Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman 

Annual Report 2007 

Submitted to:

United States Senate 

Committee on the Judiciary

United States House of Representatives 

Committee on the Judiciary

June 11, 2007 

Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy, Chairman 

Committee on the Judiciary 

United States Senate 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

The Honorable Arlen Specter, Ranking Member 

Committee on the Judiciary 

United States Senate 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

The Honorable John Conyers, Chairman 

Committee on the Judiciary 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

The Honorable Lamar Smith, Ranking Member 

Committee on the Judiciary 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy, Chairman 

Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees, and Border Security 

United States Senate 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

The Honorable John Cornyn, Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees, and Border Security 

United States Senate 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

The Honorable Zoe Lofgren, Chairwoman 

Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, 

and International Law 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

The Honorable Peter King, Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, 

and International Law 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

June 2007 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov Page i

Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

MESSAGE FROM THE OMBUDSMAN

The Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman’s 2007 Annual 

Report marks 46 months of cumulative analysis and recommendations 

since the establishment of the office. The Ombudsman’s office is 

Congressionally-mandated to assist individuals and employers in 

resolving problems with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 

(USCIS) of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) by advancing 

recommendations on improving USCIS services and operations. It is an 

independent DHS office that reports directly to the DHS Deputy 

Secretary with an annual report to Congress without prior review and 

comment by DHS or the executive branch, as directed by the Homeland Security Act of 2002. 

The Ombudsman’s first three annual reports focused on the systemic issues that caused delay in 

granting immigration benefits and customer service complaints. These reports identified 

pervasive and serious issues that were addressed in 28 formal recommendations directed at 

solving problems faced by individuals and employers in their interactions with USCIS. The 

USCIS Director and the Ombudsman generally agree on the identified problems and their need 

for priority attention, although the solutions proposed and those adopted by USCIS may differ. 

Challenges still exist within USCIS. Customers continue to have difficulties with confusing 

forms and processes and many customers wait months, and perhaps years, for final adjudication 

of their cases. The Ombudsman will continue to assist individuals to receive lawful benefits in a 

timely, customer-friendly, secure, and efficient manner. 

I want to thank DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff, Deputy Secretary Michael P. Jackson, former 

Secretary Tom Ridge, former Deputy Secretary Jim Loy, former Deputy Secretary Gordon 

England, USCIS Director Emilio Gonzalez, Deputy Director Jonathan “Jock” Scharfen, and 

former Director Eduardo Aguirre for their dedication to our mission of providing secure, 

efficient, and expeditious immigration services. I have been privileged to work with committed 

professionals in DHS, USCIS, and the Ombudsman’s office. 

The preparation of this annual report was accomplished by tireless efforts of a dedicated staff of 

professionals who spent many hundreds of hours reviewing and validating facts and figures, as 

well as drafting and editing the report. I thank them for assisting me in completing it and for 

their public service in addressing national security and customer service. I especially would like 

to thank Wendy Kamenshine who again this year skillfully managed this complicated project. 

We have accomplished a great deal, but there is much more to do in the spirit of responsive 

government. 

 Prakash Khatri 

 Citizenship & Immigration Services Ombudsman 

June 2007 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov Page ii

Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report, submitted pursuant to the Homeland Security Act of 2002 § 452, provides 

details on activities undertaken by the Ombudsman from June 1, 2006 through May 31, 2007. 

The statutory mission of the Ombudsman is to: 

• Assist individuals and employers in resolving problems with USCIS; 

• Identify areas in which individuals and employers have problems in dealing with 

USCIS; and 

• Propose changes to mitigate identified problems. 

During the reporting period, the Ombudsman continued to provide assistance to USCIS 

customers, identify problems, and recommend solutions to systemic problems confronting 

USCIS. These recommendations focused on improving customer service and transparency, 

while enhancing security and efficiency. Information boxes in the report provide readers with: 

(1) USCIS best practices; (2) additional recommendations; (3) observations from the 

Ombudsman’s trips to USCIS facilities; (4) customer comments from the Ombudsman’s pilot 

teleconference program; and (5) descriptions of actual case problems. 

USCIS Transformation 

Transformation of USCIS -- which encompasses IT modernization efforts, forms 

revision, and other initiatives to provide USCIS with world-class digital processing capability -- 

is vital to the agency’s future success. However, USCIS has devoted considerable resources to 

various types of transformation since the 1990s with minimal progress. The success of USCIS’ 

transformation efforts requires focus, resources, and credible performance measures to assess 

outcomes. 

Pervasive and Serious Problems 

Pervasive and serious problems faced by USCIS and its customers include: 

A. Complexity of the Immigration Process – One of the most serious problems 

facing individuals and employers is the complexity of the immigration process. While 

the Immigration and Nationality Act is the principal statute governing immigration to the 

United States, there are myriad other laws, regulations, policies, and procedures that 

affect whether and in what manner a foreign national may enter the United States, seek 

temporary status, a green card, or U.S. citizenship. Many of the pervasive and serious 

problems detailed in this report are interconnected and stem from the complexity and 

opaque nature of the immigration rules and the agency administering them. 

B. Backlogs and Pending Cases – USCIS customers continue to face lengthy and 

costly waiting periods for benefits, but thanks to the dedication and leadership of staff in 

June 2007 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov Page iii 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

support centers, field offices, and service centers, there has been a substantial reduction in 

the backlog. Unfortunately, the agency’s redefinition of the backlog obscures the issue 

and raises questions about its backlog reduction efforts. 

 

C. Processing Times – On August 23, 2006, USCIS announced changes that would 

improve the reporting methodology for processing times of immigration benefit 

applications. The Ombudsman disagrees that this change provides better information and 

urges USCIS to return to the practice of providing the public with the actual processing 

time for each field office. 

D. Customer Service – During the reporting period, USCIS made important strides 

in customer service. USCIS increased the number of appointments available via 

INFOPASS and began two new contracts in the effort to improve its toll-free customer 

service line. Nevertheless, the Ombudsman continued to observe other areas where 

communication issues with customers persist: (1) limited customer access to USCIS 

immigration officers who know about individual cases to resolve an inquiry accurately 

and efficiently; (2) questionable accuracy of information provided by customer service 

representatives; and (3) the practice of providing minimal information in response to 

customer inquiries. 

E. Untimely Processing and Systemic Problems with Employment-Based Green 

Card Applications – USCIS’ inability to process enough green card applications and 

accurately track employment-based green card applications has resulted in a perpetual 

backlog of employment-based green card applications and widespread issuance of interim 

benefits. This lack of accurate data also has resulted in the underutilization of statutorily 

limited visa numbers. 

F. Name Checks and Other Security Checks – FBI name checks, one of the 

security screening tools used by USCIS, continue to significantly delay adjudication of 

immigration benefits for many customers, hinder backlog reduction efforts, and may not 

achieve their intended national security objectives. FBI name checks may be the single 

biggest obstacle to the timely and efficient delivery of immigration benefits, and the 

problem of long-pending FBI name check cases worsened during the reporting period. 

 

G. Interim Benefits – The Ombudsman strongly supports efforts by USCIS to 

eliminate the need for interim benefits in favor of timely, efficient, and secure 

adjudication of the ultimate immigration benefit. Legitimate customers should not have 

to pay filing fees for interim benefits they would not need if the underlying petition were 

timely processed. Interim benefits also allow ineligible and fraudulent applicants to 

receive work authorization and travel documents because of processing delays. 

H. Funding of USCIS – Due to the congressional requirement that USCIS be selffunded from fees, USCIS may make decisions that compromise operational efficiency to 

ensure revenue flow. The manner in which USCIS obtains its funding affects every facet 

of USCIS operations, including the ability to: (1) implement new program and 

Page iv www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov June 2007 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

processing initiatives; (2) begin information technology and other transformation efforts; 

and (3) plan for the future. 

I. Lack of Standardization Across USCIS Business Processes – The Ombudsman 

is encouraged by USCIS’ attempts to foster standardization of adjudicative processes and 

decision-making, yet processing times and the quality of decisions between offices 

remain inconsistent. 

J. Inefficient or Redundant Processes – There are certain USCIS processing 

inefficiencies and redundancies that could be easily addressed and would make 

substantial improvements for customers. 

K. Coordination and Communication – Coordination and communication 

problems between USCIS field offices and service centers, USCIS headquarters and field 

offices, USCIS and stakeholders and other government agencies, and even among 

headquarters components continue to cause processing delays, inconsistency in 

adjudications, and costly inefficiencies. 

L. Information Technology Issues – The effective deployment of information 

technology systems to all service centers and field offices remained a significant 

challenge for USCIS. Legacy agency systems are unable to communicate with one 

another, and USCIS continues to be a paper-based operation. 

M. Staffing, Career Development, Training, and Strategic Workforce Planning 

and Recruiting – During the reporting period, USCIS combined its human resources and 

training and career development components into a new office led by the agency’s first 

Chief Human Capital Officer. USCIS completed its first strategic workforce planning 

and integrated training effort, which addressed aspects of the staffing and training gaps 

identified in the Ombudsman’s 2006 Annual Report. Substantial workforce staffing and 

training challenges remain for USCIS. The Ombudsman urges USCIS to implement the 

findings of the Strategic Workforce Plan. 

N. Delay in Updating U.S. Citizenship Designation in Records – In the past, some 

naturalized citizens could not apply for passports because naturalization could not be 

verified. The Ombudsman understands that USCIS has corrected this problem and will 

continue to monitor it. 

O. Green Cards Collected, Not Recorded, and Green Card Delivery Problems – 

In the past, untimely and inaccurate updating of records resulted in major inconveniences 

for certain USCIS customers and misdirected green cards for others. The Ombudsman 

will monitor the changes USCIS has implemented and is planning on these issues. 

Up-front Processing 

The Ombudsman strongly supports up-front processing of immigration benefits 

applications to enhance national security, improve customer service, and increase USCIS 

June 2007 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov Page v 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

efficiency. Up-front processing changes current USCIS processing procedures by assuring that 

an agency official reviews and completes as many actionable items on a case as possible at the 

time USCIS accepts the application or petition. During the reporting period, USCIS expanded 

up-front processing programs to two additional small field offices. However, inadequate 

resources for transitioning to the new process and other circumstances have limited the success 

of the pilot programs at these two offices. 

Recommendations 

This report includes summaries of the Ombudsman’s formal recommendations for the 

2007 reporting period, as well as those recommendations to which the Ombudsman received new 

USCIS responses. Recommendations during the reporting period focused on notice to customers 

and stakeholders, transparency in agency programs, and improving Freedom of Information Act 

operations. 

Ombudsman Outreach 

During the reporting period, the Ombudsman traveled to over 40 USCIS facilities, met 

with countless stakeholder organizations, and held numerous in-person and telephonic meetings 

with interested parties. The Ombudsman urges USCIS to be a more transparent agency with 

better communication with its customers, and in this regard, the Ombudsman has sought to lead 

by example. 

Key outreach initiatives include: 

• Teleconferences. During the reporting period, the Ombudsman began a pilot 

teleconference series with customers and stakeholders to hear and address their 

comments and concerns on specific topics and regarding certain offices. 

• Trends Email. The Ombudsman maintains an email account specifically for 

customers and stakeholders who have concerns about trends and systemic issues 

to suggest solutions. The majority of correspondence forwarded to the 

Ombudsman’s trends email pertains to adjudications delays due to FBI name 

checks. 

• Virtual Ombudsman’s Office. As an alternative to local Ombudsman offices, 

for which there are no budget requests or allocations for FY 08, the Ombudsman 

is working with the relevant DHS components to develop a “Virtual 

Ombudsman’s Office.” The Ombudsman expects this program to be operational 

and make services of the Ombudsman more easily available to individuals and 

employers across the country via the internet by FY 08. 

• Ombudsman’s Priorities. The reporting period priorities, posted on the 

Ombudsman’s website, were: (1) Recommending Solutions to Systemic Issues 

that Continue to Cause Individual Case Problems; (2) Expanding Up-Front 

Processing Programs; (3) Addressing USCIS Fundamental Budget Issues; (4) 

Page vi www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov June 2007 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

Reviewing Processing Delays Caused by USCIS Security Screening; and (5) 

Improving USCIS Customer Service and Communications. 

Case Problems 

By statute, the Ombudsman receives and processes case problems to assist individuals 

and employers who experience difficulties with USCIS. The case problem resolution unit also 

helps identify systemic issues for the Ombudsman to recommend solutions. During the reporting 

period, the Ombudsman and USCIS refined communication processes to improve case problem 

resolution capability. 

Looking Forward 

In 2007-2008, the Ombudsman will continue to identify areas in which individuals and 

employers have problems interfacing with USCIS, and to the extent possible, propose changes to 

mitigate identified problems. The Ombudsman will gather information and feedback from 

USCIS customers and stakeholders by continuing to conduct frequent site visits to USCIS 

facilities; meeting regularly with community, employer, and immigration law organizations; and 

expanding individual and employer access to the Ombudsman. 

The Ombudsman will improve the process for resolving problems individuals and 

employers face in dealing with USCIS by establishing a Virtual Ombudsman’s Office to provide 

for online case problem submission. Additionally, the Ombudsman will continue to initiate and 

expand activities to promote interagency cooperation and holistic approaches to immigration 

issues. 

June 2007 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov Page vii 

Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

Table of Contents

Message From The Ombudsman .................................................................................................... ii 

Executive Summary....................................................................................................................... iii 

I. Introduction..........................................................................................................................1 

A. Mission.....................................................................................................................1

B. State of USCIS.........................................................................................................2

1. USCIS Budget and Funding........................................................................ 2 

2. Testing and Implementation of Innovative Approaches to Benefits 

Processing ................................................................................................... 3 

3. Transparency in Adjudications Processing................................................. 3 

4. USCIS Relationship with the Ombudsman................................................. 3 

C. Accomplishments.....................................................................................................4

II. USCIS Transformation ........................................................................................................5 

III. Pervasive and Serious Problems..........................................................................................7 

A. Complexity of the Immigration Process..................................................................7

1. Background................................................................................................. 7 

2. USCIS Accountability ................................................................................ 8 

3. Filing Requirements and Processes ............................................................ 9 

B. Backlogs and Pending Cases .................................................................................11

1. Backlog Definition and Data .................................................................... 11 

2. Adjudications of Backlogged Cases......................................................... 14 

3. Backlogged Form I-130 Petitions for Foreign National Relatives ........... 15 

C. Processing Times...................................................................................................17

D. Customer Service ...................................................................................................21

1. INFOPASS................................................................................................ 23 

2. National Customer Service Center............................................................ 25 

3. Case Status Online .................................................................................... 30 

Page viii www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov June 2007 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

E. Untimely Processing and Systemic Problems with Employment-Based 

Green Card Applications........................................................................................32

1. Background............................................................................................... 32 

2. Employment-Based Green Card Data Tracking and Ombudsman as 

Interdepartmental Liaison ......................................................................... 35 

3. Possible Solutions to Problems with Employment-Based Green Card 

Processing ................................................................................................. 36 

F. Name Checks and Other Security Checks.............................................................37

1. Background............................................................................................... 37 

2. Impact of Long-Pending FBI Name Checks on USCIS Customers......... 39 

3. Value of the FBI Name Checks................................................................ 40 

4. Possible Solutions to the FBI Name Check Delays.................................. 41 

G. Interim Benefits .....................................................................................................45

1. Background............................................................................................... 45 

2. Thousands of Ineligible Green Card Applicants Continue to Receive 

EADs......................................................................................................... 46 

H. Funding of USCIS..................................................................................................46

1. USCIS Sets New Fees for Petitions and Applications.............................. 47 

2. Premium Processing.................................................................................. 49 

3. The Ombudsman Urges Consideration of a Revolving Trust to Fund 

USCIS ....................................................................................................... 51 

I. Lack of Standardization Across USCIS Business Processes.................................51

J. Inefficient or Redundant Processes........................................................................54

1. Need for Improved Form Instructions and USCIS Intake Processes........ 55 

2. Multiple Filings for Foreign Spouses of U.S. Citizens............................. 56 

3. Application Support Centers and Fingerprinting of Applicants............... 57 

4. Initial Case Screening and Widespread Issuance of Requests for 

Additional Evidence.................................................................................. 58 

K. Coordination and Communication.........................................................................61

1. Field Offices/Service Centers................................................................... 61 

2. USCIS Headquarters/Field Office Coordination ...................................... 62 

June 2007 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov Page ix 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

3. USCIS Relations with Stakeholders and Other Government Agencies.... 63 

4. Interaction Among Headquarters Entities................................................. 65 

L. Information Technology Issues..............................................................................66

1. Background............................................................................................... 66 

2. IT Transformation..................................................................................... 66 

3. IT Support................................................................................................. 67 

4. Local IT Solutions..................................................................................... 67 

5. Lack of Purchasing Coordination ............................................................. 68 

M. Staffing, Career Development, Training, and Strategic Workforce 

Planning and Recruiting.........................................................................................70

1. Background............................................................................................... 70 

2. Staffing, Career Development, and Training Areas of Concern............... 72 

N. Delay in Updating U.S. Citizenship Designation in Records; Some 

Naturalized Citizens Cannot Apply for Passports .................................................77

O. Green Cards Collected, Not Recorded, and Green Card Delivery Problems ........77

IV. Up-Front Processing ..........................................................................................................78 

A. Background............................................................................................................78

B. The Dallas Office Rapid Adjustment Pilot Program .............................................80

C. The 90-Day Program..............................................................................................82

D. Expansion of DORA to El Paso and Oklahoma City Field Offices ......................83

V. Recommendations..............................................................................................................84 

2007 REPORTING PERIOD.............................................................................................88

A. Deferred Action, Recommendation #32 (April 6, 2007).......................................88

B. 30-Day Advance Notice for Changes in Policy and Operations Instructions 

Recommendation #31 (February 8, 2007) .............................................................89

C. Improvement of FOIA Operations Recommendation #30 (July 12, 2006) ...........89

D. Extraordinary Ability “O” Petition Extension Recommendation # 29 (June 

30, 2006) ................................................................................................................91

Page x www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov June 2007 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

2006 REPORTING PERIOD.............................................................................................92

A. Address Change (Form AR-11) Recommendation # 28 (June 9, 2006)................92

B. Up-front Processing Recommendation # 27 (May 19, 2006)................................92

C. DNA Testing Recommendation # 26 (April 12, 2006)..........................................93

D. Employment Authorization Documents Recommendation # 25 (March 19, 

2006) ......................................................................................................................93

E. Asylum Adjudication Recommendation # 24 (March 19, 2006)...........................94

F. Notices to Appear Recommendation # 22 (March 19, 2006)................................96

USCIS’ 2006 ANNUAL REPORT RESPONSE TO PRIOR YEARS’ 

RECOMMENDATIONS.......................................................................................97

A. Asylum Division Use of Notice of Action Form I-797 Recommendation # 

21 (December 7, 2005) ..........................................................................................97

B. Elimination of Asylum Pickup Decision Delivery Process 

Recommendation # 19 (October 13, 2005)............................................................97

C. Public Reporting for Capped Categories Recommendation # 18 (August 

28, 2005) ................................................................................................................98

D. Elimination of Postal Meter Mark Recommendation # 17 (July 29, 2005)...........98

E. Issuance of Receipts to Petitioners and Applicants Recommendation # 15 

(May 9, 2005).........................................................................................................99

F. Pilot Program Termination Recommendation # 14 (February 25, 2005)..............99

G. Issuance of Green Cards to Arriving Immigrants Recommendation # 13 

(December 15, 2004) .............................................................................................99

H. INFOPASS Recommendation # 11(November 29, 2004).....................................99

I. E-Filing Recommendation # 6 (August 16, 2004)...............................................100

J. Customer Service Training for USCIS Employees Recommendation # 5 

(August 16, 2004) ................................................................................................100

K. Reengineering Green Card Replacement Processing Recommendation # 3 

(June 18, 1004).....................................................................................................100

L. Streamlining Employment-Based Immigrant Processing Recommendation 

# 2 (June 18, 2004)...............................................................................................101

June 2007 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov Page xi 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

VI. Ombudsman Outreach .....................................................................................................102 

A. Trips.....................................................................................................................102

B. Teleconferences...................................................................................................102

C. Website ................................................................................................................103

D. Trends Email........................................................................................................104

E. Virtual Ombudsman’s Office...............................................................................104

F. Ombudsman’s Priorities.......................................................................................105

1. Recommending Solutions to Systemic Issues that Continue to Cause 

Individual Case Problems....................................................................... 105 

2. Expanding Up-Front Processing Programs............................................. 105 

3. Addressing USCIS Fundamental Budget Issues..................................... 105 

4. Reviewing Processing Delays Caused by USCIS Security Screening ... 106 

5. Improving USCIS Customer Service and Communications................... 106 

VII. Case Problems..................................................................................................................106 

A. Case Problem Processing.....................................................................................106

1. How to Submit A Case Problem............................................................. 106 

2. Processing ............................................................................................... 107 

3. Assistance Available............................................................................... 108 

B. Case Problem Data...............................................................................................108

C. Ombudsman’s Access to USCIS .........................................................................110

1. Limited Access to Selected USCIS Databases for Case Problem 

Resolution ............................................................................................... 110 

2. No Access to USCIS Offices to Resolve Individual Case Problems...... 110 

VIII. 2007-2008 Reporting Year Objectives ............................................................................111 

Appendices...................................................................................................................................113 

Appendix 1: USCIS Servicewide Domestic Data for Selected Application Types 

(FY 1992 – 2007 YTD), USCIS Performance Analysis System Data ................113

Appendix 2: International Visits.....................................................................................115

Page xii www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov June 2007 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

Appendix 3: USCIS Facilities Visited ............................................................................116

Appendix 4: Homeland Security Act Excerpts...............................................................120

Appendix 5: DHS Organization Chart............................................................................125

Appendix 6: Biography of Prakash Khatri, Ombudsman ...............................................126

June 2007 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov Page xiii 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

I. INTRODUCTION

The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (the Act) § 452, 6 U.S.C. § 272 (2002) established 

the position of Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman (Ombudsman)1

 to be 

appointed by the Secretary of DHS and report directly to the Deputy Secretary. The first DHS 

Secretary, Tom Ridge, appointed Prakash Khatri as the first Ombudsman on July 28, 2003.2

This annual report is submitted pursuant to 6 U.S.C. § 272(c)(1) and covers the activities 

of the Ombudsman3 from June 1, 2006 through May 31, 2007. 

A. Mission 

The statutory mission of the Ombudsman is to:4

• Assist individuals and employers in resolving problems with USCIS; 

• Identify areas in which individuals and employers have problems dealing with 

USCIS; and 

• Propose changes to mitigate identified problems. 

The Ombudsman serves as a spokesperson and advocate for individuals and employers 

who encounter problems with the immigration benefits system.5 The Ombudsman believes the 

best way to assist individuals and employers is to encourage efficiency and better customer 

service at USCIS by recommending solutions to systemic problems in USCIS processes. 

The Ombudsman continues to work with USCIS and DHS headquarters to create more 

efficient, secure, and responsive methods for providing immigration services that respect the 

dignity of individuals and enhance our economy, while simultaneously protecting the country 

from those who would harm the United States. 

 

1 See Appendix 4 for excerpts of relevant sections of the Homeland Security Act. 

2 See Appendix 6 for Mr. Khatri’s biography. 

3

 In this report, the term “Ombudsman” and the acronym “CISOMB” refer interchangeably to Ombudsman Prakash 

Khatri, his staff, and the Ombudsman’s office. 

4 See 6 U.S.C. § 272(b). 

5

 “Immigration benefits” is the term used to describe the services side of the immigration system, versus 

enforcement. Primary immigration benefits include lawful nonimmigrant status, permanent residence (also known 

as adjustment of status, evidenced by a “green card”), naturalization, asylum, etc. Secondary immigration benefits 

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

(e.g. advance parole), obtained while awaiting a primary benefit. 

June 2007 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov Page 1 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

B. State of USCIS 

During the reporting period, USCIS made substantial progress in eliminating its 

backlogs, improving customer service, and implementing 90-day green card processing programs 

throughout the country. USCIS also published a new fee structure to correct its funding 

shortfall. 

However, USCIS remains an agency with significant problems including case backlogs, 

lengthy waits for security name checks for certain individuals, inefficient intake and 

adjudications processes, insufficient workforce training, and antiquated IT systems that present 

an ongoing challenge to the efficient and timely delivery of immigration services. 

Congress included provisions in the Act requiring USCIS to respond to Congress on the 

Ombudsman’s recommendations in the annual report, within three months.6 However, it was not 

until May 18, 2007, nearly eight months after the statutorily required due date and just a few 

weeks prior to the release of this year’s report, that USCIS responded to the Ombudsman’s June 

29, 2006 Annual Report to Congress (2006 Annual Report Response). This delay limited the 

Ombudsman’s ability to evaluate the USCIS responses. 

In addition, inherent to developing recommendations for USCIS improvements, the 

Ombudsman requires full and unrestricted access to USCIS information and data. In recent 

months, this access has been selectively restricted at USCIS headquarters and a few field offices. 

The Ombudsman hopes that this approach will change so that customers can receive the 

assistance they need and deserve. 

The Ombudsman challenges USCIS to: (1) establish measurable milestones to verify that 

it is achieving the service objectives used to justify its fees; (2) establish a culture of innovation; 

(3) test and implement new approaches to benefits processing; and (4) be transparent in its 

adjudications processing. 

1. USCIS Budget and Funding 

During the reporting period, the Ombudsman’s numerous visits to USCIS facilities 

nationwide reinforced the belief that USCIS funding problems drive agency policy. The lack of 

an adequate funding source and requirements to provide for unfunded mandates force USCIS 

leaders to make management decisions that can be inconsistent with efficiency in processing 

immigration benefits. For that reason, the Ombudsman supports a fee structure that provides 

fully for USCIS’ cost of doing business. 

The Ombudsman also recognizes that agency spending requires diligent, focused 

oversight through the budgeting and spending process. Because USCIS is primarily fee funded, 

it does not receive the same scrutiny from congressional appropriations committees as an agency 

would receive if its budget were obtained from appropriations. 

 6 See 6 U.S.C. § 271(a)(3)(F). 

Page 2 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov June 2007 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

As a self-funded government monopoly, USCIS should be held to no lesser a standard of 

accountability and transparency than private sector entities such as publicly traded companies. 

U.S. citizens and legal residents have an interest in efficient management and accounting of 

receipts similar to that of shareholders and their interest in the operations of a public company. 

USCIS must efficiently manage its resources and funding, while monitoring the internal controls 

of the many aspects of immigration benefits processing. The agency must pay particular 

attention to those aspects that are delegated to other service providers such as name checking by 

the FBI, assisting applicants at Application Support Centers (ASCs), collecting and depositing 

fees at the commercial bank lockboxes, and responding to public inquiries at national call 

centers. Like any publicly traded company, USCIS should take full responsibility for these 

delegated services. 

The Ombudsman also has recommended a revolving trust to help address USCIS budget 

and funding problems. A revolving trust would assist USCIS in handling fluctuations in 

immigration benefits filings, which causes substantial variability in the fee revenue stream. It 

also would help enable USCIS to make investments in infrastructure and training. The 2006 

Annual Report Response (at p. 2) that “the proposed legislation has budget scorekeeping 

implications within the context of the scorekeeping conventions of the Administration and the 

Congress,” does not address the relative benefits or drawbacks of establishing a revolving trust 

account for the agency. 

2. Testing and Implementation of Innovative Approaches to Benefits 

Processing 

The Ombudsman devotes a substantial part of this report to the up-front processing 

model, which has been implemented and tested in the USCIS Dallas Field Office. The 

Ombudsman strongly believes that, if USCIS were to implement this model or a similar up-front 

process nationally, it would result in more efficient, timely, and secure delivery of immigration 

benefits. The Ombudsman encourages USCIS to test and implement other innovative programs 

that eliminate redundant, inefficient processes, and leverage technology. 

3. Transparency in Adjudications Processing 

The agency should be transparent in all of its decisions and activities. The Ombudsman 

recognizes that the details of USCIS security screening and anti-fraud efforts cannot and should 

not be made public. However, criteria for classifications and case status should be transparent to 

customers. 

USCIS should take pride in all that it has done and is doing, including its continuous, 

critical self-evaluations that should be public. When the agency is not transparent, customers 

even misunderstand positive initiatives developed to assist them. Best practices developed 

independently by conscientious, devoted employees are not shared. Vertical and horizontal 

communication within the agency (or to the public) is inadequate. Inefficiencies continue due to 

unshared data that the agency fears may reveal the very inefficiencies it needs to correct. The 

Ombudsman would like transparency to become part of the USCIS culture. 

4. USCIS Relationship with the Ombudsman 

Inherent to developing recommendations for USCIS improvements, in accordance with 

the Act, the Ombudsman requires access to USCIS information – policies, operational directives, 

June 2007 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov Page 3 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

data, and reports used – as well as agency personnel. In the past 46 months, this access has 

evolved from the agency withholding information to more openness and cooperation back to the 

most recent USCIS directives to selectively share information and tighten direct access to 

personnel and data. 

The first USCIS Director fostered a sharing of information personified by the Senior 

Management Counsel and Liaison to the Ombudsman who traveled with the Ombudsman 

frequently and who typically would open field visits with this statement: 

We ought to be prideful in what we do, and if not, we ought not be 

doing it . . . and if we are prideful, we can be transparent in what 

we do. Show me a growing and innovative organization that does 

not have challenges. Rest assured there will be robust discussions 

at headquarters on the best way to address these challenges, but in 

the time the Ombudsman is with us we want to ensure he has as 

complete picture of your operations and the challenges faced. 

However, rather than building on this transparent approach, during the reporting period 

the Ombudsman experienced repeated efforts by a few USCIS leaders to limit access to nonsensitive data and information. These efforts hindered the Ombudsman from learning about 

some processes necessary for informed evaluations and recommendations. In many important 

instances and throughout USCIS, the Ombudsman has seen USCIS supervisors and managers 

welcome open dialogue and demonstrate efforts to become more transparent and provide 

complete information to the public. It is regrettable that some leaders within the agency have 

chosen to restrict the Ombudsman’s efforts to achieve the common goal of customer assistance. 

C. Accomplishments 

During the reporting period, the Ombudsman made four formal recommendations to 

USCIS and numerous informal recommendations. The formal recommendations primarily 

sought to make USCIS more transparent in its operations, to enhance customer access to 

information by ensuring that there is adequate notice for changes to USCIS policy and 

procedures, and to address the Freedom of Information Act backlogs. Additionally, the 

Ombudsman included 14 recommendations in the 2006 Annual Report. The Ombudsman 

repeatedly addressed many of the identified pervasive and serious problems with USCIS and 

DHS leadership that, if solved, would increase USCIS efficiency, improve customer service, and 

enhance national security. 

To identify problems and collect data, the Ombudsman held numerous meetings with 

representatives from community based organizations, the immigration legal community, and 

employer organizations. The Ombudsman also met with other federal government agency 

partners including representatives from the Departments of State, Commerce, Justice, and Labor 

to address interagency coordination. 

Page 4 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov June 2007 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

During the reporting period, the Ombudsman visited over 40 USCIS facilities, including 

field offices, service centers, and other facilities.7

 The purpose of these visits was to see firsthand the issues that individuals and employers encountered, identify systemic problems, and 

consult with USCIS field offices on proposed solutions. The travel and site visits provided the 

Ombudsman opportunities for candid dialogue on a variety of issues including: impact of 

immigration processing backlogs on families and employers; lack of standardization in 

immigration adjudications; imprecise and confusing instructions on requests for information for 

cases; and ongoing problems due to long pending security name checks. 

In addition, the Ombudsman expanded the office’s outreach by starting a pilot 

teleconference series for customers and stakeholders with the relevant USCIS components 

listening in. The Ombudsman continued work to develop a Virtual Ombudsman’s Office, and 

devoted substantial resources to assisting individuals and employers in resolving problems with 

USCIS. 

II. USCIS TRANSFORMATION

Transformation of USCIS is vital to the agency’s future success. As discussed in the 

2006 Annual Report (at p. 29), the transformation program encompasses IT modernization 

efforts, forms revision, and other initiatives to provide USCIS with world-class digital processing 

capability. However, USCIS has devoted considerable resources to various types of 

transformation since the 1990s with minimal progress. The Immigration and Naturalization 

Service (INS) had a history of stagnated transformation efforts. With each new leader, 

transformation planning begins anew. Its eventual success requires focus, resources, and 

credible performance measures to assess outcomes. 

As stated in the DHS Inspector General’s November 2006 Report: 

USCIS recognizes the unique challenges it faces to reengineer 

business processes and modernize technology to better accomplish 

mission objectives . . .. The accomplishments to date are steps in 

the right direction for both business and IT modernization. 

However, USCIS remains entrenched in a cycle of continual 

planning, with limited progress toward achieving its long term 

transformation goals.8

The Ombudsman is concerned that the agency’s current seven-year initiative will not allow it to 

implement immediate and necessary changes to address existing pervasive and serious problems. 

Currently, the Transformation Program Office is developing three programs: 

 7 See Appendix 3 for complete list of facilities visited. 

8

 DHS Office of the Inspector General Report, “[USCIS’] Progress in Modernizing Information Technology,” OIG07-11 (Nov. 2006) at 21; http://www.dhs.gov/xoig/assets/mgmtrpts/OIG_07-11_Nov06.pdf (last visited June 3, 

2007). 

June 2007 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov Page 5 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

• Enterprise Document Management System (EDMS). EDMS, led by an 

integrated project team that includes the Transformation Program Office, the 

Records Division, and the Office of Information Technology, allows USCIS to 

maintain and access digitized images. It is the first step in moving USCIS from 

paper-based processes to review of electronic files for adjudications. 

• Adjudication-Ready Scanning for Certain Temporary Protected Status 

(TPS) Cases. In early June, the Vermont Service Center (VSC) began reviewing 

digitized files to adjudicate certain TPS cases. 

• Case Management System for International Adoption Cases. On July 5, 2007, 

USCIS is scheduled to deploy a digital case management system for the e-filing 

and paperless adjudication of international adoption cases. 

Also, the Transformation Program Office is revising USCIS forms to improve the ability 

to collect and use biographic and other information from customers. 

The Ombudsman agrees that these are worthwhile goals for USCIS. USCIS’ antiquated 

computer systems are a constant obstacle to delivering timely and efficient immigration benefits 

services. The continuous revisions to long-term planning detract from short-term initiatives that 

could yield long-term benefits and provide important relief to USCIS customers and staff well 

before the seven-year life cycle for transformation. In its search for a 100 percent IT solution, 

the agency often appears to overlook many commercially available “off the shelf” solutions that 

could meet the vast majority of its current requirements and solve most of the existing case 

management problems. It is too easy for USCIS to excuse inefficient procedures and stall 

replacing antiquated systems in anticipation of a seven-year fix. 

RECOMMENDATION AR 2007 -- 01 

The Ombudsman recommends that the Transformation Program Office: 

(1) Publish transformation timelines, goals, and regular updates on the public 

USCIS website. The Ombudsman is concerned that transformation is proceeding 

largely without input from customers, Congress, and the public. The lack of 

transparency enables USCIS to modify deadlines and goals without producing 

meaningful results. 

(2) Establish transparency as a goal for USCIS processing and services. The 

agency provides minimal information to customers who often have long pending 

applications and petitions. The agency could make its processes more 

transparent, which would reduce inquiries to the National Customer Service 

Center (NCSC) and the need for INFOPASS appointments, as well as make 

available USCIS resources for adjudicative functions. 

Page 6 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov June 2007 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

III. PERVASIVE AND SERIOUS PROBLEMS

The Homeland Security Act requires the Ombudsman to highlight problems that 

significantly impact individuals and employers applying for immigration benefits and to make 

recommendations for change.9

 It further requires the Ombudsman to report on USCIS’ 

responses to these recommendations.10 

Although the Act does not require the Ombudsman to report on the best practices of 

USCIS staff, this report highlights many of them. The Ombudsman recognizes the talent and 

professionalism of USCIS employees, particularly those in the field, who perform their jobs each 

day often with inadequate facilities, equipment, and training. In addition, the Ombudsman hopes 

that USCIS senior leadership will recognize these best practices and implement them throughout 

the agency so that all offices can benefit. 

While USCIS has made progress in addressing some of the pervasive and serious 

problems identified in previous reports, core problems remain. 

A. Complexity of the Immigration Process 

One of the most serious problems facing individuals and employers is the complexity of 

the immigration process. 

1. Background 

While the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) is the principal statute governing 

immigration to the United States, there are myriad other laws, regulations, policies, and 

procedures that affect whether and in what manner a foreign national may enter the United 

States, request temporary status, apply for a green card, and ultimately seek U.S. citizenship. 

As in previous years, this annual report provides details on pervasive and serious 

problems. Many of them are interconnected and stem from the complexity and opaque nature of 

the immigration rules and the agency administering them. 

