Annual Report 2018

 Citizenship and Immigration Services

 Ombudsman

 June 28, 2018

Annual Report 2018

Citizenship and Immigration Services

Ombudsman

June 28, 2018
ii ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS JUNE 2018
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES OMBUDSMAN iii

Office of the Citizenship and Immigration Services 

Ombudsman

U.S. Department of Homeland Security

Mail Stop 0180

Washington, DC 20528-0180

June 28, 2018

The Honorable Chuck E. Grassley

Chairman

Committee on the Judiciary

United States Senate

Washington, DC 20510

The Honorable Bob W. Goodlatte

Chairman

Committee on the Judiciary

United States House of Representatives

Washington, DC 20515

The Honorable Dianne Feinstein

Ranking Member

Committee on the Judiciary

United States Senate

Washington, DC 20510

The Honorable Jerrold L. Nadler

Ranking Member

Committee on the Judiciary

United States House of Representatives

Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairmen and Ranking Members: 

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

to Section 452(c) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, its 2018 Annual Report. 

I am available to provide additional information upon request. 

Sincerely,

Julie Kirchner

Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman
iv ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS JUNE 2018

Dear Members of Congress,

I am pleased to present to you the Ombudsman’s 2018 Annual Report to Congress. This 

report is required by Section 452 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, which established 

the Office of the Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman. It also charged us 

with the responsibility of helping applicants and employers solve difficulties encountered 

when applying for immigration benefits and working to improve systemic problems in the 

delivery of immigration services.

The year 2017 was one of significant change in immigration policy. Inaugurated in 

January, President Trump quickly signed multiple immigration-related executive orders 

for the purpose of ensuring that the nation’s immigration laws are faithfully executed. 

Immediately, the various immigration agencies within the Department of Homeland 

Security—including Customs and Border Protection, Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement, and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)—set out to execute 

those orders through draft regulations, new policy guidance, and revised processes. 

With respect to immigration benefits, the changes were significant and wide-ranging. 

Some of the most notable changes, for example, included: requiring interviews for all 

employment-based immigrants; issuing revised specialty occupation guidance for H-1B 

workers; terminating Temporary Protected Status for certain individuals; initiating a 

phase-out of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Program; and curbing the use 

of parole. As USCIS worked to implement these changes, the agency faced additional 

challenges from the increase in immigration filings (up 42 percent since FY 2012), 

growth of processing times, and the goal of revamping the agency’s years-long program 

for digitizing its services, frequently referred to as “transformation.” 

Given this context, it is not surprising that the Ombudsman’s Office received another record 

number of requests for case assistance in FY 2017. While the types of applications at issue 

varied, the large majority of our case work (69 percent) related to delays in processing 

times. These were particularly prevalent in green card applications (I-485s), naturalization 

applications (N-400s), and employment authorization documents (I-765s), which saw 

a spike in processing times at the end of 2017. This marks the fifth year in a row that 

processing times have been the largest driver of case work for our office. 

While our Case Team tackled a growing case load, our policy advisors were working 

exceptionally hard to digest the myriad of changes in immigration policy and processes. 

Throughout the year, we sought to use the Ombudsman’s Office to educate the public via 

meetings, teleconferences, and our Annual Conference, where we were able once again 

to bring together government officials, practitioners, nonprofits, and other stakeholders 

to discuss the latest developments in the field of immigration and hear about potential 

solutions to some of the thornier problems facing those involved.

Message from the Ombudsman
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES OMBUDSMAN v

This year’s Annual Report seeks to navigate the changing landscape of immigration 

by focusing on a handful of programs and processes that highlight key elements 

of USCIS’ mission: efficiency and integrity. These goals are both critical—and 

compatible—within our immigration system. Indeed, combating fraud and security 

threats preserves resources for bona fide applicants; efficient processing can discourage 

fraud, deter potential security threats, and limit the opportunity for bad actors to engage 

in either. While we recognize that this report, due to the volume of material and 

resources available, touches on only some of the issues deserving attention, we hope 

this work offers readers a useful foundation and context for understanding numerous 

changes underway.

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my staff for the long hours they have 

invested in this report. I would also like to thank our colleagues at USCIS, who met 

with us and provided us data as we developed this report. As always, we welcome your 

feedback on this year’s report and all the work we do in the Ombudsman’s Office to 

assist and inform individuals, employers, Congress, and other stakeholders concerning 

immigration benefits issues.

Sincerely,

Julie Kirchner 

Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman
vi ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS JUNE 2018

Executive Summary

2017 in Review

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) 

administers an immigration benefits system that handles 

millions of applications and petitions annually. Americans 

and prospective Americans all have a stake in the proper 

administration of immigration benefits. While USCIS 

timely adjudicates the majority of filings in accordance 

with applicable statutes, regulations, and policy, the 

Ombudsman’s Office is able to assist when applications 

are delayed past posted processing times or there are 

administrative or adjudication errors. 

The Ombudsman works to resolve case issues directly with 

USCIS field offices, service centers, and other offices as 

a part of its mission. The Ombudsman identifies trends 

that are significant or problematic and addresses them 

with USCIS at the appropriate level. While not every 

Ombudsman inquiry results in a case approval, we make 

every effort to ensure USCIS treats each case in a fair 

and consistent manner and in line with applicable policy 

and procedure. 

In 2017, the Ombudsman conducted almost 70 stakeholder 

engagements, including teleconferences, meetings with and 

presentations to attorneys and accredited representatives, 

community-based organizations, employers, Congressional 

staffers, state and local government officials, and 

individual applicants. The Ombudsman also held its 

seventh annual conference to bring together government 

officials, external stakeholders, and other interested 

parties in a unique forum to discuss and develop ideas for 

improving the delivery of immigration services.

USCIS Anti-Fraud Initiatives

USCIS anti-fraud initiatives foster both an efficient and 

a secure immigration benefits system. While USCIS has 

always ensured fraud detection was a substantial part of 

the mission, the development of the Fraud Detection and 

National Security (FDNS) Directorate has formalized 

many of its processes and systems to ensure ineligible 

applicants do not receive benefits. In 2017, as part of 

FDNS’s move toward a “risk-based” anti-fraud model, it 

expanded site visits to more employers and incorporated 

more electronic solutions. FDNS is improving its metrics 

for measuring case processing, but would benefit from the 

electronic case processing system envisioned by USCIS’ 

transformation project. 

Transformation

In 2017, USCIS revised its overarching electronic case 

management and benefits processing goals. USCIS now 

prioritizes the development of core capabilities, which cut 

across all form types. In tandem with these new goals, 

USCIS consolidated the former Office of Transformation 

Coordination into the Office of Information Technology, 

reporting through that office to the USCIS Director. In 

recent months, these changes have helped USCIS focus 

its efforts in electronic delivery of benefits adjudication 

through its electronic immigration system (ELIS). 

Stakeholders reported improvements in ELIS functionality 

but continue to voice concerns over a range of ELIS issues.

Background Checks

All applicants and petitioners applying for U.S. 

immigration benefits are required to undergo some type of 

criminal and national security background checks to ensure 

the integrity of the immigration system. The background 

check process can be confusing to stakeholders who 

may not understand how it works or how it impacts the 

adjudication of their cases. However, the Field Office 

Directorate, the Service Center Operations Directorate, 

and the Refugee, Asylum and International Operations 

Directorate all have standard operating procedures for 

running background checks on applications that are 

processed within their respective offices. With help from 

their partners at the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation, 

these offices have made improvements to parts of the 
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES OMBUDSMAN vii

process. Recently, in response to Executive Order 13780, 

USCIS increased its screening of certain applicants, 

with plans to expand this heightened scrutiny. USCIS 

would further increase confidence in its anti-fraud and 

national security measures by educating the public on the 

basic elements of its processes, including how they can 

potentially impact the adjudication of cases.

Affirmative Asylum Backlog

As of March 31, 2018, USCIS had well over 300,000 

affirmative asylum applications pending a final decision 

from the Asylum Division. While the backlog can 

be traced to the growing number of individuals filing 

asylum claims, the cause of the backlog stems from 

several converging factors. USCIS has taken a series of 

steps to reduce its pending caseload, but despite hiring 

new staff, changing processes, and opening additional 

offices, reducing the backlog will take time and present an 

ongoing challenge. 

EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program

While the EB-5 Program remains attractive to foreign 

investors, many stakeholders, including members of 

Congress, have increasingly voiced concerns regarding 

fraud and abuse, which undermine the original purpose of 

the program and detract from potential benefits offered by 

it. USCIS has sought to address these concerns through 

a range of reforms, including proposed regulations issued 

in January 2017 that increase program oversight and seek 

to curb some of the abuses. It remains to be seen whether 

these reforms will be sufficient to reassure those concerned 

about the increased oversight, or if they will have a 

chilling effect on participation.
viii ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS JUNE 2018
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES OMBUDSMAN 1

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

Message from the Ombudsman ....................................................................................................................................... iv

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

Office of the Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman: 2017 in Review .......................................2

Key Developments and Areas of Focus

USCIS Anti-Fraud Initiatives ........................................................................................................................... 8

Transformation ................................................................................................................................................................18

Background Checks .....................................................................................................................................................28

Affirmative Asylum Backlog .......................................................................................................................................36

EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program ...........................................................................................................................48

Appendices .............................................................................................................................................................................57

Common USCIS Background Checks: The Basics, By Directorate ...........................................................................57

Recommendations Update ............................................................................................................................................59

The Ombudsman by the Numbers ................................................................................................................................61

Homeland Security Act Section 452 ...........................................................................................................................64

USCIS Naturalization and Adjustment of Status Processing Times ............................................................................66

U.S. Department of Homeland Security Organization Chart .......................................................................................67

How to Request Case Assistance from the Ombudsman ..............................................................................................68

Acronyms .....................................................................................................................................................................69

Table of Contents
2 ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS JUNE 2018

Office of the Citizenship and 

Immigration Services Ombudsman:

2017 in Review 

The Office of the Citizenship and Immigration Services 

Ombudsman is an independent, impartial, and confidential 

organization within the Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS), charged with reviewing and assessing the activities 

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

The Ombudsman reports directly to the Deputy Secretary 

of DHS, and is neither a part of nor reports to USCIS. 

The Ombudsman has a specific statutory mission:1

 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 in the administrative practices of 

USCIS to mitigate identified problems.

The Office achieves its mission through:

 Evaluating requests for assistance from individuals and 

employers and, where appropriate, recommending that 

USCIS take corrective action;

 Facilitating interagency collaboration and conducting 

outreach with a wide range of public and private 

stakeholders; and 

 Reviewing USCIS’ operations; researching applicable 

laws, regulations, policies, and procedures; and issuing 

recommendations (both formal and informal) to bring 

systemic issues to USCIS’ attention.

1

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

Requests for Case Assistance

USCIS administers an immigration benefits system that 

handles millions of applications and petitions annually. 

On any given day, USCIS adjudicates more than 

26,000 requests for various immigration benefits, from 

naturalization to travel documents to work authorization.2

Individuals and employers rely on USCIS adjudications 

to begin or continue employment; reunite with family 

members; seek humanitarian protection; apply for drivers’ 

licenses, Social Security numbers, health insurance, 

bank accounts, and mortgages; enroll in school; and 

travel outside of the United States, to name but a few 

essential activities. The American people rely on USCIS 

to maintain integrity within the immigration system, to 

prevent fraud, maintain national security, and overall 

ensure the immigration system serves the national interest. 

In short, Americans and prospective Americans all have a 

stake in the proper administration of immigration benefits. 

USCIS timely adjudicates the majority of filings in 

accordance with applicable statutes, regulations, and 

policies. However, when cases are delayed past posted 

processing times or there are administrative or adjudication 

errors, individuals and employers may contact the 

Ombudsman for case assistance.

To effectively and efficiently carry out its mission, the 

Ombudsman works to resolve case issues directly with 

USCIS field offices, service centers, and other offices. 

Collaboration and open dialogue are key tools in resolving 

problems with pending applications or petitions that have 

been brought to the Ombudsman’s attention. 

Ombudsman case assistance, of course, does not always result 

in a case approval. Based on the Ombudsman’s intervention, 

USCIS may take action on a long-pending case by issuing 

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

2

 USCIS Webpage, “A Day in the Life of USCIS,” https://www.uscis.gov/

about-us-0 (accessed May 1, 2018).
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES OMBUDSMAN 3

(NOID), or a denial. At times, cases that have fallen outside 

normal processing times have done so for reasons beyond the 

control of USCIS, such as a pending background check being 

conducted by another agency. Some adjudication issues 

are a matter of discretion, and USCIS may not change its 

decision after an Ombudsman inquiry. It is important to note 

that the Ombudsman’s case assistance is never a substitute 

for legal recourse; individuals and employers must timely 

file Motions to Reopen/Reconsider and appeals to preserve 

their rights, even after making a request for case assistance to 

the Ombudsman.3

 

3 See generally, 8 CFR § 103.3(a) (appeals), § 103.5 (motions to reopen/

reconsider).

A DAY IN THE LIFE OF AN IMMIGRATION LAW ANALYST

The Ombudsman works to resolve a wide range of requests 

for assistance across employment, family, and humanitarian 

categories, ranging from cases that are outside posted 

processing times to more complex issues involving 

adjudicative, administrative, or multi-agency concerns. 

Here is how some of our Immigration Law Analysts describe 

their casework. 

Q. What types of cases do you work with on a daily basis? 

A. I work on a variety of cases that include family, 

humanitarian, and employment issues. Many of us in the 

office specialize in certain areas, such as employment 

authorization, family immigration, adjustment of status, 

or naturalization.

Q. How do you determine if the Ombudsman can assist? 

A. First, I determine the problem the applicant is facing 

and decide whether USCIS has jurisdiction over the 

issue. We cannot assist with issues related solely to 

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

Customs and Border Protection (CBP), or the State 

Department (DOS). I check for the proper parties’ 

consent and also check to see what steps the applicant 

has taken to resolve the issues with USCIS.  As an office 

of last resort, we require that applicants first try to resolve 

the problem directly with USCIS before contacting our 

office for assistance.  If the request is about processing 

delays, I check USCIS’ processing times to ensure that 

the case inquiry date has passed the receipt date and 

that the case really is outside of normal processing 

times.  Unless there are urgent circumstances, our office 

closes inquiries that are within normal processing times.  

Our office uses the same expedite criteria as USCIS to 

determine which cases may be eligible to be expedited.4

 

If the applicant has submitted documentation to 

demonstrate the need for expedited processing of his 

case, I will move forward with contacting the appropriate 

USCIS office.

If the request is about an administrative or adjudication 

issue, I look at the supporting documents and review 

USCIS systems and the appropriate laws and regulations 

to determine whether USCIS may have failed to consider 

all the facts or inaccurately applied the law to the case.

Q. What do you do if you determine that the Ombudsman 

cannot assist? 

A. If I determine that our office cannot assist, I will contact 

the applicant or legal representative by phone or email 

to explain that we cannot assist and why. Depending 

on the circumstances, I may include details on when 

they may contact us again, if necessary.  For example, if 

our office is unable to assist because the case is within 

4

 USCIS Webpage, “Expedite Criteria” (Jul. 27, 2016); https://www.

uscis.gov/forms/expedite-criteria (accessed Mar. 3, 2017). The criteria 

are severe financial loss to company or person; emergency situation; 

humanitarian reasons; nonprofit organization whose request is in 

furtherance of the cultural and social interests of the United States, 

Department of Defense, or national interest situation; USCIS error; or 

compelling interest of USCIS. Individuals or employers requesting 

expedited handling are instructed to clearly state so in Section 8 

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

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

documentation to support the expedite request. All expedite requests 

are reviewed on a case-by-case basis. While the Ombudsman will 

forward expedite requests, it is up to USCIS whether it will expedite the 

Ombudsman’s inquiry and the application or petition.
4 ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS JUNE 2018

processing times, I will let the applicant know that he 

or she may contact our office again once the case is 

outside normal processing times.  If our office is closing 

the request for case assistance because the applicant 

has not attempted to resolve the issue with USCIS, I will 

provide the applicant with information on how to do so.  

If the issue is outside of USCIS, and the Ombudsman’s 

jurisdiction, I may provide contact information for 

another federal agency. Often, applicants are referred 

to our office by someone who has had success with our 

services.  As a result, when our office cannot assist an 

applicant, it is imperative that we provide a detailed 

explanation that allows the applicant to understand the 

uniqueness of each request we receive, and that also 

provides the applicant with a better understanding of 

when to contact our office for assistance. 

Q. What steps do you typically take when working a case? 

A. First, I look to see the priority the case has been assigned 

and work urgent cases accordingly.  Then, I review the 

applicant’s description of the problem. I contact the 

individual if I need additional information. Next, I research 

the law, precedent, or policies to know how best to proceed. 

At this stage, I might consult with one of my colleagues who 

is also a subject matter expert. Finally, I review the case 

history in several of USCIS’ databases, where I can find the 

location of the file, confirm filing dates, and check on the 

next steps in the process.

Next, I write up the case history and an analysis of the 

problem and send it to a designated contact at the 

appropriate USCIS office. I ask USCIS to review the case 

to ensure that the law and policy have been applied 

properly. Finally, I contact the applicant to let him/her 

know that I have made an inquiry on their behalf and to 

share a reasonable timeline for a response from USCIS 

(generally USCIS has 15 business days to respond to 

normal inquiries and 5 business days to respond to 

expedited inquiries).5

 I continue to follow up with USCIS 

until there is a final resolution to the issue.

5

 “Memorandum of Understanding between U.S. Citizenship and 

Immigration Services and the Citizenship and Immigration Services 

Ombudsman” (Mar. 30, 2016) (copy on file with the Ombudsman).

Q. What do you do when you get a response from USCIS? 

What if that response cannot be disclosed to 

the applicant?  

A. When I receive an update from USCIS, I make a notation 

in our database and, if it conveys a final action, I notify 

the applicant by email or by telephone. If necessary, I 

follow up with additional questions to USCIS, then inform 

the applicant that we are continuing to work toward 

final resolution. 

If the information I get back from USCIS cannot be 

disclosed to the applicant, I share as much general 

information about processes and timelines as I can 

to assure the applicant that their case is not lost and 

enable them to plan their lives and work accordingly...I 

continue to assure applicants that our office will monitor 

their case until a final decision is made.  

Q. To what extent do you engage with DHS components or 

agencies other than USCIS?  

A. I communicate regularly with DOS’s National Visa Center 

about its work with USCIS. I sometimes contact ICE and 

CBP to try to get applicants additional assistance or 

another avenue or resource to obtain further assistance 

on a case. I also visit offices, attend meetings, and 

participate in teleconferences hosted by USCIS and 

other agencies.

Q. How do the individual cases you work on contribute to 

the work of the Ombudsman’s Policy Team?  

A. Through the requests I see every day, I can identify 

trends and report them to our leadership, letting them 

know of hot topics or trouble areas that we need to 

bring to USCIS’ attention through meetings or written 

recommendations that have the potential to impact 

thousands of individuals seeking immigration services. 

The trends can also serve as topics for teleconferences. 

We are the canary in the coal mine.
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES OMBUDSMAN 5

Q. What is most challenging about your work?

A. Cases can be extremely complex, but that can be 

overcome with expertise. What does create problems 

are when requestors forget an essential fact, like being 

represented by an attorney and forgetting to submit a 

notice of appearance, a Form G-28, for an application 

or petition. Another problem develops when requestors 

call and email frequently—sometimes every day—to get a 

status update. We take our contact with the public very 

seriously, and make every attempt to respond to status 

inquiries. Unfortunately, when they are overwhelming 

because of their frequency, responding to them comes at 

the expense of actually working on cases. 

Q. What are the rewards of successfully resolving a case?  

A. Helping others resolve problems is extremely rewarding. 

I always feel satisfied when I am able to assist 

someone navigate an immigration system that can 

be overwhelming—even to experts—and am able to 

make a difference in someone’s life.  I am proud of our 

determination and commitment in assisting those who 

have run out of options.

Q. What assistance can the Ombudsman provide that 

others in the federal government cannot?  

A. The Ombudsman’s Office has a long-established 

relationship with USCIS that allows us to communicate 

directly with service centers, field offices, and refugee 

and asylum offices. My colleagues and I come from a 

variety of immigration backgrounds and agencies—private 

immigration law practice, USCIS, and other federal 

offices, including the U.S. Departments of Justice (DOJ), 

Labor (DOL), DOS, and we use our diversity of knowledge 

and experience to spot issues and offer solutions.

Q. What experience/training do you bring that helps you 

do your job?  

A. Before coming to the Ombudsman’s Office, I served 

as an adjudicator at a USCIS service center and an 

asylum office.  I learned quick problem-solving skills in 

the adjudications context, innovation to resolve serious 

case problems in new ways, team-building, triage and 

public-relations skills. Interviewing applicants taught 

me patience and compassion and to recognize that files 

represent real lives. I continue to take immigration law 

trainings and learn every day from my colleagues—the 

law and policy changes frequently.  

2017: Issues Submitted in Requests for Case Assistance

66% Outside Normal Processing Times

2% Multi-Agency Issue

3% Emergency Circumstance

7% Adjudication Issue

13% No Difficulty Found

9% Administrative Issue
6 ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS JUNE 2018

Extended Review

Where USCIS does not provide a specific time frame for 

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

processing times, the Ombudsman will place the assistance 

request in a queue of long-pending cases, referred to as 

Extended Review. The Ombudsman follows up with 

USCIS Headquarters regularly on such cases until the 

agency takes action. 

In March 2017, the Ombudsman reviewed its list of over 

1,400 Extended Review cases and identified inquiries 

involving an application or petition that had been pending 

with USCIS for 5 years or longer. The Ombudsman 

asked that USCIS take a closer look at over 100 cases to 

see if any could be ripe for adjudication or if additional 

information could be provided to permit adjudication. 

Cases that USCIS had identified as being on hold for 

reasons outside of USCIS’ control, such as TerrorismRelated Inadmissibility Grounds (TRIG)6

 or litigation in 

the courts, were not included. To date, 63 percent of the 

identified cases have been resolved, and the Ombudsman 

continues to encourage USCIS to act on the remainder. 

This not only resolves these cases for the individuals 

involved but enhances system integrity by moving these 

individuals to the next stages, whether positive or not.

2017 Casework in Review

In calendar year 2017, the Ombudsman’s team of 

approximately 18 analysts received 11,048 requests 

for assistance submitted by the public. Since 2013, the 

number of requests for assistance received has increased 

an average of 20 percent per year. The Office resolved 

10,746 requests for assistance during that same time 

period. The team provides case assistance daily to the 

thousands of people who seek assistance. 

The following cases illustrate just some of the types of 

assistance the Ombudsman provided in 2017.

 Lost Documentation. The Ombudsman assisted the 

lawful permanent resident (LPR) parents of a child 

born in India. The child was admitted to the United 

States within 2 years of her birth and her passport was 

stamped appropriately to indicate she too was an LPR. 

The parents expected her green card to be mailed to 

them shortly after their entry. At a visit to the local 

6

 Inadmissibility exemptions may only be granted by the Secretaries of 

Homeland Security and State. INA § 212(d)(3)(B).

field office, USCIS confirmed the child’s LPR status 

and asked the parents to submit Form I-90, Application 

to Replace Permanent Resident Card. Months later, 

when they still had not received the green card, the 

USCIS National Customer Service Center (NCSC) told 

the parents to go back to the local USCIS field office to 

complete a Form I-181, Creation of Record of Lawful 

Permanent Residence because USCIS had no record 

of the child’s entry to the United States. At the local 

office, however, the parents were told there was no such 

process. A year later, the family received a notification 

that the Form I-90 application had been denied because 

USCIS did not have the entry materials. The same 

day they also received a notification from USCIS that 

the case had been reopened. Four months later, they 

received another denial from USCIS. The Ombudsman 

helped the family obtain the child’s lost visa package 

and have the entry documents recreated so that USCIS 

could issue a green card for their daughter. 

 Processing Times. One naturalization applicant 

contacted the Ombudsman when his application stalled. 

He had been fingerprinted and interviewed, had passed 

his naturalization test, but 16 months later still had not 

received an appointment for his oath ceremony. After 

both he and his attorney contacted USCIS with no 

resolution, the Ombudsman contacted the field office of 

jurisdiction and the applicant received an appointment 

for his oath ceremony. 

 USCIS Databases. When a ten-year-old applicant for 

LPR status moved to a new home with her family, her 

mother contacted USCIS and the U.S. Postal Service to 

inform them of the family’s new address. Seven days 

later, USCIS approved the daughter’s application and 

ordered production of her green card. Unfortunately, 

because USCIS’ systems were not updated in a timely 

manner, the card was mailed to her previous address. 

The Ombudsman assisted by getting a new card 

produced and sent out within the week. 

 Fee Waiver. One applicant with a pending Form 

I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence 

or Adjust Status filed for an employment authorization 

with a request for a fee waiver. USCIS waived the fee, 

but denied the employment authorization five months 

later, stating that it had not received the fee or a waiver 

request. The Ombudsman shared a copy of the fee 

waiver with USCIS to correct the error. 
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES OMBUDSMAN 7

 Typographical Error. When an LPR filed Form I-130, 

Petition for Alien Relative for his son, he received 

assistance from a notary who made a typographical 

error on the son’s date of birth. The error led to USCIS 

classifying the son as an adult child, rather than a 

minor. The father sought a correction from USCIS, 

and the date of birth was changed, but the preference 

category was not. The Ombudsman contacted USCIS 

and immediately confirmed the typographical error and 

corrected the date. USCIS corrected the preference 

category in its data systems and issued an approval 

notice later that day. 

 Mailing Issues. USCIS issued an RFE on a Form 

I-526, Immigrant Petition by Alien Entrepreneur,

which the U.S. Postal Service returned to USCIS as 

undeliverable. The attorney contacted the Ombudsman 

for assistance in getting a copy of the request in time 

to respond. Upon investigation, the Ombudsman 

determined that the RFE had been sent to an incorrect 

address. USCIS reissued the RFE, along with a new 

response time frame to respond. 

 Erroneous Denial. A woman applying to USCIS for 

student status was denied because the agency asserted 

she did not maintain her previous visitor status while 

USCIS adjudicated the change of status request. The 

denial was in error because she had in fact filed four 

applications for extension of her visitor status to bridge 

the 2 years that USCIS took to adjudicate the change of 

status application. The Ombudsman investigated the 

situation and discovered that the bridge applications 

for extension of status were pending at one USCIS 

service center while the application for change of status 

was pending at another. The Ombudsman contacted 

the center that had the extension applications to 

have them prioritize adjudication so that the second 

center could take corrective action on the change of 

status application and resolve the applicant’s status. 

The Year in Outreach

In 2017, the Ombudsman conducted 69 stakeholder 

engagements. These included meetings with and 

presentations to a wide range of groups, including 

attorneys and accredited representatives, community-based 

organizations, employers, Congressional staffers, state 

and local government officials, and individual applicants. 

The Ombudsman also conducted outreach through a series 

of teleconferences with stakeholders. The Ombudsman 

hosted the following public teleconferences in 2017 to 

provide information and to receive feedback on issues and 

policy trends:

 Ombudsman’s Annual Conference Highlights 

(January 26)

 Executive Orders Listening Session (February 9)

 USCIS AC21 Regulations (March 22)

 USCIS Office of Citizenship (May 24)

 H-1B, Specialty Occupation, FY2018 Cap Filing 

Season (June 20)

 Ombudsman’s Annual Report Highlights (July 27)

 Employment-Based Adjustment Interviews 

(September 28)

 USCIS’ Handling of Natural Disasters (October 25)

 Temporary Protected Status (December 14)

The Ombudsman’s Seventh Annual Conference

On December 7, 2017, the Ombudsman hosted the seventh 

Annual Conference, Government and Stakeholders Working 

Together to Improve Immigration Services. There were 

over 300 attendees. The morning plenary sessions included 

remarks from USCIS Director L. Francis Cissna and thenActing Director of the Executive Office for Immigration 

Review James McHenry. Director Cissna spoke of his goals 

for maintaining a fair and transparent immigration system 

that applies the law consistently, and about his plans to 

issue new regulations in accordance with the Administrative 

Procedure Act. Director McHenry spoke of his plans to 

add more immigration judges and support staff, improve 

infrastructure, and to continue to work effectively with 

partners at USCIS, ICE, and CBP.

Break-out sessions in the afternoon included panels on 

citizenship and naturalization issues, background checks 

and USCIS processing, E-Verify, transformation, and the 

H-1B Specialty Occupation program.
8 ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS JUNE 2018

Responsible Office: Fraud Detection and National 

Security Directorate

Key Facts and Findings

 Over the past 6 years, the Fraud Detection and National 

Security (FDNS) Directorate’s authorized staffing levels 

more than doubled from 756 positions in FY 2012 to 

1,548 positions in FY 2018. 

 As part of FDNS’s pivot toward a “risk-based” antifraud model, in 2017 it implemented a Targeted Site 

Visit and Verification Program (TSVVP) focused on 

visits to H-1B employer worksites where fraud and 

abuse may be more likely to occur. 

 Challenges in USCIS’ ongoing transition to a 

comprehensive electronic case filing and management 

system have limited FDNS’s capacity to combat fraud. 

 Requests for case assistance submitted to the 

Ombudsman suggest that a small number of cases 

linked to fraud investigations remain pending for 

significant lengths of time. The Ombudsman’s Office 

recognizes the challenges inherent in assessing the 

efficiency of such investigations, and will continue to 

monitor the issue of efficiency as it relates to these and 

other anti-fraud activities. 

Anti-Fraud Efforts Constitute a Core Part of the 

USCIS Mission

Administering an efficient and secure immigration benefits 

system lies at the core of USCIS’ mission.7

 Anti-fraud 

initiatives undertaken by USCIS advance both prongs of 

this mandate. Combating fraud helps keep unscrupulous 

7 See USCIS Webpage, “About Us” (Feb. 22, 2018); https://www.uscis.gov/

aboutus (accessed Feb. 25, 2018). 

USCIS Anti-Fraud Initiatives
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES OMBUDSMAN 9

actors from obtaining immigration benefits. Moreover, 

reducing fraud preserves agency resources for legitimate 

requests and leads to more efficient processing. 

The recent history of USCIS and its predecessor, the 

Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), reflects 

an elevated awareness of fraud’s consequences and 

an enhanced commitment to combatting it. In 2002, 

shortly after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, 

the Government Accountability Office (GAO) noted that 

“[i]mmigration benefit fraud has been a long-standing 

problem for INS that has grown more intense and serious” 

as foreign nationals “have used the application process 

for illegal activities, such as crimes of violence, narcotics 

trafficking, and terrorism.”8

 GAO concluded that INS’s 

approach to deterring benefit fraud was “fragmented and 

unfocused” and urged a revised approach to identifying 

and investigating such fraud.9

 

By 2004, the newly-formed USCIS had established a 

Fraud Detection and National Security Office.10 Six 

years later, USCIS elevated this office to a directorate—a 

director-controlled department overseeing two or more 

divisions11—enhancing FDNS’s integration into and 

influence across the rest of the agency.12

USCIS vested FDNS with the mission of detecting, 

deterring, and combatting fraud, as well as national 

security challenges and threats to public safety in the 

immigration benefits process.13 FDNS seeks to execute 

this mission by, among other things: (1) conducting 

administrative investigations into possible acts of 

benefits fraud; (2) developing agency-wide policies and 

procedures governing anti-fraud measures; (3) discerning 

and eliminating “systemic vulnerabilities” in the agency’s 

8

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

Fraud,” GAO-02-66 (Mar. 2002); https://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0266.pdf

(accessed Feb. 25, 2018). 9 Id. 10 USCIS Webpage, “Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate” (Jul. 

14, 2015); https://www.uscis.gov/about-us/directorates-and-program-offices/

fraud-detection-and-national-security/fraud-detection-and-national-securitydirectorate (accessed Feb. 25, 2018). 11 USCIS Webpage, “Directorates and Program Offices” (Sep. 28, 2010); 

https://www.uscis.gov/about-us/directorates-and-program-offices (accessed 

Feb. 25, 2018). 12 USCIS Webpage, “Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate” (Jul. 

14, 2015); https://www.uscis.gov/about-us/directorates-and-program-offices/

fraud-detection-and-national-security/fraud-detection-and-national-securitydirectorate (accessed Feb. 25, 2018). 13 See DHS Privacy Impact Assessment, “Fraud Detection and National 

Security Directorate,” DHS/USCIS/PIA-013-01 (Dec. 16, 2014); https://

www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/privacy-pia-uscis-fdnsnovember2016_0.pdf (accessed Feb. 25, 2018). 

benefits process; and (4) serving as the agency’s principal 

liaison to law enforcement and intelligence partners.14 

Case Management Entities (CMEs). A CME is a type of 

record maintained in the Fraud Detection and National 

Security Data System (FDNS-DS),15 which is USCIS’ 

principal system for managing information and inquiries 

relating to fraud, public safety, and national security 

concerns.16 CMEs generally relate to and reflect FDNS 

review of one or more specific immigration applications or 

petitions.17 Common CMEs include:18

 Leads. These are referrals received by FDNS from 

internal or external sources that contain an allegation of 

immigration-related benefit fraud as well as associated 

biographic or corporate information. 

 Cases. As defined within FDNS-DS, cases constitute 

leads supported by articulable and actionable evidence 

of fraud or involving a public safety concern.

