Immigration Benefits: Improvements Needed to Address Backlogs and Ensure Quality of Adjudications
Published: 2005-11-21T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Long-standing backlogs of immigration benefit applications result in delays for immigrants, their families, and prospective employers who participate in the legal immigration process. In response to a statutory mandate to eliminate the backlog, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) set a goal of September 30, 2006, to eliminate the backlog and adjudicate all applications within 6 months. This report examines (1) the status of the backlog, (2) actions to achieve backlog elimination and prevent future backlogs, (3) the likelihood of eliminating the backlog by the deadline, and (4) USCIS's quality assurance programs to achieve consistency of decisions while eliminating its backlog.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: By June 2005, USCIS estimated it had reduced its backlog from a peak of 3.8 million cases to about 1.2 million. However, this estimate is not a measure of the number of pending cases older than 6 months--the definition of backlog used by the Immigration Services and Infrastructure Improvements Act of 2000. USCIS's current data systems cannot provide precise data on the age of all application types. A proposed technology transformation offers an opportunity to develop a case management system with this capability. USCIS has reduced its backlog mainly by increasing and realigning staff. To prevent future backlogs, USCIS will rely on additional staffing reallocation and technology transformation. However, the technology plan is in the early planning stages, and USCIS has not finalized its estimated cost or identified the gains it could yield. Despite progress, it is unlikely that USCIS will completely eliminate the backlog by the 2006 deadline. While it met fiscal year 2006 targets for half of the 15 backlogged application types, USCIS may have difficulty eliminating its backlog for two complex application types that constitute nearly three-quarters of the backlog. A backlog may also remain in offices where the volume of cases exceeds adjudicator staff capacity. Other factors, such as lengthy background checks, could also hinder USCIS's ability to achieve and maintain its backlog elimination goals. USCIS officials noted that its current plan is premised on current legislation and would be affected by proposed legislative changes that could impose additional demands on the agency. Aside from regular supervisory review, USCIS operates two programs to ensure the quality of its postadjudication decisions, yet neither program provides a systematic and inclusive review of all application types. One program reviews adjudicators' compliance with standard processes for two application types, and the other evaluates compliance with standard processes and the reasonableness of decisions rendered, but only for selected applications processed in four centers.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: In fiscal year 2004 nearly 6 million applications were filed by those seeking  an immigration benefit—permission for an alien to live in and in some  cases work either permanently or on a temporary basis in the United  States or to become a citizen. Most immigration benefits can be classified  into one of two major categories, family-based and employment-based.  Family-based requests for benefits are filed by U.S. citizens or permanent  resident aliens to establish their relationships to certain alien relatives  such as spouses, parents, children, or siblings who wish to immigrate to  the United States. Employment-based petitions include petitions filed by  employers for aliens to come to the United States temporarily to perform  services or labor or to receive training and for alien workers to become  permanent residents in the United States. Petitions can be filed on behalf  of aliens outside of the United States who wish to enter the country and on  behalf of aliens already in the United States who wish to change from one  immigration status to another, such as from a visitor to a temporary  worker. The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS),  within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), collects fees for  processing most types of applications and petitions.
In the past we have reported that some applications and petitions—benefit  applications—have taken 2 years or longer to process, resulting in  backlogs of pending applications. Recurring backlogs of benefit  applications have been a long-standing problem for the former  Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) whose benefit adjudication  functions are now the responsibility of USCIS. USCIS inherited this  backlog problem which has created hardships for immigrants, their  families, and prospective employers seeking immigrant workers. Families  are kept apart and businesses are denied the expertise of skilled workers  when applicants are subjected to long application-processing wait times.  Moreover, critics have suggested that large backlogs of benefit  applications create incentives for individuals and businesses to  circumvent established legal procedures.
In past years, INS allocated a portion of its appropriation to agency  initiatives to reduce the backlog of pending benefit applications. The funds  for this effort included $176 million in fiscal year 1999, $124 million in  fiscal year 2000, and $35 million in fiscal year 2001, in addition to the fees  it was authorized to collect for processing benefit applications. Further, in  October 2000, the Immigration Services and Infrastructure Improvements  Act of 2000 mandated INS to develop a plan to eliminate its backlog of  benefit applications. The act defines backlog as the period of time in  excess of 180 days (6 months) that an immigration benefit application has  been pending before the agency—that is, the backlog consists of  applications that have not been adjudicated within 6 months of filing.  Beginning in fiscal year 2002, the administration sought and received  appropriations sufficient to fund a 5-year, $500 million initiative to obtain a  universal 6-month processing standard for all immigration benefit  applications and petitions. At the end of 2003, USCIS still had over 6  million immigration benefit applications awaiting adjudication—which  included about 3.7 million applications reported as backlog. In March 2002  USCIS published a plan (which was updated in June 2004) to eliminate its  backlog by the end of fiscal year 2006. USCIS officials noted that this plan  is based on the assumption that the agency will continue to operate under  current laws and that if any new legislation, such as a proposed guest  worker program, is enacted before the end of fiscal year 2006 without  provisions for resources to carry out new responsibilities, the agency’s  ability to eliminate the backlog could be compromised. In addition to  presenting strategies for backlog elimination, the plan acknowledged the  importance of balancing its focus on reducing the backlog with its efforts  to ensure adjudicative quality, stating that it is imperative that the integrity  of the process not be compromised by efforts to stimulate productivity.
You asked us to review USCIS’s implementation of its backlog elimination  efforts, including the current status and size of the backlog, and the  agency’s actions and plans to address the backlog while ensuring  consistent and high-quality adjudication decisions. This report addresses  the following questions:    What is the current status of USCIS’s backlog of unadjudicated  applications for immigration benefits?
What actions has USCIS taken to eliminate the backlog by September  30, 2006, and prevent future backlogs?
Is USCIS likely to eliminate the backlog by September 30, 2006?
How does USCIS ensure the quality and consistency of adjudicator  decisions while eliminating the backlog?
To determine the status of USCIS’s backlog, we interviewed agency  officials and reviewed USCIS’s backlog elimination plans and updates  along with the agency’s supporting analyses and compared them with the  statutory definition of backlog in the Immigration Services and  Infrastructure Improvements Act of 2000. To identify actions USCIS has  taken to eliminate the backlog, we interviewed USCIS officials in  headquarters and 10 field offices that were selected generally on the basis  of workload volume, staffing levels, and backlog levels. Because we  selected a nonprobability sample of field offices to visit, the results from  our interviews with USCIS officials in these offices cannot be generalized  to USCIS offices nationwide. Where possible, we corroborated their  responses with agency data that we assessed for reliability and determined  were sufficiently reliable for our purposes. We also collected information  on USCIS’s efforts to prevent future backlogs from USCIS’s planning  documents on staffing, budget, and information technology modernization.  To estimate the likelihood that USCIS would eliminate the backlog on  time, we tracked and compared the agency’s progress in reducing its  workload with the targets USCIS established and identified factors that  could affect USCIS’s ability to complete all applications within 6 months  or less. To determine how USCIS ensures the quality and consistency of  adjudicator decisions, we examined USCIS’s two quality assurance  programs and resulting outcomes, and we reviewed the findings and  recommendations of an independent study of USCIS’s quality assurance  programs. We conducted our review from September 2004 through  September 2005 in accordance with generally accepted government  auditing standards.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, within the  Department of Homeland Security, delivers services to aliens and  adjudicates their eligibility for various immigration benefits, including  naturalization, adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident,  employment authorization, and asylum. USCIS carries out its service  function through a network of field offices consisting of a National  Benefits Center, which serves as a central processing hub for certain  benefit applications and utilizes secured depositories in Chicago, Illinois,  and Los Angeles, California, to collect fees; 4 service centers, which  generally adjudicate applications that do not require interviews with the  applicants; 78 district and local offices; 31 international offices and 8  asylum offices, which generally adjudicate applications that require  interviews; and 129 application support centers, which collect and process  biometric information. Appendix II contains a detailed discussion of  USCIS’s organizational structure. USCIS’s application-processing  procedures vary by application type and by office. Figures 1 and 2 depict  the agency’s process for adjudicating naturalization and adjustment of  status applications—its two most common and complex application types.
In general, the following tasks are involved in application processing: (1)  collect and deposit application fees and issue receipts to applicants; (2)  create or request existing alien files; (3) enter applicant data into an  automated system; (4) take applicants’ fingerprints and send them to the  Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) for a criminal history check,  including a criminal history check based on the applicant’s name (if  required by the type of application); (5) review application, and other  supporting documents, such as FBI fingerprint check results, marriage  certificates, or court dispositions of an arrest; (6) interview applicants (if  required by the type of application); (7) administer naturalization tests (for  those applying for naturalization); (8) approve or deny cases; (9) notify  applicants of USCIS’s decisions; or (10) issue a Notice to Appear placing  applicant in removal proceedings; and (11) update USCIS’s automated  systems.
Although USCIS processes about 50 types of immigration benefit  applications, its backlog elimination efforts have focused on the 15  application types that make up about 94 percent of its workload. Table 1  lists these 15 application types and their purposes.
