Immigration Benefits
Improvements Needed to Address Backlogs and Ensure Quality of Adjudications Gao ID: GAO-06-20 November 21, 2005Long-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.
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.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-06-20, Immigration Benefits: Improvements Needed to Address Backlogs and Ensure Quality of Adjudications
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-06-20
entitled 'Immigration Benefits: Improvements Needed to Address Backlogs
and Ensure Quality of Adjudications' which was released on December 21,
2005.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to Congressional Requesters:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
November 2005:
Immigration Benefits:
Improvements Needed to Address Backlogs and Ensure Quality of
Adjudications:
GAO-06-20:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-06-20, a report to Congressional Requestors:
Why GAO Did This Study:
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.
What GAO Found:
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.
Benefit Applications Received, Completed, and Backlogged, March 2003-
June 2005:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that USCIS (1) ensure that its technology improvement
efforts support the ability to generate information on the actual age
of individual applications, (2) identify and articulate in its plans
the benefits it expects to realize from its investment in technology
transformation, and (3) develop a comprehensive quality assurance
program that applies to all types of benefit applications and that
addresses adjudication processes and reasonableness of decisions.
We provided a draft of this report to USCIS for review. USCIS agreed
with our findings and recommendations.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-20.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Paul L. Jones at (202)
512-8777 or JonesPL@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
USCIS Estimated a Backlog of About 1.2 Million Unadjudicated
Applications as of June 30, 2005:
USCIS Has Undertaken Several Short-and Longer-Term Actions to Eliminate
Its Backlog:
Despite Progress, USCIS Seems Unlikely to Eliminate the Backlog for All
Application Types in Every Office by September 30, 2006:
USCIS Lacks a Comprehensive Approach to Postadjudication Quality
Assurance:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: USCIS Organizational Structure:
Appendix III: Information Technology Systems:
Appendix IV: District Office Application for Naturalization (N-400)
Processing Quality Checklist:
Appendix V: Adjustment of Status (I-485) Processing Quality Assurance
Checklist:
Appendix VI: Service Center Checklists Used for Reviewing Quality
Assurance of Petitions for a Nonimmigrant Worker:
Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security:
Appendix VIII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Applications and Petitions USCIS Focused On for Backlog
Elimination:
Table 2: Workload Targets by Application Type and Fiscal Years 2004,
2005, and 2006:
Table 3: Backlog Elimination Expenditures for Fiscal Years 2002 through
2005 (in thousands of dollars):
Table 4: Months of Receipts Pending as of June 2005 Compared with
Targets by Application Type for Fiscal Years 2004, 2005, and 2006:
Table 5: Summary of Background Checks Required for Selected Benefit
Applications:
Table 6: General Preferences for Immigration Visas and Allocation
Limits for Fiscal Year 2005:
Figures:
Figure 1: Steps Involved in Adjudicating Applications for
Naturalization (Form N-400):
Figure 2: Steps Involved in Adjudicating Family-based Applications for
Adjustment of Status to Lawful Permanent Resident (Form I-485):
Figure 3: Allocation of USCIS's Backlog Elimination Funds, Fiscal Years
2002 through 2005:
Figure 4: Adjudicator Staff Distribution Compared with USCIS's Proposed
Redistribution:
Figure 5: Numbers of Applications Received, Completed, and Backlogged,
March 2003 through June 2005:
Figure 6: Pending Workload and Workload Targets for Applications for
Completing Adjustment of Status to Lawful Permanent Resident (Form I-
485):
Figure 7: Pending Workload and Workload Targets for Completing
Applications for Naturalization (Form N-400):
Figure 8: Projected Workload in Hours, by Region, July 2005 through
September 2006 Compared with Distribution of Available Adjudicator
Hours as of June 2005:
Figure 9: Processing Accuracy Rates for the Naturalization Quality
Procedures for Cases Reviewed in Selected Offices and Centers, Fiscal
Years 2004 and 2005, First and Second Quarters:
Abbreviations:
CFR: Code of Federal Regulations:
CIO: Chief Information Officer:
CIS: Citizenship and Immigration Services:
CLAIMS: Computer Linked Application Information Management System:
DHS: Department of Homeland Security:
DHS-IG: Department of Homeland Security Inspector General:
FBI: Federal Bureau of Investigation:
FDNS: Office of Fraud Detection and National Security:
ICE: Immigration and Customs Enforcement:
IBIS: Interagency Border Inspection System:
INS: Immigration and Naturalization Service:
LIFE: Legal Immigration Family Equity:
MNS: Mission Needs Statement:
NACARA: Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act:
NOID: Notice of Intent to Deny:
RFE: Request for Evidence:
USCIS: United States Citizenship and Immigration Service:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
November 21, 2005:
The Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.:
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable John Conyers, Jr.:
Ranking Minority Member, Committee on the Judiciary:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Charles E. Grassley:
Chairman, Committee on Finance:
United States Senate:
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.[Footnote 1]
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.[Footnote 2] 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.[Footnote 3] 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.[Footnote 4] 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.[Footnote 5] 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.[Footnote 6] 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.
Results in Brief:
As of June 30, 2005, USCIS estimated that it had about 1.2 million
cases in its backlog, down from a peak of about 3.8 million in January
2004. However, because USCIS's operational definition of backlog
differs from the definition in the Immigration Services and
Infrastructure Improvements Act of 2000, its count is not a precise
reflection of the number of cases that have been pending for more than
6 months. The agency defines its backlog as the number of pending
applications (i.e., the number of applications awaiting adjudication)
in excess of the number of applications received in the most recent 6
months. Under this method of estimating the backlog, USCIS could
theoretically have applications pending for more than 6 months and not
have a backlog. According to USCIS, it cannot readily determine the
number of applications that have been pending for more than 6 months
from the data management systems it is currently using to manage its
backlog elimination efforts. However, USCIS has identified the
technology improvements necessary to develop this capability. Since
fiscal year 2002, the agency has invested about 2 percent ($10.5
million) of its funds allocated for backlog elimination for technology
improvements. Among the critical elements of USCIS's planned technology
modernization efforts is a new case management system that should
provide the agency with the capability to produce management reports on
the age of all pending benefit applications. However, this information
technology modernization effort is still in the early stages of
planning, and USCIS does not expect these systems to be fully deployed
before fiscal year 2010. Until USCIS develops this capability, it
cannot assure Congress that it has successfully eliminated the backlog
under the statutory definition.