 Requests for Assistance. These are requests made 

to FDNS for data, research, or other information. 

These requests may originate from inside or outside 

of USCIS. 

 Administrative Site Visit and Verification Program 

(ASVVP). ASVVPs are compliance reviews carried 

out to verify the legitimacy of a petitioning organization 

and employment offer, which often include 

worksite visits. 

 Overseas Verifications. FDNS conducts these 

verifications to confirm education, employment, or 

other events that have transpired in a foreign country 

or to authenticate potentially fraudulent documentation 

14 See DHS Privacy Impact Assessment, “Fraud Detection and National 

Security Directorate,” DHS/USCIS/PIA-013-01 (Dec. 16, 2014); https://

www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/privacy-pia-uscis-fdnsnovember2016_0.pdf (accessed Feb. 25, 2018). 15 Information provided by USCIS (Apr. 18, 2018). 

16 DHS Privacy Impact Assessment, “Fraud Detection and National Security 

Directorate Data System” (FDNS-DS), DHS/USCIS/PIA-013(a) (May 18, 

2016); https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/privacy-pia-uscisfdnsds-november2017.pdf (accessed Apr. 26, 2018). 17 “The Security of U.S. Visa Programs,” before the U.S. Senate Committee 

on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs,” 114th Cong. 2nd Sess. 

(2016) (Post-Hearing Questions for the Record Submitted to the Honorable 

Leon Rodriguez from Senator Ron Johnson); https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/

pkg/CHRG-114shrg22768/pdf/CHRG-114shrg22768.pdf (accessed May 24, 

2018). 18 Information provided by USCIS (Apr. 18, 2018). 
10 ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS JUNE 2018

in collaboration with host countries’ documentissuing authorities.19

The number of personnel completing such work has 

grown proportionally to the Directorate’s profile within 

the agency. FDNS staffing levels increased from 756 

authorized positions in FY 2012 to 1,548 authorized 

positions as of the pay period covering February 18, 2018 

to March 3, 2018—nearly a 205 percent increase.20 

Personnel enhancements during this span were not 

unique to FDNS.21 From FY 2012 to FY 2017, USCIS’ 

case receipt volume increased 42 percent,22 significantly 

elevating the agency’s overall workload and staffing needs. 

See Figures 1.1 and 1.2. 

FDNS maintains an organizational structure like most 

USCIS components, in which staff are divided between 

FDNS Headquarters (HQFDNS) in Washington, DC and 

various USCIS field offices across the country. Eighteen 

19 DHS Privacy Impact Assessment, “Fraud Detection and National Security 

Directorate,” DHS/USCIS/PIA-013-01 (Dec. 16, 2014); https://www.dhs.

gov/sites/default/files/publications/privacy-pia-uscis-fdns-november2016_0.

pdf (accessed Feb. 25, 2018). 20 Information provided by USCIS (Apr. 28, 2016 and Apr. 18, 2018). 

21 See, e.g., “Affirmative Asylum Backlog” infra in this Report (describing 

increases in staffing within USCIS’ Asylum Division). 22 USCIS Webpage, “Service-wide Receipts and Approvals for All Form Types: 

Fiscal Year 2012: October 2011–September 2012” (Dec. 11, 2012); https://

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

Studies/Immigration%20Forms%20Data/All%20Form%20Types/all-formtypes-performance-data_fy2012_qtr4.pdf (accessed Apr. 24, 2018); “Number 

of Service-wide forms by Fiscal Year to Date, Quarter and Form Status 

2017” (Dec. 07, 2017); https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/

Resources/Reports%20and%20Studies/Immigration%20Forms%20Data/

All%20Form%20Types/Quarterly_All_Forms_FY17Q4.pdf (accessed Apr. 

24, 2018). 

percent of FDNS’s on-board employees work at HQFDNS, 

which supports, among other divisions, a Fraud Division 

overseeing the Directorate’s anti-fraud activities.23 In 

addition, every domestic USCIS field office, service 

center, and asylum office retains one or more FDNS 

officers, as do various USCIS offices abroad.24 Although 

these field staff are employed by FDNS, they report in 

a unique relationship to both the Field Operations and 

FDNS Directorates. As of March 2018, a total of 1,163 

FDNS employees currently work throughout the agency, 

with highest number of officers (631) assigned to the Field 

Operations Directorate (FOD). See Figure 1.3. 

FDNS officers, both in headquarters and in the field, 

perform one of the Directorate’s critical activities: 

administrative investigations into suspected immigration 

23 Information provided by USCIS (Apr. 18, 2018).

24 See DHS Privacy Impact Assessment “Fraud Detection and National Security 

Directorate,” DHS/USCIS/PIA-013-01 (Dec. 16, 2014); https://www.dhs.

gov/sites/default/files/publications/privacy-pia-uscis-fdns-november2016_0.

pdf (accessed Feb. 25, 2018).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Data was current as of “Pay Period 4, 2018,” corresponding to the period from February 

18, 2018 to March 3, 2018. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sources: Information provided by USCIS (Apr. 28, 2016 and Apr. 18, 2018); USCIS 

Webpages, “Service-wide Receipts and Approvals for All Form Types: Fiscal Year 2012: 

October 2011–September 2012” (Dec. 11, 2012); https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/

files/USCIS/Resources/Reports%20and%20Studies/Immigration%20Forms%20Data/

All%20Form%20Types/all-form-types-performance-data_fy2012_qtr4.pdf (accessed 

Apr. 24, 2018); “Number of Service-wide forms by Fiscal Year to Date, Quarter and Form 

Status 2017” (Dec. 07, 2017); https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Resources/Reports%20and%20Studies/Immigration%20Forms%20Data/All%20Form%20

Types/Quarterly_All_Forms_FY17Q4.pdf (accessed Apr. 24, 2018). 
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES OMBUDSMAN 11

benefits fraud.25 Information obtained through FDNS 

administrative investigations helps USCIS combat fraud in 

multiple ways. To begin with, it provides insights helpful to 

USCIS adjudicators when deciding benefits cases.26 More 

broadly, it helps uncover fraud trends and vulnerabilities 

across the immigration process, informing the agency’s 

development of systemic remedies. 

Below is a simplified description of FDNS’s fraud 

investigation process, including its intersection with ICE 

operations. This is a generalized summary—in practice 

the process may entail different stages and vary based on 

the associated benefit form type, nature of the potential 

fraud, and additional factors. See Figure 1.4.

25 Complementing (and contrasting with) this work, ICE conducts criminal 

investigations into such fraud—investigations that may originate from USCIS 

referrals and rely on FDNS’ continuing support. See “The Aftermath of 

Fraud by Immigration Attorneys,” before the Subcommittee on Immigration 

Policy and Enforcement of the U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary, 

112th Cong. 2nd Sess. (2012) (written statement of Sarah M. Kendall, FDNS 

Associate Director); http://judiciary.house.gov/_files/hearings/Hearings%20

2012/Kendall%2007242012.pdf (accessed May 24, 2018). 26 See “The Aftermath of Fraud by Immigration Attorneys,” before the 

Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement of the U.S. House 

Committee on the Judiciary, 112th Cong. 2nd Sess. (2012) (written statement 

of Sarah M. Kendall, FDNS Associate Director); http://judiciary.house.

gov/_files/hearings/Hearings%202012/Kendall%2007242012.pdf (accessed 

May 24, 2018). 

The FDNS Fraud Investigation Process 

Stage 1—Initiation 

A number of events trigger FDNS’s fraud investigation 

process. One catalyst is the submission of a fraud 

referral to FDNS by immigration officers or other USCIS 

adjudicators.27 Officers undergo specific training on fraud 

indicators, identification of fraudulent documentation, and 

types of benefit fraud.28 When officers encounter possible 

fraud, they may refer the implicated cases to FDNS for 

evaluation.29 External agencies also make referrals to 

FDNS, as can members of the public through the USCIS 

fraud tip mailbox.30

In addition to manual referrals, automated screenings 

conducted through FDNS-DS can prompt FDNS fraud 

investigations.31 USCIS’ receipt of an immigration 

benefit form or the capture of an applicant’s biometric 

fingerprints automatically activates an electronic screening 

mechanism within FDNS-DS called ATLAS.32 ATLAS 

pulls information from the relevant application or petition 

and associated biometric and biographic system checks, 

then runs that information through “a predefined set of 

rules to determine whether the information provided by the 

27 DHS Privacy Impact Assessment, “Fraud Detection and National Security 

Directorate,” DHS/USCIS/PIA-013-01 (Dec. 16, 2014); https://www.dhs.

gov/sites/default/files/publications/privacy-pia-uscis-fdns-november2016_0.

pdf; “The Aftermath of Fraud by Immigration Attorneys,” before the

Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement of the U.S. House 

Committee on the Judiciary, 112th Cong. 2nd Sess. (2012) (written statement 

of Sarah M. Kendall, FDNS Associate Director); http://judiciary.house.

gov/_files/hearings/Hearings%202012/Kendall%2007242012.pdf (accessed 

May 24, 2018). 28 “Hearing on Vows for Visas: Investigating K-1 Fiancé Fraud,” before the

U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 115th Cong. 1st Sess. (2017) 

(written statement of Field Operations Associate Director Daniel M. Renaud, 

Service Center Operations Associate Director Donald Neufeld, and FDNS 

Associate Director Matthew Emrich); https://www.uscis.gov/tools/resourcescongress/testimonies-and-speeches/hearing-vows-visas-investigating-k-1-

fiance-fraud-senate-committee-judiciary-march-15-2017 (accessed May 24, 

2018). 29 Id. 30 DHS Privacy Impact Assessment, “Fraud Detection and National Security 

Directorate,” DHS/USCIS/PIA-013-01 (Dec. 16, 2014); https://www.dhs.

gov/sites/default/files/publications/privacy-pia-uscis-fdns-november2016_0.

pdf (accessed Apr. 26, 2018). See USCIS Webpage, “Report Immigration 

Scams” (Jul. 18, 2017); https://www.uscis.gov/avoid-scams/report-scams

(accessed Jun. 11, 2018). 31 DHS Privacy Impact Assessment, “Fraud Detection and National Security 

Directorate Data System (FDNS-DS),” DHS/USCIS/PIA-013(a) (May 18, 

2016); https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/privacy-pia-uscisfdnsds-november2017.pdf (accessed Apr. 26, 2018). 32 DHS Privacy Impact Assessment, “Fraud Detection and National Security 

Directorate Data System (FDNS-DS),” DHS/USCIS/PIA-013(a) (May 18, 

2016); https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/privacy-pia-uscisfdnsds-november2017.pdf (accessed Apr. 26, 2018). 

Figure 1.3: On-board FDNS Employees Within USCIS Directorates

19% Service Center Operations

Directorate (219)

18% FDNS Headquarters (210)

3% Headquarters Refugee,

Asylum, and International

Operations Directorate (34)

6% Asylum Division (69)

54% Field Operations

Directorate (631)

Source: Information provided by USCIS (Apr. 18, 2018).
12 ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS JUNE 2018

STAGE 3: REFERRAL TO ICE

Referral to ICE temporarily 

suspends adjudication of 

the associated benefit form.

Warrants administrative investigation?

Figure 1.4: FDNS Fraud Investigation Flow Chart

STAGE 1: INITIATION

Fraud referrals come from a

variety of sources, including:

• USCIS adjudicators

• ATLAS

• Third party agencies

• Tips from the public 

Warrants criminal investigation?

STAGE 2: ADMINISTRATIVE INVESTIGATION

Investigation may consist of 

a range of actions, including:

• Checks of government databases

• Interviews of relevant parties

• Site visits

• Overseas verifications

STAGE 4: STATEMENT OF FINDINGS (SOF)

Upon completing the administrative 

investigation, FDNS submits SOF 

to USCIS adjudicator with one of 

three findings:

• Fraud Found

• Fraud Not Found

• Inconclusive

NO YES

NO YES

ICE accepts referral?

ICE PERFORMS 

CRIMINAL 

INVESTIGATION

FDNS ultimately

issues SOFs 

regarding most 

cases that ICE 

accepts for 

investigation.

YES

NO

FDNS closes inquiry

Sources: See information provided by USCIS (Apr. 03, 2018 and Apr. 18, 2018); DHS Privacy Impact Assessment, “Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate Data System” 

(FDNS-DS), DHS/USCIS/PIA-013(a) (May 18, 2016); https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/privacy-pia-uscis-fdnsds-november2017.pdf (accessed Apr. 26, 2018); 

“The Aftermath of Fraud by Immigration Attorneys,” before the Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement of the U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary, 112th Cong. 2nd 

Sess. (2012) (written statement of Sarah M. Kendall, FDNS Associate Director); http://judiciary.house.gov/_files/hearings/Hearings%202012/Kendall%2007242012.pdf (accessed 

May 24, 2018); DHS Office of the Inspector General, “U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ Tracking and Monitoring of Potentially Fraudulent Petitions and Applications for Family-Based Immigration Benefits,” OIG-13-97 (Jun. 2013); https://www.oig.dhs.gov/assets/Mgmt/2013/OIG_13-97_Jun13.pdf (accessed Apr. 26, 2018). 
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES OMBUDSMAN 13

individual or obtained through the required checks presents 

a potential fraud, public safety, or national security 

concern.”33 A rules match produces a “System-Generated 

Notification” (SGN). 

Upon receipt of a referral/SGN, FDNS personnel review 

the matter to determine if it warrants administrative 

investigation.34 This manual review may consist of 

additional systems checks and further research on the 

benefit seeker.35 Relevant considerations in assessing 

the need for an investigation include “whether there is a 

reasonable suspicion of fraud that is clearly articulated and 

actionable.”36 If FDNS determines that an investigation 

is necessary, it initiates one;37 if not, FDNS closes the 

inquiry38 and returns the file to that officer with an 

explanation of the declination.39 

Stage 2—Administrative Investigation 

When FDNS determines administrative investigation is 

warranted, it takes some or all of the following steps: 

(1) checking government databases; (2) searching 

open source information, including social media; (3) 

reviewing government case files; (4) making physical 

33 Id. 34 See DHS Privacy Impact Assessment for the Fraud Detection and National 

Security Directorate, DHS/USCIS/PIA-013-01 (Dec. 16, 2014); https://

www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/privacy-pia-uscis-fdnsnovember2016_0.pdf (accessed Feb. 25, 2017); DHS Privacy Impact 

Assessment for the Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate Data 

System (FDNS-DS), DHS/USCIS/PIA-013(a) (May 18, 2016); https://

www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/privacy-pia-uscis-fdnsdsnovember2017.pdf (accessed Apr. 26, 2018); “The Aftermath of Fraud by 

Immigration Attorneys,” before the Subcommittee on Immigration Policy 

and Enforcement of the U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary, 112th Cong. 

2nd Sess. (2012) (written statement of Sarah M. Kendall, FDNS Associate 

Director); http://judiciary.house.gov/_files/hearings/Hearings%202012/

Kendall%2007242012.pdf (accessed May 24, 2018). 35 See DHS Privacy Impact Assessment for the Fraud Detection and National 

Security Directorate, DHS/USCIS/PIA-013-01 (Dec. 16, 2014); https://

www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/privacy-pia-uscis-fdnsnovember2016_0.pdf (accessed Feb. 25, 2017). 36 “The Aftermath of Fraud by Immigration Attorneys,” before the

Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement of the U.S. House 

Committee on the Judiciary, 112th Cong. 2nd Sess. (2012) (written statement 

of Sarah M. Kendall, FDNS Associate Director); http://judiciary.house.

gov/_files/hearings/Hearings%202012/Kendall%2007242012.pdf (accessed 

May 24, 2018). The Ombudsman’s Office did not identify publicly available 

information defining “clearly articulated and actionable.” 37 DHS Privacy Impact Assessment, “Fraud Detection and National Security 

Directorate Data System (FDNS-DS), DHS/USCIS/PIA-013(a) (May 18, 

2016); https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/privacy-pia-uscisfdnsds-november2017.pdf (accessed Feb. 25, 2018). 38 Id. 39 DHS Privacy Impact Assessment for the Fraud Detection and National 

Security Directorate,” DHS/USCIS/PIA-013-01 (Dec. 16, 2014); https://

www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/privacy-pia-uscis-fdnsnovember2016_0.pdf (accessed Apr. 26, 2018). 

site visits to locations ranging from residences to 

workplaces; (5) interviewing applicants, petitioners, and 

witnesses; (6) issuing written RFEs; and (7) carrying 

out overseas verifications.40 FDNS sends its findings 

to USCIS adjudicators, who determine immigration 

benefit eligibility.

Pursuant to 8 CFR § 103.2(b)(18), USCIS may place “in 

abeyance” cases associated with ongoing investigations. 

Under this regulation, once an investigation has begun, 

USCIS may withhold adjudication of an associated case 

when the agency determines that disclosure to the benefit 

seeker of information pertaining to that adjudication would 

prejudice the investigation. “Information” may include 

facts uncovered through the investigation or the existence 

of the investigation itself.41 

Stage 3—Referral to ICE (as warranted) 

If during an administrative investigation FDNS finds 

information appearing to justify a criminal investigation,42

it may refer the case to ICE through an interagency 

Memorandum of Agreement.43 ICE’s Benefits Fraud 

Unit conducts its own review, which then may refer the 

matter to Homeland Security Investigations (HSI). HSI 

either accepts it for criminal investigation, or declines and 

returns it to FDNS for resumption of an administrative 

investigation. ICE must notify FDNS within 60 days 

whether it will accept or decline a fraud referral.44 HSI 

40 Id. 41 FDNS officers, USCIS adjudicators, and outside agencies may request 

withholding of adjudication. A USCIS District Director may authorize the 

request if, among other criteria, it meets regulatory requirements and serves 

the government’s best interests. USCIS must document the request, the 

District Director’s rationale for authorization, and additional supporting 

information. If an investigation has not concluded within 12 months after 

withholding begins, USCIS may extend the withholding period if the District 

Director obtains approval from his or her supervisor, as appropriate, to 

extend withholding for an additional 6 months. After 18 months, withholding 

may continue only if HQFDNS and the headquarters of the adjudicating 

directorate jointly approve an extension. Information provided by USCIS 

(Apr. 18, 2018). 42 “The Aftermath of Fraud by Immigration Attorneys,” before the

Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement of the U.S. House 

Committee on the Judiciary, 112th Cong. 2nd Sess. (2012) (written statement 

of Sarah M. Kendall, FDNS Associate Director); http://judiciary.house.

gov/_files/hearings/Hearings%202012/Kendall%2007242012.pdf (accessed 

May 24, 2018). 43 See “The Security of U.S. Visa Programs,” before the U.S. Senate Committee 

on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs,” 114th Cong. 2nd Sess. 

(2016) (Post-Hearing Questions for the Record Submitted to the Honorable 

Leon Rodriguez from Senator Ron Johnson); https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/

pkg/CHRG-114shrg22768/pdf/CHRG-114shrg22768.pdf (accessed May 24, 

2018). 44 Information provided by USCIS (Apr. 18, 2018). 
14 ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS JUNE 2018

declination does not bar USCIS from reaching a positive 

fraud finding and/or denying the associated benefit form.45 

FDNS’s referral to ICE temporarily suspends USCIS 

adjudication of the associated benefit request.46 Within 

120 days of ICE’s acceptance of a referral, ICE must notify 

FDNS in writing if it wishes to extend the adjudication 

suspension. If ICE does not provide timely notification, 

USCIS may resume adjudicating.47 When criminal 

investigations run longer than a year from the date of 

referral acceptance, ICE must send FDNS an investigation 

update within that first year, then every 12 months 

thereafter.48 FDNS ultimately issues a Statement of 

Findings (SOF) concerning most matters that ICE accepts 

for criminal investigation.49

FDNS may lend information and expertise to HSI during 

its criminal investigations.50 USCIS may also refer cases 

to law enforcement agencies other than ICE.51 

Stage 4—Statement of Findings 

Once FDNS completes an administrative investigation, it 

returns the case to the appropriate USCIS adjudications 

unit along with an SOF.52 The SOF summarizes FDNS’s 

investigation and contains one of three determinations: 

“(1) Fraud Found; (2) Fraud Not Found; or (3) 

Inconclusive.”53 This document informs the USCIS 

adjudicator’s decision to approve, deny, or take other 

45 “The Aftermath of Fraud by Immigration Attorneys,” before the

Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement of the U.S. House 

Committee on the Judiciary, 112th Cong. 2nd Sess. (2012) (written statement 

of Sarah M. Kendall, FDNS Associate Director); http://judiciary.house.

gov/_files/hearings/Hearings%202012/Kendall%2007242012.pdf (accessed 

May 24, 2018). 46 Id. 47 Information provided by USCIS (Apr. 18, 2018).

48 Id. 49 Information provided by USCIS (Apr. 03, 2018). 

50 “The Aftermath of Fraud by Immigration Attorneys,” before the

Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement of the U.S. House 

Committee on the Judiciary, 112th Cong. 2nd Sess. (2012) (written statement 

of Sarah M. Kendall, FDNS Associate Director); http://judiciary.house.

gov/_files/hearings/Hearings%202012/Kendall%2007242012.pdf (accessed 

May 24, 2018). 51 Id. 52 See, e.g., DHS Office of the Inspector General, “U.S. Citizenship and 

Immigration Services’ Tracking and Monitoring of Potentially Fraudulent 

Petitions and Applications for Family-Based Immigration Benefits,” OIG13-97 (Jun. 2013); https://www.oig.dhs.gov/assets/Mgmt/2013/OIG_13-

97_Jun13.pdf (accessed Apr. 26, 2018). 53 Id.

action on the case.54 Where appropriate, the adjudicator 

may then place the applicant in removal proceedings by 

issuing a Notice to Appear (NTA).55 In instances where 

USCIS had approved a case prior to FDNS investigation, 

the SOF may support a decision to revoke the benefit 

awarded and initiate removal proceedings.56 

Fraud Scheme in Focus

The recent trial of an immigration attorney who ran a 

years-long fraud scheme illustrates the harmfulness of 

immigration fraud and shows FDNS’s contributions 

toward combatting it. From 2013 to 2017, without his 

clients’ knowledge, the attorney filed with USCIS over 

250 fraudulent Forms I-192, Application for Advance 

Permission to Enter as a Nonimmigrant.57 According 

to the Department of Justice (DOJ), these filings falsely 

portrayed the applicants as victims of crimes who had 

assisted law enforcement in associated investigations. 

The attorney charged his clients, who were unaware of 

his illegal actions, $3,000 for each application.58 USCIS 

consistently denied these cases.59 The attorney thereby 

deprived good faith individuals of substantial funds and 

other opportunities at relief, while adding hundreds of 

fraudulent cases to the agency’s adjudication queue. On 

March 9, 2018, the court sentenced him to 75 months in 

prison for defrauding clients and USCIS, and ordered 

him to compensate his victims a total amount of up to 

54 See, e.g., DHS Office of the Inspector General, “U.S. Citizenship and 

Immigration Services’ Tracking and Monitoring of Potentially Fraudulent 

Petitions and Applications for Family-Based Immigration Benefits,” OIG13-97 (Jun. 2013); https://www.oig.dhs.gov/assets/Mgmt/2013/OIG_13-

97_Jun13.pdf (accessed Apr. 26, 2018). 55 “The Aftermath of Fraud by Immigration Attorneys,” before the

Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement of the U.S. House 

Committee on the Judiciary, 112th Cong. 2nd Sess. (2012) (written statement 

of Sarah M. Kendall, FDNS Associate Director); http://judiciary.house.

gov/_files/hearings/Hearings%202012/Kendall%2007242012.pdf (accessed 

May 24, 2018). 56 Id. 57 DOJ Press Release, “Immigration Attorney Sentenced to More Than Six 

Years in Prison for Fraud Scheme and Identity Theft in Relation to Visa 

Applications” (Mar. 09, 2018); https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/immigrationattorney-sentenced-more-six-years-prison-fraud-scheme-and-identity-theftrelation (accessed Apr. 24, 2018). 58 Id. 59 See Susan Orr, “Indianapolis Attorney Pleads Guilty to Immigration Fraud,” 

Indiana Lawyer (Dec. 01, 2017); https://www.theindianalawyer.com/

articles/45521-indianapolis-attorney-pleads-guilty-to-immigration-fraud

(accessed Apr. 24, 2018). 
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES OMBUDSMAN 15

$750,000.60 DOJ credited FDNS for contributing to the 

successful investigation of this scheme.61

Recent Anti-Fraud Initiatives

In tandem with such fraud investigations, FDNS and other 

federal agencies have recently implemented or begun 

implementing a range of initiatives designed, in part or 

whole, to more effectively combat immigration benefits 

fraud. These include the TSVVP, launched by FDNS 

in 2017,62 which to date has focused primarily on H-1B 

petitioner worksite visits.63 In contrast to ASVVP site 

visits, which FDNS has historically conducted pursuant 

to a random selection of H-1B petitions,64 TSVVP “seeks 

to reduce fraud by implementing a criteria-based referral 

mechanism for site visits where fraud and abuse may 

be more likely to occur.”65 TSVVP is one prong of a 

broader FDNS shift to a “risk-based” anti-fraud approach 

that emphasizes, among other principles, allocation of 

Directorate resources as informed by the likelihood 

of fraud.66

In addition to FDNS, the Refugee, Asylum and 

International Operations Directorate (RAIO) is pursuing 

a range of initiatives designed to better detect and prevent 

fraud. These include the development of analytic tools 

to automatically compare the text of affirmative asylum 

applications to a database of applications for the purpose 

of identifying boilerplate language and more effectively 

rooting out large-scale asylum fraud schemes.67 Also, to 

identify fraud earlier in the application process, USCIS is 

collaborating with the United Nations High Commissioner 

for Refugees (UNHCR) to build UNHCR’s capacity to 

capture refugee applicants’ biometrics information before 

the cases undergo USCIS processing.68 As discussed in 

this Report’s articles on the Affirmative Asylum Backlog

and Background Checks, the Asylum Division has begun 

60 DOJ Press Release, “Immigration Attorney Sentenced to More Than Six 

Years in Prison for Fraud Scheme and Identity Theft in Relation to Visa 

Applications” (Mar. 09, 2018); https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/immigrationattorney-sentenced-more-six-years-prison-fraud-scheme-and-identity-theftrelation (accessed Apr. 24, 2018). 61 Id. 62 Information provided by USCIS (Apr. 18, 2018). 

63 Information provided by USCIS (Apr. 03, 2018). 

64 See DHS Office of the Inspector General, “USCIS Needs a Better Approach 

to Verify H-1B Visa Participants,” OIG-18-03 (Oct. 2017); https://www.oig.

dhs.gov/sites/default/files/assets/2017/OIG-18-03-Oct17.pdf (accessed May 

24, 2018). 65 Information provided by USCIS (Apr. 18, 2018). 

66 Information provided by USCIS (Apr. 03, 2018).

67 Information provided by USCIS (Mar. 22, 2018). 

68 Id.

staffing an asylum vetting center in Atlanta, Georgia that 

will centralize key vetting functions.69 Finally, since 

2016, FDNS’s Social Media Division has reviewed 

social media content associated with some asylum and 

refugee applicants, which can help adjudicators assess the 

credibility of these individuals’ claims.70 

Performance Measures and Challenges

FDNS maintains internal performances measures by which 

it evaluates performance, including efficiency, and reports 

that it successfully met all internal goals for FY 2017. In 

particular, FDNS indicates that in FY 2017 “91.7% of 

immigration benefits with a potential finding of fraud were 

not approved.”71 This represents a very slight uptick from 

91.3 percent in FY 2016.72 

Efficiency of Investigations 

The issue of efficiency in the investigation of potential 

immigration benefits fraud is important and complicated. 

Efficient investigations help bring bad actors to 

justice, deter further abuse in the immigration system, 

maintain fairness for would-be immigrants with bona 

fide applications, and preserve the robustness of the 

immigration system to serve the American people. The 

complexity of FDNS fraud investigations, however, makes 

it difficult to assess their efficiency. A case may require 

third agency input, link to a broad conspiracy scheme 

requiring years to investigate,73 or pose other variables 

that complicate completion estimates, rendering certain 

deadlines impracticable and even harmful. An artificially 

rushed inquiry risks prejudicing a good faith benefit seeker 

or clearing an unscrupulous one. 

Citing the complexity of fraud investigations, FDNS 

does not maintain performance goals relating to the 

overall length of its fraud investigations.74 Instead, 

the Directorate relies on other mechanisms to monitor 

and advance the status of investigations, including 

ongoing reports identifying which cases within FDNS’s 

purview remain open and why.75 To help isolate and 

respond to specific factors influencing delays, FDNS can 

69 See “Affirmative Asylum Backlog” and “Background Checks” infra in 

this Report. 70 See information provided by USCIS (Apr. 18, 2018). 71 Information provided by USCIS (Apr. 18, 2018). 

72 Id. 73 Information provided by USCIS (Mar. 22, 2018). 

74 Id. 75 Id.
16 ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS JUNE 2018

search its case tracking data based on a range of fields, 

including the identity of individual officers conducting 

the investigations.76

FDNS is in the process of improving how it tracks the 

length of fraud investigations. FDNS currently tracks the 

length on investigations from the creation of a CME to 

the issuance of SOFs, but does not track the length of an 

investigation from the date of a specific referral, as it does 

not comprehensively track the date of a fraud referral.77 

FDNS reports, however, that it is currently developing the 

capability to record the date of referral and thus track the 

length of investigations from referral to the SOF.78

With respect to the data FDNS currently tracks, the 

chart below provides insight into FDNS’s performance. 

Overall, it shows that for SOFs issued in FY 2017, 

approximately 50 percent were issued within 91 days of 

the creation of the CME. In addition, the average length 

of an investigation, measured from CME to SOF, was 

approximately 269 days. See Figure 1.5. The fact that five 

percent of the SOFs required a considerably longer time 

(3 years or more) to complete reflects the fact that some 

investigations are significant, complex, and thus lengthy, 

leading to substantial delays for those applicants whose 

cases are involved in them.

Figure 1.5: Average Days from CME Created or Reopened to SOF 

Created for Fraud Cases and Leads, where the SOF was Created 

in FY 2017 

Year Average Average Days at 

50th Percentile

2017 269 Days 91 Days

Note: Data based on all SOFs created during FY17 for fraud leads and fraud cases. 

The 50th percentile was included because 5 percent of the SOFs required more than 

3 years to complete. These cases are most likely large scheme cases that take a 

significant amount of time to complete. 

Source: Information provided by USCIS (May 11, 2018).

76 Id. 77 Information provided by USCIS (Apr. 18, 2018).

78 Id.

Requests for case assistance submitted to the 

Ombudsman’s Office also provide some visibility into the 

relationship between fraud investigations and overall case 

processing times, suggesting that a small number of cases 

linked to fraud inquiries remain pending for significant 

periods. In 2017, individuals and employers submitted 

322 requests for case assistance relating to applications 

and petitions that the Ombudsman’s Office determined 

were under “extended review” by USCIS due to possible 

fraud.79 As of April 17, 2018, 51 percent of that total 

had been removed from extended review in response 

to USCIS’ adjudication of the case or another agency’s 

action.80 Of the remaining cases, 81 percent had been 

pending with USCIS for over 2 years, 10 percent of which 

have been pending for more than 5 years.81 

Figure 1.6 provides a more complete breakdown of the 

pendency periods for this latter group of extended review 

cases.82 The data presented in Figure 1.6 reflect those 

requests for case assistance submitted to the Ombudsman’s 

Office during the reporting period, not in prior years. It 

represents only a sample of cases associated with fraud 

investigations, and only cases still unresolved. This 

information therefore serves as an anecdotal illustration of 

processing periods for some cases under suspicion of fraud 

rather than a statistically representative profile. 

In all, the Ombudsman recognizes the importance of fraud 

investigation efficiency, the challenges inherent in its 

measurement, and the dangers of rushing the investigative 

process. The Ombudsman’s Office will continue 

its dialogue with FDNS on the issue of efficiency in 

investigations as well as in anti-fraud activities generally. 

Transformation

Limited progress in “transformation”—USCIS’ effort to 

convert from a paper-based to a comprehensive electronic 

case filing, adjudication, and management system83—

has restricted the agency’s capacity to detect fraud. For 

79 Information obtained through requests for case assistance. 

80 Information obtained through requests for case assistance.

81 Information obtained through requests for case assistance.

82 The data presented in Figure 1.6 represent only a sample of cases associated 

with fraud investigations, and only cases still unresolved. This information 

serves as an anecdotal illustration of processing times for some cases under 

suspicion of fraud rather than a statistically representative profile. Moreover, 

the pendency periods reflect the entire length of time for which the cases 

have been pending, not merely the span during which the cases may have 

been under fraud investigation. This data does not in and of itself reflect the 

relative efficiency of the associated investigations. 83 See “Transformation” infra in this Report. 
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES OMBUDSMAN 17

instance, the continued necessity of shipping paper-based 

files, applications, and petitions—from adjudicators to 

FDNS to ICE or other agencies—delays the agency’s case 

review and fraud identification processes;84 this represents 

an inefficiency that full digitization would help eliminate. 

A paper-based system also hinders the availability of 

electronic text analytic tools enabling the cross-comparison 

of applications for purposes of pinpointing boilerplate 

84 Information provided by USCIS (Apr. 18, 2018). 

language and possible fraud schemes.85 Universal electronic 

case filing could facilitate those tools’ implementation. 

