Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman 

Annual Report 2005 

Submitted to: 

United States Senate United States House of Representatives 

Committee on the Judiciary Committee on the Judiciary 

June 30, 2005 

Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress, June 2005 

The Honorable Arlen Specter, Chairman 

Committee on the Judiciary 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy, Ranking Minority Member 

Committee on the Judiciary 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

The Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., Chairman 

Committee on the Judiciary 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., Ranking Minority Member 

Committee on the Judiciary 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

The Honorable John Cornyn, Chairman 

Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Citizenship 

Committee on the Judiciary 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy, Ranking Minority Member 

Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Citizenship 

Committee on the Judiciary 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

The Honorable John N. Hostettler, Chairman 

Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims 

Committee on the Judiciary 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

The Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, Ranking Minority Member 

Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims 

Committee on the Judiciary 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

June 30, 2005 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov Page i 

Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress, June 2005 

MESSAGE FROM THE OMBUDSMAN 

Prakash Khatri 

Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman 

This past year has been both challenging and rewarding for the Office of the 

Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman. I can report with 

confidence that the future for individuals and employers seeking immigration 

benefits will be better than the past. This reflects the commitment of the 

Secretary and Deputy Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS) to create a world-class immigration benefits system and the hard work 

of thousands of public servants at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 

(USCIS). 

Our families, our economy, and our culture are strengthened by immigrants 

from around the world who come to this country to contribute to our society 

and to realize the American dream. As an immigrant and a naturalized citizen 

myself, I never take the honor of U.S. citizenship for granted. I am proud to 

lead the Office of the Ombudsman in its mission to ensure that the nation has an immigration benefits system 

that meets the needs and aspirations of employers and individuals – citizens and noncitizens alike – that 

strengthens our economy, and that takes full account of DHS’ national security mandate. 

In the past year, I have had the opportunity to meet with people around the country who share a vision of an 

immigration benefits system that is more efficient, more customer-service oriented, and more secure. I have 

spoken with employers seeking workers to expand their businesses, family members aspiring to sponsor 

relatives, lawyers and advocates proposing immigration reforms, and USCIS employees bringing their firsthand experience to bear on persistent bureaucratic obstacles. I have used the knowledge and insights from 

these encounters to develop the recommendations for change described in detail in this report. 

The stakes for USCIS are high. President George W. Bush has proposed a new temporary worker program 

that will match willing foreign workers with willing American employers, when no U.S. workers can be found 

to fill the jobs. Since USCIS would play a central role in implementing any temporary worker program, an 

efficient, secure, and customer-centric system is an essential foundation for successful immigration reform. 

During my two-year tenure, I have been privileged to work with dedicated public servants, including former 

DHS Secretary Tom Ridge, former Deputy Secretary Jim Loy, and former USCIS Director Eduardo Aguirre. 

With the vision and leadership of Secretary Michael Chertoff and Deputy Secretary Michael P. Jackson, I am 

convinced that progress will continue. The Ombudsman’s office itself has evolved from fewer than a halfdozen public servants to a dedicated team of 24 professionals. Together, we are committed to working in 

partnership with DHS leadership and the new USCIS Director to achieve transformational improvements in the 

immigration benefits system. 

I look forward to the day when I can report that the work of this office has been accomplished. We are not 

there yet, but with the progress of the past year and committed leadership to move forward, that day is truly 

foreseeable. 

Prakash Khatri 

Citizenship & Immigration Services Ombudsman 

June 30, 2005 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov Page ii 

Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress, June 2005 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

This report reflects activities for the Office of the Citizenship and Immigration Services 

Ombudsman from June 1, 2004 through May 31, 2005. The statutory mission of the 

Ombudsman is to: 1) assist individuals and employers in resolving problems with U.S. 

Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS); 2) identify areas in which individuals and 

employers have problems in dealing with USCIS; and 3) to the extent possible, propose changes 

in the administrative practices of USCIS to mitigate identified problems. 

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

who have encountered problems with our immigration benefits system. The Ombudsman 

believes the best way to assist individuals and employers is to encourage efficiency and better 

customer service at USCIS; therefore, the office is aggressively focusing on improving the 

immigration benefits system by recommending solutions to systemic problems in USCIS 

processes. 

The Ombudsman envisions an efficient, secure immigration benefits system with worldclass customer service. The system would feature “up-front processing,” which would: fully 

inform applicants of the documents and other evidence necessary to support the application; 

ensure that all proper documentation is filed with the initial application; allow applicants to be 

interviewed, if required, on the day of filing; and provide the immigration benefit within a few 

days of filing an application. In addition, applicants would file only one form and pay one fee 

per primary immigration benefit. An up-front process would limit the number of “interim 

benefits” – i.e., work permits and travel documents – issued, which would decrease the number 

of ineligible individuals who receive immigration benefits. 

To help achieve this vision, the Ombudsman worked closely with USCIS and DHS 

leadership this year to address several serious and pervasive problems such as backlogs and 

prolonged processing times, interim benefit issuance, antiquated information technology, lack of 

standardization across USCIS business processes, and inadequate training and staffing. 

The Ombudsman made twelve formal recommendations to USCIS in this reporting year 

to address problems with our immigration benefits system. The agency adopted most of these 

recommendations which covered a wide variety of USCIS activities, including operational 

improvements, employee training, expanded policy guidance, and streamlined forms and fees. 

In response to the Ombudsman’s recommendations last year, USCIS implemented four 

pilot programs to address three areas of business operations, including green card 

renewal/replacement processing, employment-based immigrant processing, and familysponsored immigrant processing. Of the four pilot programs, the Dallas Office Rapid 

Adjustment Pilot program best demonstrates the up-front processing concept as completion rates 

on green card applications increased substantially while the issuance of interim benefits 

decreased dramatically over the life of the pilot. This has convinced the Ombudsman that an upfront processing model can work within current USCIS capabilities, and that the agency can 

achieve improved application completion rates, enhance customer satisfaction, reduce the need 

to issue interim benefits, and substantially reduce unnecessary time-consuming work. 

June 30, 2005 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov Page iii 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress, June 2005 

Over the past 23 months, Ombudsman Khatri visited over 65 USCIS facilities, including 

district offices, service centers, and other facilities, to understand the issues individuals and 

employers face when interacting with the agency. In addition, the Ombudsman and his staff held 

various meetings with representatives from community-based organizations, the immigration 

bar, and business organizations to identify problems and collect data. 

The Ombudsman is tasked with assisting individuals and employers in resolving specific 

case problems with USCIS. The most common types of complaints from the public included 

issues such as the processing backlog and security check delays. The Ombudsman continues to 

evaluate USCIS’ responses and work with USCIS on correcting many of the causes of these 

complaints. 

By statute, the Ombudsman also has the responsibility and authority to appoint local 

ombudsmen around the country, and this year the Ombudsman initiated a pilot program to design 

and develop a workable local ombudsman office. The pilot program will establish personnel and 

support requirements, determine liaison responsibilities and limitations, and provide a controlled 

model for future local ombudsman office placements. 

For the coming year, the Ombudsman plans to expand efforts to reach out to individuals 

who experience problems with USCIS and will continue to develop recommendations to resolve 

systemic problems. The Ombudsman also will continue to make recommendations to simplify 

the complex body of immigration law, regulations, and processes. 

The Ombudsman looks forward to working with USCIS and DHS to build on successes 

of the past year to realize the goal of a more efficient, secure immigration benefits system with 

world-class customer service. 

June 30, 2005 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov Page iv 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress, June 2005 

Table of Contents 

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

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

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

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

B. Vision.......................................................................................................................1

C. Accomplishments.....................................................................................................2

II. Pervasive and Serious Problems ..........................................................................................3 

A. Backlogs and Prolonged Processing Times .............................................................3

B. Interim Benefits .......................................................................................................5

1. Interim Benefits and the Backlog ............................................................... 6 

Figure 1: Work Permit Equals Drivers License Plus Social Security Card ..........6 

2. Efficiency Challenges in Green Card Processing ....................................... 7 

3. USCIS Fee Structure................................................................................... 8 

Figure 2: USCIS Fee Revenue Chart for Fiscal Year 2004...................................8 

Figure 3: Potential Cost Savings to a Typical Green Card Applicant 

under Existing Versus Future Processing with Current Fee 

Structure.................................................................................................9 

C. Untimely Processing and Systemic Problems with Employment-Based 

Green Card Applications..........................................................................................9

D. Background and Security Checks ..........................................................................11

E. Information Technology Issues..............................................................................12

F. Limited Case Status Information Available to Applicants ....................................13

G. Coordination and Communication.........................................................................14

1. District Offices/Service Centers ............................................................... 14 

2. Headquarters and District/Service Center Office Coordination ............... 15 

3. USCIS, Employers, and Other Government Agencies ............................. 15 

H. Lack of Standardization Across USCIS Business Processes.................................15

June 30, 2005 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov Page v 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress, June 2005 

I. Training and Staffing .............................................................................................18

1. Training..................................................................................................... 18 

2. Staffing...................................................................................................... 19 

III. Recommendations..............................................................................................................20 

A. Recommendations June 2004 – May 2005 ............................................................20

Figure 4: Recommendations June 2004 – May 2005 ..........................................20 

1. Fee Instructions (June 29, 2004) ............................................................... 21 

2. Customer Service Training for USCIS Employees (August 16, 2004) .... 21 

3. E-Filing (August 16, 2004) ....................................................................... 22 

4. I-9 Storage (August 16, 2004) .................................................................. 22 

5. Premium Processing (September 27, 2004).............................................. 22 

6. Standardized Forms (October 6, 2004) ..................................................... 23 

7. Naturalization for Survivors of Domestic Violence (October 6, 2004).... 23 

8. InfoPass Recommendation (November 29, 2004) .................................... 23 

9. Lockbox Recommendation (November 29, 2004).................................... 24 

10. Issuance of Permanent Residence Cards to Arriving Immigrants 

(December 15, 2004) ................................................................................ 25 

11. Pilot Program Termination (February 25, 2005) ...................................... 25 

12. Issuance of Receipts to Petitioners and Applicants (May 9, 2005) .......... 25 

B. Update on Pilot Programs ......................................................................................26

1. Introduction............................................................................................... 26 

2. Los Angeles District Office I-90 Pilot ...................................................... 27 

a. Pilot Description ............................................................................27 

b. Results Reported by USCIS...........................................................27 

c. Ombudsman’s Comments..............................................................27 

3. California Service Center Backlog Elimination Pilot ............................... 28 

a. Pilot Description ............................................................................28 

b. Results Reported by USCIS...........................................................28 

c. Ombudsman’s Comments..............................................................28 

June 30, 2005 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov Page vi
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress, June 2005 

4. New York District Backlog Elimination and Fraud Reduction Pilot ....... 29 

a. Pilot Description ............................................................................29 

b. Results Reported by USCIS...........................................................29 

c. Ombudsman’s Comments..............................................................30 

5. Dallas Office Rapid Adjustment Pilot ...................................................... 30 

a. Pilot Description ............................................................................30 

b. Results Reported by USCIS...........................................................31 

Figure 5: Cases Rejected Under DORA ..............................................................31 

c. Ombudsman’s Comments..............................................................32 

Figure 6: Green Card Completion Rate Versus Work Permit Issuance 

Rate under DORA (May 2004 – February 2005) ................................33 

6. Overall Pilot Program Analysis ................................................................ 34 

IV. Local Ombudsman Pilot Program......................................................................................35 

V. Public Inquiries to the Ombudsman...................................................................................36 

VI. Fiscal Year 2006 Objectives ..............................................................................................37

VII. Conclusion .........................................................................................................................38 

Appendix........................................................................................................................................39 

Figure 7: Key Forms Utilized in Green Card Application Processing –

Historical Annual Receipt Totals (1994 – 2004) .................................39 

Figure 8: Key Forms Utilized in Green Card Application Processing –

Historical Monthly Receipt Totals (2001 – 2005) ...............................39 

Figure 9: Key Forms Utilized in Green Card Application Processing –

Historical End of Year Pending Totals (1994 – 2005) ........................40 

Figure 10: Key Forms Utilized in Green Card Application Processing –

Historical End of Month Pending Totals (October 2001 – April 

2005) ....................................................................................................40 

June 30, 2005 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov Page vii 

Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress, June 2005 

I. INTRODUCTION 

The position of Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman (“Ombudsman”) was 

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

Ombudsman reports directly to the Deputy Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland 

Security (DHS). Prakash Khatri was appointed as the Ombudsman on July 28, 2003. 

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

of the Ombudsman from June 1, 2004 through May 31, 2005. The Ombudsman’s first annual 

report covered the period from July 28, 2003 through May 31, 2004. 

A. Mission 

The statutory mission of the Ombudsman is to – 

• Assist individuals and employers in resolving problems with U.S. Citizenship and 

Immigration Services (USCIS); 

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

USCIS; and 

• To the extent possible, propose changes in the administrative practices of USCIS to 

mitigate identified problems. 

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

who have encountered problems with our immigration benefits system.1

 The Ombudsman 

believes the best way to assist individuals and employers is to encourage efficiency and better 

customer service at USCIS; therefore, the office is aggressively focusing on improving the 

immigration benefits system by recommending solutions to systemic problems in USCIS 

processes. 