In the December 2006 DHS Unified Agenda, i.e., the Semi-Annual Regulatory Agenda, 

USCIS listed 12 regulations in the proposed rule stage, 17 regulations in the final rule stage, 31 

long-term regulatory actions, and 13 recently completed regulatory actions.11 This list totals 

over 70 outstanding or recently completed regulations, some addressing (or yet to address) 

fundamental issues of concern to individuals and employers, such as: 

• Defining “lawful presence”; 

 9 See 6 U.S.C. § 272 (b). 

10 See 6 U.S.C. § 272 (c)(1). 

11 See 72 Fed. Reg. 22574, 22591-22618 (Apr. 30, 2007). 

June 2007 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov Page 7 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

• Implementing the American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act of 

1998, the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000, and other 

related bills; and 

• Reducing the number of acceptable documents for Form I-9 employment 

eligibility verification purposes. 

This regulatory logjam has led USCIS to use press releases, memos, website postings, 

and other informal forms of policy guidance to provide customers with basic information on 

rules and procedures. The result is a hodgepodge of disconnected, overlapping, and 

contradictory rules. There is no single, dispositive source to obtain basic information about 

immigration law. Besides confusing applicants, these attempts at policy clarification have 

resulted in a lack of consistent decision-making in some areas and loss of confidence in USCIS 

by many applicants. 

In immigration, the stakes could not be higher. A single misstep by a foreign national or 

employer can lead to the denial of an application or petition, the loss of status and/or the accrual 

of unlawful status, ineligibility in the future for an immigration benefit, and even removal from 

the United States. Many foreign nationals attempt to navigate this labyrinth with limited English 

language capability. In addition, many employers are forced to retain costly in-house and 

outside counsel to manage immigration programs and ensure they have access to international 

talent. Likewise, many individual applicants resort to using expensive legal counsel in addition 

to paying continually rising application fees. Processes that should be simple and 

straightforward are unnecessarily complicated. 

2. USCIS Accountability 

Just as USCIS is often an indecipherable organization for customers filing for benefits 

and seeking information on pending applications and petitions, USCIS remains opaque for 

stakeholders, Congress, and a public concerned about agency accountability. 

Over the past four years, USCIS has changed its definition of the immigration benefits 

backlogs at least two times.12 USCIS does not make available to the public the number of cases 

pending longer than six months – the definition of case backlogs. Shifting definitions hinder 

congressional oversight and prevent stakeholders from fully understanding whether the agency is 

meeting its goals to provide timely and efficient services. 

Additionally, from time to time USCIS transfers cases to use extra processing capacity in 

a particular office. The Ombudsman supports USCIS efforts to adjudicate cases expeditiously 

and fully leverage its human capital. However, USCIS IT systems are unreliable in tracking and 

providing precise numbers of pending family and employment-based green card applications 

when cases are transferred because different offices use separate, often unconnected, database 

systems. 

 12 For a complete discussion of USCIS backlogs, see section III.B. 

Page 8 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov June 2007 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

3. Filing Requirements and Processes 

At the same time, the agency often can be nearly impenetrable for customers seeking the 

status of pending applications. Sometimes applicants and USCIS officials cannot pinpoint the 

location of a file or its status. Widespread reports continue regarding the dissemination of 

incorrect or incomplete information both by contract and direct-hire USCIS personnel. 

Seemingly simple matters like obtaining the answer on how or where to file an application, or 

correcting a typographic error on a receipt notice or document, can lead to hours of frustration. 

Some forms are filed based on jurisdiction, some on the type of form, and still others at a 

centralized location. 

For some immigration benefits, there is no single form but rather two, three, or more 

forms that must be filed together. For example, the green card application can involve a 

combination of six or more forms selected from more than a dozen. 

The following are examples of filing complexities and confusion: 

a. Confusing Instructions 

Many of the forms most commonly used by individuals and employers are plagued by 

instructions which are difficult to understand. In some cases, these difficulties are language 

issues for non-English speakers. In others cases, the problems involve inconsistencies or 

outright error. For example, one form contained an error in describing the photograph an 

applicant must provide. The Ombudsman learned about this error from two different applicants, 

brought it to USCIS’ attention multiple times over two months, and was assured each time that 

the error would be corrected. 

b. Bi-specialization 

USCIS’ bi-specialization initiative limited the ability of customers to file forms at their 

regional service center. Instead, some family-based petitions now must be filed at one of three 

places: the Vermont Service Center, the Nebraska Service Center (NSC), or the Chicago 

Lockbox. 

Except for green card filings for eligible applicants in the United States submitted at the 

Lockbox, most other forms must be filed at either the VSC (paired with the California Service 

Center (CSC)) or the NSC (paired with the Texas Service Center (TSC)). However, while the 

VSC and CSC jointly process Form I-129 (Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker), all applicants 

must file those forms at the VSC. Similarly, although NSC and TSC both process green card 

applications stemming from I-140 employment-based petitions and concurrently-filed I-140/I485 green card applications, the NSC is the designated filing location. 

c. Concurrently Filed Applications 

The process differs for concurrently-filed I-130/I-485 green card applications, since 

applicants must still file I-130s at the service center with jurisdiction over the petitioner’s place 

of residence. That is, these family-based solo filings have not yet been integrated into bispecialization. Moreover, there is no clear filing location for I-130/I-485 green card applications. 

June 2007 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov Page 9 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

The current I-130 instructions (November 30, 2007 expiration date) direct petitioners to the 

service center with jurisdiction over their place of residence (and list the four service center 

addresses and the respective states they cover).13 However, it is the Ombudsman’s 

understanding that these concurrent filings should be filed at the Lockbox. 

d. Disagreement Between Forms and Website 

The green card application and contradictory instructions on the USCIS website illustrate 

the confusion in filing locations. The website states that family-based green card applications 

should generally be filed at the Chicago Lockbox. However, on the form itself, the first page of 

instructions lists 36 states and four other U.S. jurisdictions (D.C., Guam, Puerto Rico, and the 

U.S. Virgin Islands) whose residents should use the Lockbox, while saying nothing about the 

filing location for residents of the other 14 states. Filing location is next discussed on page four 

in the context of where to send concurrently-filed I-140/I-485 green card applications, which is 

not at the Lockbox, but the NSC. Finally, on page five, the instructions state: 

In all other instances: File this application at the USCIS service 

center or local office that has jurisdiction over your place of 

residence, or submit the form to the USCIS Lockbox Facility. For 

details on where to file your application, read the additional 

instructions that may be included with this form, call our National 

Customer Service Center at 1-800-375-5283 or visit our website at 

www.uscis.gov.

14 

It would appear that the filing location of all family-based green card applications is the 

Chicago Lockbox. However, customers seem to have the option of filing at the field office or a 

service center. The separate listing of 14 states implies that they have a different filing location, 

but ultimately the applicant is led back to filing at the Lockbox. 

If the applicant makes one error in understanding the confusing instructions and 

eligibility requirements and files the application at the wrong location, USCIS often will reject it. 

However, the agency continues accepting incomplete filings (and ineligible applicants) at most 

locations, if sent to the correct location. The agency is concerned about lawsuits emanating from 

a 1993 lawsuit related to its rejection of apparently incomplete applications, also known as 

“front-desking,” during the 1986 amnesty filings.15 The agency needs to recognize that its focus 

is misplaced. There are a large number of ineligible applicants accepted for processing, which 

frustrates applicants who paid filing fees and had other expenses. USCIS creates false 

expectations when months or years later the agency will deny the case.16

 13 See USCIS “Instructions, I-130 Petition for Alien Relative”; http://www.uscis.gov/files/form/I-130.pdf (last 

visited June 7, 2007). 

14 See USCIS, “Direct Mail Instructions for Persons Filing Form I-485”; http://www.uscis.gov/files/form/i-485.pdf

(last visited June 3, 2007). 

15 See USCIS’ 2006 Annual Report Response (at pp. 17, 21). 

16 See section IV for further discussion on front-desking and up-front processing. 

Page 10 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov June 2007 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

This discrepancy is best reflected in Appendix 1, which provides servicewide data on 

denials for selected forms. In 1993, the denial rates for green card applications were four 

percent, but by 2003 this figure grew to over 20 percent nationally with some offices such as 

New York denying as many as 47 percent of green card applications. The most recent data 

provide some hope that recent reductions in processing times may help reduce the volume of 

ineligible applicants who may file incomplete or fraudulent applications solely for procuring 

interim benefits. 

USCIS is reviewing its forms to update them and revise instructions. The agency is 

seeking to ensure that information provided on its website and through its website links are 

consistent. The importance of making sure these changes are implemented within a reasonable 

time cannot be overemphasized. Without the changes, there is more confusion than necessary in 

an already unwieldy process. 

B. Backlogs and Pending Cases 

Thanks to the dedication and leadership of staff in support centers, field offices, and 

service centers, there has been a substantial reduction in the backlog. The Ombudsman 

appreciates the detailed backlog data provided by the 2006 Annual Report Response (at pp. 4-6). 

Unfortunately, USCIS has not received the unqualified praise it rightfully deserves for progress 

made under the old definitions. Instead, the agency’s redefinition of the backlog obscures the 

issue and raises questions about its backlog reduction efforts. 

1. Backlog Definition and Data 

 USCIS reports on September 2006 backlog data in its 2006 Annual Report Response, i.e., 

the end of the 2006 fiscal year and the target for elimination of the backlog. In its Response (at 

p. 5), USCIS stated: “[t]he overall backlog, using exactly the same methodology as was used to 

calculate the original backlog of 3.85 million in 2004, is now just over 1 million (1,020,042).”17 

By March 2007, and using that same calculation, USCIS had a backlog of 1,275,795.18 

In last year’s annual report (at pp. 6-11), the Ombudsman analyzed USCIS’ redefinition 

of its backlog. That analysis is not repeated here, as the backlog redefinition is unchanged. The 

current definition continues to consider “backlogged” only the cases pending after subtracting 

those cases not yet ripe for adjudication, “where even if the application or petition were approved 

today, a benefit could not be conferred for months or years to come. [Unripe cases are] excluded 

from the number of cases in the backlog but remain in the pending.”19 

The funds provided to jumpstart USCIS’ backlog elimination project have expired and 

the total number of pending cases has increased. This result does not bode well for USCIS as it 

 17 The sum of USCIS’ “active suspense” cases by category for September 2006 is 1,139,059. See USCIS’ 2006 

Annual Report Response (at pp. 4-5); see also Figure 1. 

18 See USCIS’ Processing Report, March 2007. 

19 Ombudsman’s 2006 Annual Report (at p. 8), citing USCIS Backlog Elimination Plan (BEP), 3rd Quarter FY 04 

Update (Nov. 5, 2005) at 4. 

June 2007 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov Page 11 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

must rely on only its own resources to continue the backlog reduction effort. This could be 

particularly problematic if there is comprehensive immigration reform. 

The DHS Inspector General’s assessment cited in last year’s annual report remains true 

today: “[. . .] reclassifications, as well as the strategy of relying upon temporary employees, may 

benefit USCIS in the short-term, [but] will not resolve the long-standing processing and IT 

problems that contributed to the backlog in the first place. Until these problems are addressed, 

USCIS will not be able to apply its resources to meet mission and customer needs effectively.”20 

The data on pending I-130 petitions for foreign national relatives, the largest component 

of backlogged benefits applications, illustrate these problems. According to USCIS records, the 

agency had 1,244,166 pending I-130 petitions through March 2007 of which 818,206 USCIS 

classifies as “active suspense” cases or those cases excluded from the pending count for 

calculation of the backlog.21 The number of active suspense cases has increased about ten 

percent or over 100,000 additional cases compared to the pending numbers reported in the 

Ombudsman’s 2006 Annual Report (at pp. 18-19).22

In its May 1, 2007 Production Update (FY 07, 1st Qtr.23), USCIS explains: 

The re-appearance of a backlog is a symptom of the fact that the 

fees charged by USCIS currently do not recover its full costs. 

Furthermore, while the temporary subsidy of appropriated dollars 

ended September 30, 2006, USCIS has not yet implemented the 

proposed filing fee rule to allow it to fully recover costs and ensure 

that capacity is sufficient to keep up with demand.24

Referring to its redefinition of the “backlog,” an updated report stated that “USCIS has 

implemented ‘Active Case Management’ (ACM)” and: 

Pursuant to ACM, cases that do not have an available visa or an 

FBI name check, and cases that are in suspense for other reasons 

deemed beyond USCIS’ control have been taken out of the 

 20 Ombudsman’s 2006 Annual Report (at pp. 8-9), citing DHS Inspector General Report “USCIS Faces Challenges 

in Modernizing Information Technology,” OIG-05-41 (Sept. 2005) at 28; 

http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/OIG_05-41_Sep05.pdf (last visited June 3, 2007). 

21 See USCIS Production Status Report, Mar. 2007. 

22 “For each application type, USCIS removes from the calculated backlog the total number of pending applications 

that it is unable to complete due to statutory caps or other bars, including applications where a benefit is not 

immediately available to the applicant or beneficiary (such as “non-ripe” Form I-130, Relative Alien Petitions where 

a required visa number is not available, and I-485 cases where the visa number is no longer available due to 

regression . . ..”) USCIS Backlog Elimination Plan, 3rd Quarter FY 06 Update (Dec. 11, 2006) at 1. 

23 USCIS has replaced quarterly “Backlog Elimination Plan” reports with “Production Updates,” so-called because 

the Backlog Elimination Plan was officially retired at the end of FY 06 (“After eliminating the I-485 backlog, and 

nearly eliminating the I-130 backlog at the end of [FY 06], a backlog for these form types has reappeared . . ..” 

USCIS Production Update, 1st Quarter FY 07 Update (May 1, 2007) at 2). 

24 Id., at 3. 

Page 12 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov June 2007 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

production queue. This allows USCIS to focus its attention on 

those cases which are ripe for adjudication.25 

As stated in the 2006 Annual Report, the Ombudsman remains concerned that such 

formulations obscure USCIS’ continued difficulty to timely process applications and petitions. 

As further explained below, it is particularly troublesome that USCIS continues to rely upon 

future applicants to pay for these backlogged cases excluded by redefinition. 

In its Response to the Ombudsman’s 2006 Annual Report recommendation (AR 2006 – 

01), USCIS agreed in principle to provide a breakdown of all incomplete cases by the number of 

months pending and application type, and stated (at p. 7): 

USCIS is committed to working to develop systems that would 

give this level of detail to help manage both overall workload and 

individual cases . . .. Under its Transformation Program, USCIS 

has already begun a multi-year redesign of its current business 

environment [which] will give USCIS new operational data and 

reports, including the type of data described in the 

recommendation. Given the constraints of existing legacy case 

management systems, USCIS would today need to perform a 

cumbersome, labor intensive, recurring manual audit of all pending 

files in order to compile the suggested data. Such audits would be 

cost prohibitive. 

USCIS states that the constraints of existing management systems prevent it from providing 

information on discrete processing times of each application. This is in conflict with previous 

outputs from those systems, which can provide the necessary data. The Ombudsman has 

observed many USCIS facilities using such data drawn from the three most commonly used 

systems -- CLAIMS 3, CLAIMS 4, and the Marriage Fraud Amendment System. 

USCIS has opted not to use its limited financial resources to extract data from current 

systems and prefers to spend it on prospective systems that are years in the planning. For 

example, USCIS has not made corrections to the CLAIMS 3 system to capture data on 

applicants’ priority date information, country of nationality, and the preference category under 

which the application is filed that USCIS must review before the application is accepted for 

green card processing. The Ombudsman first raised this issue 42 months ago with senior USCIS 

leadership and proposed several solutions over that time. Instead of fixing CLAIMS 3 now, 

USCIS is waiting for the “case management system” it has promised to implement for many 

years. Failing to correct the system annually results in hundreds, if not thousands, of wasted 

hours by all levels of USCIS leadership in trying to account for an often asked question by 

Congress, the Ombudsman, stakeholders, and others: “Exactly how many employment-based 

green card applications does the agency have pending?” USCIS still cannot answer that question 

today with certainty. 

 25 Id.

June 2007 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov Page 13 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

Figure 1: USCIS Cases Excluded from the USCIS “Backlog” 

March 2007

(most recent final

data available)

as of end of 

September 2006 

(end of FY 06 and 

"backlog" elimination goal)

Total -- Pending Customer Action 137,405 150,122

Customer did not file necessary evidence or material 122,608 135,155

Customer failed initial naturalization test and second 

opportunity was scheduled

14,797 14,967

Total -- Unripe Due to Limits on Annual Immigration 869,544 823,439

Processed applications for green cards that cannot be 

approved due to annual statutory limits

 29,303 39,121

I-130 relative petitions 799,043 710,119

Asylum-based green card applicants 41,198 74,200

Total -- Pending Other Agency Action 309,791 264,262

No appointment for oath of allegiance is scheduled 

within month of USCIS decision for naturalization 

cases where the federal courts have exclusive 

jurisdiction over the oath

2,417 1,552

USCIS is waiting for the investigations requested of 

other agencies

11,879 6,879

Total -- FBI Name Check Cases 295,495 255,831

USCIS is waiting for FBI name check results for 

naturalization applicants who have not been 

interviewed

149,003 98,764 1

USCIS is waiting for FBI name check result for 

otherwise processed cases or interviewed cases

146,492 2 157,067

TOTAL -- Pending Cases Not Included in "Backlog" 1,316,740 1,237,823

2 The separate USCIS FBI Pending Name Check Aging Report of May 4, 2007 indicates the pending number of FBI 

name checks for both green card and naturalization cases has increased to 329,160. 

Sources: USCIS Production Status Report (Mar. 2007); USCIS Production Status Report (Nov. 2006); USCIS 

Response to the Ombudsman's 2006 Annual Report (May 18, 2007), at 4-5.

1

 USCIS did not provide this number in its Response to the Ombudsman's 2006 Annual Report, which shows 

September 2006 data. Consequently, the data point above is from USCIS' November 2006 Production Status Report.

2. Adjudications of Backlogged Cases 

From numerous visits to USCIS facilities, the Ombudsman has observed that adjudicators 

prefer to work on the cases that are easiest to complete. Adjudicators pick the “low hanging 

fruit” first because supervisors base performance evaluations on the number of cases completed. 

Consequently, adjudicators put aside the most difficult and time-intensive cases. These cases 

remain pending, perhaps for years, while backlog reduction appears generally to be succeeding. 

The Ombudsman fully supports USCIS efforts to quickly and efficiently complete the 

cases. However, the current drive to complete large numbers of cases presents problems. For 

example, USCIS provides field offices resources based on what is needed to complete a typical 

Page 14 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov June 2007 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

case. It is the Ombudsman’s understanding that if field offices have a workload of 1,000 cases 

and USCIS determines each case usually takes one hour to complete, USCIS will provide 

financial support for 1,000 hours. Cases that take longer than an hour to complete are not 

provided additional resources in the office’s budget. Offices with more than the average 

numbers of difficult cases or offices that try to work the difficult cases thoroughly will not be 

adequately funded because the number of completions will be low. Meanwhile, offices that push 

to complete the easy cases will see their budgets grow. One field office visited by the 

Ombudsman has a large number of long-pending cases which require substantial adjudicator 

hours. However, officers at that office indicate that they cannot address the older, difficult cases 

without negatively affecting their productivity report to USCIS headquarters.

RECOMMENDATION AR 2007 -- 02 

The Ombudsman has observed that newer cases are processed more 

quickly while cases more than six months old are increasingly backlogged. The 

Ombudsman supports the USCIS drive to maximize case completions, but 

attention needs to be directed at clearing older cases. 

The Ombudsman recommends that USCIS provide a clearer picture of the 

current backlog by providing information on the number of pending cases by form 

type with receipts that are: (1) less than 90 days; (2) less than 180 days; (3) less 

than one year; (4) less than two years; (5) less than three years; (6) less than four 

years; and (7) greater than four years. 

3. Backlogged Form I-130 Petitions for Foreign National Relatives 

 In its Response to the Ombudsman’s 2006 Annual Report (at pp. 8-9) and the 

recommendation (AR 2006 – 03) regarding the timely processing of I-130s, USCIS stated that it 

is not practical to process them as soon as they are received: 

Where the person will not be able to immigrate within a year due 

to the overall limits on legal immigration, USCIS’ goal . . . is to 

process the case twelve months ahead of visa availability to ensure 

that DOS has sufficient time to complete their part of the 

processing. This process ensures that an eligible person’s eventual 

immigration to the United States will not be delayed by USCIS 

processing . . .. 

USCIS believes having different service levels for different kinds 

of applications, which reflect relative time sensitivity and risk, 

while using those with less time sensitivity as a buffer, results in a 

system that is more cost effective for both USCIS and its 

customers. 

Further, while processing a relative petition immediately, even if 

the person will thereafter have to wait to immigrate, may appear 

ideal [. . . ,] the evaluation is best performed closer to the time the 

June 2007 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov Page 15 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

person would actually receive the benefit. In addition, USCIS is 

currently evaluating the impact of the Adam Walsh Child 

Protection and Safety Act of 2006, Pub. L. 109-249, which adds 

additional public safety screening requirements before a petition is 

approved to protect the relative being sponsored. It may be 

appropriate that those checks should similarly be done closer to the 

time at which the person would actually be able to immigrate. 

 Despite making several valid points, USCIS is merely delaying the inevitable and, in 

effect, increasing the cost to the agency to process these cases. The cost to complete the current 

backlog of over 800,000 I-130 petitions is more than $225 million today, based on USCIS’ cost 

estimates explained in its proposed fee rule.26 Because applicants paid for these petitions when 

they were submitted in previous years, their payments do not cover today’s costs or future 

USCIS costs to process them. Each year that processing is delayed the cost to USCIS will 

increase if for no other reason than to account for inflation. Thus, the fact that USCIS can 

process each of these petitions to conclusion now and chooses by policy not to do so is fiscally 

unwise. 

 In addition, the impact on beneficiaries is significant. By statute, certain approved 

petitions terminated by the petitioner’s death are reinstated for humanitarian reasons for the 

petitioner’s beneficiaries.27 By USCIS not approving I-130 petitions in a timely manner, 

beneficiaries cannot benefit from this important humanitarian exception. 

 26 See 72 Fed. Reg. 4,888, 4,909 (Feb. 1, 2007). 

27 See Family Sponsor Immigration Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-150; see also 8 C.F.R. § 205.1(a)(3)(i)(C) (petition 

revoked automatically by petitioner’s death may be reinstated for humanitarian reasons by the Attorney General on 

sponsored alien’s request). USCIS has interpreted this provision to apply to beneficiaries only of approved petitions 

and generally has refused to extend this to pending petitions. 

Page 16 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov June 2007 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

C. Processing Times 

CASE PROBLEM 

A green card application filed in late spring 2003 with a service center 

remains pending. The applicant filed his fourth EAD in the fall of 2006. In 

January 2007, the applicant needed the EAD to continue employment, but had not 

yet received it more than 90 days after filing. As advised by USCIS, the applicant 

visited the USCIS field office to obtain an interim EAD. At the field office, USCIS 

told the applicant it no longer issues interim EADs. USCIS gave the applicant a 

form to request an interim EAD, which the applicant filed with the service center 

but received no response.28 The applicant contacted the Ombudsman in February 

2007. The applicant’s green card application remains pending, while the interim 

EAD was approved late. 

On August 23, 2006, USCIS announced changes that would improve the reporting 

methodology for processing times of immigration benefit applications and provide “customers 

more accurate information that better reflects current processing time and USCIS service level 

commitments.”29 The Ombudsman disagrees that this change provides better information. 

Previously, USCIS benefit processing reports indicated the specific application or 

petition type and the receipt date for the currently processed cases. For example, if February 1, 

2007 was the green card processing date on the website, any application filed prior to February 1 

already would be, or was about to be, processed. If USCIS takes approximately four months to 

process these applications, an applicant could expect that on or about June 1, 2007, an 

application filed on or about February 1, 2007 would be completed. 

Under the new USCIS approach, the agency reports processing “goals” instead of the 

processing time. The online processing times no longer indicate whether USCIS is adjudicating 

cases more quickly than the USCIS processing goal. If the USCIS processing goal for the green 

card is 180 days, the USCIS website would show approximately 180 days before today’s date, or 

an earlier date. In the example, if today is June 1, 2007, the posted processing date would be 

December 1, 2006, even if the actual applications processed were filed on or around February 1, 

2007. The website would not reflect the more recent February date indicating a faster processing 

time. 

 28 In general, if USCIS does not adjudicate an EAD application within 90 days, an applicant may request an interim 

EAD. See Memorandum, Aytes, Elimination of I-688B, Employment Authorization Card, (Aug. 18, 2006). The 

procedures adopted by this field office in the Case Problem appear to be inconsistent with the procedures outlined in 

the policy memorandum. According to this Memorandum, the Immigration Information Officer should have 

contacted the service center to obtain information; the service center should have attempted to provide a status 

inquiry in 30 minutes to provide the applicant with a response. The memorandum does not contemplate that a field 

office would give an applicant a form to make the inquiry. 

29 USCIS Public Notice, “Improved Procedures for Reporting USCIS Processing Time of Immigration Benefit 

Applications on the USCIS Website,” (Aug. 23, 2006). 

http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/PRCSSTimes082306PN.pdf (last visited June 3, 2007). 

June 2007 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov Page 17 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

COMMENT FROM OMBUDSMAN’S TELECONFERENCE 

One caller mentioned that USCIS posts processing times as six months (if 

the processing is six months or less) or the exact processing time if it is greater 

than six months. This makes planning difficult. For example, fiancé(e) petitions 

once took several months, but now are completed in one month. For one month 

completions, the posted processing time will be six months. 

Another caller said it would be helpful to get guidance on the real 

processing times for I-130s. 

Under the new reporting guidelines, green card applicants may think that all offices take 

at least 180 days to process applications and, consequently, apply unnecessarily for interim 

benefits, which are allowable after 90 days. Under the old reporting guidelines, applicants could 

determine if processing times were greater than 90 days and, therefore, apply for an interim 

benefit. This saved time and resources both for the applicant and the USCIS office receiving the 

application. 

In response to these concerns expressed by the Ombudsman in August 2006, USCIS 

committed to: (1) use a processing time of 90 days for green card applications; and (2) provide 

the actual processing time where the processing time is over 90 days.30 However, despite written 

assurances by the USCIS Operations Director, the agency continues to use the 180-day 

processing time on its website. 

USCIS indicated that it will continue to maintain precise data on processing times for 

internal management purposes. The Ombudsman recently requested data on precise processing 

times, but instead was given data on cycle times that show future processing potential. 

 30 See Email from USCIS Operations Director to the Ombudsman (Aug. 25, 2006). 

Page 18 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov June 2007 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

Figure 2: Field Office Green Card (I-485) Cycle Times (Days), March 2007 

0

60

120

180

240

300

360

420

480

Charleston, WV 

Tampa, FL

Columbus, OH

Spokane, WA

Harlingen, TX

Des Moines, IA

Portland, ME San Antonio, TX

Denver, CO Manchester, NH

Omaha, NE Salt Lake City, UT

Yakima, WA

San Diego, CA

Reno, NV

Buffalo, NY Louisville, KY

Saint Paul, MN

San Jose, CA

Agana, GU

Sacramento, CA

San Bernadino, CA

Oklahoma City, OK

Boise, ID

El Paso, TX

Jacksonville, FL

Santa Ana, CA

Las Vegas, NV

Cleveland, OH

Detroit, MI Albuquerque, NM

Pittsburgh, PA

Portland, OR

Dallas, TX

Phoenix, AZ

Fresno, CA

Honolulu, HI

Miami, FL

Tucson, AZ

Indianapolis, IN

Los Angeles, CA

San Francisco, CA

Charlotte, NC

Albany, NY

Helena, MT

Boston, MA

Fort Smith, AR

Milwaukee, WI

Seattle, WA Anchorage, AK

Saint Albans, VT

Chicago, IL

Houston, TX

Philadelphia, PA

Kansas City, MO

Memphis, TN

Cherry Hill, NJ

New York, NY Charlotte Amalie, VI

San Juan, PR

Atlanta, GA

Charleston, SC 

Cincinnati, OH

Greer, SC

Hartford, CT West Palm Beach, FL

Newark, NJ

Orlando, FL Providence, RI

Washington, DC 

Saint Louis, MO

Christiansted, VI

Baltimore, MD

Norfolk, VA

New Orleans, LA

 90

Notes: USCIS uses a calculation to derive “cycle times,” which is based on pending and receipt data from the Performance Analysis System (PAS). The processing times

 posted on the USCIS website combine the cycle times and in some cases, dates reported by field offices based on local conditions such as a transfer of cases

 into an office. If an office is at or below the six month target cycle time, USCIS posts the target time. If an office exceeds the 180 day target time, USCIS posts

 the cycle time or a date reported by the local office. Any office that exceeded the 180 day limit for either its processing time or cycle time has been marked red for

 both the processing and cycle time chart. 

Sources: USCIS Performance Management Division and PAS.

Figure 3: Field Office Green Card (I-485) Processing Times on USCIS Website (Days), March 2007 

0

60

120

180

240

300

360

420

480

540

600

660

Charleston, WV Tampa, FL Columbus, OH Spokane, WA

Harlingen, TX Des Moines, IA

Portland, ME San Antonio, TX Denver, CO

Manchester, NH Omaha, NE Salt Lake City, UT Yakima, WA San Diego, CA

Reno, NV Buffalo, NY Louisville, KY Saint Paul, MN

San Jose, CA Agana, GU Sacramento, CA

San Bernadino, CA

Oklahoma City, OK Boise, ID

El Paso, TX

Jacksonville, FL Santa Ana, CA Las Vegas, NV

Cleveland, OH Detroit, MI Albuquerque, NM Pittsburgh, PA Portland, OR Dallas, TX

Phoenix, AZ Fresno, CA Honolulu, HI Miami, FL

Tucson, AZ Indianapolis, IN

Los Angeles, CA San Francisco, CA Charlotte, NC Albany, NY Helena, MT

Boston, MA

Fort Smith, AR

Milwaukee, WI Seattle, WA Anchorage, AK Saint Albans, VT Chicago, IL

Houston, TX Philadelphia, PA Kansas City, MO

Memphis, TN Cherry Hill, NJ

New York, NY Charlotte Amalie, VI San Juan, PR Atlanta, GA Charleston, SC Cincinnati, OH

Greer, SC Hartford, CT West Palm Beach, FL Newark, NJ Orlando, FL

Providence, RI Washington, DC Saint Louis, MO Christiansted, VI Baltimore, MD

Norfolk, VA New Orleans, LA

Note: See Figure above.

Sources: USCIS Performance Management Division and PAS.

90

June 2007 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov Page 19 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

Figure 4: Field Office Naturalization (N-400) Cycle Times (Days), March 2007 

0

60

120

180

240

300

360

420

Oklahoma City, OK

Salt Lake City, UT

New York, NY

Buffalo, NY

Manchester, NH

Detroit, MI

Reno, NV

Newark, NJ

Harlingen, TX

Fort Smith, AR

San Diego, CA

Chicago, IL

Charlotte, NC

Omaha, NE

Houston, TX

Milwaukee, WI

Sacramento, CA

San Antonio, TX

El Paso, TX

Boise, ID

Los Angeles, CA

Louisville, KY

Albany, NY

Atlanta, GA

Portland, OR

Yakima, WA

San Francisco, CA

Providence, RI

Jacksonville, FL

Portland, ME

Seattle, WA

Kansas City, MO

Boston, MA

Agana, GU

Tampa, FL

St. Paul, MN

Denver, CO

Las Vegas, NV

Spokane, WA

Cincinnati, OH

Cleveland, OH

Albuquerque, NM

Indianapolis, IN

Norfolk, VA

Honolulu, HI

Pittsburgh, PA

Baltimore, MD

St. Albans, VT

San Juan, PR

Orlando, FL

Tucson, AZ

Memphis, TN

San Jose, CA

Fresno, CA

Miami, FL

West Palm Beach, FL

Hartford, CT

Anchorage, AK

Phoenix, AZ

Christiansted, VI

Philadelphia, PA

Cherry Hill, NJ

Dallas, TX

Washington, DC

Charlotte Amalie, VI

St. Louis, MO

Helena, MT

Columbus, OH

Charleston, SC

New Orleans, LA

Note: See I-485 Cycle Times Graph.

Sources: USCIS Performance Management Division and PAS.

90

Figure 5: Field Office Naturalization (N-400) Processing Times on USCIS Website (Days), March 2007 

0

60

120

180

240

300

360

420

Oklahoma City, OK

Salt Lake City, UT

New York, NY

Buffalo, NY

Manchester, NH

Detroit, MI

Reno, NV

Newark, NJ

Harlingen, TX

Fort Smith, AR

San Diego, CA

Chicago, IL

Charlotte, NC

Omaha, NE

Houston, TX

Milwaukee, WI

Sacramento, CA

San Antonio, TX

El Paso, TX

Boise, ID

Los Angeles, CA

Louisville, KY

Albany, NY

Atlanta, GA

Portland, OR

Yakima, WA

San Francisco, CA

Providence, RI

Jacksonville, FL

Portland, ME

Seattle, WA

Kansas City, MO

Boston, MA

Agana, GU

Tampa, FL

St. Paul, MN

Denver, CO

Las Vegas, NV

Spokane, WA

Cincinnati, OH

Cleveland, OH

Albuquerque, NM

Indianapolis, IN

Norfolk, VA

Honolulu, HI

Pittsburgh, PA

Baltimore, MD

St. Albans, VT

San Juan, PR

Orlando, FL

Tucson, AZ

Memphis, TN

San Jose, CA

Fresno, CA

Miami, FL

West Palm Beach, FL

Hartford, CT

Anchorage, AK

Phoenix, AZ

Christiansted, VI

Philadelphia, PA

Cherry Hill, NJ

Dallas, TX

Washington, DC

Charlotte Amalie, VI

St. Louis, MO

Helena, MT

Columbus, OH

Charleston, SC

New Orleans, LA

Note: See I-485 Cycle Times Graph.

Sources: USCIS Performance Management Division and PAS.

90

210

Page 20 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov June 2007 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

The current processing time reporting provides less information to customers and makes 

the processing times more opaque. Transparency inherently leads to more efficient government 

services and greater accountability. USCIS should strive to be transparent and provide as much 

information to customers as possible. 

CASE PROBLEM 

In 2004, a foreign national and his U.S. citizen wife applied for removal of 

the conditions of residence using Form I-751 (Petition to Remove the Conditions 

of Residence) at a field office. The petition was forwarded to a service center. 

Over 25 months later, the petition remained pending. Without providing the 

applicant any reason for the delay, USCIS informed him that his file was 

transferred to another service center. The individual contacted the Ombudsman 

in the middle of 2006 because the case was outside normal processing times. The 

case eventually was approved. 

RECOMMENDATION AR 2007 --03 

Currently, USCIS provides processing times based on agency goals, 

rather than actual processing time as it previously provided. In addition to the 

agency’s responsibility to be transparent, green card applicants in particular 

should know if applications will be processed within 90 days, rather than the 180-

day target time, to avoid applying unnecessarily for interim benefits. The 

Ombudsman recommends that USCIS return to providing the public with actual 

processing times for each field office. 

D. Customer Service 

During the reporting period, USCIS made important strides in customer service. USCIS 

increased the number of appointments available via INFOPASS and began two new contracts in 

the effort to improve its toll-free customer service line. 

June 2007 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov Page 21 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

BEST PRACTICES 

The Ombudsman commends USCIS’ Information and Customer Service 

Division for developing the following: 

(1) The direct access military hotline for service members and their families to 

inquire about USCIS applications. 

(2) Well-designed and easy to understand pamphlets on such topics as INFOPASS 

and the new change of address system. 

(3) “Linda Liberty and Friends Take A Roadtrip Across America,” an activity 

worksheet, with specific civics education-related projects, that is provided to 

children along with a box of crayons. 

Conversely, the Ombudsman continued to observe other areas where the lack of 

communication with customers persists: (1) limited customer access to USCIS immigration 

officers who know about individual cases to resolve an inquiry accurately and efficiently; (2) 

questionable accuracy of information provided by customer service representatives; and (3) the 

practice of providing minimal information in response to customer inquiries. As noted in all 

three prior annual reports, customers often call USCIS numerous times, make frequent visits to 

USCIS facilities, and ask for congressional assistance to determine case status. 

CASE PROBLEM 

An applicant received her green card in 2006 after a two-year delay. 

However, the name on the green card contained typographical errors. The 

applicant promptly returned the green card with an application for a new card 

using Form I-90. A month later, the applicant received a notice that the fee was 

waived for the I-90 because the errors were USCIS’ mistake. However, the I-90

receipt notice stated an incorrect city for the applicant’s residence, despite the 

correct city noted on the I-90 application. The applicant called the NCSC and 

was advised that the information would be forwarded to the appropriate USCIS 

office and that future communications would be sent to the correct address. Two 

months later, the applicant received another green card, but it contained a new 

typographical error misspelling her middle name. The applicant had to restart 

the process filing another Form I-90. 