Better technology would also help FDNS leadership discern 

how many initial fraud denials are overturned on appeal 

to measure performance and improve training. These 

examples represent only some of the ways in which a fully 

realized electronic platform would strengthen the agency’s 

anti-fraud operations. 

Conclusion

Anti-fraud measures, including FDNS administrative 

investigations, are critical to limiting unscrupulous actors’ 

access to the immigration benefits system. Reflecting the 

critical nature of its work and the ever-increasing number 

of applications and petitions, FDNS has expanded its 

activities and increased its staff. Fraud investigations are, 

by their very nature, complex and can take considerable 

time, which delays case processing. FDNS is improving 

its performance measures but would be aided in its effort 

to stop fraud by the full implementation of transformation, 

or digitization, of the immigration application process. 

While recognizing the challenges in assessing the 

efficiency of variable-rich investigations and other antifraud activities, the Ombudsman’s Office will continue to 

monitor the impact of those activities on both the security 

and timely delivery of immigration benefits.

85 See, e.g., U.S. Government Accountability Office Report, “Asylum: 

Additional Actions Needed to Assess and Address Fraud Risks,” GAO-16-50 

(Dec. 2015); https://www.gao.gov/assets/680/673941.pdf (accessed Apr. 25, 

2018).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source: Information provided by Ombudsman Case Assistance Requests (Apr. 17, 2018).
18 ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS JUNE 2018

Transformation

Responsible Offices: Office of Information 

Technology; Office of Performance and Quality; 

and External Affairs Directorate

Key Facts and Findings 

 In 2017, USCIS revised its overarching electronic case 

management and benefits processing goals. USCIS 

now prioritizes the development of core capabilities, 

which cut across all form types, and the achievement of 

broader transformation business goals.86 

 In tandem with these new goals, USCIS consolidated 

the former Office of Transformation Coordination into 

the Office of Information Technology (OIT), which 

reports to the USCIS Director.87 

86 Information provided by USCIS (Feb. 23, 2018).

87 Information provided by USCIS (Apr. 12, 2017).

 In 2018, the DHS Office of Inspector General (OIG) 

verified that USCIS had implemented improvements 

in its production and delivery of green cards processed 

through the Electronic Immigration System (ELIS), the 

platform for the transformation initiative.88 The OIG 

awaits notification from USCIS that the agency has 

implemented OIG recommendations for improving the 

electronic processing of naturalization applications.89

 Stakeholders reported improvements in ELIS 

functionality vis-à-vis the immigrant visa (IV) fee 

payment system, through which individuals can 

submit information, pay fees via credit card, and set 

88 DHS OIG, “Verification Review: Better Safeguards Are Needed in USCIS 

Green Card Issuance (OIG-17-11),” OIG-18-61 (Apr. 10, 2018); https://

www.oig.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/assets/2018-04/OIG-18-61-Apr18.pdf

(accessed Apr. 19, 2018). 89 Information provided by DHS OIG (Feb. 26, 2018).
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES OMBUDSMAN 19

up the delivery of green cards using online accounts. 

Stakeholders continued to voice concerns over a range 

of ELIS issues, including challenges in updating 

mailing addresses and the continued inability to 

electronically file fee waivers.90 

Background

In 2006, USCIS launched its “Transformation” initiative, 

intended to convert the agency’s paper-based case filing, 

management, and adjudication systems into a single 

accessible electronic platform.91 USCIS developed ELIS 

to be the electronic case management system delivering 

these innovations to USCIS offices and the public. ELIS is 

a web-based system designed to centralize USCIS filings 

and adjudications, transforming the agency’s business 

operations “from a ‘transaction-centric’ model to a ‘personcentric’ model” through the establishment and maintenance 

of accounts unique to each applicant.92 In pursuing this 

electronic filing and processing environment, USCIS sought 

“to modernize the paper-based immigration benefits process, 

enhance national security and system integrity, and improve 

customer service and operational efficiency.”93 

USCIS intended its electronic case management system to: 

 Allow applicants to submit digital applications through 

the website and track the status online;

 Enable the agency to automatically screen incoming 

applications to identify potential fraud and 

security issues;

 Provide adjudicators with electronic access to 

applications, relevant guidance, and external databases;

 Permit managers to track and allocate workload; and

90 Information provided by stakeholders to the Ombudsman (Feb. 27 and Mar. 

2, 2018). 91 Transformation has since been retitled as “transformation” for reasons 

explained further in this article, and will be referred to throughout by its 

current iteration. Prior to January 2017, the program was run by a separate 

Office of Transformation within USCIS. After that time, it was subsumed 

into USCIS’ Office of Information Technology, where it is one of many 

programs run by that office. 92 Privacy Impact Assessment, USCIS Electronic Immigration System, DHS/

USCIS/PIA-056 (May 16, 2016). 93 U.S. Government Accountability Office Report, “Immigration Benefits 

System: Significant Risks in USCIS Efforts to Develop its Adjudication and 

Case Management System,” GAO-17-486T (Mar. 16, 2017) at 3; https://

www.gao.gov/assets/690/683403.pdf (accessed Apr. 19, 2018).

 Provide electronic linkages between ELIS and other 

agencies for data sharing.94

Since the program’s inception, USCIS has faced 

substantial obstacles in implementation.95 System 

breakdowns, design flaws, and partially-functioning 

programs that were not properly tested prior to deployment 

repeatedly interfered with achieving milestones. 

Consequently, the initiative has experienced significant 

cost increases and schedule delays.96 As the Acting 

Director of USCIS acknowledged in March 2017, “[t]he 

original scope and purpose of the Transformation program 

was broad and vast. Unfortunately these broad intentions 

have made it difficult for the program to focus on specific 

business objectives, and to make good prioritization 

decisions about where to focus resources.”97 

These ongoing challenges, chronicled in a series of audits 

and reports from both GAO and the DHS OIG,98 led to 

management and development overhauls of the program, 

one of which resulted in a major “restart” of USCIS ELIS 

development in 2015. This second version of ELIS, used 

today, still poses operational burdens for the agency, but 

has demonstrated more flexibility, enabling USCIS to 

move forward with online adjudications and filings.

94 Id. 95 Id. at 5. 96 Id. at 5-9. 97 U.S. Government Accountability Office Report, “Immigration Benefits 

Vetting: Examining Critical Weaknesses in USCIS Systems,” before the 

Subcommittee on Oversight and Management Efficiency of the US House 

Homeland Security Committee, 2017, 115th Cong. 1st Sess. 1–2 (Mar. 16, 

2017) (written testimony of Lori Scialabba, Acting USCIS Director); https://

www.dhs.gov/news/2017/03/16/written-testimony-uscis-acting-directorhouse-homeland-security-subcommittee (accessed May 4, 2018). 98 U.S. Government Accountability Office Report, “Immigration Benefits 

System: Significant Risks in USCIS Efforts to Develop its Adjudication and 

Case Management System,” GAO-17-486T (Mar. 16, 2017) at 3; https://

www.gao.gov/assets/690/683403.pdf (accessed Apr. 19, 2018); “Immigration 

Benefits System: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Can Improve 

Program Management,” GAO-16-467 (Jul. 7, 2016); http://www.gao.gov/

assets/680/678266.pdf (accessed May 10, 2017); “Immigration Benefits 

System: Better Informed Decision Making Needed on Transformation 

Program,” GAO-15-415 (pub. May 2015, released June 2015); https://www.

gao.gov/assets/680/670259.pdf (accessed May 17, 2017); “Immigration 

Benefits: Consistent Adherence to DHS’s Acquisition Policy Could Help 

Improve Transformation Program Outcomes,” GAO-12-66 (Nov. 22, 2011); 

https://www.gao.gov/assets/590/586460.pdf (accessed May 17, 2017); 

“USCIS Transformation: Improvements to Performance, Human Capital, and 

Information Technology Management Needed as Modernization Proceeds,” 

GAO-07-1013R (Jul. 17, 2007); https://www.gao.gov/assets/100/95013.pdf

(accessed May 17, 2018); “Information Technology: Near-Term Effort to 

Automate Paper-Based Immigration Files Needs Planning Improvements,” 

GAO-06-375 (Mar. 31, 2006; https://www.gao.gov/assets/250/249529.pdf

(accessed May 16, 2018).
20 ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS JUNE 2018

Originally driven by scheduled deadlines, USCIS 

insufficiently tested the system prior to deployment.99 

This led to operational failures that hindered the 

functionality of each form that was introduced in ELIS 

and also delayed the implementation of new forms into 

the system.100 The problems ELIS had processing the 

Form N-400, Application for Naturalization, through 

2016 and 2017 were particularly severe because 

repeated ELIS breakdowns caused work stoppages 

at a time when application submissions were rising, 

leading to even longer backlogs. However, the 

implementation of electronic adjudication, and then 

filing, of the N-400 represents the most significant 

achievement for transformation efforts to date, given the 

complexity and breadth of the adjudication across all 

USCIS field and district offices as well as the National 

Benefits Center (NBC).

The DHS OIG,101 GAO,102 and the Ombudsman’s 

Office103 have reported multiple times on the challenges 

faced by USCIS and the public in connection with the 

implementation of forms deployment in ELIS. Through 

99 DHS OIG, “USCIS Has Been Unsuccessful in Automating Naturalization 

Benefits Delivery,” OIG-18-23 (Nov. 30, 2017); https://www.oig.dhs.gov/

sites/default/files/assets/2017-12/OIG-18-23-Nov17.pdf (accessed Apr. 19, 

2018); and DHS OIG, “Management Alert-U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 

Services’ Use of the Electronic Immigration System for Naturalization 

Benefits Processing,” OIG-17-26-MS (Jan.19, 2017); https://www.oig.dhs.

gov/sites/default/files/assets/2017/OIG-17-26-MA-011917.pdf (accessed Apr. 

30, 2008); see Ombudsman’s Annual Report 2017, p. 9. 100 See Ombudsman’s Annual Report 2017, p. 53. 101 DHS Office of the Inspector General, “Verification Review: Better 

Safeguards Are Needed in USCIS Green Card Issuance, OIG-17-11),” 

OIG-18-61 (Apr. 10, 2018); https://www.oig.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/

assets/2018-04/OIG-18-61-Apr18.pdf (accessed April 19, 2018); “USCIS 

Has Been Unsuccessful in Automating Naturalization Benefits Delivery,” 

OIG-18-23 (Nov. 30, 2017); https://www.oig.dhs.gov/sites/default/

files/assets/2017-12/OIG-18-23-Nov17.pdf (accessed Apr. 19, 2018); 

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

Electronic Immigration System for Naturalization Benefits Processing,” 

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

assets/2017/OIG-17-26-MA-011917.pdf (accessed Apr. 20, 2018); “USCIS 

Automation of Immigration Benefits Processing Remains Ineffective,” 

OIG 16-48 (Mar. 9, 2016); https://www.oig.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/

assets/Mgmt/2016/OIG-16-48-Mar16.pdf (accessed Apr. 20, 2018); “U.S. 

Citizenship and Immigration Services’ Progress in Modernizing Information 

Technology,” OIG-07-11 (Nov. 30, 2006); https://www.oig.dhs.gov/sites/

default/files/assets/Mgmt/OIG_07-11_Nov06.pdf (accessed Apr. 20, 2018); 

“USCIS Faces Challenges in Modernizing Technology,” OIG-05-41 (Sep. 

2005); https://www.oig.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/assets/Mgmt/OIG_05-

41_Sep05.pdf (accessed Apr. 20, 2018). 102 U.S. Government Accountability Office Report, “Immigration Benefits 

System: Significant Risks in USCIS Efforts to Develop its Adjudication and 

Case Management System,” GAO-17-486T (Mar. 16, 2017); https://www.

gao.gov/assets/690/683403.pdf (accessed Apr. 19, 2018). 103 Ombudsman’s Annual Report 2017, pp. 51-55; Ombudsman’s Annual Report 

2016, pp. 41–42; Ombudsman’s Annual Report 2015, pp. 86–89.

requests for case assistance and public outreach events, 

stakeholders have notified the Ombudsman’s Office of 

their own substantial frustrations with transformation.104 

Stakeholders noted they were unable to obtain information 

on processing times through their ELIS accounts because 

the ELIS accounts did not connect to other USCIS systems 

such as CLAIMS 4,105 the system USCIS used to process 

and track naturalization applications before ELIS.106

Another frequent complaint about transformation has been its 

inability to meet deadlines for implementing new form types 

in ELIS.107 Technological advances have enabled USCIS to 

electronically process some form types that applicants submit 

by paper once the Lockbox processes them into ELIS. Taking 

into account both mailing and electronic methods of filing, as 

of December 2017, USCIS was processing in ELIS the forms 

and services listed below. See Figure 2.1.

Figure 2.1: USCIS Forms Processed through ELIS 

Immigrant 

Visa Fee

(payment online and processing of permanent 

resident card)

Form I-90 Application to Replace Permanent Resident Card

Form I-131 Application for Travel Document

Form I-131A Application for Travel Document (Carrier 

Documentation) (fee payment online)

Form I-765 Application for Employment Authorization 

(concurrently filed with Form I-821 or I-821D)

Form I-821 Application for Temporary Protected Status

Form I-821D Consideration of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals

Form N-336 Request for Hearing on a Decision in 

Naturalization Proceedings

Form N-400 Application for Naturalization

Form N-445 Notice of Naturalization Oath Ceremony

Form N-565 Application for Replacement Naturalization/ 

Citizenship Document

Form G-28 Notice of Entry of Appearance as Attorney or Accredited 

Representative

Form G-28I Notice of Entry of Appearance as Attorney in Matters 

Outside the Geographical Confines of the United States

Source: Information provided by USCIS (Apr. 17, 2018). 

104 Information provided by stakeholders to the Ombudsman (Feb. 27 and Mar. 

2, 2018). 105 ELIS accounts, obtained through the myUSCIS portal, are what the public 

uses to access the system; they do not connect to other USCIS databases such 

as CLAIMS 4. Thus customers are not able to access forms and information 

that are elsewhere in USCIS systems, but not in ELIS. 106 See generally Privacy Impact Assessment, USCIS Electronic Immigration 

System, DHS/USCIS/PIA-056 (May 16, 2016); https://www.dhs.gov/sites/

default/files/publications/privacy-pia-056-uscis-eliseappendixaupdatefebruary2017.pdf (accessed May 25, 2018). 107 Information provided by USCIS (Feb. 23, 2018).
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES OMBUDSMAN 21

In all, forms processed through ELIS now represent 40 

percent of USCIS’ total workload.108 USCIS intends to 

increase electronic processing of its workload by adding its 

high-volume forms into ELIS.109

USCIS Response: Shift in Transformation Objectives 

and Structure 

Responding to the series of critical reports, in 2017, 

USCIS significantly reorganized the transformation 

program. To begin with, the agency fundamentally changed 

transformation’s goals, marking a significant departure from 

the agency’s course over a decade of development. Until 

that point, USCIS had based its transformation milestones 

on the introduction of specific forms by set dates, even 

when those forms failed to meet the needs of the agency 

or the filing community. USCIS has indicated that this 

emphasis on timeliness over quality contributed to ongoing 

failures in ELIS processing of Form N-400, Application 

for Naturalization—which led to an October 2016 status 

“breach.”110 The end result was that the agency could not 

complete its launch of the citizenship product line by the 

deadline. Failure to meet this milestone forced USCIS to 

suspend further development in ELIS.111 

In response, USCIS reevaluated and reformed its model. 

Now, instead of scheduled form rollouts, the agency 

prioritizes the development of what it considers “ELIS 

core capabilities” applicable across form types and 

electronic systems. Those capabilities include:

 account setup and case/documentation intake;

 workflow management and case processing;

 biometric identification and appointment scheduling;

 continuous background checks;

 document and notice issuance; and

 e-records and data sharing.

USCIS envisions that the development of these 

capabilities will help the agency achieve its newly devised 

“transformation business goals”—depicted in Figure 2.2. 

108 Information provided by USCIS (Apr. 17, 2018).

109 Id. 110 Information provided by USCIS (Feb. 23, 2018).

111 DHS Office of the Inspector General, “USCIS Has Been Unsuccessful in 

Automating Naturalization Benefits Delivery,” OIG-18-23 (Nov. 30, 2017) at 

20-21; https://www.oig.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/assets/2017-12/OIG-18-23-

Nov17.pdf (accessed Apr. 19, 2018).

Figure 2.2: USCIS’ New Transformation Business Goals

Source: Information provided by USCIS (Feb. 23, 2018).

As USCIS revised transformation’s goals, it also reshaped 

the underlying organizational structure that supports 

it. In January 2017, USCIS merged the Office of 

Transformation, which was responsible for leading the 

transformation effort, into the OIT.112 USCIS indicated 

that this merger marked the shift from capital “T” to 

lowercase “t” for transformation—acknowledging the 

evolution from an initiative headed by a dedicated office 

to a broadly conceived modernization effort supported 

by the “Transformation Delivery Division.”113 The 

Transformation Delivery Division currently has a $170 

million annual budget for personnel, development, IT, 

and operations, employing approximately 40 federal 

government staff and between 300–350 contractors.114

Despite these changes, key pillars of the original initiative 

remain. ELIS continues to serve as the system platform. 

USCIS states that it will still work towards the integration 

of new forms into ELIS—just not on the same timetable 

as before, and without focusing on the quantity of new 

forms implemented. The agency strives to increase the 

percentage of form receipts processed through ELIS from 

40 percent to 65 percent by 2019, but as a percentage 

of overall receipts, irrespective of the number of form 

types covered.115 The transformation goals reflected in 

Figure 2.2 demonstrate the shift in USCIS’ focus from 

pushing its 90 forms into ELIS to enhancing the system to 

better serve its business needs. 

112 Information provided by USCIS (Feb. 23, 2018).

113 Id. 114 Id. 115 Id.
22 ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS JUNE 2018

Efforts to Resolve ELIS Operational Challenges 

in 2017

As the shift in transformation goals and structure unfolded, 

USCIS continues to face a host of ELIS functionality 

problems, including incomplete background checks, 

inaccurate case statuses reflected in other USCIS systems, 

and a burdensome system for printing naturalization 

certificates and uploading documents.116 USCIS also has 

had to address ELIS outages and insufficient technical 

support for adjudicators. These issues have contributed to 

security vulnerabilities, resource inefficiencies, and slower 

case processing. 

ELIS Interfered with Background Checks. Technical 

issues in ELIS hindered the completion of background 

checks, including Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) 

name checks, resulting in integrity gaps and delaying the 

processing of naturalization applications.117 Though USCIS 

intended for ELIS to increase efficiency in background 

checks, numerous technical challenges interfered with 

this aim, including: incomplete FBI name checks; system 

timeouts; incorrect handling by ELIS of certain background 

check results;118 mistakes in underlying ELIS codes 

such as improper filtering of names (spelling and letter 

combinations) that led to errors in background checks; and 

interface and connectivity issues that caused delays.119 

These challenges have caused far-reaching consequences. In 

what posed a distinct security risk, from November 2016 to 

January 2017, ELIS permitted more than 15,000 applications 

to move forward in the adjudication process without having 

undergone proper name checks.120 As a result, more than 

116 See DHS Office of the Inspector General, “USCIS Has Been Unsuccessful 

in Automating Naturalization Benefits Delivery,” OIG-18-23 (Nov. 30, 

2017); https://www.oig.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/assets/2017-12/OIG-18-23-

Nov17.pdf (accessed Apr. 27, 2018); U.S. Government Accountability Office 

Report, “Immigration Benefits System: Significant Risks in USCIS Efforts 

to Develop its Adjudication and Case Management System,” GAO-17-486T 

(Mar. 16, 2017); https://www.gao.gov/assets/690/683403.pdf (accessed Apr. 

19, 2018); see also Ombudsman’s Annual Report 2016, pp. 9–14, 51–55. 117 USCIS requires background checks prior to issuing most immigration 

benefits. This helps ensure that the agency grants benefits only to qualifying 

individuals who do not pose a risk to national security or public safety. See 

the “Background Checks” section of this Report, infra. 118 TECS checks are background checks for applicants and petitioners using 

a system maintained by CBP to assist with screening and determinations 

regarding admissibility of arriving persons. See the “Background Checks” 

section of this Report, infra. 119 DHS Office of the Inspector General, “USCIS Has Been Unsuccessful in 

Automating Naturalization Benefits Delivery,” OIG-18-23 (Nov. 30, 2017) 

at 7; https://www.oig.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/assets/2017-12/OIG-18-23-

Nov17.pdf (accessed Apr. 23, 2018). 120 Id. at 27.

200 applicants naturalized with incomplete name checks.121 

USCIS quickly acknowledged this error and instructed field 

offices to place cases on hold to prevent applicants from 

proceeding to approval or oath of allegiance ceremonies 

without first completing proper background checks.122 

ELIS background check failures also resulted in 230,000 

background checks needing to be re-run in February 2017.123 

This required field office personnel to devote extra time to 

validate data transferred across USCIS systems due to the 

unreliability of the information stored in ELIS. 

In July 2017, USCIS launched the Name Check 

Modernization project to eliminate submitting duplicative 

requests to the FBI and to obtain name check results more 

quickly.124 ELIS has been processing name checks through 

this new method since September 2017.125 

ELIS Failed to Update the USCIS Central Index System.

In late 2017, the OIG reported that, due to deficiencies in 

ELIS, the USCIS Central Index System (CIS)—the main 

database that contains immigration status information for 

applicants—failed to accurately reflect the naturalization 

status of tens of thousands of individuals.126 This 

hindered data sharing with CBP, whose agents rely on 

CIS to determine an individual’s eligibility to enter the 

United States.127 

ELIS directly connects to CIS, thus updates in ELIS 

regarding an individual’s immigration status should have 

been reflected in CIS.128 However, CIS did not always 

reflect the most recent status of immigrants. 

Specifically, adjudicators had difficulty completing the 

specific order of steps necessary to close out naturalization 

cases in CIS.129 For naturalization cases in ELIS, USCIS 

personnel initially had to manually scan and upload 

completed Forms N-445, Notices of Naturalization Oath 

Ceremony for each and every naturalized applicant scheduled 

for the same oath ceremony before the cases could be closed 

and the appropriate status reflected in ELIS and CIS.130 

121 Id. at 36. 122 Id. at 33-34. 123 Id. at 33-34. 124 Information provided by USCIS (Apr. 9, 2018).

125 Id. 126 DHS Office of the Inspector General, “USCIS Has Been Unsuccessful in 

Automating Naturalization Benefits Delivery,” OIG-18-23 (Nov. 30, 2017), 

at 12; https://www.oig.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/assets/2017-12/OIG-18-23-

Nov17.pdf (accessed Apr. 23, 2018). 127 Id. 128 Id. 129 Id. 130 Id.
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES OMBUDSMAN 23

The Form N-445 is now processed in ELIS, thus 

eliminating the need to manually scan, save, and upload 

each document one at a time. The ability to electronically 

close cases has therefore eliminated cases remaining open 

unnecessarily and improved ELIS’s ability to update CIS. 

ELIS Had Difficulties Uploading Documents. Obstacles 

to scanning and uploading documents in ELIS increased the 

risk of information loss and processing errors. Specifically, 

USCIS officers found that ELIS had problems scanning 

and uploading materials.131 As a workaround, officers 

scanned and uploaded those documents one page at a 

time, saving them to a computer file prior to manually 

uploading them into ELIS.132 This laborious process 

increased risks of information being lost, misplaced, or 

accidently disregarded.133 In June 2017, USCIS deployed a 

new feature to simplify the process into one step, allowing 

officers to scan and upload documents directly into ELIS.134

ELIS Failed to Print Naturalization Certificates. In its 

initial stages, ELIS lacked the ability to print naturalization 

certificates, which sometimes resulted in field offices 

having to cancel oath ceremonies for applicants.135 To print 

naturalization certificates, USCIS personnel relied on an 

interface with the Enterprise Print Manager Service (EPMS) 

because that system already served as USCIS’ vehicle 

for printing notices, cards, and booklets.136 However, the 

OIG described this process as awkward, error-prone, timeconsuming, and unreliable due to network connectivity issues 

and message delivery failures between ELIS and EPMS.137

ELIS also lacked the capacity to batch print naturalization 

certificates to accommodate large naturalization 

ceremonies.138 Field office personnel had to set up 

complex printing configurations to enable EPMS to 

print naturalization certificates for larger ceremonies.139 

Because of these workarounds, EPMS caused certificates 

to print with missing or incorrect data, despite the 

information being correctly recorded in ELIS.140 USCIS 

created and tested a batch printing function within ELIS, 

which it deployed on April 10, 2017, finally eliminating 

the need for the EPMS workarounds.141 

131 Id. at 10. 132 Id. at 10. 133 Id. at 10. 134 Id. at 10. 135 Id. at 10. 136 Id. at 10. 137 Id. at 10. 138 Id. at 10. 139 Id. at 11. 140 Id. at 11. 141 Id. at 11-12.

USCIS Lacked a Contingency Plan for ELIS Outages. 

USCIS initially did not have a contingency plan in place 

to sustain processing of naturalization cases across its 

field offices when ELIS experienced glitches or outages.142 

During these interruptions, officers could not access 

digitized files143 or complete naturalization interviews.144 

Given the frequency of ELIS outages in the initial stage, 

USCIS personnel developed a workaround by shipping hard 

copies of A-files from the NBC to field offices that cost the 

agency approximately $400,000 per quarter.145 The lack of a 

contingency plan created more work for adjudicators as well 

as higher expenses for the agency.146 

Learning from these mistakes, USCIS established 

a contingency plan before returning to processing 

naturalization applications in ELIS, creating a separate 

digital repository for case files and evidentiary 

documents.147 As a result, the NBC stopped receiving 

paper copies of ELIS naturalization files from the 

Lockboxes starting on October 26, 2017.148 However, 

paper copies of ELIS naturalization files continued to 

be sent from the NBC to some field offices and used by 

officers as a backup system.149 

ELIS Lacked Adequate “End-User” Support. ELIS 

“end-users,” i.e., USCIS officers who render decisions 

on applications, have lacked timely support from and 

communication with ELIS developers, limiting the 

incorporation of valuable end-user feedback into ongoing 

system developments. This lack of communication led 

to increases in inquiries from USCIS personnel using the 

system. Between April and August 2017, USCIS received 

1,100 to 1,600 trouble tickets a month submitted by 

personnel using ELIS.150

142 Id. at 9. In 2017, planned and unplanned ELIS outages totaled 40, which 

was down from 170 in 2016, as a result of completed enhancements to DHS 

Network and connectivity. Compare information provided by USCIS (Apr. 

19, 2017) to information provided by USCIS (Apr. 17, 2018). 143 Information provided by DHS OIG (Feb.26, 2018).

144 DHS Office of the Inspector General, “USCIS Has Been Unsuccessful in 

Automating Naturalization Benefits Delivery,” OIG-18-23 (Nov. 30, 2017) 

at 9; https://www.oig.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/assets/2017-12/OIG-18-23-

Nov17.pdf (accessed Apr. 23, 2018). 145 Id. at 34. 146 Id. at 34. 147 See DHS Office of the Inspector General, “USCIS Has Been Unsuccessful in 

Automating Naturalization Benefits Delivery,” OIG-18-23 (Nov. 30, 2017) 

at 9-10; https://www.oig.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/assets/2017-12/OIG-18-

23-Nov17.pdf (accessed Apr. 23, 2018) and Information provided by USCIS 

(Feb. 23, 2018). 148 Information provided by USCIS (Apr. 17, 2018).

149 Information provided by USCIS (Apr. 24, 2018).

150 Information provided by USCIS (Feb. 23, 2018).
24 ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS JUNE 2018

The transformation reorganization in the beginning of 

2017 was intended to better connect system developers to 

adjudicators and other end-users.151 The agency adjusted 

its training plans to ensure that end-users received sufficient 

hands-on training prior to each program release. Now that 

they have access to more frequent training, there is swifter 

resolution of functionality issues.152 Service center and field 

office personnel have reported that communication with 

software developers and information technology support has 

improved.153 The benefits of these changes are reflected in the 

decline in the number of ELIS trouble tickets submitted each 

month to less than 800 starting in September 2017.154

Stakeholder Experiences with ELIS

ELIS Third Party Access. From the inception of ELIS, 

stakeholders and software developers have been concerned 

USCIS developed the system without coordinating with 

public users and data management companies that develop 

USCIS forms programs for immigration practitioners.155 If 

USCIS provided outside software developers its electronic 

filing protocols and data sharing standards, it would 

allow them to make any necessary changes to ensure 

their systems are compatible with ELIS.156 Public users 

and their legal representatives stated that USCIS needed 

to conduct much more public education and outreach on 

ELIS.157 Legal representatives and their clients continue 

to want a seamless mechanism that would allow the 

legal representative to electronically file and pay fees on 

behalf of a client. Stakeholders also reported that misdelivery and non-delivery of LPR cards and Employment 

Authorization Documents (EADs) produced from ELIS 

accounts remain a serious problem.158 

myUSCIS. In February 2015,159 the agency introduced 

myUSCIS, an online public portal that interfaces with 

151 See generally Id. 152 Information provided by DHS Office of the Inspector General (Feb. 26, 

2018); Information provided by USCIS (Apr. 16 and 24, 2018). 153 Information provided by DHS OIG (Feb.26, 2018); Information provided by 

USCIS (Apr. 16 and 24, 2018). 154 Following up on a meeting with the USCIS OIT, USCIS provided the 

Ombudsman’s Office with a copy of a presentation slides entitled “USCIS 

Transformation Program” (Feb. 23, 2018). Slide Transformation Delivery 

Division on page 5 gives an overview of how business operations have been 

aligned to provide direct, customer-focused support to users. 155 Information provided to the Ombudsman (Mar. 6, 2017).

156 Information provided by stakeholders (Apr. 12, 2018).

157 Information provided to the Ombudsman (Mar. 6, 2017).

158 Id. 159 U.S. Digital Service Report, “Report to Congress—December 2016,” 

(Dec. 2016) at 15; https://www.usds.gov/resources/USDS-2016-Report-toCongress.pdf (accessed Apr. 27, 2018).

ELIS and through which individuals may e-file Forms 

N-400 and I-90. E-filers may use the portal to pay fees 

(submitted via credit card/debit card, bank account, or 

check), update addresses, receive receipt notices and 

other documentation by email or text (while still receiving 

hard copies by mail), and communicate directly with the 

USCIS field office processing their cases.160 The system 

even electronically detects errors in submissions thereby 

reducing the issuance of RFEs.161 In December 2017, 

USCIS expanded the capacity of applicants to file a Form 

N-400 through the myUSCIS portal.

Before using the e-filing and related features, one must 

establish a myUSCIS account. Without an account, an 

individual can only obtain general information about 

immigration benefits, access resources for citizenship 

preparation classes and practice tests, and find a list of 

USCIS-approved doctors for medical exams.162 The portal 

does not connect legal and accredited representatives with 

client accounts, preventing representatives from e-filing 

applications on behalf of clients. 

By introducing myUSCIS, USCIS hoped to increase 

efficiency and decrease case processing times. The agency 

plans to integrate more forms into the portal, though it 

has not provided an implementation time frame.163 The 

Ombudsman’s Office will continue to review stakeholder 

feedback concerning myUSCIS and monitor the portal’s 

effectiveness; it is too soon to determine how effective 

these changes have been. 

Form Types and Fee Payments in Focus 

USCIS has had to overcome various challenges to use 

ELIS to its full potential. Each application implemented 

through ELIS has provided a unique set of challenges and 

stakeholder issues. 

Immigrant Visa Fee Processing. One of the first 

applications in ELIS was the online payment of the IV Fee 

beginning in May 2012.164 USCIS began charging overseas 

applicants for production of their LPR cards and used the 

newly developed online payment system for this purpose. 

At that time, applicants and their legal representatives 

reported difficulty using the ELIS fee payment process, as it 

required a non-intuitive account registration process, posted 

160 Information provided by USCIS (Feb. 14, 2018).

161 Id. 162 Id. 163 Id. 164 Ombudsman’s Annual Report 2014, p. 60. 
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES OMBUDSMAN 25

frequent error messages, and suffered from ineffective 

technical support.165 Some applicants found that address 

changes within ELIS did not result in their LPR cards 

being sent to the new address. Additionally, address 

changes in ELIS were difficult to execute because they 

required a separate process of identity verification.166 Legal 

representatives were also unable to make payments in the 

system on behalf of their clients.167

Since that time, USCIS has published additional 

instructions on its webpage concerning payment processes, 

including a handbook, and made system changes to 

improve the ease of submitting online payments.168 Some 

legal representatives describe the current system for 

immigrant fee payments as straightforward, although they 

stress that the system still makes frequent errors involving 

mis-delivery and non-delivery of LPR cards, which may 

be due to faulty address change systems.169

Form I-90, Application to Replace Permanent Residence 

Card. As of April 20, 2015, USCIS processes all 

Form I-90 applications in ELIS.170 Since August 2016, 

the Potomac Service Center (PSC) has had exclusive 

jurisdiction over that form type.171 The Form I-90 is 

the second major benefit form type—following Form 

N-400s—that individuals can file online, and is currently 

PSC’s largest workload. DHS OIG audited the Form I-90 

product line between April and June 2016, finding ELIS 

limitations had contributed to green card issuance errors, 

including cards issued with incorrect information, the 

production of duplicate cards, and cards sent to the wrong 

address.172 In 2017, many LPRs sought assistance from 

the Ombudsman’s Office because their cards were sent to 

the wrong address or contained incorrect information, such 

as another person’s photograph or the wrong signature, 

gender, country of birth, date of residence status, or name. 

