tv House Judiciary Subcommittee Hearing on Immigration Policy and Processing... CSPAN July 20, 2019 2:01am-3:41am EDT
the committee on immigration citizenship is in order. we are here today to explore an aspect of our immigration system that generally uses far less attention than community read. migration flow from central america. mistreatment of families at the border. is a very serious issue. they will continue to examine them. the current situation must not
be overlooked. record high case backlogs and policy changes make it harder to obtain benefits. they deserve careful attention. these are profound problems that have a direct impact on countless individuals. other entities such as hospitals. i'm sure others will agree that we hear about these issues on almost a daily basis. although they have struggle with backlogs since its creation, the agency reports that the current backlog in 2019 more than 2.4 million cases. this represents the incredible 344 percent increase for the backlog of cases in 2014. it is the largest backlog since 2003 when they came to a halt
in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. they 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 fo protection has language. a startup company abandoning the key project that will lead to substantial job creations because it is unable to get a visa for specialty engineers. families that remain separated for much longer than necessary because of delays associated with enhanced vetting. they examine how processing delays impact everyday people. will also explore what is causing these delays. how they plan to bring processing times down to reasonable levels.
although it is true the backlog to increase violence, and staffing issues, and other operational factors, it is clearly another driver. implemented are substantially changing the way they are adjudicated. the administration has eradicated a number of commonsense policies that have streamlined processing. it appears that these new policies have also increased the odds. that means more delays and more web pay without good reasons. processing delays making it more difficult than ever to qualified applicants to get immigration status.
this piece need individuals from being fully productive members of our society and economy. 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 we can better understand the purpose and intent of recent policy changes as well as the impact. my hope is that with today's hearing, we will not only hear about these problems could be addressed, but they will also determine whether or not legislative fixes are necessary. a return to the ranking member for his opening statement.>> i think the chair. i appreciate them holding this hearing. the subcommittee has an appointed oversight responsibility. adjudication without fall squarely within the current issues we should watch.
i wish i had heard the same concerns and average one president obama's program resulted in long adjudication wait times for immediate relative applications among other immigration benefits. in the new york times took notice of the increase times. the article stated that many thousands of americans have been separated from them for a euro more because of bureaucratic delays. the long which came with the agency services shifted attention and resources to a program he started in 2012 to give deportation deferrals to young undocumented immigrants. i do not recall any concerns raised about what the backlogs would look like when my colleagues were passing them. the bill that would have required them to process
millions of green cards and naturalization applications. the volume of benefits request received various. in any given year, they administer a broad range of programs which he receives millions of benefit applications and petitions. in 2018 alone, more than 8 million immigration benefits were requested. that was actually a decrease from the number you requested during fiscal year 2007 10. despite the huge volume of receipts, they still managed to naturalize nearly 757,000 u.s. citizens during fiscal year 2018. more than in any of the previous five years. 2010 also saw them adjudicate more immigration benefits than ever in its history. is to be commended for those accomplishments.
to be clear, benefits to be probably adjudicated. everyone here would agree with that. it is important they abide by the mission to throw it at request from immigration benefits. is also important for the agency to adhere to the rest of its mission. to administer the nation's lawful immigration system. while protecting americans and securing the homeland. immigration benefits should not be delayed for nefarious purposes. nor should they be rubberstamped. as we have seen many factors contribute to the volume of benefit requests. what kind of factors contribute to increased volume. they have led to increases in naturalization applications. those apply for naturalization. on administrative action can increase the volume as well. the doctoral program has added 2.4 million adjudications to u.s. cis workflow.
even congress can add to the volume. when you push the increased number in the given category. unfortunately, they seem to be inherently behind the curve given its ability is dictated by agency funding and funding is dependent on list inflexible roles. there is no doubt that they should remain a fee funded agency. taxpayers should not build a burden a paid for immigration benefits for foreign nationals. i look forward to hearing from them today. any ideas the agency has that allow flexibility to increase and decrease staff with the rise and fall of volume. with regard to recent policy changes about which the majority and some of the witnesses raise concerns, ensure the integrity of our immigration system is paramount. that should be balanced with reasonable policies and procedures.
