Department of Homeland Security

Office of Inspector General 

The Special Immigrant Nonminister 


Religious Worker Program 


OIG-09-79 June 2009 
 

Office of Inspector General 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security

Washington, DC 20528 

June 11, 2009 

MEMORANDUM FOR: Michael Aytes 

Acting Deputy Director 

United States Citizenship and Immigration Services 

FROM: Richard L. Skinner 

 Inspector General 

SUBJECT: Letter Report: The Special Immigrant Nonminister 

Religious Worker Program (OIG-09-79) 

As mandated in the Special Immigrant Nonminister Religious Worker Program Act, we 

examined United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) regulations, 

published in November 2008, designed to decrease benefit fraud. We concluded that 

USCIS has taken steps that can reasonably be expected to reduce fraud in special 

immigrant nonminister petitions, but that it is not possible to determine the exact amount 

of fraud reduction attributable to the new regulations. 

Adjudicators find nonminister petitions challenging, but the regulation has provided 

important tools, like an attestation requirement for petitioning organizations, to help 

identify fraudulent cases. Adjudicators said that the new process provides effective fraud 

deterrence. 

USCIS managers said that more subtle fraud is expected to persist. We are making 5 

recommendations to facilitate enhancements to the existing regulatory scheme. Should 

you have any questions, please call me, or your staff may contact Carlton I. Mann, 

Assistant Inspector General for Inspections, at (202) 254-4100. 
 

 

Background 

Congress amended the Immigration and Nationality Act in 1990, to create a special 

immigrant status for ministers and nonministers in religious vocations and occupations.1 

Special immigrant nonminister religious workers must have been members of the 

denomination, and have worked in the capacity for which they are applying for at least 

the two years immediately preceding the petition. Individuals who become special 

immigrants are lawful permanent residents and will be eligible to apply for naturalization. 

To qualify as a special immigrant, a petition (Form I-360) must be approved by USCIS. 

Reducing benefit fraud, which is considered the willful misrepresentation of material 

fact, has been a longstanding priority. In 2005, the USCIS Office of Fraud Detection and 

National Security (FDNS) conducted a Benefit Fraud Assessment (BFA) of religious 

worker immigrant petitions. After examining pending and completed special immigrant 

religious worker cases, FDNS determined a 33% fraud rate existed. Nonexistent 

organizations had filed a large number of petitions, and material misrepresentations were 

common in documents submitted to establish eligibility.2 

Following the BFA, FDNS instituted policy changes to enhance the integrity of the 

religious worker program. Site visits to verify the existence of petitioning organizations 

were implemented. USCIS also centralized adjudication of religious worker petitions at 

the California Service Center (CSC) to ensure more consistent adjudications and 

increased information sharing. 

In April 2007, USCIS issued a proposed rule on Special Immigrant and Nonimmigrant 

Religious Workers. After public comment, USCIS issued final regulations on November 

26, 2008. The regulation: 

•	 Expanded the definitions of terms specific to the program; 

•	 Required petitioners to attest to a number of facts related to the organization 

and the work that the beneficiary would perform; 

•	 Created greater evidentiary requirements, including an IRS tax-exempt letter; 

•	 Mandated proof of qualifying work experience; and 

•	 Continued the use of site visits as a verification tool. 

On October 10, 2008, Congress passed the Special Immigrant Nonminister Religious 

Worker Program Act, which extended the nonminister program to March 6, 2009.3 The 

extension was contingent on issuance of final regulations to reduce benefit fraud. The 

Act mandated that we report on the effectiveness of the new regulations. 

1 Immigration Act of 1990; Public Law 101-649 (Nov. 29, 1990). 


2

 “Special Immigrant and Nonimmigrant Religious Workers (Proposed Rule).” Federal Register 72:79 


(April 25, 2007) p. 20442. 


3

 Public Law 110-391. 


The Special Immigrant Nonminister Religious Worker Program 

1 
Our fieldwork included interviews and file review at the CSC. We discussed religious 

worker procedures with the six adjudicators who process I-360 petitions, supervisors, and 

FDNS staff. We also examined 70 petition files and supporting documentation. 

Fraud Reductions are Difficult to Quantify 

Although prior to publication of the final regulations, data gathered in June 2008 for an 

internal USCIS report concluded that site visits and centralized petition processing 

contributed to a reduction in fraudulent religious worker petitions. This report noted that 

special immigrant religious worker approval rates decreased from 67% in FY 2006 to 

33% in FY 2007. Additionally, denial rates almost doubled, from 31% in FY 2006 to 

60% in FY 2007. When considering voluntary petition withdrawals, non-approvals rose 

from 32% in FY 2006 to 66% in FY 2007. USCIS also noted a 16% reduction in 

received petitions during the time period. Petitions may be denied or withdrawn for 

reasons other than fraud, but more stringent USCIS oversight is a major deterrent to 

organizations intending to commit benefit fraud. 