USCIS has made progress in reducing its backlog of benefit applications
primarily by increasing and realigning staff, focusing its efforts on
adjudicating petitions for alien relatives who can immigrate
immediately, streamlining the adjudication process, experimenting with
pilot processes to expedite application adjudication, and adopting best
practices identified from those pilots. Since fiscal year 2002, USCIS
has committed about 70 percent of its backlog reduction funds to
employing about 1,100 temporary adjudicator staff and authorizing
overtime. USCIS has also moved benefit application files from field
offices with excess workloads to offices with no excess work. In
addition, USCIS has begun to implement longer-term strategies to
eliminate the backlog, including reallocating staff among offices. For
example, USCIS officials told us that staff have been detailed from
overstaffed offices in the central and western regions to understaffed
offices in the eastern region. Further, USCIS has set aside those
applications for which a benefit is not available and eliminated these
applications from its count of backlogged cases.[Footnote 7]
In an effort to streamline the adjudication process, USCIS has revised
its guidance and proposed changes to its regulations. For example,
USCIS revised its guidance to help ensure that adjudicators do not
issue unnecessarily broad requests for additional evidence and has
proposed changes to regulations to give adjudicators the discretion to
shorten the time applicants are allowed to respond to the request,
depending on the nature of the request. Finally, USCIS plans to adopt
successful practices from pilot project experiments. For example, in
April 2005, USCIS began using certain successful practices that
facilitate processing applications for adjustment of status within 90
days at three district offices that did not have a backlog of these
types of applications.
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. In addition, USCIS has proposed
transformation of its information technology environment, among other
things, to support the prevention of future backlogs by upgrading its
information technology infrastructure, providing better data management
support, and developing new business processes. The preliminary
estimated cost of this effort is about $1.4 billion over the next 5
years. USCIS is investigating a number of funding strategies. The
agency has not yet articulated the potential productivity gains this
technology transformation plan could yield, such as efficiencies
realized from moving from a manual paper-driven process to a paperless
adjudication environment. Such information could be useful to both
USCIS and Congress in making informed decisions about the appropriate
level of investment in technology upgrades.
Although USCIS has made progress in reducing its backlog of benefit
applications, it seems unlikely that USCIS will meet its backlog
elimination goal--to reduce the number of benefit applications to a
level that is equal to 6-months' worth of work by September 30, 2006--
in every office and for every application type. USCIS has set
increasingly more stringent processing targets to address its September
2006 goal. USCIS met its 2004 targets, and, as of June 30, 2005, had
made progress toward meeting its targets for fiscal year 2005 for most
application types. However, USCIS may have difficulty achieving the
more ambitious targets it set for fiscal year 2006 for applications for
both naturalization and adjustment of status to lawful permanent
resident, the two complex application types that constitute nearly
three-quarters of the backlog. USCIS must reduce its workload from 15
months' worth of pending applications for adjustment of status and from
10 months' worth of pending applications for naturalization to 6
months' worth for both application types by the end of fiscal year
2006. The agency's progress through June 2005 and the more ambitious
targets that must be achieved for these two application types raise
doubts about USCIS's ability to meet its target. Our analyses indicate
that to eliminate the backlog for these two application types, USCIS
would need to nearly double its productivity. Specifically, based on
USCIS's projections, the agency must complete about 69 percent more
applications for adjustment of status, and about 124 percent more
applications for naturalization in the last 15 months of its plan than
it did during the most recent 15 months (April 1, 2004, through June
30, 2005) if it hopes to eliminate the backlog of these two application
types by September 30, 2006. In addition, although USCIS officials said
that the agency currently has more staff hours available than needed to
meet its projected workload in certain offices, in other offices the
volume of applications exceeds adjudicator staff capacity and the
backlog may remain. Other factors beyond the agency's control could
also prevent some applications from being adjudicated within 6 months.
For example, extensive background checks may delay completion of some
applications beyond the 6-month target. Moreover, 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.
USCIS operates two postadjudication programs to ensure the quality and
consistency of adjudicator decisions. First, USCIS's Performance
Management Division administers an agencywide quality assurance program
to review adjudicator compliance with standard processes for
adjudicating applications for naturalization and for adjustment of
status to lawful permanent resident and to check that completed
naturalization cases have been accurately recorded in its case
management systems. The other quality assurance program, administered
by USCIS's Service Center Operations Division, is designed to evaluate
both compliance with standard processes and consistency in decision
making for select applications processed exclusively by service
centers.[Footnote 8] Each of these two programs is intended to provide
some measure of quality assurance to the USCIS adjudicative process.
However, together these programs do not include all application types
and do not evaluate compliance with standard operating procedures and
the reasonableness of the adjudicator's decision. The Performance
Management Division program currently reviews compliance with standard
operating procedures for only 2 of 15 application types in the backlog
elimination plan and does not evaluate the reasonableness of the final
adjudicative decision. In contrast the Service Center Operations
Division's approach evaluates the reasonableness of adjudicative
decisions (i.e., whether the same decision would have been made by
another adjudicator given the evidence provided) as well as measuring
compliance with standard operating procedures, but thus far has focused
its attention on only four application types, each for a fixed period
of time. Information collected from these programs is not comparable,
so they cannot provide USCIS with a complete picture of the quality of
its adjudications. In addition to these two programs, USCIS also checks
quality through supervisory reviews of case files at the local office
level. However, these reviews are not uniform or consistently performed
across all local offices.