In October 2000, the Immigration Services and Infrastructure  Improvements Act mandated INS, the agency previously responsible for  USCIS’s functions, to develop a plan to eliminate its backlog of benefit  applications. The act defines backlog as the period of time in excess of 180  days (6 months) that an immigration benefit application has been pending  before the agency. Moreover, in February 2001, in the President’s fiscal  year 2002 budget, the Administration proposed a universal 6-month  standard for completing adjudication of immigration applications and  supported a 5-year, $500 million initiative to meet this standard. The  President reiterated this goal during a naturalization ceremony on July 10,  2001, saying, “Today, here’s the goal for the INS: a six-month standard  from start to finish for processing applications for immigration. It won’t be  achievable in every case, but it’s the standard of this administration and I  expect the INS to meet it.”
In May 2001, we reported on the difficulties INS had in managing its  workload, resulting in ever-growing backlogs of applications, despite  growth in staff and budget. For example, although the agency’s efforts to  meet production goals for processing naturalization and adjustment of  status applications did help reduce backlogs in those areas, backlogs for  other application types increased.
Under a 5-year plan starting in March 2002, INS intended not only to  eliminate the immigration benefit application backlog, but also to achieve  a 6-month processing standard for all applications in every office. The  original plan was to eliminate the backlog in 2 years, with the remaining  years used to invest in information technology in order to prevent future  backlogs. However, in part because of events following the September 11,  2001, terrorist attacks, including attention to national security priorities  and agency reorganization, INS’s resources were diverted from backlog  elimination efforts. For example, adjudicators assumed responsibility for  registering and fingerprinting nationals already living in the United States  from countries identified as potential threats and for overseeing the  student immigration tracking system—functions that have since been  transferred to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) bureau  within DHS. In June 2004, the newly formed USCIS issued a revised  backlog elimination plan that proposed to eliminate the backlog of benefit  applications by September 30, 2006, and to reduce application completion  times to no more than 6 months.
section_title: USCIS Estimated a Backlog of About 1.2 Million Unadjudicated Applications as of June 30, 2005
paragraphs: As of June 30, 2005, USCIS estimated it had about 1.2 million cases  remaining in its backlog, down from 3.7 million at the end of fiscal year  2003. However, USCIS’s operational definition of backlog is different than  the definition contained in the Immigration Services and Infrastructure  Improvements Act of 2000, and its count is not a precise reflection of the  number of cases that have been pending for more than 6 months. USCIS  defines its backlog generally in terms of its pending workload—that is, the  number of applications it has on hand minus the number of applications it  has received during a specified period of time, which is 6 months or less,  depending on the type of application. It has established targets for each  fiscal year for reducing its pending workload, by application type, based  upon its estimate of how much time is required to complete each type.  Table 2 shows these workload targets by application type and fiscal year.
According to USCIS, the data management systems it currently uses to  manage its backlog elimination efforts cannot comprehensively produce  data to measure and track the time that all applications have been  pending, and therefore the agency cannot readily retrieve information on  the number of applications that have been pending for more than 180 days,  as specified in the definition of backlog in the Immigration Services and  Infrastructure Improvements Act of 2000. Instead, USCIS estimates its  backlog based on the number of pending applications in excess of the  applications it received during the past 6 months. For example, if the  agency had received 100,000 applications for benefits in the most recent 6  months and currently had 120,000 cases awaiting adjudication, it would  report a backlog of 20,000 cases. The agency’s rationale for using this  proxy is that by consistently completing more applications than are filed  each month, the agency should gradually reduce its pending workload of  applications to a level at which it can complete all incoming applications  within the workload targets established for each application type.  Eventually, according to the agency’s backlog elimination plan, as long as  USCIS is processing all applications received within the past 6 months (or  less, depending on the application type’s workload target) there should be  no backlog because those applications awaiting adjudication should be  completed before they become part of the backlog count of applications  pending longer than 6 months. However, USCIS’s definition of backlog  does not guarantee that every applicant requesting a benefit will receive a  decision within 6 months of filing.
In our previous work on the benefit applications backlog, we noted that  the agency’s automated systems were not complete and reliable enough to  determine how long it actually takes to process specific benefit  applications or to determine the exact size of its backlog. Therefore, we  recommended that the former Immigration and Naturalization Service  develop the capability and begin to calculate and report actual processing  times for applications as soon as reliable automated data are available.  USCIS has agreed that ideally it would prefer to base its backlog  calculations on the actual age of each pending application. However, the  data management system USCIS is currently using to manage its backlog  elimination efforts does not have this capability for most application  types. Since our recommendation, USCIS has identified requirements for  transforming its information technology systems to address deficiencies in  its capabilities. Starting in fiscal year 2002, INS and subsequently USCIS  invested about 2 percent ($10.5 million) of its funds allocated for backlog  elimination in planning for technology improvements. Table 3 shows  USCIS’s annual expenditures from its backlog elimination funds.
Included in USCIS’s technology transformation effort is the design and  implementation of a new, integrated case management system that should  provide the agency with the capability to produce management reports on  the age of all pending benefit applications. USCIS considers this new case  management system to be one of the most critical components of its  technology transformation and plans to begin implementation in fiscal  year 2006. However, this information technology transformation effort is  still in the early stages of planning, and USCIS does not expect these  systems, including the new case management system, to be fully deployed  before fiscal year 2010. Until USCIS develops the ability to track the actual  age of individual applications, it will not be able to provide accurate  information about the actual number of applications that have been  pending in excess of 180 days or the actual amount of time they have been  pending.
section_title: USCIS Has Undertaken Several Short- and Longer- Term Actions to Eliminate Its Backlog
paragraphs: USCIS has taken several actions to eliminate its benefit application  backlog and to reduce the time it takes to process benefit applications.  The most immediate short-term action was to hire temporary  adjudicators—whose terms expire within 4 years—to address the backlog.  In addition, USCIS began to implement longer-term strategies to eliminate  the backlog, such as reallocating staff and reprioritizing the order in which  the agency adjudicates petitions for alien relatives. The agency also has  revised its guidance to increase the efficiency of application processing  and has proposed related changes to its regulations. Finally, it has  experimented with different processes to expedite application  adjudication and is considering adopting best practices identified from  those pilot programs. In addition to its efforts to reduce the backlog by  September 30, 2006, the agency has developed a staffing allocation model  and is planning a major transformation of its information technology  systems to prevent future backlogs. According to the model, USCIS must  fill positions that are currently vacant and better balance the number of  adjudicator staff among the field office locations. USCIS’s proposed  information technology transformation is intended to support the  prevention of future backlogs by upgrading its information technology  infrastructure, providing better data management support, and developing  new business processes. However, it is still in the early stages of planning.
subsections: section_title: USCIS Hired Temporary Adjudicators and Supported Overtime Work
paragraphs: Beginning in fiscal year 2002, USCIS has added about 1,100 temporary  adjudicators to address the backlog. As figure 3 shows, from fiscal year  2002 through fiscal year 2005, the agency allocated about 70 percent of its  backlog elimination funds for these temporary adjudicators and to  overtime pay. USCIS allocated the remaining 30 percent to information  technology planning, mail and data entry, and records management.
section_title: USCIS Reallocated Adjudicator Staff and Focused on Processing Applications for Which Benefits Can Be Provided Immediately
paragraphs: USCIS has applied several approaches to balancing its workload and  improving the processing time for benefit applications. For example,  between September 2003 and September 2004, USCIS transferred  hundreds of applications for Adjustment of Status to Lawful Permanent  Resident from the Chicago district office to the San Antonio district office  for adjudication, because the Chicago office’s workload exceeded its  adjudicator capacity. Another approach has been to temporarily detail  adjudicators from overstaffed offices to understaffed offices. For example,  as of September 2005, USCIS officials said that about 50 adjudicators from  central and western region district offices had been detailed to the New  York district office and the Garden City, New Jersey suboffice. In addition,  another 40 adjudicators were detailed to the Atlanta and Miami district  offices.
USCIS has also reprioritized the order in which it adjudicates petitions for  alien relatives. Because these relatives are subject to annual limits on the  number of available immigration visas, even if USCIS were to find an alien  relative eligible to immigrate, that alien could not immigrate if a visa were  not available. Therefore, in July 2004, USCIS decided to focus its efforts on  adjudicating only those petitions for alien relatives where a visa was  immediately available. According to USCIS, by setting aside those  petitions for which a visa was not immediately available, the agency has  been able to concentrate its efforts on those petitions for alien relatives  who can immigrate immediately. Therefore, USCIS officials say, this  approach has enabled the agency to increase its meaningful completions  of petitions for alien relatives. Because of this policy change, USCIS has  also removed those cases for which a visa is not available from its count of  backlogged cases, eliminating approximately 1.15 million cases from its  backlog count of about 3.7 million.
section_title: To Boost Efficiency in Processing Benefit Applications, USCIS Proposed Regulations to Streamline Processes and Revised Guidance
paragraphs: USCIS has proposed or undertaken changes in regulations and processes  to boost efficiency in processing benefit applications. While the results of  these efforts should help eliminate the backlog and reduce time for  completing applications, we did not evaluate the effects of these changes  on backlog reduction and adjudication quality.