Page 22 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov June 2007 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

BEST PRACTICES 

Des Moines and other field offices in the Central Region distribute 

customer surveys in the waiting area to solicit feedback regarding the level of 

service provided by the information counter. 

In El Paso, an officer is assigned on a weekly basis to take recurring 

inquiries. This officer also provides backup to the supervisor and is the backup 

interviewer. 

El Paso officers issue “come-back passes” for applicants who lack a 

document to return the same day so the case can be completed without further 

delay. 

The Washington Field Office Director meets with attorney groups and 

community based organizations every other month. These groups email a list of 

cases for status updates and the Director provides the update at the meeting. 

The Ombudsman is encouraged by the continuation of teleconferences 

held by the Nebraska Service Center and a few other offices to discuss issues of 

importance to stakeholders. The Ombudsman encourages all USCIS field and 

service center offices to adopt this or a similar practice of direct communication 

with customers and stakeholders. 

1. INFOPASS 

The Ombudsman commends the new USCIS leadership team as well as field office 

management for their attention to ensuring appointments are available and for the substantial 

improvements in the management and administration of INFOPASS during the reporting period. 

Started by the Miami District Office to address the problem of long lines at facilities, INFOPASS 

has emerged as one of the most important customer service initiatives by USCIS. It is a valuable 

on-line service that allows applicants to schedule an in-person appointment with a field office. 

The Ombudsman criticized INFOPASS in previous annual reports because the 

appointment scheduler replaced physical waiting lines with invisible, digital waiting lines. Over 

the past two years, the Ombudsman has regularly tested INFOPASS by logging on to the website 

and seeking to schedule appointments at various field offices. Appointments have been readily 

available over the past year compared to previous tests that often yielded a message that no 

appointments were available. In addition, the Ombudsman has noted a dramatic reduction in the 

number of concerns raised about INFOPASS appointments during the Ombudsman’s travel, 

teleconferences, and other discussions with stakeholders in this reporting period. 

During the reporting period, USCIS modified INFOPASS appointment scheduling at 

many offices. The agency also addressed fraudulent practices in relation to scheduling 

INFOPASS appointments by using technology effectively. The Ombudsman applauds USCIS’ 

efforts to make INFOPASS appointments available the same day or the next day for all 

June 2007 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov Page 23 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

customers. Only two offices, New York City and Portland, Oregon, had no INFOPASS 

appointments available for three or more days.31 

The Ombudsman also is encouraged by USCIS plans to introduce INFOPASS kiosks 

nationally to ensure that customers have electronic access to appointment scheduling. 

Availability of kiosks was one of the key provisions of the Ombudsman’s INFOPASS 

recommendation in 2004.32 The Ombudsman continues to urge USCIS field offices to adopt 

innovative approaches to customer needs. 

While it is important to note progress in the administration of INFOPASS, it remains a 

limited system. The system cannot compile information on issues addressed during the 

appointments, which limits USCIS leadership’s ability to identify and correct systemic problems 

that require repeated customer visits. 

The Ombudsman understands that USCIS’ Office of Information Technology and the 

Office of Transformation are working jointly to modernize USCIS legacy scheduling systems, 

which are used not only for INFOPASS but also for appointments at ASCs and interviews at 

field offices. The main goal of this project is to provide customers greater control and access 

over their appointments with USCIS. 

 31 See USCIS INFOPASS Usage Statistics, accessed by the Ombudsman on June 3, 2007, which showed 

appointments available for June 4-8, 2007. 

32 See section V.11 for the Ombudsman’s INFOPASS recommendation summary. 

Page 24 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov June 2007 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

OBSERVATIONS AND STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS FROM THE 

OMBUDSMAN’S TRIPS AND MEETINGS 

The Washington Field Office accepts walk-ins without an INFOPASS 

appointment for triage. The Immigration Information Officer (IIO) decides if 

there is an urgent reason or emergency for the individual to be seen that day. 

The Des Moines Field Office uses an appointment request form that can 

be used to obtain a walk-in appointment. The office also uses an “Emergency 

Request Form.” 

Garden City is not a full-service office. There is an information counter, 

but not enough IIOs to staff INFOPASS appointments due to apparent space 

issues. A new facility under development is approximately two years from 

completion. 

In the Kansas City Field Office, customers without INFOPASS 

appointments are turned away, unless they drive more than 50 miles to reach the 

office. 

Stakeholders in El Paso complain that INFOPASS appointments are often 

difficult to obtain. 

2. National Customer Service Center 

USCIS uses the NCSC to provide customers inside the United States with toll-free access 

to a call center with live operator assistance in either English or Spanish. 

The two-tier system of assistance, as described in the Ombudsman’s 2006 Annual Report 

(at p. 34), remains. For the majority of the year, waiting times in “Tier 1” and “Tier 2” were 

extremely long.33 However, USCIS has addressed this problem in more recent months. At the 

end of 2006, USCIS replaced the Tier 1 contractor with two contracts. The new contracts have 

improved quality control features and customers have begun to experience the positive results of 

these measures. In recent months, the Ombudsman observed shortened wait time to talk with a 

call representative. The Ombudsman understands from a recent meeting with the USCIS 

Customer Assistance Office (CAO) that since November 2006, the average NCSC wait times are 

less than 30 seconds to speak with a Tier 1 representative and two minutes for Tier 2. The 

reduction in wait times was confirmed in a recent meeting with USCIS. 

During the reporting period, the Ombudsman continued to hear about problems with the 

NCSC: (1) Tier 1 representatives do not have enough immigration knowledge to process a 

request and have no access to case files; (2) the Tier 1 representatives have difficulty identifying 

the actual problems and nature of the inquiries; (3) customers have difficulty getting transferred 

to a more knowledgeable IIO; (4) customers continue to describe inconsistencies in responses if 

 33 See Figure 6. 

June 2007 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov Page 25 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

they call several times about the same issue; and (5) there is still a lack of conclusive responses 

or incorrect responses provided by Tier 1 representatives. 

COMMENT FROM OMBUDSMAN'S TELECONFERENCE 

A caller described the NCSC’s inability to fix errors. He filed a TPS 

application on behalf of a client and the receipt came back with the A-number 

transposed. He called the NCSC to fix the error and learned at an INFOPASS 

appointment a few months later that the error still was not fixed. 

The Ombudsman relayed the NCSC concerns to USCIS and learned that the new 

Information and Customer Service Division Director is systematically addressing them. Recent 

data received from this Division demonstrate dramatic improvement in some of these areas: 

Figure 6: NCSC Average Time to Answer Call in Minutes, FY 07 YTD 

Tier 1 Tier 2 

0.2

1.6

6.8

8.5

2.3

0.1 0.2

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Oct-06 Nov-06 Dec-06 Jan-07 Feb-07 Mar-07 Apr-07

51.0

1.5

3.3 3.0

50.1

25.2

36.4

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Oct-06 Nov-06 Dec-06 Jan-07 Feb-07 Mar-07 Apr-07

Page 26 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov June 2007 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

Figure 7: NCSC Average Call Abandonment (Number of Callers), FY 07 YTD 

Tier 1 Tier 2 

The Ombudsman can report positively that USCIS is improving the NCSC. The 

Ombudsman understands that USCIS plans to give Tier 1 access to USCIS systems to respond 

more accurately with case information. At such time, Tier 2 would become a case resolution 

entity for more complex issues. 

As described in the Ombudsman’s 2006 Annual Report (at p. 34), call centers were 

designed to take a substantial workload off the service centers and field offices. Instead, 

the Service Request Management Tool (SRMT) sends this work back to the field offices. The 

problems with this part of the system as described in last year’s annual report remain. The 

SRMT system itself continues to be backlogged. During the Ombudsman’s visit to the NBC in 

April 2007, the NBC reported that it had 70,000 pending SRMT requests with approximately 

15,000 completed each month. During this visit, the NBC was in the process of responding to 

SRMTs received in December 2006. 

 In its 2006 Annual Report Response (at p. 13), USCIS indicated: 

[The agency] is working toward putting the SRMT protocol and 

inquiry process on-line for customers. In conjunction with the 

current case status services USCIS provides, this will let customers 

generate referrals. This enhancement is in the initial development 

stage. 

 The Ombudsman looks forward to understanding more about the development of the new 

SRMT protocol. 

54,544

36,344

24,653

11,827

2,331 2,448 2,516

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

Oct-06 Nov-06 Dec-06 Jan-07 Feb-07 Mar-07 Apr-07

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

50,097

48,843

38,665

19,544

5,393 5,609

2,103

Oct-06 Nov-06 Dec-06 Jan-07 Feb-07 Mar-07 Apr-07

June 2007 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov Page 27 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

Figure 8: SRMT Volume by Type, May 2006 – April 2007 

Change of 

Address

261,756

Other Issues 

108,007

Non-delivery of 

Document 

271,969

Outside Normal 

Processing Time

 351,576

Typographical 

Error

71,542

The Ombudsman’s previous recommendations and annual reports address all of the 

issues reflected in Figure 8, which was provided by the USCIS Information and Customer 

Service Division. In previous reporting periods, USCIS has not had such data readily available, 

which has prevented the Ombudsman from evaluating improvements to customer service. The 

Ombudsman is encouraged by the positive approach of the new USCIS leadership in the 

Information and Customer Service Division to resolve many of the pervasive and serious issues 

identified. 

BEST PRACTICE 

A helpful feature incorporated into the toll-free customer service line is 

inclusion of messages on recent developments in immigration. 

Page 28 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov June 2007 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

OBSERVATIONS AND STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS FROM THE 

OMBUDSMAN’S TRIPS AND MEETINGS 

IIOs at Newark reported that they talk to attorneys, applicants, and 

community-based representatives who receive incorrect information from the 

NCSC. IIOs suggest that applicants should know the NCSC only provides general 

information. 

Stakeholders in New York complained that additional training is needed 

for NCSC operators. 

A stakeholder in the Chicago area reported that customer service 

(through the NCSC) is not working, especially when applicants try to reach Tier 

2. Another stakeholder commented there is no access to local district officers. 

 

A visit to the Kentucky Call Center revealed that Tier 1 operators do not 

have access to helpful information to answer calls and some operators speak very 

quickly to callers with limited English language ability. 

COMMENTS FROM OMBUDSMAN'S TELECONFERENCE 

One caller questioned why the NCSC and Case Status Online do not 

reflect denials. 

Another caller mentioned that some adjudicators, particularly at the 

Nebraska and Texas Service Centers, just call the applicant or attorney to ask 

him/her to provide missing information. 

RECOMMENDATION AR 2007 -- 04 

 The Ombudsman recommends that USCIS adopt the frequently asked 

questions format used by Customs and Border Protection (CBP), incorporating a 

dynamic search feature on the website, rather than a static FAQ list. In addition, 

USCIS should provide a service on the website whereby customers can email a 

question and receive an answer within a short period of time. 

June 2007 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov Page 29 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

RECOMMENDATION AR 2007 -- 05 

The Ombudsman further recommends that USCIS adopt a national 

process similar to that in the San Diego Field Office wherein an applicant who 

has not received a decision after an interview can contact the District 

Adjudications Officer (DAO) via email. If the DAO fails to respond within a set 

period of time, the applicant should be able to contact the supervisor. If there is 

still no response, the applicant should be able to contact the District Director. 

BEST PRACTICES: 

The Ombudsman considers it a best practice to: 

(1) Provide email access for customers to inquire about case status. Providing 

this opportunity for case status inquiries alleviates the burden on INFOPASS and 

leaves more slots open to the public. 

(2) Have a duty officer at each field office location assigned to handle inquiries 

for customers who appear for a second INFOPASS appointment based on a 

previously unresolved inquiry. A few field offices have adopted this approach to 

reduce the number of repetitive visits as well as identify and correct systemic 

problems. 

3. Case Status Online 

USCIS customers can use the internet-based Case Status Online to check case status if 

they have application/petition receipt numbers. The primary shortcomings of this resource, 

noted in previous annual reports, all remain.34 Case Status Online information is often 

inaccurate or unreliable, which can have serious consequences for the individual. For example, 

the resource often shows a case is “pending,” although it was denied and the applicant or 

representative never received the decision. This is the same information the Tier 1 NCSC 

representatives provide to a caller, as they do not have access to any internal databases. As a 

result, an applicant may unwittingly forgo challenging a decision from lack of information. 

Moreover, there is no avenue to prove non-receipt of the notice and USCIS does not make copies 

of notices readily available. 

 34 See Ombudsman’s 2006 Annual Report (at p. 35); Ombudsman’s 2005 Annual Report (at p. 14). 

Page 30 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov June 2007 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

CASE PROBLEM 

The applicant who filed a green card application in 2002 is a physician 

who obtained a National Interest Waiver in exchange for working in an 

underserved area. After five years, the applicant forwarded the paperwork 

regarding this work to the USCIS service center where the green card application 

was pending. The applicant checked Case Status Online to ascertain if the 

service center received the information, but the system showed no such 

information. The applicant called the NCSC and, in response, received a letter 

that the file was pending due to security checks. 

The next month, the applicant again contacted the NCSC. In response, the 

applicant received a letter that USCIS was holding the file because the applicant 

did not mail in the five-year service requirement information. 

The applicant made an INFOPASS appointment at the local office to 

obtain case status information and the IIO said to wait six weeks. The next 

month, the applicant made another INFOPASS appointment. The IIO at the local 

office called the service center where the application was located and indicated 

that the information was received, the file was complete, and the adjudication 

should be forthcoming by year’s end. 

In early 2007, the applicant still had not heard from USICS. By that time, 

the applicant moved to another state and filed the required change of address 

with USCIS. The applicant made another INFOPASS appointment at the local 

USCIS office. USCIS told the applicant that the information obtained from the 

other IIO was verbal and unreliable, the case was pending due to security checks, 

and the IIO could not confirm that the file was complete. 

Shortly thereafter, the applicant called the NCSC again. In response, the 

applicant received a letter that indicated the case was pending because the 

service center did not have the information about completion of the five-year’s 

work. Based on this information, the applicant made another INFOPASS 

appointment at the local office. The IIO indicated that the case appeared to be in 

order, but the IIO did not have access to the file at the service center where the 

application was pending and could not confirm anything. 

In March 2007, the applicant called the NCSC again and also contacted 

the Ombudsman. The Case Status Online information still is dated October 2005 

and states that the biometrics fees for the case were received. The case remains 

pending. 

June 2007 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov Page 31 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

E. Untimely Processing and Systemic Problems with Employment-Based Green 

Card Applications 

Although raised in the Ombudsman’s 2005 Annual Report (at pp. 9-11) and 2006 Annual 

Report (at pp. 13-16), significant issues remain with the timely processing of employment- and 

family-based petitions and applications for green cards. 

1. Background 

The INA establishes formulas and numerical limits for regulating immigration to the 

United States. U.S. employers may file a petition to hire foreign workers using Form I-140. 

U.S. citizens and green card holders can file petitions for certain family members using Form I130. The filing of the petition (or of the labor certification application for employment-based 

petitioners) establishes a “priority date.” Priority dates determine a beneficiary’s “place in line” 

relative to other beneficiaries in the same category and nationality for visa allocation. 

By statute, there are formulas and limits on the annual number of employment-based 

visas and certain family-based visas. The Department of State (DOS) allocates these visas by 

estimating how many immigrant visas will be available and publishes the results in a monthly 

“Visa Bulletin.”35 If the number of visas available in a category exceeds demand for them, the 

Visa Bulletin will indicate that the category is “current.” A petition in a current category filed 

today can be processed for a visa today. If the demand for visas exceeds what is available in a 

category, the Visa Bulletin will indicate a cutoff date and the issuance of visas is restricted to 

applicants whose priority dates are earlier than the cutoff date. Petitions with priority dates after 

the published date must wait until DOS advances the posted date to obtain a visa. However, 

cutoff dates also can “retrogress,” which occurs when the actual number of applications received 

exceeds the number DOS estimated would be used for the visas available. 

Retrogression can have serious consequences because applicants and their families who 

expected to obtain green cards suddenly cannot. For those applicants awaiting visas overseas, 

their preparations to immigrate are derailed. Plans that depend on a green card status, such as to 

study, advance in a job, or obtain essential credentials, are delayed. Moreover, a retrogression 

can have significant business consequences for employers that require predictability in staffing. 

The movement of priority dates is critical to ensure: (1) orderly processing of visa 

applications; and (2) that visas issued do not exceed statutory limits. Priority dates also are 

connected with USCIS backlogs. 

When priority dates are current, foreign nationals in the United States may apply for 

green cards and become eligible for an EAD if the green card is not processed within 90 days. 

Significantly, EADs may be issued and renewed for applicants who may ultimately be deemed 

ineligible for the green card. Importantly, there is a dynamic connection between priority dates, 

workloads, and backlogs, and the downstream consequences can be significant. 

 35 See Department of State’s Visa Bulletins at http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_1770.html (last visited 

June 3, 2007). 

Page 32 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov June 2007 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

For example, when employment-based visas are not used during the year they are 

authorized, they are lost and are not available for future use without special legislation. In FY 

06, over 10,000 employment-based visas were lost, even though USCIS had an estimated 

100,000 to 150,000 pending applications for employment-based green cards.36 Based on USCIS 

use of visa numbers as of May 2007, at present consumption rates approximately 40,000 visas 

will be lost in FY 07 without a dramatic increase in USCIS requests of visa numbers.37 As 

illustrated below, since 1994 there have been over 218,000 un-recaptured employment-based 

visas lost due to underutilization of the employment-based visas. 

 36 USCIS provided estimates during monthly interdepartmental meetings. Exact figures are unavailable because 

USCIS has no accounting of these pending numbers by category and different agency divisions provide different 

estimates. 

37 DOS provided these estimates to the Ombudsman during monthly interdepartmental meetings. 

June 2007 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov Page 33 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

Figure 9: Department of State Unused Family and Employment Preference Numbers, FY 1992-2006 

(Preliminary), Printed with Permission from DOS 

FY Unused Family 

Preference Numbers

Unused Employment 

Preference Numbers

Following FY's 

Fam. Pref. Limit 

Empl. Pref. 

Numbers Avail. 

For Recapture

1

1992 5,388 21,171 ---- 2 ---- 2

1993 3,101 0 226,000 0

1994 6,328 29,430 253,721 1,709

1995 0 58,694 311,819 0

1996 0 21,173 226,000 21,173

1997 0 40,710 226,000 40,710

1998 20,885 53,571 226,000 53,571

1999 2,262 98,941 294,601 ---- 3

2000 52,062 31,098 226,000 ---- 3

2001 2,616 5,511 226,000 5,511 4

2002 31,542 0 226,000 0 4

2003 64,424 88,482 226,000 88,482 4

2004 8,435 47,307 226,000 47,307 4

2005 3,885 0 226,000 0

2006 6 ---- 10,296 226,000 10,296

Totals 200,928 506,384 --- 218,759 5

4

Of the 141,300 Employment Preference numbers unused in FY 01 through FY 04, 50,000 have 

already been recaptured and used for Schedule A applicants; therefore, only the balance (91,300) 

remain unused.

5

The Grand Total of Employment Preference Numbers Available for Recapture is shown as 

218,759 (not 268,759), since it reflects subtraction of 50,000 numbers already recaptured from FY 

01 through FY 04.

6

Totals for FY 06 are preliminary.

 1 Employment Preference Numbers Available for Recapture total represents the unused 

Employment Preference numbers in a fiscal year minus the amount of the following fiscal year's 

Family Preference limit above 226,000. 

2

Unused Employment Preference numbers did not fall across to the following fiscal year's Family 

Preference limit (and vice versa) until FY 94.

Note: The Unused Employment Preference Numbers total is that used in calculating the following 

fiscal year's Family Preference numerical limit.

3

Employment Preference numbers unused in FY 99 and FY 00 have already been recaptured; 

therefore, none remain unused.

Page 34 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov June 2007 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

This loss of visas is due to: (1) gaps in USCIS’ accounting of cases; (2) USCIS not 

processing enough pending applications in a timely manner; and (3) the imprecise art of 

predicting workflows and demand surges at three federal agencies: Department of Labor (DOL) 

(approves labor certifications); USCIS (processes immigration petitions after completion of labor 

certifications and processes green card applications for applicants in the United States); and DOS 

(establishes priority dates and processes immigrant visas from applicants outside the United 

States). 

There will be severe consequences from rapid fluctuations in priority dates. If the 

priority date became current today, due to delayed USCIS processing and thus underutilization of 

visa numbers, some have predicted that within a few months as many as 500,000 to 750,000 

individuals now residing in the United States under a temporary worker visa could apply for a 

green card. Additionally, DOL’s recent backlog elimination efforts, scheduled to be completed 

by September 30, 2007, are predicted to add 70,000 or more approved labor certifications 

yielding as many as 170,000 additional green card applications. As USCIS begins to complete 

these applications and request visa numbers from DOS, the 140,000 statutorily authorized visa 

numbers will be used. DOS then will be required to retrogress priority dates. Consequently, 

most applicants in this scenario will find themselves trapped whereas they anticipated timely 

receipt of a green card, their wait exceeds seven or more years. In addition, all future 

employment-based green card applicants effectively would be barred from applying for many 

years.38

2. Employment-Based Green Card Data Tracking and Ombudsman as 

Interdepartmental Liaison 

The key to addressing this management issue at USCIS is to understand the dynamic 

interplay of priority dates and shifting workloads of three departments, and to know with greater 

precision and accuracy the size and details of USCIS’ workloads. As recommended in the 2006 

Annual Report (at p. 16, AR 2006 -- 02), the Ombudsman continues to strongly recommend that 

USCIS track data relating to employment-based green card applications at the time of 

submission to USCIS. These data should include immigrant visa classifications, priority dates, 

and countries of chargeability. USCIS should provide these data to DOS, either through a 

designated operations office at headquarters or through direct contact with USCIS service 

centers, so DOS can set cutoff dates with a clear understanding of pending applications. Since 

August 2005, the Ombudsman has hosted regular monthly meetings with USCIS, DOL, and 

DOS to discuss developments that affect priority dates and visa workloads. 

The tri-agency meetings seek to expand inter-agency communication regarding expected 

new demands and surges, workflows, and priority dates. During the meetings, there is an 

examination of the case management systems and data collection processes used to assess 

workflows through each entity, particularly USCIS. USCIS is impacted the most from changes 

in priority dates, as it processes up to 85 percent of the employment-based visas as green card 

applications for individuals already living in the United States.39

 38 These data are based on analysis of information from various sources and interdepartmental meetings with 

USCIS, DOS, and DOL. 

39 See “2006 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics,” DHS Office of Immigration Statistics, at Table 6. 

June 2007 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov Page 35 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

 Although USCIS stated in its 2006 Annual Report Response (at p. 8) that it provides 

detailed data to DOS, the tri-agency group identified gaps in USCIS’ data. Through these 

discussions, the Ombudsman learned that accounting and processing methods differ at the 

Nebraska and Texas Service Centers (where USCIS processes employment-based petitions). 

Encouragingly, at these meetings and at a recent Ombudsman-initiated meeting at the NSC in 

May, USCIS staff has demonstrated a commitment to addressing these problems. USCIS is 

continuing to evaluate and improve its accounting and case management system to capture the 

necessary data and provide accurate numbers to DOS to ensure priority dates can be set to avoid 

visa loss. Finally, these discussions reveal a growing appreciation of the necessity of 

coordinating the work that critically affects the immigration process at the three agencies. 

3. Possible Solutions to Problems with Employment-Based Green Card 

Processing 

Despite encouraging signs, there is room to do better. In its 2006 Annual Report 

Response (at p. 8) to recommendation AR 2006 -- 02, USCIS stated: 

With respect to the first part of this recommendation, USCIS has 

previously indicated it agrees, and has already implemented 

corresponding changes. Detailed data on the visa impact of the 

USCIS holdings are now provided to DOS each month. 

USCIS also added (at p. 8): 

With respect to the recommendation that USCIS assign visa 

numbers to cases as they are received, the process the Ombudsman 

describes was the process in place a number of years ago. DOS, 

which manages overall visa number allocations, modified that 

process to the procedure in effect today. It is their policy to 

allocate visa numbers to USCIS adjustment cases only as the point 

of approval is reached. 

 However, through the tri-agency meetings, DOS explained that the modification to the 

program occurred in the early 1980s because INS could not adhere to the requirements to return 

unused visa numbers immediately. The Ombudsman understands that DOS prefers that cases are 

reported qualified for a visa earlier than at approval. In the last several months, there have been 

several suggestions on how to accomplish that task, but operational concerns remain. The 

Ombudsman hopes that USCIS and DOS can reestablish the older program with improved 

processing and technology to ensure timely and accurate reporting of cases ready-to-issue and to 

prevent the future loss of visa numbers. 

In the 2006 Annual Report (at p. 16, AR 2006 -- 02), the Ombudsman also recommended 

that USCIS assign visa numbers to employment-based green card applications as applicants file 

them. The Ombudsman continues to recommend that USCIS work with DOS to reinstate that 

process which existed in the early 1980s, wherein DOS issued visa numbers for both 

employment and family-based applications for applicants as they applied rather than as they 

Page 36 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov June 2007 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

were approved. This process would ensure that USCIS does not accept more applications than 

the number of visas available. 

Another issue with priority dates and workloads is connected to the new fee rule. The 

Ombudsman anticipates that when the new fee rule goes into effect in July, delays in 

adjudication will significantly impact the agency if it does not track visa information, including 

visa classifications, priority dates, and country of chargeability. Without tallying cases receipted 

by visa category, USCIS inevitably will accept ineligible applications and more applications than 

it can process in the given timeframe. The agency will not collect fees for interim benefits issued 

for new green card applicants, as the new fee rule requires only one payment for both. In 

addition, there may be large numbers of retrogressed cases and, eventually, multiple issuances of 

interim benefits. 

As described in the Ombudsman’s 2006 Annual Report (at pp. 13-16), the Ombudsman 

continues to be concerned about USCIS’ data integrity and failure to meet its obligation to 

maintain an accurate count of pending employment- and family-based preference applications. 

Although the focus is on employment-based visa applications, similar concerns exist for familybased preference cases. The continued collaboration of these agencies supports the 

Ombudsman’s vision of cooperation to provide benefits in a timely and efficient manner. 

F. Name Checks and Other Security Checks 

FBI name checks, one of several security screening tools used by USCIS, continue to 

significantly delay adjudication of immigration benefits for many customers, hinder backlog 

reductions efforts, and may not achieve their intended national security objectives. FBI name 

checks may be the single biggest obstacle to the timely and efficient delivery of immigration 

benefits. The problem of long-pending FBI name check cases worsened during the reporting 

period. 

1. Background 

As of May 2007, USCIS reported a staggering 329,160 FBI name check cases pending, 

with approximately 64 percent (211,341) of those cases pending more than 90 days and 

approximately 32 percent (106,738) pending more than one year.40 While the percentages of 

long-pending cases compared to last year are similar, the absolute numbers have increased. 

There are now 93,358 more cases pending the name check than last year. Perhaps most 

disturbing, there are 31,144 FBI name check cases pending more than 33 months as compared to 

21,570 last year – over a 44 percent increase in the number of cases pending more than 33 

months.41

 40 See USCIS FBI Pending Name Check Aging Report (May 4, 2007). It is important to note that USCIS does not 

include within its backlog cases pending due to FBI name checks. There are 155,592 FBI name check cases pending 

more than six months that otherwise may be part of USCIS’ backlog. See section III.B for a discussion of USCIS 

backlogs. 

41 See id.

June 2007 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov Page 37 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

Figure 10: Pending FBI Name Checks 

Age of Pending

Response

Total Count

(May 4, 2007)

Total Count

(May 17, 2006)

< 3 months 117,819 82,636

3 - 6 months 55,749 33,450

6 - 9 months 28,029 20,047

9 - 12 months 20,825 16,845

12 - 15 months 14,133 15,064

15 - 18 months 13,931 10,636

18 - 21 months 11,035 8,144

21 - 24 months 12,398 8,325

24 - 27 months 11,765 9,754

27 - 30 months 6,600 4,435

30 - 33 months 5,732 4,896

> 33 months 31,144 21,570

Total Pending 329,160 235,802

During the reporting period, processing delays due to FBI name checks were an issue in 

approximately 25 percent of all written case problems received by the Ombudsman. Resolving 

the FBI name check issue is included in the Ombudsman’s top five priorities posted on the office 

website.42 Unlike FBI name checks, other types of background and security checks – e.g., 

fingerprint checks, the Interagency Border Inspection Systems name checks (IBIS), and the 

Automated Biometric Identification System (IDENT) checks – return results within a few days, 

if not a few minutes. These law enforcement and watch list checks do not significantly prolong 

USCIS processing times or contribute to the USCIS backlog. 

As described in the Ombudsman’s 2006 Annual Report (at p. 24), the FBI provides 

information to USCIS regarding anyone who is the principal subject of an investigation or is a 

person referenced in a file. USCIS adjudicators and the Fraud Detection and National Security 

(FDNS) unit use this information to determine if applicants are ineligible for benefits. The FBI 

provides the name check results at USCIS’ request. Name checks are not conducted by the FBI 

as part of ongoing investigations or from a need to learn more about an individual because of any 

threat or risk perceived by the FBI. Instead, the name checks are a fee-for-service that the FBI 

provides to USCIS and according to USCIS-defined standards. 

Once USCIS forwards records to the FBI for name checks, the process and the 

turnaround time for the checks are outside of USCIS’ control. Completion of the name check 

process may take considerable time because manual reviews of FBI files are sometimes required. 

This review may include FBI reporting on fragments of names of people who are not necessarily 

central or directly related to an investigation or law enforcement matter. In discussions with the 

 42 See section VI.F. 

Page 38 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov June 2007 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

Ombudsman, the FBI has stated that it lacks the resources to perform the function in a timely 

manner. 

2. Impact of Long-Pending FBI Name Checks on USCIS Customers 

The delay caused by the FBI name check has substantial consequences to applicants and 

their families, as well as to our country and the economy. Examples of how legitimate applicants 

suffer include: 

• Loss of employment and employment opportunities where the position requires 

green card status or U.S. citizenship; 

• Possible termination of employment due to the inability to comply with required 

Form I-9 employment verification procedures where USCIS delays interim EAD 

issuance; 

• Difficulties obtaining drivers’ licenses; 

• Inability to qualify for certain federal grants and funds; 

• Limitations on the ability to purchase property; 

• Difficulties obtaining credit and student loans; and 

• Disqualification from in-state tuition. 

CASE PROBLEM 

The applicant’s green card application has been pending since early 2005 

due to the FBI name check. The applicant is a valued researcher at a U.S. 

pharmaceutical company. 

CASE PROBLEM 

The applicant’s green card application has been pending with USCIS for 

approximately four years due to the FBI name check. The applicant is a 

researcher at a U.S. university and, because of the adjudication delay, the 

university and the individual have been disadvantaged in seeking grant proposals 

and funding. Specifically, the individual reports that he is currently working on 

federal research projects. The applicant’s inability to advance critical work for 

the project is a serious impediment to the university, its competitiveness, and the 

applicant’s professional advancement. 

June 2007 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov Page 39 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

CASE PROBLEM 

In fall 2003, an applicant filed a green card application, which remained 

pending due to FBI name checks until spring 2007. During the course of the 

adjudication, the applicant was fingerprinted and applied for interim benefits 

several times. Although the applicant applied for most of the interim benefits in a 

timely manner, the filing of the last EAD was not timely, and the applicant had to 

end his employment. In correspondence to the Ombudsman in the winter of 2007, 

the applicant related that he is a cancer patient who no longer has income 

necessary to pay for treatments. 

In February 2007, USCIS made public the criteria for expedited treatment of FBI name 

checks. While this change should help with specific cases, the status quo for FBI name check 

completion is unacceptable from the standpoint of national security and immigration benefits 

processing. 

3. Value of the FBI Name Checks 

The challenge for USCIS (and perhaps the challenge for DHS and the entire federal 

government) is to evaluate the value of maintaining the current FBI name check process relative 

to considerations of threat, vulnerability, and consequence. The Ombudsman agrees with the 

assessment of many case workers and supervisors at USCIS field offices and service centers that 

the FBI name check process has limited value to public safety or national security, especially 

because in almost every case the applicant is in the United States during the name check process, 

living or working without restriction. 

The Ombudsman recommended in the 2006 Annual Report (at p. 25) that the FBI name 

check process be re-examined. Delays in the name check process actually prolong an 

individual’s presence in the United States while the check is pending. In this sense, the current 

USCIS name check policy may increase the risk to national security by extending the time a 

potential criminal or terrorist remains in the country. 

In its 2006 Annual Report Response (at p. 10), USCIS stated: 

Although these security checks may require a more lengthy 

processing time, USCIS believes that performing them is essential 

to identifying national security and public safety concerns that 

would not have been uncovered by other means . . . in, a few cases, 

the information obtained from the FBI through this process has 

reflected very significant issues and risks. FBI name checks 

disclose information to USCIS that is otherwise not available. 

Information contained in 39 [percent] of the FBI positive responses 

(letterhead memoranda) received in FY 06 was not contained in 

IBIS/TECS, USCIS’ primary background check tool. . .. 

[A]lthough a heavy price is paid in inquiries, mandamus actions, 

and other forms of litigation, USCIS is committed to effective 

Page 40 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov June 2007 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

background checks, and thus is committed to the FBI name check. 

In fact, under the new fee rule currently under review, USCIS 

proposes to dedicate more funds to the FBI name check process as 

the FBI has indicated the fees they charge for these checks will 

increase and additional staff will be added to the process. This 

should help to speed up the name check process and reduce the 

backlog significantly. 

Use of the 39 percent positive response rate as referenced by USCIS to justify continuing 

this program may exaggerate the value of the FBI name check. It is unclear how many of the 

FBI name check “responses” also were revealed by one or more of the other security checks 

conducted for the applications. To date, the Ombudsman has been unable to ascertain from 

USCIS the total number of actual problem cases that the agency discovered exclusively as a 

result of the FBI name check. The Ombudsman understands that most, if not all, of the problem 

cases which would result in an eventual denial of benefits also can be revealed by the other more 

efficient, automated criminal and security checks that USCIS initiates. 

COMMENTS FROM OMBUDSMAN'S TELECONFERENCE 

One caller mentioned that USCIS does not schedule applicants for 

interviews because security clearances are not yet completed. He suggested that 

USCIS needs to look at the cost-benefit of doing these clearances. The caller 

stated he is in the military and has a top secret clearance. 

Another caller suggested that information could be sent every “X” number 

of months to the applicant or attorney that the application still is held up for 

pending name checks, which would avert the many update requests. 

4. Possible Solutions to the FBI Name Check Delays 

During this and previous reporting periods, the Ombudsman had numerous meetings with 

USCIS leadership on FBI name checks and discussed a number of solutions to the name check 

logjam. 

a. Pre-Application Security Checks 

A possible solution to the name check problem is pre-application security checks. USCIS 

has not chosen to implement such a process, which would dramatically impact the agency’s 

revenue stream for a short period of time. Simultaneously, USCIS is failing to make basic 

changes to its processing methodology to reduce fraud and ineligible applicants. Instead, USCIS 

continues to substantially fund a process with questionable value. USCIS maintains that the 

name check process is of value, but it remains unclear whether the process has added any 

additional value over the security processes already in place. 

June 2007 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov Page 41 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

Figure 11: Ombudsman’s Suggested Pre-Application Security Check Process 

Pre-Application Process1 Application Process1

1. PROCESS INITIATION2

● Applicant/Petitioner registers intent electronically 

● Individual pays Pre-Clearance fee 

● Individual submits to fingerprinting, photographing, 

medical screen/review, DNA collection (if necessary) 

and financial review 

● Naturalization tests (if necessary) are administered 

● File created/located/obtained 

Visa not available. 

Case suspended until 

visa is available. 

2. BIOMETRIC/BIOGRAPHIC DATA 

SHARE3

● Biometric and biographic information is 

shared with law enforcement and other 

appropriate agencies/offices for security/public 

safety risk determination 

● Medical information is reviewed to determine 

health risk determination 

● DNA material sent for testing to establish 

claimed relationships 

● Financial documents reviewed/verified 

● Results from checks/reviews returned for 

consolidation into a Clearance Report 

3. CLEARANCE 

● Clearance Report is issued 

● Clearance Report will establish 

eligibility in security, criminal, 

health, financial, and immigration 

history areas 

● Clearance Report will contain 

DNA test results (if required) 

● Clearance Report will authorize an 

applicant to proceed to the USCIS 

application process 

● Clearance Report will be available 

online for interested law enforcement 

and intelligence entities 

● Copy of Clearance Report 

provided to Applicant

Visa available. 

Proceed to Step 2. 

1. May be performed in the United States or abroad. 

2. Can include individuals applying for nonimmigrant visas or changes of status, individuals applying for immigrant status (adjustment 

or consular process), refugees, and naturalization applicants. 

3. DHS/USCIS will collect and share data through an integrated case (person-based) management system. A component of this system 

will be an immigration case management system. 

