Immigration Benefits: Improvements Needed to Address Backlogs and
Ensure Quality of Adjudications (21-NOV-05, GAO-06-20).
Long-standing backlogs of immigration benefit applications result
in delays for immigrants, their families, and prospective
employers who participate in the legal immigration process. In
response to a statutory mandate to eliminate the backlog, the
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) set a goal of
September 30, 2006, to eliminate the backlog and adjudicate all
applications within 6 months. This report examines (1) the status
of the backlog, (2) actions to achieve backlog elimination and
prevent future backlogs, (3) the likelihood of eliminating the
backlog by the deadline, and (4) USCIS's quality assurance
programs to achieve consistency of decisions while eliminating
its backlog.
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-06-20
ACCNO: A41897
TITLE: Immigration Benefits: Improvements Needed to Address
Backlogs and Ensure Quality of Adjudications
DATE: 11/21/2005
SUBJECT: Immigrants
Immigration
Immigration information systems
Projections
Quality assurance
Staff utilization
Strategic planning
Timeliness
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO Product. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
******************************************************************
GAO-06-20
Report to Congressional Requesters
United States Government Accountability Office
GAO
November 2005
IMMIGRATION BENEFITS
Improvements Needed to Address Backlogs and Ensure Quality of
Adjudications
Immigration Benefits Immigration Benefits Immigration Benefits Immigration
Benefits Immigration Benefits Immigration Benefits Immigration Benefits
Immigration Benefits Immigration Benefits Immigration Benefits Immigration
Benefits Immigration Benefits Immigration Benefits Immigration Benefits
Immigration Benefits Immigration Benefits Immigration Benefits Immigration
Benefits Immigration Benefits Immigration Benefits Immigration Benefits
Immigration Benefits Immigration Benefits Immigration Benefits Immigration
Benefits Immigration Benefits Immigration Benefits Immigration Benefits
Immigration Benefits Immigration Benefits Immigration Benefits Immigration
Benefits Immigration Benefits Immigration Benefits Immigration Benefits
Immigration Benefits Immigration Benefits Immigration Benefits Immigration
Benefits Immigration Benefits Immigration Benefits Immigration Benefits
Immigration Benefits Immigration Benefits Immigration Benefits Immigration
Benefits Immigration Benefits Immigration Benefits Immigration Benefits
Immigration Benefits Immigration Benefits Immigration Benefits Immigration
Benefits Immigration Benefits Immigration Benefits Immigration Benefits
Immigration Benefits Immigration Benefits Immigration Benefits Immigration
Benefits Immigration Benefits Immigration Benefits Immigration Benefits
Immigration Benefits Immigration Benefits Immigration Benefits Immigration
Benefits Immigration Benefits Immigration Benefits Immigration Benefits
Immigration Benefits Immigration Benefits Immigration Benefits Immigration
Benefits Immigration Benefits Immigration Benefits Immigration Benefits
GAO-06-20
Contents
Letter 1
Results in Brief 4
Background 8
USCIS Estimated a Backlog of About 1.2 Million Unadjudicated Applications
as of June 30, 2005 14
USCIS Has Undertaken Several Short- and Longer-Term Actions to Eliminate
Its Backlog 17
Despite Progress, USCIS Seems Unlikely to Eliminate the Backlog for All
Application Types in Every Office by September 30, 2006 33
USCIS Lacks a Comprehensive Approach to Postadjudication Quality Assurance
46
Conclusions 51
Recommendations for Executive Action 52
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 52
Appendix I Scope and Methodology 54
Appendix II USCIS Organizational Structure 57
Appendix III Information Technology Systems 59
Appendix IV District Office Application for Naturalization (N-400)
Processing Quality Checklist 61
Appendix V Adjustment of Status (I-485) Processing Quality Assurance
Checklist 63
Appendix VI Service Center Checklists Used for Reviewing Quality Assurance
of Petitions for a Nonimmigrant Worker 64
Appendix VII Comments from the Department of Homeland Security 72
Appendix VIII GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 74
Tables
Table 1: Applications and Petitions USCIS Focused On for Backlog
Elimination 12
Table 2: Workload Targets by Application Type and Fiscal Years 2004, 2005,
and 2006 15
Table 3: Backlog Elimination Expenditures for Fiscal Years 2002 through
2005 (in thousands of dollars) 17
Table 4: Months of Receipts Pending as of June 2005 Compared with Targets
by Application Type for Fiscal Years 2004, 2005, and 2006 34
Table 5: Summary of Background Checks Required for Selected Benefit
Applications 42
Table 6: General Preferences for Immigration Visas and Allocation Limits
for Fiscal Year 2005 44
Figures
Figure 1: Steps Involved in Adjudicating Applications for Naturalization
(Form N-400) 10
Figure 2: Steps Involved in Adjudicating Family-based Applications for
Adjustment of Status to Lawful Permanent Resident (Form I-485) 11
Figure 3: Allocation of USCIS's Backlog Elimination Funds, Fiscal Years
2002 through 2005 19
Figure 4: Adjudicator Staff Distribution Compared with USCIS's Proposed
Redistribution 29
Figure 5: Numbers of Applications Received, Completed, and Backlogged,
March 2003 through June 2005 36
Figure 6: Pending Workload and Workload Targets for Applications for
Completing Adjustment of Status to Lawful Permanent Resident (Form I-485)
37
Figure 7: Pending Workload and Workload Targets for Completing
Applications for Naturalization (Form N-400) 38
Figure 8: Projected Workload in Hours, by Region, July 2005 through
September 2006 Compared with Distribution of Available Adjudicator Hours
as of June 2005 41
Figure 9: Processing Accuracy Rates for the Naturalization Quality
Procedures for Cases Reviewed in Selected Offices and Centers, Fiscal
Years 2004 and 2005, First and Second Quarters 48
Abbreviations
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CIO Chief Information Officer
CIS Citizenship and Immigration Services
CLAIMS Computer Linked Application Information Management System
DHS Department of Homeland Security
DHS-IG Department of Homeland Security Inspector General
FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation
FDNS Office of Fraud Detection and National Security
ICE Immigration and Customs Enforcement
IBIS Interagency Border Inspection System
INS Immigration and Naturalization Service
LIFE Legal Immigration Family Equity
MNS Mission Needs Statement
NACARA Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act
NOID Notice of Intent to Deny
RFE Request for Evidence
USCIS United States Citizenship and Immigration Service
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this
work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material
separately.
United States Government Accountability Office
Washington, DC 20548
November 21, 2005
The Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. Chairman, Committee on the
Judiciary House of Representatives
The Honorable John Conyers, Jr. Ranking Minority Member, Committee on the
Judiciary House of Representatives
The Honorable Charles E. Grassley Chairman, Committee on Finance United
States Senate
In fiscal year 2004 nearly 6 million applications were filed by those
seeking an immigration benefit-permission for an alien to live in and in
some cases work either permanently or on a temporary basis in the United
States or to become a citizen. Most immigration benefits can be classified
into one of two major categories, family-based and employment-based.
Family-based requests for benefits are filed by U.S. citizens or permanent
resident aliens to establish their relationships to certain alien
relatives such as spouses, parents, children, or siblings who wish to
immigrate to the United States. Employment-based petitions include
petitions filed by employers for aliens to come to the United States
temporarily to perform services or labor or to receive training and for
alien workers to become permanent residents in the United States.
Petitions can be filed on behalf of aliens outside of the United States
who wish to enter the country and on behalf of aliens already in the
United States who wish to change from one immigration status to another,
such as from a visitor to a temporary worker. The United States
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), within the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS), collects fees for processing most types of
applications and petitions.1
In the past we have reported that some applications and petitions-benefit
applications-have taken 2 years or longer to process, resulting in
backlogs of pending applications.2 Recurring backlogs of benefit
applications have been a long-standing problem for the former Immigration
and Naturalization Service (INS) whose benefit adjudication functions are
now the responsibility of USCIS. USCIS inherited this backlog problem
which has created hardships for immigrants, their families, and
prospective employers seeking immigrant workers. Families are kept apart
and businesses are denied the expertise of skilled workers when applicants
are subjected to long application-processing wait times. Moreover, critics
have suggested that large backlogs of benefit applications create
incentives for individuals and businesses to circumvent established legal
procedures.
1 USCIS collects fees for most applications types, except for applications
for asylum (I-589). (8 C.F.R. 103.7).
In past years, INS allocated a portion of its appropriation to agency
initiatives to reduce the backlog of pending benefit applications. The
funds for this effort included $176 million in fiscal year 1999, $124
million in fiscal year 2000, and $35 million in fiscal year 2001, in
addition to the fees it was authorized to collect for processing benefit
applications.3 Further, in October 2000, the Immigration Services and
Infrastructure Improvements Act of 2000 mandated INS to develop a plan to
eliminate its backlog of benefit applications.4 The act defines backlog as
the period of time in excess of 180 days (6 months) that an immigration
benefit application has been pending before the agency-that is, the
backlog consists of applications that have not been adjudicated within 6
months of filing. Beginning in fiscal year 2002, the administration sought
and received appropriations sufficient to fund a 5-year, $500 million
initiative to obtain a universal 6-month processing standard for all
immigration benefit applications and petitions.5 At the end of 2003, USCIS
still had over 6 million immigration benefit applications awaiting
adjudication-which included about 3.7 million applications reported as
backlog. In March 2002 USCIS published a plan (which was updated in June
2004) to eliminate its backlog by the end of fiscal year 2006. USCIS
officials noted that this plan is based on the assumption that the agency
will continue to operate under current laws and that if any new
legislation, such as a proposed guest worker program, is enacted before
the end of fiscal year 2006 without provisions for resources to carry out
new responsibilities, the agency's ability to eliminate the backlog could
be compromised. In addition to presenting strategies for backlog
elimination, the plan acknowledged the importance of balancing its focus
on reducing the backlog with its efforts to ensure adjudicative quality,
stating that it is imperative that the integrity of the process not be
compromised by efforts to stimulate productivity.
2 GAO, Immigration Benefits: Several Factors Impede Timeliness of
Application Processing, GAO-01-488 (Washington, D.C.: May 4, 2001).
3 We have reported previously that the fees USCIS collects are
insufficient to fully fund its operations and that the agency does not
have the systems in place to determine the cost of each step in processing
benefit applications. See GAO, Immigration Application Fees: Current Fees
Are Not Sufficient to Fund U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services'
Operations, GAO-04-309R (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 5, 2004).
4 Immigration Services and Infrastructure Improvements Act of 2000 S:
205(a), 8 U.S.C. S: 1574(a).
5 By the end of fiscal year 2006, USCIS expects to have allocated a total
of $560 million instead of $500 million. According to USCIS officials, the
President requested and received a onetime additional $60 million in
fiscal year 2005 to get USCIS back on track because of the required
security enhancements performed on all immigration benefit applications
after September11, 2001. Twenty percent of the backlog reduction funding
has been made up of fee revenues from premium processing services.
You asked us to review USCIS's implementation of its backlog elimination
efforts, including the current status and size of the backlog, and the
agency's actions and plans to address the backlog while ensuring
consistent and high-quality adjudication decisions. This report addresses
the following questions:
o What is the current status of USCIS's backlog of unadjudicated
applications for immigration benefits?
o What actions has USCIS taken to eliminate the backlog by
September 30, 2006, and prevent future backlogs?
o Is USCIS likely to eliminate the backlog by September 30, 2006?
o How does USCIS ensure the quality and consistency of
adjudicator decisions while eliminating the backlog?
To determine the status of USCIS's backlog, we interviewed agency
officials and reviewed USCIS's backlog elimination plans and updates along
with the agency's supporting analyses and compared them with the statutory
definition of backlog in the Immigration Services and Infrastructure
Improvements Act of 2000. To identify actions USCIS has taken to eliminate
the backlog, we interviewed USCIS officials in headquarters and 10 field
offices that were selected generally on the basis of workload volume,
staffing levels, and backlog levels. Because we selected a nonprobability
sample of field offices to visit, the results from our interviews with
USCIS officials in these offices cannot be generalized to USCIS offices
nationwide.6 Where possible, we corroborated their responses with agency
data that we assessed for reliability and determined were sufficiently
reliable for our purposes. We also collected information on USCIS's
efforts to prevent future backlogs from USCIS's planning documents on
staffing, budget, and information technology modernization. To estimate
the likelihood that USCIS would eliminate the backlog on time, we tracked
and compared the agency's progress in reducing its workload with the
targets USCIS established and identified factors that could affect USCIS's
ability to complete all applications within 6 months or less. To determine
how USCIS ensures the quality and consistency of adjudicator decisions, we
examined USCIS's two quality assurance programs and resulting outcomes,
and we reviewed the findings and recommendations of an independent study
of USCIS's quality assurance programs. We conducted our review from
September 2004 through September 2005 in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards.
Results in Brief
As of June 30, 2005, USCIS estimated that it had about 1.2 million cases
in its backlog, down from a peak of about 3.8 million in January 2004.