USCIS concluded, however, that it is difficult to quantify fraud reductions. Existing data 

makes “no claim of direct causality” between reduced petition approvals and decreased 

fraud. Rather, it is “possible that cyclical trends alone or in some combination of other 

factors account for the changes observed.” While the data is strongly suggestive of fraud 

reduction, further research is required to determine the effect of anti-fraud measures. 

Although data used in the June 2008 report is consistent with other figures that USCIS 

has reported, there were discrepancies between the figures and data that we requested. 

The discrepant data also included FY 2008 and partial FY 2009 figures for petition 

approval and denial rates. Given these discrepancies, we were hindered in our analysis of 

fraud trends in the program. Because resolution of data issues would not change the 

difficulty of quantifying exact fraud reductions, we did not pursue a complete USCIS 

explanation of the data inconsistencies we discovered. 

Although USCIS does track I-360 approvals as separate categories, I-360 denials are not 

tracked as separate minister and nonminister totals in USCIS data systems. Given the 

differential treatment of ministers and nonministers in the statute, and Congressional 

concern regarding nonminister fraud, a method for tracking denials for both categories is 

needed. CSC staff suggested this change to us. 

Policy Changes can Enhance Anti-Fraud Efforts 

USCIS has developed a credible process to deter and detect nonminister petition fraud. 

All of the persons we interviewed praised the new process because it ensures more 

legitimate petitions. Adjudicators and their supervisors noted that consolidation of I-360 

petition review at the CSC, and improvements to the I-360 form, have created a more 

efficient process to detect and deter fraud. The new I-360 attestation ensures that 

petitions meet regulatory requirements. Petitioners must attest to 12 specific facts about 

the organization and the work the beneficiary is to perform. Adjudicators said that the 

The Special Immigrant Nonminister Religious Worker Program 

2 
attestation easily presents key facts, supported through evidence, which expedites review 

and allows for identification of missing information. We reviewed several files that 

demonstrated how adjudicators used authorities in the regulations to request additional 

information when petitions are incomplete. With petition processing in one location, 

consultations between adjudicators improve the consistency and accuracy of decisions. 

Inherent Difficulties with Nonminister Petitions 

Adjudicators noted difficulties with special immigrant nonminister petitions. The 

program requires full-time work for all religious workers, but some organizations have 

difficulty documenting the full-time status of a beneficiary’s work. Other petitions did 

not have evidence that demonstrated the religious nature of a nonminister’s work. Even 

complete petitions can be difficult to evaluate. For example, religious painters and 

sculptors are central to the faith of some denominations, while artists in other faiths are 

secular workers. Adjudicators said that understanding such differences was an intricate 

part of nonminister adjudications, especially because a denomination defines its own 

acceptable religious occupations. This standard could become a means for organizations 

to deem generally secular work as religious, or grant some faiths an advantage because of 

different views of religious occupations. 

In the proposed regulations, USCIS listed examples of nonminister occupations. During 

the public comment period, concerns were expressed that the list favored Judeo-Christian 

petitioners. In the final regulations USCIS removed the examples. As the agency gains 

more experience dealing with petitions from various faiths, a list of occupations that are 

traditionally religious should be developed, and updated as necessary. Such examples are 

important for anti-fraud efforts because an FDNS manager said that religious worker 

fraud is more subtle now compared to the years before site visits and the attestation 

requirement. Future illegitimate activities are projected to include petitions for people 

who do not do religious work, workers not performing stated duties, or organizations that 

do not need full-time workers. Further guidance on regulatory definitions of religious 

work would inform the public and ensure more complete petitions. 

Differences Exist between Religious Occupations and Vocations 

The regulation includes distinctions between religious vocations and occupations. 

Workers in a religious vocation, such as nuns and monks, must have “a formal lifetime 

commitment” through vows or similar means that demonstrate devotion to a religious 

way of life distinct from the activities of “the secular members of the religion.”4 

Individuals in an occupation must meet all of the following requirements: 

1.	 The duties must primarily relate to a traditional religious function and be 


recognized as a religious occupation within the denomination; 


2.	 The duties must be primarily related to, and must clearly involve, inculcating or 

carrying out the religious creed and beliefs of the denomination; 

4

 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(m)(5). 

