[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



               POLICY CHANGES AND PROCESSING DELAYS AT 
              U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                  SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION AND 
                             CITIZENSHIP

                               OF THE

                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                     ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               ----------                              

                         TUESDAY, JULY 16, 2019

                               ----------                              

                           Serial No. 116-38

                               ----------                              

         Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
         
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]         


               Available via: http://judiciary.house.gov
               
                              __________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
40-774                     WASHINGTON : 2021                     
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------                  
 
                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                    JERROLD NADLER, New York, Chair
               MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania, Vice-Chair

ZOE LOFGREN, California              DOUG COLLINS, Georgia, Ranking 
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas                Member
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee               F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., 
HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,          Wisconsin
    Georgia                          STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida          LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
KAREN BASS, California               JIM JORDAN, Ohio
CEDRIC L. RICHMOND, Louisiana        KEN BUCK, Colorado
HAKEEM S. JEFFRIES, New York         JOHN RATCLIFFE, Texas
DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island     MARTHA ROBY, Alabama
ERIC SWALWELL, California            MATT GAETZ, Florida
TED LIEU, California                 MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana
JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland               ANDY BIGGS, Arizona
PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington          TOM McCLINTOCK, California
VAL BUTLER DEMINGS, Florida          DEBBIE LESKO, Arizona
J. LUIS CORREA, California           GUY RESCHENTHALER, Pennsylvania
SYLVIA R. GARCIA, Texas              BEN CLINE, Virginia
JOE NEGUSE, Colorado                 KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota
LUCY McBATH, Georgia                 W. GREGORY STEUBE, Florida
GREG STANTON, Arizona
MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania
DEBBIE MUCARSEL-POWELL, Florida
VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas

        PERRY APELBAUM, Majority Staff Director & Chief of Staff
                 CHRIS HIXON, Minority Staff Director 
                 
                                 ------                                

              SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

                     ZOE LOFGREN, California, Chair
                PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington, Vice-Chair

J. LUIS CORREA, California           KEN BUCK, Colorado, Ranking Member
SYLVIA R. GARCIA, Texas              ANDY BIGGS, Arizona
JOE NEGUSE, Colorado                 TOM McCLINTOCK, California
DEBBIE MUCARSEL-POWELL, Florida      DEBBIE LESKO, Arizona
VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas              KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas            W. GREGORY STEUBE, Florida
MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania

                    DAVID SHAHOULIAN, Chief Counsel
                    ANDREA LOVING, Minority Counsel
                           
                           C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                         Tuesday, July 16, 2019

                                                                   Page

                           OPENING STATEMENTS

The Honorable Zoe Lofgren, Chair of the Subcommittee on 
  Immigration and Citizenship from the State of California.......     1
The Honorable Ken Buck, Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on 
  Immigration and Citizenship from the State of Colorado.........     3
The Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Chair of the Committee on the 
  Judiciary from the State of New York...........................     4

                               WITNESSES
                               Panel One

Mr. Donald Neufeld, Associate Director, Service Center Operations 
  Directorate, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
  Oral Testimony.................................................     6
Mr. Michael Valverde, Deputy Associate Director, Field Operations 
  Directorate, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
  Oral Testimony.................................................     8
Mr. Michael Hoefer, Chief, Office of Performance and Quality, 
  Management Directorate, U.S Citizenship and Immigration 
  Services
  Oral Testimony.................................................     9
Prepared Joint Written Statement of Donald Neufeld, Michael 
  Valverde, and Michael Hoefer, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
  Services Witnesses.............................................    12

                               Panel Two

Ms. Marketa Lindt, President, American Immigration Lawyers 
  Association
  Oral Testimony.................................................   152
  Prepared Statement.............................................   155
Ms. Jill Marie Bussey, Director of Advocacy, Catholic Legal 
  Immigration Network, Inc.
  Oral Testimony.................................................   167
  Prepared Statement.............................................   169
Mr. Eric Cohen, Executive Director, Immigrant Legal Resource 
  Center
  Oral Testimony.................................................   187
  Prepared Statement.............................................   189
Ms. Jessica Vaughan, Director of Policy Studies, Center for 
  Immigration Studies
  Oral Testimony.................................................   206
  Prepared Statement.............................................   208

          LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC. SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING

Prepared statement of the United States Chamber of Commerce and 
  the Information Technology Industry Council, Submitted by the 
  Honorable Zoe Lofgren, Chair of the Subcommittee on Immigration 
  and Citizenship from the State of California, and the Honorable 
  Ken Buck, Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Immigration and 
  Citizenship from the State of Colorado for the record..........    52
Prepared statements from submitted by the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, 
  Chair of the Subcommittee on Immigration and Citizenship from 
  the State of California for the record
    American Council on Education................................    48
    The American Immigration Council.............................    50
    ASISTA and the Asian Pacific Institute on Gender-Based 
      Violence...................................................    52
    The Association of American Universities.....................    56
    Boundless Immigration........................................    59
    Church World Service.........................................   108
    The Compete American Coalition...............................   109
    FWD.us.......................................................   119
    Her Justice..................................................   125
    Report from Invest In the USA (IIUSA)........................   128
    The National Immigration Forum...............................   139
    UnidosUS and the National Partnership for New Americans......   143
    The Tahirih Justice Center (Tahirih).........................   148

                                APPENDIX

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Member 
  of the Committee on the Judiciary from the Stateof Texas for 
  the record.....................................................   220
Articles submitted by Jill Marie Bussey, Director of Advocacy, 
  Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. for the record
    Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc., article entitled, 
      ``The Human Impact of USCIS Case Processing Delays''.......   225
    Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc., article entitled, 
      ``New rules on employment authorization documents''........   227
    Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc., public comment to 
      USCIS regarding the USCIS Policy Manual revisions at Volume 
      1, Part A..................................................   229
    Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc., entitled, ``Policy 
      Brief: USCIS Processing Delays and the Resulting 
      Consequences to TPS Holders and their Families''...........   235
    Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc., letter to former 
      USCIS Director Francis Cissna regarding ``Haitian, 
      Salvadoran, and Syrian TPS Processing Delays and Automatic 
      Work Authorization Extensions,'' dated October 26, 2018....   241
    Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc., letter to former 
      Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen and former 
      USCIS Director Francis Cissna regarding ``Legal Issues with 
      Notices of Continued Evidence of Work Authorization for 
      TPS,'' dated November 28, 2018.............................   246
    Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc., letter to former 
      Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen and former 
      USCIS Director Francis Cissna regarding ``Ongoing Temporary 
      Protected Status Federal Register Notice Delays; 
      Recommendations for Forthcoming Liberia Deferred Enforced 
      Departure Federal Register Notice,'' dated April 2, 2019...   255
    Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc., letter to former 
      USCIS Director Francis Cissna regarding ``CLINIC 
      Recommendations Regarding USCIS' Improper Rejections of 
      Employment Authorization Applications Filed by Liberian DED 
      Holders,'' dated May 16, 2019..............................   258
    Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc., article entitled, 
      ``Top Immigration Issues Affecting Religious Workers: Here 
      Is What We Know So Far''...................................   261
Prepared statements submitted by the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, Chair 
  of the Subcommittee on Immigration and Citizenship from the 
  State of California for the record
    Asian Americans Advancing Justice (AAJC).....................   263
    Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights (CHIRLA)...............   271
    NAFSA: Association of International Educators................   274
    National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed 
      Officials Educational Fund (NALEO).........................   277
    National Immigration Law Center (NILC).......................   288
    Statement from 76 National, Regional, State, and Local 
      Advocacy Organizations for immigrant survivors of domestic 
      violence, sexual assault, and human trafficking............   291
    The University of California, Los Angeles, Dashew Center for 
      International Students and Scholars........................   297
    Torture Abolition and Survivors Support Coalition (TASSC)....   300
    David Spencer Cooper, Immigration Attorney, Department of 
      Justice Accredited Representative..........................   302

                  QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS FOR THE RECORD

Questions for the Record for Mr. Donald Neufeld, Mr. Michael 
  Valverde, and Mr. Michael Hoefer, submitted by the Honorable 
  Zoe Lofgren, a Member of Congress, Chair of the Subcommittee on 
  Immigration and Citizenship from the State of California for 
  the record.....................................................   308
Responses to Questions for the Record from U.S. Citizenship and 
  Immigration Services to Zoe Lofgen, Chair of the Subcommittee 
  on Immigration and Citizenship, from the State of California...   361