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

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

dignity of individuals and enhance our economy while simultaneously protecting us against those 

who seek to do us harm. 

B. Vision 

The Ombudsman envisions an efficient, secure immigration benefits system with worldclass customer service. Such a system would allow qualified applicants to be processed as 

expeditiously as possible while simultaneously rejecting ineligible applicants. Prior to the filing 

1

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

enforcement side. Primary immigration benefits include permanent residence (“green card”), nonimmigrant status, 

naturalization, asylum, etc. Secondary immigration benefits (“interim benefits”) include work permits and travel 

documents. 

June 30, 2005 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov Page 1 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress, June 2005 

of an application, applicants would be fully informed of the documents and other evidence 

necessary to support that application and the consequences of their failure to do so. Fully 

informing applicants would dramatically reduce the need to issue time-consuming and expensive 

Requests for Evidence (RFEs). It would also substantially reduce the ability of ineligible 

applicants to file skeletal applications merely to obtain interim benefits such as work permits and 

travel documents.2 

Once applicants clear security checks and compile necessary documentation, they would 

receive their benefit within a few days of filing the application. This process, described by the 

Ombudsman as “up-front processing,” would prevent backlogs, drastically reduce the need to 

issue interim benefits, and greatly improve customer service. Applicants would be required to 

file only one form and pay one fee per primary immigration benefit. Applicants would be 

interviewed, if required, on the day of filing. Finally, there would be an integrated case 

management system, which would allow USCIS to better track information about applicants, 

provide immigration status information to appropriate entities, and enable applicants to 

accurately determine the status of their applications. 

The establishment of an efficient, secure benefits system would virtually eliminate the 

need for the Ombudsman’s office. 

C. Accomplishments 

The Ombudsman has identified numerous problems with our immigration benefits system 

and has made recommendations to USCIS accordingly. Twelve formal recommendations were 

provided to USCIS during the reporting period.3

 These recommendations covered a wide variety 

of USCIS activities, including operational improvements, employee training, expanded policy 

guidance on naturalization, and streamlined forms and fees. In addition, the Ombudsman and his 

staff have worked closely with USCIS and DHS leadership to address certain pervasive and 

serious problems that, if solved, should greatly improve USCIS efficiency, dramatically improve 

customer service, and enhance national security. 

In order to identify problems and collect data, the Ombudsman and his staff held a wide 

variety of meetings with representatives from community-based organizations (CBOs), the 

immigration bar, and business organizations. In addition, the Ombudsman visited over 65 

USCIS facilities – including district offices, service centers, and other facilities. The purpose of 

these visits was to see first-hand what issues individuals and employers encounter with USCIS 

and to identify systemic problems that needed resolution. The success of the Office of the 

Ombudsman is due in part to USCIS’ recognition of the Ombudsman as a catalyst for change. 

USCIS has provided the Ombudsman full and open access to USCIS facilities and personnel. 

USCIS leadership and workforce aspire to become a world-class customer service leader among 

government agencies. Their support for the mission of the Ombudsman and candor in all 

2

 The Ombudsman defines interim benefits as any temporary benefit, including work authorization and travel 

documents, issued to an individual while his or her application for Adjustment of Status (green card application) is 

pending. See infra section II.B, for a complete discussion of interim benefits. 

3

 The twelve recommendations and USCIS’ response to them are discussed in greater detail infra section III. 

June 30, 2005 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov Page 2 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress, June 2005 

discussions of the state of immigration benefits processing are the foundation for most of the 

Ombudsman’s recommendations. 

Additionally, the Ombudsman was tasked by Secretary Michael Chertoff and Deputy 

Secretary Michael P. Jackson to co-chair a comprehensive review of USCIS business operations. 

As a result of this review, many important issues have been brought to the attention of DHS 

leadership. 

II. PERVASIVE AND SERIOUS PROBLEMS 

A. Backlogs and Prolonged Processing Times 

The vast majority of complaints and inquiries received by the Ombudsman’s office from 

the public involve customer frustration with the amount of time it takes USCIS to complete a 

case, which creates and perpetuates the backlog. Processing delays negatively affect the 

immigration process in three major ways: 

• National Security/Public Safety: Normally, individuals are permitted to remain in 

the United States while their benefits applications are pending. Some of these 

individuals may be national security or public safety risks. While they are awaiting 

decisions on their applications, they may be accruing equities in the United States 

which can make it more difficult to remove them from the country if their application 

is ultimately denied. 

• Economic Impact: Every year, United States businesses seek the services of skilled 

and essential workers from other nations. Backlogs, coupled with statutory limits on 

the number of visas issued, deprive these businesses of the services they need, 

sometimes for many months. United States educational institutions depend on 

students, researchers, and instructors for knowledge exchanges and revenue. 

Processing delays deprive these institutions of access to foreign students, researchers, 

and instructors. These processing delays have caused businesses to reconsider the 

location of their conferences and even their new business sites, fearing that overseas 

workers cannot enter the United States in time. 

• Customer Service: Processing delays for qualified immigration benefits applicants 

translate into lost employment opportunities, financial hardships, and unnecessary 

family separation. 

The ultimate USCIS processing goal should be to complete cases as rapidly as possible 

while maintaining the integrity of the system. However, setting goals based on the current 

USCIS definition of “backlog” unfortunately results in USCIS falling short of this goal.4 Even in 

4

 According to the USCIS Backlog Elimination Plan (quarterly update), June 16, 2004, at 4, “The new definition in 

[USCIS’ Backlog Elimination Plan] quantifies the backlog by basing the figure on the number of receipts during the 

previous number of months that corresponds with target cycle time (usually six) and the current pending count for a 

given application type. This calculated amount can then be used to assess and determine concrete production targets 

for backlogged application types and the resources necessary to meet those targets. Therefore, backlog is defined as 

June 30, 2005 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov Page 3 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress, June 2005 

districts that are close to achieving the backlog elimination goals as defined by USCIS, large 

numbers of cases remain pending beyond six months – sometimes even years after the initial 

filing of the application. 

It is quite possible – even probable – that in meeting its current backlog elimination 

goals, USCIS will not achieve its desired levels of customer service and efficiency. Applicants 

who should receive benefits in six weeks will not be satisfied with a process that delivers those 

benefits in six months. Nor will employers who need the skills of a foreign worker in three 

weeks be satisfied with a six-month process. 

Premium Processing Service (“premium processing”) demonstrates the demand for better 

customer service, the ability of USCIS to deliver it, and the public’s frustration with existing 

processes. Premium processing allows petitioners to ensure a USCIS decision on their petition 

within 15 days by paying $1,000 in addition to regular filing fees.5 If USCIS does not deliver a 

decision within 15 days, the premium processing fee is generally refunded. In FY 2004, USCIS 

collected $202 million in premium processing fees reflecting 202,000 petitioners for 

nonimmigrant worker petitions while collecting only $64 million for processing approximately 

418,000 base petitions (form I-129). Clearly, there is a demand for timely, predictable service. 

The Ombudsman is optimistic that USCIS can make premium processing-type service the norm 

without expecting the customer to pay premium processing fees. 

USCIS has already made substantial progress toward meeting customer expectations by 

piloting a successful green card processing program. In its Dallas Office Rapid Adjustment 

(DORA) pilot program,6

 USCIS has implemented an up-front application process that delivers 

decisions on Adjustment of Status (green card) applications in less than 90 days on 58 percent of 

the cases filed over the life of the pilot program.7

 For the most recent complete reporting period 

(February 2005), over 70 percent of the cases filed were approved in less than 90 days under 

DORA. 

Both DORA and premium processing incorporate elements of up-front processing. The 

processes deliver quality service in a timely manner. As such, the Ombudsman strongly supports 

the national implementation of up-front processing. Today’s applicant should benefit from new 

and innovative processes. 

the difference between pending and receipts for the number of months of target cycle time. (Backlog = Pending – 

Last Six Months’ receipts). This new definition of backlog better reflects the idea that as long as USCIS is 

processing its receipts within the designated target cycle time, there is no backlog for those applications as the 

pending count only reflects cases within [USCIS] target cycle time.” 

5

 Premium processing was authorized by statute for employment-based petitions. See 8 U.S.C. § 1356(u). USCIS is 

currently offering premium processing for certain nonimmigrant worker petitions. 

6

 For a discussion of the DORA program, see section III.B.5. 

7 See infra section III.B.5.b. 

June 30, 2005 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov Page 4 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress, June 2005 

B. Interim Benefits 

Most applicants who file for a green card in the United States also apply for and are 

granted what can be termed “interim benefits,” specifically work permits and/or travel 

authorization documents that applicants receive only because they have a green card application 

pending.8 

Many of the problems associated with the backlog are related to individuals seeking 

interim benefits due to delays in processing their adjustment of status applications. Adjustment 

of status is a process by which foreign citizens who are physically present in the United States 

can convert their immigration status (e.g. H-1B temporary workers) to permanent resident status, 

obtaining what is commonly referred to as a “green card.” A green card entitles the holder to 

live and work indefinitely in the United States, to sponsor certain relatives to live in the United 

States, and to accrue residency necessary to qualify for naturalization. There are two primary 

avenues for obtaining a green card: 1) a qualifying family relationship (i.e. a spouse, parent, 

child, or sibling of a U.S. citizen or Lawful Permanent Resident); or 2) a qualifying employment 

relationship, which usually requires that an employer sponsor an employee for a job that a U.S. 

worker cannot fill.9 

While it is essential that USCIS grant interim benefits to green card applicants who are 

awaiting final decisions, a substantial decrease in the need to issue interim benefits must be 

achieved by reengineering the green card application process to make it more efficient and less 

prone to fraud. 

A new approach to adjudicating green card applications is needed to reduce the backlog, 

prevent USCIS reliance on fees from interim benefits, and prevent exploitation of the system by 

unscrupulous persons who file frivolous applications in order to secure work permits. Potential 

proposals to accomplish these goals include: 

• Processing of green card applications in a few days (less than 90 days), which would 

eliminate the need to issue the vast majority of interim benefits; and 

• One fee and one form for a green card and any necessary interim benefits. 

8

 Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 274a.12(c)(9), a person whose green card application is pending is entitled to an 

employment authorization document (commonly referred to as a “work permit”) which is effective for one year. 

However, if USCIS fails to adjudicate the application for the work permit within 90 days, the applicant is granted a 

temporary work permit valid for 240 days. See 8 C.F.R. § 274a.13(d). A grant of Advance Parole allows certain 

green card applicants to travel abroad and re-enter the United States while the application is pending without 

abandoning the application. See 8 C.F.R. § 212.5(f). 

9

 Alternative avenues to obtaining a green card are through one of the humanitarian programs – refugee or asylee – 

or special programs like the Diversity Visa (Lottery) program. 

June 30, 2005 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov Page 5 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress, June 2005 

1. Interim Benefits and the Backlog 

The current green card application process is highly susceptible to exploitation by 

unscrupulous persons and ineligible applicants seeking interim benefits.10 Interim benefits may 

be issued even though no prima facie determination as to the applicant’s eligibility for a green 

card has been made.11 Consequently, unscrupulous individuals can take advantage of the 

backlog by filing for a green card merely to receive the interim benefits, not necessarily the 

green card itself. For example, an applicant who claims to be married to a U.S. citizen but whose 

marriage is not bona fide could apply for a green card and, while his application is pending, 

receive interim benefits even though he is not actually eligible for a green card. With a work 

permit, a person can obtain a Social Security number, a driver’s license,12 secure credit, and 

provide evidence of both identity and employment eligibility to an employer. 

Figure 1: Work Permit Equals Drivers License Plus Social Security Card 

→ + 

Green card application processing times in some jurisdictions are so lengthy that 

applicants can receive three or more work permits prior to the adjudication of their green card 

application. For example, the USCIS District Office in New York City is currently interviewing 

green card applicants who filed their applications in December 2002. An applicant who filed in 

December 2002 would likely have received a work permit in March 2003, March 2004, and 

March 2005, before his or her eligibility interview. 

Despite USCIS efforts to reduce the number of pending green card applications, 

approximately 750,000 remain pending as of April 2005. As a result, the demand for interim 

benefits will continue.13 

10 For fiscal year 2004, USCIS reported a nationwide green card application denial rate of approximately 20 percent. 

Most of these ineligible applicants received interim benefits while awaiting adjudication of their green card 

application. In some jurisdictions, the denial rate was much higher. For example, in New York City, the green card 

application denial rates in 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004 were: 43.3 percent, 31.5 percent, 47.6 percent, and 39 percent 

respectively. Under DORA, however, the denial rate was much lower; only 3 percent (199 of the 6,626 cases) 

processed through March 4, 2005 were denied. 

11 USCIS performs a preliminary review of each application by completing an inventory of documents filed. The 

Office of the Ombudsman asserts that a more thorough review should be performed at the time each application is 

received. 

12 The recently enacted REAL ID Act does not change this situation. The law requires all states to verify lawful 

immigration status before issuing driver’s licenses to non-citizens and work permits issued as a result of pending 

green card applications are accepted as evidence of lawful immigration status. See REAL ID Act of 2005, Pub. L. 

No. 109-13, 119 Stat. 231, 302, at § 202(c)(2)(B). Because certain states do not currently have such a requirement, 

the REAL ID Act may inadvertently create an incentive for undocumented foreign nationals in these states to file 

frivolous green card applications and thereby reap the rewards of interim benefits (i.e. a valid driver’s license) for 

many years before adjudication of their green card application. 