recently they instituted a change in policy to end the practice of filing an application. this opposes an additional burden and adds to the backlog. it is also important that they have the ability to issue notices to better protect national security and prevent fraud. i look for to the witnesses testimony to get a better understanding of the backlog and the factors contribute to. >> i recognize the chairman of the committee for his opening statement. >> today's hearing examines a critical issue. policy changes and processing delays. it is important to remember that immigration debate does not start and stop at the southern border.
they have focused most of their attention. the legal immigration system is not immune from dramatic policy changes as well. changes that are diminishing the ability to remain in the united states legally. most of the policy changes that have been implemented appeared to be intended to make adjudications more complicated. therefore more time-consuming and more difficult for individuals to obtain legal status in this country. these policy changes in to fix things that were not broken to begin with. on the centigrade unnecessary obstacles to legal immigration. for example, last august, this only announced that it would impose harsh penalties on immigrant students who violate their status. if the violation was not intentional. it was based on the typical
error. thankfully this stepped in it this policy is a whole. another example of the determination. it's lost any policy of waiving the primary. most of these have been in the united states for many years. except in cases, or is there some other issue. backlogs are growing exponentially. let us not forget the public charge role. they would determine whether or not a person is likely to be relying on public services. it is therefore eligible for visa green card. basic services that the uses of their income was only rendered ineligible.
approximately 7000 employees and contractors f5 service and. to give you an idea of the volume of our work, service and operations process approximately five allocations and particularly. that not require face-to-face interviews. applications and petitions for certain humanitarian benefits. this one 60 megawatts the emphasis is to use all without
our system. we are aware of the consequences for evidence if they're unable to meet its petition. sharing individual stores. there are many factors the drug backlogs. service and operations, we see one major factor. other factors include statutory changes. the regular workload demands. applications bugs related to the increases and staffing shortages. we should not that we expect
they begin to listen. what they have often struggled with the processing times, i'm confident we have the imagination and determination to address this latest backlog. thank you once more for your interest in this matter. would be happy to answer any questions you may have.>> we not go to the members of the subcommittee for their questions.
thank you for the i attempted to discuss political challenges we face. chief of the officer. i served in this capacity since 2016. my creator also served as a director of the office of immigration. our provided number primary factors we have in our permanent battle. currently serve in the management director. responsible for multiple supports functions. human resources. for performance measurement and analysis. specifically my office makes
deathly dishes that requires staffing based on future workload projections and efficiency rates. as you can see, what i do not directly to applications, they do provide the infrastructure and the means by which our agency performs and measures its work. backlogs are not new. which is our highest backlog in 2013 due to import of increased security betting. as of may 2010 is 2.4 million. let me give you an example of the impact of the backlog. it has taken 10 months to process naturalizations. we know from experience it is possible through efficiencies and resources. the 2003 backlog was reduced.
and the authority to use premium processing to hire additional staff. may reduce the backlog down to 50,000. it has ribbons risen each year since then. most was in 2016 and 17. grew from 634,000 of 21.1 million. interested 2.3 million as of september 2017. more than 70 percent between 2010 and now occurred in those two years. the backlog has stabilized since 2017. there are many factors that contribute to changes in the backlog. not going to discuss the most significant factors. the timeline that was all. we projected that would
increase in 2016. due to the combined impact of 2 factors. they previously had always increased before the national election. we notice the proposed fee increase is published, it motivates applicants to apply before the increases are implemented. unlike pass election, we see this continued increase in 2017. the elevated levels were largely responsible for the growth. receipt levels have returned to normal. it has helped us to reduce the growth of the backlog.
we reached a five-year high in the number of persons. the girls is to continue to hire more staff. five percent in 18. increasing staff is an effective component to backlog reduction. is effective but not immediate. hiring training staff always takes a few years. it is a reactive process. we have to hire and train staff. that can take many months. for a six year horizon. under this model, they're able to proactively identify required staff. positions are filled by the time they are needed. such process will not only allow them to reduce the
current backlog hopefully prevents anyone. i very much appreciate the time and attention you have given to us. >> thank you very much. thanks to each one of you for that useful and informative testimony. we will now go to members of the subcommittee will have questions under the five-minute role. i would like to recognize the ranking member for his questions. >> i'm going to yield. that would be fine. >> thank you madam chairman. dated the information required double back.