 
                  POLICY CHANGES AND PROCESSING DELAYS.
              AT U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES

                              ----------                              


                         Tuesday, July 16, 2019

                        House of Representatives

              Subcommittee on Immigration and Citizenship

                       Committee on the Judiciary

                             Washington, DC

    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 12:07 p.m., in 
Room 2237, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Zoe Lofgren 
[Chair of the Subcommittee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Lofgren, Nadler, Jayapal, Correa, 
Garcia, Neguse, Mucarsel-Powell, Escobar, Jackson Lee, Scanlon, 
Buck, McClintock, Lesko, Armstrong, and Steube.
    Staff Present: Betsy Lawrence, Counsel; Ami Shaw, Counsel; 
Rachel Calanni, Professional Staff Member; Andrea Loving, 
Minority Counsel; and Andrea Woodard, Minority Professional 
Staff Member.
    Ms. Lofgren. So, we are here today--the Subcommittee on 
Immigration and Citizenship is in order, and we are here today 
to explore an aspect of our immigration system that generally 
receives far less attention than ICE community raids, migration 
flow from Central America, mistreatment of families at the 
border. Although these are very serious issues that this 
Subcommittee will continue to examine, the current situation at 
USCIS must not be overlooked.
    Record high case backlogs and policy changes that make it 
harder to obtain immigration benefits are extremely important 
matters that deserve careful attention. These are profound 
problems that have a direct impact on countless individuals, 
families, students, business, and other entities, such as 
hospitals and research institutions. I am sure that others on 
this Subcommittee will agree when I say that we hear about 
these issues from constituents on an almost daily basis.
    Although USCIS has struggled with processing delays and 
backlogs since its creation, the agency reports that the 
current net backlog, as of April 2019, stands at more than 2.4 
million cases. This represents an incredible 344 percent 
increase from the net backlog of cases in 2014. It is the 
largest net backlog since 2003, when adjudications ground to a 
halt in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
    Backlogs and processing delays create real-life problems 
for people trying to navigate our complex immigration system. 
Imagine a domestic violence survivor unable to escape her 
abuser because her request for protection has languished for 
months. A startup company abandoning a key project that will 
lead to substantial job creation because it is unable to get a 
visa for a specialty engineer. Families that remain separated 
for months longer than necessary because of delays associated 
with enhanced vetting.
    This hearing will provide an opportunity to dig deeper into 
these stories and examine how USCIS processing delays impact 
everyday people. We will also explore with our first panel of 
witnesses what is causing these delays and how USCIS plans to 
bring processing times back down to reasonable levels.
    Although USCIS has attributed the backlog to increased 
filings, staffing issues, resource shortages, and other 
operational factors, there is clearly another driver. New 
policy and procedural changes implemented by the current 
Administration are substantially changing the way immigration 
benefit requests are adjudicated. Since President Trump's 
inauguration, the Administration has eradicated a number of 
what I think are common sense policies that have for years 
helped streamline processing in favor of new policies that add 
bureaucratic red tape and divert resources by adding new 
burdens on adjudicators.
    Based on USCIS published data, it appears that these new 
policies have also increased the odds of receiving a denial. 
And when denials are appealed and overturned, that means more 
delay and more red tape, but without good reason.
    Processing delays and policy changes are making it more 
difficult than ever for qualified applicants to get immigration 
status. This difficulty keeps many individuals from being fully 
productive Members of our society and our economy that they 
would otherwise be. Others may be reluctant to do things that 
ultimately benefit our country out of fear of interacting with 
the Administration.
    I look forward to today's testimony so that we can better 
understand the purpose and intent of recent policy changes, as 
well as their impact on the development of immigration case 
backlogs. My hope is that with today's hearing, we not only 
hear about how these problems can be addressed with appropriate 
administrative solutions, but that we also determine whether 
legislative fixes are necessary.
    I would turn now to the Ranking Member, Mr. Buck, for his 
opening statement.
    Mr. Buck. I thank the chair. I appreciate the chair holding 
this hearing to examine USCIS adjudication wait times and 
policy changes.
    This Subcommittee has an important oversight 
responsibility, and adjudication wait times falls squarely 
within the kinds of issues we should watch. That said, I wish I 
had heard the same concerns and outrage from my colleagues when 
President Obama's DACA program resulted in long adjudication 
wait times for immediate relative green card applications, 
among other immigration benefits.
    Even the New York Times took notice of the increase in 
adjudication times. A February 8, 2014, article by Julia 
Preston stated, ``Many thousands of Americans seeking green 
cards for foreign spouses or other immediate relatives have 
been separated from them for a year or more because of swelling 
bureaucratic delays at a Federal Immigration Agency in recent 
months. The long waits came when the agency, Citizenship and 
Immigration Services, shifted attention and resources to a 
program President Obama started in 2012 to give deportation 
deferrals to young, undocumented immigrants, according to 
Administration officials and official data.''
    I don't recall any concerns raised about what the backlogs 
would look like when my colleagues were marking up or passing 
H.R. 6, the bill that would have required USCIS to process 
millions and millions of green card and naturalization 
applications, whether or not the alien was ultimately granted 
such status.
    The volume of immigration benefits requests received by 
USCIS varies. According to the Department of Homeland Security, 
in any given year USCIS administers a broad range of programs, 
through which it receives millions of immigration benefit 
applications and petitions. In fiscal year 2018 alone, more 
than 8 million immigration benefits were requested, and that 
was actually a decrease from the 9 million requested during 
fiscal year 2017.
    Despite the huge volume of receipts in the last few years, 
USCIS still managed to naturalize nearly 757,000 new U.S. 
citizens during fiscal year 2018, more than in any of the 
previous 5 years. Fiscal year 2018 also saw USCIS adjudicate 
more immigration benefits than ever in its history. They should 
be commended for those accomplishments.
    To be clear, immigration benefits should be promptly 
adjudicated. Everyone here would agree with that. It is 
important that USCIS abide by its mission to efficiently and 
fairly adjudicate requests for immigration benefits, but it is 
also important for the agency to adhere to the rest of its 
mission, to administer the Nation's lawful immigration system, 
safeguarding its integrity and promise while protecting 
Americans, securing the homeland, and honoring our values.
    Immigration benefits should not be delayed for nefarious 
purposes, nor should they be rubberstamped, as we have seen 
happen during other Administrations. As we have seen, many 
factors contribute to the volume of benefit requests and, thus, 
the time it takes to adjudicate them. So, what kind of factors 
contribute to increased volume?
    Historically, presidential elections have led to increases 
in naturalization applications. Those who want to vote apply 
for naturalization right before the election. An Administration 
action can increase the volume, too. As I noted, the DACA 
program to date has added 2.4 million adjudications to USCIS's 
workload.
    Of course, even Congress can add to the volume. When we 
create a new immigration benefit or push the increased numbers 
in a given category, that also adds to USCIS's workload.
    Unfortunately, USCIS seems to be inherently behind the 
curve, given that its staffing ability is dictated by agency 
funding, and funding is dependent on less than flexible fee 
rules. There is no doubt that USCIS should remain a fee-funded 
agency. U.S. taxpayers should not bear the burden of paying for 
immigration benefits for foreign nationals. I look forward to 
hearing from the USCIS today any ideas the agency has for 
ensuring a fee Rule and other procedures that allow flexibility 
to increase and decrease staff with the rise and fall of 
receipt volume.
    With regard to recent policy changes at USCIS about which 
the majority and some of their witnesses are raising concerns, 
again, ensuring the integrity of our immigration system is 
paramount. That should be balanced with reasonable policies and 
procedures. Recently, USCIS instituted a sensible change in 
policy to end the practice of filing an application containing 
little, if any, evidence of eligibility just to reserve a place 
in the adjudication line. This imposes an additional burden on 
USCIS and adds to the backlog.
    It is also important that adjudicators have the ability to 
issue Notices to Appear to protect national security and 
prevent fraud. I look forward to the witnesses' testimony to 
get a true understanding of the adjudication backlog and the 
factors contributing to it.
    I thank the chair and yield back.
    Ms. Lofgren. The gentleman yields back. I recognize the 
Chair of the full committee, Mr. Nadler, for his opening 
statement.
    Chair Nadler. I thank the chair.
    Today's hearing examines a critically significant issue, 
policy changes and processing delays at U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services, or USCIS. It is important to remember 
that the immigration debate in this country does not start and 
stop at the Southern border. Although the Trump Administration 
has focused most of its attention on curbing the rights of 
asylum seekers and threatening mass enforcement sweeps, the 
legal immigration system is not immune from dramatic policy 
changes as well, changes that have significantly diminished the 
ability of individuals to enter and to remain in the United 
States legally.
    Most of the policy changes that have been implemented by 
the Administration appear to be intended to make adjudications 
more complicated and, therefore, more time consuming and more 
difficult for individuals to obtain legal status in this 
country. From my perspective, these policy changes seem to fix 
things that were not broken to begin with and only serve to 
create unnecessary obstacles to legal immigration.
    For example, last August, USCIS suddenly announced that it 
would impose harsh penalties on non-immigrant students who 
violate their status, even if the violation was not knowing or 
intentional, was based on a technical error, or was de minimis. 
Thankfully, the court stepped in, and this policy is now on 
hold.
    Another example is USCIS's determination without any 
justification of its longstanding policy of waiving the in-
person interview requirement for employment-based green card 
applicants. Most of these individuals have been in the United 
States for years on temporary visas and have been screened and 
vetted repeatedly.
    Waiving the interview, therefore, except in cases where 
fraud is suspected or there is some other issue, was a smart 
way to make the process more efficient. Now, interviews are 
mandatory for everyone, and backlogs are growing exponentially.
    Let us not forget the public charge rule, which would 
dramatically heighten the standard for determining whether a 
person is likely to be reliant on public services and is, 
therefore, ineligible for a visa or green card. Basic services 
like Medicaid, SNAP, and section 8 rental housing assistance 
that millions of working Americans use to supplement their 
income would suddenly render someone ineligible.
    Although the Rule has not been finalized yet, it will 
likely be finalized soon. Setting aside the fact that it is 
clearly unlawful and morally repugnant, if finalized as 
proposed, there is no doubt that this Rule will make 
immigration adjudications infinitely more complex. As 
predictions as to whether people with working permits will 
need, at some point, to avail themselves of Medicaid or SNAP or 
section 8 rental housing assistance, it has now become 
necessary for these determinations on a predictive basis.
    Over the past few years, we have seen significant increases 
in processing delays and case backlogs at the USCIS. The 
backlog of citizenship applications nearly doubled from 
360,000--I am sorry, from 367,000 in late 2015 to about 740,000 
in September 2018. In my district, most applicants for 
citizenship now must wait at least a year for their application 
to be processed, and sometimes even 2 years.
    USCIS has said that increased receipts, staffing issues, 
resource shortages, and other operational factors have led to 
the current net backlog of 2.4 million cases. As of the end of 
fiscal year 2018, it appears that processing times for most 
applications and petitions equaled or exceeded near record-long 
averages.
    It does not stop with processing delays. Denials of 
immigration benefit requests, such as citizenship, permanent 
residence, and work permits, are also on the rise. New 
policies, longer delays, and increasing denials have only added 
to the palpable fear, confusion, and uncertainty that permeates 
immigrant communities.
    I look forward to hearing from our USCIS witnesses about 
how the agency plans to bring processing times back down to 
reasonable levels and from our nongovernment witnesses about 
how USCIS policy change and case delays impact individuals and 
businesses alike.
    I thank the Chair, Ms. Lofgren, for her leadership on this 
issue and for holding this important hearing. I yield back the 
balance of my time.
    Ms. Lofgren. The gentleman yields back, and the Ranking 
Member of the full Committee will be invited to submit his 
statement for the record unless he is able to attend, which I 
think he has another obligation.
    So, now we will introduce our first panel. There will be 
two panels of witnesses for today's hearing. The first panel 
includes three witnesses from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services. This panel will be followed by a panel of witnesses 
from nongovernmental organizations.
    I will now introduce the first panel of witnesses.
    Don Neufeld is the Associate Director of the Service Center 
Operations Directorate of USCIS, where he oversees the 
activities of the five remote processing centers throughout the 
country that adjudicate the bulk of immigration benefit 
requests. He has worked for more than two decades at USCIS and 
the former Immigration Nationality Service, holding various 
leadership positions throughout the years.
    Mr. Neufeld has testified before this Committee once 
before, in 2011 for a hearing on H-1B visas, and we welcome him 
back to the Subcommittee today, looking forward to his 
testimony.
    Michael Valverde is Deputy Associate Director of USCIS 
Field Operations Directorate, which oversees the operations of 
the National Benefits Center and the domestic field offices, 
which primarily handle applications that require in-person 
interviews, such as green card and naturalization applications. 
He has two decades of experience with USCIS and the former INS. 
He served as Performance Management and Planning Chief for the 
USCIS's Refugee Asylum and International Operations Directorate 
and Deputy Chief of USCIS's Refugee Affairs Division, and we 
thank him for taking the time to share his expertise with us 
today.
    Finally, Michael Hoefer is the Chief of the Office of 
Performance Quality at USCIS. The office provides data and 
operational analysis to various governmental agencies and to 
Congress to oversee the efficiency of USCIS operations. Mr. 
Hoefer previously served as Director of DHS's Office of 
Immigration Statistics, and it was in that capacity that he 
appeared before this Subcommittee in 2007 to testify on the 
topic of comprehensive immigration reform. We welcome him back 
to the Committee and look forward to his testimony.
    So, at this point, I would ask you all to rise, raise your 
right hand, and we will swear you in.
    Do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the 
testimony you are about to give is true and correct, to the 
best of your knowledge, information, and belief, so help you 
God?
    [Response.]
    Ms. Lofgren. Thank you. Let it be shown that all the 
witnesses replied in the affirmative.
    Please be seated, and we will note that each one of your 
written statements will be made part of the official record. We 
ask that your testimony be about 5 minutes. When you have got 1 
minute left, the yellow light will go on, and it is red when 
your 5 minutes are up.
    So, we begin with you, Mr. Neufeld.

                  TESTIMONY OF DONALD NEUFELD

    Mr. Neufeld. Chairwoman Lofgren, Ranking Member Buck, 
distinguished Members of the subcommittee, thank you for this 
opportunity to discuss our agency, USCIS, better known as--
    Ms. Lofgren. Would you pull the microphone a little bit 
closer?
    Mr. Neufeld. Can you hear me?
    Ms. Lofgren. Much better. Thank you.
    Mr. Neufeld. Okay, great. Thank you for this opportunity to 
discuss our agency, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 
and the challenges we face in administering the Nation's legal 
immigration system.
    I am Don Neufeld, Associate Director of the Service Center 
Operations Directorate. I have served in this capacity since 
2010. My career with USCIS, and the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service before that, dates back to 1983.
    Service Center Operations employs approximately 7,300 
employees and contractors at 5 service centers across the 
country and at headquarters. To give you an idea of the volume 
of our work, in fiscal year 2018, Service Center Operations 
processed approximately 5.5 million applications and petitions. 
That figure represents 66 percent of the total USCIS 
adjudications output.
    Our work generally focuses on applications and petitions 
that do not require face-to-face interviews. These include 
employment-based and family-based petitions, applications for 
employment authorization, applications and petitions for 
certain humanitarian benefits, and applications for advance 
parole and travel permits.
    Service Center Operations seeks to maximize process 
efficiencies and use technology to provide timely and high-
quality services for applicants and petitioners, all without 
sacrificing the integrity or security of our Nation's 
immigration system. We strive to maintain reasonable processing 
times and establish goals to measure our success.
    We are aware of the consequences for applicants and 
petitioners when we are unable to meet expectations. Indeed, 
your staff informs us when we are missing our processing time 
goals, and they share individual stories of how delays affect 
businesses and individuals.
    As we have detailed in our written testimony, there are a 
number of factors that drive backlogs. At Service Center 
Operations, spikes in receipts are one major factor. Other 
factors include statutory changes, unanticipated or irregular 
workload demands, workloads related to new immigration programs 
or humanitarian crises, application spikes related to fee 
increases, and staffing shortages.
    Some specific events that have contributed to the current 
backlog include the spike in receipts prior to the 2016 fee 
rule, the addition of temporary protected status for five 
countries, and growth in petitions for victims of certain 
qualifying criminal activity. We should note we generally 
expect increased receipts prior to a fee Rule and in advance of 
the Presidential election.
    Following the 2016 fee increase and the 2016 presidential 
election, the anticipated decrease in receipts did not follow. 
While we do our best to anticipate short- and long-term 
demands, we simply cannot predict everything that will affect 
our workload. Even when history tells us that something will 
happen, it doesn't always play out the way we think.
    Our current backlogs are largely the product of a sustained 
demand for immigration benefits, coupled with staffing 
shortages. The good news is that we believe the demand has, for 
the time being at least, stabilized. As we continue to bring 
new staff onboard, we will be able to better manage and reduce 
the backlog.
    In Service Center Operations, we can adjust workloads 
between service centers when excess work exists in one service 
center and capacity and expertise exists at another service 
center. In the future, as we realize the efficiencies of fee 
processing, we will be able to do this in a paperless 
environment, saving time and money.
    We are also identifying administrative processes that can 
be moved from an adjudicator's desk to administrative or 
contract staff.
    In closing, we are committed to reducing processing times 
and offering superior-quality services while administering our 
Nation's legal immigration system efficiently, securely, and 
fairly.
    Thank you once again for your interest in our agency and 
mission. I look forward to any questions you might have.
    Ms. Lofgren. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Valverde, we would be pleased to hear from you.

                 TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL VALVERDE

    Mr. Valverde. Chairwoman Lofgren, Ranking Member Buck, 
distinguished Members of the subcommittee, thank you for this 
opportunity to discuss the workload challenges we face at 
USCIS.
    My name is Michael Valverde, and I am the Deputy Associate 
Director for Field Operations at USCIS. I have served in this 
capacity since 2015. My career with USCIS, and the Immigration 
and Naturalization Service before that, dates back to 1997.
    I am proud to represent more than 7,000 field operation 
employees across the Nation who each day come to one of our 88 
field offices, 24 district offices, 4 regional offices, the 
National Benefits Center, and the Immigrant Investor Program 
Office with the singular purpose of administering the Nation's 
legal immigration program fairly, efficiently, and with the 
utmost integrity. The Field Operations workload largely 
consists of the adjudication of non-asylum applications and 
petitions that require face-to-face interviews and other on-
the-groundwork, including site visits.
    Most significantly, adjustment of status and 
nationalization case work occurs at field offices. In fiscal 
year 2018, USCIS naturalized 757,000 new citizens, a 5-year 
high, at the same time we completed more than 640 applications 
for adjustment of status, also at many years' high.
    Unfortunately, backlogs are not new to USCIS. Internal and 
external factors have affected pending workloads across the 
life of the agency. Indeed, at the time it was established in 
2002, as the chairwoman noted, USCIS inherited a backlog of 
cases. That backlog largely resulted from delays in background 
checks and security checks that were implemented following the 
attacks of September 11, 2001.
    Since that time, a number of factors have affected our 
processing times and our ability to meet workload challenges 
timely. Today, many factors have resulted in lengthy processing 
times. Significantly increased receipts over the past several 
years have outpaced our ability to process the work.
    Other factors, such as statutory changes, citizenship 
drives, and the implementation of new procedural requirements, 
such as security checks, new immigration programs, and policy 
changes, have impacted our processes and processing times. 
USCIS does its best to apply lessons learned from historical 
workload fluctuations, and I believe we do well at it.
    Sometimes, however, all these factors can stress our 
ability to complete our work as quickly as we would like it. 
Are we satisfied that applicants wait as long as they do for 
decisions on their requests? No, we are not. So, what are we 
doing to shorten the time it takes for applicants to get their 
decisions? We are taking advantage of the resources we have. We 
are hiring to increase capacity.
    Field Operations has had an onboard percentage in the high 
90s for several years running. We are evaluating key processes 
and procedures to maximize process integrity and minimize 
waste. We are taking advantage of electronic age tools to 
increase accuracy and efficiency.
    As just one example of these approaches, we recently 
implemented a program we call Information Services 
Modernization. This program is designed to free up a 
significant amount of Field Operations staff time to handle 
their core adjudicative activities and interviews rather than 
providing information in person, which we believe the data are 
showing can be done more correctly and faster via other means.
    Detailed in our written testimony are other efficiency 
initiatives and process reforms. These include reintroducing 
performance metrics for our field offices, leveraging 
electronic processing and automation, developing innovative 
scheduling methods, and finding new approaches to staffing and 
workplace management. We are seeing results from this work.
    In fiscal year 2018, the staff of Field Operations produced 
more case completions and at a greater efficiency per officer 
than in prior years. We believe we are doing our work 
responsibly. In this fiscal year, we are doing a significant 
amount of more fraud work than other years by a significant 
percentage, all while keeping production of case completions 
up.
    Finally, in this fiscal year, due to our operational 
reforms and decreasing receipts, we have seen processing times 
for both citizenship and adjustment of status begin to lessen. 
While USCIS has too often struggled with lengthy processing 
times, I am confident that we have the imagination and the 
determination to address this latest backlog and to do so 
responsibly.
    As I expect my colleagues would agree, no solution will be 
immediate and comprehensive. I do think that we will continue 
to see improvements in processing times, backlog elimination, 
and backlog prevention.
    Thank you once more for your interest in this important 
matter, and I will be happy to answer any questions you may 
have.
    Ms. Lofgren. Thank you very much.
    We will now go to the Members of the Subcommittee for their 
questions. Oh, I am sorry, Mr. Hoefer, I do want to hear from 
you.
    [Laughter.]
    Ms. Lofgren. That was an oversight. Please forgive me.