165 Id. 166 Information provided by USCIS (Apr. 24, 2014).

167 Id. 168 USCIS Webpage, “How Do I Pay the USCIS Immigrant Fee” (Apr. 17, 

2018); https://www.uscis.gov/tools/how-do-i-guides/how-do-i-pay-uscisimmigrant-fee (accessed Apr. 30, 2018); USCIS Webpage, “Immigrant 

Fee Payment: Tips on Finding You’re a-Number and DOS Case ID” (Dec. 

22, 2016); https://www.uscis.gov/file-online/immigrant-fee-payment-tipsfinding-your-number-and-dos-case-id (accessed Apr. 30, 2018). 169 Information provided by stakeholders (Mar. 2, 2018).

170 USCIS Webpage, “What Happens After You Apply” (July 7, 2017); https://

my.uscis.gov/exploremyoptions/renew_green_card#benefit-related-content-2

(accessed May 18, 2018). 171 Information provided by USCIS (Apr. 16, 2018).

172 DHS Office of the Inspector General, “Verification Review: Better 

Safeguards Are Needed in USCIS Green Card Issuance (OIG-17-11),” 

OIG-18-61 (Apr. 10, 2018); https://www.oig.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/

assets/2018-04/OIG-18-61-Apr18.pdf (accessed Apr. 19, 2018).

Non-delivery of cards and changes of address are the 

top reasons why individuals have contacted the PSC 

for assistance.173 Addresses are limited to 34 characters 

in ELIS,174 so an officer has to determine how to 

abbreviate a longer address without compromising the 

U.S. Postal Service’s ability to deliver the card to the 

appropriate address.

Beginning in 2018, individuals with a myUSCIS account 

and an application in ELIS can now change their addresses 

in ELIS through their myUSCIS accounts, updating the 

change immediately.175 Prior to that, applicants could not 

change their addresses in ELIS directly and the update 

could take several days, depending on how the applicant 

notified USCIS of the change of address.

DACA, TPS, and EADs. USCIS began adjudicating 

Forms I-821 and I-821D in ELIS in 2016,176 including the 

Form I-765 based on an underlying Temporary Protected 

Status (TPS) or Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals 

(DACA) application.177 

In 2017, DACA recipients requested assistance from the 

Ombudsman’s Office because they had not received EADs, 

notices, and other documents from USCIS. Of the 2,005 

ELIS-related requests for assistance received in 2017 by 

the Ombudsman’s Office, 1,287 dealt with individuals 

attempting to obtain or renew benefits under DACA. 

Additional Issues with Form N-400 

Processing Delays. The OIG found that ELIS problems 

contributed to the backlog of Form N-400 applications, 

“adversely affect[ing] processing timeliness and customer 

service.”178 During the reporting period, processing times 

for Form N-400 applications continued to increase beyond 

the USCIS goal of 5 months.179 See Appendix, USCIS 

Naturalization and Adjustment of Status Processing Times. 

As of December 2017, the national average processing 

time for non-military naturalization applications rose 

173 Information provided by USCIS (Apr. 16, 2018).

174 Id. 175 Id. 176 Information provided by USCIS (Apr. 19, 2017).

177 Information provided by USCIS (Apr. 17, 2018).

178 DHS Office of the Inspector General, “USCIS Has Been Unsuccessful in 

Automating Naturalization Benefits Delivery,” OIG-18-23 (Nov. 30, 2017) 

at 31; https://www.oig.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/assets/2017-12/OIG-18-23-

Nov17.pdf (accessed Apr. 27, 2018). 179 DHS Annual Performance Report (Fiscal Years 2016–2018), p. 49; https://

www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/DHS%20FY%202016-2018%20

APR.pdf (accessed Mar. 26, 2017).
26 ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS JUNE 2018

to 8.4 months.180 Many individuals experienced even 

longer delays. Applicants in New York City, for instance, 

waited 10 to 14 months for USCIS merely to schedule 

interviews.181 Applicants waiting to schedule oath 

ceremonies experienced similar delays.

Submission of Photographs. As part of the transition to 

electronic processing, USCIS announced in September 

2016 that naturalization applicants, except those who 

reside overseas, no longer needed to submit passport-style 

photographs with their applications because their photos 

would be taken when they appeared at the Application 

Support Center (ASC) for their biometrics appointments.182 

As of June 2017, however, field offices were still 

asking most applicants to submit two photographs 

during their interviews, at a cost to the applicant, due to 

continuing problems with ELIS in the capturing of the 

ASC photographs.183 Moreover, USCIS did not send an 

announcement to stakeholders, as it had in September 

2016, concerning this issue with photographs, resulting 

in confusion and delays. If an applicant was unable to 

provide the photos at the time of the interview, the officer 

could not continue processing the Form N-400. Thus, this 

ELIS glitch resulted in further delays for some applicants. 

Working Through Two Systems. The agency is 

challenged with ensuring all officers retain their ELIS 

skills while also working through the older cases. In 2017, 

180 Information provided by USCIS (Mar. 20, 2018).

181 Information provided by stakeholders (Apr. 28, 2017).

182 USCIS Message, “Updates to Filing Form N-400, Application for 

Naturalization” (Sep. 22, 2016). 183 Information provided by stakeholders (June 6, 2017); Information provided 

by USCIS (Aug. 23, 2017).

all field offices with naturalization cases had a mix of 

cases in CLAIMS 4 and ELIS,184 processing cases in the 

order in which they are received in each system.185 Local 

offices reported processing a much greater percentage of 

naturalization applications in CLAIMS 4 than in ELIS, 

as cases in CLAIMS 4 made up 79 percent of the total 

number of naturalization applications pending the end 

of 2017.186 Officers reported difficulty in splitting their 

workload between the two systems because of the need 

to train officers in the fine points of each.187 Field offices 

continue to schedule a few days per month to process 

and adjudicate cases in ELIS so staff not only retain their 

operational knowledge of the system, but also to suggest 

enhancements to improve ELIS functionality.188 As offices 

exhaust their CLAIMS 4 inventory, they will work Form 

N-400 applications through ELIS exclusively.

Strategic Suspension of ELIS. In October 2017, 

USCIS returned to manually entering all newly receipted 

naturalization applications into ELIS because it had made 

the necessary improvements identified in DHS OIG’s 

Management Alert.189 ELIS improvements allowed 

USCIS to:

 Verify background checks had been completed before 

the case moved forward for processing;

 Update an individual’s status in CIS;

184 Information provided by USCIS (Apr. 17, 2018).

185 Id. 186 Id. 187 Information provided by USCIS (Apr. 24, 2018).

188 Information provided by USCIS (Apr. 17, 2018).

189 Information provided by USCIS (Feb. 23, 2018).

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

APR

2017

MAY 

2017

JUN

2017

JUL

2017

AUG

2017

SEP

2017

OCT

2017

NOV

2017

DEC

2017

JAN

2018

FEB

2018

MAR

2018

APR

2018

MAY

2018

JUN

2018

ELIS 2 Support ELIS I-765

ELIS I-821 TPS ELIS I-821D DACA ELIS I-90 ELIS Incidents ELIS N-336 ELIS N-400 ELIS N-565 ELIS N-600

ELIS Enhancement Suggestions ELIS I-131 ELIS I-131A ELIS I-485 ELIS I-551 IV

Figure 2.3: Number of Requests for Help with ELIS from Field Offices by Month

Source: Information provided by USCIS (Feb. 23, 2018).
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES OMBUDSMAN 27

 Print naturalization certificates directly from ELIS; and

 Continue processing cases even when ELIS was down. 

During 2017, USCIS entered 139,251 naturalization 

applications in ELIS.190 While it is too early to properly 

evaluate the results of the return to ELIS processing, 

reports from field offices indicate progress.191 As Figure 2.3 

reflects, “trouble tickets” filed by USCIS ELIS users have 

decreased between April 2017 and February 2018. 

Ongoing Issues

While the steps taken by USCIS in 2017 to address 

ELIS challenges have improved the system, the OIG’s 

evaluation of USCIS’ efforts to improve automation of 

naturalization processing remains under review.

The Ombudsman applauds USCIS for adjusting its focus 

on improving back-end performance before opening more 

forms to electronic filing. However, stakeholders are eager 

for USCIS to implement ELIS capabilities for additional 

form types and requests. For example, ELIS does not 

allow applicants to submit requests for fee waivers or 

reduced fees,192 thereby limiting the system’s viability 

for applicants in need.193 In 2017, almost 40 percent of 

Form N-400 applications were filed with a fee waiver 

request and slightly more than 20 percent of Form I-90 

applications were filed with a fee waiver request.

Furthermore, ELIS has not yet resulted in improved 

processing times. The increase in processing times for 

naturalization applications, nationwide and at many field 

offices, to more than 5 months—DHS’s strategic goal—

indicates that transformation continues to struggle to meet 

its goals.

Stakeholders continue to seek better information from USCIS 

regarding system updates and are anxious for improvements 

to the process of filing for immigration benefits. They have 

expressed to the Ombudsman’s Office their challenges with 

creating accounts, limited electronic filing, and the lack of 

190 Information provided by USCIS (Apr. 17, 2018).

191 Information provided by DHS OIG (Feb. 26, 2018).

192 Information provided by USCIS (Feb. 23, 2018).

193 Information provided by USCIS (Mar. 7, 2018). Calculations based on 

information provided by USCIS on April 17, 2018 (report representing the 

total number of I-90, I-551, DACA, TPS and N-400 receipts submitted 

electronically and by paper during calendar year 2017), Mar. 7, 2018 (USCIS 

Fee Waivers by Office Received, Approved and Denied Fiscal Year 2017, 

Quarter 4, and Fiscal year 2018, Quarter 1), and Aug. 30, 2017 (USCIS 

Fee Waivers by Office Received, Approved and Denied Fiscal Year 2017, 

Quarters 2 and 3).

information available to allow preparers and outside software 

companies to adapt to the changes taking place at USCIS. 

USCIS would benefit from increasing its engagement with 

external stakeholders and its education efforts regarding a 

variety of improvements, including back-end changes not 

necessarily visible to the public, that will eventually lead to a 

better experience overall. 

Conclusion

While USCIS took major steps forward to improve the 

digitization of the immigration benefits process in 2017, 

substantial problems remain. The recharacterization of 

the transformation effort is a step in the right direction. 

With its emphasis on processing and case management 

functions, USCIS will be better equipped in the future to 

ingest and adjudicate cases in ELIS. 

Director Cissna has made a full commitment to 

implementing electronic filing for most forms by the end 

of 2020, which is an ambitious undertaking still despite 

the progress made. To meet that goal, more resources 

and attention will be needed. The lack of connectivity to 

accounts maintained by representatives is a flaw that will 

only grow more problematic as more forms are introduced 

into the system, especially employment-based forms. At 

the other end, the lack of a fee waiver function is a serious 

issue requiring immediate attention. The drive to move 

to e-filing has led to an intention to require e-filing of the 

two forms that are now available for that function.194 This 

intention for e-filing to be required, not just preferred, 

will require the agency to be even more prepared for 

the challenges of working in a paperless environment. 

Finally, USCIS needs to update stakeholders on its 

progress updating the system, so they better understand 

the challenges the agency faces and can contribute to 

its improvement. 

194 DHS Spring Regulatory Agenda, RIN 1615-AC20, “Electronic Filing of 

Requests for Immigration Benefits” (ND); https://www.reginfo.gov/public/

do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=201804&RIN=1615-AC20 (accessed May 16, 

2018).
28 ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS JUNE 2018

Responsible Offices: Field Operations, Service 

Center Operations, Refugee, Asylum and International 

Operations, Immigration Records and Identity 

Services, and Fraud Detection and National 

Security Directorates

Key Facts and Findings

 Background checks are essential for maintaining the 

integrity of our immigration system.

 All applicants for U.S. immigration benefits are 

required to undergo criminal and national security 

background checks to ensure eligibility.

 Despite the universal nature of background checks, 

the process can be confusing to applicants, who may 

not understand how it works or how it impacts the 

adjudication of their cases. 

 Over the past several years, USCIS’ workload has 

increased substantially, both in volume and complexity. 

This has placed increasing demand on various aspects 

of the immigration system, including case adjudicators, 

who are constantly challenged to balance efficiency 

and integrity. 

 Recently, in response to Executive Order 13780, USCIS 

increased its screening of certain applicants, with plans 

to expand this heightened scrutiny to other types of 

applications and petitions.195 

195 “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United 

States,” 82 Fed. Reg. 13209 (Mar. 9, 2017); UCSIS Webpage, “USCIS 

is Strengthening Screening for Family Members Abroad Seeking to Join 

Refugees in the United States” (Feb. 6, 2018); https://www.uscis.gov/news/

alerts/uscis-strengthening-screening-family-members-abroad-seeking-joinrefugees-united-states (accessed Apr. 19, 2018).

Background Checks 
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES OMBUDSMAN 29

Terms and Definitions

“Background check” is a general term used for an inquiry 

into an individual’s identity and history using two types of 

information: biometric and biographic.196 A biometric check 

typically uses the applicant’s fingerprints, often referred to as 

“the ten-prints.” USCIS generally captures this information 

at an ASC or, for refugee applicants, at the time of an 

interview.197 Due to the digital nature of the information, 

biometric checks are a relatively straightforward step in the 

USCIS background check process. 

A biographic check is, most commonly, a records check 

using the applicant’s name and date of birth, along with all 

aliases and other names.198 While a biographic check may 

involve some analysis, USCIS for its part has automated 

most of the process. The FBI performs the majority of 

biographic checks for USCIS, providing USCIS with 

electronic records and a written analysis of any information 

found.199 Expedited processing is available from the FBI 

but can only be requested by USCIS. To warrant expedited 

processing, a check must meet one or more of the following 

criteria: the individual’s membership in the military; 

compelling circumstances; mandamus actions; humanitarian 

reasons; age-outs; and selection for the Diversity Visa 

program.200 For individuals who request immigration 

benefits that are longer than one year in duration, USCIS 

typically requires the biometric and biographic checks 

set forth in the following charts. See Figure 3.1. For 

further details by USCIS directorate, please refer to the 

“Background Checks” section of the Appendix.

196 DHS Privacy Impact Assessment, “Immigration Benefits Background Check 

Systems” (Nov. 5. 2010), p. 1; https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/

publications/privacy_pia_uscis_ibbcs.pdf (accessed Mar. 22, 2018). 197 Id. at 3-4. USCIS Webpage, “Refugee Processing and Security Screening” 

(Dec. 3, 2015); https://www.uscis.gov/refugeescreening (accessed Apr. 17, 

2018). 198 DHS Privacy Impact Assessment, “Immigration Benefits Background Check 

Systems” (Nov. 5. 2010), pp. 4–8; https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/

publications/privacy_pia_uscis_ibbcs.pdf (accessed Mar. 22, 2018). Biographic 

name checks commonly include other information, such as: name (last, first, 

middle), may include SSN, two additional SSNs in the event that the applicant is 

using multiple SSNs either fraudulently or accidentally) street address, city, state, 

ZIP Code, up to five aliases, country of citizenship, DOB, two additional DOBs, 

sex, race, height, weight, eye color, hair color, place of birth, and A-number. 199 DHS Privacy Impact Assessment, “Immigration Benefits Background Check 

Systems” (Nov. 5. 2010); https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/

privacy_pia_uscis_ibbcs.pdf (accessed Mar. 22, 2018). See FBI Webpage, 

“National Name Check Program;” https://www.fbi.gov/services/recordsmanagement/name-checks (accessed Mar. 1, 2018). In FY 2017, the FBI 

processed over 3.6 million name checks. 200 USCIS Response to the Ombudsman’s 2016 Annual Report (Mar. 28, 2018), 

p. 15.

Biometric Check

FBI Fingerprint Check

A check on the applicant’s ten-print 

biometrics against FBI data systems. 

Automated results typically return within hours 

of being sent. 

IDENT Check*

A check on the applicant’s ten-print 

biometrics using US-VISIT/IDENT—DHS’s 

principal system for maintaining biometric 

data. The check assigns the applicant an 

identification number, if not already in the 

system, and the results provide information 

on the nature of the hit (e.g., whether the 

hit pertains to a potential criminal offense), 

if any. Those applicants requiring interviews 

may have their biometrics captured for 

identity verification purposes in the Identity 

Verification Tool in the Customer Profile 

Management System.*

Biographic Check

CBP TECS Check†

A check on the applicant’s name and date of 

birth using Customs and Border Protection’s 

(CBP’s) TECS System, an information 

sharing platform used primarily to identify 

admissibility issues. Results return as either a 

positive or negative response. This check can 

be run again manually. 

FBI Name Check††

A check on all names and dates of birth 

associated with the applicant. The FBI aims 

to process 90 percent or more of name check 

requests submitted to the FBI within 30 

days of receipt, with the remaining requests 

completed within 90 days of receipt.

Sources: As indicated.

* DHS Privacy Impact Assessment, “DHS/NPPD/USVISIT/PIA-002” (Dec. 7, 2012), 

pp. 2–3; https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/privacy-pia-nppdident-06252013_0.pdf (accessed Apr. 27, 2018). DHS Privacy Impact Assessment, 

“Customer Profile Management Service, DHS/USCIS/PIA-060” (Dec. 17, 2015); 

https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/privacy-pia-uscis-cpmsdecember2015.pdf (accessed May 30, 2018). †

 DHS Privacy Impact Assessment for the TECS System: Platform, DHS/CBP/PIA-021 

(Aug. 12, 2016), p. 15; https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/DHSPIA-ALL-021%20TECS%20System%20Platform.pdf (accessed Apr. 27, 2018). †† Information provided by the FBI (Apr. 19, 2018); see also DHS OIG, “USCIS has 

been Unsuccessful in Automating Naturalization Benefits Delivery, Report OIG-18-23, 

November 30, 2017; https://www.oig.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/assets/2017-12/

OIG-18-23-Nov17.pdf (accessed May 29, 2018).

Figure 3.1: Biometrics and Biographic Checks
30 ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS JUNE 2018

If information is discovered through biographic background 

checks, FBI analysts must manually review it to determine 

its adjudicative value. If the FBI’s National Name Check 

Program (NNCP) determines the information is not related 

to the name check subject, the request will be closed as a 

“No Reportable” (NR).201 The FBI identifies the remaining 

name checks (usually about nine percent of the name checks 

originally submitted) as possibly being the subject of an FBI 

record and proceeds with the Analysis and Reporting stage 

of the name check process. During Analysis and Reporting, 

NNCP analysts are responsible for reviewing and analyzing 

FBI records and providing information to customers. The 

final summary of relevant information is then sent to USCIS 

via an electronic data sharing platform.202

To reduce the amount of time taken on these manual 

reviews, USCIS―the single largest requestor of FBI name 

checks―has been working with the FBI to modernize 

the submission and return of these checks. In July 2017, 

USCIS deployed the initial phase of their modernized 

FBI name check solution. With this new system, USCIS 

will now act as one agency rather than submissions being 

sent to the FBI from four different divisions of USCIS.203 

This new system is intended to detect duplicative requests 

regarding the same person, and decrease wasteful 

duplicative volume.204 The two agencies are now using a 

web service that allows for automated system to system 

submission and receiving of responses.

Background Check Procedures by Directorate

Service Center Operations Directorate (SCOPS)

SCOPS conducts the biographic and biometric checks 

listed in Figure 3.1 on most of the applications and 

petitions filed at its service centers.205 For biographic 

checks, the service centers run a batch query, meaning 

multiple names are submitted to the FBI at one time, on 

the primary names and dates of birth (DOB) contained in 

201 Information provided by the FBI (Apr. 19, 2018).

202 Id. 203 Id. See also USCIS Message, “USCIS Today: FBI Name Check 

Modernization Update” (July 14, 2017)(accessed May 29, 2018), on file with 

the Ombudsman. 204 Information provided by USCIS at the Seventh Annual Ombudsman’s 

Conference (Dec. 7, 2017). 205 Biometrics are captured for beneficiaries between the ages of 14 and 75 

years of age. Information provided by USCIS (Apr. 17, 2018). SCOPS 

handles a wide range of applications, including I-765, Application for 

Employment Authorization Document, I-821D, Consideration of Deferred 

Action for Childhood Arrivals, and certain Forms I-485, Application to 

Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, as well as most employmentbased petitions. 

all new applications/petitions within 15 calendar days of 

initial receipt.206 After 15 months, if a benefit decision has 

not been issued, the officer must request a refresh of the 

name check.207 

Biometric checks begin at the ASCs, where staff collect 

digital fingerprints from applicants and submit them 

to the FBI within seconds of their capture.208 USCIS 

also runs the biometrics information through the TECS 

system.209 Most results are returned to the agency within 

minutes of submission.210 USCIS uses a Customer 

Profile Management System to store and access the 

results of biometric and background check data. Using 

this system, USCIS can reuse biometric images and 

biographic information to initiate and update background 

checks, eliminating the need for repeat requests for 

the information.211 

Background checks must be resolved before the 

adjudication process can proceed.212 If the results produce 

derogatory information, the adjudicator refers the case to 

the respective service center’s Background Check Unit 

(BCU) for analysis, de-confliction, and resolution of the 

potential match.213 During this process, the BCU will 

reach out to internal and external DHS entities responsible 

for the data or information to ensure that all available 

information is weighed when resolving the match.214 Once 

the BCU resolves a case, it returns its findings to the 

immigration officer for final adjudication based on the date 

of receipt by first-in, first-out (FIFO) order.215 

Per regulation, if the derogatory information impacts the 

adjudication of the case, USCIS normally issues an RFE 

or NOID, allowing the applicant or petitioner to provide 

additional information.216 However, if SCOPS delays 

206 Information provided by USCIS (Apr. 17, 2018). 

207 Id. 208 Id. 209 Privacy Impact Assessment, “Update for the TECS System: CBP Primary 

and Secondary Processing (TECS) National SAR Initiative,” DHS/CBP/PIA009(a) (Aug. 5, 2011); https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/

privacy-pia-cbp-tecs-sar-update_0.pdf (accessed Apr. 24, 2018). 210 Information provided by USCIS (Apr. 17, 2018).

211 Id. 212 Id. 213 Id. 214 Id. 215 Id. 216 8 CFR § 103.2(b)(16)(i); USCIS Policy Memorandum, “Requests for 

Evidence and Notices of Intent to Deny” (Jun 3, 2013); https://www.uscis.

gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Laws/Memoranda/2013/June%202013/

Requests%20for%20Evidence%20%28Final%29.pdf (accessed Apr. 27, 

2018). Policy verified through information provided by USCIS (Apr. 

17, 2018).
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES OMBUDSMAN 31

in issuing an RFE or NOID or otherwise holds the case 

for any reason, the applicant has limited options to learn 

the cause or reason for the delay. While service centers 

have processes in place to routinely check for cases that 

have aged beyond the posted processing time, they do 

not communicate with the applicant, or appointed legal 

representative, when these efforts are made.217 

Field Office Directorate (FOD)

Applications and petitions filed with the FOD, whether at 

a field office or at the NBC, its central processing facility, 

undergo a standard set of background checks.218 See

Figure 3.1. FOD follows the guidelines and procedures 

set forth by the agency.219 In most cases, within 15 days of 

USCIS receipt of the case, the NBC initiates an FBI name 

check on the applicant’s primary name and date of birth, as 

well as a TECS check with CBP.220 

The FBI, per its contractual agreement with USCIS, 

typically returns the FBI name check results within 30 

to 90 days.221 The FBI sends the NBC a weekly report 

on pending name checks.222 If the FBI finds information 

in its name check, it will send to FOD a Letterhead 

Memorandum providing the information and its source.223 

Most of this information is resolved at the NBC and, if 

reviewed by an FDNS Officer, receives an SOF in the 

applicant’s file of record.224

Biometrics are then collected at the ASC and sent to 

the FBI within seconds of their capture.225 Most results 

are returned within minutes after sending.226 The NBC 

conducts daily data sweeps to check the system for the 

results of both FBI name and fingerprint checks.227 

Once both types of background checks are received, 

which averages around 60 to 90 days of receipt, the NBC 

conducts a full review of the file for additional aliases, 

names, and date of birth prior to adjudication or shipment 

to the respective field office for interview. This process 

217 Information provided by USCIS (Apr. 17, 2018).

218 The Field Operations Directorate adjudicates several applications requiring 

interviews, such as Form N-400, Application for Naturalization, and certain 

Forms 485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status. 219 Information provided by USCIS (Apr. 17, 2018).

220 Id. 221 Id. 222 Id. 223 Id. 224 Id. See “USCIS Anti-Fraud Initiatives,” supra in this Report for more 

information on SOFs. 225 Information provided by USCIS (Apr. 18, 2018).

226 Id. 227 Information provided by USCIS (Apr. 17, 2018).

is completed about 19 to 22 days, on average, before the 

scheduled interview date.228 The check is valid for 180 

days with a refresh requirement every 180 days until the 

final adjudication is completed.229 

At any time during its review, the NBC may refer the 

applicant’s file to its own FDNS officers or to the BCU for 

reasons such national security, public safety, and Adam 

Walsh Act cases.230 In addition to referrals, the BCU also 

receives a weekly report from the Immigration Records 

and Identity Services Directorate (IRIS), the entity that 

(among other things) oversees immigration, employment 

and identity information for USCIS, regarding all positive 

fingerprint results, including for Forms I-485 and N-400.231 

The NBC BCU reviews the report of concerns for potential 

referral to ICE. If identified as a public safety referral, the 

BCU sends the case to ICE. This results in an adjudication 

hold, lasting 60 to 75 days, pending notification from 

ICE as to whether it will take action or require additional 

coordination. In most instances, further coordination with 

the respective field office is required for public safety cases 

accepted by ICE. 232

If the case is referred to FDNS, either at the NBC or 

at the local field office, an FDNS officer reviews the 

case to determine if there are fraud or national security 

concerns. Once the officer completes the review, an SOF 

will be added to the file to be considered when issuing a 

decision for the case. The FDNS officer also manages 

any referrals to ICE and includes in the SOF whether 

ICE accepted or declined to take action on the referral.233 

Afterwards, the case returns to the shelf until it is ready for 

interview scheduling.234

FOD will not schedule an interview until the results of 

all background checks are available.235 However, receipt 

of the results does not mean the individual has “cleared 

background checks.” Once the “A-file” arrives at the local 

USCIS field office, the adjudicator will review the results 

and determine the impact on the eligibility of the applicant 

or beneficiary.236 If the adjudicator identifies any indicators 

of possible fraud or national security concerns, he or she 

228 Id. 229 Id. 230 Id. 231 Id. 232 Id. 233 Id. 234 Id. 235 Id. 236 Id.
32 ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS JUNE 2018

may refer the case to FDNS for review.237 Derogatory 

information may result in the need for further research to 

determine whether, for example: the information establishes 

removability; the applicant is in removal proceedings; 

charges were reduced or dismissed; a final order of removal 

has been issued; or no final disposition has been made on 

a particular charge.238 As with SCOPs, regulations require 

FOD to issue an RFE or NOID to allow the applicant 

the opportunity to respond to derogatory evidence.239 

Ultimately, the decision to grant or deny immigration 

benefits is based on the adjudicator’s judgment, based on the 

totality of the circumstances, which includes the A-file and 

the questions asked the applicant during the interview.240

Refugee, Asylum and International Operations 

Directorate: Asylum Division241

Affirmative asylum applicants undergo extensive 

background checks at various stages throughout the USCIS 

adjudications process, which correlates with the standard 

background checks listed in Figure 3.1.242 To apply for 

affirmative asylum, applicants submit a Form I-589, 

Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal

at a USCIS service center.243 The USCIS service center 

enters the information into the USCIS Refugee, Asylum, 

and Parole System (RAPS).244 RAPS automatically initiates 

several background security check processes, including FBI 

name checks, IDENT, TECS, and FBI fingerprint checks.245 

RAPS also stores the results of security checks.246 Later 

237 Id. 238 Id. 239 8 CFR § 103.2(b)(16)(i); USCIS Policy Memorandum, “Requests for 

Evidence and Notices of Intent to Deny” (Jun 3, 2013); https://www.uscis.

gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Laws/Memoranda/2013/June%202013/

Requests%20for%20Evidence%20%28Final%29.pdf (accessed Apr. 27, 

2018). 240 Information provided by USCIS (Apr. 17, 2018).

241 This section only covers the affirmative asylum application process and is 

not intended to include credible or reasonable fear processing or defensive 

asylum processing. 242 USCIS Webpage, “Asylum Background and Security Checks FAQ” (Mar. 

12, 2015); https://www.uscis.gov/faq-page/asylum-background-and-securitychecks-faq#t12818n40080 (accessed Apr. 26, 2018); DHS Privacy Impact 

Assessment, “USCIS, Refugees, Asylum, and Parole, System and the Asylum 

Pre-Screening System” (Nov. 24, 2009), p. 4; https://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/

assets/privacy/privacy_pia_cis_rapsapss.pdf (accessed Apr. 26, 2018). 243 USCIS Webpage, “I-589, Application for Asylum and for Withholding of 

Removal;” https://www.uscis.gov/i-589 (accessed Apr. 26, 2018). There are 

limited circumstances that allow for an applicant to file a Form I-589 at a 

local asylum office. 244 DHS Privacy Impact Assessment, “USCIS, Refugees, Asylum, and Parole, 

System and the Asylum Pre-Screening System” (Nov. 24, 2009), p. 3; https://

www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/privacy/privacy_pia_cis_rapsapss.pdf (accessed 

Apr. 26, 2018). 245 Id. at 4. 246 Id. at 4. 

in the process, the applicant attends an appointment at the 

ASC to provide a ten-print and photographs for a biometrics 

check. This information will initiate the FBI fingerprint 

check, triggering another automatic background check query 

through the RAPS system. 

The asylum officer may run additional background checks 

in specific cases, and may collaborate with an FDNS 

officer assigned to assist with fraud and national security 

cases.247 As with all cases pending before USCIS, with 

limited exceptions, the agency must issue an RFE or 

NOID to allow the applicant the opportunity to respond 

to derogatory evidence informing part of all of an adverse 

decision.248 The asylum officer may also resolve certain 

concerns during the interview process, which would be 

annotated in the interview notes and retained in the A-file. 

Any aliases or final name checks are run through a manual 

check in TECS.249 

Refugee, Asylum and International Operations 

Directorate: Refugee Affairs Division (RAD)

The standard operating procedure at RAD is to conduct the 

following checks.250

Pre-decisional Checks:

 IDENT check: checks the applicant’s records 

relating to travel and immigration history for non-U.S. 

citizens, as well as for immigration violations and law 

enforcement and national security concerns. This helps 

CBP confirm identity at the port of entry.251

 FBI fingerprint check: checks all applicants’ biometric 

records using the Next Generation Identification (NGI) 

system’s recurring biometric record checks.

 USCIS Background IT Systems check: a check using 

the applicant’s ten-print biometrics to search various 

247 Information provided by USCIS (Apr. 18, 2018).

248 8 CFR § 103.2(b)(16)(i); USCIS Policy Memorandum, “Requests for Evidence 

and Notices of Intent to Deny” (Jun 3, 2013); https://www.uscis.gov/sites/

default/files/USCIS/Laws/Memoranda/2013/June%202013/Requests%20

for%20Evidence%20%28Final%29.pdf (accessed Apr. 27, 2018). 249 DHS Privacy Impact Assessment, “USCIS, Refugees, Asylum, and Parole, 

System and the Asylum Pre-Screening System” (Nov. 24, 2009) p. 15; https://

www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/privacy/privacy_pia_cis_rapsapss.pdf (accessed 

Apr. 26, 2018). 250 This is a generalization and should not be used as an exclusive or 

comprehensive list of all types of background checks run for all refugee 

applications. 251 DHS Privacy Impact Assessment, “Refugee Case Processing and Security 

Vetting” (Jul. 21, 2017), p. 8; https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/

publications/privacy-pia-uscis-refugee-july2017.pdf (accessed Apr. 26, 2018).
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES OMBUDSMAN 33

USCIS systems. Information collected on all applicants 

over the age of 131⁄2 and under 80 years.252

 DOS Consular Lookout and Support System 

(CLASS) check: a check run on primary names as 

well as any variations used by the applicant.253 

 Interagency Check (IAC): USCIS shares the 

biographic data, including names, dates of birth, and 

other data points of all refugee applicants within 

designated age ranges that is captured at the time of 

pre-screening with intelligence community partners for 

checks against their holdings.254

 National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) 

checks: vets applicant’s information with interagency 

intelligence to identify suspicious activity.255

 Social Media Review: USCIS FDNS conducts 

screening and vetting checks of certain refugee 

applicants from publicly available information on 

social media.256

 DoD Automated Biometric Identification System 

(ABIS) check: checks applicants’ information, 

biometric and biographic, to search information 

collected in the course of military operations.257

Post-decision and Pre-admission to the United States:

 TECS check: run on any individuals associated with 

the asylum application who are between the age of 12 

years and 9 months and 79 years of age.258

 CBP National Targeting Center—Passenger 

(NTC-P): decision support tool that compares the 

applicants’ information against law enforcement, 

intelligence, and other enforcement data using riskbased scenarios and assessments.259

 Transportation Security Administration (TSA) 

Secure Flight Program check: screens aviation 

passengers and certain non-travelers before they access 

airport sterile areas or board an aircraft.260

252 Id. at 5. 253 Id. at 6. 254 Id. at 6. 255 Id. at 7. 256 Id. at 7. 257 Id. at 8. 258 Id. at 10. 259 Id. at 10. 260 Id. at 10.