subsections: section_title: Waiving Interview Requirements
paragraphs: As one of these streamlining efforts, the director of domestic operations  for USCIS issued a memo in January 2005 revising its interview waiver  requirements for adjustment of status applications. According to USCIS,  the intent of the revised guidance is to more clearly define the  circumstances in which service centers should transfer adjustment  applications to district offices for interviews, which increases the time  needed to adjudicate the case. In the summer of 2005, USCIS reviewed an  informal sample of pending applications filed at the National Benefits  Center to determine the percentage of adjustment applications that met  the criteria for an interview waiver and found that about 20 percent met  the criteria. In July 2005, USCIS began directing adjustment of status  application packages that met the interview waiver criteria to the  California service center for adjudication. According to USCIS, this  process will alleviate some of the burden on offices that are struggling to  meet backlog elimination targets and provide relief to offices that are  currently sending staff to provide assistance.
section_title: Regulatory Changes and Clarifying Guidance to Adjudicators for Requests for Additional Evidence and Notices of Intent to Deny
paragraphs: USCIS has issued clarifying guidance and is seeking to amend regulations  that address when Requests for Evidence (RFE) and Notices of Intent to  Deny (NOID) are required. Currently, federal regulations require USCIS to  issue an RFE when initial evidence or eligibility information is missing  from an application or petition, and in each case, USCIS is required to  provide applicants with 12 weeks to respond. USCIS also has the  discretion to issue an RFE for additional evidence and must give  applicants 12 weeks to respond. Additionally, in some cases, federal  regulations require USCIS to issue a NOID before denying benefits. These  regulations normally require that applicants be given 30 days to respond to  a NOID. In November 2004, a proposed rule was published in the Federal  Register that would generally give USCIS discretion to issue an RFE or  NOID and would allow USCIS to determine whether additional  information is required to decide cases. Additionally, the rule proposes to  replace the current 12-week response period with a more flexible  approach that would allow USCIS to set deadlines based on factors such  as type of benefit requested or type of application or petition filed. USCIS  officials expect that reducing the number of RFEs and NOIDs required to  be issued will reduce the average case-processing time by reducing the  time a case is held awaiting decision and decreasing administrative  burden. However, in commenting on the proposed rule, the American  Immigration Lawyers Association expressed concern that USCIS is placing  a higher priority on streamlining processes than on maintaining due  process protections for applicants. In its comments, the association said  that the proposed rule has no safeguards for ensuring that cases will be  fairly adjudicated and that denying applications instead of giving  applicants an opportunity to submit additional evidence results in a  significant growth of arbitrary and capricious decisions. The final rule is  still under review at USCIS.
USCIS also issued guidance in February 2005 designed to increase the  efficiency of application processing in cases involving RFEs and NOIDs  under current regulations. Among issues covered in this guidance are  appropriate circumstances to approve and deny benefits without issuing  an RFE or NOID and how to choose between RFEs and NOIDs. Further,  the guidance included instructions to limit RFEs and NOIDs to specific  items of missing evidence. USCIS included these instructions because it  found that adjudicators were, in some instances, issuing unnecessarily  broad requests, which wasted adjudicator resources on review of  unnecessary, duplicative, or irrelevant documents.
section_title: Interim Regulatory Changes to Employment Authorization Validity Period
paragraphs: In July 2004, USCIS published an interim rule in the Federal Register that  allows it more flexibility in establishing the length of validity for  Employment Authorization Documents (EAD). Previously, federal  regulations required USCIS to limit the time EADs were valid to 1 year for  specific types of applicants who applied for employment authorization.  The interim rule removes regulatory language limiting EAD validity  periods to 1 year. Under the interim rule, USCIS can determine the  appropriate length of time, up to 5 years, for EADs to remain valid by  using certain criteria such as an applicant’s immigration status, processing  time of the underlying application or petition, and background checks.  USCIS officials said they expect that the ability to set longer validity  periods for some types of applicants covered by the current regulation  could reduce the adjudicative resources dedicated to processing renewals,  thus allowing them to use this time to process new pending Applications  for Employment Authorization. Although the flexibility to set the length of  EAD validity is available, USCIS is currently restricting its EAD validity  periods to 1 year.
section_title: Creation of a Specialized Fraud Unit
paragraphs: According to USCIS officials, fraudulent applications have slowed the  adjudication process. Because USCIS has not systematically tracked the  occurrences of fraud, the agency has not been able to determine with any  precision the extent to which fraud slows the adjudication process. In  2003, USCIS created the Office of Fraud Detection and National Security  (FDNS) and revised its standard operating procedures to, among other  things, help adjudicators identify fraudulent benefit applications and  remove them from the processing stream. FDNS is currently developing a  data system to track occurrences of fraud. In addition, to ensure that all  fraud leads are collected and entered into this data system, adjudicators  are now required by FDNS’s fraud referral process to send all cases  meeting the minimum criteria for suspected fraud to FDNS immigration  officers, even if the adjudicator has sufficient evidence to deny the  application or petition.
According to USCIS officials, FDNS’s fraud referral process—used in the  district offices, service centers, and asylum offices—begins with an  adjudicator’s review of applications, petitions, supporting documentation,  interviews, and other records. If the adjudicator discovers conflicting or  otherwise unfavorable information that would lead a reasonable person to  question the credibility of the applicant or petitioner, the adjudicator is to  submit the application or petition to FDNS along with a list of general  fraud indicators and a brief narrative explaining the nature of the  suspected fraud that could render an applicant ineligible for the benefit  sought. An FDNS immigration officer is to then conduct a variety of  systems checks and additional research in an effort to verify the suspected  fraud. If fraud is verified, the case is to be forwarded to the FDNS Fraud  Detection Unit at the appropriate service center for review and possible  referral to the Benefit Fraud Unit within ICE. According to USCIS, ICE has  agreed to notify USCIS within 60 days whether it will accept or reject a  request for investigation by the FDNS Fraud Detection Unit. If ICE  declines the request for investigation, USCIS is to continue to pursue the  information necessary to render a proper adjudication. If ICE investigates  and verifies the suspected fraud, the FDNS immigration officer is to  provide a written report to the adjudicator for preparation of the  appropriate notice or decision. We did not evaluate the effectiveness of  USCIS’s fraud referral process as part of this review, but we plan to issue a  separate report later this year on the nature and extent of immigration  benefit fraud and the control mechanisms USCIS has in place to detect  and deter fraud.
section_title: USCIS Is Considering Adopting Certain Successful Practices from Pilot Project Experiments
paragraphs: The Homeland Security Act of 2002 created the Office of the Citizenship  and Immigration Services (CIS) Ombudsman within the Department of  Homeland Security, but independent of USCIS. The Ombudsman’s role is  to enhance the administration and delivery of citizenship and immigration  services by identifying problems and proposing recommendations to  eliminate major systemic obstacles to efficiency. Further, the Ombudsman  is to work closely with DHS leadership in providing policy, planning, and  program advice on immigration matters. In response to recommendations  made in the CIS Ombudsman’s 2004 annual report, USCIS conducted a  number of pilot projects designed to reduce benefit application-processing  times and is considering adopting several practices it determined to be  successful. The agency studied the processing of two types of  applications during the pilots—applications to replace permanent resident  cards (form I-90) and applications to register permanent residence or  adjust status (form I-485). The applications to adjust status pilots involved  both petitions for alien relatives (form I-130) and petitions for immigrant  workers (form I-140).
During the period March 2004 through November 2004, USCIS conducted a  pilot program designed to reduce processing time for applications for  permanent resident cards. The pilot, conducted in the Los Angeles area,  allowed for electronically filed permanent resident cards to be processed  at application support centers, where applicants have their initial contact  with the agency and have their photographs and fingerprints taken. Data  showed that over 10,000 permanent resident cards were processed at Los  Angeles application support centers and 88 percent were approved during  the initial contact. During the pilot, average processing times were  reduced from over 8 months to about 2 weeks. USCIS’s Performance  Management Division has recommended that USCIS implement the pilot  nationwide.
Beginning in March 2004 and May 2004 respectively, USCIS conducted  pilot programs in the New York and Dallas district offices that focused on  testing new processes for adjudicating family-based applications for  adjustments of status within 90 days. Each sought to streamline and  accelerate application processing by shifting aspects of processing  responsibility from the National Benefits Center to the district offices.  Besides reducing the backlog, one of the advantages of the ability to  process adjustments of status within 90 days is reducing issuance of  interim documents such as travel documents and employment  authorizations. USCIS is generally required by regulation to grant interim  employment authorization documents to applicants whose adjustment of  status applications have not been adjudicated within 90 days. In such  cases, the adjudication process, including background checks, may not  have been completed prior to the issuance of these documents.
Therefore, in some instances benefits may be issued to applicants whose  eligibility and potential risk to national security have not been fully  determined.
The New York pilot employed a process similar to the standard process of  sending applications to a centralized location for receiving fees,  conducting the initial processing, and initiating checks of records.  Applicants were to be scheduled for an interview as soon as records  checks were complete—with emphasis on completing these within 90  days. The New York pilot also placed particular emphasis on fraud  deterrence. USCIS ultimately determined that the New York pilot was  unsuccessful and terminated it, because, among other things, it failed to  facilitate the adjudication of the majority of applications within 90 days  and presented a fairness issue for earlier-filed cases.