                  TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL HOEFER

    Mr. Hoefer. Chair Lofgren, Ranking Member Buck, 
distinguished Members of the subcommittee, thank you for your 
invitation to address the Subcommittee and the opportunity to 
discuss the workload challenges we face at USCIS.
    I am Michael Hoefer, Chief of the Office of Performance and 
Quality in the Management Directorate at USCIS. I have served 
in this capacity since 2016.
    My career with USCIS, and the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service before that, began at the INS Statistics 
Office in 1982. I have also served as a Director of DHS's 
Office of Immigration Statistics from 2004 to 2013.
    Based on that experience, I will provide you an overview of 
the primary factors that we believe have driven our current 
backlog and processing delays. I currently serve in the 
Management Directorate, which is responsible for multiple 
support functions, such as procurement, facility and financial 
management, IT systems, human resources, and my area of 
responsibility for performance measurement and analysis.
    Specifically, my office makes initial recommendations of 
required staffing levels based on future workload projections 
and efficiency rates. As you can see, while the men and women 
of the Management Directorate do not directly adjudicate 
applications, they do provide the infrastructure and the means 
by which our agency performs and measures its work.
    As we have heard today, backlogs are not new to USCIS. The 
U.S. experienced its highest backlog in 2003 at 3.6 million 
applications and petitions due in part to increased security 
vetting following 9/11. The backlog of pending applications, as 
of May 2019, is 2.4 million.
    What does the backlog mean to applicants and petitioners? 
Let me give an example of the impact of the backlog. It is 
taking 10 months to process naturalizations, whereas our goal 
is 5 months.
    We know from experience that it is possible through 
operational efficiencies and additional resources to reduce our 
backlog. The 2003 backlog was reduced by a series of 
initiatives, including a one-time congressional appropriation 
and the authority to use premium processing funds to hire 
additional staff. We were able to reduce the backlog to 50,000 
by 2010, but it has risen each year since then.
    Most of the recent growth in the backlog was in fiscal 
years 2016 and 2017. The backlog grew from 634,000 in 2015 to 
1.1 million in 2016 and increased to 2.3 million as of 
September 2017. More than 70 percent of the increase in the 
backlog between 2010 and now occurred in those 2 years.
    The backlog has stabilized since 2017, growing by only 
110,000 during the past 20 months. There are many factors that 
contribute to changes in the backlog, but I want to discuss the 
most significant factors we identified for 2016 and 2017, the 
timeline that we saw the most growth.
    We projected that our receipts would increase in 2016 and 
then decrease in 2017, due to the combined impact of two 
factors--the national election in November 2016 and a fee 
increase 1 month later. Naturalization receipts previously had 
always increased before a national election and then decreased 
in the following year.
    When a notice of proposed fee increase is published, it 
usually motivates applicants and petitioners to apply before 
the increases are implemented, especially for cases that are 
more discretionary, such as naturalizations. Receipts in 2016 
increased a little more than we had projected, but unlike past 
election year cycle experience, receipts continued to increase 
in 2017.
    The elevated receipt levels over the 2-year period were 
largely responsible for the growth in the backlog in 2016 and 
2017. Receipt levels have returned to normal in 2018 and 2019, 
which has helped us to reduce the growth in the backlog. Our 
total number of completions in 2018 were the highest ever, and 
we have reached a 5-year high in the number of persons taking 
the oath of citizenship.
    The growth in receipts has allowed us to continue to hire 
more staff and to increase overtime. Authorized FTEs increased 
7 percent in 2017 and 5 percent in 2018. Increasing staff is an 
effective component to backlog reduction. It is effective, but 
not immediate.
    Hiring and training new staff almost always takes a few 
years. Not a few years, we try to do it as quick as we can, but 
it is a reactive process. We have to identify funds. We have to 
recruit. We have to hire and train staff, and that can take 
months.
    Recognizing this, USCIS recently began modeling for a 6-
year time horizon. Under this model, USCIS is able to 
proactively identify required staff, so positions are filled by 
the time they are needed to achieve case completion targets. 
Such a process will not only allow USCIS to reduce the current 
backlog, but hopefully prevent a new one.
    I very much appreciate the time and attention you have 
given to my colleagues and me. Thank you once more, and we are 
here to answer your questions.
    [Prepared Joint Written Statement of U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services Witnesses follows:]