 CBP No Fly Selectee check: compares applicants’ 

information to known terrorist watch lists maintained 

by the TSA.261

A refugee applicant is subject to biographic and biometric 

security checks through a lengthy process. Generally, 

an individual initiates his or her request to resettle to 

another country through the UNHCR resettlement 

program. UNHCR establishes basic eligibility and then 

refers the individual to the Resettlement Service Center 

(RSC). The RSC conducts a prescreening interview 

and initiates biographic checks.262 This information is 

recorded in the DOS Worldwide Refugee Admissions 

Processing System (WRAPS).263 USCIS then reviews the 

biographic check results and interviews the applicant. At 

the time of the interview, a USCIS refugee officer collects 

the applicant’s ten-prints and requests any additional 

biographic checks, which will be run through the many 

data systems listed above.264 At this stage, the applicant 

can correct misspellings or incorrect dates of birth and 

provide additional documentation to ensure the agency has 

complete and accurate information. 

During the interview, a USCIS refugee officer trained in 

identifying any national security concerns can refer the 

file for Controlled Application Review and Resolution 

Program (CARRP) review.265 A case needing further 

USCIS Headquarters review is tracked using the Refugee 

Affairs Division Case Manager (RCM). In RCM, USCIS 

refugee officers can view cases that require review and 

how long those cases have been pending review.266 All 

data changes made in the system are logged to provide 

a complete record of the actions taken on each case.267

After all reviews are complete, the report of the analysis is 

uploaded to WRAPS.268

261 Id. at 10. 262 Id. 263 Id. at 2. 264 Id. 265 USCIS Webpage, “Refugee Processing and Security Screening” (Dec. 3, 

2015); https://www.uscis.gov/refugeescreening (accessed Apr. 17, 2018). 

See also USCIS Memorandum “Policy for Vetting and Adjudicating Cases 

with National Security Concerns” (Apr. 11, 2008); https://www.uscis.gov/

sites/default/files/USCIS/About%20Us/Electronic%20Reading%20Room/

Policies_and_Manuals/CARRP_Guidance.pdf (accessed Mar. 2, 2018). 266 DHS Privacy Impact Assessment, “Refugee Case Processing and Security 

Vetting” (Jul. 21, 2017), p. 3; https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/

publications/privacy-pia-uscis-refugee-july2017.pdf (accessed Apr. 26, 

2018). 267 Id. 268 Id.
34 ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS JUNE 2018

Once all biographic and biometric checks are resolved, 

USCIS will issue a decision on the applicant’s Form I-590, 

Registration for Classification as Refugee.269 If the agency 

grants the resettlement request, the RSC assumes the task 

of processing the applicant for travel, including medical 

examinations and coordinating with a resettlement agency 

in the United States. The applicant undergoes another 

biometric and biographic check with CBP and the TSA 

through the flight manifest. Once CBP determines the 

applicant is admissible to the United States, the applicant 

is admitted as a refugee.270 

In October 2017, USCIS Director Cissna outlined his 

plans for vetting enhancements called “Enhanced FDNS 

Review” while testifying before Congress.271 USCIS 

initiated this plan pursuant to Executive Order 13780, 

which directed USCIS to enhance its screening process for 

nationals of certain countries.272 Based on the Executive 

Order, USCIS and other agency partners conducted a 120-

day review of the vetting process. The group identified 

several enhancements for screening and vetting refugees, 

some of which have been implemented today.273 The 

background check enhancements include those performed 

by two divisions within FDNS: the Social Media Division 

and the Intelligence Division.274 The information gained 

from the enhancements is intended to inform certain lines 

of questioning for the interviewing officer to determine the 

applicant’s eligibility and credibility.275 Director Cissna 

acknowledged in his testimony that certain parts of the 

Executive Order had been under litigation and at times 

enjoined, but he emphasized the agency’s commitment to 

work aggressively to strengthen the integrity of the United 

269 Id. 270 Entry of refugees to the United States is limited to only six US International 

Air Ports of Entry: Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles, Miami, Newark, and 

New York. DHS Privacy Impact Assessment, “Refugee Case Processing and 

Security Vetting” (Jul. 21, 2017) p. 10; https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/

files/publications/privacy-pia-uscis-refugee-july2017.pdf (accessed Apr. 26, 

2018). 271 Written Testimony of USCIS Director L. Francis Cissna for Congressional 

Hearing, “Refugee Admissions FY 2018” before the Subcommittee on 

Immigration and Border Security House Committee on the Judiciary (Oct. 

26, 2017). 272 Executive Order 13780, “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist 

Entry into the United States” (Mar. 6, 2017); 82 Fed. Reg. 13209 (Mar. 9, 

2017); https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2017-03-09/pdf/2017-04837.pdf

(accessed May 30, 2018). 273 “Written Testimony of USCIS Director L. Francis Cissna for Congressional 

Hearing, “Refugee Admissions FY 2018” before the Subcommittee on 

Immigration and Border Security House Committee on the Judiciary (Oct. 

26, 2017). 274 Id. 275 Id.

States Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP),276 the 

interagency group that oversees the refugee resettlement 

process, through these enhancements.277 

Additional Vetting Policies and Procedures

As circumstances warrant, USCIS vetting policies and 

processes permit one or more directorates within USCIS to 

follow policies and practices in addition to their standard 

procedures. Each of these policies and processes supports 

the agency’s goal of mitigating fraud and upholding 

national security. 

CARRP. USCIS subjects certain cases presenting 

national security concerns to additional review through 

CARRP. The CARRP process includes an assessment of 

the case file and, in most cases, additional screening to 

ensure eligibility for the benefit sought. CARRP requires 

regular supervisory review and agency headquarters 

coordination,278 oftentimes requiring close collaboration 

with law enforcement and intelligence agencies, including 

the FBI.279

Social Media Vetting. FDNS recently established a Social 

Media Division (SMD), which was piloted in 2014.280 The 

SMD screens refugee applicant data for select populations 

against designated, publicly available social media. It 

also performs social media vetting on certain asylum 

applications.281 Other directorates, such as FOD, are 

exploring this option as an additional vetting tool.282 

276 USCIS Webpage, “The United States Refugee Admissions Program 

(USRAP) Consultation & Worldwide Processing Priorities” (May 5, 2016); 

https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-asylum/refugees/united-statesrefugee-admissions-program-usrap-consultation-worldwide-processingpriorities (accessed on Apr. 17, 2018). 277 Written Testimony of USCIS Director L. Francis Cissna for Congressional 

Hearing, “Refugee Admissions FY 2018” before the Subcommittee on 

Immigration and Border Security House Committee on the Judiciary (Oct. 

26, 2017). 278 Written Testimony of Leon Rodriguez for Congressional Hearing, “The 

Security of the U.S. Visa Programs,” Senate Committee on Homeland 

Security and Governmental Affairs (Mar. 15, 2016). 279 Id. 280 Hearing on the “Refugee Admissions FY 2018” before the Subcommittee 

on Immigration and Border Security House Committee on the Judiciary on 

October 26, 2017 by USCIS Director L. Francis Cissna; https://www.uscis.

gov/tools/resources/hearing-refugee-admissions-fy-2018-subcommitteeimmigration-and-border-security-house-committee-judiciary-october-26-

2017-uscis-director-l-francis-cissna (accessed Apr. 24, 2018). 281 Id. 282 Hearing on Vows for Visas: Investigating K-1 Fiancé Fraud before the 

Senate Committee on the Judiciary (Mar. 15, 2017); https://www.uscis.gov/

tools/resources-congress/testimonies-and-speeches/hearing-vows-visasinvestigating-k-1-fiance-fraud-senate-committee-judiciary-march-15-2017

(accessed 4/24/2018).
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES OMBUDSMAN 35

USCIS Policy on Long-Pending Checks. Pursuant to a 

February 2009 policy memorandum, USCIS no longer 

automatically approves certain pending applications if 

background checks are delayed. Instead, adjudicators 

receive a point of contact at USCIS Headquarters for 

FBI name checks pending beyond 150 days. The USCIS 

Headquarters point of contact then communicates with the 

FBI to determine the reason for name check delay and in 

turn provides case specific guidance to the officer. This 

may include, where appropriate, authorization to approve 

the pending application prior to receiving the FBI name 

check results.283

Prior to this, USCIS policy directed adjudicators to 

approve certain forms (Form I-485, Application to Register 

Permanent Residence or Adjust Status; Form I-601, 

Application for Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility; 

I-687, Application for Status as a Temporary Resident 

Under Section 245A of the Immigration and Nationality 

Act; and Form I-698, Application to Adjust Status from 

Temporary to Permanent Resident (Under Section 245A 

of the INA)), if otherwise approvable, where the FBI 

name check request had been pending for more than 180 

days.284 USCIS changed this policy as a result of the FBI 

improving its response time. USCIS reported that the FBI 

was returning name checks on average in 90 days and that 

few, if any, remained pending at the FBI for 180 days.285 

Conclusion

Background checks are vital in determining an applicant’s 

eligibility for immigration benefits. USCIS, through its 

diverse offices, has standard operating procedures for 

283 USCIS Memorandum, “National Security Adjudication and Reporting 

Requirements—Update” (Feb. 9, 2009); https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/

files/USCIS/Laws/Memoranda/Static_Files_Memoranda/2009/nationalsecurity-adjudication-reporting-020909.pdf (accessed Apr. 18, 2018). 284 USCIS Interoffice Memorandum, “Revised National Security Adjudications 

and Reporting Requirements” (Feb. 4, 2008); https://www.uscis.gov/

sites/default/files/USCIS/Laws/Memoranda/Static_Files_Memoranda/

Archives%201998-2008/2008/doc017.pdf (accessed Apr. 18, 2018). 285 Information provided by USCIS (April 17, 2018).

running background checks on biometric and biographic 

data using various databases available. The process 

is complex, requiring multiple layers of analysis. At 

times, depending on the circumstances, it can be lengthy. 

Per regulation, when derogatory information returned 

through a background check has an adverse impact on the 

adjudication, USCIS must issue an RFE or NOID to the 

applicant, providing him or her an opportunity to offer 

additional information.286

However, for cases that remain pending, the applicant 

receives little information and no updates. USCIS reports 

that it carefully monitors cases that are extensively delayed 

through the background check process, but it rarely 

communicates to the applicant that the reason for delay 

stems from background checks. There are strong law 

enforcement reasons for this—primarily to ensure that 

an investigation is not disrupted by alerting the subject 

to it. However, USCIS could improve public confidence 

in its efforts by providing the public more information 

on its process to review long-pending cases. This would 

help assure the public that when the adjudication of cases 

is delayed, it is done for good reason. For example, an 

agency-initiated notification to the applicant could be 

generated when the agency updates its files regarding the 

background check (when it follows up with the holding 

agency or receives information back). Such a notification 

could be done through a “myCase status” update or 

through an electronic notification in myUSCIS to reduce 

administrative burdens on the agency. A notification 

would help inform applicants and petitioners, improve 

transparency and highlight efforts on the agency’s part 

to resolve a pending application; it would also better 

manage the applicant’s expectations regarding the case 

processing timeline. 

286 8 CFR § 103.2 (b)(16)(i).
36 ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS JUNE 2018

Responsible Office: Refugee, Asylum, and 

International Operations Directorate, Asylum Office

Key Facts and Findings

 As the number of affirmative asylum applications287

grew over the past few years, so did the backlog of 

cases pending final decision.

 As of March 31, 2018, USCIS had 318,624 affirmative 

asylum applications pending final decision from the 

Asylum Office.288 

287 For example, for the one month period of March 2018, 8,055 asylum applications 

were filed. Information provided by USCIS Asylum Division Quarterly 

Stakeholder Meeting (May 1, 2018). For the month of November 2009, 2,394 

applications were filed. USCIS Webpage, “Asylum Office Workload. November 

2009” (Apr. 21, 2010); https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Outreach/

Notes%20from%20Previous%20Engagements/Asylum%20Workload%20

Nov%202009%20-%20Jan%202010.pdf (accessed May 02, 2018). 288 Information provided by USCIS (May 1, 2018).

 The current backlog developed from a host of factors, 

including spikes in credible fear claims and a rapid 

increase in affirmative asylum filings.289 

 To address the backlog, the Asylum Division has 

increased staff to 686 authorized positions for Fiscal 

Year (FY) 2018, up from 533 authorized officers in 

FY 2016.290

 In January 2018, the Asylum Division changed 

its interview scheduling protocol to “last-in, firstout” (LIFO), to prioritize affirmative applications 

received by the agency within 21 or fewer days before 

289 Information provided by USCIS (Feb. 23, 2018).

290 Information provided by USCIS (Feb. 23, 2018) and Ombudsman’s Annual 

Report 2016, p.17.

Affirmative Asylum Backlog
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES OMBUDSMAN 37

scheduling its longer-pending applications.291 Prior to 

this change, the Asylum Division had prioritized the 

scheduling of its oldest pending cases for interviews on 

a FIFO basis since 2015.292

 USCIS expects the scheduling change to reduce the 

number of new affirmative asylum filings, because it is 

likely to discourage the filing of frivolous applications.293

Development of Modern Asylum Law

The law of asylum, particularly as interpreted in the United 

States, traces a direct route from the refugee crises of the 

twentieth century.294 Through most of World War II, U.S. 

immigration did not include a formal refugee process.295 

Eventually, President Roosevelt created a War Refugee 

Board in 1944 to implement a new policy of relief for 

victims of the Nazis.296 In 1945, President Truman eased 

quota restrictions to allow the admission of persons 

displaced by the Nazis. In 1948, Congress passed the 

Displaced Persons Act, providing hundreds of thousands of 

visas for postwar refugees.297

291 Information provided by USCIS Asylum Office Division Quarterly 

Stakeholder Meeting (Feb. 06, 2018). Under the newly established LIFO 

scheduling system, asylum applications filed in the last 21 days will be 

scheduled before any cases that have been pending longer than that, with the 

exception of applications for persons who had been scheduled prior to LIFO 

and were waiting rescheduling. See USCIS Webpage, “Affirmative Asylum 

Interview Scheduling” (Jan. 26, 2018); https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/

refugees-asylum/asylum/affirmative-asylum-interview-scheduling (accessed 

May 07, 2018). 292 Information provided by USCIS Asylum Office Division Quarterly 

Stakeholder Meeting (Feb. 06, 2018). 293 Information provided by USCIS (Feb. 23, 2018).

294 There is indeed an entire body of academic research and writing regarding 

the refugee crisis during World War II. We do not attempt to summarize 

it here, but instead strive to provide readers some basic information on the 

foundations of current asylum law in the United States. 295 See U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum Webpage, “Immigration to the 

United States, 1933–1941” https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.

php?ModuleId=10008297 (accessed Apr. 28, 2018). With no refugee policy, 

and a hostile national climate to refugees, the U.S. posed insurmountable 

hurdles to most refugees fleeing persecution and seeking U.S. entry during 

these years. 296 The tragedy of refugees refused entry was epitomized by the fate of the 

passengers of the SS St. Louis, who fled Germany in 1939 and were refused 

entry by both Cuba and the United States. Immigration and Refugee Law 

and Policy, Stephen Legomsky and Cristina Rodríguez, Sixth Edition, p. 

903. Upon return to Europe, at least 254 of the 937 passengers were later 

known to have been killed by the Nazis. See U.S. Holocaust Memorial 

Museum Webpage, “Refugees” https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.

php?ModuleId=10005139 (accessed Apr. 28, 2018). 297 See U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum Webpage, “The Aftermath of the 

Holocaust;” https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005129

(accessed Apr. 28, 2018).

After World War II, the United Nations (U.N.) took up 

the issue of refugee policy. In 1951, the U.N. adopted 

the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, which 

established a common definition of the term refugee 

and an obligation on the part of contracting states not 

to return people to countries where their life or freedom 

would be threatened due to their race, religion, nationality, 

membership of a particular social group, or political 

opinion.298 In 1968, the United States signed on to the 

international treaties, affirming this obligation to the 

refugee population.299

Subsequently, Congress passed the Refugee Act of 

1980,300 which codified the provisions of the 1951 Refugee 

Convention and its 1967 Protocol.301 The Refugee Act 

created a mechanism for individuals to seek refuge in 

the United States if they could establish, among other 

eligibility criteria, a well-founded fear of persecution on 

account of one of the enumerated grounds of race, religion, 

nationality, membership in a particular social group, or 

political opinion.302 

While closely related, the law and processes for refugee 

and asylum applicants differ. Refugees are defined in 8 

U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42) and refer to persons who are outside 

of the United States and are applying for protection in the 

United States based on persecution. Asylum applicants are 

in the United States already and are applying for protection 

based on persecution. See INA § 208; 8 U.S.C. § 1158. 

In both cases, the required persecution is taken from a 

definition in international treaties adopted by the United 

States, the Refugee Convention, and the amendments 

of the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees. The 

qualifying applicant in both cases must have a wellfounded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, 

298 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, July 28, 1951, 19 U.S.T. 

6223 (entered into force Oct. 4, 1967) at art. 1 para.1; http://www.ohchr.org/

Documents/ProfessionalInterest/refugees.pdf. The Convention as drafted 

was limited to “events occurring [in Europe] before 1 January 1951.” It was 

modified in 1967 to remove the temporal and geographic limitations. Text of 

the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees; http://www.unhcr.org/

protection/basic/3b66c2aa10/convention-protocol-relating-status-refugees.

html. 299 UNHCR Webpage, “States Parties to the 1951 Convention relating to the 

Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol;” http://www.unhcr.org/protection/

basic/3b73b0d63/states-parties-1951-convention-its-1967-protocol.html

(accessed May 25, 2018). 300 Refugee Act of 1980, Pub. L. No. 96-212, 94 Stat.102 (March 17, 1980). 

301 INA § 101(a)(42) incorporated the definition of a refugee from the Refugee 

Convention, as amended by the Protocol, Convention Relating to the Status 

of Refugees, July 28, 1951, 19 U.S.T. 6223 (entered into force Oct. 4, 1967) 

at art. 1, para.1. 302 INA § 101(a)(42) incorporated the definition of a refugee from the Refugee 

Convention, as amended by the Protocol. 
38 ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS JUNE 2018

religion, nationality, membership of a particular social 

group or political opinion.

Since passage of the 1980 Refugee Act, the process of 

requesting asylum has changed several ways. In 1990, the 

former INS established a specially trained asylum officer 

corps to adjudicate affirmative asylum claims and a process 

by which to adjudicate them.303 This enabled individuals 

who sought entry to the United States, or who had already 

entered the United States, to pursue the same asylum claims 

as refugees who were outside U.S. borders. In 1996, 

Congress added a one-year filing deadline, and permitted the 

expedited removal of asylum-seekers who failed to establish 

a “credible fear” of persecution during an abbreviated 

screening process.304 Expedited removal and credible fear 

screenings of asylum seekers have been expanded by recent 

Executive Orders.305

Individuals physically present or arriving in the United 

States, who are not U.S. citizens and not otherwise 

inadmissible, may apply for asylum on the basis of a 

claim of well-founded fear of persecution in their country 

of origin or last residence that makes them unwilling or 

303 The Immigration Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-649, 104 Stat. 4978, 5030-

5038; “Asylum and Withholding of Deportation Procedures, Final Rule,” 55 

Fed. Reg. 30674 (Jul. 27, 1990). 304 The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 

(IIRIRA), Pub. L. No. 104-208, div. C, 110 Stat. 3009-546, 604 (one year 

filing deadline); 689 (defining refugee); §203(b) (1) (B) (i)-(ii), 110 Stat. 

3009 (expedited removal for asylum seekers who do not establish a credible 

fear). Regulations for the one-year application deadline and its limited 

exceptions are found at 8 CFR §208.4(a). Applicants must apply for asylum 

within one year of their last arrival in the United States, unless they can 

demonstrate that there are changed circumstances that materially affect their 

eligibility for asylum or extraordinary circumstances directly related to their 

failure to file within one year. Changed or extraordinary circumstances 

may include certain changes in the conditions in their country, changes in 

their own circumstances, and other events. See USCIS Webpage, “Asylum 

Eligibility and Applications FAQ” (Jun. 18, 2013); https://www.uscis.gov/

faq-page/asylum-eligibility-and-applications-faq#t12802n40186 (accessed 

May 02, 2018). Congress intended the one-year filing deadline as a deterrent 

to fraudulent asylum claims, while allowing exceptions that would be 

fairly applied so as not to impede the protection the law should provide for 

genuine asylum seekers. See Mendez Rojas v. Johnson, 2018 WL 1532715 

(W.D. Wash. 2018), quoting Senator Orrin Hatch during deliberations on the 

passage of the restriction in 1996: “The Senate provisions had established 

a 1-year time limit only on defensive claims of asylum, that is, those raised 

for the first time in deportation proceedings, and provided for a good cause 

exception. Let me say that I share the Senator’s concern that we continue to 

ensure that asylum is available for those with legitimate claims of asylum. 

The way in which the time limit was rewritten in the conference report—with 

the two exceptions specified—was intended to provide adequate protections 

to those with legitimate claims of asylum.” 305 “Executive Order 13767: Border Security and Immigration Enforcement 

Improvements” (signed Jan. 25, 2017), 82 Fed. Reg. 8793-8797 (Jan. 30, 2017). 

unable to return.306 Asylum applicants must demonstrate 

they qualify for classification as refugees, albeit ones 

at or after entry, based on one or more of five protected 

grounds—race, religion, nationality, political opinion, 

and membership in a particular social group—which 

must form “at least one central reason for persecuting 

the applicant.”307 

The statute does not define persecution except to state that 

persons forced into abortion, involuntary sterilization, or 

who resist coercive population control shall be deemed to 

be persecuted on account of political opinion.308

Persecution has been further defined by administrative 

and court decisions.309 The Board of Immigration Appeals 

(BIA) defined persecution as harm or suffering inflicted 

upon an individual in order to punish the individual for 

possessing a belief or characteristic.310 The BIA recognized 

that a “punitive” intent is not required for the harm to 

constitute persecution and stated that persecution can consist 

of objectively serious harm or suffering that is inflicted 

because of a characteristic (whether real or perceived) of 

the victim.311

Persecution can include more than physical harm or the 

threat of it, such as “the deliberate imposition of severe 

economic disadvantage or the deprivation of life, liberty, 

food, housing, employment, or other essentials of life.”312

Acts that may constitute persecution included arbitrary 

deprivation of life; genocide; slavery; torture and other 

cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment; prolonged 

detention without notice of and an opportunity to contest 

the grounds for detention; and rape or other severe forms 

of sexual violence.313

306 The burden of proof on the applicant is to establish that he or she meets the 

definition of a refugee. INA § 208(b)(1)(B)(i); 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i), 8 

CFR § 1208.13(b). 307 INA § 208; 8 U.S.C. § 1158.

308 8 USC § 1101(a); INA § 101(a)(42).

309 See U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services RAIO Directorate—Officer 

Training (Jul. 11, 2012); available at aila.org; http://www.aila.org/infonet/

uscis-training-module-definition-of-persecution?utm_source=aila.org&utm_

medium=InfoNet%20Search (accessed May 24, 2018). 310 Matter of Acosta, 19 I&N Dec. 211, 22 (BIA 1985). 311 Matter of Kasinga, 21 I&N Dec. 357, 365 (BIA 1996). 312 In Re T-Z-, 24 I&N Dec. 163,169-71 (BIA 2007). 313 See U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services RAIO Directorate—Officer 

Training (Jul. 11, 2012); http://www.aila.org/infonet/uscis-training-moduledefinition-of-persecution?utm_source=aila.org&utm_medium=InfoNet%20

Search (accessed May 24, 2018).
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES OMBUDSMAN 39

Persecution connotes government action or inaction, 

typically in the form of a direct government action 

or government-supported action.314 Persecution may, 

however, involve a “government’s unwillingness or 

inability to control private conduct.”315

The regulations state that the required well-founded fear 

is established when an applicant demonstrates that “there 

is a reasonable possibility of suffering such persecution if 

he or she were to return to that country; and he or she is 

unable or unwilling to return to, or avail himself or herself 

of the protection of, that country because of such fear.”316 

The applicant must demonstrate that a reasonable person 

in the applicant’s circumstances would fear persecution.317

An applicant can establish eligibility by proving either a 

well-founded fear of future persecution, or that he or she has 

suffered past persecution.318

Applicants are not required to prove that they would 

be singled out for persecution individually if they can 

establish that there is a pattern or practice of persecution 

of a group of persons similarly situated to the applicant 

on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a 

particular social group, or political opinion, and that the 

applicant is identified with that group.319

Asylum Standard. An asylum applicant bears the burden 

of proving a well-founded fear of persecution, either 

as a result of past persecution or a well-founded fear 

of future persecution.320 A claim of past persecution 

creates a rebuttable presumption of a well-founded fear 

of future persecution. The government bears the burden 

of overcoming that presumption, which it may meet 

by establishing that: (1) circumstances have changed 

since the past persecution such that the applicant no 

longer has a well-founded fear of persecution; and/

or (2) the applicant may reasonably relocate to an area 

within the home country where the individual would 

no longer face persecution.321 A claim may also be 

based on a well-founded future fear, by demonstrating 

314 See, e.g., Aldana-Ramos v. Holder, 757 F.3d 9, 17 (1st Cir. 2014). 315 Aldana-Ramos v. Holder, 757 F.3d 9, 17 (1st Cir. 2014)(emphasis added). 316 8 CFR § 208.13 (b)(2)(i)(B) and (C). However, “An applicant does not have 

a well-founded fear of persecution if the applicant could avoid persecution 

by relocating to another part of the applicant’s country of nationality or, if 

stateless, another part of the applicant’s country of last habitual residence, if 

under all the circumstances it would be reasonable to expect the applicant to 

do so.” 8 CFR § 208.13 (b)(2)(ii). 317 Matter of Mogharrabi, 19 I&N Dec. 439, 445 (BIA 1987). 318 8 CFR § 208.13(b).

319 8 CFR § 208.13(b)(2)(iii).

320 8 CFR § 1208.13. 

321 8 CFR § 1208.13(b)(1).

a reasonable possibility of suffering such persecution 

upon return (which can be established by a pattern or 

practice of persecution of persons similarly situated to 

the applicant on account of the five protected grounds) 

and an unwillingness to return.322 There are also a list 

of prohibitions that act as bars to eligibility, which the 

applicant must demonstrate do not apply in order to 

succeed in the asylum application.323 

The Asylum Application Process. Asylum applications 

are generally filed in one of two ways, affirmatively or 

defensively. See Figure 4.1. Defensive asylum applications 

are filed in response to removability charges during hearings 

conducted by the Executive Office for Immigration Review 

(EOIR). Affirmative applications are filed by applicants 

in the United States who are not in removal proceedings 

directly with USCIS by submitting Form I-589, Application 

for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal within one year 

of arrival.324 USCIS’ RAIO oversees the operation of the 

Asylum Division, which administers the adjudication of 

affirmative asylum applications. Applicants are interviewed 

by USCIS at one of 12 asylum offices (nine full offices, 

three sub-offices) nationwide. After an asylum interview, 

applicants who are not granted asylum by USCIS (and who 

are not currently in valid status) are referred to Immigration 

Court, where they may present their asylum claim as a 

defense to removal to an immigration judge.

There are, however, two additional ways to raise a claim of 

asylum at or near our borders. The law provides for credible 

fear and reasonable fear screenings of those who either 

(1) present themselves at a port of entry with an intention 

to apply for asylum or indicate a fear of persecution, 

or (2) in violation of the law, cross the United States at 

a location other than an official port of entry, and are 

subject to expedited removal. Both are forms of expedited 

removal, but permit the applicant to seek asylum through an 

accelerated review of their claim.

322 8 CFR § 1208.13(b)(2).

323 Individuals who filed for asylum more than a year after entry, unless able to 

meet one of the narrow enumerated exceptions in the statute, are barred from 

asylum. The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act 

of 1996 (IIRIRA), Pub. L. No. 104-208, div. C, 110 Stat. 3009-546, 604. 

Also barred from asylum are persons convicted of an aggravated felony, or 

who materially supported a terrorist group, or who are deemed be a national 

security risk, or who are firmly resettled in another country, or who assisted 

in the persecution of others are barred from a grant of asylum. See INA § 

208(a)(2)(A) and (B); 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(A) and (B); (b)(2). 324 See Instructions for Form I-589, Application for Asylum and for Withholding 

of Removal; https://www.uscis.gov/i-589 (accessed May 01, 2018). 
40 ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS JUNE 2018

Credible Fear Screening Process. Individuals who 

seek admission to the United States without proper entry 

documents or who have otherwise not been admitted are 

subject to immediate return, called expedited removal.325 

However, if they claim a fear of persecution and a desire to 

apply for asylum, they are detained and receive a credible 

fear screening from an asylum officer.326 If the applicant 

establishes a “significant possibility” that he or she can 

prove the elements of a full asylum claim in a hearing 

before an immigration judge, the applicant is referred 

to proceedings and can apply for asylum in a removal 

325 See INA § 235; 8 U.S.C. § 1235.3(b). 326 See USCIS Webpage, “Questions and Answers: Credible Fear Screening” 

(Jul. 15, 2015); https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-asylum/asylum/

questions-answers-credible-fear-screening (accessed May 02, 2018).

hearing.327 The less rigorous standard and easier burden 

of proof distinguishes the credible fear process as a prescreening for asylum; the applicant must still meet the 

burden of a well-founded fear in removal.328

Reasonable Fear Screening Process. An individual 

who has unlawfully reentered the United States after 

being ordered removed or granted voluntary departure, 

and/or is subject to an administrative order of removal 

327 See 8 CFR § 208.30(f) and (g); USCIS Webpage, “Questions and 

Answers: Credible Fear Screening” (Jul. 15, 2015); https://www.uscis.gov/

humanitarian/refugees-asylum/asylum/questions-answers-credible-fearscreening (accessed May 02, 2018). 328 Congressional Research Service, “Asylum and ‘Credible Fear’ Issues in U.S. 

Immigration Policy,” R41753, June 29, 2011; https://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/

R41753.pdf (accessed June 13, 2018).

Figure 4.1: The Asylum Application Process: Affirmative vs. Defensive

Source: See USCIS Webpage, “The Affirmative Asylum Process” (Jan. 26, 2018); https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-asylum/asylum/affirmative-asylum-process 

(accessed May 24, 2018); USCIS Webpage, “Obtaining Asylum in the United States” (Oct. 19, 2015); 

https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-asylum/asylum/obtaining-asylum-united-states (accessed May 24, 2018).

AFFIRMATIVE

Applicant already in U.S.

DEFENSIVE

Applicant already in U.S. and in EOIR proceedings

Applicant applies for asylum by 

mailing a Form I-589 application to USCIS

Applicant applies for asylum by 

filing a Form I-589 application to EOIR

Interview conducted at an asylum office Hearing conducted at EOIR

Decision issued by Asylum Officer Decision issued by Immigration Judge

If NEGATIVE

Applicant is referred to EOIR for 

a hearing. EXCEPTION: if the person 

is currently in legal immigration 

status, then he or she is issued a 

denial (for example, the person 

is a student with F-1 status or the

applicant currently has TPS) 

If NEGATIVE

Applicant is denied and issued a 

removal order (or may be found 

eligible for another benefit, such 

as withholding of removal)

If POSITIVE

Asylum Granted
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES OMBUDSMAN 41

as an aggravated felon,329 but who expresses a fear of 

persecution upon return is detained and referred for a 

reasonable fear interview rather than a credible fear 

screening.330 A positive reasonable fear determination 

does not grant any immigration benefit, but it does allow 

a person to be referred to immigration court where the 

individual may ask an immigration judge to grant other 

relief, such as withholding of removal or, in some cases, 

relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).331 

Similar to credible fear, if a reasonable fear determination 

is negative, then the person may ask that an immigration 

judge review the asylum officer’s decision.332

Asylum Grants. Though USCIS’ Asylum Division does 

not track the basis of the persecution grounds upon which 

an applicant filed the asylum applications, it does track the 

basis of the claim upon which the final decision was made. 

In 2017, the overall approval rate for affirmative asylum 

applications was 34 percent.333 For FY 2018, the overall 

approval rate was 26 percent as of February, 2018.334 

See Figure 4.2.

Asylum Benefits. The benefits of asylum are substantial. 