We recommend that USCIS determine and report the size of its backlog in
a manner consistent with the definition in the Immigration Services and
Infrastructure Improvements Act of 2000 as soon as practicable under
its technology transformation plans. USCIS plans indicate that its case
management system will have the capability to generate management
reports based on the age of individual benefit applications. To help
USCIS and Congress to make sound decisions regarding resource
allocation, including staffing allocation and investment in technology
transformation, we are recommending that USCIS identify and articulate
in its plans the benefits it expects to realize from its substantial
investment in technology transformation. To improve the quality
assurance program, we recommend that USCIS develop a program that
addresses adjudication processes and outcomes that can be applied to
all types of benefit applications.
The Department of Homeland Security agreed with our recommendations and
identified steps it was planning or had begun in response. These
include developing the capability to monitor the actual age of benefit
applications, identifying methods to increase productivity through
streamlining processes and taking advantage of information technology
improvements, and developing a comprehensive quality assurance program.
Background:
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;[Footnote 9] 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.
Figure 1: Steps Involved in Adjudicating Applications for
Naturalization (Form N-400):
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Figure 2: Steps Involved in Adjudicating Family-based Applications for
Adjustment of Status to Lawful Permanent Resident (Form I-485):
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
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.
Table 1: Applications and Petitions USCIS Focused On for Backlog
Elimination:
Form number: I-485;
Application type: Adjustment of status;
Purpose: Application for permanent resident status.
Form number: I-129;
Application type: Nonimmigrant worker[A];
Purpose: Employer petition for a nonimmigrant worker.
Form number: I-539;
Application type: Extend/change nonimmigrant status;
Purpose: Petition to extend stay as a nonimmigrant or to change status.
Form number: I-90;
Application type: Replace/renew permanent resident card;
Purpose: Application to renew or replace permanent resident card in the
event of an obsolete card; lost, stolen, mutilated, or destroyed card;
or name change.
Form number: I-130;
Application type: Petition for alien relative;
Purpose: Petition to establish qualifying relationship between
petitioner and an alien relative who wishes to immigrate to the United
States.
Form number: I-131[B];
Application type: Advance parole (travel document);
Purpose: An extraordinary measure used sparingly to bring an otherwise
inadmissible alien to the United States for a temporary period of time
because of a compelling emergency.
Application type: Reentry permit/refugee travel document;
Purpose: Application for admission to the United States upon return
from abroad during the permit's validity, without having to obtain a
returning resident visa.
Form number: I-140;
Application type: Immigrant worker;
Purpose: Petition for classification of an alien who wishes to
immigrate to the United States based on employment.
Form number: I-751;
Application type: Removal of conditional status;
Purpose: Petition to remove the conditions on residence based on
marriage.
Form number: I-765;
Application type: Employment authorization document;
Purpose: Application for employment authorization.
Form number: I-821;
Application type: Temporary protected status;
Purpose: Application for temporary immigration status granted to
eligible nationals of designated countries.
Form number: N-400;
Application type: Naturalization;
Purpose: Application for naturalization.
Form number: N-600/643;
Application type: Certificate of citizenship;
Purpose: Application for certificate of citizenship based on parentage.
Form number: I-589;
Application type: Asylum application;
Purpose: Application for asylum.
Form number: I-881;
Application type: Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act
203 application (NACARA 203);
Purpose: Application to suspend deportation under section 203 of the
Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (Pub.L. 105-100).
Form number: I-867;
Application type: Credible fear referral;
Purpose: Referral to an asylum officer for credible fear determination.
Source: GAO compilation of USCIS information.
[A] A nonimmigrant worker is an alien who is admitted to the United
States for a specified job for a specified period of time, but not for
permanent residence.
[B] The I-131 form is used for applications for advance parole as well
as for applications for refugee travel documents and applications for a
reentry permit. For the purposes of backlog elimination progress
reporting, USCIS is using these two groupings in reporting progress on
this form type.
[End of table]
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.[Footnote 10] 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.[Footnote 11] 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.
USCIS Estimated a Backlog of About 1.2 Million Unadjudicated
Applications as of June 30, 2005:
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.
Table 2: Workload Targets by Application Type and Fiscal Years 2004,
2005, and 2006:
Form number: I-485;
Application type/purpose(s): Adjustment of status;
Targets (months): 2004: 20;
Targets (months): 2005: 15;
Targets (months): 2006: 6.
Form number: I-129;
Application type/purpose(s): Nonimmigrant worker;
Targets (months): 2004: 2;
Targets (months): 2005: 2;
Targets (months): 2006: 2.
Form number: I-539;
Application type/purpose(s): Extend/change nonimmigrant status;
Targets (months): 2004: 5;
Targets (months): 2005: 4;
Targets (months): 2006: 3.
Form number: I-90;
Application type/purpose(s): Replace/renew permanent resident card;
Targets (months): 2004: 10;
Targets (months): 2005: 8;
Targets (months): 2006: 6.
Form number: I-130;
Application type/purpose(s): Petition for relative alien--all;
Targets (months): 2004: 30;
Targets (months): 2005: 16;
Targets (months): 2006: 6.
Form number: I-131[A];
Application type/purpose(s): Advance parole travel document;
Targets (months): 2004: 3;
Targets (months): 2005: 3;
Targets (months): 2006: 3.
Application type/purpose(s): Reentry permit;
Targets (months): 2004: 11;
Targets (months): 2005: 7;
Targets (months): 2006: 3.