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Ms. Lofgren. Thank you very, very much. Thanks to each one 
of you for that useful and informative testimony.
    We will now go to Members of the Subcommittee who have 
questions under the 5-minute rule. I recognize first the 
Ranking Member for his questions.
    Mr. Buck. I thank the chair. I am going to yield to Mr. 
McClintock, and then, if it is all right with the chair?
    Ms. Lofgren. That will be fine. We will recognize Mr. 
McClintock then and you later. Mr. McClintock?
    Mr. McClintock. Well, thank you, Madam Chair.
    Mr. Hoefer, didn't the information required of applicants 
double back in 2016? Didn't the form go from 10 pages to 20? Or 
for that matter, any of the panelists who--
    Mr. Valverde. If you are referring to the application for 
citizenship, yes, sir. I think it was back in 2012 or 2013, the 
application doubled--
    Mr. McClintock. I assume that means twice the information 
that you have to verify and consider for each application?
    Mr. Valverde. Yes, sir. That adds complexity and some 
length to our interviews.
    Mr. McClintock. Now, in addition to that, are you seeing an 
uptick in applications being filed for citizenship? I think I 
heard testimony to that effect, but I didn't hear how big an 
uptick.
    Mr. Hoefer. Yes. We received a little bit under a million 
applications for naturalization in 2016 and a little under a 
million in 2017.
    Mr. McClintock. Okay. How did that compare to, say, 10 
years ago?
    Mr. Hoefer. Well, we normally would average between 700,000 
and 800,000 applications a year.
    Mr. McClintock. So, it has gone from roughly 700,000 to 
800,000 up to a million?
    Mr. Hoefer. That is correct.
    Mr. McClintock. So, roughly a 20-25 percent increase in the 
number of people who are applying?
    Mr. Hoefer. That is correct, sir.
    Mr. McClintock. Okay. Now on the other side, how many 
applications are you actually processing or approving, I should 
say?
    Mr. Valverde. I can do that. In the past fiscal year, 
fiscal year 2018, we completed 750,000 approvals, and it was 
closer to, yes, 850,000 completions for naturalization for 
citizenship.
    Mr. McClintock. Seven hundred fifty thousand approvals, 
850,000 completions--
    Mr. Valverde. Yes, sir.
    Mr. McClintock. What were those figures, say, 10 years ago?
    Mr. Valverde. I don't have them to heart, but they were 
lower than that, I could say that much.
    Mr. McClintock. Lower. Much lower? Significantly lower?
    Mr. Valverde. I don't have the numbers.
    Mr. Hoefer. We did have some years where it was higher. 
When after a certain--there were increases in naturalizations 
in prior years as well, going back to the '90s, and I think in 
one--
    Mr. McClintock. Would you say that the number of 
applications that are being approved are higher or lower than 
in the past?
    Mr. Hoefer. I would say over the last 5 years, it has 
averaged higher. There are particular years in the past where 
we had more than others.
    Mr. McClintock. Okay. So, the point I am trying to get at 
is the amount of applications have increased dramatically, 20-
25 percent. The amount of information you have to sort through 
has doubled with the doubling of the forms, and we are seeing a 
substantial increase in applications of approved 
naturalizations completed.
    So, is the backlog then a function of those two issues, 
principally more information to go through and more 
applications to process?
    Mr. Hoefer. Yes, I would agree with that, and so it is 
partly receipts that are coming in and how long it takes us 
with the resources available to us to work those cases.
    Mr. McClintock. All right. Thank you.
    I yield to the Ranking Member.
    Ms. Lofgren. The gentleman yields back. We will now turn to 
the gentleman from California, Mr. Correa.
    Mr. Correa. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I want to thank our 
witnesses for the good work you are doing at USCIS.
    Let me follow up on some of the comments made by my 
colleague from California. High, low, after 9/11, 2013, the 
length of the application doubled, you said. Is that correct? 
Ten to 20 pages and I can understand why. Security issues and 
what have you. So, you doubled the amount of work you had to do 
for a citizenship application. Yet, I would imagine that the 
automation since 2013 has increased. Is that correct? The 
processing?
    Mr. Valverde. Yes, sir. We are--
    Mr. Correa. Now, so productivity wise, in terms of each 
individual, is that going up or down? Thorough processing per 
individual?
    Mr. Valverde. Productivity per officer has gone up this 
year from last. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Correa. So, it has gone up. You have about 700 plus/
minus new first slots that you have been authorized, 
approximately. Correct?
    Mr. Valverde. Agency wide, yes, sir.
    Mr. Correa. To hire. How are you doing in terms of hiring 
those individuals?
    Mr. Valverde. We have made hiring a focus of ours. We have 
been, in Field Operations, in the high 90 percentages of 
onboard staff--
    Mr. Correa. So, you are moving ahead at a pretty good pace 
to hire more people?
    Mr. Valverde. We are doing all we can. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Correa. Thank you very much.
    I say that to you before a long time ago, before I was in 
the Government, I used to fill out applications for 
citizenships. One of them was for my uncle. I remember, God 
rest his soul, 70 years old, applied to be a U.S. citizen. 
Lived here for 50 years.
    As an attorney I filled out his application, waited for a 
year. Called your office. They said, ``We lost the 
application.'' Filled it out again, waited another year. 
Application was lost.
    Third time, I didn't call. I went to Los Angeles to see 
what was going on, and the nice lady behind the counter said, 
``Let me go find your application.'' Two hours later, she came 
back. You had a special line for attorneys. She came back with 
half the application and said, ``We lost the other half of the 
application.''
    She was very nice and said, ``Look, I am not going to make 
you wait another year. Pull over to the side, here is the whole 
application packet. Go fill it out.'' And 3\1/2\ years later, 
we finally made him a U.S. citizen.
    I am sure now we have a process system where paperwork is 
at a minimum. Am I correct in assuming that?
    Mr. Valverde. We have an electronic way to file, sir, but 
we still have a paper-based filing as well.
    Mr. Correa. Wonderful. I guess today, I am trying to figure 
out, you are doing a great job, given what you have got in 
front of you. We have a lot of folks that have fulfilled their 
requirements to be Americans, the American dream, full U.S. 
citizens. As I read through all this information, listening to 
your testimony, I am trying to figure out what can we do, what 
can I do to help you help those individuals that want to be 
Americans fulfill that American dream of being an American?
    We gave you resources. I think we have authorized new 
personnel for you. You are in the process of hiring them. You 
need more resources for automation to make sure you cross-check 
all this information to make sure only the good people that 
deserve to be Americans become Americans. What else can we do 
to help you get your job done in a timely manner?
    Mr. Hoefer. Well, I spoke about the training, when we hire 
and the training. One of the things that would help is that we 
would like to expand our training facility at FLETC, and we 
have money designated for that. We need authority from Congress 
to be able to expand that. So, that would really help us to get 
people onboard and trained and ready to work.
    Mr. Correa. Anything else? For example, hiring Border 
Patrol agents has been a challenge for us because of the lie 
detector test and the challenge there. You don't have anything 
similar to that in terms of challenges hiring folks or any 
other problems? Anything else that we can do to help you 
expedite the process, reduce the backlog?
    Mr. Neufeld. I will say that we are a fee-funded agency for 
the most part. We get some appropriated funds. So, our ability 
to hire staff is dependent on the fees that we collect, and 
first, we need to collect those fees before we can spend them. 
The other thing is those fees need to be set properly so they 
cover our costs.
    So, I guess what I would ask is that when we periodically 
review our fee structure that you be supportive of the fees 
that we need to set to recover our costs.
    Ms. Lofgren. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Correa. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Ms. Lofgren. The gentlelady from Arizona is recognized for 
5 minutes.
    Ms. Lesko. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Mr. Valverde, has anyone in this Administration told you to 
slow down processing citizenship cases?
    Mr. Valverde. No, ma'am.
    Ms. Lesko. Has anyone in this Administration told you to 
slow down any case processing?
    Mr. Valverde. No.
    Ms. Lesko. Mr. Valverde, what do you say to those who claim 
you are trying to slow processing on purpose to prevent 
citizenship applicants from getting naturalized and becoming 
voters?
    Mr. Valverde. I would say that the data and the evidence 
show the opposite. I am lucky each day to be surrounded by 
colleagues who come to work to process immigration requests as 
efficiently and with the utmost integrity as we can. They have 
spent their careers bringing people to the franchise.
    Whether they register to vote or not is another thing, but 
they have spent their careers helping people become citizens, 
and it is some of the proudest work we do.
    Ms. Lesko. Thank you, Mr. Valverde.
    Isn't it true that during fiscal year 2018, your agency 
naturalized more people than in any of the previous 5 years?
    Mr. Valverde. Yes, ma'am.
    Ms. Lesko. Okay. Mr. Neufeld, in the testimony in the next 
panel, Mr. Cohen will testify, I believe, that USCIS's new RFE/
NOID policy means that any small mistake or lack of information 
on an application could result in a denial without giving the 
applicant a chance to correct the mistake. Is this an accurate 
description of the policy?
    Mr. Neufeld. So, a Request for Evidence is something that 
we issue when the evidence that was submitted is insufficient 
to demonstrate that they are eligible for the benefit that they 
are seeking. We issue Requests for Evidence for the purpose of 
allowing the applicant or petitioner to basically perfect their 
filing.
    The previous change that happened, there had been a policy 
that said for the most part that where the evidence does not 
support an approval that, but for a couple of circumstances, 
that the officer should in all circumstances issue a Request 
for Evidence or a Notice of Intent to Deny.
    This change that you are referring to, or that the witness 
is referring to, is the change in the policy to clarify that 
where the record appears to be complete, that a decision can be 
rendered on the record without having to issue a Request for 
Evidence or issue a Notice of Intent to Deny in all 
circumstances.
    Ms. Lesko. Thank you.
    Mr. Hoefer, is it? Hoefer. The House recently passed H.R. 
6, the American Dream and Promise Act, which would provide 
green cards and a path to citizenship to millions of illegal 
immigrants. I am not going to ask for your thought on the bill 
because you probably can't say that anyway. I would like to ask 
you what the implication is going to be on operational aspects 
from that bill if it passed and became law.
    Mr. Hoefer. Certainly. Well, I think a lot of it depends on 
how it is implemented and what the rules are for this, meaning 
if there were 2 million people and 2 million applications, 
obviously that would have an immediate effect. We talked before 
about the lag. So, if 2 million people showed up in a given 
year and we haven't had the hiring and the money up front, 
certainly it would have an impact on the backlogs.
    Ms. Lesko. Thank you, Madam Chair. I don't have any more 
questions.
    Mr. Ranking Member, did you want any of my time?
    Mr. Buck. No.
    Ms. Lesko. Okay. I yield back my time.
    Ms. Lofgren. The gentlelady yields back. The gentlelady 
from Texas is recognized.
    Ms. Garcia. Thank you--this microphone. Hello? There it 
goes.
    Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the panel Members 
for being here today.
    Obviously, we are here because of the unconscionable 
backlogs that many of us are experiencing throughout the 
country. Yet, this Administration is adding to the problem by 
imposing new hurdles for applicants in every step of the 
process.
    The Greater Houston area, one of the fastest-growing and 
most diverse regions, which I represent, certainly appreciates 
the contributions that diversity brings to the local economy 
and culture. However, Houston's diverse economy and culture is 
greatly affected by these processing delays.
    On March 28th, Congressman Olson, also from Houston, and I 
led a letter from the Houston delegation to the former 
Director, Mr. Cissna, outlining the harmful impact of these 
delays in the Houston community. Democrats and Republicans 
alike are concerned about the future of our families and 
businesses if the backlog problem continues. I might add, this 
letter was signed by all Members of the Houston area 
delegation.
    According to the most recent USCIS data, the average time 
for an I-485 or green card application in Houston is currently 
at between 15 and 28 months. For an N-400 application for 
naturalization, the backlog varies between 14 to 21 months. For 
the I-765, the employment authorization, the delay can be up to 
5 months, causing loss of wages for many applicants.
    The uncertainty experienced among applicants and those who 
depend on their contributions is disconcerting and 
unacceptable. Though we understand that staffing is up in the 
agency, it is a long process, requirements of vetting for 
candidates, and we think that, of course, all can do better.
    We have identified the problem, and now we must invest in 
solutions. Regrettably, Madam Chair, one of the questions we 
asked Mr. Cissna was do you need additional statutory direction 
or funding to better respond in a timely way? He actually 
answered no, although USCIS appreciates the offer for 
assistance.
    I want to begin my questions with just that question to the 
three panel Members today. Do you need additional statutory 
direction or funding? All three of you, just yes or no.
    Mr. Valverde. As my colleague said before, we are a fee-
funded agency. So, we would appreciate the support when we 
adjust our fees the next time, so that we get the right kind of 
funding for the case work that we need to do.
    Ms. Garcia. So, your answering is yes?
    Mr. Valverde. I am answering we would appreciate the 
support as we adjust our fees.
    Ms. Garcia. Well, I am glad you are saying yes, because I 
couldn't understand why the Director--of course, he is no 
longer here--is saying no. Because it seems to me that we could 
do all that we can in providing support, but we need solutions 
coming from your agency.
    Now, all three of you are career, right? You are not 
political appointees?
    Mr. Neufeld. Correct.
    Ms. Garcia. Right. So, you know how this works. Many of you 
have been here through many years. Like Mr. Hoefer, you 
identified and said that the increases tend to come in terms of 
patterns right before an election or before a fee increase. Is 
that correct? Did I hear you correctly?
    Mr. Hoefer. That is correct, ma'am.
    Ms. Garcia. All right. We have an election coming. Have you 
already put in place some planning and processes to prepare for 
that, knowing that there will be an increase?
    Mr. Valverde. Yes, ma'am. Within Field Operations, we 
recognize the trend just that you referred to, that leading up 
to the election years, there is often an increase in 
applications.
    We also recognize the fact that the growth in receipts is 
not impacted equally across the country. So, some of the work 
that we are doing right now is to try and ensure that the 
impacts of receipts, the impacts of pre-election application 
growth are addressed where they are most critical. That is to 
say, where there are places like Houston and others where the 
processing times are higher than we would like, and higher than 
some other places, we are doing the work there to make sure 
that an applicant's experience in Houston is more similar to an 
average applicant's experience across the Nation.
    Ms. Garcia. Well, what really concerns me, too, is some of 
the things that we are hearing about some of the changes. 
Number one, the fee increases. Number two is the idea that 
people may not get their interviews in the same location where 
they made their application, but they have to travel a great 
distance. A couple of other things that just seem to be 
barriers rather than a path to getting the application done.
    So, what is it that you are proposing that would actually 
help people get their applications timely processed and 
completed?
    Ms. Lofgren. The gentlelady's time has expired, but the 
witnesses will please answer.
    Mr. Valverde. Thank you.
    It is a number of things. First, with respect to the 
changing of appointment jurisdiction, we have looked at the 
map, and there are locations where there are two field offices 
that are close and we can move a zip code or something like 
that, and that enables a group of applicants to have their case 
seen sooner, that is why we have done that.
    So, those individuals, should they be able to travel, would 
get their case seen sooner. It is for the purpose of getting 
the benefit faster.
    We are doing a number of things, as I have said in my 
testimony, so I won't repeat it here, around process reform, 
hiring, and other things to help everyone's case go faster.
    Ms. Garcia. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield 
back.
    Ms. Lofgren. The gentleman from North Dakota is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Armstrong. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Before we get into that, I just want to clarify, so do we 
need additional congressional funding on top of fee funding?
    Mr. Neufeld. I will take that one. I think what we are 
saying is that one thing we should clarify, none of us manage 
or oversee the budget for USCIS. As an executive, I am aware of 
some of the constraints. At present, we are unable to hire to 
the staffing levels that our workload would support because of 
our fiscal, budget constraints.
    So, I think it is safe to say that additional money would 
help. The source of that money, whether it is appropriated or 
fee funds, as an operator, it doesn't matter. It would just be 
helpful to have the staff.
    Mr. Armstrong. Then, I also appreciate the talk about 
significant distance. I married an immigrant, and we lived in 
rural North Dakota, and this is in 2004. The process, in and of 
itself, is daunting, and this is coming from two pretty 
educated people. I had just graduated law school. She was in 
law school.
    The bureaucracy is mind-numbing when you drive 350 miles to 
Minneapolis and show up for a hearing that was scheduled by 
Immigration, and get there and they tell you to go home because 
they are not ready for you. So, you have to turn around and 
come back. It is not like going around the block.
    I practiced in this area. Our firm has practiced in this 
area through three Presidents now--two Republicans and one 
Democrat. So, I appreciate the fact that we are talking about 
the history of this, because this didn't all start on the first 
week in January of 2017. Throughout the campaign, throughout 
our office, I have met with people who are waiting on 2008 visa 
permits to be processed.
    These are researchers who work at the Langdon Research 
Center in North Dakota. Not exactly--there are five employees 
total, and the frustration level for not only them, but also 
for their employers and the community at large. When you have a 
community of under 1,200 people, they become part of it.
    So, I am glad we are having this conversation, but I do 
have one pretty specific question relating to EB-5 background 
or EB-5, the rules. That is just foreign nationals can apply 
for permanent residence if they make necessary investment in a 
company--in targeted employment areas.
    I know there is a Rule in place, which, as proposed, the 
EB-5 modernization regulation would increase the minimum 
investment amount significantly, transfer targeted employment 
areas designation from the State economic development agencies 
to the Department of Homeland Security, and create priority 
data retention for EB-5 investors to use the priority data as 