An approved asylee may remain in the United States 

indefinitely (absent termination of asylee status, which can 

occur if there are fundamental changes in circumstances or 

acquisition of third country citizenship)335 and is eligible 

to apply for permanent residence status after one year.336 

Within two years of receiving asylum, an asylee may 

petition on the basis of the asylum status for spouses and 

unmarried children under 21 to join the applicant as an 

asylee.337 After five years of permanent resident status, 

eligible individuals may apply for naturalization and 

become U.S. citizens.338 

329 See 8 CFR § 241.8 and USCIS Webpage, “Reasonable Fear FAQ” (Sept. 26, 

2008); https://www.uscis.gov/faq-page/reasonable-fear-faq#t12808n40007

(accessed Apr. 30, 2018). 330 See USCIS Webpage, “Reasonable Fear FAQ” (Sept. 26, 2008); https://www.

uscis.gov/faq-page/reasonable-fear-faq#t12808n40007 (accessed Apr. 30, 2018). 331 Id. 332 Id. 333 Information provided by USCIS Asylum Office Division Quarterly 

Stakeholder Meeting (Feb. 06, 2018). 334 Id. 335 See INA § 208(c)(2); 8 U.S.C. § 1158(c)(2). 336 See INA § 209(a)(1); 8 U.S.C. § 1159(a)(1). 337 See INA § 208(b)(3); 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(3); Form I-730, Refugee/Asylee 

Relative Petition; https://www.uscis.gov/i-730 (accessed Mar. 07, 2018). 338 See INA § 316; 8 U.S.C. § 1427.

The Growing Backlog

The asylum application backlog, defined by the 

Asylum Office as all pending applications, has reached 

record numbers. 

A host of factors have contributed to the growth in 

the affirmative asylum backlog. These include: (1) 

a continuing high volume of credible and reasonable 

fear claims; (2) an increase in new affirmative 

asylum receipts; (3) an increase in affirmative asylum 

applications potentially motivated by obtaining 

employment authorization; (4) a potential rise in 

affirmative asylum cases filed for the purpose of obtaining 

access to immigration court to seek cancellation of 

removal; and (5) a rise in affirmative asylum claims by 

unaccompanied children. 

High Volume of Credible and Reasonable Fear Claims. 

Since FY 2012, a large number of Central American 

nationals arriving at the border have contributed to a high 

Figure 4.2: Grounds for Granting Affirmative Asylum in FY 2017

Nationality*

Referral/ 

Denial 

rate**

Grant 

rate†

Top 

ground††

#2 

ground

#3 

ground

China 58% 42% Religion CFP Political

El Salvador 65% 35% PSG none Political

Guatemala 67% 33% PSG none Race

Mexico 91% 9% none PSG Political

Venezuela 28% 72% Political PSG Multiple

Notes:

* With the exception of Venezuela, all listed nationalities are both most numerous new 

applications and most numerous applications completed by the Asylum Division 

during the fiscal year. Venezuela is not one of the nationalities with the most numerous applications completed by the Asylum Division.

** Referral/denial rate = (adjudicated referred + denied) / (granted + denied + 

adjudicated referred) x 100. Cases referred on the One Year Filing Deadline are 

included in adjudicated referred. This calculation does not include admin closures 

and unadjudicated referred cases (eg. no shows, no jurisdiction, withdrawals etc).

†

 Grant rate = granted / (granted + denied + adjudicated referred) x 100. This calculation does not include admin closures and unadjudicated referred cases (eg. no 

shows, no jurisdiction, withdrawals etc). 

†† The top grounds are the highest number of cases per ground for adjudicated cases 

in FY 2017 and FY 2018 Q1. 

Cases completed in any fiscal year could have been filed, received or reopened in 

previous fiscal years. Cases may include more than one individual, i.e. an applicant and 

a spouse and/or children. 

Source: Information provided by USCIS (Mar. 29, 2018). PSG denotes particular social 

group, while CFP means coercive family planning.
42 ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS JUNE 2018

volume of credible fear claims, which have constrained 

the Asylum Division’s capacity to direct resources to 

affirmative asylum adjudications. In FY 2011, credible 

fear case receipts numbered 8,254.339 In FY 2017, a total 

of 50,475 credible fear cases were received.340 

Reasonable fear claims also increased during the same 

period. In FY 2017, USCIS received 5,630 reasonable fear 

cases,341 more than double the FY 2011 total of 2,376342

and a seven percent increase over the reasonable fear 

cases in FY 2016 (5,235).343 Nationals of the Northern 

Triangle of El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala 

339 USCIS Webpage, “Credible Fear Workload Report Summary FY 2011;” 

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

Previous%20Engagements/2011/CredibleFearandReasonableFearWorkload.

pdf (accessed May 02, 2018). 340 USCIS Webpage, “Credible Fear Workload Report Summary FY 2017;” 

https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Outreach/PED-_Credible_

Fear_and_Reasonable_Fear_Statistics_and_Nationality_Report.pdf (accessed 

May 02, 2018). 341 USCIS Webpage, “Reasonable Fear Workload Report Summary FY 2017;” 

https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Outreach/PED-_Credible_

Fear_and_Reasonable_Fear_Statistics_and_Nationality_Report.pdf (accessed 

May 02, 2018). 342 USCIS Webpage, “Reasonable Fear Workload Report Summary FY 2011;” 

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

Previous%20Engagements/2011/CredibleFearandReasonableFearWorkload.

pdf (accessed May 02, 2018). 343 USCIS Webpage, “Reasonable Fear Workload Report 

Summary FY 2016;” https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/

USCIS/Outreach/Upcoming%20National%20Engagements/

CredibleFearReasonableFearStatisticsNationalityReports.pdf (accessed May 

02, 2018).

submitted the majority of the FY 2017 credible fear and 

reasonable claims.344 

The Asylum Division regularly sends asylum officers on 

temporary assignments to border locations to perform 

credible fear screenings345 of detained asylum seekers, 

limiting the availability of officers to adjudicate pending 

affirmative asylum applications. While many credible fear 

screenings are conducted telephonically, they still require 

hours of officer time, draining these finite resources.346

Increase in Affirmative Asylum Filings from New Sources. 

Not only has the Asylum Division been inundated with 

credible fear and reasonable fear interviews, but it also is 

receiving a higher number of new affirmative asylum cases. 

See Figures 4.3 and 5.2. In 2009, the Asylum Division 

received approximately 2,400 applications per month; by 

344 USCIS Webpage, “Monthly Credible and Reasonable Fear Nationality 

Reports;” https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Outreach/PED-_

Credible_Fear_and_Reasonable_Fear_Statistics_and_Nationality_Report.pdf

(accessed May 02, 2018). 345 USCIS Asylum Division does not adjudicate asylum applications arising 

from credible fear screenings. These defensive applications are adjudicated 

by EOIR. 346 Information provided by USCIS (Feb. 23, 2018).

Figure Asylum 4.3: The Rising Backlog of Affirmative Asylum Applications

September

2011

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

September

2012

September

2013

September

2014

September

2015

September

2016

September

2017

March

2018

Number of Pending Cases

Source: USCIS Webpage, “Notes from Previous Engagements” (ND); https://www.uscis.gov/outreach/notes-previous-engagements (accessed May 24, 2018).
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES OMBUDSMAN 43

FY 2018, it was receiving over 8,000 filings per month.347 As 

of March 31, 2018, USCIS had 318,624 affirmative asylum 

applications pending final decision from the Asylum Division. 

A rise in receipts from nationals of countries experiencing 

acute hardship has contributed to this trend.348 For 

example, in FY 2017, Venezuela ranked as the number one 

country of nationality for affirmative asylum applicants, 

surpassing China, which has a much larger population and 

had been the leading country of nationality for affirmative 

asylum applicants for the past ten years.349 

Employment Authorization Incentive. The growing 

backlog of affirmative asylum filings has lengthened 

processing times. Applications now often remain pending 

for well over a year, depending on the jurisdiction, before 

347 For example, for the one month period of March 2018, 8,055 asylum 

applications were filed. Information provided by USCIS Asylum Division 

Quarterly Stakeholder Meeting (May 01, 2018). For the month of November 

2009, 2,394 applications were filed. USCIS Webpage, “Asylum Office 

Workload. November 2009” (Apr. 21, 2010); https://www.uscis.gov/sites/

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

Asylum%20Workload%20Nov%202009%20-%20Jan%202010.pdf (accessed 

May 02, 2018). 348 Information provided by USCIS (Feb. 23, 2018).

349 Id.

asylum seekers are even interviewed. This is long beyond 

the 180-day adjudication time frame specified in the 

statute.350 See Figure 4.5.

The Asylum Division surmises that this long wait has 

incentivized individuals to claim asylum in order to obtain 

work authorization.351 The law requires those filing an 

asylum application to wait 150 days before requesting 

employment authorization, with the caveat that USCIS 

may not grant work authorization to an asylum applicant 

until 180 days after filing.352 When the Asylum Division 

had a smaller pending caseload and adjudicated affirmative 

asylum cases more quickly, it often reached asylum 

decisions prior to the 150-day mark, including denials 

of meritless applications, which rendered the applicants 

ineligible for employment authorization. However, USCIS 

350 INA § 208(d)(5); 8 U.S.C. § 1158(d)(5) (“in the absence of exceptional 

circumstances, final administrative adjudication of the asylum application, 

not including administrative appeal, shall be completed within 180 days after 

the date an application is filed”). See also Human Rights First Webpage, 

“Asylum Office Backlog and Delays” (Nov. 16, 2016); http://www.

humanrightsfirst.org/resource/asylum-office-backlog-and-delays (accessed 

March 8, 2018). 351 Information provided by USCIS (Feb. 23, 2018).

352 8 CFR § 208.7(a)(1).

Figure 4.4: Pending Caseloads by Asylum Office

Newark 0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

Arlington Boston Chicago Houston Los Angeles Miami New York

Local Jurisdiction Circuit Ride

San

Francisco

New

Orleans

Number of Pending Cases

Asylum Office Location

Source: Information provided by USCIS (Mar. 29, 2018). Note that circuit ride locations are staffed on a periodic basis by one of the 12 permanent asylum offices, which assign staff to 

conduct interviews on scheduled visits to more remote geographic locations. The Boston and New York Asylum Offices do not at this time conduct circuit rides.
44 ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS JUNE 2018

presumes the backlog has created an incentive to apply 

for asylum—without a strong case, or even fraudulently, 

for the purpose of obtaining an EAD while the delays 

continue.353 The agency suspects that these EADmotivated applications have exacerbated the backlog. 

Cancellation of Removal Incentive. The Asylum 

Division also reports that another contributing factor to 

the asylum backlog is an increase of applicants who file 

for affirmative asylum seeking a path into immigration 

court to apply for cancellation of removal. 354 Cancellation 

of removal, a statutory defense against removal after 

ten years of physical presence, is not a benefit for which 

an individual may affirmatively apply. It is a defense 

to removal, available only to those who are already in 

removal proceedings, as jurisdiction lies solely before 

an immigration judge.355 The Asylum Division recently 

performed an audit identifying up to 50,000 pending 

353 Information provided by USCIS Asylum Office Division Quarterly 

Stakeholder Meeting (Feb. 06, 2018). 354 Information provided by USCIS (Feb. 23, 2018).

355 Cancellation of removal is a defense to removal under INA §240A (b) which 

is only available to individuals in removal proceedings before an immigration 

judge who have been physically present in the U.S. for not less than 10 years 

and can prove exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to the alien’s 

spouse, parent or child who is a U.S. citizen or LPR. 

affirmative asylum applications filed by individuals who 

entered the United States more than ten years ago, despite 

the one-year filing requirement.356 The Asylum Division 

suspects this group of asylum applicants filed for asylum, 

anticipating referral to immigration court where they could 

then apply for cancellation of removal, an avenue not 

otherwise available. 357 

Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act 

(TVPRA) Preference for UAC Applications. As the 

number of asylum applications has increased, the number 

of UACs claiming asylum also has grown exponentially, 

further complicating the Asylum Division’s resource issues. 

Until new scheduling priorities were announced in 2018,358

USCIS prioritized affirmative asylum interviews of UACs 

ahead of other categories of asylum applicants. In 2012, 

only 410 UACs filed asylum claims, which grew to 14,711 

in 2016.359 This has not only increased the sheer number of 

affirmative asylum claims, but impacted the timing in which 

the claims were processed. Some of these cases required 

moving resources to family residential centers in remote 

locations where asylum officers had to travel to interview 

them in person.360 This further slowed down affirmative 

asylum processing and pushed interview wait times because 

asylum officers were not immediately available to conduct 

affirmative interviews. 

Efforts to Address the Backlog and Mitigate its Effects

USCIS has undertaken a range of initiatives to address the 

backlog and mitigate its consequences for asylum seekers, 

agency operations, and the integrity of the asylum system. 

These efforts include: (1) revised scheduling priorities 

including changing from FIFO order processing to LIFO 

order; (2) staffing increases and retention initiatives; (3) 

acquiring new asylum division facilities; (4) assigning 

refugee officers to the Asylum Division; (5) conducting 

remote screenings; and (6) launching a pilot program for 

356 Information provided by USCIS (Feb. 23, 2018). The one-year filing 

deadline regulations outline a few important exceptions for unaccompanied 

minors, changed circumstances affecting eligibility for asylum, or 

extraordinary circumstances that created a delay in filing an application. 8 

CFR § 208.4(a)(4) and (5). 357 Information provided by USCIS (Feb. 23, 2018).

358 See USCIS Webpage, “Affirmative Asylum Interview Scheduling” (Jan. 

26, 2018); https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-asylum/asylum/

affirmative-asylum-interview-scheduling (accessed May 07, 2018). 359 Information provided by USCIS (May 04, 2017). See also Ombudsman’s 

Annual Report 2017, p. 40. 360 Information provided by USCIS (Feb. 23, 2018).

Figure 4.5: Average Number of Days Pending from Application 

Filing Date to Interview

Miami

Arlington

New Orleans

Houston

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

Local Jurisdiction Circuit Ride

Boston

San Francisco

Chicago

Los Angeles

New York

Newark

Asylum Office Location

Average Days Pending with USCIS

Source: Information provided by USCIS (Mar. 29, 2018). The Boston and New York 

Asylum Offices do not at this time conduct circuit rides.
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES OMBUDSMAN 45

applicants seeking a route to immigration court to request 

cancellation of removal.

Revised Interview Scheduling Priorities. A significant 

scheduling change occurred in January 2018 with FIFO 

scheduling returning to LIFO scheduling order. Previously 

implemented in 1995, LIFO remained in effect until 

2014.361 Under FIFO scheduling, USCIS generally 

processed affirmative asylum applications in the order they 

were filed, although priority scheduling applied to some 

cases, such as those involving rescheduled interviews 

and the statutorily-required UACs. The now-operative 

LIFO scheduling methodology prioritizes newly-filed 

applications. Statutory requirements call for an interview 

(in the absence of exceptional circumstances) within 45 

days of the filing of an application.362 With the return to 

LIFO scheduling, USCIS indicates that it will schedule 

asylum interviews using the following order of priority 

for those cases that fall under the nine primary asylum 

office locations:

 First Priority: Rescheduled interviews.363 These 

include applications that were scheduled for an 

interview, but the interview had to be rescheduled either 

by USCIS or at the applicant’s request.

 Second Priority: Applications pending 21 days 

or less.364

 Third Priority: All other pending affirmative 

asylum applications will be scheduled for interviews 

starting with newer filings and working back toward 

older filings.365

Cases subject to interviews at “circuit ride” locations 

(generally a USCIS field office situated closer than 

the asylum office to an applicant’s residence) will not 

fall under the 21-day time frame. Rather, the Asylum 

Division will schedule these cases for interviews as 

resources permit.366

361 See Information provided by USCIS Asylum Office Division Stakeholder 

Meeting (Feb. 06, 2018). 362 INA § 208(d)(5); 8 U.S.C. § 1158(d)(5).

363 See USCIS Webpage, “Affirmative Asylum Interview Scheduling” (Jan. 

26, 2018); https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-asylum/asylum/

affirmative-asylum-interview-scheduling (accessed May 07, 2018). 364 Id. 365 Id. Local offices report that 90 percent of cases scheduled for interviews fall 

within the first two priorities, that is, reschedules and cases aged within 21 

days of receipt. Information provided by USCIS (May 01, 2018). 366 See USCIS Webpage, “Affirmative Asylum Interview Scheduling” (Jan. 

26, 2018); https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-asylum/asylum/

affirmative-asylum-interview-scheduling (accessed May 07, 2018).

USCIS reverted to this scheduling methodology to reduce 

the potential incentive to file an asylum application merely 

as a means of acquiring an EAD.367 With interview 

scheduling based on filing date under FIFO, and with 

applicants able to apply for an EAD once their asylum 

application has been pending 150 days, applicants could 

acquire an EAD before being contacted for an asylum 

interview. Under LIFO, potential asylum applicants will 

be much more likely to have an interview, and potentially 

a decision, before their application reaches the 150-day 

threshold. Local offices report a 25 percent drop in 

affirmative receipts in the immediate aftermath of the 

change to LIFO scheduling.368

Asylum offices continue to grant a limited number of 

expedited interview requests on a case-by-case basis.369 

Each asylum office has a process for adjudicating 

expedited interview requests that generally requires a 

written request to the asylum office.370 Apart from the 

expedite process, many offices also maintain a standby list. 

Applicants can request placement on that list in the event 

of last-minute interview cancellations.371 

Local offices report that they have adopted additional 

initiatives to ease the processing of cases quickly, such as 

requiring the submission of any additional evidence one 

week prior to a scheduled interview, allowing officers 

time to review documentation necessary to conduct 

the interview.372

One issue arising from the change in the priorities is the 

removal of UACs from the priority list. As discussed 

above, TVPRA provides USCIS with initial jurisdiction 

367 Information provided by USCIS Asylum Office Division Stakeholder 

Meeting (Feb. 06, 2018). 368 Information provided by USCIS (May 01, 2018). 

369 See USCIS Webpage, “Affirmative Asylum Scheduling Bulletin” (Jan. 

26, 2018); https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-asylum/asylum/

affirmative-asylum-scheduling-bulletin (accessed Mar. 07, 2018). 370 See USCIS Webpage, “Questions and Answers USCIS Asylum Division 

Quarterly Stakeholder Meeting” (Feb. 07, 2017); https://www.uscis.

gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Outreach/Notes%20from%20Previous%20

Engagements/PED_AsylumQuarterlyEngagementQA02072017.pdf (accessed 

Mar. 09, 2017); see also Information provided by USCIS at the Sixth Annual 

Ombudsman’s Conference (Dec. 06, 2016); USCIS Webpage, “Affirmative 

Asylum Scheduling Bulletin” (Mar. 06, 2017); https://www.uscis.gov/

humanitarian/refugees-asylum/asylum/affirmative-asylum-schedulingbulletin (accessed Mar. 10, 2017). 371 Information provided by USCIS at the Sixth Annual Ombudsman’s 

Conference (Dec. 06, 2016); See USCIS Webpage, “Questions and Answers 

USCIS Asylum Division Quarterly Stakeholder Meeting” (Nov. 4, 2016); 

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

Previous%20Engagements/PED_AsylumQuarterlyEngagementQA11042016.

pdf (accessed Mar. 09, 2017). 372 Information provided by USCIS (May 01, 2018).
46 ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS JUNE 2018

over all asylum applications filed by UACs, even those 

initially filed in removal proceedings.373 The revised 

priorities will mean UACs may now wait longer for 

interviews, although they will still fall under the new 

LIFO process.

Staffing Increases and Retention Initiatives. Since 

2015, USCIS has increased the number of asylum officer 

positions by more than 50 percent, from 448 officers 

authorized for FY 2015 to 686 officers authorized for FY 

2018.374 Along with these staffing enhancements, RAIO 

increased the frequency with which it offered the RAIO 

Directorates’ Combined Training and Asylum Division 

Officer Training Course, thereby reducing the amount of 

time spent in training.375 Moreover, to address asylum 

officer turnover, the Asylum Division has made efforts 

to increase telework options and expand opportunities 

for advancement.376

New Asylum Division Facilities. The Asylum Division 

also expanded its field operations, opening sub-offices 

in Boston, New Orleans, and Arlington, VA. Its most 

significant expansion, however, is just getting underway. 

Currently, the Asylum Division is establishing an asylum 

vetting center—distinct from the planned DHS-wide 

National Vetting Center—in Atlanta, Georgia. This center 

will allow for the initiation of certain security checks 

from a central location, rather than at individual asylum 

offices, in an effort to alleviate the administrative burden 

on asylum officers and to promote vetting and processing 

efficiency. USCIS has already begun hiring for the center, 

which will ultimately staff approximately 300 personnel, 

composed of both asylum and FDNS positions.377 USCIS 

expects completion of the center’s construction in 2019 

or 2020.378 

373 TVPRA § 235(d)(7)(B).

374 Information Provided by USCIS (Apr. 12, 2017). As of Jan. 1, 2017 the 

Asylum Division has 528 Asylum Officers and is projected to reach 562 by 

September 30, 2017). Information provided by USCIS at the Sixth Annual 

Ombudsman’s Conference (Dec. 06, 2016); see also USCIS Webpage, 

“Questions and Answers USCIS Asylum Division Quarterly Stakeholder 

Meeting” (Feb. 07, 2017); https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/

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

AsylumQuarterlyEngagementQA02072017.pdf (accessed Mar. 09, 2017). 375 See USCIS Webpage, “Questions and Answers USCIS Asylum Division 

Quarterly Stakeholder Meeting” (Aug. 02, 2016) (reflects two simultaneous 

trainings for scheduled for new asylum officers); https://www.uscis.gov/sites/

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

PED_AsylumQuarterlyQandA080216.pdf (accessed Mar. 24, 2017). 376 Information provided by USCIS (Feb. 23, 2018).

377 Id. 378 Id.

Remote Screenings: Telephonic and Videoconference. In 

2016, the Asylum Division established a sub-office of the 

Arlington Asylum Office dedicated to adjudicating credible 

and reasonable fear claims. This sub-office performs remote 

(primarily telephonic) screenings of applicants who are 

located in detention facilities throughout the country.379 

This leaves the interviewers performing assessments of 

the applicants via telephonic screenings, which enables 

the interviewers to access their offices, files, and research, 

but has consequences distinct from an in-person interview 

in terms of the physical remoteness of the interviewer 

from the applicant. USCIS may assign personnel on the 

ground at the facilities as needed to manage logistics and 

conduct certain interviews in-person and on-site. For 

example, currently all interviews involving children must 

be conducted in person, so these are instead conducted by 

officers rotating to facilities.380

The Asylum Division states that its practice of performing 

remote telephonic screenings of credible and reasonable 

fear claims have enhanced processing efficiency since 

implementation.381 These screenings allow asylum 

offices greater agility and speed in reaching asylum 

seekers whose arrival patterns in the United States are not 

always predictable and who may be detained at remote 

detention facilities.382

Refugee Officers Assigned to the Asylum Division. 

Throughout 2018, RAIO plans to have approximately 100 

refugee officers serving 12-week assignments with the 

Asylum Division at any given time.383 As the refugee quota 

diminished, refugee office personnel became available 

to perform other functions. The annual U.S. Refugee 

Admissions Program cap—which designates the number 

of refugees that the United States may resettle in a given 

year—increased from 70,000 in FY 2015 to 85,000 in FY 

2016384 and was set to increase in FY 2017 to 110,000.385 As 

379 Id. 380 Id. 381 Reasonable fear screenings used to only be conducted in person or by secure 

video, but since 2015, they have been done by phone as well. Information 

provided by USCIS (Feb. 23, 2018). 382 Information provided by USCIS (Feb. 23, 2018).

383 Id. 384 Department of State Webpage, “Proposed Refugee Admissions for 

Fiscal Year 2017” (Sept. 15, 2016); http://www.state.gov/j/prm/releases/

docsforcongress/247770.htm (accessed Mar. 07, 2018); Department of State 

Webpage, “Proposed Refugee Admissions for Fiscal Year 2016” (Oct. 01, 2015); 

https://www.state.gov/j/prm/releases/docsforcongress/247770.htm (accessed Mar. 

07, 2018). 385 Department of State Webpage, “Proposed Refugee Admissions for 

Fiscal Year 2017” (Sept. 15, 2016); http://www.state.gov/j/prm/releases/

docsforcongress/247770.htm (accessed March 07, 2018).
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES OMBUDSMAN 47

this cap grew, USCIS increasingly loaned asylum officers 

to RAIO’s Refugee Division to meet the growing refugee 

processing workload. With a cap of 45,000 for FY 2018,386

the trend has reversed, with refugee officers now being 

loaned to the Asylum Division. These refugee officers 

are able to interview affirmative asylum cases, conduct 

credible fear and reasonable fear screenings, and provide 

operational support.387 RAIO assigns refugee officers both 

to asylum offices and DHS’s family residential centers. The 

Administration cited the affirmative asylum backlog as a 

factor influencing its 2018 refugee ceiling determination, 

stating that agency resource allocations would reflect 

prioritization of the backlog. 388

Pilot Program for Applicants who Appear to be Seeking 

Cancellation of Removal. As noted above, the Asylum 

Division recently identified up to 50,000 pending affirmative 

asylum applications filed by individuals who entered the 

United States more than 10 years ago, who may actually 

be seeking a referral to immigration court where they 

could then apply for cancellation of removal. Recently, the 

Asylum Division began a pilot program in which it notified 

1500 of these applicants of an option to voluntarily waive 

their asylum interviews and proceed directly to immigration 

court.389 The Asylum Division will evaluate the results of 

the pilot and consider expansion in the future. 

Other Impacts of the Backlog 

Security concerns have been raised about a large pool 

of people in the United States awaiting action on their 

immigration cases, including security vetting.390 The plans 

already underway to develop a pre-processing center for 

asylum filings, which will centralize security checks, could 

ease this concern. A systematic and centralized security 

process will make such checks more efficient and more 

consistent, providing stability in the process and enabling 

adjudicators to focus on the merits of each claim. The 

center, however, will not be in full operation for at least 

a year from the time of publication of this Report, by 

386 Department of State Webpage, “Proposed Refugee Admissions for 

Fiscal Year 2018” (Oct. 04, 2017); https://www.state.gov/j/prm/releases/

docsforcongress/274613.htm (accessed March 07, 2018). 387 Information provided by USCIS (Feb. 23, 2018).

388 Department of State Webpage, “Proposed Refugee Admissions for 

Fiscal Year 2018” (Oct. 04, 2017); https://www.state.gov/j/prm/releases/

docsforcongress/274613.htm (accessed March 0018). 389 Information provided by USCIS (Feb. 23, 2018).

390 Department of State Webpage, “Proposed Refugee Admissions for 

Fiscal Year 2018” (Oct. 04, 2017); https://www.state.gov/j/prm/releases/

docsforcongress/274613.htm (accessed March 07, 2018). 

which time the backlog of applications is not likely to be 

substantially reduced.391

Conclusion

The Asylum Division has carefully planned and 

implemented a comprehensive backlog reduction plan 

that will begin to chip away at the more than 300,000 

pending asylum applications. Some offices already 

report a 25 percent drop in affirmative asylum filings 

since implementation of the LIFO scheduling system in 

January 2018.392 Despite the gains that USCIS predicts, 

the backlog may be difficult to reduce due to other factors 

such as changes in enforcement and loss of status by 

certain groups based on new policy changes. 

One potential challenge for reducing the affirmative 

asylum backlog is the possibility of a new wave of 

asylum claims from individuals currently holding TPS. 

TPS for nationals of El Salvador will end in 2019,393 and 

it is likely that some percentage of the approximately 

200,000394 individuals left without status may be eligible to 

affirmatively apply for asylum. Asylum applications from 

El Salvador are currently the second highest number of 

filings at the Asylum Division.395 TPS is ending for several 

other nationalities, as well. Haitians will lose TPS on July 

22, 2019,396 and Hondurans will lose TPS on January 5, 

2020.397 The Asylum Division may face more challenges 

if some portion of this population becomes part of the 

pending affirmative asylum caseload. 

391 Information provided by USCIS (Feb. 23, 2018). 

392 Information provided by USCIS (May 1, 2018). 

393 See USCIS Webpage, “Re-Registration Period Now Open for Salvadorans 

with Temporary Protected Status” (Jan. 18, 2018); https://www.uscis.gov/

news/news-releases/re-registration-period-now-open-salvadorans-temporaryprotected-status (accessed May 07, 2018) announcing one last extension and 

the end of the program on September 9, 2019. 394 Information provided by USCIS (Feb. 23, 2018).

395 See USCIS Webpage, “Asylum Office Workload, December 

2017” (Feb. 06, 2018); https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/

USCIS/Outreach/Upcoming%20National%20Engagements/PED_

AffirmativeAsylumStatisticsDecember2017.pdf (accessed May 07, 2018). 396 See USCIS Webpage, “Temporary Protected Status Haiti” (May 09, 2018) 

https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/temporary-protected-status/temporaryprotected-status-designated-country-haiti (accessed May 16, 2018). 397 See USCIS Webpage, “Temporary Protected Status Honduras” (May 09, 

2018) https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/temporary-protected-status/

temporary-protected-status-designated-country-honduras (accessed May 

16, 2018).
48 ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS JUNE 2018

EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program

Responsible Office: Field Operations Directorate, 

Immigrant Investor Program Office

Key Facts and Findings

 As usage of the EB-5 Program has grown, stakeholders, 

including members of Congress, have increasingly 

voiced concerns regarding program integrity, possible 

exploitation of foreign investors and the potential for 

EB-5 investors to use funds from unlawful sources. 

 Stakeholders have criticized Targeted Employment 

Area (TEA) gerrymandering, which has concentrated 

investments in wealthy urban areas rather than rural and 

high-unemployment areas as originally intended. 

 USCIS has sought to address these concerns and 

others through a range of reforms, including proposed 

regulations issued in January 2017 that increase 

program oversight and redefine TEAs. 

Background

Congress established the EB-5 Immigrant Investor 

program in 1990 to encourage foreign entrepreneurs 

to make capital investments in the United States and 

produce jobs for American workers.398 Under the EB-5 

program, foreign nationals who invest $1 million in a new 

or existing U.S. for-profit entity and create ten full-time 

positions for U.S. workers are eligible to apply for an 

immigrant visa.399 The required investment decreases to 

$500,000 when the business operates within a TEA, which 

398 Section 121(a) of the Immigration Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-649, 104 

Stat. 4978; as codified in scattered sections of the U.S. Code. 399 INA § 203(b)(5)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(5)(A); 8 CFR § 204.6(j).
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES OMBUDSMAN 49

is a rural area or an area with high unemployment rates.400 

Congress allocates approximately 10,000 immigrant visas 

annually to immigrant investors and their immediate 

family members.401

At the outset of the EB-5 program, foreign investors used 

a small fraction of the 10,000 annual visa allotment. In 

1992, Congress attempted to spur more participation 

by creating the EB-5 Regional Center Pilot Program 

(Regional Center Program).402 The Regional Center 

Program allowed investors to pool investments into 

larger projects that would have greater impact on the 

U.S. economy.403 Investors now could meet program 

requirements through direct and indirect job creation―a 

new job based on an employer-employee relationship 

between the new commercial enterprise and the people it 

employs or a new job held outside of the new commercial 

enterprise created as a result of the enterprise.404 This 

pilot program was intended to sunset after five years, but 

400 INA § 203(b)(5)(B)-(C), 8 U.S.C. § 1153 (b)(5)(B)-(C). The employment 

rate must be at least 150 percent of the national average. INA § 203(b)(5)(ii). 401 INA §§ 201(d), 203(b)(5)(A), 8 U.S.C. §§ 1151(d), 1153(b)(5)(A).

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

Agencies Appropriations Act, 1993, Pub. L. 102-395, 106 Stat. 1828 (Oct. 6, 

1992). 403 USCIS Policy Manual, vol. 6, Chapter 1, citing S. Rep. 102-331 at 118 

(July 23, 1992); https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManualVolume6-PartG-Chapter1.html. 404 8 CFR § 204.6(e)(definition of “employee”).

Congress has repeatedly extended it, with the most recent 

grant scheduled to end on October 23, 2018.405

Congress’s expansion of investor visa options through 

the Regional Center Program did not lead to increased 

use of the EB-5 program throughout its first 15 years of 

existence.406 See Figure 5.1. 

Other changes dampened interest in the program. For 

example, USCIS issued four precedent decisions 

through the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) that 

restricted business practices and financial maneuverings 

deemed incompatible with EB-5 law and regulations. 

These decisions: (1) eliminated repayment/redemption 

guarantees that meant the EB-5 investment capital was no 

longer “at risk,” which is a program requirement;407 (2) 

emphasized that the investor bears the burden of clearly 

establishing the lawful source of the investment capital;408

(3) clarified when a reorganized business may qualify as 

a “new commercial enterprise;”409 and (4) restricted the 

use of investor promissory notes as a qualifying capital 

405 Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018, Pub. L. 115-141 (March 23, 2018).

406 USCIS Website, “Data Set: Form I-526 Immigrant Petition by Alien 

Entrepreneur;” https://www.uscis.gov/tools/reports-studies/immigrationforms-data/data-set-form-i-526-immigrant-petition-alien-entrepreneur

(accessed May 9, 2018). 407 Matter of Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169 (Assoc. Comm’r Examinations 1998). 408 Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158 (Assoc. Comm’r Examinations 1998). 409 Id.