Form number: I-140;
Application type/purpose(s): Immigrant worker;
Targets (months): 2004: 8;
Targets (months): 2005: 7;
Targets (months): 2006: 6.
Form number: I-751;
Application type/purpose(s): Removal of conditional status;
Targets (months): 2004: 15;
Targets (months): 2005: 11;
Targets (months): 2006: 6.
Form number: I-765;
Application type/purpose(s): Employment authorization document;
Targets (months): 2004: 3;
Targets (months): 2005: 3;
Targets (months): 2006: 3.
Form number: I-821;
Application type/purpose(s): Temporary protected status;
Targets (months): 2004: 6;
Targets (months): 2005: 6;
Targets (months): 2006: 6.
Form number: N-400;
Application type/purpose(s): Naturalization;
Targets (months): 2004: 14;
Targets (months): 2005: 10;
Targets (months): 2006: 6.
Form number: N-600/643;
Application type/purpose(s): Certificate of citizenship;
Targets (months): 2004: 8;
Targets (months): 2005: 7;
Targets (months): 2006: 6.
Form number: I-589;
Application type/purpose(s): Application for asylum;
Targets (months): 2004: 23;
Targets (months): 2005: 14;
Targets (months): 2006: 6.
Form number: I-881;
Application type/purpose(s): NACARA 203 application;
Targets (months): 2004: 16;
Targets (months): 2005: 9;
Targets (months): 2006: 6.
Form number: I-867;
Application type/purpose(s): Credible fear referral;
Targets (months): 2004: 15 days;
Targets (months): 2005: 15 days;
Targets (months): 2006: 15 days.
Source: USCIS's Backlog Elimination Plan, June 16, 2004 update.
[A] The I-131 form is used for applications for advance parole as well
as for applications for refugee travel documents and applications for a
reentry permit. For the purposes of backlog elimination progress
reporting, USCIS is using these two groupings in reporting progress on
this form type.
[End of table]
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.[Footnote 12]
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.[Footnote
13] 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.[Footnote 14] Since our
recommendation, USCIS has identified requirements for transforming its
information technology systems to address deficiencies in its
capabilities.[Footnote 15] 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.
Table 3: Backlog Elimination Expenditures for Fiscal Years 2002 through
2005 (in thousands of dollars):
Fiscal year: 2002;
Temporary adjudication officers: $45,404;
Field office overtime: $20,500;
Records operation: $15,584;
Service center mail and data entry: $14,512;
Information technology case management system: $4,000;
Grand total by fiscal year: $100,000.
Fiscal year: 2003;
Temporary adjudication officers: 46,281;
Field office overtime: 21,000;
Records operation: 16,000;
Service center mail and data entry: 14,719;
Information technology case management system: 2,000;
Grand total by fiscal year: 100,000.
Fiscal year: 2004;
Temporary adjudication officers: 47,901;
Field office overtime: 15,000;
Records operation: 18,000;
Service center mail and data entry: 17,099;
Information technology case management system: 2,000;
Grand total by fiscal year: 100,000.
Fiscal year: 2005 est;
Temporary adjudication officers: 107,401;
Field office overtime: 15,000;
Records operation: 18,000;
Service center mail and data entry: 17,099;
Information technology case management system: 2,500;
Grand total by fiscal year: 160,000.
Fiscal year: Total;
Temporary adjudication officers: $246,987; (53.69%);
Field office overtime: $71,500; (15.54%);
Records operation: $67,584; (14.69%);
Service center mail and data entry: $63,429; (13.79%);
Information technology case management system: $10,500; (2.28%);
Grand total by fiscal year: $460,000.
Source: USCIS Budget Office.
[End of table]
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.
USCIS Has Undertaken Several Short-and Longer-Term Actions to Eliminate
Its Backlog:
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.
USCIS Hired Temporary Adjudicators and Supported Overtime Work:
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.[Footnote 16] USCIS allocated the
remaining 30 percent to information technology planning, mail and data
entry, and records management.
Figure 3: Allocation of USCIS's Backlog Elimination Funds, Fiscal Years
2002 through 2005:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
USCIS Reallocated Adjudicator Staff and Focused on Processing
Applications for Which Benefits Can Be Provided Immediately:
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.[Footnote 17]
To Boost Efficiency in Processing Benefit Applications, USCIS Proposed
Regulations to Streamline Processes and Revised Guidance:
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.
Waiving Interview Requirements:
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.[Footnote 18] 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.
Regulatory Changes and Clarifying Guidance to Adjudicators for Requests
for Additional Evidence and Notices of Intent to Deny:
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.[Footnote 19]
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.
Interim Regulatory Changes to Employment Authorization Validity Period:
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).[Footnote 20] 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.
Creation of a Specialized Fraud Unit:
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.
USCIS Is Considering Adopting Certain Successful Practices from Pilot
Project Experiments:
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.[Footnote 21] 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.[Footnote 22] 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.[Footnote 23]
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.[Footnote 24] In such cases, the adjudication process, including
background checks, may not have been completed prior to the issuance of
these documents.[Footnote 25] 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.[Footnote 26] 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.[Footnote 27] 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.[Footnote 28]
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.[Footnote 29] According to USCIS, revenue loss estimates are
under review.
USCIS Developed a Staffing Model to Help Prevent Future Backlogs:
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.[Footnote 30] 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.
Figure 4: Adjudicator Staff Distribution Compared with USCIS's Proposed
Redistribution:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
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.[Footnote 31]
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.[Footnote 32] 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.[Footnote
33] 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.
To Help Prevent Future Backlogs, USCIS Has Proposed an Information
Technology Transformation Plan:
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."[Footnote 34]
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,[Footnote 35] which outlines the
purpose of technology transformation and the requirements to address
deficiencies in its current information technology
capabilities.[Footnote 36] 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.[Footnote 37] 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.