previously approved, and establish more Federal oversight in 
regional centers, et cetera.
    USCIS submitted the proposed EB-5 immigration investor 
program modernization in February of 2019. Correct?
    Mr. Valverde. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Armstrong. OMB finished its review of EB-5 in June?
    Mr. Valverde. I understand they just recently finished its 
review, yes, sir.
    Mr. Armstrong. Do you have a status update on where that is 
at?
    Mr. Valverde. It is still in process. So, it has not been 
published yet, as you know. I would expect that it would be 
published relatively soon, but I don't have a date to give you, 
sir.
    Mr. Armstrong. Relatively soon. That is a pretty--we like 
to use that term, but we don't--I mean, so months?
    Mr. Valverde. I would think it is less than months, sir.
    Mr. Armstrong. Okay. Thank you.
    I don't have any other questions.
    Mr. Buck. Mr. Armstrong?
    Mr. Armstrong. Yes?
    Mr. Buck. I want to clarify one point with Mr. Neufeld and 
Mr. Valverde. You answered the question earlier, Mr. Valverde, 
about whether you believe it would be beneficial for Congress 
to appropriate money, and you didn't use a ``yes'' or a ``no.'' 
Then words were put in your mouth, and the answer was, well, I 
believe that is a ``yes.''
    I didn't hear a ``yes,'' and I want to make sure there are 
benefits, are there not, to having a fee-funded system, as 
opposed to an appropriations system for your agencies.
    Mr. Valverde. I am not an expert in that area. I know 
enough to know that there are some profound differences, and I 
guess that is as much as I can say without getting myself--
    Mr. Buck. You just don't like yes or no answers, do you?
    [Laughter.]
    Ms. Lofgren. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Buck. Yes.
    Ms. Lofgren. I would just note that really these are 
career, and they don't have really the luxury of opining. That 
is a policy decision for the Congress to make. I don't think 
anyone is proposing that we move USCIS away from a fee-funded 
agency, just to clarify.
    Mr. Buck. I appreciate the chair clarifying because I think 
it is important. There is a perception that your agencies are 
fee funded because the individuals that are applying pay those 
fees and not U.S. taxpayers, and I think that is an important 
perception for many in this country, and I appreciate the fact 
that you are operating under a fee schedule.
    I yield the balance of my time.
    Mr. Armstrong. I yield back.
    Ms. Lofgren. He yields back, and the gentleman's time is 
expired. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Neguse. Thank you, Madam Chair, for holding this 
important hearing.
    I just want to follow up on a point that was made by some 
of my colleagues a moment ago because this isn't just about 
money. My sense, I just want a baseline set of facts, from 
fiscal year 2018 to fiscal year 2017, there was a 13 percent 
decrease, my understanding, in the volume of applications 
submitted. Does that sound about right?
    Mr. Hoefer. I think that sounds about right, yes.
    Mr. Neguse. From fiscal year 2018 to fiscal year 2017, your 
budget had a 6 percent increase. Does that sound about right?
    Mr. Hoefer. Yes.
    Mr. Neguse. So, in FTEs precisely. So, I am not making the 
case that there may be a resource allocation issue, but to the 
point that my colleague from Arizona made earlier when she 
posed the question to you as to whether or not you had been 
directed by anyone to slow walk applications and so forth, the 
central question, which I think you have answered in your 
written testimony, is the promulgation of various policies that 
your agency has adopted in the last 2 years since the Trump 
Administration took office, and perhaps at their behest, has 
that exacerbated the backlog?
    We understand that there was a backlog before January 1st 
of 2017. I think your written testimony confirms that, yes, 
that is one of the reasons that there is a backlog. Accurate to 
say?
    Mr. Hoefer. Well, let me go back to the question about the 
decrease in the receipts. I think, as I testified, what 
happened is there is some lag. When we get the receipts--
    Mr. Neguse. I understand that, Mr. Hoefer. I am asking, it 
is a simple question. Again, if you want, I guess we will let 
your written testimony speak for itself.
    There are a variety of policies, in addition to a number of 
other factors, that have lengthened processing times. That is 
not a fair statement to make?
    Mr. Hoefer. No, that is fair.
    Mr. Neguse. Okay. So, that is just baseline set of facts 
that we ought to operate under for purposes of this hearing.
    I would say this. I appreciate the work that you do, and I 
appreciate your service, and I appreciate you appearing here 
before us today. We have a serious problem. This backlog, which 
I understand has existed for quite some time but has been 
exacerbated over the course of the last 2 fiscal years in 
particular, is not sustainable.
    A 344 percent increase from the net backlog of cases in 
2014, when you look at a 5-year window. In Colorado, in my 
State--and I know the Ranking Member, I suspect, appreciates 
this, as well, is a long queue that is building and building. 
So, I appreciate your efforts, but I think we ought--the point 
that my colleague from Texas made. We ought to be focusing on 
solutions to these problems.
    One of the issues that I want to ask you about, the backlog 
reduction plan that you have submitted or the summary that you 
submitted to this Committee lists as one of your goals or, I 
should say, one of your initiatives that you intend to 
implement to address the backlog--it is number five in your 
list--redefining processing time goals to better reflect true 
cycle times, which I understand, based on your written 
testimony, was a recommendation made by the DHS Office of 
Inspector General.
    The way I read this is what you are saying is that right 
now, because the agency is unable to fulfill the 120-day goal 
for a variety of different applications, permanent resident 
applications, and so forth, you intend to simply change the 
goal and instead of saying it is going to be 120 days, make it 
180 days. I could just tell you from my perspective, having run 
a regulatory agency back in Colorado with a much smaller $90 
million budget, 600 employees, appearing before our legislative 
committees of jurisdiction, I would not be received well if I 
said, well, I am going to simply change the processing time 
because we can't meet it.
    Anyone have a way to explain that?
    Mr. Valverde. I will respond to that briefly. The OIG 
statement, to me, said that the 120-day goal of the things that 
the agency must do to process an application for adjustment of 
status, they are not feasible in 120 days, all the background 
checks, fingerprint, employment interview, et cetera. Thus, we 
should go back and give the public a better expectation.
    From my perspective as an operator, one of the things over 
the years that has taken time away from our core adjudicative 
functions is responding to people who reasonably say, ``When is 
my case going to be due?''
    Mr. Neguse. To that point, I would say I certainly agree 
that perhaps better responsiveness and increased communication 
throughout the process. I appreciate what you are doing with 
respect to the online programs that you have mentioned 
launching in your backlog reduction plan. So, that would 
accomplish what you are after.
    Extending the timeline so that it is ``more realistic'' to 
me is not an appropriate response to what is a critical 
backlog.
    Last, I will just say is you mentioned, Mr. Valverde, in 
respect to fees, right? Who pays your fees? Who pays the fees?
    Mr. Valverde. Our salaries come from the user fees.
    Mr. Neguse. User fees, and what do you call them?
    Mr. Valverde. Applicants and petitioners.
    Mr. Neguse. Well, for the existence or since your agency 
was founded, we called them customers. That term was removed 
from your mission statement, as was the term ``nation of 
immigrants'' a year ago. In my view, some of this is cultural. 
To the extent we don't see individuals as customers, that this 
agency is set to serve as a result of the law that was passed 
by Congress back in 2002, I think it implicates the way in 
which we look at these delays--
    Ms. Lofgren. The gentleman's--
    Mr. Neguse. --and the plans that we make to comport with 
them. So, with that, I would yield back.
    Ms. Lofgren. The gentleman's time has expired. We turn now 
to the gentleman from Florida.
    Mr. Steube. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    My first set of questions are for Mr. Valverde. In his 
testimony for the next panel that is after you, Mr. Cohen 
highlights the denaturalization work that USCIS is undertaking. 
Isn't it true that this work focuses on individuals who 
fraudulently obtain citizenship and that the work began under 
the Obama Administration? Can you explain what you are doing as 
it relates to that?
    Mr. Valverde. Absolutely. The work began in the late 2008 
or 2009 timeframe and then was highlighted in an OIG report in 
2016 when USCIS really got involved. The short summary of the 
work is that in the course of uploading old paper files into 
our electronic fingerprint database, we started getting matches 
with different sets of biographic information.
    So, what we were seeing, in maybe simpler terms, is two 
different identities connected to the same fingerprints. What 
we saw is many of them had, unbeknownst to us, gone through the 
naturalization program and procured citizenship.
    So, the work we started in 2016 and we continue today is to 
get those cases together. If it is two files, or three files in 
some instances, compare the records, and find the individuals 
who obtained the benefit we think through fraud and write that 
up. There are some that we don't think was the case, but for 
the ones that we do, we write that up and do an affidavit and 
work with partners at Justice for them to do the 
denaturalization process in the courts.
    Mr. Steube. Okay. Also, in his testimony, Mr. Cohen points 
out that the USCIS adjudicators are ``asking for more proof of 
marriage if the applicant is applying based on their 
marriage.'' If an applicant is applying based on their 
marriage, doesn't it only make sense that your adjudicators 
would ask questions about the marriage?
    I assume the purpose of these questions is to find out if 
there is fraud, and is marriage fraud a real issue that you see 
in the Department?
    Mr. Valverde. Yes, I won't comment on specific cases, but, 
marriage fraud is an issue that we come across on a daily basis 
in many of our offices. It is something that we give our 
officers special training for so that they can pay attention to 
ensuring that it is a bona fide relationship that forms the 
basis of either the request for permanent residence or 
citizenship.
    Mr. Steube. Well, I have even seen in my own district a 
case that was brought to my attention where the parties were 
allegedly married, and both the alleged wife was living with 
another man, and the alleged husband was living with another 
woman. So, it is definitely an issue. At least I have seen it 
in my district in the short time that I have been elected to 
Congress in the last 6 months.
    So, I certainly think there is fraud as it relates to 
getting married and trying to get citizenship and access into 
our country.
    In her testimony for the next panel, Ms. Lindt refers to 
interviews for individuals seeking green cards through their 
employers as ``unnecessary.'' Getting a green card comes with 
significant legal benefits and rights. Is that correct?
    Mr. Valverde. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Steube. Would you agree that ensuring an alien is, in 
fact, eligible for a green card is important and required by 
law?
    Mr. Valverde. Yes.
    Mr. Steube. Are the interviews for employment-based green 
cards adding unreasonable delays to the adjudication?
    Mr. Valverde. In my opinion, no, sir. I think it is a 
measure of integrity to have a face-to-face conversation and 
ascertain evidence about their eligibility for the benefit for 
someone who wants to remain here permanently, to live and 
travel, and work here.
    Mr. Steube. I have questions for Mr. Neufeld. How much time 
do I have left? Because I don't see--
    Ms. Lofgren. You have a minute and 20 seconds.
    Mr. Steube. Okay. Mr. Neufeld, isn't it true that if an 
adjudicator is adjudicating an application or a petition that 
needs additional information to make a decision, the 
adjudicator has only two options, either issue a Request for 
Evidence or deny the application altogether. Is that correct?
    Mr. Neufeld. Essentially. They can also issue a Notice of 
Intent to Deny if it would afford them an opportunity to 
respond before they would make an actual decision.
    Mr. Steube. So, they could have an opportunity to respond, 
but that is it.
    Mr. Neufeld. Yes.
    Mr. Steube. Okay. In the latest USCIS ombudsman report, the 
Congress recommends that USCIS emphasize that petitioners and 
applicants verify the addresses provided for all forms filed 
with the USCIS. How much of a problem is it that people do not 
provide their current address?
    Mr. Neufeld. I think it is more of a problem that their 
address might change, and so our records don't reflect the 
correct address. In the employment context, occasionally we 
will find where the attorney's address or the employer's 
address will be used as if it is the beneficiary's address. 
Then that can create some problems with us trying to sort 
through that when we adjudicate the case.
    Mr. Steube. So, if it is that type of scenario and they are 
not updating you of their new address, that obviously is 
delaying the delivery of their work permits and other documents 
from your agency?
    Mr. Neufeld. Yes.
    Mr. Steube. How am I doing?
    Ms. Lofgren. Your time has expired.
    Mr. Steube. Okay. All right. There you go.
    Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Ms. Lofgren. The gentleman yields back. The gentlelady from 
Florida is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Thank you. Hello?
    I think that an efficient and service-oriented immigration 
system is vital to businesses, for our economy, mostly also for 
families that are living here in the United States. It allows 
families to be reunited with loved ones, and it enhances the 
diversity which makes this Nation great.
    I am actually a naturalized citizen. I remember going 
through the process, and I am so grateful that I was allowed 
that opportunity. It did take years before we were eligible and 
allowed to become U.S. citizens.
    In recent years, we have seen that the backlog of cases at 
the USCIS has exploded. From 2016 to 2018, the net backlog of 
cases rose by nearly 1.4 million cases. In 2018, USCIS received 
a million fewer cases than the year before, but the average 
case processing delay continues to rise.
    The staggering backlog of cases at USCIS has created 
challenges for businesses, universities, hospitals, and mostly 
families, like I mentioned. Despite this, earlier this year, 
the Administration announced that USCIS planned to close all 
international field offices. These offices are critical 
resources in processing refugee applications, family-based visa 
applications, and other immigration matters.
    My district in Miami serves a large population of Cuban 
Americans. From one day to the next, the USCIS field office in 
Havana was closed. As a result, families are now separated. I 
hear on a daily basis, hundreds of some of my community Members 
that are writing to us, calling to us. They tweet asking for a 
result for this issue. They tell me that they wouldn't have 
left Cuba if they knew that their sons and daughters would not 
be able to unite them here in Miami.
    So, I wanted to first ask Mr. Valverde, who made the 
decision to close the office in Havana to process the parole 
and family-related visas for the Cubans that are applying for 
these visas?
    Mr. Valverde. I don't have the first answer to that. I 
understand it was the former Director, but I wasn't--
    Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Okay. So, now that the Havana office 
is closed, what is the process for processing these 
applications and getting these families back together?
    Mr. Valverde. I think none of us on the panel are working 
in our overseas offices Administration. So, we would have to 
get back to you. I do understand that the Havana office was 
closed after the attacks on our employees.
    Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Yes, but there was never any evidence 
that it had to do with the government there, and now thousands 
of families actually are suffering the consequences of that 
closure without any response. So, if you could please provide 
me with that information within the next 2 weeks as to what the 
plan is to process those applications that were already 
started.
    Just as a general matter, how does closing a USCIS office 
impact the backlog the agency is seeing? Mr. Neufeld?
    Mr. Neufeld. As my colleague mentioned, none of us here 
oversee the overseas offices. So, we are a little bit 
challenged with this. As a service center executive, I would 
anticipate that some of that work that is presently performed 
overseas may be coming to the service centers, and we would 
need to prepare for that.
    So, for instance, I am aware that on occasion, family-based 
petitions might be adjudicated onsite at an international 
office, and I would anticipate that work would be coming to a 
service center instead.
    Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. So, who made the decision in the 
agency to close all these field offices, international field 
offices?
    Mr. Neufeld. Again, that is a bit of a challenge for us. As 
I understand it, the decision hasn't been finalized in terms of 
specifically which offices are going to be closed.
    Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. You are aware that a lot of these 
international field offices process international adoptions, 
they support refugee resettlement, and they handle family 
reunification applications.
    In addition, in response to Mr. Steube's concern on fraud, 
they actually also deal with some of these fraudulent cases. 
So, I am concerned that there is not enough preparation in here 
nationally how we are going to prepare to close these 
international field offices.
    Has USCIS or DHS conducted a cost-benefit analysis or 
otherwise studied the potential impact of these closures on the 
processing of refugees, adoptions, and other services? Is there 
a study that has been conducted?
    Mr. Neufeld. I don't know.
    Ms. Lofgren. The gentlelady's time has expired.
    Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Thank you very much. I yield back.
    Ms. Lofgren. The gentlelady from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Escobar. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Many thanks to those of you on the panel for being here and 
thanks for your service.
    We have seen a theme this week with the hearings that we 
have had. We had a hearing yesterday on the horrific 
overcrowding in the El Paso processing facilities, as 
documented by the Office of the Inspector General. Today, as 
laid out by my colleague, the gentleman from Colorado, we have 
seen also a terrible backlog that has been exacerbated by 
policy.
    During yesterday's hearing, what finally surfaced was that 
policy by this Administration was making a challenging 
situation worse. I believe that the same applies here.
    Just as an example of what we continue to have to face, in 
October of 2018, USCIS published a Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking that would dramatically heighten the standard for 
determining whether an individual is likely to become a public 
charge. In the background information on the proposed rule, DHS 
admitted that the new Rule could lead to worse health outcomes, 
increased prevalence of communicable diseases, increased rates 
of poverty and housing instability, and reduced productivity 
and educational attainment.
    Setting aside the fact that the Rule as proposed is illegal 
and exceeds the agency's statutory authority, I would like to 
ask either Mr. Neufeld or Mr. Valverde the following questions. 
When can we expect final action from the agency on this rule?
    Mr. Valverde. I don't have a date on that. It is still 
going through the rulemaking process.
    Ms. Escobar. Okay. If finalized as proposed, will this new 
Rule increase the amount of time it takes to adjudicate 
applications for adjustment of status and other benefits? If 