4. APPLICATION 

● Applicant files electronic application, 

or 

● Applicant appears at USCIS or 

Consulate 

● Application, required documents, and 

fees are submitted 

● Applications not meeting all filing 

standards are rejected immediately 

● Applications by individuals who have 

not undergone Pre-Clearance process 

are rejected immediately 

● Visa number (if necessary) secured 

by USCIS or assigned by DOS 

5. INTERVIEW

● Interview to determine whether basis for 

immigration/naturalization is valid (marriage 

interview, employment verification, diversity 

lottery winner, passport review, etc.), 

admissibility has been established, and/or 

naturalization tests have been completed 

satisfactorily 

● Decision 

● Card/Certificate production order or Denial 

Notice production order (as appropriate) 

● On-site card/certification production and 

SAME-DAY DELIVERY

Same Day 

Interview 

(if required) 

Same-Day Issuance 

Temporary Status/ 

Employment 

Authorization 

(EAD) 

 Green Card Citizenship/ 

Naturalization 

Pre-Cleared Applicant

● Nonimmigrant – Found 

Admissible 

● Green card applicant – Found 

Admissible 

● Naturalization – Found 

Eligible 

Page 42 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov June 2007 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

Figure 11 outlines the security screening steps to clear an applicant prior to interview, 

where necessary, and for adjudication of the immigration benefits application. The 

applicant/petitioner would register intent and pay a fee to cover the costs of the process. Preapplication is more than a pre-screening that determines prima facie eligibility. It moves the 

case to an adjudicating officer who reviews the file and interviews the applicant, if necessary. 

Since all fingerprints, biometrics, security clearances, necessary documents, medical evaluation, 

financial support, and visa availability are cleared, the applicant can be processed to conclusion 

immediately after interview. A Clearance Report is documentary proof that the applicant 

successfully completed the pre-application process. This process would place biometrics capture 

and security screening in the hands of appropriate law enforcement/contract employees, trained 

in the pre-screening process, and the determination of eligibility for benefits in the hands of 

USCIS officers trained in immigration law. 

The agency also should review the DHS resources available to assist in exploring options 

to solve the backlogged FBI name check process. A number of DHS law enforcement entities 

perform security checks similar to those performed by USCIS. 

b. USCIS Background Check Service IT System for Tracking 

FBI Name Check Cases 

USCIS’ 2006 Annual Report Response (at p. 10) indicates that the agency’s planned 

Background Check Service (BCS), a new IT system that will track the status of background and 

security checks for pending cases, was to be implemented in late April with deployment 

beginning in May 2007. As of this writing, the BCS is not yet deployed. Currently, USCIS has 

limited capability to produce reports detailing the status of long-pending FBI name check cases. 

In addition, USCIS systems do not automatically indicate when a delayed name check is 

complete and the case can be adjudicated. Often, this leads to a situation where the validity of 

other checks expire before USCIS reviews the case. Those other checks then need to be 

reinitiated, adding financial and time costs for applicants and USCIS. The Ombudsman fully 

supports the expeditious rollout of the BCS system. 

c. A Risk-Based Approach to FBI Name Checks 

Name checks do not differentiate whether the individual has been in the United States for 

many years or a few days, is from and/or has traveled frequently to a country designated as a 

State Sponsor of Terrorism, or is a member of the U.S. military. Many individuals subject to 

lengthy name checks are either already green card holders or have been issued Employment 

Authorization Documents (EADs). These documents allow them to receive Social Security 

cards and state drivers’ licenses. Most green card applicants are also eligible to receive advance 

parole enabling them to travel outside the United States and return as long as their cases are 

pending, which can be for many years under the current process. 

June 2007 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov Page 43 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

CASE PROBLEM 

In early 2006, the applicant applied for naturalization. USCIS informed 

the applicant that the application is pending due to the FBI name check. The 

applicant currently is a contract employee for a federal agency and was security 

screened prior to beginning that employment. 

CASE PROBLEM 

The applicant’s green card application was filed in early 2004. The 

application remains pending due to the FBI name check. The applicant 

previously served as a security officer at a U.S. embassy and was subject to 

rigorous security screening for the position. 

In November 2006, Secretary Chertoff discussed a risk-based approach to homeland 

security threats, vulnerabilities, and consequences: 

[T]he core principle that animates what we do at DHS . . . is risk 

management. It is a recognition of the fact that management of risk 

is not elimination of risk. There is no elimination of risk in life, 

and anybody who promises every single person protection against 

every threat at every moment in every place in the country is 

making a false promise . . .. What we do have to do is identify and 

prioritize risks -- understanding the threat, the vulnerability and the 

consequence. And then we have to apply our resources in a costeffective manner, using discipline and common sense in order to 

minimize the risk without imposing undue cost on our 

communities and our families.43 

Despite Secretary Chertoff’s continuing emphasis on risk management, USCIS performs 

FBI name checks without the benefit of risk management modeling. In recent visits to USCIS 

field offices, a number of leaders have questioned the usefulness of the FBI name checks citing 

some of the same concerns discussed here. The process is not working and consideration should 

be given to re-engineering it to include a risk-based approach to immigration screening and 

national security. The U.S. Government Accountability Office recently noted in a report that 

“[w]hile the Secretary of DHS has expressed a commitment to risk management, DHS has not 

 43 DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff, Prepared Remarks at the 2006 Grants & Training National Conference, 

Washington, D.C. (Nov. 28, 2006); http://www.dhs.gov/xnews/speeches/sp_1164738645429.shtm (last visited June 

3, 2007). 

Page 44 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov June 2007 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

performed comprehensive risk assessments in . . . immigration and customs systems to guide 

resource allocation decisions.”44 

Every effort should be undertaken to identify and remove persons who pose threats to the 

United States, which would include rescinding immigration benefits after USCIS has granted 

them. It would be irresponsible for law enforcement entities to stop their investigation of a 

potential crime merely because the person who is the subject of their investigation has obtained a 

green card or U.S. citizenship. Similarly, it would be illogical to think that delaying issuance of 

a green card or U.S. citizenship will prevent a criminal from committing a crime. Considering 

the protection the FBI name check provides, the cost of government resources used, and mental 

and actual hardships to applicants and their families, USCIS should reassess the continuation of 

its policy to require FBI name checks in their current form. 

RECOMMENDATION AR 2007 -- 06 

In addition to the Ombudsman’s recommendation in the 2006 Annual 

Report, AR 2006 –04, the Ombudsman recommends that USCIS: (1) evaluate the 

value of the name check in its current format and establish a risk-based approach 

to screening for national security concerns; (2) work with the FBI to provide the 

necessary resources to perform name checks in a timely manner; and (3) provide 

greater transparency to customers by publishing monthly the number of longpending FBI name check cases. 

G. Interim Benefits 

The Ombudsman strongly supports efforts by USCIS to eliminate the need for interim 

benefits in favor of timely, efficient, and secure adjudication of the ultimate immigration benefit. 

1. Background 

Generally, USCIS issues interim benefits – EADs and advance parole documents 

(international travel documents) – to individuals who have green card applications pending with 

the agency for over 90 days.45 The Ombudsman is encouraged by constructive dialogue with 

USCIS during the reporting period that addresses funding and security issues related to the 

processing of interim benefits. 

On May 30, 2007, USCIS established new filing fees for immigration benefits.46 Under 

the new fee schedule, USCIS will charge a single fee for green card applications to include 

recovery of the processing costs for interim benefits. The Ombudsman supports this approach to 

 44 U.S. Government Accountability Office Report “Homeland Security: Management and Programmatic Challenges 

Facing the Department of Homeland Security,” GAO-07-398T at 2 (Feb. 2007); 

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07398t.pdf (last visited June 6, 2007). 

45 See 8 C.F.R. § 274a.13(d). 

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

Reg. 29,851 (May 30, 2007); see also section III.H.1. 

June 2007 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov Page 45 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

cost recovery. By combining the two fees, USCIS mitigates its dependency on fees from interim 

benefits and eliminates the appearance of the agency prolonging processing times of the primary 

benefit application to collect fees on interim benefits.

Figure 12 shows that interim benefits accounted for approximately 18 percent of all 

USCIS revenue in FY 06. Currently, USCIS must dedicate resources to the adjudication of 

interim benefits, rather than focus on green card and other benefits processing. A cycle of delays 

and fees has developed to the detriment of customers and USCIS alike. 

EADs confer many of the privileges that the green card provides, including permission to 

work in the United States and ability to obtain other federal and state forms of identification such 

as Social Security cards and drivers’ licenses. These documents enable an individual to secure 

property and obtain credit in the United States. They also legitimize the individual’s presence in 

the United States, although legal status is not yet fully determined. It is not uncommon for 

individuals to receive EADs for years, only to have the green card application eventually denied. 

In fact, applicants who know they are ineligible for green cards may rely on the continuation of a 

backlog to obtain the EAD, which allows them to live and work in the United States legally for 

months, if not years. 

2. Thousands of Ineligible Green Card Applicants Continue to Receive 

EADs 

In 2004, the Ombudsman recommended an up-front processing model that would 

eliminate the need to issue EADs in many instances.47 USCIS implemented a pilot program to 

test a version of this model, which became known as the Dallas Office Rapid Adjustment 

(DORA) program. As discussed in section IV of this annual report, the Ombudsman strongly 

supports the expansion of the DORA program or a similar up-front processing model that would 

eliminate the issuance of interim benefits to most ineligible applicants. 

 During the reporting period, the DORA data reflected similar approval and denial rates as 

in the 2006 reporting period.48 Unfortunately, USCIS has been unable to provide accurate and 

complete data on the exact number of interim benefits issued nationally to green card applicants. 

In the 2006 Annual Report, the Ombudsman estimated the data, but is not including these data 

for this reporting period as the DORA program continues to perform as in 2006 and nationwide 

denials continue to be significantly higher. Consequently, there are tens of thousands of green 

card applicants who continue to receive EADs even though they eventually are deemed ineligible 

for the green card. 

H. Funding of USCIS 

The USCIS funding structure is one of the principal challenges to efficient and timely 

delivery of immigration services. The manner in which USCIS obtains its funding affects every 

facet of USCIS operations, including the ability to: (1) implement new program and processing 

initiatives; (2) begin information technology and other transformation efforts; and (3) plan for 

 47 See sections IV and V.27. 

48 See Figure 14. 

Page 46 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov June 2007 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

the future. Congress mandates that USCIS be self-funded. This includes covering the cost of 

programs for which the agency charges no fees, i.e., “unfunded mandates,” such as asylum and 

refugee processing and U.S. armed forces naturalization filings, as well as operational overhead 

and information technology modernization. 

Figure 12: USCIS Fee Revenue for FY 06 

Form Total 

Revenue

(millions)

I-765 (Employment Authorization Application) $241

N-400 (Naturalization Application) $233

Biometric Fees -- Photograph and Fingerprint Fee $165

Premium Processing (for I-129s) $160

I-485 (Green Card Application) $160

I-130 (Family Immigrant Petition) $141

I-90 (Green Card Replacement Application) $122

I-129 (Temporary Employment) $79

I-131 (Travel Document Application) $62

I-539 (Extension or Change of Temporary Status) $46

I-751 (Removal of Conditional Residence) $27

I-140 (Employment Immigrant Petition) $26

Life Act (74)- 245(i) (Penalty Fee for Immigrant Petition) $39

I-290B (Notice of Appeal to the Administrative Appeals Office) $18

I-600A (Application for Advance Processing of Orphan Petition) $15

N-600 (Petition to Classify Orphan as an Immediate Relative) $15

I-129F (Fiancé(e) Petition) $11

I-687 - over 18 years of age 

(Application for Status as A Temporary Resident)

$10

Subtotal $1,570

All Other Forms and Miscellaneous Revenue $79

Grand Total $1,649

Source: USCIS FY 06 Fee Collections 

1. USCIS Sets New Fees for Petitions and Applications 

On May 30, 2007, USCIS published a final rule entitled “Adjustment of the Immigration 

and Naturalization Benefit Application and Petition Fee Schedule,” to set new application fees.49 

The fees increase on average $223 per application or petition and $605 for green card 

applications (from $325 to $930 including fees for interim benefits). 

 49 See generally 72 Fed. Reg. 29,851 (May 30, 2007). 

June 2007 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov Page 47 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

The current fee schedule is based on data and analysis of INS benefits processes from 

1997, and all subsequent fee adjustments were based on that data until the May 2007 fee 

adjustment. The new fee schedule improves the methodology and updates the data used to 

calculate and set user fees. It takes into account current costs, current service levels, goals for 

additional services, new post-September 11, 2001 security requirements, and data from the 

USCIS Performance Analysis System (PAS). However, some of the inputs for the model are 

flawed. For example, PAS data are often deficient and do not precisely capture USCIS 

workloads and statistics. USCIS also plans to review fees every two years to ensure the agency 

is recovering the full cost of processing immigration benefits. 

The Ombudsman strongly supports the concept that fee levels should recover the cost of 

processing applications and petitions and other USCIS expenses. It is essential that USCIS 

maintain a funding stream that provides it with adequate revenue to complete adjudications in a 

timely manner and make investments for the future in infrastructure, technology, and personnel. 

At the same time, the Ombudsman recognizes that many people and organizations are concerned 

that the new fees are excessive and unfairly burden applicants. They are concerned, as is the 

Ombudsman, that user fees are used in an efficient and cost-effective manner to improve 

processing and customer service. In that regard, USCIS should demonstrate through public 

milestones its progress in achieving the 20 percent productivity gains promised by the Director in 

his testimony to Congress on the new fee schedule.50 There should be visible evidence of better 

facilities and digital processing. Working with stakeholders, USCIS should establish a list of 

deliverables with timelines to allow the public to see what it gains from the considerable money 

spent in fees. 

Applications for ancillary services necessitated by lengthy processing times generate 

substantial additional revenue for USCIS, but the new fee rule takes steps to address the 

problems previously noted by the Ombudsman. Under the rule, fees for interim benefits will be 

included in the overall fee for green card applications. This approach is an important step in 

reducing USCIS’ reliance on revenue that directly results from delays in adjudications. 

However, inclusion of interim benefits fees means that most green card applicants will pay for 

interim benefits whether they need them or want to obtain work authorizations or travel 

documents.51 In addition, customers who applied for green cards prior to publication of the final 

fee adjustment rule will continue to apply and pay fees separately for interim benefits as well as 

renew work authorization and travel documents annually. 

The new fee rule also eliminates the double fee for K-3 foreign national spouses who file 

Forms I-130 and I-129F (Petition for Alien Fiancé(e)).52 There is no charge for the K-3 visa 

petition if the petitioner is the beneficiary of an immigrant petition filed by a U.S. citizen on the 

Form I-130. 

 50 See Testimony of Emilio Gonzalez, Director USCIS, before the U.S. House Judiciary Committee Subcommittee 

on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law (Feb. 14, 2007). 

51 In the final rule, USCIS provided for applicants age 14 and younger to pay a reduced fee. See 72 Fed. Reg. at 

29862. 

52 See id. at 29873. 

Page 48 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov June 2007 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

2. Premium Processing 

Premium processing service guarantees a 15-day processing time for certain immigration 

benefits applications upon payment of an additional $1,000 fee.53 USCIS must respond within 

the 15 days with a grant, denial, or request for evidence (RFE). Otherwise, it must return the 

money. Premium processing illustrates the fundamental dilemma USCIS faces in balancing its 

efforts to improve efficiency and need to ensure a continuous flow of funds. At the same time, 

premium processing demonstrates USCIS’ capability to provide world-class, 21st century service 

to its customers. 

Premium processing addresses many of the pervasive and serious problems identified in 

regular processing. Customers who pay the additional fee for premium processing can contact 

USCIS directly by phone, email, or facsimile to answer basic questions. The need for USCIS to 

issue requests for additional evidence is reduced as applications are more complete. Time is 

saved both for the adjudicator and applicant. The quick turnaround time for premium processing 

cases eliminates the need for benefits applications to be warehoused, which requires substantial 

contractor expenditures for storage and retrieval. With a 15-day processing time, it is less likely 

applicants will have changed addresses. 

During the reporting period, USCIS announced the addition of employment-based 

immigrant visa categories for premium processing.54 With benefits to both the agency and 

customers, USCIS should use elements of premium processing for all of its cases. 

In its 2006 Annual Report Response (at p. 20), USCIS stated: 

[The agency] believes in incrementally expanding Premium 

Processing options to give customers choices of fee and service 

levels . . .. The Ombudsman, focused on processing times and 

costs, asserts that USCIS data shows that it could apply the 

attributes of premium processing to all applications at less cost. 

Only in a very narrow sense is this true, for faster processing and 

direct communication with the customer can reduce some 

tangential costs. However, this overlooks the key to premium 

processing, which is speed. 

 53 “The Attorney General is authorized to establish and collect a premium fee for employment-based petitions and 

applications. This fee shall be used to provide certain premium-processing services to business customers, and to 

make infrastructure improvements in the adjudications and customer-service processes. For approval of the benefit 

applied for, the petitioner/applicant must meet the legal criteria for such benefit. This fee shall be set at $1, 000, 

shall be paid in addition to any normal petition/application fee that may be applicable, and shall be deposited as 

offsetting collections in the Immigration Examinations Fee Account. The Attorney General may adjust this fee 

according to the Consumer Price Index.” 8 U.S.C. §1356(u). 

54 See USCIS News Releases, USCIS to Expand Premium Processing Service (Aug. 18, 2006, Sept. 22, 2006, and 

Nov. 8, 2006); http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/PremProc081806NR.pdf; 

http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/PremProc092206PR.pdf; and 

http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/PremiumProcessingRelease_08No06.pdf (last visited June 6, 2007). 

June 2007 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov Page 49 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

USCIS also gains substantial revenue from premium processed cases. In a three-year 

period from October 2003 through September 2006, USCIS collected $501 million in premium 

processing fees and $212 million for regular processing. Since the start of premium processing 

in June 2001, USCIS has collected more than $800 million. The Ombudsman again notes that 

premium processing is less costly than regular USCIS benefits processing because fewer repeat 

steps are necessary, fewer employees must handle these applications, and delayed processing 

inquiries are eliminated. USCIS has not provided any credible data to the contrary. The margin 

of income that USCIS can derive from premium processing is higher than from regular 

processing. 

RECOMMENDATION AR 2007 -- 07 

The Ombudsman recommends that USCIS conduct a thorough, 

transparent, and independent analysis of premium processing costs as compared 

with regular processing. The Ombudsman recommends that this process include 

a comparison for each stage of these processes for: (1) contractor costs; (2) 

federal employee costs; and (3) all other associated costs. 

As discussed in section III.H.1 of this annual report, USCIS has set new fee increases that 

would fully fund USCIS and allow premium processing revenue to be “isolated from other 

revenues and devoted to the extra services provided to premium processing customers and to 

broader investments in a new technology and business process.”55 

Specifically, premium processing fees will be used to transform 

USCIS from a paper-based process to an electronic environment, 

making it possible to incorporate more effective processing of low 

risk applicants and better identification of higher risk individuals. 

The new operational concept will be based on the types of online 

customer accounts used in the private sector in order to facilitate 

transactions, track activities, and reduce identity fraud.56

The Ombudsman supports the idea of using premium processing revenue for its originally 

intended purpose. However, it is problematic for USCIS to rely on this particular fee to fund the 

transformation effort. To the extent that USCIS improves its processing times, as the agency 

anticipates and stakeholders want, applicants will have fewer reasons to pay the premium 

processing fees to obtain services. As a result, USCIS effectively undercuts the revenue it 

earmarked for transformation. 

Apart from the questions of revenue and how it is used, the Ombudsman continues to 

urge USCIS to apply its experience with premium processing to improve regular processing of 

cases. The objective should be to make regular processing match the service level of premium 

processing without the applicant paying additional fees. 

 55 See 72 Fed. Reg. at 4893-94. 

56 Id. at 4894. 

Page 50 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov June 2007 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

3. The Ombudsman Urges Consideration of a Revolving Trust to Fund 

USCIS 

In the 2006 Annual Report (at p. 29), the Ombudsman suggested that USCIS approach 

Congress to establish a revolving trust account that would be replenished from future fees. A 

revolving trust would: (1) enable the agency to test innovative processes; (2) address unexpected 

program requirements from new legislation; (3) avoid potential temporary anti-deficiency 

concerns; and (4) encourage USCIS leadership to develop new processes instead of continuing 

programs which do not enhance customer service, efficiency, and national security, but 

nevertheless generate essential revenue. In its 2006 Annual Report Response (at p. 12), the 

agency stated: 

USCIS has researched this and has found that even though fees 

would eventually replenish the appropriated funds deposited in the 

fund, the legislation required to enact such a vehicle is not deficit 

neutral. Therefore, any legislation would have budget 

scorekeeping implications within the context of the scorekeeping 

conventions of the Administration and the Congress. 

USCIS does not discuss the benefits or drawbacks of a revolving trust. It only comments on the 

budget scorekeeping questions. The Ombudsman continues to believe that a revolving trust 

would resolve many of the USCIS revenue and funding problems. 

4. USCIS Contracts 

In the 2006 Annual Report (at p. 82), the Ombudsman expressed interest in analyzing the 

critical role of contractors in application processing and record handling, and the many problems 

stemming from processes contractors now handle. Due to USCIS’ concerns expressed to DHS 

about starting this review, DHS encouraged the Ombudsman to forward any such issues to the 

Department and its procurement office, which would have the proper resources to analyze and 

address them. 

I. Lack of Standardization Across USCIS Business Processes 

The INA and related regulations, policy, and procedures govern immigration benefits and 

should result in uniform and equitable adjudication of the law nationwide. The Ombudsman is 

encouraged by USCIS attempts to standardize adjudicative processes and decision-making. For 

example, USCIS now is continually updating its Standard Operating Procedures relating to 

specific application types and developed the Adjudicator’s Toolbox described in its 2006 Annual 

Report Response (at p. 8). In addition, during the reporting period, USCIS released a Domestic 

Operations memorandum entitled “Case Management Timelines.” This memo provides specific 

guidance for employees in the efficient management of cases through the adjudication process: 

[T]he principle of ‘active case management’ which simply means 

that cases are managed through the process in such a manner that 

ensures that they do not linger unattended in any processing stage. 

Meeting [USCIS’] case processing time goals also means taking 

the right actions at the right time. 

June 2007 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov Page 51 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

In its 2006 Annual Report Response (at p. 8), USCIS further states: 

USCIS has developed a business strategy over the past number of 

years to ensure consistency in filing, fee receipting, processing, 

and adjudicating. Part of this business strategy includes turning 

over the data entry and fee receipting to the U.S. Department of 

Treasury, who manages the Lockbox network providers. USCIS 

has 82 local offices, and has found that a decentralized filing 

approach results in disparate treatment, multiple points of failure, 

and increased costs of trying to staff all offices to process receipts 

and remittances timely. For these reasons, USCIS has moved 

toward a standardized process. 

USCIS is making progress. However, questions about standardization continue to be 

raised in meetings with customers and stakeholders, including complaints about: (1) inconsistent 

application of statutory discretion among service centers and field offices; (2) inconsistent 

interpretation and application of laws, regulations, precedent decisions, policies, and procedures; 

and (3) wide variation in processing times for the same benefit type among the USCIS offices. 

The common complaint is that decisions depend more upon which adjudicator handled 

the case rather than on the merits of the case; denial of benefits is more likely from certain 

adjudicators than from others. Stakeholders also related that inequities among various field 

offices are well-known and predictable. 

Examples of Continued Lack of Standardization. 

Serious complaints similar to those discussed in the 2006 Annual Report continue to be 

raised at meetings with the Ombudsman nationwide: 

• Nonimmigrant/Immigrant Adjudication. Inconsistent adjudication continues 

to be a problem for many applicants. Stakeholders frequently tell the Ombudsman about 

inconsistent decisions by USCIS offices for cases similar in nature and merit. Many such 

decisions arise from inadequate training, poor communication between offices, and the 

substantial loss of experienced adjudicators due to retirement and attrition. An effective 

uniform nationwide process has yet to be implemented for most application categories. 

• Processing Times. Processing times continue to vary widely around the country. 

Section III.C in this report addresses this issue in detail. 

• Insufficient Standardization and Local Policies. National standards for 

adjudication processes are imperative, but still need substantial improvement. During the 

reporting period, the Ombudsman continued to observe great variation in local policies 

and procedures among USCIS offices.57 Service centers and field offices continue to 

operate with considerable autonomy resulting in the continuing lack of standardization. 

 57 See Appendix 3, which provides information on the Ombudsman’s visits to USCIS offices. 

Page 52 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov June 2007 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

COMMENTS FROM OMBUDSMAN’S TELECONFERENCE 

Callers expressed concern over the confusion caused by the lack of 

uniformity on motions to reopen submissions. Callers also noted that some 

offices within a district accepted motions by fax, some only by written 

correspondence, and some by email. 

OBSERVATIONS AND STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS FROM THE 

OMBUDSMAN’S TRIPS AND MEETINGS 

The Newark Field Office conducts same-day fraud interviews. If fraud is 

suspected at the initial interview, the case goes to a supervisor for review; if the 

supervisor agrees, the case is scheduled for a fraud interview that day. A few 

adjudicators conduct the fraud interviews on a rotating basis. 

Stakeholders report that in the New York Field Office, it takes over one 

year to schedule a marriage fraud interview (referred to as “Stokes” interview), 

and that some officers are not well trained for this type of interview. Stakeholders 

request that there be instant appeal to a supervisor in these situations. 

RECOMMENDATION AR 2007 -- 08 

The Ombudsman recommends that USCIS institute same-day fraud 

interviews in all field offices. Timely adjudication of applications will deny fraud 

perpetrators additional preparation time and timely decisions will prevent 

issuance of interim benefits. 

RECOMMENDATION AR 2007 -- 09 

The Ombudsman recommends that USCIS produce an Aging Report on 

pending fraud investigations by officer and district. There should be a reasonable 

limit to the time allotted for investigation by the fraud unit. 

• Insufficient Standardization and Training. The Ombudsman observed 

progress during the reporting period. Training issues are further discussed in section 

III.M of this report and in the Ombudsman’s recommendation AR 2006 -- 05. 

• Quality Assurance. The QA program needs to be strengthened and supported at 

all levels within USCIS. The continued absence of adequately trained QA personnel at 

June 2007 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov Page 53 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

the local level contributes to the continuing lack of standardization of all adjudication 

processes. 

COMMENT FROM OMBUDSMAN’S TELECONFERENCE 

A caller mentioned that receipt notices have an increasing number of 

inaccuracies, which can cause problems for establishing the priority date and 

other subsequent events. 

RECOMMENDATION AR 2007 --10 

The Ombudsman strongly endorses a plan whereby employees responsible 

for quality assurance at the local level receive uniform and comprehensive 

training in QA procedures. 

• I-601 Waivers. The Ombudsman reviewed Form I-601 waiver approval and 

denial rates for all USCIS domestic and international offices for the last five years. The 

Ombudsman analyzed the average denial rates for the top five domestic field offices and 

top five international offices.58 The variation in these rates was significant among the 

offices. While international offices demonstrated a consistent trend upward, the denial 

rate in similar fiscal years for domestic offices differed. Domestically, denial rates 

fluctuated with no noticeable trend. For example, at one domestic office where the 

receipt volume was relatively similar from FY 03 through FY 06, the office’s denial rate 

fluctuated from approximately 53 percent, to 26 percent, to 67 percent, in FY 05, FY 06, 

and FY 07 YTD, respectively. Although the causes of these fluctuations are likely 

numerous, in the next reporting period the Ombudsman hopes to analyze the extent to 

which standardized adjudication criteria might stabilize or destabilize the I-601 waiver 

denial rate. 

To address lack of standardization in adjudications, the Ombudsman encourages USCIS 

leadership to implement a nationwide program of standardization, as uniform adjudication 

processing practices and decision-making are imperative. Innovative leadership and effective 

management oversight are essential elements to achieve this objective. 

J. Inefficient or Redundant Processes 

 In the 2006 Annual Report (at pp. 44-50), the Ombudsman reported on and made 

recommendations to address these issues under “USCIS Revenue.” 

 58 The Ombudsman reviewed I-601 denial rates for the ten field offices, five domestic and five overseas, with the 

highest number of I-601 receipts. 

Page 54 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov June 2007 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

1. Need for Improved Form Instructions and USCIS Intake Processes 

 In the Ombudsman’s 2006 Annual Report (at p. 46, AR 2006 -- 09), the Ombudsman 

recommended that USCIS adhere to its regulations and require: (1) application and petition 

packages to be complete before USCIS accepts them; and (2) that the review of necessary 

documents take place before a fee is accepted via a thorough pre-screening process. In its 2006 

Annual Report Response (at p. 17), USCIS indicated that: 

USCIS continues to work to improve the clarity of form 

instructions to help applicants understand what they will need to 

file with an application. This greater clarity also helps manage 

customer expectations with respect to both process and outcomes. 

However, USCIS believes it is more appropriate to accept 

applications that meet minimum standards required by law than to 

extensively analyze applications and reject those that do not 

contain absolutely every document that may be required. Such 

extensive review occurs during the actual adjudication process 

since the need for additional supporting documents may not 

become apparent until the applicant is interviewed. For instance, 

these documents may include proof of termination of prior 

marriages or court documents regarding an arrest. Hence, while to 

a degree it is consistent with the Ombudsman’s theme of up-front 

processing and local adjudication of many kinds of applications, 

rejecting applications prior to filing still leaves significant 

litigation risks as customers can allege that USCIS rejected cases 

that were complete, and they were prevented from pursuing their 

cases. This process occurred with a number of legalization cases 

during the late 1980s and USCIS is still resolving cases where 

applicants claim they were turned away inappropriately. USCIS 

has no proof otherwise because the applications were returned to 

the applicants. 

Front-desking was a problem that occurred approximately 20 years ago during the 

implementation of the Immigration Reform Control Act of 1986. It continues to be cited as a 

reason the agency is hesitant to engage in more rigorous screening prior to accepting filings. 

However, current processes at the Chicago Lockbox provide for digitized records of all cases 

received by the facility whether accepted or rejected. Thus, the one issue of front-desking, i.e., 

the lack of a rejection notice, is moot. Additionally, the 1986 legalization program had very 

specific deadlines, whereas no similar cutoffs apply to the vast majority of cases the Lockbox 

accepts today. 

In many stakeholder meetings and teleconferences, the Ombudsman continues to hear 

concerns about incorrect rejections and an inordinate number of incorrect and/or unnecessary 

RFEs. During a recent visit to the NBC, the Ombudsman discussed these issues and was 

June 2007 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov Page 55 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

encouraged by the management’s awareness of them and the initiatives undertaken by the staff to 

address both underlying and immediate concerns.59

OBSERVATIONS AND STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS FROM THE 

OMBUDSMAN’S TRIPS AND MEETINGS 

If a DORA application is rejected at the Lockbox, there is no 

communication to the local field office. The rejection only goes to the applicant. 

The Lockbox sometimes creates a new applicant file when one already 

exists for the applicant. 

Stakeholders have received rejected applications with another applicant’s 

documents enclosed. 

Stakeholders report that they have received multiple receipts for some 

applications and no receipts for other applications. 

If an application is sent to the Lockbox rather than a service center, the 

Lockbox returns the application to the applicant rather than forwarding it within 

USCIS. 

RECOMMENDATIONS AR 2007 -- 11 

For the Chicago Lockbox, the Ombudsman recommends that USCIS: 

(1) Implement a procedure so the Lockbox will not accept a new filing if a case 

already has been denied and a Notice to Appear (NTA) issued; 

(2) Institute a process to notify a field office when an application is rejected; and 

(3) Implement quality review measures to ensure that errors do not occur in 

mailings to applicants. 

2. Multiple Filings for Foreign Spouses of U.S. Citizens 

U.S. citizens petitioning for foreign spouses to join them in the United States are subject 

to duplicative filing requirements and will pay additional fees until the new fee rule takes effect 

in July 2007. In response to growing processing delays, Congress passed the Legal Immigration 

Family Equity (LIFE) Act in 2000, which created the K-3 visa category for foreign spouses of 

U.S. citizens to obtain a nonimmigrant visa and more quickly join their U.S. citizen spouses in 

the United States.60

 59 See section III.J.4. 

60 See generally Pub. L. No. 106-553, 114 Stat. 2762 (Dec. 21, 2000). 

Page 56 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov June 2007 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

USCIS implemented the law to require a U.S. citizen spouse to first file the Form I-130 

immigrant visa petition, followed by the filing of a petition used for non-immigrant fiancé(e)s, 

Form I-129F. However, to file the I-129F for expedited processing of the non-immigrant visa, 

the U.S. citizen spouse needs to submit a receipt to show proof of the previously filed I-130 and 

its supporting documentation. Thus, to file for expedited service, the applicant needs to file all 

documents previously filed with the receipt for the original I-130 and pay an additional fee. 

USCIS conducts substantially the same security checks and requires approximately the same 

number of hours to process each form. 

However, until the Ombudsman brought this issue to USCIS’ attention, the I-129F was 

processed in 2-3 months, while the I-130 remained pending for many additional months. During 

the reporting period, it appears that USCIS responded to the Ombudsman’s concerns by slowing 

down processing of the I-129F. The May 18, 2007 processing time for the I-129F at the National 

Benefits Center (NBC), the only service center that processes these petitions for the K-3, is six 

months. As of May 18, 2007, the processing time for the I-130 was six months at the California 

Service Center and fourteen months at the Vermont Service Center. The Ombudsman points out 

that the NBC processes I-129F petitions for the K-3 and the VSC and CSC process the I-130 

petitions. If the processing times for I-129Fs and I-130s are the same, as at the CSC, the LIFE 

Act provision providing for the fiancé(e) visa as a faster alternative to the I-130 process is 

meaningless. 

In the 2006 Annual Report (at p. 47, AR 2006 -- 10), the Ombudsman recommended that 

USCIS consolidate these petitions and rapidly process them for spouses and children of U.S. 

citizens. In its 2006 Annual Report Response (at p. 18), USCIS indicated “[a]lternatives are 

under review.” In its May 30, 2007 final fee rule, USCIS eliminated the I-129F fee for K-3 

status. 

3. Application Support Centers and Fingerprinting of Applicants 

As a routine part of the immigration benefits application process, customers visit USCIS 

contract facilities (ASCs) to have biometrics captured (fingerprints and photographs).61 In FY 

06, USCIS submitted over three million fingerprints to the FBI for criminal history checks at a 

cost of more than $48.8 million. The Ombudsman believes many of these were unnecessary, 

repeat fingerprint checks. 

Additionally, USCIS continues to operate without “wrap around” security checks, i.e., 

real time security updates from the law enforcement community on applicants who violate 

criminal laws. Wrap around security checks contemplate an arrangement with law enforcement 

to inform USCIS of any new security concerns that arise without USCIS needing to request 

additional biometrics or name checks from the applicant. In its 2006 Annual Report Response to 

AR 2006 –11 (at p. 18), that USCIS implement wrap around checks, which would provide the 

agency with real time security updates from law enforcement on applicants who violate criminal 

laws, USCIS stated: 

 61 There are approximately 130 ASCs located in separate sites or co-located with USCIS offices. 

June 2007 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov Page 57 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

As the Ombudsman is aware, USCIS has been asking for this 

capability for a number of years. ‘Wrap back’ will give access to 

continuing data about a person’s criminal record, eliminating the 

need for multiple queries and the risks associated with the lack of 

real-time knowledge of security updates. For a number of years, 

USCIS has been in discussions with the FBI about ways to provide 

this ability. USCIS does now receive “wrap back” or “recurrent 

vetting” service from US-VISIT as it submits fingerprints to 

IDENT, based on the information stored within IDENT. When 

“wrap back” functionality is available, USCIS expects to take 

advantage of the service. 

It is unclear whether USCIS actually has wrap-back capability, as the agency both is asking for 

the capability and receives the service from US-VISIT. In addition, it appears that USCIS is 

focused on providing the FBI name check program with resources, rather than concentrating on 

the necessary wrap-back service. 

It often takes USCIS longer to adjudicate an application than the 15 months the agency 

considers fingerprint results to be valid. Consequently, applicants often must return to the ASC 

to have fingerprints retaken. Although USCIS currently has fingerprint storage capability, it 

cannot retrieve the prints from storage. If USCIS had this capability, it would reduce the need 

for applicants to visit ASCs multiple times for repeated fingerprint collection. In AR 2006 – 12, 

the Ombudsman recommended: (1) improvements in USCIS fingerprint storage and retrieval 

capabilities; and (2) use of innovative technology that allows for capture of flat fingerprints 

rather than traditional rolled prints. 