Appendix III describes selected systems included in the MNS and their
projected completion dates in greater detail. According to USCIS
officials, as of September 2005, the MNS is being evaluated by the
DHS's deputy secretary and is also awaiting review and approval by
DHS's Investment Review Board. Although the transformation plan is
still in the early stages of review, USCIS estimates this information
technology modernization, as currently envisioned, will cost on a rough
order of magnitude about $1.4 billion over 5 years. However, according
to officials, the agency is revisiting this preliminary estimate to
reflect recently completed business process reengineering efforts and
budget realities. Moreover, USCIS has not yet settled on a funding
strategy. The agency is considering a number of funding options such as
temporarily raising fees, leveraging fees generated from new
initiatives such as the proposed temporary worker program, and
requesting appropriations, among other alternatives.
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.[Footnote 38] In addition, we have reported that
high-performing, client-focused organizations must take into account
relationships among people, processes, and technology.[Footnote 39]
Further, significance in resource administration is one of the early-
stage approval criteria listed in DHS's management directive on
technology investments.[Footnote 40] 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.
Despite Progress, USCIS Seems Unlikely to Eliminate the Backlog for All
Application Types in Every Office by September 30, 2006:
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[Footnote 41]--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.
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:
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.[Footnote 42]
Table 4: Months of Receipts Pending as of June 2005 Compared with
Targets by Application Type for Fiscal Years 2004, 2005, and 2006:
[See PDF for image]
[A] For the purposes of reporting progress toward meeting workload
targets, USCIS reports progress on I-130 petitions in these two
groupings.
[B] The I-131 form is used for applications for advance parole as well
as for applications for refugee travel documents and applications for a
reentry permit. For the purposes of backlog elimination progress
reporting, USCIS is using these two groupings in reporting progress on
this form type.
[End of figure]
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.[Footnote 43] 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.
Figure 5: Numbers of Applications Received, Completed, and Backlogged,
March 2003 through June 2005:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
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.
Figure 6: Pending Workload and Workload Targets for Applications for
Completing Adjustment of Status to Lawful Permanent Resident (Form I-
485):
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
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.
Figure 7: Pending Workload and Workload Targets for Completing
Applications for Naturalization (Form N-400):
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
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.
USCIS's Calculation of Backlog Elimination Is Agencywide, but Does Not
Address All Application Types in All Locations:
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.
Backlogs Could Remain at Understaffed Offices:
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.[Footnote 44] 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.[Footnote 45] 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.
Figure 8: Projected Workload in Hours, by Region, July 2005 through
September 2006 Compared with Distribution of Available Adjudicator
Hours as of June 2005:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Other Factors May Hinder USCIS's Ability to Complete Certain
Applications within 6 Months:
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.
Background Checks:
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.
Table 5: Summary of Background Checks Required for Selected Benefit
Applications:
Form: I-485;
Application type/purpose(s): Adjustment of status;
IBIS check: Yes;
FBI fingerprint check: Yes;
FBI name check: Yes.
Form: I-129;
Application type/purpose(s): Nonimmigrant worker;
IBIS check: Yes;
FBI fingerprint check: No;
FBI name check: No.
Form: I-539;
Application type/purpose(s): Extend/change nonimmigrant status;
IBIS check: Yes;
FBI fingerprint check: No;
FBI name check: No.
Form: I-90;
Application type/purpose(s): Replacement green card;
IBIS check: Yes;
FBI fingerprint check: Yes;
FBI name check: No.
Form: I-130;
Application type/purpose(s): Petition for alien relative;
IBIS check: Yes;
FBI fingerprint check: No;
FBI name check: No.
Form: I-131;
Application type/purpose(s): Advance parole;
IBIS check: Yes;
FBI fingerprint check: No;
FBI name check: No.
Application type/purpose(s): Reentry permit;
IBIS check: Yes;
FBI fingerprint check: No;
FBI name check: No.
Form: I-140;
Application type/purpose(s): Immigrant worker;
IBIS check: Yes;
FBI fingerprint check: No;
FBI name check: No.
Form: I-751;
Application type/purpose(s): Removal of conditional status;
IBIS check: Yes;
FBI fingerprint check: No;
FBI name check: No.
Form: I-765;
Application type/purpose(s): Employment authorization document;
IBIS check: Yes;
FBI fingerprint check: No;
FBI name check: No.
Form: I-821;
Application type/purpose(s): Temporary protected status;
IBIS check: Yes;
FBI fingerprint check: Yes;
FBI name check: No.
Form: N-400;
Application type/purpose(s): Naturalization;
IBIS check: Yes;
FBI fingerprint check: Yes;
FBI name check: Yes.
Form: N-600/N-643;
Application type/purpose(s): Certificate of citizenship;
IBIS check: Yes;
FBI fingerprint check: No;
FBI name check: No.
Form: I-589;
Application type/purpose(s): Asylum;
IBIS check: Yes;
FBI fingerprint check: Yes;
FBI name check: Yes.
Form: I-881;
Application type/purpose(s): NACARA 203;
IBIS check: Yes;
FBI fingerprint check: Yes;
FBI name check: Yes.
Form: I-867;
Application type/purpose(s): Credible fear referral;
IBIS check: Yes;
FBI fingerprint check: No;
FBI name check: No.
Source: Compiled from USCIS information.
[End of table]
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.
Visa Limitations for Immigrants:
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.[Footnote 46] 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.[Footnote 47] 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.[Footnote 48] There are also annual numerical
limitations on the number of visas that can be allocated per country
under each of the preference categories.[Footnote 49] 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.
Table 6: General Preferences for Immigration Visas and Allocation
Limits for Fiscal Year 2005:
Preferences: First;
Family-sponsored immigrants: Unmarried sons and daughters of
citizens[A];
Limits (percent): 23,400 (10.4);
Employment-based immigrants: Priority workers;
Limits (percent): 42,456 (28.6).