so, what is the estimated additional time burden?
    Mr. Valverde. I will take that as well. The Rule change, 
like any change, will add a complexity as we train people and 
try to roll it out. I don't have an estimate right now because 
the Rule has not been finalized, and we don't have the final 
language that we will have to apply to our cases.
    Ms. Escobar. Will you be evaluating how much extra time it 
will take, what kind of a burden it will add to the agency?
    Mr. Valverde. Absolutely. We evaluate either in the 2-year, 
every 2-year fee process how long it takes us to do all our 
actions, or in our annual budget process, that is how we 
allocate the staff that we have to do the work.
    Ms. Escobar. I would request that in your subsequent 
budget, once the Rule has been applied, that you please make a 
note of that, of the additional time and the addition in 
staffing that would be required to deal with the rule, please.
    Also, what steps has USCIS taken to prepare for the 
additional burdens that will be imposed on the adjudicatory 
process as a result of this rule, and what is the plan to 
ensure that processing delays on affected applications stay 
within reasonable timeframes?
    As Mr. Neguse pointed out, that doesn't mean changing the 
goalposts. That means providing customer service in the 
appropriate time.
    Mr. Valverde. As I mentioned a minute ago, as soon as we 
get the final Rule and we can build some processes and 
procedures around it, we will have a better sense to answer 
your questions with some more specificities. Certainly, as we 
are aware of the Rule and as we have seen the proposed rule, we 
can make some guesses. So, we are doing our planning. We are 
taking that into account in our budget process this year.
    At this point, though, we are making some assumptions about 
application rates and other impacts that we are doing our 
planning as we speak right now, and we will see when the Rule 
is finalized what its timeframe is and how our assumptions are 
played out in reality.
    Ms. Escobar. If finalized as proposed, the new Rule would 
require significant training for adjudicators who will be 
required to gain new expertise in complex areas of public 
benefits, including State Medicaid programs. However, the 
proposed Rule includes no time or cost estimates of the 
necessary training.
    Has USCIS estimated the costs for training and implementing 
the new rule? If so, what are these estimated costs?
    Mr. Valverde. I don't have an estimate for you, but I would 
say that one of the first things that I did when I joined the 
agency in 1997 was do the public charge Rule that we did at 
that time, based on the 1996 act. It is very similar. We had to 
teach our adjudicators to understand what public benefits were 
and how they impacted those benefits.
    We do something very similar, and I say that to illustrate 
that we are accustomed to policy changes or statutory changes 
or process changes and bringing our people through that with a 
goal of implementing it as efficiently as we can and as 
consistently as we can across the hundreds of thousands of 
applications that we will get.
    So, we are working on it now.
    Ms. Escobar. Your customers will have to shoulder the 
burden of the added cost. Correct?
    Ms. Lofgren. The gentlelady's time has expired. The 
gentleman may answer.
    Mr. Valverde. Correct.
    Ms. Lofgren. The gentlelady from Pennsylvania is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Scanlon. Thank you.
    I just wanted to make clear that CIS is the agency charged 
with processing applications of people who are trying to follow 
our rules and become legal residents or get work authorization 
or become citizens, right?
    Mr. Hoefer. Yes.
    Ms. Scanlon. Okay. So, they are not people hiding from the 
Government. They actually are providing a lot of information to 
the Government as they seek to have those applications 
adjudicated, right? Mr. Hoefer, I will let you speak for the 
group.
    Mr. Hoefer. Yes.
    Ms. Scanlon. Thank you.
    Until they get citizenship, they can't vote. They can't 
receive Social Security benefits usually. Sometimes people 
can't work. I mean, there are a whole host of benefits that are 
attendant upon becoming either a legal resident or a citizen. 
Correct?
    Mr. Hoefer. Yes.
    Ms. Scanlon. Okay. We talked a little bit about the delays 
and some of the factors that led to the burgeoning backlog, and 
I think you mentioned the increase rather than decrease in 
citizenship applications following the 2016 presidential 
election, right?
    Mr. Hoefer. That is correct, yes.
    Ms. Scanlon. Okay. So, after a presidential election, there 
is usually some kind of drop-off?
    Mr. Hoefer. Yes.
    Ms. Scanlon. I can help you with why that happened.
    [Laughter.]
    Ms. Scanlon. As a legal services attorney, immediately 
following the election in 2016, we started encouraging people 
to obtain citizenship if they were eligible due to the anti-
immigrant rhetoric coming from the Administration. I think the 
Administration helped deliver that message pretty forcefully 
when the first executive orders to come out of this White House 
were to ban travel by people who were from predominantly Muslim 
nations and to completely upend our deportation priorities, 
going from just excluding ``bad hombres,'' as one might call 
them, to anyone who did not have permanent legal status under 
our laws.
    So, there was a huge incentive for people to try to file 
their paperwork and get whatever status they were able to.
    I don't think you mentioned some other things. One thing 
that I noted in going through some of the testimony, the 
Inspector General did mention that the electronic documentation 
services, ELIS, I believe it is called, has had some serious 
deficiencies that have also slowed down processing. Correct?
    Whose is that? Mr. Valverde?
    Mr. Valverde. I can speak to that because we used it for 
citizenship and also for replacement of green cards. Now, 
citizenship in the--I will get my years wrong--in the 2015, 
2016 timeframe, when we were implementing it, it was a much 
slower implementation because of some of those difficulties 
that you are referring to.
    Ms. Scanlon. Okay. The Inspector General's report was from 
November 2017, at which point those difficulties were 
continuing, weren't they?
    Mr. Valverde. I believe that is the right timeframe. 
Shortly after that, we had pivoted back to using the system, 
and we have been using it since.
    Ms. Scanlon. So, you had to resume using a system that you 
have been trying to upgrade because of deficiencies in the new 
system?
    Mr. Valverde. We had started to use it and decided it was 
better to fix it and pause for a while and then resume using it 
when it was working the way we intended it to.
    Ms. Scanlon. That is during a period of time that was 
central to when this backlog started to really explode. Isn't 
that right?
    Mr. Valverde. It was while the backlogs were growing. I 
would note that we had a parallel system, the older system we 
call CLAIMS 4--without getting too much into the jargon--that 
we continued to use. So, we did not sit on our hands. We had 
work to do during that time as we improved the ELIS system.
    Ms. Scanlon. Okay. It contributed to the backlog, right?
    Mr. Valverde. I think that is fair.
    Ms. Scanlon. Okay. What you didn't mention was there have 
been a lot of policy changes during the course of this 
Administration that have impacted your ability to process 
applications. Isn't that correct?
    Mr. Neufeld. There have been a number of policy changes 
that impact them.
    Ms. Scanlon. They would include additional REIs--or RFEs, 
Requests for Evidence, that were not previously required?
    Mr. Neufeld. The policies didn't direct that we would issue 
more Requests for Evidence, no.
    Ms. Scanlon. There has been some suggestion that the 
Requests for Evidence have become duplicative in some cases. 
You haven't heard complaints that you are requesting evidence 
in duplicative manners?
    Mr. Neufeld. Oh, that sometimes a request will be issued 
and then followed by a request for the same evidence?
    Ms. Scanlon. Yes.
    Mr. Neufeld. I am sure that in the millions of cases we 
process, that mistakes are made. That is not a common--
    Ms. Scanlon. As someone who has had to submit their 
attorney representation file six or eight times on the same 
case, I think there are some issues with that.
    Another policy that would seem to have increased time for 
response would be eliminating the 90-day deadline for 
processing employment authorizations, right? If there is no 
longer a deadline, can take longer?
    Mr. Neufeld. No, that didn't drive how much longer it takes 
to process cases.
    Ms. Scanlon. Okay.
    Ms. Lofgren. The gentlelady's time has expired, but have we 
got an answer to the last question?
    Ms. Scanlon. Okay. Thank you.
    Ms. Lofgren. Okay. Then I will--the Ranking Member has said 
he will pass on this round of questions. So, I will go to my 
questions, and I think we are expecting a vote on the floor 
very soon. So, we will have to come back for the second panel 
after that vote.
    I am concerned about how the processes have changed and the 
impact on the Administration of the benefits program. 
Obviously, everybody wants a system that is--avoids fraud and 
adheres to the requirements of the statute and the like. I just 
have some questions about the impact in certain cases and where 
the delay really eliminates the value of the program itself.
    For example, the OPT program--Optional Practical Training 
program--by regulation, the earliest that a student can apply 
for OPT is 90 days before the end of the educational program. 
Now, I have heard that the delays are so extreme, 5 months or 
more, that in some cases you have got a student who has 
graduated from college. They are going to go on to their Ph.D. 
They have got their internship.
    The internship is over before they even get the approval of 
OPT to do it. So, the whole idea of having this program is 
undercut by the delay, and so you sort of wonder what is being 
achieved here other than to undercut what the agency wants to 
do because of the delay.
    I have concerns about what is happening on the employment 
side. We have had a number of questions on the family side, 
which are very important. I am seeing from the statistics that 
nearly 50 percent of all H-1B petitions received RFEs in the 
second quarter of 2019, and I am wondering why.
    I will give you an example. I come from Silicon Valley. I 
recently had a casual conversation with somebody I have known 
for many years, a serial entrepreneur. He has been CEO of very 
large companies, and now he has got a startup.
    He had an H-1B visa holder that was renewing the H-1B. 
Instead of getting the renewal, he got a question from USCIS 
was this guy's Ph.D. really well fitted to the job? His 
question was, what would the USCIS know about that Ph.D. versus 
him as the employer?
    Secondly, why this big study on a renewal of an H-1B? He 
said what changed? Was their first process wrong? People are 
just feeling jerked around, for lack of a better term. What we 
have got are Canadian recruiters coming into American tech 
centers and luring people away.
    The tech economy in Toronto is growing faster than the tech 
economy in Silicon Valley and Washington. Now, a lot of people 
think it is because of USCIS and our immigration policies.
    Can you tell me about why we are doing the RFEs that we are 
doing in the H-1B program for renewals in particular?
    Mr. Neufeld. So, that one is mine. I can tell you that a 
number of changes have been made affecting H-1B processing over 
the last couple of years, and I am sure you are familiar with 
them. So, when there is a change that is introduced, we have to 
first train our folks, but we also have to educate the public 
on what the requirements are as we now understand them.
    So, whenever that happens, regardless of what context, it 
is pretty predictable that we will have an increase in Requests 
for Evidence, perhaps an increase in denials. Usually, 
overtime, as the public becomes familiar with what the 
requirements are and as our adjudicators become more 
proficient, then we usually will see that the requests are--the 
impact of those changes to become more stable.
    Ms. Lofgren. Let me ask you another question. Somebody said 
why don't we have some judgment being shown in these cases? We 
know that there are entities that abuse the H-1B program, and 
there is not going to be a single person on this panel that 
says don't scrutinize that situation. We all agree on that.
    Then you have got situations where that is not the case, 
and you have people who are being denied. Then they appeal, and 
they win their appeals every single time. So, what has happened 
is you have just added money and cost, delay for no outcome. Is 
there any analysis going on on where the appeals are always 
successful, and the denials are always wrong and to do some 
assessment on what you are doing here?
    Mr. Neufeld. So, I won't say that there has been a study of 
the decisions coming from the AAO, but I will tell you that as 
we receive decisions from the AAO that overturn the decision of 
the adjudicator, we do review those and determine whether is it 
a training issue, or is it some other guidance that needs to be 
clarified, or what have you?
    Ms. Lofgren. Just a final question. I have also received a 
lot of complaints about the use of denials for FTEs, as 
compared to the more informal Notice of Intent process that 
used to be more prevalent. For example, I have had tech people 
say there was a clerical error on the application. Instead of 
calling up, saying was it this date or that date or was there a 
typo on this line, they requested evidence. Or they deny it, 
even worse. So, you have to go through a whole expensive 
process.
    Why is that? What is the value in that?
    Mr. Neufeld. So, I think this gets back to the change in 
policy that we were discussing previously, and the prior policy 
did require that pretty much in every circumstance, even if the 
record seemed to be fully there, that a Request for Evidence 
would be issued, and the policy change then allowed for folks 
to go straight to a decision if they felt that the record is 
complete.
    I don't know--again, I don't think we have done a study to 
determine the impact as far as how many cases have gone 
straight to denial, as opposed to having a Request for Evidence 
issued in the interim. I would imagine that we could get data 
on that.
    Ms. Lofgren. Well, since I have asked others to keep within 
their 5 minutes, my 5 minutes is up. So, I will note that we 
have also been called to a vote.
    We have additional questions. Oh, Sheila, you came in 
later. Before we end this hearing, let me turn to Ms. Jackson 
Lee for her 5 minutes, and then we will have enough time to get 
to the floor.
    The gentlelady from Texas is recognized.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank the chair, and I thank you for 
holding this hearing.
    I want to just, to the witnesses, USCIS has acknowledged 
that some policy changes have slowed processing and increased 
the overall case backlog. Has USCIS, and I know we have had 
probably a series of questions like this, made any efforts to 
improve data collection and analysis to better understand the 
impact of future policy changes on processing time and case 
backlog?
    Mr. Hoefer. We do reviews going--looking back in time to 
see all the policies' effects, and certainly when we have 
information about the various policies, we try to make 
estimates of how long things are going to take. So, we 
regularly do reviews every year of this nature.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. So, what is your backlog now? If you said 
you had to give a landscape across the Nation of how many 
backlog cases you are dealing with, do you have a handle on 
that?
    Mr. Hoefer. Yes, we have 2.4 million cases in backlog, and 
overall, we have about 5.9 million cases pending.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Those individuals, do they have a document 
indicating pending case? Are they subject to the actions of 
immigration enforcers because they are not statused, or are you 
continuing to provide them with updated paperwork that their 
present status is due to your backlog?
    Mr. Neufeld. I can take that. So, everybody who files a 
petition or application with us will receive a receipt, and 
that will indicate that their case is pending. Depending on 
what they are applying for, that might provide them status or 
some protection from removal. It depends really on what their 
status was before they applied, what the status is that they 
are seeking.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Employment authorization delays have been 
substantial. Delays in employment authorization have 
significant impact on many different stakeholders and can 
result in prolonged benching or even job loss. Families are put 
in disarray because families are dependent on the person 
seeking the employment status.
    Do you have any way of channeling the employment request? 
Because these people will have a legitimate base of income. 
They have got family Members that are dependent on them. Is 
there any way to stovepipe those requests?
    Mr. Neufeld. So, we are concerned with the processing times 
for employment authorization documents, and one of the things 
that we did was to provide for auto-extensions. So, if somebody 
has an employment authorization document and they need to seek 
an extension, depending on the category, then they can receive 
an automatic--their old card is automatically extended for a 
period of time while we process their case.
    That was one of the things that we tried to do to provide 
some relief. This category of work is very important, but it 
also competes with the other categories of work that we have 
with our limited resources. So, I can tell you that we do 
prioritize it, and compared to other processing times for other 
applications, the EADs typically are handled much more quickly, 
but not as quickly as we would like.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Well, would you consider going back and 
analyzing sort of how you would resource the employment request 
in a way that you might recommend that would help you move them 
faster? Certainly, vetting is important, but move them faster?
    Mr. Neufeld. Yes.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Are you all appointees or civil servants?
    Mr. Neufeld. Career civil servants.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Well, first, let me thank you for your 
service. I have probably run into you before.
    You noting the disparate directions that seem to be coming 
from the Administration impacting staffing, impacting 
immigrants who are coming in or not showing up in terms of the 
disparate--frankly, I don't know whether this Administration is 
for any immigration.
    I don't know if they are for legal or illegal--not illegal, 
but helping undocumented, helping people who are in the 
country. I have no idea. That sets the tone for the work you do 
and also for people accessing your services, which are very 
important. The funding that we in Congress pile onto the 
Administration, I am not sure if it is reaching you, because I 
notice that you have staff turnover. What is happening with 
staff turnover and the people that come in that you see?
    Mr. Neufeld. Staff turnover, like any agency, we experience 
attrition, but I don't think that is a huge concern for us. The 
difficulty for us is hiring, because it can take several 
months. Not only to bring somebody onboard, but then after 
that, to get them trained and experienced.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. So, you have the resources. Congress has 
given you the resources to hire as you need?
    Mr. Neufeld. We are fee funded. So, we don't usually need 
to look to Congress to authorize our staffing levels.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. So, you can expand your staffing levels if 
necessary?
    Mr. Neufeld. With the fees, yes.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Right. You will look to the stovepiping of 
certain employment documents--
    Ms. Lofgren. The gentlelady's time has expired.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I mean processes. Thank you. I yield back.
    Ms. Lofgren. Thank you. The gentlelady yields back.
    I recognize the Ranking Member for a unanimous consent 
request.
    Mr. Buck. I ask that a statement from the United States 
Chamber of Commerce dated July 16, 2019, be included in the 
record.
    Ms. Lofgren. Without objection, so ordered.
    [The information follows:]

