[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
POLICY CHANGES AND PROCESSING DELAYS AT
U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION AND
CITIZENSHIP
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
----------
TUESDAY, JULY 16, 2019
----------
Serial No. 116-38
----------
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via: http://judiciary.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
40-774 WASHINGTON : 2021
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
JERROLD NADLER, New York, Chair
MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania, Vice-Chair
ZOE LOFGREN, California DOUG COLLINS, Georgia, Ranking
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas Member
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr.,
HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr., Wisconsin
Georgia STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
KAREN BASS, California JIM JORDAN, Ohio
CEDRIC L. RICHMOND, Louisiana KEN BUCK, Colorado
HAKEEM S. JEFFRIES, New York JOHN RATCLIFFE, Texas
DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island MARTHA ROBY, Alabama
ERIC SWALWELL, California MATT GAETZ, Florida
TED LIEU, California MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana
JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland ANDY BIGGS, Arizona
PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington TOM McCLINTOCK, California
VAL BUTLER DEMINGS, Florida DEBBIE LESKO, Arizona
J. LUIS CORREA, California GUY RESCHENTHALER, Pennsylvania
SYLVIA R. GARCIA, Texas BEN CLINE, Virginia
JOE NEGUSE, Colorado KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota
LUCY McBATH, Georgia W. GREGORY STEUBE, Florida
GREG STANTON, Arizona
MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania
DEBBIE MUCARSEL-POWELL, Florida
VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas
PERRY APELBAUM, Majority Staff Director & Chief of Staff
CHRIS HIXON, Minority Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
ZOE LOFGREN, California, Chair
PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington, Vice-Chair
J. LUIS CORREA, California KEN BUCK, Colorado, Ranking Member
SYLVIA R. GARCIA, Texas ANDY BIGGS, Arizona
JOE NEGUSE, Colorado TOM McCLINTOCK, California
DEBBIE MUCARSEL-POWELL, Florida DEBBIE LESKO, Arizona
VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas W. GREGORY STEUBE, Florida
MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania
DAVID SHAHOULIAN, Chief Counsel
ANDREA LOVING, Minority Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Tuesday, July 16, 2019
Page
OPENING STATEMENTS
The Honorable Zoe Lofgren, Chair of the Subcommittee on
Immigration and Citizenship from the State of California....... 1
The Honorable Ken Buck, Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on
Immigration and Citizenship from the State of Colorado......... 3
The Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Chair of the Committee on the
Judiciary from the State of New York........................... 4
WITNESSES
Panel One
Mr. Donald Neufeld, Associate Director, Service Center Operations
Directorate, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
Oral Testimony................................................. 6
Mr. Michael Valverde, Deputy Associate Director, Field Operations
Directorate, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
Oral Testimony................................................. 8
Mr. Michael Hoefer, Chief, Office of Performance and Quality,
Management Directorate, U.S Citizenship and Immigration
Services
Oral Testimony................................................. 9
Prepared Joint Written Statement of Donald Neufeld, Michael
Valverde, and Michael Hoefer, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services Witnesses............................................. 12
Panel Two
Ms. Marketa Lindt, President, American Immigration Lawyers
Association
Oral Testimony................................................. 152
Prepared Statement............................................. 155
Ms. Jill Marie Bussey, Director of Advocacy, Catholic Legal
Immigration Network, Inc.
Oral Testimony................................................. 167
Prepared Statement............................................. 169
Mr. Eric Cohen, Executive Director, Immigrant Legal Resource
Center
Oral Testimony................................................. 187
Prepared Statement............................................. 189
Ms. Jessica Vaughan, Director of Policy Studies, Center for
Immigration Studies
Oral Testimony................................................. 206
Prepared Statement............................................. 208
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC. SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
Prepared statement of the United States Chamber of Commerce and
the Information Technology Industry Council, Submitted by the
Honorable Zoe Lofgren, Chair of the Subcommittee on Immigration
and Citizenship from the State of California, and the Honorable
Ken Buck, Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Immigration and
Citizenship from the State of Colorado for the record.......... 52
Prepared statements from submitted by the Honorable Zoe Lofgren,
Chair of the Subcommittee on Immigration and Citizenship from
the State of California for the record
American Council on Education................................ 48
The American Immigration Council............................. 50
ASISTA and the Asian Pacific Institute on Gender-Based
Violence................................................... 52
The Association of American Universities..................... 56
Boundless Immigration........................................ 59
Church World Service......................................... 108
The Compete American Coalition............................... 109
FWD.us....................................................... 119
Her Justice.................................................. 125
Report from Invest In the USA (IIUSA)........................ 128
The National Immigration Forum............................... 139
UnidosUS and the National Partnership for New Americans...... 143
The Tahirih Justice Center (Tahirih)......................... 148
APPENDIX
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Member
of the Committee on the Judiciary from the Stateof Texas for
the record..................................................... 220
Articles submitted by Jill Marie Bussey, Director of Advocacy,
Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. for the record
Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc., article entitled,
``The Human Impact of USCIS Case Processing Delays''....... 225
Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc., article entitled,
``New rules on employment authorization documents''........ 227
Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc., public comment to
USCIS regarding the USCIS Policy Manual revisions at Volume
1, Part A.................................................. 229
Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc., entitled, ``Policy
Brief: USCIS Processing Delays and the Resulting
Consequences to TPS Holders and their Families''........... 235
Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc., letter to former
USCIS Director Francis Cissna regarding ``Haitian,
Salvadoran, and Syrian TPS Processing Delays and Automatic
Work Authorization Extensions,'' dated October 26, 2018.... 241
Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc., letter to former
Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen and former
USCIS Director Francis Cissna regarding ``Legal Issues with
Notices of Continued Evidence of Work Authorization for
TPS,'' dated November 28, 2018............................. 246
Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc., letter to former
Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen and former
USCIS Director Francis Cissna regarding ``Ongoing Temporary
Protected Status Federal Register Notice Delays;
Recommendations for Forthcoming Liberia Deferred Enforced
Departure Federal Register Notice,'' dated April 2, 2019... 255
Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc., letter to former
USCIS Director Francis Cissna regarding ``CLINIC
Recommendations Regarding USCIS' Improper Rejections of
Employment Authorization Applications Filed by Liberian DED
Holders,'' dated May 16, 2019.............................. 258
Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc., article entitled,
``Top Immigration Issues Affecting Religious Workers: Here
Is What We Know So Far''................................... 261
Prepared statements submitted by the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, Chair
of the Subcommittee on Immigration and Citizenship from the
State of California for the record
Asian Americans Advancing Justice (AAJC)..................... 263
Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights (CHIRLA)............... 271
NAFSA: Association of International Educators................ 274
National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed
Officials Educational Fund (NALEO)......................... 277
National Immigration Law Center (NILC)....................... 288
Statement from 76 National, Regional, State, and Local
Advocacy Organizations for immigrant survivors of domestic
violence, sexual assault, and human trafficking............ 291
The University of California, Los Angeles, Dashew Center for
International Students and Scholars........................ 297
Torture Abolition and Survivors Support Coalition (TASSC).... 300
David Spencer Cooper, Immigration Attorney, Department of
Justice Accredited Representative.......................... 302
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS FOR THE RECORD
Questions for the Record for Mr. Donald Neufeld, Mr. Michael
Valverde, and Mr. Michael Hoefer, submitted by the Honorable
Zoe Lofgren, a Member of Congress, Chair of the Subcommittee on
Immigration and Citizenship from the State of California for
the record..................................................... 308
Responses to Questions for the Record from U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services to Zoe Lofgen, Chair of the Subcommittee
on Immigration and Citizenship, from the State of California... 361
POLICY CHANGES AND PROCESSING DELAYS.
AT U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES
----------
Tuesday, July 16, 2019
House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Immigration and Citizenship
Committee on the Judiciary
Washington, DC
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 12:07 p.m., in
Room 2237, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Zoe Lofgren
[Chair of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Lofgren, Nadler, Jayapal, Correa,
Garcia, Neguse, Mucarsel-Powell, Escobar, Jackson Lee, Scanlon,
Buck, McClintock, Lesko, Armstrong, and Steube.
Staff Present: Betsy Lawrence, Counsel; Ami Shaw, Counsel;
Rachel Calanni, Professional Staff Member; Andrea Loving,
Minority Counsel; and Andrea Woodard, Minority Professional
Staff Member.
Ms. Lofgren. So, we are here today--the Subcommittee on
Immigration and Citizenship is in order, and we are here today
to explore an aspect of our immigration system that generally
receives far less attention than ICE community raids, migration
flow from Central America, mistreatment of families at the
border. Although these are very serious issues that this
Subcommittee will continue to examine, the current situation at
USCIS must not be overlooked.
Record high case backlogs and policy changes that make it
harder to obtain immigration benefits are extremely important
matters that deserve careful attention. These are profound
problems that have a direct impact on countless individuals,
families, students, business, and other entities, such as
hospitals and research institutions. I am sure that others on
this Subcommittee will agree when I say that we hear about
these issues from constituents on an almost daily basis.
Although USCIS has struggled with processing delays and
backlogs since its creation, the agency reports that the
current net backlog, as of April 2019, stands at more than 2.4
million cases. This represents an incredible 344 percent
increase from the net backlog of cases in 2014. It is the
largest net backlog since 2003, when adjudications ground to a
halt in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
Backlogs and processing delays create real-life problems
for people trying to navigate our complex immigration system.
Imagine a domestic violence survivor unable to escape her
abuser because her request for protection has languished for
months. A startup company abandoning a key project that will
lead to substantial job creation because it is unable to get a
visa for a specialty engineer. Families that remain separated
for months longer than necessary because of delays associated
with enhanced vetting.
This hearing will provide an opportunity to dig deeper into
these stories and examine how USCIS processing delays impact
everyday people. We will also explore with our first panel of
witnesses what is causing these delays and how USCIS plans to
bring processing times back down to reasonable levels.
Although USCIS has attributed the backlog to increased
filings, staffing issues, resource shortages, and other
operational factors, there is clearly another driver. New
policy and procedural changes implemented by the current
Administration are substantially changing the way immigration
benefit requests are adjudicated. Since President Trump's
inauguration, the Administration has eradicated a number of
what I think are common sense policies that have for years
helped streamline processing in favor of new policies that add
bureaucratic red tape and divert resources by adding new
burdens on adjudicators.
Based on USCIS published data, it appears that these new
policies have also increased the odds of receiving a denial.
And when denials are appealed and overturned, that means more
delay and more red tape, but without good reason.
Processing delays and policy changes are making it more
difficult than ever for qualified applicants to get immigration
status. This difficulty keeps many individuals from being fully
productive Members of our society and our economy that they
would otherwise be. Others may be reluctant to do things that
ultimately benefit our country out of fear of interacting with
the Administration.
I look forward to today's testimony so that we can better
understand the purpose and intent of recent policy changes, as
well as their impact on the development of immigration case
backlogs. My hope is that with today's hearing, we not only
hear about how these problems can be addressed with appropriate
administrative solutions, but that we also determine whether
legislative fixes are necessary.
I would turn now to the Ranking Member, Mr. Buck, for his
opening statement.
Mr. Buck. I thank the chair. I appreciate the chair holding
this hearing to examine USCIS adjudication wait times and
policy changes.
This Subcommittee has an important oversight
responsibility, and adjudication wait times falls squarely
within the kinds of issues we should watch. That said, I wish I
had heard the same concerns and outrage from my colleagues when
President Obama's DACA program resulted in long adjudication
wait times for immediate relative green card applications,
among other immigration benefits.
Even the New York Times took notice of the increase in
adjudication times. A February 8, 2014, article by Julia
Preston stated, ``Many thousands of Americans seeking green
cards for foreign spouses or other immediate relatives have
been separated from them for a year or more because of swelling
bureaucratic delays at a Federal Immigration Agency in recent
months. The long waits came when the agency, Citizenship and
Immigration Services, shifted attention and resources to a
program President Obama started in 2012 to give deportation
deferrals to young, undocumented immigrants, according to
Administration officials and official data.''
I don't recall any concerns raised about what the backlogs
would look like when my colleagues were marking up or passing
H.R. 6, the bill that would have required USCIS to process
millions and millions of green card and naturalization
applications, whether or not the alien was ultimately granted
such status.
The volume of immigration benefits requests received by
USCIS varies. According to the Department of Homeland Security,
in any given year USCIS administers a broad range of programs,
through which it receives millions of immigration benefit
applications and petitions. In fiscal year 2018 alone, more
than 8 million immigration benefits were requested, and that
was actually a decrease from the 9 million requested during
fiscal year 2017.
Despite the huge volume of receipts in the last few years,
USCIS still managed to naturalize nearly 757,000 new U.S.
citizens during fiscal year 2018, more than in any of the
previous 5 years. Fiscal year 2018 also saw USCIS adjudicate
more immigration benefits than ever in its history. They should
be commended for those accomplishments.
To be clear, immigration benefits should be promptly
adjudicated. Everyone here would agree with that. It is
important that USCIS abide by its mission to efficiently and
fairly adjudicate requests for immigration benefits, but it is
also important for the agency to adhere to the rest of its
mission, to administer the Nation's lawful immigration system,
safeguarding its integrity and promise while protecting
Americans, securing the homeland, and honoring our values.
Immigration benefits should not be delayed for nefarious
purposes, nor should they be rubberstamped, as we have seen
happen during other Administrations. As we have seen, many
factors contribute to the volume of benefit requests and, thus,
the time it takes to adjudicate them. So, what kind of factors
contribute to increased volume?
Historically, presidential elections have led to increases
in naturalization applications. Those who want to vote apply
for naturalization right before the election. An Administration
action can increase the volume, too. As I noted, the DACA
program to date has added 2.4 million adjudications to USCIS's
workload.
Of course, even Congress can add to the volume. When we
create a new immigration benefit or push the increased numbers
in a given category, that also adds to USCIS's workload.
Unfortunately, USCIS seems to be inherently behind the
curve, given that its staffing ability is dictated by agency
funding, and funding is dependent on less than flexible fee
rules. There is no doubt that USCIS should remain a fee-funded
agency. U.S. taxpayers should not bear the burden of paying for
immigration benefits for foreign nationals. I look forward to
hearing from the USCIS today any ideas the agency has for
ensuring a fee Rule and other procedures that allow flexibility
to increase and decrease staff with the rise and fall of
receipt volume.
With regard to recent policy changes at USCIS about which
the majority and some of their witnesses are raising concerns,
again, ensuring the integrity of our immigration system is
paramount. That should be balanced with reasonable policies and
procedures. Recently, USCIS instituted a sensible change in
policy to end the practice of filing an application containing
little, if any, evidence of eligibility just to reserve a place
in the adjudication line. This imposes an additional burden on
USCIS and adds to the backlog.
It is also important that adjudicators have the ability to
issue Notices to Appear to protect national security and
prevent fraud. I look forward to the witnesses' testimony to
get a true understanding of the adjudication backlog and the
factors contributing to it.
I thank the chair and yield back.
Ms. Lofgren. The gentleman yields back. I recognize the
Chair of the full committee, Mr. Nadler, for his opening
statement.
Chair Nadler. I thank the chair.
Today's hearing examines a critically significant issue,
policy changes and processing delays at U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services, or USCIS. It is important to remember
that the immigration debate in this country does not start and
stop at the Southern border. Although the Trump Administration
has focused most of its attention on curbing the rights of
asylum seekers and threatening mass enforcement sweeps, the
legal immigration system is not immune from dramatic policy
changes as well, changes that have significantly diminished the
ability of individuals to enter and to remain in the United
States legally.
Most of the policy changes that have been implemented by
the Administration appear to be intended to make adjudications
more complicated and, therefore, more time consuming and more
difficult for individuals to obtain legal status in this
country. From my perspective, these policy changes seem to fix
things that were not broken to begin with and only serve to
create unnecessary obstacles to legal immigration.
For example, last August, USCIS suddenly announced that it
would impose harsh penalties on non-immigrant students who
violate their status, even if the violation was not knowing or
intentional, was based on a technical error, or was de minimis.
Thankfully, the court stepped in, and this policy is now on
hold.
Another example is USCIS's determination without any
justification of its longstanding policy of waiving the in-
person interview requirement for employment-based green card
applicants. Most of these individuals have been in the United
States for years on temporary visas and have been screened and
vetted repeatedly.
Waiving the interview, therefore, except in cases where
fraud is suspected or there is some other issue, was a smart
way to make the process more efficient. Now, interviews are
mandatory for everyone, and backlogs are growing exponentially.
Let us not forget the public charge rule, which would
dramatically heighten the standard for determining whether a
person is likely to be reliant on public services and is,
therefore, ineligible for a visa or green card. Basic services
like Medicaid, SNAP, and section 8 rental housing assistance
that millions of working Americans use to supplement their
income would suddenly render someone ineligible.
Although the Rule has not been finalized yet, it will
likely be finalized soon. Setting aside the fact that it is
clearly unlawful and morally repugnant, if finalized as
proposed, there is no doubt that this Rule will make
immigration adjudications infinitely more complex. As
predictions as to whether people with working permits will
need, at some point, to avail themselves of Medicaid or SNAP or
section 8 rental housing assistance, it has now become
necessary for these determinations on a predictive basis.
Over the past few years, we have seen significant increases
in processing delays and case backlogs at the USCIS. The
backlog of citizenship applications nearly doubled from
360,000--I am sorry, from 367,000 in late 2015 to about 740,000
in September 2018. In my district, most applicants for
citizenship now must wait at least a year for their application
to be processed, and sometimes even 2 years.
USCIS has said that increased receipts, staffing issues,
resource shortages, and other operational factors have led to
the current net backlog of 2.4 million cases. As of the end of
fiscal year 2018, it appears that processing times for most
applications and petitions equaled or exceeded near record-long
averages.
It does not stop with processing delays. Denials of
immigration benefit requests, such as citizenship, permanent
residence, and work permits, are also on the rise. New
policies, longer delays, and increasing denials have only added
to the palpable fear, confusion, and uncertainty that permeates
immigrant communities.
I look forward to hearing from our USCIS witnesses about
how the agency plans to bring processing times back down to
reasonable levels and from our nongovernment witnesses about
how USCIS policy change and case delays impact individuals and
businesses alike.
I thank the Chair, Ms. Lofgren, for her leadership on this
issue and for holding this important hearing. I yield back the
balance of my time.
Ms. Lofgren. The gentleman yields back, and the Ranking
Member of the full Committee will be invited to submit his
statement for the record unless he is able to attend, which I
think he has another obligation.
So, now we will introduce our first panel. There will be
two panels of witnesses for today's hearing. The first panel
includes three witnesses from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services. This panel will be followed by a panel of witnesses
from nongovernmental organizations.
I will now introduce the first panel of witnesses.
Don Neufeld is the Associate Director of the Service Center
Operations Directorate of USCIS, where he oversees the
activities of the five remote processing centers throughout the
country that adjudicate the bulk of immigration benefit
requests. He has worked for more than two decades at USCIS and
the former Immigration Nationality Service, holding various
leadership positions throughout the years.
Mr. Neufeld has testified before this Committee once
before, in 2011 for a hearing on H-1B visas, and we welcome him
back to the Subcommittee today, looking forward to his
testimony.
Michael Valverde is Deputy Associate Director of USCIS
Field Operations Directorate, which oversees the operations of
the National Benefits Center and the domestic field offices,
which primarily handle applications that require in-person
interviews, such as green card and naturalization applications.
He has two decades of experience with USCIS and the former INS.
He served as Performance Management and Planning Chief for the
USCIS's Refugee Asylum and International Operations Directorate
and Deputy Chief of USCIS's Refugee Affairs Division, and we
thank him for taking the time to share his expertise with us
today.
Finally, Michael Hoefer is the Chief of the Office of
Performance Quality at USCIS. The office provides data and
operational analysis to various governmental agencies and to
Congress to oversee the efficiency of USCIS operations. Mr.
Hoefer previously served as Director of DHS's Office of
Immigration Statistics, and it was in that capacity that he
appeared before this Subcommittee in 2007 to testify on the
topic of comprehensive immigration reform. We welcome him back
to the Committee and look forward to his testimony.
So, at this point, I would ask you all to rise, raise your
right hand, and we will swear you in.
Do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the
testimony you are about to give is true and correct, to the
best of your knowledge, information, and belief, so help you
God?
[Response.]
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you. Let it be shown that all the
witnesses replied in the affirmative.
Please be seated, and we will note that each one of your
written statements will be made part of the official record. We
ask that your testimony be about 5 minutes. When you have got 1
minute left, the yellow light will go on, and it is red when
your 5 minutes are up.
So, we begin with you, Mr. Neufeld.
TESTIMONY OF DONALD NEUFELD
Mr. Neufeld. Chairwoman Lofgren, Ranking Member Buck,
distinguished Members of the subcommittee, thank you for this
opportunity to discuss our agency, USCIS, better known as--
Ms. Lofgren. Would you pull the microphone a little bit
closer?
Mr. Neufeld. Can you hear me?
Ms. Lofgren. Much better. Thank you.
Mr. Neufeld. Okay, great. Thank you for this opportunity to
discuss our agency, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services,
and the challenges we face in administering the Nation's legal
immigration system.
I am Don Neufeld, Associate Director of the Service Center
Operations Directorate. I have served in this capacity since
2010. My career with USCIS, and the Immigration and
Naturalization Service before that, dates back to 1983.
Service Center Operations employs approximately 7,300
employees and contractors at 5 service centers across the
country and at headquarters. To give you an idea of the volume
of our work, in fiscal year 2018, Service Center Operations
processed approximately 5.5 million applications and petitions.
That figure represents 66 percent of the total USCIS
adjudications output.
Our work generally focuses on applications and petitions
that do not require face-to-face interviews. These include
employment-based and family-based petitions, applications for
employment authorization, applications and petitions for
certain humanitarian benefits, and applications for advance
parole and travel permits.
Service Center Operations seeks to maximize process
efficiencies and use technology to provide timely and high-
quality services for applicants and petitioners, all without
sacrificing the integrity or security of our Nation's
immigration system. We strive to maintain reasonable processing
times and establish goals to measure our success.
We are aware of the consequences for applicants and
petitioners when we are unable to meet expectations. Indeed,
your staff informs us when we are missing our processing time
goals, and they share individual stories of how delays affect
businesses and individuals.
As we have detailed in our written testimony, there are a
number of factors that drive backlogs. At Service Center
Operations, spikes in receipts are one major factor. Other
factors include statutory changes, unanticipated or irregular
workload demands, workloads related to new immigration programs
or humanitarian crises, application spikes related to fee
increases, and staffing shortages.
Some specific events that have contributed to the current
backlog include the spike in receipts prior to the 2016 fee
rule, the addition of temporary protected status for five
countries, and growth in petitions for victims of certain
qualifying criminal activity. We should note we generally
expect increased receipts prior to a fee Rule and in advance of
the Presidential election.
Following the 2016 fee increase and the 2016 presidential
election, the anticipated decrease in receipts did not follow.
While we do our best to anticipate short- and long-term
demands, we simply cannot predict everything that will affect
our workload. Even when history tells us that something will
happen, it doesn't always play out the way we think.
Our current backlogs are largely the product of a sustained
demand for immigration benefits, coupled with staffing
shortages. The good news is that we believe the demand has, for
the time being at least, stabilized. As we continue to bring
new staff onboard, we will be able to better manage and reduce
the backlog.
In Service Center Operations, we can adjust workloads
between service centers when excess work exists in one service
center and capacity and expertise exists at another service
center. In the future, as we realize the efficiencies of fee
processing, we will be able to do this in a paperless
environment, saving time and money.
We are also identifying administrative processes that can
be moved from an adjudicator's desk to administrative or
contract staff.
In closing, we are committed to reducing processing times
and offering superior-quality services while administering our
Nation's legal immigration system efficiently, securely, and
fairly.
Thank you once again for your interest in our agency and
mission. I look forward to any questions you might have.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you very much.
Mr. Valverde, we would be pleased to hear from you.
TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL VALVERDE
Mr. Valverde. Chairwoman Lofgren, Ranking Member Buck,
distinguished Members of the subcommittee, thank you for this
opportunity to discuss the workload challenges we face at
USCIS.
My name is Michael Valverde, and I am the Deputy Associate
Director for Field Operations at USCIS. I have served in this
capacity since 2015. My career with USCIS, and the Immigration
and Naturalization Service before that, dates back to 1997.
I am proud to represent more than 7,000 field operation
employees across the Nation who each day come to one of our 88
field offices, 24 district offices, 4 regional offices, the
National Benefits Center, and the Immigrant Investor Program
Office with the singular purpose of administering the Nation's
legal immigration program fairly, efficiently, and with the
utmost integrity. The Field Operations workload largely
consists of the adjudication of non-asylum applications and
petitions that require face-to-face interviews and other on-
the-groundwork, including site visits.
Most significantly, adjustment of status and
nationalization case work occurs at field offices. In fiscal
year 2018, USCIS naturalized 757,000 new citizens, a 5-year
high, at the same time we completed more than 640 applications
for adjustment of status, also at many years' high.
Unfortunately, backlogs are not new to USCIS. Internal and
external factors have affected pending workloads across the
life of the agency. Indeed, at the time it was established in
2002, as the chairwoman noted, USCIS inherited a backlog of
cases. That backlog largely resulted from delays in background
checks and security checks that were implemented following the
attacks of September 11, 2001.
Since that time, a number of factors have affected our
processing times and our ability to meet workload challenges
timely. Today, many factors have resulted in lengthy processing
times. Significantly increased receipts over the past several
years have outpaced our ability to process the work.
Other factors, such as statutory changes, citizenship
drives, and the implementation of new procedural requirements,
such as security checks, new immigration programs, and policy
changes, have impacted our processes and processing times.
USCIS does its best to apply lessons learned from historical
workload fluctuations, and I believe we do well at it.
Sometimes, however, all these factors can stress our
ability to complete our work as quickly as we would like it.
Are we satisfied that applicants wait as long as they do for
decisions on their requests? No, we are not. So, what are we
doing to shorten the time it takes for applicants to get their
decisions? We are taking advantage of the resources we have. We
are hiring to increase capacity.
Field Operations has had an onboard percentage in the high
90s for several years running. We are evaluating key processes
and procedures to maximize process integrity and minimize
waste. We are taking advantage of electronic age tools to
increase accuracy and efficiency.
As just one example of these approaches, we recently
implemented a program we call Information Services
Modernization. This program is designed to free up a
significant amount of Field Operations staff time to handle
their core adjudicative activities and interviews rather than
providing information in person, which we believe the data are
showing can be done more correctly and faster via other means.
Detailed in our written testimony are other efficiency
initiatives and process reforms. These include reintroducing
performance metrics for our field offices, leveraging
electronic processing and automation, developing innovative
scheduling methods, and finding new approaches to staffing and
workplace management. We are seeing results from this work.
In fiscal year 2018, the staff of Field Operations produced
more case completions and at a greater efficiency per officer
than in prior years. We believe we are doing our work
responsibly. In this fiscal year, we are doing a significant
amount of more fraud work than other years by a significant
percentage, all while keeping production of case completions
up.
Finally, in this fiscal year, due to our operational
reforms and decreasing receipts, we have seen processing times
for both citizenship and adjustment of status begin to lessen.
While USCIS has too often struggled with lengthy processing
times, I am confident that we have the imagination and the
determination to address this latest backlog and to do so
responsibly.
As I expect my colleagues would agree, no solution will be
immediate and comprehensive. I do think that we will continue
to see improvements in processing times, backlog elimination,
and backlog prevention.
Thank you once more for your interest in this important
matter, and I will be happy to answer any questions you may
have.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you very much.
We will now go to the Members of the Subcommittee for their
questions. Oh, I am sorry, Mr. Hoefer, I do want to hear from
you.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Lofgren. That was an oversight. Please forgive me.
TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL HOEFER
Mr. Hoefer. Chair Lofgren, Ranking Member Buck,
distinguished Members of the subcommittee, thank you for your
invitation to address the Subcommittee and the opportunity to
discuss the workload challenges we face at USCIS.
I am Michael Hoefer, Chief of the Office of Performance and
Quality in the Management Directorate at USCIS. I have served
in this capacity since 2016.
My career with USCIS, and the Immigration and
Naturalization Service before that, began at the INS Statistics
Office in 1982. I have also served as a Director of DHS's
Office of Immigration Statistics from 2004 to 2013.
Based on that experience, I will provide you an overview of
the primary factors that we believe have driven our current
backlog and processing delays. I currently serve in the
Management Directorate, which is responsible for multiple
support functions, such as procurement, facility and financial
management, IT systems, human resources, and my area of
responsibility for performance measurement and analysis.
Specifically, my office makes initial recommendations of
required staffing levels based on future workload projections
and efficiency rates. As you can see, while the men and women
of the Management Directorate do not directly adjudicate
applications, they do provide the infrastructure and the means
by which our agency performs and measures its work.
As we have heard today, backlogs are not new to USCIS. The
U.S. experienced its highest backlog in 2003 at 3.6 million
applications and petitions due in part to increased security
vetting following 9/11. The backlog of pending applications, as
of May 2019, is 2.4 million.
What does the backlog mean to applicants and petitioners?
Let me give an example of the impact of the backlog. It is
taking 10 months to process naturalizations, whereas our goal
is 5 months.
We know from experience that it is possible through
operational efficiencies and additional resources to reduce our
backlog. The 2003 backlog was reduced by a series of
initiatives, including a one-time congressional appropriation
and the authority to use premium processing funds to hire
additional staff. We were able to reduce the backlog to 50,000
by 2010, but it has risen each year since then.
Most of the recent growth in the backlog was in fiscal
years 2016 and 2017. The backlog grew from 634,000 in 2015 to
1.1 million in 2016 and increased to 2.3 million as of
September 2017. More than 70 percent of the increase in the
backlog between 2010 and now occurred in those 2 years.
The backlog has stabilized since 2017, growing by only
110,000 during the past 20 months. There are many factors that
contribute to changes in the backlog, but I want to discuss the
most significant factors we identified for 2016 and 2017, the
timeline that we saw the most growth.
We projected that our receipts would increase in 2016 and
then decrease in 2017, due to the combined impact of two
factors--the national election in November 2016 and a fee
increase 1 month later. Naturalization receipts previously had
always increased before a national election and then decreased
in the following year.
When a notice of proposed fee increase is published, it
usually motivates applicants and petitioners to apply before
the increases are implemented, especially for cases that are
more discretionary, such as naturalizations. Receipts in 2016
increased a little more than we had projected, but unlike past
election year cycle experience, receipts continued to increase
in 2017.
The elevated receipt levels over the 2-year period were
largely responsible for the growth in the backlog in 2016 and
2017. Receipt levels have returned to normal in 2018 and 2019,
which has helped us to reduce the growth in the backlog. Our
total number of completions in 2018 were the highest ever, and
we have reached a 5-year high in the number of persons taking
the oath of citizenship.
The growth in receipts has allowed us to continue to hire
more staff and to increase overtime. Authorized FTEs increased
7 percent in 2017 and 5 percent in 2018. Increasing staff is an
effective component to backlog reduction. It is effective, but
not immediate.
Hiring and training new staff almost always takes a few
years. Not a few years, we try to do it as quick as we can, but
it is a reactive process. We have to identify funds. We have to
recruit. We have to hire and train staff, and that can take
months.
Recognizing this, USCIS recently began modeling for a 6-
year time horizon. Under this model, USCIS is able to
proactively identify required staff, so positions are filled by
the time they are needed to achieve case completion targets.
Such a process will not only allow USCIS to reduce the current
backlog, but hopefully prevent a new one.
I very much appreciate the time and attention you have
given to my colleagues and me. Thank you once more, and we are
here to answer your questions.
[Prepared Joint Written Statement of U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services Witnesses follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you very, very much. Thanks to each one
of you for that useful and informative testimony.
We will now go to Members of the Subcommittee who have
questions under the 5-minute rule. I recognize first the
Ranking Member for his questions.
Mr. Buck. I thank the chair. I am going to yield to Mr.
McClintock, and then, if it is all right with the chair?
Ms. Lofgren. That will be fine. We will recognize Mr.
McClintock then and you later. Mr. McClintock?
Mr. McClintock. Well, thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Hoefer, didn't the information required of applicants
double back in 2016? Didn't the form go from 10 pages to 20? Or
for that matter, any of the panelists who--
Mr. Valverde. If you are referring to the application for
citizenship, yes, sir. I think it was back in 2012 or 2013, the
application doubled--
Mr. McClintock. I assume that means twice the information
that you have to verify and consider for each application?
Mr. Valverde. Yes, sir. That adds complexity and some
length to our interviews.
Mr. McClintock. Now, in addition to that, are you seeing an
uptick in applications being filed for citizenship? I think I
heard testimony to that effect, but I didn't hear how big an
uptick.
Mr. Hoefer. Yes. We received a little bit under a million
applications for naturalization in 2016 and a little under a
million in 2017.
Mr. McClintock. Okay. How did that compare to, say, 10
years ago?
Mr. Hoefer. Well, we normally would average between 700,000
and 800,000 applications a year.
Mr. McClintock. So, it has gone from roughly 700,000 to
800,000 up to a million?
Mr. Hoefer. That is correct.
Mr. McClintock. So, roughly a 20-25 percent increase in the
number of people who are applying?
Mr. Hoefer. That is correct, sir.
Mr. McClintock. Okay. Now on the other side, how many
applications are you actually processing or approving, I should
say?
Mr. Valverde. I can do that. In the past fiscal year,
fiscal year 2018, we completed 750,000 approvals, and it was
closer to, yes, 850,000 completions for naturalization for
citizenship.
Mr. McClintock. Seven hundred fifty thousand approvals,
850,000 completions--
Mr. Valverde. Yes, sir.
Mr. McClintock. What were those figures, say, 10 years ago?
Mr. Valverde. I don't have them to heart, but they were
lower than that, I could say that much.
Mr. McClintock. Lower. Much lower? Significantly lower?
Mr. Valverde. I don't have the numbers.
Mr. Hoefer. We did have some years where it was higher.
When after a certain--there were increases in naturalizations
in prior years as well, going back to the '90s, and I think in
one--
Mr. McClintock. Would you say that the number of
applications that are being approved are higher or lower than
in the past?
Mr. Hoefer. I would say over the last 5 years, it has
averaged higher. There are particular years in the past where
we had more than others.
Mr. McClintock. Okay. So, the point I am trying to get at
is the amount of applications have increased dramatically, 20-
25 percent. The amount of information you have to sort through
has doubled with the doubling of the forms, and we are seeing a
substantial increase in applications of approved
naturalizations completed.
So, is the backlog then a function of those two issues,
principally more information to go through and more
applications to process?
Mr. Hoefer. Yes, I would agree with that, and so it is
partly receipts that are coming in and how long it takes us
with the resources available to us to work those cases.
Mr. McClintock. All right. Thank you.
I yield to the Ranking Member.
Ms. Lofgren. The gentleman yields back. We will now turn to
the gentleman from California, Mr. Correa.
Mr. Correa. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I want to thank our
witnesses for the good work you are doing at USCIS.
Let me follow up on some of the comments made by my
colleague from California. High, low, after 9/11, 2013, the
length of the application doubled, you said. Is that correct?
Ten to 20 pages and I can understand why. Security issues and
what have you. So, you doubled the amount of work you had to do
for a citizenship application. Yet, I would imagine that the
automation since 2013 has increased. Is that correct? The
processing?
Mr. Valverde. Yes, sir. We are--
Mr. Correa. Now, so productivity wise, in terms of each
individual, is that going up or down? Thorough processing per
individual?
Mr. Valverde. Productivity per officer has gone up this
year from last. Yes, sir.
Mr. Correa. So, it has gone up. You have about 700 plus/
minus new first slots that you have been authorized,
approximately. Correct?
Mr. Valverde. Agency wide, yes, sir.
Mr. Correa. To hire. How are you doing in terms of hiring
those individuals?
Mr. Valverde. We have made hiring a focus of ours. We have
been, in Field Operations, in the high 90 percentages of
onboard staff--
Mr. Correa. So, you are moving ahead at a pretty good pace
to hire more people?
Mr. Valverde. We are doing all we can. Yes, sir.
Mr. Correa. Thank you very much.
I say that to you before a long time ago, before I was in
the Government, I used to fill out applications for
citizenships. One of them was for my uncle. I remember, God
rest his soul, 70 years old, applied to be a U.S. citizen.
Lived here for 50 years.
As an attorney I filled out his application, waited for a
year. Called your office. They said, ``We lost the
application.'' Filled it out again, waited another year.
Application was lost.
Third time, I didn't call. I went to Los Angeles to see
what was going on, and the nice lady behind the counter said,
``Let me go find your application.'' Two hours later, she came
back. You had a special line for attorneys. She came back with
half the application and said, ``We lost the other half of the
application.''
She was very nice and said, ``Look, I am not going to make
you wait another year. Pull over to the side, here is the whole
application packet. Go fill it out.'' And 3\1/2\ years later,
we finally made him a U.S. citizen.
I am sure now we have a process system where paperwork is
at a minimum. Am I correct in assuming that?
Mr. Valverde. We have an electronic way to file, sir, but
we still have a paper-based filing as well.
Mr. Correa. Wonderful. I guess today, I am trying to figure
out, you are doing a great job, given what you have got in
front of you. We have a lot of folks that have fulfilled their
requirements to be Americans, the American dream, full U.S.
citizens. As I read through all this information, listening to
your testimony, I am trying to figure out what can we do, what
can I do to help you help those individuals that want to be
Americans fulfill that American dream of being an American?
We gave you resources. I think we have authorized new
personnel for you. You are in the process of hiring them. You
need more resources for automation to make sure you cross-check
all this information to make sure only the good people that
deserve to be Americans become Americans. What else can we do
to help you get your job done in a timely manner?
Mr. Hoefer. Well, I spoke about the training, when we hire
and the training. One of the things that would help is that we
would like to expand our training facility at FLETC, and we
have money designated for that. We need authority from Congress
to be able to expand that. So, that would really help us to get
people onboard and trained and ready to work.
Mr. Correa. Anything else? For example, hiring Border
Patrol agents has been a challenge for us because of the lie
detector test and the challenge there. You don't have anything
similar to that in terms of challenges hiring folks or any
other problems? Anything else that we can do to help you
expedite the process, reduce the backlog?
Mr. Neufeld. I will say that we are a fee-funded agency for
the most part. We get some appropriated funds. So, our ability
to hire staff is dependent on the fees that we collect, and
first, we need to collect those fees before we can spend them.
The other thing is those fees need to be set properly so they
cover our costs.
So, I guess what I would ask is that when we periodically
review our fee structure that you be supportive of the fees
that we need to set to recover our costs.
Ms. Lofgren. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Correa. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Lofgren. The gentlelady from Arizona is recognized for
5 minutes.
Ms. Lesko. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Valverde, has anyone in this Administration told you to
slow down processing citizenship cases?
Mr. Valverde. No, ma'am.
Ms. Lesko. Has anyone in this Administration told you to
slow down any case processing?
Mr. Valverde. No.
Ms. Lesko. Mr. Valverde, what do you say to those who claim
you are trying to slow processing on purpose to prevent
citizenship applicants from getting naturalized and becoming
voters?
Mr. Valverde. I would say that the data and the evidence
show the opposite. I am lucky each day to be surrounded by
colleagues who come to work to process immigration requests as
efficiently and with the utmost integrity as we can. They have
spent their careers bringing people to the franchise.
Whether they register to vote or not is another thing, but
they have spent their careers helping people become citizens,
and it is some of the proudest work we do.
Ms. Lesko. Thank you, Mr. Valverde.
Isn't it true that during fiscal year 2018, your agency
naturalized more people than in any of the previous 5 years?
Mr. Valverde. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Lesko. Okay. Mr. Neufeld, in the testimony in the next
panel, Mr. Cohen will testify, I believe, that USCIS's new RFE/
NOID policy means that any small mistake or lack of information
on an application could result in a denial without giving the
applicant a chance to correct the mistake. Is this an accurate
description of the policy?
Mr. Neufeld. So, a Request for Evidence is something that
we issue when the evidence that was submitted is insufficient
to demonstrate that they are eligible for the benefit that they
are seeking. We issue Requests for Evidence for the purpose of
allowing the applicant or petitioner to basically perfect their
filing.
The previous change that happened, there had been a policy
that said for the most part that where the evidence does not
support an approval that, but for a couple of circumstances,
that the officer should in all circumstances issue a Request
for Evidence or a Notice of Intent to Deny.
This change that you are referring to, or that the witness
is referring to, is the change in the policy to clarify that
where the record appears to be complete, that a decision can be
rendered on the record without having to issue a Request for
Evidence or issue a Notice of Intent to Deny in all
circumstances.
Ms. Lesko. Thank you.
Mr. Hoefer, is it? Hoefer. The House recently passed H.R.
6, the American Dream and Promise Act, which would provide
green cards and a path to citizenship to millions of illegal
immigrants. I am not going to ask for your thought on the bill
because you probably can't say that anyway. I would like to ask
you what the implication is going to be on operational aspects
from that bill if it passed and became law.
Mr. Hoefer. Certainly. Well, I think a lot of it depends on
how it is implemented and what the rules are for this, meaning
if there were 2 million people and 2 million applications,
obviously that would have an immediate effect. We talked before
about the lag. So, if 2 million people showed up in a given
year and we haven't had the hiring and the money up front,
certainly it would have an impact on the backlogs.
Ms. Lesko. Thank you, Madam Chair. I don't have any more
questions.
Mr. Ranking Member, did you want any of my time?
Mr. Buck. No.
Ms. Lesko. Okay. I yield back my time.
Ms. Lofgren. The gentlelady yields back. The gentlelady
from Texas is recognized.
Ms. Garcia. Thank you--this microphone. Hello? There it
goes.
Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the panel Members
for being here today.
Obviously, we are here because of the unconscionable
backlogs that many of us are experiencing throughout the
country. Yet, this Administration is adding to the problem by
imposing new hurdles for applicants in every step of the
process.
The Greater Houston area, one of the fastest-growing and
most diverse regions, which I represent, certainly appreciates
the contributions that diversity brings to the local economy
and culture. However, Houston's diverse economy and culture is
greatly affected by these processing delays.
On March 28th, Congressman Olson, also from Houston, and I
led a letter from the Houston delegation to the former
Director, Mr. Cissna, outlining the harmful impact of these
delays in the Houston community. Democrats and Republicans
alike are concerned about the future of our families and
businesses if the backlog problem continues. I might add, this
letter was signed by all Members of the Houston area
delegation.
According to the most recent USCIS data, the average time
for an I-485 or green card application in Houston is currently
at between 15 and 28 months. For an N-400 application for
naturalization, the backlog varies between 14 to 21 months. For
the I-765, the employment authorization, the delay can be up to
5 months, causing loss of wages for many applicants.
The uncertainty experienced among applicants and those who
depend on their contributions is disconcerting and
unacceptable. Though we understand that staffing is up in the
agency, it is a long process, requirements of vetting for
candidates, and we think that, of course, all can do better.
We have identified the problem, and now we must invest in
solutions. Regrettably, Madam Chair, one of the questions we
asked Mr. Cissna was do you need additional statutory direction
or funding to better respond in a timely way? He actually
answered no, although USCIS appreciates the offer for
assistance.
I want to begin my questions with just that question to the
three panel Members today. Do you need additional statutory
direction or funding? All three of you, just yes or no.
Mr. Valverde. As my colleague said before, we are a fee-
funded agency. So, we would appreciate the support when we
adjust our fees the next time, so that we get the right kind of
funding for the case work that we need to do.
Ms. Garcia. So, your answering is yes?
Mr. Valverde. I am answering we would appreciate the
support as we adjust our fees.
Ms. Garcia. Well, I am glad you are saying yes, because I
couldn't understand why the Director--of course, he is no
longer here--is saying no. Because it seems to me that we could
do all that we can in providing support, but we need solutions
coming from your agency.
Now, all three of you are career, right? You are not
political appointees?
Mr. Neufeld. Correct.
Ms. Garcia. Right. So, you know how this works. Many of you
have been here through many years. Like Mr. Hoefer, you
identified and said that the increases tend to come in terms of
patterns right before an election or before a fee increase. Is
that correct? Did I hear you correctly?
Mr. Hoefer. That is correct, ma'am.
Ms. Garcia. All right. We have an election coming. Have you
already put in place some planning and processes to prepare for
that, knowing that there will be an increase?
Mr. Valverde. Yes, ma'am. Within Field Operations, we
recognize the trend just that you referred to, that leading up
to the election years, there is often an increase in
applications.
We also recognize the fact that the growth in receipts is
not impacted equally across the country. So, some of the work
that we are doing right now is to try and ensure that the
impacts of receipts, the impacts of pre-election application
growth are addressed where they are most critical. That is to
say, where there are places like Houston and others where the
processing times are higher than we would like, and higher than
some other places, we are doing the work there to make sure
that an applicant's experience in Houston is more similar to an
average applicant's experience across the Nation.
Ms. Garcia. Well, what really concerns me, too, is some of
the things that we are hearing about some of the changes.
Number one, the fee increases. Number two is the idea that
people may not get their interviews in the same location where
they made their application, but they have to travel a great
distance. A couple of other things that just seem to be
barriers rather than a path to getting the application done.
So, what is it that you are proposing that would actually
help people get their applications timely processed and
completed?
Ms. Lofgren. The gentlelady's time has expired, but the
witnesses will please answer.
Mr. Valverde. Thank you.
It is a number of things. First, with respect to the
changing of appointment jurisdiction, we have looked at the
map, and there are locations where there are two field offices
that are close and we can move a zip code or something like
that, and that enables a group of applicants to have their case
seen sooner, that is why we have done that.
So, those individuals, should they be able to travel, would
get their case seen sooner. It is for the purpose of getting
the benefit faster.
We are doing a number of things, as I have said in my
testimony, so I won't repeat it here, around process reform,
hiring, and other things to help everyone's case go faster.
Ms. Garcia. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield
back.
Ms. Lofgren. The gentleman from North Dakota is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Armstrong. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Before we get into that, I just want to clarify, so do we
need additional congressional funding on top of fee funding?
Mr. Neufeld. I will take that one. I think what we are
saying is that one thing we should clarify, none of us manage
or oversee the budget for USCIS. As an executive, I am aware of
some of the constraints. At present, we are unable to hire to
the staffing levels that our workload would support because of
our fiscal, budget constraints.
So, I think it is safe to say that additional money would
help. The source of that money, whether it is appropriated or
fee funds, as an operator, it doesn't matter. It would just be
helpful to have the staff.
Mr. Armstrong. Then, I also appreciate the talk about
significant distance. I married an immigrant, and we lived in
rural North Dakota, and this is in 2004. The process, in and of
itself, is daunting, and this is coming from two pretty
educated people. I had just graduated law school. She was in
law school.
The bureaucracy is mind-numbing when you drive 350 miles to
Minneapolis and show up for a hearing that was scheduled by
Immigration, and get there and they tell you to go home because
they are not ready for you. So, you have to turn around and
come back. It is not like going around the block.
I practiced in this area. Our firm has practiced in this
area through three Presidents now--two Republicans and one
Democrat. So, I appreciate the fact that we are talking about
the history of this, because this didn't all start on the first
week in January of 2017. Throughout the campaign, throughout
our office, I have met with people who are waiting on 2008 visa
permits to be processed.
These are researchers who work at the Langdon Research
Center in North Dakota. Not exactly--there are five employees
total, and the frustration level for not only them, but also
for their employers and the community at large. When you have a
community of under 1,200 people, they become part of it.
So, I am glad we are having this conversation, but I do
have one pretty specific question relating to EB-5 background
or EB-5, the rules. That is just foreign nationals can apply
for permanent residence if they make necessary investment in a
company--in targeted employment areas.
I know there is a Rule in place, which, as proposed, the
EB-5 modernization regulation would increase the minimum
investment amount significantly, transfer targeted employment
areas designation from the State economic development agencies
to the Department of Homeland Security, and create priority
data retention for EB-5 investors to use the priority data as
previously approved, and establish more Federal oversight in
regional centers, et cetera.
USCIS submitted the proposed EB-5 immigration investor
program modernization in February of 2019. Correct?
Mr. Valverde. Yes, sir.
Mr. Armstrong. OMB finished its review of EB-5 in June?
Mr. Valverde. I understand they just recently finished its
review, yes, sir.
Mr. Armstrong. Do you have a status update on where that is
at?
Mr. Valverde. It is still in process. So, it has not been
published yet, as you know. I would expect that it would be
published relatively soon, but I don't have a date to give you,
sir.
Mr. Armstrong. Relatively soon. That is a pretty--we like
to use that term, but we don't--I mean, so months?
Mr. Valverde. I would think it is less than months, sir.
Mr. Armstrong. Okay. Thank you.
I don't have any other questions.
Mr. Buck. Mr. Armstrong?
Mr. Armstrong. Yes?
Mr. Buck. I want to clarify one point with Mr. Neufeld and
Mr. Valverde. You answered the question earlier, Mr. Valverde,
about whether you believe it would be beneficial for Congress
to appropriate money, and you didn't use a ``yes'' or a ``no.''
Then words were put in your mouth, and the answer was, well, I
believe that is a ``yes.''
I didn't hear a ``yes,'' and I want to make sure there are
benefits, are there not, to having a fee-funded system, as
opposed to an appropriations system for your agencies.
Mr. Valverde. I am not an expert in that area. I know
enough to know that there are some profound differences, and I
guess that is as much as I can say without getting myself--
Mr. Buck. You just don't like yes or no answers, do you?
[Laughter.]
Ms. Lofgren. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Buck. Yes.
Ms. Lofgren. I would just note that really these are
career, and they don't have really the luxury of opining. That
is a policy decision for the Congress to make. I don't think
anyone is proposing that we move USCIS away from a fee-funded
agency, just to clarify.
Mr. Buck. I appreciate the chair clarifying because I think
it is important. There is a perception that your agencies are
fee funded because the individuals that are applying pay those
fees and not U.S. taxpayers, and I think that is an important
perception for many in this country, and I appreciate the fact
that you are operating under a fee schedule.
I yield the balance of my time.
Mr. Armstrong. I yield back.
Ms. Lofgren. He yields back, and the gentleman's time is
expired. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Neguse. Thank you, Madam Chair, for holding this
important hearing.
I just want to follow up on a point that was made by some
of my colleagues a moment ago because this isn't just about
money. My sense, I just want a baseline set of facts, from
fiscal year 2018 to fiscal year 2017, there was a 13 percent
decrease, my understanding, in the volume of applications
submitted. Does that sound about right?
Mr. Hoefer. I think that sounds about right, yes.
Mr. Neguse. From fiscal year 2018 to fiscal year 2017, your
budget had a 6 percent increase. Does that sound about right?
Mr. Hoefer. Yes.
Mr. Neguse. So, in FTEs precisely. So, I am not making the
case that there may be a resource allocation issue, but to the
point that my colleague from Arizona made earlier when she
posed the question to you as to whether or not you had been
directed by anyone to slow walk applications and so forth, the
central question, which I think you have answered in your
written testimony, is the promulgation of various policies that
your agency has adopted in the last 2 years since the Trump
Administration took office, and perhaps at their behest, has
that exacerbated the backlog?
We understand that there was a backlog before January 1st
of 2017. I think your written testimony confirms that, yes,
that is one of the reasons that there is a backlog. Accurate to
say?
Mr. Hoefer. Well, let me go back to the question about the
decrease in the receipts. I think, as I testified, what
happened is there is some lag. When we get the receipts--
Mr. Neguse. I understand that, Mr. Hoefer. I am asking, it
is a simple question. Again, if you want, I guess we will let
your written testimony speak for itself.
There are a variety of policies, in addition to a number of
other factors, that have lengthened processing times. That is
not a fair statement to make?
Mr. Hoefer. No, that is fair.
Mr. Neguse. Okay. So, that is just baseline set of facts
that we ought to operate under for purposes of this hearing.
I would say this. I appreciate the work that you do, and I
appreciate your service, and I appreciate you appearing here
before us today. We have a serious problem. This backlog, which
I understand has existed for quite some time but has been
exacerbated over the course of the last 2 fiscal years in
particular, is not sustainable.
A 344 percent increase from the net backlog of cases in
2014, when you look at a 5-year window. In Colorado, in my
State--and I know the Ranking Member, I suspect, appreciates
this, as well, is a long queue that is building and building.
So, I appreciate your efforts, but I think we ought--the point
that my colleague from Texas made. We ought to be focusing on
solutions to these problems.
One of the issues that I want to ask you about, the backlog
reduction plan that you have submitted or the summary that you
submitted to this Committee lists as one of your goals or, I
should say, one of your initiatives that you intend to
implement to address the backlog--it is number five in your
list--redefining processing time goals to better reflect true
cycle times, which I understand, based on your written
testimony, was a recommendation made by the DHS Office of
Inspector General.
The way I read this is what you are saying is that right
now, because the agency is unable to fulfill the 120-day goal
for a variety of different applications, permanent resident
applications, and so forth, you intend to simply change the
goal and instead of saying it is going to be 120 days, make it
180 days. I could just tell you from my perspective, having run
a regulatory agency back in Colorado with a much smaller $90
million budget, 600 employees, appearing before our legislative
committees of jurisdiction, I would not be received well if I
said, well, I am going to simply change the processing time
because we can't meet it.
Anyone have a way to explain that?
Mr. Valverde. I will respond to that briefly. The OIG
statement, to me, said that the 120-day goal of the things that
the agency must do to process an application for adjustment of
status, they are not feasible in 120 days, all the background
checks, fingerprint, employment interview, et cetera. Thus, we
should go back and give the public a better expectation.
From my perspective as an operator, one of the things over
the years that has taken time away from our core adjudicative
functions is responding to people who reasonably say, ``When is
my case going to be due?''
Mr. Neguse. To that point, I would say I certainly agree
that perhaps better responsiveness and increased communication
throughout the process. I appreciate what you are doing with
respect to the online programs that you have mentioned
launching in your backlog reduction plan. So, that would
accomplish what you are after.
Extending the timeline so that it is ``more realistic'' to
me is not an appropriate response to what is a critical
backlog.
Last, I will just say is you mentioned, Mr. Valverde, in
respect to fees, right? Who pays your fees? Who pays the fees?
Mr. Valverde. Our salaries come from the user fees.
Mr. Neguse. User fees, and what do you call them?
Mr. Valverde. Applicants and petitioners.
Mr. Neguse. Well, for the existence or since your agency
was founded, we called them customers. That term was removed
from your mission statement, as was the term ``nation of
immigrants'' a year ago. In my view, some of this is cultural.
To the extent we don't see individuals as customers, that this
agency is set to serve as a result of the law that was passed
by Congress back in 2002, I think it implicates the way in
which we look at these delays--
Ms. Lofgren. The gentleman's--
Mr. Neguse. --and the plans that we make to comport with
them. So, with that, I would yield back.
Ms. Lofgren. The gentleman's time has expired. We turn now
to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. Steube. Thank you, Madam Chair.
My first set of questions are for Mr. Valverde. In his
testimony for the next panel that is after you, Mr. Cohen
highlights the denaturalization work that USCIS is undertaking.
Isn't it true that this work focuses on individuals who
fraudulently obtain citizenship and that the work began under
the Obama Administration? Can you explain what you are doing as
it relates to that?
Mr. Valverde. Absolutely. The work began in the late 2008
or 2009 timeframe and then was highlighted in an OIG report in
2016 when USCIS really got involved. The short summary of the
work is that in the course of uploading old paper files into
our electronic fingerprint database, we started getting matches
with different sets of biographic information.
So, what we were seeing, in maybe simpler terms, is two
different identities connected to the same fingerprints. What
we saw is many of them had, unbeknownst to us, gone through the
naturalization program and procured citizenship.
So, the work we started in 2016 and we continue today is to
get those cases together. If it is two files, or three files in
some instances, compare the records, and find the individuals
who obtained the benefit we think through fraud and write that
up. There are some that we don't think was the case, but for
the ones that we do, we write that up and do an affidavit and
work with partners at Justice for them to do the
denaturalization process in the courts.
Mr. Steube. Okay. Also, in his testimony, Mr. Cohen points
out that the USCIS adjudicators are ``asking for more proof of
marriage if the applicant is applying based on their
marriage.'' If an applicant is applying based on their
marriage, doesn't it only make sense that your adjudicators
would ask questions about the marriage?
I assume the purpose of these questions is to find out if
there is fraud, and is marriage fraud a real issue that you see
in the Department?
Mr. Valverde. Yes, I won't comment on specific cases, but,
marriage fraud is an issue that we come across on a daily basis
in many of our offices. It is something that we give our
officers special training for so that they can pay attention to
ensuring that it is a bona fide relationship that forms the
basis of either the request for permanent residence or
citizenship.
Mr. Steube. Well, I have even seen in my own district a
case that was brought to my attention where the parties were
allegedly married, and both the alleged wife was living with
another man, and the alleged husband was living with another
woman. So, it is definitely an issue. At least I have seen it
in my district in the short time that I have been elected to
Congress in the last 6 months.
So, I certainly think there is fraud as it relates to
getting married and trying to get citizenship and access into
our country.
In her testimony for the next panel, Ms. Lindt refers to
interviews for individuals seeking green cards through their
employers as ``unnecessary.'' Getting a green card comes with
significant legal benefits and rights. Is that correct?
Mr. Valverde. Yes, sir.
Mr. Steube. Would you agree that ensuring an alien is, in
fact, eligible for a green card is important and required by
law?
Mr. Valverde. Yes.
Mr. Steube. Are the interviews for employment-based green
cards adding unreasonable delays to the adjudication?
Mr. Valverde. In my opinion, no, sir. I think it is a
measure of integrity to have a face-to-face conversation and
ascertain evidence about their eligibility for the benefit for
someone who wants to remain here permanently, to live and
travel, and work here.
Mr. Steube. I have questions for Mr. Neufeld. How much time
do I have left? Because I don't see--
Ms. Lofgren. You have a minute and 20 seconds.
Mr. Steube. Okay. Mr. Neufeld, isn't it true that if an
adjudicator is adjudicating an application or a petition that
needs additional information to make a decision, the
adjudicator has only two options, either issue a Request for
Evidence or deny the application altogether. Is that correct?
Mr. Neufeld. Essentially. They can also issue a Notice of
Intent to Deny if it would afford them an opportunity to
respond before they would make an actual decision.
Mr. Steube. So, they could have an opportunity to respond,
but that is it.
Mr. Neufeld. Yes.
Mr. Steube. Okay. In the latest USCIS ombudsman report, the
Congress recommends that USCIS emphasize that petitioners and
applicants verify the addresses provided for all forms filed
with the USCIS. How much of a problem is it that people do not
provide their current address?
Mr. Neufeld. I think it is more of a problem that their
address might change, and so our records don't reflect the
correct address. In the employment context, occasionally we
will find where the attorney's address or the employer's
address will be used as if it is the beneficiary's address.
Then that can create some problems with us trying to sort
through that when we adjudicate the case.
Mr. Steube. So, if it is that type of scenario and they are
not updating you of their new address, that obviously is
delaying the delivery of their work permits and other documents
from your agency?
Mr. Neufeld. Yes.
Mr. Steube. How am I doing?
Ms. Lofgren. Your time has expired.
Mr. Steube. Okay. All right. There you go.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Lofgren. The gentleman yields back. The gentlelady from
Florida is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Thank you. Hello?
I think that an efficient and service-oriented immigration
system is vital to businesses, for our economy, mostly also for
families that are living here in the United States. It allows
families to be reunited with loved ones, and it enhances the
diversity which makes this Nation great.
I am actually a naturalized citizen. I remember going
through the process, and I am so grateful that I was allowed
that opportunity. It did take years before we were eligible and
allowed to become U.S. citizens.
In recent years, we have seen that the backlog of cases at
the USCIS has exploded. From 2016 to 2018, the net backlog of
cases rose by nearly 1.4 million cases. In 2018, USCIS received
a million fewer cases than the year before, but the average
case processing delay continues to rise.
The staggering backlog of cases at USCIS has created
challenges for businesses, universities, hospitals, and mostly
families, like I mentioned. Despite this, earlier this year,
the Administration announced that USCIS planned to close all
international field offices. These offices are critical
resources in processing refugee applications, family-based visa
applications, and other immigration matters.
My district in Miami serves a large population of Cuban
Americans. From one day to the next, the USCIS field office in
Havana was closed. As a result, families are now separated. I
hear on a daily basis, hundreds of some of my community Members
that are writing to us, calling to us. They tweet asking for a
result for this issue. They tell me that they wouldn't have
left Cuba if they knew that their sons and daughters would not
be able to unite them here in Miami.
So, I wanted to first ask Mr. Valverde, who made the
decision to close the office in Havana to process the parole
and family-related visas for the Cubans that are applying for
these visas?
Mr. Valverde. I don't have the first answer to that. I
understand it was the former Director, but I wasn't--
Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Okay. So, now that the Havana office
is closed, what is the process for processing these
applications and getting these families back together?
Mr. Valverde. I think none of us on the panel are working
in our overseas offices Administration. So, we would have to
get back to you. I do understand that the Havana office was
closed after the attacks on our employees.
Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Yes, but there was never any evidence
that it had to do with the government there, and now thousands
of families actually are suffering the consequences of that
closure without any response. So, if you could please provide
me with that information within the next 2 weeks as to what the
plan is to process those applications that were already
started.
Just as a general matter, how does closing a USCIS office
impact the backlog the agency is seeing? Mr. Neufeld?
Mr. Neufeld. As my colleague mentioned, none of us here
oversee the overseas offices. So, we are a little bit
challenged with this. As a service center executive, I would
anticipate that some of that work that is presently performed
overseas may be coming to the service centers, and we would
need to prepare for that.
So, for instance, I am aware that on occasion, family-based
petitions might be adjudicated onsite at an international
office, and I would anticipate that work would be coming to a
service center instead.
Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. So, who made the decision in the
agency to close all these field offices, international field
offices?
Mr. Neufeld. Again, that is a bit of a challenge for us. As
I understand it, the decision hasn't been finalized in terms of
specifically which offices are going to be closed.
Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. You are aware that a lot of these
international field offices process international adoptions,
they support refugee resettlement, and they handle family
reunification applications.
In addition, in response to Mr. Steube's concern on fraud,
they actually also deal with some of these fraudulent cases.
So, I am concerned that there is not enough preparation in here
nationally how we are going to prepare to close these
international field offices.
Has USCIS or DHS conducted a cost-benefit analysis or
otherwise studied the potential impact of these closures on the
processing of refugees, adoptions, and other services? Is there
a study that has been conducted?
Mr. Neufeld. I don't know.
Ms. Lofgren. The gentlelady's time has expired.
Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Thank you very much. I yield back.
Ms. Lofgren. The gentlelady from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. Escobar. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Many thanks to those of you on the panel for being here and
thanks for your service.
We have seen a theme this week with the hearings that we
have had. We had a hearing yesterday on the horrific
overcrowding in the El Paso processing facilities, as
documented by the Office of the Inspector General. Today, as
laid out by my colleague, the gentleman from Colorado, we have
seen also a terrible backlog that has been exacerbated by
policy.
During yesterday's hearing, what finally surfaced was that
policy by this Administration was making a challenging
situation worse. I believe that the same applies here.
Just as an example of what we continue to have to face, in
October of 2018, USCIS published a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking that would dramatically heighten the standard for
determining whether an individual is likely to become a public
charge. In the background information on the proposed rule, DHS
admitted that the new Rule could lead to worse health outcomes,
increased prevalence of communicable diseases, increased rates
of poverty and housing instability, and reduced productivity
and educational attainment.
Setting aside the fact that the Rule as proposed is illegal
and exceeds the agency's statutory authority, I would like to
ask either Mr. Neufeld or Mr. Valverde the following questions.
When can we expect final action from the agency on this rule?
Mr. Valverde. I don't have a date on that. It is still
going through the rulemaking process.
Ms. Escobar. Okay. If finalized as proposed, will this new
Rule increase the amount of time it takes to adjudicate
applications for adjustment of status and other benefits? If
so, what is the estimated additional time burden?
Mr. Valverde. I will take that as well. The Rule change,
like any change, will add a complexity as we train people and
try to roll it out. I don't have an estimate right now because
the Rule has not been finalized, and we don't have the final
language that we will have to apply to our cases.
Ms. Escobar. Will you be evaluating how much extra time it
will take, what kind of a burden it will add to the agency?
Mr. Valverde. Absolutely. We evaluate either in the 2-year,
every 2-year fee process how long it takes us to do all our
actions, or in our annual budget process, that is how we
allocate the staff that we have to do the work.
Ms. Escobar. I would request that in your subsequent
budget, once the Rule has been applied, that you please make a
note of that, of the additional time and the addition in
staffing that would be required to deal with the rule, please.
Also, what steps has USCIS taken to prepare for the
additional burdens that will be imposed on the adjudicatory
process as a result of this rule, and what is the plan to
ensure that processing delays on affected applications stay
within reasonable timeframes?
As Mr. Neguse pointed out, that doesn't mean changing the
goalposts. That means providing customer service in the
appropriate time.
Mr. Valverde. As I mentioned a minute ago, as soon as we
get the final Rule and we can build some processes and
procedures around it, we will have a better sense to answer
your questions with some more specificities. Certainly, as we
are aware of the Rule and as we have seen the proposed rule, we
can make some guesses. So, we are doing our planning. We are
taking that into account in our budget process this year.
At this point, though, we are making some assumptions about
application rates and other impacts that we are doing our
planning as we speak right now, and we will see when the Rule
is finalized what its timeframe is and how our assumptions are
played out in reality.
Ms. Escobar. If finalized as proposed, the new Rule would
require significant training for adjudicators who will be
required to gain new expertise in complex areas of public
benefits, including State Medicaid programs. However, the
proposed Rule includes no time or cost estimates of the
necessary training.
Has USCIS estimated the costs for training and implementing
the new rule? If so, what are these estimated costs?
Mr. Valverde. I don't have an estimate for you, but I would
say that one of the first things that I did when I joined the
agency in 1997 was do the public charge Rule that we did at
that time, based on the 1996 act. It is very similar. We had to
teach our adjudicators to understand what public benefits were
and how they impacted those benefits.
We do something very similar, and I say that to illustrate
that we are accustomed to policy changes or statutory changes
or process changes and bringing our people through that with a
goal of implementing it as efficiently as we can and as
consistently as we can across the hundreds of thousands of
applications that we will get.
So, we are working on it now.
Ms. Escobar. Your customers will have to shoulder the
burden of the added cost. Correct?
Ms. Lofgren. The gentlelady's time has expired. The
gentleman may answer.
Mr. Valverde. Correct.
Ms. Lofgren. The gentlelady from Pennsylvania is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Ms. Scanlon. Thank you.
I just wanted to make clear that CIS is the agency charged
with processing applications of people who are trying to follow
our rules and become legal residents or get work authorization
or become citizens, right?
Mr. Hoefer. Yes.
Ms. Scanlon. Okay. So, they are not people hiding from the
Government. They actually are providing a lot of information to
the Government as they seek to have those applications
adjudicated, right? Mr. Hoefer, I will let you speak for the
group.
Mr. Hoefer. Yes.
Ms. Scanlon. Thank you.
Until they get citizenship, they can't vote. They can't
receive Social Security benefits usually. Sometimes people
can't work. I mean, there are a whole host of benefits that are
attendant upon becoming either a legal resident or a citizen.
Correct?
Mr. Hoefer. Yes.
Ms. Scanlon. Okay. We talked a little bit about the delays
and some of the factors that led to the burgeoning backlog, and
I think you mentioned the increase rather than decrease in
citizenship applications following the 2016 presidential
election, right?
Mr. Hoefer. That is correct, yes.
Ms. Scanlon. Okay. So, after a presidential election, there
is usually some kind of drop-off?
Mr. Hoefer. Yes.
Ms. Scanlon. I can help you with why that happened.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Scanlon. As a legal services attorney, immediately
following the election in 2016, we started encouraging people
to obtain citizenship if they were eligible due to the anti-
immigrant rhetoric coming from the Administration. I think the
Administration helped deliver that message pretty forcefully
when the first executive orders to come out of this White House
were to ban travel by people who were from predominantly Muslim
nations and to completely upend our deportation priorities,
going from just excluding ``bad hombres,'' as one might call
them, to anyone who did not have permanent legal status under
our laws.
So, there was a huge incentive for people to try to file
their paperwork and get whatever status they were able to.
I don't think you mentioned some other things. One thing
that I noted in going through some of the testimony, the
Inspector General did mention that the electronic documentation
services, ELIS, I believe it is called, has had some serious
deficiencies that have also slowed down processing. Correct?
Whose is that? Mr. Valverde?
Mr. Valverde. I can speak to that because we used it for
citizenship and also for replacement of green cards. Now,
citizenship in the--I will get my years wrong--in the 2015,
2016 timeframe, when we were implementing it, it was a much
slower implementation because of some of those difficulties
that you are referring to.
Ms. Scanlon. Okay. The Inspector General's report was from
November 2017, at which point those difficulties were
continuing, weren't they?
Mr. Valverde. I believe that is the right timeframe.
Shortly after that, we had pivoted back to using the system,
and we have been using it since.
Ms. Scanlon. So, you had to resume using a system that you
have been trying to upgrade because of deficiencies in the new
system?
Mr. Valverde. We had started to use it and decided it was
better to fix it and pause for a while and then resume using it
when it was working the way we intended it to.
Ms. Scanlon. That is during a period of time that was
central to when this backlog started to really explode. Isn't
that right?
Mr. Valverde. It was while the backlogs were growing. I
would note that we had a parallel system, the older system we
call CLAIMS 4--without getting too much into the jargon--that
we continued to use. So, we did not sit on our hands. We had
work to do during that time as we improved the ELIS system.
Ms. Scanlon. Okay. It contributed to the backlog, right?
Mr. Valverde. I think that is fair.
Ms. Scanlon. Okay. What you didn't mention was there have
been a lot of policy changes during the course of this
Administration that have impacted your ability to process
applications. Isn't that correct?
Mr. Neufeld. There have been a number of policy changes
that impact them.
Ms. Scanlon. They would include additional REIs--or RFEs,
Requests for Evidence, that were not previously required?
Mr. Neufeld. The policies didn't direct that we would issue
more Requests for Evidence, no.
Ms. Scanlon. There has been some suggestion that the
Requests for Evidence have become duplicative in some cases.
You haven't heard complaints that you are requesting evidence
in duplicative manners?
Mr. Neufeld. Oh, that sometimes a request will be issued
and then followed by a request for the same evidence?
Ms. Scanlon. Yes.
Mr. Neufeld. I am sure that in the millions of cases we
process, that mistakes are made. That is not a common--
Ms. Scanlon. As someone who has had to submit their
attorney representation file six or eight times on the same
case, I think there are some issues with that.
Another policy that would seem to have increased time for
response would be eliminating the 90-day deadline for
processing employment authorizations, right? If there is no
longer a deadline, can take longer?
Mr. Neufeld. No, that didn't drive how much longer it takes
to process cases.
Ms. Scanlon. Okay.
Ms. Lofgren. The gentlelady's time has expired, but have we
got an answer to the last question?
Ms. Scanlon. Okay. Thank you.
Ms. Lofgren. Okay. Then I will--the Ranking Member has said
he will pass on this round of questions. So, I will go to my
questions, and I think we are expecting a vote on the floor
very soon. So, we will have to come back for the second panel
after that vote.
I am concerned about how the processes have changed and the
impact on the Administration of the benefits program.
Obviously, everybody wants a system that is--avoids fraud and
adheres to the requirements of the statute and the like. I just
have some questions about the impact in certain cases and where
the delay really eliminates the value of the program itself.
For example, the OPT program--Optional Practical Training
program--by regulation, the earliest that a student can apply
for OPT is 90 days before the end of the educational program.
Now, I have heard that the delays are so extreme, 5 months or
more, that in some cases you have got a student who has
graduated from college. They are going to go on to their Ph.D.
They have got their internship.
The internship is over before they even get the approval of
OPT to do it. So, the whole idea of having this program is
undercut by the delay, and so you sort of wonder what is being
achieved here other than to undercut what the agency wants to
do because of the delay.
I have concerns about what is happening on the employment
side. We have had a number of questions on the family side,
which are very important. I am seeing from the statistics that
nearly 50 percent of all H-1B petitions received RFEs in the
second quarter of 2019, and I am wondering why.
I will give you an example. I come from Silicon Valley. I
recently had a casual conversation with somebody I have known
for many years, a serial entrepreneur. He has been CEO of very
large companies, and now he has got a startup.
He had an H-1B visa holder that was renewing the H-1B.
Instead of getting the renewal, he got a question from USCIS
was this guy's Ph.D. really well fitted to the job? His
question was, what would the USCIS know about that Ph.D. versus
him as the employer?
Secondly, why this big study on a renewal of an H-1B? He
said what changed? Was their first process wrong? People are
just feeling jerked around, for lack of a better term. What we
have got are Canadian recruiters coming into American tech
centers and luring people away.
The tech economy in Toronto is growing faster than the tech
economy in Silicon Valley and Washington. Now, a lot of people
think it is because of USCIS and our immigration policies.
Can you tell me about why we are doing the RFEs that we are
doing in the H-1B program for renewals in particular?
Mr. Neufeld. So, that one is mine. I can tell you that a
number of changes have been made affecting H-1B processing over
the last couple of years, and I am sure you are familiar with
them. So, when there is a change that is introduced, we have to
first train our folks, but we also have to educate the public
on what the requirements are as we now understand them.
So, whenever that happens, regardless of what context, it
is pretty predictable that we will have an increase in Requests
for Evidence, perhaps an increase in denials. Usually,
overtime, as the public becomes familiar with what the
requirements are and as our adjudicators become more
proficient, then we usually will see that the requests are--the
impact of those changes to become more stable.
Ms. Lofgren. Let me ask you another question. Somebody said
why don't we have some judgment being shown in these cases? We
know that there are entities that abuse the H-1B program, and
there is not going to be a single person on this panel that
says don't scrutinize that situation. We all agree on that.
Then you have got situations where that is not the case,
and you have people who are being denied. Then they appeal, and
they win their appeals every single time. So, what has happened
is you have just added money and cost, delay for no outcome. Is
there any analysis going on on where the appeals are always
successful, and the denials are always wrong and to do some
assessment on what you are doing here?
Mr. Neufeld. So, I won't say that there has been a study of
the decisions coming from the AAO, but I will tell you that as
we receive decisions from the AAO that overturn the decision of
the adjudicator, we do review those and determine whether is it
a training issue, or is it some other guidance that needs to be
clarified, or what have you?
Ms. Lofgren. Just a final question. I have also received a
lot of complaints about the use of denials for FTEs, as
compared to the more informal Notice of Intent process that
used to be more prevalent. For example, I have had tech people
say there was a clerical error on the application. Instead of
calling up, saying was it this date or that date or was there a
typo on this line, they requested evidence. Or they deny it,
even worse. So, you have to go through a whole expensive
process.
Why is that? What is the value in that?
Mr. Neufeld. So, I think this gets back to the change in
policy that we were discussing previously, and the prior policy
did require that pretty much in every circumstance, even if the
record seemed to be fully there, that a Request for Evidence
would be issued, and the policy change then allowed for folks
to go straight to a decision if they felt that the record is
complete.
I don't know--again, I don't think we have done a study to
determine the impact as far as how many cases have gone
straight to denial, as opposed to having a Request for Evidence
issued in the interim. I would imagine that we could get data
on that.
Ms. Lofgren. Well, since I have asked others to keep within
their 5 minutes, my 5 minutes is up. So, I will note that we
have also been called to a vote.
We have additional questions. Oh, Sheila, you came in
later. Before we end this hearing, let me turn to Ms. Jackson
Lee for her 5 minutes, and then we will have enough time to get
to the floor.
The gentlelady from Texas is recognized.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank the chair, and I thank you for
holding this hearing.
I want to just, to the witnesses, USCIS has acknowledged
that some policy changes have slowed processing and increased
the overall case backlog. Has USCIS, and I know we have had
probably a series of questions like this, made any efforts to
improve data collection and analysis to better understand the
impact of future policy changes on processing time and case
backlog?
Mr. Hoefer. We do reviews going--looking back in time to
see all the policies' effects, and certainly when we have
information about the various policies, we try to make
estimates of how long things are going to take. So, we
regularly do reviews every year of this nature.
Ms. Jackson Lee. So, what is your backlog now? If you said
you had to give a landscape across the Nation of how many
backlog cases you are dealing with, do you have a handle on
that?
Mr. Hoefer. Yes, we have 2.4 million cases in backlog, and
overall, we have about 5.9 million cases pending.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Those individuals, do they have a document
indicating pending case? Are they subject to the actions of
immigration enforcers because they are not statused, or are you
continuing to provide them with updated paperwork that their
present status is due to your backlog?
Mr. Neufeld. I can take that. So, everybody who files a
petition or application with us will receive a receipt, and
that will indicate that their case is pending. Depending on
what they are applying for, that might provide them status or
some protection from removal. It depends really on what their
status was before they applied, what the status is that they
are seeking.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Employment authorization delays have been
substantial. Delays in employment authorization have
significant impact on many different stakeholders and can
result in prolonged benching or even job loss. Families are put
in disarray because families are dependent on the person
seeking the employment status.
Do you have any way of channeling the employment request?
Because these people will have a legitimate base of income.
They have got family Members that are dependent on them. Is
there any way to stovepipe those requests?
Mr. Neufeld. So, we are concerned with the processing times
for employment authorization documents, and one of the things
that we did was to provide for auto-extensions. So, if somebody
has an employment authorization document and they need to seek
an extension, depending on the category, then they can receive
an automatic--their old card is automatically extended for a
period of time while we process their case.
That was one of the things that we tried to do to provide
some relief. This category of work is very important, but it
also competes with the other categories of work that we have
with our limited resources. So, I can tell you that we do
prioritize it, and compared to other processing times for other
applications, the EADs typically are handled much more quickly,
but not as quickly as we would like.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Well, would you consider going back and
analyzing sort of how you would resource the employment request
in a way that you might recommend that would help you move them
faster? Certainly, vetting is important, but move them faster?
Mr. Neufeld. Yes.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Are you all appointees or civil servants?
Mr. Neufeld. Career civil servants.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Well, first, let me thank you for your
service. I have probably run into you before.
You noting the disparate directions that seem to be coming
from the Administration impacting staffing, impacting
immigrants who are coming in or not showing up in terms of the
disparate--frankly, I don't know whether this Administration is
for any immigration.
I don't know if they are for legal or illegal--not illegal,
but helping undocumented, helping people who are in the
country. I have no idea. That sets the tone for the work you do
and also for people accessing your services, which are very
important. The funding that we in Congress pile onto the
Administration, I am not sure if it is reaching you, because I
notice that you have staff turnover. What is happening with
staff turnover and the people that come in that you see?
Mr. Neufeld. Staff turnover, like any agency, we experience
attrition, but I don't think that is a huge concern for us. The
difficulty for us is hiring, because it can take several
months. Not only to bring somebody onboard, but then after
that, to get them trained and experienced.
Ms. Jackson Lee. So, you have the resources. Congress has
given you the resources to hire as you need?
Mr. Neufeld. We are fee funded. So, we don't usually need
to look to Congress to authorize our staffing levels.
Ms. Jackson Lee. So, you can expand your staffing levels if
necessary?
Mr. Neufeld. With the fees, yes.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Right. You will look to the stovepiping of
certain employment documents--
Ms. Lofgren. The gentlelady's time has expired.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I mean processes. Thank you. I yield back.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you. The gentlelady yields back.
I recognize the Ranking Member for a unanimous consent
request.
Mr. Buck. I ask that a statement from the United States
Chamber of Commerce dated July 16, 2019, be included in the
record.
Ms. Lofgren. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information follows:]
MR. BUCK FOR THE RECORD
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Lofgren. I would also ask unanimous consent that the
following statements be made a part of the record--from the
American Council on Education, the American Immigration
Council, ASISTA, and the Asian Pacific Institute on Gender-
Based Violence, the Association of American Universities,
Boundless Immigration, Church World Services, the Compete
America Coalition, FWD.us, Her Justice, Invest in America,
National Immigration Forum, UnidosUS and the National
Partnership for New Americans report, Tahirih, and again, the
Information Technology Industry Council.
Without objection, those statements are made a part of the
record.
[The information follows:]
MS. LOFGREN FOR THE RECORD
=======================================================================
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Lofgren. Just as a parting comment, I think planning is
something that would be very helpful in terms of changes of
policy. I think you heard from many of us when the premium
processing policy was changed after the applications had
already been mailed on Sunday, when the due date was Monday,
and people had to rip checks out and rewrite them. People whose
applications had already been sent were rejected because they
had more money in the fee.
It is just a crazy way to run an outfit. I know it wasn't
your decision, but that kind of stuff just creates chaos in the
community, in the business community, and is counterproductive
in terms of a good economy for the United States.
With this, we will recess until after the vote. We will
have 5 legislative days to submit additional questions to each
of you. We would ask, if we do, that you answer them promptly.
We thank you very much for being here, and we will probably
be back a little bit after 2:00 p.m., for planning purposes if
people need to go catch a snack or something.
So, we are in recess.
[Recess.]
Ms. Lofgren. The Subcommittee will come back into order. We
had a number of votes, and hopefully, we will get some of the
other Members who are on their way back. For now, we will start
with our second panel, and I would like to introduce all of
them.
Before I do, let me ask you all to stand, raise your right
hand, and do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that
the testimony you are about to give is true and correct, to the
best of your knowledge, information, and belief, so help you
God?
[Response.]
Ms. Lofgren. The record will show that each of the
witnesses replied in the affirmative. Now, we will introduce
our four witnesses.
Marketa Lindt is President of the American Immigration
Lawyers Association and a partner at the Chicago office of
Sidley Austin, LLP, where she specializes in business
immigration programs and I-9 compliance. She has authored
numerous pieces on business immigration for legal publications.
She has served as a member of the Leadership Board of the
National Immigrant Justice Center in Chicago and currently
advises several Chicago-based organizations that provides
assistance to underserved immigrant communities.
Jill Marie Bussey is Director of Advocacy at Catholic Legal
Immigration Network, also known as CLINIC. Ms. Bussey has
worked in the immigration field for nearly 20 years. Prior to
CLINIC, she served as President of the board of directors at
the Foreign-Born Information and Referral Network, a Maryland-
based nonprofit that supports immigrants, refugees, and
asylees. She also served as Director of the Global Immigration
Council for Pro-Link GLOBAL and worked in private practice at a
multitude of firms.
Eric Cohen is the Executive Director of the Immigrant Legal
Resource Center. Prior to being named Executive Director in
2007, he supervised the ILRC's legal work as legal director and
staff attorney. He has been a professor of immigration law and
has supervised immigration law clinics at Stanford and the
University of California Hastings School of Law. Mr. Cohen has
coauthored countless publications and practice manuals for
immigration attorneys and specializes in naturalization and
citizenship issues.
Jessica Vaughan serves as Director of Policy Studies for
the Center for Immigration Studies, where she has worked since
1992. Ms. Vaughan is also an instructor for senior law
enforcement officer training seminars at Northwestern
University's Center for Public Safety in Illinois. Prior to her
work with the Center for Immigration Studies, Ms. Vaughan was a
Foreign Service officer with the U.S. Department of State,
where she served in Belgium, as well as Trinidad and Tobago.
So, we thank each one of you for being here. As you know,
we have your written statements, which will be made part of the
record, and we ask that your testimony be about 5 minutes.
There is a light system somewhere. Maybe not. When you are
a minute away from your 5 minutes, the yellow light will go on,
and the red light is supposed to go on when your time is up. We
would ask that you try and stay within that timeframe, and we
are eager to hear from each one of you.
So, with that, we will start with you Ms. Lindt.
TESTIMONY OF MARKETA LINDT
Ms. Lindt. Chairwoman Lofgren and Ranking Member Buck and
Members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
testify before you today on the bipartisan issue of reducing
processing delays at USCIS.
My name is Marketa Lindt, and I am the elected President of
the American Immigration Lawyers Association, the private bar
association of more than 15,000 immigration attorneys and law
professors. I am also a partner at the law firm of Sidley
Austin, where I specialize in business immigration and
represent a wide range of American companies.
Collectively, as AILA Members, we represent businesses,
families, and people seeking protection before USCIS in
virtually every kind of immigration application. Unfortunately,
our experience reveals a troubling reality. Today's USCIS is an
agency rife with processing delays that are driven by the
agency's own inefficient policies and practices.
Congress established USCIS to be a service-oriented
immigration agency that meets the needs of American businesses
and families. To accomplish this, the agency must process its
applications efficiently and timely in a manner that protects
the integrity of the immigration system.
The magnitude of the delays now facing USCIS customers,
many of whom pay significant fees for USCIS services, are
extreme. USCIS has a history of chronic management problems and
processing delays, but the delays are particularly acute now.
AILA's analysis of USCIS data reveals that between fiscal years
2016 and 2018, the agency's average case processing time surged
by 46 percent, and the overall backlog of delayed cases
exceeded 5.69 million.
This slowdown in case processing has a significant impact
on U.S. business and families. The delays restrict the ability
of U.S. businesses to hire workers that they need to be
competitive nationally and globally. They prolong the
separation of families. They endanger those who need
humanitarian protection, and they stall the integration of
aspiring U.S. citizens.
This is not a matter of ideology or politics. U.S.
businesses and individuals are paying substantial filing fees
for applications for immigration benefits. The agency's
efficient implementation of our legal immigration system is
simply a matter of good governance.
Leaders in Congress on both sides of the aisle have
recognized the critical impact the USCIS delays are having and
with bipartisan action have called for greater accountability.
In March of this year, a bipartisan delegation of 10 House
Members from the Houston area, some on this subcommittee, wrote
that the agency's inability to Act in a timely way to serve the
Houston area was posing a ``hindrance to our region's future.''
In May, 38 U.S. Senators, including 19 Republicans and 19
Democrats, expressed alarm over USCIS's ``nationwide
slowdown.'' In response, USCIS has largely attributed its
backlog to resource constraints and high numbers of
applications. However, USCIS's own data shows that in fiscal
year 2018, the agency's budget grew, and the application rate
significantly declined. Yet, during that same time, case
processing times still increased by 19 percent.
What the evidence demonstrates is that, in fact, it is the
agency's own inefficient policies that are driving the longer
processing times. In my testimony, I cite many of the
problematic policies that USCIS has implemented. Here are
three.
First, in October 2017, USCIS imposed a policy mandating an
in-person interview for everyone applying for a green card
through his or her employer. Officers already have the
discretion to select cases for an interview, but now the agency
requires in-person interviews for every single applicant, even
if there is no indication that it is necessary. This strains
the agency's valuable adjudications resources that could
otherwise reduce the backlog.
Second, in 2017, USCIS changed 2004 policy from the Bush
era to now require the agency to re-adjudicate every
application for an extension of status, even where the same
employer is applying for the same employee for the same job
under the same visa type and where there has been no meaningful
change in circumstances.
Third, USCIS data shows significant spikes in Requests for
Evidence being issued from the agency. These requests outpace
processing, often request irrelevant or previously provided
information, and create an additional time-consuming and
resource-intensive step in the process.
In my own practice, I have witnessed the growth in case
processing delays and their harmful consequences for businesses
nationwide. I have seen companies' workforce gaps going
unfilled. I have seen workers losing employment authorization,
and every day I see the uncertainty that now pervades the
business environment.
As a result, our country is losing valuable university
graduates, talented professionals, and entrepreneurs from
abroad who are choosing destinations other than the United
States because the stress, the lengthy processing times, and
the unpredictability of the U.S. immigration process creates an
environment that is inhospitable to innovation and to
attracting and retaining global talent.
So, Members of the subcommittee, it is imperative that both
USCIS and Congress Act swiftly to eliminate processing delays
and their destructive consequences. Most importantly, USCIS
should reverse inefficient policies that needlessly delay
adjudications.
I also urge Congress to pass legislation that strengthens
accountability at USCIS and ensures that the agency serve the
American people, our families, and our businesses. Congress
gave USCIS a mandate, and for the sake of our national
interests, the agency must fulfill it.
[The statement of Ms. Lindt follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you very much.
We will now hear from Ms. Bussey.
TESTIMONY OF JILL MARIE BUSSEY
Ms. Bussey. Good afternoon, Chairwoman Lofgren, Ranking
Member Buck, and Members of the subcommittee. My name is Jill
Marie Bussey, and I am the Director of Advocacy at the Catholic
Legal Immigration Network and an attorney with about 20 years
of experience in immigration law. We are really grateful for
this invitation.
Guided by our Catholic identity and mission to welcome the
stranger, CLINIC promotes the rights and dignity of immigrants.
Our network of over 370 nonprofit immigrant legal services
agencies serves hundreds of thousands of low-income immigrants
each year, providing us with valuable insight from real-life
examples of the problems they face before USCIS.
Over the past few years, we have become increasingly
alarmed to see the political leadership at USCIS steering this
services-based agency toward enforcement and away from its
congressionally mandated purpose. Customers provide sensitive
personal information about themselves and their families to
USCIS. They pay application fees with their hard-earned money,
and they put their trust in this agency.
Under the current leadership, their lives are being
upended, as deliberate policy choices and gross mismanagement
have led to crisis-level case processing backlogs. For example,
longer forms and new rules asking for unnecessary information
create needless redundancies and drain resources.
Cases with small errors or issues that were previously
resolved through customer service have been denied, forcing
everyone to go back to square one. The USCIS would stop
processing work permits within 90 days and then made it harder
for people to request expedited processing.
Slow processing times rob people of their dignity, their
livelihood, and their security. They also shake people's trust
in our immigration system. Our written testimony explains in
detail the problematic policies that we have identified, as
well as their human consequences. Today, we lift up three.
Hazem's story illustrates the harm caused when USCIS fails
to process work permits on time. Hazem came to the United
States in 2011 to study engineering, just as Syria's civil war
was erupting. Unable to go home after his student visa ended,
he applied for temporary protected status and found a job at a
small firm in Oregon.
Hazem faced numerous consequences due to application
processing delays, including renewing his driver's license,
gaining access to his own bank account, and losing billable
hours at work and much-needed income. Delays have also deprived
Americans of critical services when green card processing
stalls.
For example, Father Arjun is a Catholic priest from India
serving a 160-mile rural area in upstate New York. He
celebrates mass, officiates weddings, visits the sick, and
presides over funerals. Waiting for over 2 years for his green
card forced him and his diocese to submit multiple applications
and fees to USCIS. Because of this, his driver's license is
connected to his immigration status, he has experienced
difficulties getting it renewed.
His work permit and his driver's licenses are key tools
that allow him to serve. Here, USCIS delays may cause a
vulnerable parishioner to miss receiving pastoral care at a
critical time in their life, including last rites.
These are not the only cases that are being delayed. Life-
saving survivor-based applications have slowed to a near halt.
Cheryl is a Jamaican national and survivor of brutal domestic
violence who has waited for approval for her green card under
VAWA for nearly a year. That is four times the normal
processing time.
Cheryl fled her abuser, but without a work permit cannot
provide for her children and was forced to move back. The
violence immediately began again, and under current processing
times, she would have to endure another 6 months. This is
absurd, and it is immoral. Cheryl and her children should be
safe right now. Yet, they are at the mercy of USCIS to process
her case.
The current situation at USCIS is wholly and completely
avoidable. It has been brought on by misdirection,
mismanagement, and poor policy. To raise fees now would force
applicants and petitioners to pay the cost of USCIS's own
failures.
USCIS must rescind the policies that have brought us to
this current crisis. It must prioritize clearing the backlog of
survivor-based applications and place limits on processing
times for work permits and other applications to ensure the
most vulnerable are protected.
I thank the Committee for your attention to these issues,
and I urge all Members of Congress to talk with their
constituents and district office staff to learn more about the
harm that these backlogs are causing. Congress must hold the
USCIS accountable. We can right this ship and restore faith in
our immigration system together.
Thank you.
[The statement of Ms. Bussey follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Lofgren. Thanks very much.
Mr. Cohen?
TESTIMONY OF ERIC COHEN
Mr. Cohen. Chair Lofgren, Ranking Member Buck, and
distinguished Members of the subcommittee, thank you very much
for the opportunity to appear before you to discuss
naturalization, the crippling naturalization backlogs at USCIS,
and the policies and processes that have caused those backlogs.
I am here representing the Immigrant Legal Resource Center,
and for 40 years, we have provided immigration legal resources
to practitioners. We also lead the New Americans Campaign, the
single biggest naturalization collaboration in the history of
the United States, which has helped over 400,000 people
complete their applications.
Our Nation's naturalization program is in a State of
dysfunction, and USCIS is not adequately, fairly, and
efficiently processing naturalization applications. Instead of
remedying this situation, the Trump Administration's policies
have exacerbated unmanageable backlogs. The wait to naturalize
has ballooned to unacceptable levels, and the result is that
naturalization applicants and their families are suffering.
The naturalization wait time has gone from 5.8 months in
2015 to 10.3 months in 2017. As of March 2019, the average is
10 months. In Miami, Dallas, and New York, processing times for
many cases have stretched to nearly 2 years.
There are several reasons for these processing delays.
First, this Administration does not prioritize addressing the
backlogs and has not dedicated sufficient staff resources to
clearing the backlog. In previous years where there was a
backlog, USCIS made significant process clearing the backlog
because it was viewed as a priority. Sadly, this is not
happening under the Trump Administration.
Second, this Administration spends an inordinate amount of
time re-adjudicating determinations that were previously made,
thus unduly delaying the process. In March 2019, we surveyed
our NAC partners, New Americans Campaign partners, across the
nation, asking them to report any changes in USCIS practice
they have observed.
Many of those surveys reported that naturalization
interviews are lasting longer. In fact, on average,
approximately twice as long than the past, thus contributing to
the backlog.
Respondents reported that USCIS adjudicators are also
viewing naturalization applicants with more suspicion. In one
case, the adjudicator asked for proof of marriage, even though
the couple have children together and the marriage was already
determined valid by USCIS during the green card interview.
Often, adjudicator inquiries require applicants to provide
information outside the scope of naturalization applications,
thus delaying the adjudication. Our partners report that USCIS
adjudicators are asking for travel history beyond the 5-year
required statutory period and are questioning the legitimacy of
fee waiver applicants' low-income status by asking irrelevant
questions, even after the fee waiver has been approved.
In one recent case, an 82-year-old Iranian woman applied
for naturalization. During the interview, the USCIS adjudicator
decided to revisit details of her asylum case, including the
trauma she suffered in Iran, even though these details were
vetted during the asylum interview 9 years earlier. She broke
down during the interview and was unable to complete the
interview, causing her to be denied naturalization.
Lastly, USCIS policy directives have shifted its mission
from a benefit-granting agency to one that erects barriers and
serves as enforcer. These include proposing changes to the new
naturalization application by adding vague and legally
overbroad questions, inviting arbitrary and inconsistent
adjudications, ramping up denaturalization efforts, engaging in
``extreme vetting,'' proposing restrictions to fee waivers, and
considering substantial fee increase.
Naturalization not only benefits the applicant, but it also
benefits the U.S. economy. Studies show that increasing
citizenship results in an increased GDP and increased
individual earnings and billions in additional tax revenue.
In 2013, I was fortunate enough to be invited to speak on a
panel at the George W. Bush Presidential Library in Dallas,
Texas. The event's focus was on naturalization and included a
naturalization swearing-in ceremony at which President George
W. Bush gave a wonderful speech.
At one very powerful moment in the speech, President Bush
told the soon-to-be American citizens, ``In a few moments, we
will share the same title, a title that has meant more to me
than any other, and I have had a lot. That would be citizen of
the United States.''
Citizenship is an important part of the foundation of our
democracy, and we should all work to ensure that our
naturalization process is administrated fairly, efficiently,
and reasonably.
Thank you very much for letting me speak today, and I look
forward to taking your questions.
[The statement of Mr. Cohen follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you very much.
Ms. Vaughan, we would be happy to hear from you.
TESTIMONY OF JESSICA VAUGHAN
Ms. Vaughan. Thank you.
Every single day, USCIS officers face the challenge of
balancing their responsibility to make the correct decision on
sometimes complicated applications with the need to do so
within a reasonable timeframe. It is something I did on a daily
basis when I was a consular officer adjudicating visa
applications.
Officers always have to be on the lookout for fraud, which
is sometimes rampant, depending on the category, or for people
who are safety or security risks, and that is not always easy
to detect. On top of it, the agencies are constantly subject to
pressure from special interest groups, such as employers that
sponsor foreign workers and immigration attorneys who are
sometimes pressuring the agency to adopt policies or practices
that they believe favor their business or clients, and
especially to make decisions faster.
Too often, USCIS leadership has succumbed to this pressure
and, as a result, has overemphasized swift processing at the
expense of correct and fair adjudication, with disastrous
results for American workers and others who suffer harm because
of rushed decisions or questionable prioritization of cases.
Adding to the challenge, USCIS has to follow a cumbersome
procedure for setting and collecting fees that cover the actual
cost of adjudicating applications and subsidizing some
applications. This leads to chronic understaffing, which
hinders productivity.
As we have heard, USCIS has to deal with what are
essentially unfunded mandates at an agency that depends almost
completely on fees, such as processing record numbers of asylum
applications and work permits for them.
This afternoon, we have heard a lot of criticism of some
changes that the Trump Administration has made to improve the
screening of applications and to address the fraud and the
gaming of the system. Most of these, like the interview
requirement and the issuance of NTAs, are just common sense,
and I address them in more detail in my written statement.
Others, like ending the deference policy and allowing for
the refusal of frivolous applications from the get-go, help
unclog the system so that the legitimate applicants are not
disadvantaged. Some of these changes' advocates complain about
actually have reduced processing times.
Advocacy groups have been silent on a policy change that is
most responsible for the backlogs before the election cycle,
and that was DACA. Since 2012, DACA has added more than 2.4
million applications to the USCIS workload, 910,000 initial
applications and more than 1.5 million renewals.
If you examine the charts in the USCIS testimony, you can
see that the concerning growth in the backlogs began shortly
after DACA was implemented. To be sure, the naturalization and
asylum surge made the backlogs worse later, but the DACA
workload is still a major contributor to the problem.
The USCIS testimony we have just heard confirms that DACA
was responsible for about three-quarters of the backlog growth
that occurred before 2016. The biggest growth, we heard this
afternoon, occurred from 2016 and 2017, which is before the
Trump Administration policy changes.
Even more consequential than the size of the DACA program
is the fact that the fees for DACA did not cover the true cost
of processing the application. Essentially, the DACA applicants
got their benefit for half price.
This meant that USCIS couldn't hire enough staff for the
job and had to cut corners in adjudicating the applications. It
also meant that the applications of legal immigrants,
especially family applications, were sidelined. To add insult
to injury, because the DACA benefits were given at half price,
these legal immigrants had to subsidize the cost of the DACA
program through the visa they paid.
I commend the Committee for its concern over the backlogs,
and I share those concerns. If Members are looking for ways to
actually improve the situation instead of just looking for
pretexts to use the backlogs as a cudgel against the Trump
Administration and as cover for restoring policies that are too
lax, there are options.
First, don't add to the problem by creating programs that
add to USCIS's workload without generating resources to cover
the staff and infrastructure needed to administer the program
properly. Do not legislate changes that result in looser
screening just to please employers who want it to be easier to
replace U.S. workers.
Also focus on finding ways to enable USCIS to be more
nimble in setting fees and putting them to use on behalf of the
applicants. Under the Bush Administration, USCIS received a
large appropriation from Congress to address the backlog. In my
view, this ideally should not come from taxpayers, but perhaps
in the form of surcharges collected from employers or others
who benefit from our immigration problems.
Another option would be to allow USCIS to impose a
surcharge on DACA renewals to help make up for the impact that
that program has had on the backlog. Above all, remember that
we must not compromise security and the integrity of our
immigration system to please special interests.
[The statement of Ms. Vaughan follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you very much. Thanks to each one of you
for your testimony, as well as your written statements that are
part of our record.
I would turn now to the Ranking Member for any questions or
statements he may have.
Mr. Buck. First, I just want to say sorry. I wish we had
more Members, and I wish we hadn't had votes interrupt the
hearing, and I very much appreciate you being here. It is an
important issue for both sides of the aisle, an important issue
that we want to solve. We may have differences of opinion on
exactly the cause of the problem, but reducing the backlog is
something that is very important.
There are three parts of my job that I really like, and
only three parts.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Buck. None of them happen in the swamp. First, I get to
nominate students to academies, and I am extremely proud of
that. Second, I get to congratulate participants in the annual
art competition, and I am extremely proud of that. Third, I get
to attend naturalization ceremonies. It is a thrill that I wish
all Americans could participate in and understand exactly the
life-changing event that occurs for all those who are joining
us as American citizens.
I think we heard from three nonpolitical civil servants,
career individuals who spent their lives trying to implement a
program efficiently and effectively. They identify a number of
the challenges, and I am hopeful that we can, as a Congress, as
a legislative body, support their efforts to make sure that we
are allowing the right people to become U.S. citizens and as
many of the right people as possible to become U.S. citizens
because of something that--I look at my grandparents who came
here from Norway, and I think that all of us can identify
relatives who have immigrated to this country, relatives who we
are very proud of, who took the risk to come here.
I am thankful for the chair for calling this hearing, and
again, I wish we had greater participation. So, thank you very
much for being here.
Ms. Lofgren. The gentleman yields back.
I would like to, Ms. Lindt, go to your testimony regarding
the RFEs that are skyrocketing, and it appears that from your
testimony, that in the beginning of this fiscal year, 60
percent of the H-1B petitions had RFEs, which is a huge amount.
I am wondering what could be the cause of that? What is the
impact of that on the business community? Specifically,
obviously I represent Silicon Valley, but there are a lot of H-
1B renewals and applicants in the medical arena, especially in
rural underserved areas, of physicians.
Can you address any of those issues?
Ms. Lindt. Certainly. I thank you. I am not sure I can
speculate as to the cause of it, and it is particularly
confounding to us who practice in this area because we are
seeing Requests for Evidence issued on cases where the agency
has already looked at that case, sometimes numerous times, for
again the same employer, the same job, the same circumstances.
So, it is confounding to see this uptick in RFEs and having to
establish yet again, and this time with a higher level of
burden at the RFE stage, why this is a specialty occupation.
I can certainly address the impact on employers because I
see this day-to-day in my practice. I think the key impact is
that it is making from the employer side very, very difficult
to plan. These are companies that are trying to run a business.
Whether it is a software engineering firm, whether it is a
manufacturing company, whether it is an R&D company, they are
trying to run their business. Part of running their business is
recruiting and retaining talent, and we are in a very tight job
market.
In addition, often these companies or universities or other
employers are looking for people with particular skills so
that, again, they can run their business, or they can continue
to be on the cutting edge of the sort of research that they
might be doing, and it is very difficult to plan. The delays
are really exacerbating that.
The RFEs are especially exacerbating that because it adds a
whole level of uncertainty, both in terms of timeframe and in
terms of outcome, to staffing these important positions.
Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Buck and I helped lead a successful
effort, House vote on a bill to ultimately eliminate the per
cap for allocation of visas on the business side. Until that
becomes law, we know that there are visa holders from certain
countries facing these extraordinary waits.
I will just give you an example. Somebody came to me not
from my district, but an M.D. who is waiting and waiting. It is
the same employer. He is the same medical doctor. He has the
same patients, and now he is getting Requests for Evidence on
the renewal.
Are you seeing some of that in other fields as well?
Ms. Lindt. Certainly. We see it, and we have also heard
reports from other Members within our association also in the
medical area, but we are seeing it across the board in a lot of
different industries, a lot of different types of employers. I
represent employers in financial services and management
consulting, in R&D, again in manufacturing. We are seeing these
Requests for Evidence affect a lot of different industries and
making it difficult for these employers again to staff these
positions.
Ms. Lofgren. Let me ask you, Ms. Bussey, your story about
the priest not getting timely approval and not being able to
meet the pastoral needs of his flock, including last rites, was
pretty striking. I am wondering, based on your observation, can
you give us some examples of how the USCIS decision to end
deference to prior visa approvals for religious workers has
impacted the religious community and their parishioners?
Ms. Bussey. Absolutely. In fact, I brought an R petition
with me today so I can show you what it looks like. A couple
years ago, this petition, which is 269 pages long and would be
filed in duplicate. A couple years ago, this application would
have been about 100 and some pages, but because we are re-
adjudicating applications and because USCIS is issuing RFEs on
cases, the very first petition that is going to be filed is
going to be frontloaded, trying to offset, and trying to
mitigate an RFE.
A renewal petition is also going to be a lot more evidence
that the agency is going to have to get through. This is an RFE
response. This is 191 pages long.
When diocese and religious orders are having to respond to
Requests for Evidence of this nature, and by the way, the R
visa is only limited to 5 years. We don't get extensions of R
beyond 5 years. When there is a perpetual cycle of responding
to Requests for Evidence, they are left with having to send the
pastor, the priest, back home to wait for their applications to
be processed.
What does that do? That takes a pastor, it takes a leader,
a religious leader outside of their community that they have
been ministering to for 5 years. Someone who has cultural
proficiency potentially in that neighborhood or in that
community, language skills. It takes them out of that
neighborhood, back to their home country. Then the congregation
is waiting for an indefinite period of time for them to return,
if they ever return.
That is a lot of money spent by the diocese, frankly, and a
lot of hurtful, heartbreaking consequences. When community
Members lose their pastor, they lose their connection to God.
Ms. Lofgren. Well, I see that my time has expired. So, in
fairness, I will call a halt to my questions. I will note that
our record is open for 5 days, and we may have additional
questions for each of you. If so, I would ask that you respond,
if possible, in a prompt way.
I do appreciate your testimony. It has been very helpful to
hear, and not just your written testimony, but the material
that you have provided to us. People don't realize that
witnesses are volunteers. No one is paid to be here, and we
appreciate the effort that you have made to inform the U.S.
Congress so that we can make good decisions.
With that, unless there is something further, this hearing
is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 2:58 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
APPENDIX
=======================================================================
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS FOR THE RECORD
=======================================================================
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]