17: U.S. Department of State Family Sponsored Waiting List (as of Nov. 1, 2009). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Figure 18: Sample Family Visa Timeline. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Figure 19: Unused Family and Employment Preference Visas – FY 1992-2009. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Figure 20: H-1B Requests for Evidence – FY 1995-2009. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Figure 21: L-1A Requests for Evidence – FY 1995-2009. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Figure 22: L-1B Requests for Evidence – FY 1995-2009. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Figure 23: Key Points from Request for Evidence Memoranda. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Figure 24: Sample Customer Service Representative Telephone Script. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Figure 25: Special Immigrant Visa Availability and Issuance in the Translator and U.S.-Affiliate Program. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

Figure 26: International Adoptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

Figure 27: Representation in Immigration Courts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

Figure 28: Map of Haiti. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

Figure 29: Worldwide USCIS Refugee Status Approvals, Denials, and Requests for Reconsideration – FY 2009. . . . . . . . . 93

Figure 30: Request for Reconsideration Filing Locations By Country of Interview. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

Figure 31: T Visas – FY 2005-2009. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

Figure 32: U Visas – FY 2005-2009. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

Figure 33: New E-Verify Web Interface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

Figure 34: CIS Ombudsman Recommendations Chart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
xvi Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

This page intentionally left blank.
Annual Report to Congress – June 2010 1

THE CIS OMBUDSMAN – A STATUTORY 

MANDATE TO FACILITATE RESPONSIVE 

GOVERNMENT SERVICES

A.	 The	CIS	Ombudsman	–	Impartial,	

Independent,	and	Confidential

The Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman 

(Ombudsman)1

 assists members of the public – ranging 

from individuals and families to employers to national and 

international non-governmental organizations – to navigate

the citizenship and immigration benefits system.2

 

The Ombudsman is committed to working impartially, independently, and confidentially. Each of these characteristic

is essential to ensuring that the Ombudsman can effectively

carry out its statutory mission3

 to: 

• Assist individuals and employers in resolving problems

with USCIS; 

• Identify areas in which individuals and employers 

encounter problems dealing with USCIS; and 

• Propose changes to mitigate identified problems.

The Ombudsman accomplishes this mission in three 

major ways. 

First, the Ombudsman helps individuals and employers 

with pending applications that have not been resolved due 

to undue delay or other service issues. For applicants and 

s 

petitioners, or their representatives, who have tried unsuccessfully to resolve issues with a pending USCIS application 

or petition, the Ombudsman assists by reviewing the facts 

and status of the specific case and working alongside USCIS 

towards resolution. 

Second, the Ombudsman helps the public by identifying 

areas in which USCIS could improve the administration of a 

particular benefit or process. Specifically, the Ombudsman 

encourages efficient and transparent customer service by 

reviewing systemic problems that the public encounters 

with USCIS delivery of benefits. From such reviews, the 

Ombudsman issues recommendations that identify best 

practices and proposes actions that USCIS can implement to 

mitigate systemic problems.

Third, the Ombudsman interacts frequently with nongovernmental stakeholders, such as community and faithbased organizations, legal and employer organizations, and 

individuals who have first-hand experience in navigating 

USCIS services. In addition, the Ombudsman meets with 

USCIS leadership and employees, who have insight into 

agency operations, and with other government partners, to 

inform the work of the office. Through these interactions, 

the Ombudsman maintains real time knowledge of current 

issues affecting the public, including individuals and 

employers, as well as USCIS efforts to address those issues.

The Ombudsman issues a narrative account of its efforts in 

achieving these objectives in the form of an annual report 

to Congress, pursuant to 6 U.S.C. § 272(c)(1). The current 

report references information and data from May 1, 2009 

through March 31, 2010. Also included are significant 

developments that occurred through June 2010. 

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

the Ombudsman’s office.

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

of the immigration benefits system (contrasted with enforcement). 

Primary immigration benefits include lawful nonimmigrant status, 

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

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

for those already present in the United States, upon “adjustment 

of status”), naturalization, asylum, etc. Secondary immigration 

benefits or interim benefits include work permits (i.e., Employment 

Authorization Documents, or EADs) and travel documents 

(e.g., Advance Parole) obtained while awaiting a primary benefit.

3 Homeland Security Act of 2002, § 452; 6 U.S.C. § 272. 

See Appendix 1 for excerpts of relevant sections of the Act.
2 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

The Ombudsman was established by Congress in 2002.4 

The Ombudsman is appointed by the Secretary of the 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and reports 

directly to the Deputy Secretary. The office often provides a 

unique perspective because of its impartiality, independent 

status,5

 and ability to obtain input directly from customers, 

stakeholders, and USCIS officials. Equally important, the 

Ombudsman provides an avenue, outside of USCIS and 

without resorting to litigation, to resolve problems, while 

ensuring confidentiality and privacy.

While the term “Ombudsman” is unfamiliar to many in 

the United States, it often is well-known in other countries. 

Ombudsman positions are created by many governments 

precisely to provide the public with leadership that is 

accessible to all, maintains the confidentiality of those 

who are seeking help with a problem, and can inform 

both the public and the government about the state of 

government services in a fair and impartial manner. The 

modern “Ombudsman” was established in Sweden in 1809 

to examine citizen complaints about the government and 

advocate for fair process. 

B.	 Systemic	Issues	–	Identifying		

Obstacles	to	USCIS	Responsiveness

The Ombudsman uses multiple resources to identify and 

research systemic issues for recommendations to USCIS. 

For example, case problems or email inquiries submitted 

by individuals and employers may be the starting point for 

analysis, or can inform ongoing studies. The Ombudsman 

also has regular interaction with community-based 

organizations, employer associations, and the immigration 

legal community nationwide, as well as with USCIS 

personnel at Headquarters, service centers, and field offices 

to learn about systemic issues.

In keeping with standard ombudsman practices, this office 

reviews issues impartially. Specifically, the Ombudsman 

seeks and regularly receives representative viewpoints from 

a wide spectrum of individuals, organizations, and government entities. Other outreach tools such as teleconferences 

also provide information for this research. 

The Ombudsman analyzes USCIS data and reports to identify trends in the agency’s workload, processing, and service. 

In addition, the Ombudsman engages with other DHS 

components, other government agencies, and Congress, 

where appropriate, to foster interagency cooperation and 

to gain an understanding of the unique challenges in the 

delivery of immigration benefits to qualified applicants. 

Finally, at the end of the process of problem identification 

and research, data gathering and analysis, and internal review, the Ombudsman may issue a formal recommendation 

to USCIS on how to improve a process or operation to assist 

individuals and employers. In addition, the Ombudsman 

may also informally make recommendations to USCIS or 

present research, analysis, and recommendations in other 

published forms, such as in the annual report.

4 Homeland Security Act of 2002, § 452; 6 U.S.C. § 272. 

5 Section 452 of the Homeland Security Act (6 U.S.C. § 272) mandates 

that the Ombudsman report directly to the Deputy Secretary of 

DHS (as does the USCIS Director under Section 451) and submit an 

annual report to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees without 

comment or amendment from DHS officers or employees or from 

the Office of Management and Budget. See Appendix 1.
Annual Report to Congress – June 2010 3

C.	 Case	Assistance	–	Helping	Customers	

Navigate	the	Immigration	Process

Assisting with individual and employer case problems is a 

key part of the Ombudsman’s mission. The Ombudsman receives cases most often from applicants and their employers, 

attorneys or other representatives, but also from nongovernmental organizations and government partners. If an 

individual has a case pending before USCIS and presents an 

issue involving delay, error, or some complicating factor, the 

Ombudsman will work to help resolve the individual’s case. 

The Ombudsman encourages individuals to first utilize the 

USCIS resources available for assistance such as the National 

Customer Service Center or an INFOPASS appointment at a 

field office. 

As part of the case problem review, the Ombudsman seeks 

to validate the facts and issues presented by checking 

USCIS data systems and relevant legal authorities, as well 

as through additional discussions with the applicant or the 

applicant’s representative and USCIS or other governmental 

agencies, as needed. The Ombudsman then determines 

whether a case qualifies for expedited response. Currently, 

if the case does not present an emergent situation, the 

Ombudsman will send it, together with a recommended 

resolution, to the USCIS Customer Assistance Office. By 

comparison, to ensure that emergent cases receive 

priority handling, the Ombudsman brings them directly to 

the attention of senior USCIS officials.

The Ombudsman conducts outreach to ensure that 

individuals, employers, and stakeholders are aware of the 

office’s case problem resolution capabilities, and continuously seeks to improve the case resolution process. 

Individuals and employers seek immigration assistance from 

the Ombudsman via letter (via postal or courier delivery), 

email (with scanned documents attached), facsimile, and 

telephone. For privacy reasons, the Ombudsman only 

accepts case problems with an original or scanned signature. 

To facilitate the submission of case problems, the 

Ombudsman developed and posted DHS Form 7001 

(Case Problem Submission Worksheet) on its website at 

www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman. There is no fee to access 

or submit the form. The Ombudsman also is developing 

additional avenues for case submission.

During the May 1, 2009 through March 31, 2010 reporting 

period, the Ombudsman opened 3,234 case problems. Of 

the cases received, 1,862 or approximately 58 percent were 

referred to USCIS on a non-emergent basis for further action or final resolution. Of the approximately 42 percent of 

cases not referred to USCIS, the Ombudsman issued a direct 

response to the customer. Some of these cases are resolved 

by the Ombudsman as expedited cases, or otherwise. In 

some cases, USCIS has no jurisdiction or the customer has a 

general complaint or recommendation to the Ombudsman 

concerning a USCIS policy or process. See Figure 1.

In addition to case submissions, during the reporting 

period, the Ombudsman received approximately 8,000 

requests for assistance or suggestions by email. In response 

to general information requests and/or for matters beyond 

USCIS jurisdiction, the Ombudsman provides information 

and weblinks to online resources. In addition to directing 

inquirers to information on the USCIS website and those 

of other DHS components such as U.S. Immigration 

and Customs Enforcement and U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection, the Ombudsman also refers people to other 

federal agencies, including the U.S. Department of State, the 

U.S. Social Security Administration, and the U.S. Department 

of Labor. 

1. Factors for Identifying Emergent Cases

In January 2009, the Ombudsman signed a Memorandum 

of Understanding (MOU) with USCIS. This agreement 

facilitates the Ombudsman’s fulfillment of its statutory 

mission by establishing a framework for durable and 

productive relations with USCIS. Among interactions 

it enumerates, the MOU outlines the processes for case 

problem resolution, the exchange of information, and the 

coordination of site visits. 

Under the terms of the MOU pertaining to emergent cases, 

the Ombudsman may inquire directly with the USCIS office 

having jurisdiction over the application or petition where 

one of seven criteria is present: “(1) severe financial loss to 

company or individual; (2) extreme emergent situation; 
4 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

Figure 1: Flowchart for Inquiries to the Ombudsman 
Annual Report to Congress – June 2010 5

(3) humanitarian situation; (4) nonprofit status of 

requesting organization in furtherance of the cultural and 

societal interests on the United States; (5) U.S. Department 

of Defense or National Interest Situation (the request must 

come from an official United States Government entity and 

state that delay will be detrimental to our government); 

(6) service error; or (7) compelling interest of the service.”6

 

These criteria are consistent with those established by the 

agency in 2001. In response to qualifying emergent cases, 

the Ombudsman is able to resolve many problems with 

USCIS in a few days, thereby enhancing customer service 

for individuals and employers. For other cases, the 

customer may expect a response in up to 45 days. The 

Ombudsman and USCIS are currently conducting their 

annual MOU review to revise and strengthen its terms for 

the benefit of customers. 

OMBUDSMAN CASE ASSISTANCE

A 25 year old woman emigrated from an African 

country and married a U.S. citizen. Before she could 

gain legal status in the United States, she suffered 

physical abuse and death threats from her spouse, 

requiring police and court intervention. She separated 

from her spouse and moved to another state. Before 

moving, she applied for legal status under the U visa 

program, and also sought employment authorization. 

After seven months, she contacted the Ombudsman to 

determine the status of her applications. The service 

center informed the Ombudsman that the application 

did not contain a police certification of the abuse 

(without which the application could not be approved). 

With the applicant’s approval, the Ombudsman 

contacted the police agency to obtain the information 

for the U visa and facilitated the transfer of the proper 

documents to the service center. Staff at the Vermont 

Service Center quickly joined the certification with the 

file and approved the U visa.

OMBUDSMAN CASE ASSISTANCE

A French national filed his green card application as a 

derivative beneficiary of his father’s employment-based 

application. USCIS approved the father and other 

family members’ applications in early 2008. The 

son’s case was separated from the others, and it was 

not adjudicated when other family members’ cases 

were approved. More than a year and a half later, 

the son contacted the Ombudsman for assistance. 

The Ombudsman determined that the application 

was pending at a service center, even though the 

priority date was current and the case was otherwise 

adjudication ready. The Ombudsman requested that 

USCIS expedite processing, and the agency approved the 

case shortly thereafter.

2. Case Problem Issues: Cases Pending Past 

Processing Times; Service Error; and 

Customer Service

The Ombudsman tracks cases submitted to identify trends 

and, thereby, develop systemic recommendations. 

The most common type of problem received during 

this reporting period involved lengthy processing time. 

Currently, individuals seeking an immigration benefit 

can monitor the status of their case and determine the 

average processing times for various USCIS petitions 

and applications via the “My Case Status” tool on USCIS’ 

website.7

 With the exception of emergent cases, the 

Ombudsman encourages customers to use this resource 

and to wait for normal processing times to occur prior to 

requesting assistance with a case. 

Of the 3,234 case problems received by the Ombudsman 

between May 1, 2009 and March 31, 2010, 1,646 or almost 

51 percent involved processing delays. In comparison, 

during the 2009 reporting period, 74 percent of the 

complaints received were due to various processing delays.8

 

The decrease in processing delay complaints is likely due to 

an overall improvement in USCIS processing times during 

the reporting period. 

6 Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) Interoffice 

Memorandum, “Service Center Guidance for Expedite Requests on 

Petitions and Applications” (Nov. 30, 2001). 

7 See https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/Dashboard.do 

(accessed May 24, 2010).

8 Ombudsman’s Annual Report 2009, p. 83.
6 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

Figure 2: Case Problems, 2010 Reporting Period9

Total Received 3,234

Sent to USCIS with Recommended Solutions 1,862

Long Processing Delays 1,646

Service Error 617

Lack of Response from USCIS/Customer Did 

Not Receive Document

342

Incorrect Legal/Factual Decision 100

Other Service Errors 65

Paperwork Lost 57

Inaccurate Information Provided by USCIS 53

Customer Service 754

FBI Name Check 94

As shown in Figure 2, there were 617 inquiries related to 

service error. The Ombudsman also received 754 complaints from customers regarding USCIS customer service of 

which 457 related to service centers.

D.	 Outreach	–	An	Impartial	Link	to	

the	Public

The Ombudsman is committed to expanding the office’s 

interaction with the public. During this reporting period, 

the Ombudsman met with stakeholder organizations in 

a variety of settings and with USCIS officials at facilities 

nationwide to better understand the challenges to, and learn 

about best practices in, the delivery of citizenship 

and immigration services. Additionally, the office 

participated in stakeholder meetings, attended conferences, 

and held public teleconferences.

During the reporting period, the Ombudsman increased 

outreach to diverse organizations. In addition to meeting 

with existing stakeholders, these efforts involved identifying 

and visiting new stakeholder organizations to introduce 

office services and explain how the Ombudsman may 

assist them and the people they serve. From faith-based 

organizations to grassroots coalitions to domestic violence 

service providers, the Ombudsman seeks interactions 

with stakeholders who have the experience and insight to 

further inform and enhance the work of the office. The 

Ombudsman also seeks to learn about obstacles as well as 

best practices the public experiences with the delivery of 

citizenship and immigration services. 

The Ombudsman continued to offer public teleconferences. 

These teleconferences are an opportunity for USCIS customers and stakeholders to ask questions, express concerns, 

and identify best practices on specific topics or regarding 

particular USCIS offices. Teleconference topics this year 

included: USCIS Change of Address; Refugee Processing; 

I-601 Inadmissibility Waivers; USCIS Fee Waivers; 

Emergency Advance Parole Filings at Local Offices; USCIS 

Adoption Petition Processing; and USCIS Website Redesign.

The Ombudsman also provides “Ombudsman Updates,” 

which are an outreach tool for sharing or gathering 

information on current trends and issues experienced by 

individuals and employers with USCIS. In this reporting 

period, the Ombudsman issued seven updates: Advance 

Parole Tips; Reporting Changes of Addresses to USCIS; 

Rapid Movement of Family-Based Visa Bulletin Cut-Off 

Dates; Mailing Issues: Have You Not Received a USCIS 

9 Most case problems involve more than one issue and the 

Ombudsman tracks all of the issues raised by each case. Therefore, 

the total number of issues exceeds the number of cases received or 

referred.
Annual Report to Congress – June 2010 7

Document or Card; Getting the Most Out of Your Call 

to the USCIS National Customer Service Center; 

Immigration Information and Resources Available in 

Response to Haiti Earthquake; and Pending Derivative Form 

I-485s Due to File Separation.10

As an example, the Ombudsman published an update to 

help customers with the USCIS National Customer Service 

Center, the agency’s toll-free telephone line. This update, 

“Getting the Most Out of Your Call to the USCIS National 

Customer Service Center,” provides information on the type 

of assistance each tier of the two-tiered call center can and 

cannot provide, as well as how to prepare to get the most 

out of the call. As noted in the update, the Ombudsman 

can request that USCIS review a specific National Customer 

Service Center call to further understand and assist with a 

customer inquiry, if the call was within 90 days of contacting the Ombudsman.

10 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman (accessed June 29, 2010).
8 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

This page intentionally left blank.
Annual Report to Congress – June 2010 9

USCIS – THE CHALLENGES OF PROVIDING 

RESPONSIVE GOVERNMENT SERVICES

Establishing the Roadmap – Addressing Pervasive and 

Serious Problems

As required by statute (Section 452(c)(1)(B)), the 

Ombudsman’s Annual Report includes a “summary of 

the most pervasive and serious problems encountered by 

individuals and employers.” This year’s Annual Report 

details pervasive and serious problems that have impacted 

immigration benefits processing, such as challenges amidst 

an environment of declining receipts and declining revenue, 

the USCIS Transformation Initiative, employment and family 

green card processing, Requests for Evidence (RFEs), and 

customer service. This section also highlights key initiatives 

to address these pervasive and serious problems, including 

expanded USCIS public engagement, and effective use of 

excess capacity to reduce processing times and the number 

of certain long pending petitions.

The Ombudsman also notes that, in April 2010, USCIS 

announced an initiative to review all agency policies with a 

goal of creating consistency in processing of benefits across 

the agency. Since the announcement, USCIS has asked its 

own staff and the public to help identify the most pressing 

areas that require alignment sooner rather than later. The 

implementation of change based on this initiative will likely 

have implications across policy and program areas. While 

this will be a multi-year effort for USCIS, the Ombudsman 

encourages swift action on the policies determined to be 

priority areas.

A.		 Declining	Receipts,	Declining	

Revenue	–	Challenges	and	

Opportunities

In the 2010 reporting period, there was a decline in 

immigration receipts and a corresponding decline in 

fee-generated revenue for USCIS. An advantage of this 

downward trend is that USCIS has cut processing times and 

reduced the number of certain long pending petitions and 

applications. At the same time, a disadvantage is the delay of 

planned service initiatives as well as the potential reduction 

of other initiatives. 

“USCIS continues to face a marked decline in fee 

revenue from levels projected prior to the downturn in 

the economy.”11

Alejandro Mayorkas

Director, USCIS

The recent declining receipts, declining revenue environment 

brings to light the challenges associated with operating a budget that must rely primarily on fee-based revenue. This funding 

structure leaves the agency in a reactive cycle lacking stability 

and predictability, concerns described by the Ombudsman in 

previous years:12

• During periods of high receipts, USCIS receives 

high revenue, but often struggles to maintain target 

processing times due to the increase in workload and an 

11 See “FY 2011 Citizenship and Immigration Services Budget,” 

before the Subcommittee on Homeland Security of the U.S. House of 

Representatives Committee on Appropriations, 111th Cong. 2nd Sess. 

4-5 (2010) (statement of Alejandro Mayorkas, USCIS Director).

12 See Ombudsman’s Annual Reports 2009, pp. 3-6, 19-21; 2008, 

pp. 21-24.
10 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

Figure 3: USCIS Receipts and Fee Revenue (sorted by FY 2010 YTD) ($1,000,000s)

FY 2010 YTD 

(Oct. – Mar.) Form FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009

I-485 (Application to Register Permanent 

Residence or Adjust Status)

 $ 137 $ 184 $ 160 $ 278 $ 448 $ 400 $ 189

N-400 (Application for Naturalization) $ 181 $ 184 $ 233 $ 391 $ 375 $ 320 $ 191 

I-130 (Petition for Alien Relative) $ 97 $ 122 $ 141 $ 166 $ 226 $ 231 $ 114 

Biometrics Fee - Photograph and 

Fingerprint Fee

 $ 77 $ 118 $ 165 $ 209 $ 175 $ 163 $ 78 

I-90 (Application to Replace Permanent 

Resident Card)

 $ 87 $ 111 $ 122 $ 120 $ 133 $ 128 $ 78 

Premium Processing $ 202 $ 139 $ 160 $ 212 $ 163 $ 135 $ 59 

I-765 (Application for 

Employment Authorization)

 $ 205 $ 284 $ 241 $ 234 $ 276 $ 228 $ 58 

I-129 (Petition for 

Nonimmigrant Worker)

 $ 64 $ 69 $ 79 $ 91 $ 131 $ 112 $ 42 

I-751 (Petition to Remove the Conditions 

of Residence)

 $ 27 $ 21 $ 27 $ 33 $ 96 $ 83 $ 40 

I-131 (Application for Travel Document) $ 58 $ 62 $ 62 $ 85 $ 90 $ 68 $ 30 

I-539 (Application to Extend/Change 

Nonimmigrant Status)

 $ 40 $ 43 $ 46 $ 47 $ 57 $ 51 $ 22 

I-140 (Immigration Petition for 

Alien Worker)

 $ 13 $ 14 $ 26 $ 46 $ 56 $ 27 $ 14 

Subtotal $ 1,188 $ 1,351 $ 1,462 $ 1,912 $ 2,226 $ 1,946 $ 915 

Total USCIS Revenue $ 1,000 

Total USCIS Receipts 5,937,734 6,240,007 6,257,016 7,628,334 4,884,795 5,122,049 2,272,941

Note: Receipts based on Domestic Operations data.

Sources: Data provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman (Apr. 1, 2010, Apr. 6, 2010, May 6, 2010, May 20, 2010, and May 24, 2010); Ombudsman’s Annual Reports 

2007, p. 47; 2006, pp. 22-23. 

inability to scale up staffing and operations in advance 

of the increase. 

• During periods of low receipts, USCIS receives low 

revenue but has the excess staffing capacity to improve 

processing times.

• Unless additional funds are allocated for new initiatives 

or improvements to existing systems, the costs are paid 

for by customers filing at that time who do not reap 

the benefits of processing improvements made later. 

Moreover, funding new projects may require additional 

fee increases. 

• Increased filing fees are a hardship for many families 

and may effectively deter individuals from seeking 

immigration or citizenship benefits. 

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) of 1952, 

as amended, provides for the collection of filing fees 

to support the costs of processing immigration benefit 

applications and petitions.13 In 1988, the President 

signed legislation directing the legacy Immigration and 

Naturalization Service (INS) to establish the Immigration 

Examination Fee Account, which acts as the primary 

depository for USCIS filing fees.14 As such, USCIS 

relies primarily on revenue from customers rather than 

appropriated funds to conduct its day-to-day operations. 

13 See INA § 286(m). 

14 See Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, 

and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1989, § 209, 

Pub. L. No. 100-459. 
Annual Report to Congress – June 2010 11

USCIS receipt numbers and revenue have fluctuated as a 

result of factors that likely include legislative amendments, 

economic shifts, immigration trends, and procedural 

changes, notably, USCIS fee increases. 

In recent years, USCIS has received limited appropriated 

funding to support specific initiatives, including, but not 

limited to, adjudication of asylum claims and refugee applications (for which USCIS does not charge a fee), E-Verify, 

the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) 

Program,15 and modernization efforts. 

The immigration system requires interagency cooperation 

on an array of tasks, often performed by one federal agency 

on behalf of another. For example, USCIS pays the Federal 

Bureau of Investigation (FBI) for fingerprint and name 

checks.16 Conversely, USCIS receives reimbursement from 

other federal agencies for work performed on their behalf. 

Figure 4: Reimbursement Funds Allocated to USCIS – 

FY 2004-2010 YTD (Oct. – Mar.) ($1,000s)

FY Reimbursement Funds

2004 $ 4 

2005 $ 16,557 

2006 $ 18,702 

2007 $ 33,176 

2008 $ 25,971 

2009 $ 24,597 

2010 YTD (Oct. – Mar.) $ 13,320

Source: Data provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman (May 6, 2010).

1. Revenue Shortages Limit Funding for Many 

USCIS Initiatives 

As a result of the decline in fee receipts, USCIS must make 

cuts, or generate new funds, estimated at approximately 

$160 million over the next two fiscal years.17 

In the last few years, USCIS initiatives have been delayed 

or postponed indefinitely due to budget constraints. For 

example, much of the Secure Mail Initiative, a planned 

$31.6 million effort to facilitate faster, secure delivery of 

many USCIS documents with tracking capabilities, has 

been postponed as a result of lack of funding (See USCIS 

Transformation).18 In addition, establishment of a second, 

full-service card production facility, estimated to cost $32.4 

million, is effectively cancelled, despite USCIS’ preparation 

for its use.19 

2. Low Receipts Allow USCIS to Devote Resources to 

Improving Processing Times 

Low receipt levels diminish USCIS funding but provide the 

time and surplus resources needed to process long pending 

applications and petitions, and improve processing times. 

In the past two years, USCIS has taken advantage of a reduction in application volume by redistributing work to service 

centers and field offices.

Since FY 2009, when receipting began to decrease, USCIS 

has been able to allocate resources to long pending applications and petitions as follows: 

15 Legacy INS created SAVE in 1987 to provide status verification 

information to authorized agencies to help maintain program 

integrity. See USCIS, “Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements 

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

menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid= 

1721c2ec0c7c8110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCRD&vgnextchanne

l=1721c2ec0c7c8110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCRD 

(accessed May 19, 2010).

16 See Ombudsman’s Annual Report 2009, p. 13.

17 Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman (Mar. 17, 2010).

18 See “Adjustment of the Immigration and Naturalization Benefit 

Application and Petition Fee Schedule, Proposed Rule,” 72 Fed. Reg. 

4888, 4899 (Feb. 1, 2007); http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2007/

pdf/E7-1631.pdf (accessed June 14, 2010). See also information 

provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman (Mar. 11, 2010).

19 See “Adjustment of the Immigration and Naturalization Benefit 

Application and Petition Fee Schedule, Proposed Rule,” 72 Fed. Reg. 

4888, 4906 (Feb. 1, 2007); http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2007/

pdf/E7-1631.pdf (accessed June 14, 2010). See also information 

provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman (Mar. 11, 2010).
12 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

• Forms I-130 (Petition for Alien Relative) have 

experienced processing delays for several years, 

following a policy to hold preference-based petitions 

and process them based on visa availability.20 In 

last year’s annual report, the Ombudsman discussed 

the backlog of approximately 1.1 million pending 

I-130s. In March 2009, USCIS began sending pending 

I-130s to field offices with available staff to perform 

adjudications. By December 31, 2009, USCIS reduced 

its I-130 inventory to 690,000 of which 575,000 were 

preference petitions.21 The agency expects to adjudicate 

an additional 750,000 new and pending I-130 

preference petitions by December 31, 2010.22

• Forms I-601 (Application for Waiver of Grounds of 

Inadmissibility) referred from the Ciudad Juarez Field 

Office have encountered significant processing delays, 

at the peak totaling approximately 10,000 pending 

applications with processing times of nearly two years.23 

A decrease in asylum receipts at the end of 2008 

allowed USCIS to direct many Forms I-601 to asylum 

offices for processing enabling the agency to shorten 

processing times to approximately 10-12 months.24 

Additionally, USCIS has been able to improve processing 

times for other frequently filed applications such as 

naturalization applications as shown in Figures 5 and 6.

3. USCIS Often Relies on Other Funding Sources

Due to the constraints of the current funding structure, 

USCIS generally obtains additional revenue by raising filing 

fees, redistributing certain monies, and appending surcharges on applications, as well as by reducing expenditures 

by implementing cost-cutting measures.

Regarding fee increases, USCIS fees are to be reviewed 

every two years, during which time the agency determines 

if and how filing fees are to be adjusted to cover general 

operating costs.25 While the agency was not reviewing its 

fees consistently until only the last few years, USCIS now 

appears committed to regular review by conducting a fee 

study in 2006 and 2009, and is beginning preparations for 

the next study. 

On June 11, 2010, USCIS posted for comment its proposed 

fee schedule based on the 2009 study, seeking to increase 

USCIS fees by a weighted average of 10 percent, reduce fees 

for five individual applications and petitions, and establish 

three new fees.26 Notably, USCIS is not seeking to increase 

the fee for Form N-400 (Application for Naturalization). 

As filing fees are the main source of revenue for USCIS, 

customers bear the burden of price adjustments made 

to cover operational costs. Over the past decade, these 

price adjustments have resulted in a steady and, at times, 

substantial increase of fees. 

For the 2007 fee increase, USCIS conducted a fee study 

to review operational costs and determine the adjustments necessary to cover those costs. The agency had not 

conducted such a fee study for almost 10 years. 

25 Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-576 (1990).

26 See “U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Fee Schedule; 

Proposed Rule,” 75 Fed. Reg. 33445 (June 11, 2010); http://

edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/2010-13991.htm (accessed June 

14, 2010). USCIS proposes to reduce fees for the following form 

types: Form I-129F (Petition for Alien Fiancé(e)); Form I-539 

(Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status); Form 

I-698 (Application to Adjust Status from Temporary to Permanent 

Resident); Form I-817 (Application for Family Unity Benefits); 

and Form N-565 (Application for Replacement Naturalization/

Citizenship Document). USCIS also proposes to establish fees for 

Regional Center designation under the Immigrant Investor Pilot 

Program (EB-5), individuals seeking civil surgeon designation, and 

recovery of the cost of processing immigrant visas granted by the 

U.S. Department of State.

20 USCIS Press Release, “Notice to All Customers with a Pending 

I-130 Petition” (July 15, 2004); http://www.uscis.gov/files/

pressrelease/I_130_07_01_04.pdf (accessed May 19, 2010).

21 Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman (Feb. 26, 2010).

22 At the end of calendar year 2010, USCIS plans to have 65,000 I-130 

preference petitions remaining to be adjudicated. Information 

provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman (Feb. 26, 2010).

23 Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman (Aug. 13, 2009).

24 USCIS Fact Sheet, “USCIS Makes Major Strides During 2008” (Nov. 6, 

2008); http://www.uscis.gov/files/article/2008accomFS_3nov08.

pdf (accessed Apr. 28, 2010); information provided by USCIS to the 

Ombudsman (May 24, 2010).
Annual Report to Congress – June 2010 13

Figure 5: Naturalization Application Processing Times at USCIS Field Offices (Apr. 15, 2009) 

Albany, NY

6.9 Buffalo, NY

7.8 

Rochester, NY 

7.8

Syracuse, NY

7.8 

Albuquerque, NM

7.7 

Phoenix, AZ 

6.5

Tucson, AZ

6.6 

Los Angeles, CA 

7.4

Santa Ana, CA

6.5 

San Bernadino, CA

7.6

Dallas, TX

6.8 

Harlingen, TX 12.0

Houston, TX

San Antonio, TX 2.5 

5.5 

Fort Smith, AR

6.8 Oklahoma City, OK

6.1 

New Orleans, LA 

5.4

Memphis, TN

8.4 

El Paso, TX 

9.5

Chula Vista, CA

6.5 

San Diego, CA

6.6

Fresno, CA 

5.7 San Jose, CA 

7.0

Sacramento, CA

6.0 

San Francisco, CA

6.4 

Las Vegas, NV

7.6 

Reno, NV

8.1 

Boise, ID

8.7 

Casper, WY

6.1 

Helena, MT

6.2 

Denver, CO 

6.1

Salt Lake City, UT

5.5 

Atlanta, GA

 5.5

Chicago, IL

6.2 

Milwaukee, WI

5.6 

Omaha, NE

5.5 

Louisville, KY 

6.0

Indianapolis, IN

5.9 

Cleveland, OH 6.2 

Pittsburgh, PA

5.8 

Detroit, MI

7.9 

Charleston, SC 5.5

Jacksonville, FL 6.5

Orlando, FL 8.2

Tampa, FL

6.1 

Miami, FL 7.6

Kansas City, MO

6.9 

Wichita, KS

5.5 Saint Louis, MO

7.6

Greer, SC Charlotte, NC 5.5 

5.5 

Charleston, WV

5.5 

Baltimore, MD 7.7

Washington, DC 6.3

Norfolk, VA 7.6

Dover, DE 5.5

Newark, NJ 5.7

Philadelphia, PA 6.8

Boston, MA 5.5

Portland, ME 5.5

Manchester, NH 5.8

Saint Albans, VT 6.4 

Hartford, CT 9.8

Providence, RI 5.7

New York, NY 7.9

Anchorage, AK 8.5

Agana, GU 5.5

Charlotte Amalie, VI 5.5

Christiansted, VI 6.2

Honolulu, HI 6.4

San Juan, PR 7.5

Portland, OR

5.5 

Seattle, WA

6.9 Spokane, WA

5.5

Yakima, WA

5.7 

Des Moines, IA

6.0 

Saint Paul, MN

2.8 

Columbus, OH 5.5 

Cincinnati, OH 6.5 

West Palm Beach, FL 8.4 

Source: USCIS Processing Time Data

Figure 6: Naturalization Application Processing Times at USCIS Field Offices (Mar. 31, 2010)

Albany, NY

5.0 Buffalo, NY

5.5 

Rochester, NY 

5.5

Syracuse, NY

5.5 

Albuquerque, NM

5.0

Phoenix, AZ 

5.0

Tucson, AZ

5.2 

Los Angeles, CA 

5.0

Santa Ana, CA

5.0 

San Bernadino, CA

5.0

Dallas, TX

5.0 

Harlingen, TX 5.5

Houston, TX

San Antonio, TX 5.0 

5.0 

Fort Smith, AR

5.0 Oklahoma City, OK

5.0 

New Orleans, LA 

5.0

Memphis, TN

5.0 

El Paso, TX 

5.0

Chula Vista, CA

5.0 

San Diego, CA

5.0

Fresno, CA 

5.0 San Jose, CA 

5.0

Sacramento, CA

5.0 

San Francisco, CA

5.0 

Las Vegas, NV

5.0 

Reno, NV

5.0 

Boise, ID

5.0

Casper, WY

5.0 

Helena, MT

5.0 

Denver, CO 

5.0

Salt Lake City, UT

5.0 

Atlanta, GA

 5.0

Chicago, IL

5.3 

Milwaukee, WI

5.1 

Omaha, NE

5.0 

Louisville, KY 

5.0

Indianapolis, IN

5.0 

Cleveland, OH 5.0 

Pittsburgh, PA

5.0 

Detroit, MI

5.0 

Charleston, SC 5.0

Jacksonville, FL 5.0

Orlando, FL 5.0

Hialeah, FL 5.0

Tampa, FL

5.6 

Miami, FL 5.0

West Palm Beach, FL 5.0 

Kansas City, MO

5.0 

Wichita, KS

5.0 Saint Louis, MO

5.8

Greer, SC Charlotte, NC 5.0 

5.0 

Charleston, WV

5.0 

Baltimore, MD 5.0

Washington, DC 5.0

Norfolk, VA 5.0

Dover, DE 5.0

Newark, NJ 5.0

Philadelphia, PA 5.1

Boston, MA 6.0

Portland, ME 5.0

Manchester, NH 5.0

Saint Albans, VT 5.0 

Hartford, CT 5.3

Providence, RI 5.2

New York, NY 5.0

Anchorage, AK 5.2

Agana, GU 5.0

Charlotte Amalie, VI 5.0

Christiansted, VI 5.0

Honolulu, HI 5.0

San Juan, PR 5.0

Portland, OR

5.0 

Seattle, WA

5.0

Spokane, WA

5.0

Yakima, WA

5.0 

Raleigh, NC 5.0 

Des Moines, IA

5.0 

Saint Paul, MN

5.1 

Columbus, OH 5.0 

Cincinnati, OH 5.5 

Source: USCIS Processing Time Data
14 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

Figure 7: USCIS Filing Fee Adjustments – FY 1989- 2007 

Form Type FY 1989 FY 1991 FY 1994 FY 1998 FY 2002 FY 2004 FY 2006

FY 2007/

Current 

Fees 

I-90 (Application to Replace Permanent 

Resident Card)

$35 $70 $75 $110 $130 $185 $190 $290 

I-129 (Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker) $50 $70 $75 $110 $130 $185 $190 $320 

I-130 (Petition for Alien Relative) $40 $75 $80 $110 $130 $185 $190 $355 

I-140 (Immigration Petition for 

Alien Worker)

$50 $70 $75 $115 $135 $190 $195 $475 

I-485 (Application to Register Permanent 

Residence or Adjust Status)

$60 $120 $130 $220 $255 $315 $325 $930 

I-539 (Application to Extend/Change 

Nonimmigrant Status)

$35 $70 $75 $120 $140 $195 $200 $300 

I-765 (Application for 

Employment Authorization)

$35 $60 $70 $100 $120 $175 $180 $340 

N-400 (Application for Naturalization) $60 $90 $95 $225 $260 $320 $330 $595 

Biometrics Fee - Photograph and 

Fingerprint Fee – – – $25 $50 $70 $70 $80

Note: FY 1991, FY 1998, and FY 2007 data represent major fee adjustments, while all other data reflect incremental changes to keep up with inflation and to provide new 

security enhancements. 

Sources: “Adjustment of the Immigration and Naturalization Benefit Application and Petition Fee Schedule, Proposed Rule,” 72 Fed. Reg. 4887, 4991 (Feb. 1, 2007) and 

www.uscis.gov (accessed June 14, 2010).

Many stakeholders argue that the 2007 fee increases 

impact the financial ability of individuals and families to 

seek citizenship and other benefits. At the same time, some 

promised service improvements have been delayed. 

In 2007, filing fees increased by a weighted average of 

86 percent.27 See Figure 7.

In addition to fee increases, a decline in receipts and 

revenue increases the likelihood of USCIS having to redirect 

funding from planned programs. One such program, the 

USCIS Transformation Initiative, is primarily funded by 

premium processing receipts, which have been declining 

steadily in recent years. 

Figure 8: Premium Processing – FY 2004-2010 YTD 

(Oct. – Mar.) ($1,000,000s)

FY Receipts Revenue

2004 172,249 $ 202

2005 120,353 $ 139 

2006 153,000 $ 160 

2007 214,025 $ 212

2008 163,524 $ 163 

2009 135,470 $ 135

2010 YTD 

(Oct. – Mar.) 69,690 $ 59

Sources: Data provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman (Apr. 12 and May 20, 

2010); Ombudsman’s Annual Reports 2007, p. 47; 2006, pp. 22-23. 

According to USCIS, sufficient funding for the 

Transformation Initiative is allotted until FY 2014; 

however, if premium processing receipts continue to decline 

throughout the next few years, USCIS may have to move 

monies from other areas to cover the cost of its continued 

development.28 Redistribution to support initiatives 

such as Transformation may curtail other endeavors until 

Transformation is implemented.

27 U.S. Government Accountability Office Report, “Immigration 

Application Fees – Costing Methodology Improvements Would 

Provide More Reliable Basis for Setting Fees,” GAO-09-70, p. 3 

(Jan. 2009); http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0970.pdf 

(accessed May 20, 2010). 28 Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman (Mar. 17, 2010).
Annual Report to Congress – June 2010 15

Finally, USCIS also is seeking to address its budget 

constraints through cost reduction.29 The agency identified 

several initiatives as contributing more than $160 million to 

these cuts, including participation in Secretary Napolitano’s 

Efficiency Review,30 the DHS-wide initiative to reduce 

expenditures through improved utilization of existing 

infrastructure and common-sense plans.31 

The Ombudsman understands that USCIS also has decreased 

employee training expenditures, which may be related to 

limited hiring compared to previous years. The agency 

says that it has not curtailed training of existing personnel 

essential to maintaining the quality of adjudications and to 

customer service in general.32 

4. Improvements in Funding Structure Are Needed 

to Ensure Stability in Fees and Processing 

In view of difficulties with predicting fee revenue several 

years in advance, as illustrated by economic cycles and 

fluctuations in immigration benefits receipts and revenues,33

the Ombudsman previously has suggested ways to mitigate 

the uncertainty. In a recent hearing, the House Committee 

on Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security 

referred to the boom or bust scenario by observing that 

USCIS had nearly exhausted the surplus revenues generated 

by the 2007 surge and asking what steps the agency was 

taking to avoid budget problems. Several committee 

members asked Director Mayorkas whether USCIS needed 

more appropriated funds.34

The Director explained that the agency would be able to 

remain true to its self-funding mandate by reducing costs 

through improved efficiency and modernization, as well as 

reap advantages through Transformation. Over time, USCIS 

has requested funding for some programs such as asylee/

refugee adjudications, E-Verify, and military naturalizations. 

However, as the Ombudsman reported last year, USCIS’ FY 

2008 fee revenue was “$77 million less than projected in 

the May 2007 fee increase.”35 Acceleration of this trend 

resulted in a FY 2009 shortfall of $345 million as 

compared with the 2007 fee rule’s estimates; the FY 2009 

shortfall still totals $164 million as compared with 2008 

revenue projections.36 That even the revised projections 

failed to predict the steepness of the revenue decline underscores the difficulty in predicting and balancing resource 

needs against workload demands.

29 See “The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services,” before 

the Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border 

Security, and International Law of the U.S. House of Representatives 

Committee on the Judiciary, 111th Cong. 2nd Sess. 4-5 (2010) 

(statement of Alejandro Mayorkas, USCIS Director); 

http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/Mayorkas100323.pdf 

(accessed May 20, 2010).

30 As an operational component of DHS, USCIS has embraced the 

Secretary’s Efficiency Review Initiative introduced in March 

2009. See DHS Press Release, “Secretary Napolitano Rolls Out DHS 

Efficiency Review Initiative” (Mar. 27, 2009); http://www.dhs.

gov/ynews/releases/pr_1238172270388.shtm (accessed May 

20, 2010); DHS, “Budget-in-Brief, FY 2010” pp. 21-22 (May 7, 

2009); http://www.iaem.com/committees/GovernmentAffairs/

documents/DHSBudgetinBriefFY2010.pdf (accessed May 20, 2010). 

See also “FY 2011 Citizenship and Immigration Services Budget,” 

before the Subcommittee on Homeland Security of the U.S. House of 

Representatives Committee on Appropriations, 111th Cong. 2nd Sess. 

4-5 (2010) (statement of Alejandro Mayorkas, USCIS Director).

31 “FY 2011 Citizenship and Immigration Services Budget,” before 

the Subcommittee on Homeland Security of the U.S. House of 

Representatives Committee on Appropriations, 111th Cong. 2nd Sess. 

4-5 (2010) (statement of Alejandro Mayorkas, USCIS Director). 

32 Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman (Mar. 17, 2010). 

33 See Ombudsman’s Annual Report 2008 (Summer 2007 Surge; 

Frontlogs & Backlogs), p. 8.

34 See “The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services,” before 

the Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border 

Security, and International Law of the U.S. House of Representatives 

Committee on the Judiciary, 111th Cong. 2nd Sess. 4-5 (2010) 

(statement of Alejandro Mayorkas, USCIS Director); http://judiciary.

house.gov/hearings/pdf/Mayorkas100323.pdf 

(accessed May 20, 2010). 

35 Ombudsman’s Annual Report 2009, p. 19. 

36 See “The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services,” before 

the Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border 

Security, and International Law of the U.S. House of Representatives 

Committee on the Judiciary, 111th Cong. 2nd Sess. 5 (2010) 

(statement of Alejandro Mayorkas, USCIS Director); http://judiciary.

house.gov/hearings/pdf/Mayorkas100323.pdf (accessed May 20, 

2010). The FY 2009 revenue decline represents a 15 percent drop 

from 2007 forecasts and an 8 percent drop from forecasts revised in 

2008, after USCIS recognized a downturn in immigration benefits 

sought. As of March 23, 2010, USCIS had “not seen a material 

increase in filing volumes for fiscal year 2010.” Id.
16 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

B. 	 Transformation – The Promise of

Modernization

In previous reporting periods,37 the Ombudsman discussed 

the importance of modernizing USCIS systems to remedy 

the many systemic problems that arise from its antiquated 

environment, including, but not limited to:

• File Tracking / Transfer Issues – reliance on paper files 

to perform various parts of adjudication often leads to 

misplaced or lost files and delays in case processing

• Inefficient Customer Service – resource intensive 

customer service avenues such as INFOPASS and 

the National Customer Service Center toll-free 

telephone line expend agency funds and sometimes 

frustrate customers who unsuccessfully seek real-time 

case information

• Inaccurate Data – lack of a centralized case management 

structure requires overseas and domestic offices to 

create ad hoc reporting systems that lead to inconsistent 

statistical reporting throughout the agency

For this annual report, the Ombudsman continued to 

monitor USCIS modernization efforts with respect to both 

long-term solutions and near-term fixes:

• Transformation Initiative: A five-year plan to overhaul 

USCIS’ antiquated, fragmented information technology 

systems into a modern, streamlined environment. 

• Projects and Programs in Development: While the 

agency contemplates overarching changes to USCIS 

systems through Transformation, it should continue to 

develop initiatives that improve immigration benefits 

processing for customers today.

1. Transformation Initiative

Awarded the approximately half billion Transformation 

Solution Architect Task Order (Transformation) contract 

in November 2008,38 IBM is charged with designing, 

deploying, and, ultimately, delivering the agency’s 

modernized environment – a historically challenging task to 

accomplish.39 The current Administration is placing a high 

priority on the following set of solutions:

• Security measures enhanced through centralization of 

fragmented systems, enabling USCIS to provide faster, 

more thorough security checks, as well as access to and 

storage of greater volumes of biometric data

• Online USCIS accounts to enable customers to 

complete, submit, and pay for all applications and 

petitions, track their cases, and make needed updates to 

their personal information

• Improved case management system and electronic 

environment, rather than the current paper-based 

system, to eliminate the need for physical file 

movement and provide for more accurate and 

consistent customer data throughout the agency

The Ombudsman acknowledges USCIS’ prioritization of 

Transformation over the past reporting period, and, at the 

same time observes the following:

• Despite assurances from USCIS that it has focused 

attention on and dedicated funding to the continued 

development of Transformation, until the immigration 

experience tangibly improves for customers, the success 

of Transformation remains an objective not 

yet achieved.