   
                        MR. BUCK FOR THE RECORD

=======================================================================

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Ms. Lofgren. I would also ask unanimous consent that the 
following statements be made a part of the record--from the 
American Council on Education, the American Immigration 
Council, ASISTA, and the Asian Pacific Institute on Gender-
Based Violence, the Association of American Universities, 
Boundless Immigration, Church World Services, the Compete 
America Coalition, FWD.us, Her Justice, Invest in America, 
National Immigration Forum, UnidosUS and the National 
Partnership for New Americans report, Tahirih, and again, the 
Information Technology Industry Council.
    Without objection, those statements are made a part of the 
record.
    [The information follows:]
  

                       MS. LOFGREN FOR THE RECORD

=======================================================================


[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Ms. Lofgren. Just as a parting comment, I think planning is 
something that would be very helpful in terms of changes of 
policy. I think you heard from many of us when the premium 
processing policy was changed after the applications had 
already been mailed on Sunday, when the due date was Monday, 
and people had to rip checks out and rewrite them. People whose 
applications had already been sent were rejected because they 
had more money in the fee.
    It is just a crazy way to run an outfit. I know it wasn't 
your decision, but that kind of stuff just creates chaos in the 
community, in the business community, and is counterproductive 
in terms of a good economy for the United States.
    With this, we will recess until after the vote. We will 
have 5 legislative days to submit additional questions to each 
of you. We would ask, if we do, that you answer them promptly.
    We thank you very much for being here, and we will probably 
be back a little bit after 2:00 p.m., for planning purposes if 
people need to go catch a snack or something.
    So, we are in recess.
    [Recess.]
    Ms. Lofgren. The Subcommittee will come back into order. We 
had a number of votes, and hopefully, we will get some of the 
other Members who are on their way back. For now, we will start 
with our second panel, and I would like to introduce all of 
them.
    Before I do, let me ask you all to stand, raise your right 
hand, and do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that 
the testimony you are about to give is true and correct, to the 
best of your knowledge, information, and belief, so help you 
God?
    [Response.]
    Ms. Lofgren. The record will show that each of the 
witnesses replied in the affirmative. Now, we will introduce 
our four witnesses.
    Marketa Lindt is President of the American Immigration 
Lawyers Association and a partner at the Chicago office of 
Sidley Austin, LLP, where she specializes in business 
immigration programs and I-9 compliance. She has authored 
numerous pieces on business immigration for legal publications. 
She has served as a member of the Leadership Board of the 
National Immigrant Justice Center in Chicago and currently 
advises several Chicago-based organizations that provides 
assistance to underserved immigrant communities.
    Jill Marie Bussey is Director of Advocacy at Catholic Legal 
Immigration Network, also known as CLINIC. Ms. Bussey has 
worked in the immigration field for nearly 20 years. Prior to 
CLINIC, she served as President of the board of directors at 
the Foreign-Born Information and Referral Network, a Maryland-
based nonprofit that supports immigrants, refugees, and 
asylees. She also served as Director of the Global Immigration 
Council for Pro-Link GLOBAL and worked in private practice at a 
multitude of firms.
    Eric Cohen is the Executive Director of the Immigrant Legal 
Resource Center. Prior to being named Executive Director in 
2007, he supervised the ILRC's legal work as legal director and 
staff attorney. He has been a professor of immigration law and 
has supervised immigration law clinics at Stanford and the 
University of California Hastings School of Law. Mr. Cohen has 
coauthored countless publications and practice manuals for 
immigration attorneys and specializes in naturalization and 
citizenship issues.
    Jessica Vaughan serves as Director of Policy Studies for 
the Center for Immigration Studies, where she has worked since 
1992. Ms. Vaughan is also an instructor for senior law 
enforcement officer training seminars at Northwestern 
University's Center for Public Safety in Illinois. Prior to her 
work with the Center for Immigration Studies, Ms. Vaughan was a 
Foreign Service officer with the U.S. Department of State, 
where she served in Belgium, as well as Trinidad and Tobago.
    So, we thank each one of you for being here. As you know, 
we have your written statements, which will be made part of the 
record, and we ask that your testimony be about 5 minutes.
    There is a light system somewhere. Maybe not. When you are 
a minute away from your 5 minutes, the yellow light will go on, 
and the red light is supposed to go on when your time is up. We 
would ask that you try and stay within that timeframe, and we 
are eager to hear from each one of you.
    So, with that, we will start with you Ms. Lindt.

                   TESTIMONY OF MARKETA LINDT

    Ms. Lindt. Chairwoman Lofgren and Ranking Member Buck and 
Members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to 
testify before you today on the bipartisan issue of reducing 
processing delays at USCIS.
    My name is Marketa Lindt, and I am the elected President of 
the American Immigration Lawyers Association, the private bar 
association of more than 15,000 immigration attorneys and law 
professors. I am also a partner at the law firm of Sidley 
Austin, where I specialize in business immigration and 
represent a wide range of American companies.
    Collectively, as AILA Members, we represent businesses, 
families, and people seeking protection before USCIS in 
virtually every kind of immigration application. Unfortunately, 
our experience reveals a troubling reality. Today's USCIS is an 
agency rife with processing delays that are driven by the 
agency's own inefficient policies and practices.
    Congress established USCIS to be a service-oriented 
immigration agency that meets the needs of American businesses 
and families. To accomplish this, the agency must process its 
applications efficiently and timely in a manner that protects 
the integrity of the immigration system.
    The magnitude of the delays now facing USCIS customers, 
many of whom pay significant fees for USCIS services, are 
extreme. USCIS has a history of chronic management problems and 
processing delays, but the delays are particularly acute now. 
AILA's analysis of USCIS data reveals that between fiscal years 
2016 and 2018, the agency's average case processing time surged 
by 46 percent, and the overall backlog of delayed cases 
exceeded 5.69 million.
    This slowdown in case processing has a significant impact 
on U.S. business and families. The delays restrict the ability 
of U.S. businesses to hire workers that they need to be 
competitive nationally and globally. They prolong the 
separation of families. They endanger those who need 
humanitarian protection, and they stall the integration of 
aspiring U.S. citizens.
    This is not a matter of ideology or politics. U.S. 
businesses and individuals are paying substantial filing fees 
for applications for immigration benefits. The agency's 
efficient implementation of our legal immigration system is 
simply a matter of good governance.
    Leaders in Congress on both sides of the aisle have 
recognized the critical impact the USCIS delays are having and 
with bipartisan action have called for greater accountability. 
In March of this year, a bipartisan delegation of 10 House 
Members from the Houston area, some on this subcommittee, wrote 
that the agency's inability to Act in a timely way to serve the 
Houston area was posing a ``hindrance to our region's future.''
    In May, 38 U.S. Senators, including 19 Republicans and 19 
Democrats, expressed alarm over USCIS's ``nationwide 
slowdown.'' In response, USCIS has largely attributed its 
backlog to resource constraints and high numbers of 
applications. However, USCIS's own data shows that in fiscal 
year 2018, the agency's budget grew, and the application rate 
significantly declined. Yet, during that same time, case 
processing times still increased by 19 percent.
    What the evidence demonstrates is that, in fact, it is the 
agency's own inefficient policies that are driving the longer 
processing times. In my testimony, I cite many of the 
problematic policies that USCIS has implemented. Here are 
three.
    First, in October 2017, USCIS imposed a policy mandating an 
in-person interview for everyone applying for a green card 
through his or her employer. Officers already have the 
discretion to select cases for an interview, but now the agency 
requires in-person interviews for every single applicant, even 
if there is no indication that it is necessary. This strains 
the agency's valuable adjudications resources that could 
otherwise reduce the backlog.
    Second, in 2017, USCIS changed 2004 policy from the Bush 
era to now require the agency to re-adjudicate every 
application for an extension of status, even where the same 
employer is applying for the same employee for the same job 
under the same visa type and where there has been no meaningful 
change in circumstances.
    Third, USCIS data shows significant spikes in Requests for 
Evidence being issued from the agency. These requests outpace 
processing, often request irrelevant or previously provided 
information, and create an additional time-consuming and 
resource-intensive step in the process.
    In my own practice, I have witnessed the growth in case 
processing delays and their harmful consequences for businesses 
nationwide. I have seen companies' workforce gaps going 
unfilled. I have seen workers losing employment authorization, 
and every day I see the uncertainty that now pervades the 
business environment.
    As a result, our country is losing valuable university 
graduates, talented professionals, and entrepreneurs from 
abroad who are choosing destinations other than the United 
States because the stress, the lengthy processing times, and 
the unpredictability of the U.S. immigration process creates an 
environment that is inhospitable to innovation and to 
attracting and retaining global talent.
    So, Members of the subcommittee, it is imperative that both 
USCIS and Congress Act swiftly to eliminate processing delays 
and their destructive consequences. Most importantly, USCIS 
should reverse inefficient policies that needlessly delay 
adjudications.
    I also urge Congress to pass legislation that strengthens 
accountability at USCIS and ensures that the agency serve the 
American people, our families, and our businesses. Congress 
gave USCIS a mandate, and for the sake of our national 
interests, the agency must fulfill it.
    [The statement of Ms. Lindt follows:]
    
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Ms. Lofgren. Thank you very much.
    We will now hear from Ms. Bussey.

                 TESTIMONY OF JILL MARIE BUSSEY

    Ms. Bussey. Good afternoon, Chairwoman Lofgren, Ranking 
Member Buck, and Members of the subcommittee. My name is Jill 
Marie Bussey, and I am the Director of Advocacy at the Catholic 
Legal Immigration Network and an attorney with about 20 years 
of experience in immigration law. We are really grateful for 
this invitation.
    Guided by our Catholic identity and mission to welcome the 
stranger, CLINIC promotes the rights and dignity of immigrants. 
Our network of over 370 nonprofit immigrant legal services 
agencies serves hundreds of thousands of low-income immigrants 
each year, providing us with valuable insight from real-life 
examples of the problems they face before USCIS.
    Over the past few years, we have become increasingly 
alarmed to see the political leadership at USCIS steering this 
services-based agency toward enforcement and away from its 
congressionally mandated purpose. Customers provide sensitive 
personal information about themselves and their families to 
USCIS. They pay application fees with their hard-earned money, 
and they put their trust in this agency.
    Under the current leadership, their lives are being 
upended, as deliberate policy choices and gross mismanagement 
have led to crisis-level case processing backlogs. For example, 
longer forms and new rules asking for unnecessary information 
create needless redundancies and drain resources.
    Cases with small errors or issues that were previously 
resolved through customer service have been denied, forcing 
everyone to go back to square one. The USCIS would stop 
processing work permits within 90 days and then made it harder 
for people to request expedited processing.
    Slow processing times rob people of their dignity, their 
livelihood, and their security. They also shake people's trust 
in our immigration system. Our written testimony explains in 
detail the problematic policies that we have identified, as 
well as their human consequences. Today, we lift up three.
    Hazem's story illustrates the harm caused when USCIS fails 
to process work permits on time. Hazem came to the United 
States in 2011 to study engineering, just as Syria's civil war 
was erupting. Unable to go home after his student visa ended, 
he applied for temporary protected status and found a job at a 
small firm in Oregon.
    Hazem faced numerous consequences due to application 
processing delays, including renewing his driver's license, 
gaining access to his own bank account, and losing billable 
hours at work and much-needed income. Delays have also deprived 
Americans of critical services when green card processing 
stalls.
    For example, Father Arjun is a Catholic priest from India 
serving a 160-mile rural area in upstate New York. He 
celebrates mass, officiates weddings, visits the sick, and 
presides over funerals. Waiting for over 2 years for his green 
card forced him and his diocese to submit multiple applications 
and fees to USCIS. Because of this, his driver's license is 
connected to his immigration status, he has experienced 
difficulties getting it renewed.
    His work permit and his driver's licenses are key tools 
that allow him to serve. Here, USCIS delays may cause a 
vulnerable parishioner to miss receiving pastoral care at a 
critical time in their life, including last rites.
    These are not the only cases that are being delayed. Life-
saving survivor-based applications have slowed to a near halt. 
Cheryl is a Jamaican national and survivor of brutal domestic 
violence who has waited for approval for her green card under 
VAWA for nearly a year. That is four times the normal 
processing time.
    Cheryl fled her abuser, but without a work permit cannot 
provide for her children and was forced to move back. The 
violence immediately began again, and under current processing 
times, she would have to endure another 6 months. This is 
absurd, and it is immoral. Cheryl and her children should be 
safe right now. Yet, they are at the mercy of USCIS to process 
her case.
    The current situation at USCIS is wholly and completely 
avoidable. It has been brought on by misdirection, 
mismanagement, and poor policy. To raise fees now would force 
applicants and petitioners to pay the cost of USCIS's own 
failures.
    USCIS must rescind the policies that have brought us to 
this current crisis. It must prioritize clearing the backlog of 
survivor-based applications and place limits on processing 
times for work permits and other applications to ensure the 
most vulnerable are protected.
    I thank the Committee for your attention to these issues, 
and I urge all Members of Congress to talk with their 
constituents and district office staff to learn more about the 
harm that these backlogs are causing. Congress must hold the 
USCIS accountable. We can right this ship and restore faith in 
our immigration system together.
    Thank you.
    [The statement of Ms. Bussey follows:]
    
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Ms. Lofgren. Thanks very much.
    Mr. Cohen?

