U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

42–118 PDF 2008

WASTED VISAS, GROWING BACKLOGS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, 

CITIZENSHIP, REFUGEES, BORDER SECURITY, 

AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

APRIL 30, 2008

Serial No. 110–104

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov 

(II)

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan, Chairman 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HANK JOHNSON, Georgia 

BETTY SUTTON, Ohio 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

CHRIS CANNON, Utah 

RIC KELLER, Florida 

DARRELL ISSA, California 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TOM FEENEY, Florida 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio

PERRY APELBAUM, Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

SEAN MCLAUGHLIN, Minority Chief of Staff and General Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, REFUGEES,

BORDER SECURITY, AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

ZOE LOFGREN, California, Chairwoman

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas

UR MENDOZA JADDOU, Chief Counsel 

GEORGE FISHMAN, Minority Counsel 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

APRIL 30, 2008

Page 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

The Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California, and Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, 

Refugees, Border Security, and International Law ........................................... 1

The Honorable Steve King, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Iowa, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, 

Refugees, Border Security, and International Law ........................................... 2

WITNESSES 

Mr. Michael Aytes, Acting Deputy Director, United States Citizenship and 

Immigration Services; accompanied by Donald Neufeld, Acting Associate 

Director, Domestic Operations, United States Citizenship and Immigration 

Services 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 5

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 7

Mr. Stephen A. Edson, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Visa Service, 

United States Department of State; accompanied by Charles Oppenheim, 

Chief, Visa Control and Reporting Division, United States Department 

of State 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 12

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 14

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

The bill, H.R. 5882, ‘‘To recapture employment based immigrant visas lost 

to bureaucratic delays and to prevent losses of family- and employmentbased immigrant visas in the future’’ ................................................................. 33

APPENDIX 

Material Submitted for the Hearing Record .......................................................... 55

OFFICIAL HEARING RECORD 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD BUT NOT REPRINTED

Document of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security entitled: Citizenship and 

Immigration Services Ombudsman, Annual Report 2007. This document is available at the Subcommittee and can also be accessed at:

http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/CISOMBlAnnuallReportl2007.pdf 

(1)

WASTED VISAS, GROWING BACKLOGS 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 30, 2008

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP,

REFUGEES, BORDER SECURITY, AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m., in Room 

2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Zoe Lofgren 

(Chairwoman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Lofgren, Gutierrez, King, Gallegly, Lungren and Gohmert. 

Staff Present: Ur Mendoza Jaddou, Majority Chief Counsel; 

Tracy Hong, Majority Counsel; Andres Jimenez, Professional Staff 

Member; and George Fishman, Minority Counsel. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The hearing of the Subcommittee on Immigration, 

Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law will 

come to order. First, I’d like to offer my apologies for my tardiness. 

I had another obligation with the Speaker that went longer than 

expected. I’d like to welcome everyone to this hearing to examine 

the consistent failure of our immigration agencies to issue all the 

family and employment-based immigrant visas that are authorized 

already under a law each year, despite the ongoing demand for 

such visas. I think it is a little bit ironic that in a hearing to examine why agencies cannot issue visas on time, we did not timely receive the testimony from the agencies before us today. We only received the Department of State testimony at a little after 5 last 

night, the USCIS at a little after 6 last night with the revised testimony at 9 this morning. And I would just like to ask—the Rules 

of the Committee require the submission of testimony substantially 

prior to the day before. I can recall a time when Mr. Sensenbrenner 

refused to allow the then Commissioner of Immigration to even testify because his testimony was late. I’m not going to do that today, 

but in the future I expect the testimony to be delivered in accordance with the rules. 

There are a limited number of visas available each year to immigrate to the United States, a floor of 226,000 preference visas per 

year for family-based immigrants and 140,000 per year for employment-based immigrants. Each year the backlog of people waiting to 

immigrate legally to the United States grows larger. Approximately 

4 million family-based immigrants are believed to be caught in the 

legal immigration backlog today while another 400 to 500,000 are 

believed to be caught in the employment-based backlog. Despite 

these growing backlogs, the USCIS and Department of State reguVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:39 Aug 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\043008\42118.000 HJUD1 PsN: 42118
2

larly fail to issue the legally authorized number of immigrant visas 

each year. They’ve only met or exceeded the floor of a family-preference visa in 5 out of 16 years and only 7 out of the 16 years for 

employment-based visas since ’92. 

Most recently, the Department of Homeland Security Office of 

Immigration Statistics observed in its annual flow report for U.S. 

legal permanent residents that legal immigration decreased by 17 

percent in 2007, quote, due primarily to application processing 

issues at USCIS, unquote. 

To date there has been little public examination of the reasons 

for the ongoing failure to issue the legally authorized number of 

immigrant visas each year when there is a clear demand by qualified applicants for these visas. The only recent examination of this 

problem is by the USCIS ombudsman in its 2007 annual report, 

which found that immigrant visas have gone unused due to gaps 

in the accounting of cases by USCIS, USCIS not processing enough 

pending applications in a timely manner and, finally, the imprecise 

art, if it can be called that, of predicting work flows and demand 

surges at the three Federal agencies who each play a role in adjudicating applications, the Department of State, USCIS and the Department of Labor. 

My colleague, the former Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, 

Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner, and I have developed a proposed 

legislative fix to not only recapture these unused visas but also to 

reform the process that forces us to lose the visas for future use. 

I look forward to the testimony today to help us better understand the problems that face the agencies charged with issuing 

visas so that we may not only address the problems with an appropriate administrative solution, but also determine whether our proposed legislative fix is the right legislative tool to prevent the loss 

of visas in the future. 

I would now recognize our distinguished Ranking Member, Steve 

King, for his opening statement. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Madam Chair. And although the topic of 

this hearing is wasted visas, I have to state that the number of 

legal immigrants being admitted to the United States in recent 

years tells a different story. Legal immigration is booming. More 

than a million green cards per year are being issued year in and 

year out. This level far exceeds what was anticipated when the 

226,000 number for family-based preference green cards and the 

140,000 number for employment-based preference green cards was 

set by Congress, mostly because of a dramatic increase in the immediate relatives who are able to immigrate without numerical 

limits. 

The 226,000 and the 140,000 numbers for family and employment-preference green cards, respectively, was considered to be a 

reasonable amount for our country to absorb when they were calculated nearly 2 decades ago. But in 1990, Congress did not contemplate that we’d also have 12 to 20 million illegal immigrants 

straining our health care system, our law enforcement, our infrastructure, our schools and our cultural identity. We should not be 

seeking to accomplish a backdoor increase in immigration levels by 

adding green card numbers through, quote, recapturing, closed 

3

quote, simply because the maximum number of green cards allowed 

was not issued in some past years. 

Most Americans favor a decrease in legal immigration, not an increase, because of the pressures I have identified. And I ask those 

who are the proponents of this at the proper point in this process, 

including the Chair and all of the Committee Members, to answer 

into the record the questions, will you support a hard overall cap 

on legal immigration, a real hard number for overall and, if so, 

what number would you agree to and what is your vision of America in the years 2050, 2075, 2100? And whether you know it or not, 

you’re shaping that America irrevocably with the policy that is 

coming through this Congress today. 

From 1992 through 2007, 14,476,668 green cards have been 

issued. During that same 16-year period, the number of green 

cards issued for the family in the employment preference categories 

was only somewhere between—I say somewhere between—224,000 

and 507,000 green cards, that much short of the statutorily set 

maximum depending on the methodology used, a number that 

pales in comparison to the overall level of legal immigration. So 

these numbers work out to be this, that of these available green 

cards we are utilizing somewhere between 961⁄2 percent and 981⁄2

percent of the overall cards. I think that is running it pretty close 

to the line, and I wouldn’t expect it would be 100 percent. You 

could not be so precise in your work. 

If any recapturing plan is considered, it should include offsetting 

measures that would keep the total levels of numerically limited 

green card categories no higher than the current level, an increase 

in percentage of green cards that are awarded based on what the 

recipient offers our country, meaning merit based. Of much greater 

concern to me is the existence of an extremely large backlog in the 

applications for green cards. The net backlog for family-based green 

cards now stands at 88,168 and the net backlog for employmentbased green cards is 99,105. Many applicants will wait years before 

their applications are adjudicated. In the meantime—this is what 

really concerns me—green card applicants are being issued employment-authorized documents, EADs, which grant them almost all 

the privileges that are accorded to lawful permanent residents. 

They are given a right to work and the right to travel to and from 

the United States. They can also get Federal and State identification which allows them to procure credit, purchase property, and 

enjoy other privileges and access accorded to those who have legal 

status. 

Tens of thousands of these applicants will ultimately be found ineligible for a green card. Some are aware of their ineligibility, but 

they apply anyway. They are counting on the long backlog to enjoy 

the years of legitimized presence in the United States that they’ve 

been accorded by the issuance of the EAD, a document that was, 

quote, earned simply by filing a green card application that has no 

merit. 