37 Ombudsman’s Annual Report 2009, pp. 12, 28-30.

38 USCIS Interoffice Memorandum, “FY 2008 Accomplishments/

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

information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman (Apr. 16, 2010).

39 “Since USCIS’ inception, every Director has attempted, and failed, 

to successfully implement a system overhaul.” See “The United 

States Citizenship and Immigration Services,” before the Subcommittee 

on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and 

International Law of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on 

the Judiciary, 111th Cong. 2nd Sess. 4-5 (2010) (statement of 

Hon. John Conyers Jr., Congressman). 
Annual Report to Congress – June 2010 17

Figure 9: Projected Transformation Timeline 

Release Description Projected Deployment Dates

Initial phase of account establishment for individuals, and electronic case 

1

management system for many simpler, nonimmigrant benefit types.

Forms I-20, I-90, I-102, I-131, I-134, I-290B, I-508, I-539, I-566, I-601, I-612, August 2010-November 2011

I-765, I-821, I-824, AR-11, DS-2019, G-28

Extended phase of account establishment for organizations (firms, community2 based organizations), and more robust electronic case management system to 

support remaining nonimmigrant benefit types. July 2011-October 2012

Forms I-129, I-129S, I-192, I-612, I-854, I-905, I-907, I-914, I-918, I-929

3

Immigrant benefit types.

Forms I-130, I-140, I-193, I-360, I-407, I-485, I-526, I-687, I-698, I-751, 

I-817, I-829

January 2012-March 2013

4

Humanitarian benefit types.

Forms I-485 (Asylee/Refugee), I-589, Haitian Refugee Immigration Fairness 

Act, I-602, I-690, I-730

July 2012-September 2013

5

Naturalization benefit types.

Forms N-300, N-336, N-400, N-470, N-565, N-600, N-600K, N-643, N-644, 

I-600, I-600A, I-800, I-800A

January 2013-March 2014

Source: Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman (Apr. 16, 2010).

• The foundational areas outlined in this review (timeline, 

structure, funding, and stakeholder communication 

and cooperation) are indicators of Transformation’s 

progress, and continued advancement in these areas is 

essential to the solution’s overall success.

Adherence to transparent timelines with clear benchmarks 

will enable USCIS to move towards its long-term objective 

and keep up with information technology advancements 

and changes to immigration laws, while providing 

Congress and other stakeholders the means to measure 

Transformation’s progress.

In last year’s annual report, the Ombudsman reported 

on USCIS’ goal of deploying Transformation in seven 

increments, beginning with naturalization and ending, 

sequentially, with immigrant, humanitarian, and 

nonimmigrant cases.40 At the time, USCIS estimated that 

customers’ first tangible Transformation experience would 

arrive in February 2011, at which point naturalization 

applicants would be able to complete, file, and track 

applications online. 

During the current reporting period, Transformation 

underwent a realignment of goals. As a result, USCIS now 

plans to deploy Transformation in five increments (rather 

than seven), beginning with nonimmigrant cases and 

ending, sequentially, with immigrant, humanitarian, and 

naturalization cases. See Figure 9. Developers found that 

beginning with simpler and higher volume nonimmigrant 

cases, rather than with naturalization cases as originally 

planned, would be more efficient by requiring the agency 

to develop the majority of the infrastructure at the beginning of the Transformation life-cycle, thereby allowing for 

easier adjustments as deployment progresses. USCIS noted 

that “... approximately 85 percent of the system will already 

be incorporated in the first increment, requiring only 

smaller modifications to the later increments.”41 

USCIS estimates completion of the entire solution by 

March 2014 (originally November 2013) with several key 

benchmarks in the interim as shown in Figure 9.

The Transformation Program Office (TPO) manages IBM’s 

design and development work. The TPO formerly was 

under the Office of Transformation Coordination, but 

40 Ombudsman’s Annual Report 2009, pp. 8-9. 41 Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman (Apr. 13, 2010).
18 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

became an independent office and began reporting directly 

to the USCIS Director following USCIS’ realignment in 

January 2010.42 Since the end of the previous reporting 

period, the TPO has added approximately 40 employees, 

bringing its total staff to 82 federal employees, in addition 

to contractor staff.43 

Although the Transformation Initiative has received some 

appropriated money, it is currently funded by premium 

processing revenue.44 See Figure 8.

In previous reporting periods, the Ombudsman expressed 

concerns with this funding structure, noting that a decline 

in premium processing receipts could stall the progress of 

Transformation. Despite a decline in premium processing 

receipts within the past few years, according to USCIS officials, sufficient funding for Transformation is allotted until 

FY 2014,45 as described above. 

Relationships with and input from the many stakeholders 

involved in the Transformation process are imperative 

to its success. Such communication enables the TPO to 

incorporate feedback from future users of the transformed 

system as it is being constructed and, thereby, converts users 

into collaborators in developing the process. 

During calendar year 2009, the TPO began holding 

stakeholder meetings to collect information and introduce 

the transformed environment in its then current 

framework. TPO plans to increase stakeholder outreach as 

Transformation continues. These efforts are focused towards 

four main stakeholder groups:

• Internal (USCIS employees) 

• External (Immigration benefits applicants, communitybased organizations, non-governmental organizations, 

immigration practitioners / attorney groups)

• Federal Agencies (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 

U.S. Department of State, other DHS components)

• Software Industry (Users and developers of software 

that interfaces with USCIS systems)

TPO also must ensure that it effectively coordinates with the 

many programmers and managers that assist in developing 

Transformation. Many systems either in operation or 

being developed specifically for Transformation are not 

necessarily managed by the TPO. Instead, they are under the 

jurisdiction of other USCIS divisions, DHS components, or 

federal agencies. The Ombudsman has previously reported 

on specific challenges between the TPO and USCIS’ Office of 

Information Technology in coordinating the construction of 

some of Transformation’s larger infrastructure projects; such 

past problems have led to inefficiencies and delays in the 

Transformation Initiative.46

42 USCIS Press Release, “Statement from USCIS Director Mayorkas 

on the realignment of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 

organizational structure” (Jan. 11, 2010); http://www.uscis.

gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614

176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid= 687e62cb6ee16210VgnVCM10

0000082ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=a2dd6d26d17df110 

VgnVCM1000004718190aRCRD (accessed June 18, 2010);

see also Appendix 3. 

43 Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman (Apr. 13, 2010).

44 USCIS’ premium processing service guarantees faster processing 

of certain employment-based petitions and applications. For an 

additional fee of $1,000, customers receive a USCIS response 

within 15 days: a grant, denial, or request for evidence. This fee 

may be adjusted according to the Consumer Price Index. 

See INA § 286(u).

45 Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman (Mar. 17, 2010).

2. Transformation Projects and Programs 

a. Projects Previously Reported by the Ombudsman

In previous reporting periods, the Ombudsman reported 

on Transformation-related projects that were in various 

planning stages.47 Some of these projects now are expected 

to be integrated into the larger Transformation Initiative. 

For example, the Customer Profile Management System 

(CPMS), formerly the Biometric Storage System, is intended 

to enhance the collection and management of biometric 

data through the use of one consolidated system. CPMS 

will be used by the agency for near-term efforts – storage of 

46 Ombudsman’s Annual Report 2009, p. 9.

47 Ombudsman’s Annual Reports 2009, pp. 9-11; 2008, p. 44.
Annual Report to Congress – June 2010 19

card production data and card production status – as well as 

long-term initiatives.48 Eventually, CPMS will be integrated 

into Transformation and act as one of its central infrastructures. This effort has been in development for several years.

In addition, the Identity Management Pilot, a system that 

enables USCIS to match an individual’s biometric data to 

a unique, identifying number will be used for fingerprint 

data under the transformed system.

b. Projects and Programs in Development

Improvements to Security, Design, and Structure of 

Naturalization Certificates 

Currently, the Naturalization Certificate Automation & 

Redesign Initiative, introduced in May 2008,49 is intended 

to enhance security, reduce printing costs, and provide 

more efficient certificate production. 

USCIS expects that such production will enable more 

frequently performed “same day” naturalization oath ceremonies to occur. Security improvements to the Certificates 

of Naturalization make them more fraud-resistant and more 

readily accepted as proof of identification. Other cosmetic 

enhancements are designed to ensure durability, eliminating 

the need for many customers to obtain replacement 

certificates in the future. Specifically, new Certificates of 

Naturalization will include digitized photographs rather 

than manually glued-on passport photographs, and revised 

text to ensure compatibility with the Immigration and 

Nationality Act (INA). The Ombudsman recommended 

that USCIS implement such plans in a 2008 study entitled 

“Improving Naturalization Oath Ceremonies.”50

The Naturalization Certificate Automation & Redesign 

Initiative is structured to begin its initial phase, originally 

scheduled for November 2009, in August 2010. USCIS 

expects this phase to provide for 90 percent of naturalization certificates produced in several USCIS offices to include 

digitized photographs.51

48 Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman (Apr. 7, 2010).

49 Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman (Mar. 4, 2010).

50 Recommendation #37 (Dec. 16, 2008), 

http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/cisomb_naturalization_

recommendation_2008-12-16.pdf (accessed May 21, 2010).

51 Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman (Mar. 4, 2010).

Figure 10: Sample Naturalization Certificate

Source: Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman (Apr. 14, 2010).

New USCIS System Electronically Adjudicates Simple Forms

In addition, USCIS intends to introduce the Standard 

Lightweight Operational Programming Environment Rules 

System Qualified Adjudication (SLOPE) to provide for 

electronic adjudication of some of USCIS’ less complex 

benefit applications, notably, the Form I-90 (Application to 

Replace Permanent Resident Card).

As of this writing, SLOPE is to deploy its pilot phase in 

September 201052 when all I-90s processed at the Nebraska 

Service Center will be adjudicated electronically. There is 

no timeline for full implementation of SLOPE; however, 

USCIS plans to provide similar adjudication capabilities for 

Temporary Protected Status re-registration and employment 

authorization applications.53 USCIS now estimates that 

SLOPE could reduce adjudication time to a matter of 

minutes, as compared to current adjudication times.54 

52 Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman (May 24, 2010).

53 Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman (Mar. 5, 2010).

54 Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman (July 20, 2009).
20 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

Enhanced Data Reporting Capabilities

In April 2009, USCIS launched the Standard 

Management Analysis Reporting Tool (SMART), which 

centralizes various data sources, enhancing USCIS statistical 

reporting capabilities. 

In previous reporting periods, the Ombudsman has highlighted the importance of improving systems to provide 

USCIS with more accurate statistical reporting for internal 

tracking purposes such as determining how restructured 

fees can recover costs of processing immigration cases.55

These improved data also better serve Congress and other 

stakeholders, who often request statistical information from 

USCIS. SMART operates as an internal database for the 

enterprise Performance Analysis System, which acts as the 

front-end system users will view.56

An updated version is currently in development for 

use at the National Benefits Center and the National 

Records Center.57

New USCIS System Seeks to Electronically Verify 

Business Operations

Technology that employer stakeholders are especially 

monitoring is the Validation Instrument for Business 

Enterprises (VIBE). Through use of public, third-party 

source information, USCIS plans for VIBE to streamline 

adjudication of employment-based petitions and combat 

fraud by providing adjudicators with the ability to verify the 

“financial viability and current level of business operations” 

of petitioning employers.58

USCIS awarded the contract to develop VIBE to Dun and 

Bradstreet in September 2009 and, as of this writing, 

the system is undergoing testing.59 USCIS scheduled 

deployment for full use in all service centers to occur 

this summer.60

 

VIBE should enable USCIS to focus on whether the 

individual meets the standards for the benefit sought rather 

than on whether the petitioner is a bona fide employer. 

While USCIS anticipates that the use of VIBE may result in a 

reduction of Requests for Evidence (RFEs) or more tailored 

RFEs due to adjudicators’ reliance on this information, some 

stakeholders are awaiting more information on how USCIS 

will handle glitches such as employers that have more than 

one listing in the database or how employers can make corrections when USCIS relied on information that is outdated 

or otherwise inaccurate. 

Online H-1B Pre-Registration for Petitioners

The H-1B Pre-Registration and Lottery system will enable 

petitioners to register online for an H-1B number in 

advance of the numerical cap that is set each fiscal year. 

Congress allots 65,000 H-1Bs for individuals with a 

Bachelor’s degree and an additional 20,000 for those with a 

Master’s degree or higher.61 H-1B petitions may be submitted each fiscal year to USCIS beginning April 1, six months 

prior to the start of the next fiscal year. 

Figure 11: H-1B Pre-Registration and 

Lottery System Snapshot

Source: Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman (Mar. 25, 2010) 

(USCIS has indicated that this snapshot is subject to change).

The current H-1B filing process has been historically 

problematic for both USCIS and its customers. Customers 

mail H-1B petitions to USCIS receipting locations, where 

personnel assign each petition a receipt notice and determine which petitions may be allotted a number under the 

55 Ombudsman’s Annual Reports 2009, p. 12; 2008, pp. 33-34.

56 Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman (Mar. 5, 2010).

57 Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman (May 17, 2010).

58 Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman (May 28, 2009).

59 Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman (Mar. 10, 2010).

60 Id. 61 INA §§ 214(g)(1)(A) and(g)(5)(C).
Annual Report to Congress – June 2010 21

cap. During years in which H-1B visas are highly sought 

after, thousands of H-1B petitions may flood a receipting 

location, making it challenging to determine the order in 

which they are received.

In FY 2009, for example, USCIS received approximately 

163,000 petitions in the first week of filing (April 1 – 

April 7) and, therefore, had to run a random selection 

process to allocate H-1B visa numbers.62 Cases received 

during the first few days of filing were entered into a lottery, 

which determined if a petition would be assigned a number 

under the cap space. For those petitions that were allocated 

an H-1B number, USCIS sent receipt notices, at the earliest 

date of June 2, 2008, due to the time needed to receipt 

and process received cases.63 All non-selected cases were 

returned to customers with their payment, and petitions 

found to be in duplicate (a trend employed by some 

customers to ensure a better chance of receiving an H-1B 

number) were returned without a refund. 

USCIS awarded the contract to develop the H-1B PreRegistration and Lottery in September 2009. Although 

the system has been developed, as of this writing it had 

not undergone testing.64 USCIS attributes the delay to the 

rulemaking processes, and plans to deploy the H-1B PreRegistration and Lottery system for full use by FY 2012.65

USCIS reports that this functionality will allow the agency to 

allocate resources to file receipting and adjudication, rather 

than to counting of petitions, and will benefit customers by 

notifying them immediately as to whether they are allotted 

an H-1B number.

Secure Mail Delayed; Expect Other Changes to the Look and 

Delivery of Immigration Documents

The Ombudsman has monitored document mailing trends 

and USCIS efforts to improve its mailing technologies in 

response to customer reports of delayed receipts or lost 

documents.66 Under the current system, USCIS mails documents via U.S. Postal Service (USPS) first class mail, which 

does not enable USCIS or customers to track the delivery 

of documents. Many individuals approved for immigration benefits receive identifying cards, permits, and/or 

documents from the USCIS Office of Intake and Document 

Production, which is responsible for both generating 

documents and mailing them; it produced 3,217,589 such 

documents in FY 2009.67 

Figure 12: Top Three Secure Documents 

Produced by USCIS

Secure Document

Number 

Produced in 

FY 2009

Permanent Resident Card (Green Card) 1,880,767

Employment Authorization Document 1,237,068

Travel Documents:

Form I-327 (Permit to Reenter the United States) 

and

Form I-571 (Refugee Travel Document) 

99,754

Source: Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman (May 5, 2010).

Also in FY 2009, USCIS reported that one of the most 

common service requests placed with the National 

Customer Service Center toll-free telephone line concerned 

non-delivery of USCIS documents. 

The Secure Mail Initiative (SMI) has been USCIS’ most 

aggressive plan to enhance the delivery of documents since 

2007; yet, it has been limited in its implementation.68 

62 USCIS Website, “USCIS Runs Random Selection Process For H-1B 

Petitions” (Apr. 7, 2008); http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/

menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=183f

301458e49110V gnVCM1000004718190aRCRD&vgnextchannel=6

8439c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1RCRD 

(accessed June 18, 2010).

63 Id. 

64 Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman (Mar. 18, 2010).

65 Id.

66 See Ombudsman’s Annual Reports 2009, p. 12; 2008, p. 60.

67 Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman (May 5, 2010).

68 Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman (Mar. 11, 2010).
22 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

Figure 13: Delays in USCIS’ Secure Mail Initiative

Initiative Current Status Timeline

Initial shipment of USCIS documents via USPS priority 

mail with delivery confirmation.

Limited to Forms I-327 (Permit to Reenter the United 

States) and Forms I-571 (Refugee Travel Document) issued 

by the Nebraska Service Center.

In place as of July 2008.

Shipment of USCIS documents returned as a “Post 

Office Non-deliverable” via USPS priority mail with 

delivery confirmation.

Available for Forms I-327 (Permit to Reenter the United 

States) and Forms I-571 (Refugee Travel Document) issued 

by the Nebraska Service Center.

In place as of July 2008.

Available for Permanent Resident Cards (green cards) and 

Employment Authorization Documents issued by all service 

centers and the National Benefits Center.

In place as of October 2009.

National Customer Service Center (NCSC) Tier 2 

Immigration Services Officers (ISOs) may provide 

customers with delivery confirmation numbers.

In full implementation. In place as of May 2009.

SMI Phase 1: Assignment of delivery confirmation 

numbers during document production and use 

of automated USPS priority mail with delivery 

confirmation.

This program is developed, but due to financial constraints, 

is tentatively delayed.

No scheduled deployment 

date.

SMI Phase 2: Shipment of USCIS documents via 

USPS with delivery confirmation. Access to delivery 

information via My Case Status or the NCSC.

This program is not yet developed. No scheduled deployment 

date.

Sources: Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman (Apr. 9 and 12, 2010).

Last year, the Ombudsman also reported on USCIS plans 

to change the look and delivery of many immigration 

documents.69 In May 2010, USCIS announced a redesigned 

green card. As of this writing, this announcement 

represents the only one of these initiatives proceeding on 

schedule. Most of the redesigns have been delayed due to 

budgetary concerns as a result of low application receipts.

On the document production side, the Office of Intake 

and Document Production plan to deploy the following 

initiatives in 2010:70

• Combo-cards that will serve as both proof of 

employment authorization and advance parole 

(originally scheduled for Fall 2009)

• Card Personalization System Technology Refreshment, 

which links individuals to their secure documents 

through a combination of unique identifiers, increasing 

accuracy, and security in mailing

A new production facility in San Antonio, Texas,71 and the 

ability to obtain a USPS tracking number for a USCIS document through the My Case Status tool, both outlined in the 

2009 Annual Report, have been delayed indefinitely.72

69 Ombudsman’s Annual Report 2009, p. 13.

70 Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman (Mar. 11, 2010).

71 See “Adjustment of the Immigration and Naturalization Benefit 

Application and Petition Fee Schedule; Proposed Rule,” 72 Fed. Reg. 

4899 (Feb. 1, 2007).

72 Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman (Mar. 11, 2010).
Annual Report to Congress – June 2010 23

C.	 Employment	and	Family	Green	Card	

Processing	–	Newfound	Transparency	

and	Concerns

Businesses and families in the United States and throughout 

the world rely on a variety of immigration services 

to obtain legal status. In previous annual reports, the 

Ombudsman discussed the many complexities impacting 

the employment-based immigrant visa process.73 This 

year’s discussion continues to track, report, and analyze 

events and information bearing on employment-based 

immigrant processing, but is expanded also to 

include reporting and analysis of the family-based 

immigrant process. 

1. Background

Lawful permanent residence (green card status) may be 

obtained through both employment and family sponsored 

petitions. The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)

establishes a structure based on formulas and numerical 

limits for regulating immigration to the United States.74 At 

the heart of this structure is the allocation of visas among 

defined preference categories. U.S. employers principally 

file Form I-140 (Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker) to 

request USCIS to classify a foreign born individual as an 

immigrant worker. Family-based immigration is available 

for qualifying relatives of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent 

residents, and is initiated by sponsors’ filing of a Form 

I-130 (Petition for Alien Relative).

Filing a petition (or submitting an application for an 

Alien Employment Certification with the U.S. Department 

of Labor (DOL) in some cases) establishes a “priority 

date,”75 which determines a beneficiary’s “place in line” for 

visa allocation relative to other beneficiaries in the same 

category and of the same nationality. Although USCIS adjudicates these petitions, the U.S. Department of State (DOS) 

distributes the visas through overseas consular processing, 

or in conjunction with USCIS’ approval of an application for 

a green card in the United States. 

DOS distributes visas by estimating the demand for various 

immigrant visas and publishing visa availability information 

in its monthly “Visa Bulletin.”76 If the number of visas 

available in a given category exceeds demand, the Visa 

Bulletin will indicate that category as “current.” USCIS can 

process immediately a green card application filed for a 

current category. When the demand for visas exceeds what 

is available in a given preference category, the Visa Bulletin 

indicates a “cut-off date.” Visa issuance is restricted to 

beneficiaries with priority dates earlier than the established 

cut-off date for the preference category.

The Visa Bulletin provides one cut-off date for most countries, a so-called world-wide cut-off date, and lists separate 

cut-off dates for nationals of specific countries, including 

mainland China, India, Mexico, and the Philippines due to 

an oversubscription in demand.77 Applicants with priority 

dates on or after the published date must wait to obtain a 

visa until DOS advances the cut-off date. As noted previously, only persons located overseas actually receive a visa, 

which they present to U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

to gain U.S. admission; adjustment applicants simply receive 

their green card, but the structure regulating green card 

issuance remains the same. Cut-off dates occasionally 

“retrogress” (i.e., move backwards to an earlier date), 

which occurs when the total number of immigrant visa 

requests received exceeds DOS estimates.

Retrogression can have serious consequences for applicants 

and their families who expected to obtain green cards 

and suddenly cannot. For those beneficiaries awaiting 

visas overseas, immigration anticipated within a certain 

timeframe may be delayed for months, or even years. Plans 

73 Ombudsman’s Annual Reports 2009, pp. 14-16; 2008, pp. 18-20; 

2007, pp. 32-37; 2006, pp. 13-16; and 2005, pp. 9-11.

74 See INA §§ 201, 203.

75 In family-based cases, the priority date is established by the date 

of a proper filing of Form I-130 (Petition for Alien Relative). In 

employment-based cases, a priority date is established by the filing 

of a Form I-140 (Petition for Immigrant Worker) in EB-1 and EB-2 

National Interest Waiver cases, by the filing of DOL Form ETA-750 

(Application for Alien Employment Certification) in all other EB-2 

and EB-3 cases, by the filing of Form I-360 (Petition for Amerasian 

Widow(er), or Special Immigrant) in EB-4 cases, and by the filing 

of a Form I-526 (Immigrant Petition by Alien Entrepreneur) in 

EB-5 cases.

76 See DOS Visa Bulletins at http://travel.state.gov/visa/bulletin/

bulletin_1360.html (accessed May 20, 2010).

77 Id. The establishment of separate cut-off dates from the “rest of the 

world” is mandated by INA Section 202(e); http://travel.state.gov/

visa/bulletin/bulletin_1360.html (accessed May 19, 2010).
24 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

that depend on acquiring green card status, such as to study, 

advance in a job, and reunite with family members are postponed. Similarly, in the employment arena, retrogression 

can have significant business consequences for employers 

that depend on predictability in staffing. 

Transparent and predictable movement of cut-off dates is 

critical to ensuring the orderly issuance of immigrant visas. 

2. Overview of Employment-Based (EB) Categories 

Each employment-based preference category has a limited 

number of available visas based on annual statutory formulas.78 There are five such categories:

• EB-1 “Priority Workers” includes persons of 

extraordinary ability, or who are either an outstanding 

professor or researcher, or a multinational executive 

or manager.79

• EB-2 “Members of a Profession Holding Advanced 

Degrees or Persons of Exceptional Ability”80 includes 

persons who have an advanced degree or a Bachelor’s 

degree plus five years of progressive work experience in 

the field, or can demonstrate exceptional ability in the 

arts, sciences, or business.

• EB-3 “Skilled Workers, Professionals, and Other 

Workers”81 broadly includes persons considered 

professionals as evidenced by their holding at least a 

Bachelor’s degree or its equivalent, skilled workers who 

can demonstrate that they possess the minimum entry 

level requirement of two years or more of experience 

and training in order to perform the sponsored job, and 

unskilled workers. 

• EB-4 “Certain Special Immigrants”82 includes religious 

ministers and workers, and a number of other uniquely 

situated individuals. 

• EB-5 “Alien Entrepreneurs”83 includes persons who 

make a minimum investment of either $500,000 or 

$1,000,000 in a new commercial enterprise in the 

United States that creates at least ten full-time jobs for 

U.S. workers. 

With limited exceptions, U.S. employers seeking to sponsor 

foreign workers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories must 

first establish that they unsuccessfully attempted to fill the 

offered position by recruiting qualified U.S. workers. DOL 

oversees this initial market test to ensure that a bona fide job 

vacancy exists and that the hiring of a foreign worker to fill 

the vacancy will not negatively impact U.S. workers. This 

process is referred to as obtaining a foreign labor certification.84 A foreign labor certification is not a condition 

precedent to the filing of EB-1, EB-4 or, EB-5 petitions.

78 The INA establishes an annual ceiling of 140,000 employment-based 

immigrant visas and limits the number of such visas available within 

each of the five employment preference categories. In addition, the 

INA limits the number of visas that nationals of any single country 

may use annually to approximately 25,620; of this single country 

total, approximately 9,800 are allocated to employment-based cases, 

and the remaining visas are distributed among the family-based 

categories. See INA §§ 201, 202.

79 EB-1 receives 28.6 percent of the worldwide employment-based 

preference visas, plus any numbers not required for fourth and fifth 

employment-based preferences. See INA § 203(b)(1).

80 EB-2 receives 28.6 percent of the worldwide employment-based 

immigrant visas, plus any numbers not required by the first 

employment-based preference. See INA § 203(b)(2).

81 EB-3 receives 28.6 percent of the worldwide employment-based 

immigrant visas, plus any numbers not required by the first and second 

employment-based preference categories, and not more than 10,000 

for “Other Workers.” See INA § 203(b)(3).

82 EB-4 receives 7.1 percent of the worldwide employment-based 

immigrant visas per year, and includes Religious Ministers and 

Workers, Broadcasters, Iraqi/Afghani Translators, Iraqis Who Have 

Assisted the United States, International Organization Employees, 

Physicians, Armed Forces Members, Panama Canal Zone Employees, 

Retired NATO-6 Employees, and Spouses and Children of Deceased 

NATO-6 Employees. See INA § 203(b)(4).

83 EB-5 receives 7.1 percent of the worldwide employment-based 

immigrant visas per year. See INA § 203(b)(5).

84 See DOL website, “Foreign Labor,” www.dol.gov/dol/topic/

hiring/foreign.htm and “Permanent Labor Certification;” www.

foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/perm.cfm (accessed May 21, 2010).
Annual Report to Congress – June 2010 25

3. Overview of Family-Based (F) Categories

Family-sponsored immigrant visas are distributed among 

immediate relatives of U.S. citizens who are not subject to 

annual numerical caps, and four categories of statutorily 

defined, family-based “preferences.”85 Immediate relatives 

of U.S. citizens include the spouse, minor children, and 

parents of a citizen who is 21 years old and over. 

Within the four numerically limited categories,86 the preferences are as follows:

• F1 is a set aside for unmarried sons and daughters of 

U.S. citizens.87

• F2 is divided into two groups for relatives of lawful 

permanent residents. F2A includes the spouse and 

children of lawful permanent residents, and F2B 

designates visas for unmarried adult sons and daughters 

of lawful permanent residents.88

• F3 provides visas for a U.S. citizen’s married sons 

and daughters.89

• F4 consists of an adult (21 years old and older) U.S. 

citizen’s brothers and sisters.90 

U.S. citizen petitioners filing for immediate relatives who 

are present in the United States follow a different procedure 

than petitioners filing for family members who are not 

immediate relatives. Immediate relatives may file Form 

I-130 (Petition for Alien Relative) concurrently with their 

beneficiary’s Form I-485 (Application to Register Permanent 

Residence or Adjust Status), the green card application, in 

a one-step process. This one-step process is available to 

immediate relatives because they are not restricted by per 

year or per country visa limitations, and administrative 

processing for an immigrant visa may begin immediately 

upon approval of the I-130 petition.

In contrast, “preference” cases, as listed above, follow a 

two-step process when there is an applicable cut-off date. 

Specifically, petitioners first file a stand-alone I-130 petition 

with USCIS. The second step involves one of two pathways, 

depending on the location of the beneficiary: if the beneficiary is overseas when the cut-off date is reached, then 

DOS is the processing agency and will advise the beneficiary 

that final processing for an immigrant visa can begin; 

alternatively, if the beneficiary is in the United States when 

the cut-off date is reached (as indicated in the Visa Bulletin), 

the beneficiary submits the green card application to USCIS. 

USCIS does not issue a notification to a beneficiary in the 

United States when a petition priority date is reached.

4. Employment-Based Green Card Discussion 

For the 2010 reporting period, there are several key points 

related to employment-based green cards:

• Declining immigration receipts in 2009 allowed 

USCIS to pre-adjudicate91 thousands of pending green 

card applications filed during the 2007 surge. USCIS 

now has visibility over most of its employment-based 

green card inventory. However, full visibility remains 

lacking as USCIS does not have specific data for either 

employment-based green card cases that it sends to field 

offices for interview, or on recently-filed applications.92

In addition, it is not clear that USCIS and DOS 

communicate regularly to remove duplicate files from 

85 INA § 203(a).

86 The number of available visas can shift between categories based 

on predetermined flows if there is underutilization within one or 

more categories. This concept is generally referred to as spillover, 

and provisions that call for and regulate spillovers are found in the 

statute pertaining to both the employment and the family preference 

categories. For example, if fewer petitions for a family fourth 

preference are received than expected, those fourth preference 

available visas can “fall” up to the first preference category if unused 

in a given month. See INA §§ 203(a), 203(b).

87 F1 receives no more than 23,400 visas, plus any unused visas from 

the F4 category. See INA § 203(a)(1).

88 F2A receives not less than 77 percent of the 225,000 allocated visas. 

F2B receives no more than 114,200, plus any numbers (if any) not 

required for F1 category. See INA § 203(a)(2).

89 F3 receives no more than 23,400, plus any visas not required for 

categories F1 and F2. See INA § 203(a)(3).

90 F4 receives no more than 65,000 visas, plus any visas not required 

for the F1, F2, and F3 categories. See INA § 203(a)(4).

91 USCIS uses the term “pre-adjudication” to describe having worked 

a green card case to the point just short of approval: completed all 

required background checks and resolved all eligibility issues, except 

for visa availability.

92 See generally USCIS website, “Questions & Answers: Pending 

Employment-Based Form I-485 Inventory;” http://www.uscis.gov/

portal/ site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a

/?vgnextoid=5e170e6bcb7e3210Vgn VCM100000082ca60aRCRD&

vgnextchannel=ae853ad15c673210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD 

(accessed May 24, 2010).
26 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

Figure 14: FY 2009 Worldwide Usage of Employment-Based Visas

Statutory 

Allocations Immigrant Employment Category Worldwide Usage 

USCIS 

Consumption 

of Worldwide 

Visas Used

DOS 

Consumption 

of Worldwide 

Visas Used

Percent Total Percent Total Percent Total Percent 

28.6

EB-1 Priority Workers 40,924

 Principals 16,806 41.1 16,264 96.8 542 3.2

 Derivatives 24,118 58.9 23,156 96.0 962 4.0

28.6

EB-2 Advanced Degree Professional/

Exceptional Workers

45,552

 Principals 22,098 48.5 21,660 98.0 438 2.0

 Derivatives 23,454 51.5 22,676 96.7 778 3.3

28.6

EB-3 Skilled, Professional and Other Workers 40,390*

 Principals 18,359 45.5 16,797 91.5 1,562 8.5

 Derivatives 22,031 54.5 16,724 75.9 5,307 24.1

7.1

EB-4 Special Immigrants including 

Religious Workers 

13,450*

 Principals 6,949 51.7 4,896 70.5 2,053 29.5

 Derivatives 6,501 48.3 3,960 60.9 2,541 39.1

7.1

EB-5 Employment Creation Investors 3,663*

 Principals 1,290 35.2 395 30.6 895 69.4

 Derivatives 2,373 64.8 586 24.7 1,787 75.3

Source: “2009 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics,” DHS Office of Immigration Statistics, at Table 7. *Sums do not include unreported data.

pending status if individuals obtained a green card in 

the United States, or acquired green card status through 

other avenues or categories. 

• USCIS has not yet implemented an upgrade to its 

existing case management system (CLAIMS 3) to 

capture additional information now collected on Form 

I-140 (Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker) about the 

proposed immigrant beneficiary when the petition is 

receipted – the specific preference category sought and 

the claimed priority date and country of chargeability.93 

• Absent a legislative solution providing additional 

employment-based immigrant visa numbers, USCIS will 

be unable to complete final adjudication of thousands 

of green card applications for many years, and for some 

individuals, decades. 

a. 2009 Employment Immigrant Visa Number Usage

As shown in Figure 14, in FY 2009, USCIS used approximately 88 percent of all employment-based immigrant 

visa numbers, and DOS used the remaining 12 percent via 

consular processing.

By comparison, in FY 2009, DOS used 53 percent of the 

worldwide total of family-based immigrant visas, and USCIS 

used 47 percent.94

93 Ombudsman’s Annual Reports 2009, pp. 15-16; 2008, pp. 18-20; 

2007, pp. 32-37; 2006, pp. 13-16; and 2005, pp. 9-11.

94 DHS Office of Immigration Statistics, “2009 Yearbook of 

Immigration Statistics,” at Table 7; www.dhs.gov/files/statistics/

publications/LPR09.shtm (accessed May 20, 2010). 
Annual Report to Congress – June 2010 27

b. Temporary Dip in New Filings Allows USCIS 

to Eliminate Most Employment-Based 

Adjudication Delays

As discussed in the Declining Receipts, Declining Revenues 

section, immigration filings declined agencywide in FY 

2008 and FY 2009 after the 2007 filing surge. This decline 

in filings has given USCIS an opportunity to focus on 

eliminating processing delays, including I-140s and related 

employment-based green card applications. 

Figure 15 depicts USCIS reduction of its unadjudicated 

I-140 inventory during the 24 months concluding with the 

end of calendar year 2009. The agency’s I-140 inventory 

stood at 144,331 cases in January 2008, and was reduced to 

12,650 cases as of December 31, 2009.

In addition to working down its I-140 inventory, USCIS 

also focused attention on pre-adjudicating thousands of 

employment-based green card applications. In doing so, 

USCIS was able to determine the individual characteristics 

of these green card cases – the exact employment preference 

class sought, the beneficiary’s country of chargeability, and 

priority date. 

c. New Window into Employment-Based Green Cards 

In August 2009, USCIS published an employment-based 

“I-485 Inventory Report” on its website that for the first 

time provided the public specific details about the agency’s 

pending green card inventory. Separate employment-based 

I-485 Inventory Report breakouts for oversubscribed countries (mainland China, India, Mexico, and the Philippines) 

were also generated and posted. Thereafter, USCIS issued 

Figure 15: Form I-140 Pending Inventory Data (Jan. 2008 – Dec. 2009)

Source: www.uscis.gov. 
28 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

updated I-485 Inventory Reports in December 2009 and 

March 2010, and informed the Ombudsman that it intends 

to issue such reports quarterly.95

Figure 16 depicts USCIS’ worldwide employment-based 

I-485 case inventory as of December 11, 2009.96 

These reports show the number of green card applicants in 

Figure 16: All Employment-Based I-485 Inventory Pending at Service Centers (as of Dec. 11, 2009)

Source: www.uscis.gov.

95 USCIS posted its third employment-based “I-485 Inventory 

Report” dated March 8, 2010, www.uscis.gov/USCIS/New%20

Structure/3rd%20Level%20(Left%20Nav%20Children)/Green%20

Card%20-%203rd%20Level/Pending%20Form%20I485%20Reports.

pdf (accessed June 17, 2010).

96 This report excludes employment-based I-485s that are in field 

offices and also excludes cases which are pending consular 

processing at overseas posts. See USCIS website, “Questions & 

Answers: Pending Employment-Based Form I-485 Inventory;” 

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

e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=5e170e6bcb 7e3210Vgn

VCM100000082ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=24b0a6c5150 83210

VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD (accessed May 24, 2010).
Annual Report to Congress – June 2010 29

the United States who are in queue by preference category 

and priority date (month and year) back to 1997. Before 

discussing how these reports may be used, and what they 

indicate, it is important to further describe the exact nature 

of the cases captured and excluded. 

Specifically, the I-485 Inventory Report includes employment-based green card cases that USCIS deemed statutorily 

qualified, and therefore could pre-adjudicate at its Nebraska 

and Texas Service Centers. These cases are described as preadjudicated because USCIS cannot issue green cards to this 

group of cases due to cut-off date retrogression. Individuals 

in this group must await the advancement of the Visa 

Bulletin cut-off dates to reach their respective priority dates 

before immigrant visas are available and green cards may be 

issued. The report also includes cases at the Nebraska and 

Texas Service Centers that have been reviewed, but cannot 

be approved, due to other reasons, including for example, 

those awaiting finalization of pending background checks. 

The report does not capture employment-based green card 

cases in categories where the Visa Bulletin is current (or 

where the cut-off dates have been reached) but are within 

current USCIS processing times (recently filed cases). 

Nor does the report capture approximately 23,000 cases 

that have been sent to USCIS field offices for interview.97 

Lastly, the USCIS I-485 Inventory Report does not capture 

employment-based immigration petition beneficiaries 

queued up for overseas consular processing with DOS.98 

Notwithstanding the above caveats, employers and beneficiaries may find the information in these reports useful. By 

folding in information that DOS otherwise provides on the 

number of applicants queued-up to obtain employmentbased immigrant visas overseas,99 one can roughly gauge 

the number of individuals ahead in queue. This information 

allows individuals to project potential wait times that may 

occur. However, with this increased transparency, some intending immigrants are now grappling with the realization 

that their expected timelines for completing the immigration process could be much longer than anticipated.

Many people who face years of waiting complain about 

limited job mobility100 and are distressed that they will 

continue to be treated as temporary residents in many important aspects of their daily lives, including limited-term 

driving licenses, inability to access in-state tuition treatment 

for their foreign born children, restrictions on their ability 

to travel overseas, etc. In short, it could be years before they 

will enjoy the many benefits and privileges of permanent 

residence, including the eventual opportunity to become 

naturalized U.S. citizens.

Finally, considering the data contained in the December 

11, 2009 I-485 Inventory Report, the Ombudsman notes 

that out of 141,019 EB-3 green card cases queued-up 

worldwide, approximately 43 percent are chargeable to 

India, and 64 percent of the cases with priority dates 

before 2004 similarly are chargeable to India. Without 

attempting to predict future EB-3 wait times, based on the 

high percentage of applicants from India in queue, the data 

suggest that many thousands of green card applicants of 

97 See http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscismenuitem.5af9bb95919f

35e66f 614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=5e170e6bcb7e3210VgnVCM 

100000082ca6 0aRCRD&vgnextchannel=24b0a6c515083210VgnV

CM100000082ca60aRCRD (accessed Mar. 31, 2010). Information 

provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman (June 1, 2010).

98 See http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb9591

9f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=5e170e6bcb7e3210VgnVC

M100000082ca60aRCRD& vgnextchannel=24b0a6c515083210Vgn

VCM100000082ca60aRCRD (accessed Mar. 31, 2010).

99 DOS Report, “Annual Report of Immigrant Visa Applicants in the 

Family-Sponsored and Employment-Based Preferences Registered 

at the National Visa Center as of November 1, 2009;” http://www.

travel.state.gov/pdf/WaitingListItem.pdf (accessed May 20, 2010). 

100 The American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 

2000 (AC21), Pub. L. No. 106-313 (2000), and INA § 204(j) allow 

the beneficiary of an approvable I-140 with a green card application 

pending more than 180 days to transfer to a different employer 

(provided the new job is in the same or a similar occupational 

classification as the job for which the petition was originally filed). 

See USCIS Memorandum, “Continuing Validity of Form I-140 Petition 

in accordance with Section 106(c) of the American Competitiveness 

in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000 (AC21),” (Aug. 4, 2003), 

http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/I140_AC21_8403.pdf.

This option, however, may offer little comfort or assistance to 

beneficiaries who suffer job losses in today’s economy. Individuals 

unable to prove to USCIS that they found suitable AC21 compliant 

jobs could have their green card cases terminated. Such applicants 

would be notified by USCIS that their continued presence in the 

United States is no longer authorized and that by remaining, they 

would begin to accrue “unlawful presence.” Such a sequence of 

events could put individuals on the pathway to removal from the 

United States, and could potentially bar them from returning for 

three years or longer. INA § 212(a)(9)(C)(i)(I) & (II). Such 

individuals may have worked lawfully in the United States for years 

as temporary nonimmigrant workers before filing for green cards. 

Some may own homes and/or have children in school, and some of 

their children may be U.S. citizens. 
30 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

Indian nationality will be waiting years, if not decades, for 

the approval of their green card cases.

d. Despite Increased USCIS Visibility Over Its 

Current Inventory, Systemic Case Management 

Challenges Remain

During the reporting period, USCIS gained much needed 

visibility over its existing inventory of employment-based 

green card applications, a recurring concern expressed 

by the Ombudsman in previous annual reports.101 

However, an exception to this improved visibility is still 

employment-based green card cases that were sent to field 

offices for interview. Based on a recent USCIS report, the 

Ombudsman understands that approximately 23,000 such 

cases currently are awaiting interview and adjudication 

in USCIS field offices.102 The Ombudsman continues to 

emphasize to USCIS the importance of identifying the 

requested preference category, priority date, and country of 

chargeability of these cases in connection with the larger 

goal of managing the orderly and predictable movement of 

the cut-off dates published in the Visa Bulletin.

Additionally, despite the gains made by USCIS in achieving 

improved visibility over its employment-based green card 

inventory, data capture deficiencies related to the Form 

I-140 process continue. USCIS recently made revisions 

to Form I-140 so that it now requests key information, 

including the claimed priority date, preference category, and 

the country of chargeability of the proposed beneficiary, 

theoretically enabling USCIS to electronically sort these 

filings before they are adjudicated,103 but the corresponding 

information technology solution required to capture and 

manipulate this new information has not been implemented. If and when receipts increase in the future, USCIS could 

once again accumulate an inventory of unsorted filings that 

could impair its ability to actively manage the employmentbased green card line. 

e. The Market Test Paradox 

Congress designed the employment-based immigration 

system so that U.S. employers could, in limited circumstances, supplement but not supplant the U.S. labor pool by 

reaching overseas to fill specific talent shortfalls. In doing 

so, Congress required that employers, seeking permission to 

hire EB-2 and EB-3 preference workers, first satisfy a local 

labor market test administered by DOL. 

Through a series of re-engineering efforts over the past 

decade, DOL has endeavored to reduce foreign labor certification processing times. As of this writing, DOL processing 

times for its online foreign labor certification program104

run approximately nine months in unaudited cases.105 

USCIS also has reduced its processing times, and reports 

average Form I-140 processing times of approximately four 

months or less.106

Absent legislation to address the visa availability bottleneck 

for India EB-3s, for example, decades may pass between 

the dates when petitioning employers tested the U.S. labor 

market and when visa numbers become available. With an 

ever-changing economy, the market test performed many 

years earlier may bear little, if any, relationship to what the 

U.S. labor pool looks like when USCIS finally confers green 

card status on these individuals. 

101 See Ombudsman’s Annual Reports 2009, pp. 14-16; 2008, pp. 18-20; 

2007, pp. 32-37; 2006, pp. 13-16; and 2005, pp. 9-11.

102 Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman (May 12, 2010).

103 The new edition of Form I-140 was effective as of January 6, 2010. 

104 PERM (Program Electronic Review Management) is the name of the 

existing DOL program employers use to seek permanent foreign 

labor certifications as the first step of the immigration process for 

most EB-2 and EB-3 workers. DOL moved the application process 

online through its Permanent Online System website in 2005. See

DOL website, “Permanent Online System. User Guide Version 1.00,” 

p. 4 (Apr. 26, 2005). 

105 In the supplementary information to the final PERM rule, published 

December 27, 2004 at 69 Fed. Reg. 77326, 77328, DOL said: “If [a 

PERM] application has not been selected for audit ... [we] will have 

a computer-generated decision within 45 to 60 days of the date the 

application was initially filed.” However, on its website, DOL reports 

that as of April 30, 2010, it is processing cases not flagged for audit 

that were filed in July 2009. See DOL website, Perm Processing 

Times, http://icert.doleta.gov/index.cfm (accessed May 22, 2010). 

106 According to processing times posted by USCIS on its website, 

https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/processTimesDisplay.do 

(accessed May 22, 2010). 
Annual Report to Congress – June 2010 31

5. Family-Based Green Cards 

Beginning in spring 2009, USCIS started transferring 

family-based preference cases (Forms I-130) from service 

centers to local field offices to take advantage of adjudicatory capacity. USCIS forecasts this shift of work to the field 

offices will result in a reduction in the current pending 

family-based petition inventory from approximately 

690,000 to 180,000 by the end of calendar year 2010.107 

The Ombudsman suggests that petitioners take immediate steps to update 

their current address with USCIS to ensure that they receive timely 

correspondence – including Requests for Evidence (RFEs), as well as approval 

and denial notices – related to the accelerated adjudication of their cases. 

Although the waiting list for family preference categories 

indicates a large pool of potential green card applicants, 

actual demand has been low for approximately the past 15 

months. The Visa Bulletin cut-off dates have moved forward 

quickly in an effort to generate green card filings by the 

beneficiaries of approved family petitions. The F2 category 

(for certain eligible relatives of lawful permanent residents) 

has shown the greatest movement. Unless eligible applicants file for their green cards, a significant number of 

family-based visas may go unused in FY 2010.

a. Background

The highest demand for visas comes from four countries: 

mainland China, India, Mexico, and the Philippines; the 

Visa Bulletin posts individual processing dates for each of 

these countries. Mexico supplies the highest demand for 

family-based immigration.108 See Figure 17.

Each preference category is subject to the per-country 

limit, however the INA grants an additional provision in 

connection with the F2A category (spouse and minor 

children of lawful permanent residents).109 Unlike the strict 

per-country caps that apply in all other preference cases, this 

unique statutory provision allows the majority of F2A visas 

to be distributed without regard to country of origin.