13 See appendix for charts which depict this concept in more detail. 

June 30, 2005 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov Page 6 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress, June 2005 

The most recent USCIS report on its Backlog Reduction Plan stated that the completion 

targets for green card applications and work permits have actually been reduced for FY 2005 and 

FY 2006.14 According to the report, these completion targets were reduced to reassign staff to 

work on naturalization applications.15 Historically, USCIS has redistributed resources between 

benefit types to address spikes in case volume. This practice has resulted in a virtual “see-saw” 

effect in which reductions to backlogs for green card applications at district offices 

simultaneously result in backlog increases for naturalization applications at district offices and 

vice versa. Clearly an optimal business model would allow both backlogs to be reduced 

simultaneously. 

2. Efficiency Challenges in Green Card Processing 

At the beginning of FY 2004, USCIS had 957,714 pending green card applications. In 

FY 2004, USCIS received an additional 525,032 green card applications. Most of these 

applicants received work permits.16 Based on the Ombudsman’s estimate, two-thirds of all work 

permit applications (1.1 million) in FY 2004 were received from pending green card applicants. 

Additionally, these same applicants also accounted for 310,000 travel document applications. 

Clearly, the ability to adjudicate green card applications and other types of applications would 

have increased dramatically if USCIS did not have to process these 1.4 million interim benefit 

applications. By eliminating the customer’s need for interim benefits, USCIS could shift 

resources to processing green card applications, eliminate the existing backlog, and ensure that a 

new backlog does not develop. 

As noted, if green card applications were adjudicated within a few days, there would be 

virtually no need for interim benefits. Based upon the success of the Dallas Pilot Program,17 

such a process should: 

• Reduce the amount of time it takes for an applicant to receive his green card; and 

• Allow USCIS to reallocate substantial resources currently utilized to issue interim 

benefits and maintain applications of persons who are not eligible for a green card. 

A major obstacle to issuing green cards within a few days is that security checks are often 

not completed in a timely manner.18 The current process of conducting security checks after an 

application has been filed creates substantial additional burdens on USCIS since it must maintain 

these applications while security checks are pending. Furthermore, since key security checks are 

conducted by other agencies, USCIS has little control over the amount of time necessary to 

conduct all security checks required prior to issuing a green card. Another obstacle to USCIS’ 

ability to rapidly adjudicate these cases is that many applications are accepted for processing 

without all necessary supporting documents. 

14 USCIS Backlog Elimination Plan (quarterly update), Mar. 16, 2005, at 2. 

15 See id. at ii (Message from the Director). 

16 DHS Office of Immigration Statistics estimates that over 85 percent of all green card applicants apply for work 

permits. 

17 See infra section III.B. 

18 See id. 

June 30, 2005 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov Page 7 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress, June 2005 

The Ombudsman advocates up-front processing, which would allow applicants to file 

applications, provide biometric data (fingerprints and photographs), and undergo basic eligibility 

interviews on the same day. Up-front processing will dramatically reduce processing times and 

reduce the need to suspend processing for USCIS to seek additional supporting documents from 

the customer. 

3. USCIS Fee Structure 

USCIS is hampered by a funding structure that prevents it from providing the most 

efficient method of service due to a need for revenue.19 USCIS is primarily a fee-based 

organization; therefore, a reduction in the filing of interim benefits will significantly impact 

USCIS’ budget. The Office of the Ombudsman estimates that approximately 14 percent of 

USCIS revenue in fiscal year 2004 was generated from applications for interim benefits.20 

Figure 2: USCIS Fee Revenue Chart for Fiscal Year 200421 

I-129 Nonimmigrant 

) 

g ) 

$64 million (

(

245(i) Penalty Fees (2%)

$25 million N-400 (14%) $181 million

I-129 Premium 

Processin Fee (15%

$202 million 

9%) $117 million

I-751 2%) $27 million 

Worker Petition (5%) Other 

I-539 (3%) $40 million 

Biometric Fees (6%) $77 

million 

I-131 Advance Parole 

Document (4%) $51 

million

I-131 Re-entry 

Permit/Refugee Travel I-90 (7%) $87 million Document (1%) $7 million 

I-765 EADs for 

Adjustment Cases (10%

$135 million I-130 (7%) $97 million 

I-765 Other (5%) $70 

million

I-485 Green Card 

Application (10%) $137 

million 

19 For example, despite the fact that USCIS can issue interim benefits that would be valid throughout an extended 

application period, USCIS rarely does. USCIS issued an interim rule on July 30, 2004 to eliminate the need to file 

multiple applications and pay multiple fees, “thereby benefiting the aliens and reducing [USCIS] workload 

associated with yearly EAD [Employment Authorization Document or “work permit”] issuance.” Employment 

Authorization Documents, 69 Fed. Reg. 45555, 45556 (July 30, 2004). Absent discretion allowed under this 

interim rule, USCIS issues work permits valid for one year under 8 C.F.R. Part 274a, thus creating additional work 

and expense. 

20 Based upon available data, the Ombudsman estimates that approximately two-thirds of I-765 revenue is 

attributable to work permit applications for persons who are awaiting green card processing (10 percent of total 

USCIS revenue in fiscal year 2004) and most I-131 applications for Advance Parole are attributable to green card 

applications (4 percent of total USCIS revenue in fiscal year 2004). 

21 In realizing maximum efficiency, USCIS could lose up to 29 percent of its revenue – 14 percent from interim 

benefits applications and approximately 15 percent from premium processing fees. The total of the two I-765 

segments reflect the amounts reported by USCIS. In figure 2, the I-765 figure has been divided in order to reflect 

the Ombudsman’s estimates of the I-765 categories attributable to green card applications. 

June 30, 2005 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov Page 8 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress, June 2005 

Any alteration of the green card application process must include a plan for replacing necessary 

lost revenue in order to fund basic operations.22 

A proposed solution is to set one fee for the filing of a green card application - this fee 

would cover the granting of an interim benefit, if necessary. Eliminating a separate fee for 

interim benefits may provide an added incentive to USCIS to process green card applications 

more efficiently, since USCIS would not receive revenue from interim benefits. The single fee 

would be set to cover the costs of processing the green card application. While the initial cost to 

the applicant may be higher, in most cases the applicant will pay less for the benefit in the long 

run, only have to file one form, and receive a green card more quickly. 

Figure 3: Potential Cost Savings to a Typical Green Card Applicant under Existing Versus Future 

Processing with Current Fee Structure 

Form Future Process 

(Less Than 90 Days) 

Current Process 

(Cumulative Totals) 

<1 Year 1-2 

Years 

2-3 

Years 

I-130 Petition (Family) or 

I-140 Petition (Employment) 

$185* $185* $185* $185* 

I-485 Application (Green Card) $315 $315 $315 $315 

I-765 Application (Work Permit) No Need** $175 $350 $525 

I-131 Application (Travel Document) No Need $165 $330 $495 

Fingerprinting $70 $70 $70 $70 

Totals: $570 $910 $1,250 $1,590 

*The current fee for the I-140 Petition is $190 and is therefore $5 greater than the I-130 petition 

fee of $185. 

** The Office of Immigration Statistics estimates that approximately 85 percent of green card 

applicants apply for this benefit. 

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

Card Applications 

There are significant issues with USCIS’ timely processing of employment-based 

immigrant visa applications. Although there is a statutory annual allotment of 140,000 

employment-based immigrant visas, the number of green card applications filed with USCIS in 

recent years dramatically exceeded the annual immigrant visa cap.23 These new filings add to 

the backlog because USCIS has not been able to adjudicate cases equal to the volume of 

available visas. This situation has resulted in an ever-increasing inventory of green card 

applications which further increases customer demand for interim benefits.24 In the future, this 

22 Certain USCIS operations and benefits programs do not generate fee income and are currently supported by a 

portion of the fees collected from applications for other benefits. 

23 While USCIS is unable to provide exact data, the data available indicates that USCIS service centers received 

187,583 employment-based green card applications in FY 2001, 221,223 applications in FY 2002, 225,897 

applications in FY 2003, and 159,873 applications in FY 2004. 

24 See section II.B, Interim Benefits, supra. 

June 30, 2005 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov Page 9 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress, June 2005 

backlog may be compounded by additional filings stemming from the Department of Labor’s 

new streamlined labor certification program, which in many cases is the first step before an 

employment-based green card application can be filed with USCIS. 

The Department of State (DOS) administers the 140,000 employment-based visa slots 

each year, allocating them as necessary to both USCIS for stateside processing and to U.S. 

embassies overseas. When it appears that demand in a particular category will exceed the supply 

of visas available for that year, DOS will establish cut-off dates for new filings in that category. 

In contrast, when there is a sufficient supply of visas in a particular category to meet demand, 

there is no limit on new filings and the category is considered “current.” However, DOS gauges 

demand based on the number of cases that are actually approved during the course of the fiscal 

year, not on the total number of cases that are pending. Thus, when USCIS processing of 

employment-based cases does not yield sufficient approvals to project that the annual cap will be 

met, DOS is unable to impose a cut-off date and new filings may continue. 

Employment-based visas that are not used in a fiscal year are shifted (or “recaptured”) the 

following fiscal year into the family-sponsored visa categories under a complex statutory 

formula. While this concept is intended to recapture unused visas, in reality, this process of 

recapturing visa numbers between the two categories, coupled with USCIS processing of 

employment-based visa applications below DOS projections, has resulted in the loss of 

thousands of employment-based visas under the formula over multiple years. Between FY 2001 

and FY 2004, over 141,000 employment-based immigrant visa numbers were unused.25 This 

number effectively represents an entire year’s supply of employment-based visas. It is ironic 

that many thousands of employment-based immigrant visas simply evaporated while thousands 

of applications sat idle and generated demand for interim benefits. U.S. citizens and businesses 

had legitimate expectations of visa availability only to have them lost to delays and processing 

problems. 

To make up for the visa numbers lost in this process, Congress provided 180,000 

additional employment-based visas under the American Competitiveness in the Twenty First 

Century Act of 2000.26 However, USCIS was not able to meet the increased level of production 

necessary to process and approve 180,000 additional applications so that many of these numbers 

remained unused until the current fiscal year. 

The Ombudsman commends USCIS for its recent efforts to reduce the pending 

employment-based green card applications by rapidly processing pending cases at the four 

service centers due in part to concerns raised by the Ombudsman regarding the loss of available 

visa numbers. In recent months, USCIS has increased the processing of applications for 

employment-based green cards as much as fourfold per month. This rapid processing has 

25 This figure (141,000) is based on DOS figures that include employment-based visas that were allocated by statute 

but unused to support an adjustment of status application or immigrant visa. Employment-based visas lost, by year, 

were: FY 2001—5,553; FY 2002—none; FY 2003—88,515; FY 2004—47,297. 

26 See Pub. L. No. 106-313, 114 Stat. 1251. In addition, recently enacted emergency supplemental appropriations 

provide for an additional 50,000 employment-based visas for the Department of Labor’s Schedule A occupations, 

which primarily consist of nurses and physical therapists. See Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for 

Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-13, 119 Stat 231. 

June 30, 2005 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov Page 10 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress, June 2005 

resulted in the establishment of visa cut-off dates for certain categories of employment-based 

immigrant applicants restricting certain country nationals from filing green card applications. 

However, because of the inability to effectively coordinate with DOS, USCIS has continued to 

accept thousands of new applications each month while continuing to maintain large numbers of 

pending applications at its offices which far exceed available visas. The Ombudsman has raised 

this issue with USCIS and DHS leadership, and efforts to address issues of efficiency and 

customer service are ongoing. 

D. Background and Security Checks 

The purpose of having security checks of applicants for immigration benefits is to: 1) 

identify security and public safety risks and deny benefits to those who are not qualified, and 2) 

notify appropriate law enforcement and intelligence agencies about persons of potential interest. 

Although the majority of these checks are resolved within hours or days of initiation, a 

small percentage that do not clear on a timely basis represent a substantial and problematic 

workload. In some cases, applications may be approved despite initial security check “hits”27 – 

either because they pertain to a different individual with a similar name or because the 

underlying information is not disqualifying. While most security check hits prove to be 

harmless, it is important to identify quickly those relatively few cases of genuine law 

enforcement or national security interest. However, resolving hits is a time-consuming process 

not completely controlled by USCIS. To date, the responsible agencies have allocated 

insufficient resources to resolve the hits. The Ombudsman’s office is continuing research into 

how this crucial process can be both streamlined and improved. 

There are a variety of security checks, each performed according to specific sets of rules. 

USCIS receives security check results in varying forms. Moreover, the results are valid for 

varying periods, and require different USCIS actions. The variety of checks and the rules 

concerning validity and use of the results create a confusing set of sub-processes within the 

immigration benefits process. 

USCIS faces a challenge in accommodating the various security checks within a 

cumbersome adjudications process. All checks must be complete and current before an officer 

can make a decision on an application. Due to the varying validity periods and initiation 

processes, it is not unusual for the results of one check to expire while waiting for results on 

another check. Compounding this problem is the fact that the information provided to USCIS as 

a result of the checks is often stale, leaving USCIS with the job of resolving a hit that is no 

longer relevant. Additionally, various agencies within DHS and other federal departments have 

different requirements and criteria for similar security checks. It is necessary to standardize 

security check requirements throughout DHS and the federal government so that USCIS can 

provide more realistic processing timeframes to customers without compromising law 

enforcement needs and investigations. 