In its 2006 Annual Report Response (at p. 19), USCIS stated that: (1) its Biometrics 

Storage System (BSS), the “central repository for all biometrics captured . . . should be 

implemented by early 2008”; (2) it is working with other federal agencies on capturing flat 

fingerprints and will adopt this capability when “the technology and equipment meet 

requirements that are cost effective”; and (3) the testing and system enhancements of the 

Biometric Check Service (BCS) should be “completed and implemented early in [calendar year] 

2007.”62 

In recent conversations with the Ombudsman, the agency indicated that the BSS would 

be implemented in the summer of 2007. The Ombudsman is concerned that USCIS does not 

have clear deadlines on this extremely important program. Again, the Ombudsman urges 

expeditious implementation of the BSS to address this processing deficiency 

4. Initial Case Screening and Widespread Issuance of Requests for 

Additional Evidence 

USCIS issues requests for additional evidence (RFEs) in approximately 50 percent of 

family-based green card applications filed at the Chicago Lockbox and processed at the NBC, as 

shown in Figure 13. The issuance of receipt notices is tied to each field office’s annual budget 

 62 In addition, USCIS’ 2006 Annual Report Response (at p. 10) states that the “[t]esting and required system 

enhancements should be completed in late April with deployment beginning in May 2007.” 

Page 58 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov June 2007 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

and staffing requirements. The more receipt notices issued to applicants living in the office’s 

jurisdiction, the more resources that field office will receive from headquarters the next year. 

Thus, USCIS has no incentive to reject applications, regardless of their completeness, and 

instead will ask applicants for additional information through RFEs. 

Issuing RFEs and denials is more time consuming for USCIS than rejecting an 

application at the outset or granting a benefit to an eligible customer who has filed a complete 

application. 

COMMENTS FROM OMBUDSMAN'S TELECONFERENCE 

A caller asked if there is a checklist that the service centers use when 

reviewing green card applications. If so, could applicants obtain a copy of it? 

One caller indicated that it is unfair for USCIS to lower response time if 

the agency is not adjudicating the RFEs faster once they are received. 

Several callers indicated that RFEs require information that already was 

submitted to the agency. 

A caller said that if the case is approvable or deniable outside of the need 

for an RFE, the case should be approved or denied without it. 

A caller mentioned that RFEs are often boilerplate and it appears that 

nobody has read the application. Moreover, she sent two identical “L” 

applications for the same company. One was approved and one got an RFE. 

Generally, customers file family-based green card applications with the Chicago 

Lockbox. If accepted, the applications are forwarded to the NBC for administrative processing 

and then to a field office for interviews and final adjudications. At each stage of the application 

process, additional documents may be requested. The agency asks for many of these documents 

at the end of the process, rather than at the beginning before it accepts the application. 

Moreover, if the NBC issues an RFE, that request should cover all of the documents and 

information required for initial case completeness. 

The Ombudsman is concerned that USCIS is issuing RFEs erroneously and requesting, 

for example, documents that were already submitted. In other cases, the filing instructions may 

not be clear and incomplete cases are accepted at the Chicago Lockbox when they should be 

rejected. Due to the extended processing time with RFEs, individuals also may be required to 

pay additional fees for interim benefits and/or make multiple visits for biometrics capture. 

Senior leadership at the NBC is aware of this problem, and the Ombudsman is encouraged by the 

efforts to reduce the issuance of unnecessary and unclear RFEs. 

June 2007 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov Page 59 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

USCIS recently announced plans to reduce the time provided to customers for responding 

to RFEs.63 This change may result in more denials of incomplete applications, but it does not 

address the problem of accepting incomplete applications at the outset. USCIS can solve this 

problem by a rigorous up-front review of the application. 

Figure 13: Comparison of RFE Issuance by the National Benefits Center and the Dallas Office Rapid 

Adjustment Pilot Program 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Jul-06 Aug-06 Sep-06 Oct-06 Nov-06 Dec-06 Jan-07 Feb-07 Mar-07

Month

Percent of I-485s for which RFEs were issued

NBC RFE Rate (Source: NBC data, April 2007)

DORA RFE Rate (Source: DORA data entitled "Reworked Metrics," May 11, 2007)

In the coming year, reducing the issuance of RFEs should be a priority for the agency. 

Up-front review and processing of cases is one option that mitigates the issuance of RFEs for 

incomplete cases. 

 63 See “Removal of the Standardized Request for Evidence Processing Timeframe,” 72 Fed. Reg. 19100 (Apr. 17, 

2007). 

Page 60 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov June 2007 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

RECOMMENDATION AR 2007 --12 

USCIS currently uses substantial resources to issue and review RFEs for 

information that already was submitted or was unclear in the original application 

instructions. While the agency in its 2006 Annual Report Response (at p. 17) 

indicates that it continues to work to improve the clarity of form instructions, the 

Ombudsman recommends that USCIS develop: 

(1) Clearer application instructions so that applicants provide the required 

documentation at the outset; 

(2) Transparent and easily understandable rejection criteria; and 

(3) RFEs written in simple, more direct language with less legalese and 

personalized to the recipient for the limited instances in which RFEs would be 

issued. 

K. Coordination and Communication 

In its 2006 Annual Report Response (at p. 14), USCIS indicated that “[c]oordination and 

communication between and among all USCIS offices has improved as technology [expanded].” 

The Ombudsman commends USCIS for providing “a great deal more information . . . to officers 

today than even just a year ago.” While there has been improvement, the issues and concerns 

expressed in the Ombudsman’s 2005 and 2006 Annual Report mostly remain. Coordination and 

communication continues to be one of USCIS’ biggest challenges, as observed by the 

Ombudsman during visits to field and service center offices during the reporting period. 

1. Field Offices/Service Centers 

Ineffective coordination and communication between field offices and service centers 

continues to be a serious and pervasive problem. Offices are not standardized in how they 

function, and communication between offices is difficult at best. Moreover, unconnected 

information systems inhibit employees from getting the information in a timely way to resolve 

issues and adjudicate cases. Lack of timely information inevitably causes processing delays and 

customer dissatisfaction. For example, each of the four service centers and the NBC continue to 

operate separate computer Local Area Network (LAN) systems with no connectivity to each 

other. Applicants file employment-based green card applications with one of two service 

centers, which forward applications requiring interviews to field offices nationwide. The field 

offices do not have access to the service center’s LAN system and, therefore, cannot: (1) update 

the LAN record with case completion information; or (2) connect to the LAN system to produce 

the green card. The field office must return the paper file to the service center to complete these 

tasks. 

The investment must be made to equip all offices with the tools necessary to well serve 

the public. For example, the Ombudsman has suggested numerous times that USCIS establish 

telephone-based direct link connections into the LAN at field offices to allow them to do the 

June 2007 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov Page 61 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

necessary tasks stated above and to research and obtain service center related information. The 

service centers have hundreds of these connections, while the field offices have none. 

In addition, officer-to-officer communication between the field offices and service 

centers is minimal. Immigration officers often do not accept decisions and actions of other 

officers as cases are transferred. Such de novo review duplicates work already completed, causes 

delays in the adjudication process, and causes hardship, inconvenience, and expense to 

applicants and employers. 

File transfer between offices continues to be a problem. Tracking, timeliness, and the 

loss of files continue to be concerns. 

COMMENT FROM OMBUDSMAN'S TELECONFERENCE 

A caller mentioned that some cases are lost when transferred from one 

service center to another. 

While the National File Tracking System (NFTS) has improved the file transfer process, 

the apparent lack of communication and coordination within USCIS is troubling. For example, 

once the application arrives in the field, there is no tracking of the file. The Ombudsman 

understood that beginning in May 2007, service centers would transfer cases to the NBC which 

would then disseminate the cases to the field to allow for better tracking. However, as of the 

writing of this report, this change has not yet occurred. 

CASE PROBLEM 

The applicant applied for an employment-based green card in late 1997. 

In early 2001, a service center where the application was filed transferred it to a 

local office. The local office interviewed the applicant and his wife and, 

subsequently, transferred the application back to the service center. Next, the 

service center transferred the file back to the local office and, in the middle of 

2003, the couple had another interview. The local office transferred the file again 

to the service center. Subsequently, the service center again transferred it to the 

local office in late 2004. Since then, the applicant and his wife have been unable 

to obtain case status information. In early May 2007, the Ombudsman learned 

that the file had been at the National Records Center and was sent back to the 

local office at the end of 2006. The case remains pending. 

2. USCIS Headquarters/Field Office Coordination 

There appears to be a continued lack of communication and coordination between USCIS 

headquarters and the field. For example, in attempting to determine the total number of family 

and employment-based cases at field offices, headquarters cannot rapidly obtain the information 

because every office has its own tracking system using different criteria. The Ombudsman 

Page 62 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov June 2007 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

routinely hears from field office staff that many suggestions forwarded by staff to headquarters 

are ignored. 

Immigration Information Officers, adjudicators, and other employees are often not 

getting information about changes to procedures or receiving accurate data. This lack of 

communication and coordination hinders their capability to provide accurate information to the 

customer and complete cases in a timely manner. This is particularly difficult for IIOs who are 

the front line employees expected to know the answers to difficult questions. As noted by one 

IIO, immigration attorneys and consultants often know about legal and procedural changes 

before IIOs have the information or instructions from USCIS headquarters. The result is delay, 

additional expense, frustration, and hardship for the customer. 

RECOMMENDATION AR 2007 -- 13 

The Ombudsman recommends that the USCIS budget for each 

headquarters element include sufficient funds for detailed visits with field office 

and service center line and supervisory staff to enable headquarters to better 

understand the needs of these offices. 

In AR 2006 – 07, the Ombudsman recommended that USCIS incorporate into its ASC 

contract the ability to use the underutilized ASC staff in co-located facilities to assist field office 

operations. USCIS rejected this recommendation in its 2006 Annual Report Response (at p. 15): 

USCIS has been expanding the role of the ASCs. A prime 

example is that the ASCs are being used to assist with the process 

of renewing [green cards]. However, it is important to ensure that 

the ASCs remain tightly focused on their core mission of identity 

verification and biometric collection. USCIS does not plan to 

modify contracts to allow local USCIS managers to individually 

assign other forms of work not described specifically in the 

Statement of Work. 

The Ombudsman reiterates the concerns identified previously and again suggests that USCIS 

reconsider its position in the interest of efficiency and good government. 

3. USCIS Relations with Stakeholders and Other Government Agencies 

Meaningful coordination and communication is essential between USCIS and other 

relevant government agencies and employer groups, yet it is lacking. 

USCIS personnel who handle records have expressed concern to the Ombudsman about 

the poor adherence to file handling procedures by CBP and Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement (ICE). While training in NFTS and records handling procedures were provided to 

CBP and ICE, continuous training is necessary. USCIS and the customer would benefit greatly 

from regular communication and coordination with other such entities. 

June 2007 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov Page 63 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

RECOMMENDATION AR 2007 -- 14 

The Ombudsman recommends that USCIS define a program to ensure 

proper handling and monitoring of its records. The program should be assigned 

to a USCIS headquarters office element. 

As described in last year’s annual report (at p. 39), USCIS still needs to work on better 

communication and coordination with employers and government agencies at the federal, state, 

and local levels. At the same time, the necessity for such coordination and communication with 

these groups is rapidly increasing. 

CASE PROBLEM 

A U.S. citizen petitioner filed a Form I-130 for her husband in August 

2006 and the petition was approved in December 2006. The petitioner received 

the approval notice, which indicated that the notice was forwarded to the DOS 

National Visa Center (NVC). The petitioner waited the necessary period of time, 

called the NVC, and was told the case was not at the NVC. In early 2007, the 

petitioner filed Form I-824 (Application for Action on an Approved Application 

or Petition) with USCIS at an additional $200 fee, to forward the petition to the 

NVC. This interagency transfer should have occurred without the filing of the I824. As of the writing to the Ombudsman, the application remained pending. 

Page 64 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov June 2007 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

CASE PROBLEM 

In 2006, an applicant filed for waiver of the two-year foreign residency 

requirement (Form I-612, Application for Waiver of the Foreign Residence 

Requirement of Section 212(e)) and submitted a green card application based on 

marriage to a U.S. citizen. Later that year, the applicant received conflicting 

information on the case location. First, USCIS said it was forwarded to a service 

center, then that it was forwarded to a local office, and then to another local 

office, which was the office with jurisdiction. The applicant made an INFOPASS 

appointment at the local USCIS office. The IIO stated that USCIS did not know 

the location of the application, DOS was responsible for adjudication of the 

waiver, and the inquiry should be directed to DOS. Next, USCIS scheduled the 

couple for a green card interview. At the interview, USCIS told them that it could 

not proceed without DOS’ response on the waiver. The applicant contacted DOS, 

which said that it did not have the necessary paperwork from USCIS. In early 

2007, USCIS contacted the applicant and directed her to file a new waiver form. 

The applicant indicated to the Ombudsman that she cannot renew her 

driver’s license because the green card application is pending for more than one 

year and the application receipt is over a year old. The applicant is fearful that 

her green card application will be denied and without an EAD her job may be in 

jeopardy. 

4. Interaction Among Headquarters Entities 

The recent announcement by Director Gonzalez regarding senior management rotation is 

encouraging. At least four senior policy and management officials rotated into new positions 

within USCIS.64 This action should expand their experience and enhance communication and 

coordination within USCIS. The Ombudsman notes that the process by which senior staff were 

selected and rotated should be transparent to ensure that such career-enhancing opportunities are 

fairly distributed and fit the needs of the agency. 

Despite these promising rotations, effective communication issues still exist among 

different USCIS headquarters entities. During the reporting period, the Ombudsman observed 

several situations in which a headquarters entity was not aware of the actions of another entity. 

For example, during a visit to a digitization facility, the Ombudsman learned that USCIS 

acquired 500 licenses for a program to access the digitized files for USCIS, CBP, and ICE, 

instead of an enterprise license to provide access to the many tens of thousands of prospective 

users of the system. The Ombudsman understands that this occurrence was due to the lack of 

coordination between two key headquarters operational units. The recent managerial rotations 

described above, combined with a focus on “enterprise decision-making” that transcends subjects 

and personalities, will assist in preventing these types of problems in the future. 

 64 Email from USCIS Director to the Ombudsman (Apr. 30, 2007). 

June 2007 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov Page 65 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

L. Information Technology Issues 

1. Background 

In this reporting period, the effective deployment of information technology (IT) systems 

to all service centers and field offices remained a significant challenge for USCIS. USCIS stated 

in its 2006 Annual Report Response (at p. 12): 

A variety of changes at both the Department and agency level have 

required modifications or cancellations of [IT] efforts, thereby 

making progress very difficult. Some of these changes include: 

creation of DHS, transitioning from INS to USCIS, changes in 

appropriated funds available from the Department and Congress, 

and changes in management of technology within USCIS. 

New IT system efforts have been affected by fluctuations in 

funding and changes in oversight and management structures. 

Before new systems can be deployed they must be designed, 

engineered, developed, and tested using state of the art change 

management resources. 

The Ombudsman’s continued efforts related to IT focused on three broad concerns: (1) 

most USCIS adjudications processes are paper-based; (2) existing USCIS information 

management systems do not provide robust data analysis tools necessary to monitor productivity 

and make changes when necessary; and (3) most USCIS information management systems are 

stand-alone systems with little or no interconnectivity. More than four years after the creation of 

USCIS, all of these issues remain. As DHS Inspector General Richard Skinner testified at a 

February House of Representatives hearing: 

. . . USCIS remains entrenched in a cycle of continual planning 

with limited progress toward achieving its long-term 

transformation goals. Until USCIS addresses this issue, the bureau 

will not be in a position to manage existing workloads or handle 

the potentially dramatic increase in immigration benefits 

processing workloads that could result from proposed immigration 

reform legislation.65

This annual report highlights some additional areas of concern identified during this 

reporting period: 

2. IT Transformation 

The Transformation Program Office is properly committed to using subject matter 

experts in the reengineering process. The Ombudsman commends the office’s effort to host 

 65 Inspector General Richard L. Skinner, Statement before the Committee on Homeland Security, U.S. House of 

Representatives, “An Overview of Issues and Challenges Facing the Department of Homeland Security” (Feb. 7, 

2007); http://www.dhs.gov/xoig/assets/testimony/OIGtm_RLS_020707.pdf (last visited June 3, 2007). 

Page 66 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov June 2007 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

workshops in the field to identify business requirements as the first step in transitioning from a 

paper-based system to an electronic environment. 

Another initiative by the Transformation Program Office which is of particular interest is 

the Integrated Digitization Document Management Program through which paper-based A-files 

are scanned and stored digitally. While this program is designed to bring the agency into the 21st

century, several problems exist. For example, the entire digitization effort and facility were set 

up and started without USCIS leaders understanding digitization efforts already occurring at the 

Chicago Lockbox facility. The digitization facility is designed to cover only a small fraction of 

the paper files maintained by USCIS. The Ombudsman understands from recent discussions 

with USCIS that testing will begin this summer to allow a small number of adjudicators to access 

the scanned files.

There appears to be a lack of coordination between the various USCIS offices charged 

with elements of this process, including digitization, the Lockbox, the forms redesign group, and 

the A-file content management group. The Transformation Program Office is the logical choice 

to coordinate these efforts. For example, the Ombudsman learned in a USCIS digitization 

facility visit shortly after it was set up that senior USCIS personnel responsible for setting it up 

had not yet visited the Lockbox facility, which was digitizing records for three years. Moreover, 

these personnel seemed unaware of the type and nature of equipment used at the Lockbox. 

3. IT Support 

While there is some progress, IT support for current systems as well as support during 

transformation is critical. USCIS staff at field offices raised the need for IT support numerous 

times with the Ombudsman during the reporting period. USCIS should institute a process to 

ensure that necessary transformation projects, such as the computer system updates, do not 

adversely impact local systems. 

USCIS often relies on contract IT personnel for support, but in some cases, the IT support 

is not located on-site. Very often field offices rely on one of their own employees to provide the 

necessary on-site support for users and local systems. Use of other non-IT staff to perform IT 

functions may negatively impact production in the field office, but some offices have no other 

choice. 

4. Local IT Solutions 

Until the IT transformation is complete and USCIS has the computer management tools 

required to accomplish its mission, field offices continue to rely on local systems to provide data 

necessary to manage offices. Many talented and creative USCIS employees in USCIS offices 

nationwide have IT expertise and continue to create excellent local systems to: track statistics; 

generate Notices to Appear; provide receipts to track locally filed applications; and track mail 

and congressional inquiries, among others. These systems should be shared with all USCIS 

offices as best practices in the absence of national systems available to provide needed 

information and do necessary tasks. Moreover, USCIS should commend its staff on the 

innovative solutions created. 

USCIS should support local systems during this transitional time. IT personnel need to 

be responsive to field office requirements. 

June 2007 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov Page 67 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

BEST PRACTICE 

 In the absence of a case management system and other simple fixes to 

track the numbers of visas available, many offices use off-the-shelf software to 

track pending preference-based employment and family cases to readily identify 

when priority dates are current and cases can be adjudicated. 

For example, the Tampa Field Office uses a simple, yet highly effective, 

spreadsheet to accomplish this task. Similarly, the Texas Service Center uses a 

database system to track and account for this information, while the Vermont 

Service Center has another off-the-shelf database program with similar results. 

5. Lack of Purchasing Coordination 

A disconnect exists between field offices and headquarters in the purchase of IT-related 

equipment. One field office purchased webcams for approximately $150 per unit, prior to 

establishment of a contract for this equipment. Now this equipment is no longer supported by 

USCIS IT because there is a contract for camcorders, at a cost of approximately $2,000 each, to 

tape interviews. This equipment is not only considerably more expensive, but is also 

cumbersome and more difficult for the officers to use. As a result of the additional expense, only 

a few of the adjudicators in that field office have videotaping capability. 

Page 68 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov June 2007 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

OBSERVATIONS AND STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS FROM THE 

OMBUDSMAN’S TRIPS AND MEETINGS 

In the New York Field Office, managers heavily rely on local systems to 

track case production. As of December 2006, ICE no longer supports local 

systems for USCIS, and at the time of the visit, USCIS had not identified a 

replacement. 

The Philadelphia Field Office reported that when computers were 

refreshed with updated software, many previously available software packages 

were not reloaded. As a result, staff could not access previously created 

documents. At the time of the visit, this office operated with remote IT staff 

instead of onsite support. 

In Newark, the office reported that the IT Help Desk has conflicting 

priorities as it is responsible to ICE/CBP and their contracts are administered by 

ICE. 

Newark developed its own receipting system for tracking locally filed 

applications, but this database was lost when the mandated computer refresh took 

place. 

The Des Moines Field Office noted that headquarters sometimes issues 

directives without determining whether they can be implemented in local offices. 

For example, one memo required scanning EAD applications and forwarding 

them to the applicable service center, although Des Moines has no scanner. At 

the time of the visit, if Des Moines had IT problems, the office had to rely on an IT 

person located in Omaha. 

RECOMMENDATIONS AR 2007 -- 15 

The Ombudsman also recommends that USCIS: 

(1) Ensure that a computer refresh does not adversely impact local systems. 

(2) Make available to each local office software that is authorized to enable 

offices to continue to use previously created documents in those systems; and 

(3) Consider a long-term solution to the onsite support issue such as a central 

system. 

June 2007 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov Page 69 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

M. Staffing, Career Development, Training, and Strategic Workforce Planning 

and Recruiting 

 The following case problem demonstrates the consequences of a lack of training. 

CASE PROBLEM 

In late spring of 2003, an applicant and her two children applied for green 

cards based on her entry as a K-1 fiancée and her subsequent marriage to a U.S. 

citizen. In a summer 2004 interview, USCIS informed the applicant that she had 

a pending name check. Three weeks later, the children received conditional 

green cards. In a 2005 INFOPASS appointment, USCIS said that the name check 

was still pending for the applicant. She contacted the FBI via email and was 

informed that USCIS never submitted her name for checking. The applicant 

explained this to USCIS during an INFOPASS appointment. Ninety days later the 

applicant again contacted the FBI and received the same response – that USCIS 

had not submitted the name check. The individual continued to inquire via fax, 

email, and in-person visits, but all efforts were fruitless. 

By mid-summer of 2006, the applicant still had no green card. The 

children’s green cards were expired and the applicant made an INFOPASS 

appointment to inquire about how to remove the conditions for the children’s 

cards where the principal applicant was not yet approved. After expressing 

surprise at this circumstance, the IIO advised that they file Form I-751 (Petition 

to Remove the Conditions of Residence), for the mother and children. USCIS then 

rejected the I-751s. 

 

In late 2006, the applicant contacted the Ombudsman and her 

congressional representatives. As of the end of this reporting period, the 

applicant received her green card, but the children’s cases remain pending. The 

local office appears to be actively working their cases. 

1. Background 

During the reporting period, USCIS combined its human resources and training and 

career development components into a new office led by a career senior executive (SES)66 as the 

agency’s first Chief Human Capital Officer. As a result, the agency completed its first strategic 

workforce planning and integrated training effort. This effort addressed aspects of the staffing 

and training gaps identified in the Ombudsman’s 2006 Annual Report. 

As part of this strategic workforce planning and integrated training, USCIS: (1) 

completed a Strategic Workforce Plan to identify gaps in the workforce, future personnel needs, 

 66 The GS, or General Schedule, is a federal government system used to identify a range of difficulty and 

responsibility levels for many positions, which ranges from GS-1 to GS-15. An SES, or Senior Executive Service, 

position is filled by an individual who meets certain Executive Core Qualifications. 

Page 70 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov June 2007 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

and career paths; (2) issued its first agency-wide policy for a uniform training curriculum 

standard for all courses as well as instructor certification for presentation and content; (3) 

implemented a leadership program for all grade levels, GS-5 through GS-15, and SES, that also 

fulfills a Homeland Security Act requirement for managerial rotation of leaders at grades GS14/15;67 (4) initiated a labor-management relations plan to engender mutual understanding and 

reduce tensions as the agency transforms its operations; and (5) included in the proposed fee rule 

Individual Learning Accounts based on individuals’ career paths and employee development 

plans.68 

Recruitment and training is as important as IT and financing in the USCIS 

transformation. To achieve the potential of these important initiatives, there must be continued 

and direct support from the USCIS Director. However, the position of Chief Human Capital 

Officer was downgraded from its initial SES rank to a GS-15 in the agency’s first vacancy 

announcement following the retirement of the SES incumbent. 

RECOMMENDATION AR 2007 -- 16 

The Ombudsman recommends that the Chief Human Capital Officer have 

a rank position equal to the Chief Information Officer and Chief Financial 

Officer. USCIS should establish the role as a career reserved SES position. 

At present, training efforts and leadership programs appear to be pursued separate from 

career development and retention needs. The agency is providing off-the-shelf course offerings 

without a clear correlation to career development as career paths are not defined. Moreover, 

USCIS has multiple training needs: (1) mandatory training requirements (computer security); (2) 

training that is technical and related to the job currently assigned; (3) training required for the 

next job desired by the employee for career advancement; and (4) skills for general leadership. 

RECOMMENDATION AR 2007 -- 17 

The Ombudsman recommends that USCIS ensure there is a 

comprehensive merger of core job career paths with necessary training 

requirements – mandatory, technical, and leadership – oriented to future needs 

and groups, as well as transparency from entry to executive levels. 

During the reporting period, USCIS undertook a methodical review of job requirements 

and skill sets needed to adjudicate cases. The agency focused on redesigning the Basic Officer 

Training Course for adjudicators and set principles to provide real-time accuracy and a “blended 

approach” to training to make programs accessible through technology and classroom 

interactions. 

 67 See 6 U.S.C. § 271(A)(4). 

68 See 72 Fed. Reg. at 4901. 

June 2007 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov Page 71 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

RECOMMENDATION AR 2007 -- 18 

The Ombudsman recommends that USCIS’ blended approach to training 

continue and expand. USCIS should establish, regulate, and evaluate core 

training needs throughout its operations in the same manner for its review of the 

Basic Officer Training Course for adjudicators. 

Moreover, the quality of the curriculum, teaching methodology, and 

instructors needs to be assured. USCIS should establish a certification process 

for both federal and contracted instructors. 

USCIS has several strategies to meet uneven demands and surges of work. It hires 

temporary employees, sends cases to less busy offices, and shifts permanent employees to 

different offices on temporary assignments. As described in the Ombudsman’s previous annual 

reports, USCIS has become dependent on temporary employees who have stayed for several 

years. 

RECOMMENDATION AR 2007 -- 19 

To reduce USCIS’ dependency on temporary employees and assignments, 

the agency should establish a table of standard staffing levels and office 

organization to provide the requisite staff at any particular office. 

2. Staffing, Career Development, and Training Areas of Concern 

The Ombudsman will continue to monitor the following issues: 

a. Training After Immigration Reform 

If comprehensive immigration reform is enacted and signed into law, the thoughtful and 

systematic training of officers contemplated in USCIS’ Strategic Workforce Plan and illustrated 

in the process to redesign the Basic Office Training Course may be overwhelmed by the need for 

large numbers of narrowly trained employees to implement discreet provisions of the reform. 

Contingency plans must be in place to ensure that the systemic training and careful development 

of permanent USCIS staff to fill future gaps is not forgotten when management invariably diverts 

its attention to implementing immigration reform provisions. 

b. Hiring of Temporary Employees 

The agency also needs to be cautious that the expedient hiring of large numbers of 

workers does not replicate the situation of the large numbers of “term employees” hired 

originally for backlog reduction. Term employees became an essential part of the USCIS 

workforce, but they were not guaranteed careers, hired for growth potential, or trained as 

carefully and broadly as permanent employees. Staff morale and office efficiency suffered as the 

term contracts had to be renewed each year, often not until the last minute. Term employees also 

Page 72 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov June 2007 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

sometimes prevented permanent employees from obtaining promotions, as the term employees 

occupied those positions. Moreover, to the extent the term employees left USCIS or were not 

renewed, the knowledge base left with them. 

This year, to have enough funds to prevent the unacceptable loss of term employees, the 

hiring of permanent staff was frozen. Workforce planning is difficult at best under these 

circumstances. 

c. Training of Non-Adjudicators 

USCIS has focused on adjudicators and the upgrading of their skills. However, more 

attention is needed for training non-adjudicators such as IIOs, quality assurance officers, and 

support personnel. USCIS provides services, such as green card adjudications, but it also 

provides information, which requires the efficient movement of electronic data among physically 

separated offices. As a result, there is a need to evaluate the career paths and promotion 

opportunities for employees who have constant public contact and must understand electronic 

work flows. 

d. Work-at-Home Challenges 

Work-at-home arrangements can be part of the organization of a modern workforce, but 

USCIS’ work-at-home arrangements have some challenges. Taking home paper files raises 

security and privacy concerns over the control of sensitive documents. Work-at-home 

arrangements isolate employees from the daily interactions and discussions with seasoned 

employees and mentors that cumulatively build their institutional awareness and judgment skills. 

This consideration for nurturing a pool of employees who have strong interpersonal skills is 

particularly important as one-third of the agency’s supervisors will reach retirement age by the 

year 2010. During the next reporting period, the Ombudsman hopes to review further the 

challenges that current work-at-home policies may present for customer service. 

e. Uncovering and Sharing Best Practices 

Many offices have developed their own solutions to problems faced by most, if not all, 

offices, but these approaches often are not widely shared: 

• Managers at some field offices were not aware of excellent training modules and 

material produced at the Los Angeles Field Office. 

• The superb letter writing program used by the Nebraska Service Center has not 

been widely evaluated for use at other offices. 

• The system and process to track and evaluate case flows at the Texas Service 

Center are not broadly appreciated. 

Establishing both a culture and process that encourage the sharing of best practices will 

address many training needs at numerous offices and at little cost to the agency. Teleconferences 

June 2007 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov Page 73 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

and virtual meetings have their value, but do not substitute for the face-to-face interaction of 

employees at meetings and regional conferences. 

RECOMMENDATION AR 2007 -- 20 

The Ombudsman recommends that USCIS expand the opportunities for 

vertical and horizontal communication among offices by supporting conferences 

focused on specific work issues and providing funds for travel of working level 

staff to share best practices. 

f. Recognizing and Training the Trainers 

All offices have “go to” persons who, by virtue of longevity and refined judgment, advise 

officers on case situations and who act as mentors or trainers. Some offices have designated 

training positions and many offices have employees who are assigned collateral duties as 

trainers. These employees should be recognized and provided support for their important roles. 

g. Training for Supervisors 

A commonly-heard complaint among field managers is that training for supervising 

employees and managing workflows is lacking. There is a need for training beyond knowledgebased instruction on product lines or new laws and regulations. While knowledge and leadership 

training are important, first-line and other supervisors also should learn about employment 

regulations and agency policies on labor management. For example, supervisors should be 

provided techniques to resolve employee conflicts. The agency needs to clearly define and 

provide for a standard set of additional courses that employees at the journeyman level should 

take as they move into supervisory and leadership positions before they assume the most senior 

positions. 

RECOMMENDATION AR 2007 -- 21 

The Human Capital and Training Office in collaboration with field offices 

and service centers, should determine the skills and knowledge sets required for 

supervisors to be effective in their daily managing of people and resources. 

Specific resources or training programs should be identified on diversity 

requirements, discipline issues, handling problem employees, evaluating 

workflows, and budget management. Headquarters funds should be provided to 

field offices for employees to attend these sessions. 

In summary, USCIS has taken significant steps to address its leadership and training 

needs. Chief among these steps is the recognition and articulation of a strategic human capital 

development and recruitment plan. Several initiatives in the plan establish baselines and 

proposed further actions. The next steps are to build on the strategic plan, develop training 

material and methods, and continuously validate them. The agency needs to avoid short-term 

Page 74 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov June 2007 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

hiring and narrow training solutions that replicate the problems associated with hiring term 

employees and might undermine the systemic and comprehensive approach sought by the 

strategic plan. 

RECOMMENDATION AR 2007 – 22 

The agency should establish actionable multi-year milestones that lead to 

fulfilling the objectives of the Strategic Workforce Plan and ensure a systemic and 

sustained effort to recruit and develop its personnel. Responsibility to implement 

the plan should be included as a specific job requirement for the Chief Human 

Capital Officer and in the job requirements statements of the senior officers in the 

Office of Human Capital and Training. 

June 2007 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov Page 75 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

OBSERVATIONS AND STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS FROM THE 

OMBUDSMAN’S TRIPS AND MEETINGS 

The Philadelphia Field Office reported that new hires do not have the 

basic computer skills necessary to function within USCIS. 

In the Baltimore Field Office, formal training occurs once a month, 

usually for two to three hours. Management in Baltimore would like to institute a 

certification process wherein officers would have to meet certain benchmarks to 

move up to the next seniority level. 

El Paso officers are trained on all applications. The schedule is set up for 

officers to interview three days per week, leaving two days open for case 

completions, case review, special emphasis matters, and training. 

Stakeholders in New York believe the officers who conduct marriage 

fraud interviews are not well trained. 

At the Washington Field Office, training is conducted once a month, 

mostly to resolve green card issues. There is no other regularly scheduled 

training for adjudicators. 

In Okalahoma City, a support employee indicated she was required to 

answer the phone, yet had no training, could not answer any questions, and just 

referred individuals to the website. Other employees also indicated training was 

needed in their current positions and as they take on new tasks. 

An IIO in Okalahoma City indicated it would be helpful to have training 

for information gathering, as well as policy and procedure. 

USCIS is adding a block of training about the NBC to the basic course for 

officers so new hires can understand the process. 

The NBC itself has struggled to provide its staff with adequate training. 

There is a voluntary training program established for adjudications, but not for 

records. 

Page 76 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov June 2007 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

RECOMMENDATIONS AR 2007 -- 23 

The Ombudsman recommends that USCIS: 

(1) Consider amending job requirements to include basic knowledge of certain 

commercially available computer programs used in the offices; and 

(2) Provide all interviewing officers with Interviewing Techniques Training. 

Adjudicators who received this training indicated it helped them conduct better 

interviews. 

N. Delay in Updating U.S. Citizenship Designation in Records; Some 

Naturalized Citizens Cannot Apply for Passports 

In the 2006 Annual Report (at p. 44), the Ombudsman discussed concerns with USCIS 

updating its records regarding citizenship acquisition (i.e., naturalization records). 

In its 2006 Annual Report Response, USCIS stated (at pp. 16-17): 

For older cases, USCIS conducted an extensive comparison of 

records in several systems, systems sweeps and modifications to 

systems coding to ensure that previous records were correctly 

updated. For new cases, performance is monitored to ensure that 

when citizenship is granted, the associated status records are 

updated promptly after the naturalization ceremony. 

The Ombudsman appreciates USCIS’ response to this important issue and will continue to 

monitor it. 

O. Green Cards Collected, Not Recorded, and Green Card Delivery Problems 

In the 2006 Annual Report (at p. 43), the Ombudsman identified two green card 

problems: (1) the non-recording of green cards that were returned to USCIS field offices or 

ASCs (e.g. upon green card holders’ naturalization or card expiration); and (2) verification of 

green card delivery. 

Individual travelers who were referred to secondary processing at ports of entry had 

problems because inspection showed either that: (1) a green card was still in circulation for a 

naturalized citizen bearing a U.S. passport; or (2) a returning permanent resident bearing a new 

green card still possessed a superseded card. USCIS informed the Ombudsman during the 

reporting period that it had resolved the issue of green card returns which were not recorded. 

The Ombudsman is pleased to report the agency’s plans to adopt the essence of the 2006 

Annual Report’s recommendation (AR 2006 -- 08). For verification of green card delivery, 

USCIS reported in its 2006 Annual Report Response (at p. 16): 

June 2007 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov Page 77 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

In FY 07, as we complete the transition to new postage meters, we 

plan to transition to new standards for mail delivery to allow mail 

forwarding with notification from the US Postal Service through 

its address service. As part of the proposed new fee structure, we 

further plan to move to 2-day delivery of cards with delivery 

confirmation. This will reduce delivery times, give customers 

tracking numbers so they can track mail delivery, while also 

providing for more secure delivery. 

USCIS reported in its recent fee proposal, now final, that it was partnering with the U.S. 

Postal Service (USPS) to develop a way for USCIS “to track delivery of each document and to 

respond to queries from applicants regarding the status of document delivery.”69 The proposed 

process change will apply to green cards and all USCIS secure documents (i.e., EADs and travel 

documents). USCIS and USPS foresee secure documents delivered via priority mail, a higher 

class of service than first class, with delivery confirmation.70 The Ombudsman will monitor the 

situation as the process is introduced. 

IV. UP-FRONT PROCESSING

As in previous annual reports, the Ombudsman continues to recommend the expeditious 

national roll-out of the DORA program or a similar program that utilizes up-front processing of 

applications for immigration benefits. This roll-out would be consistent with the principles 

articulated in the Second Stage Review process for DHS.71 During the reporting period, USCIS 

expanded DORA to two offices – El Paso and Oklahoma City. Preliminary reports from those 

two offices have been negative, but inadequate resources and other circumstances need to be 

fully considered in an evaluation of DORA at those offices. In the meantime, the Ombudsman 

continues to recommend the expansion of DORA and up-front processing to all USCIS offices. 

A. Background 

Up-front processing is characterized by: 

• Pre-screened applications to ensure completeness prior to filing; 

• One form and one fee per immigration benefit filed by customers; 

 69 72 Fed. Reg. at 4899. 