Despite the leeway granted F2As, most petitioners in the 

family preference categories wait years for a visa to become 

available for their beneficiary. For example, a U.S. citizen 

filing a petition in August 1992 for an unmarried son or 

daughter (F1) in Mexico could not be processed for an 

immigrant visa until February 2010, nearly 18 years later. 

Generally it takes another year or more to complete consular 

processing, including security checks, medical examination, 

and interviews. In total, the immigration process spanned 

Figure 17: U.S. Department of State Family Sponsored Waiting List (as of Nov. 1, 2009)

Preference 

Category

FY 2010 

Estimates 

of Visas 

Available

Worldwide 

Beneficiaries 

Waiting for 

A Visa

Beneficiaries 

Waiting for

A Visa

(Nationals of 

Mexico)

Nationals of 

Mexico 

(% of Total)

Beneficiaries 

Waiting for

A Visa

(Nationals of 

the Philippines)

Nationals of the 

Philippines

(% of Total)

F1 23,400 245,516 68,628 28% 35,789 15%

F2A 88,000 324,864 173,631 53% 12,117 4%

F2B 26,000 517,898 222,006 43% 55,365 11%

F3 23,400 553,280 90,897 16% 136,111 25%

F4 65,000 1,727,897 618,871 36% 195,892 11%

Totals 3,369,455 1,174,033 435,274

Note: The U.S. Department of State data in the Source material and reflected above do not include applications pending at USCIS offices. 

Source: U.S. Department of State Report, “Annual Report of Immigrant Visa Applicants in the Family-sponsored and Employment-Based Preferences Registered at the National 

Visa Center as of November 1, 2009.”

107 Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman (Feb. 26, 2010).

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

109 INA § 202(a)(4).
32 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

Figure 18: Sample Family Visa Timeline

19 years in this scenario as shown in Figure 18. 

Another example represents a common situation: a lawful 

permanent resident petitioned at the end of June 1998 for 

an unmarried son or daughter (F2B) who is a citizen of the 

Philippines. That family must wait 12 years for the priority 

date to become current. The waiting period is often so 

long that the lawful permanent resident petitioner may 

have become a U.S. citizen. In this example, the petitioner’s 

naturalization would convert the beneficiary’s status to F1, 

the same category as in the first example, thereby reducing 

the waiting period by approximately four years.

The long wait between petition filing and visa availability 

may influence critical life choices by the beneficiary. 

Marriage, in particular, can affect a beneficiary’s status. 

Unlike the situation for a U.S. citizen’s beneficiary, who 

converts from the F1 to F3 preference category upon 

marrying while waiting for an available visa,110 there is 

no category available for the married son or daughter of 

a green card holder. The marriage of the son or daughter 

of a lawful permanent resident (F2B) voids the pending 

petition, and the priority date is lost. Consequently, many 

such beneficiaries find they must choose between marriage 

and immigrating to the United States.

b. Low Demand for Family-Based Visas

Although the 2009 waiting list provided by DOS indicates 

that a total of 3,369,455 applicants are awaiting a visa, 

actual demand for family-based green cards has fallen. See

Figure 17. In essence, millions of people have sought these 

valued visas by gaining a spot on the waitlist, but when 

their priority date becomes current they are not taking the 

next required steps in the process. The factors for this inaction are not clear, but likely are varied. Some applicants may 

have forgone their chance at lawful permanent residence 

due to changes in health, employment, or family situation. 

Additional factors may include economic concerns or the 

inability to obtain a green card from within the United 

States due to status issues, while departure from the United 

States to consular process may trigger the unlawful presence 

bars, under INA § 212. 

Demand for family-based visas has been “very low” in the 

past 15 months, especially in the F2 category.111 The DOS 

has been moving the cut-off dates forward rapidly to generate demand for family-based immigrant visas. If, despite 

these efforts, insufficient demand remains, family-based 

visas could go unused; pursuant to the statutory scheme, 

unused visas could spill across to the employment side. Last 

111 See DOS Visa Bulletin for May 2010, “E Visa Availability in the Coming 

Months;” http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4805.

110 8 C.F.R. § 204.2(i). html (accessed May 22, 2010).
Annual Report to Congress – June 2010 33

year, approximately 10,700 family-based visas went unused, 

and were issued to employment-based immigrants. 

c. Change in Processing Practice and Resources

Historically, because preference petition visas would not 

be available for many years, USCIS deferred immediate 

adjudication of family preference petitions and, instead, 

prioritized other product lines. In 2004, USCIS officially 

informed customers with pending family-based petitions 

that it would adjudicate such petitions based upon “visa 

availability.”112 Accordingly, petitioners were on notice not 

to expect their family preference petitions to be processed 

within any specific timeframe other than in relation to Visa 

Bulletin cut-off dates (i.e., just prior to visa availability).

In spring 2009, USCIS estimated that it had approximately 

1.1 million pending family-based petitions in inventory.113 

Because it received fewer filings in FY 2008 and 2009, 

USCIS readjusted resources and personnel so they could 

adjudicate these pending I-130s. USCIS has transferred 

hundreds of thousands of I-130 cases to local field offices 

for processing.114 Service centers will continue to adjudicate 

I-130 cases not transferred. As a result, by December 31, 

2009, USCIS reduced its I-130 inventory to 690,000, 

of which 575,000 were preference petitions.115 USCIS 

informed the Ombudsman that it expects to adjudicate 

750,000 new and pending family-based preference 

petitions by December 31, 2010.116 

Based upon this recent change, coupled with DOS’ 

acceleration of cut-off dates, petitioners anticipating a 

long wait before having their applications processed could 

miss important correspondence from USCIS if they change 

addresses without properly notifying USCIS.117 Adjudication 

of old I-130s could generate RFEs that must be responded 

to timely. In the absence of a timely response, USCIS will 

terminate the I-130 petition. In the worst case scenario, 

petitioners and applicants who fail to notify USCIS of 

their address changes may not discover such I-130 RFEs 

and denials for years, and be required to begin the entire 

application process again.

d. Factors Affecting Visa Demand

With DOS advancing cut-off dates swiftly, it is difficult to 

predict whether the forward movement of the cut-off dates 

will generate the necessary and intended demand to utilize 

fully the statutory family-based visa allocations, or create a 

surge and resulting retrogression. 

Actual demand for family-based visas could remain low 

despite USCIS, DOS, and Ombudsman efforts to inform the 

public of this situation. While their priority date may be 

current according to the Visa Bulletin, some approved I-130 

beneficiaries who are present in the United States may be 

unable to complete the last step of the immigration process 

because of defects that exist in their immigration status 

including, but not limited to, entering the United States 

without inspection or working without permission. Some 

of these same beneficiaries cannot leave the United States 

to consular process without triggering the three or ten year 

re-entry bars.118 While pathways of discretionary relief 

exist for certain beneficiaries to cure some ineligibilities, 

some chose not to apply for their immigrant visas either 

in the United States or overseas due to the requirements of 

the waivers and the risks involved. Such approved family 

petitions thus remain in a holding pattern. 

 

112 USCIS Press Release, “Notice to All Customers with a Pending 

I-130 Petition” (July 15, 2004); http://www.uscis.gov/files/

pressrelease/I_130_07_01_04.pdf (accessed May 22, 2010). 

113 Ombudsman’s Annual Report 2009, Family-Based Petitions 

(I-130), p. 47. 

114 Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman (Feb. 26, 2010).

115 Id.

116 Id. As a result, USCIS will have a projected inventory of 65,000 

I-130 family preference petitions at the end of calendar year 2010. 

Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman (Feb. 26, 2010).

117 Change of address is filed on Form AR-11. Permanent residents 

are required by law to change their address within 10 days of such 

change. INA § 265. While the law requires a sponsor who has filed 

an Affidavit of Support to notify USCIS on Form I-865 (Sponsor’s 

Notice of Change of Address), petitioners often do not update their 

filing after they move. INA § 213A(d). Correspondence from USCIS 

is not forwarded.

118 See INA § 212(a)(9)(C)(i) & (ii). 
34 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

Duplicate filings may also contribute to the discrepancy 

between the waiting list of I-130s and actual green card 

demand. For example, if both permanent resident parents 

petitioned for their children, but only one petition is processed, the other petition would remain on the waiting list 

if not withdrawn. In a related situation, some permanent 

resident petitioners who naturalize file new I-130s for their 

beneficiaries, rather than seeking to upgrade the previously 

filed and pending petition. In both situations, the original 

unused petitions could remain on the waiting list. 

Global economic conditions could also explain part of 

why actual visa demand appears out of alignment with the 

DOS waiting list. Some beneficiaries may choose not to 

immigrate because they see greater opportunity in their 

home country. In addition, some petitioners may be unable 

to demonstrate the financial means required to support a 

sponsored family member. 

Whatever the reasons, the actual immigrant visa demand on 

the family side remains low and family-based visas may go 

unused. Applicable government agencies and stakeholders 

continue to collaborate to understand and address this 

trend, and to encourage the public to monitor closely the 

rapidly changing dates in the Visa Bulletin.

6. Interagency Liaising

The Ombudsman continues to convene monthly meetings 

between USCIS and DOS to facilitate information sharing 

regarding administration of the queues for employment 

and family green cards. The goal of these monthly meetings 

is to provide for the orderly, predictable, and transparent 

movement of immigrant visa cut-off dates and related 

immigration processing. Discussions can range widely from 

labor certification processing information and immigrant 

visa usage to remaining visa availability, workload estimates, 

and future cut-off date movements. 

Personnel from USCIS Headquarters, the four service 

centers, and the National Benefits Center, as well the DOS 

Visa Office and the National Visa Center have joined these 

meetings during the 2010 reporting period to facilitate 

increased communication and resource allocation planning 

on family-based cases. 

This dialogue is critical considering that when USCIS 

and DOS fail to accurately estimate cut-off dates, visas go 

unused or are shifted to other family or employment-based 

categories. Congress passed legislation permitting the 

recapture of some unused visa numbers from previous 

years.119 Figure 19 presents data on visa numbers “lost” 

between 1992 and 2009 for both employment and family 

preference categories. 

119 See Title V, Section 502 of the REAL ID Act of 2005 (Division B of 

Pub. L. No. 109-013) (2005). See also Section 106(d) of Pub. L. No. 

106-313 (2000). A bill to recapture additional unused visas was 

introduced in the 111th Congress, “Reuniting Families Act,” H.R. 

2709, 111th Cong. § 101 (2009). 
Annual Report to Congress – June 2010 35

Figure 19: Unused Family and Employment Preference Visas – FY 1992-2009

Fiscal 

Year

Unused Family 

Preference Numbers

Unused Employment 

Preference Numbers

Following FY’s Family 

Preference Limit

Following FY’s Employment 

Preference Limit

1992 5,435 21,207 232,4831 161,2071

1993 3,213 0 226,000 143,213

1994 6,503 29,430 253,721 146,503

1995 0 58,694 311,819 140,000

1996 0 21,173 226,000 140,000

1997 0 40,710 226,000 140,000

1998 20,906 53,571 226,000 160,906

1999 2,299 98,941 294,601 142,299

2000 52,074 31,098 226,000 192,074

2001 2,632 5,511 226,000 142,632

2002 31,532 0 226,000 171,532

2003 64,422 88,482 226,000 204,422

2004 8,449 47,305 226,000 148,449

2005 3,949 0 226,000 143,949

2006 7,148 10,288 226,000 147,148

2007 22,704 0 226,000 162,704

2008 0 0 226,000 140,000

2009 10,6622 0 226,000 150,6622

Total 241,928 506,410 

( 180,039 were recaptured 

by special legislation)

Note: The Unused Employment Preference Numbers total is used in calculating the following fiscal year’s Family Preference numerical limit, and vice-versa.

1

Unused Employment Preference numbers did not fall across to the following fiscal year’s Family Preference limit (and vice versa) until FY 1994. 2

Totals for FY 2009 are preliminary. 

Source: Data and notes provided by U.S. Department of State to the Ombudsman (Mar. 5, 2010).

Coordination between the agencies is improving, but 

remains a challenge. USCIS and DOS each manages and 

allocates resources to achieve operational efficiency and 

distributes workloads throughout the year. Communication 

is vital because their separate choices can lead to decisions 

affecting the entire immigration system. 
36 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

D.	 Requests for Evidence (RFEs) – When

Are They Warranted?

1. Introduction

Based on feedback from stakeholders across the country, few 

processes rival Requests for Evidence (RFEs) as a source of 

widespread public concern about lack of uniformity and 

efficiency in USCIS adjudications. 

An RFE is the tool that USCIS uses to seek additional information when an adjudicator deems that an application or 

petition lacks the required evidence to adjudicate the case. 

Concerns expressed to the Ombudsman indicate that there 

is a general lack of trust in the RFE process due to what 

appear to be inconsistent practices and philosophies among 

service centers, as well as overly broad and duplicative 

requests for information by USCIS.

2. Background

Beginning with Annual Report 2008, the Ombudsman 

discussed RFEs as a “Pervasive and Serious Problem,” 

focusing principally on family-based green card applications 

at the National Benefits Center.120 In the 2009 report, the 

Ombudsman initiated discussion of RFEs for nonimmigrant worker categories and provided data for selected 

categories.121 In late summer 2009, the Ombudsman began 

further review of USCIS’ RFE policy and practice. The following discussion focuses on RFEs occurring within three 

particular business visa lines, H-1B Specialty Occupation 

Workers,122 L-1A Intracompany Transferee Managers and 

Executives,123 and L-1B Intracompany Transferee Specialized 

Knowledge Workers.124 

This study is responsive to an increasing number of complaints by institutional immigration stakeholders in various 

public forums, as well as to individuals and employers who 

have requested that the Ombudsman review individual 

RFE cases. The principal RFE concerns reported to the 

Ombudsman include:

• Redundancy – requesting data/documents provided 

with the initial submission; 

• Boilerplate language – data/document requests are 

overly broad, immaterial, or irrelevant;

• Burdensome and intrusive requests, some raising 

privacy concerns; 

• Incorrect references to regulations; 

• Inappropriate questioning of the petitioner’s business 

determinations; 

• Mischaracterization of the nature of an employer’s 

business;

• Unfounded assumptions;

• Lack of explanation regarding why corroboration for 

evidence submitted is sought; and

• Unnecessary requests of petitioners to prove alternative 

bases of eligibility.

The RFE issuance process is resource intensive for USCIS 

and its customers. Adjudicators and contract personnel 

must prepare an RFE, mail it, physically store the case 

file while awaiting the customer’s response, receive the 

customer’s response and match it with the correct file, and 

return the file to an adjudicator who reviews the response 

and adjudicates the petition. 

Individuals and employers voice frustration over RFEs for 

delaying final adjudication of a requested benefit by weeks 

or months. RFEs also impose time and resource burdens 

on employers, and can cause hardship to foreign worker 

beneficiaries and their families in the form of income loss 

and interference with relocation logistics, such as making 

housing, travel, and school arrangements.

120 See Ombudsman’s Annual Reports 2009, pp. 17-19; 2008, pp. 47-49. 

The most common reasons for family-based RFEs included: Form 

I-864 (Affidavit of Support) issues; medical examination 

and vaccination records; and marriage and birth records. These RFEs 

are ministerial in nature – generally where the applicant 

failed to provide a specifically required document – rather than 

more substantive RFEs that directly or indirectly question 

whether the petitioner or beneficiary qualifies for the requested 

immigration benefit. 

121 Ombudsman’s Annual Report 2009, p. 18.

122 See INA § 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). 

123 See INA § 101(a)(15)(L). 

124 Id.
Annual Report to Congress – June 2010 37

The Ombudsman notes that USCIS Director Mayorkas, 

soon after his appointment in August 2009, identified 

stakeholder concerns with RFEs as a top priority. He has 

personally engaged in and led a number of discussions with 

stakeholders about their experiences with RFEs, and on 

April 12, 2010, USCIS launched a formal initiative to review 

RFEs.125 As USCIS undertakes its own review of RFEs, the 

Ombudsman offers the following independent analysis and 

recommendations on this subject.

3. Methodology

The Ombudsman reviewed articles and commentaries on 

this subject published over the past several years, listened in 

on immigration briefings and conference sessions focused 

on RFEs, and engaged with stakeholders in various forums 

to learn of their concerns and to solicit suggestions on steps 

USCIS could take to reduce unnecessary RFEs.

In addition to examining individual case problems submitted to the Ombudsman for case assistance, the 

office received from stakeholders examples of cases they 

believed showed unnecessary or inappropriately issued 

RFEs. Although some submissions exemplified the RFE 

problems claimed, other cases displayed RFE issuance that 

appeared justified. 

The Ombudsman also met with, and presented the 

above-noted RFE data to, USCIS officials, including Service 

Center Operations managers, as well as the California 

Service Center (CSC) and the Vermont Service Center 

(VSC) Assistant Center Directors and supervisors. The 

Ombudsman solicited USCIS observations and comments 

on the data to assist in contextualizing, explaining, and 

better understanding what this information does and does 

not show. 

During meetings with the CSC and VSC, the Ombudsman 

reviewed several RFE case examples with center personnel, 

and otherwise explored RFE-related lines of inquiry including: recognition and application of the appropriate evidentiary standard – “preponderance of the evidence;” USCIS 

guidance on RFEs; specific USCIS guidance memoranda and 

Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) decisions concerning 

the adjudication of H-1B and L-1B visa petitions; relevant 

USCIS Adjudicator’s Field Manual (AFM) sections addressing 

these topics; and the impact of anti-fraud concerns and 

initiatives on adjudications and RFEs.

The following sections identify applicable legal parameters 

and other factors that may bear on increased usage of 

RFEs in recent years. While concerns about RFEs arise 

in humanitarian, family, and employment contexts, this 

review focused especially on specific employment visas for 

in-depth review.

4. Data Reveal Increases in RFE Rates for H-1Bs, 

L-1As, and L-1Bs Petitions

The following graphs present data separately for the H-1B, 

L-1A, and L-1B product lines spanning the 15 years from 

FY 1995 through FY 2009, and compare the VSC and CSC 

RFE rates.126 

125 USCIS website, “Listening Session - Request for Evidence (RFE) 

Review and Revision;” http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Outreach/

Public%20Engagement/National%20Event%20Pages/2010%20

Events/April%202010/Executive_Summary_April%2012%20

RFE%20Engagement.pdf (accessed June 14, 2010).

126 USCIS formally announced its “bi-specialization initiative” on 

March 24, 2006. It paired the VSC and CSC, and tasked them with 

processing certain products, including Form I-129 (Petition for 

a Nonimmigrant Worker). USCIS Press Release “USCIS Notifies 

Employers of Filing Changes;” www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/

BiSpecPh01_24Mar06PR.pdf (accessed Mar. 28, 2010).
38 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

Figure 20: H-1B Requests for Evidence – FY 1995-2009

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

96 99 02

Fiscal Year

RFE % of Total Receipts

95 97 98 00 01 0403 05 06 08 07 09

California Service Center

Vermont Service Center

Source: Data provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman (Nov. 23, 2009).

H-1B beneficiaries include nonimmigrant professionals 

with a Bachelor’s degree or its equivalent in a specific field 

of study as the minimum entry level requirement. Over 

this 15 year period, the data reveal that the VSC and CSC 

exchanged positions several times, with the VSC posting 

higher H-1B RFE rates from FY 1995 through FY 2001, and 

the CSC moving above the VSC in 2003, 2004, and 2005. 

More recently, between FYs 2007 and 2009, the VSC and 

CSC have had virtually the same H-1B RFE rates. 

Most importantly, the data show an approximate doubling 

of H-1B RFE rates at both service centers between FYs 2008 

and 2009; with the VSC moving from 14.1 to 29.3 percent 

and the CSC moving from 13.3 to 25 percent. 
Annual Report to Congress – June 2010 39

Figure 21: L-1A Requests for Evidence – FY 1995-2009

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

96 99 02

Fiscal Year

RFE % of Total Receipts

95 97 98 00 01 0403 05 06 08 07 09

California Service Center

Vermont Service Center

Source: Data provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman (Nov. 23, 2009).

L-1A beneficiaries include nonimmigrant executives and 

managers transferring from an overseas company to its affiliated U.S. operation who meet certain other requirements. 

For these applicants, the data show that during most of the 

time span reported, the CSC RFE rates have been higher than 

those at the VSC, although the gap narrowed briefly in FY 

1999, 2000, and again in 2007. 

The VSC L-1A RFE rates nearly doubled between FY 2006 

and FY 2009 (from 8.5 percent to 16.5 percent). The 

CSC rates increased as well from 18.7 percent in FY 2006 

to 31.9 percent in FY 2009, with the largest portion of 

this rise – from 21.5 percent to 31.9 percent – occurring 

between FY 2008 and 2009.
40 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

Figure 22: L-1B Requests for Evidence – FY 1995-2009

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

96 99 02

Fiscal Year

RFE % of Total Receipts

95 97 98 00 01 0403 05 06 08 07 09

California Service Center

Vermont Service Center

Source: Data provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman (Nov. 23, 2009).

L-1B beneficiaries include nonimmigrants with specialized 

knowledge transferring from an overseas company 

to its affiliated U.S. operation who meet certain other 

requirements. For these applicants, RFE rates were 

historically stable, and comparatively close at the CSC and 

VSC between FYs 1997 and 2001, with some separation 

occurring between FYs 2002 and 2003 before they 

converged near 7.5 percent in FY 2005. From there, 

however, differentiation between the RFE rates at the two 

service centers became more pronounced. 

In FY 2006, the CSC RFE rate moved up nearly six points to 

13.3 percent, and reached 35.4 percent by 2007. During 

the same two-year period, the VSC rates remained steady 

at 4.2 and 4.7 percent, respectively. L-1B RFE rates rose 

at both service centers in FY 2008, with the CSC reaching 

40.1 percent, and the VSC up to 21 percent. 

By close of FY 2009, the CSC RFE rate dropped slightly 

to 35.5 percent, while the VSC’s rate continued trending 

upward to 29.1 percent. L-1B RFE rates at both service 

centers closed FY 2009 with rates at or near 15 year highs.

5. Legal Framework 

a. “Preponderance of the Evidence Standard”

Stakeholders suggest that the “preponderance of the 

evidence” standard is not being used, and that some 

adjudicators may be issuing RFEs to increase their level 

of confidence that benefit eligibility is firmly established 

beyond this standard. 

USCIS does have established policy governing the appropriate evidentiary standard. In 2006, USCIS adopted127

the AAO’s decision in Matter of Chawathe,

128 thereby 

127 USCIS adopted decisions are Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 

decisions that the USCIS Director identifies as binding policy 

guidance that agency personnel must follow in all cases involving 

similar issues.

128 Matter of Chawathe, A74 254 994 (AAO, Jan. 11, 2006), USCIS 

website, USCIS Adopted Decision, “006-0003 – Preservation of 

Residence, Standard of Proof;” http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/

uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnex

toid= 57ceb9e54cf0e010VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCRD&vgne

xtchannel=02729c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1RCRD

(accessed May 5, 2010).
Annual Report to Congress – June 2010 41

reaffirming that the general standard129 to be used in the 

adjudication of immigration petitions and applications is 

preponderance of the evidence:

The “preponderance of the evidence” standard 

requires that the evidence demonstrate that the 

applicant’s claim is “probably true,” where the 

determination of “truth” is made based on the 

factual circumstances of each individual case. 

Matter of E-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm. 

1989). In evaluating the evidence, Matter of

E-M- also stated that “[t]ruth is to be determined 

not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its 

quality.” Id. Thus, in adjudicating the application 

pursuant to the preponderance of the evidence 

standard, the director must examine each piece 

of evidence for relevance, probative value, 

and credibility, both individually and within 

the context of the totality of the evidence, to 

determine whether the fact to be proven is 

probably true.

Even if the director has some doubt as to the 

truth, if the petitioner submits relevant, probative, and credible evidence that leads the 

director to believe that the claim is “probably 

true” or “more likely than not,” the applicant 

or petitioner has satisfied the standard of 

proof. See U.S. v. Cardozo-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 

421 (1987)(defining “more likely than not” as 

a greater than 50 percent probability of something occurring). If the director can articulate a 

material doubt, it is appropriate for the director 

to either request additional evidence or, if that 

doubt leads the director to believe that the claim 

is probably not true, deny the application or 

petition.130 (Emphasis added)

By adopting Chawathe, USCIS made the foregoing statements binding on adjudications of immigration benefits.

b. Code of Federal Regulations 

Stakeholders complain that some adjudicators are issuing 

RFEs despite sufficient information initially having been 

submitted to support a decision. However, the Ombudsman 

notes that issuance of an RFE sometimes represents a second 

chance for petitioners to make their case, allowing them an 

opportunity to overcome evidentiary deficiencies that could 

otherwise lead to denials. 

USCIS’ use of RFEs is largely discretionary and applicable 

regulations131 describe when an RFE may be used and what 

it must contain:

(ii) ... [i]f all required initial evidence is not

submitted ... USCIS in its discretion may

deny the application or petition for lack 

of initial evidence or for ineligibility or 

request that the missing initial evidence 

be submitted ....

(iii) ... [i]f all required initial evidence has 

been submitted but the evidence submitted does not establish eligibility, USCIS 

may ... request more information or 

evidence from the applicant or petitioner 

.... 

(iv) A request for evidence ... will specify the 

type of evidence required...sufficient to 

give the applicant or petitioner adequate 

notice and sufficient information to respond .... (Emphasis added)

129 Depending on the specific benefit or relief sought, a higher 

evidentiary standard may be applicable. See INA § 204(a)(2)(A)(ii) 

or 245(e) requiring the petitioner to prove that the marriage is bona 

fide by “clear and convincing evidence.”

130 Matter of Chawathe, A74 254 994 (AAO, Jan. 11, 2006). 131 See 8 C.F.R. §103.2(b)(8)(ii–iv).
42 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

c. Adjudicator’s Field Manual References to RFEs

Additional written guidance on RFEs is provided to 

adjudicators in chapter 10.5(a) of the AFM:

(a)(2) Considerations Prior to Issuing RFEs. RFEs 

should, if possible, be avoided. Requesting 

additional evidence or returning a case for 

additional information may unnecessarily 

burden USCIS resources, duplicate other 

adjudication officers’ efforts, and delay 

case completion. 

 * * * 

In particular, requests for “discretionary” 

evidence should be carefully considered. 

For example, a request for tax returns or 

other financial information as evidence of 

the viability of the petitioner’s job offer for 

an “H” petition might be reasonable if the 

petitioner is a small start-up company, but 

would be unreasonable if the petitioner is a 

Fortune 500 company....

In short, an adjudicator should strive to 

request the evidence needed for thorough, 

correct decision-making. An adjudicator 

should not “fish” for evidence. (Emphasis 

added)

d. RFE Guidance 

In addition to the above-noted regulatory and AFM 

provisions, USCIS issued three guidance memoranda 

between 2004 and 2007 addressing RFEs.

On May 4, 2004, former Associate Director of Operations 

William Yates issued an Interoffice Memorandum132 to 

address concerns that agency adjudicators were unnecessarily issuing RFEs when the record was complete and where a 

denial could be made based on the evidence already submitted. USCIS issued this guidance in the context of agency 

efforts to reduce its inventory of unadjudicated filings. In 

response, stakeholders complained that this approach would 

lead some adjudicators to deny cases where an RFE could 

give the petitioner an opportunity to overcome a deficiency. 

They were particularly concerned about cases filed by 

individuals without an attorney. 

USCIS rescinded the 2004 Yates Memorandum and replaced 

it with more expansive guidance on February 16, 2005.133 

Thereafter, on June 1, 2007, then Acting Associate Director, 

Domestic Operations, Donald Neufeld, issued a third 

memorandum134 addressing both RFEs and Notices of Intent 

to Deny (NOIDs).135

Omitting reference to the now rescinded 2004 memorandum, Figure 23 summarizes the key points made in the 

2005 and 2007 RFE memoranda. 

132 A copy of the now rescinded May 4, 2004 memorandum may be 

found online at http://onlineplus.uscis.dhs.gov/graphics/lawsregs/

handman/pdf/OCC_RFE050404.pdf (accessed May 5, 2010).

133 Interoffice Memorandum, “Requests for Evidence (RFE) and Notices 

of Intent to Deny (NOID)” (Feb. 16, 2005); www.uscis.gov/files/

pressrelease/RFE021605.pdf (accessed Mar. 28, 2010).

134 Interoffice Memorandum, “Removal of the Standardized Request for 

Evidence Processing Timeframe Final Rule, 8 CFR 103.2(b)” 

(June 1, 2007). 

135 USCIS uses a NOID to provide written notice to an applicant or 

petitioner that it has made a preliminary decision to deny the 

application or petition based on evidence of ineligibility and/or on 

derogatory information of which the applicant or petitioner may not 

be aware. See 69 Fed. Reg. 69549, 69550 (Nov. 30, 2004); http://

edocket.access.gpo.gov/2004/04-26371.htm (accessed May 5, 

2010).
Annual Report to Congress – June 2010 43

Figure 23: Key Points from Request for Evidence 

Memoranda 

Topic Key Points Source

Petitioner/

Applicant 

Bears the 

Burden of 

Persuasion

• Preponderance of Evidence is 

the required standard

• “More likely than not” to be 

true is sufficient

• Not required to demonstrate 

eligibility beyond a 

reasonable doubt

Yates 

February 2005 

Memo136

RFEs Are 

Generally 

Discretionary

• RFEs are discretionary 

when initial evidence is 

not submitted or does not 

fully establish eligibility; 

adjudicators may proceed 

directly to denial if the 

record is complete 

• Be specific in making 

requests

• Use only relevant portions 

of templates

• Explain why previously 

submitted evidence is not 

sufficient or persuasive

Key Points 

and Response 

Times

• Avoid RFEs, if possible

• Carefully consider requesting 

discretionary evidence

• Do not “fish” for evidence

• Permit flexible, but limited, 

times to respond, depending 

on application type 

Neufeld 

June 2007 

Memo137

e. USCIS Memoranda Affecting H-1B and L-1 Petition 

RFE Rates

In conducting this initial review of H and L visa petition 

RFEs, the Ombudsman identified the following USCIS 

memoranda and agency actions that may contribute to 

increased use of RFEs. 

i. October 2008 H-1B Fraud Memorandum

Concerns about H-1B fraud138 led USCIS to issue internal 

guidance to adjudicators in 2008 authorizing their use 

of RFEs to resolve possible fraud found in initial benefit 

submissions or through other derogatory information 

regarding the petitioner and/or beneficiary. USCIS Director 

Mayorkas, in response to a congressional inquiry,139

referenced an H-1B fraud memorandum which instructs 

adjudicators to issue RFEs when they become aware of 

potential violations of H-1B program requirements. The 

Ombudsman confirmed with H-1B product line managers 

at the CSC and VSC that the implementation of this 

memorandum may have played a role in the increased use 

of RFEs.140 

136 On Feb. 16, 2005, Associate Director of Operations, William Yates 

issued Interoffice Memorandum, “Requests for Evidence (RFE) and 

Notices of Intent to Deny (NOID),” addressing particularly those 

cases where the “Record is Complete and Case is Approvable.” 

137 On June 1, 2007, Donald Neufeld, then Acting Associate Director, 

Domestic Operations, issued an Interoffice Memorandum, “Removal 

of the Standardized Request for Evidence Processing Timeframe 

Final Rule, 8 CFR 103.2(b),” removing the fixed period of 12 

weeks to respond to an RFE, and permitting USCIS to assign flexible 

times for applicants and petitioners to respond to RFEs and NOIDs. 

Additionally, the June 2007 memorandum reaffirmed several key 

points from the 2005 Yates Memorandum, specifically that “RFEs 

should, if possible, be avoided ... [and that] adjudicator[s] should 

not ‘fish’ for evidence.” 

138 USCIS issued an H-1B Benefit & Fraud Compliance Assessment in 

September 2008. In the assessment, USCIS examined employer 

compliance with all statutory and regulatory provisions associated 

with the H-1B nonimmigrant visa program, including the terms 

and conditions of the Labor Condition Application (LCA). The 

assessment reported a 21 percent baseline fraud or technical 

violation(s) rate for H-1B petitions, with 13.4 percent identified 

as containing fraud (“defined as a willful misrepresentation, 

falsification, or omission of a material fact”), and 7.3 percent of 

cases containing “technical violations.” USCIS based the assessment 

on a sampling of 246 cases drawn from a total of 96,827 petitions 

filed between October 1, 2005 and March 31, 2006. See

www.uscis.gov/files/nativedocuments/H-1B_BFCA_20sep08.pdf 

(accessed Mar. 28, 2010). 

139 For the September 29, 2009, letter to USCIS Director Alejandro 

Mayorkas, see http://grassley.senate.gov/news/Article.cfm?customel_

dataPageID_1502=23410 (accessed June 21, 2010).

140 Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman (Mar. 26, 2010).
44 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

ii. January 2010 Employer-Employee Relationship 

Memorandum

On January 8, 2010, Service Center Operations Associate 

Director Donald Neufeld issued a guidance memorandum 

entitled “Determining Employer-Employee Relationship for 

Adjudication of H-1B Petitions, Including ThirdParty Site Placements,” describing USCIS’ approach to 

determine whether a legitimate “employer-employee 

relationship” exists:

USCIS may issue a Request for Evidence (RFE) 

when USCIS believes that the petitioner has failed 

to establish eligibility for the benefit sought, including in cases where the petitioner has failed to 

establish that a valid employer-employee relationship exists and will continue to exist throughout 

the duration of the beneficiary’s employment 

term with the employer. Such RFEs, however, 

must specifically state what is at issue (e.g. the 

petitioner has failed to establish through evidence 

that a valid employer-employee relationship exists) and be tailored to request specific illustrative 

types of evidence from the petitioner that goes 

directly to what USCIS deems as deficient.141

Like the 2008 H-1B fraud memorandum, the 2010 

employment relationship memorandum directly authorizes 

use of RFEs in H-1B cases to determine if a bona fide

employer-employee relationship exists. 

Apart from fielding complaints from stakeholders about the 

substance142 of the recent memorandum, as well as the lack 

of advance input from stakeholders, the Ombudsman has 

also been informed that the principles set forth for H-1Bs 

are surfacing in RFEs and denials in other immigration 

product lines, including “L” Intracompany 

Transferees, “O” Extraordinary Ability temporary worker 

cases, and immigrant worker cases.143

f. Additional Factors That May Contribute to 

Increased RFE Rates

i. H-1B RFE Rates in FY 2009 Are Attributable to 

Troubled Asset Relief Program 

The Employ American Workers Act, signed into law on 

February 17, 2009,144 requires companies receiving 

emergency federal funds to attest that their hiring of H-1B 

workers would not displace U.S. workers. Essentially, the 

law requires USCIS to treat such Troubled Asset Relief 

Program recipients as H-1B dependent employers.145

USCIS issued a revised H-1B Data Collection Form in 

response to the Employ American Workers Act on March 20, 

2009,146 just days before the April 1 opening of the FY 2009 

H-1B cap filing period. In an effort to minimize confusion, 

USCIS announced that while it preferred petitioners to 

file using the newly revised H-1B Data Collection Form, it 

would accept H-1B petitions submitted with the old form. 

However, USCIS further advised that it would issue RFEs to 

those petitioners using the old form, and would need such 

petitioners to respond by identifying whether or not they 

were subject to the Employ American Workers Act. 

141 USCIS Memorandum, “Determining Employer-Employee 

Relationship for Adjudication of H-1B Petitions, Including ThirdParty Site Placements,” p. 10 (Jan. 8, 2010); www.uscis.gov/

USCIS/Laws/Memoranda/2010/H1B%20Employer-Employee%20

Memo010810.pdf (accessed Mar. 28, 2010).

142 Stakeholders questioned both the logic and legal basis for USCIS to 

use a “common law” analysis to determine whether a qualifying 

“employer-employee relationship” exists. The Ombudsman does not 

provide further comment due to current pending litigation. 

143 In addition to exploring the validity of the employment relationship 

in the context of employees that are assigned to third-party 

work sites, footnote 5 of the January 8, 2010 memorandum also 

extended this discussion to what USCIS characterizes as “Self 

Employed Beneficiaries,” and appears to authorize adjudicators to 

explore and/or seek to validate through RFEs concerns that they 

may have that a petition is not approvable on this basis. USCIS 

Interoffice Memorandum, “Determining Employer-Employee 

Relationship for Adjudication of H-1B Petitions, Including ThirdParty Site Placements” (Jan. 8, 2010); www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Laws/

Memoranda/2010/H1B%20Employer-Employee%20Memo010810.

pdf (accessed May 21, 2010). 

144 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act § 1611, Pub. L. No. 111-5 

(2009); www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ5/pdf/PLAW111publ5.pdf (accessed May 15, 2010).

145 See Troubled Asset Relief Program or Section 13 of the Federal 

Reserve Act, Pub. L. No. 110-343 (2008); 

http://www.federalreserve.gov/bankinforeg/tarpinfo.htm 

(accessed Mar. 28, 2010).

146 See USCIS Questions and Answers, “Employ American Workers Act 

and its Effect on H-1B Petitions” (Mar. 20, 2009); www.uscis.gov/

files/article/H-1B_TARP_qa_20Mar2009.pdf

(accessed Mar. 28, 2010).
Annual Report to Congress – June 2010 45

Although some FY 2009 H-1B RFEs are specifically attributable to the Troubled Asset Relief Program, the exact number 

is unknown, as USCIS does not classify and capture RFE 

information on this basis.

ii. Some L-1B RFEs May Be Attributable to 

Exhaustion of H-1B Cap

After the close of FY 2003, the temporarily-increased 

annual allotment of new H-1B visas fell back from 195,000 

to 65,000. In FY 2004, the H-1B cap was reached for the 

first time in several years.147 Shortly before the cap was 

reached, the U.S. Department of State (DOS) sent a cable148

to consular posts suggesting that some companies and 

beneficiaries might attempt to use L visas when they find 

they can no longer secure an H-1B. Specifically, the DOS 

cable cautioned, “the inability of aliens to obtain H-1B 

visas can lead to increased fraud and abuse of the L [visa] 

and other categories, and posts need to be sensitive to this 

possibility.” USCIS service center personnel informed the 

Ombudsman that they, too, consider this concern, and that 

the exhaustion of the H-1B cap in previous years may have 

had a bearing on RFE rates.149 

Despite this specific concern raised by DOS and USCIS, the 

Ombudsman notes that L-1B RFE rates initially decreased in 

2004 and continued downward into 2005, at both service 

centers, before beginning to rise in 2006 at the CSC. 

See Figure 22. As the H-1B cap was reached in each of these 

years,150 the data do not show a direct correlation between 

the exhaustion of the cap and increased L visa RFEs. 

iii. Some L-1B RFEs Likely Attributable to L-1 Visa 

Reform Act and Blanket Petitions

Legislative changes made by the L-1 Visa Reform Act of 

2004 (VRA) likely contributed to increased RFE issuance. 

Specifically, L-1B specialized worker amendments served to 

prohibit the assignment of such workers to the worksite of 

another employer if: (1) the L-1B worker is “principally” 

controlled and supervised by an unaffiliated employer; or 

(2) the placement of the L-1B worker at the third party 

site is part of an “arrangement to provide labor for hire 

for the unaffiliated employer, rather than a placement in 

connection with the provision of a product or service for 

which specialized knowledge specific to the petitioning 

employer is necessary.”151 This and other provisions in the 

VRA were made applicable to all petitions filed on or after 

June 6, 2005.152

L-1B specialized workers admitted to the United States for 

periods of up to three years prior to June 6, 2005, were 

effectively exempted from review under the VRA until expiration of their status. For such workers, adjudications under 

the VRA would have first occurred when their employers 

petitioned to extend their stay. During the Ombudsman’s 

meeting with the CSC, managers and supervisors specifically 

cited to the VRA’s mandate that L-1B petition extensions be 

in compliance with third-party assignment restrictions as a 

potential ground for RFE issuance and denials. 

The Ombudsman observes that an initial rise in L-1B RFE 

rates in and after FY 2006 is consistent with the implementation date of the more restrictive requirements imposed 

by the VRA. It appears that the VSC’s L-1B RFE rates did not 

rise until 2007, as VSC endeavored to bring its adjudication 

approach into harmony with the CSC’s. See Figure 22. 

147 See “Information Regarding the H-1B Numerical Limitation for Fiscal 

Year 2004,” 69 Fed. Reg. 8675-8676 (Feb. 25, 2004); 

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2004/04-4089.htm 

(accessed Mar. 29, 2010).

148 DOS All Diplomatic and Consular Posts Cable, State 033493 

(Feb. 4, 2004); http://travel.state.gov/visa/laws/telegrams/

telegrams_1380.html (accessed Mar. 28, 2010).

149 Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman (Feb. 5, 2010).

150 In FY 2004 (Feb. 17, 2004), FY 2005 (Oct. 1, 2004), FY 2006 (Aug. 

10, 2005), FY 2007 (May 26, 2006), FY 2008 (Apr. 2, 2007), FY 

2009 (Apr. 5, 2008), and FY 2010 (Dec. 21, 2009). Information 

provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman (May 20, 2010).

151 Omnibus Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2005, Pub. L. No. 108-

447, Division J, Title IV, Subtitle A (otherwise referred to as “The L-1 

Visa Reform Act of 2004”), signed into law on December 8, 2004. 

See § 412(a). 

152 Id. See also USCIS Interoffice Memorandum, “Changes to the L 

Nonimmigrant Classification made by the L-1 Reform Act of 

2004” (July 28, 2005); www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/

LVisaReform072805.pdf (accessed Mar. 29, 2010).
46 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

Furthermore, some employers have blanket L-1 petition 

authority153 to bring an unspecified number of executives, 

managers, and/or specialized workers to the United States. 

The blanket L-1 program allows approved petitioners 

to send their L-1 executives, managers, and specialized 

workers directly to a U.S. consulate without filing individual 

petitions with USCIS. Accordingly, even after the effective 

date of the VRA, L-1B beneficiaries issued visas by a consular 

officer on a blanket petition, may later have encountered 

VRA scrutiny when USCIS reviewed petitions to extend their 

status. The VRA and use of blanket petitions therefore likely 

contributed to increased L-1B RFE rates. 

iv. Some L-1B RFEs May Result From Confusion 

Caused by a 2008 Non-Precedent Decision 

The AAO154 issued a lengthy decision on July 22, 2008, 

affirming the CSC’s denial of an L-1B specialized worker 

petition.155 This opinion (commonly referred to as “GST”) 

discussed the appropriate standard for determining whether 

a particular beneficiary has the requisite “specialized 

knowledge” for an L-1B petition.

GST has not been designated a precedent decision,156 yet 

it casts doubt upon the validity of longstanding agency 

guidance on L-1Bs set forth in the AFM and in the 1994 

“Interpretation of Special Knowledge” memorandum, 

authored by James A. Puleo, it cites.157 In short, GST

arguably provides a higher standard for specialized 

knowledge than that found in the AFM and the Puleo 

memorandum. Despite the fact that GST is a non-precedent 

AAO decision, CSC adjudicators are incorporating its logic 

and rationale into L-1B RFEs, Notices of Intent to Deny, 

and denials.158 The Ombudsman notes that even indirect 

adjudicator reliance on a non-precedent AAO decision, 

rather than on designated policy memoranda, directly 

contravenes the AFM statement that such policy memoranda 

are binding on adjudicators.159

Given this conflict, it is unclear whether USCIS expects 

adjudicators to adhere to the AFM and Puleo standards, or 

to apply the GST approach. Such confusion undermines 

the rule of law, presents challenges for petitioners and 

adjudicators, and can lead to increased use of RFEs and 

inconsistent adjudications. 

g. Initial RFE Study Observations and 

Recommendations

This review attempts to identify possible causes for RFE 

increases, but specifying the particular effect of any one or 

more drivers is a challenge. 

The Ombudsman has reviewed portions of training modules 

for new adjudicators currently in use at the USCIS Academy, 

and understands that no single training module or period 

of time is dedicated specifically to developing adjudicator 

expertise in weighing evidence. This skill is critical to 

decision-making on when to issue an RFE, what additional 

information to request, and ultimately to deciding whether 

or not to approve the application or a petition. Although 

the Ombudsman found references to the preponderance of 

the evidence standard in several training modules, they were 

brief, conclusory, and not particularly instructive. 

Missing from both USCIS’ training modules and the AFM 

are focused analyses of factual scenarios representing real 

world filings, with discussions arranged by petition and 

application type. Such example cases would, ideally, not 

only contain an outline of the eligibility requirements 

for the specific immigration benefit sought, but also 

discussion and analysis of the probative value of the 

various materials submitted; how such evidence supports 

153 See 8 C.F.R § 214.2(l)(4) and (5) for expanded information on 

blanket petitions.

154 The AAO has appellate jurisdiction over most applications and 

petitions. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.1(f)(iii) (2003). 

155 See In re: [redacted], WAC 07 277 53214 (AAO, July 22, 2008); 

www.uscis.gov/err/D7 - Intracompany Transferees (L-1A and 

L-1B)/Decisions_Issued_in_2008/Jul222008_04D7101.pdf 

(accessed May 20, 2010). 

156 “Precedent decisions” are those decisions specially designated as 

providing controlling legal principles and interpretations which are 

“binding on all Service employees in the administration of the Act.” 

8 C.F.R. § 103.3(c). 

157 Legacy INS Memorandum, “Interpretation of Special Knowledge,” 

James A. Puleo, Acting Exec. Assoc. Comm’r for Operations 

(Mar. 4, 1994). 

158 USCIS officials at the CSC and VSC advised the Ombudsman that 

adjudicators could apply GST principles, but that direct citation to 

the GST decision would be inappropriate as it is not a precedent 

decision. Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman 

(Feb. 2, 2010).

159 AFM Chapter 3.4 “Adherence to Policy.” 
Annual Report to Congress – June 2010 47

or fails to support eligibility requirements, and why; the 

factual and legal questions raised by the facts and evidence 

presented; whether the case can be adjudicated based on 

the information already provided and, if not, whether an 

RFE should be issued, and why; and most importantly, 

USCIS’ official position on how the particular case is to be 

decided when one correctly applies the preponderance of 

the evidence standard. 

 Adjudicators with whom the Ombudsman met during 

this study agreed that preponderance of the evidence is the 

correct evidentiary standard in H and L visa petition cases. 

Further, experienced personnel displayed confidence in 

having developed their own sensibilities regarding application of the standard. While recognizing this high level of 

competence acquired by seasoned adjudicators on-the-job, 

the Ombudsman remains concerned that uniform guidance 

and training is lacking to assist USCIS adjudicators in 

understanding how to apply this standard in real cases.

The Ombudsman believes that the agency could benefit by 

adopting a case format for providing guidance and training 

to new and experienced adjudicators alike. Such training 

could involve real-life scenarios and include training on the 

agency-approved approach and rationale for each scenario. 

In this way, facilitated by skilled instructors, adjudicators 

would move well beyond the ability to correctly identify 

and define the evidentiary standard; the case format would 

provide standardized training on how they are expected to 

apply the standard.

Given the lack of guidance on how to apply the 

preponderance standard, the Ombudsman recognizes 

that the difficulty of the adjudicator’s task is compounded 

in cases involving highly complex business or technical 

matters. While analyzing cases for evidentiary sufficiency, 

adjudicators also are expected simultaneously to review 

them for identifiable fraud – and to do all of this quickly 

and consistently to achieve increasingly aggressive case 

productions goals. This tension alone could produce erratic 

results as adjudicators seek to satisfy both objectives, but the 

situation is made even more difficult as adjudicators must 

assimilate new policy announcements. While adjudicators 

must manage their own challenges, stakeholders naturally 

expect that they will consistently follow applicable law, 

regulations, and policy guidance. 

The Ombudsman makes the following recommendations, 

and will continue to study RFE usage and processing during 

the next reporting period. 

RECOMMENDATION 1

The Ombudsman recommends that USCIS implement 

new and expanded training to ensure that adjudicators 

understand and apply the “preponderance of the 

evidence” standard in adjudications. (AR2010-01)

The initial review of H and L visa petition RFEs and related 

denials shows that adjudicators have difficulty applying the 

preponderance of the evidence, also called the “more likely 

than not” test in complex immigration cases, especially 

when they are simultaneously instructed not to approve 

cases containing fraud, material misrepresentations, or 

technical violations. 

Expanded training would give adjudicators greater 

confidence in their ability to weigh the evidence. For 

example, USCIS should provide adjudicators with case 

examples illustrating how to apply the preponderance of 

evidence standard in a given factual scenario, and show how 

added facts, which might trigger a fraud analysis, would 

determine whether or not an RFE would be useful.

The training should therefore emphasize that the RFE process is not to be used to satisfy every question or concern 

that an adjudicator may have about a case. As articulated 

in the 2005 Yates Memorandum “too often [adjudicators] 

issue [an] RFE for additional types of evidence that could 

tend to eliminate all doubt and all possibility for fraud.”160 

The Ombudsman expects that such additional preponderance of the evidence training would serve to reduce the 

number of unnecessary RFEs, and thereby allow USCIS to 

sharpen its focus and resources on those cases where an RFE 

is appropriate. 

160 Interoffice Memorandum, “Requests for Evidence (RFE) and Notices 

of Intent to Deny (NOID)” (Feb.16, 2005); www.uscis.gov/files/

pressrelease/RFE021605.pdf (accessed Mar. 28, 2010). 
48 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

RECOMMENDATION 2

The Ombudsman recommends that, consistent with applicable regulations, USCIS require adjudicators to specify 

the facts, circumstances, and/or derogatory information 

necessitating the issuance of an RFE. (AR2010-02)

Although USCIS encourages adjudicators to identify specific 

deficiencies, the Ombudsman continues to hear from 

stakeholders about, and receive case problems with, RFEs 

in which evidentiary deficiencies are not clearly stated. 

A detailed RFE is instrumental to providing customers a 

meaningful opportunity to overcome concerns with the 

evidence presented.

If a customer presents adequate information to prove 

benefit eligibility, USCIS adjudicators should – absent 

a legitimate law enforcement reason to do otherwise – identify with particularity material facts or evidence found to be 

inconsistent or potentially fraudulent. This approach would 

provide the customer an opportunity to present additional 

and/or alternative corroborative evidence addressing the 

adjudicator’s specific questions.161 

RECOMMENDATION 3

The Ombudsman recommends that USCIS establish clear 

adjudicatory L-1B (Intracompany Transferees – Specialized 

Knowledge) guidelines through the structured notice and 

comment process of the Administrative Procedures Act. 

(AR2010-03)

Among stakeholders and within USCIS, there is confusion 

about what constitutes “specialized knowledge.” 

Existing L-1B guidance memoranda and the AFM conflict 

with the AAO’s GST decision. Although GST has not been 

formally designated as a precedent or adopted decision, 

adjudicators appear to be using it to guide L-1B adjudications. Such indirect utilization of GST is cause for concern 

in view of USCIS policy articulated in the AFM regarding 

the primacy of internal guidance: “Policy material is 

binding on all USCIS officers and must be adhered to unless 

and until revised, rescinded or superseded by law, regulation 

or subsequent policy, either specifically or by application of 

more recent policy material.”162 Following the notice and 

comment process would ensure that stakeholder input and 

concerns are fully considered as the agency formulates a 

workable, durable policy.

RECOMMENDATION 4

The Ombudsman recommends that USCIS implement a 

pilot program requiring: (1) 100 percent supervisory 

RFE review of one or more product lines, and (2) an 

internal uniform checklist for adjudicators to complete 

prior to issuance of an RFE. (AR2010-04)

To reduce the incidence of costly, unnecessary, or inappropriate RFEs, USCIS should develop and pilot a mandatory, 

100 percent RFE supervisory review policy in one or more 

immigration product lines at one of its four service centers. 

The Ombudsman understands that such review may initially 

create additional work for supervisors. However, requiring 

such review could result in fewer and more specific RFEs 

as adjudicators and their supervisors adapt to the workload 

and in some cases may choose to forego issuance of an RFE 

in favor of applying the more likely than not test.

In addition, mandatory use of a standardized RFE checklist 

would ensure that adjudicators at different facilities and 

with differing levels of training and experience consider the 

same factors and follow the same protocols, yielding greater 

consistency in the use of RFEs. 

Following completion of the pilot, USCIS should evaluate 

the impact that such RFE review and the checklist have 

on decisional quality and speed, the business process, and 

adjudication costs. Analysis of resulting data should inform 

agency decisions regarding the possible role of enhanced 

supervisory review of RFEs.

161 Such a requirement is consistent with: the USCIS adopted decision 

in Matter of Chawathe, A74 254 994 (AAO, Jan. 11, 2006), which 

directs USCIS to “articulate a material doubt” in its Requests for 

Evidence; USCIS Interoffice Memorandum, “Requests for Evidence 

(RFE) and Notices of Intent to Deny (NOID),” which encourages 

adjudicators to “articulate how and why information already 

submitted is not sufficient or persuasive on a particular issue;” 

and 8 C.F.R. §103.2(b)(8)(iv), which requires adjudicators to 

“specify the type of evidence required ... sufficient to give the 

applicant or petitioner adequate notice and sufficient information 

to respond ....” 162 AFM Chapter 3.4 “Adherence to Policy.” 
Annual Report to Congress – June 2010 49

E.	 Customer	Service	–	Providing	Service	

and	Support	to	the	Customer

Since August 2009, USCIS has demonstrated a renewed 

focus on customer service. In keeping with that focus, in 

January 2010 USCIS realigned its organization and, as part 

of that initiative, created a new Customer Service 

Directorate that reports directly to the agency Director. 

See Appendix 3. USCIS also created a new Office of Public 

Engagement to share information on agency developments 

and hear feedback from the public. As the agency 

approaches the one-year anniversary of its new leadership, 

early indicators of USCIS’ commitment to more responsive 

government will be how valuable and how accessible the 

public finds its customer service. 

USCIS provides information in a variety of ways on how to 

file for an immigration benefit and, after filing, on how to 

monitor case status, including: the USCIS website; the webbased My Case Status; the National Customer Service Center 

(NCSC) toll-free telephone line; INFOPASS appointments 

at field offices;163 and written correspondence. During 

the reporting period, USCIS instituted new tools to assist 

customers in obtaining this information. For example, 

USCIS redesigned the website, which is more user-friendly, 

includes a “Where to Start?” feature, and has a Spanish 

language site. 

However, USCIS customer service remains a challenge. 

Despite substantial resources devoted to customer service 

and dedicated personnel, individuals and employers 

frequently report to the Ombudsman that they are unable 

to obtain the information sought or resolve case matters 

through regular USCIS customer service avenues. Those 

contacting the Ombudsman report particular frustration 

with the initial layer of service provided through the NCSC, 

which is composed of contractors reading scripts in response to caller questions. In this section, the Ombudsman 

makes recommendations to add value to the customer 

experience with the NCSC. 

USCIS customers often seek specific information about case 

status, wish to pose a question prior to responding to a 

Request for Evidence (RFE), or need to correct a clear service error. However, their inability to communicate directly 

with USCIS supervisors and adjudicators means that they 

cannot obtain immediate problem resolution. Customers 

complain that USCIS frequently responds that it will provide 

additional information after reviewing the service request. 

This type of response follows inquiries made on the phone 

via the NCSC and in person via INFOPASS appointments. 

Case problems shared with the Ombudsman show that 

many of these cases remain pending long after the initial 

customer service inquiry. Moreover, individuals and 

employers often resort to repeatedly using these resource 

intensive USCIS customer service avenues. Alternatively, or 

in addition, they utilize multiple outside resources, such as 

their congressional office, the Ombudsman, or any other 

entity, such as legal or trade associations. The goal of USCIS’ 

renewed focus on customer service should be to more 

effectively translate feedback received from stakeholders to 

improve the customer experience with the agency.

BEST PRACTICE

Some USCIS offices do provide customers with direct 

access by phone or email, for example, at the Chicago and 

Phoenix District Offices. 

1. Office of Public Engagement – Giving the Public 

A Seat At the Table

On September 14, 2009, USCIS established the Office of 

Public Engagement (OPE) to “more actively and ably elicit 

the views of those” who USCIS serves.164 USCIS Director 

Alejandro Mayorkas has emphasized that the importance of 

devoting resources to public engagement is to develop more 

collaborative working relationships that will inform agency 

policy and practice. OPE’s charge is significant as it is to 

facilitate “open and transparent communication between 

the [a]gency, external stakeholders, and the customers 

they represent by sharing feedback, working with [a]gency 

163 The Ombudsman does not address INFOPASS in this year’s report, 

as USCIS has addressed many of the problems discussed in 

previous reports with scheduling these appointments. The 

Ombudsman will continue monitoring agency success in keeping 

appointments available.

164 Letter from USCIS Director Mayorkas to USCIS Employees 

(Sept. 14, 2009).
50 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

leadership, coordinating follow-up, and reporting back to 

stakeholders.”165 

OPE, which expands the outreach previously conducted by 

the Office of Community Relations, includes three divisions. 

The Intergovernmental Affairs Division “advances outreach 

and communication with state, local, territorial, and tribal 

partners, including elected officials, associations, and other 

intergovernmental component offices.”166 The Community 

Relations and Engagement Division maintains collaborative relationships across a broad spectrum, ranging from 

community-based organizations and faith-based groups 

to English as a second language/civics instructors and all 

stakeholders having daily interaction with USCIS and its 

customers. OPE also has a national network of community relations officers who facilitate communication and 

feedback between USCIS and its customers. The Protocol 

Division oversees high profile events with senior leaders and 

“identifies opportunities for engagement and collaboration 

across all lines of work to support USCIS priorities.”167

Since its creation, OPE has held dozens of stakeholder 

events, often referred to as collaboration or listening sessions, on a range of topics including Requests for Evidence, 

Employment Eligibility Verification, Implications of the 

January 8, 2010, H-1B Employer-Employee Relationship 

Memorandum, Temporary Protected Status for Haitians, 

Centralization of Orphan Processing, Transformation, and 

the Citizenship and Integration Grant Program. On its 

website, USCIS provides a calendar of upcoming national 

and local engagements.168 In addition, it lists contacts for 

connecting with OPE at agency Headquarters as well as 

regional community relations officers nationwide.

OPE hosts collaboration sessions, in addition to national stakeholder meetings where discussion touches on 

controversial issues, as well as on issues where USCIS has 

highlighted a positive development. As the Ombudsman 

travels nationwide, stakeholder feedback indicates that the 

past year has brought an unprecedented level of dialogue 

with USCIS. If that dialogue can be translated to influencing 

decision-making within USCIS, the addition of OPE will be 

a particularly significant evolution for USCIS.

The Ombudsman will continue to monitor agency public 

engagement, and specifically how stakeholder input is taken 

into account to determine priorities, review and formulate 

policy, and assess organizational performance.

2. Call Centers – A Need to Improve the 

Customer Experience

In 2010, USCIS committed to prioritizing customer service 

within its organization by elevating the customer service 

function to a directorate that reports to the Director.169 For 

this new directorate, one of the areas most amenable to 

implementing lessons learned via customer feedback is 

the USCIS National Customer Service Center (NCSC), the 

agency’s toll-free telephone line. 

As discussed in previous annual reports, communication with the NCSC has historically been described as a 

source of frustration for individuals and employers.170 

Disappointment with the service available through the NCSC 

is likely magnified by the high expectations USCIS sets for 

what the NCSC can provide. The agency continues to direct 

customer inquiries to the NCSC as “another way to get 

consistent, accurate information and assistance on immigration [s]ervices and [b]enefits.”171 Despite this billing, USCIS 

165 USCIS Outreach, “Office of Public Engagement;” http://www.uscis.

gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f

6d1a/?vgnextoid=ea015fc544007210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRC

RD&vgnext channel=ea015fc544007210VgnVCM100000082ca60a

RCRD (accessed May 21, 2010).

166 Id.

167 Id.

168 See USCIS, “Public Engagement National Events;” http://

www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3

e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=e0b081c52aa3

8210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel= 

e0b081c52aa38210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD 

(accessed May 14, 2010).

169 See USCIS Press Release, “Statement from USCIS Director Alejandro 

Mayorkas on the realignment of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 

Services organizational structure;” http://www.uscis.gov/portal/

site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgn

extoid=687e62cb6ee16210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD&vgn

extchannel=68439c7755cb9010V gnVCM10000045f3d6a1RCRD 

(accessed May 18, 2010).

170 Ombudsman’s Annual Reports 2009, pp. 22-27; 2008, pp. 11, 37-

42, 51; 2007, pp. 25-30; 2006, pp. 33-35; and 2005, p. 14.

171 See NCSC; http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9

bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=943696981298d0

10VgnVCM10000048f3d6a1RCRD&vgnextchannel=aab807b03d9

2b01 0VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1RCRD (accessed Mar. 30, 2010). 
Annual Report to Congress – June 2010 51

does not always provide NCSC employees with the tools 

necessary to provide responsive answers to a customer. 

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

Tier 1 Customer Service Representatives (CSRs) are contractors, while Tier 2 Immigration Services Officers (ISOs) are 

USCIS employees. Many callers say the information from 

Tier 1 is not helpful, or wastes their time, since CSRs repeat 

information available on the internet. Some callers also 

complain that CSRs seem unsympathetic to the reason for 

the inquiry, while others report difficulty upgrading their 

call to Tier 2. Callers want to reach a person with authority 

to resolve their problem. Customers need a meaningful way 

to communicate with USCIS, but they tell the Ombudsman 

they consider Tier 1 an obstacle, rather than an avenue, to 

substantive communication. 

The Ombudsman acknowledges the improvements with 

the NCSC over time by reducing long wait times to speak 

with a person at either tier, monitoring Tier 1 responses, 

and assigning new management focused on providing 

responsive service.

For this year’s follow-up research, the Ombudsman 

met with USCIS Headquarters officials, contractor 

representatives, and quality control managers; listened to 

Tier 1 calls; and visited the New York Tier 2 facility. The Tier 

2 visit included discussions with facility managers and ISO 

supervisors, as well as listening to calls. As in prior years, 

the Ombudsman continued to receive comments from 

dissatisfied customers about the NCSC.

a. Background

The precursor to USCIS, the legacy Immigration and 

Naturalization Service, established the NCSC nationwide in 

1999 to receive customer inquiries about pending immigration cases, obtain forms, and receive general information 

about the immigration process without needing to visit a 

field office.172

Tier 1 is managed by a single private contractor employing 

CSRs who are required to read from scripts, drafted and 

approved by USCIS, when answering calls. Tier 2 consists of 

ISOs who answer calls transferred from Tier 1 and who have 

the same training and access to many of the same databases 

as ISOs who staff INFOPASS appointments at field offices. 

Both tiers can provide callers with information in English 

and Spanish.

At the start of an NCSC call, the customer interfaces with 

the Interactive Voice Response (IVR), which provides basic 

recorded information through a series of automated menu 

selections. Over the years, USCIS has worked to simplify 

automated information and, in 2008, released a more 

streamlined version of the IVR. In addition to giving 

the customer information, the IVR provides the CSR with 

information on the caller’s inquiry. 

Because Tier 1 is staffed by contractors without substantial 

immigration training or experience, USCIS uses scripts to 

ensure that the CSRs uniformly provide accurate information. These scripts, however, are lengthy, often provide 

information not relevant to the inquiry, and may not address 

the caller’s real concern. Most frustrating to customers is 

that CSRs’ lack of access to USCIS databases prevents them 

from giving a substantive response to case-specific inquiries. 

Issues that cannot be resolved at Tier 1 are handled one of 

two ways. The CSR can enter the inquiry into the Service 

Request Management Tool (SRMT) system for response 

within 30 days by a field office or service center.173 The 

SRMT system only permits requests if the case is outside 

USCIS processing time goals, after which it is the responsibility of the field to provide a response to the customer. The 

second alternative is for the CSR to transfer the call to Tier 2 

for further assistance.

Stakeholders consistently question the value of requiring 

individuals with case-specific inquiries to interact with a 

CSR at Tier 1 before having their call upgraded to Tier 2. A 

particular source of frustration is that the two tier system 

of live assistance requires customers to explain their issue 

more than once when the call is transferred to Tier 2, as 

information is not electronically forwarded along with the 

173 The SRMT allows a CSR to submit a request to the USCIS facility 

where the relevant file is located. 

172 U.S. Department of Justice Backgrounder, “INS Customer Service 

Initiatives” (June 29, 2000); http://www.uscis.gov/files/

pressrelease/CustomerServiceInitiatives_062900.pdf 

(accessed May 21, 2010).
52 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

call. Once advanced to Tier 2, however, callers find that ISOs 

have access to some USCIS data systems, can see more case 

status information than available on the internet, and may 

be able to fully resolve customers’ inquiries. 

b. Current Conditions

i. Interactive Voice Response (IVR)

The IVR continues to be the first step in communication 

with the NCSC. Customers may choose from a selection of 

options. This information is the same as is available on the 

USCIS website.

As noted in previous reporting periods, USCIS considers all 

calls terminated within the IVR process to be successfully 

resolved. The validity of this premise is questionable. In 

FY 2009, although 64.1 percent of the calls ended within 

the IVR, and were deemed resolved based on USCIS 

definitions,174 the Ombudsman believes it likely that some 

callers were not assisted. 

OMBUDSMAN CASE ASSISTANCE

In spring 2010, an individual called the NCSC to find out 

how to replace a lost I-94 (Arrival-Departure Record). 

Although the IVR informed the caller that representatives were available at that time, she was “looped into 

a continuous cycle of options that [she] could select.” 

As none of the selections fit the purpose of her call, 

she hung up the phone without making a choice. She 

subsequently contacted the Ombudsman and asked 

where to obtain information on the issue, which the 

Ombudsman provided. 

Based on feedback to the Ombudsman, stakeholders 

still perceive the IVR as an impediment to meaningful 

communication. Due to this perception, customers seek 

the most direct route to a live operator, disregarding the 

menu selection process. Because the IVR connects the CSR’s 

computer with the script corresponding to the caller’s IVR 

selection, when a caller selects an unrelated option just to 

reach a live operator, the CSR has to start over and read the 

scripts designated for the caller’s real question.

As of this writing, the Ombudsman understands that USCIS 

is working on another revision to the IVR, and that each selection within the IVR will soon provide an option to reach 

live assistance on Tier 1. The agency is studying private 

industry and other federal agencies to learn best practices. 

Stakeholders expect call centers to utilize technology and 

expedite their inquiry to an appropriate venue for answers. 

RECOMMENDATION 5

The Ombudsman recommends that USCIS provide a 

selection in the Interactive Voice Response (IVR) to 

immediately connect to a live representative who can 

respond or direct a call when none of the IVR options is 

appropriate. (AR2010-05)

ii. Tier 1

Tier 1 CSRs answer basic questions with information 

available on the USCIS website and issue service requests 

to the field for case specific problems raised by customers. In FY 2009, Tier 1 completed 85 percent of the live 

assistance calls.175 In December 2009, USCIS call center 

operations transitioned from two Tier 1 contractors into one 

expanded contractor for all Tier 1 services.176 The contractor 

staffs three Tier 1 locations: Williamsburg, Kentucky; Fort 

Worth, Texas; and the newest site, Chantilly, Virginia. The 

Ombudsman understands that, if necessary, USCIS has the 

ability to increase the number of CSRs available to answer 

incoming calls.

BEST PRACTICE

The NCSC extended business hours to 11:00 p.m. after the

earthquake in Haiti. In addition, USCIS worked quickly 

and collaboratively to ensure that CSRs and ISOs in the call 

centers had updated, accurate information to respond to 

people seeking emergency assistance. These longer hours 

allowed USCIS to provide essential information regarding 

immigration benefits to the Haitian community and 

USCIS external stakeholders. 

174 Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman (Apr. 21, 2010).

175 Id.

176 Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman (Mar. 1, 2010).
Annual Report to Congress – June 2010 53

Over the past few years, the Ombudsman has made 

recommendations to improve the existing framework for 

the NCSC in which scripted information at Tier 1 is used 

to provide the public with basic information.177 In 2008, 

the Ombudsman recommended that USCIS ensure that 

CSRs follow the scripts to provide the caller with accurate 

information. In the reporting period, the Ombudsman did 

observe CSRs appearing to follow the scripts more consistently. However, better script adherence fails to address the 

question of whether the scripts themselves are helpful and 

relevant to the intended audience. 

As the Ombudsman reported last year, stakeholders consider 

scripts to be lengthy and complicated. Since CSRs are 

required to read an entire script, customers often receive information unrelated to their inquiry. Moreover, delivery of 

this scripted information during a telephone conversation 

proves cumbersome. CSRs must ask a series of questions 

to identify the caller’s specific issue even when they have 

been provided with enough information to know that the 

question is irrelevant, navigate through the scripts on their 

computer screen, and deliver the information required by 

reading from the screen.

Figure 24 shows the script a CSR would follow to answer a 

caller seeking case status information on a previously filed 

Form I-90 (Application to Replace Permanent Resident 

Card). The check marks are the caller’s answers. The CSR 

will ask these questions even if the caller identified the 

inquiry at the start of the call. 

177 Ombudsman’s Annual Reports 2009, p. 26; 2008, p. 40.
54 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

Figure 24: Sample Customer Service Representative Telephone Script

USCIS	Customer	Service	Guide		 								03-03-10

WHERE TO START MENU

CSR: To get you the information or services you need, it is important for us to understand where you are in the 

immigration process. To serve you better, please answer a few very important questions: 

Is your inquiry concerning an application or petition that has already been filed? 

P Yes

 No

Is your application still pending (USCIS has not yet made a decision on your case)? 

P Yes

 No

USCIS Customer Service Reference Guide Last updated 05-11-10

Volume 2 Already Filed (Pending Cases)

CSR prompt – Based on the choices you made in our automated system, it appears you have an issue 

with a case you filed and is pending with us. Is that correct?

If yes, continue below 

If no, click here (to “Where to Start”)

Are you an attorney or accredited representative calling on behalf of a client? 

 Yes

P No

Is your inquiry concerning someone in the U.S. military, including military dependents? 

 Yes

P No

USCIS Customer Service Reference Guide

Volume 2 Already Filed (Pending Cases)

Do you have a question about an appointment or how to make an appointment? 

 Yes

P No

USCIS Customer Service Reference Guide

Volume 2 Already Filed (Pending Cases)

Do you have a question about a Form I-600 or I-600A that you filed? 

 Yes

P No
Annual Report to Congress – June 2010 55

USCIS Customer Service Reference Guide

Volume 2 Already Filed (Pending Cases)

Do You Have a Question about a Request for Evidence We Sent You or How to get a Medical Examination? 

 Yes

P No

USCIS Customer Service Reference Guide

Volume 2 Already Filed (Pending Cases)

Where did you file the application/petition? (Choose one) 

A Service Center (California, Nebraska, Texas, or Vermont Service Centers) 

The Chicago Lockbox

The Los Angeles Lockbox

The Phoenix Lockbox

The Lewisville Lockbox (Dallas)

E-Filed (Electronically filed)

A Local Office

An Asylum Office

USCIS Customer Service Reference Guide

Volume 2 Already Filed (Pending Cases)

Is the Form you filed directly with the Service Center or National Benefits Center a Form I-90, Application to Replace or 

Renew a Permanent Resident Card? 

P Yes

 No

USCIS Customer Service Reference Guide

Volume 2 Already filed form I-90 which has been pending

The only Forms I-90 previously filed directly with a Service Center or National Benefits Center were those filed: 

P

 Under the “b” category (you did not receive the previously created permanent resident card we sent you) or 

 Under the “d” category (you received your card but it had errors on it which you claim were caused by USCIS), 

you did not receive a receipt notice. 

In these processes, we simply use the biometrics taken when we processed your last card and use them to create a new 

card. Then, we send the new card to you at the address you provided on your most recent Form I-90. We ask that you 

allow us 180 days (6 months) to process these requests before making an inquiry. If it has been longer than 180 days 

since you submitted your Form I-90, click here

CSR: Go to SRMT and take an “Outside Normal Processing Time” (ONPT) service request. Ensure the caller is 

within the “acceptable caller type” before taking a service request. 

NOTE: If the customer is also reporting a Change of Address, please remember to create a new SRMT. The 

ONPT Service Request and the Changes of Address should not be processed together in one SRMT.
56 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

As an agency moving towards more responsive customer 

service and greater efficiency, USCIS has an opportunity to 

provide meaningful answers at the first possible opportunity 

when interacting with the public through the NCSC. 

Currently, Tier 2 ISOs have extensive training at the USCIS 

Academy as well as at the Tier 2 call centers themselves. At 

Tier 2, customers are able to talk directly with an ISO, as 

they would at a field office INFOPASS appointment. 

Many customers do not know of the distinction between 

Tiers 1 and 2 and, therefore, have a legitimate expectation 

that they will be interacting with knowledgeable USCIS 

staff from start to finish when they call the NCSC. To meet 

this expectation, staff at the first level require training 

reflective of the types of questions asked. Doing so is a 

critical step to ending the current cycle that requires callers 

to frequently answer a series of irrelevant questions and 

spend time listening to extraneous information not related 

to their inquiry. 

To improve customer service, the Ombudsman recommends 

a two-phased approach: 

RECOMMENDATION 6

The Ombudsman recommends that, first, USCIS utilize 

commercial technology that would enable more efficient 

and direct access to live assistance by providing an option 

in the IVR to immediately connect callers to: (1) Tier 1 

Customer Service Representatives for basic, informational 

questions and (2) a Tier 2 Immigration Services Officer 

for questions on filed or pending cases. (AR2010-06)

The Ombudsman understands that at this time USCIS does 

not have system capabilities to review and manage the 

volume of calls that would be directed to Tier 2. However, 

USCIS should make it a priority to implement the necessary 

technology to direct case specific calls through the IVR 

directly to Tier 2. Avoiding Tier 1 for case-related inquiries 

will eliminate the frustration of talking with a CSR who 

has neither extensive immigration training nor access to 

case-specific information. 

The Ombudsman understands that USCIS changed the Tier 1 

scripts this June for CSRs to transfer attorneys, communitybased organizations, and employer representatives directly 

to Tier 2, if a G-28 (Notice of Entry of Appearance As 

Attorney or Accredited Representative) is on file with USCIS. 

This change is significant progress and one that should be 

carried through so that all customers with a pending case, 

including those without representation, have access to 

an informed and resourced ISO. USCIS would benefit by 

saving Tier 1 costs for calls where CSRs cannot assist and by 

reducing callers’ frustration when they must re-explain their 

issue to an ISO.

RECOMMENDATION 7

The Ombudsman recommends that, second, USCIS 

eliminate the scripted information over a targeted period 

of time to enable the agency to train staff to answer basic 

immigration inquiries. (AR2010-07)

The Ombudsman previously recommended improving the 

scripts format to fix the existing system, but customers 

and other stakeholders continue to state that the scripted 

information is too often non-responsive. Eventual elimination of the scripts likely would increase public confidence 

in the USCIS communication system and the agency itself. 

As stated in the DHS Open Government Plan, “DHS shares 

the goal to improve the way government and the public 

[interact], fostering a renewed partnership and public 

trust.”178 The call centers provide USCIS an opportunity to 

help DHS build that partnership and trust.

iii. Tier 2

At present, if the customer’s problem cannot be resolved 

at Tier 1, a CSR may transfer the call to a Tier 2 location 

in New York or California. Tier 2 ISOs answer calls that 

often are complex and require extensive knowledge of 

immigration laws, regulations, and policies. They are asked 

to provide information to the public on all immigration 

benefits and processes.

All the challenges described for Tier 2 in last year’s annual 

report still remain: (1) specific customer inquiries about 

time-sensitive Requests for Evidence (RFEs) cannot be 

answered because ISOs do not have visibility to all USCIS 

178 DHS, “Open Government Plan,” at p. 3; http://www.dhs.gov/

xlibrary/assets/dhs_open_government_plan.pdf 

(accessed May 18, 2010).
Annual Report to Congress – June 2010 57

systems; (2) ISOs do not have visibility into files located 

in field offices, a shortcoming that requires them to refer 

questions to the field offices through SRMT requests; 

(3) ISOs are not systematically provided with information 

about specific field office practices; and (4) Tier 2 allotted 

positions remain unfilled.179 

An ISO may address a customer’s issue utilizing relevant 

USCIS databases. For FY 2009, Tier 2 answered 13 percent, 

or 618,182, of live assistance customer calls.180 In 2008, 

USCIS acknowledged that the customer service information 

technology system needed modernization and provided 

information on plans for an update. USCIS described a 

24-month project to use current technology as follows: 

“(1) Phase 1 – CSRs and [ISOs] will have ‘an integrated 

view of the customer’s inquiry;’ (2) Phase 2 – introduction 

of real-time status reporting of service requests; (3) Phase 

3 – offices able to update data online in real time; and 

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

customers’ ability to submit service requests online.”181 

During a March 2010 listening session, the USCIS Customer 

Service Directorate announced a launch of the “Service 

Request Management Tool (SRMT) online for Forms I-90 

and N-400” piloted for customers outside normal processing times.182 However, other than that initial pilot, the 

Ombudsman understands that this “four phase” system has 

not yet been implemented. 

During the reporting period, USCIS undertook certain 

measures to address customers’ concerns with SRMT 

responses.183 Specifically, USCIS told customers they could 

follow up by email to service centers and, ultimately, USCIS 

Headquarters, if they followed the inquiry process but their 

question was not addressed.184 After submitting an inquiry 

through the SRMT, customers are expected to wait 30 days 

for a response. If the issue is not addressed, customers are 

to call the NCSC again and are instructed to submit a second 

SRMT and wait an additional 30 days. Customers that can 

document the dates of the two previous SRMT requests are 

permitted to use the email feature. 

In previous years, the Ombudsman described concerns that 

USCIS had no permanent leadership to oversee the NCSC 

operation, including the IVR, Tier 1, and Tier 2.185 During 

the reporting period, the agency rectified this long-standing 

problem. Since November 2009, leadership has been 

dedicated to making the NCSC work better for customers, 

for example, by providing active follow-up for dissatisfied 

customers.186 This responsiveness may begin to improve the 

NCSC’s credibility as an avenue for communication. The 

NCSC also has invited the Ombudsman to meet quarterly 

in an open effort to be aware of feedback received by the 

Ombudsman and to improve customer service.

Tier 2 Staffing

179 Ombudsman’s Annual Reports 2009, pp. 26-27. See also

Ombudsman’s Annual Report 2008, p. 41.

180 Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman (Apr. 21, 2010).

181 USCIS 2008 Annual Report Response, p. 15. 

182 USCIS Outreach, “Listening Session – Information and Customer 

Service” (Mar. 18, 2010); http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/

template.PRINT/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/

?vgnextoid=5d83d0438c947210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD&v

gnextchannel=994f81c52aa38210VgnV CM10000 0082ca60aRCRD 

(accessed May 18, 2010).

183 “USCIS also offers attorneys a new and improved streamlined 

customer service message through the NCSC for faster SRMT 

creation.” USCIS Outreach, “USCIS National Stakeholder October 

Meeting” (Nov. 25, 2009); http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/

uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/ ?vgnextoi

d=e1ad78bb13c25210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD&vgnextchan

nel=994f81c52aa38210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD 

(accessed May 14, 2010). 

184 USCIS Update, “Case Status Inquiries with the Service Centers,”(Aug. 

10, 2009); http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9

bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/? vgnextchannel=68439c7755c

b9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1RCRD&vgnextoid=c561767d005f2

210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD (accessed June 18, 2010). 

185 Ombudsman’s Annual Reports 2009, p. 27; 2008, p. 41.

186 Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman (Mar. 1, 2010).

187 Ombudsman’s Annual Reports 2009, p. 27; 2008, p. 41.

188 Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman (Apr. 21, 2010).
58 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

Information Provided to Tier 2

RECOMMENDATION 8

The Ombudsman recommends that USCIS designate 

a point of contact within each field office and service 

center to be available to Tier 2 supervisors: (1) to answer 

time sensitive inquiries including, for example, missing 

or lost Requests for Evidence (RFEs) in an individual’s 

file, and (2) to provide information on individual field 

office operations and procedures to respond to customers’ 

inquiries. (AR2010-08)

 

Last year’s annual report explained Tier 2’s lack of access to 

the content of customers’ RFEs.189 Although this shortcoming may be fulfilled through Transformation, it remains a 

problem. In the meantime, ISOs should be equipped with 

the data necessary to answer public inquiries. Currently, 

ISOs must issue SRMT requests, thereby pushing the inquiry 

back to field offices and service centers; the inability of 

ISOs to directly answer customers adds an extra layer of 

bureaucracy requiring customers to wait up to 30 days for 

a response to time sensitive questions. In the interest of 

providing customer service, USCIS must find a way to give 

ISOs the ability to supply this information during the first 

interaction with the customer.

In 2009, the Ombudsman noted that specific information about field offices was not available to ISOs as they 

responded to callers’ questions.190 This issue continued to 

represent a problem during the current reporting period. 

For example, during bad winter weather, callers asked the 

NCSC about local field office closing policies and ISOs could 

not always provide answers.191 Customers complained 

about traveling to attend interviews only to find that an 

office was closed due to weather conditions. 

Communication by Listening 

RECOMMENDATION 9

The Ombudsman recommends that USCIS routinely 

obtain information from all Tier 2 Immigration Services 

Officers as a resource to identify trends and resolve issues 

of concern to customers and stakeholders. (AR2010-09)

The NCSC has been identified as a voice for USCIS, but 

meaningful communication is bi-directional. Individuals 

and stakeholders call the NCSC not only to seek information, but to explain their concerns, problems, and 

misunderstandings about the immigration process. ISOs 

who daily manage a volume of calls should be surveyed 

regularly to identify prevalent misunderstandings that USCIS 

could then address.

For example, the Ombudsman understands that a number of 

Tier 2 calls can be traced to the issuance of a “pre-interview 

letter” during the naturalization process.192 Callers consistently express two major concerns about the letter: (1) it 

says they are scheduled for an interview, but does not give a 

specific date; and (2) it lists numerous documents to bring 

to the interview, but the caller may not possess many of 

the documents on what is a generic list. By identifying the 

problem and working proactively to resolve the problem, 

USCIS can reduce customer confusion and, thereby, lower 

the number of calls generated by misunderstandings.

SRMTs also identify “non-delivery” of USCIS mailings as 

a major issue for members of the public. In particular, 

customers point to the non-delivery of I-797 (Notice of 

Action) and of green cards as causing them major concern: 

non-receipt of USCIS notices can result in delay or denial of 

the benefit sought, while failure to receive a green card may 

cause them to incur additional costs to obtain a replacement 

or even job loss. USCIS’ Secure Mail Initiative is currently 

189 Ombudsman’s Annual Report 2009, pp. 26-27.

190 Id.

191 Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman (Mar. 15, 2010). 192 Id. 
Annual Report to Congress – June 2010 59

on hold, even as the agency continues to expend resources 

answering non-delivery inquiries which accounted for 21 

percent of all SRMTs for calendar year 2009.193 

See Transformation.

By gathering information about prevalent issues, 

identifying the problems, and perhaps retooling written 

correspondence or processes, USCIS could eliminate 

many stakeholder concerns, as well as decrease call center 

expenses. The public plays an important role in this effort. 

The DHS Open Government Plan encourages participation 

by members of the public “to contribute ideas and expertise 

so that their government can make policies with the benefit 

of information that is widely dispersed in society.”194 

In addition, the USCIS Director has welcomed public 

participation through creation of the OPE and numerous 

stakeholder engagements. The NCSC is one of the most 

visible conduits for improved dialogue between USCIS and 

the customers it serves. 

3. Website – A 2009 Redesign 

In previous years,195 the Ombudsman highlighted the 

importance of USCIS’ website to customers navigating 

the immigration process. However, the Ombudsman also 

reported stakeholder concerns about the website’s complexity, limited search capability, and complicated language. In 

March 2010, the website received approximately six million 

visitors, with the forms webpage receiving the most visits.196 

During the reporting period, USCIS made strides in 

improving its website in a collaborative effort with the 

White House. On June 25, 2009, President Obama announced that White House staff members and USCIS would 

work together to “make our legal system of immigration 

much more efficient and effective and customer-friendly 

than it currently is.”197 In announcing the launch of an 

improved website, the White House stated that “the new 

USCIS website will be a ‘one-stop shop’ for immigration 

information.”198 On September 22, 2009, the agency 

unveiled its redesigned website. 

To identify which features and portions of the agency’s 

website were of special interest to a wide spectrum of 

stakeholders, USCIS held focus group discussions, tested 

usability, and conducted public surveys.199 Web designers used the data collected to guide efforts to develop a 

more customer-centric, user-friendly website for USCIS. 

They took into account stakeholder concerns about the 

complexity of the website by including in the redesign 

a reformulated homepage. In addition to being better 

organized, the new website includes a “Where to Start” tool 

for customers to determine how to pursue their desired 

immigration benefit, a centralized location for making a 

change of address online and locating a USCIS office, and 

an option for customers to sign-up to receive email and text 

message alerts.200

Responding to stakeholder concerns about complicated 

and difficult to understand text, USCIS rewrote over 250 

pages of website content in plain language.201 Besides 

making the site more accessible, this revision addressed a 

more than decade old Presidential Directive that requires 

federal agencies to “use common, everyday words, except 

193 Between Jan. 1, 2009 and Dec. 31, 2009, USCIS responded to 

94,558 SRMT requests for “non-delivery of other notices” and 

64,243 SRMT requests for “non-delivery of permanent resident 

card.” Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman 

(Apr. 29, 2010).

194 See DHS, “Open Government;” at http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/

open-government.shtm (accessed Apr. 7, 2010). 

195 See Ombudsman’s Annual Reports 2009, p. 23; 2008, p. 36.

196 USCIS, “Customer Service Web Portal Monthly Web Metrics Report,” 

pp. 2 and 8 (Mar. 2010).

197 The White House Office of the Press Secretary, Remarks By The 

President After Meeting With Members of Congress to Discuss 

Immigration, (June 25, 2009); http://www.whitehouse.gov/

the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-after-meeting-withmembers-of-Congress-to-discuss-immigration/ 

(accessed May 5, 2010).

198 The White House Blog, “One Stop Shop” (Sept. 22, 2009); http://

www.whitehouse.gov/blog/One-Stop-Shop (accessed May 5, 2010).

199 USCIS Fact Sheet, “USCIS.gov Redesign Highlights” (Sept. 22, 2009); 

http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/New%20Structure/Press%20

Releases/FY%2009/September%202009/FactSheet_redesign_

highlights.pdf (accessed May 20, 2010).

200 USCIS Fact Sheet, “USCIS.gov Key Features” (Sept. 22, 2009); 

http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/New%20Structure/Press%20

Releases/FY%2009/September%202009/Then%20and%20

Now%20Fact%20Sheet_16Sept09.pdf (accessed May 5, 2010).

201 Id.
60 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

for necessary technical terms.”202 The redesigned website 

also incorporates an improved search engine capability that

employs “a combination of technologies to enable better, 

faster searches on USCIS.gov.”203 

The Ombudsman held a public teleconference on January 

27, 2010, regarding the USCIS website redesign. In addition to noting improvements in the new site, call participants highlighted some features that still were confusing 

or frustrating, such as the inability to check certain types 

of cases on My Case Status or determining which form to 

use based on information on the website.204 To follow-up 

on the questions and concerns posed during the teleconference, USCIS and the Ombudsman posted on the internet th

agency’s responses and the feedback received.

a. Spanish Language Website

When USCIS unveiled its redesign in September 2009, 

it included for the first time a Spanish language website. 

The Spanish language site includes many translated items 

from the English site, as well as material solely found on 

the Spanish site. As of March 2010, customer usage of this 

version accounted for about three percent of visits to the 

USCIS website overall.205

b. The Beacon: The Official Blog of USCIS

On January 21, 2010, four months after inaugurating 

its new website, USCIS introduced its official blog, “The 

Beacon.” Its initial posting was a message from Director 

Mayorkas to the people of Haiti in the aftermath of the 

January 12 earthquake: “Today we launch this blog to 

provide you with one more way that you can learn about 

e 

our Temporary Protected Status program.... On this blog, 

please ask us questions, raise issues, and express your 

concerns. We are here to help you in this time of great 

need.”206

USCIS’ “Comment Policy” advises that “[t]his is a moderated blog, which means all comments will be reviewed 

before posting.” 

Many members of the public have invested time and effort 

to provide thoughtful feedback through this resource. In 

response, the agency, from time to time, acknowledges 

and addresses such feedback. The overall value of the blog 

will be especially significant if USCIS collects the ideas and 

feedback posted on it by the public and uses this input to 

inform agency decisions.

4. My Case Status – A Short-Term Tool Awaiting 

Enhancements

USCIS’ September 22, 2009, launch of its redesigned 

website, USCIS.gov, replaced Case Status Online with its 

successor, My Case Status.207 Case Status Online was a webbased tool allowing customers to obtain basic information 

about the status of applications and petitions by entering 

their receipt numbers. The My Case Status tool provides 

the functionality of Case Status Online, while adding the 

capability for customers and representatives to register,208

create an account, and elect to receive emails or text message alerts each time their application or petition progresses 

in the adjudication process. Representatives and attorneys, 

who monitor multiple cases, now have the option to “enter 

their own internal office tracking number with each receipt 

number,”209 which facilitates matching email and text message alerts to the corresponding case. The same webpage 

also includes an enhanced, form-specific, processing times 

feature for researching average processing times at various 

USCIS facilities. 

202 Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, 

“Plain Language in Government Writing” (June 1, 1998); 

http://www.plainlanguage.gov/whatisPL/govmandates/memo.cfm 

(accessed May 5, 2010).

203 USCIS Fact Sheet, “USCIS.gov Redesign Highlights,” (Sept. 22, 

2009); http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/New%20Structure/Press%20

Releases/FY%2009/September%202009/FactSheet_redesign_

highlights.pdf (accessed May 5, 2010).

204 Ombudsman Teleconference, “USCIS Website Redesign” (Jan. 27, 

2010); http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb9

5919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=cad3ca1fb7c87210Vgn

VCM100000082ca60aRCRD& vgnextchannel=2dd6dbbb86c3e110V

gnVCM1000004718190aRCRD (accessed May 5, 2010).

205 USCIS, “Customer Service Web Portal (CSWP) Monthly Web Metrics 

Report,” p. 17 (Mar. 2010).

206 USCIS, “The Beacon” (Jan. 21, 2010); http://blog.uscis.

gov/2010_01_01_archive.html (accessed May 20, 2010).

207 USCIS Fact Sheet, “USCIS.gov Key Features,” (Sept. 22, 2009); 

http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/New%20Structure/Press%20

Releases/FY%2009/September%202009/Then%20and%20

Now%20Fact%20Sheet_16Sept09.pdf (accessed May 20, 2010).

208 USCIS My Case Status, “Sign-up for Case Updates;” https://egov.

uscis.gov/cris/jsps/selectusertype.jsp (accessed May 20, 2010).

209 Id.
Annual Report to Congress – June 2010 61

Each year since 2005, the Ombudsman has reported on the 

online tool for customers to monitor case status.210 Last 

year, the Ombudsman reported customers’ “dissatisfaction 

with the limited information offered through Case Status 

Online,” as the system “only indicates that the case is 

‘received and pending;’ it does not specify where the 

case is in the adjudications process.”211 Also reported last 

year was the “recurring complaint ... that the information in Case Status Online is not current.”212 Despite the 

upgrade, some problems such as outdated or erroneous 

information persist.

In response to the 2009 Annual Report, USCIS stated that 

its Office of Information Technology implemented a new 

initiative so that the systems providing My Case Status 

updates would have additional information.213 While the 

additional information may better describe case status, there 

are still cases where the status provided is inaccurate. The 

Ombudsman understands that the Office of Information 

Technology is working to address technical problems that 

caused information to stagnate in certain data systems 

informing My Case Status. However, until the problem is 

resolved, customers cannot rely on the accuracy of certain 

case status information online. 

OMBUDSMAN CASE ASSISTANCE

An applicant from Russia filed for a green card several 

years ago, but was informed recently that USCIS issued 

a Request for Evidence (RFE) she never received. The 

applicant contacted the Ombudsman stating that she did 

not receive the RFE and that My Case Status never indicated an RFE had been requested. After the Ombudsman 

inquired about the case, USCIS agreed to re-issue the 

RFE. Following receipt of her response, USCIS approved 

her green card.

At the same time, during the reporting period, USCIS’ 

multi-step efforts to electronically transfer receipt information out of the service centers’ systems and into the 

National Benefits Center’s Interim Case Management System 

(ICMS) provided field offices with the capacity to record 

each step in the process and the adjudication of several 

thousand applications and petitions. These efforts made 

more case status information available for My Case Status. 

Although USCIS needed to take extra steps to provide field 

offices with access to electronically record case processing 

and adjudication of these cases, My Case Status has enabled 

individuals to continue tracking their cases, even after 

physical transfer from a service center to a field office.214

210 Ombudsman’s Annual Reports 2009, p. 24; 2008, p. 36; 2007, p. 30; 

2006, p. 35; 2005, p. 14. 

211 Ombudsman’s Annual Report 2009, p. 24.

212 Id.

213 USCIS 2009 Annual Report Response, p. 14. 214 Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman (Mar. 4, 2010).
62 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

This page intentionally left blank.
Annual Report to Congress – June 2010 63

Destination Points in the Road to Responsive Government 

– Additional Areas of Focus

A.		 Military	Immigration	Issues	–		

Supporting	Those	Who	Serve

In previous years, the Ombudsman has monitored and 

commented on the USCIS military naturalization process.215 

During CY 2009, USCIS naturalized 9,335 military 

service members in the United States and 1,803 at 

overseas locations.216 

In 2006, the Ombudsman recommended that USCIS 

eliminate the fingerprint requirement for active duty 

service members applying for naturalization. Fingerprints 

and background checks are required for enlistment in all 

branches of the U.S. military. While USCIS did not eliminate 

these requirements, the agency did streamline the naturalization process for active duty military. USCIS now has 

Immigration Services Officers (ISOs) who coordinate with 

military liaison officers to provide immigration benefits 

information, expedite fingerprinting, perform interviews, 

and conduct naturalization ceremonies for service members 

and their families at most major military installations.

In 2008, Congress passed and the President signed into law 

the Kendell Frederick Citizenship Assistance Act, requiring 

USCIS to review and modify its military naturalization 

procedures.217 The Act mandates that USCIS use fingerprints 

and other biometric information already on file with the 

U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) when military personnel 

apply for citizenship. The Act also requires that biometric 

information collected during the green card application 

process be used if the applicant meets all other requirements for military naturalization.218 

In January 2010, DHS’ Office of Inspector General (OIG) 

issued a report on USCIS’ implementation of the Act.219 The 

report stated that over 45,000 noncitizen soldiers serve in 

the U.S. military. Many are on active duty in Afghanistan 

and Iraq. The OIG acknowledged USCIS’ initiatives to 

improve the military naturalization process, but specifically 

discussed CLAIMS 4, the primary system used by USCIS 

for the adjudication of naturalization applications. The 

report stated that CLAIMS 4 has data sharing and reporting 

limitations. USCIS, in conjunction with other government 

agencies such as the FBI, performs background and 

security checks for all naturalization applicants. It must 

review several different databases to obtain the background 

information, as no single system contains the information 

to be reviewed. Having all of the background check 

and fingerprint information in a single database would 

streamline the naturalization interview process, especially 

in overseas or remote locations. In the report, the OIG 

made recommendations to USCIS to improve services to 

military applicants.220 The Ombudsman agrees with these 

recommendations and will continue to monitor USCIS’ 

efforts to comply with them.

Collaboration between USCIS and one branch of military 

personnel was formalized in August 2009 through the 

Naturalization at Basic Training Initiative with the Army. 

USCIS is making requests to other service branches to 

duplicate this model.

215 Ombudsman’s Annual Reports 2009, pp. 37-39; 2008, p. 58.

216 Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman (Mar. 8, 2010).

217 Pub. L. No. 110-251(2008).

218 USCIS Fact Sheet, “Naturalization Through Military Service” (May 

16, 2008); http://www.uscis.gov/files/article/mil_natz_051608.

pdf (accessed Apr. 27, 2009). 

219 DHS OIG, “U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ 

Implementation of the Kendell Frederick Citizenship Assistance Act” 

(Jan. 25, 2010).

220 Id. at p. 1.
64 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

1. Serving the Military Family

OMBUDSMAN CASE ASSISTANCE

The immigration court approved a green card application 

for an applicant married to a U.S. service member who 

was about to deploy overseas, but issuance of the green 

card itself was delayed. After not receiving her green card 

for over six months, the wife contacted the Ombudsman. 

Two weeks after the Ombudsman intervened, USCIS 

issued the green card. The agency further agreed to 

expedite her pending naturalization application. Through 

these efforts, the spouse became a naturalized U.S. 

citizen before her husband’s deployment and was able to 

accompany him abroad. 

OMBUDSMAN CASE ASSISTANCE

A U.S. citizen soldier scheduled to deploy to Iraq married a foreign national. The foreign wife and her young 

daughter were both admitted to the United States as 

conditional residents. Although the wife subsequently 

became a naturalized U.S. citizen, neither she nor her 

husband filed to remove the conditions on the child’s 

permanent residence status. The parents believed, 

correctly, that their daughter had derived citizenship 

when her mother naturalized. After learning that USCIS 

terminated the conditional resident status of their daughter, they contacted the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman 

coordinated with USCIS to restore the child’s permanent 

resident status in August 2009. The U.S. Department of 

State subsequently issued her a U.S. passport as proof of 

her citizenship. 

Through site visits to USCIS field offices, teleconferences 

with USCIS field office staff, and the USCIS website, the 

Ombudsman learned that USCIS continues to enhance and 

refine outreach efforts not only to service members, but 

also to their spouses and children. The Ombudsman’s 2009 

Annual Report referenced a June 2008 USCIS memorandum 

directing field office directors to make and maintain contact 

with designated military officials or points of contact at 

each installation within each branch of the military.221 

This guidance also requires field office directors to 

establish methods to bring immigration services to military 

personnel and their families at military installations on a 

regular basis. 

Representatives from USCIS visit military installations 

throughout the country on a regular basis to conduct 

immigration seminars and provide other immigration 

services. The 2010 OIG study cited a naturalization ceremony for noncitizen soldiers during basic combat training 

at Fort Jackson, SC, in August 2009, as the first time USCIS 

conducted such a ceremony during basic training.222 In 

a March 2010 teleconference with the San Diego District 

Office, USCIS informed the Ombudsman of plans to conduct naturalization interviews at the naval facility in 

San Diego, CA.223

In addition, the Ombudsman understands that the USCIS 

office in Raleigh-Durham, NC, maintains a dedicated point 

of contact to deliver immigration services to the surrounding military installations, including Ft. Bragg Army Post 

and Camp Lejune Marine Corp. base. The USCIS military 

liaison works closely with the Ft. Bragg’s Army Community 

Services offices to identify soldiers and their dependents 

who may need assistance with immigration issues. The 

family members of troops deploying to Afghanistan and 

Iraq are eligible to have their immigration applications, 

petitions, and interviews expedited, if possible, through 

the liaison channel. As with other USCIS field offices near 

large military installations, the Raleigh-Durham Field Office 

conducts mobile fingerprinting, interviewing, and naturalization ceremonies on the posts nearby. 

In another example, the El Paso District Office staff visits the 

Ft. Bliss Army Community Services office every Wednesday 

to address military immigration issues.224 During these 

visits, USCIS identifies soldiers who are not citizens and 

arranges for them to file for naturalization and become 

citizens before they deploy to Afghanistan or Iraq. Many 

of these troops are National Guardsmen, not residents of 

221 USCIS Interoffice Memorandum, “Military Outreach: Bringing 

Immigration Services to the Troops” (June 10, 2008). 

222 DHS OIG, “U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ 

Implementation of the Kendell Frederick Citizenship Assistance Act,” 

p. 13 (Jan. 25, 2010).

223 Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman (Mar. 4, 2010).

224 Id.
Annual Report to Congress – June 2010 65

the district where the field office is located, and are only in 

the El Paso office’s jurisdiction for a few days or weeks of 

military training. 

BEST PRACTICE

During the latter part of 2009, a military unit came 

to Ft. Bragg for training prior to Iraq deployment. 

Through outreach efforts, the USCIS liaison identified 

seven noncitizen members of the unit who were 

eligible for citizenship, but had yet to file naturalization 

applications. Within 48 hours, a USCIS officer 

helped these soldiers to complete their applications, 

electronically send the completed documents to 

the Nebraska Service Center, and submit necessary 

biometrics. After the applications were entered into the 

service center’s database, the USCIS officer conducted 

the interviews and the soldiers were naturalized in front 

of their unit at the training site.225

USCIS district and field offices offer expedited processing 

and interviews for service members deploying or returning 

from deployment overseas, and at least one field office goes 

even further. 

BEST PRACTICE

The San Diego District Office has entered into an 

agreement with several doctors at U.S. Navy medical 

facilities, allowing eligible active duty military and their 

dependents to receive free medical examinations at 

their assigned bases for their green card applications.226 

Many young service members are newly married and 

have children or parents who are noncitizens, all of 

whom are eligible for the free examination. As fees for 

these medical examinations can be hundreds of dollars, 

the San Diego initiative represents a financial benefit for 

these families and an incentive for eligible family members to immigrate and naturalize. Service members and 

their dependents are covered by the military health care 

system such that there is no additional cost. If USCIS 

were to adopt this or a similar model nationwide, it 

would be of great assistance to military families, saving 

them money and providing them the convenience of 

having the medical examination near where they live. 

2. Assistance to Undocumented Military Spouses 

and Children 

The San Diego and El Paso Offices both serve large military 

populations, and are located in states that share a border 

with Mexico. As such, they have military immigration 

issues not often seen elsewhere. Their directors indicate 

that resolving military family immigration issues serves the 

national interest in the following contexts. 

Service members’ spouses and children who lack legal status 

in the United States, or whose inadmissibilities may prevent 

them from obtaining legal status, may still be eligible for 

military dependent identification cards. For this reason, 

USCIS has an interest in helping dependents normalize 

their status. 

USCIS also has been able to assist military members about to 

deploy who have an eligible family member outside of the 

United States. And, if the eligible family member has health 

225 Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman (Mar. 8, 2010).

226 All green card applicants must submit Form I-693 (Report of 

Medical Examination and Vaccination Record) completed by 

a designated civil surgeon. The I-693 establishes applicants’ 

admissibility to the United States on public health grounds by 

reporting medical test results to USCIS.
66 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

issues or is pregnant, the field office director may expedite 

issuance of humanitarian parole for these family members 

allowing them into the United States until the immigration 

issues are resolved. 

The San Diego District Director explained the process for 

assisting service members about to deploy who have family 

members unable to obtain a green card. The Ombudsman 

understands that many spouses and children choose to 

remain in the country in undocumented status. Those inadmissible under INA Section 212 and unable to become legal 

permanent residents may request an inadmissibility waiver. 

Many individuals may file Form I-601 (Application for 

Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility) at the U.S. Consulate 

in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico. In the regular process, applicants 

wait until their scheduled appointment to submit a waiver. 

USCIS approves approximately 50 percent of these I-601s 

within a few days; however, it refers the other 50 percent 

for further review, which may take 10-12 months.227 

Conversely, if DOS denies an immigrant visa for military 

family members due to inadmissibility, it notifies USCIS 

officers at Ciudad Juarez. While in Mexico, the military 

spouse may submit the I-601, which USCIS will adjudicate 

the same day, if possible. If USCIS grants the waiver, it 

communicates this result immediately to DOS so that it may 

issue the immigrant visa without delay. This process can 

be used by all districts for eligible family members whose 

service member is deploying to a war zone. 

3. Other Military Related Issues

In March 2010, the Ombudsman queried stakeholders and 

military advocates to determine their perceptions of the 

effectiveness of USCIS’ military programs. 

Attorneys who served as liaisons between USCIS and a 

Military Accessions Vital to the National Interest (MAVNI) 

naturalization applicant reported to the Ombudsman that 

they were impressed with the speed of communication 

and individual attention that USCIS and Army coordination 

produced. MAVNI is a special program whereby 

noncitizens can enlist in the military and naturalize based 

on a special skill or ability, such as foreign language fluency 

or medical training.

An area of continuing concern relates to jurisdiction, as 

military personnel are transferred frequently between 

posts, sometimes on very short notice. Processing delays 

often arise when an application or petition is filed in one 

district, but family member beneficiaries move out of the 

district for a reason related to the military service before 

final interview.

RECOMMENDATION 10

The Ombudsman recommends that USCIS provide 

military families the option to have the office with initial 

jurisdiction complete adjudications for family members 

of active duty personnel, even when the family relocates 

outside of the district. (AR2010-10)

Transferring a file to another district can cause weeks, if not 

months, of delay in processing. Many times, the beneficiary 

is willing to travel back to the original district to complete 

processing, rather than face delays associated with case 

transfer. Although USCIS has shown willingness to expedite 

applications or petitions for military families whenever possible, there are circumstances where it is not possible. For 

example, if an application or petition is filed with a service 

center and the military member is transferred before the 

interview date at the initial local office, the service member 

may not have time to reschedule the interview or USCIS 

may not have received the file. Providing the military 

family member the option of returning to the first office 

having jurisdiction would provide benefit to family 

members and could be accomplished by USCIS with little or 

no additional expense. 

227 Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman (May 24, 2010).
Annual Report to Congress – June 2010 67

B.			Special	Immigrant	Visas	(SIVs)	–	A	

Wartime	Congressional	Mandate	

In 2006, Congress authorized Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) 

programs for Afghani and Iraqi nationals employed by or 

on behalf of the U.S. government who have been rendered 

vulnerable as a result of their service.228 These SIV programs 

allow qualifying persons to self-petition to immigrate to 

the United States with their dependents and immediately 

obtain green cards. In 2006, the first such program, the 

“U.S. translator” program, permitted 50 Afghani and 

Iraqi nationals who had provided translation services to 

self-petition and included dependents who would not count 

against the numerical cap on visa issua

rams throu

nces.229 In 2008, 

Congress expanded SIV prog gh legislation for 

the “U.S.-affiliate program,” which authorized up to 5,000 

visas each year for FY 2008-2013 for Iraqi nationals.230 The 

legislative intent in establishing the SIV program was to aid 

people imperiled by their assistance to the United States.231 

The Ombudsman previously reported on underutilization in the U.S. translator and affiliate programs.232 The 

Ombudsman also reviewed USCIS processing initiatives233

tailored to these petitioners’ needs and discussed process 

and policy concerns that, left unaddressed, may continue to 

hinder issuance of SIVs.

As shown in Figure 25, during the first two quarters of FY 

2010, 768 visas were approved – as compared with 1,221 

for the same period in FY 2009.

In addition, as of this writing, no visas have been issued 

under the new Afghani visa program, the Afghan Allies 

Protection Act enacted in March 2009,234 as the program 

is not yet implemented. This Act provides 1,500 visas 

annually, for FY 2009-2013, for Afghani employees and 

contractors with the U.S. government who suffer an ongoing, serious threat, as a result of their U.S. affiliation.235 The 

website of U.S. Embassy Kabul directs readers to check the 

embassy website or the USCIS website for information on 

when customers can begin submitting evidence to Embassy 

Kabul before filing with USCIS.236

The Ombudsman learned from stakeholders that USCIS processing of other SIV applications continues to run smoothly 

and communication with officers is timely and responsive. 

228 See National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006, §1059, 

Pub. L. No. 109-163 (as amended, 2009); National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, § 1244 Pub. L. No. 110-181 

(2008). To initiate an SIV claim, the Afghani or Iraqi petitioner 

submits Form I-360 (Petition for Amerasian, Widow(er), or Special 

Immigrant) with supporting evidence. This must include a Chief 

of Mission approval letter. Such a letter is obtained by submitting 

to the U.S. Department of State a variety of identity and threat 

verification information, including a letter of recommendation from 

the petitioner’s direct U.S. citizen supervisor (or, a “flag officer or 

general in the chain of command of the United States Armed Forces,” 

for translators) stating period(s) of employment, that the employment 

was faithful and valuable to the United States, and that the employee 

is experiencing or has experienced an ongoing or serious threat as a 

result of such employment. See Ombudsman’s Annual Report 2009, 

pp. 41-44.

229 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006, §§ 1059, 

Pub. L. No. 109-163 (as amended, 2009).

230 Legislation enacted in January 2008, under Section 1244 of the 

National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2008, § 1244, Pub. L. 

No 110-181 (2008), as amended by Pub. L. No. 110-242 (2008), 

established a new special immigrant category under INA § 101(a)

(27) for those qualifying Iraqis serving U.S. interests after March 20, 

2003. This legislation is for Iraqi nationals who provided “faithful 

and valuable service” for at least one year (including noncontiguous 

periods) for or on behalf of the U.S. government and who are 

endangered or threatened as a consequence of their employment 

affiliation with the United States. There are no filing fees under 

this program. Afghanis who also qualify under the translator 

SIV program may be converted to the U.S.-affiliate program if a 

translator SIV is not available.

231 “To Increase the Number of Iraqi and Afghani Translators and 

Interpreters Who May Be Admitted to the United States as Special 

Immigrants,” House Committee on the Judiciary, HR Rep. No. 110-

158 (May 21, 2007). 

232 Ombudsman’s Annual Report 2009, pp. 41-45; USCIS 2009 Annual 

Report Response, p. 9.

233 In FY 2009, USCIS established a dedicated unit at the Nebraska 

Service Center to adjudicate these petitions and to correspond with 

individuals and their representatives. Once USCIS approves the case, 

the file is forwarded to DOS’ National Visa Center, which may initiate 

final security reviews that can cause delays. Next, the individual 

is scheduled for an interview at a nearby U.S. consulate and, then, 

immigrates to the United States. 

234 Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009, § 602(b), Division F, Title 

IV; Pub. Law No. 111-8 includes a provision authorizing Special 

Immigrant status for Afghani nationals who have been employed 

by or on behalf of the U.S. government in Afghanistan on or after 

October 7, 2001, for a period of not less than one year, and who 

meet other eligibility requirements. 

235 Id.

236 “Special Immigrant Visas for Afghans – Who Worked for/on Behalf 

of the U.S. Government;” http://kabul.usembassy.gov/special_

immigrant_visa2.html (accessed May 14, 2010).
68 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

Figure 25: Special Immigrant Visa Availability and Issuance in the Translator and U.S.-Affiliate Program

Note: USCIS data include principal applicants. The website www.state.gov provides data on petitioner and dependent SIV usage, and states that it incorporates USCIS data.

Sources: Data provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman (May 7 and 26, 2010).

BEST PRACTICE

USCIS continues to utilize a designated email address 

(SIVTranslator.NSC@dhs.gov) staffed by subject matter 

expert adjudicators who can respond to applicants and any 

individuals assisting them such as lawyers and military 

personnel about filing SIV applications, Requests for 

Evidence, and how to appeal denials. USCIS reports that 

it responds to emails within two to three business days 

on complex matters, and often the same day for routine 

inquiries such as eligibility and application processing.

OMBUDSMAN CASE ASSISTANCE

Pro bono counsel contacted the Ombudsman in spring 

2010 seeking information on how to comply with the 

SIV application requirements while her client was in 

hiding and unable to correspond. The Ombudsman 

contacted the Nebraska Service Center (NSC) and the 

NSC staff provided this information. Counsel filed the 

application the same week. 

While USCIS has developed efficient and responsive means 

to process SIV applications, issues that are outside of USCIS’ 

control continue to diminish the overall effectiveness of the 

program. For example, stakeholders continue to express 

concern that individuals are discouraged from applying due 

to, in some cases, unattainable evidentiary requirements for 

the Chief of Mission letter, a first step for any applicant to be 
Annual Report to Congress – June 2010 69

designated as a Special Immigrant under these programs.237 

Stakeholders also report that the processing times for applications, averaging a year usually due to security checks by 

other federal agencies, discourage applicants from applying.

Due to these concerns, stakeholders share that potential 

SIV applicants who are otherwise eligible and in danger 

instead often seek refugee status. Refugee status is a lesser 

benefit than the immigrant status available with an SIV. 

This decision results in fewer benefits because refugees do 

not arrive as immigrants and must apply for a green card 

after one year of arriving in the United States.238 Further, 

stakeholders are concerned that unused SIV numbers will 

be “wasted,” even as would-be SIVs apply for refugee status, 

thus taking numbers from the U.S. refugee admissions cap 

of 80,000 for FY 2010.239 No data exist to show how many 

potentially eligible persons forgo SIV applications due to 

the perception that applications are destined to be delayed 

or fail entirely. Stakeholders report to the Ombudsman, 

anecdotally, that their clients “frequently” seek both benefits 

or apply for refugee status instead of the SIV classification. 

Unused SIVs will carry forward year to year until the end of 

FY 2014 when any unused visa numbers will expire, absent 

a legislative change. Thus far, the carry-over numbers have 

not been used.

C. 	 International Adoptions – Developing

Agency Efficiencies

On March 15, 2010, USCIS announced a centralized process 

and location for adjudicating new adoption filings for 

children from non-signatories to the Hague Convention240

to take effect two weeks later.241 USCIS described this 

change as adding the benefit of more efficient and 

uniform processing for USCIS, and allowing prospective adoptive parents to benefit from a central pool of 

knowledgeable experts. 

Accordingly, since April 1, 2010, USCIS has been adjudicating new Non-Hague (Orphan) cases at the National 

Benefits Center (NBC) rather than at field offices where the 

prospective parents reside, as was previously done; field 

offices continue to process only previously filed cases. By 

comparison, Hague cases always have been adjudicated at 

the NBC, since the United States first began processing them 

on April 1, 2008. Since Hague implementation, Orphan 

adoptions have been referred to with increasing frequency 

as “Non-Hague adoptions.” 

237 See “How To Apply for Chief of Mission (COM) Approval for the 

Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) Program Embassy of the United States 

of America Baghdad, Iraq;” http://iraq.usembassy.gov/root/pdfs/

sivguidelines-ds157-english_jan10.pdf (accessed May 3, 2010).

238 While the refugee process is procedurally easier for most applicants, 

those who receive refugee status and wish to receive a green card 

must wait a year to apply to adjust status and pay a $930 per 

applicant filing fee plus a biometrics fee of $80. By comparison, the 

SIV is an immigrant visa that confers lawful permanent residency 

immediately upon arrival at a port of entry. 

239 “Presidential Determination No. 2008-29: Fiscal Year 2009 Refugee 

Admission Numbers and Authorization of In-Country Refugee 

Status,” 73 Fed. Reg. 58,865 (Oct. 7, 2008).

240 On May 29, 1993, the United States joined 65 other countries in 

concluding the Convention On Protection of Children and Cooperation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption (Hague Convention 

on Intercountry Adoption), the first multilateral treaty addressing 

international adoption, whose stated goal was to provide greater 

protection for children than previously available under bilateral 

treaties by better preventing trafficking in children. Although the 

United States signed the Convention March 31, 1994, and passed 

the International Adoption Act of 2000 on October 6, 2000, creating 

the domestic legislative framework to implement the Convention, 

Congress did not formally ratify the Convention until December 12, 

2007, after which it entered into force April 1, 2008. Therefore, the 

United States did not begin processing Convention adoptions until 

April 1, 2008, 14 years after signing. See www.adoptions.state.gov 

(accessed May 12, 2010).

241 USCIS Update, “USCIS Centralizes Processing of Orphan 

Adoptions–Change will Streamline Processing” (Mar. 15, 2010); 

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

919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=662cadd907c6721

0VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=f3beaca797 

e63110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCRD (accessed May 12, 2010).
70 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

Figure 26: International Adoptions

The Ombudsman has been monitoring international adoption242 processing for over two years. Prior to April 1, 2008

when the Hague Convention went into effect in the United 

States, Non-Hague (Orphan) adoption was the primary 

mechanism243 for bringing a non-biologically related, 

foreign-born child to this country as a family member. 

Non-Hague adoptions are largely the product of bilateral 

treaties establishing a framework for concluding the legal 

transfer of parental rights under two countries’ adoption 

laws, typically those of the United States and the sending 

, 

country where the adoptee is born or located at the time of 

the adoption.

The Hague Convention implements uniform procedures 

generally recognized to protect and safeguard children more 

consistently than procedures established under separate 

treaties with each sending country. However, despite 

differences in the level of scrutiny and other protective 

mechanisms, Hague and Non-Hague processing are 

structurally similar. Both processes are characterized by 

two main steps each represented by a specific USCIS form: 

Non-Hague (Orphan) cases use the I-600A (Application for 

Advance Processing of Orphan Petition) and I-600 (Petition 

to Classify Orphan as an Immediate Relative), while 

Hague cases utilize the analogous I-800A (Application 

for Determination of Suitability to Adopt a Child from 

a Convention Country) and I-800 (Petition to Classify 

Convention Adoptee as an Immediate Relative). The first 

step involves qualification of prospective parents as suitable 

candidates to assume parental rights and obligations. Once 

242 “International adoption” is used herein, along with “intercountry 

adoption,” to encompass broadly the procedures governing adoption 

of foreign nationals resident outside the United States by U.S. 

citizens or permanent residents residing in the United States. See 

generally “Intercountry Adoption” website maintained by the U.S. 

Department of State’s Office of Children’s Issues, www.adoptions.

state.gov (accessed May 12, 2010).

243 It is also possible for parents to immigrate adoptive children through 

a multi-step process that is not an “intercountry adoption.” First, 

they establish residency abroad; second, they adopt under local laws 

and exercise full custody and control of the adopted child for at 

least two years outside the United States; and, third, they petition 

the child as an immediate relative by filing Form I-130 (Petition 

for Alien Relative). This approach occurs outside of “intercountry 

adoption,” as defined, because the parents are residing outside 

the United States. Immigration of such an adoptive child is 

accomplished the same way as immigration of any person meeting 

the INA definition of “child.” See INA §101(b)(1).
Annual Report to Congress – June 2010 71

their suitability244 is established, prospective parents proceed 

to the next step of filing to have a specific child identified 

for adoption.

As not all countries have joined the multilateral accord, 

initiation of Hague adoptions did not terminate the processing of Non-Hague adoptions. Therefore, beginning April 

1, 2008, international adoptions could proceed along one 

of two tracks in the United States. On the one track, Hague 

adoption rules apply where the adoptee’s country of origin 

is a Convention country. On the other track, Non-Hague 

cases are of two types: (1) adoptions initiated pre-Hague 

in Convention countries are so-called “grandfathered cases,” 

where transition rules spare adoptive parents the need to 

re-file according to Hague procedures; and (2) adoptions in 

non-Convention countries, which have no reason to follow 

Hague rules.

The agency followed its March 15, 2010, announcement 

with informational webinars to further explain the reasons 

for centralized processing of Non-Hague adoptions and explain how it is expected to function. During the webinars, 

USCIS announced the rollout of revised Forms I-600 and 

I-600A.245 These announcements represent the culmination 

of a process that began in October 2009 with 

USCIS’ announcements of centralized filing for all adoption 

cases at the Dallas Lockbox facility.246

When announcing the central process for new Non-Hague 

adoptions, USCIS stated that the change would allow the 

agency to “[p]rocess applications and petitions more 

efficiently, [s]treamline and standardize work processes, and 

[o]ffer more consistent service,” and provide prospective 

parents “the specialized skills and experience of the NBC 

Non-Hague Adoption Unit.”247 The Ombudsman’s ongoing 

review of international adoption suggests that USCIS’ 

centralization of Non-Hague adoption processing alongside 

Hague processing at the NBC should yield such efficiency 

and uniformity of benefits.

The Ombudsman encourages the agency to substitute the 

term “Non-Hague” as soon as possible for “Orphan,” where 

retaining the term Orphan adoption is likely to cause confusion.248 USCIS itself demonstrates the inconsistent usage; 

its March 15, 2010 update refers initially to the specialized 

adoption team that will handle new orphan petitions as the 

“Orphan Unit” at the NBC, then subsequently as the “NBC 

Non-Hague Adoption Unit.” 

244 The key components of “suitability” determinations are the criminal 

background check and the home study, a report by a state-licensed 

preparer usually hired by or acting under the direction of an 

adoption agency and based on research into candidates’ personal 

history and living situation. 

245 See USCIS Update, “USCIS Announces Revised Forms I-600 and 

I-600A” (Apr. 1, 2010); http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscisme

nuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=2680df

fc7aab7210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD& vgnextchannel=f3bea

ca797e63110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCRD 

(accessed Apr. 16, 2010).

246 On October 6, 2009, USCIS redirected Hague filings from the 

Chicago to the Dallas Lockbox, which continued in the same role: 

depositing fees, issuing receipts, and forwarding cases to the NBC 

for processing. USCIS also required future Non-Hague filings be 

sent to the Dallas Lockbox for receipting and fee collection, in lieu 

of going directly to a local office; however, rather than disseminate 

cases to the relevant local office for adjudication, Dallas would 

forward receipted Non-Hague cases to the NBC. The NBC would 

then sort these cases by local office and ship them accordingly. 

Therefore, when USCIS centralized Non-Hague adjudications at the 

NBC, Dallas already was sending these cases to the NBC. Establishing 

a Non-Hague Unit at the NBC allowed USCIS to cease forwarding 

these cases to the field. See http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/

menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid =ea

911c2c9be44210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=

e7801c2c9be44210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD (accessed May 

14, 2010); information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman 

(Oct. 6 – 8, 2009).

247 USCIS Update, “USCIS Centralizes Processing of Orphan Adoptions–

Change will Streamline Processing” (Mar. 15, 2010); http://www.

uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f6141

76543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=662cadd907c67210 VgnVCM10000008

2ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=f3beaca797e63110VgnVCM100000

4718190aRCRD (accessed May 12, 2010). Centralization of NonHague adoption processing does not change the rules governing 

adjudication of these cases.

248 By definition, adoptions filed under bilateral treaties cannot be 

“Hague cases,” so they are “Non-Hague” cases. Yet, they are still 

known on USCIS forms and announcements as “Orphan” matters. 
72 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

1. Specialized Adoptions Team 

at the NBC – A Snapshot

The NBC will now adjudicate all new adoption filings. Only 

pre-April 1, 2010, non-Hague filings will continue to be 

processed by the field office in which they are pending, as 

the Ombudsman understands that USCIS has no plans to 

transfer these cases to the NBC. Both Hague and non-Hague 

filings reach the NBC after receipting and fee collection by 

the Dallas Lockbox. The Hague Unit data enters249 these 

cases for tracking purposes and assigns them to one of 15 

officers for adjudication, while the non-Hague Unit acts 

similarly and distributes cases among its 17 officers.250 For 

Non-Hague filings, as well as for Hague filings, the assigned 

Immigration Services Officer (ISO) is responsible for 

handling the case until completed.

The dedicated toll-free telephone line for Hague Adoptions 

has now expanded its focus to embrace both Hague and 

Non-Hague inquiries. Automated answering of the “NBC 

Adoption Helpline,” 1-877-424-8374, instructs callers to 

“press 1,” for Hague cases, or “press 2,” for Non-Hague 

cases to ensure that callers are directed to an officer with the 

correct expertise.

2. Future Challenges

Unlike Hague adoptions, which are governed by a single 

“suitability” standard,251 Non-Hague adoptions may require 

specialized regional subject matter expertise 

(e.g., regarding disparate state regulatory schemes 

governing parental qualifications addressed in home 

studies and background checks). While the expected 

benefits of central processing are significant, one of 

the potential challenges is the near-term diminution in 

state law expertise. USCIS has displayed a willingness to 

devote necessary resources to provide the training and 

communication with the field necessary to address issues 

that arise. The Ombudsman will continue to monitor 

international adoptions generally and, in particular, the 

operation of the new Non-Hague Unit.

249 The Hague Unit still uses the Secure Information Management 

Service (SIMS) tracking system, though USCIS expects to replace 

SIMS with the Hague Case Management System (HCMS) by midsummer 2010. Until then, the Unit is also using a spreadsheet 

to track cases. The Non-Hague Unit has access to the same case 

tracking tools. Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman 

(Apr. 12, 21, and 23, 2010). 

250 Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman (Apr. 21, 2010).

251 Hague home studies are generally considered more rigorous 

investigations than Non-Hague (Orphan) home studies. The 

former generally present checklisted requirements to be addressed, 

thereby fostering consistency in reporting. Conversely, for NonHague (Orphan) cases, differing state law approaches to preparer 

accreditation and the variability in state law home study standards 

may challenge ISOs’ ability to evaluate suitability. 
Annual Report to Congress – June 2010 73

D. 	 Separation of Derivatives/Principals –

The Importance of Matching Practice

and Policy to Facilitate Family

Reunification

Submission and approval of Form I-485 (Application to 

Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status) are among 

the final steps in the green card process for U.S.-based 

applicants. Applicants’ spouses and children are considered 

derivative applicants (derivatives), and can file Form I-485 

along with the principal applicant. Derivatives are entitled 

to the same status and consideration as the principal 

applicant, and families filing at the same time reasonably 

expect concurrent adjudication and approval.252 However, 

customers have complained to the Ombudsman about 

separation of derivatives’ applications from those of their 

principals, leaving the applications of spouses and children 

pending for months or years after issuance of the principal’s 

green card. 

Separation of files may have serious long-term consequences, including: (1) visa number retrogression, where visa 

numbers become unavailable and the derivative applicants 

may wait months or years for visa availability; (2) financial 

burden on certain derivative applicants for renewing 

employment and travel authorization;253 (3) no access to 

in-state tuition, and other benefits available to green card 

holders; or (4) delays in eligibility for naturalization.

To assist individuals and gain further insight into the customer’s experience, on October 9, 2009, the Ombudsman 

posted on its website an Ombudsman Update titled 

“Pending Derivative Forms I-485 due to File Separation.”254 

This posting sought submission of case problems to the 

Ombudsman by derivatives whose green card applications 

remained pending for more than 30 days after the approval 

date of the principal’s application.

In response to this request, the Ombudsman received a 

few hundred case problems on separated derivatives’ files. 

In many cases, visa numbers had retrogressed after the 

approval of the principal’s case. Such retrogression places 

unapproved derivative applicants on hold for an indefinite 

period. When a visa number will again become available is 

uncertain. Also, when a priority date does become current 

in a given month, the derivative may not be approved 

before available visas are used by others. While approved 

family members enjoy the rights and benefits associated 

with a green card,255 unadjudicated derivatives in the same 

household must wait. Where a visa is currently available, 

the Ombudsman refers cases to USCIS for 

prompt adjudication. 

OMBUDSMAN CASE ASSISTANCE

An applicant from India filed an employment-based green 

card application at the same time her husband filed for a 

green card as her derivative beneficiary. USCIS approved 

the principal applicant’s case in fall 2009, but scheduled 

the husband’s case for interview and sent his file to a 

USCIS field office. Following the customer’s request for 

assistance in the spring of 2010, the Ombudsman determined that this transfer to the field was service error and 

requested expedited return of the file to the service center 

for adjudication. USCIS agreed, the file was returned, and 

the green card was approved.

OMBUDSMAN CASE ASSISTANCE

In spring 2007, an Indonesian applicant filed for a 

derivative-based green card concurrent with his wife’s 

employment-based application. USCIS approved the 

wife’s green card case in three months, but the husband’s 

case became separated and was not adjudicated. The 

Ombudsman determined that the delay in adjudications 

caused a critical consequence as the husband’s case could 

no longer be approved due to retrogression of the visa 

cut-off date after the wife’s case was approved. 

252 See INA § 203(d). 

253 Generally, applicants who filed Form I-485 prior to July 30, 2007, 

or in certain employment-based cases August 17, 2007, are required 

to pay filing fees to renew employment and travel authorization, and 

those who filed Form I-485 after such dates are not required to pay 

to renew employment and travel authorization.

254 http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/gc_1221837986181.

shtm#3 (accessed May 21, 2010).

255 Green card holders generally have the right to live, work, and be 

protected under laws of the United States provided that they do not 

commit crimes that subject them to removal proceedings. Other 

privileges may include eligibility for financial aid and in-state or 

resident tuition for education, more job and business opportunities, 

Social Security benefits, and eligibility to apply for citizenship. 
74 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

The majority of Form I-485 principal/derivative separation 

cases received by the Ombudsman originated at the Texas 

Service Center (TSC). Seeking solutions to this problem, 

the Ombudsman reviewed the TSC’s I-485 processing 

procedures for possible causes.

The TSC identified the following circumstances as leading 

to separation of a derivative’s I-485 file from the principal’s 

file during processing:256

(1) Security Checks: Generally, USCIS requires security 

checks that include fingerprints, FBI name checks, and 

Interagency Border Inspection System (IBIS) checks.257 

Derivatives who turn 14 during adjudication become 

subject to these security checks. In such cases, the 

14th birthday triggers transfer of a derivative’s file to a 

45-day holding area in the TSC’s file room. While the 

file awaits completion of a biometrics appointment258

and initial security check processing, files of the principal and other derivatives continue to be processed 

without interruption. 

(2) Request for Evidence (RFE): Issuance of an RFE to 

a derivative applicant causes transfer of the file to 

another segregated area where the files are ordered 

chronologically by RFE response due date. Either 

upon receipt of a timely response, or where there is 

no response by the due date, the file returns 

for adjudication.

(3) Rejected Fingerprints: Fingerprints rejected due to 

poor quality must be retaken. If unable to capture 

readable prints, USCIS may request police clearance 

reports from applicants. 

(4) National Security or Fraud Concerns: Any situation 

requiring further investigation may cause file 

transfer to the USCIS Fraud Detection and National 

Security Directorate or to U.S. Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement.

(5) Mismanagement of Files: All family members’ cases 

should be bundled together in an accordion file and 

linked in the case management database. However, a 

derivative’s file may be removed, for reasons including 

those noted above, and re-filed incorrectly.

According to the TSC, the area dedicated to employmentbased green card applications is closely monitored on a 

bi-weekly basis to ensure that the cases are timely routed 

to adjudicators. For efficiency, TSC subdivides this dedicated 

area into five smaller locations according to the step in 

the process.259

In addition to having its personnel actively manage 

physical case files, the TSC employs a database application 

for electronic case review and management functions. 

One such function is the ability to link a principal and 

derivatives by their A-numbers to readily identify a family 

for simultaneous processing. When a derivative applicant 

completes the biometrics process, the database will indicate 

that the derivative’s file is part of a family unit, and USCIS 

will re-group the file with the other family members. The 

system also captures the priority date, immigrant classification, and country of birth information to facilitate the 

identification of cases that have visas available. Furthermore, 

the U.S. Department of State tracks pending visa requests 

from USCIS offices and, upon issuance of the Visa Bulletin 

each month, sends a list to USCIS of cases eligible for a visa. 

In fall 2009, the TSC completed a project to review files to 

locate derivative cases that have become separated from the 

principal applicant’s.260 

According to USCIS, the agency makes every effort to adjudicate the principal’s and derivatives’ files together in the 

interest of efficiency and consistency.261 In the Adjudicator’s 

Field Manual (AFM), there is one reference to adjudicating 

green card applications as a family bundle.262 Most notable 

256 Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman (Nov. 24, 2009).

257 The purpose of the security checks is to ensure that an applicant 

for immigrant benefits does not have a criminal record or pose a 

security threat to the United States. 

258 Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman (Mar. 24, 2010). 

For cases that need a new biometric appointment, USCIS requests a 

fee for biometric services. Upon receipt of the fee, USCIS schedules 

an appointment at a designated Application Support Center.

259 Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman (Mar. 24, 2010).

260 Id.

261 Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman (Nov. 24, 2009).

262 AFM, Chapter 10, “An Overview of the Adjudication Process” (Feb. 

2010); http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.f6da51a

2342135be7e9d7a10e0dc91a0/?vgnextoid=fa7e539dc4bed010Vgn

VCM1000000ecd190aRCRD&vgnextchannel=fa7e539dc4bed010Vg

nVCM1000000ecd190aRCRD&CH=afm (accessed Mar. 3, 2010).
Annual Report to Congress – June 2010 75

is that while the AFM has a section that discusses green card 

applications and has extensive checklists and action items to 

consider in adjudications, it makes no mention of adjudicating related files together or retrieving previously separated 

derivative files. The USCIS I-485 Standard Operating 

Procedures for field offices does contain several references 

to keeping the family files together.263

Despite the TSC’s active case management efforts, the 

Ombudsman continues to receive case problems, not only 

from the TSC, in response to the posted update on separated 

derivative files. In many instances there are legitimate 

reasons for separation. 

However, other cases appeared not to have been actively 

managed to ensure reunification of files, resulting in a 

missed window of visa availability. As discussed previously, 

the consequences of visa retrogression to derivative 

applicants can be dire: those whose cases are left behind 

may wait many additional years for a green card that could 

have been issued with the principal’s, or shortly thereafter. 

Therefore, USCIS should improve case management 

agencywide to ensure that separated files are promptly 

adjudicated at the earliest possible time following the 

approval of the principal’s, when practicable. 

263 USCIS, “Field Operations Standard Operations Procedure Manual for 

Processing Form I-485 Application to Register Permanent Residence 

or to Adjust Status,” Version 2.1 (May 1, 2006).

E.	 USCIS	Adjudications	for	Individuals		

in	Immigration	Court	Proceedings	–	

Focusing	on	Interagency		

Responsibilities

Certain DHS employees within USCIS, U.S. Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement (ICE) and U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP)264 can institute proceedings against an 

individual for a violation of immigration law by filing a 

Notice to Appear (NTA) charging document with the appropriate immigration court.265 Immigration Judges, under 

the authority of the U.S. Department of Justice’s Executive 

Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), determine whether 

the persons charged are removable as alleged, and if so, 

whether a form of relief under the law can be sustained by 

the facts in the individuals’ cases.266

Two components of DHS, USCIS and ICE, work in conjunction with the immigration court to fulfill its mandate. ICE 

attorneys represent the government during removal proceedings. ICE also maintains jurisdiction over individuals 

who are detained before or during these proceedings.267

USCIS performs three important tasks to support the 

immigration court: (1) adjudicates many of the underlying 

petitions that form the basis of an individual’s defense 

against removal; (2) gathers the required biometrics to 

confirm the identity of the person charged and needed 

for the background checks before an Immigration Judge 

can render a determination;268 and (3) issues receipts and 

processes the associated fees of the applications for relief 

that the immigration court will adjudicate. 

264 INA §§ 103, 221, and 239.

265 A Notice To Appear (NTA) is the formal charging document filed 

with the court on Form I-862 (Notice to Appear) and delivered to the 

individual who is ordered to appear. INA § 239(a).

266 INA § 240(c)(4).

267 ICE’s Detention and Removal Operations “is the primary enforcement 

arm within ICE for the identification, apprehension and removal of 

illegal aliens from the United States. The resources and expertise of DRO 

are utilized to identify and apprehend illegal aliens, fugitive aliens, and 

criminal aliens, to manage them while in custody and to enforce orders 

of removal from the United States;” http://www.ice.gov/pi/dro/ 

(accessed June 19, 2010).

268 An Immigration Judge may not grant an application for relief until 

DHS has completed current identity, law enforcement, or security 

investigations and reported those results to the court. 

8 C.F.R. § 1003.47(g).
76 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

Individuals who receive an NTA are named as respondents 

and are entitled to counsel provided it is at no cost to 

the government.269 The majority of respondents facing 

removal are not represented by counsel or an accredited 

representative, as shown in Figure 27, and over half of all 

respondents have been detained by ICE at some point in 

the process.270 

Figure 27: Representation in Immigration Courts

Fiscal 

Year

Number 

Represented

Percent 

Represented

Number 

Unrepresented

Percent 

UnrepresentedTotal

2005 110,911 35% 204,043 65% 314,954

2006 114,302 35% 209,745 65% 324,047

2007 116,965 43% 156,505 57% 273,470

2008 112,865 40% 168,340 60% 281,205

2009 114,087 39% 176,146 61% 290,233

Source: U.S. Department of Justice, Executive Office for Immigration Review, 

“FY 2009 Statistical Year Book,” G1 (Mar. 2010).

The court’s priority is to provide due process and a fair 

hearing. This objective is partially dependent upon a 

complex interagency effort to coordinate responsibilities 

with limited resources. 

Because USCIS retains jurisdiction over many petitions that 

are the basis for relief in removal,271 respondents often 

must request continuances in court so USCIS can complete 

adjudication. Also, stakeholders have cited problems with 

biometric processing at USCIS. For example, due to clogged 

immigration court dockets, USCIS’ 15 month fingerprint 

validity period often expires before the hearing where 

individuals present their claim for relief in immigration 

court.272 Biometrics for removal cases may, therefore, need 

to be renewed. Depending on the local relationship, ICE 

counsel may assist respondents in scheduling fingerprint 

appointments, but this is not uniform across the country. 

Inconsistent local USCIS policies and practices, 

competing responsibilities, and lack of interagency 

coordination adversely affect both USCIS customers and 

the immigration courts. 

Each agency’s responsibilities, although defined by law, 

remain a point of confusion to those who must navigate the 

process. Applications for relief that are filed with USCIS for 

fee payment trigger the biometric appointment. Yet, USCIS 

retains jurisdiction to adjudicate only a few of the filings 

while the court maintains responsibility to process others.273 

In addition, 50 percent of respondents will be subject to 

detention274 at some point during the removal process, 

causing those respondents to secure USCIS biometrics 

through facilitation by ICE. While the court requires the 

biometrics, and ICE counsel delivers the biometric instructions in court, the respondent is presumed to understand 

that USCIS maintains the responsibility to complete the task. 

269 INA § 240(b)(4)(A). 

270 U.S. Department of Justice, “FY 2009 Statistical Year Book,” A1, A2 

(Mar. 2010); http://www.justice.gov/eoir/statspub/fy09syb.pdf 

(accessed June 19, 2010).

271 Including, but not limited to: Form I-751 (Petition to Remove the 

Conditions of Residence); I-130 (Petition for Alien Relative); I-360 

(Petition for Amerasian, Widow(er), or Special Immigrant); I-140 

(Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker), I-821 (Application for 

Temporary Protected Status); I-914 (Application for T Nonimmigrant 

Status); I-918 (Petition for U Nonimmigrant Status); and I-929 

(Petition for Qualifying Family Member of a U-1 Nonimmigrant); 

Immigration Judges have no jurisdiction over visa petitions, 

employment authorization, certain waivers, naturalization 

applications, revocation of naturalization, parole into the United States 

under INA §212(d)(5), applications for advance parole, or employer 

sanctions. See Immigration Court Practice Manual, ch. 1, p. 8.

272 USCIS National Stakeholder Meeting: Answers to National 

Stakeholder Questions (Mar. 25, 2008, revised Apr. 3, 2008) (USCIS 

considers fingerprints to expire after 15 months, and often requires 

customers to be re-fingerprinted at an Application Support Center, if 

the case is not adjudicated during the validity period.)

273 Including, but not limited to: Forms I-485 (Application to Register 

Permanent Residence or Adjust Status), I-191 (Application for Advance 

Permission to Return to Unrelinquished Domicile), I-601 (Application 

for Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility), I-602 (Application by 

Refugee for Waiver of Grounds of Excludability), I-881 (Application 

for Suspension of Deportation or Special Rule Cancellation of 

Removal), EOIR-40 (Application for Suspension of Deportation), 

EOIR-42A (Application for Cancellation of Removal for Certain 

Permanent Residents), and EOIR-42B (Application for Cancellation 

of Removal and Adjustment of Status for Certain Nonpermanent 

Residents), Form I-589 (Application for Asylum and for Withholding 

of Removal). See EOIR Pre-Order Instructions; http://www.uscis.gov/

files/article/PreOrderInstr.pdf (accessed May 18, 2010).