Preferences: Second;
Family-sponsored immigrants: Spouses and children, and unmarried sons
and daughters of permanent residents;
Limits (percent): 114,200 (50.5);
Employment-based immigrants: Members of the professions holding
advanced degrees or persons of exceptional ability;
Limits (percent): 42,456 (28.6).
Preferences: Third;
Family-sponsored immigrants: Married sons and daughters of citizens;
Limits (percent): 23,400 (10.4);
Employment-based immigrants: Skilled workers, professionals, and other
workers;
Limits (percent): 42,456 (28.6).
Preferences: Fourth;
Family-sponsored immigrants: Brothers and sisters of adult citizens;
Limits (percent): 65,000 (28.7);
Employment-based immigrants: Certain special immigrants;
Limits (percent): 10,540 (7.1).
Preferences: Fifth;
Family-sponsored immigrants: Not applicable;
Employment-based immigrants: Employment creation;
Limits (percent): 10,540 (7.1).
Total;
Limits (percent): 226,000 (100);
Limits (percent): 148,449 (100).
Source: Department of State, Visa Bulletin for September 2005, No. 85,
Volume VIII.
Note: Totals may not add because of rounding.
[A] Spouses and prospective spouses of U.S. citizens are not subject to
these visa limits.
[End of table]
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.[Footnote 50] 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.
Legislative Changes:
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[Footnote
51] 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.[Footnote 52] In addition, the act does not provide
additional resources to carry out these activities.
USCIS Lacks a Comprehensive Approach to Postadjudication Quality
Assurance:
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.[Footnote 53] 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.
USCIS's Agencywide Quality Assurance Program Tracks Process Compliance
for Two Application Types:
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.[Footnote 54] USCIS's Performance
Management Division staff uses a standardized series of questions to
determine the extent to which adjudicators have followed the required
processes.[Footnote 55] 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.
Figure 9: Processing Accuracy Rates for the Naturalization Quality
Procedures for Cases Reviewed in Selected Offices and Centers, Fiscal
Years 2004 and 2005, First and Second Quarters:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
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.[Footnote
56] 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.[Footnote 57] 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.
USCIS's Service Center Quality Assurance Program Tracks Process
Compliance and Evaluates Reasonableness of Adjudication Decisions:
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.[Footnote
58] 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.
USCIS Supervisors Review Quality of Staff Adjudications:
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.
USCIS Is Reviewing Its Quality Assurance Programs:
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.
Conclusions:
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.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
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.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
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.
Sincerely yours,
Signed by:
Paul L. Jones:
Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
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.[Footnote 59]
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.[Footnote 60]
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.
[End of section]
Appendix II: USCIS Organizational Structure:
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,[Footnote 61] 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.
[End of section]
Appendix III: Information Technology Systems:
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.
Integrated Case Management System:
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.
Background Check Service:
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.
The Biometric Storage System:
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.[Footnote
62] As of August 2005, USCIS estimated that the Biometric Storage
System will become operational in August 2006.
[End of section]
Appendix IV: District Office Application for Naturalization (N-400)
Processing Quality Checklist:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
[End of section]
Appendix V: Adjustment of Status (I-485) Processing Quality Assurance
Checklist:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
[End of section]
Appendix VI: Service Center Checklists Used for Reviewing Quality
Assurance of Petitions for a Nonimmigrant Worker:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
[End of section]
Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security:
U.S. Department of Homeland Security:
Washington, DC 20528:
November 8, 2005:
Mr. Paul L. Jones:
Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, NW:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Jones:
RE: Draft Report GAO-06-20, Immigration Benefits: Improvements Needed
to Address Backlogs and Ensure Quality of Adjudications:
(GAO Job Code 440351):
The Department of Homeland Security appreciates the opportunity to
comment on the Government Accountability Office's (GAO) draft report.
We agree with the recommendations contained therein and appreciate the
acknowledgement that significant progress in addressing backlogs of
immigration benefit applications has been made.
The Department's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) top
priority has been the elimination of the backlog of cases by the end of
FY 2006, while ensuring the security and integrity of the immigration
system. GAO found that USCIS has limitations in its ability to
automatically track all applications through its existing technology
infrastructure, which would ensure an accurate determination of each
application that exceeded the 6-month processing time. However, USCIS
has been able to manage its backlog elimination efforts through
effective analysis of its workload and placing staff where workload
needs demanded, focusing its efforts on petitions and applications
where the benefit was immediately available, streamlining processes and
adopting best practices identified in selected pilot initiatives. We
agree with GAO's conclusion that USCIS faces challenges in meeting its
FY 2006 goals for eliminating the backlog in its naturalization and
adjustment of status workloads. We remain optimistic, however, that
with dedicated effort, careful planning and strong leadership these
goals are still attainable. To ensure that USCIS will not incur any
additional backlogs in future years, USCIS is developing a case
management system for deployment in October 2006. The vision is for all
cases received after September 30, 2006, to be entered, tracked and
managed through the new system.
The GAO's recommendations are useful in ensuring that USCIS provides
decision makers with full and adequate information. The GAO first
recommends 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. The
proposed case management system is being planned to provide this
capability.
The GAO also recommends the Secretary of Homeland Security direct the
Director of USCIS to (1) identify potential productivity gains and
their effects on preventing future backlogs; and (2) identify the
potential effects of technology improvements on its staffing allocation
plans. We agree with the recommendation, and in response to the first
part, USCIS is currently piloting several initiatives to increase
productivity and efficiency. USCIS headquarters will continue to work
with field components to seek methods to streamline processes while
ensuring process integrity and security. Additionally, USCIS will
continue to work with the USCIS Ombudsman's office in seeking
opportunities to increase productivity within adjudicative processes
while maintaining the integrity of the immigration system. In response
to the second part of the recommendation, USCIS is committed to
analyzing staffing allocation levels twice yearly to ensure that
resources are properly aligned with workload. As business processes and
information technology improvements we realized, resource allocations
will change to fit the business model. By analyzing resource
allocations every six months, those changes can be effected timely.