70 See id.

71 DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff stated the following in prepared remarks at the Ronald Reagan Building 

regarding the DHS Second Stage Review: “Part of the problem is that the current business model fosters a long 

delay between application and the final adjudication of applications for residence and citizenship, during which 

many applicants stay here as temporary residents . . .. [T]his system puts some of the most important security 

screening at the end of a lengthy process rather than the beginning, and leads to an unnecessary high rate of rejection 

late in the process.” (July 13, 2005); http://www.dhs.gov/xnews/speeches/speech_0255.shtm (last visited June 5, 

2007). 

Page 78 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov June 2007 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

• Same-day interviews and biometric capture, if required; and 

• Applications completed within days, or even hours, of filing. 

The goals of up-front processing are to: 

• Identify national security threats and fraud as early as possible in the immigration 

process; 

• Reduce the issuance of interim benefits to mitigate the risk of ineligible applicants 

acquiring legal status in the United States before adjudication of the green card 

application; 

• Improve customer service by implementing a streamlined process that adjudicates 

applications in less than 90 days; and 

• Allocate resources effectively by focusing on adjudicating primary benefits 

instead of interim benefits. 

In responding to the 2006 Annual Report, the agency stated (at p. 21): 

USCIS agrees with this premise as a long-term objective. It is 

USCIS’ goal to process cases in ways that do not lead to interim 

benefits and provide high quality decisions within 90 days that 

reflect a full understanding and sensitivity to the national security 

and public safety of the United States and its citizenry. 

The Ombudsman first recommended up-front processing in the 2004 Annual Report (at 

pp. 8-12). In May 2004, USCIS implemented several pilot programs including: DORA (the 

Family-Based Immigration Backlog Elimination Program); the California Service Center pilot 

(the Employment-Based Backlog Elimination Pilot), and the New York District Office pilot (the 

Backlog Elimination and Fraud Reduction Pilot). The Ombudsman’s 2004, 2005, and 2006 

annual reports provide extensive details on these programs.72 

In its 2006 Annual Report Response (at p. 21), USCIS commented that the Ombudsman’s 

up-front processing recommendation “creates potential vulnerabilities as unsuccessful customers 

walk away with their applications.” USCIS further observed that “[d]uring Legalization, the INS 

 72 Of the up-front processing pilot programs, DORA most closely matches the Ombudsman’s recommendations. 

Under DORA, a USCIS field office initiates certain background and security checks, reviews documents, and 

conducts eligibility interviews on the day of filing and then forwards the application for data entry and 

administrative processing at the Chicago Lockbox and the NBC. The applicant receives a notice for an appointment 

at an ASC, which captures biometric information. The Chicago Lockbox then issues a receipt notice to the applicant 

and forwards the newly created case to the NBC. The NBC assembles receipted applications into A-file jackets and 

initiates additional background and security checks. The NBC then forwards the files to the Dallas Field Office. 

When all background checks are completed, Dallas completes the adjudication of the case and orders production of 

green cards for qualified applicants. 

June 2007 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov Page 79 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

was sued for allegedly front-desking applicants, telling them that they were not eligible and then 

sending them away . . ..” USCIS’ comments and observations are in reference to litigation 

resulting from INS administration of legalization provisions of the 1986 Immigration Reform 

and Control Act.73 In the legal proceedings, litigants claimed that they were erroneously told by 

INS officers that they were not eligible and prevented from filing for relief under the Act. INS 

was unable to prove this did not happen to particular individuals and, thus, had difficulty 

defending itself against such charges. 

The Ombudsman shares USCIS’ concern regarding front-desking. To address this issue 

at the Dallas office, ineligible applicants are informed by an IIO that they will not qualify for the 

program for a particular reason, such as visa unavailability. The applicant then can file the 

application, despite the likelihood that it will result in a denial or RFE. This feature of the 

DORA acceptance policy addresses the concerns raised by the U.S. Supreme Court in Reno v. 

Catholic Social Services, Inc.

74 It should be noted that the Ombudsman is unaware of any 

lawsuits filed against the Dallas District Office claiming front-desking in the three years of the 

DORA pilot. 

B. The Dallas Office Rapid Adjustment Pilot Program 

In the 2006 Annual Report Response (at p. 21), USCIS raises two key concerns with 

DORA. First, rigorous up-front screening of applications may result in customers visiting field 

offices multiple times. The Ombudsman agrees that customers should not return repeatedly to 

submit an application. Clearer instructions on USCIS forms and website, better information 

from the NCSC, and timely adjudications are the key factors to reducing repetitive field office 

visits. In DORA, customers have direct communication with IIOs and interviews are conducted 

on the day of application submission, which may reduce case status inquiries that often result 

from long-pending cases. 

Second, USCIS states (at p. 21) that “[u]p-front processing can also lead to increased 

costs since each office must be staffed to handle fluctuating levels of case filings and 

remittances. Many of the processes in this model are currently handled in central locations, and 

the local offices do not staff for those processes.” Variability in the quantity and type of 

immigration filings presents a recurring challenge to USCIS. From time to time, field offices 

and service centers may receive a deluge of applications and petitions due to a statutory or 

regulatory deadline, a change in law, or an increase in filing fees. At other times, USCIS offices 

may have excess capacity. Historically and from the customer’s perspective, the principal issue 

has been processing backlogs, rather than excess capacity. Whether processing is at a centralized 

filing facility or at a field office, the challenge to USCIS is largely the same. Robust, proactive 

management of personnel and workflows is essential to efficient processing regardless of where 

USCIS performs processing and adjudications. 

From its inception in the first week of May 2004 through May 4, 2007, DORA scheduled 

33,538 appointments, of which 7,205 (21 percent) were no-shows. DORA rejected up-front 

 73 See generally Pub. L. No. 99-603, 100 Stat. 3359 (Nov. 6, 1986). 

74 See 509 U.S. 43, 61-63. (1993). 

Page 80 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov June 2007 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

5,297 (16 percent) of the total applications received. Of the 25,432 applications accepted for 

processing through May 4, 2007, 18,563 were approved, 949 denied, and 2,844 remained 

pending.75 

Figure 14: DORA and Servicewide Denial Rates, May 2004 – December 2006 

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

16.0%

18.0%

20.0%

22.0%

Year 1

(May 2004 - April 2005)

Year 2

(May 2005 - April 2006)

YTD

(May 2006 - December 2006)

USCIS Servicewide (Source: Performance Analysis System data, prepared May 2007)

DORA (Source: DORA data entitled "Reworked Metrics" May 11, 2007)

Note: The May 11, 2007 DORA "Reworked Metrics" recorded the DORA Denial Rate for May 2004 -- 

December 2006.

 

Figure 14 shows the dramatic difference in denials in the DORA process wherein many 

applicants are rejected up-front versus the USCIS national standard of accepting most 

applications even when incomplete. 

 75 The Dallas District Office provided the raw data on DORA. 

June 2007 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov Page 81 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

Approximately 46 percent of accepted cases were completed within 90 days of filing 

(11,997 approved of 25,432 considered). Had it not been for delays caused by FBI name check 

issues, the 90-day completion rate would have exceeded 66 percent. Only 3,677 interim benefits 

were issued to DORA applicants – 14 percent of the total number of DORA green card 

applications. Nationally, most applicants applying for green cards also apply for interim benefits 

because USCIS only publishes its 180 day processing goals, rather than actual processing times, 

if under 180 days.76 

Congress and the media have focused much attention on the REAL ID Act, which sets 

standards for new drivers’ licenses and identification documents issued by the states.77 If, 

however, foreign nationals are able to obtain interim benefits from USCIS, they can legally 

obtain drivers’ licenses and Social Security cards – even if they are ultimately not eligible for a 

green card. Issuance of interim benefits to ineligible applicants undermines the larger objective 

of the REAL ID Act and, for that reason, the continuation of the current application processing 

methodology may compromise national security. DORA’s up-front processing approach 

provides a fix that has proven itself for three years. 

Unfortunately, the DORA data available only tell part of the story. The agency has not 

implemented any evaluation criteria to analyze up-front processing programs, despite numerous 

requests by the Ombudsman. USCIS welcomed the assistance of the Ombudsman to develop 

such metrics, but the Ombudsman understands that such metrics still are not in use months later. 

After three years of a successful pilot program, USCIS needs to move forward. The agency has 

a history of continuing pilot programs indefinitely, which it does not seem to be able to fully 

evaluate, implement, or shut down. 

C. The 90-Day Program 

Aside from the DORA up-front processing program, USCIS has implemented a 90-day 

program in nearly all of its field offices, but the agency has not made this program transparent to 

customers and stakeholders. This lack of transparency, combined with published processing 

dates showing a minimum of 180 days processing, has resulted in hundreds of thousands of 

applicants continuing to file interim benefit applications even though in many jurisdictions 

USCIS confirms that processing times are less than 90 days. 

As currently designed, the 90-day program is identical to the New York District Office 

Backlog Elimination and Fraud Reduction Pilot, which often did not meet its processing time 

goal. The 90-day program seeks to compress the current process into 90 days, rather than use an 

up-front screening of applications to ensure completeness prior to submission. In the 90-day 

program, if USCIS requests additional evidence, the employment authorization is not issued until 

the customer provides the requested information.78 The 90-day clock stops when USCIS 

 76 See section III.C. 

77 See Div. B of Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami 

Relief, 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-13, 119 Stat. 231, 310 (May 11, 2005). 

78 See 8 C.F.R. §§ 274a.13(d) and 103.2(b)(8) and (10). In its 2006 Annual Report Response (at p 22), USCIS stated 

that it “is directly attacking backlogs and the provision of interim benefits . . . through early, comprehensive 

Page 82 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov June 2007 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

requests the additional information. While the Ombudsman is supportive of innovative 

approaches that reduce processing times for customers, in many cases the 90-day program has 

not provided timely and efficient delivery of immigration services. Additionally, unless actual 

processing times are published, instead of the current 180-day standard processing goal times, 

the applicant will be induced to apply for unnecessary interim benefits, which creates an 

appearance that USCIS continues this program for financial gain. 

The target dates for actions to occur to meet the goal of 90-day adjudication are as 

follows: 

Figure 15: Target Dates for 90-Day Adjudication Process 

Day Process

1 Application Filed

5 Application Received at NBC from Lockbox

20 Application Interview Ready

25 Interview Scheduled

50 File Sent to Field Office

65 Interview Conducted

90 Application Adjudicated

Specifically, in the 90-day program, applicants file applications at the Lockbox staffed 

mainly by a financial services contractor for USCIS. The Lockbox accepts and deposits the fees, 

sends receipts, and performs the initial data entry. The Lockbox then ships the cases to the NBC. 

The NBC performs a prima facie review within ten days of the filing date and initiates 

background checks. Applicants then are scheduled for fingerprints and biometrics at ASCs. 

Next, cases either are available for interview at field offices or, where necessary, the NBC issues 

an RFE. 

Field offices schedule available cases for interview at least 40 days in advance of the 

interview date, and the NBC generates an interview notice. The file is sent to the field office for 

interview with the ultimate goal of completing adjudications within 90 days. 

The NBC processes ancillary applications such as EADs and travel authorizations 

beginning on day 75 to issue these documents by day 90, if required. 

D. Expansion of DORA to El Paso and Oklahoma City Field Offices 

 While the Ombudsman is pleased that USCIS expanded DORA beyond the Dallas office, 

in both El Paso and Oklahoma City there has been insufficient training, staffing, or resources 

 prescreening of adjustment of status and related applications to identify deficiencies. Until the deficiencies are 

resolved, the processing clock is stopped so that employment authorization and similar benefits are not granted.” 

The use of the term “prescreening” may be misleading in this context. At that stage, USCIS already has accepted 

the green card application at the Lockbox facility, deposited the fees, and forwarded the case to the NBC for 

administrative processing before the comprehensive screening, which may result in the stopping of the processing 

clock and delay in issuance or denial of interim benefits. 

June 2007 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov Page 83 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

devoted to the pilots to successfully implement them. Consequently, the results of the DORA 

expansion may not demonstrate the advantages of up-front processing. 

When an up-front processing model is introduced at an office, there is a short-term need 

for additional staffing to enable the program to be implemented simultaneously with existing 

caseloads. Field offices often have interviews scheduled up to six months in advance. Until that 

workload is cleared, there may be a need for more adjudicators to conduct the additional 

interviews, and appropriate resources must be provided. The announcement in February 2007 of 

the proposed fee increases resulted in a surge in applications. As a result, implementation of the 

DORA program at the El Paso and Oklahoma City offices was even more challenging, especially 

since the offices received no additional short-term resources to begin the process. Additionally, 

in Oklahoma City, current lack of a field office director leaves the office without the leadership 

necessary to implement and test the up-front processing model. 

In its 2006 Annual Report Response (at p. 23), USCIS stated that both the 90-day process 

and DORA have “advantages” and that the agency “will conduct a full analysis of both methods 

to decide which to adopt nationally.” A full and fair comparison of DORA and the 90-day 

program requires testing that includes controlling for the variables mentioned. The Ombudsman 

looks forward to receiving the results of that analysis. 

RECOMMENDATION AR 2007 -- 24 

The Ombudsman recommends that USCIS end the now three-year old 

DORA pilot. USCIS should evaluate the different up-front processing programs 

to determine the comparative value of each program and whether they should be 

expanded. The USCIS findings and empirical data should be made available to 

the public. The agency should either implement a version of DORA nationwide or 

another program which will achieve the same objectives with equal or better 

results. 

V. RECOMMENDATIONS

This section includes summaries of the Ombudsman’s formal recommendations for the 

2007 reporting period, as well as those prior recommendations to which the Ombudsman 

received new USCIS responses during the period.79 The recommendations stem from a variety 

of sources, including problems reported to the Ombudsman by individuals and employers, 

discussions with immigration stakeholders, and suggestions of USCIS employees themselves. 

For the full text of the recommendations and USCIS responses, please refer to the Ombudsman’s 

website at www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman. 

 79 The Homeland Security Act of 2002, 6 U.S.C. § 272(c)(1), states that the Ombudsman’s annual report shall 

include an inventory of the recommendations and indicate: (1) if action has been taken and the result of that action; 

(2) whether action remains to be completed; and (3) the period during which the item has been on this list. 

Page 84 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov June 2007 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

The Ombudsman also submitted informal recommendations to USCIS. Problems, 

concerns, and observations reported by immigration benefit applicants, employers, immigration 

lawyers, community-based organization representatives, USCIS employees, and from the 

Ombudsman’s observations and research formed the basis for these recommendations. The 

Ombudsman emailed these recommendations to USCIS senior leadership. Informal 

recommendations addressed USCIS internal processing, filing procedures for immigrant benefit 

applicants, visa usage, and immigration benefit applications delayed because of FBI name 

checks. 

For example, the Ombudsman submitted an informal recommendation that suggested 

USCIS alter the language of Form G-731, a form to inquire about green card status. The form 

contained procedural explanations that assumed the applicant had filed a Form I-90, an 

application to replace a green card, when in fact the applicant may never have filed such a 

document. After receiving the informal recommendation, USCIS modified the language of Form 

G-731. 

June 2007 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov Page 85 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

Figure 16: Recommendations 

Number Recommendation Date USCIS Response Recommendation Web Link

32 Deferred Action April 6, 2007 N/A http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/CISOmbudsman_RR_32_

O_Deferred_Action_04-06-07.pdf

31 30-day Advance Notice for Changes in Policy 

and Operations Instructions

February 8, 2007 May 7, 2007 http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/cisomb-rr-31-uscis-sop-02-

0807.pdf

30 Improvement of FOIA Operations July 12, 2006 October 5, 2006 http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/CISOmbudsman_RR_30_

FOIA_Processing_07-12-06.pdf

29 Extraordinary Ability "O", Petition Extension June 30, 2006 October 3, 2006 http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/CISOmbudsman_RR_29_

O_Visa_Rules_06-30-06.pdf

28 Address Change (AR-11) June 9, 2006 September 8, 2006 http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/CISOmbudsman_RR_28_

Online_Change_of_Address_06-09-06.pdf

27 Up-front Processing May 19, 2006 August 21, 2006 http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/CISOmbudsman_RR_27_

Up-Front_Processing_05-19-06.pdf

26 DNA Testing April 12, 2006 April 12, 2006; July 5, 

2006

http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/CISOmbudsman_RR_26_

DNA-04-13-06.pdf 

25 Employment Authorization Documents (EADs) March 20, 2006 April 27, 2006; June 

20, 2006

http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/CISOmbudsman_RR_25_

EAD_03-20-06.pdf

24 Asylum Adjudication March 20, 2006 April 27, 2006; June 20, 

2006

http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/CISOmbudsman_RR_24_

Asylum_Status_03-20-06.pdf

23 Military Naturalization March 20, 2006 April 27, 2006 http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/CISOmbudsman_RR_23_

Military_Naturalization_03-20-06.pdf

22 Notices to Appear March 20, 2006 April 27, 2006 http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/CISOmbudsman_RR_22-

Notice_to_Appear_03-20-06.pdf

21 Asylum Division Use of Notice of Action Form 

I-797

December 7, 2005 December 27, 2005; 

March 17, 2006; April 

27, 2006

http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/CISOmbudsman_RR_21_

Asylum_Office_Use_of_I_797_12-07-05.pdf

20 Administrative Appeals Office December 6, 2005 April 27, 2006 http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/CISOmbudsman_RR_20_

Administrative_Appeals_12-07-05.pdf

19 Elimination of Asylum Pick Up Decision 

Delivery Process

October 13, 2005 December 12, 2005; 

April 27, 2006

http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/CISOmbudsman_RR_19_

Asylum_Pick_Up_10-12-05.pdf

18 Public Reporting for Capped Categories August 28, 2005 December 27, 2005; 

April 27, 2006

http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/CISOmbudsman_RR_18_

Public_Reporting_for_Capped_Categories_08-28-05.pdf

17 Elimination of Postal Meter Mark July 29, 2005 December 27, 2005; 

April 27, 2006

http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/CISOmbudsman_RR_17_

Immigration_Postal_07-29-05.pdf

16 I-131 Refugee Travel Document June 10, 2005 December 27, 2005; 

April 27, 2006

http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/CISOmbudsman_RR_16_

I_131_Refugee_Travel_Document_06-10-05.pdf

2007 Reporting Period

2006 Reporting Period

Page 86 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov June 2007 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

Number Recommendation Date USCIS Response Recommendation Web Link

15 Issuance of Receipts to Petitioners and 

Applicants

May 9, 2005 May 25, 2005; April 27, 

2006

http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/CISOmbudsman_RR_15_

Lockbox_Contract_05-09-05.pdf

14 Pilot Program Termination February 25, 2005 May 25, 2005; April 27, 

2006

http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/CISOmbudsman_RR_14_

Pilot_Program_Termination_02-25-05.pdf

13 Issuance of Permanent Resident Cards to 

Arriving Immigrants

December 15, 2004 May 25, 2005; April 27, 

2006

http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/CISOmbudsman_RR_13_

IV_I_551_12-15-04.pdf

12 Lockbox November 29, 2004 December 17, 2004; 

May 25, 2005; April 27, 

2006

http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/CISOmbudsman_RR_11_

Lockbox_11-29-04.pdf

11 INFOPASS November 29, 2004 December 17, 2004; 

May 25, 2005; April 27, 

2006

http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/CISOmbudsman_RR_12_

InfoPass_11-29-04.pdf

10 Naturalization for Survivors of Domestic 

Violence

October 6, 2004 December 17, 2004; 

April 27, 2006

http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/CISOmbudsman_RR_10_

INA_319_(a)_Naturalization_10-06-04.pdf

9 Standardized Forms October 6, 2004 December 17, 2004; 

May 25, 2005; April 27, 

2006

http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/CISOmbudsman_RR_9_S

tandardized_Forms_10-06-04.pdf

8 Premium Processing September 27, 2004 December 17, 2004; 

May 25, 2005; 

December 27, 2005; 

April 27, 2006

http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/CISOmbudsman_RR_8_P

remium_Processing_09-27-04.pdf

7 I-9 Storage August 16, 2004 December 17, 2004 http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/CISOmbudsman_RR_7_I

_9_Storage_08-16-04.pdf

6 E-filing August 16, 2004 December 17, 2004; 

May 25, 2005; April 27, 

2006

http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/CISOmbudsman_RR_6_E

_filing_08-16-04.pdf

5 Customer Service Training for USCIS 

Employees

August 16, 2004 December 17, 2004; 

May 25, 2005; April 27, 

2006

http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/CISOmbudsman_RR_5_

Customer_Service_Training_for_USCIS_Employees_08-16-

04.pdf

4 Fee Instructions June 29, 2004 December 17, 2004; 

May 25, 2005; April 27, 

2006

http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/CISOmbudsman_RR_4_F

ee_Instructions_06-29-04.pdf

3 Reengineering Green Card Replacement 

Processing

June 18, 2004 December 17, 2004; 

April 27, 2006; May 23, 

2006

http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/CISOmbudsman_RR_3_

Reengineering_Green_Card_Replacement_Processing_06-18-

04.pdf

2 Streamlining Employment Based Immigrant 

Processing

June 18, 2004 December 17, 2004; 

April 27, 2006

http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/CISOmbudsman_RR_2_S

treamlining_Employment_Based_Immigrant_Processing_06-

18-04.pdf

1 Streamlining Family-Based Immigrant 

Processing

June 18, 2004 December 17, 2004; 

April 27, 2006

http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/CISOmbudsman_RR_1_S

treamlining_Family_Based_Immigrant_Processing_06-18-

04.pdf

2004 Reporting Period

2005 Reporting Period

Pursuant to the Homeland Security Act of 2002,80 USCIS responded to recommendations 

from the Ombudsman during the reporting period, and on May 18, 2007 the agency responded to 

the recommendations in the 2006 Annual Report. 

USCIS has implemented some of the Ombudsman’s recommendations. In certain cases, 

USCIS began initiatives based on the Ombudsman’s recommendations, but did not follow 

through on them. The agency indicated basic agreement with many recommendations, but did 

not implement all of the recommended changes. The Ombudsman understands that 

implementation of these recommendations may involve an investment of time and resources at 

 80 See 6 U.S.C. § 272(f). 

June 2007 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov Page 87 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

the outset, which would lead to cost savings, enhanced efficiency, and improved customer 

service downstream. USCIS’ limited or inconsistent attention to four years of recommendations, 

while not providing equal or better alternatives to serious customer service and security issues, is 

of concern. 

For an agency in desperate need of rapid change, USCIS should devote sufficient 

resources to address these recommendations. In late 2003, USCIS took a positive step in 

establishing the Office of Customer Relations Management (OCRM). This office was to be 

staffed by at least 15 people to: (1) serve as the liaison to the Ombudsman; (2) evaluate 

customer service and recommend changes to the Director to improve this service consistent with 

national security and from problems identified by the Ombudsman; (3) review USCIS 

developing systems and programs regarding customer service; and (4) conduct focus groups and 

certain survey measures with non-governmental organizations on new customer service trends 

and needs. In actuality, USCIS funded only two OCRM positions for a short period of time, 

thereby severely limiting USCIS’ capabilities to address the Ombudsman’s concerns. 

As of this writing, OCRM is not part of USCIS’ plan. Instead, the USCIS Director’s 

office has begun to handle all aspects related to the Ombudsman. There is no dedicated office or 

personnel, as originally contemplated in the formation of the OCRM, to be responsible for 

follow-up and correcting the problems identified by the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman is 

appreciative that the USCIS Deputy Director became attentive to issues raised by the 

Ombudsman. However, a return to the original OCRM concept is worth consideration. 

2007 REPORTING PERIOD 

A. Deferred Action, Recommendation # 32 (April 6, 2007) 

(USCIS Response due in July) 

On April 6, 2007, the Ombudsman recommended that USCIS: (1) post general 

information on deferred action on its website; (2) maintain statistics on the issuance and denial of 

deferred action requests; and (3) designate a headquarters official to review grants and denials of 

deferred action requests on a quarterly basis to ensure that there are consistent decisions 

nationwide. 

Deferred action is an extraordinary, discretionary form of humanitarian relief that begins 

with a USCIS District Director’s recommendation to the Regional Director. The majority of 

cases in which deferred action is granted involve medical grounds. 

Currently, USCIS does not maintain statistics, or otherwise track the number of requests 

received and approved or denied, for deferred action. USCIS also does not review deferred 

action grants or denials between regions. Thus, USCIS can only estimate the number of requests 

and provide anecdotal information on the types of requests received, granted, or denied. Such an 

ad hoc approach may in part be necessary and appropriate because deferred action is 

extraordinary relief not based in statute or regulation. However, minimal measures, including 

tracking such requests and regular review by USCIS headquarters of such requests and 

Page 88 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov June 2007 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

determinations, would help ensure that there is no regional disparity in approvals or denials of 

deferred action requests and that like cases are decided in a like manner. 

B. 30-Day Advance Notice for Changes in Policy and Operations Instructions 

Recommendation # 31 (February 8, 2007) 

(USCIS Response: May 7, 2007) 

In February 2007, the Ombudsman recommended that USCIS adopt a standard operating 

policy under which there would be, absent exigent circumstances, at least 30-days advance 

notice to the public and posting on the USCIS website of changes to policy and operations 

instructions. The Ombudsman has been and continues to be concerned about changes to USCIS 

policy and procedure without adequate notice to the public. Implementation of this 

recommendation would improve USCIS efficiency and customer service by: (1) helping to 

ensure that customers understand precisely what is expected and required in a submission; and 

(2) allowing USCIS to focus on adjudicating applications, rather than issuing time consuming 

rejections, denials, and RFEs when customers do not know what has changed. 

On May 7, 2007, USCIS responded to this recommendation. USCIS stated that it has 

“increasingly been notifying the public of changes to policy and operating instructions whenever 

appropriate . . . [and] will continue to improve and expand on its efforts to provide public notice 

as a standard practice, absent exigent circumstances.”81 However, USCIS noted that in certain 

instances, it will put forth policy changes without any delay, and that “[m]aking the 30-day 

advance notice requirement for all policy or procedural changes will unnecessarily delay 

implementation of important changes.” 

C. Improvement of FOIA Operations Recommendation # 30 (July 12, 2006) 

 (USCIS Response: October 5, 2006) 

USCIS receives the majority of all FOIA requests to DHS. Ninety-one percent of DHS’ 

FOIA backlog and 40 percent of the entire federal government’s FOIA backlog is from USCIS. 

From 2003 to 2005, the DHS FOIA backlog grew from 29,007 requests at year-end 2003 to 

82,591 requests at year-end 2005, of which 74, 941 were to USCIS.82 

 81 Response to Recommendation #31, 30-Day Advance Notice for Changes in Policy and Operations Instructions 

Recommendation (May 7, 2007); 

http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/cisombudsman_rr_31_uscis_sop_uscis_response_05-07-07.pdf (last visited June 

7, 2007). 

82 The FOIA backlog problem has become a federal government crisis, not just attributable to USCIS. On March 5, 

2007, Representatives William Lacy Clay, Todd Russell Platts, and Henry A. Waxman introduced H.R. 1309, the 

Freedom of Information Act Amendments of 2007. This proposed legislation contains substantive provisions to 

increase public access to government information by strengthening FOIA. H.R. 1309 also creates a new FOIA 

ombudsman to help requesters resolve problems without litigation. The FOIA ombudsman would be located at the 

National Archives and help requesters by providing informal guidance and nonbinding opinions regarding rejected 

or delayed FOIA requests. The FOIA ombudsman also would review agency compliance with FOIA. On March 14, 

2007, the House of Representatives passed the bill and on March 15, 2007, it was received in the Senate and referred 

to the Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs. 

June 2007 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov Page 89 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

The Ombudsman’s recommendation called for USCIS to improve its FOIA operations 

while ensuring that information was provided timely by implementing seventeen actions to 

address the backlog. This recommendation discussed the primary sources of the growing FOIA 

backlog problem, including use of the FOIA process as a source of information for genealogical 

studies and as a means of discovery in immigration enforcement, litigation, and other court 

proceedings. 

This recommendation focused on three areas: (1) accountability; (2) centralization; and 

(3) updates to current policies, regulations, and guidance. The accountability section proposed 

ten actions regarding systems issues, reports, pending backlog, performance issues, as well as 

actions to improve FOIA training, upgrade IT, and address accountability. The centralization 

section proposed three actions which addressed consolidation and web-enabled tracking and 

coordination systems to comply with electronic FOIA (e-FOIA) requirements. The updates 

section proposed four actions on training and processing. The recommendation also included 

comprehensive discussions of useful levels to resource staffing as well as the benefits of 

technological enhancements. 

USCIS indicated that of the Ombudsman’s seventeen specific FOIA recommendations it 

is following ten of them due to centralization of work. For the remaining seven 

recommendations, four represent work that USCIS had started and is on track to complete. One 

recommendation may no longer be applicable due to centralization efforts. USCIS did not agree 

with two of the recommendations. USCIS also concurred with the recommendation’s 

assessment of the benefits realized for USCIS and its customers of increased customer service, 

reduced costs, improved communication, increased efficiency, improved technology, and 

decreased litigation. 

On March 26, 2007, the DHS Privacy Office issued the “2006 Annual Freedom of 

Information Act Report to the Attorney General of the United States,” covering October 1, 2005- 

September 30, 2006. This report includes the DHS “FOIA Revised Operational Improvement 

Plan Report,” which closely mirrors the Ombudsman’s FOIA recommendation. 

USCIS recognizes that the growing FOIA backlog is central to the challenges with the 

program. The agency issued two notices of proposed rulemaking to address it. The first would 

take requests for genealogy information out of the FOIA request process by channeling them into 

a newly established administrative information process.83 The other rule would establish a third 

track for FOIA processing of litigation-related information requests to supplement the two 

existing tracks for simple and complex FOIA requests.84 

The Ombudsman hopes that these and other improvements to the USCIS FOIA program 

will make operations more efficient, effective, and most of all, compliant with statutory 

mandates. 

 83 See “Establishment of a Genealogy Program,” 71 Fed. Reg. 20357, 58 (Apr. 20, 2006). 

84 See “Special FOIA Processing Track for Individuals Appearing Before An Immigration Judge,” 72 Fed. Reg. 

9017 (Feb. 28, 2007). 

Page 90 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov June 2007 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

D. Extraordinary Ability “O” Petition Extension Recommendation # 29 (June 

30, 2006) 

(USCIS Response: October 3, 2006) 

The Ombudsman recommended that USCIS amend “O” petition rules to facilitate the 

employment of foreign nationals with “extraordinary ability” in the United States by extending 

the maximum initial validity of O visas from three to five years, and increasing the maximum 

extension length from one to five years. 

Current rules permit O visas (Extraordinary Ability) to be issued initially for a period of 

up to three years necessary to complete work, which term is renewable thereafter for one-year 

extensions without limit. Corresponding rules regarding “P” petitions (Athlete, Entertainer, and 

Artist) permit initial issuance for up to five years as needed to complete work, renewable as 

needed to complete work for up to five years, but subject to a 10 year maximum stay in this 

status. As a result, an O beneficiary granted the maximum length work permit must seek annual 

extensions after three years, with seven extensions needed to work for 10 consecutive years. A 

comparable P-1 performer may work for up to 10 years on only one extension.85 The 

recommendation aligns O and P visa considerations and, as a result, simplifies the process for 

operational efficiency and policy consistency. 

 The agency cited concerns in its October 3, 2006 response that either: (1) O 

nonimmigrant visa holders must be vetted often to assure that they maintain their high 

qualifications; or (2) these visitors require regular screening on national security grounds. The 

Ombudsman finds these arguments unpersuasive and notes that USCIS plans to begin internal 

discussion on the validity issue. 

On a related point, USCIS issued a press release on April 11, 2007 announcing that, 

effective May 16, 2007, O and P status seekers could petition twelve months prior to their 

scheduled event, competition, or performance, rather than only six months.86 It acknowledged 

the impact of public support for the greater planning flexibility this change would afford 

customers seeking either status. 

 85 P petitions are used by nonimmigrant artists, entertainers, and athletes coming to the United States to perform in 

shows or athletic events. See generally, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(P). Os and Ps have a degree of overlap, although 

the O category covers, in addition to the three types of P performers, persons engaged in business, education, 

science, and motion picture and television production. The standards are generally lower for Ps than for Os, as 

beneficiaries of the latter must be outstanding, not merely professional. 

86 See USCIS Press Release, “USCIS Announces Extension of Filing Time for Two Nonimmigrant Petitions” (Apr. 

11, 2007); http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/OandPvisarule041107.pdf (last visited June 3, 2007). 

June 2007 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov Page 91 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

2006 REPORTING PERIOD 

A. Address Change (Form AR-11) Recommendation # 28 (June 9, 2006) 

(USCIS Response: September 8, 2006) 

In June 2006, the Ombudsman recommended USCIS proceed immediately with plans to 

supplement current change-of-address procedures with an online process. This recommendation, 

if implemented, would improve customer satisfaction and confidence in the process and improve 

USCIS efficiency and data accuracy. 

At the time of the recommendation, USCIS required customers to file Form AR-11 

(Alien’s Change of Address Card) to comply with the statutory requirement to report any change 

of address within ten days. No receipt was provided to the customer to indicate the AR-11 was 

received and/or processed by USCIS, despite the fact that the customer could be held criminally 

liable and removed from the United States for failing to file the AR-11. 

Many USCIS customers assumed that by filing Form AR-11 and complying with the 

statutory requirement, they were updating their address in all records maintained by USCIS. 

However, USCIS did not use Form AR-11 to update addresses in the immigration benefits 

databases. Customers had to notify individual USCIS offices separately although there is no 

language on Form AR-11, or in the accompanying USCIS website instructions to inform 

customers of the need to provide separate notification. 

On September 28, 2006, USCIS confirmed its intent to establish an online version of AR11 by year’s end for customers to notify USCIS of address changes. The Ombudsman is pleased 

to report that the USCIS electronic change of address form was introduced with few problems in 

early 2007. After introduction of the online process, customers now can file a change of address 

online, via the NCSC, or by mail. 

Although a significant step forward, the online change of address process: (1) cannot 

record updates for naturalization applicants; and (2) does not automatically populate relevant 

immigration benefits databases. These updates must still be entered into the databases by USCIS 

staff. However, USCIS anticipates that the online change of address process soon will be 

available for naturalization cases and databases will be populated automatically with these data 

in the coming months. 

B. Up-front Processing Recommendation # 27 (May 19, 2006) 

(USCIS Response: August 21, 2006) 

Please see section IV for a detailed discussion of the recommendation on up-front 

processing. 

Page 92 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov June 2007 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

C. DNA Testing Recommendation # 26 (April 12, 2006) 

(USCIS Response: April 12, 2006; Additional USCIS Response: 

July 25, 2006) 

The Ombudsman recommended that USCIS: (1) accept DNA test results as secondary 

evidence of family relationship; (2) grant authority to directors to require DNA testing; and (3) 

initiate a DNA testing pilot project to study the impact of requiring DNA testing as evidence of 

family relationship. In conjunction with this recommendation, the Ombudsman provided USCIS 

with proposed regulatory revisions. 

DNA test results are listed as neither primary nor secondary evidence of family 

relationship in USCIS regulations and forms, and customers face obstacles in providing DNA 

test results as initial evidence of family relationship. USCIS relies almost exclusively on 

documentary evidence and customer interviews to verify the legitimacy of claimed family 

relationships. The result is a resource-intensive and time-consuming process; a process in which 

all customers, honest or not, are subject to scrutiny and suspicion; and a process that occurs 

despite the effort and skill of adjudicators. Although USCIS directors have the regulatory 

authority to require less reliable blood tests of customers, current USCIS policy states that DNA 

testing is voluntary and only to be suggested to customers when other evidence is inconclusive. 

In April 2006, USCIS stated that it would respond to this recommendation after studying 

the legal and operational impact of this recommendation. In July 2006, USCIS responded in full 

to the Ombudsman’s recommendation. USCIS stated that: (1) although DNA testing is not 

listed as primary or secondary evidence of a family relationship, the former INS issued a policy 

memorandum to field offices allowing directors to suggest DNA testing as secondary evidence to 

establish a claimed family relationship; (2) it is already in the process of updating regulations 

that would require DNA testing where fraud is suspected, or where there is neither primary 

evidence of a claimed family relationship, such as a birth certificate, nor contemporaneous 

secondary evidence such as school records;87 and (3) it is considering conducting a DNA pilot 

overseas, although a location was not yet determined. 

D. Employment Authorization Documents Recommendation # 25 (March 19, 

2006) 

(USCIS Response: April 27, 2006; Additional USCIS Response: 

June 20, 2006) 

In March 2006, the Ombudsman recommended that USCIS: (1) issue multi-year EADs; 

(2) issue an EAD valid as of the date an earlier EAD received by the applicant expired; and (3) 

amend the regulations such that K-1 nonimmigrants are not subject to breaks in employment 

authorization. 