                    TESTIMONY OF ERIC COHEN

    Mr. Cohen. Chair Lofgren, Ranking Member Buck, and 
distinguished Members of the subcommittee, thank you very much 
for the opportunity to appear before you to discuss 
naturalization, the crippling naturalization backlogs at USCIS, 
and the policies and processes that have caused those backlogs.
    I am here representing the Immigrant Legal Resource Center, 
and for 40 years, we have provided immigration legal resources 
to practitioners. We also lead the New Americans Campaign, the 
single biggest naturalization collaboration in the history of 
the United States, which has helped over 400,000 people 
complete their applications.
    Our Nation's naturalization program is in a State of 
dysfunction, and USCIS is not adequately, fairly, and 
efficiently processing naturalization applications. Instead of 
remedying this situation, the Trump Administration's policies 
have exacerbated unmanageable backlogs. The wait to naturalize 
has ballooned to unacceptable levels, and the result is that 
naturalization applicants and their families are suffering.
    The naturalization wait time has gone from 5.8 months in 
2015 to 10.3 months in 2017. As of March 2019, the average is 
10 months. In Miami, Dallas, and New York, processing times for 
many cases have stretched to nearly 2 years.
    There are several reasons for these processing delays. 
First, this Administration does not prioritize addressing the 
backlogs and has not dedicated sufficient staff resources to 
clearing the backlog. In previous years where there was a 
backlog, USCIS made significant process clearing the backlog 
because it was viewed as a priority. Sadly, this is not 
happening under the Trump Administration.
    Second, this Administration spends an inordinate amount of 
time re-adjudicating determinations that were previously made, 
thus unduly delaying the process. In March 2019, we surveyed 
our NAC partners, New Americans Campaign partners, across the 
nation, asking them to report any changes in USCIS practice 
they have observed.
    Many of those surveys reported that naturalization 
interviews are lasting longer. In fact, on average, 
approximately twice as long than the past, thus contributing to 
the backlog.
    Respondents reported that USCIS adjudicators are also 
viewing naturalization applicants with more suspicion. In one 
case, the adjudicator asked for proof of marriage, even though 
the couple have children together and the marriage was already 
determined valid by USCIS during the green card interview.
    Often, adjudicator inquiries require applicants to provide 
information outside the scope of naturalization applications, 
thus delaying the adjudication. Our partners report that USCIS 
adjudicators are asking for travel history beyond the 5-year 
required statutory period and are questioning the legitimacy of 
fee waiver applicants' low-income status by asking irrelevant 
questions, even after the fee waiver has been approved.
    In one recent case, an 82-year-old Iranian woman applied 
for naturalization. During the interview, the USCIS adjudicator 
decided to revisit details of her asylum case, including the 
trauma she suffered in Iran, even though these details were 
vetted during the asylum interview 9 years earlier. She broke 
down during the interview and was unable to complete the 
interview, causing her to be denied naturalization.
    Lastly, USCIS policy directives have shifted its mission 
from a benefit-granting agency to one that erects barriers and 
serves as enforcer. These include proposing changes to the new 
naturalization application by adding vague and legally 
overbroad questions, inviting arbitrary and inconsistent 
adjudications, ramping up denaturalization efforts, engaging in 
``extreme vetting,'' proposing restrictions to fee waivers, and 
considering substantial fee increase.
    Naturalization not only benefits the applicant, but it also 
benefits the U.S. economy. Studies show that increasing 
citizenship results in an increased GDP and increased 
individual earnings and billions in additional tax revenue.
    In 2013, I was fortunate enough to be invited to speak on a 
panel at the George W. Bush Presidential Library in Dallas, 
Texas. The event's focus was on naturalization and included a 
naturalization swearing-in ceremony at which President George 
W. Bush gave a wonderful speech.
    At one very powerful moment in the speech, President Bush 
told the soon-to-be American citizens, ``In a few moments, we 
will share the same title, a title that has meant more to me 
than any other, and I have had a lot. That would be citizen of 
the United States.''
    Citizenship is an important part of the foundation of our 
democracy, and we should all work to ensure that our 
naturalization process is administrated fairly, efficiently, 
and reasonably.
    Thank you very much for letting me speak today, and I look 
forward to taking your questions.
    [The statement of Mr. Cohen follows:]
    
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Ms. Lofgren. Thank you very much.
    Ms. Vaughan, we would be happy to hear from you.

                  TESTIMONY OF JESSICA VAUGHAN

    Ms. Vaughan. Thank you.
    Every single day, USCIS officers face the challenge of 
balancing their responsibility to make the correct decision on 
sometimes complicated applications with the need to do so 
within a reasonable timeframe. It is something I did on a daily 
basis when I was a consular officer adjudicating visa 
applications.
    Officers always have to be on the lookout for fraud, which 
is sometimes rampant, depending on the category, or for people 
who are safety or security risks, and that is not always easy 
to detect. On top of it, the agencies are constantly subject to 
pressure from special interest groups, such as employers that 
sponsor foreign workers and immigration attorneys who are 
sometimes pressuring the agency to adopt policies or practices 
that they believe favor their business or clients, and 
especially to make decisions faster.
    Too often, USCIS leadership has succumbed to this pressure 
and, as a result, has overemphasized swift processing at the 
expense of correct and fair adjudication, with disastrous 
results for American workers and others who suffer harm because 
of rushed decisions or questionable prioritization of cases. 
Adding to the challenge, USCIS has to follow a cumbersome 
procedure for setting and collecting fees that cover the actual 
cost of adjudicating applications and subsidizing some 
applications. This leads to chronic understaffing, which 
hinders productivity.
    As we have heard, USCIS has to deal with what are 
essentially unfunded mandates at an agency that depends almost 
completely on fees, such as processing record numbers of asylum 
applications and work permits for them.
    This afternoon, we have heard a lot of criticism of some 
changes that the Trump Administration has made to improve the 
screening of applications and to address the fraud and the 
gaming of the system. Most of these, like the interview 
requirement and the issuance of NTAs, are just common sense, 
and I address them in more detail in my written statement.
    Others, like ending the deference policy and allowing for 
the refusal of frivolous applications from the get-go, help 
unclog the system so that the legitimate applicants are not 
disadvantaged. Some of these changes' advocates complain about 
actually have reduced processing times.
    Advocacy groups have been silent on a policy change that is 
most responsible for the backlogs before the election cycle, 
and that was DACA. Since 2012, DACA has added more than 2.4 
million applications to the USCIS workload, 910,000 initial 
applications and more than 1.5 million renewals.
    If you examine the charts in the USCIS testimony, you can 
see that the concerning growth in the backlogs began shortly 
after DACA was implemented. To be sure, the naturalization and 
asylum surge made the backlogs worse later, but the DACA 
workload is still a major contributor to the problem.
    The USCIS testimony we have just heard confirms that DACA 
was responsible for about three-quarters of the backlog growth 
that occurred before 2016. The biggest growth, we heard this 
afternoon, occurred from 2016 and 2017, which is before the 
Trump Administration policy changes.
    Even more consequential than the size of the DACA program 
is the fact that the fees for DACA did not cover the true cost 
of processing the application. Essentially, the DACA applicants 
got their benefit for half price.
    This meant that USCIS couldn't hire enough staff for the 
job and had to cut corners in adjudicating the applications. It 
also meant that the applications of legal immigrants, 
especially family applications, were sidelined. To add insult 
to injury, because the DACA benefits were given at half price, 
these legal immigrants had to subsidize the cost of the DACA 
program through the visa they paid.
    I commend the Committee for its concern over the backlogs, 
and I share those concerns. If Members are looking for ways to 
actually improve the situation instead of just looking for 
pretexts to use the backlogs as a cudgel against the Trump 
Administration and as cover for restoring policies that are too 
lax, there are options.
    First, don't add to the problem by creating programs that 
add to USCIS's workload without generating resources to cover 
the staff and infrastructure needed to administer the program 
properly. Do not legislate changes that result in looser 
screening just to please employers who want it to be easier to 
replace U.S. workers.
    Also focus on finding ways to enable USCIS to be more 
nimble in setting fees and putting them to use on behalf of the 
applicants. Under the Bush Administration, USCIS received a 
large appropriation from Congress to address the backlog. In my 
view, this ideally should not come from taxpayers, but perhaps 
in the form of surcharges collected from employers or others 
who benefit from our immigration problems.
    Another option would be to allow USCIS to impose a 
surcharge on DACA renewals to help make up for the impact that 
that program has had on the backlog. Above all, remember that 
we must not compromise security and the integrity of our 
immigration system to please special interests.
    [The statement of Ms. Vaughan follows:]
    
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Ms. Lofgren. Thank you very much. Thanks to each one of you 
for your testimony, as well as your written statements that are 
part of our record.
    I would turn now to the Ranking Member for any questions or 
statements he may have.
    Mr. Buck. First, I just want to say sorry. I wish we had 
more Members, and I wish we hadn't had votes interrupt the 
hearing, and I very much appreciate you being here. It is an 
important issue for both sides of the aisle, an important issue 
that we want to solve. We may have differences of opinion on 
exactly the cause of the problem, but reducing the backlog is 
something that is very important.
    There are three parts of my job that I really like, and 
only three parts.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Buck. None of them happen in the swamp. First, I get to 
nominate students to academies, and I am extremely proud of 
that. Second, I get to congratulate participants in the annual 
art competition, and I am extremely proud of that. Third, I get 
to attend naturalization ceremonies. It is a thrill that I wish 
all Americans could participate in and understand exactly the 
life-changing event that occurs for all those who are joining 
us as American citizens.
    I think we heard from three nonpolitical civil servants, 
career individuals who spent their lives trying to implement a 
program efficiently and effectively. They identify a number of 
the challenges, and I am hopeful that we can, as a Congress, as 
a legislative body, support their efforts to make sure that we 
are allowing the right people to become U.S. citizens and as 
many of the right people as possible to become U.S. citizens 
because of something that--I look at my grandparents who came 
here from Norway, and I think that all of us can identify 
relatives who have immigrated to this country, relatives who we 
are very proud of, who took the risk to come here.
    I am thankful for the chair for calling this hearing, and 
again, I wish we had greater participation. So, thank you very 
much for being here.
    Ms. Lofgren. The gentleman yields back.
    I would like to, Ms. Lindt, go to your testimony regarding 
the RFEs that are skyrocketing, and it appears that from your 
testimony, that in the beginning of this fiscal year, 60 
percent of the H-1B petitions had RFEs, which is a huge amount. 
I am wondering what could be the cause of that? What is the 
impact of that on the business community? Specifically, 
obviously I represent Silicon Valley, but there are a lot of H-
1B renewals and applicants in the medical arena, especially in 
rural underserved areas, of physicians.
    Can you address any of those issues?
    Ms. Lindt. Certainly. I thank you. I am not sure I can 
speculate as to the cause of it, and it is particularly 
confounding to us who practice in this area because we are 
seeing Requests for Evidence issued on cases where the agency 
has already looked at that case, sometimes numerous times, for 
again the same employer, the same job, the same circumstances. 
So, it is confounding to see this uptick in RFEs and having to 
establish yet again, and this time with a higher level of 
burden at the RFE stage, why this is a specialty occupation.
    I can certainly address the impact on employers because I 
see this day-to-day in my practice. I think the key impact is 
that it is making from the employer side very, very difficult 
to plan. These are companies that are trying to run a business. 
Whether it is a software engineering firm, whether it is a 
manufacturing company, whether it is an R&D company, they are 
trying to run their business. Part of running their business is 
recruiting and retaining talent, and we are in a very tight job 
market.
    In addition, often these companies or universities or other 
employers are looking for people with particular skills so 
that, again, they can run their business, or they can continue 
to be on the cutting edge of the sort of research that they 
might be doing, and it is very difficult to plan. The delays 
are really exacerbating that.
    The RFEs are especially exacerbating that because it adds a 
whole level of uncertainty, both in terms of timeframe and in 
terms of outcome, to staffing these important positions.
    Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Buck and I helped lead a successful 
effort, House vote on a bill to ultimately eliminate the per 
cap for allocation of visas on the business side. Until that 
becomes law, we know that there are visa holders from certain 
countries facing these extraordinary waits.
    I will just give you an example. Somebody came to me not 
from my district, but an M.D. who is waiting and waiting. It is 
the same employer. He is the same medical doctor. He has the 
same patients, and now he is getting Requests for Evidence on 
the renewal.
    Are you seeing some of that in other fields as well?
    Ms. Lindt. Certainly. We see it, and we have also heard 
reports from other Members within our association also in the 
medical area, but we are seeing it across the board in a lot of 
different industries, a lot of different types of employers. I 
represent employers in financial services and management 
consulting, in R&D, again in manufacturing. We are seeing these 
Requests for Evidence affect a lot of different industries and 
making it difficult for these employers again to staff these 
positions.
    Ms. Lofgren. Let me ask you, Ms. Bussey, your story about 
the priest not getting timely approval and not being able to 
meet the pastoral needs of his flock, including last rites, was 
pretty striking. I am wondering, based on your observation, can 
you give us some examples of how the USCIS decision to end 
deference to prior visa approvals for religious workers has 
impacted the religious community and their parishioners?
    Ms. Bussey. Absolutely. In fact, I brought an R petition 
with me today so I can show you what it looks like. A couple 
years ago, this petition, which is 269 pages long and would be 
filed in duplicate. A couple years ago, this application would 
have been about 100 and some pages, but because we are re-
adjudicating applications and because USCIS is issuing RFEs on 
cases, the very first petition that is going to be filed is 
going to be frontloaded, trying to offset, and trying to 
mitigate an RFE.
    A renewal petition is also going to be a lot more evidence 
that the agency is going to have to get through. This is an RFE 
response. This is 191 pages long.
    When diocese and religious orders are having to respond to 
Requests for Evidence of this nature, and by the way, the R 
visa is only limited to 5 years. We don't get extensions of R 
beyond 5 years. When there is a perpetual cycle of responding 
to Requests for Evidence, they are left with having to send the 
pastor, the priest, back home to wait for their applications to 
be processed.
    What does that do? That takes a pastor, it takes a leader, 
a religious leader outside of their community that they have 
been ministering to for 5 years. Someone who has cultural 
proficiency potentially in that neighborhood or in that 
community, language skills. It takes them out of that 
neighborhood, back to their home country. Then the congregation 
is waiting for an indefinite period of time for them to return, 
if they ever return.
    That is a lot of money spent by the diocese, frankly, and a 
lot of hurtful, heartbreaking consequences. When community 
Members lose their pastor, they lose their connection to God.
    Ms. Lofgren. Well, I see that my time has expired. So, in 
fairness, I will call a halt to my questions. I will note that 
our record is open for 5 days, and we may have additional 
questions for each of you. If so, I would ask that you respond, 
if possible, in a prompt way.
    I do appreciate your testimony. It has been very helpful to 
hear, and not just your written testimony, but the material 
that you have provided to us. People don't realize that 
witnesses are volunteers. No one is paid to be here, and we 
appreciate the effort that you have made to inform the U.S. 
Congress so that we can make good decisions.
    With that, unless there is something further, this hearing 
is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 2:58 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
   

                                APPENDIX

=======================================================================


[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
      

                  QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS FOR THE RECORD

=======================================================================


[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                 [all]