The Dallas pilot employed an up-front processing model that allowed  applicants to be interviewed on the same day the application was filed.  Data from Dallas showed that adjustment of status applications were  completed, on average, within 90 days in 58 percent of cases where  applications were processed using this up-front processing model.  Moreover, according to the June 2005 CIS Ombudsman report, during the  last weeks reported, the Dallas office was processing 71 percent of  applications within 90 days, using the up-front processing model. Further,  the Ombudsman’s report indicated that USCIS issued fewer interim  benefits using the up-front processing model—approximately 20 percent  of cases compared with approximately 85 percent nationally. Although the  Dallas pilot showed improvements in adjustments of status within 90 days  using the up-front model, USCIS raised several concerns during its  evaluation, including concerns that (1) some inefficiencies resulted from  the fact that information required to process applications was sometimes  incomplete, as was the case when criminal history checks were not  complete; (2) the pilot could not meet the Department of the Treasury’s  regulations requiring fees to be deposited within 24 hours; and (3) there  were equity concerns because the pilot involved processing recently  received applications before those filed earlier.
Despite concerns USCIS raised in evaluating the Dallas pilot project,  beginning in April 2005, USCIS began a phased implementation of up-front  processing through its National Benefits Center central processing hub.  Using elements of processes tested in the Dallas and New York pilot  projects, USCIS has implemented up-front processing at three district  offices—San Diego, San Antonio, and Buffalo—that did not have a backlog  of adjustment of status applications when implemented. USCIS anticipates  expanding the number of offices on a quarterly basis as they become  current in their processing so that applicants with pending applications  are not disadvantaged. The pilot in Dallas will also continue as long as  USCIS determines that additional information may be gleaned and until  the district office becomes current in processing applications.
In March 2004, a third adjustment of status pilot for employment-based  applications was implemented at the California service center. The focus  was to adjudicate within 75 days petitions for immigrant workers with  advanced degrees concurrently with the associated applications for  adjustment of status. Included among the pilot’s objectives were to (1)  reduce the issuance of interim benefits to ineligible applicants, (2) identify  frivolous and fraudulent filings designed to obtain interim benefits, and (3)  reduce the number of additional background checks required for  adjudication. This pilot identified eligible applications and initiated  security checks as applications were filed. According to the pilot’s  subsequent evaluation report, when security checks were complete and no  adverse information was detected, USCIS ordered permanent resident  cards for these applicants. During this pilot, USCIS processed about 30  percent of immigration petitions and 25 percent of adjustment of status  applications within the target time frame. As with the other pilots,  processing newly filed petitions and applications before those filed earlier  was a concern. Additionally, USCIS expressed concern about the amount  of time and resources required to manage the pilot, as well as the length of  time it took the FBI to conduct background checks for aliens in certain  high-tech occupations. Ultimately, USCIS deemed the pilot inefficient and  adverse to the service center backlog elimination goals because resources  were diverted from addressing backlogged cases.
Among the recommendations proposed in its 2005 annual report to  Congress, the CIS Ombudsman advocated that USCIS adopt the up-front  processing model piloted in Dallas for all adjustment of status  applications. The Ombudsman report states that overall the pilots show  that up-front processing does work and is preferable to USCIS’s current  business processes because it can reduce workload, improve completion  rates, enhance customer satisfaction and reduce issuance of interim  benefits. However, according to USCIS officials, the report did not address  the inefficiencies resulting from the delay of required information, the  inability to meet the Department of the Treasury’s deposit regulations, and  the inequity of processing newer applications before those filed earlier  that USCIS identified during the pilot. Moreover, USCIS officials said the  agency does not plan to implement the up-front processing model at  district offices with a backlog of adjustment of status applications,  because of these concerns.
The 2005 Ombudsman report also noted the indirect effect that reducing  the backlog could have on the fee revenue on which USCIS services are  based. For example, USCIS is required to provide an interim work permit  to applicants whose applications for adjustment of status have not been  adjudicated within 90 days. These interim work permits are valid for 240  days. At their expiration, the applicant must apply, and pay a fee, for a  renewal permit. This process could be repeated if the underlying  application for adjustment of status continues unadjudicated. To the  extent, however, that USCIS efforts are successful in reducing the time for  adjudicating adjustment of status applications, the need for interim work  permits will be correspondingly reduced, as will the fee revenue resulting  from them. The Ombudsman’s report does not estimate the extent of this  lost revenue, but it does estimate that in fiscal year 2004, fee revenue from  all work permit applications (not just interim permit applications) filed in  connection with applications for adjustment of status totaled $135 million,  approximately 10 percent of total USCIS revenue in that year.
USCIS acknowledges that some revenue loss will result from its backlog  elimination efforts. On the other hand, it expects that elimination of the  backlog will reduce the need for staff assigned to this effort and  consequently result in savings. As applications for interim benefits decline,  savings in processing costs will be realized, although it is unknown  whether they would be commensurate with the loss in revenue.  According to USCIS, revenue loss estimates are under review.
section_title: USCIS Developed a Staffing Model to Help Prevent Future Backlogs
paragraphs: In May 2005, USCIS finalized a staffing allocation model that addresses  how many and where staff are needed to better match projected  workloads. On the basis of this model, USCIS determined it must (1) retain  the temporary adjudicators currently on hand (about 1,100) through the  end of fiscal year 2006 and (2) fill vacancies to increase its level of  permanent adjudicator staff by 27 percent (about 460) to maintain  productivity and prevent future backlogs through fiscal year 2007.  According to USCIS, it is reasonable to assume that vacant permanent  positions will be filled in large part from within the existing cadre of  temporary adjudicators.
The staffing allocation model also projects the alignment of personnel at  each USCIS office through fiscal year 2007—one of the essential elements  of USCIS’s strategy to prevent future backlogs, according to the Associate  Director for Operations. As previously discussed, USCIS’s distribution of  adjudicators across field offices does not match the distribution of the  workload across field offices. To rectify this staffing imbalance, USCIS  finalized a staffing allocation model in May 2005 that addresses how many  and where staff are needed to better match projected workloads. For  example, because district offices in the eastern region have the smallest  proportion of staff to workload, the staffing allocation model calls for  about 37 percent of the total needed permanent positions (about 170) to  be filled there. Figure 4 shows the distribution of adjudicator staff in the  regions and the service centers as of January 2005 compared with the  proposed distribution that USCIS believes is required through fiscal year  2007 to maintain productivity and prevent future backlogs.
This kind of planning is consistent with the principle of integration and  alignment that we have advocated as one of the critical success factors in  human capital planning. As we have previously reported, workforce  planning that is linked to strategic goals and objectives can help agencies  be aware of their current and future needs such as the size of the  workforce and its deployment across the organization. In addition, we  have said that the appropriate geographic and organizational deployment  of employees can further support organizational goals and strategies.
USCIS has used a significant portion of its funds for backlog elimination  efforts to hire and pay temporary adjudicators. According to USCIS’s  budget director, the agency’s projected fee revenues and spending  authority in fiscal year 2006 are sufficient to absorb the cost of additional  permanent adjudicators called for in the staffing allocation model.  Finally, USCIS officials said that the need for future staffing adjustments  could be offset by future efficiencies gained during its transition to more  robust information technology capabilities. We have previously reported  that leading organizations consider how new initiatives, such as new  technologies, affect human capital in their strategic workforce  documents. However, USCIS’s current allocation staffing model does not  consider these expected productivity gains. Reflection of these expected  gains in its staffing allocation model should improve USCIS’s ability to  make strategic staffing decisions.
section_title: To Help Prevent Future Backlogs, USCIS Has Proposed an Information Technology Transformation Plan
paragraphs: In a February 2004 hearing before the House Subcommittee on  Immigration, Border Security, and Claims, USCIS Director Aguirre  testified that “technology is, without a question, the only way we are going  to get out of this horrible backlog that we have.” Accordingly, USCIS has  identified requirements for transforming its information technology by  upgrading the agency’s information technology capabilities to support the  prevention of future backlogs and for other purposes. In March 2005, the  Director of USCIS approved the agency’s mission needs statement (MNS),  and in April 2005, the DHS Joint Requirements Council approved the  MNS, which outlines the purpose of technology transformation and the  requirements to address deficiencies in its current information technology  capabilities. The MNS focuses on three modernization efforts: (1)  upgrading information technology infrastructure—including improved  desktops, servers and network computers; (2) creating an integrated  foundation to support data management and business processes among  multiple systems; and (3) developing new business processes—for  example, the ability to adjudicate cases electronically. We have long been  proponents of federal agencies having a strong Chief Information Officer  (CIO) to address information and technology management challenges, and  the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 requires agency heads to designate CIOs to  lead technology reforms. In April 2004, USCIS established an Office of the  Chief Information Officer and in June 2005 began the process of aligning  information technology under the CIO’s authority.
According to the MNS, the plan to transform USCIS’s information  technology will address several deficiencies in the agency’s current  information technology environment, including (1) inadequate ability to  meet changing business requirements, (2) need for improved efficiency to  maintain processing time goals and prevent the occurrence of backlogs,  (3) inadequate information technology oversight and governance, (4)  inconsistent access and data integrity controls, and (5) paper records  systems that are not cost-effective and do not comply with the paperwork  reduction act. Moreover, the MNS outlines several ways in which  information technology transformation is intended to support the DHS  strategic goals of prevention, service, and organizational excellence. For  example, according to the MNS, by upgrading the technical infrastructure,  USCIS can leverage the improved security features available in newer  operating systems, thereby supporting the objective of the DHS prevention  goal, which aims to ensure the security and integrity of the immigration  system.