 87 See 8 C.F.R. 204.2(d)(2)(vi). 

June 2007 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov Page 93 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

Several classes of foreign nationals are authorized employment as part of their 

immigration status, but still must apply for an EAD. If USCIS approves the application, it issues 

the EAD. 

In April 2006, USCIS noted that the issues addressed in the recommendation impact 

many program areas and are critical to customers. The agency stated that it “is carefully 

considering the recommendations made by the Ombudsman” and has “put together a working 

group to look at each issue” before writing a formal response. 

In June 2006, USCIS agreed in part with the goals of this recommendation and rejected 

other parts of the recommendation. USCIS stated that it will begin issuing multi-year EADs, but 

only in limited circumstances. It noted that the issuance of multi-year EADs is becoming less 

important to green card applicants because processing times are declining due to backlog 

reduction. USCIS agreed that it would be preferable to synchronize the validity dates of new and 

expiring EADs. However, USCIS indicated that it uses automated batch processing for EAD 

renewals and is unable to issue the new EAD as of the date of expiration of the previously issued 

card under this automated process. Nevertheless, USCIS will assess the possibility of adjusting 

the batch processing system to allow it to produce EADs with the synchronized validity dates. 

The Ombudsman is hopeful that the new fees will assist USCIS in making changes to the 

current process to facilitate this important customer service correction. Customers deserve to 

have the benefit of a full year of validity of their EAD card and not a partial year, as under the 

current process. Finally, USCIS disagreed with the third part of the recommendation and stated 

that issuing EADs is inconsistent with the purpose of the K-1 entry. Revenue concerns appear to 

be a factor in this decision. 

E. Asylum Adjudication Recommendation # 24 (March 19, 2006) 

(USCIS Response: April 27, 2006; Additional USCIS Response: 

June 20, 2006) 

The Ombudsman recommended that USCIS limit its adjudication of Form I-589 

applications for asylum and withholding of removal to those submitted by individuals in valid 

nonimmigrant status. 

USCIS stated in April 2006 that the recommendation requires careful consideration, 

research, and discussion with the communities that would be affected. Therefore, USCIS 

solicited input from stakeholders, including the Executive Office of Immigration Review, ICE, 

Office of the Principal Legal Counsel, non-governmental organizations, and the immigration 

advocacy community. In addition, USCIS solicited input from the United Nations High 

Commissioner for Refugees and the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom. The 

Ombudsman commends USCIS’ initiative in asking for such input and encourages USCIS to 

similarly approach all of the Ombudsman’s recommendations. 

On June 20, 2006, USCIS rejected the Ombudsman’s recommendations regarding asylum 

adjudications. Both USCIS and the Ombudsman consider this recommendation closed. 

Page 94 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov June 2007 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

OBSERVATIONS AND STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS FROM THE 

OMBUDSMAN’S TRIPS AND MEETINGS 

The Ombudsman’s staff visited five USCIS asylum offices during the 

reporting period to observe the: (1) administration and efficiency of asylum 

processing and credible fear determination; (2) fraud detection practices, actual 

and proposed; (3) quality assurance methods employed; and (4) technological 

advances currently in operation. Offices visited were Newark, Los Angeles, 

Arlington, New York, and Miami. 

During these visits the Ombudsman’s staff had discussions with 

individuals from office management, adjudication staff, clerical support, quality 

assurance and training, fraud detection, and security. The overall impression is 

of a workforce that wants to be customer-centric, but is affected by production 

goals. 

The asylum process starts with the asylum application, Form I-589, a 12-

page form supplemented with 11 pages of instructions. Comprehending these 

instructions requires at minimum a reading ability at a high level, which is 

alarming when half of all Americans read at the 8th-grade or lower level.88 Even 

more alarming is that Form I-589 specifically serves a population for whom 

English may be the second language, as a lack of English language ability is 

commonplace among asylum seekers. 

Asylum officers seem to have extremely limited access to any investigative 

support -- locally and internationally -- to help verify events, locations, and 

persons referenced in asylum applications. As applicant credibility is critical to 

asylum determinations, asylum officers should have timely access to investigative 

services to corroborate claims. 

RECOMMENDATION AR 2007 -- 25 

The Ombudsman recommends that USCIS redraft Form I-589, the asylum 

application, so that it is less complicated and more understandable by the 

intended audience – persons who have been persecuted based on race, religion, 

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

 88 See Darrell M. West, “State and Federal E-Government in the United States” at 6 (Sept. 2003); 

http://www.insidepolitics.org/egovt03us.pdf (last visited June 5, 2007). 

June 2007 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov Page 95 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

F. Notices to Appear Recommendation # 22 (March 19, 2006) 

(USCIS Response: April 27, 2006) 

On March 19, 2006, the Ombudsman recommended that USCIS standardize its policy on 

issuing Notices to Appear, a summons to appear before an Immigration Judge. The 

recommendation provided that NTAs be issued and filed with the Immigration Court in all cases 

where applicants are out of status because their applications for green cards were denied. 

On April 27, 2006, USCIS responded to the recommendation. The agency disagreed with 

the recommendation and stated that there will be cases where it will not issue an NTA because to 

do so would be against the public interest or contrary to humanitarian concerns.89 In the national 

security context, USCIS noted that issuance of an NTA involves several layers of agency review, 

which make it impracticable to issue an NTA before the applicant leaves a USCIS facility 

following an interview. 

On July 11, 2006, USCIS issued Policy Memorandum 110 (PM 110), “Disposition of 

Cases Involving Removable Aliens,” internal guidance to USCIS officers on how to process and 

prioritize cases in which a foreign national appears to be removable. 

PM 110 implemented a June 2006 Memorandum of Agreement between USCIS and ICE, 

that clarifies USCIS and ICE’s respective roles in the NTA process. The Memorandum 

describes when USCIS will issue an NTA and when it will refer the case to ICE. An NTA will 

be issued in the following order of priority: (1) cases where fraud is established; (2) cases where 

the NTA is prescribed by law or regulation; and (3) all other cases. USCIS will forward cases 

involving matters of public safety to ICE for possible action/detention. PM 110 does not affect 

national security cases, which continue to be handled by the National Security Adjudications 

Unit within the Fraud Detection and National Security component of USCIS. 

Additionally, service centers have been directed to devote more resources to the NTA 

process. USCIS issued 6,969, 10,008, and 13, 350 NTAs for the periods June 2004 -- March 

2005, June 2005 -- March 2006, and June 2006 -- March 2007, respectively.90

The Ombudsman appreciates the attention USCIS has devoted to this issue and believes 

that standardizing the NTA issuance criteria improves USCIS efficiency and national security. 

 89 USCIS Response to Recommendation #22 (Apr. 27, 2006); 

http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/CISOmbudsman_RR_22_Notice_to_Appear_USCIS_Response-04-27-06.pdf. 

USCIS also asserted that in other situations it would be logistically inappropriate to issue an NTA, e.g., where a 

green card application is denied because it was filed prior to when the preference category priority date became 

current. 

90 USCIS Performance Analysis System data as of March 2007. For April and May of 2005 and 2006 the total 

NTAs issued were 1,340 and 3,178, respectively. 

Page 96 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov June 2007 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

USCIS’ 2006 ANNUAL REPORT RESPONSE TO PRIOR YEARS’ 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

In its 2006 Annual Report Response (at p. 24), USCIS indicates that “[t]he prior USCIS 

responses to the recommendations still apply and require no further updates. In this section 

USCIS does respond to additional requests by the [Ombudsman]” included in the 2006 Annual 

Report. 

A. Asylum Division Use of Notice of Action Form I-797 Recommendation # 21 

(December 7, 2005) 

In the 2006 Annual Report (at p. 72), the Ombudsman requested updates on an 

implementation timeline for the recommendation that the Asylum Division utilize the automated 

and standardized Notice of Action Form I-797 that includes Form I-94 Arrival/Departure Record 

for asylum approval notifications. In its 2006 Annual Report Response (at pp. 30-31), USCIS 

provided a timeline/work plan, which included planned implementation in March – May 2007. 

However, according to information recently received from USCIS, the timeline for 

implementation of the asylum I-797 has been pushed back due to the prioritization of other 

Asylum Division projects. The pilot is now set for implementation in early 2008. 

The Ombudsman understands that other Asylum Division projects implemented in the 

past year include: an automated process to issue secure I-766 employment authorization 

documents to individuals granted asylum; a procedure for enrolling all asylum and NACARA 

203 applicants into the US-VISIT system; automatically loading all US-VISIT responses directly 

into RAPS (the asylum case management system); and a transformation of the Asylum 

Division’s business model to ensure that all asylum applicants are fingerprinted at an ASC prior 

to interview. Additionally, USCIS reports that they have initiated substantive modifications to 

the RAPS program to improve case tracking, including more comprehensive tracking of motions 

to reconsider/reopen and terminate proceedings. 

B. Elimination of Asylum Pickup Decision Delivery Process Recommendation # 

19 (October 13, 2005) 

The Ombudsman recommended in the 2006 Annual Report (at pp. 70-71) that USCIS 

reexamine the recommendation that all asylum decisions, whether referrals to the immigration 

judge or conditional/final grants, should be sent certified return receipt or regular mail via U.S. 

Postal Service to all asylum applicants. This would eliminate the existing process, requiring that 

decisions be obtained in person, and establish a single process for delivery of notices. 

In USCIS’ 2006 Annual Report Response (at pp. 28-30), it indicated that as of that 

writing the agency issued asylum decisions in person to approximately 85 percent of the 

affirmative asylum caseload. According to USCIS, the benefits of serving asylum decisions in 

person include: (1) “[t]he ability to serve NTAs on ineligible asylum applicants [which] supports 

ICE in its efforts to remove them”; (2) the “opportunity to take appropriate security-related 

actions, including coordination with ICE and other law enforcement agencies, on applicants who 

warrant apprehension based on the results of one or more security checks”; (3) prevention of 

June 2007 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov Page 97 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

“unnecessary harm to certain genuine asylum seekers who are vulnerable to exploitation by 

unscrupulous preparers”; and (4) the ability to explain the decision and its consequences to the 

applicant and, for applicants issued an NTA, to “point out to the applicant the date and time of 

the hearing, and impress upon the applicant the importance of appearing at that hearing and [of] 

notifying the court of any change in address.” 

In the same response, USCIS indicated that it is examining ways to control costs for 

issuing asylum decisions in-person. Moreover, the agency noted that it agrees with the 

Ombudsman that a single process for all applicants is better. USCIS also noted that it will try to 

increase the number of decisions served in-person, rather than eliminating this service. 

C. Public Reporting for Capped Categories Recommendation # 18 (August 28, 

2005) 

In the 2006 Annual Report (at p. 70), the Ombudsman again raised the issue of the 

frequency of reporting H-1B cap usage and suggested that USCIS publish these data on the same 

day each week/month, if possible, to assist employers and individuals. USCIS stated in its 2006 

Annual Report Response (at p. 28) that “USCIS now updates the status of each 

application/petition type that is subject to an annual numerical limit (“cap”) as necessary on its 

website, and has taken steps to make this information directly accessible. USCIS also is 

committed to continue publishing information about any “frontlog” affecting capped filings so 

that customers can better predict when particular caps might be reached.” The Ombudsman 

appreciates USCIS’ efforts to publish this information and will continue to monitor its progress. 

D. Elimination of Postal Meter Mark Recommendation # 17 (July 29, 2005) 

The Ombudsman expressed great concern in the 2006 Annual Report (at p. 70) regarding 

the continued cost of not implementing the simple recommendation of eliminating the postal 

meter mark “Return Service Requested” on USCIS envelopes. In its 2006 Annual Report 

Response (at p. 28), USCIS stated: 

In FY 07, as USCIS completes the transition to new postage 

meters, it plans to transition to new standards for mail delivery to 

allow mail forwarding with notification from the US Postal Service 

through its address service. As part of the proposed new fee 

structure, USCIS further plans to move to a 2-day delivery of cards 

with delivery confirmation. This will reduce delivery times, give 

customers tracking numbers so they can track mail delivery, yet 

also increase associated controls. 

The Ombudsman commends USCIS for these changes, which aim to improve customer service 

and reduce problems associated with mail delivery. The Ombudsman looks forward to learning 

more about the 2-day delivery of cards with delivery confirmation and the timeline for 

implementation. 

Page 98 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov June 2007 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

E. Issuance of Receipts to Petitioners and Applicants Recommendation # 15 

(May 9, 2005) 

In the 2006 Annual Report (at p. 67), the Ombudsman stated an ongoing concern with the 

Lockbox process and associated delays. In addition, access to the Chicago and Los Angeles 

Lockbox facilities is so limited as to prevent senior USCIS management from seeing them. The 

Ombudsman also has encountered similar accessibility issues with these facilities. 

USCIS described in its 2006 Annual Report Response (at p. 27) that “[t]here are 

extensive controls in place due to the large amount of funds processed in these locations, and to 

ensure complete control and accountability of funds and applications. USCIS believes these 

controls are appropriate, and do not hinder required oversight or access.” The Ombudsman 

appreciates the necessity of the controls at the lockboxes due to the large amount of funds. 

However, the Ombudsman continues to hear about problems with accessibility to these facilities, 

including from senior USCIS leadership who often are prevented from visiting them. Security 

concerns cannot and should not be used as a reason to prevent legitimate, business-related visits 

to these facilities by DHS and USCIS leadership.

F. Pilot Program Termination Recommendation # 14 (February 25, 2005) 

The Ombudsman noted in the 2006 Annual Report (at p. 67) that USCIS does not provide 

adequate notice to customers regarding policy changes. In its 2006 Annual Report Response (at 

p. 27), USCIS explained ways in which it advises the public of policy changes: (1) posting on 

the website; (2) providing a separate public notice of a change, where appropriate; (3) via the 

agency’s Community Liaison Officers around the country who coordinate with community based 

organizations; and (4) working closely with media and stakeholders. The Ombudsman 

appreciates this additional detail and will continue to follow the notice issue in conjunction with 

new policies and procedures, specifically as it pertains to timeliness of such notice. 

G. Issuance of Green Cards to Arriving Immigrants Recommendation # 13 

(December 15, 2004) 

The Ombudsman recommended that USCIS provide details of its ongoing efforts to 

resolve certain underlying problems regarding issuance of green cards to arriving immigrants. 

In its 2006 Annual Report Response (at p. 27), USCIS responded that “[t]he long term 

goal . . . is to receive immigrant visas and associated biometrics and admission data 

electronically from DOS and [CBP] as those agencies can provide that information electronically 

to USCIS.” Unfortunately, USCIS did not answer the Ombudsman’s request to provide details 

of these efforts. As USCIS notes, “[t]his would expedite the issuance of green cards to arriving 

immigrants.” Again, it is important to provide details on these efforts for the Ombudsman to 

evaluate and report on progress made. 

H. INFOPASS Recommendation # 11 (November 29, 2004) 

The Ombudsman reported in the 2006 Annual Report (at p. 65) that customers and 

stakeholders continued to complain about appointment availability through the INFOPASS 

June 2007 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov Page 99 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

system in some jurisdictions. In addition, the Ombudsman noted from field office visits that 

USCIS made limited progress on kiosk deployment. 

USCIS responded in May 2007 that the availability of INFOPASS appointments has 

improved, and the Ombudsman agrees. Further discussion of this issue is in section III.D.1. 

USCIS also indicated that it made progress on kiosk deployment in field offices. Specifically, 

“[d]eployment will begin in late October and should be completed by late November.” The 

Ombudsman looks forward to this important addition to customer service. The Ombudsman is 

unaware of any kiosks that are fully operational as of this writing. 

I. E-Filing Recommendation # 6 (August 16, 2004) 

The Ombudsman originally recommended that USCIS reconsider this recommendation to 

establish a separate lower fee structure for e-filed applications and petitions to encourage 

customers to use this expanding capability. In the 2006 Annual Report (at p. 62), the 

Ombudsman asked USCIS to provide additional specific reasons why this is an impractical 

solution to encourage more e-filed applications, or provide information on what steps it is taking 

to move towards this goal. 

In its 2006 Annual Report Response, USCIS responded that the Transformation Program 

is working on an end-to-end process that will increase the options for e-filing. 

J. Customer Service Training for USCIS Employees Recommendation # 5 

(August 16, 2004) 

The Ombudsman recommended in the 2006 Annual Report (at p. 61) that USCIS go 

beyond its new training model to ensure that the agency has a training backup plan in the event 

that the model is not implemented. 

In its 2006 Annual Report Response (at pp. 25-26), USCIS described its current activities 

such as providing customer training modules for adjudicators and IIOs as well as the EDvantage 

system (the agency’s web-based learning tool). The agency also described its first workforce 

analysis and 5-year action plan. The Ombudsman further discusses staffing and training in 

section III.M.2 of this report. 

K. Reengineering Green Card Replacement Processing Recommendation # 3 

(June 18, 1004) 

In the 2006 Annual Report (at pp. 59-60), the Ombudsman expressed concern about time 

delays with the issuance of new green cards. In addition, the Ombudsman described how some 

USCIS field offices withhold ADIT (Alien Documentation, Identification, and 

Telecommunications System) stamps, which serve as temporary evidence of an individual’s 

green card status. The Ombudsman stated that the green card replacement and renewal process 

can be further streamlined and suggested up-front processing as a realistic goal. 

In its 2006 Annual Report Response (at p. 25), USCIS noted: 

Page 100 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov June 2007 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

The goal of USCIS is to schedule customers applying to renew 

their card for an appointment at an Application Support Center 

within 3 weeks of filing Form I-90 (which may be accomplished 

by e-filing), at which time we would verify the customer’s identity 

and status. If record and background checks do not indicate issues, 

the personnel at the ASC order the new card electronically, and it 

is typically manufactured and mailed within 2 to 3 business days. 

This minimizes the need for an ADIT stamp as interim 

documentation, and USCIS is attempting to minimize its use since 

it is less secure than an actual card. 

The ADIT stamp in the passport/I-94 Arrival-Departure Records is the only way for an 

individual to prove legal status after adjustment or lawful admission into the United States, but 

prior to receipt of the green card. A legal permanent resident has a statutory obligation to carry 

evidence of legal status at all times,91 and the ADIT stamp fulfills this requirement. 

L. Streamlining Employment-Based Immigrant Processing Recommendation # 

2 (June 18, 2004) 

In the 2006 Annual Report, the Ombudsman recommended (at p. 58) that USCIS 

reconsider its decision to forego a comprehensive up-front processing pilot for employmentbased green card cases in light of the customer service and security related benefits of the DORA 

family-based green card pilot program. 

USCIS stated in its 2006 Annual Report Response (at p. 24): 

This recommendation would require that USCIS conduct 

interviews on cases that are currently interview-waived, thereby 

creating additional and substantial backlogs. It would also require 

the movement of cases from a service center, where interviews 

cannot be conducted, to a field office that does not have the 

capacity to take on the additional workload. This would not 

enhance customer service and would only cause more problems for 

all customers as wait times would increase for all types of 

applications. Since all security checks are conducted in the same 

way at both a service center and at a field office, there would be no 

increased security benefit arising from this change. 

The Ombudsman understands USCIS’ concerns. However, the ability to apprehend an applicant 

with no prior history of fraud is enhanced when well-trained adjudication officers can have a 

face-to-face meeting with the applicant. USCIS currently requires applicants to send copies, 

rather than originals, of official documents such as birth certificates. Technology facilitates 

fraudulent submissions of such documents. As a result, a change to an up-front processing 

approach could prevent such fraudulent submissions. 

 91 See 8 U.S.C. §1304(e). 

June 2007 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov Page 101 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

VI. OMBUDSMAN OUTREACH

During the Ombudsman’s tenure and throughout the reporting period, the Ombudsman 

has strived to be open and accessible to customers and the general public. To that end, the 

Ombudsman has traveled to over 40 USCIS facilities, met with countless stakeholder 

organizations, and held numerous in-person and telephonic meetings with interested parties. The 

Ombudsman has urged USCIS to be a more transparent agency with better communication with 

its customers and, in this regard, the Ombudsman has sought to lead by example. 

During the reporting period, the Ombudsman started new outreach initiatives and 

continued other programs to ensure that individuals and employers have access to the 

Ombudsman’s services and to make certain that problems with USCIS are recognized and 

addressed. 

A. Trips 

During the reporting period, the Ombudsman visited over 40 USCIS facilities, including 

field offices, service centers, and other facilities. Since the office’s inception in 2003, 

Ombudsman Prakash Khatri personally has visited over 150 USCIS facilities and the 

Ombudsman’s staff has visited at least 14, as listed in Appendix 3. The purpose of these visits 

was to see first-hand the issues that individuals and employers encounter, identify systemic 

problems, and consult with USCIS field offices on proposed solutions. The travel and site visits 

provided the Ombudsman opportunities for candid dialogue on a variety of issues including: the 

impact of immigration processing backlogs on families and employers; the lack of 

standardization in immigration adjudications; and ongoing problems communicating with USCIS 

via the NCSC. 

B. Teleconferences 

During the reporting period, the Ombudsman began a pilot program series of 

teleconference calls entitled, “How Is It Working for You?” These teleconferences are an 

opportunity for USCIS customers and stakeholders to ask questions, express concerns, or 

identify best practices on specific topics or regarding particular USCIS offices. 

Page 102 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov June 2007 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

Figure 17: “How Is It Working for You” Teleconferences 

Discussion Topics Date

Bi-specialization December 15, 2006

National Customer Service Center February 28, 2007

Temporary Worker Visas March 27, 2007

Requests for Evidence April 24, 2007

Affidavits of Support April 24, 2007

I-90 Process April 24, 2007

Field Offices

Miami, FL January 23, 2007

New York, NY January 23, 2007

Philadelphia, PA February 16, 2007

Newark, NJ February 16, 2007

Washington, D.C. March 27, 2007

The topics, dates, and times are posted in advance on the Ombudsman website, along 

with how to participate. As part of the pilot, the Ombudsman has invited USCIS representatives 

from the relevant offices to listen to the call to gain additional understanding of and address 

customers and stakeholders’ issues. The Ombudsman also recently began posting on the website 

questions and comments raised during the teleconference and USCIS’ responses. The 

Ombudsman encourages suggestions for future teleconferences, which can be emailed to 

cisombudsman.publicaffairs@dhs.gov. During the next reporting period, the Ombudsman plans 

to end the pilot and launch the “How Is It Working for You” program as a regular part of its 

outreach efforts. 

C. Website 

The Ombudsman’s 2006 Annual Report (at p. 5) included information on the number of 

visits to the website, www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman. Unfortunately, the Ombudsman cannot 

provide that information for this reporting period, due to updates and improvements to the DHS 

website. However, these numbers are currently tracked and will be available for next year’s 

report. 

During the reporting period, the Ombudsman expanded the website to make available 

additional resources to individuals and employers. 

The website includes the following: 

• All recommendations submitted to USCIS, along with responses from the agency. 

• Ombudsman priorities for the reporting period, as described further in section 

VI.F. 

June 2007 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov Page 103 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

• Information on upcoming Ombudsman teleconferences, as well as questions and 

answers from those sessions. 

DHS’ recently reformatted immigration webpage also highlights links to the 

Ombudsman’s website. 

D. Trends Email 

The Ombudsman maintains an email account, cisombudsman.trends@dhs.gov, 

specifically for customers and stakeholders who have concerns about trends and systemic issues 

and may have suggestions for solutions. During the reporting period, the majority of 

correspondence forwarded to the Ombudsman’s trends email pertained to adjudication delays 

due to FBI name checks. 

E. Virtual Ombudsman’s Office 

The issue of creating local ombudsman offices will be reviewed further, but there are no 

new budget requests to establish such local offices for FY 08. Alternatively, the Ombudsman is 

working with the relevant DHS components to develop a Virtual Ombudsman’s Office. The 

Ombudsman expects this program to be fully operational and make all services of the 

Ombudsman more easily available to individuals and employers across the country via the 

internet by FY 08, or earlier. 

The Virtual Ombudsman’s Office will include the following: 

• Online Case Problem Submission – The Virtual Ombudsman’s Office will have 

a fillable case problem form to allow individuals and employers to enter and 

submit necessary case problem information online. Until the Virtual Office is 

fully operational, the Ombudsman is planning to post the fillable case problem 

form on the website as a pilot program to evaluate its usage. Individuals and 

employers will be able to complete the form online, print out a copy, and mail it 

to the Ombudsman. 

• Population of Data Fields – When case problems can be submitted online, the 

information supplied will automatically populate data fields in the Ombudsman’s 

database for review and analysis. This process will avoid time-consuming and 

costly data entry. 

• Improved Analysis and Reporting Capabilities – The Virtual Office will allow 

the Ombudsman to more easily analyze and report on case problem data. The 

current system relies on an outside contractor for developing certain reports, 

which is time-consuming and often means desired reports are not generated. 

• Interface to Share Concerns and Solutions – The Virtual Office also is to 

include an interface for stakeholders and customers to relay concerns and share 

possible solutions, thereby enabling the Ombudsman to identify areas for further 

analysis and recommendations to USCIS. 

Page 104 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov June 2007 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

The Virtual Office offers an efficient method of providing government services, 

will minimize infrastructure and personnel costs, and uses advancements in information 

technology. 

F. Ombudsman’s Priorities 

During the reporting period, the Ombudsman posted priorities on the office’s website at 

http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/editorial_0482.shtm. The Ombudsman will be regularly 

posting information on the progress made on these issues, as well as updating the priorities list. 

The priorities for this reporting period were: 

1. Recommending Solutions to Systemic Issues that Continue to Cause 

Individual Case Problems 

The Ombudsman assists individuals and employers who experience problems with 

USCIS by: 

• Identifying individual case matters and the systemic problems revealed by case 

inquiries as well as making recommendations to prevent the same problem from 

recurring. 

• Making available to the public an online form to expedite the processing of case 

problems submitted to the Ombudsman. 

• Leveraging information technology resources to design a Virtual Ombudsman’s 

Office that will provide similar services for a fraction of the cost of establishing local 

ombudsman offices. 

2. Expanding Up-Front Processing Programs 

The Ombudsman is actively working with USCIS on the expansion and national roll-out 

of up-front processing programs. These programs employ new and innovative processing 

models to improve customer service and increase efficiency, thereby enhancing national 

security.92

3. Addressing USCIS Fundamental Budget Issues 

Under current funding structures, USCIS is unable to maximize efficiency and provide 

true world-class customer service. As long as certain program costs are unfunded and the agency 

is expected to recover its costs almost entirely from fees, USCIS will continue to struggle to 

resolve the conflicting goals of improving efficiency and customer service, while ensuring 

revenue streams to provide for its unfunded mandates. The Ombudsman is working with DHS 

and USCIS leadership to identify new funding strategies to address this dilemma.93

 92 See section IV. 

93 See section III.H. 

June 2007 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov Page 105 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

4. Reviewing Processing Delays Caused by USCIS Security Screening 

FBI name checks significantly delay adjudication of immigration benefits for many 

customers and may not achieve their intended national security objectives. The Ombudsman 

fully supports robust and thorough screening of foreign nationals. At the same time, the 

Ombudsman is seeking a review of the current FBI name check process to ensure that it meets 

U.S. national security goals while not unduly delaying adjudications for legitimate applicants.94

5. Improving USCIS Customer Service and Communications 

USCIS service and communications with its customers are key concerns of the 

Ombudsman. Recently, the Ombudsman has seen some improvement in USCIS customer 

service and communications with customers, though these issues continue to be challenges for 

USCIS.95

VII. CASE PROBLEMS 

By statute, the Ombudsman receives and processes case problems to assist individuals 

and employers who experience problems with USCIS.96 The case problem resolution unit helps 

identify systemic issues that, once corrected, will prevent the reoccurrence of future such case 

problems. 

A. Case Problem Processing 

1. How to Submit A Case Problem 

The Ombudsman’s website, www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman, provides detailed information 

on how to submit a case problem: 

First, please write a letter or use DHS Form 7001, which was accessible on the 

Ombudsman’s website as of June 6, 2007. If writing a letter, please provide the following 

information in the order below to assist in identifying your case. 

• For the person with the case problem, please provide the person’s: (1) full name; 

(2) address; (3) date of birth; (4) country of birth; (5) application/petition receipt 

number; and (6) “A” number; 

• The USCIS office at which the application/petition was filed; 

• The filing date of the application/petition; and 

• A description of the problem. 

 94 See section III.F. 

95 See sections III.D and K. 

96 See 6 U.S.C. § 272(b)(1). 

Page 106 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov June 2007 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

Second, to protect your privacy, we need to verify the identity and the accuracy of the 

information. Please date and sign your letter and include the following statement: 

“I declare (certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United 

States that the foregoing is true and correct.” 

In addition, please include either or both of the following, if applicable: 

• If you are not the person whose case about which you are inquiring, you must 

obtain the person’s (applicant’s or the petitioner’s) consent. The person should 

include the following statement as part of the consent documentation submitted 

with the case problem: 

 “I consent to allow information about my case to be released to [name of 

 requester].” 

• If you are an attorney or accredited representative, please include a copy of your 

USCIS Form G-28 (Notice of Entry of Appearance as Attorney or 

Representative). 

 

Finally, please mail your case problem, including your dated and signed letter and copies 

of documents relevant to your case inquiry, to either of the following addresses: 

Via regular mail: 

Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman 

ATTN: Case Problems 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

Mail Stop 1225 

Washington, D.C. 20528-1225 

Via courier service: 

Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman 

ATTN: Case Problems 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

245 Murray Lane 

Washington, D.C. 20528-1225 

2. Processing 

When the Ombudsman receives a case problem, the information is reviewed, issues 

analyzed, and an appropriate course of action determined. If appropriate, the case is 

electronically forwarded to the USCIS Customer Assistance Office for a response within 45 

calendar days. If customers inform the Ombudsman that they did not receive a USCIS response 

within 45 calendar days, the Ombudsman’s office sends a follow-up letter via email to USCIS. 

June 2007 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov Page 107 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

3. Assistance Available 

a. Scope of Assistance 

Many people with case problems seek to reverse USCIS decisions. However, the 

Ombudsman cannot adjudicate immigration applications or petitions, or reverse adverse USCIS 

decisions. Additionally, the submission of a case problem cannot substitute for the legal options 

available to correct problems. Finally, the Ombudsman cannot grant immigration benefits or 

request that USCIS grant exceptions to statutory mandates (such as the grant of a petition despite 

visa retrogression of the particular visa category.) The statutory authority for these actions rests 

with USCIS. Although the Ombudsman cannot provide legal advice, the office can give 

assistance in cases where the individual or employer is challenging a particular result and USCIS 

has not responded in a timely manner. 

The Ombudsman is charged with identifying systemic problems in the immigration 

benefits process and proposing process changes to USCIS. Thus, individuals and employers 

should submit comments and suggestions for improving USCIS processes and procedures via the 

trends email box, cisombudsman.trends@dhs.gov. 

b. Jurisdictional Issues 

By statute, the Ombudsman only accepts case problems that pertain to applications and 

petitions for immigration benefits filed with USCIS. The Ombudsman does not have authority to 

assist customers in cases that are not within USCIS jurisdiction. Problems experienced with 

ICE, CBP, DOS (including the National Visa Center as well as U.S. embassies and consulates), 

DOL, Executive Office of Immigration Review, or any other federal, state, or local authority 

must be resolved directly with those entities. 

Nevertheless, the Ombudsman recognizes that divisions of responsibility are not always 

clear to the public, which often views immigration processes as a single process handled by the 

government and not by discrete departments. The Ombudsman believes in a holistic approach to 

immigration. To promote this concept, the office is expanding its relationship with other 

agencies. The objective is to stimulate the establishment of an interagency understanding that 

supports complete and timely responses to individuals with immigration problems regardless of 

the source of the problems. 

c. Legal Advice 

The Ombudsman cannot provide legal advice to individuals and employers on 

immigration laws, regulations, policies, or procedures. For individual cases, the Ombudsman is 

statutorily limited to providing assistance to individuals and employers with pending 

applications/petitions who are experiencing problems with USCIS. 

B. Case Problem Data 

The Ombudsman receives letters, emails, and telephone calls from individuals seeking 

immigration assistance. The office also often receives inquiries via facsimile, but for privacy 

reasons the Ombudsman currently only accepts case problems received via U.S. mail or a courier 

Page 108 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov June 2007 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

service. Case problems are based on the description of the facts provided to the Ombudsman by 

individuals seeking assistance. 

The Ombudsman recently posted DHS Form 7001 on www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman, 

which will facilitate the submission of case problems by individuals and employers. It is a 

fillable form that customers can complete online, print, and mail to the Ombudsman. As 

described in the Outreach section above, the Ombudsman is coordinating with other DHS 

components to create a Virtual Ombudsman’s Office which will allow individuals and employers 

to submit case problems through the internet. 

During the reporting period, the Ombudsman received approximately 1,859 case 

problems by U.S. mail or courier service and referred them to the CAO for further action. Many 

of these case problems involved multiple issues ranging from long processing times to USCIS 

service errors; over 3,424 issues were identified by the Ombudsman within these case problems. 

The Ombudsman also received over 500 other written inquiries such as information requests, 

inquiries outside of the jurisdiction of this office, and inquiries for which the USCIS decision 

was subsequently issued. 

The Ombudsman also received daily emails detailing problems and recommendations for 

USCIS, as well as providing information to this office. Since the start of the office in July of 

2003, the Ombudsman has received 8,284 email inquiries of which 2,929 arrived during the 

current report period.97 If an email inquiry is within the office’s jurisdiction and the individual 

indicates having exhausted all avenues with USCIS, the Ombudsman requests that the individual 

submit a case problem via U.S. mail or courier service. In addition, the office often provides 

individuals with links to resources available on USCIS’ website, as well as to other federal 

agencies, to assist them in finding solutions. 

The most common types of complaints received through the mail or courier service 

during the reporting period are lengthy processing times and the perception of a lack of helpful 

responses from USCIS. Of the 1,859 case problems referred to USCIS for action, 1,593 

complaints (over 85 percent of written case problems received) involved processing delays. The 

highest number of processing delay cases involved lack of helpful responses to USCIS inquiries, 

which totaled 1,006 complaints (over 54 percent of all written case problems received). Similar 

to the 2006 reporting period, another large number of processing delay case problems were due 

to FBI name checks; there were 479 complaints (over 25 percent of all written case problems 

received) in this category. There were several complaints related to general security check 

issues, totaling 191 (approximately 10 percent of all written case problems received). The 

Ombudsman also received many complaints from USCIS customers regarding USCIS errors. 

The four USCIS service centers -- Vermont, Texas, Nebraska, and California -- had the 

highest number of complaints during the reporting period. This is expected as they process the 

highest number of cases. Identical to last year, the Vermont Service Center had the highest 

 97 For this reporting period, the Ombudsman refined the count for the number of emails received. In the 2006 

Annual Report (at p. 80), the Ombudsman reported on all emails contained in the cisombudsman@dhs.gov email 

box. During this reporting period, the email count only reflects correspondence with individuals and employers and 

no longer includes DHS, internal Ombudsman, or advertising emails. 

June 2007 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov Page 109 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

number of service center complaints during the reporting period at 30 percent. The California 

Service Center had the lowest number of service center complaints with just over 20 percent. 

The NBC, a field office pre-processing center, received 111 complaints. The New York 

and Miami field offices followed closely behind the NBC for number of complaints received by 

the Ombudsman at 100 and 99, respectively. Other field offices with significant complaint 

totals, from highest to lowest, were Washington D.C., Chicago, Baltimore, Atlanta, Newark, and 

Garden City, NY. In total, the Ombudsman received complaints regarding over 70 USCIS 

facilities during the reporting period.

C. Ombudsman’s Access to USCIS 

1. Limited Access to Selected USCIS Databases for Case Problem 

Resolution 

As reported in previous reports, the Ombudsman has sought access to specific USCIS 

databases to facilitate understanding of case problems. Some staff have been granted read-only 

access to certain USCIS data systems. In this reporting period, efforts to give all staff with case 

problem responsibility access to these systems has not succeeded because of hardware problems 

and the lack of coordination at both USCIS and DHS. Once access is implemented, the 

Ombudsman will be able to validate information provided by customers, research more aspects 

of case problems, and develop better informed recommendations for USCIS remedial action. 

2. No Access to USCIS Offices to Resolve Individual Case Problems 

Since the inception of the office, the Ombudsman has sought to establish direct contact 

with USCIS personnel nationwide to facilitate the resolution of problems encountered by 

individuals and employers. Many of USCIS’ senior employees have been helpful in resolving 

cases that indicate larger problems. However, in most cases, USCIS requires that the 

Ombudsman go through the CAO after a problem is received by the Ombudsman. Normally, the 

case is reviewed and then forwarded to the CAO for action. The CAO has 45 days to respond 

per rules established by USCIS. 

The CAO usually refers case problems to the service center or field office for action. 