Finally, the GAO recommended 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. USCIS has embarked upon a comprehensive quality
management program aimed at identifying, designing, and developing a
set of quality performance measures that will be used to measure and
report against Service-wide performance targets and that support USCIS
strategic goals and objectives. The quality management program will
include all form types as well as adjudicators' decisions.
Technical comments will be sent under separate cover.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Steven J. Pecinovsky:
Director:
Departmental GAO/OIG Liaison Office:
[End of section]
Appendix VIII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Paul L. Jones, (202) 512-8777 or JonesPL@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
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.
FOOTNOTES
[1] USCIS collects fees for most applications types, except for
applications for asylum (I-589). (8 C.F.R. 103.7).
[2] GAO, Immigration Benefits: Several Factors Impede Timeliness of
Application Processing, GAO-01-488 (Washington, D.C.: May 4, 2001).
[3] We have reported previously that the fees USCIS collects are
insufficient to fully fund its operations and that the agency does not
have the systems in place to determine the cost of each step in
processing benefit applications. See GAO, Immigration Application Fees:
Current Fees Are Not Sufficient to Fund U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services' Operations, GAO-04-309R (Washington, D.C.: Jan.
5, 2004).
[4] Immigration Services and Infrastructure Improvements Act of 2000 §
205(a), 8 U.S.C. § 1574(a).
[5] By the end of fiscal year 2006, USCIS expects to have allocated a
total of $560 million instead of $500 million. According to USCIS
officials, the President requested and received a onetime additional
$60 million in fiscal year 2005 to get USCIS back on track because of
the required security enhancements performed on all immigration benefit
applications after September11, 2001. Twenty percent of the backlog
reduction funding has been made up of fee revenues from premium
processing services.
[6] Nonprobability sampling is a method of sampling where observations
are selected in a manner that is not completely random, usually using
specific characteristics of the population as criteria. Because each
unit in a population does not have an equal chance to be selected, it
is possible for a nonprobability sample to contain a systematic bias
that limits its ability to describe the entire population.
[7] The annual allocation of immigrant visas is limited by statute and
is based on family relationship priority, educational and skill level
priorities for prospective employers, and country of origin. If a visa
is not available, USCIS will not process petitions for alien relatives
or immigrant workers.
[8] Service centers generally adjudicate applications that do not
require interviews with the applicants.
[9] The National Benefits Center processes (1) applications for
adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident, (2) applications for
employment authorization, (3) applications for travel documents, and
(4) petitions for alien relatives.
[10] 8 U.S.C. § 1572(1).
[11] GAO, Immigration Benefits: Several Factors Impede Timeliness of
Application Processing, GAO-01-488 (Washington, D.C.: May 4, 2001).
[12] USCIS measures its progress in reducing the backlog by calculating
what it calls "cycle time," the number of past months' receipts that
equal the number of applications currently pending. For example, if
120,000 applications were pending and USCIS had received 110,000
applications in the most recent 7 months, and another 20,000 in the
eighth month, USCIS would report its cycle time as 7.5 months (120,000
- 110,000 = 7 months + 0.5 [10,000/20,000] from the eighth month.)
Because this cycle time is not a true measure of time, we refer to it
in this report as workload.
[13] GAO, Immigration Benefits: Several Factors Impede Timeliness of
Application Processing, GAO-01-488 (Washington, D.C.: May 4, 2001).
[14] According to USCIS, the agency can produce on-demand reports on
processing times for applications for naturalization. However, this
capability is limited to this single application type.
[15] USCIS, Mission Needs Statement for the USCIS IT Transformation
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 31, 2005).
[16] With the exception of premium fees for expedited processing, these
funds do not include the benefit application processing fees USCIS is
authorized to collect.
[17] For the purposes of calculating its backlog, USCIS does not
include these cases. However, these cases remain in USCIS's count of
pending cases.
[18] The adjustment of status package consists of the application to
adjust status, in addition to ancillary applications and petitions,
such as applications for travel documents, petitions for alien
relatives, and applications for employment authorization.
[19] 8 C.F.R § 103.2(b)(8).
[20] The interim rule was codified at 8 C.F.R. § 274a.12.
[21] 6 U.S.C. § 272(a).
[22] Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman, Annual Report 2005
(Washington, D.C.: June 30, 2005).
[23] The Performance Management Division is charged with developing the
USCIS backlog elimination plan and monitoring progress against the
plan, developing and managing the National Quality Program, analyzing
and recommending resource allocation, and performing statistical data
analysis.
[24] 8 C.F.R. § 274a.13(d). 8 CFR § 274a.12(c) states that USCIS has
discretion to establish a specific validity period for an employment
authorization document.
[25] USCIS checks applicant names with its Interagency Border
Inspection System before issuing an Employment Authorization Document.
[26] USCIS, USCIS Pilot Project Evaluation: California Service Center
Backlog Elimination Pilot (Washington, D.C.: May 19, 2005).
[27] Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman, Annual Report 2005
(Washington, D.C.: June 30, 2005).
[28] The report also estimates that another $51 million in application
fees for other interim benefits is associated with applications for
adjustment of status.
[29] USCIS does not charge fees for adjudicating certain applications
for benefits, such as the Application for Asylum. Consequently, fees
charged for other benefits--including interim benefits--must subsidize
processing costs for fee-exempt applications. In addition, as we
recently reported (GAO-04-309R), USCIS cannot currently determine the
exact costs of processing individual applications for benefits.