Figure 5.1: EB-5 Admissions, FY 1992–2017

1992

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

59

583

44

540

936

1361

824

285

218

191

142

64

129

346

749806

1,360

3,688

2,480

3,340

6,628

8,543

10,723

10,188

9,8639,855

Source DHS Office of Immigration Statistics, Yearbook of Immigration Statistics; multiple years; https://www.dhs.gov/immigration-statistics/yearbook (accessed May 23, 2018).*

*In FYs 2014 and 2015 the number of EB-5 visas exceeded the 9,800 authorized under the INA (7 percent of the total number of employment-based (EB) immigrant visas that are 

available in the year, which is usually 140,000), as the statute specifies that unused family-based (FB) immigrant visas in a fiscal year are to be added to the number of EB visas that 

are made available for use in the following year. INA § 201(d), 8 U.S.C. § 1151(d). This is what happened in FYs 2013 and 2014, when unused FB visas were added to the EB allocations for use in FYs 2014 and 2015.
50 ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS JUNE 2018

investment if not secured by the investor’s assets in 

full.410 In addition, these decisions required investors to 

submit a well-developed business plan for the commercial 

enterprise that addressed specified issues with the investor 

petition (Form I-526, Immigrant Petition by Alien 

Entrepreneur) outlined by the AAO.411

Since 2008, regional center filings have increased 

dramatically, a trend that began during the financial crisis; 

currently, almost all EB-5 filings are now through regional 

centers. Prior to 2008, the EB–5 program received on 

average fewer than 600 immigrant petitions per year. 

However, since 2008, the program has averaged over 

5,500 petitions per year, primarily due to the increase in 

regional center filings.412 In the fourth quarter of FY 2015, 

a random sampling taken by GAO of pending immigrant 

investor petitions showed approximately 91 percent of 

EB-5 investments were made through regional centers, and 

99 percent of all EB-5 projects were located in a TEA.413 

The financial crisis resulted in the closure of many U.S. 

lending institutions, reawakening interest in the EB-5 

program from investors, as well as project developers. As 

the United States fell deeper into recession, it became more 

difficult for large-scale commercial real estate developers 

to access conventional financing for their projects.414 In 

response, developers and other intermediaries turned to the 

EB-5 program to raise capital.415 The program attracted 

commercial real estate and other developers as a way to 

access below-prime lending rates using foreign investor 

410 Matter of Hsiung, 22 I&N Dec. 201 (Assoc. Comm’r Examinations 1998). 411 Matter of Ho, 22 I&N Dec. 206 (Assoc. Comm’r Examinations 1998). 412 “EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program Modernization,” 82 Fed. Reg. 4738, 

4743-4744 (Jan. 13, 2017). 413 U.S. Government Accountability Office Testimony, “Immigrant Investor 

Program, Proposed Project Investments in Targeted Employment 

Areas,” Statement of Rebecca Gambler Director, Homeland Security and 

Justice Issues, GAO-17-487T; https://judiciary.house.gov/wp-content/

uploads/2017/03/Gambler-Testimony.pdf (accessed May 9, 2018). 414 See “EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program Modernization,” 82 Fed. Reg. 4738, 

4755 (Jan. 13, 2017)(“EB-5 filings grew rapidly starting in 2008, when the 

U.S. financial crisis reduced available U.S.-based commercial lending funds 

and alternative funding sources, such as the EB-5 program, were sought. 

Based on the type of projects that Form I-526 petitions describe, it appears that 

EB-5 capital has been used as a source of financing for a variety of projects, 

including a large number of commercial real estate development projects 

to develop hotels, assisted living facilities, and office buildings”). See also

The Nat’l Bureau of Econ. Research, U.S., Business Cycle Expansions and 

Contractions; www.nber.org/cycles.html (accessed May 9, 2018). 415 Bipartisan Policy Center, “EB-5 Program: Successes, Challenges, and 

Opportunities for States and Localities,” September 2015, p. 11; https://

bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/BPC-Immigration-EB5-

Visa-Program.pdf (accessed May 29, 2018).

funds.416 By September 2016, nearly 74 percent of petitioners 

investing in a TEA used various types of real estate projects 

including mixed use, hotels and resorts, commercial, and 

residential developments.417 See Figure 5.2. 

Figure 5.2: GAO Breakdown of EB-5 Capital Investment Usage

1% Retirement Homes

2% Energy Sector

2% Education/Schools

3% Medical Facilities

4% Restaurants

4% Transportation/Storage

5% Other

7% Infrastructure

7% Real Estate: Residential

7% Real Estate: Commercial

38%

Real Estate:

Mixed Use

22%

Real Estate:

Hotel/Resort

Source: GAO Testimony, “Immigrant Investor Program, Proposed Project Investments 

in Targeted Employment Areas,” Statement of Rebecca Gambler, Director, Homeland 

Security and Justice Issues, GAO-17-487T; https://judiciary.house.gov/wp-content/

uploads/2017/03/Gambler-Testimony.pdf (accessed May 9, 2018).

USCIS strove to maintain program controls and provide 

stakeholders with adequate guidance on increasingly 

complex program issues. In 2010, USCIS began a 

comprehensive review of the entire EB-5 program to 

document, streamline, and consolidate its adjudication 

policies and procedures, as well as to address concerns 

raised by EB-5 stakeholders.418 Following discussions 

416 GAO Report, “Immigrant Investor Program—Progress Made to Detect 

and Prevent Fraud, but Additional Actions Could Further Agency Efforts,” 

GAO-16-828, p. 6 (Sept. 2016); https://www.gao.gov/assets/680/679723.

pdf. See also Jeanne Calderon and Gary Friedland, “A Roadmap to the 

Use of EB-5 Capital: An Alternative Financing Tool for Commercial Real 

Estate Projects” (May 22, 2015), New York University Stern Center for Real 

Estate Finance Research; http://www.stern.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/assets/

documents/EB5%20paper%20final%205.24.2015.pdf. See also Bipartisan 

Policy Center, “EB-5 Program: Successes, Challenges, and Opportunities for 

States and Localities,” September 2015, p. 21; https://bipartisanpolicy.org/

wp-content/uploads/2015/09/BPC-Immigration-EB5-Visa-Program.pdf. 417 GAO Testimony, “Immigrant Investor Program, Proposed Project 

Investments in Targeted Employment Areas,” Statement of Rebecca Gambler 

Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues, GAO-17-487T; https://

judiciary.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Gambler-Testimony.pdf

(accessed May 9, 2018). 418 See Ombudsman Annual Report 2011, pp. 25–26; https://www.dhs.gov/

xlibrary/assets/cisomb-annual-report-2011.pdf; see also USCIS, “EB5 Immigrant Investor Program Stakeholder Meeting” (Dec. 16, 2010); 

https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Outreach/Upcoming%20

National%20Events/eb-5-dec-16-2010-present.pdf (accessed May 9, 2018). 
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES OMBUDSMAN 51

with USCIS adjudicators at the California Service Center 

(CSC), where the EB-5 program was housed, and a series 

of meetings with stakeholders, USCIS began to articulate 

unified policy statements on a variety of EB-5 topics. The 

agency committed to an interactive process that enabled 

stakeholders to comment on proposed policy changes 

before implementation.419

USCIS issued a comprehensive EB-5 policy memorandum 

on May 30, 2013.420 The memorandum addressed several 

longstanding stakeholder concerns, many of which the 

Ombudsman’s Office had raised with USCIS previously, 

including when and to what extent USCIS adjudicators 

should accord deference to prior adjudications.421 In June 

2013, the agency centralized EB-5 program operations in 

Washington D.C., and began staffing the newly-established 

Immigrant Investor Program Office (IPO).

Program Integrity Challenges 

The EB-5 program has faced a number of challenges 

since inception. Among the issues are fraud committed 

by principal investors; fraud and malfeasance committed 

by attorneys; gerrymandering of TEAs for the benefit of 

investors; and sourcing of funds in ways that have the 

potential to threaten national security. Congress, federal 

agencies, and the public have all expressed concern that 

Americans have not seen the benefit of the program 

as designed (jobs, investment, etc.) while fraud and 

questionable practices result in foreign nationals losing 

their money and immigration benefits they sought. 

Fraud, Embezzlement and Other Abuses. Fraud and 

abuse, in the form of embezzlement, Ponzi schemes, and 

securities violations, continue to be ongoing challenges 

for the EB-5 program, particularly the Regional Center 

Program. Fraud impacts direct investors as well as the 

intended beneficiaries of the investment, both direct 

and indirect. The U.S. government has prosecuted 

dozens of EB-5 fraud cases where attorneys, or regional 

419 This iterative process continued for three years and ultimately culminated in 

the incorporation of this work into a chapter in the USCIS Policy Manual that 

first issued in 2013. See USCIS Policy Manual, Volume 6—Immigrants, Part 

G—Investors; https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManualVolume6.html (accessed May 9, 2018). 420 USCIS Policy Memorandum, “EB-5 Adjudications Policy” (May 30, 2013); 

https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Laws/Memoranda/2013/

May/EB-5%20Adjudications%20PM%20%28Approved%20as%20final%20

5-30-13%29.pdf (accessed May 9, 2018). 421 Ombudsman Annual Report 2013, pp 33–38; https://www.dhs.gov/sites/

default/files/publications/cisomb_2013_annual_report%20508%20final_1.pdf

(accessed May 25, 2018).

center principals and officials, and other financial 

personnel funneled investors’ funds for personal or other 

impermissible use.422 The U.S. Securities and Exchange 

Committee (SEC) has charged several lawyers with 

offering EB-5 investments without registering as brokers, 

as is required under the Securities Exchange Act,423

and without disclosing the commissions received from 

investment offers. Some faced prosecution; others have 

settled the charges without admitting or denying SEC’s 

findings.424 Those prosecuted are often sentenced to prison 

and ordered to pay restitution to the victim investors. 

When USCIS discovers fraud, it not only terminates 

the regional center’s designation, but also revokes 

project investors’ immigration benefits, regardless of 

their involvement in the scheme. The immigrant EB-5 

petitioner, whose goal was to obtain permanent resident 

status, loses this opportunity, along with the investment.

Targeted Employment Area Issues. Another area of 

concern is the designation and use of the TEAs. In an 

address to Congress, Senator Grassley noted that existing 

EB-5 regulations do not prohibit TEA gerrymandering―

stitching together contiguous census tracts to allow 

projects physically located in affluent areas to benefit 

from the lower $500,000 investment threshold. Under the 

current rules, Senator Grassley stated that there is “little 

incentive to invest EB-5 funds in distressed or rural areas, 

422 U.S. Attorney’s Office, “Attorney Pleads Guilty to Federal Charges 

Stemming from $50 Million Scheme that Defrauded the EB-5 Visa Program 

and Chinese Investors” (Nov. 27, 2017); https://www.justice.gov/usao-cdca/

pr/attorney-pleads-guilty-federal-charges-stemming-50-million-schemedefrauded-eb-5-visa (accessed May 9, 2018); U.S. Attorney’s Office, 

Central District of California, “Orange County Attorney Who Pleaded 

Guilty to Federal Charges in $8 Million Fraud Scheme Sentenced to Over 

Five Years in Prison” (Feb. 29, 2016); https://www.justice.gov/usao-cdca/

pr/orange-county-attorney-who-pleaded-guilty-federal-charges-8-millionfraud-scheme (accessed May 10, 2018); U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western 

District of Washington, “Developer Pleads Guilty to Defrauding Investors 

seeking Citizenship under Federal Immigration Program” (Jan. 4, 2017); 

https://www.justice.gov/usao-wdwa/pr/developer-pleads-guilty-defraudinginvestors-seeking-citizenship-under-federal (accessed May 10, 2018); U.S. 

Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Illinois, “Hotel Developer Sentenced 

to Three Years in Prison for Exploiting U.S. Visa Program” (Feb. 21, 2017); 

https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndil/pr/hotel-developer-sentenced-threeyears-prison-exploiting-us-visa-program; U.S. Securities and Exchange 

Commission, Press Release, “SEC Charges Lawyer With Stealing Investor 

Money in EB-5 Offerings” (Dec. 27, 2016); https://www.sec.gov/news/

pressrelease/2016-281.html (accessed May 10, 2018). 423 SEC, Press Release, “SEC Charges Unregistered Broker for Illegally 

Brokering Sales of EB-5 Securities” (Mar. 5, 2018); https://www.sec.gov/

news/press-release/2018-30 (accessed May 10, 2018). 424 SEC, Press Release, “SEC: Lawyers Offered EB-5 Investments as 

Unregistered Brokers” (Dec. 7, 2015); https://www.sec.gov/news/

pressrelease/2015-274.html (accessed May 10, 2018). 
52 ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS JUNE 2018

as was envisioned by Senators when [the EB-5 program] 

was created.”425 

One example made public by news coverage is the Hudson 

Yards TEA project in Manhattan. This multi-phase 

commercial, retail, and residential development project 

qualified as a TEA by tacking together contiguously 

adjoining/bordering plats from the actual project site 

through Central Park to high unemployment areas near the 

East River, miles away. See Figure 5.3. The result of this 

kind of gerrymandering is that communities that truly are 

TEAs are less likely to receive much needed investment 

and more affluent markets receive higher amounts of 

investment than Congress intended. 

Figure 5.3: Map of Hudson Yards TEA 

CENTRAL

PARK

HUDSON RIVER

EAST RIVER

MANHATTAN

QUEENS

HUDSON YARDS

FREDERICK DOUGLASS HOUSES

GEORGE WASHINGTON 

CARVER HOUSES

EAST RIVER HOUSES

DEWITT CLINTON HOUSES

THOMAS JEFFERSON HOUSES

The census tracts used to qualify Hudson Yards as a TEA for its second round

of EB-5 financing in 2016. Public-housing projects along the route helped it

achieve the necessary aggregate unemployment figure to qualify for a lower

threshold. (Mark Byrnes/CityLab)

Source: K. Capps, “When Harlem Unemployment Pays for Midtown Luxury,” Citylab (Jan. 

31, 2017); https://www.citylab.com/equity/2017/01/how-to-fix-the-broken-eb5-cashfor-visas-immigration-program-trump/511265/ (accessed May 17, 2018).

425 Senator Charles E. Grassley, Press Release, “EB-5 Program Too Flawed to 

Continue Without Reforms,” Sept. 22, 2016; https://www.grassley.senate.

gov/news/news-releases/grassley-eb-5-program-too-flawed-continue-withoutreforms (accessed May 25, 2018).

Lawful Source of Funds Issues. Another challenge for 

the EB-5 program has been the development of money 

laundering schemes and proving the lawful source of 

funds. The EB-5 regulations require immigrant investors 

to identify the source of EB-5 funds to establish they were 

obtained lawfully.426 This investor burden is met through 

business records, such as foreign business registration 

records; business and personal tax return filings in any 

country within the past five years; and/or evidence 

identifying other sources of capital such as business entity 

reports, audited financial statements, income earning 

statements, gift instruments, and property ownership.427 

However, even with the presentation of these documents, 

USCIS finds that in many countries, investors are 

permitted to self-identify and self-report the sources of 

their assets and income, making it difficult for USCIS 

to verify the lawfulness of the source of funds that are 

then invested in the EB-5 program.428 Critics of the 

program have raised concerns regarding the origin of 

investors’ funds. They have raised the potential for abuse 

of the program by corrupt foreign officials and criminals 

attempting to evade laws and protect illicitly gained 

funds.429 Others argue that the agency is hyper-technical in 

its requirements, making it nearly impossible to meet the 

burden identifying fund sources.430 Both sides would agree 

that the standard requires review by the agency. 

Finding Administrative Solutions to LongStanding Concerns 

Due to the challenges that have evolved with the EB-5 

program, the DHS OIG and GAO have conducted formal 

studies and issued recommendations. In addition, USCIS 

426 8 CFR §§ 204.6(e), 204.6(j)(3). See also In Re Soffici, 22 I&N. Dec. 158, 

165 (BIA 1998). 427 USCIS Policy Manual, Volume 6, Part G, Chapter 2; https://www.uscis.

gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual-Volume6-PartG-Chapter2.html. 

Furthermore, if applicable, USCIS also requests certified copies of any 

judgments or evidence of all pending civil or criminal matters, governmental 

administrative proceedings, or any private civil actions involving monetary 

judgments against the immigrant investor within the past 15 years. 428 Congressional Research Service, “EB-5 Immigrant Investor Visa,” R44475, 

pp. 19–21 (April 22, 2016); https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/R44475.

html#Content (accessed May 25, 2018). 429 Senator Charles E. Grassley, Press Release, “Newly-Discovered EB-5 Scam 

Highlights Fraud, National Security Weaknesses, Need for Long-Term 

Reform;” https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/newlydiscovered-eb-5-scam-highlights-fraud-national-security-weaknesses-need. 430 Stephen Yale-Loehr, “Show Me the Money: Proving Lawful Source of Funds 

for EB-5 Immigrant Investors” (Jan. 15, 2015); https://www.researchgate.net/

publication/265274892_Show_Me_the_Money_Proving_Lawful_Source_of_

Funds_for_EB-5_Immigrant_Investors (accessed May 25, 2018).
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES OMBUDSMAN 53

has initiated solutions and programmatic adjustments to 

address stakeholder concerns. 

Oversight Reports and Recommendations 

In 2013, the DHS OIG conducted an audit and issued a 

report on the EB-5 program and its adjudication process, 

finding that USCIS lacked the authority needed to deny 

or terminate a regional center based on fraud or national 

security concerns. It further concluded that USCIS could 

not demonstrate the benefits of foreign investment into the 

U.S. economy.431 These challenges, the report cited, made 

it difficult for USCIS to ensure the integrity of the EB-5 

Regional Center Program and vulnerable to perceptions 

of internal and external influences.432 Based on these 

findings, the OIG made four recommendations:

(1) Update and clarify federal regulations to give USCIS 

the authority to deny or terminate a regional center 

involved in fraud or national security concerns; 

(2) Develop memoranda of understanding with the 

Departments of Commerce and Labor and the SEC 

to ensure interagency participation and expertise as 

needed in Regional Center Program adjudications;

(3) Conduct comprehensive reviews to determine to what 

extent EB-5 funds have stimulated growth in the U.S. 

economy in accordance with program intent; and 

(4) Establish quality assurance steps to promote program 

integrity and ensure that regional centers comply with 

regulatory requirements. 433 

USCIS concurred with all but the third recommendation, 

stating that it lacked authority to conduct a broader 

assessment of the program’s economic impact beyond the 

statutory requirement to determine job creation during 

the course of adjudications.434 Further discussion of the 

agency’s specific actions to address these concerns are 

highlighted below.

In 2014, GAO reviewed fraud risks and economic benefits 

for the EB-5 Program. Its investigation revealed that 

431 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of the Inspector General, 

“United States Citizenship and Immigration Services’ Employment͈ Based 

Fifth Preference (EB͈5) Regional Center Program,” OIG-14-19, p. 5 (Dec. 

2013); https://www.oig.dhs.gov/assets/Mgmt/2014/OIG_14-19_Dec13.pdf

(accessed May 25, 2018). 432 Id. 433 Id. at 14-18. 434 Id. at 17.

USCIS was not consistently conducting fraud assessments 

to strengthen the program.435 In its report to Congress in 

August 2015, GAO recommended that USCIS conduct 

regular fraud risk assessments to strengthen EB-5 fraud 

prevention, detection, and mitigation capabilities.436 

USCIS agreed with the recommendation, stating that it 

would conduct at least one fraud, national security, or 

intelligence assessment in the EB-5 program annually.437 

USCIS also agreed with the GAO’s recommendation that it 

interview EB-5 investors when it adjudicates Form I-829, 

Petition to Remove Conditions 2 years after admission as a 

Conditional LPR.

438

Agency Efforts to Improve the Integrity of the 

EB-5 Program

The IPO has taken a number of steps to combat EB-5 fraud 

and enhance program integrity, including the establishment 

of a compliance review team; creation of hybrid teams for 

comprehensive adjudication; site visits; implementation 

of GAO and OIG recommendations; rollout of document 

assessment initiatives; and improved coordination with 

other government components including the DOJ, FBI, 

SEC, and Financial Crimes Enforcement Network. While 

public concerns remain, USCIS has made great strides to 

offset fraud and national security challenges and improve 

program integrity. 

Establishment of the IPO Compliance Review Program. 

In 2015, the IPO announced the formation of a compliance 

review team dedicated to increasing industry compliance 

with EB-5 law, where reviewers issued Notices of Intent 

to Terminate if a regional center no longer met the 

program’s requirements.439 This division’s responsibilities 

subsequently expanded to include: (1) undertaking 

in-person interviews of regional center investors and 

435 U.S. Government Accountability Office, “Immigrant Investor Program 

Additional Actions Needed to Better Assess Fraud Risks and Report 

Economic Benefit,” GAO-15-696, August 2015; https://www.gao.gov/

assets/680/671940.pdf (accessed May 10, 2018). 436 Id. at 45. 437 U.S. Government Accountability Office, “Immigrant Investor Program 

Additional Actions Needed to Better Assess Fraud Risks and Report 

Economic Benefit,” GAO-15-696 (August 2015), p. 47; https://www.gao.

gov/assets/680/671940.pdf (accessed May 10, 2018). 438 IPO Chief Nick Colucci Remarks, USCIS EB-5 National Stakeholder 

Engagement, March 3, 2017; https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/

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

ChiefColucciRemarks_03032017.pdf (accessed May 25, 2018). 439 IPO Chief Nick Colucci Remarks, USCIS EB-5 National Stakeholder 

Engagement, August 13, 2015; https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/

USCIS/Outreach/Notes%20from%20Previous%20Engagements/PED-IPO_

Chief_Nicholas_Coluccis_Remarks.pdf. 
54 ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS JUNE 2018

I-829 petitioners; (2) conducting site visits to verify the 

authenticity of EB-5 program documents and the continued 

progress of EB-5 projects; (3) auditing financial records to 

verify that funds are spent in accordance with the offerings 

documents, economic analysis, and business plan; and (4) 

holding public engagements focused on regional centers 

to explain and clarify relevant laws, regulations, and 

other requirements.440 

To further bolster EB-5 program integrity, in 2017 

IPO hired auditors and initiated compliance reviews. 

According to IPO, the compliance review team “verifies 

the information provided by designated regional centers 

in applications and annual certifications. It also verifies 

compliance with applicable laws and authorities to 

ensure continued eligibility for the regional center 

designation. This process includes, for example, 

researching information in government systems, 

reviewing commercial and public records, and reviewing 

evidence that accompanies regional center applications 

and certifications.”441 

To date, the IPO has conducted two full rounds of 

compliance reviews, obtaining information on a 

consensual basis, engaging in site visits, and performing 

related document assessments.442 The IPO has indicated 

its plan is to conduct compliance reviews of approximately 

five to ten percent of the regional center population 

each year.443 

Improving Consistency in Adjudications. In response 

to the OIG critique of inconsistent adjudications, the 

EB-5 program has added adjudication steps to eliminate 

bias and inconsistencies. To help ensure that the 

required documents are available at the beginning of the 

adjudication process, IPO auditors and economists conduct 

document assessments for Form I-924, Application for 

Regional Center Designation under the Immigrant Investor 

Program.

444 Officers adjudicating Form I-829, Petition 

by Entrepreneur to Remove Conditions on Permanent 

Resident Status also conduct document assessments, 

audits, and site visits to the Job Creating Enterprise (JCE). 

440 Id. 441 Information provided by USCIS (Apr. 18, 2018). 

442 Id. 443 IPO Acting Chief Julia Harrison Remarks, USCIS EB-5 National Stakeholder 

Engagement, November 7, 2017; https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/

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

EB5EngagementTalkingPoints_11072017.pdf. 444 IPO Meeting with the Ombudsman’s Office (Dec. 1, 2017).

The IPO has expanded its use of site visits to further 

implement the GAO and OIG recommendations. The 

IPO trains its officers to use site visits to verify business 

documents submitted in the course of filing with USCIS.445 

The agency also emphasizes that site inspectors receive 

comprehensive training on the EB-5 program and on the 

process of gathering evidence and recording relevant 

information.446 Currently, the IPO conducts a 100 

percent JCE site review rate for Form I-829 filings. The 

information obtained is used to inform adjudications.447 

These efforts further the agency’s goal to improve program 

integrity and reduce fraud.

The IPO recently reorganized it staffing model so 

adjudicators, economists, auditors, and fraud detection 

officers serve on common teams.448 The IPO believes that 

this intra-team diversity helps its subject matter experts 

understand the significance of each other’s work in the 

overall EB-5 adjudication process.449 

AAO Activity. In 2017, the AAO issued a non-precedent 

decision setting out a framework for considering whether 

a regional center should be recertified or terminated.450 

Under the new analysis, the IPO engages in a process 

that identifies and evaluates both the positive and 

negative factors that must be considered in determining 

whether the regional center has been and continues to 

be capable of promoting economic growth.451 The AAO 

noted that the positive factors, such as “the extent of any 

job creation, the amount of investment, and the overall 

economic impact,” should be measured against the 

liabilities, including “inaction, mismanagement, theft, 

or fraud by the regional center or related entities, any 

445 IPO Chief Nick Colucci Remarks, USCIS EB-5 National Stakeholder 

Engagement, March 3, 2017; https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/

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

ChiefColucciRemarks_03032017.pdf. See also Information provided by 

USCIS (April 18, 2018). 446 Id. 447 Information provided by USCIS (Apr. 18, 2018). 

448 Id. See also IPO Meeting with the Ombudsman’s Office (Dec. 1, 2017). 449 Id. 450 Matter of P-A-S-, ID#513109 (AAO Dec. 21, 2017); https://www.

uscis.gov/sites/default/files/err/K1%20-%20Request%20for%20

Participation%20as%20Regional%20Center/Decisions_Issued_in_2017/

DEC212017_01K1610.pdf (accessed May 10, 2018). 451 The decision also noted: “The [EB-5] program’s success is most often 

described in terms of jobs created, dollars invested, and project completed. 

But the program’s success also depends upon DHS’ effective oversight to 

maintain integrity.” Matter of P-A-S-, LLC, ID#513109, at 8 (AAO Dec. 21, 

2017); https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/err/K1%20%20Request%20

for%20Participation%20as%20Regional%20Center/Decisions_Issued_

in_2017/DEC212017_01K1610.pdf (accessed May 10, 2018).
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES OMBUDSMAN 55

resulting damage, and the risk imposed to the investors or 

the economy by continued designation.”452 

Regulatory Reforms

In January 2017, USCIS issued an Advance Notice 

of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) and a Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to reform several core 

features of the EB-5 program. The proposed regulation 

addressed some of the concerns and recommendations 

raised in prior OIG and GAO reports, as well as continuing 

concerns expressed by Congress and other stakeholders 

to improve integrity and minimize opportunities for 

program abuse. The proposed regulations have been 

characterized by Senators Grassley and Leahy as well 

as Representative Goodlatte as proposals that would, 

“if finalized, dramatically reform the EB-5 program and 

re-align the program with what Congress envisioned in 

1990.”453 The NPRM also proposed to update statutory 

changes and codify existing policies. 454 As of this writing, 

the NPRM has not been finalized; the current Regulatory 

Agenda anticipates a publication date for a final rule in 

August 2018.455

Proposed Regulatory Changes in the NPRM 

Increased Threshold Capital Investment Amount. 

EB-5 capital investment thresholds have not changed 

since the creation of the program in 1990, resulting in 

erosion of the relative value of the investment due to 

452 Matter of P-A-S-, ID#513109 at 3 (AAO Dec. 21, 2017); https://

www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/err/K1%20-%20Request%20for%20

Participation%20as%20Regional%20Center/Decisions_Issued_in_2017/

DEC212017_01K1610.pdf (accessed May 10, 2018). 453 Letter from Representative Robert Goodlatte and Senators Charles Grassley 

and Patrick Leahy to Kirstjen Nielsen, Secretary, DHS (April 5, 2018); 

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2018-04-05%20CEG,%20

BG,%20PJL%20to%20DHS%20-EB-5%20Regs.pdf (accessed May 18, 

2018). 454 See also “EB-5 Immigrant Investor Regional Center Program: Advance 

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

focuses on regional center reforms and processing issues. The agency put 

forward a proposal to bifurcate the Form I-924 application process. USCIS 

would first require a more general application for initial designation as a 

Regional Center. After designation, USCIS would require a more specific 

application for approval of an exemplar project. The ANPRM proposed a 

separate form and fee for each step. DHS believes these changes would 

significantly reduce the issuance of Requests for Evidence and Notices of 

Intent to Deny, and thereby improve processing times for both Form I-924 

and Form I-526. 455 DHS Spring 2018 Unified Regulatory Agenda, RIN: 1615-AC07, EB-5 

Immigrant Investor Program Modernization; https://www.reginfo.gov/public/

do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=201804&RIN=1615-AC07 (accessed May 

18, 2018).

the effect of inflation. The NPRM would increase the 

minimum qualifying investment amount from $1 million 

to $1.8 million and from $500,000 to $1.35 million for 

TEAs.456 The proposed investment thresholds represent 

an adjustment for inflation from 1990 to 2015, as 

measured by the unadjusted Consumer Price Index for 

All Urban Consumers.457 Among the benefits cited are 

the potential to increase the overall investment inflow, 

resulting in greater economic activity and job growth, and 

allowing regional centers to raise the requisite funds with 

fewer investors.458

Interview Requirements for Form I-829. Another change 

proposed in the NPRM involves providing flexibility in the 

interview location for I-829 petitioners, as investors are not 

required to live in the local USCIS office’s geographical 

jurisdiction, and may live hundreds or even thousands of 

miles away. The NPRM further clarifies that derivatives 

may file the Form I-829, Petition by Entrepreneur to 

Remove Conditions on Permanent Resident Status 

separately from the immigrant investor, who may have 

relinquished his or her permanent resident status.459 

Shifting Authority for TEA Designations. The NPRM 

also proposes to shift state-authority to identify a TEA to 

USCIS. Reassignment of the TEA authority to USCIS 

would likely buffer the process from local influences, and 

will result in more standardized outcomes regardless of 

the proposed TEA location throughout the United States. 

Stakeholders have highlighted the need for states and 

localities to provide input during this process.

Retention of Priority Dates. Finally, the proposed 

rule would allow EB-5 investors to retain their priority 

dates if subsequent filings are needed due to changed 

circumstances or the termination of a regional center, 

bringing the EB-5 program in line with other business 

immigration visa categories that permit priority 

date retention.460 

456 “EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program Modernization,” 82 Fed. 

Reg. 4738 (Jan. 13, 2017); https://www.federalregister.gov/

documents/2017/01/13/2017-00447/eb-5-immigrant-investor-programmodernization. 457 Id. 458 Id. 459 Id. 460 See, e.g., 8 CFR § 204.5(e). 
56 ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS JUNE 2018

Summary of NPRM Comments

The NPRM received 290 public comments from 

stakeholders. Comments focused on two main issues: (1) 

increasing the qualifying capital investment threshold; and 

(2) modifying the TEA designation rules and authorities.

Comments were mixed concerning proposed increases 

in the threshold qualifying capital contribution from 

$500,000 to $1.3 million for investments made into a 

business/job-creating enterprise located in a TEA, and 

from $1,000,000 to $1,800,000 for business/job-creating 

enterprises located elsewhere. While there was general 

agreement that it was appropriate to update the qualifying 

capital contribution levels to account for inflation and 

other factors, acceptance of the proposal to increase 

the thresholds appear to hinge on USCIS’ agreement to 

grandfather in all I-526 petitions that were filed based on 

the rules that were in effect at the time the investor made 

his or her capital contribution. Commenters expressed 

differing opinions on how high to raise the minimum 

qualifying funding figure, with some suggesting that if set 

too high, it could potentially discourage foreign investors 

from participating in the EB-5 program and draw them 

to competing immigration investment programs offered 

by other countries. Some suggested that the proposed 

increase in the investment threshold be phased in over 

a period of years. Other comments focused on whether 

the differential between the qualifying contribution 

levels between those in, and those located outside a 

TEA, are correct, with some suggesting the differential 

should be greater if the agency wants to encourage more 

EB-5 money to flow to more rural and economically 

distressed areas. 

Comments concerning the proposal to revise to how 

to determine a TEA, to end what many believed is a 

methodology that encourages gerrymandering, were 

generally favorable. The main thrust of the comments 

focused on eliminating what was considered abusive 

gerrymandering, the stringing together of contiguous 

tracts to allow a TEA to qualify a project located in an 

affluent census tract area with census tracts that have 

high unemployment many miles away. Comments 

suggested that moving from a methodology that limits 

TEA configurations to one that permits the census tract 

where the project is located, with each of the immediately 

surrounding and adjoining census tracks, will accomplish 

this goal. It will also level the playing field for other 

EB-5 developers and projects competing for the same 

foreign investment monies. Some commenters expressed 

concern that the proposed rules do not grandfather in 

partially-completed projects, and that this could result in 

project failures in some circumstances as new investors 

choose to place their money into other projects rather than 

invest $1.8 million into a project that no longer qualifies 

as a TEA. Some commenters also expressed concern 

that under the new TEA rule, USCIS will be making the 

TEA determination, and not the states, which have been 

responsible up to now for this assessment. 

Conclusion 

The EB-5 program has been in existence for more than 

25 years, and its increasing popularity in the last 10 years 

has resulted in foreign investment into the United States 

and full-time jobs for U.S. workers.461 The extent of the 

investment and job creation, however, is the subject of 

debate. Moreover, there have been numerous instances 

of fraud and abuse that undermine any benefits of the 

program. USCIS is directing additional resources to 

EB-5 compliance activities, including the expanded use 

of site visits, document audits, and program analysis, 

and working closely with other regulatory and law 

enforcement agencies to decrease criminal and civil 

abuses. The Ombudsman expects USCIS to soon finalize 

the regulations designed to address at least some of 

these concerns. 