Once the field office responds, the CAO will respond by sending a letter or notice directly to the 

inquirer and the Ombudsman. Direct access by the Ombudsman to USCIS service centers and 

field offices to address case problems would save both USCIS and the Ombudsman time and 

effort. In addition, because of the added CAO layer and its standard form letters to respond to 

inquiries, the Ombudsman often cannot ascertain whether a particular inquiry is truly a case 

problem and whether the case is worth further review for systemic issues. 

During the reporting period, the CAO has been increasingly responsive to the 

Ombudsman’s inquiries. For example, this year the CAO established a liaison responsible for 

Ombudsman cases. In addition, the CAO and the Ombudsman now have regular meetings to 

discuss their common goal of assisting customers. Despite this progress, the Ombudsman hopes 

that USCIS will eliminate the headquarters layer between the Ombudsman and field offices or 

service centers where case files are located. 

Page 110 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov June 2007 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

Notably, the CAO has other responsibilities. In addition to public inquiries, the CAO 

serves as a back-up unit for congressional and DHS Executive Secretary inquiries. It appears 

that the Ombudsman’s inquiries receive lower priority to these other inquiries. 

Moreover, oftentimes the CAO uses the Service Request Management Tool to contact 

field offices. Although the field office should get back to the CAO within 30 days, these SRMT 

requests sometimes go unanswered. By providing the Ombudsman direct access to USCIS 

offices, response to correspondence would be streamlined and, thereby, enhance the ability of the 

Ombudsman to meet the statutory mandate to assist individuals and employers. 

Finally, in many instances, the CAO’s standard form responses do not provide adequate 

information to customers. As a result, customers often return to the Ombudsman for further 

assistance. Many customers approach the Ombudsman because they could not obtain 

satisfactory assistance through USCIS channels, such as the toll free telephone number, 

appointments at the local field office via INFOPASS and the Case Status Online system, or 

through USCIS addressed congressional inquiries. 

VIII. 2007-2008 REPORTING YEAR OBJECTIVES

In 2007-2008, the Ombudsman will continue to identify areas in which individuals and 

employers have problems dealing with USCIS and, to the extent possible, propose changes to 

mitigate identified problems. The Ombudsman will gather information and feedback from 

USCIS customers and stakeholders by continuing to: (1) conduct frequent site visits to USCIS 

facilities throughout the country; (2) meet regularly with community, employer, and immigration 

law organizations; and (3) expand individual and employer access to the Ombudsman. 

The Ombudsman will improve the process for resolving problems individuals and 

employers face in dealing with USCIS by establishing a Virtual Ombudsman’s Office to provide 

for online case problem submission, improved analysis and reporting capabilities, and electronic 

interface with customers and stakeholders to share concerns and solutions. As discussed in this 

report, the Ombudsman also looks forward to improving the partnership with USCIS to address 

both individual case problems and systemic issues. 

The Ombudsman will continue to staff its operations with subject matter experts, who 

have both government and private sector experience, including federal employees and other 

experts contracted for specific projects. Issues for the next reporting period will include: (1) 

assessment of NCSC call centers and the USCIS response to public inquiries; (2) evaluation of 

the cost and efficiency of premium processing relative to regular processing; (3) review of the 

effectiveness of dividing responsibilities between field and service center operations; (4) 

assessment of the up-front processing pilots and the 90-day green card programs; (5) review of 

USCIS’ progress in implementing a strategic human capital plan; and (6) assessment of the 

accuracy and value of the production data USCIS collects. 

Additionally, the Ombudsman will continue to initiate and expand activities to promote 

interagency cooperation and holistic approaches to immigration, as illustrated by the existing 

monthly meetings with the DOS, DOL, and offices within USCIS focused on employment-based 

June 2007 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov Page 111 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

green card processing workflows. The Ombudsman seeks to build understanding and 

partnerships where possible between stakeholders and USCIS through conferences and 

workshops on both general and specific immigration issues. In assisting individuals and 

employers as they interface with USCIS, the Ombudsman’s objectives are to promote 

transparency and accountability in the agency’s operations and policy. 

Page 112 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov June 2007 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

APPENDICES

Appendix 1: USCIS Servicewide Domestic Data for Selected Application Types (FY 

1992 – 2007 YTD), USCIS Performance Analysis System Data 

1992 Total 1993 Total 1994 Total 1995 Total 1996 Total 1997 Total 1998 Total 1999 Total

Service-wide Total1 

Initial Receipts 4,234,919 4,498,017 4,137,670 4,878,930 5,447,097 6,276,857 5,562,803 5,398,594

Approved 3,990,705 4,009,598 3,612,379 3,917,624 4,966,986 4,485,217 4,201,666 4,513,318

Denied 217,239 278,930 299,313 347,822 579,822 468,332 491,019 706,151

Percent Denied 5% 7% 8% 8% 10% 9% 10% 14%

Pending (End of 656,065 679,982 987,484 1,667,606 1,651,850 3,050,701 3,891,365 3,972,943

I-485 Adjustment 

of Status/Green 

Initial Receipts 327,856 385,547 317,164 577,719 646,585 759,500 527,453 456,233

Approved 313,279 353,880 317,544 339,399 505,230 448,044 382,447 264,753

Denied 12,834 14,613 24,215 18,168 36,637 29,930 33,945 35,137

Percent Denied 4% 4% 7% 5% 7% 6% 8% 12%

Pending (End of 120,353 125,253 121,067 320,730 435,250 699,332 808,507 950,987

I-130 Petition for 

Relative 

Initial Receipts 922,919 736,483 663,472 630,138 708,727 886,053 742,917 466,044

Approved 924,470 776,174 573,339 573,456 692,936 703,925 540,066 401,052

Denied 38,394 54,155 45,874 55,707 65,452 59,897 53,249 48,487

Percent Denied 4% 7% 7% 9% 9% 8% 9% 11%

Pending (End of 130,735 83,897 181,740 230,662 241,745 407,115 554,275 593,235

I-140 Petition for 

Alien Worker

Initial Receipts 67,043 50,721 47,130 51,511 61,046 68,824 67,511 78,879

Approved 60,371 55,450 47,563 48,935 55,484 61,367 44,912 50,498

Denied 4,816 4,666 4,750 6,180 8,295 7,508 9,005 8,585

Percent Denied 7% 8% 9% 11% 13% 11% 17% 15%

Pending (End of 4,316 5,272 6,961 5,757 6,743 7,737 20,309 43,418

I-765 Employment 

Authorization 

Initial Receipts 745,306 801,083 707,222 864,991 952,613 1,160,680 1,211,514 1,357,320

Approved 693,701 643,403 633,998 790,074 875,047 1,037,412 1,139,453 1,192,727

Denied 27,159 33,007 46,216 56,966 63,840 68,130 88,948 65,027

Percent Denied 4% 5% 7% 7% 7% 6% 7% 5%

Pending (End of 48,794 60,261 44,135 70,324 76,674 135,352 114,722 186,036

I-131 Travel 

Document

Initial Receipts 216,065 261,596 280,741 283,013 335,426 384,508 453,323 449,438

Approved 209,549 247,701 237,934 254,937 306,552 334,571 475,080 368,664

Denied 8,564 14,302 26,520 28,520 24,429 21,887 31,451 29,690

Percent Denied 4% 5% 10% 10% 7% 6% 6% 7%

Pending (End of 11,490 9,376 27,615 28,187 33,757 78,337 42,418 73,371

I-90 Application to 

Replace Green 

Initial Receipts 476,789 715,248 543,919 460,753 408,849 321,107 335,956 359,578

Approved 478,825 677,563 436,680 533,237 470,137 248,562 138,900 250,034

Denied 4,419 4,142 6,229 9,934 16,769 11,447 7,541 9,352

Percent Denied 1% 1% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 4%

Pending (End of 54,086 37,942 200,324 174,242 44,446 47,886 167,578 170,400

I-751 Removal of 

Conditions on 

Residence 

Initial Receipts 92,530 97,748 105,847 112,578 114,231 95,468 119,718 107,422

Approved 80,523 72,217 91,201 94,228 105,988 92,526 85,582 88,873

Denied 6,414 4,250 6,671 3,701 9,359 6,918 3,270 4,070

Percent Denied 7% 6% 7% 4% 8% 7% 4% 4%

Pending (End of 8,888 14,514 20,286 25,762 23,187 26,201 54,005 57,116

N-400 

Initial Receipts 342,238 521,866 543,353 959,963 1,277,403 1,412,712 932,957 765,346

Approved 242,740 346,692 403,513 459,846 1,104,338 582,478 473,152 872,427

Denied 19,293 39,931 40,561 46,067 229,842 130,676 137,395 379,993

Percent Denied 7% 10% 9% 9% 17% 18% 23% 30%

Pending (End of 199,385 269,192 314,236 705,266 684,069 1,440,396 1,802,902 1,355,524

N600/N643 

Certificate of 

Citizenship

Initial Receipts 28,335 27,963 29,861 33,749 48,549 81,645 68,058 61,162

Approved 24,027 24,069 28,280 26,390 30,730 61,932 50,692 52,956

Denied 1,169 1,725 2,065 1,856 2,226 4,764 4,826 5,350

Percent Denied 5% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 9% 9%

Pending (End of 14,164 14,111 10,439 15,458 30,267 51,956 64,443 81,610 1 Servicewide Totals include all USCIS forms.

June 2007 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov Page 113 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

2000 Total 2001 Total 2002 Total 2003 Total 2004 Total 2005 Total 2006 Total Oct. 2006-Apr. 2007

Servicewide Total1 

Initial Receipts 6,058,298 7,949,554 7,137,988 7,043,721 6,017,694 6,293,255 6,317,159 3,452,386

Approved 5,716,542 6,341,470 6,405,391 5,379,790 6,289,682 6,577,399 5,795,111 3,017,006

Denied 770,762 704,587 796,206 774,989 885,540 902,716 943,779 409,343

Percent Denied 12% 10% 11% 13% 12% 12% 14% 12%

Pending (End of 3,892,056 4,815,869 5,090,511 6,073,156 4,871,014 3,793,841 3,415,409 3,486,838

I-485 Adjustment of 

Status/Green Card 

Initial Receipts 562,021 754,133 710,244 685,928 601,757 629,568 606,425 380,054

Approved 483,863 695,184 764,252 365,059 604,246 782,475 826,974 338,987

Denied 80,268 126,370 97,603 90,648 138,903 145,101 166,064 55,599

Percent Denied 14% 15% 11% 20% 19% 16% 17% 14%

Pending (End of 1,001,479 971,866 967,249 1,231,321 1,105,867 891,495 569,476 580,507

I-130 Petition for 

Relative 

Initial Receipts 597,569 1,495,375 714,232 719,837 697,950 661,204 747,012 406,821

Approved 342,260 565,875 695,433 372,188 690,642 1,105,918 777,222 301,773

Denied 41,208 52,306 77,264 71,379 116,289 130,352 127,875 39,625

Percent Denied 11% 8% 10% 16% 14% 11% 14% 12%

Pending (End of 797,343 1,585,410 1,605,016 1,875,108 1,833,905 1,276,598 1,129,602 1,228,079

I-140 Petition for 

Alien Worker

Initial Receipts 96,001 137,695 104,361 96,578 80,348 75,009 140,158 114,783

Approved 89,583 99,659 93,533 62,281 67,552 94,211 104,168 65,098

Denied 8,908 14,084 35,866 17,673 18,294 24,325 19,699 10,669

Percent Denied 9% 12% 28% 22% 21% 21% 16% 14%

Pending (End of 48,076 68,928 49,005 67,585 73,595 32,414 50,132 92,356

I-765 Employment 

Authorization 

Initial Receipts 1,451,527 1,813,479 1,745,976 2,156,095 1,640,703 1,744,961 1,462,583 644,186

Approved 1,325,840 1,698,448 1,573,842 1,977,344 1,694,623 1,541,531 1,188,770 666,484

Denied 65,785 87,519 134,551 169,191 206,236 217,184 186,826 96,372

Percent Denied 5% 5% 8% 8% 11% 12% 14% 13%

Pending (End of 256,451 267,329 392,907 430,306 283,218 274,368 341,571 212,150

I-131 Travel 

Document

Initial Receipts 522,054 476,830 471,366 469,962 452,026 379,165 371,880 220,524

Approved 442,421 420,301 447,628 335,035 520,517 391,027 318,021 188,339

Denied 26,005 29,645 31,829 23,182 37,539 30,800 29,649 13,522

Percent Denied 6% 7% 7% 6% 7% 7% 9% 7%

Pending (End of 102,045 116,562 106,237 217,603 108,887 60,770 66,977 84,301

I-90 Application to 

Replace Green Card 

Initial Receipts 705,086 773,865 880,462 717,174 630,663 681,407 680,957 354,578

Approved 706,196 815,306 668,660 470,286 1,071,443 668,647 632,121 360,549

Denied 11,976 10,696 9,411 19,941 40,035 29,314 50,360 13,537

Percent Denied 2% 1% 1% 4% 4% 4% 7% 4%

Pending (End of 238,631 257,628 500,422 761,953 276,293 244,226 246,491 206,308

I-751 Removal of 

Conditions on 

Residence 

Initial Receipts 103,937 56,375 99,752 131,832 163,395 107,031 132,952 77,111

Approved 88,044 53,280 91,157 38,045 115,281 168,825 135,328 68,206

Denied 3,872 4,980 7,342 4,516 7,643 8,342 11,252 5,463

Percent Denied 4% 9% 7% 11% 6% 5% 8% 7%

Pending (End of 84,227 76,965 68,467 159,708 150,523 63,054 40,156 57,486

N-400 

Initial Receipts 460,916 501,646 700,649 523,370 662,794 602,972 730,642 596,363

Approved 898,315 613,161 589,728 456,063 536,176 600,366 702,663 348,719

Denied 399,670 218,326 139,779 91,599 103,339 108,247 120,722 49,925

Percent Denied 31% 26% 19% 17% 16% 15% 15% 13%

Pending (End of 817,431 618,750 623,519 628,025 653,128 552,296 473,467 692,504

N600/N643 

Certificate of 

Citizenship

Initial Receipts 71,468 70,269 69,943 60,894 59,519 56,321 60,021 42,895

Approved 56,990 84,134 88,312 61,794 61,866 50,288 58,766 34,365

Denied 7,762 11,600 11,243 8,857 8,487 7,428 7,873 4,575

Percent Denied 12% 12% 11% 13% 12% 13% 12% 12%

Pending (End of 95,143 76,454 52,269 43,284 35,618 36,536 28,971 35,618

Page 114 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov June 2007 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

Appendix 2: International Visits 

Australia. The Ombudsman traveled to Australia in mid-August 2006 to 

exchange views with Australian government entities regarding immigrationrelated issues such as migration, detention, integration, citizenship, processing, 

and customer service. The Ombudsman had extensive discussions with Australian 

immigration officials, including the Commonwealth Ombudsman, on practices 

and systems related to the delivery of information, public outreach, and resolving 

complaints. U.S. Embassy Canberra and the Consulate General Sydney arranged 

a full schedule of meetings with Australian officials, including with the public and 

national radio as part of the Embassy’s speaker program. The Ombudsman 

explained the role of this office and exchanged views on immigration. 

Among the government contacts the Ombudsman met in Sydney were the 

New South Wales (NSW) Deputy State Director, the NSW Detention Review 

Manager, officials of the Australian Migrant English Programme, and the Auburn 

Migrant Resource Center. In Canberra, the Ombudsman’s hosts included several 

Assistant Secretaries in the National Office, including the First Assistant 

Secretary in the Citizenship, Settlement, and Multicultural Affairs Division, and 

the Commonwealth Ombudsman. 

Canada. The Ombudsman met with Citizenship and Immigration Canada 

(CIC) officials and stakeholders about immigration best practices and processes. 

Best practices include: (1) a CIC values and ethics code; (2) senior 

public servants perform naturalization ceremonies; (3) two-year and six-week 

rotational assignments for domestic officers to work at CIC; (4) case 

conferencing where CIC officers share details of specific cases with other CIC 

officers to help clarify points and develop ideas; (5) call center operators having 

full access to CIC immigrant databases with case information; and (6) CIC plans 

to introduce email at its call centers as a way to inquire about case status and/or 

case comments and concerns. 

Italy. The Ombudsman visited Rome to review operations at the USCIS 

Rome District Office and to participate in meetings at the U.S. Embassy, 

International Organization of Migration Mission, Italian Ministry of Interior, and 

the UNHCR Regional Office. Issues identified include: 

(1) Military naturalization. Overseas operations facilitate USCIS efforts 

to conduct military naturalization ceremonies. Interviews to validate military 

naturalization applicants’ backgrounds are frequently conducted via video 

teleconference. 

(2) Refugee processing. USCIS obtains fingerprints for certain refugee 

applicants and conducts post-adjudication DNA testing for Form I-730, follow-tojoin refugee petitions, applicants. 

June 2007 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov Page 115 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

Appendix 3: USCIS Facilities Visited 

Number Date Visited Facility

1 9/11/2003 Administrative Appeals Unit

2 9/16/2003 New York District Office

3 9/18/2003 Miami Asylum Office 

4 9/18/2003 Miami District Office 

5 9/19/2003 Orlando Application Support Center

6 9/19/2003 Orlando Sub-Office

7 9/23/2003 Los Angeles Applicant Support Center

8 9/23/2003 Los Angeles District Office

9 9/24/2003 California Service Center

10 9/24/2003 Western Region Office

11 9/25/2003 Central Region Office

12 9/25/2003 Dallas District Office

13 9/26/2003 Texas Service Center

14 10/15/2003 San Antonio Application Support Center

15 10/15/2003 San Antonio District Office

16 11/6/2003 Detroit Applicant Support Center

17 11/6/2003 Detroit District Office 

18 11/7/2003 Chicago Asylum Office 

19 11/7/2003 Chicago District Office

20 12/12/2003 Washington District Office

21 12/23/2003 Baltimore District Office

22 1/15/2004 San Juan Applicant Support Center

23 1/15/2004 San Juan District Office

24 1/21/2004 Phoenix District Office

25 2/11/2004 Kansas City District Office

26 2/12/2004 Missouri Service Center

27 2/13/2004 National Records Center

28 3/23/2004 New York District Office

29 3/30/2004 Dallas District Office

30 3/31/2004 Central Region Office

31 3/31/2004 Texas Service Center

32 4/13/2004 Western Region Office

33 4/13/2004 California Service Center

34 4/14/2004 Los Angeles District Office

35 4/15/2004 San Diego District Office

36 5/3/2004 Chicago District Office

37 5/3/2004 Chicago Lockbox

38 5/4/2004 Chicago Asylum Office

39 5/14/2004 Tampa Sub-Office

40 7/16/2004 New York District Office

41 7/21/2004 Atlanta District Office

42 7/22/2004 USCIS Academy at the Federal Law Enforcement 

Training Center (FLETC)

43 7/26/2004 Vermont Service Center 

44 7/28/2004 Eastern Region Office

45 7/28/2004 Eastern Forms Center

46 7/29/2004 Nebraska Service Center

Page 116 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov June 2007 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

47 7/31/2004 Omaha District Office

48 9/20/2004 San Jose Sub-Office

49 9/20/2004 San Francisco District Office

50 9/21/2004 Anchorage District Office

51 9/23/2004 Seattle District Office

52 9/29/2004 Corbin Card Production Facility

53 9/29/2004 Pearson Contract Corbin Call Center

54 9/30/2004 Louisville Sub-Office

55 10/12/2004 Buffalo District Office

56 10/13/2004 Cleveland District Office

57 10/14/2004 Detroit District Office

58 10/15/2004 Chicago District Office

59 10/28/2004 Tampa Sub-Office

60 11/3/2004 Central Region Office

61 11/4/2004 Dallas District Office

62 12/9/2004 Philadelphia District Office 

63 12/10/2004 Newark District Office

64 1/4/2005 Central Region Office

65 1/4/2005 Dallas District Office

66 1/5/2005 Dallas District Office

67 2/22/2005 Norfolk Sub-Office

68 2/24/2005 Washington District Office

69 2/28/2005 National Benefits Center

70 3/1/2005 National Benefits Center

71 3/2/2005 National Records Center

72 3/3/2005 Seattle District Office 

73 3/21/2005 Dallas District Office

74 3/21/2005 Central Region Office

75 3/21/2005 Texas Service Center

76 3/22/2005 Texas Service Center

77 3/23/2005 Western Region Office

78 3/23/2005 California Service Center

79 3/24/2005 California Service Center

80 4/4/2005 Chicago Lockbox

81 4/5/2005 Vermont Service Center

82 4/6/2005 Vermont Service Center

83 4/7/2005 Eastern Region Office

84 8/8/2005 Phoenix District Office

85 8/8/2005 Phoenix Call Center

86 8/9/2005 Los Angeles District Office

87 8/9/2005 Los Angeles Call Center

88 8/10/2005 Los Angeles Lockbox

89 8/10/2005 Los Angeles Asylum Office

90 8/11/2005 San Diego District Office

91 8/11/2005 Chula Vista Satellite Office1

92 8/24/2005 Boston District Office

93 8/29/2005 El Paso District Office

June 2007 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov Page 117 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

94 8/29/2005 Ciudad Juarez Sub-Office

95 8/31/2005 Houston District Office

96 9/1/2005 Dallas District Office

97 9/2/2005 Texas Service Center

98 9/26/2005 Orlando Sub-Office

99 9/27/2005 Miami District Office

100 10/25/2005 California Service Center

101 10/26/2005 California Service Center

102 11/15/2005 Hartford Sub-Office

103 11/17/2005 Chicago Lockbox

104 11/18/2005 National Benefits Center

105 11/20/2005 National Records Center

106 1/30/2006 Charlotte Sub-Office

107 1/31/2006 Atlanta District Office

108 1/31/2006 Atlanta Application Support Center

109 2/1/2006 Jacksonville Sub-Office

110 2/2/2006 West Palm Beach Sub-Office

111 3/1/2006 Pittsburgh Sub-Office

112 3/13/2006 Los Angeles District Office

113 3/15/2006 California Service Center

114 3/16/2006 Chula Vista Satellite Office

115 3/28/2006 New York District Office

116 3/29/2006 New York Tier II Call Center

117 4/18/2006 Portland, ME District Office

118 4/19/2006 Vermont Service Center 

119 4/20/2006 St. Albans Sub-Office 

120 4/20/2006 Field Support Center, Office of Procurement

 (Williston, VT) 

121 4/21/2006 Eastern Region Office, VT

122 4/21/2006 Eastern Forms Center

123 5/12/2006 Orlando Sub-Office

124 5/25/2006 Dallas District Office

125 8/3/2006 Honolulu District Office

126 8/3/2006 Honolulu Application Support Center

127 8/28/2006 Kansas City District Office*

128 8/29/2006 Burlington Region Office*

129 9/13/2006 Des Moines Sub-Office*

130 9/13/2006 St. Paul District Office 

131 9/14/2006 Chicago District Office

132 9/15/2006 Chicago Asylum Office 

133 9/15/2006 Chicago Lockbox

134 9/19/2006 New York District Office 

135 9/25/2006 Denver District Office

136 9/26/2006 Sacramento Sub-Office Office 

137 10/3/2006 National Records Center

Page 118 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov June 2007 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

138 10/11/2006 Newark Asylum Office*

139 10/25/2006 California Service Center*

140 10/27/2006 Sacramento Sub Office*

141 11/8/2006 Vermont Service Center*

142 11/14/2006 Digitization Center, Kentucky

143 11/14/2006 Tier 1, Call Center in Kentucky

144 11/29/2006 Los Angeles Asylum Office*

145 12/11/2006 Harlingen District Office 

146 12/12/2006 Texas Service Center

147 12/12/2006 Dallas District Office

148 12/12/2006 Chicago Lockbox*

149 1/10/2007 Arlington Asylum Office*

150 1/18/2007 New York Asylum Office*

151 1/30/2007 Miami District Office

152 1/31/2007 West Palm Beach Field Office

153 2/1/2007 Tampa District Office

154 2/1/2007 Miami Asylum Office*

155 2/2/2007 Orlando Field Office

156 2/12/2007 New York District Office

157 2/21/2007 Newark District Office

158 2/21/2007 Office of Contracting in Burlington*

159 2/21/2007 Vermont Service Center*

160 2/22/2007 Philadelphia District Office 

161 3/8/2007 Baltimore District Office 

162 3/17/2007 Rome, Italy Field Office

163 4/16/2007 El Paso Field Office

164 4/17/2007 Oklahoma City Field Office

165 4/18/2007 National Benefits Center

166 4/18/2007 National Records Center

167 4/26/2007 Washington District Office

168 5/8/2007 Nebraska Service Center

1 Omitted from 2006 Report in error.

* Offices visited by Ombudsman's staff members.

June 2007 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov Page 119 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

Appendix 4: Homeland Security Act Excerpts 

Homeland Security Act Sections 451, 452, and 453 

(6 U.S.C. §§ 271, 272, and 273)

SEC. 451. ESTABLISHMENT OF BUREAU OF CITIZENSHIP AND 

IMMIGRATION SERVICES. 

(a) ESTABLISHMENT OF BUREAU- 

(1) IN GENERAL- There shall be in the Department a bureau to be known as the `Bureau of 

Citizenship and Immigration Services'. 

(2) DIRECTOR- The head of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services shall be the 

Director of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services, who-- 

(A) shall report directly to the Deputy Secretary; 

(B) shall have a minimum of 5 years of management experience; and 

(C) shall be paid at the same level as the Assistant Secretary of the Bureau of Border 

Security. 

(3) FUNCTIONS- The Director of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services-- 

(A) shall establish the policies for performing such functions as are transferred to the 

Director by this section or this Act or otherwise vested in the Director by law; 

(B) shall oversee the administration of such policies; 

(C) shall advise the Deputy Secretary with respect to any policy or operation of the 

Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services that may affect the Bureau of 

Border Security of the Department, including potentially conflicting policies or 

operations; 

(D) shall establish national immigration services policies and priorities; 

(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. 

(4) MANAGERIAL ROTATION PROGRAM- 

(A) IN GENERAL- Not later than 1 year after the effective date specified in section 

455, the Director of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services shall 

design and implement a managerial rotation program under which employees of 

such bureau holding positions involving supervisory or managerial responsibility 

and classified, in accordance with chapter 51 of title 5, United States Code, as a 

GS-14 or above, shall-- 

(i) gain some experience in all the major functions performed by such 

bureau; and 

(ii) work in at least one field office and one service center of such bureau. 

Page 120 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov June 2007 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

(B) REPORT- Not later than 2 years after the effective date specified in section 455, 

the Secretary shall submit a report to Congress on the implementation of such 

program. 

(5) PILOT INITIATIVES FOR BACKLOG ELIMINATION- The Director of the Bureau of 

Citizenship and Immigration Services is authorized to implement innovative pilot 

initiatives to eliminate any remaining backlog in the processing of immigration benefit 

applications, and to prevent any backlog in the processing of such applications from 

recurring, in accordance with section 204(a) of the Immigration Services and Infrastructure 

Improvements Act of 2000 (8 U.S.C. 1573(a)). Such initiatives may include measures such 

as increasing personnel, transferring personnel to focus on areas with the largest potential 

for backlog, and streamlining paperwork. 

(b) TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS FROM COMMISSIONER- In accordance with title XV (relating to 

transition provisions), there are transferred from the Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization 

to the Director of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services the following functions, and all 

personnel, infrastructure, and funding provided to the Commissioner in support of such functions 

immediately before the effective date specified in section 455: 

(1) Adjudications of immigrant visa petitions. 

(2) Adjudications of naturalization petitions. 

(3) Adjudications of asylum and refugee applications. 

(4) Adjudications performed at service centers. 

(5) All other adjudications performed by the Immigration and Naturalization Service 

immediately before the effective date specified in section 455. 

(c) CHIEF OF POLICY AND STRATEGY- 

(1) IN GENERAL- There shall be a position of Chief of Policy and Strategy for the Bureau of 

Citizenship and Immigration Services. 

(2) FUNCTIONS- In consultation with Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services 

personnel in field offices, the Chief of Policy and Strategy shall be responsible for-- 

(A) making policy recommendations and performing policy research and analysis on 

immigration services issues; and 

(B) coordinating immigration policy issues with the Chief of Policy and Strategy for 

the Bureau of Border Security of the Department. 

(d) LEGAL ADVISOR- 

(1) IN GENERAL- There shall be a principal legal advisor to the Director of the Bureau of 

Citizenship and Immigration Services. 

(2) FUNCTIONS- The legal advisor shall be responsible for-- 

(A) providing specialized legal advice, opinions, determinations, regulations, and any 

other assistance to the Director of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration 

Services with respect to legal matters affecting the Bureau of Citizenship and 

Immigration Services; and 

(B) representing the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services in visa petition 

appeal proceedings before the Executive Office for Immigration Review. 

June 2007 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov Page 121 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

(e) BUDGET OFFICER- 

(1) IN GENERAL- There shall be a Budget Officer for the Bureau of Citizenship and 

Immigration Services. 

(2) FUNCTIONS- 

(A) IN GENERAL- The Budget Officer shall be responsible for-- 

(i) formulating and executing the budget of the Bureau of Citizenship and 

Immigration Services; 

(ii) financial management of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration 

Services; and 

(iii) collecting all payments, fines, and other debts for the Bureau of 

Citizenship and Immigration Services. 

(f) CHIEF OF OFFICE OF CITIZENSHIP- 

(1) IN GENERAL- There shall be a position of Chief of the Office of Citizenship for the 

Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services. 

(2) FUNCTIONS- The Chief of the Office of Citizenship for the Bureau of Citizenship and 

Immigration Services shall be responsible for promoting instruction and training on 

citizenship responsibilities for aliens interested in becoming naturalized citizens of the 

United States, including the development of educational materials. 

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; 

Page 122 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov June 2007 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

(B) shall contain a summary of the most pervasive and serious problems encountered 

by individuals and employers, including a description of the nature of such 

problems; 

(C) shall contain an inventory of the items described in subparagraphs (A) and (B) for 

which action has been taken and the result of such action; 

(D) shall contain an inventory of the items described in subparagraphs (A) and (B) for 

which action remains to be completed and the period during which each item has 

remained on such inventory; 

(E) shall contain an inventory of the items described in subparagraphs (A) and (B) for 

which no action has been taken, the period during which each item has remained 

on such inventory, the reasons for the inaction, and shall identify any official of the 

Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services who is responsible for such 

inaction; 

(F) shall contain recommendations for such administrative action as may be 

appropriate to resolve problems encountered by individuals and employers, 

including problems created by excessive backlogs in the adjudication and 

processing of immigration benefit petitions and applications; and 

(G) shall include such other information as the Ombudsman may deem advisable. 

(2) REPORT TO BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY- Each report required under this subsection 

shall be provided directly to the committees described in paragraph (1) without any prior 

comment or amendment from the Secretary, Deputy Secretary, Director of the Bureau of 

Citizenship and Immigration Services, or any other officer or employee of the Department 

or the Office of Management and Budget. 

(d) OTHER RESPONSIBILITIES- The Ombudsman— 

(1) shall monitor the coverage and geographic allocation of local offices of the Ombudsman; 

(2) shall develop guidance to be distributed to all officers and employees of the Bureau of 

Citizenship and Immigration Services outlining the criteria for referral of inquiries to local 

offices of the Ombudsman; 

(3) shall ensure that the local telephone number for each local office of the Ombudsman is 

published and available to individuals and employers served by the office; and 

(4) shall meet regularly with the Director of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration 

Services to identify serious service problems and to present recommendations 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 

June 2007 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov Page 123 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

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. 

SEC. 453. PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND QUALITY REVIEW. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Director of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services shall be 

responsible for— 

(1) conducting investigations of noncriminal allegations of misconduct, corruption, and fraud 

involving any employee of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services that are not 

subject to investigation by the Inspector General for the Department; 

(2) inspecting the operations of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services and 

providing assessments of the quality of the operations of such bureau as a whole and each 

(3) of its components; and 

(4) providing an analysis of the management of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration 

Services. 

(b) SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS.—In providing assessments in accordance with subsection (a)(2) 

with respect to a decision of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services, or any of its 

components, consideration shall be given to— H. R. 5005—66 

(1) the accuracy of the findings of fact and conclusions of law used in rendering the decision; 

(2) any fraud or misrepresentation associated with the decision; and 

(3) the efficiency with which the decision was rendered. 

Page 124 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov June 2007 
Appendix 5: DHS Organization Chart 

U.S. OF Department of Homeland Security 

Organizational Chart

SECRETARY

________________

DEPUTY SECRETARY

HEALTH AFFAIRS

Assistant Secretary

Chief Medical Officer

LEGISLATIVE 

AFFAIRS 

Assistant Secretary 

INTELLIGENCE &

ANALYSIS 

Assistant Secretary

POLICY

Assistant Secretary 

PUBLIC AFFAIRS

Assistant Secretary 

CHIEF PRIVACY 

Officer

COUNTERNARCOTICS

ENFORCEMENT 

Director

FEDERAL LAW 

ENFORCEMENT 

TRAINING 

CENTER

Director

OPERATIONS 

COORDINATION 

Director 

GENERAL 

COUNSEL INSPECTOR 

GENERAL

CIVIL RIGHTS & 

CIVIL LIBERTIES 

Officer 

CITIZENSHIP 

&

IMMIGRATION

SERVICES

OMBUDSMAN

MANAGEMENT

Under Secretary 

NATIONAL 

PROTECTION & 

PROGRAMS 

Under Secretary

SCIENCE & 

TECHNOLOGY 

Under Secretary 

DOMESTIC 

NUCLEAR 

DETECTION 

OFFICE

Director

Chief 

Financial 

Officer 

TRANSPORTATION 

SECURITY 

ADMINISTRATION

Assistant Secretary/ 

Administrator

U.S CUSTOMS & 

BORDER

PROTECTION

Commissioner

U.S. SECRET 

SERVICE

Director

U.S. CITIZENSHIP & 

IMMIGRATION 

SERVICES

Director

U.S. IMMIGRATION 

& 

CUSTOMS 

ENFORCEMENT

Assistant Secretary

FEDERAL

EMERGENCY 

MANAGEMENT 

AGENCY

Administrator

U.S.

COAST 

GUARD

Commandant

Chief of Staff

Executive

Secretariat 

Military Advisor

Approved 4/1/2007

-Part of the former INS which was combined with part of U.S. Customs

-Formerly part of the INS Immigration Services Division

-Newly created agency under Homeland Security Act

As of June 6, 2007 from www.dhs.gov

Office of the 

Citizenship and Immigration Services 

Ombudsman

U.S. Department of Homeland Security

Mail Stop 1225

Washington, DC 20528-1225

June 2007 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov Page 125 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress June 2007

Appendix 6: Biography of Prakash Khatri, Ombudsman 

Prakash Khatri was appointed as the first Department of Homeland Security (DHS), 

Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman in July 2003 by Secretary Tom Ridge. The 

Ombudsman assists individuals and employers who experience problems with United States 

Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). He also identifies systemic problems with 

USCIS processes and recommends solutions. Mr. Khatri has provided executive leadership, 

vision, and direction to this office from its inception as a one-person entity to its authorized total 

of 24 full time staff plus six contractor staff. 

As the Ombudsman, Mr. Khatri has made numerous recommendations to the Director of 

USCIS for changes to the immigration benefits process based on data collected through various 

outreach activities including: traveling to over 150 USCIS and other DHS facilities, meeting 

with DHS immigration officials, and conferring with countless private individuals and 

community based organizations. Mr. Khatri also meets with federal and state government 

leaders as well as stakeholder organizations to learn of the difficulties they experience with 

USCIS. In addition, Mr. Khatri has served as an advisor on numerous DHS immigration reform 

initiatives and acted in a key leadership role for the DHS Second Stage Review’s Immigration 

Policy Team. 

Mr. Khatri earned his B.A. from Stetson University (1981) and J.D. from Stetson 

University College of Law (1983). Mr. Khatri was admitted to the Florida State Bar in 1984, and 

at the age of 22 was the youngest attorney in the state’s history. He was among the first 35 

members of the Florida Bar to pass the Immigration and Nationality Board Certification 

examination. Mr. Khatri subsequently served on the Florida Bar Immigration and Nationality 

Board Certification Committee where he developed and evaluated board certification exams. 

In private practice, Mr. Khatri spent almost two decades representing individuals and 

businesses from more than 100 countries in the area of immigration law providing strategic 

planning and visa processing advice to corporate clients. He also conducted immigration 

seminars in Taiwan, India, and South Africa. 

Mr. Khatri also worked for five years as Manager of Immigration and Visa Processing for 

Walt Disney World in Florida. While working for Disney, Mr. Khatri traveled to U.S. consular 

posts in more than 18 countries. At Disney, he developed and implemented an automated highvolume visa processing system and other innovations that reduced unnecessary paperwork and 

improved efficiencies related to handling employee visa applications. 

In addition to serving as a former President of the Central Florida Chapter of the 

American Immigration Lawyers Association, Mr. Khatri is a past President of the Asian-Pacific 

American Heritage Council of Central Florida.

Page 126 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov June 2007