>> if you're referring to the petition for citizen, i think was back in 2013. >> the information you have to verify. >> it as complexity. >> in addition to that, are you seeing an uptick in applications for citizenship? i did not hear how big of an uptick. >> we received a little bit under 1 million applications for naturalization in 2016. a little dinner million in 2017. how does that compare to 10 years ago? >> we average between 700 and 800,000 applications. up to 1 million. that is correct.
roughly 25 percent increase in the number of people who are applying. >> that is correct. on the other side, how many applications do you actually processing or proving. >> in the past fiscal year, we completed 750,000 approvals. it was closer to 850,000 completions for naturalization. what would those figures say 10 years ago? >> i do not have them. there were lower than that. i do not have the numbers. >> we do have some years that were hire. >> going back.
the number of applications being approved higher or lower? >> i was in the last five years has averaged. >> the amount of applications have increased dramatically. up to 25 percent. the amount of information you have to sort through his doubled. with the doubling of the forms. we are seeing a substantial increase in applications of approved naturalizations completed. is the backlog a function of those to make issues. more information to go through? >> yes i would agree with that. how long it takes us to work
those cases. >> yield to the ranking member. >> we now turn to the gentleman from california. >> thank you madam chair. to think and witnesses for the work you're doing. let me follow up on some of the comments made by mcauley. hello it low after 911. the application doubled you said. is that correct? you can understand why security issues. you doubled the amount of work you have to do for citizenship application. i would imagine that the automation since 2013 has increased.
is that correct? the processing. >> yes. productivity was in term of each individual, is that going up or down? >> the processing for individual. >> it has gone up this year from last. >> you have about 700+. the slides you have been authorized. how are you doing in terms of hiring?>> we made a focus of horrors. we have been in the high 90 percent of on board staff. >> a pretty good place to hire people. >> thank you very much. i used to fill out applications
for citizenship. one of them was for my uncle. 70 years old. he applied to be a u.s. citizen. victor for 50 years. i feel his application. i called the office and said we lost the application. filled it out again. they do not know the year. the application was laws. the third, do not call. i want to see what was going on. the nice lady behind the counter cylindrical find replication. 2 hours later she came back and get a special bond for attorneys. she came back with half the application. she said we lost the other half of the application. she said i'm not going to make you wait another year. here is a whole application packet. go fill out. three and half years later we finally made him a u.s. citizen. i am sure we have a process system where paperwork is at a
minimum. in my correct? >> we have an electronic way to file.>> i am trying to figure out. you are doing a great job given what you have in front of you. we have a lot of people that have fulfilled the requirements to be americans. for u.s. citizens. all of this information. listening to your testimony. i'm tried to figure out what do i do to help you help those individuals that want to be americans fulfill that american dream.>> the personnel for you. in the process of hiring them. we need more resources for automations. to make sure you crosscheck all of 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. >> i spoke about the training. i think one of the things that could be helped, we would like to expand our training facility. we have money designated for that. we need authority from congress to be able to expand that. that would really help us to get people on board and trained. ready to work. >> anything else? hiring border patrol agents had been a challenge. because of the lie detector test and the challenge. you do not have anything similar to that in terms of challenges? any other problems. anything else we can do to help you expedite the process. reduce the backlog. >> we have defunded the agency.
for the most part we're getting some appropriate funds. the ability to hire staff is dependent on the fees that we collect. first we need to collect those fees before we can spend them. the need to be set properly. i guess what i would ask, where we periodically review our fee structure the to be supportive of the fees we need to set. >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> thank you madam chair. >> the young lady from arizona is recognized for five minutes. >> mr. valverde. has anyone in this administration told you to slow down processing citizenship cases? >> no man. >> has anyone told you to slow down in the case processing?>> know.>> what do you say to those who claim you're trying to slow processing on purpose.