27 “Hit” refers to a positive response to a security check query. It is important to note that a hit does not necessarily 

relate to the applicant or petitioner. Some checks are based on names, others on fingerprints. 

June 30, 2005 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov Page 11 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress, June 2005 

Not only do delays in processing times require additional security checks when they 

expire, but each additional check adds extra financial burdens to USCIS. As a non-law 

enforcement agency, USCIS must pay law enforcement agencies to conduct the checks. 

Currently, applicant fingerprints are archived, yet are not retrievable. Therefore, refingerprinting is necessary if the checks expire. Furthermore, USCIS does not have access to a 

“wrap-around” feature which would enable it to obtain automatic updates on subsequent criminal 

history for those on whom a query was previously requested. 

E. Information Technology Issues 

Successful service-oriented businesses in the twenty-first century employ the most 

efficient information technology (IT) systems available. However, USCIS IT systems do not 

support integrated and efficient business processes; they are based on IT approaches that are 

decades old. As a result, customer service is compromised. 

Present USCIS systems are form-centric—they track paper and files. Adoption of a 

person-centric system—one that documents an individual’s progress through the process—must 

be considered in order to improve customer service while simultaneously enhancing national 

security and public safety. Only a person-centric system will allow USCIS to rapidly update its 

information about the individual’s employment, address, family status, etc., enhancing both 

security and processing concerns. 

Today, USCIS depends on antiquated “stove piped” information management systems 

that do not share data and are extremely expensive to modify. The Computer Linked Application 

Information Management System (CLAIMS) versions 3 and 4 represent the primary case 

management system for USCIS which tracks forms as opposed to people. CLAIMS 3 and 

CLAIMS 4 are proprietary and now antiquated systems that were developed and deployed by a 

contractor in the early 1990s. Accessibility to these information management systems is limited 

to certain staff at certain offices, making information incomplete and often inaccurate. As such, 

USCIS does not possess a real-time case management system accessible to all USCIS 

employees. 

USCIS also relies on the National File Tracking System (NFTS)—a file management 

system that does nothing more than track the history of a file. This system offers no information 

on the status of any applications. Furthermore, this system does not take account of the fact that 

a single case file may have multiple parts, increasing the likelihood that parts of a case file may 

be misplaced or lost. 

More important than case and file management is the analysis and use of information 

collected from law enforcement and security databases. As discussed in part D of this section, 

USCIS conducts security checks to determine whether an individual is a security or public safety 

risk. Basically, these checks are performed to determine: 

• History of criminal activity, 

• Intelligence or national security interest, and 

• Current law enforcement interest. 

June 30, 2005 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov Page 12 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress, June 2005 

Beyond the basic battery of security checks, others may be performed depending on 

information obtained from the above checks or from the applicants themselves. These checks 

involve a variety of nonimmigrant information systems, immigration court systems, immigration 

enforcement systems, and others. 

The Ombudsman supports the USCIS initiative to upgrade the USCIS information 

management architecture. However, he suggests the exploration of existing “off the shelf” 

information management systems widely used for similar applications in the private and public 

sector. Any information management system must enhance and streamline USCIS business 

processes rather than perpetuate duplicative and inefficient processes. 

F. Limited Case Status Information Available to Applicants 

Lack of effective communication between USCIS and customers remains a pervasive and 

serious problem. Concerns in this area include: 1) customer access to a USCIS official with 

knowledge of the individual case; 2) whether the information provided to customers by USCIS is 

accurate; 3) whether the information available is sufficiently detailed to answer a specific 

inquiry; and 4) an apparent practice of giving minimal information in response to customer 

inquiries. 

This issue was also identified by the Ombudsman in his 2004 Annual Report to Congress, 

which noted: 

Aggravated by inordinate processing periods, individuals and employers alike are 

frustrated by the limited availability and accessibility of case status 

information...Customers resort to generating numerous telephone calls to USCIS 

and/or making frequent visits to USCIS facilities and finally opt for congressional 

assistance in determining the status of pending cases. 

Throughout the year, USCIS has taken a number of positive technology-oriented steps – 

most notably national implementation of the InfoPass program – to address communication 

issues between customers and USCIS offices. However, the National Customer Service Center 

(NCSC) and the case status service online have not been as effective as anticipated. 

InfoPass. InfoPass, an online USCIS appointment system, has added a valuable 

service for some applicants by allowing them to secure an appointment time with 

a USCIS district office representative.28 However, due to an insufficient capacity 

to meet the public demand for information, InfoPass has in some instances 

replaced physical waiting lines with invisible, digital waiting lines. Stakeholders 

around the country report weeks-long delays in scheduling appointments or, in 

some locations, consistently finding no open appointment times at all, regardless 

of whether they search day or night. Since in many districts customers do not 

have access to USCIS officers outside of the InfoPass system, relatively minor 

case inquiries cannot be addressed without significant delay. This situation is 

inconvenient for customers who have to travel long distances to the district office 

28 See section III. A.8, InfoPass Recommendation. 

June 30, 2005 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov Page 13 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress, June 2005 

for their InfoPass appointment and can be an inefficient use of USCIS officer time 

and resources. Further, many low income applicants and petitioners do not have 

access to online services. They must rely on friends, family, or public libraries 

for Internet access. USCIS leadership is aware of issues with InfoPass and is 

working with district offices to make as many appointment slots available as 

possible and to address access problems. 

National Customer Service Center. The NCSC provides assistance nationwide 

to customers who call USCIS about immigration services and benefits. However, 

the NCSC contract employees often do not have the needed training nor do they 

have the requisite information regarding individual customer case status to 

provide meaningful and timely information. 

Case Status Service Online. USCIS customers who have an application receipt 

number can use the Internet-accessible Case Status Service to check the status of 

cases online, but this service has several limitations:29 1) Case status information 

provided online is often incorrect; 2) the processing timeframes provided 

frequently are not representative of actual processing times; and 3) cases that have 

been denied are not updated in the system and appear as “pending” long after the 

date of decision. 

G. Coordination and Communication 

Coordination and communication between district offices and service centers, between 

USCIS headquarters (HQ) and district/service center offices, and among USCIS and other 

agencies are vital to providing efficient service to USCIS customers. However, issues and 

concerns remain in these areas and should be addressed. 

1. District Offices/Service Centers 

Lack of effective coordination and communication between district offices and service 

centers remains a pervasive and serious problem in USCIS. The transfer of files among offices 

provides a basic example. Although DHS components have migrated file tracking to a new 

system, the National File Tracking System (NFTS),30 files transferred between the service 

centers and district offices may become misplaced. Files may be misplaced if bulk files are 

transferred unilaterally by one facility without the knowledge of the receiving facility. 

Moreover, workload is often transferred from service centers to district offices without sufficient 

communication and coordination to allow the receiving office to plan appropriately for 

unexpected volume. 

Additionally, there is a general lack of availability of service center staff to answer 

questions from the district offices. Immigration officers at service centers do not routinely 

communicate with immigration officers at district offices. As a result, it is not uncommon for 

district offices, which are more accessible to the public than service centers, to receive inquiries 

29 https://egov.immigration.gov/cris/jsps/index.jsp. 

30 See supra part E of this section. 

June 30, 2005 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov Page 14 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress, June 2005 

from customers on service center actions which immigration officers at district offices are unable 

to answer. 

At the management level, there are few formal avenues to address issues between the 

district offices and service centers. The respective chains of command for district office and 

service center management are essentially as they were in the legacy Immigration and 

Naturalization Service (INS) and do not come together until a very senior level at HQ, through 

the Associate Director for Operations. Management rotation provided for in the Homeland 

Security Act will enable these issues to be addressed effectively.31 

2. Headquarters and District/Service Center Office Coordination 

Institutionalizing HQ guidance presents challenges. It is not uncommon for such 

guidance to be sent to the district/service center individually, as needed, but it is not necessarily 

compiled into manuals for future reference, nor added to training curricula. With regular 

turnover in staffing, it is vital that employees in the district/service center offices receive uniform 

training materials and updated guidance from HQ in order to provide consistent service to 

USCIS customers nationwide. Unfortunately, the level of training on new guidance varies 

among district/service center offices. As a result, employees apply regulations or HQ guidance 

unevenly based on their personal or local district/service center office interpretation of national 

policy. Various training related solutions to this problem are discussed below.32 

3. USCIS, Employers, and Other Government Agencies 

There is an increasing reliance upon USCIS by employers and other government entities 

to verify the immigration status of applicants for employment and various federal and state 

benefits (e.g., the Social Security Administration, departments of motor vehicles, etc.). USCIS’ 

capacity to communicate and coordinate with employers and government agencies at the federal, 

state, and local levels have not kept pace with the needs of these customers of immigrationrelated information. 

H. Lack of Standardization Across USCIS Business Processes 

Insufficient standardization in USCIS adjudications at service centers, district offices, and 

even between officers within the same office remains a pervasive and serious problem. The 

legacy INS district/service center offices were operated with considerable autonomy, resulting in 

individualized management approaches at the local level to meet production goals. USCIS, in 

inheriting these local offices operating with great autonomy, found itself with growing 

production goals and little opportunity to affect organizational change during a transition 

involving considerable organizational change. Immigration benefits are governed by federal 

law, the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) as amended. The INA should be administered 

equitably across the country. Customers rightly expect consistent adjudications that are 

administered in a uniform timeframe. Inconsistencies result in inequitable application of the law 

which severely impact immigrants, their families, and employers. 

31 See 6 U.S.C. § 271(a)(4). 

32 See section II.I., infra. 

June 30, 2005 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov Page 15 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress, June 2005 

Lack of standardization includes the following three components: 1) statutory discretion 

under the INA is not exercised in a consistent manner by all USCIS offices or officers; 2) USCIS 

faces an operational maze of legislative amendments to the INA, judicial and administrative 

cases, regulations, internal procedures, and policy memoranda; and 3) processing times vary 

widely from one USCIS office to another such that an individual in one part of the country may 

wait just a few months for adjudication of an application or petition, while customers under the 

jurisdiction of another office may face a wait of several years for adjudication of the same 

benefit. 

Examples of Insufficient Standardization. Despite the existence of national standard 

operating procedures, each district and service center office has adopted some unique practices. 

In meetings with stakeholder organizations across the country, participants repeatedly cited a 

lack of standardization in the following areas: adjudication of benefits; requests for expedited 

processing; and different form kits disseminated for district offices. These practices encumber 

operations and create disparities in the amount or type of information received by a customer 

based on geographic location. 

• Nonimmigrant Adjudications. Stakeholders often bring to the Ombudsman’s 

attention instances in which one petition for an H-1B nonimmigrant professional is 

approved and another petition filed at the same service center, at or around the same 

time, and for the same employer for a beneficiary with similar credentials is denied or 

an RFE is issued. 

• Forms Kits. The Eastern Forms Center, which distributes USCIS forms to the 

public, maintains 37 different forms packages for people seeking the same common 

benefit – green cards based on family sponsorship (Forms I-130 and I-485). The 

requests are sorted by zip code and the package sent depends on which district office 

or sub-office will be handling the case. For example, the Los Angeles District Office 

provides green card applicants with a four-page packet of information on what 

documentation should be furnished, whereas the Atlanta District Office provides 

applicants for the same benefit a one-page packet. USCIS has addressed this issue in 

part by centralizing case processing operations at the National Benefits Center, which 

requires distribution of a uniform set of instructions for several form types. 

Nevertheless, there is no standardized format for USCIS forms, and their design is 

antiquated for purposes of electronic scanning and so requires time-consuming 

manual data entry. As a result, many of the intended benefits from centralizing 

operations have not been realized. 

• Processing Times. USCIS processing times vary widely around the country. 

According to the USCIS website, Form I-485 Applications to Register Permanent 

Residence or Adjust Status, for example, take approximately four months to be 

adjudicated at the San Antonio District Office, while the wait at the New York 

District Office and the Texas Service Center is approximately 21⁄2 and 2 years, 

respectively. 

June 30, 2005 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov Page 16 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress, June 2005 

Insufficient standardization and widely varying processing times encourage 

inappropriate forum shopping by foreign citizens and employers. Moreover, should a 

customer move from one district/service center office’s jurisdiction to another while 

the case is pending, the customer may be noncompliant with the submission 

requirements for the new jurisdiction, thereby complicating the adjudication for both 

the applicant and USCIS. More importantly, insufficient standardization abrogates 

basic notions of consistency and fairness in the administration of immigration 

benefits. The Ombudsman is exploring various potential recommendations that 

would alleviate the disparity that currently exists in the jurisdiction-based processing 

of applications which are part of a national benefits process. One recommendation 

being considered is the elimination of artificial geographic boundaries which restrict 

the ability of applicants to seek the most efficient district or service center when filing 

an application or petition. Another recommendation, which could be combined with 

the first, would be to offer incentives to efficient offices so that they could grow to 

accommodate the workloads that would migrate to them, while creating opportunities 

to focus on sharing best practices and improve inefficient offices. 