Whether and how investors will respond to the imminent 

regulatory changes remains unknown, but according to 

information provided by DOS, heavy demand for EB-5 

visas around the globe will require the imposition of Visa 

Bulletin cut-off dates for several countries in the near 

future. Joining China and Vietnam (which are currently 

oversubscribed and are subject to an EB-5 cut-off date), 

DOS expects to impose cut-off dates for India, Brazil, 

and South Korea in FY 2019, with EB-5 visas remaining 

“current” for nationals of all other countries during this 

same time frame. As the level of interest in the EB-5 

program appears to be only increasing, administration 

of the program will likely continue to receive 

significant scrutiny.

461 According to a Department of Commerce 2017 Report analyzing EB-5 

related projects that were active in FYs 2012 and 2013 estimated that 

$5,773,000,000, and 174,039 jobs could be traced to the EB-5 program, and 

that on average, 16 new full-time jobs are generated by each EB-5 investor. 

Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, 

Estimating the Investment and Job Creation Impact of the EB-5 Program, pp. 

2, 18; http://www.esa.doc.gov/sites/default/files/estimating-the-investmentand-job-creation-impact-of-the-eb-5-program_0.pdf (accessed May 

20, 2018). 
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES OMBUDSMAN 57

Appendices

Common USCIS Background Checks: The Basics, By Directorate

The standard operating procedure at SCOPS is to conduct the following checks:1

FBI Name Check Automated check within 15 days of filing with USCIS and returned on average between 30–60 days, per inter-agency agreement. 

Valid for 15 months.2

FBI Fingerprint Check Automated check and sent in seconds after collection at the ASC.

CBP TECS Check A check using the applicant’s ten-print biometrics to check various USCIS systems, including: FMNS, CICS, FD-258 MF, and BBSS.

IDENT Check Automated and manual check of applicant’s biographic information.

USCIS Background 

IT Systems Check

Manual check using the applicant’s ten-print biometrics to check various USCIS systems, including: FMNS, CICS, 

FD-258 MF, and BBSS.

1

 This is a generalization and should not be used as an exclusive or comprehensive list of all types of background checks run for all applications or petitions at a service center.

2

 Information provided by USCIS (Apr. 17, 2018).

Service Center Operations Directorate

The standard operating procedure at the Field Operations Directorate is to conduct the following checks:1

FBI Name Check Automated check within 15 days of filing at the National Benefits Center (NBC) and returned on average between 30–90 days, 

per inter-agency agreement.2

FBI Fingerprint Check Automated check and sent in seconds after collection at the ASC, usually processed within 60 days of receipt of filing.3

CBP TECS Check Automated and manual check of CBP data repository. Completed within 15 days of filing with the NBC and valid for 180 days.4

IDENT Check Automated and manual check of applicant’s biographic information.

USCIS Background 

IT Systems Check

Manual check using the applicant’s ten-print biometrics to check various USCIS systems, including: 

FMNS, CICS, FD-258 MF, and BBSS.

1

 This is a generalization and should not be used as an exclusive or comprehensive list of all types of background checks run for all applications or petitions at a field office.

2

 Information provided by USCIS (Apr. 17, 2018).

3

 Id. 4

 Id.

Field Operations Directorate

The standard operating procedure at the Asylum Division is to conduct the following checks:2

FBI Name Check Automated check on any individuals associated with the asylum application who are between the age of 12 years and 9 months 

and 79 years of age.3

FBI Fingerprint Check Automated check on any individuals associated with the asylum application who are between the age of 12 years and 9 months 

and 79 years of age.4 Typically sent seconds after collection at the ASC and processed within 60 days of receipt of filing.5

 

CBP TECS Check Automated and then a manual check of CBP data repository completed for any individuals associated with the asylum application 

who are between the age of 12 years and 9 months and 79 years of age.6

IDENT Check Automated and manual check of applicant’s biographic information.7

USCIS Background 

IT Systems Check

Manual check using the applicant’s ten-print biometrics to check various USCIS systems, including: FMNS, CICS, FD-258 

MF, and BBSS.

1

 This section only covers the affirmative asylum application process and is not intended to include credible or reasonable fear processing or defensive asylum processing.

2

 This is a generalization and should not be used as an exclusive or comprehensive list of all types of background checks run for all applications or petitions at an asylum office.

3

 USCIS Webpage, “Asylum Background and Security Checks FAQ” (Mar. 12, 2015); https://www.uscis.gov/faq-page/asylum-background-and-security-checks-faq#t12818n40080

(accessed Apr. 26, 2018); DHS Privacy Impact Assessment, “USCIS, Refugees, Asylum, and Parole, System and the Asylum Pre-Screening System” (Nov. 24, 2009) p. 4; https://www.

dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/privacy/privacy_pia_cis_rapsapss.pdf (accessed Apr. 26, 2018). 4

 Id. 5

 Id. 6

 Id. 7

 Id.

Refugee, Asylum and International Operations Directorate: Asylum Division1
58 ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS JUNE 2018

The standard operating procedure at the Refugee Affairs Division is to conduct the following checks:1

Pre-decisional Checks

IDENT Check Checks the applicant’s records relating to travel and immigration history for non-U.S. citizens, as well as for immigration 

violations and law enforcement and national security concerns. Enrollment helps CBP confirm identity at the port of entry.2

FBI Fingerprint Check Checks all applicants’ biometric records using the Next Generation Identification (NGI) system’s recurring biometric 

record checks.

USCIS Background IT Systems Check A check using the applicant’s ten-print biometrics to check various USCIS systems. Information collected on all 

applicants over the age of 131⁄2 and under 80 years.3

DOS Consular Lookout and 

Support System (CLASS) Check A check run on primary names as well as any variations used by the applicant.4

Interagency Check (IAC)

USCIS shares the biographic data, including names, dates of birth, and other data points of all refugee applicants 

within designated age ranges that is captured at the time of pre-screening with intelligence community partners for 

checks against their holdings.5

National Counterterrorism 

Center (NCTC) Checks Vets applicant’s information interagency intelligence to identify suspicious activity.6

Social Media Review USCIS FDNS conducts screening and vetting checks of refugee applicants from publicly available information 

on social media.7

DoD Automated Biometric 

Identification System (ABIS) Check

Checks applicants’ information, biometric and biographic, to search information collected in the course of 

military operations.8

Post-decision and Pre-admission to the United States

CBP TECS Check Run on any individuals associated with the asylum application who are between the age of 12 years and 9 months and 

79 years of age.9

CBP National Targeting Center—

Passenger (NTC-P)

Decision support tool that compares the applicants’ information against law enforcement, intelligence, and other 

enforcement data using risk-based scenarios and assessments.10

Transportation Security Administration 

(TSA) Secure Flight Program Check Screens aviation passengers and certain non-travelers before they access airport sterile areas or board aircraft.11

CBP No Fly Selectee Check Compares applicants’ information to known terrorist watch lists maintained by the Transportation Security Administration.12

Refugee, Asylum and International Operations Directorate: Refugee Affairs Division

1

 This is a generalization and should not be used as an exclusive or comprehensive list of all types of background checks run for all refugee applications.

2

 DHS Privacy Impact Assessment, “Refugee Case Processing and Security Vetting” (Jul. 21, 2017) p. 8; https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/privacy-pia-uscisrefugee-july2017.pdf (accessed Apr. 26, 2018). 3

 Id. at 5. 4

 Id. at 6. 5

 Id. at 6. 6

 Id. at 7. 7

 Id. at 7. 8

 Id. at 8. 9

 Id. at 10. 10 Id. at 10. 11 Id. at 10. 12 Id. at 10.
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES OMBUDSMAN 59

Recommendations Update

Pursuant to statutory requirements, the Ombudsman makes 

recommendations to the USCIS Director as appropriate. 

The agency has 3 months to respond in writing.462

From 2013 to 2017, the Ombudsman’s Office issued 

six formal recommendations to improve the delivery 

of immigration services and benefits. USCIS took 

action on some of the recommendations, but has not 

implemented others. 

Recommendation No. 61—Strengthen Efficiency, Safety, 

Accessibility, and Overall Effectiveness of the Central American 

Minors (CAM) Refugee/Parole Program (December 21, 2016) 

USCIS Response: Pending—due March 21, 2017. 

 USCIS, in coordination with DOS, should increase the 

volume of interviews and associated Refugee Access 

Verification Unit processing of CAM cases.

 USCIS should permit access to counsel in 

CAM interviews. 

 USCIS, in coordination with DOS, should create a plain 

language, comprehensive CAM “Information Guide.”

 USCIS, in coordination with DOS, should publish and 

regularly update CAM processing times. 

Update: Pursuant to Executive Order 13767, issued 

January 25, 2017, USCIS has revised its policies on parole. 

Accordingly, USCIS stopped offering parole through the 

CAM program on August 16, 2017; stopped accepting 

new CAM refugee applications on November 9, 2017; and 

stopped interviewing CAM refugee applicants on January 

31, 2018. The Ombudsman has not received a formal 

response from USCIS to this recommendation.

462 Homeland Security Act (HSA) of 2002 § 452, 6 U.S.C. § 272 (c), (f).

Recommendation No. 60—Implement Parole for U Visa Principal 

and Derivative Eligible Petitioners Residing Abroad (June 16, 

2016); USCIS Response: September 29, 2016. 

 USCIS should afford parole to eligible U visa 

petitioners on the waiting list and qualifying derivative 

family members who reside abroad by creating a policy 

to facilitate entry into the United States while waiting 

for a visa to become available. 

 USCIS should allow for concurrent filings of the U visa 

petitions and requests for parole. 

 Cases should be adjudicated at the Vermont Service 

Center to ensure consistent and effective adjudication. 

Update: In 2016, USCIS agreed to the first recommendation 

but in 2017, pursuant to Executive Order 13767, revised its 

policies on parole and no longer plans to offer parole for 

principal and derivative petitioners abroad. Thus, it has 

not established a parole policy for petitioners or a standalone application process for parole requests. 

Recommendation No. 59—Ensure Process Efficiency and 

Legal Sufficiency in Special Immigrant Juvenile Adjudications 

(December 11, 2015); USCIS Response: April 19, 2016. 

 USCIS should centralize Special Immigrant Juvenile 

(SIJ) adjudications in a facility whose personnel 

are familiar with the sensitivities surrounding 

the adjudication of humanitarian benefits for 

vulnerable populations.

 USCIS should take into account the best interests of the 

child when applying criteria for interview waivers. 

 USCIS should issue final SIJ regulations that fully 

incorporate all statutory amendments. 

 USCIS should interpret the consent function 

consistently with the statute by according greater 

deference to state court findings. 

Update: Beginning November 1, 2017, USCIS 

centralized the processing of Forms I-360 and I-485 at 

the NBC. The agency refers to field offices those cases 

needing in-person interviews. USCIS’ current policy is to 
60 ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS JUNE 2018

refer cases for interviews only when necessary to secure 

information through in-person assessments. The agency 

has committed to training its officers on child interviewing 

techniques. USCIS also issued clarifying policy guidance 

through the USCIS Policy Manual and stated that it will 

amend SIJ regulations by continuing the rulemaking 

process. The DHS Spring 2018 Regulatory Agenda does 

not include SIJ program regulations. USCIS does not agree 

with the recommendation to defer to state court findings, 

finding that its consent function serves as an essential first 

step in any adjudication.

Recommendation No. 58—to Improve the Quality and 

Consistency in Notices to Appear (June 11, 2014); USCIS 

Response: September 30, 2016.

 USCIS should provide additional guidance for Notice 

to Appear (NTA) issuance with input from ICE and the 

U.S. Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR). 

 USCIS should require USCIS attorneys to review NTAs 

prior to their issuance and provide comprehensive 

legal training. 

 USCIS should create a working group with 

representation from ICE and EOIR to improve tracking, 

information sharing, and coordination of NTA issuance. 

Update: In consultation with ICE, USCIS has updated its 

agency guidance for NTA issuance. USCIS did not concur 

with the recommendation to have USCIS attorneys review 

all NTAs prior to issuance, but did concur with improving 

legal training.

Recommendation No. 57—Employment Eligibility for Derivatives 

of Conrad State 30 Program Physicians (March 24, 2014); USCIS 

Response: June 24, 2014. 

 USCIS should publish new regulations that permit 

independently eligible J-2 dependents of J-1 physicians 

approved for a Conrad State 30 program waiver to 

change to other employment-authorized nonimmigrant 

classifications. 

 USCIS should issue new policy guidance clearly 

explaining that J-2 visa holders, who are derivative 

beneficiaries of a Conrad State 30 program waiver, may 

change to any nonimmigrant status for which they are 

otherwise qualified and eligible. 

Update: USCIS partially concurred with the first 

recommendation and rejected the second, maintaining 

that the INA does not permit J-2 dependents to change to 

another immigrant or nonimmigrant status, except to a T or 

U status. 

Recommendation No. 56—Improving the Process for Removal of 

Conditions on Residence for Spouses and Children (February 28, 

2013); USCIS Response: July 10, 2013. 

 USCIS should provide timely, effective, and accurate 

notice to petitioner(s) and their attorneys or accredited 

representatives on Form I-751, Petition to Remove 

Conditions on Residence receipt, processing and 

adjudication requirements and decisions. 

 USCIS should ensure Adjudicator’s Field Manual 

(AFM) Chapter 25463 is updated, accurate, and 

complete, or create a superseding source of 

consolidated information for Form I-751 adjudications. 

 USCIS should train staff to apply the updated AFM 

or superseding guidance with an emphasis on waiver 

standards and procedures. 

Update: USCIS partially concurred. It declined to 

create a system to ensure it properly conferred conditional 

permanent resident (CPR) status because it believes the 

vast majority of CPR statuses are accurate. Yet the agency 

committed to: (1) extracting the address from the AR11 change of address information system; (2) updating 

the tracking system to give copies of notices to the 

petitioner and attorney of record; (3) providing additional 

guidance if an officer’s RFE is not clear; and (4) making 

processing improvements via the USCIS transformation 

initiative. As of this time, the Form I-751 is not being 

processed via ELIS. Further, there have been no updates 

to USCIS Policy Manual to reflect the Ombudsman’s 

recommendations.

463 The Adjudicator’s Field Manual has been superseded in parts by the USCIS 

Policy Manual.
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES OMBUDSMAN 61

The Ombudsman by the Numbers

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

11,000

12,000

13,000

2013 2014 2015 2016

Requests for Ombudsman Case Assistance Received by Calendar Year*

5,623

6,834

9,545

11,917

11,048

2017

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

January February March April May June July August September October November December

Requests for Ombudsman Case Assistance Received by Month for Calendar Years 2016 and 2017 939 9031,028 897964 955 8891,002 744

941

981

805

CY 2016 (11,917) CY 2017 (11,048)

Requests for Ombudsman Case Assistance—Submission by Category 

CY 2017

Family 

21% General

21%

Humanitarian

32%

Employment 

26%

CY 2016

Family 

24% General

27%

Humanitarian

29%

Employment 

20%

* The Ombudsman also calculates its annual numbers by fiscal year for appropriations purposes. In FY 2017, the requests received were 11,289, an increase from the FY 

2016 requests received (11,169). The types of requests and the top primary forms do not deviate when reviewed by fiscal year.
62 ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS JUNE 2018

Top Primary Form Types # 

Received

% change from 

2016

N-400, Application for Naturalization 1,789 38%

I-765, Application for Employment Authorization 1,439 -21%

I-821D, Consideration of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals 1,201 -41%

I-130, Petition for Alien Relative 1,073 -3%

I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status 2,188 7%

I-485 (Based on an I-130), Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status (Family-Based) 798 23%

I-485 (Other Classification), Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status (Other Classification) 726 -3%

I-485 (Based on an I-140), Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status (Employment-Based) 664 2%

I-751, Petition to Remove the Conditions of Residence 218 -11%

I-90, Application to Replace Permanent Resident Card 214 5%

I-131, Application for Travel Document 214 -14%

Top Ten States Where Applicants Reside and the Top Five Primary Form Types

California

Requests Received: 1,839

Top Primary Form Types: Count % of 

Total

I-485, Application to Register Permanent 

Residence or Adjust Status 368 20%

N-400, Application for Naturalization 287 16%

I-821D, Consideration of Deferred Action for 

Childhood Arrivals 269 15%

I-765, Application for Employment Authorization 250 14%

I-130, Petition for Alien Relative 114 6%

Texas

Requests Received: 1,193

Top Primary Form Types: Count % of 

Total

I-485, Application to Register Permanent 

Residence or Adjust Status 283 24%

I-821D, Consideration of Deferred Action for 

Childhood Arrivals 248 21%

N-400, Application for Naturalization 155 13%

I-765, Application for Employment Authorization 155 13%

I-130, Petition for Alien Relative 101 8%

Illinois

Requests Received: 843

Top Primary Form Types: Count % of 

Total

I-485, Application to Register Permanent 

Residence or Adjust Status 248 29%

I-130, Petition for Alien Relative 130 15%

I-821D, Consideration of Deferred Action for 

Childhood Arrivals 113 13%

N-400, Application for Naturalization 99 12%

I-765, Application for Employment Authorization 93 11%

New York 

Requests Received: 1,109

Top Primary Form Types: Count % of 

Total

I-485, Application to Register Permanent 

Residence or Adjust Status 251 23%

N-400, Application for Naturalization 219 20%

I-765, Application for Employment Authorization 144 13%

I-130, Petition for Alien Relative 138 12%

I-821D, Consideration of Deferred Action for 

Childhood Arrivals 98 9%
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES OMBUDSMAN 63

Florida

Requests Received: 682

Top Primary Form Types: Count % of 

Total

I-485, Application to Register Permanent 

Residence or Adjust Status 140 21%

N-400, Application for Naturalization 120 18%

I-765, Application for Employment Authorization 101 15%

I-130, Petition for Alien Relative 59 9%

I-821D, Consideration of Deferred Action for 

Childhood Arrivals 51 7%

Maryland

Requests Received: 389

Top Primary Form Types: Count % of 

Total

I-485, Application to Register Permanent 

Residence or Adjust Status 94 24%

N-400, Application for Naturalization 88 23%

I-765, Application for Employment Authorization 52 13%

I-130, Petition for Alien Relative 49 13%

I-589, Application for Asylum and Withholding 

of Removal 16 4%

New Jersey

Requests Received: 385 

Top Primary Form Types: Count % of 

Total

I-485, Application to Register Permanent 

Residence or Adjust Status 76 20%

I-765, Application for Employment Authorization 62 16%

N-400, Application for Naturalization 60 16%

I-130, Petition for Alien Relative 37 10%

I-821D, Consideration of Deferred Action for 

Childhood Arrivals 32 8%

Virginia

Requests Received: 524

Top Primary Form Types: Count % of 

Total

N-400, Application for Naturalization 112 21%

I-485, Application to Register Permanent 

Residence or Adjust Status 103 20%

I-765, Application for Employment Authorization 77 15%

I-130, Petition for Alien Relative 56 11%

I-821D, Consideration of Deferred Action for 

Childhood Arrivals 37 7%

Georgia

Requests Received: 344

Top Primary Form Types: Count % of 

Total

N-400, Application for Naturalization 72 21%

I-485, Application to Register Permanent 

Residence or Adjust Status 71 21%

I-821D, Consideration of Deferred Action for 

Childhood Arrivals 48 14%

I-765, Application for Employment Authorization 37 11%

I-130, Petition for Alien Relative 32 9%

Washington

Requests Received: 298

Top Primary Form Types: Count % of 

Total

N-400, Application for Naturalization 57 19%

I-765, Application for Employment Authorization 50 17%

I-485, Application to Register Permanent 

Residence or Adjust Status 46 15%

I-130, Petition for Alien Relative 37 12%

I-821D, Consideration of Deferred Action for 

Childhood Arrivals 24 8%
64 ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS JUNE 2018

Homeland Security Act—

Section 452—Citizenship 

and Immigration Services 

Ombudsman

SEC.452. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION 

SERVICES OMBUDSMAN.

(a) IN GENERAL—Within the Department, there 

shall be a position of Citizenship and Immigration 

Services Ombudsman (in this section referred to as 

the ‘Ombudsman’). The Ombudsman shall report 

directly to the Deputy Secretary. The Ombudsman 

shall have a background in customer service as well as 

immigration law.

(b) FUNCTIONS—It shall be the function of 

the Ombudsman—

1) To assist individuals and employers in resolving 

problems with the Bureau of Citizenship and 

Immigration Services;

2) To identify areas in which individuals and employers 

have problems in dealing with the Bureau of 

Citizenship and Immigration Services; and

3) To the extent possible, to propose changes in the 

administrative practices of the Bureau of Citizenship 

and Immigration Services to mitigate problems 

identified under paragraph (2).

(c) ANNUAL REPORTS—

1) OBJECTIVES—Not later than June 30 of each 

calendar year, the Ombudsman shall report to 

the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of 

Representatives and the Senate on the objectives of the 

Office of the Ombudsman for the fiscal year beginning 

in such calendar year. Any such report shall contain 

full and substantive analysis, in addition to statistical 

information, and—

(A) Shall identify the recommendation the Office of the 

Ombudsman has made on improving services and 

responsiveness of the Bureau of Citizenship and 

Immigration Services;

(B) Shall contain a summary of the most pervasive and 

serious problems encountered by individuals and 

employers, including a description of the nature of 

such problems;

(C) Shall contain an inventory of the items described in 

subparagraphs (A) and (B) for which action has been 

taken and the result of such action;

(D) Shall contain an inventory of the items described in 

subparagraphs (A) and (B) for which action remains to 

be completed and the period during which each item 

has remained on such inventory;

(E) Shall contain an inventory of the items described 

in subparagraphs (A) and (B) for which no action 

has been taken, the period during which each item 

has remained on such inventory, the reasons for the 

inaction, and shall identify any official of the Bureau 

of Citizenship and Immigration Services who is 

responsible for such inaction;

(F) Shall contain recommendations for such administrative 

action as may be appropriate to resolve problems 

encountered by individuals and employers, including 

problems created by excessive backlogs in the 

adjudication and processing of immigration benefit 

petitions and applications; and

(G) Shall include such other information as the 

Ombudsman may deem advisable.

2) REPORT TO BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY—Each 

report required under this subsection shall be provided 

directly to the committees described in paragraph (1) 

without any prior comment or amendment from the 

Secretary, Deputy Secretary, Director of the Bureau 

of Citizenship and Immigration Services, or any other 

officer or employee of the Department or the Office of 

Management and Budget.

(d) OTHER RESPONSIBILITIES—The Ombudsman—

1) shall monitor the coverage and geographic allocation 

of local offices of the Ombudsman;

2) shall develop guidance to be distributed to all officers 

and employees of the Bureau of Citizenship and 

Immigration Services outlining the criteria for referral 

of inquiries to local offices of the Ombudsman;

3) shall ensure that the local telephone number for each 

local office of the Ombudsman is published and 
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES OMBUDSMAN 65

available to individuals and employers served by the 

office; and

4) shall meet regularly with the Director of the 

Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services 

to identify serious service problems and to present 

recommendations for such administrative action as 

may be appropriate to resolve problems encountered 

by individuals and employers.

(e) PERSONNEL ACTIONS—

1) IN GENERAL—The Ombudsman shall have the 

responsibility and authority—

(A) To appoint local ombudsmen and make available at 

least 1 such ombudsman for each State; and

(B) To evaluate and take personnel actions (including 

dismissal) with respect to any employee of any local 

office of the Ombudsman.

2) CONSULTATION—The Ombudsman may consult 

with the appropriate supervisory personnel of the 

Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services in 

carrying out the Ombudsman’s responsibilities under 

this subsection.

(f) RESPONSIBILITIES OF BUREAU OF 

CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION 

SERVICES—The Director of the Bureau of 

Citizenship and Immigration Services shall establish 

procedures requiring a formal response to all 

recommendations submitted to such director by the 

Ombudsman within 3 months after submission to 

such director.

(g) OPERATION OF LOCAL OFFICES—

1) IN GENERAL—Each local ombudsman—

(A) shall report to the Ombudsman or the delegate thereof;

(B) may consult with the appropriate supervisory 

personnel of the Bureau of Citizenship and 

Immigration Services regarding the daily operation of 

the local office of such ombudsman;

(C) shall, at the initial meeting with any individual or 

employer seeking the assistance of such local office, 

notify such individual or employer that the local 

offices of the Ombudsman operate independently of 

any other component of the Department and report 

directly to Congress through the Ombudsman; and

(D) at the local ombudsman’s discretion, may determine 

not to disclose to the Bureau of Citizenship and 

Immigration Services contact with, or information 

provided by, such individual or employer.

(2) MAINTENANCE OF INDEPENDENT 

COMMUNICATIONS—Each local office of the 

Ombudsman shall maintain a phone, facsimile, and 

other means of electronic communication access, 

and a post office address, that is separate from 

those maintained by the Bureau of Citizenship and 

Immigration Services, or any component of the Bureau 

of Citizenship and Immigration Services.
66 ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS JUNE 2018

Average Processing Times for USCIS Field Offices for Forms N-400, Application for Naturalization 

July–Sep. 2017 (FY 2017 4th Quarter)

Agana GU, 5.8

San Juan PR, 9.7

Seattle WA, 10.9

Spokane WA, 6.6

Portland OR, 8.0 Yakima WA, 5.5

Portland ME, 5.8

Manchester NH, 5.1

Boston MA, 6.5

Providence RI, 6.3

Hartford CT, 9.5

Long Island NY, 8.5

Brooklyn NY, 8.5 New York City NY, 7.9

Albany NY, 6.6

Buffalo NY, 6.0

Saint Albans VT, 5.2

Mount Laurel NJ, 8.4

Baltimore MD, 10.4

Philadelphia PA, 9.9

Newark NJ, 9.1

Washington DC, 9.9

Norfolk VA, 9.5

Raleigh NC, 7.3

Charlotte NC, 7.9

Atlanta GA, 10.7

Charleston SC, 6.2

Jacksonville FL, 9.0

Orlando FL, 11.9

Tampa FL, 9.6

West Palm Beach FL, 9.6

Oakland Park FL, 13.1

Miami FL, 13.0

Kendall FL, 12.5

Fort Myers FL, 15.3

Pittsburgh PA,

6.8

Cleveland OH, 5.2

Detroit MI, 7.2 Milwaukee WI, 10.8

Chicago IL, 9.8

Minneapolis-Saint Paul MN, 12.7

Columbus OH, 6.9

Louisville KY, 7.0

Cincinnati OH, 6.6 Indianapolis IN, 6.2

Des Moines IA, 12.5

Omaha NE, 7.5

Kansas City MO, 6.5

Saint Louis MO, 8.3

Memphis TN, 12.6

New Orleans LA, 11.7 Houston TX, 14.5

Dallas TX, 14.5

San Antonio TX, 9.1

Fort Smith AR, 9.5

Oklahoma City OK, 8.5

Wichita KS, 9.4

Denver CO, 11.5

Salt Lake City UT, 11.2

Helena MT, 5.7

Boise ID, 6.4

Albuquerque NM, 7.3

El Paso TX, 10.3

Tucson AZ, 7.4

Phoenix AZ, 11.1

Las Vegas NV, 11.0

Reno NV, 9.1

Sacramento CA, 9.0

San Francisco CA, 10.2

San Jose CA, 8.8

Fresno CA, 8.2

San Fernando Valley CA, 9.4

Santa Ana CA, 8.8

Los Angeles CA, 8.8

Los Angeles County CA, 9.8

Harlingen TX, 12.1

San Diego CA, 7.9

Imperial CA, 7.6

San Bernardino CA, 5.8

Anchorage AK, 8.0

Honolulu HI, 8.5

Average Processing Times for USCIS Field Offices for Forms I-485, Application to Register Permanent 

Residence or Adjust Status

July–Sep. 2017 (FY 2017 4th Quarter)

Source: Information provided by USCIS.

Lawrence MA, 6.5

Source: Information provided by USCIS.

= 0–5 months = 5–7 months = 7+ months

= 0–5 months = 5–7 months = 7+ months

Hialeah FL, 9.0

Greer SC, 6.5

Agana GU, 7.1

San Juan PR, 11.8

Seattle WA, 12.8

Spokane WA, 7.4

Portland OR, 8.0 Yakima WA, 6.3

Portland ME, 2.3

Manchester NH, 7.3

Boston MA, 8.8

Providence RI, 7.8

Hartford CT, 10.4

Long Island NY, 8.9

Brooklyn NY, 8.9 New York City NY, 10.3

Albany NY, 8.3

Buffalo NY, 7.0

Saint Albans VT, 4.8

Mount Laurel NJ, 9.1

Baltimore MD, 12.8

Philadelphia PA, 10.8

Newark NJ, 12.6

Washington DC, 12.5

Norfolk VA, 9.6

Raleigh NC, 7.4

Charlotte NC, 8.4

Atlanta GA, 12.5

Charleston SC, 7.4

Jacksonville FL, 8.1

Orlando FL, 12.7

Tampa FL, 8.2

West Palm Beach FL, 9.6

Oakland Park FL, 13.6

Miami FL, 11.6

Kendall FL, 8.1

Fort Myers FL, 9.7

Pittsburgh PA,

8.5

Cleveland OH, 6.2

Detroit MI, 7.4 Milwaukee WI, 10.8

Chicago IL, 10.6

Minneapolis-Saint Paul MN, 15.4

Columbus OH, 7.3

Louisville KY, 6.8

Cincinnati OH, 7.2 Indianapolis IN, 7.2

Des Moines IA, 10.9

Omaha NE, 9.0

Kansas City MO, 6.8

Saint Louis MO, 10.0

Memphis TN, 10.3

New Orleans LA, 11.9 Houston TX, 13.4

Dallas TX, 12.3

San Antonio TX, 10.6

Fort Smith AR, 9.4

Oklahoma City OK, 9.9

Wichita KS, 9.2

Denver CO, 12.3

Salt Lake City UT, 9.6

Helena MT, 9.5

Boise ID, 10.9

Albuquerque NM, 8.3

El Paso TX, 8.6

Tucson AZ, 7.6

Phoenix AZ, 9.9

Las Vegas NV, 9.4

Reno NV, 15.4

Sacramento CA, 9.5

San Francisco CA, 12.5

San Jose CA, 13.2

Fresno CA, 8.3

San Fernando Valley CA, 11.1

Santa Ana CA, 11.6

Los Angeles CA, 8.4

Harlingen TX, 11.3

San Diego CA, 12.8

Imperial CA, 6.2

San Bernardino CA, 6.8

Anchorage AK, 7.0

Honolulu HI, 11.7

Lawrence MA, 7.7

Hialeah FL, 8.5

Greer SC, 7.2

Los Angeles County CA, 11.2

USCIS Naturalization and Adjustment of Status Processing Times
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES OMBUDSMAN 67

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
68 ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS JUNE 2018

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES OMBUDSMAN 69

AAO Administrative Appeals Office 

AFM Adjudicator’s Field Manual 

ANPRM Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

ASC Application Support Center

ASVVP Administrative Site Visit and 

Verification Program

BIA Board of Immigration Appeals

BCU Background Check Unit

CAM Central American Minors

CARRP Controlled Application Review 

and Resolution Program

CBP Customs and Border Protection

CIS Central Index System

CLAIMS Computer Linked Application Information 

Management System

CLASS DOS Consular Lookout and Support System

CSC California Service Center 

CY Calendar Year

DACA Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals

DHS U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

DOJ U.S. Department of Justice 

DOS U.S. Department of State 

EAD Employment Authorization Document 

ELIS Electronic Immigration System

EOIR Executive Office for Immigration Review 

EPMS Enterprise Print Management System

FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation

FIFO First-In, First-Out

FOD Field Operations Directorate

FDNS Fraud Detection and National 

Security Directorate

FY Fiscal Year

GAO U.S. Government Accountability Office

HSA Homeland Security Act

HSI Homeland Security Investigations

ICE U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

INA Immigration and Nationality Act

INS Immigration and Naturalization Service 

IRIS Immigration Records and 

Identity Services Directorate

JCE Job Creating Enterprise

LPR Legal (Lawful) Permanent Resident 

LIFO Last-In, First-Out

NBC National Benefits Center 

NCSC National Customer Service Center 

NOID Notice of Intent to Deny 

NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

NSC Nebraska Service Center 

NTA Notice to Appear 

OIG Office of Inspector General 

OIT Office of Information Technology

PIA Privacy Impact Assessment

PSC Potomac Service Center

RAIO Refugee, Asylum, and International Operations

RAPS Refugee, Asylum, and Parole System 

RFE Request for Evidence 

RSC Resettlement Service Center 

SCOPS Service Center Operations Directorate

SEC Securities Exchange Commission

SGN System-Generated Notification

SMD Social Media Division

SOF Statement of Findings

TEA Targeted Employment Area

TPS Temporary Protected Status 

TRIG Terrorism-Related Inadmissibility Grounds

TSA Transportation Security Administration

TSC Texas Service Center 

TSVVP Targeted Site Visit and Verification Program 

TVPRA Trafficking Victims Protection 

Reauthorization Act 

UAC Unaccompanied Alien Children

UNHCR U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees

USCIS U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 

VSC Vermont Service Center

WRAPS Worldwide Refugee Admissions 

Processing System

Acronyms
70 ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS JUNE 2018

Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman

U.S. Department of Homeland Security

Mail Stop 0180

Washington, DC 20528

Telephone: (202) 357-8100

Toll-free: 1-855-882-8100

http://www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman

Send your comments to: cisombudsman@hq.dhs.gov