>> i was say the data. to be surrounded by colleagues who come to work to process immigration request with the utmost integrity as we can. they has been thicker is bringing people to the franchise. were there registered to vote or not is another thing. they has been thicker is helping people become citizens. it is on the process work that we do. >> isn't it true that during fiscal year 18, your agency naturalized more people than in any of the previous five years? >> yes ma'am.>> mr. neufeld. in the testimony in the next panel, mr. cohan will testify that u.s. eis is new rfe id policy means that any small
mistake or lack of information on an application that results in a denial without giving the applicant a chance to correct the mistake. is this an accurate description of the policy?>> that is something that we issue with the evidence that was submitted is insufficient to demonstrate their eligible. for the benefit there is seeking. we issue a request for evidence for the purpose of allowing the applicant to basically provide the following. the change that happened had been previous, there have been a policy that said for the most part where the evidence does not support and approval, that the office should repent. this change you are referring to
is the change in the policy to clarify that were the record appears to be complete, the decision can be rented on the record without having to issue a request for evidence. >> thank you. mr. harper. the house recently passed number 6. the american dream and promise and which will provide green cards and a path to citizenship to millions of illegal immigrants. i'm not going to ask your thoughts on the bill. i would like to ask you what the implication is going to be on operational aspects from that bill. >> i think a lot of it depends on how it is implemented. meaning if it was 2 million people.
always that would have an immediate effect. too many people showed up, we haven't had the hiring and money upfront. certainly it would have a impact. on the backlogs. >> thank you madam chair. i did not have any more questions. did you want it in my time? i you back my time. >> take you to the panel members for being here today. obviously we are here because of the backlogs that many of us experience throughout the country. the administration is added to the problem by imposing new hurdles through every aspect.
the fastest-growing and most diverse agents which represent. i appreciate your contribution that it brings to the local economy. the diverse economy by the processing delays. in march 28, congressman also from houston march 28, congressman olson, also from houston, and i, read a letter from the houston delegation to the former director, outlining the harmful impact of these delays in the community. democrats and republicans alike are concerned about the future of our family and businesses if the backlog problem continues. i might add that this was signed by all members of the houston-area delegation. according to the most recent data, the average time for an i-485 or green card application in houston is currently between 15 and 28 months. for an and 400
application for naturalization, the backlog varies between 14 and 21 months. for the i 765, the employment authorization, the delay can be up to five months, causing loss of wages for many applicants. it does depend on their contributions. it is disconcerting and unacceptable. though we understand that staffing is up to the agency, it is a long process. requirements for bidding's for candidates and we think that of course, you can all do better. we have identified the problem and now we must invest in solutions. regrettably, madam chair, one of the questions we asked was, do you need additional statutory direction or funding to better respond in a timely way? he actually answered no, although we appreciate the offer for assistance. i would begin my question with that question for the panel members today. you need additional
statutory direction or funding? all three of you, just yes or no. >> as my colleague said before, we appreciate the support when we go to support our fees, so we get the right funding for the casework we need to do. >> so your answer is yes? >> i am answering we would appreciate the support as we look to adjust our fees. >> well i'm glad you are saying yes, because i couldn't understand why the director, who of course is no longer here, is saying no. it seems to me that we can do all we can in providing support, that we need solutions coming from the agency. all three of your career, right? not political appointees? >> correct. >> so you know how this works. many of you have been here through many years. you identified and said the increase tends to come in terms of patterns before an election
days the increase, did i hear you correctly? >> that is correct, ma'am. >> okay, we have an election coming. have you all already put in place planning and processes to prepare for that, knowing that there will be an increase? >> yes ma'am. within field operations we recognize the trend that you referred to, leading up to the election years. there is often an increase in applications. we also recognize the fact that the growth in receipts has not impacted equally across the country. so some of the work we are doing right now to try to ensure that the impact of receipts, the impact of free elections, application growth, are addressed where they are most critical. that is to say, 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 and applicants experience in houston is more similar to an average applicants experience across the nation. >> well, what really concerns me too with some of the things we are hearing about some of the changes. number one, the fee increases. number two, they may not get the interviews and they might have to travel a great distance. what is it you are proposing that would actually help people get their applications timely processed? >> the time has expired but i will give you time to answer. >> it is a couple of things. first, with the changing, we
have looked at the map and where there are locations that are close and we can move a zip code or something like that, that enables a group of applicants to have their case seen sooner. that is why we have done that. those individuals, should they be able to travel, we get their case seen sooner, for the benefit of getting seen faster. we are doing a number of things i said in my testimony, so i won't repeat it here around process, reform, hiring and other things to help everyone go faster. >> thank you, thank you madam chair. the gentleman from north dakota is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, madam chair. i just want to clarify, do we need additional congressional funding on top of this funding? >> i will take that one. i think what we are saying, none of us manage or oversee the budget, but 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 fiscal and budget constraints. i think it is safe to say that additional money would help. the source of that money, whether it is appropriated, as an operator, it doesn't matter. it would just be helpful to have the staff. >> i also appreciate, to talk about significant distance, i married an immigrant and we live in rural north dakota. and this is 2004. the process in and of itself is daunting and this is coming from two pretty educated people. i just graduated law school. she was in law school. but when you drive 250 miles to minneapolis and show up for a meeting 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 go back. i practiced in this area.