• Insufficient Standardization and Local Policies. District and service center 

specific policies emerge when there is no USCIS Headquarters policy guidance, or 

when there are gray areas in the administration of immigration statutes, regulations, 

and policy. At best, some local flexibility may be desirable to address local issues, 

provide for innovation to improve customer service, and to enhance staff morale. At 

worst, local policies may emerge when district or service center officials disagree 

with national policy. Such a result is unacceptable and must be addressed 

aggressively by headquarters whenever it is discovered. 

• Insufficient Standardization and Training. There is no nationally standardized 

USCIS continuing education or training program available to USCIS employees after 

completion of the U.S. Academy at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center 

(FLETC). Additional training resources and opportunities are essential to addressing 

standardization issues. The Ombudsman is currently studying the USCIS employee 

training issue, as employee competence is the cornerstone for effective customer 

service and benefits processing. 

Over 40 senior managers and staff from USCIS and the Office of the Ombudsman 

participated in an all day meeting on standardization in February 2005. The purpose of the 

meeting was to identify ways to increase the integrity of the decision-making process. As an 

outgrowth of this meeting, USCIS invited the Office of the Ombudsman to participate in a 

standardization initiative and chartered a number of working groups which have begun meeting 

to develop specific standardization initiatives. 

The Ombudsman strongly endorses the efforts of USCIS to promote standardization and 

the work of the Standardization Decision-Making Project, and looks forward to continuing to 

work with USCIS on this critical initiative. 

June 30, 2005 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov Page 17 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress, June 2005 

I. Training and Staffing 

After almost two years of travel, observation, discussion, and analysis, the Ombudsman 

has recognized that a key to timely and professional delivery of immigration benefits is a 

properly-trained and flexible workforce. 

1. Training 

USCIS offers basic training to most of its operations staff that includes formal courses at 

the FLETC. These courses cover nationality law, admissibility and adjustment law, interview 

techniques, and other relevant topics. While useful to individuals new to immigration law and 

practices, these courses offer little skills training regarding actual day-to-day district/service 

center office operations. However, standard post-academy training does not exist. Instead, it is 

left to district/service center offices to determine whether and what training on legal, policy, or 

procedural changes will occur. In such an environment, it is not surprising that policies and 

procedures are inconsistent between district offices and service centers. 

Operating on funds provided by fee receipts, USCIS necessarily allocates the bulk of its 

funds to operations. Little is provided to support training functions beyond basic training and the 

relevance of the current curricula towards today’s district/service center operations is 

questionable. Officers who conduct training in the offices that have them, are often operations 

personnel given collateral duty assignment. As such, seen in the short-term, planning and 

delivering training has a negative impact on production as staff is taken off of their normal duties 

to prepare and deliver training programs. National and regional goals concentrate on production, 

not accounting for time lost to training, and offices with the greatest production challenges 

discard anything that does not contribute to production. 

The USCIS training establishment is essentially a holdover from legacy INS. As USCIS 

continues its evolution into a twenty-first century provider of services, its training operations also 

need to keep abreast of the best methods for providing performance-based, cost-efficient 

training. Application fees should be set to recover the actual costs of processing and adjudicating 

the application, while also allowing for necessary and regular training. The Office of the 

Ombudsman proposes formal and standardized training on a variety of subjects, from refresher 

training on sub-processes to classroom training on major policy or procedural changes. In 

providing standardized training to district office and service center personnel, USCIS will 

improve consistency in processes between offices. Further, standardized training will produce 

officers and staff who are “interchangeable” and who can be assigned or reassigned to address 

production challenges in different locations without the need for weeks of site-specific briefings. 

With the separation of USCIS from its legacy INS components, including the inspections, 

investigations, detention, and removal branches, a number of key cross-training opportunities no 

longer exist. In addition, legacy INS career paths no longer exist and, therefore, the number of 

individuals with practical knowledge of the overall complex immigration system will decline in 

coming years. Specifically, this lack of connectivity may create an environment where each of 

the newly created agencies, which handle various components of the immigration process, will 

not have sufficient numbers of trained employees who understand the impact of certain actions 

on the other agencies. Therefore, the Ombudsman recommends that specific programs be 

developed that will enable temporary transfers of personnel for training purposes between not 

June 30, 2005 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov Page 18 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress, June 2005 

only USCIS, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) but also to include the components at the Departments of State, Justice, and Labor that 

handle various aspects of the immigration process. 

2. Staffing 

A well-trained workforce will help USCIS address production and quality issues. 

However, USCIS is not well situated to employ that workforce. In attempting to assemble a 

professional and committed workforce that can be deployed to offices based on production 

needs, USCIS faces a major hurdle in its ability to hire and sustain its workforce. 

Beginning in 1995 and continuing to the present, USCIS (and legacy INS) has relied on 

officers and staff hired on a term basis.33 Authorization to hire on a term basis was given to INS 

to address what was then seen as a short-term problem. Each year since then, INS and USCIS 

have extended term employment and hired new staff on term basis. The complexities of 

immigration law and policy make term hiring a poor management option. The agency needed to 

develop a cadre of well-trained officers who were dedicated to the mission. Instead, a large part 

of the agency has been made up of staff who understood that their employment was temporary 

and who had little incentive to commit themselves to the job. Furthermore, for those term 

employees who excel, USCIS lost their services at a point in their careers when they became 

fully-productive. The agency then has to hire a replacement and cycle the new hire through 

basic and practical training. In effect, INS and USCIS have been the keepers of a revolving door 

that let inexperienced staff walk in while forcing experienced staff to walk out—a wasteful and 

costly process. 

The creation of a USCIS personnel and training system will provide USCIS with 

dedicated, competent staff. Such a professional cadre would be deployable to any office that has 

production challenges. Such a staff can begin working in the new district office or service center 

with minimal delays for retooling/retraining. USCIS leadership then will have greater 

operational flexibility to address spikes in receipts at one office or another. A restructuring of 

the present fee structure to cover the cost of processing and delivering the benefit, while also 

providing a flexible account, will allow for standardized training and operational reassignments 

as needed and warranted. 

Coupled with the need for an effective personnel and training system is the opportunity 

for USCIS supervisors and managers to gain experience in all the major functions performed by 

USCIS. Congress has mandated34 that a managerial rotation program be formally established 

whereby USCIS supervisors and managers attain experience in both service centers and field 

(district) offices. The Ombudsman believes that the operation of this managerial rotation 

program will assist in enhancing USCIS internal communications and provide better workforce 

coordination of adjudication efforts. 

33 ”Term” officers were hired to staff a 1995 INS naturalization backlog reduction effort—Citizenship USA—based 

on two budget reprogramming requests. Since that time, these positions have been extended on a year-to-year basis. 

34 See 6 U.S.C. § 271(a)(4). 

June 30, 2005 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov Page 19 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress, June 2005 

III. RECOMMENDATIONS 

A. Recommendations June 2004 – May 2005 

The Ombudsman made a total of twelve formal recommendations to the Director of 

USCIS during the reporting period. These recommendations have touched on a wide variety of 

USCIS activities, from expanded policy guidance on naturalization to operational improvements 

including employee training, streamlined forms and fees, and other matters. The 

recommendations stem from a variety of sources including problems reported to the Ombudsman 

by individuals and employers, the Ombudsman’s travels, discussions with stakeholders, and 

recommendations of USCIS employees themselves. 

Figure 4: Recommendations June 2004 – May 2005 

Number 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

Recommendation 

Fee Instructions 

Customer Service Training for USCIS Employees 

E-Filing 

I-9 Storage 

Premium Processing 

Standardized Forms 

Naturalization for Survivors of Domestic Violence 

InfoPass Recommendation 

Lockbox Recommendation 

Issuance of Permanent Residence Cards to 

Immigrants 

Pilot Program Termination 

Issuance of Receipts to Petitioners and Applicants 

Arriving 

Date 

June 29, 2004 

August 16, 2004 

August 16, 2004 

August 16, 2004 

September 27, 2004 

October 6, 2004 

October 6, 2004 

November 29, 2004 

November 29, 2004 

December 15, 2004 

February 25, 2005 

May 9, 2005 

In his first Annual Report to Congress last year, the Ombudsman reported on three formal 

recommendations: streamlining family-based immigrant processing, streamlining employmentbased immigrant processing, and reengineering the green card replacement process. Those three 

recommendations resulted in the creation of four pilot programs by USCIS. Detailed updates on 

the status of those pilot programs are included in Section B below. 

USCIS addressed its statutory responsibility pursuant to the Homeland Security Act of 

2002 to provide formal responses to the Ombudsman’s recommendations in two submissions, 

one dated December 17, 2004 (“December response”) and one dated May 25, 2005 (“May 

response”).35 USCIS agreed with most of the Ombudsman’s recommendations, although in 

some instances USCIS proposed an alternative approach to achieving the recommended goal or a 

modified timeframe for implementation. In addition to these formal responses, the 

Ombudsman’s Office and USCIS have discussed the content and implementation of the 

recommendations informally on numerous occasions. USCIS has already implemented some of 

the Ombudsman’s recommendations, as indicated below, while others remain works-in-progress 

and are continuing topics of discussion. 

35 See 6 U.S.C. § 272(f). 

June 30, 2005 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov Page 20 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress, June 2005 

1. Fee Instructions (June 29, 2004) 

The Ombudsman recommended that USCIS eliminate references to 

specific fees on agency forms and replace such language with the 

following statement (or an equivalent): “A fee is required to process this 

action. Information on the current fee for this action is available on the 

Internet at www.uscis.gov and by telephone from the National Customer 

Service Center at (800) 375-5283. If the correct fee is not included, the 

action will not be accepted by USCIS.” This recommendation reflects the 

fact that the fees stated in instructions accompanying USCIS forms are 

often out-of-date when USCIS amends its fee schedule by regulation. 

USCIS agreed with this recommendation and noted several helpful steps 

that it has taken toward keeping the public informed, efficiently updating 

fee amounts when they change, and reducing confusion caused by 

discrepancies in information about filing fees. Specifically, USCIS noted 

that it would: 1) post forms on the USCIS website with the correct fees; 

2) add a list of current filing fees with each set of forms instructions to the 

website; and 3) send a list of current fees with any set of forms. Longterm, USCIS is considering whether to replace bulk-printed forms with 

forms from electronic templates that reflect the most current version. 

USCIS also reported that funding had been approved to change the forms 

themselves, presumably to eliminate the reference to specific fees, and that 

the alteration of the forms is underway. USCIS further reported that it is 

currently in discussions with DHS and the Office of Management and 

Budget on matters related to the modification of forms and does not yet 

know when this proposal will be implemented. 

2. Customer Service Training for USCIS Employees (August 16, 2004) 

The Ombudsman recommended that all USCIS employees who interact 

with immigration customers be required to receive formal training in 

customer service, as most of these employees have not received such 

training. As an interim measure, these employees should be required to 

complete the free customer service training courses available at the Gov 

Online Learning Center. 

USCIS agreed with this recommendation. USCIS has indicated that the 

formal basic training program now includes customer service training for 

all USCIS adjudication officers (four hours) and immigration information 

officers (eight hours). In addition, supervisory adjudication officers and 

other managers receive customer service training at the Leadership 

Development Center. The Adjudicators Field Manual also has instruction 

on proper customer service. In addition, USCIS stated that it is 

considering web-based and e-learning customer service training to be 

provided through the USCIS On Track Learning Management System. 

June 30, 2005 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov Page 21 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress, June 2005 

3. E-Filing (August 16, 2004) 

To encourage customers to use USCIS’ expanding e-filing capability, the 

Ombudsman recommended that USCIS establish a separate fee structure 

for e-filing applications and petitions. 

USCIS agreed with the intent of this recommendation in its December 

response, but preferred to wait to provide such incentives until e-filed 

applications are less costly for the agency. Currently, USCIS computer 

systems do not allow for an interface between e-filed applications and the 

systems with applicants’ information. However, in its May response, 

USCIS indicated that an IT Transformation Strategy is now being 

reviewed within DHS, which will provide a mechanism for USCIS to shift 

from paper to electronic information processes and reap greater cost 

efficiencies from e-filing. USCIS did not provide a timeline for the 

Transformation Strategy. 

4. I-9 Storage (August 16, 2004) 

In keeping with current business practices, the Ombudsman recommended 

that employers be authorized to store Employment Eligibility Verifications 

(Form I-9s) electronically in addition to the formats currently authorized, 

i.e., original form, photocopy, microfilm, and microfiche. 

USCIS agreed with this recommendation in December. Moreover, at 

nearly the same time as the Ombudsman’s recommendation, USCIS 

received a request for DHS-wide comment on H.R. 4306, introduced May 

6, 2004, to require the same change. USCIS collaborated with different 

DHS divisions to support the bill, which became Public Law 108-390 on 

October 30, 2004. The law included a suitable implementation period, 

consistent with DHS recommendation, for the development of standards 

and regulations. 

5. Premium Processing (September 27, 2004) 

The Ombudsman recommended that premium processing be made 

available to certain employment-based change-of-status applications 

(Form I-539). Premium processing allows U.S. businesses to pay a $1,000 

fee for 15-day processing of petitions and applications. At the time of 

recommendation, only the nonimmigrant worker petition (Form I-129) 

was eligible for premium processing. 