However, because USCIS's operational definition of backlog differs from
the definition in the Immigration Services and Infrastructure Improvements
Act of 2000, its count is not a precise reflection of the number of cases
that have been pending for more than 6 months. The agency defines its
backlog as the number of pending applications (i.e., the number of
applications awaiting adjudication) in excess of the number of
applications received in the most recent 6 months. Under this method of
estimating the backlog, USCIS could theoretically have applications
pending for more than 6 months and not have a backlog. According to USCIS,
it cannot readily determine the number of applications that have been
pending for more than 6 months from the data management systems it is
currently using to manage its backlog elimination efforts. However, USCIS
has identified the technology improvements necessary to develop this
capability. Since fiscal year 2002, the agency has invested about 2
percent ($10.5 million) of its funds allocated for backlog elimination for
technology improvements. Among the critical elements of USCIS's planned
technology modernization efforts is a new case management system that
should provide the agency with the capability to produce management
reports on the age of all pending benefit applications. However, this
information technology modernization effort is still in the early stages
of planning, and USCIS does not expect these systems to be fully deployed
before fiscal year 2010. Until USCIS develops this capability, it cannot
assure Congress that it has successfully eliminated the backlog under the
statutory definition.
6 Nonprobability sampling is a method of sampling where observations are
selected in a manner that is not completely random, usually using specific
characteristics of the population as criteria. Because each unit in a
population does not have an equal chance to be selected, it is possible
for a nonprobability sample to contain a systematic bias that limits its
ability to describe the entire population.
USCIS has made progress in reducing its backlog of benefit applications
primarily by increasing and realigning staff, focusing its efforts on
adjudicating petitions for alien relatives who can immigrate immediately,
streamlining the adjudication process, experimenting with pilot processes
to expedite application adjudication, and adopting best practices
identified from those pilots. Since fiscal year 2002, USCIS has committed
about 70 percent of its backlog reduction funds to employing about 1,100
temporary adjudicator staff and authorizing overtime. USCIS has also moved
benefit application files from field offices with excess workloads to
offices with no excess work. In addition, USCIS has begun to implement
longer-term strategies to eliminate the backlog, including reallocating
staff among offices. For example, USCIS officials told us that staff have
been detailed from overstaffed offices in the central and western regions
to understaffed offices in the eastern region. Further, USCIS has set
aside those applications for which a benefit is not available and
eliminated these applications from its count of backlogged cases.7
In an effort to streamline the adjudication process, USCIS has revised its
guidance and proposed changes to its regulations. For example, USCIS
revised its guidance to help ensure that adjudicators do not issue
unnecessarily broad requests for additional evidence and has proposed
changes to regulations to give adjudicators the discretion to shorten the
time applicants are allowed to respond to the request, depending on the
nature of the request. Finally, USCIS plans to adopt successful practices
from pilot project experiments. For example, in April 2005, USCIS began
using certain successful practices that facilitate processing applications
for adjustment of status within 90 days at three district offices that did
not have a backlog of these types of applications.
7 The annual allocation of immigrant visas is limited by statute and is
based on family relationship priority, educational and skill level
priorities for prospective employers, and country of origin. If a visa is
not available, USCIS will not process petitions for alien relatives or
immigrant workers.
In addition to its efforts to reduce the backlog by September 30, 2006,
the agency has developed a staffing allocation model and is planning a
major transformation of its information technology systems to prevent
future backlogs. According to the model, USCIS must fill positions that
are currently vacant and better balance the number of adjudicator staff
among the field office locations. In addition, USCIS has proposed
transformation of its information technology environment, among other
things, to support the prevention of future backlogs by upgrading its
information technology infrastructure, providing better data management
support, and developing new business processes. The preliminary estimated
cost of this effort is about $1.4 billion over the next 5 years. USCIS is
investigating a number of funding strategies. The agency has not yet
articulated the potential productivity gains this technology
transformation plan could yield, such as efficiencies realized from moving
from a manual paper-driven process to a paperless adjudication
environment. Such information could be useful to both USCIS and Congress
in making informed decisions about the appropriate level of investment in
technology upgrades.
Although USCIS has made progress in reducing its backlog of benefit
applications, it seems unlikely that USCIS will meet its backlog
elimination goal-to reduce the number of benefit applications to a level
that is equal to 6-months' worth of work by September 30, 2006-in every
office and for every application type. USCIS has set increasingly more
stringent processing targets to address its September 2006 goal. USCIS met
its 2004 targets, and, as of June 30, 2005, had made progress toward
meeting its targets for fiscal year 2005 for most application types.
However, USCIS may have difficulty achieving the more ambitious targets it
set for fiscal year 2006 for applications for both naturalization and
adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident, the two complex
application types that constitute nearly three-quarters of the backlog.
USCIS must reduce its workload from 15 months' worth of pending
applications for adjustment of status and from 10 months' worth of pending
applications for naturalization to 6 months' worth for both application
types by the end of fiscal year 2006. The agency's progress through June
2005 and the more ambitious targets that must be achieved for these two
application types raise doubts about USCIS's ability to meet its target.
Our analyses indicate that to eliminate the backlog for these two
application types, USCIS would need to nearly double its productivity.
Specifically, based on USCIS's projections, the agency must complete about
69 percent more applications for adjustment of status, and about 124
percent more applications for naturalization in the last 15 months of its
plan than it did during the most recent 15 months (April 1, 2004, through
June 30, 2005) if it hopes to eliminate the backlog of these two
application types by September 30, 2006. In addition, although USCIS
officials said that the agency currently has more staff hours available
than needed to meet its projected workload in certain offices, in other
offices the volume of applications exceeds adjudicator staff capacity and
the backlog may remain. Other factors beyond the agency's control could
also prevent some applications from being adjudicated within 6 months. For
example, extensive background checks may delay completion of some
applications beyond the 6-month target. Moreover, USCIS officials noted
that its current plan is premised on current legislation and would be
affected by proposed legislative changes that could impose additional
demands on the agency.
USCIS operates two postadjudication programs to ensure the quality and
consistency of adjudicator decisions. First, USCIS's Performance
Management Division administers an agencywide quality assurance program to
review adjudicator compliance with standard processes for adjudicating
applications for naturalization and for adjustment of status to lawful
permanent resident and to check that completed naturalization cases have
been accurately recorded in its case management systems. The other quality
assurance program, administered by USCIS's Service Center Operations
Division, is designed to evaluate both compliance with standard processes
and consistency in decision making for select applications processed
exclusively by service centers.8 Each of these two programs is intended to
provide some measure of quality assurance to the USCIS adjudicative
process. However, together these programs do not include all application
types and do not evaluate compliance with standard operating procedures
and the reasonableness of the adjudicator's decision. The Performance
Management Division program currently reviews compliance with standard
operating procedures for only 2 of 15 application types in the backlog
elimination plan and does not evaluate the reasonableness of the final
adjudicative decision. In contrast the Service Center Operations
Division's approach evaluates the reasonableness of adjudicative decisions
(i.e., whether the same decision would have been made by another
adjudicator given the evidence provided) as well as measuring compliance
with standard operating procedures, but thus far has focused its attention
on only four application types, each for a fixed period of time.
Information collected from these programs is not comparable, so they
cannot provide USCIS with a complete picture of the quality of its
adjudications. In addition to these two programs, USCIS also checks
quality through supervisory reviews of case files at the local office
level. However, these reviews are not uniform or consistently performed
across all local offices.
8 Service centers generally adjudicate applications that do not require
interviews with the applicants.
We recommend that USCIS determine and report the size of its backlog in a
manner consistent with the definition in the Immigration Services and
Infrastructure Improvements Act of 2000 as soon as practicable under its
technology transformation plans. USCIS plans indicate that its case
management system will have the capability to generate management reports
based on the age of individual benefit applications. To help USCIS and
Congress to make sound decisions regarding resource allocation, including
staffing allocation and investment in technology transformation, we are
recommending that USCIS identify and articulate in its plans the benefits
it expects to realize from its substantial investment in technology
transformation. To improve the quality assurance program, we recommend
that USCIS develop a program that addresses adjudication processes and
outcomes that can be applied to all types of benefit applications.
The Department of Homeland Security agreed with our recommendations and
identified steps it was planning or had begun in response. These include
developing the capability to monitor the actual age of benefit
applications, identifying methods to increase productivity through
streamlining processes and taking advantage of information technology
improvements, and developing a comprehensive quality assurance program.
Background
The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, within the
Department of Homeland Security, delivers services to aliens and
adjudicates their eligibility for various immigration benefits, including
naturalization, adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident,
employment authorization, and asylum. USCIS carries out its service
function through a network of field offices consisting of a National
Benefits Center, which serves as a central processing hub for certain
benefit applications and utilizes secured depositories in Chicago,
Illinois, and Los Angeles, California, to collect fees;9 4 service
centers, which generally adjudicate applications that do not require
interviews with the applicants; 78 district and local offices; 31
international offices and 8 asylum offices, which generally adjudicate
applications that require interviews; and 129 application support centers,
which collect and process biometric information. Appendix II contains a
detailed discussion of USCIS's organizational structure. USCIS's
application-processing procedures vary by application type and by office.
Figures 1 and 2 depict the agency's process for adjudicating
naturalization and adjustment of status applications-its two most common
and complex application types.
9 The National Benefits Center processes (1) applications for adjustment
of status to lawful permanent resident, (2) applications for employment
authorization, (3) applications for travel documents, and (4) petitions
for alien relatives.
Figure 1: Steps Involved in Adjudicating Applications for Naturalization
(Form N-400)
Figure 2: Steps Involved in Adjudicating Family-based Applications for
Adjustment of Status to Lawful Permanent Resident (Form I-485)
In general, the following tasks are involved in application processing:
(1) collect and deposit application fees and issue receipts to applicants;
(2) create or request existing alien files; (3) enter applicant data into
an automated system; (4) take applicants' fingerprints and send them to
the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) for a criminal history check,
including a criminal history check based on the applicant's name (if
required by the type of application); (5) review application, and other
supporting documents, such as FBI fingerprint check results, marriage
certificates, or court dispositions of an arrest; (6) interview applicants
(if required by the type of application); (7) administer naturalization
tests (for those applying for naturalization); (8) approve or deny cases;
(9) notify applicants of USCIS's decisions; or (10) issue a Notice to
Appear placing applicant in removal proceedings; and (11) update USCIS's
automated systems.
Although USCIS processes about 50 types of immigration benefit
applications, its backlog elimination efforts have focused on the 15
application types that make up about 94 percent of its workload. Table 1
lists these 15 application types and their purposes.
Table 1: Applications and Petitions USCIS Focused On for Backlog
Elimination
Form number Application type Purpose
I-485 Adjustment of status Application for permanent
resident status
I-129 Nonimmigrant workera Employer petition for a
nonimmigrant worker
I-539 Extend/change nonimmigrant Petition to extend stay as a
status nonimmigrant or to change status
I-90 Replace/renew permanent Application to renew or replace
resident card permanent resident card in the
event of an obsolete card; lost,
stolen, mutilated, or destroyed
card; or name change
I-130 Petition for alien relative Petition to establish qualifying
relationship between petitioner
and an alien relative who wishes
to immigrate to the United States
I-131b Advance parole (travel An extraordinary measure used
document) sparingly to bring an otherwise
inadmissible alien to the United
States for a temporary period of
time because of a compelling
emergency
Reentry permit/refugee Application for admission to the
travel document United States upon return from
abroad during the permit's
validity, without having to
obtain a returning resident visa
I-140 Immigrant worker Petition for classification of an
alien who wishes to immigrate to
the United States based on
employment
I-751 Removal of conditional Petition to remove the conditions
status on residence based on marriage
I-765 Employment authorization Application for employment
document authorization
I-821 Temporary protected status Application for temporary
immigration status granted to
eligible nationals of designated
countries
N-400 Naturalization Application for naturalization
N-600/ 643 Certificate of citizenship Application for certificate of
citizenship based on parentage
I-589 Asylum application Application for asylum
I-881 Nicaraguan Adjustment and Application to suspend
Central American Relief Act deportation under section 203 of
203 application (NACARA 203) the Nicaraguan Adjustment and
Central American Relief Act
(Pub.L. 105-100).
I-867 Credible fear referral Referral to an asylum officer for
credible fear determination
Source: GAO compilation of USCIS information.
aA nonimmigrant worker is an alien who is admitted to the United States
for a specified job for a specified period of time, but not for permanent
residence.
bThe I-131 form is used for applications for advance parole as well as for
applications for refugee travel documents and applications for a reentry
permit. For the purposes of backlog elimination progress reporting, USCIS
is using these two groupings in reporting progress on this form type.
In October 2000, the Immigration Services and Infrastructure Improvements
Act mandated INS, the agency previously responsible for USCIS's functions,
to develop a plan to eliminate its backlog of benefit applications. The
act defines backlog as the period of time in excess of 180 days (6 months)
that an immigration benefit application has been pending before the
agency.10 Moreover, in February 2001, in the President's fiscal year 2002
budget, the Administration proposed a universal 6-month standard for
completing adjudication of immigration applications and supported a
5-year, $500 million initiative to meet this standard. The President
reiterated this goal during a naturalization ceremony on July 10, 2001,
saying, "Today, here's the goal for the INS: a six-month standard from
start to finish for processing applications for immigration. It won't be
achievable in every case, but it's the standard of this administration and
I expect the INS to meet it."
In May 2001, we reported on the difficulties INS had in managing its
workload, resulting in ever-growing backlogs of applications, despite
growth in staff and budget.11 For example, although the agency's efforts
to meet production goals for processing naturalization and adjustment of
status applications did help reduce backlogs in those areas, backlogs for
other application types increased.