This situation compromises our national security. Progress has 

been made in recent years to reduce the backlog of green card applications, to reduce processing times and to issue the number of 

green cards authorized by the statute. However, those gains appear 

to have been defeated by the surge of applications filed in fiscal 

4

year 2007, especially for the nearly 2.5 million applications that 

were filed in July and August alone, the surge as I mentioned earlier. 

The flood of green card applications last summer resulted from 

a perfect storm. An apparent disconnect between the USCIS and 

the State Department prompted an announcement that employment-based green cards were suddenly available to thousands who 

had expected to be waiting for years. Many applicants raced to beat 

the July 1st fee increases, thousands more who had hoped to benefit from a general amnesty as part of the comprehensive amnesty 

proposal realized after its defeat in the Senate that they needed to 

find another way if they are to legitimize their legal status. 

I point out that not only do we not know how many illegals are 

coming into America each year, it is imprecise as to how we fit 

these categories, how we fill them and how many have actually 

been accumulated over the last 16, thus the range of a quarter million to a half a million. We are, however, utilizing the vast majority 

of visas under current law. 

I look forward to the testimony, and I appreciate this situation 

being addressed in this hearing, Madam Chair, and I yield back. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. In the interest of proceeding to our witnesses and mindful of the schedule, 

other Members are asked to submit their written statements for 

the record within 5 legislative days. And without objection, all 

opening statements will be placed into the record. And without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a recess of the hearing 

at any time. 

Today we will hear from our witnesses from USCIS and the Department of State to help us consider the important issues before 

us. 

First, it is my pleasure to introduce Michael Aytes. In 2006, Mr. 

Aytes was appointed the Associate Director for Domestic Operations for USCIS. Since April of 2008, he has been serving as Acting Deputy Director of USCIS. He began his career in the 1970’s 

as a Federal employee where he served as an immigration inspector for the INS. 

Next, I would like to introduce Donald Neufeld. In 2007, Mr. 

Neufeld became the Deputy Associate Director for the Office of Domestic Operations at USCIS. He is currently serving as the Acting 

Associate Director for our Domestic Operations. He began his career with the Immigration and Naturalization Service in 1983. 

I’m also pleased to welcome Stephen A. ‘‘Tony’’ Edson. Mr. Edson 

joined the United States Foreign Service in 1981. He is currently 

serving as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Visa Services in 

the U.S. State Department’s Bureau of Consular Affairs. Prior to 

that he served as Managing Director of Visa Services and Senior 

Advisor FOR Strategic Problems for the Visa Services Directorate 

from 2001 to 2005. He graduated from the University of Kansas 

with a Bachelor’s in East Asian language and culture in 1980, and 

he holds a Master’s in Management from the Sasin Graduate Institute of Business Administration at Chula—I can’t pronounce—

Chulalongkorn University in Bangkok. I’m sure he could pronounce 

it better than I, and a Master’s in Science Degree from the NaVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:39 Aug 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\043008\42118.000 HJUD1 PsN: 42118
5

tional Security Strategy from the National War College in Fort 

McNair, Washington, D.C. 

And finally, we welcome Charles Oppenheim. Mr. Oppenheim 

joined the Department of State in 1978 and has worked as a consular officer in the Bureau of Consular Affairs since 1979. In 1998, 

he was appointed to the position of Chief of the Immigrant Visa 

Control and Reporting Division in the Office of Field Support and 

Liaison. He is the State Department’s expert in visa database management and statistical reporting on visa-related information. He is 

a native of Virginia and a graduate of the University of Richmond. 

Now, your written statements will be made part of the record in 

their entirety, and we would ask that you summarize your testimony in about 5 minutes. When there is a minute left, the yellow 

light will go on to give you a little warning of that. It is my understanding Mr. Aytes will testify on behalf of USCIS and Mr. Edson 

will testify on behalf of the State Department, but that all four of 

the witnesses will be available to answer Members’ questions. And 

I see that the witnesses are nodding. So, Mr. Aytes, if you could 

begin, that would be terrific. 

TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL AYTES, ACTING DEPUTY DIRECTOR, 

UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES; 

ACCOMPANIED BY DONALD NEUFELD, ACTING ASSOCIATE 

DIRECTOR, DOMESTIC OPERATIONS, UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES 

Mr. AYTES. Thank you, Chairwoman Lofgren. 

Ms. LOFGREN. If you could turn the microphone on. 

Mr. AYTES. I thought it was on. Excuse me. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Much better. Thank you. 

Mr. AYTES. I apologize. 

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the role of U.S. citizenship and immigration services in processing visas and our ongoing 

cooperative efforts with the Department of State. The Department 

of State actually administers the visa allocation program. Our role 

focuses on processing petitions for preference classification, the 

front end of the process, and applications by persons already in the 

United States to become permanent residents, referred to as adjustment of status. 

In recent years, as you have alluded to, more than 1 million people have annually become permanent residents in the United 

States, either by being issued an immigrant visa overseas by the 

State Department or granted adjustment of status by USCIS or the 

Executive Office for Immigration Review. State and USCIS must 

work closely in this respect because both organizations draw from 

the same pool of limited numbers. Close and careful coordination 

ensures that annual limitations are not exceeded and also helps us 

jointly strive to use all available visa numbers to meet demand. 

Last year, in fiscal year 2007, more than 1,052,000 people became permanent residents. Fifty-nine percent were already in the 

United States on adjusted status. 

In concert with State, USCIS has made significant changes in recent years to maximize use of the limited numbers of visas available annually. This includes using the recapture provisions that already exist by law. Changes we have made include increased staffVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:39 Aug 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\043008\42118.000 HJUD1 PsN: 42118
6

ing, enhanced analytic capacity, more detailed and strategic management of our production in close partnership with State to share 

greater information. This enhanced information exchange with 

State in particular helps us manage and they manage the visa allocation process and allows us to improve our target production to 

meet the needs for visa allocation. 

By statute, an application for adjustment of status can only be 

filed if an immigrant visa is immediately available to the applicant. 

USCIS regulations define that to be if the priority date of the underlying petition is earlier than the cut-off date on the State Department monthly visa bulletin. 

Because of these requirements, USCIS is unable to accept an application and begin the adjudication process in advance of visa 

availability the way the State accepts applications for an immigrant visa. We are also unable as a result to limit the number of 

applications accepted in a given month to the actual number of 

visas available. Rather, as many as qualified can file for adjustment of status during the window provided by the visa bulletin. 

This can lead to more applications than visas available, resulting 

in applicants being provided interim benefits such as work authorization and permission to travel until a visa number is available. 

Last July was a witness of that scenario. In some cases where 

visas are unavailable to each individual application accepted, the 

wait for some adjustment of status in the employment categories 

will be measured in years. Over the past few years, USCIS has 

built up an inventory of applications for some visa categories that 

cannot be adjudicated because the number of filings exceed the 

number of visas actually available. It has also admittedly built up 

a backlog of applications for some visa categories where competing 

adjudication priorities have prevented timely completion of cases. 

USCIS has a fee structure now and surge response plan that is 

financing the capacity enhancements necessary to eliminate the 

current adjustment of status backlog and to sustain a higher capacity for timely adjudications going forward. 

To maximize visa number usage while working office backlog, 

USCIS has adopted a production strategy that focuses on completing cases where visas are immediately available. 

Pre-adjudication includes completing all required background 

checks and resolving all eligibility problems except for visa availability. This allows immediate approval and visa number allocation 

as visas become available. 

USCIS works closely with State and more closely than ever to exchange information critical for their managing the visa allocation 

process. We are in weekly contact and share forecast and production information. We are also working together on a plan to forward all approved family-based visa petitions to the State Department to enhance their ability to accurately forecast demand for 

numbers. 

Though we still have challenges to overcome, USCIS is currently 

showing improvements as a result of our process changes. For example, as of April 25, 2008, USCIS has adjudicated over 65 percent 

of its fiscal year 2008 target for employment-based visas. With 5 

months to go in the fiscal year, this is a strong start. We plan to 

7

continue implementing process improvements and new reporting 

mechanisms to manage these important applications. 

I look forward to updating you on our continued progress and am 

pleased to answer any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Aytes follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHAEL AYTES


USCIS-1.eps
8


USCIS-2.eps
9


USCIS-3.eps
10


USCIS-4.eps
11


USCIS-5.eps
12

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you. Now I’d be pleased to hear from you, 

Mr. Edson. 

TESTIMONY OF STEPHEN A. EDSON, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE FOR VISA SERVICE, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE; ACCOMPANIED BY CHARLES 

OPPENHEIM, CHIEF, VISA CONTROL AND REPORTING DIVISION, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

Mr. EDSON. Thank you, Chairwoman Lofgren, Ranking Member 

King and distinguished Members of the Committee. It is a pleasure 

to be here this afternoon to provide an overview of the Department’s role in managing and adjudicating immigrant visas whose 

numbers are limited by law. Let me first give you a broad view of 

processing and steps the Department has undertaken, and then I’ll 

focus on the specifics of the number allocation process for immigrant visas as managed by our Immigrant Visa Control and Reporting Division. 

The Bureau of Consular Affairs has made dramatic improvements to the visa process since 9/11 and continuously evaluates 

that process to identify new ways to enhance security and increase 

efficiency. We’ve mandated the use of an electronic visa application 

form for nonimmigrant visas. We are beginning work on the immigrant visa version of the form and we have transitioned to full electronic connectivity with our department security clearance agencies. We fully transitioned from 2 to 10 fingerprints to ensure consistent screening of foreign nationals entering the United States. 

These enhancements have allowed us to improve service and security despite dramatic annual increases in the volume of visa applications. Our transaction to electronic processing also involves 

more effective use of backroom domestic operations at our National 

Visa Center in New Hampshire, where we manage cases, collect 

documents and fees from sponsors, perform initial fraud checks and 

schedule appointments for a growing number of posts. 

These strategies give consular officers overseas the ability to 

focus specifically on the task of visa adjudication that must be done 

abroad and permit them to make better decisions with the best 

possible information developed for them in advance so that interviews can be focused and targeted. 

The Department of State is responsible for the allocation of numerically limited immigrant visa numbers under the authority 

granted by Section 203 of the Immigration and Naturalization Act. 

These visa numbers are allocated based on congressionally mandated preferences that decide overall total limits for each category 

and per country limits within each category. 

The Immigrant Visa Control and Reporting Division’s main responsibility is the administration of this complex series of annual 

numerical limitations. Our goal is to have the issuance level come 

as close as possible to 100 percent of the numbers available each 

year without exceeding those limits. We also want to maintain a 

steady flow of applications throughout the year to ensure appropriate use of government resources and to provide good customer 

service to the applicants. 

Over the past 3 years, we have a proven record of using over 95 

percent of the annual worldwide numerical limit. The Department 

13

works closely with United States Citizenship and Immigration 

Service on data exchange to allow for maximum use of numbers 

under those annual limits and in a stable, predictable manner. 

This is extremely important for the employment-based categories 

where CIS currently uses approximately 90 percent of all available 

visa numbers. Section 203(g) of the INA directs the Secretary of 

State to make reasonable estimates of the anticipated number use 

in order to maximize numbers under those limits. When making 

such estimates, it is necessary to take into consideration the number of variables based on the best information which is available 

to us. Should there be a change which could not be anticipated, it 

can have an impact on number use obviously. This makes the determination of the monthly cut-off date particularly difficult at the 

end of the fiscal year since there is little, if any, time to make adjustments to stay under the 100 percent. While we always strive 

to reach that 100 percent, increasing our percentage above 95 percent is difficult as we are statutorily barred from exceeding the annual limits. 

On a given day, immigrant visas are issued in about 130 embassies and consulates abroad. Adjustments of status, which use the 

same numbers, are granted at about 90 to 100 domestic USCIS facilities. The Department of State tracks that daily number usage 

and requests from our consular sections abroad and from USCIS. 

On a monthly basis the Visa Office determines the number of visas 

that can be allocated for each visa category to each country on that 

worldwide basis. As stated previously, our goal is to come as close 

as possible without exceeding it, and we strive to increase cooperation with CIS to make our record even better. 

Again, I thank you for the opportunity to testify and am happy 

to take your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Edson follows:]

14

PREPARED STATEMENT OF STEPHEN A. ‘‘TONY’’ EDSON


State-1.eps
15


State-2.eps
16


State-3.eps
17


State-4.eps
18


State-5.eps
19


State-6.eps
20


State-7.eps
21


State-8.eps
22


State-9.eps
23


State-10.eps
24


State-11.eps
25


State-12.eps
26


State-13.eps
27


State-14.eps
28


State-15.eps
29


State-16.eps
30


State-17.eps
31


State-18.eps
32

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much. And we will have some 

questions, I’m sure. I will begin. Let me start with USCIS, because—I will start with this premise and it really is the basis for 

the bill introduced by myself and Congressman Sensenbrenner, 

which is that the Congress enacted the immigration laws and we 

put a number in there. And the expectation is that those are the 

numbers that we—in law that we would allocate and yet we have 

not. 

[The bill, H.R. 5882, follows:]

33


HR5882-1.eps
34


HR5882-2.eps
35


HR5882-3.eps
36


HR5882-4.eps
37


HR5882-5.eps
38

Ms. LOFGREN. I don’t want to just berate. I am searching for how 

we can help accomplish the goals that Congress has set into the 

law. 

I hear State Department’s technology issue. In fact, I had an opportunity to look at the London Embassy a couple of years ago on 

the new technology. It is very cool. Where are we in USCIS on the 

technology front? Is part of our problem our work-flow problem, a 

technology problem? We heard earlier in the year, in last year 

about the transformation program. We haven’t heard anything 

about it in a while. Can you tell us what role that plays and where 

the transformation program and IT is? 

Mr. AYTES. Yes, ma’am. The transformation is going through a 

procurement process right now. We anticipate awarding a contract 

to a prime vendor later this summer. We already have, using some 

existing contracts, a pilot in place that we are using to process orphaned petitions. That has proven to be fairly successful. 

You are correct. One of the issues for us is having the technology 

infrastructure that supports the production management of cases. 

But one of the things that we found in working with State over the 

last few years is that part of our focus has had to shift. Traditionally we have looked at processing cases on a first in, first out basis 

to be fair to all customers. Well, that is not the optimal model 

when it comes to trying to maximize visa issuance because the 

first—the oldest case may be for an applicant who is going to have 

to wait a far lengthier period of time before they are going to be 

able to immigrate. So now we’re moving more and more toward 

processing petitions, not just adjustment applications, but petitions 

based on anticipated shifts in priority dates from the State Department. That is what has led us to do a far better job this year with 

respect to adjustment applications and utilization of visa numbers. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Short of fully implementing the transformation 

program, what steps is the agency taking, particularly in light of 

last July’s visa bulletin dust-up to ensure that it is going to actually adjudicate sufficient cases to use all of the immigrant visa 

numbers this fiscal year? 

Mr. AYTES. That has to do with the increased coordination with 

the State Department. Where we are talking weekly about moving 

priority dates forward, that is more of a joint discussion at this 

point than it was historically. We are able to provide far more data 

to State with regards to our existing inventory so that they understand the chargeability and they can understand if they move a 

priority date forward what the anticipated yield might be in terms 

of additional applications for an immigrant visa or for adjustment 

coming forward. In those respects, I think we are making substantial progress. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Let me ask the State Department really the same 

question or a similar question. What changes in the law could we 

make that would make it easier for you to do your job and allow 

all of the visas to be allocated? 

Mr. OPPENHEIM. I think the REAL ID Act of 2001 was a very 

good step forward in that regard. That eliminated the per country 

limits if there were going to be otherwise unused numbers. Those 

per country limits in earlier years had often prevented having the 

maximum amount of numbers used. So that is a tremendous step. 

39

The contemplated bill will be the final step, I believe, and it will 

allow us instead of having to have unused numbers fall across to 

the opposite category, they can be retained for use in that category 

the following year. That is a tremendous step forward and will 

allow—if for one reason there was—we were unable to use the 

numbers this year, then we would have the following years to use 

them. 

Ms. LOFGREN. So that would give you a little leeway in your estimates? You wouldn’t have to hit perfection every——

Mr. OPPENHEIM. Exactly. It is a perfect solution. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Well, that’s good news. I think that the crossover 

of unused between family and business probably was established at 

a time assuming that there would be—the reason for the use was 

lack of demand when in fact it is lack of processing. So the whole 

assumption is incorrect and I don’t think it is working—it is not 

working at all right now is what you are saying? 

Mr. OPPENHEIM. Correct. The events have overtaken the original 

enactment of——

Ms. LOFGREN. Very good. Well, Mr. Sensenbrenner is a Member 

of the full Committee, not the Subcommittee. But I’ll make sure 

that he also knows that you’re happy with that provision of the bill. 

My time has expired. So I will turn now to Mr. King for his questions. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Madam Chair. And again, gentlemen, I appreciate your testimony. Just as I’m looking as these numbers—

and I’m going to bring some of my own numbers out in addressing 

Mr. Aytes’ testimony. My math comes out—the statutory limit in 

these categories we’re talking about is 226,000 plus 140,000. So for 

a total of 366,000 annually. If that meets your numbers. And then 

I look at the reported numbers here that for 2007 we reached the 

number of 194,900 in the family-sponsored preferences. And in the 

employment-based preferences, we reached the number of 162,176. 

So adding those together, it comes 350,076 out of the 366 available. 

Is that consistent with what you have for records—I’m watching 

Mr. Oppenheim. So perhaps I should send him the question there. 

Mr. OPPENHEIM. The family total is actually approximately 

203,000. So it was a little bit more. 

Mr. KING. So that would be another 9 to 10,000 more. Does that 

mean, then, that you have reached this limit almost perfectly, 

99.something percent of the available slots for 2007? 

Mr. OPPENHEIM. Within about—2007 we were under——

Ms. LOFGREN. Could you turn your mic——

Mr. OPPENHEIM. During the course of the last 3 years, we’ve 

done about 95 percent of limit. Last year there were approximately 

22,000 unused in the family category versus the limit. One hundred percent of the numbers available in the employment category 

were utilized last year. 

Mr. KING. But if I add these two numbers together that are in 

my chart and then add the correction in, we are up to 365,000 

total. What is your total for both categories, the family-sponsored 

and the employment-sponsored? 

Mr. OPPENHEIM. My total is approximately 202,000 on the family 

and approximately 154,000 on the employment. 

40

Mr. KING. Okay. I’m doing the math. 356 is your number. We are 

a little bit off on this. I think, though, the bottom line comes back 

and remains the same, which is as you testified, it is really not possible to reach 100 percent without taking the risk of going over the 

statutory cap. 

Mr. OPPENHEIM. Correct. 

Mr. KING. And then I thank you, Mr. Oppenheim. And I turn 

back to Mr. Aytes then. 

In the report there was, I believe referenced by Chair Lofgren in 

her opening remarks, that there was a 17 percent decrease in legal 

immigration from—in this past year. And it says—in my report it 

says due primarily to application processing issues at USCIS. What 

would that be, that 17 percent reduction that was referenced in the 

Chair’s opening statement? 

Mr. AYTES. Well, application processing issues is a very broad 

phrase. Our adjustment—our numbers in 2007 were about 17 percent lower. But that was a result of three things. First, in the last 

10 years there have only been 2 years that were higher than 2007 

and that was 2005 and 2006. The reason it dropped in 2007, the 

primary reasons, were the REAL ID legislation lifted the cap on 

asylee adjustments. That allowed us to move a backlog number of 

asylee adjustments into the production process. After the REAL ID 

Act was passed, we developed a 2-year production plan. So our production really surged in 2005 and 2006. It dropped off in 2007 as 

we brought that back into a better equilibrium. 

Mr. KING. I do understand that. In other words, you had your 

surge of applications that took place but also you had a surge of 

processing that threw the numbers a little out of balance. So it 

came back to a little more normal level for 2007. 

Mr. AYTES. Yes, sir. There was also the effect of two of the preexisting capture programs. There are basically three programs that 

allow the recapturing of unused numbers. The REAL ID Act allowed for the recapturing of numbers that were unused in 2001 

through 2004, about 50,000 employment-based numbers. 

Mr. KING. Thank you. 

Mr. AYTES. And the American Competitiveness Act of the 21st 

Century allowed us to recover unused numbers from 1999 and 

2000. That allowed us to increase production and collectively grant 

permanent residence to more individuals, and we primarily were 

able to take advantage of that in 2005 and 2006. So again that 

caused the corresponding drop-off in 2007. Those changes alone account for about 50 percent of the drop in 2007 from 2006. The remainder was that we were moving out of our backlog elimination 

program. The subsidy that the Congress had afforded us had 

ended. We were downsizing our capacity to a degree. So we were 

not processing as many cases in 2007 as we were when we were 

on a backlog elimination mode in 2006. 

Mr. KING. Thank you. And with indulgence, a couple of pieces of 

curiosity. I’d like to close fairly quickly here. 

One of them is how many were admitted to categories that do not 

have limits? We are talking about limited categories here. But 

there is also other categories where it is unlimited, especially to the 

family-sponsored immigrants. 

41

Mr. AYTES. We can get you that information. There are a broad 

number of categories from immediate relatives to refugee adjusts, 

asylee adjustments, certain other categories where there are not 

numerical limits. 

Mr. KING. May I just ask that so that we are talking about this 

within the context of the overall immigration policy. And then in 

conclusion and in following up on the Chair’s inquiry of modernization of USCIS, my question was simply going to be are these applications digitized. But I think I should get a little more precise with 

that and ask if—of all of the applications that come in and all the 

processing that you have and including the religious worker visas, 

but of all of them, is there a database that exists that I could sit 

down in a room with your data processors and start to ask analytical questions and those categories could be sorted in a fashion that 

would satisfy my curiosity or are we dealing with paper records 

that take forever from a manpower standpoint to be analyzed? 

Mr. AYTES. We are at this point dealing with very basic systems 

that give us inventory control and the ability to manage the processing of cases at a very basic level. We are working under transformation to give us that analytic capability, not only to be able to 

look at the cases in more detail, but be able to determine which 

cases need what level of attention in a far better way than we are 

able to do today. 

Mr. KING. I would just submit that from my view I would look 

forward to the kind of request of this Congress that would allow 

us to bring these records into the 21st century so that we can provide the efficiency that this government should provide. 

And I thank you all for your testimony. And, Madam Chair, I 

thank you and I yield back. 

Ms. LUFGREN. The gentleman yields. I recognize the gentleman 

from Chicago, Mr. Gutierrez. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Edson, I’d like to ask you because I have 

your bulletin here—and English is my second language, so bear 

with me. But it sets an annual minimum—you kept using the word 

‘‘limit’’—of family-sponsored preference at 226,000. And then when 

I go to Immigration Nationality Act, it says in no case shall the 

number be computed on the—be less then 226,000. So is 226 the 

maximum or a minimum? What is it, is it a floor? 

Mr. EDSON. If I could defer to my colleague, Mr. Oppenheim. 

Mr. OPPENHEIM. Yes, the 226,000 was established as a floor. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Good. It is a floor. So the next time I get in line 

at Target and it says no limit, 10, I shouldn’t feel like I should use 

the Oppenheimer rule here and say I can bring 20, right? It actually means 10. So your whole argument about, well, we don’t want 

to exceed, you actually don’t want to exceed the minimum, the 

floor. So there really is no limit. It says shall not exceed. I’m reading this and you said it is a floor, just using your word. You said 

it is a floor—shall not exceed the annual minimum family-based 

preference of 226. And it says minimum, and then the statute, it 

says shall not exceed. 

Mr. OPPENHEIM. The minimum floor is the limit for the year, 

though, that we are not allowed to exceed. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Really? Where is that in the statute? I just read 

you the statute. 

42

Mr. OPPENHEIM. Well, the computation—the way the annual 

limit is determined, we start out with a maximum level of 480,000 

visas. From that we subtract the amount of immediate relatives 

who were processed the preceding year. Then we add back in any 

potential unused employment numbers. Whatever that result is 

would be the annual limit. If it were 250——

Mr. GUTIERREZ. So there is another part of the statute? 

Mr. OPPENHEIM. Yes. If that resulted in 250,000, that would be 

the family limit. But if the total was 100——

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Thank you. It is just I read your bulletin. I think 

you might want to add that to your bulletin. Because if I read the 

bulletin, it says minimum. And as I read the statute, it says shall 

not exceed. So when I look at those two parts of it, obviously not 

understanding your comprehensive understanding of the way it 

works, that that would be it. So if we went back—and trying to respond to the minority here—we went back and recaptured all of 

these family-based visas and went back to 1992, as the 

gentlelady—chairwoman proposes to do, we would recapture how 

many? 

Mr. OPPENHEIM. Approximately 95,000, which have not already 

been recaptured in one form or another. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Okay. So 95,000 would reduce the waiting limit 

for someone waiting for their brother in the Philippines from 21 

years to 20 years? 

Mr. OPPENHEIM. Potentially. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. You guys issue the bulletins. 

Mr. OPPENHEIM. Correct. So——

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Okay. Let me just ask you. What is the max you 

know of, family reunification under these visas, for a brother? I’m 

not—you know, for a brother, immediate family member. What is 

the maximum waiting period from any country? 

Mr. OPPENHEIM. For the Philippines it would be March 8, 1986. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Okay. So I’m not off base here. It is 22 years. 

So if we recaptured all of these visas, maybe we would cut 6 

months off of that wait for that brother? So instead of him being—

if he is 21, 43 years, he would get here when he was 421⁄2 years. 

And whoever is applying for them, if they were 30, he would only 

be like 50 some years when he finally got his brother here. I just 

want to put this in some context since we heard about all these 

people coming and all this surge to America and how this might 

impact the surge. Indeed, is it not true that these visas for the 

most part—I mean, in the family we are talking about a husband, 

a wife, right, for permanent residence? Just stop me when I name 

a person that isn’t included in here. We’re talking about children, 

right, children. And we are talking about brothers and sisters. Not 

talking about aunts and uncles and cousins, are we? Those aren’t 

included, right? It has just got to be in the immediate family. Well, 

it seems to me to be the great American tradition, according to my 

colleagues on the other side, about family values and bringing families together. I would think they would be cheering on and applauding us as we wish to bring a husband and a wife, brothers 

together, husbands and wives and children together. 

So I just wanted to kind of put in some kind of context the kind 

of surge language that we heard earlier. And hopefully on the secVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:39 Aug 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\043008\42118.000 HJUD1 PsN: 42118
43

ond turn I will have some more questions if the gentlelady gives 

me a second chance. I’d like to ask you a few more questions. 

Thank you so much for your testimony. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I think if we can stay—it has been less than an 

hour—we might do a second round of questions since we have got 

you here and this is a technical issue, but very intensely interesting to all of us. 

I’m just looking at the visa bulletin. I don’t know Mr. 

Oppenheim, but your name is famous when it comes to the art of 

predicting these visas. For example, if you are a member of the 

profession holding an advanced degree or a person of exceptional 

ability and that has been already—you’ve been judged that person 

of exceptional ability with advanced degree but you were born in 

China, you can’t get a visa; even though the Department of Labor 

has already said you’ve been offered a job that there is no American available to fill, only those that filed in 2004 are getting their 

visas today. And as Mr. Gutierrez has mentioned, if you are the 

husband or wife of a lawful permanent resident of the United 

States, somebody who played by all the rules and you were—your 

spouse was born, you know, in the Philippines, you’re only getting 

your visa this month if you filed in June of 2003. So we are keeping 

husbands and wives who are following the rules apart for a long 

time. 

Is there any way to estimate—I don’t know if you had a chance 

to take a look at the bill that Mr. Sensenbrenner and I introduced—what kind of relief would be given in the two cases I have 

outlined? 

Mr. OPPENHEIM. The recapture would—at this point, it would be 

approximately 225,000 numbers combined, both family and employment. It would provide a fair amount of relief in the employment. 

It would be—we would be able to advance, for example, the China 

and India cut-offs in the second preference. Many of the employment categories are already current. So it would provide some relief, not a lot. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Right. What about the husbands and wives who 

are separated? 

Mr. OPPENHEIM. The husbands and wives, the 93,000 we would 

recapture would be—about 50 percent of those would potentially go 

to the husbands and wives based on the calculations, the way the 

annual limits are determined. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Okay. So it is not going to be immediate, but 

we——

Mr. OPPENHEIM. It would be a first step. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The first step to healing the pain. One of the 

things that we used to have was a temporary visa so that spouses 

who were separated wouldn’t have to be apart. And that may be 

something we are going to want to take a look at if we proceed, 

if this doesn’t really solve—you know, the idea that a husband and 

a wife—when you take your marriage vows you mean it and then 

you have to live apart for half a decade. That just doesn’t seem 

really like the American way to me. So in addition to this, maybe 

we need to explore other possibilities. I’m wondering—and maybe 

this isn’t a fair question. But the Department of State’s technology 

seems to work fairly efficiently. And you have access to the dataVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:39 Aug 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\043008\42118.000 HJUD1 PsN: 42118
44

bases, you can pull up the pictures and the biometrics and your 

network. One of the questions I have had is whether we could simply expand that system that already exists to the Department of 

Homeland Security and have one system rather than two competing systems. 

Do you think, either of you, whether that would be viable? What 

is the problem with that, if there is a problem? 

Mr. AYTES. If I may. Both of those systems are somewhat tailored. We are working to try to share data more effectively through 

a data share initiative and we are now importing information from 

their systems such as biometrics, photographs and identity information so that we can verify identity at an early step in the process before we are issuing documentation. We are making steps in 

that respect. I think it would be very difficult for us to completely 

use one system to serve all the varying purposes and the services 

that we provide. 

Mr. EDSON. We do coordinate very closely on our automation 

needs on information sharing and data, particularly at a technical 

level database interoperability. One of the real lessons we learned 

after 9/11 was the importance of focusing on making our database 

systems interoperable rather than talking about monolithic unified 

systems. We have—in the State Department we have a single database, a corporate database structure and then use applications that 

are tailored to the specific process which would be different than 

the CIS process to feed back into that back end and we do share 

a common vision of the end of the transformation process being a 

completely sort of transparent view into each other’s data sets. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Let me just have a final question. Has the Department of State been involved in the development of the transformation plan? 

Mr. EDSON. Certainly. I actually sit on the—I forgot what it is 

called—the Transformation Steering Committee, I think. But, yes, 

we’ve been consulted all along. 

Ms. LOFGREN. We may want to have a hearing on the whole computer issue at some future date, I think. We’ll get really nerdy on 

you and take a look at it. 

So I will defer to Mr. Lungren for his questions now. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I’m sorry I 

was late. I was greeting constituents on the east steps of the Capital, young people, and talking to them about this great institution 

we have here. So I’m sorry I have missed most of the testimony. 

But this is just a general question I have, and any one of the witnesses or all of the witnesses can answer. 

I first started on Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Immigration in 1979, served on it for 8 years, left 2 years later, came 

back here after a 16-year respite in California, got back on the Immigration Subcommittee. And some of the issues just remain as 

they were back in 1979 and through the ’80’s. And one of the 

things that really concerns me is that while we struggle with the 

issue of illegal immigration, we have this other body called legal 

immigration. We have people who follow the rules and yet we seem 

to have backlogs and backlogs and backlogs and we seem to take 

time and time and time. And I realize you’ve been here and presented reasons why and so forth. 

45

So let me just ask two questions. 

Number one, is there any suggestion that the reason we continue 

to have backlogs and the reason we can’t move faster because of 

the heightened concern after 9/11, number one? 

And, number two, do any or all of you understand the frustration 

that is out there among those of us in Congress who want to have 

a system that works and who find it difficult to defend a system 

when people say, folks who want to come here illegally have, until 

recent times, had a fairly easy job of getting over here, but folks 

who follow the law and do everything they are supposed to wait for 

the bureaucracy to work for seemingly unacceptable periods of 

time? 

Do you understand that? Is that totally outside the scope of reason? And if you understand it, how do we in Congress work with 

you to get the sense of urgency to get that side of the immigration 

house working? 

Mr. AYTES. If I may, certainly we do understand it. We get the 

same complaints and concerns that you all hear each day. And we 

have to deal with the issues that it creates locally, just as you do. 

There are really two kinds of backlogs, though, that we need to 

speak of. Certainly we have processing backlogs at times. We had 

a backlog reduction effort over 5 years to try and eliminate some 

of those issues, with some success. We are working through a surge 

of applications right now. It is our responsibility to process those 

cases timely and to provide people the services that they have applied for and are eligible for. We understand that responsibility. 

But there is a second backlog that we are also speaking of here. 

The law sets certain numerical limits on how many people may immigrate to the United States in many of these categories annually. 

We may approve that petition, and that person may by law then 

still have to wait because demand is so far greater than the available supply of visa numbers that the person is simply—it is oversubscribed. It is like a movie show that there are far more people 

who want to get into the movie than there are available seats, and 

people have to wait outside the movie theater for the next show. 

Well, we do that on a massive scale. 

Some of the numbers that you have cited with people who have 

are waiting for 20 years or more to immigrate, that is not because 

of we have a petition or because they have an application for permanent residence. It is because they are so far back in that queue 

of people waiting to immigrate because there is a mismatch between the eligibility category of how many people can qualify to get 

in line versus the number of people who are allowed to immigrate 

in those categories each year. 

And we feel that pain, as well, because it is hard for people to 

understand two different kinds of backlogs. And if you have a relative who is waiting that long, you are just as likely to come to either of our agencies to complain about our backlog and our inability to process that case and get your relative here as you are to understand that there is a completely different process. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Okay. The second type of backlog is actually on 

Congress, meaning that we make decisions as to how many numbers you can have in the certain categories. And I understand that. 

And that is a judgment we make. 

46

With respect to the processing side of it—and you say that you 

have worked on improving the surge and so forth—where are we 

on that right now? What would you say in terms of how the institution stands up in getting people through that, as opposed to where 

it was 5 years ago? And where could we expect to be in a couple 

years? 

Mr. AYTES. Relative to 5 years ago, we are far, far better off than 

we were. 

Relative to where we were a year ago this time, before the surge 

in applications that we saw as a result of interest in people filing 

early before our fee changed, before the adjustment opportunity 

that people had, 300,000 people, to apply for permanent residence 

based on the Visa Bulletin, before the huge interest in naturalization that we saw last summer, we are not where we were a year 

ago. 

But we have a plan with this fee rule, and we are making 

progress. We have increased our goals, for example, in naturalization. We are going to complete 36 percent more cases than last year 

and still maintain our commitment to quality in adjudicating each 

and every one of those applications. 

Under this plan—and we are on target—within 2 years, we will 

not only be back where we were before the surge, we will be meeting the service levels that we committed ourselves to when we announced those fee changes. 

Mr. LUNGREN. I thank the Chair. 

I would just say that the good news is people still want to come 

to this country in overwhelming numbers. The bad news is it is always a challenge for us to deal with that. And I hope we will never 

be in a position where people don’t want to come to this country. 

Thank you. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you. 

Mr. Gutierrez is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Thank you. 

First of all, I want to thank all of you for your work and your 

public service. I didn’t say that the first time around. I really mean 

that, because my staff is always calling you folks, because we have 

hundreds of people that stream into our office, literally hundreds, 

every week, and most of their questions are directed either to the 

Visa Bulletins, which is pretty easy—we give them an answer, we 

tell them where they are in the queue—or you have the application 

and we are trying to get that application. 

And the citizenship stuff is working, at least in Chicago, is working very well, and people are—the citizenship applications—we 

have noticed people more quickly becoming citizens and getting 

through the process. So I want to thank you about that. 

I know we have to talk about nationally, too. But I am excited 

about meeting the 1 million citizenship goal in this year. So I think 

that that is a really exciting prospect. 

And we are going to do everything we can to keep you busy and 

keep all those people employed and have another 8 million to 9 million permanent residents out there that we want to keep coming 

your way. 

I did want to ask, because, as I look at this—and without getting 

into a conspiracy of Republicans and Democrats—but it seems that, 

47

as I look back to 1992 through the current year, that there is a difference in the way the visas were allocated, in terms of reaching 

the maximum number. 

Under Clinton, for example, from 1993 through 2000, now throw 

in 2001, you had difficulty reaching the number of employmentbased visa, much more difficult problem reaching those than you 

did reaching families. I mean, there were some years under the 

Clinton administration it was zero, literally zero, in families. 

Then, when we got the Bush administration in, and you see 

President Bush came in in 2001, then it was zero, zero, zero, zero, 

zero, except for 2003, it has been zero in the employment. Just the 

opposite. So you guys have done a stellar job on employment, but 

then we got increases in families. 

Is there any reason other than someone would think we were 

pro-business and get the business ones done and maybe family took 

a backseat, since it is zero for 80 percent of the years of the Bush 

administration on and obviously an increase in family? 

Mr. EDSON. Thank you for the question. One of the things we 

haven’t spoken about yet is demand by immigrants that come to 

the United States. 

In the 1990’s until the dot-com boom, thereabouts, the numbers 

were available. The Visa Bulletin each month, month after month, 

said that the number was current. Anybody who wanted an employment-based visa could get one, and there wasn’t the demand. 

I think that is a large part of what you are seeing there is that 

fact. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. So the reason there were so many unfilled is 

there was a lack of demand for them? 

Mr. EDSON. Right. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. And there was an increase of demand when 

Bush became the President of the United States? 

Mr. EDSON. There was an increase in demand in the late 1990’s. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. After year 2000, there was an increase in demand for worker-related petitions right? 

Mr. EDSON. Right. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. And, therefore, you easily reached zero, because 

you don’t have—you have a full demand. 

Mr. EDSON. Right. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Because Mr. Aytes told us it was a question of 

demand was greater than supply. So here we have a demand-andsupply issue. 

Mr. EDSON. Right. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. That clarifies it. 

I won’t give a speech or a sermon or anything about a conspiracy 

trying to keep families separated. It is just a logical thing about 

how it works in the supply and demand. That sounds very, very 

logical. 

Then let me ask you, if you could, just so that I understand it, 

since I explained to you earlier, as I read it, it said ‘‘no less than 

226,’’ and, you know, minimum. And then Mr. Oppenheim used—

I think, take that word back; it was a floor for family visas. 

If you could reconcile, not right now, but reconcile in writing and 

say, ‘‘Hey, Congressman, you got that part right, but here is the 

part you forgot,’’ so that I could better explain it to other people 

48

in the future so that we won’t have another conspiracy that you 

guys aren’t just meeting the minimum, but actually the maximum, 

because I think it is important. 

So, Mr. Oppenheim, because I know you have the numbers, so 

I am a permanent resident. I am from Mexico. I apply for my wife. 

How many years do I have to wait for my wife to get a Visa to 

come to the United States? I’m a permanent resident. 

Mr. OPPENHEIM. Probably be 7 to——

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Okay. And if we recaptured all those family reunification visas that we are talking about in this legislation, the 

95,000, and half of them went to spouses, that reduction would be 

from 7 to what? How many years would I have to wait for my wife? 

Mr. OPPENHEIM. Maybe 6. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Maybe 6. Good. So this is really not going to 

cause a wave of people, and this is really about husbands and 

wives, people who are here legally in the United States—you guys 

don’t do any undocumented workers. You don’t have a bulletin, because if you do, I want it, so I can take it back to Chicago. I am 

sure people would be happy to see it. 

You are talking about legal, permanent residents and citizens to 

the United States. That is what you issue Visa Bulletins for. And 

those are the only things Mr. Aytes tries, at least to the best of his 

ability, to process in his agency. 

Mr. AYTES. Yes. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Although I am happy the FBI lost that case, I 

have to tell you quickly, because I think they weren’t doing their 

job. 

So when people say ‘‘without numerical limits,’’ we are not talking about—we are talking about those without numerical limits are 

American citizens, right? That is without numerical limits. I just 

want the other side to understand when they use the words, ‘‘without numerical limit,’’ they are talking about the ability of American 

citizens. 

And I don’t think that Congress, when it enacted the legislation, 

did not contemplate that an American citizen should not be able to 

bring his wife to America or minor children, minor children, not 

married minor children, immediately to America. 

So I thank you for your testimony. 

I thank the gentlelady and the Chairwoman of the Committee for 

her work on this. We kind of put this in the STRIVE Act, but we 

didn’t go all the way back to 1992. We kind of captured 5 years and 

then recaptured them, because we thought it was important. I like 

this little piecemeal kind of reform of immigration. 

I thank the gentlelady, and I thank her for her time. Thank you. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentleman yields back. 

And I would recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gohmert. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I do thank you for 

having this hearing. This is exactly what I was hoping the kind of 

thing we would have with you as Chair, and I appreciate it very 

much. 

And I missed a good portion of the testimony; I will be getting 

that. But there are some things that have come up, just in a personal situation, where we had a plant that was going to open in 

Harrison County, and a Belgian company was going to open it. 

49

They were going to hire people in east Texas that needed the jobs. 

It was going to be a good thing. 

The only thing they were asking was that we would like the 

manager of the plant to be from Belgium, where the home company 

was. And they had extreme difficulty in getting a visa approved. I 

said, ‘‘Well, have your attorney that is working on it call me.’’ From 

New York, he did and said, ‘‘Well, we have been waiting forever. 

Then we are told, ‘Well, gee, if you pay a thousand-dollar fee, we 

will be able to expedite it.’ ’’ So they pay the thousand-dollar fee, 

and then, months later, they said, ‘‘Where is the expedition?’’ They 

said, ‘‘Well, they did expedite it through one phase, but if you 

would like it through the next phase, another$1,000 will get that 

moving too.’’

And so I wasn’t familiar with the more than one expedition fee. 

I don’t know if he got bad information or what. 

But then we’ve had the ombudsman report that indicates that even though President Bush had said he wanted to dedicate $100 

million to speeding up the process of moving these visas through, 

that, according to the ombudsman report, Immigration Service was 

able to generate $400 million by slowing it down, creating additional fees. 

And so, according to that report, it looked like there was more 

incentive to continue to slow things down and have more money 

coming into play with than to take $100 million the President offered to speed up the process. 

So I would be curious to hear your responses on those two issues. 

Mr. AYTES. First, I would enjoy the opportunity to take a personal look at that case and see what happened, if you could give 

us the specifics. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Sure. 

Mr. AYTES. Second, we understood people’s perception that, the 

way the fees were previously structured, that there might be a 

sense that we would gain something by being——

Mr. GOHMERT. But you understand, once the ombudsman report 

came out, it wasn’t just a perception. We had a graph that was 

more than a perception. It showed, here is the money coming in. 

Mr. AYTES. That is the reason why we specifically changed the 

fee rule last year. If we delay on processing a case, because of a 

capacity issue, because of an eligibility issue, and we are not able 

to make a decision in time, an applicant for a permanent residence 

will pay no additional fees. Any additional cost for us to process 

continued interim benefits, like employment authorization or travel 

authorization, will be borne by USCIS. 

We wanted to change that perception. We wanted to change that 

paradigm, and that new fee rule made that change. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you. 

‘‘Paradigm,’’ that is 20 cents, isn’t it? [Laughter.] 

I am just kidding. Yeah, that is Texas humor. 

One of the things that I heard from one extremely large and frustrated employer, who was trying to get enough workers to make a 

go of things, said, getting a visa takes so long through CIS—and, 

you know, people get to be successful businessmen, often, by thinking outside the box. He said, ‘‘Look, the Department of Labor does 

things quickly and efficiently. What if we get the Department of 

50

Labor to help on these things, where maybe it is an H-1B or a visa 

where we are showing, as employers, they have a job, that we have 

not been able to find a U.S. citizen to take the job, work through 

the Department of Labor to somehow speed it up?’’

So my question to each of you, anybody that cares to address it, 

any other common-sense kind of changes that could be made to the 

law that we could get through? And I know, Chair Lofgren, Lungren, all these folks here would love to participate in any kind of 

changes that we could agree on on a bipartisan basis to move 

things more quickly. 

We have some that have been proposed. Some we may not agree 

on, some—but have you got anything you can leave us with that 

may be additional, small, common-sense changes to move things 

along? Even if it is something like working with the Department 

of Labor on some part. 

Mr. AYTES. Well, thank you. We will have to get back to you on 

that. We don’t have a ready list. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Is it going to take as long to get back with us as 

it would to get a visa for your wife? 

Mr. LUNGREN. You need a thousand bucks. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Oh, okay. If I give you a thousand bucks, would 

you get back with us a little quicker? 

Anyway, I am sorry——

Mr. GALLEGLY. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. GOHMERT. Yes. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. I have listened to the process of all these thousand-dollar payments and so on and so forth. I have been dealing 

with INS for the 22 years I have been here, and I would just like 

to make an observation. 

If INS was a public company, I would certainly not recommend 

to my friends to invest a lot of money in it. I don’t think it is profitmaking. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Yeah. That is true. Reclaiming my time. 

I am sorry. I will not interrupt, but I would be curious about 

your comments. 

Mr. AYTES. We do have a lot of challenges. For example, it was 

H-1B season, beginning of April. We opened the filing window for 

5 days. We accepted 163,000 applications for 65,000 available visas 

and 20,000 available under the Master’s Cap. We have to sort 

through those. We have completed that process. We have run that 

lottery. We are processing the premium cases timely. And premium 

doesn’t get you any better opportunity, with respect to the lottery. 

But after we identify that the case is a winner of the lottery, we 

are able to process it quickly. 

We are trying to process all the remaining H-1B cases within a 

60-day time frame after we data-enter those cases. We understand 

that people expect a certain level of service from us, and they expect us to be able to tell them up front, before they choose to file, 

how long it is going to take. 

I think we’ve started to get better information out about our 

processing times and about our goals. But I do admit that we have 

a long way to go. 

We are making some progress. That backlog of applications that 

we started to receive as a result of the surge of volume that we reVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:39 Aug 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\043008\42118.000 HJUD1 PsN: 42118
51

ceived last summer, we are starting to work through that significantly. 

We are going to meet the processing goals that we have committed ourselves to over a 2-year span. It will be later than we 

hoped in the fee rule, but that was before we saw this surge of applications. 

And we do believe we will be able to offer far more regular service to each individual customer, each applicant, each company that 

is filing a petition, as we reach that goal. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Any other comments, suggestions? 

I know you said you need to get back with us. I hope you will. 

We are open to proposals. 

And I appreciate the Chair’s indulgence. 

If I could just have this final comment, you know, in talking to 

people from other countries and as we travel around and visit with 

different groups, and some of them are just folks on the street, not 

other governmental officials, we have so much pride in this great 

country, I think it is the best country in the world, but, to some 

people, their only exposure to this country is you, in CIS. 

And when they say, you know, ‘‘We dealt with the United States, 

and we found the most backward, third-world countries are easier 

to deal with than your country,’’ it kind of hurts. You are the image 

that so many people around the world have of the United States, 

and I appreciate all the efforts you can make to help that be a good 

image. 

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentleman yields back. 

The Ranking Member is recognized. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Mr. Aytes, I have listened to this discussion here, and I am looking forward to further exploring the modernization and digitation 

of records. 

But I also have another curiosity. And as I read some news reports from around the country and pick up on the grapevine of 

what is flowing and what is going and what people have for motivations, the question occurs to me that there have been those who 

have advocated for expediting these applications in a fashion inconsistent with the need to provide for our national security and the 

background checks. 

My question is going to include LPR applications, as well as naturalization. And I ask you if you are aware of or have you been appreciate by any Members of Congress, including the House and the 

Senate, to expedite these applications, either LPRs or naturalization, by waiving background checks or been pressured to reduce the 

amount of due diligence that is done with background checks in 

order to get us through this group that we have now and get us 

on the other side and get back caught back up again. 

Has any of that taken place? 

Mr. AYTES. I think there is been a general interest in hoping that 

we will be able to do more, but do it well and do it correctly. 

We do have certain expedite programs—premium processing, for 

example. We do expedite military naturalizations wherever possible. 

52

I am not aware of any direct contact encouraging us to consider 

waiving background checks, consider making changes that would 

mitigate the quality of the adjudication, the decision that we make. 

Mr. KING. And I appreciate that testimony into the record. If 

there were evidence to the contrary or if something like that happened in the future, how would you deal with that? 

Mr. AYTES. I think it would depend on the situation as it arose. 

We are going to maintain the integrity of our process, sir, first and 

foremost. And we will deal with whatever suggestions with regards 

to process changes, whether they be legislative, regulatory or procedural, as they come. But we are committed to making a right decision on each application, first and foremost. 

Mr. KING. If there were evidence to the contrary or an incident 

that could be brought to light that perhaps has taken place or 

might take place in the future, your statement to this Committee 

is that you will maintain the standards of integrity in background 

checks that is consistent with what has been aspired to in the past 

and consistent with statute? 

Mr. AYTES. We will be maintaining procedures that are consistent with statute and that ensure the quality of the adjudication. 

It does not mean that we are not open to making changes that 

don’t affect quality. 

Mr. KING. And if you were, if there were a backlog in background 

checks with LPR applications, then that is simply—would you then 

expedite any of those applications, or are you compelled then to 

wait until you get the background checks done? 

Mr. AYTES. You may be referencing a February memorandum 

that we put in place——

Mr. KING. Perhaps. 

Mr. AYTES [continuing]. That allowed us to—we instructed our 

field offices to move forward with adjustment cases where we had 

not gotten the final result of the FBI name check. 

We did that to come into a parallel process that our sister agency, ICE, has followed for years, given the fact that we have the opportunity to remove those people if any information, derogatory information, comes forward. 

Mr. KING. If you can find them. 

Mr. AYTES. Well, the fact that we are allowing these people to 

remain in the United States while their application is pending with 

literally all the same privileges of travel and employment that they 

would have if we granted their permanent residence. 

Mr. KING. And would you be more concerned if that were a naturalization process as opposed to an LPR application? 

Mr. AYTES. Absolutely, because it is so much more difficult to 

take naturalization away than it is to take permanent residence 

away in removal proceedings. That is specifically why we did not 

include naturalization in that instruction. 

Mr. KING. I thank you, Mr. Aytes. And I appreciate that being 

in the record. 

And, Madam Chair, I appreciate a second round. I yield back the 

balance of my time. 

Ms. LOFGREN. That is fine. 

Let me just ask two remaining questions, and they are really, I 

guess, for you, Mr. Oppenheim, or Mr. Edson. 

53

I think there are only two former immigration lawyers in the 

United States House of Representatives, myself and Mr. Goodlatte. 

And we don’t agree very often on immigration issues, but one thing 

we did agree on had to do with the per-country limitation. 

We put a bill into the hopper earlier this week to eliminate the 

per-country limitation on the employment side and to ease it on the 

family side and move it up to 10 percent instead of 7 percent. 

And the question is, if that is enacted, is that going to be hard 

to administer, from your point of view, or not a problem to administer? 

Mr. OPPENHEIM. From a numeric standpoint, no, it would not be 

difficult to administer. The problem we would see potentially overseas and with the service is the surge of applicants. These would 

be resource implications. 

Mr. EDSON. Just to follow up on that, given particularly China 

and India, where so much of this work is done and where our facilities are already operating at full capacity, that would raise an administrative issue of catching up with the ability to process timely. 

Ms. LOFGREN. It is for employment, not for the—now, let me ask, 

and this is something I have always wondered, if you take a look 

at brothers and sisters, I mean, the most backlogged is 4th from 

the Philippines. People who filed March 8th of 1986 are getting 

their visas today. 

And I have often wondered, I’ll bet you there are people there 

who have died, I mean, it is so long, or who have changed their 

minds. I mean, maybe they filed when they were 20, and now they 

are 45, and they don’t want to leave anymore. 

Do we have any way of knowing how many people are queued 

up in these very old categories? 

Mr. OPPENHEIM. Since you mentioned the Philippines 4th, there 

are over 150,000 Philippines 4th preference applicants that have 

registered abroad, versus a limit annually of approximately 4,500. 

Ms. LOFGREN. And do they keep their status? 

Mr. OPPENHEIM. They keep it alive, yes. 

Now, as you mentioned, it is hard to verify. That is one of the 

variables which I have to take into consideration: How many people will actually appear for their interview, assuming, you know, 

that they are still out there. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Well, at this point, we have run out of questions, 

run out of time. 

We will keep the hearing record open for 5 legislative days, and 

if Members have additional questions, we will forward them to you. 

We ask, in that case, that you answer them as promptly as possible 

so they can be incorporated into the hearing record. 

And, with that, thanks to all who participated. And this hearing 

is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(55)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ZOE LOFGREN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND CHAIRWOMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON

IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, REFUGEES, BORDER SECURITY, AND INTERNATIONAL

LAW

I would like to welcome everyone to our hearing to examine the consistent failure 

by our immigration agencies to issue all the family- and employment-based immigrant visas authorized by law each year, despite the ongoing demand for such visas. 

I find it ironic that in a hearing to examine why agencies cannot issue visas on 

time each year that we also did not timely receive the testimony from the agencies 

before us today. We only received the Department of State (DOS) testimony at 5:07 

p.m. last night and the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) 

testimony at 6:24 p.m. last night, with a revised testimony at 9:08 a.m. this morning. I would hope this does not continue in the future when we invite you to testify 

before us again. 

There are a limited number of visas available each year to immigrate to the 

United States, a floor of 226,000 preference visas per year for family based immigrants and 140,000 per year for employment based immigrants. 

Each year, the backlog of people waiting to immigrate legally to the United States 

grows larger. Approximately four million family-based immigrants are believed be 

caught in the legal immigration backlog today, while another 400,000–500,000 are 

believed to be caught in the employment based backlog. 

Despite these growing backlogs, the USCIS and DOS regularly fail to issue the 

legally authorized number of immigrant visas each year. They have only met or exceeded the floor of family preference visas in 5 out of 16 years and only 7 out of 

16 years for employment based visas since 1992. 

Most recently, the DHS Office of Immigration Statistics observed in its Annual 

Flow Report for U.S. Legal Permanent Residents that legal immigration decreased 

by 17% in 2007 ‘‘due primarily to application processing issues at USCIS.’’

To date, there has been little public examination of the reasons for the ongoing 

failure to issue the legally authorized number of immigrant visas each year when 

there is clear demand by qualified applicants for these visas. 

The only recent examination of this problem is by the USCIS Ombudsman in its 

2007 annual report which found that immigrant visas have gone unused due to:

• gaps in USCIS’ accounting of cases;

• USCIS not processing enough pending applications in a timely manner; and,

• The imprecise art of predicting workflows and demand surges at the three 

federal agencies that each plays a role in adjudicating applications, DOS, 

USCIS, and the Department of Labor (DOL).

My colleague, the former Chairman of the Judiciary Committee Jim Sensenbrenner, and I have developed a proposed legislative fix to not only recapture these 

unused visas, but also to reform the process that forces us to lose the visas for future use. 

I look forward to the testimony today to help us better understand the problems 

that face the agencies charged with issuing visas so that we may not only address 

the problems with an appropriate administrative solution, but also determine 

whether our proposed legislative fix is the right legislative tool to prevent the loss 

of visas in the future. 

f56

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOHN CONYERS, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, AND CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON THE

JUDICIARY

As we have learned over the last year, immigration law is an area with a lot of 

ambiguity and mathematical complexity. Today, however, we are confronting at 

least one unassailable fact:

Over the past 16 years, the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of State have failed to issue even the bare minimum numbers of family 

and employment-based immigration visas that are required by law.

This failure has happened even as U.S. Citizens, Lawful Permanent Residents, 

and American employers are forced to wait years - and even decades - for their 

families and employees who are qualified and eligible to immigrate to the U.S.

We have been having immigration hearings throughout the 110th Congress. Everyone comes before this Committee and says how much they want legal immigration. But the backlog of people waiting to immigrate legally to the United States 

grows longer and larger each year. 

Families are separated, making illegal immigration that much more tempting. 

The best and the brightest give up and go to countries that want to compete with 

the United States for scientific and engineering talent. 

The numbers are mind-boggling:

Four million family-based immigrants in the backlog.

Up to 500,000 employment-based immigrants in the backlog.

But the State Department and Department of Homeland Security don’t even issue 

the full number authorized each year! 

I will be interested in hearing the reasons for these shortfalls. 

I will be even more interested in hearing what the Administration proposes to do 

to close these gaps. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE

fSHEILA JACKSON LEE, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS, AND MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMI- GRATION, CITIZENSHIP, REFUGEES, BORDER SECURITY, AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

Chairwoman, Lofgren, and ranking member King, thank you for convening today’s 

very important hearing on ‘‘Wasted Visas, Growing Backlogs’’ In this hearing, we 

will examine USCIS and the Department of State’s consistent failure to issue the 

numbers of family- and employment-based immigrant visas authorized under the 

law each year, despite the ongoing and ever increasing demand for such visas. 

There are finite numbers of visas available each year for individuals to immigrate 

to the United States. The backlog of people waiting to immigrate legally to the 

United States is growing longer each year. USCIS and State have failed to issue 

the number of immigrant visas required by law each year. This hearing will investigate the reasons for these failures and will explore possible administrative and legislative solutions to address this problem. 

Principally, there are two ways to immigrate to the United States, through employment or through family. Parents, spouses, and minor children of U.S. citizens 

can immigrate to the U.S. without numerical limitation. However, other close family 

members of U.S. citizens and Legal permanent residents must wait from 2 to 22 

years to legally immigrate. 

The current law requires a floor of 226, 000 immigrant visas per year to family 

members. Current law authorizes a minimum of 140,000 visas per year based upon 

employment in the United States. All but 5,000 of such employment based immigrant visas are awarded to highly skilled persons. USCIS and State do not issue 

the visas. There are increasing numbers in the employment backlog from persons 

petitioning from India and the People’s Republic of China. There are 400,000 to 

500,000 persons seeking employment based visas that are caught in the backlog. 

Despite the backlog, USCIS and State have failed to meet the floor for these visas. 

They have failed to meet or exceed the floor of 226,000 family preference visas in 

5 out of 16 years since 1992. They have failed to meet the floor of 140,000 employment preference visas in 7 out of 16 years since 1992. There has been no accounting 

or response from these agencies as to why these visas are not being used. The purpose of this hearing is to question these agencies and find out why the floor is not 

being met and why these visas are being wasted. 

57

Ms. Lofgren, has introduced H.R. 5882, to recapture employment-based immigrant 

visas lost to bureaucratic delays and to prevent losses of family and employment 

based immigrant visas in the future. H.R. 5882 takes the unused visas from 1992 

through 2007 and restores them to employment and family preference floors. Thus, 

it makes more visas available for these two categories and uses the unused visas 

from a previous fiscal year in the calculation for the number of visas in the following 

year. 

While H.R. 5882 does a good job of providing a mathematical formula to recapture 

the lost visas and make that the pool of visas stays large for both family and employment based visas, the bill does nothing to ensure that USCIS or State actually 

award the visas. It is this latter aspect that we need to address. I am hopeful that 

our witness will shed some light on this. I welcome them and look forward to their 

testimony. 

Thank you, I yield the balance of my time. 

f

58

RESPONSES TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS FROM MICHAEL AYTES, ACTING DEPUTY

DIRECTOR, UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES


USCISA-1.eps
59


USCISA-2.eps
60


USCISA-3.eps
61


USCISA-4.eps
62


USCISA-5.eps
63


USCISA-6.eps
64


USCISA-7.eps
65


USCISA-8.eps
66


USCISA-9.eps
67


USCISB-1.eps
68


USCISB-2.eps
69


USCISB-3.eps
70


USCISB-4.eps
71


USCISB-5.eps
72


USCISB-6.eps
73


USCISB-7.eps
74


USCISB-8.eps
75


USCISB-9.eps
76


USCISB-10.eps
77


USCISB-11.eps
78


USCISB-12.eps
79


USCISB-13.eps
80


USCISB-14.eps
81


USCISB-15.eps
82


USCISB-16.eps
83


USCISB-17.eps
84


USCISB-18.eps
85


USCISB-19.eps
86


USCISB-20.eps
87


USCISB-21.eps
88


USCISB-22.eps
89


USCISB-23.eps
90


USCISB-24.eps
91


USCISB-25.eps
92


USCISB-26.eps
93


USCISB-27.eps
94


USCISB-28.eps
95


USCISB-29.eps
96


USCISB-30.eps
97


USCISB-31.eps
98


USCISB-32.eps
99


USCISB-33.eps
100


USCISB-34.eps
101


USCISB-35.eps
102


USCISB-36.eps
103


USCISB-37.eps
104


USCISB-38.eps
105


USCISB-39.eps
106


USCISB-40.eps
107


USCISB-41.eps
108


USCISB-42.eps
109


USCISB-43.eps
110


USCISB-44.eps
111


USCISB-45.eps
112


USCISB-46.eps
113


USCISB-47.eps
114


USCISB-48.eps
115


USCISB-49.eps
116


USCISB-50.eps
117


USCISB-51.eps
118


USCISB-52.eps
119


USCISB-53.eps
120


USCISB-54.eps
121


USCISB-55.eps
122


USCISB-56.eps
123


USCISB-57.eps
124


USCISB-58.eps
125


USCISB-59.eps
126


USCISB-60.eps
127


USCISB-61.eps
128


USCISC-1.eps
129


USCISC-2.eps
130


USCISC-3.eps
131


USCISC-4.eps
132


USCISC-5.eps
133


USCISC-6.eps
134


USCISC-7.eps
135


USCISC-8.eps
136


USCISC-9.eps
137


USCISC-10.eps
138


USCISC-11.eps
139


USCISC-12.eps
140

f


USCISC-13.eps
141

RESPONSES TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS FROM STEPHEN A. EDSON, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE FOR VISA SERVICE, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF

STATE


4-1.eps
142


4-2.eps
143


4-3.eps
144


4-4.eps
145


4-5.eps
146


4-6.eps
147


4-7.eps
148


4-8.eps
149


4-9.eps
150


4-10.eps
151


4-11.eps
152

f


4-12.eps
153

LETTER FROM MICHAEL DOUGHERTY, CIS OMBUDSMAN,

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY.

————

Note: The document of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security entitled: Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman, Annual Report 2007, submitted by Michael Dougherty, is available at the Subcommittee and can also be accessed at:

http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/CISOMBlAnnuallReportl2007.pdf

Æ


10.eps