274 U.S. Department of Justice, “FY 2009 Statistical Year Book,” A1, A2 

(Mar. 2010); http://www.justice.gov/eoir/statspub/fy09syb.pdf 

(accessed June 19, 2010).
Annual Report to Congress – June 2010 77

On its website, USCIS provides four documents regarding 

the removal process, including: (1) Pre-Order Instructions; 

(2) Post-Order Instructions; (3) “Fact Sheet on Immigration 

Benefits in EOIR Proceedings;” and (4) “Questions and 

Answers on Implementation of EOIR Background Check 

Regulation for Aliens Seeking Relief or Protection from 

Removal.”275 

Individuals in removal proceedings must cross between the 

distinct jurisdictional boundaries of USCIS, ICE, and EOIR. 

For those individuals who must proceed pro se, a resource 

that clearly delineates specific agency responsibility for 

elements of the removal process would direct their steps at 

critical junctures between agencies’ jurisdictions. 

RECOMMENDATION 11

The Ombudsman recommends that USCIS coordinate 

with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) 

and the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) 

to provide the public with one document that specifies 

each agency’s responsibilities within the removal process 

and the basic steps and information that respondents 

need to know about the jurisdiction of each agency. 

(AR2010-11) 

The Ombudsman understands that USCIS and ICE are 

together drafting guidance to the field regarding the 

expedited handling of applications or petitions filed by 

individuals in removal proceedings. USCIS guidance 

should increase docket efficiency, maximize interagency 

coordination, and encourage discretion where possible to 

terminate removal proceedings where applicants appear 

clearly eligible for relief in the form of adjustment of 

status or in other forms. The Ombudsman encourages all 

of these goals so that treatment of such filings would be 

standardized across districts. 

While there are many possible areas of review related to 

the interaction between USCIS, ICE, and EOIR, the statutory 

mandate for the Ombudsman requires focus on USCIS 

administration and responsibilities. The Ombudsman is in 

the process of a more comprehensive review of the USCIS 

administration of services for the respondents referred to in 

this section.

275 Immigration Benefits in EOIR Removal Proceedings (Dec. 4, 

2009); http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/template.PRINT/

menuitem. 5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=3eb

c829cbf3ae010 VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCRD&vgnextchannel=02

729c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1RCRD 

(accessed May 7, 2010).
78 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

F.	 Form	N-648	(Medical	Certification	for	

Disability	Exceptions)	Processing	–	

Applicants	and	Adjudicators	in	Need	

of	New	Approaches

Among other requirements, every applicant for naturalization as a U.S. citizen must demonstrate English language 

proficiency and knowledge of United States history and 

government.276 To accommodate medical obstacles to 

meeting this requirement, applicants with a physical or 

developmental disability, or a mental impairment, may seek 

a waiver of the English and/or U.S. history and civics portion of the naturalization interview by filing Form N-648 

(Medical Certification for Disability Exceptions). A licensed 

medical professional completes the N-648.277 

The Ombudsman has received complaints and noted problems regarding the processing of Form N-648 via multiple 

avenues: while conducting the office’s public teleconference series,278 through review of individual case problems, 

in meetings with community-based organizations around 

the country, and during visits to USCIS field offices. 

Beginning last fall, USCIS has sought public feedback 

about N-648 processing, and has used the input to inform 

internal reviews. Director Mayorkas opened his FY 2009 

telephonic outreach on this topic by noting the importance 

of stakeholder engagement to a constructive revision 

of N-648 processing. USCIS provided opportunity for 

comment on a revised Form N-648 in the Federal Register 

in February 2010.279

While progress continues, stakeholders continue to share 

that processing of the N-648 is frustrating for applicants, 

their representatives, and the health professionals asked to 

complete the application. Their consensus is that, although 

form revisions are necessary and welcome, change is also 

needed for USCIS employees who are required to adjudicate 

these forms. 

1. The Adjudication Process

USCIS instructions state that applicants should submit 

Form N-648 with the Form N-400 (Application for 

Naturalization) filing. In exceptional circumstances, the 

instructions note that it may be possible also to submit the 

Form N-648 during the interview process. Depending 

on where applicants live, they submit the naturalization 

applications either to the USCIS lockbox facility at Dallas or 

Phoenix. If an applicant submits the two forms together, 

USCIS records receipt of the N-648 in its database without 

issuing a separate receipt notice for the N-648; USCIS issues 

only an N-400 receipt notice. If the applicant files the 

N-648 after filing the naturalization application, USCIS neither issues a receipt notice nor records in the database the 

N-648 filing; the only record of its existence is the form’s 

presence in the case file. Despite the attention given to the 

waiver request, USCIS does not track the form nationwide.

Information Service Officers (ISOs) shared with the 

Ombudsman that they review the Form N-648 to 

determine if the form is complete and the physician’s 

certification is properly recorded. If unable to make a 

determination on the claimed medical disability, they 

request additional information or a second medical opinion 

concerning the disability. 

2. Guidance

On September 18, 2007, USCIS issued internal processing 

guidance updating Chapter 72.2(d)(5) of the Adjudicator’s 

Field Manual (AFM). This memorandum directs 

adjudicators to review the sufficiency of information 

to establish that the applicant is eligible for a disability 

exception, and to focus on whether the medical professional 

has established and documented the nature and extent of 

the diagnosed medical condition. It requires adjudicators to 

ensure the N-648 contains:

276 INA § 312.

277 Id.; 8 C.F.R. § 312.2 (b)(2).

278 Ombudsman Teleconference, “N-648 Medical Waivers – How Are 

They Working For You?” (Nov. 2, 2007); http://www.dhs.gov/

xabout/structure/gc_1200587812180.shtm 

(accessed Oct. 30, 2009).

279 “Agency Information Collection Activities: Form N-648, Revision of 

an Existing Information Collection Request; Comment Request,” 

75 Fed. Reg. 5099 (Feb. 1, 2010).
Annual Report to Congress – June 2010 79

• An explanation of the origin, nature, and 

extent of the medical condition which is 

established and documented by medically 

acceptable clinical or laboratory diagnostic 

techniques, including a list of the medically 

acceptable clinical or laboratory diagnostic 

tests employed in reaching the diagnosis;

• An explanation of how the applicant’s 

diagnosed medical condition or impairment 

so severely affects the applicant that it renders 

him/her unable to learn or demonstrate 

English proficiency and/or knowledge of 

[U.S.] history and government; 

• An attestation that the disability has lasted, 

or is expected to last, 12 months or longer; 

and 

• An attestation that the disability is not the 

direct effect of the illegal use of drugs.280

Later, the memorandum emphasizes that:

The adjudicator is not a physician and should 

not be placed in the position of making a 

medical determination. Hence, the adjudicator 

should not engage in medical determination 

practices reserved for and performed by a 

licensed medical professional.281

Furthermore, the memorandum emphasizes the critical 

role of medical professionals in certifying the N-648, a 

point underscored by N-648 instructions requiring that the 

“licensed medical professional certifying this form must 

have training and experience in the field of the applicant’s 

claimed disability or impairment.”282 

BEST PRACTICE

Some district offices, such as in Chicago, provide trainings

throughout the year to medical professionals who 

complete the Form N-648. Such trainings can ultimately 

allow USCIS personnel and the medical professionals 

who must certify N-648s to ask and answer questions 

of each other to improve the process for customers and 

adjudicators.

Stakeholders have expressed to the Ombudsman their 

concerns that USCIS is not following the guidance 

regarding N-648 adjudication. For example, the memorandum states that:

[T]o facilitate communication with USCIS 

external customers and stakeholders, each 

district or field office should maintain 

a [point of contact] (POC) for the N-648 

program. Such POC should be an adjudicator 

with expert knowledge of N-648 adjudications or a supervisory adjudications officer 

who is responsible for administration of the 

N-648 program within the district or field 

office.283

RECOMMENDATION 12

The Ombudsman recommends that USCIS assign one 

expert or supervisory adjudicator as the point of contact 

in each field office for the public, in accordance with the 

USCIS September 2007 N-648 guidance memorandum. 

(AR2010-12)

Stakeholders report to the Ombudsman that some USCIS 

field offices have not designated a single person as the point 

of contact, but rather select different people at different 

times. As a result, neither applicants nor their representatives know who to contact on N-648 issues. 

280 USCIS Interoffice Memorandum, “Guidance Clarifying the 

Adjudication of Form N-648, Medical Certification for Disability 

Exceptions. Revisions to Adjudicator’s Field Manual (AFM) Chapters 

72.2(d) (AFM Updated AD07-01)” (Neufeld Memorandum) 

(Sept. 18, 2007); http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/

N648Waiver091807.pdf (accessed May 7, 2010).

281 Id.

282 http://www.uscis.gov/files/form/N-648instr.pdf 

(accessed Oct. 8, 2009).

283 USCIS Interoffice Memorandum, “Guidance Clarifying the 

Adjudication of Form N-648, Medical Certification for Disability 

Exceptions. Revisions to Adjudicator’s Field Manual (AFM) Chapters 

72.2(d) (AFM Updated AD07-01)” (Neufeld Memorandum), 

p. 4 (Sept. 18, 2007); http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/

N648Waiver091807.pdf (accessed May 7, 2010).
80 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

The Ombudsman understands the challenges that USCIS 

staff encounter in adjudicating Form N-648 and recognizes 

that USCIS is now considering changes to the form and 

to the adjudication process itself. Stakeholders have 

expressed a sense of urgency in the need for improvements 

to be implemented.

3. Form N-648 Fraud

Fraud issues regarding N-648 waivers continue to cause 

USCIS concern.284 At the Detroit District Office alone, 

between 1999 and 2001, the agency identified over 2,000 

naturalization cases involving suspected N-648 fraud.285 As 

of March 2009, between 400 and 600 of these cases still 

were pending286 and as of March 2010, there were still 

100 such cases pending.287 Since USCIS does not track 

N-648 processing nationally, it is difficult to detect 

patterns of fraud and to identify medical professionals 

suspected of fraud. 

4. Developments with Form N-648 

In November 2008, USCIS released a new edition of Form 

N-648.288 During FY 2008, USCIS conducted a series of 

trainings on the new edition in Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, 

Dallas, Miami, New York, Philadelphia, and Seattle.

289

Training sessions targeted external stakeholders – community-based organizations, attorneys, medical practitioners – as 

well as USCIS personnel including Supervisory ISOs, Senior 

ISOs, and other selected employees. However, some ISOs 

indicated to the Ombudsman that they were not aware of 

the new version of the N-648 until it was in use.

The 2008 release also generated several complaints from 

stakeholders. They told the Ombudsman that it was 

too long and not clearly written; consequently, it took 

physicians so much time to complete that they sometimes 

charged additional fees to do so. 

RECOMMENDATION 13

The Ombudsman recommends that USCIS distribute, and 

make publicly available on the website, a training module 

for medical professionals who complete Form N-648. 

(AR2010-13)

Besides pointing out these specific shortcomings, some 

community-based organizations critiqued the form review 

process itself by saying that USCIS did not provide an 

opportunity to comment on the draft form prior to it 

being finalized. These critiques noted that USCIS invited 

stakeholders to meet and discuss the revised N-648 only 

after it was adopted. 

Under new leadership, on October 8, 2009, USCIS held a 

“Collaboration Session” for participants nationwide to join 

the N-648 discussion.290 USCIS hosted a second session on 

October 23 specifically to hear input from medical professionals and a general stakeholder session on November 

13.291 Moreover, from October 1, 2009 through November 

14, 2009, USCIS Quality Assurance (QA) staff completed a 

Decision Quality Review (DQR) Survey at the field offices.292

The QA staff reviewed naturalization cases with approved 

N-648s. The Ombudsman understands that the USCIS 

Offices of Field Operations and Public Engagement reviewed 

information from the stakeholder meetings as well as the 

survey results from the field offices to improve Form N-648. 

In February 2010, USCIS released a proposed Form N-648 

through the Federal Register, which made the draft form 

available for public comment for 60 days.293 

290 See USCIS Outreach, “Notes from Previous Engagements;” 

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e 

5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/ ?vgnextoid=994f81c52aa38210VgnVC

M100000082ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=994f81c52aa38210VgnV

CM100000082ca60aRCRD (accessed May 7, 2010). 

291 Id. 

292 Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman 

(Sept. 17, 2009).

293 “Agency Information Collection Activities: Form N-648, Revision of 

an Existing Information Collection Request; Comment Request,” 

75 Fed. Reg. 5099 (Feb. 1, 2010).

284 Doctors have been convicted for completing fraudulent N-648s. 

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement News Releases, 

“3 Convicted in Naturalization Scheme: ICE and USCIS Work 

Together to Stop Fraud” (July 21, 2009); http://www.ice.gov/

pi/nr/0907/090721philadelphia.htm (accessed Oct. 30, 2009); 

Margaret Lucas Agius, “West Bloomfield Psychiatrist Sentenced to 

Prison In Citizenship Fraud Conspiracy” Examiner.com (Aug. 18, 

2009); http://www.examiner.com/x-14309-Detroit-Legal-NewsExaminer~y2009m8d18-West-Bloomfield-psychiatrist-sentencedto-prison-in-citizenship-fraud-conspiracy (accessed Oct. 30, 2009).

285 Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman (Mar. 18, 2009).

286 Id.

287 Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman (Mar. 30, 2010).

288 In July 2009, USCIS issued another edition of Form N-648 to 

incorporate “minor language changes.” See USCIS Form Updates 

(July 15, 2009).

289 Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman (Apr. 22, 2009).
Annual Report to Congress – June 2010 81

5. Review of N-648 by Personnel Trained in 

Disability Determinations

ISOs continue to report challenges in adjudicating N-648s. 

During Ombudsman site visits, ISOs indicated: (1) they 

are not provided with training on complex disability and 

medical issues;294 (2) they have difficulty understanding 

doctors’ medical terminology on the form; and (3) the 

2008 revised form takes longer to adjudicate because of its 

length. ISOs suggested that pre-adjudication of the form 

by medical personnel would shorten the N-400 interview 

time, reduce fraud, and reduce the number of continued 

cases and re-examinations. 

To address some of these challenges, and to ensure that 

only experts are required to determine the validity of a 

completed Form N-648, medical and disability specialists, 

such as a specialized contractor or an internal team of health 

professionals, could certify the claimed disability, thereby 

removing primary adjudicative authority for N-648s 

from ISOs.

For example, Disability Determination Services (DDS) exists 

within state agencies around the country. DDS is staffed 

by disability examiners, physicians, and psychologists who 

currently adjudicate the Social Security Administration 

disability forms in every state. The Ombudsman met with 

DDS Washington, D.C., staff to discuss its disability evaluation process as it relates to Social Security benefits. The DDS 

professionals and examiners collect information regarding 

the applicant’s condition and make determinations based 

on all of the facts of a case, using medical evidence from 

the applicant’s doctor, as well as from the hospital, clinic, or 

other institution that rendered treatment.295 

RECOMMENDATION 14

The Ombudsman recommends that USCIS revise the 

current practices for processing Form N-648 to utilize experts to adjudicate the Medical Certification for Disability 

Exceptions. (AR2010-14)

The financial costs of such a model would need to be 

evaluated and balanced with its advantages. However, 

the concept of having expert teams available to truly 

remove USCIS adjudicators from being put in the position 

of second-guessing medical professionals should be 

further explored. As an alternative to contracting an outside 

entity, USCIS could develop an internal team of trained 

medical personnel or health professionals who understand 

disability determinations to review these applications. 

An additional option is to develop a specially trained 

team of adjudicators who are, or will become, experts in 

adjudicating N-648s. 

Utilization of specially trained personnel would lessen the 

burden on non-expert ISOs, N-648 applicants, and even 

their physicians. The Ombudsman recognizes this may 

require a regulatory change.

6. Tracking Form N-648

For Form N-648, USCIS has expressed interest in 

strengthening both the customer service delivered, as well 

as the fraud prevention efforts. Systematically tracking the 

processing of Forms N-648 across the agency would assist 

the agency in meeting these goals. Currently, USCIS has no 

mechanism to track N-648 processing nationally, although 

some field offices track this form locally. 

During a USCIS outreach meeting on July 28, 2009, 

stakeholders asked the agency to provide statistical data 

regarding the number of N-648 waivers filed immediately 

before the 2008 form became effective, the number filed 

immediately after the form became effective, and the 

number of fraud investigations pending. USCIS responded 

that it does not collect this information.296 The Ombudsman 

296 USCIS National Stakeholder Meeting (July 28, 2009) http://www.

uscis.gov/USCIS/Public%20Engagement/National%20Event%20

Pages/2009%20Events/July%202009/July%202009%20Agenda.pdf 

(accessed May 7, 2010). 

294 Although ISOs typically have no prior knowledge of medical and 

disability issues and do not receive such training, they must decide 

complex medical issues, often under time constraints during N-400 

interviews.

295 Social Security Administration’s Electronic Booklets, “Disability 

Benefits,” SSA Pub. No. 05-10029 (Nov. 2008); 

http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10029.html (accessed Oct. 30, 2009).
82 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

notes that, by tracking Form N-648, USCIS could develop 

a real-time statistical database that would enable it to help 

individuals whose processing is delayed, as well as improve 

its own capacity to address fraud and processing issues on a 

systemic level. 

RECOMMENDATION 15

The Ombudsman recommends that USCIS track the 

number of Forms N-648 filed, approved, and rejected, as 

well as other key information. (AR2010-15)

G.	 Haitian	Temporary	Protected	Status	–	

Mobilizing	to	Serve	the		

Public	in	a	Crisis	

During the reporting year, several strong earthquakes 

touched the lives of millions of people. The Haiti quake 

had particularly severe consequences. The Ombudsman 

focuses in this section on the USCIS response to the 

devastation in Haiti.

Following the January 12, 2010 earthquake affecting three 

million people – killing 230,000 and displacing more 

than 200,000297 – DHS responded with wide-ranging 

relief efforts. On January 15, Secretary Napolitano issued 

a statement designating Temporary Protected Status (TPS) 

for Haitians in the United States as of January 12, 2010.298 

Haitian TPS registration is granted until July 22, 2011, and 

people may apply with USCIS until July 20, 2010.299

Figure 28: Map of Haiti

Gulf of Mexico

Caribbean Sea

The Bahamas

Cuba

Haiti

Jamaica

United States

Dominican

Republic

Puerto Rico

Port-au-Prince 

297 U.S. Agency for International Development Fact Sheet #50: “Fiscal 

Year 2010 Haiti Earthquake” (Apr. 16, 2010).

298 DHS Press Release, “Statement from Homeland Security Secretary 

Janet Napolitano on Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Haitian 

Nationals” (Jan. 15, 2010); http://www.dhs.gov/ynews/releases/

pr_1263595952516.shtm (accessed May 17, 2010); see also, “DHS 

Notice on Haitian TPS,” (Volume 75) 13 Fed. Reg. 3476-3479 (Jan. 

21, 2010).

299 Id.
Annual Report to Congress – June 2010 83

1. Temporary Protected Status

The DHS Secretary may exercise discretion to grant TPS to 

residents of a foreign country – or those without residency 

status there but who last resided in the affected country 

before arriving in the United States – when conditions prevent safe return to the designated country for a temporary 

period.300 Such conditions can include armed conflict, 

natural disaster, or other extraordinary problems recognized 

by the Secretary. 

TPS does not lead to lawful permanent residency. However, 

a TPS recipient, if otherwise qualified, may obtain a green 

card under another provision of law. Direct benefits of TPS 

include protection from removal and detention, as well as 

the opportunity to obtain employment authorization. In 

addition, TPS recipients may apply for travel authorization 

(re-entry into the United States). 

Individuals seeking TPS file Forms I-821 (Application for 

Temporary Protected Status) and I-765 (Application for 

Employment Authorization) with USCIS. Both forms are 

always filed concurrently; however, if applicants do not wish 

to obtain an EAD or are under 14 or over 65 years old, they 

need not submit a fee with the I-765.301 Applicants must 

register during a specified time and demonstrate:

• They are a national of the designated foreign state; 

• Evidence of continuous presence and residency in the 

United States from a specified date or last resided there; 

and, 

• They are not otherwise subject to certain bars to 

admissibility.302 

Individuals meeting certain criteria may request and be 

granted fee waivers for the application process.303 

2. Adoption of Haitian Orphans

USCIS announced that it would expedite qualified adoption 

petitions for Haitian children initiated before the earthquake. The USCIS website provides information specifically 

regarding adoption of Haitian children. Posted topics 

include details on seeking humanitarian parole for adoptive 

children, obtaining biometrics and medical screenings for 

them, traveling with them, and arrival considerations.304

USCIS also implemented the Special Humanitarian Parole 

Program for Haitian Orphans who required entry into the 

United States for medical care, reunification with extended 

family, or for other services when they did not otherwise 

qualify for an immigration benefit. USCIS has authorized 

parole for more than 1,000 such orphans and 340 requests 

remained pending as of April 5, 2010.305 At the request of 

the Haitian government, USCIS closed this program to new 

requests on April 14, 2010, and resumed normal intercountry adoption processing.306

3. USCIS Community Outreach

Within a few days following the Secretary’s designation of 

TPS for Haitians, USCIS launched a series of community 

outreach clinics. Nearly 800,000 Haitian nationals live in 

the United States and many send remittances307 to relatives 

in Haiti. USCIS focused outreach efforts on areas with large 

Haitian communities, including Miami/South Florida, New 

York, Boston, and to a lesser extent Philadelphia. 

300 INA § 244; 8 C.F.R. Part 244. Five other countries, in addition to 

Haiti, have been recognized for TPS since 1999: El Salvador (Mar. 9, 

2001), Honduras (Jan. 5, 1999), Nicaragua (Jan. 5, 1999), Somalia 

(Sept. 4, 2001), and Sudan (Oct. 7, 2004). 

301 USCIS, “Tips for Filing Form I-821, Application for Temporary 

Protected Status,” p. 2; http://www.uscis.gov/files/form/i-821_

filing_tips.pdf (accessed May 17, 2010).

302 8 C.F.R. §§ 244.2 and 244.4.

303 8 C.F.R. § 244.20.

304 See USCIS Questions & Answers, “Information for U.S. Citizens in the 

Process of Adopting a Child from Haiti” (Feb. 26, 2010); ” http://

www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e6

6f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=8f712d86a8756210VgnVCM1

00000082ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=6abe6d26d17df110Vgn 

VCM1000004718190aRCRD (accessed May 11, 2010).

305 See USCIS, “Special Humanitarian Parole Program for Haitian 

Orphans Draws to a Close at Request of Haitian Government” (Apr. 

7, 2010); http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9

bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=dc4535f9b29d721

0VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=c94e6d26d17df 

110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCRD (accessed Apr. 21, 2010).

306 Id.

307 Remittances are monetary transfers sent back to assist kin or pay 

debts in one’s home country. Some Haitians intending to apply for 

TPS told the Ombudsman they would be sending money to family 

remaining in Haiti. 
84 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

USCIS initially prepared to adjudicate up to 200,000 Haitian 

TPS applications.308 Community-based organizations began 

holding clinics independent of or in tandem with USCIS 

sessions to provide filing assistance free of charge or for a 

nominal suggested donation. At the same time, stakeholders 

reported to the Ombudsman that “notarios” were charging 

up to $1,000 for assisting persons with the TPS application. 

USCIS officers met with stakeholders in schools, churches, 

and community centers to explain TPS and respond 

to questions. 

Haitians were able to access information not only through 

outreach, but also via established USCIS service channels 

at field offices and at the USCIS National Customer Service 

Center (NCSC) toll-free telephone line. The agency authorized its Immigration Services Officers in affected areas to 

work overtime serving customers, and permitted individuals to make inquiries at field offices without an INFOPASS 

appointment. Officers distributed packets with instructions 

in English, Creole, and French, including both forms and 

customer service information about governmental assistance 

and U.S. Department of State contacts, if persons wished 

to inquire about family members. Officers also accepted 

completed forms from individuals.

USCIS also posted multimedia information on its website in 

English, Creole, and French. USCIS extended hours from 

6 p.m. to 11 p.m. at the NCSC. At a South Florida field office, officers arranged for shuttles from nearby church parking lots due to the high number of walk-in applicants.309

Initial TPS application rates were lower than expected and 

rejection rates exceeded 10 percent.310 Of the 44,500 

TPS applications USCIS received, the agency has rejected 

applications for four major reasons: failure to file the 

appropriate fees or fee waiver request; missing information; 

lack of signature; or use of the incorrect form. Unsuccessful 

applications may be re-filed, without prejudice, by the close 

of the registration period on July 20, 2010.311

USCIS also announced that it would expedite the adjudication of certain pending family-based petitions.312

4. Stakeholder Concerns

Some state agencies and community-based organizations 

serving arriving Haitians told the Ombudsman that there 

appeared to be little DHS coordination or communication 

between USCIS and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 

at the time of the disaster thereby resulting in inconsistency 

in the type of visas issued at the ports of entry. Amid the 

rapid response to this crisis, stakeholders shared that in 

some cases individuals were issued visas that ultimately 

made them ineligible for benefits for which they may have 

otherwise been eligible. Moreover, state budget cuts left 

several related service agencies without adequate staff to 

handle the TPS filing assistance requested added to their 

usual caseloads. Stakeholders also stated that there was no 

responsive point of contact at the federal level to answer 

questions about individuals’ particular problems, such as 

those encountered at the airport where CBP issued varying 

entry authorizations, imposed requirements individuals 

were not prepared to meet, or that otherwise would 

prejudice arriving Haitians unfavorably in the future. In 

a number of instances, the Ombudsman worked to liaise 

with community-based organizations and DHS to convey 

information and experiences as they occurred.

308 Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman (Jan. 22, 2010).

309 Id.

310 USCIS, “USCIS Reminds Haitians to Register for Temporary Protected 

Status” (Apr. 14, 2010); http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/

menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=7d3

0bf4a26df7210VgnVCM10000 0082ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=6

8439c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1RCRD

(accessed May 17, 2010).

311 Id.

312 USCIS, “Haitian Relief Measures: Questions and Answers (Jan. 

18, 2010); http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuite

m.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=85526

0f64f336210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel 

=9cf75869c9326210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD 

(accessed June 14, 2010).
Annual Report to Congress – June 2010 85

Ombudsman 2010 Reporting Period 

Recommendations – Identifying Opportunities for More 

Responsive Government

This section includes summaries of the Ombudsman’s 

recommendations for the 2010 reporting period, as well 

as the complete text of the recommendation regarding 

Form I-824, as that recommendation was ready for issuance 

shortly before the annual report due date. 

A.		 Recommendations	to	Improve	the	

Timely	Adjudication	and	Processing	of	

Form	I-824	

REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS

•	 Form I-824 is principally used to notify DOS to 

initiate overseas following-to-join processing of the 

eligible derivative family members

•	 Processing times vary among USCIS facilities that 

adjudicate these filings

•	 The national three month processing goal is too long 

given the ministerial nature of this adjudication

•	 Misrouted or lost following-to-join notifications 

occur too often and can cause serious consequences

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Process Forms I-824 requesting duplicate approval 

notices within days of receipting, and process 

remaining I-824s more expeditiously 

2. When access to the underlying case file is needed, 

evaluate whether transfer of Form I-824 to the facility 

in possession of the file will hasten its adjudication 

3. Develop a national standard operating procedure 

(SOP) for processing Form I-824 and institute 

training for all adjudicators

4. Use a tracked mail delivery method to timely and 

accurately deliver notifications to DOS 

5. Explore how an electronic communication channel 

between USCIS and DOS may be utilized to eliminate 

the current paper notification process

Summary

The Ombudsman reviewed USCIS policies and practices 

concerning the adjudication and post-adjudication processing of Form I-824 (Application for Action on an Approved 

Application or Petition). This study concludes that the lack 

of uniform guidance concerning the I-824, coupled with 

the decentralized processing of this product at more than 80

USCIS facilities, results in systemic irregularities in processing times and outcomes. 

Form I-824 is utilized by a variety of individuals, families, 

and employers for multiple purposes. In general, customers file Form I-824 when they need formal verification of 

USCIS approval of a previously submitted application or 

petition. Such confirmation is often sought to allow the 

initiation of a subsequent or new application with USCIS or 

another government entity, or to request that an approval 

notice be sent to a U.S. consulate regarding immigrant visas 

for derivative family members. 

Form I-824, while technical in nature, has important 

substantive consequences for individuals, families, and 

employers. It notifies other components of government that

an immigration application or petition has been approved, 

and that the door is open to further visa processing for the 

named beneficiary, or a derivative family member. Delays 

and errors in processing Form I-824 can prolong family 

separation or delay employer efforts to secure entry visas 

for foreign workers. Depending on the customer’s place of 

residence or work, some I-824s are processed in a matter of 

weeks, others within a few months, and some take well over

three months. While customers file Form I-824 for various 

reasons, given the ministerial nature of the adjudication, 

some find processing times nearing three months difficult 

to accept; many customers may have already waited lengthy 

periods of time for the underlying benefit approval. 
86 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

To standardize the Form I-824 process and provide 

better customer service, the Ombudsman makes 

five recommendations. 

Background

Customers file Form I-824 to initiate a formal notification 

by USCIS verifying its approval of a previously submitted 

application or petition. They may submit it concurrently 

with the underlying benefit application or petition filing, or 

after approval of the underlying filing.313 The I-824 filing 

fee is $340.314

Individuals and employers use the I-824 for 

multiple reasons: 

(a) to request USCIS to issue a duplicate approval notice; 

(b) to request that USCIS notify DOS of the approval of a 

nonimmigrant visa petition or to notify another port of 

entry of the approval of a petition or a 

waiver application;

(c) to request USCIS to notify DOS that the applicant was 

granted lawful permanent residence in the 

United States; 

(d) to request USCIS to send an approved immigrant visa 

petition to DOS to consular process overseas for an 

immigrant visa; and 

(e) to notify DOS that the applicant has become a U.S. 

citizen through naturalization. 

The vast majority of I-824s are adjudicated at a USCIS 

service center,315 with nearly 80 percent filed by 

employment-based immigrants.316 As noted previously, the 

Form I-824 has several purposes. Monthly FY 2009 data 

reveal that requests for a duplicate approval notice represent 

the most frequent reason USCIS customers file Form I-824. 

The second most common usage is requests by principal 

beneficiaries of an immigrant petition seeking to process 

overseas for their immigrant visa. Requests by green card 

holders of USCIS to notify the DOS that they have adjusted 

status (with the likely goal of bringing their nuclear family 

members to join them in the United States – a process 

referred to as following-to-join) is the third most common 

reason. Fourth on the list are employer petitioner redirects 

requesting USCIS to send approval notifications and other 

information to a consular post overseas in nonimmigrant 

visa matters. Relatively few applicants use Form I-824 to 

request USCIS to send a notification to DOS that they have 

become naturalized U.S. citizens.317

Form I-824 Filing, Receipting, and Adjudication 

Currently I-824s are adjudicated by the USCIS service center 

or field office that approved the underlying application or 

petition. Therefore, such adjudications are performed at 

all four USCIS service centers (California, Nebraska, Texas, 

and Vermont), at the National Benefits Center (NBC) in 

Missouri, and at over 80 field offices nationwide. 

Prior to February 2010, USCIS instructed customers to 

file Form I-824 directly with the office that approved the 

underlying benefit application or petition. Service centers 

have routinely issued receipt notices upon intake of I-824s. 

However, according to stakeholders, disparities existed in 

I-824 intake processing at field offices that may have culminated in subsequent tracking problems and ultimately adjudication delay in some cases. USCIS recently consolidated 

the I-824 filing process. With the exception of concurrently 

filed I-824s,318 customers are now directed to file I-824s 

with one of three USCIS lockbox facilities (depending on 

316 Approximately 80 percent of I-824s received at the DOS in FYs 

2008 and 2009 were connected to employment-based cases. Data 

provided by USCIS and DOS to the Ombudsman (Aug. 13, 2009 and 

Apr. 1, 2010). 

317 Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman. 

(June 17, 2010).

318 The form’s instructions specify that a concurrently filed I-824 

should be submitted to the mailing address corresponding to the 

underlying application or petition.

313 Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.5b(a), Form I-824 may be filed 

concurrently with the original application or petition. USCIS 

informed the Ombudsman that its present file management system 

does not distinguish between concurrently filed cases and those filed 

after the approval of the underlying benefit submission. Information 

provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman. (June 10, 2010)

314 See 8 C.F.R. § 103.7. In FY 2009, USCIS received approximately 

$6.23 million from I-824 filings. Data provided by USCIS to the 

Ombudsman (Apr. 1, 2010).

315 Based on FY 2009 data USCIS provided to the Ombudsman, 

approximately 95 percent of I-824s were filed with USCIS 

service centers.
Annual Report to Congress – June 2010 87

which USCIS office approved the original application or 

petition).319 Following intake at a lockbox, under the new 

process, I-824s are forwarded for adjudication to the USCIS 

office that approved the underlying filing. This new routine 

is expected to reduce tracking difficulties and delays previously associated with local field office receipting.

In reviewing USCIS’ I-824 processing, the Ombudsman 

learned that adjudicators can review and approve some 

I-824s based solely on data and information available 

through one of its electronic databases; however, this 

approach is not possible in all cases, with filings 

requesting following-to-join notification being a key 

example. In following-to-join cases, certain records and 

documents can only be found in the underlying case file, 

and these must be copied and sent to DOS along with the 

requested notification. 

In addition, there are some cases in which the underlying 

case file320 is no longer physically located at the USCIS 

facility that approved the application or petition. In such 

circumstances, the adjudicator must identify where the 

underlying case file is located,321 request the file, and 

await its transfer. When the adjudication is completed, the 

adjudicated I-824 is placed into the case file, and the file is 

typically returned to the sending facility. The Ombudsman 

recognizes that the transfer of these physical case files 

between the sending facility and the adjudication facility 

imposes mailing and other handling costs on the agency. 

Additionally, the current file transfer routine can prolong 

processing times. 

319 USCIS News, “Change of Filing Location for Form I-824, 

Application for Action on an Approved Application or Petition” 

(Feb. 19, 2010); www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.

5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid= 648d05

460a7e6210VnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel= 

68439c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1RCRD 

(accessed June 18, 2010).

320 USCIS refers to such case files as the Alien-file (“A-file”). The A-file 

contains all forms and documents relevant to exchanges between a 

foreign national and USCIS, as well as related communications with 

other DHS components and government entities.

321 In some cases, the A-file related to the approved application or 

petition will have been moved into storage at the National Records 

Center (NRC). The Center stores millions of USCIS and legacy INS 

paper records in a central repository, located in Missouri near the 

National Benefits Center. 

Processing Times

Prior to the 2007 fee increase,322 the established national 

processing time goal for Form I-824 was six months.323

With the 2007 fee increase, USCIS announced a goal to 

generally reduce processing times for a variety of forms by 

twenty percent, including Form I-824.324 In the spring of 

2009, USCIS published a revised national goal to reduce 

I-824 processing times to three months.325 USCIS public 

website processing time information bearing an effective 

date of April 30, 2010, reports the California Service Center, 

the Vermont Service Center, and the National Benefits Center 

as meeting the national goal of three months, but reports 

processing time at the Texas and Nebraska Service Centers at 

nearly four months. 

Field offices adjudicate approximately five percent of the 

total number of I-824s filed annually, and some field offices 

may go months without receiving an I-824. Because the 

number of field office related I-824s is low compared to 

other case types, they are not a highly visible product in 

terms of volume processed. Moreover, USCIS does not post 

field office processing time information for I-824s on its 

website. Based upon review of USCIS data, the Ombudsman 

notes that disparity in I-824 processing time between local 

field offices does exist. While most field offices are within 

the stated national goal of three months, a number of them 

exceed the three month target.326 

The Ombudsman identifies two important constraints on 

the above-noted I-824 processing data: (1) in general, 

USCIS does not report actual processing time when it is 

processing cases faster than the stated national goal, and 

(2) I-824 processing times could skew somewhat high due 

to USCIS’ acceptance and inclusion of concurrently filed 

322 See “Adjustment of the Immigration and Naturalization Benefit 

Application and Petition Fee Schedule,” 72 Fed. Reg. 29851- 29874 

(May 30, 2007). 

323 See “USCIS Operating Performance – March 2009,” p. 9; http://

www.uscis.gov/files/nativedocuments/operating_performance_

mar2009.pdf (accessed Mar. 30, 2010).

324 See “Adjustment of the Immigration and Naturalization Benefit 

Application and Petition Fee Schedule,” 72 Fed. Reg. 29851, 29859 

(May 30, 2007).

325 See “USCIS Operating Performance – March 2009,” p. 9; http://

www.uscis.gov/files/nativedocuments/operating_performance_

mar2009.pdf (accessed Mar. 30, 2010).

326 Data provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman (Apr. 1, 2010).
88 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

applications that can accumulate pending time as they await 

approval of the related benefit submission filing. On this 

second point, since USCIS does not distinguish concurrent 

filed applications within its Form I-824 inventory, whether 

such skewing occurs cannot be clarified.

Notwithstanding the above-noted caveats, given that I-824 

adjudications are largely ministerial in nature, processing 

times that approach or exceed three months are too long for 

both families and employers alike.

I-824 Notification Misrouting

During the course of this review, the Ombudsman learned 

that USCIS does not provide formal training on how to effectively process I-824s from intake to final delivery. Based 

on the observations of both stakeholders and government 

officials, the most common error that arises is the improper 

routing of Form I-824 following-to-join notifications to a 

USCIS facility (e.g., National Records Center,)327 rather than 

to the DOS National Visa Center (NVC).328

The above-noted routing error problem is further complicated by the mailing routine used by USCIS in following-tojoin cases. Rather than using a tracked mail service, USCIS 

sends a hard copy of following-to-join notifications and 

related data to DOS using regular (untracked) U.S. Postal 

Service (USPS) mail service.329 With this routine, the agency 

cannot definitively establish if and when it placed such 

notification mailings into the USPS delivery stream. 

Stakeholders and customers report experiencing, at times, 

USCIS maintaining that it approved an I-824 and sent out 

the requested notification, while NVC denies receiving the 

notification. In such situations, customers who may have 

waited months or years for the underlying benefit, and 

longer for adjudication of the I-824, find that they still cannot move forward due to mail delivery problems cited by 

both USCIS and DOS. DOS reports receiving approximately 

15-20 calls weekly from customers complaining specifically 

about this problem.330 In previous years, some customers 

have resorted to federal litigation to compel action on long 

pending, misrouted, or lost I-824 cases/notifications.331 

The Ombudsman discussed I-824 issues with DOS officials 

involved with the consular notification process. From 

these talks, the Ombudsman learned that in 2007-2008 

USCIS attempted unsuccessfully to establish a protocol to 

transmit I-824 following-to-join notifications to DOS via an 

electronic format.332 

USCIS advises the Ombudsman that it recently held 

several meetings with DOS again to discuss the notification 

problem,333 and expects to take further steps to address 

various Form I-824 issues: specifically, the issuance of a 

uniform standard operating procedure (SOP) for use at its 

service centers and the issuance of a separate SOP for use at 

its field offices.

327 Information provided by DOS to the Ombudsman (Apr. 1, 2010).

328 “The NVC processes all approved immigrant visa petitions after 

they are received from Citizenship and Immigration Services ... and 

retains them until the cases are ready for adjudication by a consular 

officer abroad.” See DOS website, “National Visa Center;” http://

travel.state.gov/visa/immigrants/types/types_1309.html 

(accessed Mar. 30, 2010).

329 USCIS informed the Ombudsman that after it approves Form I-824 

requesting a notification of the underlying approval action (the 

adjustment of status or the approval of a new nonimmigrant status), 

that it cannot send notification to DOS electronically due to concerns 

with transmission of personally identifiable information over 

unsecure lines. Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman 

(Jan. 9, 2009). USCIS’ use of regular mail delivery raises other 

problems: USCIS cannot confirm that it mailed the document; that 

it was mailed to the correct address or delivered to the addressee; or 

when it was delivered. 

330 The 15-20 weekly calls represent a very small percentage of the 

5,500 to 6,000 calls the NVC receives each week. Information 

provided by the DOS to the Ombudsman on multiple dates in 2008, 

2009 and 2010. Nevertheless, the Ombudsman considers the 

systemic nature of this problem sufficient to warrant addressing. 

331 Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman (Mar. 8, 2010).

332 According to USCIS, this effort ended due to unresolved logistical 

and password management problems identified by DOS with 

proposed use of encrypted email to transmit personally identifiable 

information consistent with the “safeguards” mandated by the 

Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552a.

333 Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman (Apr. 21, 2010).
Annual Report to Congress – June 2010 89

RECOMMENDATION 16

The Ombudsman recommends that USCIS establish a goal 

to process Forms I-824 requesting duplicate approval 

notices within days of receipting, and to process all other 

I-824s more expeditiously. (AR2010-16) 

The adjudication of a Form I-824 requesting the issuance 

of a duplicate approval notice should be recognized as a 

ministerial act that can be accomplished within a matter 

of days. I-824s requesting DOS notifications are, likewise, 

not complex. Given the family unification objective behind 

many of these filings, USCIS should revise its practices to 

facilitate adjudications and further reduce processing times. 

RECOMMENDATION 17

The Ombudsman recommends that USCIS evaluate 

the benefit of transferring Form I-824 (and related 

adjudicatory responsibility) to the USCIS facility that has 

physical possession of the underlying case file, if access 

to documents or information in the case file is necessary. 

(AR2010-17)

If access to the underlying case file is necessary to an I-824 

adjudication, but the file is no longer physically located at 

the USCIS facility that handled the original case, rather than 

transfer the case file to the adjudicator who has the I-824, 

USCIS should transfer the I-824 to the facility that has 

the case file. Transfer of the form could be accomplished 

through a secure USCIS electronic channel. Such a routine 

could not only yield quicker adjudications, but might also 

reduce file transfer costs (i.e., sending a single scanned 

form electronically should entail far lower handling costs 

than moving around an entire physical file). In making 

this recommendation, the Ombudsman acknowledges that 

in some cases the physical case file will be in storage at 

USCIS’ National Records Center, which does not currently 

adjudicate immigration benefit cases. In such circumstances, USCIS may determine that it is operationally more 

appropriate to continue its current process of sending the 

physical files to the adjudicating facility, but should also 

consider the option of transferring both the form and file to 

the nearby National Benefits Center for adjudication. 

RECOMMENDATION 18

The Ombudsman recommends that USCIS develop a 

national standard operating procedure (SOP) for the 

processing of Form I-824 (inclusive of adjudication 

and transmission of the final documents or notifications 

requested), and institute mandatory Form I-824 

adjudication and post-adjudication processing training 

for all USCIS adjudicators. (AR2010-18) 

A national I-824 SOP would improve adjudication efficiency 

and reduce processing errors, resulting in improved 

customer service. The recommended I-824 SOP should 

specifically address when an I-824 may be approved 

without access to the underlying case file, and how and 

where requested notifications should be sent. 

Given that I-824 adjudications are now performed at over 

80 USCIS facilities, the recommendation to provide adjudicator training harmonizes with USCIS’ current practice to 

cross-train adjudicators in multiple product lines. Crosstraining on I-824 processing would ensure that USCIS has 

the capability to easily reassign adjudicators on a temporary 

basis to process these forms quickly and correctly. An I-824 

training module could be offered to adjudicators through 

an existing online delivery system.

RECOMMENDATION 19

The Ombudsman recommends that USCIS ensure the 

timely and accurate delivery of notifications to the DOS 

National Visa Center through the use of a tracked mail 

delivery service. (AR2010-19)

Misrouted and lost notifications sent by USPS regular mail 

lead to extended processing delays and, in worst case 

scenarios, litigation. Such outcomes would be minimized 

or eliminated if USCIS were to modify its mailing procedure 

to send such documents and notifications to DOS using a 

tracked mail delivery service. The Ombudsman recognizes 

that this recommendation would result in increased costs 

in the form of additional handling time and mailing 

charges. However, until USCIS can deliver such notifications 

electronically to DOS, efficiency and customer service justify 

a measure that ensures their timely and reliable delivery.
90 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

RECOMMENDATION 20

The Ombudsman recommends that USCIS explore the 

development or enhancement of an electronic communication channel between USCIS and DOS capable of 

securely sending formal notifications on various immigration-related matters, including Form I-824. (AR2010-20)

Given the state of technology available to promote efficiency 

in the delivery of government services, on a long term 

basis, the Ombudsman urges USCIS to develop an electronic 

notification process to facilitate information sharing with 

DOS. As USCIS is now engaged in the planning of 

significant technological advancements, this is an opportune 

time to collaborate with DOS on technological solutions to 

automate and secure the sharing of critical communications 

and records between the two agencies. The Ombudsman 

notes that such a technological resource could be used in 

connection with other official interagency communications 

(for example, derivative refugee petitions, adoption petitions, special immigrant visas, and consular recommendations to revoke petitions). 

 

B.			Waivers	of	Inadmissibility:		Additional	

Improvements	Needed	to	Enhance	the	

Current	Filing	Process	and	Minimize	

Reluctance	to	File	

REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS

•	 Ciudad Juarez Field (CDJ) processes the majority of 

I-601s filed worldwide

•	 In 2007, USCIS initiated a program to reduce 

significant backlog of I-601s at CDJ

•	 Processing times are shorter for some applicants, 

but remain long for others

•	 “Extreme hardship” standard remains difficult to 

understand and apply 

•	 Adjudication consistency remains a challenge, and 

•	 The I-601 process requires applicants to depart the 

United States, and bear the risk that a denial could 

bar them from returning for many years, if not 

permanently

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Centralize processing of all Forms I-601 

2. Provide for concurrent filing of Forms I-601 

and I-130 

3. Implement a case management system that supports

the automated posting of I-601 processing times 

online and allows applicants to track their cases on 

USCIS’ website

4. Publish clear instructions on how to request an 

expedite of Form I-601

5. Increase coordination between DOS consular 

officers and USCIS adjudicators who work with 

Form I-601

6. Allow USCIS employees at CDJ to request digitized 

A-files 

More Information?

Review the full text of the Ombudsman’s recommendations 

at: http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/cisomb_waivers_of_inadmissibility_recommendation.pdf 
Annual Report to Congress – June 2010 91

Summary

This study examines the processing of inadmissibility 

waivers, a form of relief available to certain foreign 

nationals ineligible to enter the United States or to become 

lawful permanent residents (green card holders) while in 

the United States if deemed to have violated Section 212 of

the INA. The INA lists inadmissibility grounds that include,

but are not limited to, unlawful presence, criminal, health, 

immigration, and security violations. Individuals seeking t

overcome inadmissibilities may do so by filing Form I-601 

(Application for Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility) 

with USCIS.

The processing hub of today’s waiver of inadmissibility 

system is the USCIS Ciudad Juarez Field Office (CDJ), whic

receives the majority of I-601s. USCIS initiated the I-601 

Waiver Adjudication Program at CDJ in March 2007 to 

eliminate a backlog of approximately 8,000 cases that had 

wait-times of up to two years.334 This restructured progra

entails a triage approach to all I-601 filings, leading to the 

approval of many clearly-approvable applications within 

a matter of days, and referral for further review of those 

applications needing more research or investigation. 

Additionally, USCIS implemented agencywide procedural 

innovations and quality assurance measures to improve 

adjudication rates, standardization, customer service, and 

overall efficiency.335 

While the agency made significant improvements in caseload management through the I-601 Waiver Adjudication 

Program, it has not been able to fully overcome challenges 

in several operational and procedural areas. 

• Disparity of Processing Times between On-Site 

Adjudicated and Referred Cases – Under the current 

structure, CDJ approves approximately 50 percent of 

waivers filed within a matter of days, while the other 

50 percent are referred for additional review, which 

currently takes 10-12 months.336 Any given applicant 

o 

h 

m 

under this system could, therefore, experience one 

of the fastest or slowest processing times of any 

USCIS application. 

• Limited Access to, and Standardization of, 

Information for Customers – Customers cannot access 

processing times or the “My Case Status” online feature 

for their pending waiver applications. There is no 

standard practice for requesting expedited processing.

• Discrepancies in Interpretation of the “Extreme 

Hardship” Standard – Many applicants must 

demonstrate that removal or exclusion from the United 

States would result in “extreme hardship” to qualifying 

family members.337 Both USCIS and stakeholders agree 

that these determinations often lack uniformity due to 

the combination of the discretionary nature of the cases 

and lack of guidance criteria to standardize rulings on 

this issue. 

In sum, the process often discourages those who choose to 

pursue it and, thereby, deters others from seeking a waiver 

at all. Individuals who file a waiver application often 

encounter information gaps and long wait times at various 

stages of the process, while those already aware of the steps 

involved in the waiver application process perceive it as a 

high risk undertaking and become reluctant to file. 

The risk is particularly high for individuals within the 

United States who choose to file for a waiver to regularize 

their status. These foreign nationals, per regulations, are 

required to leave the United States to seek a waiver, a step 

that involves choosing between two difficult alternatives: to 

either embark upon a complex and often time-consuming 

legalization process outside of the United States that could 

lead to a denial, or remain in the shadows to stay near 

family and within the United States.338

334 Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman (Jan 28, 2010).

335 See “USCIS Immigrant Waivers – Procedures for Adjudication of Form 

I-601 For Overseas Adjudication Officers,” (Apr. 28, 2009); http://

www.uscis.gov/files/article/i601_immigrant_waivers_8jun09.pdf 

(accessed May 27, 2010).

336 Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman (May 24, 2010).

337 Qualifying relatives may include U.S. citizen fiancé(e)s, or U. S. 

citizen or lawfully resident spouses, parents, or children. See INA 

§§ 212(a)(9)(B)(v), 212(h), 212(i), 8 C.F.R. 212.7(a)(1)(i), and 

9 FAM 41.81 N9.3(a). Therefore, in a key change to prior law, any 

hardship applicants sustain from their own ineligibility is not a 

factor in the “extreme hardship” determination.

338 See generally INA § 245(a).
92 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

Taking into consideration the many structural constraints in 

place, the Ombudsman issued several recommendations to 

improve the inadmissibility waiver process for those who 

do file, as well as to minimize the reluctance of those who 

wish to seek a waiver. 

C.			Emergent	or	Denied	Refugee	Applications:		Expediting	Cases,	Articulating	

Reasons	for	Denial,	and	Issuing	Guidance	for	Requests	for	Reconsideration

REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS

•	 The existing refugee application expedite process 

lacks transparency

•	 Applicants are not consistently afforded an opportunity to respond to adverse assessments during their 

interviews 

• Ad hoc communication exists, but applicants do not 

have access to a public process

•	 Receipt notices are not currently issued in Request 

for Reconsideration (RFR) filings seeking review of a 

Notice of Ineligibility

•	 Notices of Ineligibility do not consistently contain 

sufficient detail to enable applicants to file a 

meaningful RFR

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Publicly state the criteria to expedite emergent 

refugee cases

2. During interviews, clearly inform the applicant of 

potential denial bases to allow an opportunity to 

respond and articulate case-specific reasons in Notices 

of Ineligibility 

3. Issue guidance on how to file RFRs, provide a tip 

sheet, and issue clear mailing information

4. Issue proof of receipt in RFR filings 

More Information?

Review the full text of the Ombudsman’s April 14, 2010 

recommendations at: 

http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/cisomb_recommendation_43_adjudication_refugee_status.pdf
Annual Report to Congress – June 2010 93

Summary

Persons displaced from their home country by war or other 

qualifying reasons, including fleeing persecution, may seek 

refugee status from United Nations High Commissioner 

for Refugees (UNHCR) posts worldwide.339 Individuals 

UNHCR identifies as refugees, who are referred to the 

United States for resettlement, file Form I-590 (Registration 

for Classification as Refugee) with USCIS. USCIS reviews 

the submission and interviews applicants to determine 

whether they: (1) are of special humanitarian concern; 

(2) are unable or unwilling to return to their country 

due either to past persecution or to a “well-founded fear” 

of future persecution on a protected ground;340 (3) have 

not firmly resettled in a third country; and (4) are not 

otherwise inadmissible pursuant to INA Section 212. 

During FY 2009, USCIS Refugee Adjudications Division 

(RAD) interviewed 110,000 persons worldwide for classification as refugees as shown in Figure 29. 

Figure 29: Worldwide USCIS Refugee Status Approvals, 

Denials, and Requests for Reconsideration – 

FY 2009

2,522 RFRs

74,654

110,000 USCIS interviews worldwide

Granted refugee status by USCIS Denied refugee status by USCIS

32,824

Source: Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman (Nov. 5, 2009 and 

Mar. 24, 2010).

During this timeframe, USCIS initiated service innovations 

including a quality assurance pilot program, a confidentiality release to enhance information sharing with resettlement 

partners, and a near doubling of the refugee corps from 

46 officers to 84. These changes facilitated a 25 percent 

increase in worldwide admissions over FY 2008. 

Since March 2009, the Ombudsman has assisted with 

individual case problems for refugee applicants, including emergent cases. For this review, the Ombudsman 

reviewed refugee processing generally, with a special 

focus on Afghanis and Iraqis, two nationalities which are 

the majority of all refugees currently assisted by UNHCR 

worldwide.341 Individuals and stakeholders expressed 

concerns with both the beginning and end of the process: 

how to request an expedited review in emergent cases and, 

after denial of an application, how to file a Request for 

Reconsideration (RFR). They cited conflicting guidance 

on preparing and submitting a meaningful RFR, as well 

as a lack of transparency on how to request to expedite an 

exigent refugee case. 

The Ombudsman undertook a study on these issues 

leading to the recommendations issued on April 14. 

The underlying problem addressed by each 

recommendation is lack of transparency. Some 

representatives and applicants know how to contact 

USCIS leadership by phone or email to seek help. While 

this avenue is helpful on an ad hoc basis, such unequal 

access to these resources raises fairness issues. To remedy 

this general inequity, the Ombudsman provided USCIS 

recommendations to fill the information void currently 

experienced by refugee applicants and their representatives.

Publication of Figure 30, the list of RFR filing addresses, 

on USCIS’ website, as well, will deter the filing strategy 

of sending the same information to multiple addresses 

across agencies to ensure at least one submission will 

be considered.

339 There are 75 such posts. Persons may seek refugee status to avoid 

“refoulement” (forcible return) by the government of the third 

country to which they have fled. Signatories to various international 

agreements have pledged non-refoulement of UNHCR-designated 

refugees who await firm resettlement or repatriation. 

340 Pursuant to INA § 101(a)(42), “protected grounds” include race, 

religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or 

political opinion. 

341 UNHCR, “2008 Global Trends: Refugees, Asylum-Seekers, Returnees, 

Internally Displaced and Stateless Persons,” p. 3 (June 19, 2009). 

The United Nations General Assembly established UNHCR in 1950 

to coordinate global aid and assistance for refugees. See http://www.

unhcr.org/pages/49c3646c2.html (accessed Mar. 24, 2010).
94 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

Confidence that documents are routed properly will reduce 

the incidence of duplicate filings, thereby saving both 

applicants and USCIS the duplicative resources expended in 

producing and processing them.

The response to these recommendations by the stakeholder 

community has been consistently positive. Refugees are 

by definition in vulnerable and often precarious situations. 

Implementation of these measures by USCIS will benefit 

the agency, as well, by raising the standard both of initial 

adjudications and of RFRs by providing a roadmap for more 

transparent, uniform, and efficient practices. 

Figure 30: Request for Reconsideration Filing Locations by Country of Interview

SUBMIT AN RFR for a 

refugee case interviewed in 

Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, 

Libya, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Saudi 

Arabia, Syria, & Tunisia*

Kuwait, Lebanon, Pakistan, Turkey, 

United Arab Emirates, & Yemen 

VIA Email USCIS.Amman@dhs.gov USCIS.Athens@dhs.gov

VIA Mail from the United States

Field Office Director, USCIS/DHS 

American Embassy, DOS

6050 Amman Place

Washington, D.C. 20521-6050

Field Office Director, USCIS/DHS 

PSC 12008 Box 25

DPO, AE 2009842

VIA Mail from Outside the United States

Field Office Director, USCIS/DHS

c/o American Embassy, DOS

P.O. Box 354

Amman, 11118 Jordan

Field Office Director, USCIS/DHS 

c/o American Embassy, DOS Vasilissis 

Sofias 91, 10160 Athens, Greece

VIA Express Mail

Field Office Director, USCIS/DHS 

c/o American Embassy, DOS

Al Umawyeen Street, Abdoun 

Amman, Jordan

(Same As Above)

* Currently, RFRs for these countries can also be sent directly to the Overseas Processing Entity, which will note receipt, scan them into the system, and forward to the the 

USCIS Field Office Director for review.
Annual Report to Congress – June 2010 95

D.	 Temporary	Acceptance	of	Filed	Labor	

Condition	Applications	(LCAs)	for	

Certain	H-1B	Filings

REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS

•	 INA requires H-1B petitions be supported by an LCA 

before approval

•	U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL’s) new online Labor 

Condition Application (LCA) certification process 

caused difficulties for some employers whose applications were erroneously rejected due to Federal 

Employer Identification Number (FEIN) mismatches

•	 Stakeholders complained that DOL LCA delays 

prevented some from timely filing H-1B petitions and 

extensions, negatively impacting workers legal status 

and causing employment disruptions

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Temporarily accept H-1B petitions by proof of a 

timely filed LCA application, and issue a Request for 

Evidence for a certified LCA 

2. Excuse late H-1B filings temporarily where petitioner 

documents the improper rejection by DOL of a LCA 

submission

More Information?

Review the full text of the Ombudsman’s recommendations 

at: http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/cisomb_recommendation_43_LCAs_October_2009.pdf 

Review the full text of USCIS’ Policy Memorandum at: 

http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Laws/Memoranda/2009/hib-petitions-temporary-acceptance.pdf 

Review the full text of USCIS’ initial public announcement 

at: http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/New%20Structure/

Press%20Releases/2009%20Press%20Releases/Nov%20

2009/Attachment%20to%20Temporary%20Acceptance%20

of%20H-1B%20Petitions.pdf 

Review the full text of USCIS’ response to the Ombudsman’s 

recommendations at: http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/

Native%20Docs/cisomb-43-response-lca.pdf 

Summary

The Ombudsman received complaints from customers 

and stakeholders, in August and September 2009, about 

incorrectly denied Labor Condition Applications (LCAs). 

In addition, problems with the U.S. Department of Labor’s 

(DOL’s) iCERT web-based tool used to certify LCAs, 

launched April 15, 2009, were delaying processing beyond 

the seven days permitted by DOL regulations. Specifically, 

DOL was denying LCAs based on erroneous Federal 

Employer Identification Number (FEIN) mismatches.

DOL’s erroneous denials and associated delays caused USCIS 

to reject employers’ attempts to obtain or extend legal status 

for some H-1B workers. Consequences of untimely petition 

filing include potential loss of employees’ legal status, as 

well as economic loss to both employers and employees 

due to business disruption: employees having to leave the 

country, thereby incurring travel costs while suffering wage 

loss, and employers suffering indefinite loss of key personnel, thereby harming operations by interrupting continuity 

and planning.

In addition to pointing out to the Ombudsman these DOL 

errors and improper delays, stakeholders emphasized that 

USCIS actions were compounding the problem. Whereas 

INA Section 212(n)(1) requires a certified LCA only prior 

to petition approval and USCIS regulation expressly permits 

petition filing based on evidence of LCA filing,342 the agency 

was rejecting filings not accompanied by a certified LCA. 

On October 23, 2009, the Ombudsman recommended 

that, to mitigate the effect of glitches with DOL’s iCERT 

system, USCIS revert to a past practice of temporarily 

accepting H-1B filings based on proof that an LCA had been 

filed, even if the certification had not yet issued. Also, the 

Ombudsman suggested that USCIS excuse late H-1B filings 

where petitioners could demonstrate erroneous DOL rejection of LCA submissions based on false FEIN mismatches.

342 See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(i)(B).
96 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

On November 5, 2009, USCIS announced a 120-day period 

for accepting H-1B petitions filed with uncertified LCAs. 

Although the public announcement did not address the 

erroneous mismatch problem raised in the second recommendation, the Ombudsman understood that USCIS agreed 

with the recommendation to accept proof of a timely LCA 

filing and the wrongful rejection, and to issue a Request for 

Evidence for an approved LCA. This solution would enable 

the petitioner to file the H-1B petition timely, and give the 

petitioner additional time to work through corrective action 

with DOL to recognize the original FEIN as valid. Although 

field guidance issued the same day raises questions about 

the commitment to excuse such untimely filings,343 USCIS’ 

subsequent formal response to the Ombudsman dated 

January 28, 2010, states a willingness to do so.

The temporary 120-day period expired on March 9, 2010344

without being extended.345

343 The Memorandum directs adjudicators to deny petitions if the 

original LCA was denied and the petitioner submits a second 

identical, but later-filed, approved LCA in response to an 

RFE. The Memorandum’s temporary fix limited its effect. The 

recommendation specifically intended to allow petitioners to 

avoid prejudice to their H-1Bs that would result from erroneous 

LCA denials; they would do so by filing with USCIS a copy of the 

uncertified LCA, working with DOL to correct its database in order 

to accept a new LCA identical to the first, and then providing the 

second, certified LCA in response to USCIS’ RFE. By requiring that 

the approved LCA submitted in response to the RFE be the same LCA 

originally filed in support of the H-1B petition, USCIS limited the 

scope of customers who could benefit from this fix. See USCIS Policy 

Memorandum, “Temporary Acceptance of H-1B Petitions Without 

Department of Labor (DOL)-Certified Labor Condition Applications 

(LCAs)” (Nov. 5, 2009), from Donald Neufeld, Acting Associate 

Director, Domestic Operations, to Service Center Directors.

344 Although the Neufeld Memorandum states an end date of March 

4, 2010, USCIS published Q&A on its website revising the 

effective period to run through March 9, 2010. See USCIS Update, 

“Questions and Answers: Temporary Acceptance of H-1B Petition 

Filed without DOL’s Certified Labor Condition Applications (LCAs)” 

(Dec. 8, 2009); http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menui

tem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=bf296

bc8a6f65210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel= 

6abe6d26d17df110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCRD (accessed Mar. 

10, 2010), see also USCIS Update, “USCIS Reminds Petitioners to 

Provide Approved Labor Condition Applications” (Mar. 10, 2010); 

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/template.PRINT/menuitem

.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=f73a042a31a4

7210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=c94e6d26d1

7df110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCRD (accessed June 22, 2010).

345 DOL reports resolution of the iCERT “glitch” that led to the USCIS 

temporary workaround; it claims an accuracy rate of more than 

99 percent. Information provided by DOL to the Ombudsman 

(Mar. 3, 2010).
Annual Report to Congress – June 2010 97

Selected Ombudsman 2009 Reporting Period 

Recommendations – Following-up on Responsive 

Government Pathways

A.	 Employment	Creation	Immigrant	Visa	

(EB-5)	Program

1. Summary

Congress established the fifth employment-based (EB-5) 

preference category in 1990 to encourage immigrant 

entrepreneurs to make large investments in the United States 

that create new commercial enterprises benefitting the U.S. 

economy and, directly or indirectly, create jobs 

for U.S. workers.346 The minimum qualifying EB-5 investment is $500,000 for businesses located within a rural 

area (or targeted employment area),347 and $1,000,000 

elsewhere.348 The EB-5 investment must create at least ten 

new full-time jobs.349 

On March 18, 2009, the Ombudsman issued a study 

entitled “Employment Creation Immigrant Visa (EB-5) 

Program Recommendations” with a series of proposals 

intended to stabilize and improve this program.350 In brief, 

the Ombudsman recommended that USCIS:

(1) Finalize special regulations for a limited class of 

EB-5 investors;

(2) Direct EB-5 adjudicators not to re-adjudicate indirect 

job creation methodology, absent error or fraud;

(3) Designate more EB-5 Administrative Appeals Office 

precedent/adopted decisions;

(4) Use rulemaking to update EB-5 regulations;

(5) Form an inter-governmental advisory group to consult 

on complex business, economic, and labor issues;

(6) Offer a fee-for-service option, similar to premium 

processing, for investors to accelerate adjudications;

(7) “Prioritize” processing of Regional Center filings; and 

(8) Partner with the U.S. Departments of State and 

Commerce to promote the EB-5 program overseas. 

USCIS formally responded on June 12, 2009, concurring 

with most of the recommendations, but did not completely 

agree with the recommendation that it form an intergovernmental working group to promote the program overseas. 

USCIS also deferred until 2010 full consideration of the 

recommendation to provide EB-5 investors an option of 

paying an additional fee to accelerate adjudications.351 

The Ombudsman notes that, since issuance of the recommendation and the response, USCIS has issued important 

EB-5 policy guidance and engaged EB-5 stakeholders. 

 

346 INA § 203(b)(5).

347 “Rural area” is defined as “any area other than an area within a 

metropolitan statistical area or within the outer boundary of any 

city or town having a population of 20,000 or more (based on the 

most recent decennial census of the United States).” INA § 203(b)

(5)(B)(iii); see also 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(e). “Targeted employment area” 

means, “at the time of the investment, a rural area or an area which 

has experienced high unemployment (of at least 150 percent of the 

national average rate).” INA § 203(b)(5)(B)(ii); see also

8 C.F.R. § 204.6(j)(6). 

348 INA § 203(b)(5)(C)(i). 

349 A qualifying investment in a new commercial enterprise must create 

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

residents, or other immigrants lawfully authorized to be employed 

in the United States. INA § 203(b)(5)(a)(ii); 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)

(5)(A)(ii); see also 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(j)(4)(i). The investor and his/

her immediate family, as well as lawful nonimmigrant employees, 

are excluded from the ten-person employment calculation. 8 

C.F.R. § 204.6(e). Special rules also allow for making a qualifying 

investment that serves to maintain jobs that might otherwise be lost 

in a troubled business (i.e., an existing business over two years old 

that has incurred a net loss exceeding 20 percent of its net worth 

during the 12 or 24 month period preceding a Form I-526 petition 

filing). 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.6(e), 204.6(j)(4)(i)(B)(ii). 

350 Recommendation #40, (Mar. 18, 2009); http://www.

dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/CIS_Ombudsman_EB-5_

Recommendation_3_18_09.pdf (accessed May 14, 2010).

351 USCIS Response to Recommendation #40 (June 12, 2009); http://

www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/uscis_response_cisomb_rec_40.pdf 

(accessed May 14, 2010).
98 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

2. EB-5 Guidance Memoranda 

On June 17, 2009, USCIS issued an EB-5 guidance 

memorandum clarifying the process for determining if the 

required ten full-time jobs had been created.352 With this 

memorandum, the agency modified its prior position that 

construction jobs could not be counted toward meeting the 

job creation requirement. The new guidance announced 

that construction jobs created by EB-5 invested funds and 

lasting two years, may under appropriate circumstances be 

counted as permanent jobs. This policy change set the stage 

for potentially expanding the use of EB-5 funding to source 

or supplement investment capital for large, multi-phased 

real estate and other development projects. 

Later in 2009, USCIS engaged the EB-5 stakeholder 

community in at least three public forums353 to hear their 

concerns and address various questions. In another effort 

at transparency, USCIS posted on the internet written 

responses to questions posed at these events.354 The 

Ombudsman understands that the agency is committed to 

ongoing dialogue with EB-5 investors in 2010.355 

On December 11, 2009, USCIS issued another EB-5 

memorandum356 providing additional guidance to the 

California Service Center EB-5 program managers and 

adjudicators on a variety of issues including: when it is 

appropriate to adjudicate specific EB-5 eligibility issues, 

what constitutes and how to respond to a “material change 

in circumstances,” and how Targeted Employment Area357

determinations are established and their effect. 

In addition, USCIS commented several times during the 

reporting period that it intended to establish a new mechanism for EB-5 developers to provide an exemplar Form 

I-526 (Immigrant Petition by Alien Entrepreneur) petition 

along with a Regional Center Designation submission. In 

the December 2009 memorandum, USCIS described the 

contours of this mechanism and announced modifications 

to the Adjudicator’s Field Manual (AFM):

The Regional Center Proposal may also 

include an “exemplar” Form I-526 petition 

that contains copies of the commercial 

enterprise’s organizational documents, 

capital investment offering memoranda, 

and transfer of capital mechanisms for the 

transfer of the alien investor’s capital into 

the job creating enterprise. USCIS will 

review the documentation to determine if 

[it is] in compliance with established EB-5 

eligibility requirements. Providing these 

documents may facilitate the adjudication 

of the related I-526 petitions by identifying 

any issues that could pose problems when 

USCIS is adjudicating the actual petitions.358

The Ombudsman expects this new review process to be 

welcomed by EB-5 Regional Center investment developers. 

They have long called on USCIS to provide a pre-review 

process rather than requiring an actual investor to apply and 

run the risk of a denial. 

3. Regional Center Pilot Program Extension

Also during the reporting period, the U.S. Senate Committee 

on the Judiciary conducted an oversight hearing on the 

EB-5 Regional Center Pilot program wherein several witnesses, including the USCIS Deputy Chief of Service Center 

Operations, provided testimony in support of extending 

352 USCIS Interoffice Memorandum, “EB-5 Alien Entrepreneurs - Job 

Creation and Full-Time Positions” (June 17, 2009); 

www.uscis.gov/files/nativedocuments/eb5_17jun09.pdf 

(accessed May 17, 2010).

353 The events were held on June 24, 2009, September 14, 2009, 

and December 14, 2009, in conjunction with events sponsored 

by the trade association, “Invest in the USA,” and the American 

Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) in Washington, D.C., 

as well as an October 19, 2009, AILA- sponsored EB-5 conference in 

San Francisco. 

354 See USCIS, “American Immigration Lawyers Association EB-5 

Committee and Invest In the USA (IIUSA)” (Dec. 18, 2009); 

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb9591

9f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=86470541743a5210Vg

nVCM100000082ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=7dab1c7dcb507 

210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD (accessed May 17, 2010).

355 On March 16, 2010, the California Service Center sponsored an EB-5 

forum, and has indicated a commitment to holding regular EB-5 

stakeholder meetings. 

356 USCIS Interoffice Memorandum, “Adjudication of EB-5 Regional 

Center Proposals and Affiliated Form I-526 and Form I-829 

Petitions” (Dec. 11, 2009); http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Laws/

Memoranda/Static%20Files%20Memoranda/Adjudicating%20

of%20EB-5_121109.pdf (accessed May 17, 2010).

357 INA § 203(b)(5)(B)(ii); see also 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(j)(6). 

358 AFM, Chapter 22.4(a)(2)(C).
Annual Report to Congress – June 2010 99

the pilot program on a multi-year or permanent basis.359 

On October 29, 2009, President Obama signed into law a 

three-year extension until September 30, 2012.360

This three-year extension was critical for two reasons. First, 

previously passed interim extensions361 led to a prolonged 

period of uncertainty over the future of the pilot program; 

both developers and investors lacked the confidence needed 

to undertake the large capital risks the Regional Center Pilot 

was intended to foster. Second, statistics over the past three 

years establish that 77 percent of EB-5 investors chose to 

invest through Regional Centers.362 

4. Next Steps

Notwithstanding USCIS’ attention to the EB-5 program 

during the reporting period, the agency has yet to implement the comprehensive changes necessary to invigorate 

this program. The Ombudsman takes this opportunity 

to reiterate the March 18, 2009, recommendation that 

USCIS replace the existing patchwork of EB-5 regulations, 

precedent decisions, and guidance memoranda with new 

EB-5 rules generated through the formal notice and comment process.363

359 “Promoting Job Creation and Foreign Investment in the United 

States: An Assessment of the EB-5 Regional Center Program,” before 

the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 111th Cong. 1st Sess. 

5-6 (2009) (statement of Robert Kruszka, USCIS Deputy Chief 

for Service Center Operations); http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/

hearings/testimony.cfm?id=3998&wit_id=8137 

(accessed May 17, 2010).

360 See Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, § 547, 

Pub. L. No. 111-83 (2010).

361 See Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing 

Appropriations Act, 2009, Pub. L. No. 110-329, extending the 

Regional Center Pilot program and several other immigrationrelated programs (including E-Verify, the Conrad 40 Waiver 

program, and Special Immigrant Non-minister Religious Worker 

Program) through March 6, 2009; Omnibus Appropriations Act, 

Pub. L. No. 111-8 (2009), again extending the Regional Center 

Pilot program and other immigration-related programs through 

September 30, 2009. Citations to interim continuing resolutions 

covering the remaining gap periods are omitted. 

362 Calculated from source data found in Table 5, Part 3, of the U. S. 

Department of State’s FYs 2007-09 Visa Office Reports; http://travel.

state.gov/visa/frvi/statistics/statistics_1476.html 

(accessed Mar. 30, 2010).

363 See Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 551, et seq. 

B.		 Improving	the	Process	for	Victims		

of	Human	Trafficking	and	Certain	

Criminal	Activity:		The	T	and	U	Visas

1. Summary

“The victims of modern slavery have many faces. . . . 

Whether they are trapped in forced sexual or labor 

exploitation, human trafficking victims cannot walk away, 

but are held in service through force, threats, and fear. 

All too often suffering from horrible physical and sexual 

abuse, it is hard for them to imagine that there might be a 

place of refuge.”364 President Obama and other members 

of the Cabinet, including Secretary Janet Napolitano, have 

taken a strong stand to address remedies for this vulnerable 

population.365 

The President dedicated the month of January as National 

Slavery and Human Trafficking Prevention Month to 

promote awareness of the problem.366 In addition, the 

U.S. Department of State’s Office to Monitor and Combat 

Trafficking in Persons assists in coordinating international and domestic anti-trafficking efforts.367 The U.S. 

Departments of Homeland Security (DHS), Justice, Labor, 

and State together created a pamphlet for distribution 

during consular interviews to inform visitors, domestic and 

temporary workers, and others of their legal rights, as well 

as of resources available in the United States for trafficking 

364 White House website, “Presidential Proclamation - National Slavery 

and Human Trafficking Prevention Month” (Jan. 4, 2010); http://

www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/presidential-proclamationnational-slavery-and-human-trafficking-prevention-month 

(accessed June 14, 2010).

365 The Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 

(VTVPA), Pub. L. No. 106-386 (2000), authorized the President 

to establish “a cabinet-level task force to coordinate federal efforts 

to combat human trafficking. The [task force] is chaired by the 

Secretary of State and meets at least once a year.” See http://www.

state.gov/g/tip/rls/fs/2009/120224.htm 

(accessed May 25, 2010).

366 The White House Office of the Press Secretary, “Presidential 

Proclamation – National Slavery and Human Trafficking Prevention 

Month” (Jan. 4, 2010); http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-pressoffice/presidential-proclamation-national-slavery-and-humantrafficking-prevention-month (accessed May 25, 2010).

367 DOS website, http://www.state.gov/g/tip/c16465.htm 

(accessed May 25, 2010).
100 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

victims.368 DHS is developing additional tools to educate 

law enforcement officials about their role and the resources 

available to inform victims about possible remedies, as 

well as and how these tools can support prosecution of 

serious crimes. 

The Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 

2000 (VTVPA)369 provides qualified victims who assist in 

the investigation and prosecution of human trafficking and 

certain criminal activity370 the opportunity to apply for 

nonimmigrant status, T and U visa respectively. The VTVPA 

was reauthorized by 2008 legislation enhancing protections 

available to trafficking victims.371

On January 29, 2009, the Ombudsman issued 

Recommendation #39, “Improving the Process for Victims 

of Human Trafficking and Certain Criminal Activity: The 

T and U Visa,” as well as a follow-up summary in last 

year’s annual report.372 These analyses addressed systemic 

issues inhibiting the effectiveness and issuance of the T 

and U visas. Problems identified ranged from inconsistent 

cooperation of law enforcement officials and varying 

policies regarding the law enforcement certification process 

to insufficient training on the T and U visa process for 

law enforcement and prevalent fear of deportation among 

victims unwilling to come forward. The Ombudsman’s 

recommendations to USCIS included: requests for published guidance; providing an alternative for employment 

authorization so both T and U visa applicants could work; 

making available sufficient staff to promptly adjudicate the 

applications; and posting processing times. 

2. USCIS’ Recommendation Response

USCIS responded to the Ombudsman’s recommendation373

by stating that the agency continues to educate the public – 

through its website, publications, and community outreach 

– about the remedies available to victims of trafficking 

and other crimes. Therefore, it not only encourages law 

enforcement agencies to develop policies and procedures for 

certification, but has been educating them about the availability of T and U nonimmigrant visas for those who qualify. 

USCIS rejected the need for an employment authorization 

alternative for T visa applicants by saying that regulations 

provided two venues for this benefit: USCIS may either 

grant “continued presence” status or make a bona fide

determination, and use administrative mechanisms to grant 

either parole or deferred action, both of which provide for 

employment authorization. USCIS developed a production 

plan to reduce the backlog of U applications and agreed 

to post the Form I-914 (Application for T Nonimmigrant 

Status) processing times once the backlog was eliminated 

and processing was standardized. 

The Ombudsman continues to examine USCIS adjudication 

of T and U visa petitions, as well as the agency’s informational outreach to stakeholders and law enforcement. 

During this reporting period, the Ombudsman monitored 

the T and U visa programs through several means: a visit to 

the Vermont Service Center’s (VSC’s) Special Unit, meetings 

with stakeholders, and review of training materials. 368 “Notice of Publication of Pamphlet Required by Section 202 of the 

William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization 

Act of 2008,” 74 Fed. Reg. 34386 (July 15, 2009).

369 Pub. L. No. 106-386 (2000). 

370 “The criminal activity ... involving one or more of the following or 

any similar activity in violation of Federal, State, or local criminal 

law: rape; torture; trafficking; incest; domestic violence; sexual 

assault; abusive sexual contact; prostitution; sexual exploitation; 

female genital mutilation; being held hostage; peonage; involuntary 

servitude; slave trade; kidnapping; abduction; unlawful criminal 

restraint; false imprisonment; blackmail; extortion; manslaughter; 

murder; felonious assault; witness tampering; obstruction of justice; 

perjury; or attempt, conspiracy, or solicitation to commit any of the 

above mentioned crimes.” INA § 101(a)(15)(U)(iii). 

371 William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization 

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

372 The full text of the Ombudsman’s recommendation is available 

at: http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/cisomb_tandu_visa_

recommendation_2009-01-26.pdf (accessed May 19, 2010); 

Ombudsman’s Annual Report 2009, pp. 57-60.

373 The full text of the USCIS Response to Recommendation #39 is 

available at http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/uscis_response_

cisomb_rec_39.pdf (accessed May 19, 2010).
Annual Report to Congress – June 2010 101

BEST PRACTICE

The VSC Special Unit communicates daily with applicants 

through telephone hotlines and has established a specific 

email address (hotlinefollowupI918I914.vsc@dhs.

gov) for both T and U visa applicants. VSC responds 

to email inquiries within 72 hours. Management 

has distributed email contact information to facilitate 

direct communication with the public and with law 

enforcement agencies.374

3. Current Conditions - T Visa 

The Ombudsman notes that many systemic problems with 

the T visa375 described in prior reports still remain. By 

statute, 5,000 nonimmigrant visas are available annually 

for trafficking victims in the United States.376 Family 

members, as sponsored derivatives, are not counted against 

the numerical cap, but even so, few of these visas have been 

utilized. Since 2005, the small number of T visas awarded 

has incrementally grown. As shown in Figure 31, in 2009, 

the actual distribution of T visas reached 313, approximately 

six percent of the total visas available for such victims.

 

Figure 31: T Visas – FY 2005-2009

Fiscal 

Year I-914 T-Visa I-914 T-Visa (Immediate Family Members)

Visas 

Available Approvals Denials

Visas 

Available Approvals Denials

2005 5,000 113 321 Unlimited 73 21

2006 5,000 212 127 Unlimited 95 45

2007 5,000 287 106 Unlimited 257 64

2008 5,000 243 78 Unlimited 228 40

2009 5,000 313 77 Unlimited 273 54

Sources: USCIS National Stakeholder Meeting (Jan. 26, 2010); INA § 214(o).

Although it is difficult to estimate the extent of the problem, the estimated number of these victims is substantial.377

Form I-914 (Application for T Nonimmigrant Status) does 

not require certification by a law enforcement agency. 

However, unless the victim is under 18 years old, the 

petitioner must prove “[compliance] with any reasonable 

request for assistance . . . in the investigation or prosecution” of the crime.378 Although many victims file a petition 

based upon a violation of federal law, many states have also 

passed anti-trafficking legislation.379 Local law enforcement 

agencies may, therefore, support victims’ petitions if such 

a statute has been incorporated into their state law.380 In 

2009, the U.S. Attorney General issued a report recommending, among other approaches, that the federal government 

“[c]ontinue to promote state anti-trafficking legislation 

and training for state and local law enforcement on human 

trafficking and a victim centered approach.”381

One of the Ombudsman’s concerns has been the T visa 

processing times. The impact of this delay is heightened 

by the victims’ inability to file for work authorization 

while awaiting a decision. As of this writing, the average 

processing time to adjudicate a T petition is six months.382 

These filings incur a high Request for Evidence (RFE) 

377 “It is very difficult to assess the real size of human trafficking 

because the crime takes place underground, and is often not 

identified or misidentified. However, a conservative estimate of the 

crime puts the number of victims at any one time at 2.5 million. 

We also know that it affects every region of the world and generates 

tens of billions of dollars in profits for criminals each year.” United 

Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, “Human Trafficking FAQs” 

(undated); http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/human-trafficking/

faqs.html#How_widespread_is_human_trafficking 

(accessed May 25, 2010).

378 INA § 101(a)(15)(T)(i)(III).

379 States that have passed some form of anti-trafficking in persons/

sex trafficking/forced labor law to date include: Alabama, Alaska, 

Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, 

Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, 

Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, 

Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New 

Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, 

North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South 

Carolina, Texas, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, 

and Wisconsin.

380 Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman (Mar. 26, 2010).

381 DOS website, “Assessment of U.S. Government Activities to Combat 

Trafficking in Persons” (June 2009); http://www.state.gov/g/tip/

rls/fs/ 2009/126573.htm (accessed May 25, 2010).

382 Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman (May 20, 2010).

374 VSC Spring Stakeholder Conference (Apr. 6, 2010). 

375 To be eligible for a T Visa, applicants must prove that: (1) they are 

victims by “force, fraud, or coercion for sex trafficking and/or 

involuntary servitude, peonage, debt bondage, or slavery;” 

(2) they are physically in the United States and have “complied 

with a reasonable request by Federal, State or Local law enforcement 

authorities to assist in the investigation or prosecution of such 

trafficking” (unless they are under 18 years); and (3) they “would 

suffer extreme hardship involving unusual and severe harm upon 

removal.” INA § 101(a)(15)(T)(i). 

376 See INA § 214(o)(3); see also 8 C.F.R. § 214.11(m).
102 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

rate of 80-90 percent.383 Although adjudication times 

have dropped since the previous reporting period, the 

Ombudsman observes that even six months represents a 

hardship: inability to work legally while waiting for USCIS 

adjudication may keep an individual in severe or dangerous 

conditions. USCIS does not yet post processing times for T 

visa applications. 

4. Current Conditions - U Visa 

USCIS granted interim relief to many petitions submitted 

before the agency first issued regulatory guidance in 2007. 

The self-petitioner could file for employment authorization 

after interim relief was granted. As explained in last year’s 

annual report, these petitions remained pending with the 

VSC, waiting for completion under the new regulations.384 

In FY 2009, USCIS adjudicated 6,513 U visa385 petitions, as 

well as 2,996 petitions for the victims’ immediate family 

members.386 Many cases adjudicated through January 2010 

were filed between 2007 and 2008. As of March 2010, the 

average processing time to adjudicate the U visa petition 

was six months.387 

As of March 2010, USCIS had received 8,793 U visa 

petitions for FY 2010388 and expects the 10,000 visas 

available to be exhausted before the end of the fiscal year.389 

Thereafter, the VSC will begin to pre-adjudicate pending 

cases, in advance of the October 1, 2010, allocation of FY 

2011 visas.390 As a result, such conditional approval and 

deferred action391 authorizes employment,392 a benefit for 

those victims awaiting a visa.

Figure 32: U Visas – FY 2005-2009

Fiscal 

Year I-918 U-Visa I-918 U-Visa (Immediate Family Members)

Visas 

Available Approvals Denials

Visas 

Available Approvals Denials

2005 10,000 - - Unlimited - -

2006 10,000 - - Unlimited - -

2007 10,000 - - Unlimited - -

2008 10,000 - - Unlimited - -

2009 10,000 5,825 688 Unlimited 2,838 158

Sources: USCIS National Stakeholder Meeting (Jan. 26, 2010); INA § 214(p).

By statute, a law enforcement agency must certify the 

petition for a U visa to be approved. This certification documents that the victim possesses information concerning 

criminal activity, and that the victim “was helpful, is helpful 

or will be helpful” to the investigation or prosecution of 

criminal activity.393 This certification authority is expanding. 

In some jurisdictions, a state Department of Social Services 

has authority to certify petitions involving domestic violence. In addition, on March 15, 2010, U.S. Department of 

Labor Secretary Solis announced that by late summer 2010, 

after protocols are established, the U.S. Department of Labor 

will begin exercising its certification authority for petitions 

based upon an employment-related crime.394 

For certain enumerated crimes, the involved law enforcement agency has discretion whether or not to certify a U 

383 Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman (Mar. 26, 2010).

384 See Ombudsman’s Annual Report 2009, pp. 57-60. 

385 To qualify for a U visa an applicants must prove that: (1) they 

have suffered substantial physical or mental abuse as a result of 

having been a victim of a “qualifying criminal activity;” (2) they 

possess credible and reliable information establishing that they have 

knowledge of the details concerning the qualifying criminal activity 

upon which their petition is based; (3) they have been helpful, are 

being helpful, or are likely to be helpful to a certifying agency in the 

investigation or prosecution; and (4) the qualifying criminal activity 

occurred in the United States (including territories) or violated a 

U.S. federal law that provides for extraterritorial jurisdiction. INA § 

101(a)(15)(U). U visas are numerically limited to 10,000 annually. 

8 C.F.R. § 214.14(d). 

386 USCIS National Stakeholder Meeting (Jan. 26, 2010); http://www.

uscis.gov/USCIS/Resources/Public%20Engagement/National%20

Event%20Pages/2010%20Events/January%202010/Jan%20

2010%20Agenda%20FINAL.pdf (accessed May 21, 2010).

387 Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman (Mar. 26, 2010).

388 Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman (May 25, 2010). 

389 Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman (Mar. 26, 2010).

390 Id.

391 A discretionary grant of lawful nonimmigrant status, 8 C.F.R. § 

103.12(a)(4)(vi).

392 INA § 237(d).

393 “[T]he alien (or in the case of an alien child under the age of 16, 

the parent, guardian, or next friend of the alien) has been helpful, 

is being helpful, or is likely to be helpful to a Federal, State, or local 

law enforcement official, to a Federal, State, or local prosecutor, to 

a Federal or State judge, to the Service, or to other Federal State, 

or local authorities investigating or prosecuting criminal activity 

described in clause (iii)....” INA § 101(a)(15)(U). 

394 DOL website, “US Labor Department to exercise authority to 

certify applications for U visas” (Mar. 15, 2010); http://www.dol.

gov/opa/media/press/opa/OPA20100312.htm# 

(accessed May 25, 2010).
Annual Report to Congress – June 2010 103

visa application.395 Victims must secure cooperation from 

the law enforcement agency.396 In last year’s annual report, 

the Ombudsman noted widely differing policies among 

law enforcement agencies for the certification process. Law 

enforcement agencies may decide whether to certify the 

petition, or not, either during the investigation or after the 

prosecution is completed.397 This reporting period, USCIS 

has published a brochure providing information to potential 

applicants and those who assist them.398 This brochure 

informs law enforcement agencies that, “[t]o obtain U 

status, the victim must obtain a certification from law enforcement, however, law enforcement officials should note 

that providing a certification does not grant a benefit–only 

USCIS has the authority to grant or deny this benefit.”399

As noted in prior reports and by stakeholders, victims 

are often unwilling to come forward due to mistrust of 

authorities and fear of deportation. Stakeholders believe 

that testifying in court is not always in the best interest 

of victims due to potentially high personal safety risks, as 

well as threats to family stability and economic security. 

Stakeholders also told the Ombudsman that, victims fear 

receiving a Notice to Appear400 to begin removal proceedings. Stakeholders state that this risk has had a chilling 

effect on victims’ willingness to come forward.

During the reporting period, the VSC Special Unit continued dialogue with stakeholders that assist victims of 

violence. The VSC also provided trainings to law enforcement agencies in California, Illinois, and New York and is 

implementing a web conferencing training program for law 

enforcement agencies on the issues addressed by the VSC 

Special Unit. 

In addition, the VSC responds to daily telephone and email 

inquiries.401 On April 6, 2010, the VSC hosted a stakeholder 

engagement session that discussed U petitions, among other 

cases.402

5. Issues Affecting Both T and U Visas 

Figure 31 demonstrates that T visas for trafficking victims 

have not been fully utilized. USCIS projects 11,000 U 

visa petition receipts for FY 2010, distributing all of the 

allocated visas. Although USCIS continues to engage in 

educational efforts, many federal, state, and local law 

enforcement agencies have not fully developed policies to 

identify and support victims of crime and trafficking. Law 

enforcement agencies would be best served by establishing 

a detailed policy to guide an effective, consistent response. 

Without proper training on issues such as the definition 

of “helpfulness,” law enforcement agencies are employing 

inconsistent standards. U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) provides related training to law enforcement officials 

through its training website, the Virtual Learning Center.403 

This training provides information on identifying potential 

T and U victims. While this first step is an important one, 

the Ombudsman understands that the training does not 

provide information on how to proceed or how to utilize 

information or remedies in this context to support a 

prosecution. Instead, some CBP officers may issue a Notice 

to Appear, the charging document that begins immigration 

removal (deportation) court proceedings. 

In contrast, ICE offices have in place a practical working 

agreement with the VSC.404 Although not yet memorialized 

in a formal MOU with USCIS, the ICE policy405 provides 

a discretionary “stay of removal”406 for a U visa applicant 

395 Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman (Mar. 26, 2010).

396 Ordonez Orosco v. Napolitano, 2010 WL 702635 (C.A.5 Tex.) (a U 

visa certification cannot be mandated) (Mar. 2, 2010).

397 Supplement B Certification should accompany the petition, and must 

be an original signature by an authorized officer for the certifying 

agency within six months immediately preceding submission of the 

petition. See Instructions at: http://www.uscis.gov/files/form/i918instr.pdf. However, the petition may be filed before, during or 

after an investigation or prosecution. INA § 101(a)(15)(U)(III). 

398 “Immigration Options for Victims of Crimes, Information for Law 

Enforcement, Healthcare Providers, and Others,” M-779, Feb. 2010.

399 Id.

400 A Notice to Appear (NTA) is the formal charging document filed 

with the immigration court on Form I-862 (Notice to Appear) and 

delivered to the individual who is ordered to appear. INA § 239(a).

401 Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman (Mar. 26, 2010). 

402 USCIS Outreach, “Vermont Service Center Stakeholder Engagement” 

(Apr. 19, 2010); http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem

.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=0c38959f01ab

7210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCR D&vgnextchannel=994f81c52a

a38210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD (accessed May 25, 2010).

403 Information provided by CBP to the Ombudsman (June 2, 2010).

404 Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman (Mar. 26, 2010).

405 ICE Memorandum, “Guidance Regarding U Nonimmigrant Status 

(U visa) Applicants in Removal Proceedings or with Final Orders 

of Deportation or Removal” (Sept. 25, 2009); ICE Memorandum, 

“Guidance: Adjudicating Stay Requests Filed by U Nonimmigrant 

Status (U-visa) Applicants” (Sept. 24, 2009).

406 INA § 237(d).
104 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

when the VSC Special Unit determines that an applicant 

established prima facie eligibility. The VSC will expedite a 

prima facie determination for the requesting ICE office based 

on three criteria: (1) emergent circumstances; (2) a victim 

is detained at government expense; or (3) the individual 

is subject to a final order of removal. The Ombudsman 

encourages USCIS to continue educational outreach as well 

as interagency agreements that will allow victims to obtain 

time critical immigration relief. 

6. Data Collection 

The Ombudsman understands that the VSC does not accumulate non-sensitive information from the material included in the filings of either the T or U visa applications.407 By 

evaluating information about the law enforcement agencies 

predominately certifying U visa applications, USCIS could 

target its outreach and training more effectively. Likewise, 

tracking data on the law enforcement agencies, communitybased organizations, and social services groups that have 

aided applicants could help identify best practices, as well 

as processes needing improvement. The Attorney General’s 

2009 Report also recommended that the federal government “[c]ontinue to expand trafficking research and data 

collection, with research projects designed to assist service 

providers, law enforcement, and policymakers.”408 

407 Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman (Mar. 26, 2010).

408 DOS website, “Assessment of U.S. Government Activities to Combat 

Trafficking in Persons” (June 2009); http://www.state.gov/g/tip/

rls/fs/ 2009/126573.htm (accessed May 25, 2010).

C.	 Observations	on	the	E-Verify		

Experience	in	Arizona	and	Customer	

Service	Enhancements	

1. Summary 

E-Verify is “an Internet-based system that compares 

information from an employee’s Form I-9 [(Employment 

Eligibility Verification)] to data from U.S. Department of 

Homeland Security and Social Security Administration 

records to confirm employment eligibility.”409 Authorizing 

legislation for this program dates to 1996,410 and its 

most recent reauthorization extends the E-Verify 

program through September 30, 2012.411 Enrollment 

and use of E-Verify is voluntary for most U.S. employers, 

but federal contractors are, with some exceptions, required 

to use E-Verify, and a number of states require or authorize 

its use.412 

The Ombudsman first reviewed E-Verify in 2008, 

and issued a report to USCIS containing five recommendations to improve the customer service experience for 

E-Verify users:413

• Simplify E-Verify instructions and documentation;

• Make all registration and operational documents 

available online;

409 USCIS website, “What is E-Verify?” (May 14, 2010); http://

www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9

ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=e94888e60a405110Vg

nVCM1000004718190aRCRD&vgnextchannel=e94888e60a 

405110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCRD (accessed June 18, 2010).