USCIS noted in December that it had been examining the feasibility, 

policy implications, and statutory authority related to the expansion of 

premium processing to employment-based and other cases. 

The Ombudsman considers premium processing a temporary solution to 

problems experienced by U.S. businesses when trying to sponsor workers 

from other countries. With implementation of “up-front” processing, what 

June 30, 2005 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov Page 22 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress, June 2005 

is now known as premium processing will be standard service for all 

applicants without the need for premium processing fees. 

6. Standardized Forms (October 6, 2004) 

The Ombudsman recommended that USCIS provide customers with a 

standard forms package for each petition or application type. At the time 

of this recommendation, the forms and information provided to the 

customer could vary significantly depending on the USCIS district office. 

For example, the Eastern Forms Center maintained 37 different forms 

packages, depending on the district office or sub-office, for the forms for 

family-based green card applications. 

USCIS stated in its December response that it agrees with the intent of this 

recommendation and believes that using the centralized Lockbox filing 

procedures will result in fewer variations. USCIS subsequently confirmed 

that all family-based green card applications now are centrally filed. In 

addition, applications for replacement of lost, stolen, or expired green 

cards (Form I-90) are standardized and will be filed at the new Los 

Angeles Lockbox later this year, according to USCIS. 

7. Naturalization for Survivors of Domestic Violence (October 6, 2004) 

The Ombudsman recommended that USCIS correct a Naturalization 

Policy Memorandum to fully comply with Section 319(a) of the 

Immigration and Naturalization Act, as amended by the Victims of 

Trafficking and Violence Prevention Act of 2000 (VTVPA). The VTVPA 

allows certain survivors of domestic violence to become naturalized 

citizens after residing in the U.S. for three years, rather than five, as a 

lawful permanent resident. An October 15, 2002 USCIS policy 

memorandum mistakenly excluded one of the three categories of 

individuals eligible to naturalize under this provision, that is, conditional 

residents who gained permanent residency by approval of Form I-751 with 

a waiver of the usual joint filing requirement due to battery or subjection 

to extreme mental cruelty by a spouse. 

USCIS agreed with this recommendation and subsequently issued a policy 

clarification. On January 27, 2005, a memorandum was posted on the 

USCIS website, entitled “Clarification of Classes of Applicants Eligible 

for Naturalization under Section 319(1) of the INA, as amended by the 

Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 (VTVPA), 

Pub. L. 106-386.” 

8. InfoPass Recommendation (November 29, 2004) 

InfoPass is an online system that enables customers to make appointments 

at USCIS district offices in advance, reducing the public’s need to line up 

outside USCIS facilities in order to talk with an immigration officer. To 

ensure equitable access to immigration services, the Ombudsman 

recommended that USCIS issue InfoPass national policy guidance to 

June 30, 2005 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov Page 23 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress, June 2005 

direct that: 1) all districts should schedule as many InfoPass appointments 

as possible; 2) each district office should either reserve time for walk-in 

appointments or implement clear procedures for same-day emergency 

appointments for exigent circumstances to be defined by USCIS 

Headquarters; and 3) each district office have a kiosk or computer 

available for customers to make appointments and, if not immediately 

possible, each district office must compile a list of organizations that can 

help customers make appointments. 

USCIS agreed with this recommendation and has detailed its actions to 

date. First, from its monitoring of InfoPass, USCIS reports that most 

offices can now see customers within two weeks. However, for those 

offices that have a longer wait, the agency is increasing the staffing of 

immigration information officers. Second, USCIS has provided district 

offices with written guidance on reserving time for individuals who have 

an emergency and arrive with no appointment. Offices also were advised 

to consider the long distances some customers may drive to reach the 

office when determining whether to see that customer. In addition to 

InfoPass, USCIS notes that its customer service strategy also includes 

updates to its website and public access through the National Customer 

Service Center. Finally, while USCIS indicated in its December response 

that it plans to encourage community-based organizations, libraries, and 

legal service providers to provide computer access for individuals to make 

InfoPass appointments, the status of such liaison efforts and the 

availability of kiosks or computers on-site at USCIS district offices is 

currently unclear. 

9. Lockbox Recommendation (November 29, 2004) 

The Ombudsman recommended that USCIS terminate the Chicago 

“Lockbox” arrangement when the current Memorandum of Understanding 

with the U.S. Department of Treasury expires on September 30, 2005. At 

this Lockbox, a contractor provides centralized imaging and services for 

check collection, check processing, and systems development for certain 

applications and payments to USCIS. The Ombudsman reported that the 

Lockbox resulted in: 1) tracking and management difficulties due to 

inefficient shipment of files between USCIS offices; 2) inefficient 

processing resulting in delayed issuance of receipts to customers; and 3) 

insufficient guidance and oversight resulting in the incorrect rejection of 

valid filings. 

USCIS disagreed with this recommendation. USCIS has adopted a 

business strategy over a number of years promoting centralized processing 

and distinguishing between the agency’s “core business” of adjudicating 

benefit applications versus non-adjudicatory processing tasks, which may 

be delegated. USCIS attributed many of the problems identified by the 

Ombudsman to “start-up” challenges, although the Ombudsman remains 

concerned about many facets of Lockbox operations. In meetings with 

June 30, 2005 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov Page 24 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress, June 2005 

individuals around the country, the Ombudsman has heard that the current 

lockbox system is confusing and adds “middle men” without adding value. 

10. Issuance of Permanent Residence Cards to Arriving Immigrants 

(December 15, 2004) 

To take advantage of new technology, the Ombudsman forwarded the 

following recommendations on the issuance of permanent resident cards to 

arriving immigrants: 1) for the short term, USCIS should revise its 

processing procedures to implement electronic verification in lost visa 

cases; and 2) for the long term, USCIS should enter into a Memorandum 

of Understanding (MOU) with the Department of State (DOS) to permit 

electronic transfers of immigrant visa packets to USCIS, and with 

Customs and Border Protection (CBP) such that automatic production of a 

permanent resident card begins upon CBP inspection and admission of an 

arriving immigrant. 

USCIS agreed with the short-term recommendation. USCIS 

acknowledged that outdated procedures in a 1997 memorandum should be 

replaced. USCIS is currently working with DOS to assure that 

information in relevant databases is accessible to the other agency and to 

develop the necessary MOU(s) to govern the electronic sharing of 

information. USCIS has not yet provided a timeline for these discussions. 

For the longer term, USCIS generally agreed with the Ombudsman’s 

recommendation and emphasized that any changes to electronic data 

requirements must be coordinated with the US VISIT program and all 

relevant DHS components. 

11. Pilot Program Termination (February 25, 2005) 

For USCIS pilot programs directly affecting customer service, the 

Ombudsman recommended that USCIS either: 1) publish public notice of 

when the pilot program will begin and end at the onset of the program; or 

2) provide 30-day’s notice before terminating a pilot program. In either 

case, the Ombudsman recommended that USCIS publish specific 

information on the handling of those cases affected by the program after 

conclusion of the pilot. 

USCIS generally agreed with this recommendation. USCIS stated that it 

intends to provide public notice regarding the initiation and termination of 

pilot programs, using either the Federal Register or a press release, if 

benefits processing is affected and no law enforcement considerations 

exist that would be negatively affected by such notice. 

12. Issuance of Receipts to Petitioners and Applicants (May 9, 2005) 

The Ombudsman recommended that USCIS correct apparent failures to 

perform by the Department of Treasury and its contractor for its inability 

to issue timely receipts to petitioners and applicants from the Chicago 

Lockbox. 

June 30, 2005 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov Page 25 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress, June 2005 

USCIS attributed the backlog observed in March at the Chicago Lockbox 

largely to a surge in filings for Temporary Protected Status. In USCIS’ 

view, surges are not uncommon in immigration benefit processing, and the 

backlog did not represent a failure to perform by the Department of 

Treasury or the contractor. USCIS reports that an operational plan for 

surges in volume was in place and implemented, and that the Department 

of Treasury procedures allow for an alternative, mutually agreed upon 

processing time for deposits under such circumstances. USCIS stated that 

the backlog observed in March has now been eliminated. Historical data, 

see appendix, indicates that there is always a “surge” in USCIS volume, 

and a process that is stopped by such surges is a failed process. The 

system must be designed with surges as part of the workflow rather than 

an exception to it. 

B. Update on Pilot Programs 

1. Introduction 

In response to recommendations made by the Ombudsman in last year’s reporting cycle, 

USCIS implemented four pilot programs in three areas of business operations: 

• “Green card” Renewal/Replacement Processing (I-90 Application); 

• Employment-Based Immigrant Processing (I-140/I-485 Petition/Application); and 

• Family-Based Immigrant Processing (I-130/I-485 Petition/Application). 

The goals of the pilot programs were: 

• Improved customer service by implementing a streamlined, up-front, less than 90-day 

process for family-based immigration, employment-based immigration, and 

renewal/replacement of green cards. 

• Identification of national security threats and fraud early in the immigration process 

and reduction in the issuance of interim benefits to mitigate the risk of ineligible 

applicants acquiring legal status in the United States through extensions of 

nonimmigrant status or employment authorization pending the adjudication of their 

green card applications. 

• Efficient resource allocation by streamlining and refocusing on the up-front 

adjudication of primary benefits rather than expending resources in the processing 

and production of interim benefits. 

June 30, 2005 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov Page 26 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress, June 2005 

As the Ombudsman’s Office continues to study the up-front application concept,36 the 

ongoing or recently-completed pilot programs offer useful insights and suggest how other pilot 

programs can be revised and expanded to achieve program goals. 

2. Los Angeles District Office I-90 Pilot 

a. Pilot Description 

In March 2004, the Los Angeles District Office began testing alternatives to the 

established I-90 green card replacement/renewal process. Essentially, work was moved from a 

service center to district offices, which allowed for up-front processing. The program restricted 

the cases considered under the program to those filed electronically (e-filing) in an effort to limit 

the need to divert resources. The goal of the program was to improve customer service while 

achieving process efficiency. 

b. Results Reported by USCIS 

USCIS reports that processing times for I-90 applications were reduced from over eight 

months at the beginning of the program to less than two weeks by the end of the program. 

USCIS plans to implement the program nationally and has stated that national implementation 

will not require significant infusions of staff or other resources. 

c. Ombudsman’s Comments 

The Ombudsman applauds the efforts of USCIS to utilize technology to achieve the rapid 

processing of green card renewal applications. However, the Ombudsman notes that the 

problems identified in the 2004 Annual Report continue for green card replacement applicants 

who now have additional steps to follow. Additionally, all applicants now have to pay the 

biometric capture fee, which was not required until recently for these applicants. USCIS also has 

raised the base fee for the green card renewal and replacement applications. While the new 

USCIS process has resulted in many applicants receiving the renewal or replacement card much 

faster, it has come at substantial additional cost and time to the applicant. 

It remains to be seen whether USCIS will be able to support a national roll-out of the 

program for all I-90s filed. In considering only e-filed applications in the pilot program, USCIS 

arguably saved staff and resources yet the applicants did not realize any savings. Greater volume 

of applications could create demand for more staff and resources to support the process. The 

Ombudsman recognizes the significant processing time improvements but, nevertheless, believes 

that much more analysis should be conducted on the impact on applicants before national 

implementation. 

36 As discussed in part B of the introduction to this report, “up-front processing” would include the screening of 

applications on the day of filing. 

June 30, 2005 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov Page 27 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress, June 2005 

3. California Service Center Backlog Elimination Pilot 

a. Pilot Description 

In March 2004, USCIS began an employment-based immigrant process pilot at the 

California Service Center. The program considered a narrow set of cases—second preference 

employment-based green card applications.37 These cases typically do not involve interviews 

and are among the less complicated green card cases. The USCIS goal was to promote process 

efficiency and complete cases within 75 days of the filing of an application so that card 

production and delivery could be achieved before it was necessary to issue interim benefits. 

b. Results Reported by USCIS 

Even with the narrowly defined target group, which was selected to maximize success, 

USCIS concluded that the pilot program did not improve process efficiency and did not 

significantly reduce the issuance of interim benefits. It also noted the program did not favorably 

affect backlog elimination and, in fact, hindered the success it was achieving in its overall 

backlog elimination goals. USCIS noted that the program actually demanded more resources 

and attention than the standard process in that a number of the systems that are automated under 

standard processing had to be conducted manually under the pilot. USCIS also found that certain 

functions common to both pilot and standard conditions demanded more attention from more 

staff under the pilot than under standard processes to meet the goal of completing cases within 75 

days. 

Reported USCIS Pilot Data: 

Cases Considered 1,376 

Cases Processed within 75 Days 347 

Cases in “Process Hold” (usually security check issues) 742 

Employment Authorization Documents Issued 847 

Advance Parole Documents Issued 914 

c. Ombudsman’s Comments 

The Ombudsman recommended up-front processing for all employment-based green card 

applications in January 2004. At that time, there were an estimated 400,000 pending 

employment-based green card applications at service centers and district offices.38 The denial 

rates of applications and issuance rate of RFEs for pending applications had also increased 

37 Second preference employment-based applicants are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or 

their equivalent and who, because of their exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, will substantially 

benefit the economic, cultural, or educational interests of the United States. 