[30] Beginning in fiscal year 2002, USCIS began hiring temporary
adjudicators to help eliminate the backlog for terms of 4 years. Terms
for these temporary adjudicators will begin to expire in fiscal year
2006.
[31] GAO, Comptroller General's Forum: High Performing Organizations-
Metrics, Means and Mechanisms for Achieving High Performance in the
21st Century Public Management Environment, GAO/04-343SP (Washington,
D.C.: Feb. 3, 2004).
[32] Effective October 26, 2005, USCIS will increase fees for
immigration benefit applications on average about $10 per application
to account for inflation. These increases will apply to applications
and petitions filed on or after October 26, 2005.
[33] GAO, Executive Guide: Measuring Performance and Demonstrating
Results of Information Technology Investments, GAO/AIMD-98-89
(Washington, D.C.: March 1998).
[34] "Funding for Immigration in the President's 2005 Budget," Hearing
before the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims,
Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, Feb. 25 and Mar.
11, 2004, Serial No. 68., Washington, D.C., p. 49.
[35] The DHS Joint Requirements Council is a review board that reviews
and validates mission needs statements for proposed programs as well as
their cross-functional needs and requirements, and makes
recommendations on proposed new programs.
[36] USCIS, Mission Needs Statement for the USCIS IT Transformation
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 31, 2005).
[37] GAO, Federal Chief Information Officers: Responsibilities,
Reporting Relationships, Tenure, and Challenges, GAO-04-823
(Washington, D.C.: July 21, 2004).
[38] GAO/AIMD-98-89.
[39] GAO-04-343SP.
[40] The Department of Homeland Security, Management Directive,
Investment Review Process, MD-1400.
[41] According to USCIS, these applications are more complex than most
other form types and require more time to adjudicate, because the
applications are longer and a greater number of processes have to be
applied to each, such as interviews, name checks, fingerprint checks,
and Interagency Border Inspection System checks.
[42] USCIS generally calculates its pending workload by counting back
the number of preceding months until the sum of the monthly
applications received equals the current month's number of applications
awaiting adjudication. Unlike other USCIS cycle times, which are based
on receipts, the Asylum Division's cycle times are based on
completions. For I-589 and I-881 applications, cycle time is calculated
by dividing the number of pending cases by the average number of cases
completed each month over the last 12 months. The backlog equals the
number of pending cases greater than 6 times the average number of
cases completed each month over the last 12 months.
[43] According to USCIS, the number of receipts peaked in March 2004 in
anticipation of the increase in application fees scheduled for April
30, 2004.
[44] This estimate includes the current 1.2 million applications in the
backlog plus more than 8.6 million projected future applications, to be
filed over the 15-month period between July1, 2005, and September 30,
2006.
[45] Pub. L. No. 106-553, 114 Stat. 2762A-142 (2000). The former INS
published a final rule in the Federal Register on June 4, 2002,
establishing procedures for certain class action litigants to apply for
adjustments of status under legalization provisions of the LIFE Act.
[46] 8 U.S.C. § 1151(a)(1), (a)(2), (c), (d).
[47] 8 U.S.C. § 1153(a), (b).
[48] 8 U.S.C. § 1153(e).
[49] 8 U.S.C. § 1152.
[50] Similarly, as an example of country-based limits, the Department
of State was issuing visas to unmarried sons and daughters of U.S.
citizens whose applications were filed on or before January 1, 1983, if
they come from Mexico, and March 22, 1991, if they come from the
Philippines.
[51] Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global
War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-13, div. B,
119 Stat. 231, 302-23.
[52] The REAL ID Act also removed the limit on the number of
applications for adjustment of status for persons requesting asylum the
agency can process each year (i.e., 10,000 applications per year).
According to a USCIS official, this resulted in nearly 180,000
applications for adjustment of status for asylees being added to
USCIS's backlog count in June 2005. Although this increase in the
asylum division's workload could challenge the division's backlog
elimination efforts, it is not expected to prevent the division's
ability to eliminate the backlog of asylum cases by September 30, 2006.
[53] Our assessment of USCIS's efforts to ensure the quality of
adjudicator decisions did not include predecision quality assurance
efforts such as adjudicator training.
[54] Because the review is based on a sample drawn from completed cases
that are available for review (those files that have not already been
transferred) rather than from all applications, it is unclear to what
extent the results are representative of all closed cases.
[55] See appendix IV for samples of the checklist used for Applications
for Naturalization and appendix V for the checklist used for
adjustments of status.
[56] USCIS has not yet established the acceptable level of quality for
adjustment of status applications. According to USCIS officials, they
will establish this target using the initial 4 months of data.
[57] Booz Allen Hamilton, Quality Assurance Compliance Assessment and
Review Findings, a special report prepared at the request of the United
States Citizenship and Immigration Services (Washington, D.C.: February
2005).
[58] See appendix VI for examples of service center checklists.
[59] Nonprobability sampling is a method of sampling where observations
are selected in a manner that is not completely random, usually using
specific characteristics of the population as criteria. Because each
unit in a population does not have an equal chance to be selected, it
is possible for a nonprobability sample to contain a systematic bias
that limits its ability to describe the entire population.
[60] Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global
War on Terror, and Tusnami Relief, 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-13, div. B,
119 Stat. 231, 302-23.
[61] The National Benefits Center was initially called the Missouri
Service Center when it opened in March/April 2001.
[62] United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology
interfaces with other Department of Homeland Security systems for
relevant purposes, including status updates and benefit adjudication.
In particular, it exchanges biographic information with the Student and
Exchange Visitor Information System and the Computer Linked Application
Information Management System.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of
Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order
GAO Products" heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office
441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director,
NelliganJ@gao.gov
(202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office,
441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548:
