Salo&Romashka

Congress has written into law twice the need for INS/USCIS to report to them. The first can be found here:
8 U.S.C.
United States Code, 2010 Edition
Title 8 - ALIENS AND NATIONALITY
CHAPTER 13 - IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE
SUBCHAPTER II - IMMIGRATION SERVICES AND INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS
From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov SUBCHAPTER II—IMMIGRATION SERVICES AND INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS §1571. Purposes (a) PurposesThe purposes of this subchapter are to—
(1) provide the Immigration and Naturalization Service with the mechanisms it needs to eliminate the current backlog in the processing of immigration benefit applications within 1 year after October 17, 2000, and to maintain the elimination of the backlog in future years; and
(2) provide for regular congressional oversight of the performance of the Immigration and Naturalization Service in eliminating the backlog and processing delays in immigration benefits adjudications.
(b) PolicyIt is the sense of Congress that the processing of an immigration benefit application should be completed not later than 180 days after the initial filing of the application, except that a petition for a nonimmigrant visa under section 1184© of this title should be processed not later than 30 days after the filing of the petition.
also
§1574. Reports to Congress (a) Backlog elimination plan (1) Report requiredNot later than 90 days after October 17, 2000, the Attorney General shall submit a report to the Committees on the Judiciary and Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives concerning—
(A) the backlogs in immigration benefit applications in existence as of October 17, 2000; and
(B) the Attorney General's plan for eliminating such backlogs.
(2) Report elementsThe report shall include—
(A) an assessment of the data systems used in adjudicating and reporting on the status of immigration benefit applications, including—
(i) a description of the adequacy of existing computer hardware, computer software, and other mechanisms to comply with the adjudications and reporting requirements of this subchapter; and
(ii) a plan for implementing improvements to existing data systems to accomplish the purpose of this subchapter, as described in section 1571(a) of this title;

(B) a description of the quality controls to be put into force to ensure timely, fair, accurate, and complete processing and adjudication of such applications;
© the elements specified in subsection (b)(2) of this section;
(D) an estimate of the amount of appropriated funds that would be necessary in order to eliminate the backlogs in each category of immigration benefit applications described in subsection (b)(2) of this section; and
(E) a detailed plan on how the Attorney General will use any funds in the Immigration Services and Infrastructure Improvements Account to comply with the purposes of this subchapter.
(b) Annual reports (1) In generalBeginning 90 days after the end of the first fiscal year for which any appropriation authorized by section 1573(b) of this title is made, and 90 days after the end of each fiscal year thereafter, the Attorney General shall submit a report to the Committees on the Judiciary and Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives concerning the status of—
(A) the Immigration Services and Infrastructure Improvements Account including any unobligated balances of appropriations in the Account; and
(B) the Attorney General's efforts to eliminate backlogs in any immigration benefit application described in paragraph (2).
(2) Report elementsThe report shall include—
(A) State-by-State data on—
(i) the number of naturalization cases adjudicated in each quarter of each fiscal year;
(ii) the average processing time for naturalization applications;
(iii) the number of naturalization applications pending for up to 6 months, 12 months, 18 months, 24 months, 36 months, and 48 months or more;
(iv) estimated processing times adjudicating newly submitted naturalization applications;
(v) an analysis of the appropriate processing times for naturalization applications; and
(vi) the additional resources and process changes needed to eliminate the backlog for naturalization adjudications;

(B) the status of applications or, where applicable, petitions described in subparagraph ©, by Immigration and Naturalization Service district, including—
(i) the number of cases adjudicated in each quarter of each fiscal year;
(ii) the average processing time for such applications or petitions;
(iii) the number of applications or petitions pending for up to 6 months, 12 months, 18 months, 24 months, 36 months, and 48 months or more;
(iv) the estimated processing times adjudicating newly submitted applications or petitions;
(v) an analysis of the appropriate processing times for applications or petitions; and
(vi) a description of the additional resources and process changes needed to eliminate the backlog for such processing and adjudications; and

© a status report on—
(i) applications for adjustments of status to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence;
(ii) petitions for nonimmigrant visas under section 1184 of this title;
(iii) petitions filed under section 1154 of this title to classify aliens as immediate relatives or preference immigrants under section 1153 of this title;
(iv) applications for asylum under section 1158 of this title;
(v) registrations for Temporary Protected Status under section 1254a of this title; and
(vi) a description of the additional resources and process changes needed to eliminate the backlog for such processing and adjudications.
(3) Absence of appropriated fundsIn the event that no funds are appropriated subject to section 1573(b) of this title in the fiscal year in which this Act is enacted, the Attorney General shall submit a report to Congress not later than 90 days after the end of such fiscal year, and each fiscal year thereafter, containing the elements described in paragraph (2).
(Pub. L. 106–313, title II, §205, Oct. 17, 2000, 114 Stat. 1263.)
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2010-title8/html/USCODE-2010-title8-chap13-subchapII.htm

Again it was required when INS became USCIS and part of DHS

116 STAT. 2212 PUBLIC LAW 107-296—NOV. 25, 2002 SEC. 478. IMMIGRATION FUNCTIONS. 6 USC 298.
(a) ANNUAL REPORT.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—One year after the date of the enactment of this Act, and each year thereafter, the Secretary shall submit a report to the President, to the Committees on the Judiciary and Government Reform of the House of Representatives, and to the Committees on the Judiciary and Government Affairs
of the Senate, on the impact the transfers made by this subtitle has had on immigration functions.
(2) MATTER INCLUDED.—The report shall address the following with respect to the period covered by the report:
(A) The aggregate number of all immigration applications and petitions received, and processed, by the Department.
(B) Region-by-region statistics on the aggregate number of immigration applications and petitions filed by an alien (or filed on behalf of an alien) and denied,
disaggregated by category of denial and application or petition type.
© The quantity of backlogged immigration applications and petitions that have been processed, the aggregate ' number awaiting processing, and a detailed plan for eliminating the backlog.
(D) The average processing period for immigration applications and petitions, disaggregated by application or petition type.
(E) The number and types of immigration-related grievances filed with any official of the Department of Justice, and if those grievances were resolved.
Plans to address grievances and improve immigration services.
(G) Whether immigration-related fees were used consistent with legal requirements regarding such use.
(H) Whether immigration-related questions conveyed by customers to the Department (whether conveyed in person, by telephone, or by means of the Internet) were answered effectively and efficiently.
(b) SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING IMMIGRATION SERVICES.—
It is the sense of Congress that—
(1) the quality and efficiency of immigration services rendered by the Federal Government should be improved after the transfers made by this subtitle take effect; and
(2) the Secretary should undertake efforts to guarantee that concerns regarding the quality and efficiency of immigration services are addressed after such effective date.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-116/pdf/STATUTE-116-Pg2135.pdf

It is my understanding of the law that this information is to be made available to Congress and should be a part of the public record. The next letter should be targeted to the people most capable of finding the information and making it public. I suggest we write to both parties in House Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security. Any law that is passed in the future will originate from these policymakers.
Committee Membership
Majority Members (Republicans) Member Name DC Phone DC FAX Contact Form Trey Gowdy (R-SC) [Chairman] 202-225-6030 202-226-1177 http://gowdy.house.gov/contact/ Ted Poe (R-TX) 202-225-6565 202-225-5547 https://forms.house.gov/poe/webforms/zipauthen_contac … Lamar Smith (R-TX) 202-225-4236 202-225-8628 http://lamarsmith.house.gov/contact/email-lamar Steve King (R-IA) 202-225-4426 202-225-3193 http://steveking.house.gov/contact Jim Jordan (R-OH) 202-225-2676 202-226-0577 http://jordan.house.gov/contact/ Raul Labrador (R-ID) 202-225-6611 202-225-3029 https://labradorforms.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=5 … George Holding (R-NC) 202-225-3032 202-225-0181 https://holding.house.gov/contact/email-me Jason T. Smith (R-MO) 202-225-4404 202-226-0326 https://jasonsmith.house.gov/contact/email-me Minority Members (Democrats) Member Name DC Phone DC FAX Contact Form Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) [Ranking Member] 202-225-3072 202-225-3336 https://lofgren.house.gov/contact-congresswoman-lofgren Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) 202-225-3816 202-225-3317 https://jacksonlee.house.gov/contact/email-me Luis V. Gutierrez (D-IL) 202-225-8203 202-225-7810 http://gutierrezforms.house.gov/contact/ Joe Garcia (D-FL) 202-225-2778 202-226-0346 http://garciaforms.house.gov/email-me/ Pedro Pierluisi (D-PR) 202-225-2615 202-225-2154 https://pierluisi.house.gov/contact/email-me The letter should be short and to the point requesting committee oversight of USCIS since data is no longer being posted online. We are stakeholders in the process and have a right to see what they see when they make decisions about our families' futures.

"Words have the power to both destroy and heal. When words are both true and kind, they can change our world"

"Words have the power to both destroy and heal. When words are both true and kind, they can change our world"

Hey VJers!
I wanted to share some data that I'm playing around with. I took 300 of the latest petitions that were approved (NOA2) according to updated timelines, and created a graph to show trends for each service center and where they are as far as approving our petitions. I removed all petitions from the Philippines and any that were blatant expedites (at least to my eye and from doing some research in the forum), and this is what I came up with:

Out of the 300 latest approvals, 200 were "normal" petitions. There were just a couple of outliers (1 approval in Vermont and 4 approvals with NOA1s before February).
Also, one thing to consider is that some people have not updated their timelines to show what service center they were transferred to, but they did update their NOA2 and it will show as an approval at the NBC.
Some other small details... there were a total of 4 petitions that were reported as originally going to a service center instead of the NBC, and were approved in their original service centers. There were 4 petitions that started out in a service center and transferred to NBC, and approved at the NBC.
Let me know if you guys have any questions!

The USCIS apparently wants to hear your ideas, and it's set up a new website just to do so.
http://uscisconnect.ideascale.com/a/ideafactory.do?id=24738&mode=hot&discussionFilter=active
The site is fairly new and the "hottest" idea now has only 28. I have taken the liberty of posting an idea, which I think most here will agree with:
http://uscisconnect.ideascale.com/a/dtd/Give-US-Citizen-I-130-1-129f-Petitions-Proper-Priority/461024-24738
"Give US Citizen I-130 & I-129f Petitions Proper Priority
The USCIS handles millions of petitions and applications for this country each year--an honorable and needed task. Even the agency's most ardent critics will readily admit that the workers of this agency face a daunting and serious challenge in speedily and fairly adjudicating all of these application while at the same time protecting this country and its laws.
What no one understands is how the agency decides to prioritize the adjudication of this massive workload. That some petitions and applications will have to wait longer than others is a given; that the spouses, children and fiance(e)s of US citizens should have the longest wait times is a proposition more than a bit harder to understand. For the past two years, first thanks to the President's extra-Constitutional Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, and then for his also extra-Constitutional Provisional Waiver program, the immediate family members of US citizens have been made to bear the burden of increased USCIS Service Center workloads (all, it might be added, to the benefit of people who broke US immigration law to come here and have been retroactively given psuedo-status by Presidential executive order, without the express permission of the US Congress to do so). The first victims of these programs were I-129f filers for K-1 fiance(e) visas. The wait time for these petitions ballooned from 3-5 months to over a year in 2012, while DACA filers were granted speedy approvals (almost never refusals) in less than 5.
In January of 2013, the wheel turned and I-129f filers began to see 3 month processing windows. To compensate for this, and for the President's new Provisional Waiver program for unlawful immigrants filing from inside the US (not approved by the Congress of the United States of America), filers of I-130 petitions for US spouses and alien children (!) were simply stored and delayed for almost 10 months, until a backlog of over 400,000 of these petitions had accrued. The USCIS is now working to end this backlog, but this tremendous backlog has resulted in wait times in excess of 10 months for an I-130 petition, and this for a visa which must face two more lengthy steps, the National Visa Center step and the US embassy step, in addition to any additional administrative processing which results from a US visa interview, before it can be granted.
Asking the spouses and parents of aliens to wait for something approaching two years (or more, depending on the additional Administrative Processing the embassy in question decides to take) to see their loved ones while unlawful immigrants are quickly and efficiently granted permission to reside here and even legal status is unacceptable and, what's more, unlawful, since the Immigration and Naturalization Act mandates US authorities to give first priority to the immediate family members of US citizens. The USCIS must in the future give priority to the applications for legal entry to this country of the spouses, children and fiance(e)s of US citizens. The USCIS must dictate that each month it will adjudicate a certain percentage of US citizen relative and fiance(e) petitions, as this is the priority which the law demands these petitioners be given.
Thank you and God bless the United States of America.
CXXXXXX AXXXXXXXX CXXXXXXXX
USCIS Customer and I-130 Petitioner"

IF you agree, please uplike my idea or post your own! Since 28 likes is the number to beat, I think we should be able to beat that!

Tonight I found Freedom of Information Act documents obtained by Judicial Watch, Inc. that include correspondence between USCIS employees detailing the planned changes to I-130 processing as a result of DACA. I-130 related documents begin on page 39 of the link. Most of the emails have been copied here:
From: Dooley, Sharon V Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2012 2:18 PM To: Borges, Luis R; Goudge, Laurie A; Kenney, Trudy L; Schweich, Margaret A; Porche, Sheri L (CTR);Moris, Louis J Cc: # SPM ISO Subject: FW: I130s to the field Importance: High Due to the volume of DACA work at the Service Center, it has been determined that the field will be sent I-130’s to adjudicate. We should get immediate relatives only. I do not know how many we will receive but we could see them as early as the week of 9/17/12. The field will be responsible forrequesting the A-files. Please let me know when you start receiving them in the mailroom. Thanks, Sharon Dooley Sharon Dooley Field Office DirectorU.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
Saint Paul
The St. Paul Field office has been overwhelmed since according to the USCIS tracker:
http://dashboard.uscis.gov/index.cfm?formtype=4&office=57&charttype=1
From: Garman, Gary G Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2012 12:56 PM To: Adams, Kim; Adams, Raymond P; Bard, Jodi; Blakeway, Albert W; Coates, Timothy S; Connor,William; Conway, Michael J; Dedvukaj, Mick; Dooley, Sharon V; Douglas, David M; Enis, Jill S; Hamilton,Ricky W; Hansen, Mark B; Heathman, Sandy M; Kehl, Lisa M; Kent, Jeanne M; Klinger, Michael J;Lambrecht, Andrew M; Lee, Kamsing V; Leopold, Kay F; Lopez, Antonio; Loutas, Aphrodite G; Mather,Robert B; McNeer, Laura K; Medina-Maltes, Martha E; Moyer, Chester S; Mueller-Cantu, Elaine M;Olivares, Jose R; Ortiz, Mario R; Perry, Michelle C; Pietropaoli, Lori A; Pratt, Caroline R; Reynolds, PattiJ; Sheive, Kristy A; Siegl, Mark T; Stark, Laura; Tarango, Tracy; Tasch, Helaine S; Verderosa, GeoffreyJ; Webb, Russell L; Zarybnicky, Kenneth A Cc: Cowan, Robert M; Brecht, Jeffery T; Gallagher, Kevin E; Langton, Lynn M; Hawthorne, Thomas E;Dyer, LaToya S; Smith, John H; Robinson, Terri A Subject: RE: I130s to the field This just in: Since the NBC will only serve as a “pass through” it will be up to each field office to request any relating A files for these cases. It is our understanding that the field should only receive immediate relative I-130s from SCOPS. Let us know if that is not the case. Regards, Gary Garman|Associate Regional Director, Operations| DHS|USCIS|Central Regional Office
More
From: Garman, Gary G Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2012 12:09 PM To: Adams, Kim; Adams, Raymond P; Bard, Jodi; Blakeway, Albert W; Coates, Timothy S; Connor,William; Conway, Michael J; Dedvukaj, Mick; Dooley, Sharon V; Douglas, David M; Enis, Jill S; Garman,Gary G; Hamilton, Ricky W; Hansen, Mark B; Heathman, Sandy M; Kehl, Lisa M; Kent, Jeanne M;Klinger, Michael J; Lambrecht, Andrew M; Lee, Kamsing V; Leopold, Kay F; Lopez, Antonio; Loutas, Aphrodite G; Mather, Robert B; McNeer, Laura K; Medina-Maltes, Martha E; Moyer, Chester S; Mueller-Cantu, Elaine M; Olivares, Jose R; Ortiz, Mario R; Perry, Michelle C; Pietropaoli, Lori A; Pratt, Caroline R;Reynolds, Patti J; Sheive, Kristy A; Siegl, Mark T; Stark, Laura; Tarango, Tracy; Tasch, Helaine S; Verderosa, Geoffrey J; Webb, Russell L; Zarybnicky, Kenneth A Cc: Cowan, Robert M; Brecht, Jeffery T; Gallagher, Kevin E; Langton, Lynn M; Hawthorne, Thomas E; Dyer, LaToya S; Smith, John H; Robinson, Terri A Subject: FW: I130s to the field Field Leadership: FYI. We just received this update regarding the shipment of I-130s to the field. More to follow once the NBC publishes their timeline for this work. As you may recall, this work istransitioning from the Service Centers to the field as a result of the deferred action for childhood arrivals process. RISO Thomas Hawthorne is available should you have any questions or concerns. Regards, Gary Garman|Associate Regional Director, Operations|DHS|USCIS|Central Regional Office More
From: Robinson, Terri A Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2012 9:44 AM To: Goodwin, Shelley M; Garman, Gary G; Woo, Ellen Y; Dean, Kimberly D; Muzyka, Carolyn L;Redman, Kathy A; Cowan, Robert M; Renaud, Tracy L Cc: Blackwood, Robert L; Limon, Norma A; Clum, Teresa; Fite, Kenneth M; Tauchen, Robert B; Wright,John L; Campagnolo, Donna P; Monica, Donald J; Harrison, Julia L Subject: RE: I130s to the field All, Shelley asked a good question below, so I am taking the liberty to expand the audience to inform all the Regions at the same time. We received our first I-130 shipment from SCOPS late last week. We are in the process of ensuring they are all relocated properly and manifesting them for distribution. ******************************************* (b) (5)*********************************************. We have committed to providing the Regions with a report prior to any shipments going out that will identify the volumes by FCO. Additionally the shipments will have a manifest associated in their individual shipments. Please let me know if you have any questions on the current plan. Also, I promised in Boston toget you a timeline of sorts to help with communicating with the field and that is still in the works. Thanks as always for your patience. Terri Robinson Acting Center Director USCIS, National Benefits Center

From: Dooley, Sharon V To: # SPM ISO Subject: FW: Message to Field Offices on NBC Workloads & Modified Processes Date: Wednesday, October 17, 2012 2:07:45 PM Attachments: image001.jpg Importance: High Please see the following information which describes the workload shift from the NBC to the field. NBC is seeking to bring on additional staff to assist with their increased workload due to DACA. As they gain more staff, the NBC will resume its current case preparation processes and take back the adjudication of the stand-alone IR I-130 petitions. The timeframe that they will resume this work is unknown at this time. Thank you for your patience and cooperation. Sharon Dooley Sharon Dooley Field Office Director U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Saint Paul It seems the National Benefits Center couldn't complete background checks fast enough for some cases so they changed the screening process: From: Gallagher, Kevin E Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2012 7:28 AM To: Douglas, David M; Dooley, Sharon V Cc: Garman, Gary G Subject: FW: Message to Field Offices on NBC Workloads & Modified Processes Good morning all, This forwarded message deals with the e-mail string this morning titled DDDouglas is correct, the Lean & Light NBC process is due to the workload shift. The below e-mailstring details what we are to expect due to the modified process. Hits will be sent to the field without resolution for both AOS I-485 and N400 cases. Kevin E. Gallagher|Assistant Regional Director, Adjudications|DHS|USCIS|Central Regional Office| More
From: Garman, Gary G Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 8:03 AM To: Adams, Kim; Adams, Raymond P; Bard, Jodi; Blakeway, Albert W; Coates, Timothy S; Conway,Michael J; Dedvukaj, Mick; Dooley, Sharon V; Douglas, David M; Garman, Gary G; Hamilton, Ricky W; Hansen, Mark B; Heathman, Sandy M; Kehl, Lisa M; Kent, Jeanne M; Klinger, Michael J; Lambrecht, Andrew M; Lee, Kamsing V; Leopold, Kay F; Lopez, Antonio; Loutas, Aphrodite G; Mather, Robert B;McNeer, Laura K; Medina-Maltes, Martha E; Moyer, Chester S; Mueller-Cantu, Elaine M; Ortiz, Mario R;Perry, Michelle C; Pietropaoli, Lori A; Pratt, Caroline R; Reynolds, Patti J; Sheive, Kristy A; Siegl, Mark T;Stark, Laura; Tarango, Tracy; Tasch, Helaine S; Verderosa, Geoffrey J; Webb, Russell L; Zarybnicky,Kenneth A
Cc: Quarantillo, Andrea J; Langton, Lynn M; Brecht, Jeffrey T; Gallagher, Kevin E; Smith, John H; Dyer,LaToya S; Gonzalez, Alfonso G; Cowan, Robert M Subject: FW: Message to Field Offices on NBC Workloads & Modified Processes Field Leadership: If you have any questions on the NBC “lean and light” process, please contact Regional ISO Jay Watkins. For questions regarding the IR I-130s that will be shipped from the Service Center and through the NBC to the field for adjudication, contact RISO Thomas Hawthorne. For questions regarding any deferred action I-821Ds that will be sent to the field as a result of the random sampling process, contact RISO Gebre Habtu. Regards, Gary Garman|Associate Regional Director, Operations|DHS|USCIS|Central Regional Office| From: Monica, Donald J Sent: Friday, September 14, 2012 4:59 PM To: Woo, Ellen Y; Rust, Maureen; Garman, Gary G; Quarantillo, Andrea J; Redman, Kathy A; Tierney,Terry; Renaud, Tracy L; Goodwin, Shelley M Cc: Cowan, Robert M; Robinson, Terri A; Muzyka, Carolyn L; Campagnolo, Donna P Subject: Message to Field Offices on NBC Workloads & Modified Processes
Regions: Please pass the following information to your Field Offices. This provides additional background onthe transfer of work to the field while the NBC undertakes its hiring initiative. As additional staff enters on duty, the NBC will resume its current case preparation processes and take overadjudication of the stand-alone IR petitions.

Regards,

Donald J. Monica
Associate Director
Field Operations Directorate

Immediate Relative I-130 Process
August 15, 2012—California and Vermont Service centers began shipping Immediate Relative I-130s to NBC for distribution to the field for completion. NBC will ship I-130s to the field bi- weekly based on zip code jurisdiction starting the week of September 17th. Below is a quick summary of the NBC IR I-130 process: Until Lockbox is ready to receipt with MSC receipts, these I-130s will have WAC or EAC receipt numbers
Lockbox plans to start assigning MSC receipt numbers to stand alone Immediate Relative I-130s October 1, 2012.
Case information should be available in ICMS for field to update by the time they receive the I-130s
NBC plans regular shipments to the field every 2 weeks starting the week of September 17, 2012.
As agreed to, we will ship I-130s to the field office with jurisdiction over the petitioner’s ZIP code.
NBC will not perform full TECS checks or any evidence review on these cases before we ship to the field.
The I-130s will ship in receipt files, not A-files.
NBC will report bi-weekly (to align with shipments) on the volumes shipped to the fieldby office and region.
We’ll post the reports on Connect at USCIS Connect\ Working Resources\ NBC Recurring Reports.
The NBC will provide more details on related aspects associated with this process in the near future

Fellow VJers, I know that everyone is frustrated with USCIS and I decided to do a little number crunching today to include in my letter to my senators and congress. If you want to use the body of the letter for your own use, please feel free to do so, but I think that it is worth taking a look at the bullet points. It makes me even more appalled and frustrated with USCIS. I apologize if the formatting in the letter is weird. It is copied and pasted from a Word document.
I know that y'all are filing for spouses and I am filing for my parents, but ultimately we are filing the same petition and being thrown together, so in my eyes there is no difference. Hopefully this is helpful to y'all that are still waiting, especially those who filed in Feb/March.
Dear Senator Cruz,
I reached out to you by letter on August 4th 2013 to request assistance with a pending immigration case (I-130 petition for an immediate relative), that I have filed on behalf of my parents. The I-130 petitions for xxx and xxx were filed with a priority date of March 28th 2013.
The receipt numbers are xxx and xxx.
On November 14th 2013, I received a notice of action from USCIS stating that both cases had been transferred from the National Benefits Center to the Nebraska Service Center in order to “facilitate more timely processing”, (Please see enclosed). The letter also stated that if I did not receive a decision within 60 days, I should contact customer service. The 60 days deadline will come to fruition on 1/13/2014 and I still have not heard of any advancement on the pending petitions.
When I called USCIS customer service on 1/3/14, I was advised that my petition was still within normal processing times and that petitions were being processed with a priority date of February 13th, 2013. This is a disturbing figure as according to the USCIS government website, petitions approximately 30 days prior in September 2013, were being processed with a priority date of February 12th, 2013. This is equal to an advancement of one day within the space of a month and is simply unacceptable.
Additionally, the volume of petitions that are in limbo nationally and at service centers around the USA is increasing by the day, but despite USCIS statements where they claim to be putting all efforts into facilitating more timely processing, the actual figures published by USCIS do not reflect this.
I have illustrated these figures below in bullet-point form to support my concerns. Please note that the most recent data published is from October 2013.
The National goal to process an I-130 petition from start to finish is 5 months, yet the national average claims to be 8.7 months. If USCIS are only processing from February 2013 at a time of January 2014, this average is false. A more representative average would be approximately 11.5 months just to get the petition approved and moved to the National Visa Center. The current number of pending I-130 petitions sitting in the system that have not received adjudication is 379,068. Between September 2013 and October 2013, the number of pending cases increased by 6%. Between February 2013 to October 2013, the case-load increased by 60%. In contrast the volume of petitions that were adjudicated nationally was 7%. Nebraska service center showed an adjudication rate as of October 2013 of 1.6% which was equal to a mere 10.8 applications being completed daily. Compared to the 20,358 pending at the Nebraska Service Center, this is simply unacceptable. Texas service center had an even more appalling completion rate of 0.27% of all petitions pending. An average of 0.68 petitions was processed daily. This means that they did not even complete ANY applications on some days during the month of October 2013. Even more disturbing is the fact that USCIS is holding $159 MILLION dollars in processing fees from petitioners. Considering the facts that I have stated above, I am appalled that these people at USCIS are being paid and holding US citizen’s money to ransom when they are not even doing the job that they are being paid for.
I am a member of an online immigration forum where it has been observed that USCIS are now attempting to adjudicate petitions out of priority date order in an effort to portray shorter processing times. This manipulation of data does not reflect the reality in that the real processing time is at least 11.5 months.
I urge you, on behalf of myself and my fellow United State citizens who have petitioned for their immigrant relative to investigate why petitions are not being adjudicated by USCIS in a timely manner, in accordance with honoring their legal obligation as outlined in section 201(b) of the Immigration and National Act. This act was put in place to put all I-130 petitions as a priority above others in an effort to reunite foreign relatives living abroad with their United States Citizen family member.
I am aware that you are a family-oriented person and I am certain that you can appreciate the emotional turmoil and stress that separation from family can cause.
I appreciate your time and assistance in any information that can be provided with this case.
Sincerely,
xxx
Phone: xxx
Email: xxx

I hesitated to make this post, I wish it could be more useful and less stressful to my fellow filers suffering through the process, but maybe it'll spread some hope anyway. Received my approval notice late last night and it was a very much needed bit of good news. USCIS didn't email me until almost 12 hours after my status updated, so I recommend you guys follow your status online and don't rely on their alerts.
NOA1: June 12
Transfer to CSC: Dec 23
NOA2: January 7
So this is after CSC approved a June 12 and a June 14 filer last Friday -- they're really running through their cases. I have no idea what will happen at Texas or Nebraska but I'm definitely sticking around to see (and to help). My fingers are crossed for all of you. Keep sharing updates here and I'll make sure everything makes it into our spreadsheet!

We got approved Jan. 2, 2014.

Everyone is is waiting just around the same time as me, at 9:45am this morning, I just got APPROVED!
*HAPPY DANCE*

They don't receive as many petitions from Legal Residents as they do from U.S. citizens and that makes the line longer for U.S. citizens. You would think that the $420 paid should be enough to cover the cost of the adjudication and that USCIS could allocate resources based on a prediction how many cases they are going to receive each month). However, if you glance at processing volume data you'll see each month that while USCIS averages more and more I-130 petitions, completions have become fewer and fewer.

They don't receive as many petitions from Legal Residents as they do from U.S. citizens and that makes the line longer for U.S. citizens. You would think that the $420 paid should be enough to cover the cost of the adjudication and that USCIS could allocate resources based on a prediction how many cases they are going to receive each month). However, if you glance at processing volume data you'll see each month that while USCIS averages more and more I-130 petitions, completions have become fewer and fewer.

That's the question people have been asking for over two years now. USCIS decided to do this because "[t]his change makes the filing process more efficient and gives USCIS greater flexibility in managing its workload." (http://www.uscis.gov/news/uscis-centralizes-filing-form-i-130).%C2'>
In reality, changing the policy meant they could hold up petitions for months at a time before the shipping them off to service centers as they had before. There has been no news about the opening of a facility in Overland Park, KS and very few approvals from there outside of expedited cases. For a time case work was being sent to local offices but thankfully USCIS gave up on that idea. It seems as if new petitions are skipping the National Benefits Center again and going straight from the lock boxes to service centers.

It seems our letter writing campaign has reached someone who cares at American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA):
The Intolerable Delay for Relative PetitionsI recently met with a prospective client. The facts were not unusual: she was 35 years old, a U.S. citizen who is, and has been, living abroad, and she met somebody she wishes to marry. With this decision comes a host of other major life decisions: how to introduce her fiancé to her family, when and where to get married, and when and where to begin a family. These are choices that many, if not most of us, experienced in our 20s and 30s; it is part of the human experience. But when each half of a soon-to-be-wed couple is from a different country, there are additional considerations of immigration laws and processing that must be taken into account.

We reviewed the options: a fiancé visa if she wishes to be married in the U.S., or a relative petition and an immigrant visa application following a wedding abroad. For the latter option, there is the legislative provision for a K-3 visa if the processing is going to take a long time. However, USCIS has eviscerated this provision by insisting on adjudicating the K-3 petition simultaneously with the relative petition.

The discussion naturally turned to processing times. I had to explain that it was absolutely unknown. Right now, relative petitions are taking close to — maybe more than — a year. K-3 petitions may or may not be available. I still don’t understand the benefit of a K-3 petition since if USCIS is going to adjudicate the K-3 petition, why not simply approve the relative petition? It appears that USCIS agrees, but rather than approving the relative petition in a timely manner, it doesn’t adjudicate either until an unknowable period of time has passed.

It is, of course, close to impossible to plan a wedding based upon a fiancé petition. There is a 90-day window for the wedding, and the timing of that window cannot be known in advance. By the time it is known, there is insufficient time to find a venue, hire a caterer, send invitations, and plan a celebratory wedding. It is simply not possible.

Then, of course, my client wanted to consider the timing to start a family. She would like to have a baby in the United States, where she is more comfortable with the medical care, and has the support of family. But she naturally wants her husband to be a part of that experience. After all, it will be his child as well. The biological clock is ticking and family planning issues are a major consideration.

Oh yes, the fiancé lives in an Islamic country. We don’t discriminate based upon religion, of course — this is America. Except I am required to advise this client that “administrative processing” might be a phrase in their future. If so, “administrative processing” based upon the non-discriminatory security checks may delay her husband’s entry to the United States by anywhere from 2 weeks to a year or longer. This makes it more difficult to plan. No, let’s be honest, it’s not more difficult, it’s impossible. Of course, since he has been denied a visitor’s visa based upon section 214(b), there is no hope that he may be able to come to the U.S. temporarily to share in the birth of a child, and then return to his home country to wait for the immigrant visa.

So I find myself discussing the timing of a pregnancy with my client. Should she wait to get pregnant or get pregnant before getting married if they are going to apply for a fiancé visa? (This was not acceptable to the client.) She is 35 years old, so the question shifted to what if she has trouble getting pregnant? Should she start now? If a child does come along, what happens to the process to bring her husband to the U.S.? Will he miss the first year or more of the child’s life?

Then I get angry. She should not have to discuss all of this with her immigration lawyer– these are issues best discussed with her obstetrician and family if she chooses. Yet our dysfunctional immigration system makes it an immigration issue. It should not be an immigration issue, and to make it an immigration issue is just plain wrong.

USCIS appears to have put immediate relative petitions on hold. There is a heavy case load, we are told, and yet they still collect a $420 filing fee to adjudicate each petition. We are told that the fee, which has increased fourfold in the last 20 years (more than 300 percent higher than the cost of living increase[1]) is because the fee pays for the service and permits better service. Twenty years ago a relative petition took weeks to adjudicate. Now? Now it takes years.

It seems that USCIS owes the American citizens it purports to serve an explanation. And following the explanation, an apology, and a plan to correct this injustice is the least that should be done. To paraphrase, justice delayed does indeed create injustice.

Written by Rob Cohen, Vice Chair, AILA’s USCIS Liaison Committee
[1] In 1994, the INS increased the filing fee for a relative petition to $80.00. The Department of Labor, Consumer Price Index, calculates that $80 in 1994 has the same buying power as $126.07 today. This is an increase of 333% above the increase in the consumer price index. http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm

I saw that. I wonder who is going to take over the position in the interim, and if we can catch them early on and appeal to them. If we take a less adversarial tact with a new person, it may work in our favor. We know that this new person did not cause the problems, but will be in charge of fixing them. I think our next letter should be written accordingly.
Sent to her too.

It seems our letter writing campaign has reached someone who cares at American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA):
The Intolerable Delay for Relative PetitionsI recently met with a prospective client. The facts were not unusual: she was 35 years old, a U.S. citizen who is, and has been, living abroad, and she met somebody she wishes to marry. With this decision comes a host of other major life decisions: how to introduce her fiancé to her family, when and where to get married, and when and where to begin a family. These are choices that many, if not most of us, experienced in our 20s and 30s; it is part of the human experience. But when each half of a soon-to-be-wed couple is from a different country, there are additional considerations of immigration laws and processing that must be taken into account.

We reviewed the options: a fiancé visa if she wishes to be married in the U.S., or a relative petition and an immigrant visa application following a wedding abroad. For the latter option, there is the legislative provision for a K-3 visa if the processing is going to take a long time. However, USCIS has eviscerated this provision by insisting on adjudicating the K-3 petition simultaneously with the relative petition.

The discussion naturally turned to processing times. I had to explain that it was absolutely unknown. Right now, relative petitions are taking close to — maybe more than — a year. K-3 petitions may or may not be available. I still don’t understand the benefit of a K-3 petition since if USCIS is going to adjudicate the K-3 petition, why not simply approve the relative petition? It appears that USCIS agrees, but rather than approving the relative petition in a timely manner, it doesn’t adjudicate either until an unknowable period of time has passed.

It is, of course, close to impossible to plan a wedding based upon a fiancé petition. There is a 90-day window for the wedding, and the timing of that window cannot be known in advance. By the time it is known, there is insufficient time to find a venue, hire a caterer, send invitations, and plan a celebratory wedding. It is simply not possible.

Then, of course, my client wanted to consider the timing to start a family. She would like to have a baby in the United States, where she is more comfortable with the medical care, and has the support of family. But she naturally wants her husband to be a part of that experience. After all, it will be his child as well. The biological clock is ticking and family planning issues are a major consideration.

Oh yes, the fiancé lives in an Islamic country. We don’t discriminate based upon religion, of course — this is America. Except I am required to advise this client that “administrative processing” might be a phrase in their future. If so, “administrative processing” based upon the non-discriminatory security checks may delay her husband’s entry to the United States by anywhere from 2 weeks to a year or longer. This makes it more difficult to plan. No, let’s be honest, it’s not more difficult, it’s impossible. Of course, since he has been denied a visitor’s visa based upon section 214(b), there is no hope that he may be able to come to the U.S. temporarily to share in the birth of a child, and then return to his home country to wait for the immigrant visa.

So I find myself discussing the timing of a pregnancy with my client. Should she wait to get pregnant or get pregnant before getting married if they are going to apply for a fiancé visa? (This was not acceptable to the client.) She is 35 years old, so the question shifted to what if she has trouble getting pregnant? Should she start now? If a child does come along, what happens to the process to bring her husband to the U.S.? Will he miss the first year or more of the child’s life?

Then I get angry. She should not have to discuss all of this with her immigration lawyer– these are issues best discussed with her obstetrician and family if she chooses. Yet our dysfunctional immigration system makes it an immigration issue. It should not be an immigration issue, and to make it an immigration issue is just plain wrong.

USCIS appears to have put immediate relative petitions on hold. There is a heavy case load, we are told, and yet they still collect a $420 filing fee to adjudicate each petition. We are told that the fee, which has increased fourfold in the last 20 years (more than 300 percent higher than the cost of living increase[1]) is because the fee pays for the service and permits better service. Twenty years ago a relative petition took weeks to adjudicate. Now? Now it takes years.

It seems that USCIS owes the American citizens it purports to serve an explanation. And following the explanation, an apology, and a plan to correct this injustice is the least that should be done. To paraphrase, justice delayed does indeed create injustice.

Written by Rob Cohen, Vice Chair, AILA’s USCIS Liaison Committee
[1] In 1994, the INS increased the filing fee for a relative petition to $80.00. The Department of Labor, Consumer Price Index, calculates that $80 in 1994 has the same buying power as $126.07 today. This is an increase of 333% above the increase in the consumer price index. http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm

It seems our letter writing campaign has reached someone who cares at American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA):
The Intolerable Delay for Relative PetitionsI recently met with a prospective client. The facts were not unusual: she was 35 years old, a U.S. citizen who is, and has been, living abroad, and she met somebody she wishes to marry. With this decision comes a host of other major life decisions: how to introduce her fiancé to her family, when and where to get married, and when and where to begin a family. These are choices that many, if not most of us, experienced in our 20s and 30s; it is part of the human experience. But when each half of a soon-to-be-wed couple is from a different country, there are additional considerations of immigration laws and processing that must be taken into account.

We reviewed the options: a fiancé visa if she wishes to be married in the U.S., or a relative petition and an immigrant visa application following a wedding abroad. For the latter option, there is the legislative provision for a K-3 visa if the processing is going to take a long time. However, USCIS has eviscerated this provision by insisting on adjudicating the K-3 petition simultaneously with the relative petition.

The discussion naturally turned to processing times. I had to explain that it was absolutely unknown. Right now, relative petitions are taking close to — maybe more than — a year. K-3 petitions may or may not be available. I still don’t understand the benefit of a K-3 petition since if USCIS is going to adjudicate the K-3 petition, why not simply approve the relative petition? It appears that USCIS agrees, but rather than approving the relative petition in a timely manner, it doesn’t adjudicate either until an unknowable period of time has passed.

It is, of course, close to impossible to plan a wedding based upon a fiancé petition. There is a 90-day window for the wedding, and the timing of that window cannot be known in advance. By the time it is known, there is insufficient time to find a venue, hire a caterer, send invitations, and plan a celebratory wedding. It is simply not possible.

Then, of course, my client wanted to consider the timing to start a family. She would like to have a baby in the United States, where she is more comfortable with the medical care, and has the support of family. But she naturally wants her husband to be a part of that experience. After all, it will be his child as well. The biological clock is ticking and family planning issues are a major consideration.

Oh yes, the fiancé lives in an Islamic country. We don’t discriminate based upon religion, of course — this is America. Except I am required to advise this client that “administrative processing” might be a phrase in their future. If so, “administrative processing” based upon the non-discriminatory security checks may delay her husband’s entry to the United States by anywhere from 2 weeks to a year or longer. This makes it more difficult to plan. No, let’s be honest, it’s not more difficult, it’s impossible. Of course, since he has been denied a visitor’s visa based upon section 214(b), there is no hope that he may be able to come to the U.S. temporarily to share in the birth of a child, and then return to his home country to wait for the immigrant visa.

So I find myself discussing the timing of a pregnancy with my client. Should she wait to get pregnant or get pregnant before getting married if they are going to apply for a fiancé visa? (This was not acceptable to the client.) She is 35 years old, so the question shifted to what if she has trouble getting pregnant? Should she start now? If a child does come along, what happens to the process to bring her husband to the U.S.? Will he miss the first year or more of the child’s life?

Then I get angry. She should not have to discuss all of this with her immigration lawyer– these are issues best discussed with her obstetrician and family if she chooses. Yet our dysfunctional immigration system makes it an immigration issue. It should not be an immigration issue, and to make it an immigration issue is just plain wrong.

USCIS appears to have put immediate relative petitions on hold. There is a heavy case load, we are told, and yet they still collect a $420 filing fee to adjudicate each petition. We are told that the fee, which has increased fourfold in the last 20 years (more than 300 percent higher than the cost of living increase[1]) is because the fee pays for the service and permits better service. Twenty years ago a relative petition took weeks to adjudicate. Now? Now it takes years.

It seems that USCIS owes the American citizens it purports to serve an explanation. And following the explanation, an apology, and a plan to correct this injustice is the least that should be done. To paraphrase, justice delayed does indeed create injustice.

Written by Rob Cohen, Vice Chair, AILA’s USCIS Liaison Committee
[1] In 1994, the INS increased the filing fee for a relative petition to $80.00. The Department of Labor, Consumer Price Index, calculates that $80 in 1994 has the same buying power as $126.07 today. This is an increase of 333% above the increase in the consumer price index. http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm

It seems our letter writing campaign has reached someone who cares at American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA):
The Intolerable Delay for Relative PetitionsI recently met with a prospective client. The facts were not unusual: she was 35 years old, a U.S. citizen who is, and has been, living abroad, and she met somebody she wishes to marry. With this decision comes a host of other major life decisions: how to introduce her fiancé to her family, when and where to get married, and when and where to begin a family. These are choices that many, if not most of us, experienced in our 20s and 30s; it is part of the human experience. But when each half of a soon-to-be-wed couple is from a different country, there are additional considerations of immigration laws and processing that must be taken into account.

We reviewed the options: a fiancé visa if she wishes to be married in the U.S., or a relative petition and an immigrant visa application following a wedding abroad. For the latter option, there is the legislative provision for a K-3 visa if the processing is going to take a long time. However, USCIS has eviscerated this provision by insisting on adjudicating the K-3 petition simultaneously with the relative petition.

The discussion naturally turned to processing times. I had to explain that it was absolutely unknown. Right now, relative petitions are taking close to — maybe more than — a year. K-3 petitions may or may not be available. I still don’t understand the benefit of a K-3 petition since if USCIS is going to adjudicate the K-3 petition, why not simply approve the relative petition? It appears that USCIS agrees, but rather than approving the relative petition in a timely manner, it doesn’t adjudicate either until an unknowable period of time has passed.

It is, of course, close to impossible to plan a wedding based upon a fiancé petition. There is a 90-day window for the wedding, and the timing of that window cannot be known in advance. By the time it is known, there is insufficient time to find a venue, hire a caterer, send invitations, and plan a celebratory wedding. It is simply not possible.

Then, of course, my client wanted to consider the timing to start a family. She would like to have a baby in the United States, where she is more comfortable with the medical care, and has the support of family. But she naturally wants her husband to be a part of that experience. After all, it will be his child as well. The biological clock is ticking and family planning issues are a major consideration.

Oh yes, the fiancé lives in an Islamic country. We don’t discriminate based upon religion, of course — this is America. Except I am required to advise this client that “administrative processing” might be a phrase in their future. If so, “administrative processing” based upon the non-discriminatory security checks may delay her husband’s entry to the United States by anywhere from 2 weeks to a year or longer. This makes it more difficult to plan. No, let’s be honest, it’s not more difficult, it’s impossible. Of course, since he has been denied a visitor’s visa based upon section 214(b), there is no hope that he may be able to come to the U.S. temporarily to share in the birth of a child, and then return to his home country to wait for the immigrant visa.

So I find myself discussing the timing of a pregnancy with my client. Should she wait to get pregnant or get pregnant before getting married if they are going to apply for a fiancé visa? (This was not acceptable to the client.) She is 35 years old, so the question shifted to what if she has trouble getting pregnant? Should she start now? If a child does come along, what happens to the process to bring her husband to the U.S.? Will he miss the first year or more of the child’s life?

Then I get angry. She should not have to discuss all of this with her immigration lawyer– these are issues best discussed with her obstetrician and family if she chooses. Yet our dysfunctional immigration system makes it an immigration issue. It should not be an immigration issue, and to make it an immigration issue is just plain wrong.

USCIS appears to have put immediate relative petitions on hold. There is a heavy case load, we are told, and yet they still collect a $420 filing fee to adjudicate each petition. We are told that the fee, which has increased fourfold in the last 20 years (more than 300 percent higher than the cost of living increase[1]) is because the fee pays for the service and permits better service. Twenty years ago a relative petition took weeks to adjudicate. Now? Now it takes years.

It seems that USCIS owes the American citizens it purports to serve an explanation. And following the explanation, an apology, and a plan to correct this injustice is the least that should be done. To paraphrase, justice delayed does indeed create injustice.

Written by Rob Cohen, Vice Chair, AILA’s USCIS Liaison Committee
[1] In 1994, the INS increased the filing fee for a relative petition to $80.00. The Department of Labor, Consumer Price Index, calculates that $80 in 1994 has the same buying power as $126.07 today. This is an increase of 333% above the increase in the consumer price index. http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm

It seems our letter writing campaign has reached someone who cares at American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA):
The Intolerable Delay for Relative PetitionsI recently met with a prospective client. The facts were not unusual: she was 35 years old, a U.S. citizen who is, and has been, living abroad, and she met somebody she wishes to marry. With this decision comes a host of other major life decisions: how to introduce her fiancé to her family, when and where to get married, and when and where to begin a family. These are choices that many, if not most of us, experienced in our 20s and 30s; it is part of the human experience. But when each half of a soon-to-be-wed couple is from a different country, there are additional considerations of immigration laws and processing that must be taken into account.

We reviewed the options: a fiancé visa if she wishes to be married in the U.S., or a relative petition and an immigrant visa application following a wedding abroad. For the latter option, there is the legislative provision for a K-3 visa if the processing is going to take a long time. However, USCIS has eviscerated this provision by insisting on adjudicating the K-3 petition simultaneously with the relative petition.

The discussion naturally turned to processing times. I had to explain that it was absolutely unknown. Right now, relative petitions are taking close to — maybe more than — a year. K-3 petitions may or may not be available. I still don’t understand the benefit of a K-3 petition since if USCIS is going to adjudicate the K-3 petition, why not simply approve the relative petition? It appears that USCIS agrees, but rather than approving the relative petition in a timely manner, it doesn’t adjudicate either until an unknowable period of time has passed.

It is, of course, close to impossible to plan a wedding based upon a fiancé petition. There is a 90-day window for the wedding, and the timing of that window cannot be known in advance. By the time it is known, there is insufficient time to find a venue, hire a caterer, send invitations, and plan a celebratory wedding. It is simply not possible.

Then, of course, my client wanted to consider the timing to start a family. She would like to have a baby in the United States, where she is more comfortable with the medical care, and has the support of family. But she naturally wants her husband to be a part of that experience. After all, it will be his child as well. The biological clock is ticking and family planning issues are a major consideration.

Oh yes, the fiancé lives in an Islamic country. We don’t discriminate based upon religion, of course — this is America. Except I am required to advise this client that “administrative processing” might be a phrase in their future. If so, “administrative processing” based upon the non-discriminatory security checks may delay her husband’s entry to the United States by anywhere from 2 weeks to a year or longer. This makes it more difficult to plan. No, let’s be honest, it’s not more difficult, it’s impossible. Of course, since he has been denied a visitor’s visa based upon section 214(b), there is no hope that he may be able to come to the U.S. temporarily to share in the birth of a child, and then return to his home country to wait for the immigrant visa.

So I find myself discussing the timing of a pregnancy with my client. Should she wait to get pregnant or get pregnant before getting married if they are going to apply for a fiancé visa? (This was not acceptable to the client.) She is 35 years old, so the question shifted to what if she has trouble getting pregnant? Should she start now? If a child does come along, what happens to the process to bring her husband to the U.S.? Will he miss the first year or more of the child’s life?

Then I get angry. She should not have to discuss all of this with her immigration lawyer– these are issues best discussed with her obstetrician and family if she chooses. Yet our dysfunctional immigration system makes it an immigration issue. It should not be an immigration issue, and to make it an immigration issue is just plain wrong.

USCIS appears to have put immediate relative petitions on hold. There is a heavy case load, we are told, and yet they still collect a $420 filing fee to adjudicate each petition. We are told that the fee, which has increased fourfold in the last 20 years (more than 300 percent higher than the cost of living increase[1]) is because the fee pays for the service and permits better service. Twenty years ago a relative petition took weeks to adjudicate. Now? Now it takes years.

It seems that USCIS owes the American citizens it purports to serve an explanation. And following the explanation, an apology, and a plan to correct this injustice is the least that should be done. To paraphrase, justice delayed does indeed create injustice.

Written by Rob Cohen, Vice Chair, AILA’s USCIS Liaison Committee
[1] In 1994, the INS increased the filing fee for a relative petition to $80.00. The Department of Labor, Consumer Price Index, calculates that $80 in 1994 has the same buying power as $126.07 today. This is an increase of 333% above the increase in the consumer price index. http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm

It seems our letter writing campaign has reached someone who cares at American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA):
The Intolerable Delay for Relative PetitionsI recently met with a prospective client. The facts were not unusual: she was 35 years old, a U.S. citizen who is, and has been, living abroad, and she met somebody she wishes to marry. With this decision comes a host of other major life decisions: how to introduce her fiancé to her family, when and where to get married, and when and where to begin a family. These are choices that many, if not most of us, experienced in our 20s and 30s; it is part of the human experience. But when each half of a soon-to-be-wed couple is from a different country, there are additional considerations of immigration laws and processing that must be taken into account.

We reviewed the options: a fiancé visa if she wishes to be married in the U.S., or a relative petition and an immigrant visa application following a wedding abroad. For the latter option, there is the legislative provision for a K-3 visa if the processing is going to take a long time. However, USCIS has eviscerated this provision by insisting on adjudicating the K-3 petition simultaneously with the relative petition.

The discussion naturally turned to processing times. I had to explain that it was absolutely unknown. Right now, relative petitions are taking close to — maybe more than — a year. K-3 petitions may or may not be available. I still don’t understand the benefit of a K-3 petition since if USCIS is going to adjudicate the K-3 petition, why not simply approve the relative petition? It appears that USCIS agrees, but rather than approving the relative petition in a timely manner, it doesn’t adjudicate either until an unknowable period of time has passed.

It is, of course, close to impossible to plan a wedding based upon a fiancé petition. There is a 90-day window for the wedding, and the timing of that window cannot be known in advance. By the time it is known, there is insufficient time to find a venue, hire a caterer, send invitations, and plan a celebratory wedding. It is simply not possible.

Then, of course, my client wanted to consider the timing to start a family. She would like to have a baby in the United States, where she is more comfortable with the medical care, and has the support of family. But she naturally wants her husband to be a part of that experience. After all, it will be his child as well. The biological clock is ticking and family planning issues are a major consideration.

Oh yes, the fiancé lives in an Islamic country. We don’t discriminate based upon religion, of course — this is America. Except I am required to advise this client that “administrative processing” might be a phrase in their future. If so, “administrative processing” based upon the non-discriminatory security checks may delay her husband’s entry to the United States by anywhere from 2 weeks to a year or longer. This makes it more difficult to plan. No, let’s be honest, it’s not more difficult, it’s impossible. Of course, since he has been denied a visitor’s visa based upon section 214(b), there is no hope that he may be able to come to the U.S. temporarily to share in the birth of a child, and then return to his home country to wait for the immigrant visa.

So I find myself discussing the timing of a pregnancy with my client. Should she wait to get pregnant or get pregnant before getting married if they are going to apply for a fiancé visa? (This was not acceptable to the client.) She is 35 years old, so the question shifted to what if she has trouble getting pregnant? Should she start now? If a child does come along, what happens to the process to bring her husband to the U.S.? Will he miss the first year or more of the child’s life?

Then I get angry. She should not have to discuss all of this with her immigration lawyer– these are issues best discussed with her obstetrician and family if she chooses. Yet our dysfunctional immigration system makes it an immigration issue. It should not be an immigration issue, and to make it an immigration issue is just plain wrong.

USCIS appears to have put immediate relative petitions on hold. There is a heavy case load, we are told, and yet they still collect a $420 filing fee to adjudicate each petition. We are told that the fee, which has increased fourfold in the last 20 years (more than 300 percent higher than the cost of living increase[1]) is because the fee pays for the service and permits better service. Twenty years ago a relative petition took weeks to adjudicate. Now? Now it takes years.

It seems that USCIS owes the American citizens it purports to serve an explanation. And following the explanation, an apology, and a plan to correct this injustice is the least that should be done. To paraphrase, justice delayed does indeed create injustice.

Written by Rob Cohen, Vice Chair, AILA’s USCIS Liaison Committee
[1] In 1994, the INS increased the filing fee for a relative petition to $80.00. The Department of Labor, Consumer Price Index, calculates that $80 in 1994 has the same buying power as $126.07 today. This is an increase of 333% above the increase in the consumer price index. http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm

January: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AsvZPBxJt8H4dHRxT0J1MlRRV0Z1d2NPQjZJYmwtdmc#gid=0
February: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Anpi244OAt_IdHFuNUs4ZHd4LUU1cW1jN1Y1cXBNbFE#gid=0
March: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Anpi244OAt_IdGJxVU9tVVpXRkVZVlVMcjVwMGowOUE&usp=drive_web#gid=19
April: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Anpi244OAt_IdENRYm1EZW1KVS1lUC1qaXh6Q09ReGc&usp=sharing#gid=0
May: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Anpi244OAt_IdHotcTd6dmNNTkh6QlJ1YTRkWDZUSEE#gid=0
June: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Anpi244OAt_IdDBlVllzeFdwSWxqamJFLUxaNjJzUGc#gid=0
July: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AqbNd1-VjCT-dDhTSDFVcGJOSE5tMmR5dkRYUk9mYUE&usp=sharing#gid=0
August: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AsvZPBxJt8H4dDdiM2tUS0ZsTGhtbGxSN05uUGF5WGc#gid=0
September: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0ArFCcHLV9HyydE1UZkNVM0RGY0x1ejRmY1J4TEFLM3c#gid=0
October: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Avyw59HrFr8VdHFlTFNKU3FMSHo1OW9OUnNTZVZreUE&usp=sharing#gid=4
I think that we may need to create one for January, and August is probably coming up next.
Putting this here as a reference for anyone who is looking for the spreadsheets. I'll update the post as needed.
Btw, perhaps we can come up with a master spreadsheet that combines all of this info?

Dude, I think I found your petition!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlNkcvuqXBo
Seriously, I wish I had more information for you. Thought you might appreciate the link, though.

you can save the letter as a pdf file and then you have all pictures. I did it that way

Done too.. emails sent!

Emailed and faxed!