38 USCIS has been unable to provide the Office of the Ombudsman with exact numbers stating that their current data 

management system is unable to distinguish between family-sponsored and employment-based green card 

applications. USCIS does distinguish between pending asylee green card applications and all others. In October 

2003, there were approximately 392,000 non-asylum based green card applications pending at the four service 

centers which accept employment-based green card cases. In addition, thousands of employment cases were 

pending at the various district offices awaiting interviews. 

June 30, 2005 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov Page 28 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress, June 2005 

dramatically. However, USCIS opted not to adopt the Ombudsman’s recommendation that 

applicants be screened and interviewed at the time the application was filed. The Ombudsman’s 

recommended process would have required a movement of employment-based green card 

applications from service centers to district offices. 

The very narrow parameters of the pilot raises questions about the value of the data 

collected. Data provided indicates USCIS’ inability to process cases within target timeframes 

was largely due to two factors—security checks and RFEs. The negative results from the USCIS 

pilot program were not unexpected since the pilot did not address the concerns that spawned the 

original recommendation by the Ombudsman.39 The positive results from the Dallas pilot 

program on up-front family-sponsored green card processing, which addressed many of the 

Ombudsman’s concerns, underscores the need to incorporate up-front processing into the 

employment-based green card application process. 

4. New York District Backlog Elimination and Fraud Reduction Pilot 

a. Pilot Description 

One of two offices selected to pilot alternative family-sponsored green card application 

processes was the New York District Office, where the standard processing time was over two 

years. In the New York District, USCIS developed a pilot green card application processing 

system wherein certain newly-filed cases were processed and interviewed at an accelerated rate 

under the same processing structure within 90 days of filing the green card application. 

Ineligible and fraudulent green card applicants are a particularly serious issue in the New York 

District.40 USCIS recognized this and attempted to incorporate an anti-fraud element into the 

pilot. In processing cases from beginning to end within 90 days, USCIS would eliminate the 

need to issue interim benefits, thus eliminating the practice of certain applicants who file green 

card applications simply to secure those interim benefits. This 90-day process was run while the 

District also continued to process backlogged cases. The apparent USCIS goal was to 

discourage the filing of fraudulent applications for the purpose of obtaining interim benefits, 

while continuing ongoing backlog reduction efforts. 

b. Results Reported by USCIS 

USCIS concluded that the program was not successful because it did not adjudicate the 

majority of cases within 90 days of filing, fraud rates were lower than anticipated,41 and backlog 

39 See section III.B.5, infra. 

40 In the New York District, the green card application denial rates in 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004 were: 43.3 

percent, 31.5 percent, 47.6 percent, and 39 percent, respectively. Most of the applicants who were eventually denied 

were granted employment authorization while their cases were pending. 

41 USCIS expected to find that the number of applications denied for fraud would drop measurably over the life of 

the pilot as applicants learned that interim benefits would not be as easy to obtain. During the life of the pilot, there 

was no identifiable decline in fraud rates. This can be attributed, in part, to the lengthy process involved in denying 

fraud cases in the New York district due to judicial restrictions imposed in the district. Most cases which may 

eventually be classified as fraud cases are not completed for several months or years after the initial determination of 

suspected fraud. Additionally, many cases are regularly denied and not identified as “fraud” cases, because 

insufficient time and resources are devoted to prosecuting fraud and, therefore, USCIS statistics may not provide a 

full picture. 

June 30, 2005 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov Page 29 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress, June 2005 

reduction efforts were compromised.42 USCIS terminated the program without notice in January 

2005. 

USCIS Reported Data (pilot statistics through October 15, 2004): 

Cases considered 8,119 

Cases completed within 90 days of filing 4,509 

Interim benefits issued 1,306 

c. Ombudsman’s Comments 

The New York District pilot program was essentially an acceleration of the existing green 

card process in the district. The pilot program did not address many of the concerns that 

spawned the Ombudsman’s original recommendation on family-sponsored green card 

application processing.43 The pilot program was successful in reducing the number of interim 

benefits issued to 16 percent of the applicants in the pilot, compared to the national average of 

over 85 percent. However, due to legal and administrative limitations preventing the completion 

of certain cases within 90 days of filing, interim benefits continued to be issued to individuals 

who did not deserve them, for example applicants who were suspected of having committed 

marriage fraud in order to obtain their immigration benefits. In other cases, the New York 

District was unable to complete some of its cases within 90 days because of security check 

issues. In these cases, it was necessary to issue interim benefits. 

The Ombudsman notes that while USCIS decided to terminate this New York District 

pilot as unsuccessful, it has committed to implementing a similar version of this program in all 

offices over the next two years, based on its commitment to DHS to strive to achieve a 90 day or 

less processing goal for all green card applicants. 

The New York District pilot program demonstrated that in completing green card 

applications within 90 days of filing, the issuance of interim benefits can be reduced 

significantly. However, as noted above, work permits were issued to some individuals who 

should not have received them. An up-front process, wherein an applicant is interviewed on the 

day of filing, such as in the DORA pilot program in most instances will remedy this situation. 

5. Dallas Office Rapid Adjustment Pilot 

a. Pilot Description 

As implemented by USCIS, the Dallas Office Rapid Adjustment (DORA) pilot program 

permits family-based green card applicants to file their applications and be evaluated for 

eligibility on the same day (up-front processing). Begun in May 2004, the process includes 

initiating background checks, reviewing documents, and conducting eligibility interviews on the 

42 Because pilot case receipts exceeded expectations, resources were diverted to support the pilot process at the 

expense of existing backlog elimination efforts. 

43 The recommendation included in the Ombudsman’s 2004 Annual Report to Congress, recommended an up-front 

process similar to the DORA pilot program implemented in Dallas, infra. 

June 30, 2005 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov Page 30 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress, June 2005 

day of filing with a goal of completing applications in less than 90 days of filing. Following the 

initial process, the application materials are bundled and forwarded to the Department of 

Treasury Lockbox in Chicago, Illinois, and then to the USCIS National Benefits Center for 

receipt of payment and file creation or collection of existing files at the Center. The National 

Benefits Center then issues a “Notice of Action” to the applicant and returns the newly created 

case file (or the existing file with the new application included) to the Dallas District Office. The 

Dallas District Office completes the adjudication and orders production of a green card for 

qualified applicants. 

b. Results Reported by USCIS 

From inception in May 2004 through June 3, 2005, DORA scheduled 12,037 

appointments. Of these applicants, 2,183 (18 percent) failed to appear at the District Office to 

file their application and undergo an eligibility interview. DORA rejected 1,996 applications for 

the reasons shown in Figure 5 below: 

Figure 5: Cases Rejected Under DORA 

Incorrect Fee / No Fee 204 

Insufficient Documentation 320 

Duplicate Filings 197 

Visa Unavailable 301 

Jurisdiction 87 

Other 887 

Total 1,996 

During the first ten weeks of the program, the Dallas District Office completed 45 

percent of the cases interviewed within 90 days of filing (546 completed of 1,227 considered). 

Completion rates improved over the life of the program to the point where 71 percent of cases 

considered were completed during the last five reported weeks (664 completed of 935 

considered). Over the life of the program, 58 percent of cases considered were completed within 

90 days. Interim benefits were issued to 1,204 applicants (20 percent of all applicants considered 

as compared to approximately 85 percent nationally).44 

Over the life of the program, as of June 3, 2005, 9,139 cases were received for 

processing. Of that number, 6,626 cases were processed prior to March 4, 2005.45 Of the 6,626 

cases processed, 5,371 cases were approved, 199 cases were denied and 1,056 cases remain 

pending. Of all cases processed under the DORA program through March 4, 2005, 84.1 percent 

have been completed. Of the remaining 15.9 percent (1,056) pending cases, 93 percent (977) are 

incomplete due to pending security checks. Additionally, 6 percent (68) cases remain 

incomplete due to unavailability of prior immigration files within the department. The remaining 

1 percent (11) cases remain pending due to unavailability of previously approved petitions. 

44 The Ombudsman computed completion rates with the following formula: Cases approved + Cases denied ÷ Cases 

accepted for consideration. For instance, if 100 cases are accepted, fifty are approved, and ten are denied, the 

Ombudsman would determine that there is a 60 percent completion rate. 

45 Data on cases processed under the DORA program is only available through March 4, 2005. Cases that were 

accepted after that date are not (as of June 3, 2005) 90 days old. 

June 30, 2005 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov Page 31 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress, June 2005 

c. Ombudsman’s Comments 

During the pilot program implementation, the Ombudsman addressed concerns that were 

raised by USCIS. Chief among them was a belief that resources allocated to the DORA program 

were taken at the expense of the USCIS overall backlog elimination project. However, up-front 

processing as provided in the DORA pilot can continue using existing permanent staff without 

drawing upon the temporary employees who were hired to reduce the existing case backlog. If 

the backlog is eliminated by the end of FY 2006, as USCIS expects, the permanent workforce 

will be capable of handling the daily workloads associated with the DORA program. 

DORA statistics indicate that almost 2,000 applications were rejected before they could 

be filed. Under the regular USCIS direct-mail/lockbox process, most of these applications— 

except the 204 with fee issues—would likely have been accepted for processing. It follows that 

over 1,700 individuals would have received work permits and/or travel documents based on 

applications that would have ultimately resulted in denials by USCIS. Many of these 1,700 

individuals are simply not eligible to receive a green card. Yet, under regular processes, they 

would have obtained an interim benefit. 

In rejecting applications, the Dallas District saved hours of officer and clerical time. 

Rejecting an application takes minutes; writing formal RFEs or solid denial notices can take 

hours. By reviewing the application packages before filing, the DORA program eliminated the 

need to engage in the time-consuming processes of issuing RFEs or denial notices in over 1,700 

cases, thus freeing staff to perform other functions. It also prevented these rejected applicants 

from wasting time and resources, only to find out months or years later that they did not qualify 

for the benefit for which they applied. 

USCIS asserts that DORA is “labor intensive” and caused completion rates to decline.46 

These conclusions appear to be based on statistics that did not separate DORA program 

applicants from regular program applicants, thereby losing DORA figures in the overall 

workload. Available statistics reflect that apparent inefficiencies were due less to DORA 

program deficiencies than to other issues such as incomplete security checks, shortages in 

contract staff, and file transfers from service centers. 

Progress can be measured in the completion rate of applications, and here the statistics 

tell an encouraging story. Notwithstanding security check issues and staff shortages, the Dallas 

District Office has been completing in excess of 65 percent of its cases within 90 days of filing 

for the last three months where statistics are available. 

46 USCIS statistics initially suggested that backlog reduction had not been realized in Dallas. However, upon further 

review by the Ombudsman, it was determined that the office actually achieved a 37 percent decrease in pending 

cases during the pilot period (the statistics include both pilot and non-pilot cases). Beginning with a pending green 

card application count in the Dallas District of 15,838 (9,598 + 6,240 correction for previously-unreported cases) at 

the end of May 2004, at the end of March 2005 the pending green card applications was 9,971. Overall, the Dallas 

District Office reduced its pending green card case count by 5,867 cases between June 1, 2004, and March 31, 

2005—a 37 percent decrease. 

June 30, 2005 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov Page 32 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress, June 2005 

The steady climb in completion rates is encouraging in that it demonstrates the DORA 

model can work. As staff at the Dallas District Office and the National Benefits Center identify 

and eliminate process problems, the completion rate should continue to increase. 

A major obstacle to completing most applications within a few days is the current 

complex security check process. Over the life of the program, 93 percent of the cases that 

exceeded the 90-day processing window did so because of pending security checks. 

The rate at which the Dallas District completes cases under the DORA program is 

important in the overall effort to eliminate the need for interim benefits. Generally, a higher 

completion rate in less than 90 days will reduce the number of interim benefits issued. Under the 

DORA program, the Dallas District advised applicants that they could file for a work permit if 

there was any indication that the case might not be decided within 90 days. Over the life of the 

program, 2,568 applicants were scheduled to appear for the filing of work permit applications. 

However, between the time the applicants were scheduled and their scheduled appearance at the 

District Office, more than half of the applications were completed, resulting in only 1,204 of the 

applicants actually receiving the work permit. 

Another way to measure success is to demonstrate that higher completion rates on green 

card applications will lead to lower rates of interim benefits issuance. Over the life of the 

program, as completion rates improved, interim benefits issuance rates decreased. This can be 

seen generally in the chart below: 

Figure 6: Green Card Completion Rate Versus Work Permit Issuance Rate under DORA (May 2004 – 

February 2005) 

80% 

70% 

60% 

50% 

40% 

30% 

20% 

10% 

0% 

May '04 June '04 July '04 August '04 September '04 October '04 November '04 December '04 January '05 February '05 

Interim Benefits Issuance Rate Green Card Completion Rate 

June 30, 2005 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov Page 33 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress, June 2005 

Clearly, the ability to complete cases in less than 90 days limits the issuance of interim 

benefits. In May 2004, the first month of the program, 39 percent of the cases processed were 

completed within 90 days, while 35 percent of the cases required the issuance of work permits. 

Comparatively, during February 2005—the last month of the program for which full data is 

available—work permits were issued in only 10 percent of the cases. Over the life of the 

program, interim benefits were issued in approximately 20 percent of the cases processed 

compared to 85 percent nationally under current USCIS processing. 