Under a 5-year plan starting in March 2002, INS intended not only to
eliminate the immigration benefit application backlog, but also to achieve
a 6-month processing standard for all applications in every office. The
original plan was to eliminate the backlog in 2 years, with the remaining
years used to invest in information technology in order to prevent future
backlogs. However, in part because of events following the September 11,
2001, terrorist attacks, including attention to national security
priorities and agency reorganization, INS's resources were diverted from
backlog elimination efforts. For example, adjudicators assumed
responsibility for registering and fingerprinting nationals already living
in the United States from countries identified as potential threats and
for overseeing the student immigration tracking system-functions that have
since been transferred to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
bureau within DHS. In June 2004, the newly formed USCIS issued a revised
backlog elimination plan that proposed to eliminate the backlog of benefit
applications by September 30, 2006, and to reduce application completion
times to no more than 6 months.
10 8 U.S.C. S: 1572(1).
11 GAO, Immigration Benefits: Several Factors Impede Timeliness of
Application Processing, GAO-01-488 (Washington, D.C.: May 4, 2001).
USCIS Estimated a Backlog of About 1.2 Million Unadjudicated Applications as of
June 30, 2005
As of June 30, 2005, USCIS estimated it had about 1.2 million cases
remaining in its backlog, down from 3.7 million at the end of fiscal year
2003. However, USCIS's operational definition of backlog is different than
the definition contained in the Immigration Services and Infrastructure
Improvements Act of 2000, and its count is not a precise reflection of the
number of cases that have been pending for more than 6 months. USCIS
defines its backlog generally in terms of its pending workload-that is,
the number of applications it has on hand minus the number of applications
it has received during a specified period of time, which is 6 months or
less, depending on the type of application. It has established targets for
each fiscal year for reducing its pending workload, by application type,
based upon its estimate of how much time is required to complete each
type. Table 2 shows these workload targets by application type and fiscal
year.
Table 2: Workload Targets by Application Type and Fiscal Years 2004, 2005,
and 2006
Targets (months)
Form number Application type/purpose(s) 2004 2005 2006
I-485 Adjustment of status 20 15 6
I-129 Nonimmigrant worker 2 2 2
I-539 Extend/change nonimmigrant status 5 4 3
I-90 Replace/renew permanent resident card 10 8 6
I-130 Petition for relative alien-all 30 16 6
I-131a Advance parole travel document 3 3 3
Reentry permit 11 7 3
I-140 Immigrant worker 8 7 6
I-751 Removal of conditional status 15 11 6
I-765 Employment authorization document 3 3 3
I-821 Temporary protected status 6 6 6
N-400 Naturalization 14 10 6
N-600/643 Certificate of citizenship 8 7 6
I-589 Application for asylum 23 14 6
I-881 NACARA 203 application 16 9 6
I-867 Credible fear referral 15 days 15 days 15 days
Source: USCIS's Backlog Elimination Plan, June 16, 2004 update.
aThe I-131 form is used for applications for advance parole as well as for
applications for refugee travel documents and applications for a reentry
permit. For the purposes of backlog elimination progress reporting, USCIS
is using these two groupings in reporting progress on this form type.
According to USCIS, the data management systems it currently uses to
manage its backlog elimination efforts cannot comprehensively produce data
to measure and track the time that all applications have been pending, and
therefore the agency cannot readily retrieve information on the number of
applications that have been pending for more than 180 days, as specified
in the definition of backlog in the Immigration Services and
Infrastructure Improvements Act of 2000. Instead, USCIS estimates its
backlog based on the number of pending applications in excess of the
applications it received during the past 6 months. For example, if the
agency had received 100,000 applications for benefits in the most recent 6
months and currently had 120,000 cases awaiting adjudication, it would
report a backlog of 20,000 cases.12 The agency's rationale for using this
proxy is that by consistently completing more applications than are filed
each month, the agency should gradually reduce its pending workload of
applications to a level at which it can complete all incoming applications
within the workload targets established for each application type.
Eventually, according to the agency's backlog elimination plan, as long as
USCIS is processing all applications received within the past 6 months (or
less, depending on the application type's workload target) there should be
no backlog because those applications awaiting adjudication should be
completed before they become part of the backlog count of applications
pending longer than 6 months. However, USCIS's definition of backlog does
not guarantee that every applicant requesting a benefit will receive a
decision within 6 months of filing.
In our previous work on the benefit applications backlog, we noted that
the agency's automated systems were not complete and reliable enough to
determine how long it actually takes to process specific benefit
applications or to determine the exact size of its backlog.13 Therefore,
we recommended that the former Immigration and Naturalization Service
develop the capability and begin to calculate and report actual processing
times for applications as soon as reliable automated data are available.
USCIS has agreed that ideally it would prefer to base its backlog
calculations on the actual age of each pending application. However, the
data management system USCIS is currently using to manage its backlog
elimination efforts does not have this capability for most application
types.14 Since our recommendation, USCIS has identified requirements for
transforming its information technology systems to address deficiencies in
its capabilities.15 Starting in fiscal year 2002, INS and subsequently
USCIS invested about 2 percent ($10.5 million) of its funds allocated for
backlog elimination in planning for technology improvements. Table 3 shows
USCIS's annual expenditures from its backlog elimination funds.
12 USCIS measures its progress in reducing the backlog by calculating what
it calls "cycle time," the number of past months' receipts that equal the
number of applications currently pending. For example, if 120,000
applications were pending and USCIS had received 110,000 applications in
the most recent 7 months, and another 20,000 in the eighth month, USCIS
would report its cycle time as 7.5 months (120,000 - 110,000 = 7 months +
0.5 [10,000/20,000] from the eighth month.) Because this cycle time is not
a true measure of time, we refer to it in this report as workload.
13 GAO, Immigration Benefits: Several Factors Impede Timeliness of
Application Processing, GAO-01-488 (Washington, D.C.: May 4, 2001).
14 According to USCIS, the agency can produce on-demand reports on
processing times for applications for naturalization. However, this
capability is limited to this single application type.
15 USCIS, Mission Needs Statement for the USCIS IT Transformation
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 31, 2005).
Table 3: Backlog Elimination Expenditures for Fiscal Years 2002 through
2005 (in thousands of dollars)
Service
center Grand
Temporary Field mail and Information total by
Fiscal adjudication office Records data technologycase fiscal
year officers overtime operation entry management system year
2002 $45,404 $20,500 $15,584 $14,512 $4,000 $100,000
2003 46,281 21,000 16,000 14,719 2,000 100,000
2004 47,901 15,000 18,000 17,099 2,000 100,000
2005 107,401 15,000 18,000 17,099 2,500 160,000
est.
Total $246,987 $71,500 $67,584 $63,429 $10,500 $460,000
(53.69%) (15.54%) (14.69%) (13.79%) (2.28%)
Source: USCIS Budget Office.
Included in USCIS's technology transformation effort is the design and
implementation of a new, integrated case management system that should
provide the agency with the capability to produce management reports on
the age of all pending benefit applications. USCIS considers this new case
management system to be one of the most critical components of its
technology transformation and plans to begin implementation in fiscal year
2006. However, this information technology transformation effort is still
in the early stages of planning, and USCIS does not expect these systems,
including the new case management system, to be fully deployed before
fiscal year 2010. Until USCIS develops the ability to track the actual age
of individual applications, it will not be able to provide accurate
information about the actual number of applications that have been pending
in excess of 180 days or the actual amount of time they have been pending.
USCIS Has Undertaken Several Short- and Longer-Term Actions to Eliminate Its
Backlog
USCIS has taken several actions to eliminate its benefit application
backlog and to reduce the time it takes to process benefit applications.
The most immediate short-term action was to hire temporary
adjudicators-whose terms expire within 4 years-to address the backlog. In
addition, USCIS began to implement longer-term strategies to eliminate the
backlog, such as reallocating staff and reprioritizing the order in which
the agency adjudicates petitions for alien relatives. The agency also has
revised its guidance to increase the efficiency of application processing
and has proposed related changes to its regulations. Finally, it has
experimented with different processes to expedite application adjudication
and is considering adopting best practices identified from those pilot
programs. In addition to its efforts to reduce the backlog by September
30, 2006, the agency has developed a staffing allocation model and is
planning a major transformation of its information technology systems to
prevent future backlogs. According to the model, USCIS must fill positions
that are currently vacant and better balance the number of adjudicator
staff among the field office locations. USCIS's proposed information
technology transformation is intended to support the prevention of future
backlogs by upgrading its information technology infrastructure, providing
better data management support, and developing new business processes.
However, it is still in the early stages of planning.
USCIS Hired Temporary Adjudicators and Supported Overtime Work
Beginning in fiscal year 2002, USCIS has added about 1,100 temporary
adjudicators to address the backlog. As figure 3 shows, from fiscal year
2002 through fiscal year 2005, the agency allocated about 70 percent of
its backlog elimination funds for these temporary adjudicators and to
overtime pay.16 USCIS allocated the remaining 30 percent to information
technology planning, mail and data entry, and records management.
16 With the exception of premium fees for expedited processing, these
funds do not include the benefit application processing fees USCIS is
authorized to collect.
Figure 3: Allocation of USCIS's Backlog Elimination Funds, Fiscal Years
2002 through 2005
USCIS Reallocated Adjudicator Staff and Focused on Processing Applications for
Which Benefits Can Be Provided Immediately
USCIS has applied several approaches to balancing its workload and
improving the processing time for benefit applications. For example,
between September 2003 and September 2004, USCIS transferred hundreds of
applications for Adjustment of Status to Lawful Permanent Resident from
the Chicago district office to the San Antonio district office for
adjudication, because the Chicago office's workload exceeded its
adjudicator capacity. Another approach has been to temporarily detail
adjudicators from overstaffed offices to understaffed offices. For
example, as of September 2005, USCIS officials said that about 50
adjudicators from central and western region district offices had been
detailed to the New York district office and the Garden City, New Jersey
suboffice. In addition, another 40 adjudicators were detailed to the
Atlanta and Miami district offices.
USCIS has also reprioritized the order in which it adjudicates petitions
for alien relatives. Because these relatives are subject to annual limits
on the number of available immigration visas, even if USCIS were to find
an alien relative eligible to immigrate, that alien could not immigrate if
a visa were not available. Therefore, in July 2004, USCIS decided to focus
its efforts on adjudicating only those petitions for alien relatives where
a visa was immediately available. According to USCIS, by setting aside
those petitions for which a visa was not immediately available, the agency
has been able to concentrate its efforts on those petitions for alien
relatives who can immigrate immediately. Therefore, USCIS officials say,
this approach has enabled the agency to increase its meaningful
completions of petitions for alien relatives. Because of this policy
change, USCIS has also removed those cases for which a visa is not
available from its count of backlogged cases, eliminating approximately
1.15 million cases from its backlog count of about 3.7 million.17
To Boost Efficiency in Processing Benefit Applications, USCIS Proposed
Regulations to Streamline Processes and Revised Guidance
USCIS has proposed or undertaken changes in regulations and processes to
boost efficiency in processing benefit applications. While the results of
these efforts should help eliminate the backlog and reduce time for
completing applications, we did not evaluate the effects of these changes
on backlog reduction and adjudication quality.
Waiving Interview Requirements
As one of these streamlining efforts, the director of domestic operations
for USCIS issued a memo in January 2005 revising its interview waiver
requirements for adjustment of status applications. According to USCIS,
the intent of the revised guidance is to more clearly define the
circumstances in which service centers should transfer adjustment
applications to district offices for interviews, which increases the time
needed to adjudicate the case. In the summer of 2005, USCIS reviewed an
informal sample of pending applications filed at the National Benefits
Center to determine the percentage of adjustment applications that met the
criteria for an interview waiver and found that about 20 percent met the
criteria. In July 2005, USCIS began directing adjustment of status
application packages that met the interview waiver criteria to the
California service center for adjudication.18 According to USCIS, this
process will alleviate some of the burden on offices that are struggling
to meet backlog elimination targets and provide relief to offices that are
currently sending staff to provide assistance.
17 For the purposes of calculating its backlog, USCIS does not include
these cases. However, these cases remain in USCIS's count of pending
cases.
18 The adjustment of status package consists of the application to adjust
status, in addition to ancillary applications and petitions, such as
applications for travel documents, petitions for alien relatives, and
applications for employment authorization.
Regulatory Changes and Clarifying Guidance to Adjudicators for Requests for
Additional Evidence and Notices of Intent to Deny
USCIS has issued clarifying guidance and is seeking to amend regulations
that address when Requests for Evidence (RFE) and Notices of Intent to
Deny (NOID) are required. Currently, federal regulations require USCIS to
issue an RFE when initial evidence or eligibility information is missing
from an application or petition, and in each case, USCIS is required to
provide applicants with 12 weeks to respond. USCIS also has the discretion
to issue an RFE for additional evidence and must give applicants 12 weeks
to respond.19 Additionally, in some cases, federal regulations require
USCIS to issue a NOID before denying benefits. These regulations normally
require that applicants be given 30 days to respond to a NOID. In November
2004, a proposed rule was published in the Federal Register that would
generally give USCIS discretion to issue an RFE or NOID and would allow
USCIS to determine whether additional information is required to decide
cases. Additionally, the rule proposes to replace the current 12-week
response period with a more flexible approach that would allow USCIS to
set deadlines based on factors such as type of benefit requested or type
of application or petition filed. USCIS officials expect that reducing the
number of RFEs and NOIDs required to be issued will reduce the average
case-processing time by reducing the time a case is held awaiting decision
and decreasing administrative burden. However, in commenting on the
proposed rule, the American Immigration Lawyers Association expressed
concern that USCIS is placing a higher priority on streamlining processes
than on maintaining due process protections for applicants. In its
comments, the association said that the proposed rule has no safeguards
for ensuring that cases will be fairly adjudicated and that denying
applications instead of giving applicants an opportunity to submit
additional evidence results in a significant growth of arbitrary and
capricious decisions. The final rule is still under review at USCIS.
USCIS also issued guidance in February 2005 designed to increase the
efficiency of application processing in cases involving RFEs and NOIDs
under current regulations. Among issues covered in this guidance are
appropriate circumstances to approve and deny benefits without issuing an
RFE or NOID and how to choose between RFEs and NOIDs. Further, the
guidance included instructions to limit RFEs and NOIDs to specific items
of missing evidence. USCIS included these instructions because it found
that adjudicators were, in some instances, issuing unnecessarily broad
requests, which wasted adjudicator resources on review of unnecessary,
duplicative, or irrelevant documents.
19 8 C.F.R S: 103.2(b)(8).
Interim Regulatory Changes to Employment Authorization Validity Period
In July 2004, USCIS published an interim rule in the Federal Register that
allows it more flexibility in establishing the length of validity for
Employment Authorization Documents (EAD).20 Previously, federal
regulations required USCIS to limit the time EADs were valid to 1 year for
specific types of applicants who applied for employment authorization. The
interim rule removes regulatory language limiting EAD validity periods to
1 year. Under the interim rule, USCIS can determine the appropriate length
of time, up to 5 years, for EADs to remain valid by using certain criteria
such as an applicant's immigration status, processing time of the
underlying application or petition, and background checks. USCIS officials
said they expect that the ability to set longer validity periods for some
types of applicants covered by the current regulation could reduce the
adjudicative resources dedicated to processing renewals, thus allowing
them to use this time to process new pending Applications for Employment
Authorization. Although the flexibility to set the length of EAD validity
is available, USCIS is currently restricting its EAD validity periods to 1
year.
Creation of a Specialized Fraud Unit
According to USCIS officials, fraudulent applications have slowed the
adjudication process. Because USCIS has not systematically tracked the
occurrences of fraud, the agency has not been able to determine with any
precision the extent to which fraud slows the adjudication process. In
2003, USCIS created the Office of Fraud Detection and National Security
(FDNS) and revised its standard operating procedures to, among other
things, help adjudicators identify fraudulent benefit applications and
remove them from the processing stream. FDNS is currently developing a
data system to track occurrences of fraud. In addition, to ensure that all
fraud leads are collected and entered into this data system, adjudicators
are now required by FDNS's fraud referral process to send all cases
meeting the minimum criteria for suspected fraud to FDNS immigration
officers, even if the adjudicator has sufficient evidence to deny the
application or petition.
According to USCIS officials, FDNS's fraud referral process-used in the
district offices, service centers, and asylum offices-begins with an
adjudicator's review of applications, petitions, supporting documentation,
interviews, and other records. If the adjudicator discovers conflicting or
otherwise unfavorable information that would lead a reasonable person to
question the credibility of the applicant or petitioner, the adjudicator
is to submit the application or petition to FDNS along with a list of
general fraud indicators and a brief narrative explaining the nature of
the suspected fraud that could render an applicant ineligible for the
benefit sought. An FDNS immigration officer is to then conduct a variety
of systems checks and additional research in an effort to verify the
suspected fraud. If fraud is verified, the case is to be forwarded to the
FDNS Fraud Detection Unit at the appropriate service center for review and
possible referral to the Benefit Fraud Unit within ICE. According to
USCIS, ICE has agreed to notify USCIS within 60 days whether it will
accept or reject a request for investigation by the FDNS Fraud Detection
Unit. If ICE declines the request for investigation, USCIS is to continue
to pursue the information necessary to render a proper adjudication. If
ICE investigates and verifies the suspected fraud, the FDNS immigration
officer is to provide a written report to the adjudicator for preparation
of the appropriate notice or decision. We did not evaluate the
effectiveness of USCIS's fraud referral process as part of this review,
but we plan to issue a separate report later this year on the nature and
extent of immigration benefit fraud and the control mechanisms USCIS has
in place to detect and deter fraud.
20 The interim rule was codified at 8 C.F.R. S: 274a.12.
USCIS Is Considering Adopting Certain Successful Practices from Pilot Project
Experiments
The Homeland Security Act of 2002 created the Office of the Citizenship
and Immigration Services (CIS) Ombudsman within the Department of Homeland
Security, but independent of USCIS.21 The Ombudsman's role is to enhance
the administration and delivery of citizenship and immigration services by
identifying problems and proposing recommendations to eliminate major
systemic obstacles to efficiency. Further, the Ombudsman is to work
closely with DHS leadership in providing policy, planning, and program
advice on immigration matters. In response to recommendations made in the
CIS Ombudsman's 2004 annual report, USCIS conducted a number of pilot
projects designed to reduce benefit application-processing times and is
considering adopting several practices it determined to be successful.22
The agency studied the processing of two types of applications during the
pilots-applications to replace permanent resident cards (form I-90) and
applications to register permanent residence or adjust status (form
I-485). The applications to adjust status pilots involved both petitions
for alien relatives (form I-130) and petitions for immigrant workers (form
I-140).
21 6 U.S.C. S: 272(a).
22 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman, Annual Report 2005
(Washington, D.C.: June 30, 2005).
During the period March 2004 through November 2004, USCIS conducted a
pilot program designed to reduce processing time for applications for
permanent resident cards. The pilot, conducted in the Los Angeles area,
allowed for electronically filed permanent resident cards to be processed
at application support centers, where applicants have their initial
contact with the agency and have their photographs and fingerprints taken.
Data showed that over 10,000 permanent resident cards were processed at
Los Angeles application support centers and 88 percent were approved
during the initial contact. During the pilot, average processing times
were reduced from over 8 months to about 2 weeks. USCIS's Performance
Management Division has recommended that USCIS implement the pilot
nationwide.23
Beginning in March 2004 and May 2004 respectively, USCIS conducted pilot
programs in the New York and Dallas district offices that focused on
testing new processes for adjudicating family-based applications for
adjustments of status within 90 days. Each sought to streamline and
accelerate application processing by shifting aspects of processing
responsibility from the National Benefits Center to the district offices.
Besides reducing the backlog, one of the advantages of the ability to
process adjustments of status within 90 days is reducing issuance of
interim documents such as travel documents and employment authorizations.
USCIS is generally required by regulation to grant interim employment
authorization documents to applicants whose adjustment of status
applications have not been adjudicated within 90 days.24 In such cases,
the adjudication process, including background checks, may not have been
completed prior to the issuance of these documents.25 Therefore, in some
instances benefits may be issued to applicants whose eligibility and
potential risk to national security have not been fully determined.
23 The Performance Management Division is charged with developing the
USCIS backlog elimination plan and monitoring progress against the plan,
developing and managing the National Quality Program, analyzing and
recommending resource allocation, and performing statistical data
analysis.
24 8 C.F.R. S: 274a.13(d). 8 CFR S: 274a.12(c) states that USCIS has
discretion to establish a specific validity period for an employment
authorization document.
25 USCIS checks applicant names with its Interagency Border Inspection
System before issuing an Employment Authorization Document.
The New York pilot employed a process similar to the standard process of
sending applications to a centralized location for receiving fees,
conducting the initial processing, and initiating checks of records.
Applicants were to be scheduled for an interview as soon as records checks
were complete-with emphasis on completing these within 90 days. The New
York pilot also placed particular emphasis on fraud deterrence. USCIS
ultimately determined that the New York pilot was unsuccessful and
terminated it, because, among other things, it failed to facilitate the
adjudication of the majority of applications within 90 days and presented
a fairness issue for earlier-filed cases.
The Dallas pilot employed an up-front processing model that allowed
applicants to be interviewed on the same day the application was filed.
Data from Dallas showed that adjustment of status applications were
completed, on average, within 90 days in 58 percent of cases where
applications were processed using this up-front processing model.
Moreover, according to the June 2005 CIS Ombudsman report, during the last
weeks reported, the Dallas office was processing 71 percent of
applications within 90 days, using the up-front processing model. Further,
the Ombudsman's report indicated that USCIS issued fewer interim benefits
using the up-front processing model-approximately 20 percent of cases
compared with approximately 85 percent nationally. Although the Dallas
pilot showed improvements in adjustments of status within 90 days using
the up-front model, USCIS raised several concerns during its evaluation,
including concerns that (1) some inefficiencies resulted from the fact
that information required to process applications was sometimes
incomplete, as was the case when criminal history checks were not
complete; (2) the pilot could not meet the Department of the Treasury's
regulations requiring fees to be deposited within 24 hours; and (3) there
were equity concerns because the pilot involved processing recently
received applications before those filed earlier.
Despite concerns USCIS raised in evaluating the Dallas pilot project,
beginning in April 2005, USCIS began a phased implementation of up-front
processing through its National Benefits Center central processing hub.
Using elements of processes tested in the Dallas and New York pilot
projects, USCIS has implemented up-front processing at three district
offices-San Diego, San Antonio, and Buffalo-that did not have a backlog of
adjustment of status applications when implemented. USCIS anticipates
expanding the number of offices on a quarterly basis as they become
current in their processing so that applicants with pending applications
are not disadvantaged. The pilot in Dallas will also continue as long as
USCIS determines that additional information may be gleaned and until the
district office becomes current in processing applications.
In March 2004, a third adjustment of status pilot for employment-based
applications was implemented at the California service center. The focus
was to adjudicate within 75 days petitions for immigrant workers with
advanced degrees concurrently with the associated applications for
adjustment of status. Included among the pilot's objectives were to (1)
reduce the issuance of interim benefits to ineligible applicants, (2)
identify frivolous and fraudulent filings designed to obtain interim
benefits, and (3) reduce the number of additional background checks
required for adjudication. This pilot identified eligible applications and
initiated security checks as applications were filed. According to the
pilot's subsequent evaluation report, when security checks were complete
and no adverse information was detected, USCIS ordered permanent resident
cards for these applicants.26 During this pilot, USCIS processed about 30
percent of immigration petitions and 25 percent of adjustment of status
applications within the target time frame. As with the other pilots,
processing newly filed petitions and applications before those filed
earlier was a concern. Additionally, USCIS expressed concern about the
amount of time and resources required to manage the pilot, as well as the
length of time it took the FBI to conduct background checks for aliens in
certain high-tech occupations. Ultimately, USCIS deemed the pilot
inefficient and adverse to the service center backlog elimination goals
because resources were diverted from addressing backlogged cases.
Among the recommendations proposed in its 2005 annual report to Congress,
the CIS Ombudsman advocated that USCIS adopt the up-front processing model
piloted in Dallas for all adjustment of status applications.27 The
Ombudsman report states that overall the pilots show that up-front
processing does work and is preferable to USCIS's current business
processes because it can reduce workload, improve completion rates,
enhance customer satisfaction and reduce issuance of interim benefits.
However, according to USCIS officials, the report did not address the
inefficiencies resulting from the delay of required information, the
inability to meet the Department of the Treasury's deposit regulations,
and the inequity of processing newer applications before those filed
earlier that USCIS identified during the pilot. Moreover, USCIS officials
said the agency does not plan to implement the up-front processing model
at district offices with a backlog of adjustment of status applications,
because of these concerns.
26 USCIS, USCIS Pilot Project Evaluation: California Service Center
Backlog Elimination Pilot (Washington, D.C.: May 19, 2005).
27 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman, Annual Report 2005
(Washington, D.C.: June 30, 2005).
The 2005 Ombudsman report also noted the indirect effect that reducing the
backlog could have on the fee revenue on which USCIS services are based.
For example, USCIS is required to provide an interim work permit to
applicants whose applications for adjustment of status have not been
adjudicated within 90 days. These interim work permits are valid for 240
days. At their expiration, the applicant must apply, and pay a fee, for a
renewal permit. This process could be repeated if the underlying
application for adjustment of status continues unadjudicated. To the
extent, however, that USCIS efforts are successful in reducing the time
for adjudicating adjustment of status applications, the need for interim
work permits will be correspondingly reduced, as will the fee revenue
resulting from them. The Ombudsman's report does not estimate the extent
of this lost revenue, but it does estimate that in fiscal year 2004, fee
revenue from all work permit applications (not just interim permit
applications) filed in connection with applications for adjustment of
status totaled $135 million, approximately 10 percent of total USCIS
revenue in that year.28
USCIS acknowledges that some revenue loss will result from its backlog
elimination efforts. On the other hand, it expects that elimination of the
backlog will reduce the need for staff assigned to this effort and
consequently result in savings. As applications for interim benefits
decline, savings in processing costs will be realized, although it is
unknown whether they would be commensurate with the loss in revenue.29
According to USCIS, revenue loss estimates are under review.
28 The report also estimates that another $51 million in application fees
for other interim benefits is associated with applications for adjustment
of status.
29 USCIS does not charge fees for adjudicating certain applications for
benefits, such as the Application for Asylum. Consequently, fees charged
for other benefits-including interim benefits-must subsidize processing
costs for fee-exempt applications. In addition, as we recently reported
(GAO-04-309R), USCIS cannot currently determine the exact costs of
processing individual applications for benefits.
USCIS Developed a Staffing Model to Help Prevent Future Backlogs
In May 2005, USCIS finalized a staffing allocation model that addresses
how many and where staff are needed to better match projected workloads.
On the basis of this model, USCIS determined it must (1) retain the
temporary adjudicators currently on hand (about 1,100) through the end of
fiscal year 2006 and (2) fill vacancies to increase its level of permanent
adjudicator staff by 27 percent (about 460) to maintain productivity and
prevent future backlogs through fiscal year 2007. 30 According to USCIS,
it is reasonable to assume that vacant permanent positions will be filled
in large part from within the existing cadre of temporary adjudicators.
The staffing allocation model also projects the alignment of personnel at
each USCIS office through fiscal year 2007-one of the essential elements
of USCIS's strategy to prevent future backlogs, according to the Associate
Director for Operations. As previously discussed, USCIS's distribution of
adjudicators across field offices does not match the distribution of the
workload across field offices. To rectify this staffing imbalance, USCIS
finalized a staffing allocation model in May 2005 that addresses how many
and where staff are needed to better match projected workloads. For
example, because district offices in the eastern region have the smallest
proportion of staff to workload, the staffing allocation model calls for
about 37 percent of the total needed permanent positions (about 170) to be
filled there. Figure 4 shows the distribution of adjudicator staff in the
regions and the service centers as of January 2005 compared with the
proposed distribution that USCIS believes is required through fiscal year
2007 to maintain productivity and prevent future backlogs.
30 Beginning in fiscal year 2002, USCIS began hiring temporary
adjudicators to help eliminate the backlog for terms of 4 years. Terms for
these temporary adjudicators will begin to expire in fiscal year 2006.
Figure 4: Adjudicator Staff Distribution Compared with USCIS's Proposed
Redistribution
This kind of planning is consistent with the principle of integration and
alignment that we have advocated as one of the critical success factors in
human capital planning. As we have previously reported, workforce planning
that is linked to strategic goals and objectives can help agencies be
aware of their current and future needs such as the size of the workforce
and its deployment across the organization. In addition, we have said that
the appropriate geographic and organizational deployment of employees can
further support organizational goals and strategies.31
31 GAO, Comptroller General's Forum: High Performing
Organizations-Metrics, Means and Mechanisms for Achieving High Performance
in the 21st Century Public Management Environment, GAO-04-343SP
(Washington, D.C.: Feb. 3, 2004).
USCIS has used a significant portion of its funds for backlog elimination
efforts to hire and pay temporary adjudicators. According to USCIS's
budget director, the agency's projected fee revenues and spending
authority in fiscal year 2006 are sufficient to absorb the cost of
additional permanent adjudicators called for in the staffing allocation
model.32 Finally, USCIS officials said that the need for future staffing
adjustments could be offset by future efficiencies gained during its
transition to more robust information technology capabilities. We have
previously reported that leading organizations consider how new
initiatives, such as new technologies, affect human capital in their
strategic workforce documents.33 However, USCIS's current allocation
staffing model does not consider these expected productivity gains.
Reflection of these expected gains in its staffing allocation model should
improve USCIS's ability to make strategic staffing decisions.
To Help Prevent Future Backlogs, USCIS Has Proposed an Information Technology
Transformation Plan
In a February 2004 hearing before the House Subcommittee on Immigration,
Border Security, and Claims, USCIS Director Aguirre testified that
"technology is, without a question, the only way we are going to get out
of this horrible backlog that we have."34 Accordingly, USCIS has
identified requirements for transforming its information technology by
upgrading the agency's information technology capabilities to support the
prevention of future backlogs and for other purposes. In March 2005, the
Director of USCIS approved the agency's mission needs statement (MNS), and
in April 2005, the DHS Joint Requirements Council approved the MNS,35
which outlines the purpose of technology transformation and the
requirements to address deficiencies in its current information technology
capabilities.36 The MNS focuses on three modernization efforts: (1)
upgrading information technology infrastructure-including improved
desktops, servers and network computers; (2) creating an integrated
foundation to support data management and business processes among
multiple systems; and (3) developing new business processes-for example,
the ability to adjudicate cases electronically. We have long been
proponents of federal agencies having a strong Chief Information Officer
(CIO) to address information and technology management challenges, and the
Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 requires agency heads to designate CIOs to lead
technology reforms.37 In April 2004, USCIS established an Office of the
Chief Information Officer and in June 2005 began the process of aligning
information technology under the CIO's authority.
32 Effective October 26, 2005, USCIS will increase fees for immigration
benefit applications on average about $10 per application to account for
inflation. These increases will apply to applications and petitions filed
on or after October 26, 2005.
33 GAO, Executive Guide: Measuring Performance and Demonstrating Results
of Information Technology Investments, GAO/AIMD-98-89 (Washington, D.C.:
March 1998).
34 "Funding for Immigration in the President's 2005 Budget," Hearing
before the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims,
Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, Feb. 25 and Mar. 11,
2004, Serial No. 68., Washington, D.C., p. 49.
35 The DHS Joint Requirements Council is a review board that reviews and
validates mission needs statements for proposed programs as well as their
cross-functional needs and requirements, and makes recommendations on
proposed new programs.
36 USCIS, Mission Needs Statement for the USCIS IT Transformation
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 31, 2005).
According to the MNS, the plan to transform USCIS's information technology
will address several deficiencies in the agency's current information
technology environment, including (1) inadequate ability to meet changing
business requirements, (2) need for improved efficiency to maintain
processing time goals and prevent the occurrence of backlogs, (3)
inadequate information technology oversight and governance, (4)
inconsistent access and data integrity controls, and (5) paper records
systems that are not cost-effective and do not comply with the paperwork
reduction act. Moreover, the MNS outlines several ways in which
information technology transformation is intended to support the DHS
strategic goals of prevention, service, and organizational excellence. For
example, according to the MNS, by upgrading the technical infrastructure,
USCIS can leverage the improved security features available in newer
operating systems, thereby supporting the objective of the DHS prevention
goal, which aims to ensure the security and integrity of the immigration
system.
According to the MNS, implementation of the information technology
infrastructure is scheduled to be complete by fiscal year 2011. Prior to
the proposed information technology program, USCIS had begun developing
several information systems to enhance its information technology
capabilities, which are reflected in the MNS. Among the systems are the
Background Check Service, the Biometric Storage System, and an integrated
case management system. These systems are designed to manage and automate
security check information, to store and retrieve biometric data, and to
manage case data in a paperless environment. Appendix III describes
selected systems included in the MNS and their projected completion dates
in greater detail. According to USCIS officials, as of September 2005, the
MNS is being evaluated by the DHS's deputy secretary and is also awaiting
review and approval by DHS's Investment Review Board. Although the
transformation plan is still in the early stages of review, USCIS
estimates this information technology modernization, as currently
envisioned, will cost on a rough order of magnitude about $1.4 billion
over 5 years. However, according to officials, the agency is revisiting
this preliminary estimate to reflect recently completed business process
reengineering efforts and budget realities. Moreover, USCIS has not yet
settled on a funding strategy. The agency is considering a number of
funding options such as temporarily raising fees, leveraging fees
generated from new initiatives such as the proposed temporary worker
program, and requesting appropriations, among other alternatives.
37 GAO, Federal Chief Information Officers: Responsibilities, Reporting
Relationships, Tenure, and Challenges, GAO-04-823 (Washington, D.C.: July
21, 2004).
The MNS does not include consideration of whether and to what extent the
proposed technology transformation would be expected to have an effect on
staffing levels and use. We have reported in our work on demonstrating
results of information technology investments that leading organizations
evaluate both the overall performance of the information technology
function and the outcomes for individual technology investments.38 In
addition, we have reported that high-performing, client-focused
organizations must take into account relationships among people,
processes, and technology.39 Further, significance in resource
administration is one of the early-stage approval criteria listed in DHS's
management directive on technology investments.40 Consideration of the
expected productivity gains could help both the agency and Congress make
informed decisions about the appropriate level and timing of investment in
technology upgrades and staffing resource allocation.
38 GAO/AIMD-98-89.
39 GAO-04-343SP.
40 The Department of Homeland Security, Management Directive, Investment
Review Process, MD-1400.
Despite Progress, USCIS Seems Unlikely to Eliminate the Backlog for All
Application Types in Every Office by September 30, 2006
Although USCIS has made progress in reducing its backlog of benefit
applications as it defines backlog, it seems unlikely that USCIS will meet
its September 30, 2006, goal of reducing the number of pending
applications to a level no greater than the previous 6 months' receipts
for every form type at every office. It will be particularly difficult for
USCIS to meet the progressively more ambitious targets it has set for
completing some of the more complex benefit applications-specifically for
applications for adjustment of status and applications for
naturalization41-by September 30, 2006. Furthermore, although USCIS
officials have stated that the agency has sufficient staff resources to
process its overall projected workload by the end of fiscal year 2006, in
certain offices, where the volume of applications exceeds adjudicator
staff capacity, the backlog may remain. Additionally, external factors
beyond USCIS's immediate control may limit the feasibility of achieving
its goal, such as the need for extended background checks, availability of
entry visas, and possible legislative changes.
USCIS Met Targets for Processing Pending Applications in 2004, but May Have
Difficulty Meeting More Ambitious Targets for Fiscal Year 2006 for the Two Most
Complex Application Types
USCIS met all of its 2004 targets for processing its workload of pending
applications and as of June 30, 2005, was showing progress toward meeting
its workload targets for fiscal year 2005 for most application types.
However, performance so far indicates it may have difficulty achieving the
much more ambitious targets it set for fiscal year 2006 for at least two
of the more complex application types. To ensure progress toward meeting
its goal of achieving a pending workload of applications no greater than
the number of applications it received during the previous 6 months, USCIS
established progressively more stringent targets. For the application
types included in the backlog elimination plan, table 4 shows the size of
USCIS's workload-that is, the months of receipts pending adjudication-as
of June 2005, the latest available data, and the workload targets
established for fiscal years 2004 through 2006.42
41 According to USCIS, these applications are more complex than most other
form types and require more time to adjudicate, because the applications
are longer and a greater number of processes have to be applied to each,
such as interviews, name checks, fingerprint checks, and Interagency
Border Inspection System checks.
Table 4: Months of Receipts Pending as of June 2005 Compared with Targets
by Application Type for Fiscal Years 2004, 2005, and 2006
aFor the purposes of reporting progress toward meeting workload targets,
USCIS reports progress on I-130 petitions in these two groupings.
bThe I-131 form is used for applications for advance parole as well as for
applications for refugee travel documents and applications for a reentry
permit. For the purposes of backlog elimination progress reporting, USCIS
is using these two groupings in reporting progress on this form type.
42 USCIS generally calculates its pending workload by counting back the
number of preceding months until the sum of the monthly applications
received equals the current month's number of applications awaiting
adjudication. Unlike other USCIS cycle times, which are based on receipts,
the Asylum Division's cycle times are based on completions. For I-589 and
I-881 applications, cycle time is calculated by dividing the number of
pending cases by the average number of cases completed each month over the
last 12 months. The backlog equals the number of pending cases greater
than 6 times the average number of cases completed each month over the
last 12 months.
As of June 2005, USCIS had met or exceeded its fiscal year 2005 workload
processing time targets for 10 of 15 application types (see solid circles
in table 4). In fact, for 8 of these application types, USCIS met or
exceeded its fiscal year 2006 targets (see solid circles in table 4). In
addition, as figure 5 shows, USCIS has made progress in reducing its
backlog-from a peak of about 3.8 million applications in January 2004 down
to about 1.2 million in June 2005. Since October 2003, completions have
generally outpaced receipts, contributing to backlog reduction.43 However,
the sharp drop in the backlog is due to USCIS's decision in July 2004 to
remove from its backlog count those 1.15 million cases for which an
immigration visa is not immediately available and a benefit cannot be
provided. Nevertheless, August 2004 was USCIS's most productive month,
with completions exceeding receipts by 138 percent.
43 According to USCIS, the number of receipts peaked in March 2004 in
anticipation of the increase in application fees scheduled for April 30,
2004.
Figure 5: Numbers of Applications Received, Completed, and Backlogged,
March 2003 through June 2005
USCIS's productivity notwithstanding, workload processing targets for two
of the more complex application types appear to be rather ambitious in
light of the agency's performance through June 2005. For example, figures
6 and 7 show a substantial drop in targets for reducing pending
adjustments of status to lawful permanent resident and reflect the
challenge USCIS faces to meet fiscal year 2005 targets for applications
for naturalization. According to USCIS, these two application types
require the most effort and, as of June 2005, constituted more than
three-quarters of the remaining backlog of 1.2 million applications.
As figure 6 shows, USCIS has made progress toward reducing its pending
applications to adjust status to lawful permanent resident to 15 months
for fiscal year 2005. However, the workload target for fiscal year 2006
drops dramatically to 6 months. Further, USCIS estimates it has a backlog
of about 600,000 of this application type as of June 2005, which
represents the largest number of applications in the backlog.
Figure 6: Pending Workload and Workload Targets for Applications for
Completing Adjustment of Status to Lawful Permanent Resident (Form I-485)
As shown in figure 7, although the difference between 2005 and 2006
workload targets for applications for naturalization is not as pronounced,
it is still ambitious, particularly since USCIS appears to be struggling
to reduce its pending workload to 10 months by the end of fiscal year
2005. Moreover, USCIS estimates it has a backlog of about 290,000 of this
application type as of June 2005, which represents the second largest
number of applications in the backlog.
Figure 7: Pending Workload and Workload Targets for Completing
Applications for Naturalization (Form N-400)
If meeting its targeted workload is a reliable indicator of USCIS's
ability to meet its September 30, 2006, goal, then its progress through
June 2005 and the more ambitious targets that must be achieved for these
two application types raises doubts about USCIS's ability to meet the
ultimate goal of reducing its pending number of these application types to
a level that can be adjudicated within 6 months by September 30, 2006.
Further, our analyses indicate that to eliminate the backlog for these two
application types, USCIS would need to complete significantly more
applications than it has in the past. Specifically, during the most recent
15 months for which data were available (April 1, 2004, to June 30, 2005),
USCIS completed about 800,000 applications for adjustment of status.
According to USCIS's projections, it must complete another 1.3 million
(about 69 percent more) in the 15 months between July 1, 2005, and
September 20, 2006, to eliminate the backlog of this application type by
the deadline. Similarly, USCIS completed about 800,000 applications for
naturalization during the most recent 15 month period and must more than
double that level and complete another 1.8 million naturalization
applications (an increase of about 124 percent) during the following 15
months to eliminate the backlog of this application type.
USCIS's Calculation of Backlog Elimination Is Agencywide, but Does Not Address
All Application Types in All Locations
USCIS's calculation of its backlog provides an estimate of the number of
applications on an agencywide basis that exceed the number of applications
received over the last 6 months, rather than in each location. When
USCIS's agencywide data reflect that it has eliminated the agencywide
backlog for a certain application type, it may not be an indication that
this backlog has been eliminated at every location. USCIS officials told
us that even if they report that they have eliminated the agencywide
backlog by the end of fiscal year 2006, it is possible that backlogs
(i.e., pending applications representing more than 6 months' worth of
receipts) of certain application types could remain at certain field
locations. For example, as of June 2005, USCIS data indicated that, on an
agencywide basis, a backlog no longer existed for seven types of benefit
applications: applications for (1) renewing or replacing a lawful
permanent resident card, (2) travel documents, (3) extending or changing
status, (4) employment authorization, (5) temporary protected status, and
petitions for (6) nonimmigrant workers and (7) immigrant workers. However,
upon closer examination of the data, backlogs remained for five of these
application types at specific locations. Specifically, as of June 2005, a
backlog of applications to renew a lawful permanent resident card and
applications for temporary protected status (about a dozen each) remained
at the Vermont and Nebraska service centers, respectively. Moreover, a
backlog of nearly 3,000 applications for travel documents remained across
a dozen district offices combined and nearly 2,500 remained at the
Nebraska service center alone. Similarly, nearly 2,000 applications for
employment authorization remained across nine district offices combined
and nearly 70,000 remained at the California service center alone.
Finally, a backlog of about 3,000 petitions for immigrant workers remained
at the California and Nebraska service centers combined.
Backlogs Could Remain at Understaffed Offices
According to USCIS, it has the staffing capacity agencywide to address the
backlog, but some benefit applications in offices where volume exceeds
adjudicator capacity may require more than 6 months to process, causing
backlogs to remain beyond September 30, 2006. USCIS estimates that it will
have to complete about 10 million benefit applications between July 1,
2005, and September 30, 2006, to retire the backlog and reduce its pending
applications, on average, to a level that can be processed within 6 months
or less.44 According to the Deputy Associate Director for Operations, the
agency's staffing level as of June 2005-about 3,100 permanent and
temporary adjudicators and information officers-should be adequate to
retire the backlog. However, the distribution of adjudicators across field
offices does not match the current distribution of the workload across
field offices. A reason for this staffing imbalance, according to USCIS
officials, is that the agency hired temporary adjudicators for all
district offices to concentrate on adjudicating forms in the backlog while
permanent adjudicators could focus attention on adjudicating new petitions
for alien relatives and prospective spouses and related applications for
adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident under the Legal
Immigration Family Equity (LIFE) Act.45 However, USCIS officials said that
the anticipated volume of LIFE Act applications and petitions never
materialized in district offices in the central and western regions.
Unless the agency is successful in redistributing its adjudicator staff,
it appears that backlogs are likely to remain at understaffed field
offices in the eastern region in fiscal year 2007. According to the Deputy
Associate Director for Operations, USCIS has too few adjudicators at
district offices in the eastern region to address the workload, while
district offices in the central and western regions have excess
adjudicator staff. Figure 8 shows the distribution of workload to
adjudicators across regions.
44 This estimate includes the current 1.2 million applications in the
backlog plus more than 8.6 million projected future applications, to be
filed over the 15-month period between July1, 2005, and September 30,
2006.
45 Pub. L. No. 106-553, 114 Stat. 2762A-142 (2000). The former INS
published a final rule in the Federal Register on June 4, 2002,
establishing procedures for certain class action litigants to apply for
adjustments of status under legalization provisions of the LIFE Act.
Figure 8: Projected Workload in Hours, by Region, July 2005 through
September 2006 Compared with Distribution of Available Adjudicator Hours
as of June 2005
Other Factors May Hinder USCIS's Ability to Complete Certain Applications within
6 Months
Factors beyond the agency's control could prevent some applications from
being adjudicated within 6 months. For example, some applications may
require longer to adjudicate because of factors such as (1) the need for
more extensive background checks for certain applicants, (2) annual
limitations on certain visas, and (3) legislative changes.
Background Checks
USCIS performs a background check on all benefit applicants via its
Interagency Border Inspection System (IBIS). Adjudicators said they can
normally perform these checks on their desktop computers in a matter of
minutes, a process we observed at the Houston district office. For
selected immigration benefit applications, USCIS requires additional
background information from fingerprint checks and name checks performed
by the FBI. Officials from the FBI said they can normally check
fingerprint records in about 24 hours or less and return the results to
USCIS in batch format about two times a week. The FBI results either
indicate no record of a criminal history or provide the applicant's
criminal history record.
However, FBI name checks can be far more involved and take more than 6
months to complete. For example, when an applicant's name matches the name
or alias of someone with a criminal history, the FBI is to perform a
secondary check of multiple databases, which can take up to a month to
complete. A small percentage of cases have to be subjected to a more
intensive file review, which can take more than 6 months. For example,
USCIS found an example where it took the FBI nearly 2 years to complete a
name check for a naturalization applicant. Table 5 summarizes the types of
background checks required for those forms included in USCIS's backlog
elimination plan.
Table 5: Summary of Background Checks Required for Selected Benefit
Applications
Application IBIS FBI fingerprint FBI name
Form type/purpose(s) check check check
I-485 Adjustment of status
I-129 Nonimmigrant worker
I-539 Extend/change nonimmigrant
status
I-90 Replacement green card
I-130 Petition for alien
relative
I-131 Advance parole
Reentry permit
I-140 Immigrant worker
I-751 Removal of conditional
status
I-765 Employment authorization
document
I-821 Temporary protected status
N-400 Naturalization
N-600/N-643 Certificate of citizenship
I-589 Asylum
I-881 NACARA 203
I-867 Credible fear referral
Source: Compiled from USCIS information.
According to our analysis of about 670,000 naturalization applications
filed between February 2004 and February 2005, the FBI returned about 59
percent of the names within 10 days, and 72 percent were returned within
30 days. About 11 percent of the applications (more than 74,000) took more
than 90 days to complete. Further, about 7 percent of these naturalization
applicants (more than 44,000) had not received a final response as of
February 28, 2005. Until these name checks are completed, applications
cannot be finally adjudicated. In addition, USCIS officials said that it
often takes a long time (as much as 4 to 6 months) to clear the names of
immigrant workers with high-tech backgrounds who are applying to change
their status to lawful permanent resident, because, since September 11,
the FBI has become especially interested in carefully vetting aliens with
such backgrounds.
Visa Limitations for Immigrants
The availability of visas issued by the Department of State will not
affect the backlog as defined by USCIS because USCIS excludes from its
count of backlog those cases for which a visa is not available. However,
it may result in some applicants having to wait much longer than 6 months
before their benefit is adjudicated. In order to initiate a visa request
to have an alien relative or prospective employee immigrate to the United
States, a qualifying relative or employer must file a petition with USCIS
on behalf of the immigrant. Section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality
Act sets effective annual limits of 226,000 visas for family-sponsored
immigrants and approximately 148,000 visas for employment-based
immigrants.46 In addition, the act sets preference levels for both
family-based and employment-based immigrants, which further determine
which applicants receive priority for a visa.47 Further, section 203(e) of
the act states that family-sponsored and employment-based preference visas
should be issued to eligible immigrants in the order in which a petition
on behalf of each was filed with USCIS.48 There are also annual numerical
limitations on the number of visas that can be allocated per country under
each of the preference categories.49 Thus, even if the annual limit for a
preference category has not been exceeded, visas may not be available to
immigrants from countries with high rates of immigration to the United
States, such as China and India, because of the per country limits. Table
6 lists the types and allocation limits of visas for family- and
employer-sponsored immigrants.
46 8 U.S.C. S: 1151(a)(1), (a)(2), (c), (d).
47 8 U.S.C. S: 1153(a), (b).
48 8 U.S.C. S: 1153(e).
49 8 U.S.C. S: 1152.
Table 6: General Preferences for Immigration Visas and Allocation Limits
for Fiscal Year 2005
Family-sponsored Limits Employment-based Limits
Preferences immigrants (percent) immigrants (percent)
First Unmarried sons 23,400 (10.4) Priority workers 42,456
and daughters of (28.6)
citizensa
Second Spouses and 114,200(50.5) Members of the 42,456
children, and professions (28.6)
unmarried sons holding advanced
and daughters of degrees or persons
permanent of exceptional
residents ability
Third Married sons and 23,400 (10.4) Skilled workers, 42,456
daughters of professionals, and (28.6)
citizens other workers
Fourth Brothers and 65,000(28.7) Certain special 10,540(7.1)
sisters of adult immigrants
citizens
Fifth Not applicable Employment 10,540
creation (7.1)
Total 226,000(100) 148,449
(100)
Source: Department of State, Visa Bulletin for September 2005, No. 85,
Volume VIII.
Note: Totals may not add because of rounding.
aSpouses and prospective spouses of U.S. citizens are not subject to these
visa limits.
Until an alien obtains an immigrant visa and enters the United States, or
an alien already in the United States is able to adjust his or her status,
the immigrant will not be able to become a lawful permanent resident. The
actual petitions for alien relatives (I-131) or immigrant workers (I-140)
can be filed with and adjudicated by USCIS at any time, regardless of the
availability of visa numbers. However, USCIS may not adjudicate any
pending applications for adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident
(I-485) when visa numbers have been exhausted for the particular
preference category or country. Since visas must be issued on a
first-come, first-served basis within each priority category, applicants
may be inclined to file an application to adjust status knowing they may
remain ineligible for a benefit for many years. For example, in September
2005, the Department of State was issuing, under the general family-based
preference limits, visas for unmarried sons and daughters of citizens
whose petitions were filed with USCIS on or before April 15, 2001, and for
brothers and sisters of adult citizens whose petitions were filed with
USCIS on or before December 15, 1993.50 In these situations, USCIS may not
adjudicate any pending adjustment applications until visa numbers become
available for those applicants and may have to hold such applications for
several years.
These kinds of delays in adjudication of pending adjustment of status
applications for family-sponsored immigrants may continue to grow because
of a demand that may continue to exceed the number of available visas each
year. In fiscal year 2004, USCIS received nearly 700,000 petitions for
alien relatives-more than three times the amount of available annual
visas. Additionally, as of June 2005, USCIS had received another 484,000
petitions for alien relatives that add to the 152,000 pending petitions.
According to USCIS officials, 2005 is the first year in which the agency
has adjudicated a number of employment-based petitions and ensuing
applications for adjustment of status up to the annual visa cap. As a
result, USCIS will start the next fiscal year with a queue of pending
petitions that has the potential of resulting in an adjudications backlog
of employment-based immigration adjustment of status applications.
Legislative Changes
USCIS officials noted that its current backlog elimination plan is based
on the assumption that the agency will continue to operate under current
laws. These officials noted, however, that if any new legislation is
enacted between now and the end of fiscal year 2006 without provisions for
resources to carry out new responsibilities, the agency's ability to
eliminate the backlog could be compromised. For example, USCIS officials
told us that the REAL ID Act of 200551 has recently added to USCIS's
workload by, among other things, increasing the number of persons eligible
to apply for and receive nonimmigrant worker status for temporary
nonagricultural workers and foreign investors, as well as adding an
expanded and more complex ground of inadmissibility relating to terrorism
that must be addressed as part of the adjudication of many immigration
benefit applications.52 In addition, the act does not provide additional
resources to carry out these activities.
50 Similarly, as an example of country-based limits, the Department of
State was issuing visas to unmarried sons and daughters of U.S. citizens
whose applications were filed on or before January 1, 1983, if they come
from Mexico, and March 22, 1991, if they come from the Philippines.
51 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War
on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-13, div. B, 119 Stat.
231, 302-23.
USCIS Lacks a Comprehensive Approach to Postadjudication Quality Assurance
USCIS operates two distinct postadjudication quality assurance programs,
but neither provides a comprehensive review of the agency's efforts to
ensure that immigration benefits are granted only to persons eligible to
receive them.53 Both of USCIS's major quality assurance programs are
limited to a small number of application types they review and, taken
together, the programs do not review all 15 of the major application types
included in the backlog elimination plan. One program measures quality by
assessing adjudicator compliance with standard operating procedures used
in adjudicating two application types, but it does not determine the
reasonableness of the final adjudicative decision. The other program
measures both compliance with standard operating procedures and the
reasonableness of adjudicator decisions for selected application types.
Although supervisory reviews of cases are conducted at the local office
level, the reviews lack a standardized approach across all offices. USCIS
is currently reviewing its quality assurance procedures and plans to
improve the metrics used to measure quality agencywide.
USCIS's Agencywide Quality Assurance Program Tracks Process Compliance for Two
Application Types
USCIS's Performance Management Division administers an agencywide quality
assurance program, which reviews adjudicator compliance with selected
processes for adjudicating 2 of the 15 major application types:
applications for naturalization and for adjustment of status to lawful
permanent resident. The review is restricted to compliance with standard
operating procedures and does not evaluate the reasonableness of the final
adjudicative decisions. The program began in 1997 in response to media
criticism about the integrity of its naturalization application processing
and was developed to improve the quality and consistency of naturalization
application processing by ensuring that immigration laws, regulations,
policies, and operating guidance are adhered to during the adjudication
process. In February 2005, USCIS expanded its quality assurance review to
include adjustments of status.
52 The REAL ID Act also removed the limit on the number of applications
for adjustment of status for persons requesting asylum the agency can
process each year (i.e., 10,000 applications per year). According to a
USCIS official, this resulted in nearly 180,000 applications for
adjustment of status for asylees being added to USCIS's backlog count in
June 2005. Although this increase in the asylum division's workload could
challenge the division's backlog elimination efforts, it is not expected
to prevent the division's ability to eliminate the backlog of asylum cases
by September 30, 2006.
53 Our assessment of USCIS's efforts to ensure the quality of adjudicator
decisions did not include predecision quality assurance efforts such as
adjudicator training.
To conduct its reviews, the performance management staff selects a sample
of applications completed during a given month and available at the
selected district office or service center. (Completed applications are
not stored in district offices and service centers.) In general the number
of cases sampled depends upon the number of applications processed in a
given month, and a sample of cases is chosen from the applications that
are available.54 USCIS's Performance Management Division staff uses a
standardized series of questions to determine the extent to which
adjudicators have followed the required processes.55 The staff records the
results and sends them to the adjudicative staff for correction. The
quality assurance review of naturalization applications covers critical
processes and non-critical processes. Critical processes are generally
those that relate to security procedures, for example documenting
fingerprints, IBIS checks, and name checks. Non-security-related processes
such as marking approved applications with an approval stamp are generally
considered noncritical processes. Figure 9 shows that for the sample of
naturalization applications that were reviewed during fiscal year 2004 and
the first and second quarters of fiscal year 2005, USCIS exceeded the
critical and noncritical processing accuracy goals of 99 percent and 96
percent respectively.
54 Because the review is based on a sample drawn from completed cases that
are available for review (those files that have not already been
transferred) rather than from all applications, it is unclear to what
extent the results are representative of all closed cases.
55 See appendix IV for samples of the checklist used for Applications for
Naturalization and appendix V for the checklist used for adjustments of
status.
Figure 9: Processing Accuracy Rates for the Naturalization Quality
Procedures for Cases Reviewed in Selected Offices and Centers, Fiscal
Years 2004 and 2005, First and Second Quarters
The review of adjustment of status applications, like the review of
naturalization applications, includes security system checks and checks on
adjudication processes, but only reports an overall processing accuracy
rate, not the processing accuracy rates for critical processes. USCIS's
quality assurance reviews reported an overall agencywide processing
accuracy rate of 98.5 percent for the sample of cases examined for the
period January 2005 through March 2005.56 A study conducted by an
independent management consultant, using sampling methods similar to those
USCIS uses to assess adjudicator compliance with standard processes,
produced similar results as USCIS for naturalization and lower results for
adjustment of status applications.57 For example, the consultant found
that the overall processing accuracy rate for naturalization applications
was over 98 percent for the cases reviewed at selected district offices.
56 USCIS has not yet established the acceptable level of quality for
adjustment of status applications. According to USCIS officials, they will
establish this target using the initial 4 months of data.
57 Booz Allen Hamilton, Quality Assurance Compliance Assessment and Review
Findings, a special report prepared at the request of the United States
Citizenship and Immigration Services (Washington, D.C.: February 2005).
USCIS's Service Center Quality Assurance Program Tracks Process Compliance and
Evaluates Reasonableness of Adjudication Decisions
Since April 2002, USCIS's Service Center Operations Division has performed
quality assurance reviews designed to evaluate the quality and correctness
of adjudicative decisions for selected benefit applications filed
exclusively at service centers. This quality assurance review uses the
same guidance as the agencywide program to select cases to review. In
general the number of cases sampled depends upon the number of
applications processed in a given month, and a sample of cases is chosen
from the applications that are available. Two application types were
selected for the initial review-first, applications for adjustment of
status and, 6 months later, applications to extend or change nonimmigrant
status. Subsequently, the service center added other application types to
its review including petitions for alien relatives and petitions for
nonimmigrant workers.
For this review, a sample of case files is selected and independently
reviewed by the quality assurance unit. The review selects cases based on
three types of adjudicative decisions: (1) approvals, (2) denials, and (3)
requests for evidence. Each case file is evaluated for compliance with
processes and procedures and completeness of the administrative actions.
In addition, the reviewer evaluates the reasonableness of the decision
outcome-that is, whether he or she would have made the same decision given
the evidence provided. The Service Center Operations Division has
developed a series of standardized checklists that is used for reporting
purposes.58 When errors are detected in the review, such as when an IBIS
check is marked as valid on the checklist when in fact the IBIS check had
expired, service center guidance indicates that corrective actions should
be taken. For example, if an erroneous decision was identified during the
review of an approved case, the corrective action could result in the
cases being reopened and the benefit being rescinded. The guidance further
indicates that after the initial quality assurance reviews, a small sample
of previously reviewed cases should be checked a second time by a separate
reviewer to validate the initial results.
The Service Center Operations Division develops a quality level indicator
by calculating the number of correct decisions identified among the total
number of cases reviewed. According to USCIS, the emphasis of the program
is on using trend analyses to identify and address weaknesses in
administrative decision making rather than meeting a specific performance
target. In fiscal year 2004, the Service Center Operations Division
reviewed three forms-employment-based applications for adjustment of
status, applications to extend or change nonimmigrant status, and
petitions for alien relatives. The rates of correct decisions for the
forms reviewed were 94.3 percent, 95.7 percent, and 93.5 percent
respectively. In the first two quarters of the fiscal year 2005, in
addition to continuing the reviews of adjustments of status and petitions
for alien relatives, USCIS added petitions for nonimmigrant workers. The
rate of correct decisions for reviewed applications of this type was 98
percent for the period January 2005 through April 2005.
58 See appendix VI for examples of service center checklists.
USCIS Supervisors Review Quality of Staff Adjudications
Aside from these two quality assurance programs, USCIS also checks quality
through supervisory reviews of case files at the local office level.
However, these reviews are not consistently performed across all local
offices. For example, some local offices, such as the San Antonio district
office, perform supervisory reviews of all cases awaiting adjudication, as
well as a group of adjudicated cases, while others, such as the Texas
service center, may perform supervisory reviews of all cases adjudicated
by new staff.
USCIS Is Reviewing Its Quality Assurance Programs
The independent review of USCIS's quality assurance program, discussed
previously, made a number of recommendations to improve the agency's
programs; among them, that the Performance Management Division's quality
assurance program include application types not currently part of the
program to determine their level of compliance with adjudicative
procedures. In addition it recommended that that USCIS focus fewer
resources on naturalization applications in offices that consistently meet
the quality goal and spend resources on the new adjustment of status
application review because the review shows compliance was lower for this
application. According to USCIS guidance, the agency planned to
progressively include other application types and operations in its
quality assurance approach, but the agency has not established specific
strategies and timelines for doing so. According to agency officials,
USCIS is in the process of collecting and validating data on the current
inventory of quality assurance measurements in use throughout USCIS. After
the validation process, they plan to analyze this information to identify
gaps and areas of improvement. USCIS plans to design, develop, and test a
draft set of proposed quality metrics. USCIS plans to have a final set of
quality metrics available by December 2005, which the agency says will
reflect several dimensions of quality including accuracy, consistency,
timelines, efficiency, customer service and production.
Conclusions
USCIS intends to address deficiencies in its current information
technology systems through technology transformation, including the
development of a new, integrated case management system capable of
providing managers reports on the actual age of pending immigration
benefit applications. Under USCIS's current method for calculating
backlog, it is possible for individual applicants to wait longer than 6
months for a benefit decision, even if the backlog for that benefit type
has technically been eliminated. USCIS's proposed technology
transformation should have the capability to provide information about the
actual number of applications that have been pending for more than 6
months so that the agency is able to define its backlog consistently with
the statutory definition of any application pending adjudication for more
than 180 days.
USCIS has made substantial progress toward its goal of reducing its
backlog of benefit applications and may eliminate much of the backlog by
September 30, 2006. In addition to efforts to eliminate the current
backlog, it is important for the agency to take steps to prevent future
backlogs. The agency's ambitious technology transformation plan promises
to meet this need by moving the agency from a manual, paper-driven process
to an automated, paperless adjudication environment. As USCIS strives to
become a high-performing, client-focused organization, it must take into
account relationships among people, processes, and technology. For
example, one of the assumptions underlying technology transformation is
that it will facilitate more efficient, streamlined processes, which in
turn could yield productivity gains, thus allowing more work to be
accomplished without added staff resources. The agency has not identified
these potential effects in its staffing and technology plans. Considering
these relationships and including them in operational and strategic plans
would give USCIS a sound basis for making strategic decisions regarding
resource allocation. Without such information, Congress cannot be assured
that the agency's investments in information technology will contribute to
maximizing productivity and preventing future backlogs.
At present, USCIS's quality assurance efforts do not comprehensively
assess the adjudicative process and its outcomes, nor do they address all
benefit application types. While USCIS has taken steps and has other steps
planned to identify and address shortcomings in its quality assurance
program, it has not yet developed the specific performance measures and
goals needed to ensure consistent quality of adjudication across all
components of the adjudication process. As a result, the agency cannot be
assured that all benefit applications are adjudicated in compliance with
agency guidance and that reasonable decisions are rendered on a consistent
basis.
Recommendations for Executive Action
To help determine the size of its backlog in a manner consistent with the
definition in the Immigration Services and Infrastructure Improvements Act
of 2000, we recommend that the Secretary of Homeland Security direct the
Director of USCIS to develop and implement the capability to produce
management reports on the actual age of individual benefit applications as
soon as practicable in its long-term technology transformation process.
To help ensure that USCIS has the information necessary to make sound
strategic decisions regarding resource allocation-including staffing
allocation and investment in technology transformation-and to inform
Congress about expected gains from investments in technology, we recommend
that the Secretary of Homeland Security direct the Director of USCIS to
take the following two actions:
o identify potential productivity gains and their effects on
preventing future backlogs and
o identify the potential effects of technology improvements on
its staffing allocation plans.
To improve its quality assurance efforts and to help ensure that benefits
are provided only to eligible individuals, we recommend that the Secretary
of Homeland Security direct the Director of USCIS to modify its quality
assurance programs to address both adjudication process compliance and
reasonableness of adjudicator decisions and expand coverage to all types
of benefit applications.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Homeland Security
for review. On November 8, 2005, we received written comments on the draft
report, which are reproduced in full in appendix VII. The department
concurred with the findings and recommendations in the report, and agreed
that efforts to implement our recommendations are useful for ensuring that
USCIS provides decision makers with full and adequate information.
Specifically, the department said that USCIS's proposed case management
system will provide the capability to produce management reports on the
actual age of individual benefit applications. In addition, the department
said USCIS is currently piloting several initiatives to increase
productivity and efficiency and will continue to seek opportunities and
methods to streamline processes and increase productivity while
maintaining integrity and security of the adjudicative process. The
department also said that USCIS is committed to analyzing staffing
allocation levels twice yearly to ensure that resources are properly
aligned with its workload. Moreover, as process and technology
improvements are realized, resource allocations will be changed to fit the
conditions. Finally, the department said that USCIS has begun to develop a
comprehensive quality management program intended to develop a set of
quality performance measures to assess servicewide performance for all
benefit application types. These measures will address both process
compliance and the quality of adjudicators' decisions. The department also
provided technical comments on our draft report, which we incorporated
where appropriate.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days from
the date of this report. At that time, we will send copies of this report
to the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security and the Director
of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. In addition, the
report will be available at no charge on GAO's Web site at
http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report or wish to
discuss it further, please contact me at (202) 512-8777 or at
[email protected]. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix
VII.
Paul L. Jones Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
During our review, we interviewed United States Citizenship and
Immigration Services (USCIS) officials in headquarters from a number of
divisions, including the offices of Budget, Field Operations, Service
Center Operations, Records Services, Modernization Services, Asylum
Division, Performance Management, and Administrative Appeals. We also
spoke with the USCIS Chief Information Officer and officials in the Office
of the Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman. In addition, we
spoke with officials from Immigration and Customs Enforcement, as well as
a stakeholder group that frequently interacts with USCIS, the American
Immigration Lawyers Association. We visited and interviewed officials in
10 USCIS field offices-the California service center, in Laguna Niguel;
the Texas service center, in Dallas; the National Benefits Center, near
Kansas City; district offices in Dallas, Houston, Los Angeles, San
Antonio, San Diego, and Washington, D.C.; and the Los Angeles asylum
office. We selected these offices because they constituted a cross section
of field offices that (1) were handling large, medium, and small volumes
of applications and petitions; (2) were overstaffed and understaffed; (3)
had backlogs of applications or petitions or no backlogs; and (4) had
conducted or were conducting some of the pilot projects. Because we
selected a nonprobability sample of field offices to visit, the results
from our interviews with USCIS officials in these offices cannot be
generalized to USCIS offices nationwide.1
To determine the status of USCIS's backlog of pending benefit
applications, we interviewed agency officials and reviewed USCIS's backlog
elimination plans and updates along with the agency's supporting analyses
and compared them with the statutory definition of backlog in the
Immigration Services and Infrastructure Improvements Act of 2000.
To determine the actions USCIS has taken to eliminate the backlog of
applications and prevent future backlogs, we reviewed USCIS's planning
documents on the agency's staffing, budget, and information technology
modernization. We also reviewed evaluation reports on process streamlining
initiatives and pilot projects, as well as interviewing appropriate USCIS
officials. Where possible, we corroborated their responses with agency
data that we assessed for reliability and determined were sufficiently
reliable for our purposes.
1 Nonprobability sampling is a method of sampling where observations are
selected in a manner that is not completely random, usually using specific
characteristics of the population as criteria. Because each unit in a
population does not have an equal chance to be selected, it is possible
for a nonprobability sample to contain a systematic bias that limits its
ability to describe the entire population.
To estimate the likelihood that USCIS would eliminate the backlog by
September 30, 2006, we tracked and compared the agency's progress in
reducing its workload with the targets USCIS established. We also analyzed
workload and staffing data from the agency's Performance Analysis System,
the official system of record used to manage the agency's backlog
elimination efforts. We reviewed existing information about the data and
the system that produced them, including procedures for ensuring accuracy.
We also interviewed USCIS staff in the Performance Management Division
regarding the collection and analysis of the workload data and determined
that the data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report.
In addition, we reviewed USCIS's backlog elimination progress reports and
staffing analysis model that were derived from the Performance Analysis
System. We also collected and analyzed information on factors that could
affect USCIS's ability to eliminate the backlog, including the duration of
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) name checks for naturalization
applications, visa allocation limits, and new legislation. We analyzed
data on FBI name checks obtained from USCIS's Computer Linked Application
Information Management System (CLAIMS 4). We assessed the reliability of
CLAIMS 4 data by (1) performing electronic testing of the required data
elements for obvious errors in accuracy and completeness, (2) reviewing
related documentation, and (3) interviewing USCIS staff knowledgeable
about the CLAIMS 4 system and obtaining answers to written questions about
the system, and we determined that these data were sufficiently reliable
for our purposes. We also reviewed information on visa allocation limits
from the Department of State and spoke with USCIS officials in the Office
of Operations and the Office of Fraud Detection and National Security.
Finally, we discussed with USCIS officials the effects the REAL ID Act of
2005 had on the adjudications workload as an example of how new
legislation without the provision of additional resources could take
adjudicator staff resources away from backlog elimination efforts.2
To determine how USCIS ensures the quality and consistency of adjudicator
decisions, we interviewed USCIS officials in the Performance Management
Division. We reviewed USCIS reports and data on accuracy rates related to
its two quality assurance programs. We also reviewed the findings and
recommendations of an independent study on USCIS's quality assurance
programs. Finally, we discussed supervisory review practices with senior
managers at the field offices we visited. However, we did not
independently verify the extent and quality of supervisory review.
2 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on
Terror, and Tusnami Relief, 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-13, div. B, 119 Stat.
231, 302-23.
We conducted our work from September 2004 through October 2005 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Appendix II: USCIS Organizational Structure Appendix II: USCIS
Organizational Structure
USCIS carries out its service function through a network of field offices
consisting of a National Benefits Center, 4 service centers, 78 district
and local offices, 31 international offices, 8 asylum offices, and 129
application support centers.
o USCIS's National Benefits Center,1 located in Missouri, was
created in April 2003 to serve as a central processing hub for
benefit applications generally requiring an interview, such as
petitions for admission of spouses and other family members. These
"preprocessing" activities include conducting background security
checks, performing initial evidence reviews, adjudicating any
associated employment authorization and travel applications,
denying adjustment of status cases for applicants who are
statutorily ineligible, and forwarding scheduled cases to the
cognizant district so that the applicant can be interviewed and
the case decided. Eventually, the National Benefits Center will
also preprocess all applications for naturalization.
o USCIS's 4 service centers are located in California, Nebraska,
Texas, and Vermont. They were created in 1990 to help reduce
application backlogs in the district offices. Service centers
process 35 types of applications, including petitions for
permanent and temporary workers and applications for
employment-based adjustment of status to permanent resident. Since
February 1996, the service centers have shared responsibility with
the districts for processing naturalization applications.
Naturalization applications are received by the service centers
and processed up to the point of interview, at which time
responsibility for processing the case is shifted to the
appropriate district so that the applicant can be interviewed and
the case decided.
o USCIS's 78 district and local offices and 31 international
offices are located throughout the nation and around the world.
These offices generally process applications that require
interviews with the applicant or verification of an applicant's
identity. In addition to processing naturalization applications,
districts process petitions for alien relatives and family-based
adjustment of status applications, among others.
o USCIS's 8 asylum offices are located in Newark, New Jersey; New
York, New York; Arlington, Virginia; Miami, Florida; Chicago,
Illinois; Houston, Texas; Los Angeles, California; and San
Francisco, California. Asylum offices adjudicate asylum
applications and applications for suspension of deportation and
special rule cancellation of removal under Section 203 of the
Nicaraguan and Central American Relief Act (NACARA 203); conduct
"credible fear" and "reasonable fear" screening interviews of
certain removable persons who have expressed a fear of return to
the country of removal to determine if they qualify for an
opportunity to seek relief from removal before an Immigration
Judge, and provide staffing support to the Refugee Branch to
assist in USCIS's overseas refugee processing efforts.
o USCIS's 129 application support centers are under the
jurisdiction of districts and are located throughout the nation.
They were established in fiscal year 1998 to serve as INS's
designated fingerprint locations. In June 2000, INS shifted
responsibility for processing applications for renewal of
permanent resident cards (i.e., green cards) from the districts to
the support centers.
1 The National Benefits Center was initially called the Missouri Service
Center when it opened in March/April 2001.
Appendix III: Information Technology Systems Appendix III: Information
Technology Systems
Several information technology systems critical to USCIS's information
technology transformation plan are in development. One objective of this
plan is to develop a new integrated customer-focused case-processing
system that will deliver comprehensive information from immigration
applications. Other systems under development are USCIS's Background Check
Service system, which is designed to manage security check information and
the Biometric Storage System, which will store biometric data.
Integrated Case Management System
The integrated case management system is a tool that will be used by USCIS
staff in processing benefits and adjudicating cases. USCIS's information
technology transformation mission needs statement estimates that the case
management system development will begin in fiscal year 2006. USCIS is
currently assembling the system requirements and conducting surveys of
industry best practices. In addition, USCIS is reviewing a cost-benefit
analysis to evaluate alternative implementation strategies for the new
integrated case management system. USCIS anticipates that its current case
management systems will be decommissioned by fiscal year 2011.
Background Check Service
The Background Check Service system automates and manages the submission
of all security checks including name and fingerprints from the FBI and
Interagency Border Inspection System. The Background Check Service system
will track and store security check responses in a centralized system.
USCIS is preparing to initiate the testing and implementation phase, but
USCIS must first select a hosting and production facility for the system.
As of August 2005, USCIS estimates the deployment of the Background Check
Service system to be December 2005.
The Biometric Storage System
The Biometric Storage System allows USCIS to store biometrics information
for verification of identity and for future form submissions. Biometric
storage capacity will be expanded to allow storage of biometric
information for all USCIS customers, allowing information to be
resubmitted for subsequent security checks. The system will capture
10-prints for FBI fingerprint checks and image sets (photograph,
press-prints, and signatures). According to USCIS, the Biometric Storage
System repository will be located with the United States Visitor and
Immigrant Status Indicator Technology and Automated Biometric
Identification System Programs to enable data sharing and more detailed
background check and authentication processes.1 As of August 2005, USCIS
estimated that the Biometric Storage System will become operational in
August 2006.
1 United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology
interfaces with other Department of Homeland Security systems for relevant
purposes, including status updates and benefit adjudication. In
particular, it exchanges biographic information with the Student and
Exchange Visitor Information System and the Computer Linked Application
Information Management System.
Appendix IV: District Office Application for Naturalization (N-400)
Processing Quality Checklist Appendix IV: District Office Application for
Naturalization (N-400) Processing Quality Checklist
Appendix V: Adjustment of Status (I-485) Processing Quality Assurance
Checklist Appendix V: Adjustment of Status (I-485) Processing Quality
Assurance Checklist
Appendix VI: Service Center Checklists Used for Reviewing Quality
Assurance of Petitions for a Nonimmigrant Worker Appendix VI: Service
Center Checklists Used for Reviewing Quality Assurance of Petitions for a
Nonimmigrant Worker
Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security Appendix
VII: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security
Appendix VIII: A Appendix VIII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
GAO Contact
Paul L. Jones, (202) 512-8777 or [email protected]
Staff Acknowledgments
In addition to those named above, David Alexander, Leo Barbour, Karen
Burke, Virginia Chanley, Frances Cook, Nancy Finley, Kathryn Godfrey,
Clarette Kim, Marvin G. McGill, Eva Rezmovic, E. Jerry Seigler, James
Ungvarsky, and Robert E. White were key contributors to this report.
(440351)
GAO's Mission
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its
constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and
accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO
examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies;
and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help
Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's
commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of
accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost
is through GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts newly
released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To have
GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."
Order by Mail or Phone
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of
Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more
copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should
be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548
To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
512-6061
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: [email protected]
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470
Congressional Relations
Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4400 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 Washington,
D.C. 20548
Public Affairs
Paul Anderson, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4800 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington,
D.C. 20548
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-20.
To view the full product, including the scope
and methodology, click on the link above.
For more information, contact Paul L. Jones at (202) 512-8777 or
[email protected].
Highlights of GAO-06-20, a report to Congressional Requestors
November 2005
IMMIGRATION BENEFITS
Improvements Needed to Address Backlogs and Ensure Quality of
Adjudications
Long-standing backlogs of immigration benefit applications result in
delays for immigrants, their families, and prospective employers who
participate in the legal immigration process. In response to a statutory
mandate to eliminate the backlog, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services (USCIS) set a goal of September 30, 2006, to eliminate the
backlog and adjudicate all applications within 6 months. This report
examines (1) the status of the backlog, (2) actions to achieve backlog
elimination and prevent future backlogs, (3) the likelihood of eliminating
the backlog by the deadline, and (4) USCIS's quality assurance programs to
achieve consistency of decisions while eliminating its backlog.
What GAO Recommends
GAO recommends that USCIS (1) ensure that its technology improvement
efforts support the ability to generate information on the actual age of
individual applications, (2) identify and articulate in its plans the
benefits it expects to realize from its investment in technology
transformation, and (3) develop a comprehensive quality assurance program
that applies to all types of benefit applications and that addresses
adjudication processes and reasonableness of decisions.
We provided a draft of this report to USCIS for review. USCIS agreed with
our findings and recommendations.
By June 2005, USCIS estimated it had reduced its backlog from a peak of
3.8 million cases to about 1.2 million. However, this estimate is not a
measure of the number of pending cases older than 6 months-the definition
of backlog used by the Immigration Services and Infrastructure
Improvements Act of 2000. USCIS's current data systems cannot provide
precise data on the age of all application types. A proposed technology
transformation offers an opportunity to develop a case management system
with this capability.
USCIS has reduced its backlog mainly by increasing and realigning staff.
To prevent future backlogs, USCIS will rely on additional staffing
reallocation and technology transformation. However, the technology plan
is in the early planning stages, and USCIS has not finalized its estimated
cost or identified the gains it could yield.
Despite progress, it is unlikely that USCIS will completely eliminate the
backlog by the 2006 deadline. While it met fiscal year 2006 targets for
half of the 15 backlogged application types, USCIS may have difficulty
eliminating its backlog for two complex application types that constitute
nearly three-quarters of the backlog. A backlog may also remain in offices
where the volume of cases exceeds adjudicator staff capacity. Other
factors, such as lengthy background checks, could also hinder USCIS's
ability to achieve and maintain its backlog elimination goals. USCIS
officials noted that its current plan is premised on current legislation
and would be affected by proposed legislative changes that could impose
additional demands on the agency.
Aside from regular supervisory review, USCIS operates two programs to
ensure the quality of its postadjudication decisions, yet neither program
provides a systematic and inclusive review of all application types. One
program reviews adjudicators' compliance with standard processes for two
application types, and the other evaluates compliance with standard
processes and the reasonableness of decisions rendered, but only for
selected applications processed in four centers.
Benefit Applications Received, Completed, and Backlogged, March 2003-June
2005
*** End of document. ***