our firm practiced in this area through two presidents now. two republicans and one democrat. i appreciate the fact we are talking about the history of this, because this didn't start in the first week of january, 2017. throughout the campaign, throughout our office, i have met with people waiting on 2008 visa permits to be processed. these are researchers who were at the langdon research center in north dakota. five employees, total. the frustration level for not only them, but also their employers and the community at large. we have a community under 1200 people. they become part of it. so i am glad we are having this conversation, but i do have one specific question relating to the eb five. that says foreign nationals can apply for permanent residence if they make investment in targeted employment areas. i know there is a rule in
place, the eb-5 modernization would increase the minimum investment amount significantly, transfer targeted employment areas from the state agencies, to the department of homeland security and create priority data retention for eb-5, using priority data previously approved. and to establish more oversight and regional centers, et cetera. uscis submitted the proposed eb-5 program modernization in february, 2018, correct? >> yes sir. >> and omb completed its review of eb-5 in june? >> i understand they recently finished it, yes. >> you have a status update on where that is that? >> it is still in the process. it has not been published yet, as you know. i would expect it relatively
soon, but i don't have a date. >> relatively soon, that is ambiguous. we like to use that term. so, months? >> i would think it is less than months. >> thank you. >> i don't have an answer. >> yes. i want to clarify one point with mr. valverde. you answer 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 and then words were put in your mouth and the answer was, i believe that is a yes. i didn't hear a yes and i wanted to make sure. there are benefits, are there not, to having a fee funded system as opposed to an appropriated system for your agencies? >> i'm not an expert in that area. i know enough to know there are profound differences. i guess that is as much as i can say. >> you don't like yes or no answers, do you? >> will the gentleman yield? i would note that these are
career -- they don't have really the luxury of opining, that is a policy decision with the congress to make that. i don't think anyone is proposing that we moved uscis away from a fee funded agency, just to clarify. >> i appreciate the chairwoman 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. 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. and i yield. >> yield back in the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from colorado is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, madam chair, for holding this important hearing. i want to follow up on a point made by some of my colleagues a moment ago, because this
isn't just around money. a basic set of facts. there was a 13% decrease, my understanding, in the volume of application submitted. does that sound about right? >> it sounds right, yes. >> and from 2018 to 2017, your budget had a 6% increase. does that sound about right? >> in ftes. >> ftes, precisely. i'm not making the case that there might be a reallocation issue, but to the point my colleague made earlier and she posed a question about whether or not you had been directed to slow walk applications and so forth, the central question, which i think you answered in your testimony, is that the various policies your agency has adopted in the last two years, since the trump administration took office and perhaps at their behest, has
that exacerbated the backlog? we understand there was a backlog before january 1, 2017, but i think your written testimony confirms that yes, that is one of the reasons there is a backlog. is that accurate to say? >> let me go back to the question about the decrease. i testified, what happened is there is some lag when you get receipts. >> i understand. it is a simple question. i guess we will let your written testimony speak for itself. there are a variety of policies, in addition to other factors, that of lengthened processing times. that's not a fair statement to make? >> no, that is fair. >> okay, that is just baseline set of facts i think we should operate under for the purpose of this hearing. i appreciate the work you do and i appreciate your service. i appreciate you appearing before us today. we have a serious problem. this backlog, which i understand existed for quite some time, but has been exacerbated over the last two
fiscal years in particular, is not sustainable. a 344% increase from the net backlog of cases in 2014. look at a five year window and in colorado, my state, the ranking member i suspect appreciates this as well, there is a long queue that is building and building. i appreciate your efforts, but i think we ought -- the point my colleague from texas made, we ought to be focusing on solutions to these problems. one of the issues i want to ask you all about, the backlog reduction plan that you submitted or the summary 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. number five in your list. redefining processing time goals to better reflect true cycle times. which i understand based on your testimony was a recommendation made by the dhs
office of inspector general. the way i read this, what you're saying is that right now, because the agency is unable to fulfill the 100 day goal for a variety of different applications. resident applications and so forth. you intend to simply change the goal and instead of saying 120 days, make it 180 days. i can tell you, from my perspective, having run a regulatory agency in colorado. a small budget, 600 employees, appearing before our legislative committee would not sit well if i said i will simply change the processing time, because we can't meet it. does anyone have a way to explain that? >> i will respond to that, briefly. the oig statement says to me that the 120 day goal of all the things that the agency must day due to process an application for adjustment of status, they are not feasible in 120 days.
all the background checks, fingerprint appointment, 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 duty functions is responding to people who reasonably say, when is my case going to be due? >> to that point i would say i certainly agree, i appreciate what you're doing with respect to the online programs. the you have mentioned launching in your backlog reduction plan. i think that would accomplish what you're after, but extending the timelines so it is quote unquote more realistic, to me, is not an appropriate response to the backlog. last, you mentioned, in respect to fees, who pays your fees? who pays the fees? >> our salaries come from the user fees. >> user fees. and what you call them?
for the existence, since your agency was founded, we call them customers. that term was removed from your mission statement, as was the termination 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 passed in 2002, i think it implicates the way we look and the plan we make to comport with them. with that i will yield back. >> the gentleman's time has expired. we turn now to the gentleman from florida. >> thank you, madam chair. my first set of questions are for mr. valverde. in his testimony for the next panel that is after y'all, mister cohen highlights the naturalization work that uscis is undertaking. isn't it true that this work focuses on individuals who fraudulently obtain
citizenship and the work began under the obama administration? can you explain what you're doing as it relates to that? >> absolutely. the work began in the late 2008 or 2009 timeframe and was highlighted in the 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, and mainly simpler terms, is to identify these days to identities fitting the same fingerprints. many of them had, unbeknownst to us, gone through the naturalization program. so the work we started in 2016 and we continue today is to get those cases together. if it is to files, 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 that was the case, but for the ones that we do, we write that into an affidavit and conspire with justice for them to do the the naturalization process in the courts. >> okay. also in his testimony, mister cohen pointed out that the uscis adjudicators are, quote, asking for more roof of marriage if the applicant is applying based on marriage. if an applicant is applying based on marriage, doesn't it make sense that adjudicators would ask questions about the marriage? i assume the purpose of this is to find out if there is fraud. his marriage fraud a real issue you see in the department? >> yeah, i won't comment on specific cases, but marriage fraud is an issue we come across on a daily basis. it is something we give our officers special training for, so they can pay attention to ensuring it is a bona fide relationship that forms the basis of request for permanent
residence or citizenship. >> i have even seen in my own district, a case that was brought to my attention, where the parties were allegedly married and the alleged wife was living with another man and the alleged husband was living with another woman, so it is definitely an issue. i've seen it in my district in the short time i have been in congress, in the last six months. so i certainly think there is fraud as it relates to getting married and trying to get citizenship and access to our country. in her testimony for the next panel, she refused refers to green cards to their employers as unnecessary. getting a green card comes with benefits and rights, correct? >> yes sir. >> and would you agree ensuring an alien is eligible for a green card is important and required by law? >> yes. >> and are the interviews for employment-based green cards adding unreasonable delays? >> in my opinion, no sir. it is a measure of integrity
to have a face-to-face conversation and ask about their eligibility, for someone who wants to remain there permanently and work here. >> i have questions, how much time do i have left? because i don't see -- okay, is it true that if an adjudicator is adjudicating an application or petition and needs additional information, the adjudicator has only two options? either issue a request for evidence or deny the application altogether, is that correct? >> essentially. they can also issue a notice of intent, to give them an opportunity to respond. >> they could have an opportunity to respond, but that's it? okay. in the latest uscis report to congress recommends that uscis emphasize that applicants verify the addresses provided on all forms. how much of a problem is that the people don't provide their
current address? >> i think it is more of a problem that their address might change, so are records don't reflect the correct address. in an employment context, occasionally we find where the attorneys address or employer's address will be used as the beneficiary's address and that can create problems with us, trying to sort through that when we adjudicate the case. >> so if it's that scenario and they aren't updating you of their address, that is obviously delaying the delivery of work documents from your agency? >> yes. >> how am i doing? >> your time has expired. >> all right, there you go. thank you, madam chair. >> the gentleman yields back. the gentle lady from florida is recognized for five minutes. >> hello. >> i think an efficient and service-oriented immigration system is vital to businesses, for our economy. mostly also for families who
are living in the united states. it allows families to be reunited with loved ones and 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, but it did take years before we were eligible and allowed to become u.s. citizens. in recent years, we have seen the backlog of cases has exploded from 2016 to 2018 the backlog rose by 1.4 million cases. in 2018, uscis received 1 million fewer cases than the year before, but the average case processing delay continues to rise. the staggering backlog of cases that uscis have created challenges for businesses, universities, hospitals, and mostly families, like i mentioned. despite this, earlier this year the administration announced that uscis plans to
close all international field offices. these offices are critical resources and 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 my community members writing to us, calling to us. they tweet, asking for a result of this issue. they tell me they wouldn't of left cuba if they knew their sons and daughters would not be able to unite with 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? >> i don't have a first-hand answer to that. i understand it was the former director. >> okay. now that the havana office is closed, what is the process for processing these applications and getting these families back together? >> i think none of us on the panel are working in the overseas offices administration, so we would have to get back to you. i do understand the havana office was closed after the attacks -- >> yes, but there was never any evidence add to do with the government there are now thousands of families are suffering the consequences of that closure, without any response. if you could please provide me with that information in the next two weeks, as to what that plan is to process those applications that were already started. and just as a general matter, how does closing a uscis office impact the backlog the
agency is seeing? 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. for instance, i am aware that on occasion family day petitions might be adjudicated on site at an international office and i would anticipate that that work would be coming to a service center instead. >> so, who made the decision and the agency to close all these field offices, international field offices? >> 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.
>> and you are aware that a lot of these international field offices process international adoptions, support refugee resettlement and handle family reunification applications? and in addition, in response to the question on fraud, they also deal with some of these fraudulent cases. so i'm concerned there is not enough preparation here, nationally, how we will prepare to close these international field offices. has uscis or dhs conducted a cost-benefit analysis or otherwise study the potential impact of these closures on the processing of refugees, adoptions and other services? is there a study that has been conducted? >> i don't know. >> the gentle ladies time has expired. >> think you very much. >> the gentle lady from texas is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you and thanks for those on the panel. thanks for your service. we have seen a theme this week
with the hearing we have had. we had a hearing yesterday on the horrific overcrowding in the el paso processing facility, as documented in the office of the inspector general. and today, as laid out by my colleagues, the gentleman from colorado, we have seen also a terrible backlog that is been exacerbated by policy. and during yesterday's hearing, what finally surfaced was the 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 two face, in october 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 question. when can we expect final action from the agency on this rule? >> i don't have a date on that. it is still going through the rulemaking process. >> 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 and if so, what is the estimated additional time burden? >> 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 will apply to our cases. >> will you evaluate how much extra time it will take, what burden it will add to the agency? >> absolutely. we evaluate every two-year fee process how long it takes us to do our actions. in the annual budget process, that is how we allocate the staff that we have to do the work. >> i would request that in your subsequent budget, once the rule has been applied, that you make a note of the edge and -- note of the additional time and staffing 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 the processing delays unaffected applications stay within reasonable time frames? that doesn't mean it, that doesn't mean changing the goalpost, that means providing customer service in the appropriate time. >> as i mentioned a minute ago, as soon as we get the final rule, we can deal with some processes and procedures around it. we will have a better sense of answering your questions with more specificity, but as we are aware of the rule and have seen the proposed rule, we can make some guesses. we are doing planning and taking that into account in our budget process. this year, at this point we are making assumptions about application rates and other impacts. we are doing our planning as we speak right now and we will see when the rule is finalized, what the timeframe is and how our assumptions play out in reality. >> if finalized as proposed,