According to the MNS, implementation of the information technology  infrastructure is scheduled to be complete by fiscal year 2011. Prior to the  proposed information technology program, USCIS had begun developing  several information systems to enhance its information technology  capabilities, which are reflected in the MNS. Among the systems are the  Background Check Service, the Biometric Storage System, and an  integrated case management system. These systems are designed to  manage and automate security check information, to store and retrieve  biometric data, and to manage case data in a paperless environment.
The MNS does not include consideration of whether and to what extent  the proposed technology transformation would be expected to have an  effect on staffing levels and use. We have reported in our work on  demonstrating results of information technology investments that leading  organizations evaluate both the overall performance of the information  technology function and the outcomes for individual technology  investments. In addition, we have reported that high-performing, client- focused organizations must take into account relationships among people,  processes, and technology. Further, significance in resource  administration is one of the early-stage approval criteria listed in DHS’s  management directive on technology investments. Consideration of the  expected productivity gains could help both the agency and Congress  make informed decisions about the appropriate level and timing of  investment in technology upgrades and staffing resource allocation.
section_title: Despite Progress, USCIS Seems Unlikely to Eliminate the Backlog for All Application Types in Every Office by September 30, 2006
paragraphs: Although USCIS has made progress in reducing its backlog of benefit  applications as it defines backlog, it seems unlikely that USCIS will meet  its September 30, 2006, goal of reducing the number of pending  applications to a level no greater than the previous 6 months’ receipts for  every form type at every office. It will be particularly difficult for USCIS to  meet the progressively more ambitious targets it has set for completing  some of the more complex benefit applications—specifically for  applications for adjustment of status and applications for  naturalization—by September 30, 2006. Furthermore, although USCIS  officials have stated that the agency has sufficient staff resources to  process its overall projected workload by the end of fiscal year 2006, in  certain offices, where the volume of applications exceeds adjudicator staff  capacity, the backlog may remain. Additionally, external factors beyond  USCIS’s immediate control may limit the feasibility of achieving its goal,  such as the need for extended background checks, availability of entry  visas, and possible legislative changes.
subsections: section_title: USCIS Met Targets for Processing Pending Applications in 2004, but May Have Difficulty Meeting More Ambitious Targets for Fiscal Year 2006 for the Two Most Complex Application Types
paragraphs: USCIS met all of its 2004 targets for processing its workload of pending  applications and as of June 30, 2005, was showing progress toward  meeting its workload targets for fiscal year 2005 for most application  types. However, performance so far indicates it may have difficulty  achieving the much more ambitious targets it set for fiscal year 2006 for at  least two of the more complex application types. To ensure progress  toward meeting its goal of achieving a pending workload of applications  no greater than the number of applications it received during the previous  6 months, USCIS established progressively more stringent targets. For the  application types included in the backlog elimination plan, table 4 shows  the size of USCIS’s workload—that is, the months of receipts pending  adjudication—as of June 2005, the latest available data, and the workload  targets established for fiscal years 2004 through 2006.
As of June 2005, USCIS had met or exceeded its fiscal year 2005 workload  processing time targets for 10 of 15 application types (see solid circles in  table 4). In fact, for 8 of these application types, USCIS met or exceeded  its fiscal year 2006 targets (see solid circles in table 4). In addition, as  figure 5 shows, USCIS has made progress in reducing its backlog—from a  peak of about 3.8 million applications in January 2004 down to about 1.2  million in June 2005. Since October 2003, completions have generally  outpaced receipts, contributing to backlog reduction. However, the sharp  drop in the backlog is due to USCIS’s decision in July 2004 to remove from  its backlog count those 1.15 million cases for which an immigration visa is  not immediately available and a benefit cannot be provided. Nevertheless,  August 2004 was USCIS’s most productive month, with completions  exceeding receipts by 138 percent.
USCIS’s productivity notwithstanding, workload processing targets for  two of the more complex application types appear to be rather ambitious  in light of the agency’s performance through June 2005. For example,  figures 6 and 7 show a substantial drop in targets for reducing pending  adjustments of status to lawful permanent resident and reflect the  challenge USCIS faces to meet fiscal year 2005 targets for applications for  naturalization. According to USCIS, these two application types require  the most effort and, as of June 2005, constituted more than three-quarters  of the remaining backlog of 1.2 million applications.
As figure 6 shows, USCIS has made progress toward reducing its pending  applications to adjust status to lawful permanent resident to 15 months for  fiscal year 2005. However, the workload target for fiscal year 2006 drops  dramatically to 6 months. Further, USCIS estimates it has a backlog of  about 600,000 of this application type as of June 2005, which represents  the largest number of applications in the backlog.
As shown in figure 7, although the difference between 2005 and 2006  workload targets for applications for naturalization is not as pronounced,  it is still ambitious, particularly since USCIS appears to be struggling to  reduce its pending workload to 10 months by the end of fiscal year 2005.  Moreover, USCIS estimates it has a backlog of about 290,000 of this  application type as of June 2005, which represents the second largest  number of applications in the backlog.
If meeting its targeted workload is a reliable indicator of USCIS’s ability to  meet its September 30, 2006, goal, then its progress through June 2005 and  the more ambitious targets that must be achieved for these two  application types raises doubts about USCIS’s ability to meet the ultimate  goal of reducing its pending number of these application types to a level  that can be adjudicated within 6 months by September 30, 2006.
Further, our analyses indicate that to eliminate the backlog for these two  application types, USCIS would need to complete significantly more  applications than it has in the past. Specifically, during the most recent 15  months for which data were available (April 1, 2004, to June 30, 2005),  USCIS completed about 800,000 applications for adjustment of status.  According to USCIS’s projections, it must complete another 1.3 million  (about 69 percent more) in the 15 months between July 1, 2005, and  September 20, 2006, to eliminate the backlog of this application type by  the deadline. Similarly, USCIS completed about 800,000 applications for  naturalization during the most recent 15 month period and must more than  double that level and complete another 1.8 million naturalization  applications (an increase of about 124 percent) during the following 15  months to eliminate the backlog of this application type.
section_title: USCIS’s Calculation of Backlog Elimination Is Agencywide, but Does Not Address All Application Types in All Locations
paragraphs: USCIS’s calculation of its backlog provides an estimate of the number of  applications on an agencywide basis that exceed the number of  applications received over the last 6 months, rather than in each location.  When USCIS’s agencywide data reflect that it has eliminated the  agencywide backlog for a certain application type, it may not be an  indication that this backlog has been eliminated at every location. USCIS  officials told us that even if they report that they have eliminated the  agencywide backlog by the end of fiscal year 2006, it is possible that  backlogs (i.e., pending applications representing more than 6 months’  worth of receipts) of certain application types could remain at certain field  locations. For example, as of June 2005, USCIS data indicated that, on an  agencywide basis, a backlog no longer existed for seven types of benefit  applications: applications for (1) renewing or replacing a lawful  permanent resident card, (2) travel documents, (3) extending or changing  status, (4) employment authorization, (5) temporary protected status, and  petitions for (6) nonimmigrant workers and (7) immigrant workers.  However, upon closer examination of the data, backlogs remained for five  of these application types at specific locations. Specifically, as of June  2005, a backlog of applications to renew a lawful permanent resident card  and applications for temporary protected status (about a dozen each)  remained at the Vermont and Nebraska service centers, respectively.  Moreover, a backlog of nearly 3,000 applications for travel documents  remained across a dozen district offices combined and nearly 2,500  remained at the Nebraska service center alone. Similarly, nearly 2,000  applications for employment authorization remained across nine district  offices combined and nearly 70,000 remained at the California service  center alone. Finally, a backlog of about 3,000 petitions for immigrant  workers remained at the California and Nebraska service centers  combined.
section_title: Backlogs Could Remain at Understaffed Offices
paragraphs: According to USCIS, it has the staffing capacity agencywide to address the  backlog, but some benefit applications in offices where volume exceeds  adjudicator capacity may require more than 6 months to process, causing  backlogs to remain beyond September 30, 2006. USCIS estimates that it  will have to complete about 10 million benefit applications between July 1,  2005, and September 30, 2006, to retire the backlog and reduce its pending  applications, on average, to a level that can be processed within 6 months  or less. According to the Deputy Associate Director for Operations, the  agency’s staffing level as of June 2005—about 3,100 permanent and  temporary adjudicators and information officers—should be adequate to  retire the backlog. However, the distribution of adjudicators across field  offices does not match the current distribution of the workload across  field offices. A reason for this staffing imbalance, according to USCIS  officials, is that the agency hired temporary adjudicators for all district  offices to concentrate on adjudicating forms in the backlog while  permanent adjudicators could focus attention on adjudicating new  petitions for alien relatives and prospective spouses and related  applications for adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident under  the Legal Immigration Family Equity (LIFE) Act. However, USCIS  officials said that the anticipated volume of LIFE Act applications and  petitions never materialized in district offices in the central and western  regions.
Unless the agency is successful in redistributing its adjudicator staff, it  appears that backlogs are likely to remain at understaffed field offices in  the eastern region in fiscal year 2007. According to the Deputy Associate  Director for Operations, USCIS has too few adjudicators at district offices  in the eastern region to address the workload, while district offices in the  central and western regions have excess adjudicator staff. Figure 8 shows  the distribution of workload to adjudicators across regions.
section_title: Other Factors May Hinder USCIS’s Ability to Complete Certain Applications within 6 Months
paragraphs: Factors beyond the agency’s control could prevent some applications from  being adjudicated within 6 months. For example, some applications may  require longer to adjudicate because of factors such as (1) the need for  more extensive background checks for certain applicants, (2) annual  limitations on certain visas, and (3) legislative changes.
subsections: section_title: Background Checks
paragraphs: USCIS performs a background check on all benefit applicants via its  Interagency Border Inspection System (IBIS). Adjudicators said they can  normally perform these checks on their desktop computers in a matter of  minutes, a process we observed at the Houston district office. For selected  immigration benefit applications, USCIS requires additional background  information from fingerprint checks and name checks performed by the  FBI. Officials from the FBI said they can normally check fingerprint  records in about 24 hours or less and return the results to USCIS in batch  format about two times a week. The FBI results either indicate no record  of a criminal history or provide the applicant’s criminal history record.
However, FBI name checks can be far more involved and take more than 6  months to complete. For example, when an applicant’s name matches the  name or alias of someone with a criminal history, the FBI is to perform a  secondary check of multiple databases, which can take up to a month to  complete. A small percentage of cases have to be subjected to a more  intensive file review, which can take more than 6 months. For example,  USCIS found an example where it took the FBI nearly 2 years to complete  a name check for a naturalization applicant. Table 5 summarizes the types  of background checks required for those forms included in USCIS’s  backlog elimination plan.
According to our analysis of about 670,000 naturalization applications filed  between February 2004 and February 2005, the FBI returned about 59  percent of the names within 10 days, and 72 percent were returned within  30 days. About 11 percent of the applications (more than 74,000) took  more than 90 days to complete. Further, about 7 percent of these  naturalization applicants (more than 44,000) had not received a final  response as of February 28, 2005. Until these name checks are completed,  applications cannot be finally adjudicated. In addition, USCIS officials said  that it often takes a long time (as much as 4 to 6 months) to clear the  names of immigrant workers with high-tech backgrounds who are  applying to change their status to lawful permanent resident, because,  since September 11, the FBI has become especially interested in carefully  vetting aliens with such backgrounds.
section_title: Visa Limitations for Immigrants
paragraphs: The availability of visas issued by the Department of State will not affect  the backlog as defined by USCIS because USCIS excludes from its count  of backlog those cases for which a visa is not available. However, it may  result in some applicants having to wait much longer than 6 months before  their benefit is adjudicated. In order to initiate a visa request to have an  alien relative or prospective employee immigrate to the United States, a  qualifying relative or employer must file a petition with USCIS on behalf of  the immigrant. Section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act sets  effective annual limits of 226,000 visas for family-sponsored immigrants  and approximately 148,000 visas for employment-based immigrants. In  addition, the act sets preference levels for both family-based and  employment-based immigrants, which further determine which applicants  receive priority for a visa. Further, section 203(e) of the act states that  family-sponsored and employment-based preference visas should be  issued to eligible immigrants in the order in which a petition on behalf of  each was filed with USCIS. There are also annual numerical limitations  on the number of visas that can be allocated per country under each of the  preference categories. Thus, even if the annual limit for a preference  category has not been exceeded, visas may not be available to immigrants  from countries with high rates of immigration to the United States, such as  China and India, because of the per country limits. Table 6 lists the types  and allocation limits of visas for family- and employer-sponsored  immigrants.
Until an alien obtains an immigrant visa and enters the United States, or an  alien already in the United States is able to adjust his or her status, the  immigrant will not be able to become a lawful permanent resident. The  actual petitions for alien relatives (I-131) or immigrant workers (I-140) can  be filed with and adjudicated by USCIS at any time, regardless of the  availability of visa numbers. However, USCIS may not adjudicate any  pending applications for adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident  (I-485) when visa numbers have been exhausted for the particular  preference category or country. Since visas must be issued on a first-come,  first-served basis within each priority category, applicants may be inclined  to file an application to adjust status knowing they may remain ineligible  for a benefit for many years. For example, in September 2005, the  Department of State was issuing, under the general family-based  preference limits, visas for unmarried sons and daughters of citizens  whose petitions were filed with USCIS on or before April 15, 2001, and for  brothers and sisters of adult citizens whose petitions were filed with  USCIS on or before December 15, 1993. In these situations, USCIS may  not adjudicate any pending adjustment applications until visa numbers  become available for those applicants and may have to hold such  applications for several years.
These kinds of delays in adjudication of pending adjustment of status  applications for family-sponsored immigrants may continue to grow  because of a demand that may continue to exceed the number of available  visas each year. In fiscal year 2004, USCIS received nearly 700,000  petitions for alien relatives—more than three times the amount of  available annual visas. Additionally, as of June 2005, USCIS had received  another 484,000 petitions for alien relatives that add to the 152,000 pending  petitions. According to USCIS officials, 2005 is the first year in which the  agency has adjudicated a number of employment-based petitions and  ensuing applications for adjustment of status up to the annual visa cap. As  a result, USCIS will start the next fiscal year with a queue of pending  petitions that has the potential of resulting in an adjudications backlog of  employment-based immigration adjustment of status applications.
section_title: Legislative Changes
paragraphs: USCIS officials noted that its current backlog elimination plan is based on  the assumption that the agency will continue to operate under current  laws. These officials noted, however, that if any new legislation is enacted  between now and the end of fiscal year 2006 without provisions for  resources to carry out new responsibilities, the agency’s ability to  eliminate the backlog could be compromised. For example, USCIS  officials told us that the REAL ID Act of 2005 has recently added to  USCIS’s workload by, among other things, increasing the number of  persons eligible to apply for and receive nonimmigrant worker status for  temporary nonagricultural workers and foreign investors, as well as  adding an expanded and more complex ground of inadmissibility relating  to terrorism that must be addressed as part of the adjudication of many  immigration benefit applications. In addition, the act does not provide  additional resources to carry out these activities.
section_title: USCIS Lacks a Comprehensive Approach to Postadjudication Quality Assurance
paragraphs: USCIS operates two distinct postadjudication quality assurance programs,  but neither provides a comprehensive review of the agency’s efforts to  ensure that immigration benefits are granted only to persons eligible to  receive them. Both of USCIS’s major quality assurance programs are  limited to a small number of application types they review and, taken  together, the programs do not review all 15 of the major application types  included in the backlog elimination plan. One program measures quality by  assessing adjudicator compliance with standard operating procedures  used in adjudicating two application types, but it does not determine the  reasonableness of the final adjudicative decision. The other program  measures both compliance with standard operating procedures and the  reasonableness of adjudicator decisions for selected application types.  Although supervisory reviews of cases are conducted at the local office  level, the reviews lack a standardized approach across all offices. USCIS is  currently reviewing its quality assurance procedures and plans to improve  the metrics used to measure quality agencywide.
subsections: section_title: USCIS’s Agencywide Quality Assurance Program Tracks Process Compliance for Two Application Types
paragraphs: USCIS’s Performance Management Division administers an agencywide  quality assurance program, which reviews adjudicator compliance with  selected processes for adjudicating 2 of the 15 major application types:  applications for naturalization and for adjustment of status to lawful  permanent resident. The review is restricted to compliance with standard  operating procedures and does not evaluate the reasonableness of the  final adjudicative decisions. The program began in 1997 in response to  media criticism about the integrity of its naturalization application  processing and was developed to improve the quality and consistency of  naturalization application processing by ensuring that immigration laws,  regulations, policies, and operating guidance are adhered to during the  adjudication process. In February 2005, USCIS expanded its quality  assurance review to include adjustments of status.
To conduct its reviews, the performance management staff selects a  sample of applications completed during a given month and available at  the selected district office or service center. (Completed applications are  not stored in district offices and service centers.) In general the number of  cases sampled depends upon the number of applications processed in a  given month, and a sample of cases is chosen from the applications that  are available. USCIS’s Performance Management Division staff uses a  standardized series of questions to determine the extent to which  adjudicators have followed the required processes. The staff records the  results and sends them to the adjudicative staff for correction. The quality  assurance review of naturalization applications covers critical processes  and non-critical processes. Critical processes are generally those that  relate to security procedures, for example documenting fingerprints, IBIS  checks, and name checks. Non-security-related processes such as marking  approved applications with an approval stamp are generally considered  noncritical processes. Figure 9 shows that for the sample of naturalization  applications that were reviewed during fiscal year 2004 and the first and  second quarters of fiscal year 2005, USCIS exceeded the critical and  noncritical processing accuracy goals of 99 percent and 96 percent  respectively.
The review of adjustment of status applications, like the review of  naturalization applications, includes security system checks and checks on  adjudication processes, but only reports an overall processing accuracy  rate, not the processing accuracy rates for critical processes. USCIS’s  quality assurance reviews reported an overall agencywide processing  accuracy rate of 98.5 percent for the sample of cases examined for the  period January 2005 through March 2005. A study conducted by an  independent management consultant, using sampling methods similar to  those USCIS uses to assess adjudicator compliance with standard  processes, produced similar results as USCIS for naturalization and lower  results for adjustment of status applications. For example, the consultant  found that the overall processing accuracy rate for naturalization  applications was over 98 percent for the cases reviewed at selected district  offices.
section_title: USCIS’s Service Center Quality Assurance Program Tracks Process Compliance and Evaluates Reasonableness of Adjudication Decisions
paragraphs: Since April 2002, USCIS’s Service Center Operations Division has  performed quality assurance reviews designed to evaluate the quality and  correctness of adjudicative decisions for selected benefit applications filed  exclusively at service centers. This quality assurance review uses the same  guidance as the agencywide program to select cases to review. In general  the number of cases sampled depends upon the number of applications  processed in a given month, and a sample of cases is chosen from the  applications that are available. Two application types were selected for the  initial review—first, applications for adjustment of status and, 6 months  later, applications to extend or change nonimmigrant status. Subsequently,  the service center added other application types to its review including  petitions for alien relatives and petitions for nonimmigrant workers.
For this review, a sample of case files is selected and independently  reviewed by the quality assurance unit. The review selects cases based on  three types of adjudicative decisions: (1) approvals, (2) denials, and (3)  requests for evidence. Each case file is evaluated for compliance with  processes and procedures and completeness of the administrative actions.  In addition, the reviewer evaluates the reasonableness of the decision  outcome—that is, whether he or she would have made the same decision  given the evidence provided. The Service Center Operations Division has  developed a series of standardized checklists that is used for reporting  purposes. When errors are detected in the review, such as when an IBIS  check is marked as valid on the checklist when in fact the IBIS check had  expired, service center guidance indicates that corrective actions should  be taken. For example, if an erroneous decision was identified during the  review of an approved case, the corrective action could result in the cases  being reopened and the benefit being rescinded. The guidance further  indicates that after the initial quality assurance reviews, a small sample of  previously reviewed cases should be checked a second time by a separate  reviewer to validate the initial results.
The Service Center Operations Division develops a quality level indicator  by calculating the number of correct decisions identified among the total  number of cases reviewed. According to USCIS, the emphasis of the  program is on using trend analyses to identify and address weaknesses in  administrative decision making rather than meeting a specific  performance target. In fiscal year 2004, the Service Center Operations  Division reviewed three forms—employment-based applications for  adjustment of status, applications to extend or change nonimmigrant  status, and petitions for alien relatives. The rates of correct decisions for  the forms reviewed were 94.3 percent, 95.7 percent, and 93.5 percent  respectively. In the first two quarters of the fiscal year 2005, in addition to  continuing the reviews of adjustments of status and petitions for alien  relatives, USCIS added petitions for nonimmigrant workers. The rate of  correct decisions for reviewed applications of this type was 98 percent for  the period January 2005 through April 2005.
section_title: USCIS Supervisors Review Quality of Staff Adjudications
paragraphs: Aside from these two quality assurance programs, USCIS also checks  quality through supervisory reviews of case files at the local office level.  However, these reviews are not consistently performed across all local  offices. For example, some local offices, such as the San Antonio district  office, perform supervisory reviews of all cases awaiting adjudication, as  well as a group of adjudicated cases, while others, such as the Texas  service center, may perform supervisory reviews of all cases adjudicated  by new staff.
section_title: USCIS Is Reviewing Its Quality Assurance Programs
paragraphs: The independent review of USCIS’s quality assurance program, discussed  previously, made a number of recommendations to improve the agency’s  programs; among them, that the Performance Management Division’s  quality assurance program include application types not currently part of  the program to determine their level of compliance with adjudicative  procedures. In addition it recommended that that USCIS focus fewer  resources on naturalization applications in offices that consistently meet  the quality goal and spend resources on the new adjustment of status  application review because the review shows compliance was lower for  this application. According to USCIS guidance, the agency planned to  progressively include other application types and operations in its quality  assurance approach, but the agency has not established specific strategies  and timelines for doing so. According to agency officials, USCIS is in the  process of collecting and validating data on the current inventory of  quality assurance measurements in use throughout USCIS. After the  validation process, they plan to analyze this information to identify gaps  and areas of improvement. USCIS plans to design, develop, and test a draft  set of proposed quality metrics. USCIS plans to have a final set of quality  metrics available by December 2005, which the agency says will reflect  several dimensions of quality including accuracy, consistency, timelines,  efficiency, customer service and production.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: USCIS intends to address deficiencies in its current information  technology systems through technology transformation, including the  development of a new, integrated case management system capable of  providing managers reports on the actual age of pending immigration  benefit applications. Under USCIS’s current method for calculating  backlog, it is possible for individual applicants to wait longer than 6  months for a benefit decision, even if the backlog for that benefit type has  technically been eliminated. USCIS’s proposed technology transformation  should have the capability to provide information about the actual number  of applications that have been pending for more than 6 months so that the  agency is able to define its backlog consistently with the statutory  definition of any application pending adjudication for more than 180 days.
USCIS has made substantial progress toward its goal of reducing its  backlog of benefit applications and may eliminate much of the backlog by  September 30, 2006. In addition to efforts to eliminate the current backlog,  it is important for the agency to take steps to prevent future backlogs. The  agency’s ambitious technology transformation plan promises to meet this  need by moving the agency from a manual, paper-driven process to an  automated, paperless adjudication environment. As USCIS strives to  become a high-performing, client-focused organization, it must take into  account relationships among people, processes, and technology. For  example, one of the assumptions underlying technology transformation is  that it will facilitate more efficient, streamlined processes, which in turn  could yield productivity gains, thus allowing more work to be  accomplished without added staff resources. The agency has not identified  these potential effects in its staffing and technology plans. Considering  these relationships and including them in operational and strategic plans  would give USCIS a sound basis for making strategic decisions regarding  resource allocation. Without such information, Congress cannot be  assured that the agency’s investments in information technology will  contribute to maximizing productivity and preventing future backlogs.
At present, USCIS’s quality assurance efforts do not comprehensively  assess the adjudicative process and its outcomes, nor do they address all  benefit application types. While USCIS has taken steps and has other steps  planned to identify and address shortcomings in its quality assurance  program, it has not yet developed the specific performance measures and  goals needed to ensure consistent quality of adjudication across all  components of the adjudication process. As a result, the agency cannot be  assured that all benefit applications are adjudicated in compliance with  agency guidance and that reasonable decisions are rendered on a  consistent basis.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: To help determine the size of its backlog in a manner consistent with the  definition in the Immigration Services and Infrastructure Improvements  Act of 2000, we recommend that the Secretary of Homeland Security direct  the Director of USCIS to develop and implement the capability to produce  management reports on the actual age of individual benefit applications as  soon as practicable in its long-term technology transformation process.
To help ensure that USCIS has the information necessary to make sound  strategic decisions regarding resource allocation—including staffing  allocation and investment in technology transformation—and to inform  Congress about expected gains from investments in technology, we  recommend that the Secretary of Homeland Security direct the Director of  USCIS to take the following two actions:  identify potential productivity gains and their effects on preventing  future backlogs and  identify the potential effects of technology improvements on its staffing  allocation plans.
To improve its quality assurance efforts and to help ensure that benefits  are provided only to eligible individuals, we recommend that the Secretary  of Homeland Security direct the Director of USCIS to modify its quality  assurance programs to address both adjudication process compliance and  reasonableness of adjudicator decisions and expand coverage to all types  of benefit applications.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Homeland Security  for review. On November 8, 2005, we received written comments on the  draft report, which are reproduced in full in appendix VII. The department  concurred with the findings and recommendations in the report, and  agreed that efforts to implement our recommendations are useful for  ensuring that USCIS provides decision makers with full and adequate  information. Specifically, the department said that USCIS’s proposed case  management system will provide the capability to produce management  reports on the actual age of individual benefit applications. In addition, the  department said USCIS is currently piloting several initiatives to increase  productivity and efficiency and will continue to seek opportunities and  methods to streamline processes and increase productivity while  maintaining integrity and security of the adjudicative process. The  department also said that USCIS is committed to analyzing staffing  allocation levels twice yearly to ensure that resources are properly aligned  with its workload. Moreover, as process and technology improvements are  realized, resource allocations will be changed to fit the conditions. Finally,  the department said that USCIS has begun to develop a comprehensive  quality management program intended to develop a set of quality  performance measures to assess servicewide performance for all benefit  application types. These measures will address both process compliance  and the quality of adjudicators’ decisions. The department also provided  technical comments on our draft report, which we incorporated where  appropriate.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents  earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days from the  date of this report. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the  Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security and the Director of  United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. In addition, the report  will be available at no charge on GAO’s Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report or wish to discuss  it further, please contact me at (202) 512-8777 or at JonesPL@gao.gov. Key  contributors to this report are listed in appendix VII.
section_title: Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: During our review, we interviewed United States Citizenship and  Immigration Services (USCIS) officials in headquarters from a number of  divisions, including the offices of Budget, Field Operations, Service Center  Operations, Records Services, Modernization Services, Asylum Division,  Performance Management, and Administrative Appeals. We also spoke  with the USCIS Chief Information Officer and officials in the Office of the  Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman. In addition, we spoke  with officials from Immigration and Customs Enforcement, as well as a  stakeholder group that frequently interacts with USCIS, the American  Immigration Lawyers Association. We visited and interviewed officials in  10 USCIS field offices—the California service center, in Laguna Niguel; the  Texas service center, in Dallas; the National Benefits Center, near Kansas  City; district offices in Dallas, Houston, Los Angeles, San Antonio, San  Diego, and Washington, D.C.; and the Los Angeles asylum office. We  selected these offices because they constituted a cross section of field  offices that (1) were handling large, medium, and small volumes of  applications and petitions; (2) were overstaffed and understaffed; (3) had  backlogs of applications or petitions or no backlogs; and (4) had  conducted or were conducting some of the pilot projects. Because we  selected a nonprobability sample of field offices to visit, the results from  our interviews with USCIS officials in these offices cannot be generalized  to USCIS offices nationwide.
To determine the status of USCIS’s backlog of pending benefit  applications, we interviewed agency officials and reviewed USCIS’s  backlog elimination plans and updates along with the agency’s supporting  analyses and compared them with the statutory definition of backlog in  the Immigration Services and Infrastructure Improvements Act of 2000.
To determine the actions USCIS has taken to eliminate the backlog of  applications and prevent future backlogs, we reviewed USCIS’s planning  documents on the agency’s staffing, budget, and information technology  modernization. We also reviewed evaluation reports on process  streamlining initiatives and pilot projects, as well as interviewing  appropriate USCIS officials. Where possible, we corroborated their  responses with agency data that we assessed for reliability and determined  were sufficiently reliable for our purposes.
To estimate the likelihood that USCIS would eliminate the backlog by  September 30, 2006, we tracked and compared the agency’s progress in  reducing its workload with the targets USCIS established. We also  analyzed workload and staffing data from the agency’s Performance  Analysis System, the official system of record used to manage the agency’s  backlog elimination efforts. We reviewed existing information about the  data and the system that produced them, including procedures for  ensuring accuracy. We also interviewed USCIS staff in the Performance  Management Division regarding the collection and analysis of the  workload data and determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for  the purposes of this report. In addition, we reviewed USCIS’s backlog  elimination progress reports and staffing analysis model that were derived  from the Performance Analysis System. We also collected and analyzed  information on factors that could affect USCIS’s ability to eliminate the  backlog, including the duration of Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)  name checks for naturalization applications, visa allocation limits, and  new legislation. We analyzed data on FBI name checks obtained from  USCIS’s Computer Linked Application Information Management System   (CLAIMS 4). We assessed the reliability of CLAIMS 4 data by (1)  performing electronic testing of the required data elements for obvious  errors in accuracy and completeness, (2) reviewing related  documentation, and (3) interviewing USCIS staff knowledgeable about the  CLAIMS 4 system and obtaining answers to written questions about the  system, and we determined that these data were sufficiently reliable for  our purposes. We also reviewed information on visa allocation limits from  the Department of State and spoke with USCIS officials in the Office of  Operations and the Office of Fraud Detection and National Security.  Finally, we discussed with USCIS officials the effects the REAL ID Act of  2005 had on the adjudications workload as an example of how new  legislation without the provision of additional resources could take  adjudicator staff resources away from backlog elimination efforts.
To determine how USCIS ensures the quality and consistency of  adjudicator decisions, we interviewed USCIS officials in the Performance  Management Division. We reviewed USCIS reports and data on accuracy  rates related to its two quality assurance programs. We also reviewed the  findings and recommendations of an independent study on USCIS’s quality  assurance programs. Finally, we discussed supervisory review practices  with senior managers at the field offices we visited. However, we did not  independently verify the extent and quality of supervisory review.
We conducted our work from September 2004 through October 2005 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
section_title: Appendix II: USCIS Organizational Structure
paragraphs: USCIS carries out its service function through a network of field offices  consisting of a National Benefits Center, 4 service centers, 78 district and  local offices, 31 international offices, 8 asylum offices, and 129 application  support centers.
USCIS’s National Benefits Center, located in Missouri, was created in  April 2003 to serve as a central processing hub for benefit applications  generally requiring an interview, such as petitions for admission of  spouses and other family members. These “preprocessing” activities  include conducting background security checks, performing initial  evidence reviews, adjudicating any associated employment  authorization and travel applications, denying adjustment of status  cases for applicants who are statutorily ineligible, and forwarding  scheduled cases to the cognizant district so that the applicant can be  interviewed and the case decided. Eventually, the National Benefits  Center will also preprocess all applications for naturalization.
USCIS’s 4 service centers are located in California, Nebraska, Texas,  and Vermont. They were created in 1990 to help reduce application  backlogs in the district offices. Service centers process 35 types of  applications, including petitions for permanent and temporary workers  and applications for employment-based adjustment of status to  permanent resident. Since February 1996, the service centers have  shared responsibility with the districts for processing naturalization  applications. Naturalization applications are received by the service  centers and processed up to the point of interview, at which time  responsibility for processing the case is shifted to the appropriate  district so that the applicant can be interviewed and the case decided.
USCIS’s 78 district and local offices and 31 international offices are  located throughout the nation and around the world. These offices  generally process applications that require interviews with the  applicant or verification of an applicant’s identity. In addition to  processing naturalization applications, districts process petitions for  alien relatives and family-based adjustment of status applications,  among others.
USCIS’s 8 asylum offices are located in Newark, New Jersey; New  York, New York; Arlington, Virginia; Miami, Florida; Chicago, Illinois;  Houston, Texas; Los Angeles, California; and San Francisco, California.  Asylum offices adjudicate asylum applications and applications for  suspension of deportation and special rule cancellation of removal  under Section 203 of the Nicaraguan and Central American Relief Act  (NACARA 203); conduct “credible fear” and “reasonable fear”  screening interviews of certain removable persons who have expressed  a fear of return to the country of removal to determine if they qualify  for an opportunity to seek relief from removal before an Immigration  Judge, and provide staffing support to the Refugee Branch to assist in  USCIS’s overseas refugee processing efforts.
USCIS’s 129 application support centers are under the jurisdiction of  districts and are located throughout the nation. They were established  in fiscal year 1998 to serve as INS’s designated fingerprint locations. In  June 2000, INS shifted responsibility for processing applications for  renewal of permanent resident cards (i.e., green cards) from the  districts to the support centers.
section_title: Appendix III: Information Technology Systems
paragraphs: Several information technology systems critical to USCIS’s information  technology transformation plan are in development. One objective of this  plan is to develop a new integrated customer-focused case-processing  system that will deliver comprehensive information from immigration  applications. Other systems under development are USCIS’s Background  Check Service system, which is designed to manage security check  information and the Biometric Storage System, which will store biometric  data.
subsections: section_title: Integrated Case Management System
paragraphs: The integrated case management system is a tool that will be used by  USCIS staff in processing benefits and adjudicating cases. USCIS’s  information technology transformation mission needs statement estimates  that the case management system development will begin in fiscal year  2006. USCIS is currently assembling the system requirements and  conducting surveys of industry best practices. In addition, USCIS is  reviewing a cost-benefit analysis to evaluate alternative implementation  strategies for the new integrated case management system. USCIS  anticipates that its current case management systems will be  decommissioned by fiscal year 2011.
section_title: Background Check Service
paragraphs: The Background Check Service system automates and manages the  submission of all security checks including name and fingerprints from the  FBI and Interagency Border Inspection System. The Background Check  Service system will track and store security check responses in a  centralized system. USCIS is preparing to initiate the testing and  implementation phase, but USCIS must first select a hosting and  production facility for the system. As of August 2005, USCIS estimates the  deployment of the Background Check Service system to be December  2005.
section_title: The Biometric Storage System
paragraphs: The Biometric Storage System allows USCIS to store biometrics  information for verification of identity and for future form submissions.  Biometric storage capacity will be expanded to allow storage of biometric  information for all USCIS customers, allowing information to be  resubmitted for subsequent security checks. The system will capture 10- prints for FBI fingerprint checks and image sets (photograph, press-prints,  and signatures). According to USCIS, the Biometric Storage System  repository will be located with the United States Visitor and Immigrant  Status Indicator Technology and Automated Biometric Identification  System Programs to enable data sharing and more detailed background  check and authentication processes. As of August 2005, USCIS estimated  that the Biometric Storage System will become operational in August 2006.
section_title: Appendix IV: District Office Application for Naturalization (N-400) Processing Quality Checklist
section_title: Appendix V: Adjustment of Status (I-485) Processing Quality Assurance Checklist
section_title: Appendix VI: Service Center Checklists Used for Reviewing Quality Assurance of Petitions for a Nonimmigrant Worker
section_title: Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security
section_title: Appendix VIII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to those named above, David Alexander, Leo Barbour, Karen  Burke, Virginia Chanley, Frances Cook, Nancy Finley, Kathryn Godfrey,  Clarette Kim, Marvin G. McGill, Eva Rezmovic, E. Jerry Seigler, James  Ungvarsky, and Robert E. White were key contributors to this report.