The Special Immigrant Nonminister Religious Worker Program 

3 
3.	 The duties are not in primarily administrative or support positions; and 

4.	 Religious study or training for religious work does not constitute a religious 

occupation, but a religious worker may pursue study or training incident to 

status.5 

Individuals in a vocation, who are not required to meet these four standards, may do work 

that is not traditionally religious. There were cases in our file review where a position 

could not meet the entire religious occupation definition. These included musicians, 

secretaries, administrative officers, and others engaged in generally secular activities. 

However, a nun could work as the Hospitality and Home Economics Manager because of 

the regulation’s definition of a vocation. Another petition was for a nun to engage in 

cooking, cleaning, laundry, and shopping. Under the regulation, if the employment is 

full-time, a religious worker with a vocation can get a petition approved for such a job. 

Files we reviewed contained pending petitions for occupations that did not meet the fulltime and definitional tests. Examples included musicians with no other defined role, a 

Sunday school director with primarily administrative duties, and petitions with a 

significant amount of time for study or training. Instructions for the I-360 form and the 

regulation list all definitional requirements of an occupation. Other documents 

explaining the regulations simply state that the work must primarily relate to a traditional 

religious function, just one of four parts of a permissible occupation. Revised fact sheets 

or other materials, would provide more complete information to the public. This should 

decrease the number of petitions received from organizations that will not be able to 

provide beneficiaries employment that meets the requirements of a religious occupation. 

Steps can be Taken to Ensure Religious Organizations’ Tax Exempt Status 

Petitioning religious organizations must be “exempt from taxation as described in section 

501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.”6 Petitions must include a “currently 

valid” IRS exemption determination letter. However, USCIS has issued potentially 

confusing statements about what constitutes a valid letter. Because the letters do not 

expire, USCIS will accept determination letters regardless of date. However, while the 

agency correctly notes that a letter revoked by the IRS cannot be used to meet the 

regulatory requirement, any properly issued letter will always appear to be valid, even in 

the few cases where IRS subsequently revokes the organization’s tax-exempt status. Of 

45 new petition files we reviewed that had IRS letters, the average letter was twenty years 

old, including five letters from the 1960s. An IRS expert we interviewed said that 

organizations with letters that old could still be tax exempt. However, USCIS can issue 

policy to ensure that all determination letters are currently valid. 

Religious organizations rarely lose tax exempt status. The IRS neither re-evaluates 

organizations after a letter is issued nor updates letters with the organization’s continued 

tax exempt status. However, IRS Publication 78, Cumulative List of Organizations, is 

5

 Ibid. 

6

 Ibid. 

The Special Immigrant Nonminister Religious Worker Program 

4 
available on-line. This tool, rather than 45-year old letters, is the best way to determine 

the current tax exempt status of religious organizations. The IRS also produces a list of 

organizations that have recently lost tax exempt status. USCIS stated that the agency 

may consult Publication 78, but the current Adjudicator’s Field Manual does not require 

use of updated IRS information to ensure an organization’s current status. This would be 

useful, especially when a petitioner’s IRS letter had not been recently issued. 

USCIS did not Adopt a Requirement that Petitioners Demonstrate a Need for Workers 

USCIS originally proposed that petitioners be required to demonstrate that the worker 

would “fulfill a reasonable need of the organization.” This language was not retained in 

the final regulations. A USCIS expert informed us that the standard was vague, with an 

implication that the government would become involved in the strategic employment 

decisions of religious organizations. This is a legitimate concern. Additionally, the 

regulations include compensation requirements and information in the attestation that 

minimize the chance that an organization will petition for unneeded workers. 

Our file review included petitions from organizations that seemed primarily concerned 

with keeping beneficiaries in the United States, rather than documenting why the worker 

was needed. An organization submitted one petition so that an individual “may be 

eligible to permanently reside in the United States,” while another stressed the desire to 

keep the worker in the United States without much detail about the work requirement. 

Such cases can meet definitional requirements and be from legitimate organizations. 

Nonetheless, the regulation is not currently able to identify organizations that establish 

sinecure positions to gain permanent residency for unneeded staff. For marginal cases, 

adjudicators could use a need requirement to gain further information about the proposed 

work. USCIS should use ongoing data review to study the utility of a need-based 

standard, but the legitimate concerns regarding inclusion of such a requirement in the 

final regulation led us to not recommend a policy change in this area. 

The Level of Interaction between Adjudicators and FDNS Can be Expanded 

In addition to the regulatory process improvements described above, USCIS can make 

procedural changes to the religious worker program. Interaction between adjudicators 

and FDNS personnel primarily results from adjudicator requests for FDNS to conduct site 

visits. Adjudicators said that such contact is generally limited to e-mail. FDNS staff we 

interviewed reported limited interaction with adjudicators. 