410 Authority for the E-Verify program is found in Title IV, Subtitle A of 

the “Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act 

of 1996” (IIRIRA), Pub. L. No. 104-208 (1996).

411 See Section 547 of the “Department of Homeland Security 

Appropriations Act, 2010,” Pub. L. No. 111-83; http://frwebgate.

access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_public_

laws&docid=f:publ083.111.pdf (accessed June 18, 2010).

412 The following thirteen states now impose the use of E-Verify or 

the Basic Pilot Program (its former name) or SAVE (Systematic 

Alien Verification for Entitlements) on various groupings of public 

and/or private employers as either the exclusive or one method of 

preventing the hiring of unauthorized workers: Arizona, Colorado, 

Georgia, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina, 

Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, and Utah. 

413 Recommendation #38, “Observations On The E-Verify Experience 

In Arizona & Recommended Customer Service Enhancements” 

(Dec. 22, 2008); www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/cisomb_everify_

recommendation_2008-12-22.pdf (accessed May 19, 2010).
Annual Report to Congress – June 2010 105

• Ensure education and outreach to small businesses;

• Develop a reminder system to prompt employers to act; 

and

• Announce intention to replace current Form I-9 process 

for E-Verify users.

On March 27, 2009, USCIS responded to the recommendations, agreeing directly or indirectly with them.414

In March 2010, USCIS completed testing its first major 

redesign of the E-Verify user interface since 2004, and 

subsequently previewed the new user interface for the 

Ombudsman in anticipation of a June 2010 rollout. 

Figure 33: New E-Verify Web Interface

Source: www.uscis.gov

Having previously adopted two of the Ombudsman’s 

recommendations by posting nearly all E-Verify documentation on its website and extending E-Verify education and 

outreach,415 the USCIS rollout of a new user interface (see

Figure 33) implements two additional recommendations: 

simplification of terminology and instructions to reduce 

confusion, and provision of a reminder system to alert 

users on the status of open queries. The Ombudsman notes 

that the new E-Verify user interface contains additional enhancements designed to improve the customer experience. 

Regarding the I-9 recommendation, USCIS has stated 

that it is exploring the development of an “electronic I-9 

[that would] populate the E-Verify data fields and allow 

employers to save an electronic version of the I-9 on their 

desktops and information systems and/or print a paper 

version of the I-9.”416

In addition to monitoring these developments, in the 2010 

reporting year, the Ombudsman continued to track and 

assess E-Verify. The particular focus has been on USCIS’ 

progress toward improving the program’s accuracy, speed, 

and user-friendliness, as well as ensuring that employerusers follow applicable privacy, anti-discrimination, and 

enforcement constraints. 

2. Federal Contractors and the Federal Acquisition 

Regulation (FAR) 

Perhaps the most significant program development during 

the reporting period was the final implementation of the 

2008 Executive Order417 requiring all federal contractors 

(with limited exceptions) to use E-Verify to confirm the 

employment authorization status of new hires.418 Earlier 

implementation dates were delayed for multiple reasons, 

with some critics expressing skepticism about whether 

E-Verify had sufficient capacity to withstand the mandatory 

414 USCIS Response to Recommendation #38 (Mar. 27, 2009); 

www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/uscis_response_cis_ombudsman_

recommendation_38.pdf (accessed May 19, 2010).

415 The Ombudsman recognizes that USCIS must target education 

and outreach to all communities, but continues to underscore the 

importance of focusing specific efforts toward small businesses.

416 USCIS Response to Recommendation #38 (Mar. 27, 2009); 

www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/uscis_response_cis_ombudsman_

recommendation_38.pdf (accessed May 19, 2010). Based on 

information provided to the Ombudsman this spring, USCIS is in 

discussions with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) 

concerning the details of such integration, since ICE has operational 

jurisdiction over the I-9 compliance process. 

417 See Executive Order 13465, “Economy and Efficiency in Government 

Procurement through Compliance with Certain Immigration and 

Nationality Act Provisions and the Use of an Electronic Employment 

Eligibility Verification System,” 73 Fed. Reg. 33285 (June 11, 2008).

418 See “FAR Case 2007-013: Employment Eligibility Verification,” 73 

Fed. Reg. 67651, 67675 (Nov. 14, 2008). With few exceptions, this 

new rule, which became effective September 9, 2009, mandates that 

all new and existing federal contracts contain a provision requiring 

government contractors (and subcontractors) to use E-Verify to 

ensure that new hires, and all existing employees who are directly 

performing federal contract work, are legally authorized to work in 

the United States. 
106 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

addition of this new population of employer-users.419 The 

Ombudsman understands E-Verify enrolled 23,272 new 

employer-users during the last quarter of calendar year 

2009.420 USCIS reported that, as of December 31, 2009, it 

had 179,931 registered E-Verify users.421

3. USCIS Verification Operations Center

On November 20, 2009, USCIS opened a Verification 

Operations Center (the Center) in Buffalo, New York. 

The Center has two principal functions: (1) performing 

secondary immigration status verifications in support of 

USCIS’ E-Verify and SAVE422 programs, and (2) conducting 

activities designed to detect and deter improper use of 

these programs.423 

The Ombudsman expects to engage regularly with USCIS 

in connection with Center activities to detect incidents and 

discern patterns of employer and individual noncompliance, 

abuse, discrimination, and/or identity fraud. 

419 New federal contractors are provided 30 to 120 days following 

the contract award to register and begin using E-Verify for their 

covered employees. See “FAR Case 2007-013: Employment Eligibility 

Verification,” 73 Fed. Reg. 67651, 67705 (Nov. 14, 2008).

420 Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman (May 13, 14, 

and 19, 2010). The E-Verify program successfully navigated a 78 

percent year-over-year increase in the number of registered users as 

of December 31, 2009 as compared to 2008. Information provided 

by USCIS to the Ombudsman (May 13 and 14, 2010).

421 Information provided by USCIS to the Ombudsman 

(May 13, 14, and 19, 2010). 

422 The “Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements” Program is used 

by more than 300 federal, state, and local government registered 

users to confirm the immigration status of individuals seeking 

specific government-issued benefits or other privileges. See USCIS 

website, “USCIS Launches Informational Video on the Systematic 

Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) Program;” http://www.

uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f

614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=cf55c8b8cbac4210VgnVCM100000

082ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=68439c7755cb9010VgnVCM1000

0045f3d6a1RCRD (accessed May, 19, 2010). 

423 USCIS Press Release, “USCIS Opens New Verification Operations 

Center in Buffalo, NY” (Nov. 20, 2009); http://www.uscis.gov/

portal/site/uscis/template.PRINT/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f6

14176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=0c9290cc7e115210VgnVCM1000000

82ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel= a2dd6d26d17df110VgnVCM

1000004718190aRCRD (accessed May 19, 2010).

4. December 2009 Westat Report 

The Ombudsman notes that Westat, an independent social 

science research group, issued a December 2009 report 

entitled “Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation.”424 

The report focuses on E-Verify data and information 

gathered from April through June 2008.425 

Westat validates many of the key observations and recommendations made by the Ombudsman in 2008, and catalogs 

E-Verify’s legislative history, operation, various upgrades 

and improvements, and remaining challenges.

5. Establishment of E-Verify Employee Helpline426

USCIS opened an E-Verify employee helpline in April 

2010. This bilingual toll-free number, 1-888-897-7781, 

allows employees to discuss E-Verify related questions, 

concerns, and complaints in English or Spanish with a 

USCIS representative. The addition of this new helpline 

is consistent with ongoing agency efforts to enhance and 

extend outreach and improve customer service. 

6. Development of Civil Rights/Civil Liberties 

Videos427

USCIS, in cooperation with the DHS Office for Civil Rights 

and Civil Liberties, has developed two E-Verify related 

videos. It posted them online, in both English and Spanish, 

for public viewing beginning March 17, 2010. Each video 

runs approximately 20 minutes, with one aimed toward 

424 The full report may be found on USCIS’ website at www.uscis.gov/

USCIS/E-Verify/E-Verify/Final%20E-Verify%20Report%2012-16-

09_2.pdf (accessed May 19, 2010).

425 Although it references some of the significant E-Verify 

milestones since July 1, 2008, the report does not capture all 

such developments. It is important to note the E-Verify program 

remains a work-in-progress, with USCIS continuously rolling out 

enhancements and upgrades. See USCIS Press Release, “DHS Unveils 

Initiatives to Enhance E-Verify Fact Sheet” (Mar. 18, 2010); www.

uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f

35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=70beadd907c67210VgnVCM

100000082ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=68439c7755cb9010VgnVC

M10000045f3d6a1RCRD (accessed May 19, 2010).

426 See USCIS Press Release, “DHS Unveils Initiatives to Enhance E-Verify 

Fact Sheet” (Mar. 18, 2010); www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/men

uitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=70beadd

907c67210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=6843

9c775 5cb9010VgnVCM100000 45f3d6a1RCRD 

(accessed May 19, 2010). 

427 Id.
Annual Report to Congress – June 2010 107

employers and the second directed at employees. These 

videos represent a collaborative effort by DHS and USCIS 

to provide the public with better understanding of what 

E-Verify is and how it works. They accomplish this goal 

through vignettes depicting real-world scenarios involving 

E-Verify and the hiring process, emphasizing employer 

responsibilities as well as employee rights. 

USCIS continues to expand its E-Verify outreach and 

customer service efforts. During the next reporting 

period, the Ombudsman plans to seek input from stakeholders on the usefulness and effectiveness of the new 

E-Verify employee helpline, the E-Verify videos, and other 

E-Verify developments. 

D.	 USCIS	Processing	Delays	for	Employment	Authorization	Documents	

1. Summary

Under existing regulations, USCIS must adjudicate applications for Employment Authorization Documents (EADs), 

or work permits, within 90 days of the receipt date or 

issue an interim EAD valid for 240 days.428 Yet, customers 

continue to report delays in the adjudication of their EAD 

applications and failure of USCIS to issue required interim 

documents. As a result, delays sometimes result in job loss 

or missed job opportunities. 

In October 2008, the Ombudsman addressed these issues in a recommendation to USCIS, which outlined 

the importance of adhering to the 90-day adjudication 

timeframe; in cases where timely issuance does not occur, 

the Ombudsman recommended procedural adjustments to 

ensure that customers would not lose their jobs.429 These 

recommendations were made in response to processing 

delays following a surge in applications filed with USCIS in 

the summer of 2007.430 

2. Follow-up

In the 2009 reporting period, the Ombudsman posted an 

Ombudsman Update on its website to assist individuals 

who had EAD applications pending for over 90 days.431 The 

Ombudsman continues to receive a small number of case 

problems monthly from customers experiencing delays in 

EAD processing, and works directly with USCIS to resolve 

these cases.

While average EAD processing times were at 90 days or 

less432 as of this writing, and despite procedural changes 

such as system reviews of EAD applications pending, 

more changes are needed to safeguard against foreseeable 

future prejudice to applicants. Recommendations that the 

428 8 C.F.R. § 274a.13(d). 

429 Recommendation #35 (Oct. 2, 2008); http://www.dhs.gov/

xlibrary/assets/cisomb_ead_recommendation_35.pdf 

(accessed May 18, 2010). 

430 See Ombudsman’s Annual Report 2009, pp. 3-7.

431 See http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/gc_1221837986181.

shtm (accessed May 18, 2010).

432 www.uscis.gov (accessed May 15, 2010). 
108 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

Ombudsman made but which USCIS has not implemented 

include: expanded issuance of multi-year EADs;433

improvements in public guidance regarding the reasons for 

EAD delays and the ways these causes will be addressed; and 

implementation of temporary measures for applicants to 

show employment authorization.

433 USCIS currently issues multi-year EADs in limited circumstances. 
Annual Report to Congress – June 2010 109

Ombudsman Recommendations in Previous 

Years – Challenges Met and Those Remaining

This section includes summaries of the Ombudsman’s recommendations for the 2009 and 2008 reporting periods. 

For the full text of the recommendations and USCIS’ responses, please visit the Ombudsman’s website at 

www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman.

Figure 34: CIS Ombudsman Recommendations Chart

Key

AR Annual Report recommendation.

FR Formal recommendation during the reporting year.

USCIS implemented the recommendation.

USCIS has not yet fully implemented the recommendation.

USCIS disagrees and does not plan to implement the recommendation.

Title Recommendation Status of USCIS Implementation

AR2009-08 

DNA Liaison Position 

(6/30/09)

Recommendation: Designate a USCIS DNA 

liaison to facilitate discussions between USCIS 

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

to periodically provide clarifications for DNA 

laboratories.

Although stating it has designated an internal 

POC for these issues, USCIS resists creating a 

position with external customer service access.

AR2009-07 

DNA Testing – MOU 

with DOS on 

Cost Sharing and 

Chain-of-Custody 

(6/30/09) 

Recommendation: Continue to coordinate with 

the U.S. Department of State regarding DNA 

testing procedures and execute a Memorandum 

of Understanding with DOS for resource 

allocation for DNA evidence gathering and 

chain-of-custody observance abroad.

While USCIS continues to coordinate with DOS, 

including regarding DNA testing and chainof- custody, it sees execution of an MOU as 

premature.

AR2009-06 

DNA Testing –

Obsolete Procedures 

(6/30/09)

Recommendation: Remove references to 

obsolete blood testing methods from the 

Adjudicator’s Field Manual (AFM) and other 

published guidance.

USCIS has yet to remove such references from 

published guidance. 

AR2009-05 Recommendation: Post a practical tip sheet on 

EB-1 Tip Sheet its website to assist stakeholders in providing the 

(6/30/09) necessary and relevant information for complex 

EB-1 cases.

AR2009-04 

I-140 Petition 

Processing – AC21 

Portability Concerns 

(6/30/09)

Recommendation: Review processing methods 

for employment-based petitions between the 

Nebraska and Texas Service Centers to make 

American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First 

Century Act (AC21) portability provisions 

equally available to all customers. 

USCIS states that Nebraska and Texas Service 

Centers now share the same adjudication 

procedures for employment-based petitions. 

USCIS also agrees that AC21 portability should 

be equally available to all customers, but 

customers still report problems with Texas 

Service Center. 
110 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

Title Recommendation Status of USCIS Implementation

AR2009-03 Recommendation: Institute, through the 

Improved Training Tri-Bureau Working Group (USCIS, Immigration USCIS developed various records training 

for Government and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and Customs programs, which include A-file management, 

Personnel Handling and Border Protection (CBP)), mandatory available to ICE and CBP personnel. While USCIS 

A-files training of all personnel who work with A-files, cannot mandate training for ICE and CBP, USCIS 

(6/30/09) specifically special agents, investigators, and 

officers.

will work with the Tri-Bureau working group 

to ensure that ICE and CBP users receive the 

necessary training.

AR2009-02 

A-file Tracking 

(6/30/09)

Recommendation: Establish new protocols to 

ensure that relevant contract staff consistently 

record all A-file movement as outlined in the 

Records Operations Handbook.

While USCIS believes existing protocols are 

sufficient, USCIS established a quality assurance 

team to conduct A-file audits, offer records 

training, and provide help desk support.

AR2009-01 

File Digitization 

(6/30/09)

Recommendation: Immediately begin scanning 

immigration files that are likely to be needed for 

future adjudications.

The Transformation Initiative has for three years 

contained an evolving strategy for scanning 

files; USCIS plans to continue expansion of 

digitization of select A-files.

FR2009-42 

Motions to Reopen 

and Motions 

to Reconsider 

(5/15/09)

Recommendation 1: Establish uniform filing 

and review procedures that: (a) Articulate a 

standard procedure to make no-fee motions 

based on Service error; (b) Include a uniform 

tracking mechanism for motions; (c) Announce 

agencywide completion goals for motions.

USCIS is working on a memo addressing no-fee 

motions based on service error. All I-290Bs will 

be transitioned to Chicago Lockbox by summer 

of 2010. No updates available on agencywide 

completion goals for motions. 

Recommendation 2: Communicate motion 

filing and review information more effectively 

by: (a) Consistent use of standardized language 

in non-appealable denials; (b) Revising 

information provided by Tier 1 of the NCSC; 

(c) Posting more specific information on 

motions.

USCIS is working on standardization across 

offices, has corrected the scripts error, and 

“Questions and Answers: Appeals and Motions” 

is available on its website. 

FR2009-41 

Expanded USCIS 

Payment Methods 

(4/1/09)

Recommendation 1: Allow batch online 

payment system for high volume filers. USCIS agrees, but currently lacks technological 

capability.

Recommendation 2: Use an online shopping 

cart mechanism to simplify form, fee, and 

payment choices.

USCIS agrees, but anticipates these options 

will first be available in 2011 as part of 

Transformation.

Recommendation 3: Expand e-filing option to 

allow fee payments on other forms. USCIS agrees, but its current system will 

not support e-payment, which must await 

Transformation.

Recommendation 4: Add visual written aids 

to instructions to increase correct payment 

submissions.
Annual Report to Congress – June 2010 111

Title Recommendation Status of USCIS Implementation

FR2009-40 

EB-5 Processing 

(3/18/09)

Recommendation 1: Finalize special regulations 

for a limited class of EB-5 investors. As of this writing, USCIS is finalizing the 

regulations.

Recommendation 2: Direct EB-5 adjudicators 

not to re-adjudicate indirect job creation 

methodology, absent error or fraud.

USCIS agrees, but asserts petition review 

may involve reconsideration of underlying 

variables to ensure compliance with initial 

investment proposal.

Recommendation 3: Designate more EB-5 AAO 

precedent/adopted decisions. USCIS believes formal rulemaking or policy 

guidance would be more beneficial in clarifying 

regulations. USCIS will certify unique or novel 

decisions to AAO.

Recommendation 4: Use rulemaking to update 

EB-5 regulations. USCIS agrees that EB-5 regulations need to be 

updated, but does not have resources since 

USCIS is currently in the process of addressing 

other existing priority regulations. 

Recommendation 5: Form an intergovernmental advisory group to consult on 

complex business, economic, and labor issues.

USCIS is exploring this approach and will advise 

the Ombudsman if it forms a group.

Recommendation 6: Offer a fee-for-service 

option to investors to accelerate adjudications. USCIS is examining the feasibility of 

offering this option, but is concerned that 

this may not be operationally possible under 

current regulations.

Recommendation 7: “Prioritize” processing of 

Regional Center filings.

Recommendation 8: Partner with Departments 

of State and Commerce to promote the EB-5 

program overseas.

USCIS sees other agencies such as Department of 

Commerce, as better suited for such promotion.

FR2009-39 

T & U Status – Rules 

and Challenges 

(1/29/09)

Recommendation 1: Issue public guidance on 

new filing procedures contained in December 

2008 regulations & trafficking reauthorization 

legislation.

Recommendation 2: Find alternatives for 

T nonimmigrant visa applicants to obtain 

employment authorization while visa 

applications are pending.

Processing times have reduced to six months; 

therefore, USCIS does not believe issuance of 

EAD is necessary while applications are pending. 

Recommendation 3: Implement procedures/

issue guidance for U nonimmigrant applicants 

seeking employment authorization.

U visa backlog has been eliminated and average 

processing times are currently at six months. 

USCIS does not see the need to adjudicate EADs 

since the backlog has been reduced.

Recommendation 4: Provide adequate 

staff at the VSC T and U visa unit to ensure 

prompt adjudications.
112 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

Title Recommendation Status of USCIS Implementation

FR2009-39 

T & U Status – Rules 

and Challenges 

(1/29/09) (cont.)

Recommendation 5: Post processing times for 

form I-914 and I-918. As of this writing, USCIS does not post 

processing times for either form.

FR2009-38 

E-Verify 

(12/22/08)

Recommendation 1: Simplify E-Verify 

instructions and documentation.

Recommendation 2: Make all registration & 

operational documents available online.

Recommendation 3: Ensure education & 

outreach to small business communities.

Recommendation 4: Develop a reminder 

system to prompt employers to act. “Case Status Alerts” are only triggered when 

employers log on: these are not the automatic 

notifications suggested.

Recommendation 5: Announce an intention to 

replace the current Form I-9 process for E-Verify 

users.

USCIS is currently reviewing options for an 

electronic Form I-9.

FR2009-37 

Naturalization 

Processing 

(12/5/08)

Recommendation 1: Issue guidance to district 

offices on prerogatives and obligations in 

working with courts.

USCIS agreed but has not yet implemented.

Recommendation 2: Notify new citizens to 

update their status with the Social Security 

Administration.

Recommendation 3: Digitally produce 

photographs on Certificates of Naturalization. USCIS designated three USCIS offices to 

begin producing 90% of certificates with 

digitized photographs during initial phase of 

implementation in August 2010.

Recommendation 4: Post pending 

naturalization case statistics monthly. USCIS believes processing times provided on its 

website is sufficient.

FR2009-36 

Nurse Green Cards 

(12/5/08)

Recommendation 1: Separate and prioritize 

Schedule A green card nurse applications. USCIS cites visa availability concerns, rather 

than address means within its control for 

automatically expediting these applications.

Recommendation 2: Centralize Schedule A 

nurse applications at one service center. USCIS believes that current bi-specialization 

structure provides consistent and efficient 

adjudication.

Recommendation 3: Develop a point of contact 

at DOL to regularly communicate on issues 

regarding nurse immigration applications
Annual Report to Congress – June 2010 113

Title Recommendation Status of USCIS Implementation

FR2009-35 

EAD Processing 

(10/1/08)

Recommendation 1: Adjudicate applications 

within 90 days or issue interim EADs. USCIS states that it conducts routine system 

sweeps to uncover cases pending for at least 60 

days, accepts service request for cases pending 

beyond 75 days, and adjudicates or issues 

interim EAD in 10 days for cases pending post 

90 days. However, customers report that USCIS 

does not issue interim EADs. 

Recommendation 2: Inform the public why 

EADs are delayed and how delays will be 

addressed.

There are no systematic EAD processing delays at 

this time, but the Ombudsman works to resolve 

isolated delays. 

The Ombudsman acknowledges this 

recommendation is not needed until such time 

as system delays again exist.

Recommendation 3: Ensure NCSC and local 

offices provide consistent guidance on EADs.

Recommendation 4: Reconsider the wider use 

of multi-year EADs. USCIS invites suggestions of other categories for 

multi-year EAD eligibility.

FR2008-34 

USCIS Fee Refunds 

(4/8/08)

Recommendation 1: Clarify fee refund 

procedures for the public and revise the 

Adjudicator’s Field Manual, Section 10.10 

“Refund of Fees,” accordingly.

USCIS has revised the AFM, but has not clarified 

refund procedures to the public.

Recommendation 2: Provide customers with a 

way to track the status of their refund requests. USCIS issues no receipt notices for refund 

requests, therefore, currently cannot track status. 

Customers can submit a request through the 

National Customer Service Center. Refund 

tracking will become available as part of the 

Transformation Initiative.

FR2008-33 

Returned 

Petition Tracking 

(8/24/07)

Recommendation 1: Issue receipt notices to 

customers when the petition is returned and 

received by USCIS Service Centers.

While USCIS staff were directed to adopt this 

practice, customers report inconsistent issuance 

of receipt notices.

Recommendation 2: Establish a nationwide 

standard for the re-adjudication of petitions 

returned by consular officers for revocation 

or revalidation and amend the Operating 

Instructions/Adjudicator’s Field Manual 

accordingly; include a “REVOCATION” entry in 

the processing time reports.

USCIS believes national standards are impractical 

and says the AFM already describes revocation 

procedures.

Recommendation 3: Provide additional 

information about revocation or revalidation 

processes on the USCIS website.
114 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

Title Recommendation Status of USCIS Implementation

AR2008-10 

Workforce AfterAction Report 

(6/30/08)

Recommendation: Review the workforce 

elements of its 2007 surge plan, and make 

public an after-action report on its findings, 

including best practices, for possible future 

application surges.

 

USCIS completed an after-action report, but does 

not intend to make it public.

AR2008-09 

Issuance Rates 

for “Requests for 

Evidence” are High 

(6/30/08)

Recommendation: Expand the use of filing 

guidance “tip sheets” to reduce the current 

“Request for Evidence” (RFE) issuance rates.

AR2008-08 

Consistent 

Information in 

USCIS Systems 

(6/30/08)

Recommendation: Ensure that all its systems 

used by customer service personnel to provide 

information to the public are consistent and 

accurate.

USCIS OIT addressed the interface problems 

between CRIS and the CLAIMS system in 

September 2009. The agency is scheduled to 

implement a complete rewrite of the interfaces 

in FY 2011, which should lead to more 

consistent and accurate information. 

AR2008-07 

Tier 1 Scripted 

Information 

(6/30/08)

Recommendation: Ensure its Tier I Customer 

Service Representatives (CSRs) of the NCSC 

follow the scripted information and are properly 

notified of changes to scripts.

AR2008-06 

Exchange Program 

(6/30/08)

Recommendation: Develop an exchange 

program for USCIS staff who routinely work 

directly with USCIS customers, including staff at 

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

INFOPASS appointments.

AR2008-05

Website 

(6/30/08)

Recommendation: Examine whether USCIS 

has devoted adequate resources to the agency’s 

website given the importance of the website to 

customers.

AR2008-04 

Proactive Customer 

Service 

(6/30/08)

Recommendation: Standardize proactive 

dissemination of information to all customer 

service avenues to ensure USCIS personnel 

can provide consistent and accurate information 

to customers.

USCIS continues to make efforts to ensure 

greater uniformity of information, but 

customers still report inconsistencies.

AR2008-03

Working Group to 

Improve File Tracking 

(6/30/08)

Recommendation: Convene a working group 

to define and implement near-term, national file 

tracking goals.

AR2008-02 

Digitized Entry, File, 

and Adjudication 

(6/30/08)

Recommendation: Publicize near-term goals 

for the “digitization initiative” (electronic form 

filing and case processing).

AR2008-01 

Comprehensive Case 

Management System 

(6/30/08)

 

Recommendation: Expeditiously implement a 

comprehensive and effective case management 

system. USCIS should determine whether the 

Transformation Program Office (TPO) pilot has 

the necessary capabilities and, if so, implement 

agencywide.

USCIS piloted the Secure Information 

Management Service (SIMS), but determined 

that it did not have the capabilities to 

be implemented as an agencywide case 

management system. USCIS plans to implement 

a new case management system as part of the 

Transformation Initiative. 
Annual Report to Congress – June 2010 115

OMBUDSMAN PRIORITIES AND OBJECTIVES 

FOR THE COMING YEAR– MAPPING A COURSE

In the 2011 reporting year, the Ombudsman will focus 

on transparency and responsiveness in the delivery of 

citizenship and immigration services.434 The Ombudsman 

will continue to perform the statutory mission of assisting 

individuals and employers with USCIS administrative and 

service problems through: (1) individual case problem 

resolution; (2) systemic research and policy work on 

humanitarian, family, and employment issues; and 

(3) enhanced outreach to obtain input from diverse stakeholders representing varied customers and areas of interest. 

Specifically, the Ombudsman will work in conjunction with 

USCIS to provide for more timely and effective resolution 

of individual case problems. The Ombudsman also will be 

implementing new procedures for collaborative follow-up 

on case problems. Additionally, the Ombudsman will 

conduct a formal review of actions or inactions USCIS took 

in response to select recommendations the Ombudsman 

previously made to USCIS.

The Ombudsman will continue to devote attention to USCIS 

customer service. Individuals and employers report ongoing problems obtaining information on cases pending past 

processing times and correcting service errors, whether it 

be through the National Customer Service Center toll-free 

telephone line, the My Case Status feature, or appointments 

with local offices through INFOPASS. 

In addition, the Ombudsman will stay committed to 

serving as a convener on immigration and citizenship 

service issues that impact multiple organizations within 

the federal government. The Ombudsman will continue 

to facilitate interagency communications and cooperation 

between USCIS and other DHS components including 

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), as well as the 

U.S. Department of State (DOS), and other federal, state, and 

local government partners.

Issues for consideration in the next reporting period may 

include:

Humanitarian

• Challenges for unaccompanied children and processing 

concerns in the Special Immigrant Juvenile program

• Violence Against Women Act self-petitions and T and U 

visas for victims of human trafficking or other specified 

criminal activity

Family

• Fee waiver processing

• Family-based immigrant visa usage and movement of 

the DOS Visa Bulletin cut-off dates

Employment

• Religious worker visa processing

• Administrative review of substantive determinations 

and conflicting agency interpretation or guidance; 

standardization in decision-making

Processing Integrity

• Continued review of Requests for Evidence 

• Process for individuals and employers to register 

complaints with USCIS

• Modernization of USCIS systems and processes, referred 

to as Transformation

• Impact of USCIS fee structure on service

• USCIS and removal proceedings

434 Section 452(c)(1) of the Homeland Security Act requires the 

Ombudsman to submit in the annual report “the objectives of the 

Office of the Ombudsman for the fiscal year beginning in such 

calendar year.”
116 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

Stakeholder Outreach

• Best practices in field and district office local outreach 

to ensure that critical information is both relayed and 

received agencywide

• Evaluating USCIS outreach to emerging immigrant 

communities

During this reporting period, the Ombudsman had a 

new focus on its public outreach and will continue to 

identify ways to connect with diverse communities and 

organizations nationwide who may not previously have 

known about the Ombudsman’s services, and how the 

Ombudsman may be able to help with problems the public 

experiences with USCIS.

The Ombudsman will expand outreach through interaction 

with the public, including community-based organizations, 

employer associations, faith-based organizations, and the 

immigration legal community. The Ombudsman also will 

be adding additional expertise to the office to lead the 

development of short-term and long-term research projects 

and reviews in the humanitarian, family, and employment 

areas. 

The Ombudsman values the input it receives from stakeholders and the public, and continues to encourage feedback and input that ultimately helps to guide and inform 

the Ombudsman’s areas of focus.
Annual Report to Congress – June 2010 117 

Appendix 1:

	 Homeland Security Act Excerpts

116 STAT. 2200 PUBLIC LAW 107-296-NOVEMBER 25, 2002

(6 U.S.C. §§ 271 and 272) 

SEC. 451. ESTABLISHMENT OF BUREAU OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES.

(a) ESTABLISHMENT OF BUREAU- 

 (1) IN GENERAL- There shall be in the Department a bureau to be known as the `Bureau of Citizenship and 

 Immigration Services’. 

 (2) DIRECTOR- The head of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services shall be the Director of the Bureau 

 of Citizenship and Immigration Services...

 (3) FUNCTIONS- The Director of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services...

 (E) shall meet regularly with the Ombudsman described in section 452 to correct serious service 

 problems identified by the Ombudsman; and 

 (F) shall establish procedures requiring a formal response to any recommendations submitted in the 

 Ombudsman’s annual report to Congress within 3 months after its submission to Congress.

SEC. 452. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES OMBUDSMAN. 

(a) IN GENERAL- Within the Department, there shall be a position of Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman 

(in this section referred to as the “Ombudsman”). The Ombudsman shall report directly to the Deputy Secretary. The 

Ombudsman shall have a background in customer service as well as immigration law. 

(b) FUNCTIONS- It shall be the function of the Ombudsman— 

 (1) to assist individuals and employers in resolving problems with the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration 

 Services; 

 (2) to identify areas in which individuals and employers have problems in dealing with the Bureau of Citizenship 

 and Immigration Services; and 

 (3) to the extent possible, to propose changes in the administrative practices of the Bureau of Citizenship and 

Immigration Services to mitigate problems identified under paragraph (2). 

(c) ANNUAL REPORTS- 

 (1) OBJECTIVES- Not later than June 30 of each calendar year, the Ombudsman shall report to the Committee on 

 the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Senate on the objectives of the Office of the Ombudsman 

 for the fiscal year beginning in such calendar year. Any such report shall contain full and substantive analysis, 

 in addition to statistical information, and— 

 (A) shall identify the recommendations the Office of the Ombudsman has made on improving services 

 and responsiveness of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services; 

 (B) shall contain a summary of the most pervasive and serious problems encountered by individuals 

 and employers, including a description of the nature of such problems; 

 (C) shall contain an inventory of the items described in subparagraphs (A) and (B) for which action 

 has been taken and the result of such action; 

Appendices
Appendices 118 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

 (D) shall contain an inventory of the items described in subparagraphs (A) and (B) for which action 

 remains to be completed and the period during which each item has remained on such inventory; 

 (E) shall contain an inventory of the items described in subparagraphs (A) and (B) for which no 

 action has been taken, the period during which each item has remained on such inventory, the 

 reasons for the inaction, and shall identify any official of the Bureau of Citizenship and 

 Immigration Services who is responsible for such inaction; 

 (F) shall contain recommendations for such administrative action as may be appropriate to resolve 

 problems encountered by individuals and employers, including problems created by excessive 

 backlogs in the adjudication and processing of immigration benefit petitions and applications; and 

 (G) shall include such other information as the Ombudsman may deem advisable. 

 (2) REPORT TO BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY- Each report required under this subsection shall be provided directly 

 to the committees described in paragraph (1) without any prior comment or amendment from the Secretary, 

 Deputy Secretary, Director of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services, or any other officer or 

 employee of the Department or the Office of Management and Budget. 

(d) OTHER RESPONSIBILITIES- The Ombudsman— 

 (1) shall monitor the coverage and geographic allocation of local offices of the Ombudsman; 

 (2) shall develop guidance to be distributed to all officers and employees of the Bureau of Citizenship and 

 Immigration Services outlining the criteria for referral of inquiries to local offices of the Ombudsman; 

 (3) shall ensure that the local telephone number for each local office of the Ombudsman is published and available 

 to individuals and employers served by the office; and 

 (4) shall meet regularly with the Director of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services to identify serious 

 service problems and to present recommendations for such administrative action as may be appropriate to 

 resolve problems encountered by individuals and employers. 

(e) PERSONNEL ACTIONS- 

 (1) IN GENERAL- The Ombudsman shall have the responsibility and authority– 

 (A) to appoint local ombudsmen and make available at least 1 such ombudsman for each State; and 

 (B) to evaluate and take personnel actions (including dismissal) with respect to any employee of any 

 local office of the Ombudsman. 

 (2) CONSULTATION- The Ombudsman may consult with the appropriate supervisory personnel of the Bureau of 

 Citizenship and Immigration Services in carrying out the Ombudsman’s responsibilities under this subsection.

(f) RESPONSIBILITIES OF BUREAU OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES- The Director of the Bureau of 

Citizenship and Immigration Services shall establish procedures requiring a formal response to all recommendations 

submitted to such director by the Ombudsman within 3 months after submission to such director. 

(g) OPERATION OF LOCAL OFFICES- 

 (1) IN GENERAL- Each local ombudsman– 

 (A) shall report to the Ombudsman or the delegate thereof; 

 (B) may consult with the appropriate supervisory personnel of the Bureau of Citizenship and 

 Immigration Services regarding the daily operation of the local office of such ombudsman;

 (C) shall, at the initial meeting with any individual or employer seeking the assistance of such local 

 office, notify such individual or employer that the local offices of the Ombudsman operate 

 independently of any other component of the Department and report directly to Congress through

 the Ombudsman; and 

 (D) at the local ombudsman’s discretion, may determine not to disclose to the Bureau of Citizenship

 and Immigration Services contact with, or information provided by, such individual or employer. 

 (2) MAINTENANCE OF INDEPENDENT COMMUNICATIONS- Each local office of the Ombudsman shall maintain

 a phone, facsimile, and other means of electronic communication access, and a post office address, that is 

 separate from those maintained by the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services, or any component of 

 the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services. 
Annual Report to Congress – June 2010 119 Appendices

Appendix 2:

 DHS Organizational Chart
Appendices 120 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

Appendix 3:

 USCIS Realignment Organizational Chart
Annual Report to Congress – June 2010 121 Appendices

Appendix 4:

	 Glossary of Terms

The following definitions apply to terms used in the 2010 Annual Report: 

A-File: Common term for the “Alien-file,” which consists 

of all data and documentation relevant to a foreign 

national’s immigration history. 

A-Number: Common term for the “alien number,” a 

unique identification number assigned by USCIS to 

many foreign nationals seeking immigration benefits. 

Adjudications Officer: A USCIS employee trained to do 

the primary review of immigration benefits applications 

and petitions, conduct interviews, perform research, 

and determine whether to grant or deny the benefit 

sought. See “Immigration Services Officer.”

Adjustment of Status: The process whereby an individual 

acquires lawful permanent residency in the United 

States (as evidenced by a “green card”), rather than 

by obtaining an immigrant visa abroad. See generally 

INA § 245.

Alien: Defined in Section 101(a)(3) of the Immigration 

and Nationality Act (INA) as any person not a citizen 

or national of the United States; also referred to as a 

foreign national.

Application Support Center (ASC): ASCs gather 

biometrics, including fingerprints, after an application 

or petition is filed and are often co-located with USCIS 

field offices. 

Asylee: A foreign national granted the right to stay 

permanently in the United States after a determination 

that the person was persecuted in his or her home 

country or has a well founded fear of persecution on 

account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a 

particular social group, or political opinion. This status 

may be granted in the United States by an Immigration 

Services Officer or Immigration Judge. Asylees can 

apply for a green card one year after receiving asylee 

status. See INA § 208.

Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA): The highest 

administrative court in the United States with 

jurisdiction limited to immigration matters. 

Case Problem: Inquiry submitted to the Ombudsman, 

normally by completion of a Form DHS-7001. This 

form is accessible at www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman.

Computer-Linked Application Information Management 

System (CLAIMS): The USCIS umbrella information 

technology system that serves as a casework processing 

and tracking database for immigration benefits. 

Cut-off Date: Where demand for visas exceeds availability 

in a category, the U.S. Department of State Visa Bulletin 

will indicate a “cut-off date.” The issuance of visas is 

restricted to applicants whose priority dates are earlier 

than the cut-off date. 

Employment Authorization Document (EAD): 

Documentary evidence that an individual is allowed to 

work in the United States. The EAD is of limited validity, 

usually one year. See 8 C.F.R. § 274a. 

E-Verify: A USCIS Internet-based program that permits 

registered employers to confirm a new hire’s eligibility 

to work legally in the United States. 

Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR): The 

U.S. Department of Justice entity responsible for 

administering the immigration courts. 

Field Office: USCIS facility where adjudications officers 

conduct interviews, perform research, and make 

determinations to grant or deny benefits. 

Green Card: Common term for USCIS Form I-551 (Alien 

Registration Card), documentary evidence of lawful 

permanent residency. Due to a recent USCIS redesign, 

portions of this card are green for the first time in many 

years. The term is also used to indicate a person’s status 

as a lawful permanent resident (e.g., green card status).
Appendices 122 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

Immigrant: Commonly refers to an individual who intends 

to reside permanently in the United States. 

See generally INA § 101(a)(15). 

Immigration and Nationality Act (INA): 8 U.S.C. § 101, 

et seq.; the statutory basis for immigration and 

naturalization in the United States. 

Immigration Services Officers (ISOs): USCIS officers at 

various levels of seniority who perform core duties, 

including adjudications and customer service. 

See “Adjudications Officer.”

INFOPASS: A free online service for customers or their 

representatives to schedule in-person appointments at 

USCIS field offices. 

Labor Certification: A document issued by the U.S. 

Department of Labor to employers seeking to sponsor 

foreign nationals for certain permanent or temporary 

positions. The traditional process for issuance of a labor 

certification tests the U.S. labor market to ensure there 

are no U.S. workers able, willing, qualified, and available 

to fill the position. See generally INA §§ 203(b)(3)(C), 

212(a)(5)(A). 

Labor Condition Application (LCA): A document, 

certified by the U.S. Department of Labor, in 

which employers who wish to hire foreign nationals 

in certain nonimmigrant positions make attestations 

regarding wages, working conditions, and other 

employment matters.

Lawful Permanent Resident (LPR): A person with 

the legal status to permanently reside and work 

in the United States. See INA § 101(a)(20); see also

“Immigrant” and “Green Card.” 

Lockbox: Receipting facilities that process various types of 

benefits application. The lockbox performs initial review 

of documents and deposits fees. It then forwards filings 

to the appropriate USCIS facility for further processing 

and adjudication. 

National Benefits Center (NBC): USCIS facility located 

in Missouri (previously called the Missouri Service 

Center). Established as the hub and conduit for USCIS 

field offices, the NBC completes all pre-interview 

processing of immigration benefit forms generally 

requiring an interview. NBC pre-processing includes 

conducting background security checks, performing 

initial evidence reviews, adjudicating associated forms, 

denying adjustment of status cases for statutorily 

ineligible applicants, and forwarding scheduled cases to 

the appropriate USCIS local office for adjudication. 

National Customer Service Center (NCSC): Nationwide 

network of five call center facilities accessible by a tollfree telephone number, 1-800-375-5283. The NCSC 

provides assistance in English and Spanish to customers 

calling about immigration services and benefits. 

National Records Center (NRC): USCIS archival records 

facility, located in Missouri, which stores millions of 

USCIS and legacy INS paper records. Additionally, the 

NRC processes Freedom of Information Act requests. 

National Visa Center (NVC): A U.S. Department of State 

facility in New Hampshire that manages the flow of 

permanent residency cases between USCIS and DOS. 

Among other functions, it receives approved immigrant 

petitions from USCIS and distributes them to foreign 

consular offices where petition beneficiaries are 

interviewed for immigrant visas. 

Naturalization: The process by which a foreign national 

becomes a citizen of the United States. 

Nonimmigrant: A foreign national admitted to the United 

States for a specified temporary purpose and time 

period and/or a specific visa type. Common examples 

include a tourist, principal of a foreign government, 

representative of foreign press, a crewman, a student, a 

foreign professional, or executive. See INA § 101(a)(26) 

and 8 C.F.R. § 214.
Annual Report to Congress – June 2010 123 Appendices

Notice of Action: Correspondence from USCIS on Form 

I-797 generated in several situations. These situations 

include, most commonly, confirming the filing has 

been received and when it was received, as well as 

memorializing address changes, status changes, and 

other USCIS actions. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 299, et seq. 

Notice to Appear (NTA): In the immigration context, an 

NTA is the formal charging document using Form I-862 

(Notice to Appear) to begin removal proceedings. 

See INA § 239(a).

Preference Categories: Classification of foreign nationals 

seeking to immigrate to the United States, divided 

among family-based and employment-based categories. 

See generally INA § 203.

Priority Date: Reserves the place in line for immigrant 

visas. Generally, for family-based petitions, the priority 

date is the filing date of the petition. For employmentbased petitions, the priority date is either the date the 

labor certification is filed or the date the petition is filed. 

Refugee: An individual outside of, or fleeing from, his/

her country of nationality, or if not having a country 

of nationality, place of former residence, due to 

persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution based 

on reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of 

a particular social group or political opinion. 

See INA § 101(a)(42).

Region: USCIS divides the country into four administrative 

regions – Central, Eastern, Southeastern, and Western. 

The district and field offices report to their respective 

regional offices. 

Request for Evidence (RFE): Correspondence from USCIS 

informing the customer of additional information 

needed to complete the adjudication of an application 

or petition. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(8). 

Retrogression: The backwards movement of a cut-off date 

published in the U.S. Department of State’s Visa Bulletin. 

See “Cut-Off Date,” “Priority Date,” and “Visa Bulletin.”

Revocation/Consular Return: The U.S. Department of 

State’s (DOS) provisional denial of a petition, followed 

by return of the petition from DOS to USCIS via the 

NVC with a recommendation to revoke the petition. 

After reconsideration, USCIS either accepts the 

recommendation and revokes the petition, or rejects the 

DOS recommendation and reaffirms approval, and then 

re-sends the case to DOS for processing. See INA § 205; 

see also “National Visa Center.” 

Service Center: One of four USCIS processing facilities, 

located in California, Nebraska, Texas, and Vermont, 

where certain petitions and applications are adjudicated, 

particularly those that do not require an interview. 

Transformation: A multi-year solution for modernization 

of USCIS through new, proprietary systems and agency 

reorganization that plans to transition USCIS from 

a fragmented, paper-based process to a centralized, 

electronic environment. 

Visa Bulletin: U.S. Department of State Visa Office 

document that publishes cut-off dates on a monthly 

basis. Listed by immigrant category and country of 

chargeability, the Visa Bulletin cut-off dates determine 

eligibility for immigrant visa numbers (green card 

numbers). See “Cut-Off Date.”
Appendices 124 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

Appendix 5:

	 List of Abbreviations

AAO Administrative Appeals Office

AC21 American Competitiveness in the 21st 

Century Act

AFM Adjudicator’s Field Manual

CLAIMS Computer Linked Application Information 

Management System

CPMS Customer Profile Management System

CRO Community Relations Officers

CSC California Service Center

CSR Customer Service Representative

DHS U.S. Department of Homeland Security

DOD U.S. Department of Defense

DOL U.S. Department of Labor

DOJ U.S. Department of Justice

DOS U.S. Department of State

EAD Employment Authorization Document

EOIR Executive Office for Immigration Review

FAR Federal Acquisition Regulation

FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation

GAO U.S. Government Accountability Office

ICE U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

ICMS Interim Case Management System

INA Immigration and Nationality Act

INS Immigration and Naturalization Service

IVR Interactive Voice Response

LCA Labor Condition Application

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

ONPT Outside Normal Processing Time

OPE Office of Public Engagement

PERM Program Electronic Review Management

RFE Request for Evidence

RFR Request for Reconsideration

SAVE Systematic Alien Verification for 

Entitlements

SIV Special Immigrant Visa

SLOPE Standard Lightweight Operational 

Programming Environment Rules System 

Qualified Adjudication

SMART Standard Management Analysis Report Tool

SMI Secure Mail Initiative

SRMT Service Request Management Tool
Annual Report to Congress – June 2010 125 Appendices

SSA U.S. Social Security Administration

TPS Temporary Protected Status

TARP Troubled Asset Relief Program

TPO Transformation Program Office

TSC Texas Service Center

TVPRA Trafficking Victims Protection 

Reauthorization Act

USCIS U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

USPS U.S. Postal Service

VIBE Validation Instrument for Business 

Enterprises

VRA Visa Reform Act

VSC Vermont Service Center

VTVPA Victims of Trafficking and Violence 

Protection Act of 2000
DHS CIS Ombudsman

Mail Stop 1225

Washington, DC 20528-1225

Tel. 202-357-8100

http://www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman

Send your comments to: cisombudsman@dhs.gov