Another issue facing USCIS in developing up-front processing is “front-desking.” This 

term stems from the INS practice of rejecting certain applications during the legalization 

program instituted under the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. Following the 

program, a number of individuals and organizations brought lawsuits against the INS. Some of 

these suits remain pending to this day. To address this legal issue, the DORA up-front process 

model allows any applicant who wishes to file an application to do so, although applicants are 

advised of deficiencies in their applications and that those deficiencies may result in their 

applications being denied. They may file their application as it is or they may withhold their 

application until the noted deficiencies are corrected. This practice should continue in future upfront processes. DORA addresses the “front-desking” issue, but also serves as a major customer 

service improvement. Currently, under standard USCIS procedures, applicants often find that 

their applications are deficient only when they receive an RFE or denial notice—months or years 

after filing. In the eyes of the applicant, this is time wasted. They are then left to file a motion to 

reopen the application or file a whole new application package with the evidence that was 

missing. 

Of the four pilot programs run by USCIS, the DORA program best embodies the concept 

of up-front processing. By enabling the completion of cases within 90 days, the program 

provided improved customer service while also enhancing efficiency and security by reducing 

the need to issue interim benefits. 

6. Overall Pilot Program Analysis 

The purpose of the pilot programs was to identify better ways to do business so as to 

promote customer service while improving process efficiency and national security. Much was 

learned from the programs. For the Ombudsman, the primary finding was that an up-front 

processing model will work within current USCIS capabilities, and that it is preferable to the 

current business processes. In adopting an up-front processing model, USCIS can achieve 

improved completion rates, enhance customer satisfaction, reduce the need for issuance of 

interim benefits, and substantially reduce unnecessary, time-consuming work. The Office of the 

Ombudsman will continue to work with USCIS to identify and recommend solutions that will 

enable USCIS to achieve the twenty-first century expectations of a world-class customer-centric 

organization that is efficient and meets the security needs of this country. 

June 30, 2005 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov Page 34 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress, June 2005 

IV. LOCAL OMBUDSMAN PILOT PROGRAM 

The Homeland Security Act of 2002 states that the Ombudsman shall have the 

responsibility and authority to appoint local ombudsmen and make available at least one local 

ombudsman per state.47 In preparing to exercise this responsibility and authority, the 

Ombudsman has initiated a pilot program to design and develop a workable local ombudsman 

office which will have specific operational responsibilities over a defined geographic area. The 

pilot program will establish personnel and support requirements, determine liaison 

responsibilities and limitations, and provide a controlled model for future local ombudsman 

office placements. 

The pilot program commenced in May 2005. The pilot program office will be staffed by 

a candidate local ombudsman, a candidate deputy local ombudsman, and a candidate staff 

assistant. The pilot program activities will be documented and tracked on a monthly basis. 

Periodic meetings of the Ombudsman’s management team will occur to evaluate and amend the 

pilot program as appropriate. 

The following is a list of tasks to be accomplished during the pilot program: 

• Develop personnel job descriptions based on actual job requirements. 

• Conduct a task and skill analysis for each job position to determine the required skills 

and knowledge for incumbents, as well as to determine individual training 

requirements for incumbents. 

• Determine the requisite support equipment necessary for local ombudsman 

operations. 

• Determine the most efficient data transfer arrangement between the pilot program 

office and the Ombudsman Information Management System (OIMS) to allow for: 1) 

inquiries and USCIS actions to be received by the pilot program office from OIMS; 

2) pilot program office inputs to OIMS; and 3) and statistical data and analyses 

provided in both directions. 

• Develop and establish inter-office and intra-office liaison methodologies and 

procedures, with particular emphasis on transfers from the pilot program office to: 1) 

the Ombudsman’s Executive Officer staff; 2) the Analysis Branch within the 

Ombudsman’s Office); 3) the OIMS staff; 4) USCIS office(s) in geographic area of 

responsibility; and 5) individuals/employers as appropriate. 

• Develop reporting vehicles for pilot program office operations and productivity. 

• Establish a baseline for pilot program office operations, duties, and tasks under 

appropriate quality assurance standards. 

47 See 6 U.S.C. § 272(e)(1). 

June 30, 2005 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov Page 35 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress, June 2005 

• Develop and produce procedural manuals to establish baseline conditions for pilot 

program office operations, duties, and tasks. 

• Compile cost data on all facets of pilot program conduct. 

• Conduct a cost/benefit analysis to determine the most efficient local ombudsman 

office structure. 

• Conduct individualized casework on a sampling basis to establish procedures for 

handling exigent customer problems. 

• Review other tasks to be identified throughout the pilot program duration. 

Upon completion of the pilot program, in conjunction with data from the OIMS office on 

the geographic distribution of inquiries received from individuals and employers, the 

Ombudsman will provide the Deputy Secretary with a local ombudsman support plan which will 

recommend the location of proposed local ombudsman offices and the costs associated with their 

deployment. 

V. PUBLIC INQUIRIES TO THE OMBUDSMAN 

By statute, Ombudsman is tasked with assisting individuals and employers in resolving 

problems with USCIS. 

Currently, when the Ombudsman’s office receives specific case problems from 

individuals or employers, the problem is processed and referred to USCIS for further action. 

When a case problem is resolved, the Ombudsman’s office is notified, enabling the office to 

track the timeliness and adequacy of USCIS responses. 

During the reporting period, the office received letters, emails, faxes, and telephone calls 

which generated a total of 1,187 cases, of which 1,059 were referred to USCIS for further action. 

The remaining 128 cases were outside the jurisdiction of this office and were forwarded to other 

agencies for further action or responses were sent directly to the complainant. The most 

common types of complaints received from the public included: 

1. Issues pertaining to the backlog – primarily related to green card applications taking in 

excess of two years to process; 

2. Background and security checks that are incomplete at the time of the green card or 

naturalization interview and which prevent the applicant from receiving the benefit; 

3. Inability to schedule an InfoPass appointment for weeks or months; 

4. Conflicting information when calling the National Customer Service Center and/or 

visiting local USCIS offices; and 

June 30, 2005 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov Page 36 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress, June 2005 

5. Uninformative/uncooperative USCIS officials at local offices. 

The Ombudsman’s Office is continuing to evaluate the responses from USCIS and is 

continuing to work with USCIS on correcting many of the causes of these complaints. 

VI. FISCAL YEAR 2006 OBJECTIVES 

In the coming year, the Office of the Ombudsman will expand efforts to reach out to 

individuals and employers who continue to experience problems with USCIS. The office will 

continue to develop recommendations on process reengineering and training with the goal of 

resolving systemic problems. 

Specifically, the Ombudsman will work with USCIS and DHS leadership to establish and 

meet specific benchmarks to realize the vision of streamlined, up-front processing with a one 

form, one fee system. The Ombudsman will continue to recommend implementation of an upfront processing program that builds on the success of DORA. These initiatives will decrease the 

need to issue interim benefits and agency reliance on interim benefits revenue. Moreover, 

customer service will be greatly improved with adjudication times substantially reduced and 

eventually fewer inquiries to congressional offices, USCIS, and the Office of the Ombudsman. 

In FY 2006, the Ombudsman will be developing recommendations on new training 

initiatives for USCIS adjudicators to address the lack of standardization that prevents consistent 

decision-making. The office will make recommendations to simplify the complex body of 

immigration law, regulations, and processes. Such simplification will, in turn, facilitate the 

training of USCIS employees and allow the USCIS customer base to more easily navigate the 

complex immigration benefits process. 

The Ombudsman will continue to develop a plan and work with DHS on establishing 

local ombudsman offices, as appropriate. 

Also next year, the Ombudsman will continue to advocate for improved information 

technology infrastructure and deployment schedule for USCIS. Whether it be person-centric 

case management or electronic filing, improved information technology is a critical element for 

customer service in the twenty-first century. 

 Finally, the office will also work with DHS to develop more efficient and timely 

background and security checks in order to facilitate the application process. 

June 30, 2005 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov Page 37 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress, June 2005 

VII. CONCLUSION 

President George W. Bush stated “[O]ur country has always benefited from the dreams 

that others have brought here. By working hard for a better life, immigrants contribute to the life 

of our nation.” Immigrants and employers alike deserve an immigration system that matches 

their contributions, spirit, and desire to share in the American dream. 

The Office of the Ombudsman looks forward to working with USCIS and DHS to build 

on the successes of the past year in order to realize the goal of a more efficient, secure 

immigration benefits system with world class customer service. 

June 30, 2005 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov Page 38 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress, June 2005 

APPENDIX 

Figure 7: Key Forms Utilized in Green Card Application Processing – Historical Annual Receipt Totals 

(1994 – 2004) 

it) 

l ) 

il ) 

ion) 

0 

ition) 

l ) 

l ) 

it) 

I-485 (Green Card) 

I-765 (Work Perm

I-131 (Trave Document

I-130 (Fam y Petition

I-140 (Work Petit

500,000 

1,000,000 

1,500,000 

2,000,000 

2,500,000 

3,000,000 

3,500,000 

4,000,000 

4,500,000 

5,000,000 

Number of Applications/Petitions 

I-140 (Work Pet 47,105 50,724 61,042 68,804 67,511 78,879 96,001 137,695 104,361 96,578 80,348 

I-130 (Fami y Petition 663,472 630,138 708,727 886,053 742,917 466,044 597,569 1,495,375 714,232 719,837 967,950 

I-131 (Trave Document 60,007 52,790 116,590 160,294 196,416 234,717 298,234 292,179 279,115 305,859 309,956 

I-765 (Work Perm 707,222 864,991 952,613 1,160,680 1,211,514 1,357,320 1,451,527 1,813,479 1,745,976 2,156,095 1,640,703 

I-485 (Green Card) 203,263 470,532 543,999 670,063 473,544 371,163 443,719 634,165 580,076 583,912 525,032 

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 

Fiscal Year 

Figure 8: Key Forms Utilized in Green Card Application Processing – Historical Monthly Receipt Totals 

(2001 – 2005) 

450,000

400,000

I-485 (Green Card) 

I-131 (Travel Document) 

I-130 (Total) 

I-140 (Work Petition) 

I-765 (Work Permit) 

Number of Applications/Petitions 

350,000 

300,000 

250,000 

200,000 

150,000 

100,000 

50,000 

0 

2 

2 

3 

3 

3 

4 

4 

4

4 

4

5

5

01 

02

02

03

2 

3

03

04

1 

2 

r-0

-0

-0

r-0

-0

r-0

-0

0

-0

r-0

0

0

0

0

0

0

g-

-

-

cugbgc

bb-

-

cttn

b

n

n

c

Oc

Oc

Oct

Oct

Ap

Ap

Ap

Ap

De

De

De

De

e

Ju

u

F

A

Fe

Ju

Au

Fe

Ju

A

Fe

Fiscal Month and Year 

June 30, 2005 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov Page 39 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress, June 2005 

Figure 9: Key Forms Utilized in Green Card Application Processing – Historical End of Year Pending 

Totals (1994 – 2005) 

) 

) 

il ition) 

0 

ition) 

l ) 

l ) 

it) 

I-485 (Green Card) 

I-765 (Work Permit

I-131 (Travel Document

I-130 (Fam y Pet

I-140 (Work Petition) 

500,000 

1,000,000 

1,500,000 

2,000,000 

2,500,000 

3,000,000 

3,500,000 

4,000,000 

Number of Applications/Petitions Pending 

I-140 (Work Pet 6,873 5,612 6,739 7,698 20,282 43,394 48,043 68,884 48,998 67,582 73,594 39,707 

I-130 (Fami y Petition 181,740 230,662 241,745 407,115 554,275 593,235 797,343 1,585,410 1,605,016 1,859,405 1,833,905 1,575,021 

I-131 (Trave Document 422 1,080 1,864 11,010 14,207 25,727 43,675 51,298 42,236 81,511 49,277 46,432 

I-765 (Work Perm 44,135 70,324 76,674 135,352 114,722 186,036 256,451 267,329 392,907 440,994 278,437 478,148 

I-485 (Green Card) 90,535 288,119 403,069 660,792 756,396 835,906 839,384 785,948 763,568 957,714 838,446 749,566 

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 YTD 

Fiscal Year 

Figure 10: Key Forms Utilized in Green Card Application Processing – Historical End of Month Pending 

Totals (October 2001 – April 2005) 

4,000,000 

3,500,000 

I-765 (Work Permit) 

I-131 (Travel Document) 

I-130 (Total) 

I-140 (Work Petition) 

I-485 (Green Card) 

3,000,000 

2,500,000 

2,000,000 

1,500,000 

1,000,000 

500,000 

0 

Number of Applications/Petitions 

1 

2 

2 

2 

3 

3 

3

3 

3 

4 

4

4

5

02 

3 

04 

4 

01 

02 

05

2 

-0

0

-0

-0

-0

04

r-0

-0

r-0

-0

r-0

-0

r-0

0

0

0

0

t-

-

b-

-

cbc

bcb-

-

tn

n

n

g

Oc

g

ct

g

c

ct

A

Oc

p

p

Ap

Ap

De

u

Au

Fe

J

Au

O

De

Fe

Ju

Au

De

Fe

Ju

O

De

Fe

A

Fiscal Month and Year 

June 30, 2005 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman email: cisombudsman@dhs.gov Page 40