Results from site visits are an important component in adjudicators’ approval and denial 

decisions. Given that the adjudicator relationship with most FDNS staff is remote, 

adjudicators have felt too removed from the site visit process. Adjudicators do annotate 

specific issues for FDNS to explore during site visits, but it is unclear whether FDNS 

district office personnel receive the annotations. Increased communication would ensure 

that adjudicator concerns about specific petitions are adequately conveyed to the field. 

The Special Immigrant Nonminister Religious Worker Program 

5 
 

Adjudicators would like to learn more about FDNS’ work process. Such knowledge 

would give adjudicators greater understanding of petitioners and beneficiaries. Several 

adjudicators suggested that they be allowed to periodically observe site visits. 

Additionally, adjudicators signaled a desire for more dialogue with FDNS staff. Existing 

roundtable discussions are a valuable tool for adjudicators and FDNS staff to share best 

practices and exchange information. Both parties supported these discussions, but 

lamented the infrequent nature of the roundtables. 

Beneficiaries Warrant More Scrutiny in the Compliance Review Process 

Because site visits were developed in response to concerns about petitioner fraud, the 

process focuses on ensuring the credibility of the petitioning organization. April 2007 

USCIS guidelines established that “[t]he primary focus of the site visit is on the 

petitioner.” Although a focus on petitioner fraud is effective and laudable, site visits also 

present opportunities to further scrutinize beneficiaries who are in the United States. 

The BFA concluded that beneficiaries present a credible fraud risk. Although 44% of 

cases demonstrated that an organization was illegitimate, 42% of cases included 

misrepresentations of beneficiary qualifications. Given that the fraud of nonexistent 

organizations has largely been addressed, a renewed focus on willful beneficiary 

misrepresentation is warranted. We reviewed a site visit report suggesting revocation of 

a worker’s status because secular administrative services were being performed under the 

guise of a religious occupation. The organization argued that the individual did such 

tasks because religious work did not require enough of the beneficiary’s time, a violation 

of the regulatory language. 

Expansion of beneficiary compliance does not discredit existing site visits. The 

regulations do not limit site visits to the time before a beneficiary gains special immigrant 

status. Ongoing monitoring can be a credible anti-fraud tool to ensure beneficiaries are 

engaged in acceptable work described in the I-360. Current regulatory language focuses 

the site visit process on the petitioner, but a beneficiary’s work is central to program 

integrity. Given the imminent implementation of the Administrative Site Visit and 

Verification Program, which will use contractors for initial site visits in 44 urban areas, 

additional resources may be available to conduct post-status site visits. 

Recommendations 

We recommend that the Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services: 

Recommendation #1: Develop a mechanism for separately tracking I-360 special 

immigrant minister and nonminister petition denials. 

Recommendation #2: Create or revise, and disseminate to the public, examples of 

legitimate religious work and specific religious occupations that meet regulatory 

definitions. 

The Special Immigrant Nonminister Religious Worker Program 

6 
Recommendation #3: Require adjudicators to consult the Internet version of Internal 

Revenue Service Publication 78 and other IRS data on organizations that have lost tax 

exempt status. 

Recommendation #4: Expand the use of roundtables and other communication between 

adjudicators and FDNS service center and district office personnel. 

Recommendation #5: Expand site visit policies to verify beneficiaries’ regulatory 

compliance after benefit issuance. 

OIG Analysis of Management Comments 

In its comments to our report, USCIS concurred with recommendations 1, 3, 4 and 5. It 

provided specific plans to implement recommendations 1 and 3, which are therefore 

resolved-open. 

o	 Compliance with recommendation 1 will have been accomplished once both the 

Form I-360 petition and the CLAIMS data system have been modified to facilitate 

separate tracking of minister and nonminister petition denials. We request that 

USCIS provide us with progress reports every 90 days. 

o	 Compliance with recommendation 3 will have been accomplished once 

appropriate revisions have been made to the National Standard Operating 

Procedures to suggest to adjudicators that they consult the online version of 

Internal Revenue Service Publication 78. We request that USCIS provide us with 

progress reports every 90 days. 

Recommendation 4 suggested that the current communication between adjudicators and 

FDNS personnel be expanded. While USCIS concurs, most of the information in its 

response describes the status quo. Until we have a USCIS action plan, we cannot 

consider recommendation 4 to be resolved. We request that USCIS provide us 

information about specific service center and FDNS initiatives to expand formal and 

informal communication. 

Recommendation 5 suggested expansion of site visit policies to verify beneficiary 

compliance after the religious worker status was granted to the beneficiary. Again, while 

USCIS concurs with the recommendation, most of the information in its response 

describes the status quo, and about the new Administrative Site Visit and Verification 

Program (ASVVP). While there are indeed contractual considerations to using ASVVP 

visits as a broader anti-fraud tool, the new program will free some or all of the FDNS 

resources currently devoted to routine site visits. Until USCIS provides an action plan, 

we cannot resolve recommendation 5. We request that USCIS provide us information 

about specific plans to broaden petitioner site visits to include some beneficiary 

verification. 

The Special Immigrant Nonminister Religious Worker Program 

7 
 

USCIS did not concur with recommendation 2, and pointed out that the proposed list of 

examples was omitted from the final rule due to public comments USCIS received during 

the proposed rulemaking process. USCIS said in its comments to our draft report that 

such a list can create confusion about the scope of the definition of "religious 

occupation," and that examples of religious occupations would not serve any anti-fraud 

efforts as the denomination must still define its own acceptable religious occupations. 

The burden of proof rests with the petitioner to establish that the occupation relates 

primarily to a traditional religious occupation within the denomination. We are 

persuaded by the USCIS explanation. Recommendation 2 is closed and no further action 

is required. 

The Special Immigrant Nonminister Religious Worker Program 

8 
Appendix A 

Purpose, Scope, and Methodology 

Our review was undertaken to comply with Public Law 110-391, Section 2, 

paragraph (c), which mandated that we report on the effectiveness of measures 

recently implemented by USCIS to eliminate or reduce fraud in the special 

immigrant nonminister religious worker visa category. The new measures were 

published on November 26, 2008 (Federal Register 73:229, p. 72276). 

We interviewed managers at USCIS headquarters responsible for overseeing 

religious worker petition verification and adjudication; managers and adjudicators 

at the USCIS California Service Center, which processes religious worker 

petitions; and immigration officers that conduct on-site inspections to obtain their 

professional assessment of the impact the regulations have had on eliminating or 

reducing fraud. We discussed rules for tax-exempt religious organizations with a 

subject matter expert at the Internal Revenue Service. We also reviewed USCIS 

data and case records. Our fieldwork took between March – May, 2009. We 

conducted our inspection under the authority of the Inspector General Act of 

1978, as amended, and according to the inspection standards of the Council of 

Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency. 

The Special Immigrant Nonminister Religious Worker Program 

9 
Appendix B 

Management Comments to the Draft Letter Report 

The Special Immigrant Nonminister Religious Worker Program 

10 
Appendix B 

Management Comments to the Draft Letter Report 

The Special Immigrant Nonminister Religious Worker Program 

11 
Appendix B 

Management Comments to the Draft Letter Report 

The Special Immigrant Nonminister Religious Worker Program 

12 
Appendix C 

Major Contributors to This Report 

Douglas Ellice, Chief Inspector 

Darin Wipperman, Senior Inspector 

Jordan Brafman, Inspector 

The Special Immigrant Nonminister Religious Worker Program 

13 
Appendix D 

Report Distribution 

Department of Homeland Security 

Secretary 

Deputy Secretary 

Chief of Staff for Operations 

Chief of Staff for Policy 

Deputy Chiefs of Staff 

Acting General Counsel 

Executive Secretariat 

Director, GAO/OIG Liaison Office 

Assistant Secretary for Office of Policy 

Assistant Secretary for Office of Public Affairs 

Assistant Secretary for Office of Legislative Affairs 

USCIS Liaison 

Office of Management and Budget 

Chief, Homeland Security Branch 

DHS OIG Budget Examiner 

Congress 

Congressional Oversight and Appropriations Committees, as 

appropriate 

The Special Immigrant Nonminister Religious Worker Program 

14 
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND COPIES 

To obtain additional copies of this report, please call the Office of Inspector General (OIG) at (202) 254-4199, 

fax your request to (202) 254-4305, or visit the OIG web site at www.dhs.gov/oig. 

OIG HOTLINE 

To report alleged fraud, waste, abuse or mismanagement, or any other kind of criminal or noncriminal 

misconduct relative to department programs or operations: 

• Call our Hotline at 1-800-323-8603; 

• Fax the complaint directly to us at (202) 254-4292; 

• Email us at DHSOIGHOTLINE@dhs.gov; or 

• Write to us at: 

DHS Office of Inspector General/MAIL STOP 2600, 

Attention: Office of Investigations - Hotline, 

245 Murray Drive, SW, Building 410, 

Washington, DC 20528. 

The OIG seeks to protect the identity of each writer and caller.