the new rule would require significant training for adjudicators who would 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 and if so, what are these estimated cost ? >> i don't have an estimate for you, but i would say one of the first things i did when i joined the agency in 1997 was the public charge rule we did at that time based on the 1996 act and it is very similar. we had to teach adjudicators to understand what public benefits were and how they impacted the benefits. we do something very similar. 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 the goal of implementing it as efficiently as we can and as consistently
as we can across hundreds of thousands of applications, so we are working on it now. >> and your customers will shoulder the burden of the added cost, correct? >> the time is up, but the gentleman answer. >> correct. >> the gentle lady from pennsylvania has recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. i wanted to make clear that uscis is the agency charged with processing applications for people trying to follow our rules or become legal residence or get work authorization or become legal citizens, right? okay. so they are not people hiding from the government. they are providing a lot of information to the government as they seek to have this application adjudicated, right? mr. hoefer, i will let you speak for the group. thank you. and until they get citizenship, they can't vote. they can't receive social security benefits. sometimes people can't work.
there are a whole host of benefits to becoming a legal resident or citizen, correct? >> yes. >> we talked a little bit about the delays and some of the factors that led to the burgeoning backlog. i think you mentioned the increase, rather than decrease, in citizenship applications following the 2016 presidential election, right? >> that is correct, yes. >> so after a presidential election there is usually some type of drop off? >> yes. >> i can help you with why that happened. 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 and 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 the travel by people who were from predominantly muslim nations and to completely upend our deportation priority, going from just excluding bad hombres, as one might call them to anyone who might have 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. but i don't think you mentioned some other things. one thing i noted going through the testimony, the inspector general did mention that the electronic documentation services have had serious deficiencies that is also slow down processing, correct? >> i can speak to that. we used it for citizenship and also for green cards. for citizenship, i will get my
year strong, in the timeframe when we were implementing it, it was much slower, because of some of those difficulties you referred to. >> in the inspector general's report was from november 2017, at which point those difficulties were continuing, weren't they? >> i believe that is the right timeframe. shortly after that, we got back into the system and have been using it since. >> so you had to resume using a system you've been trying to upgrade? because of deficiencies in the new system? >> we started to use it and decided it was better to fix it and pause for a while and use it when it was working the way we intended. >> and that strained -- the period of time that was essential to when this backlog started, isn't that right? >> it was while the backlogs were going. i would note that we had a parallel system, the older system, without getting too much into the jargon, that we
continued to use. we did not sit on our hands. we had work to do during that time, as we improved the system. >> okay, that it contributed to the backlog, right? >> yes ma'am. >> what you didn't mention was there have been a lot of policy changes during the course of this administration that of impacted your ability to process applications. is that correct? >> correct. >> and they would include additional requests for evidence that were not previously required? >> the policy didn't direct that we would issue more request for evidence, no. >> there is been some suggestion that the request for evidence has become duplicative in some cases. you haven't heard complaints that you are requesting evidence in duplicate of manners? >> sometimes a request will be issued, followed by a request
for the same evidence? >> yes. >> i am sure in the millions of cases we process, mistakes are made, but that is not common. >> is 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 increase time for response, would be a eliminating the 90 day deadline for processing employment applications, right? if there is no longer a deadline it can take longer? >> no, that didn't drive how much longer it takes to process cases. >> okay. >> the gentle ladies time has expired. but, we got an answer to the last question? okay, thank you. then the ranking member has said he has 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. everyone wants a system that avoids fraud and adheres to the requirements but i just have questions about the impact in certain cases. where the delay really eliminates the value of the program itself. for example. the opt program, optional practical training program, the earliest they can apply as 90 days before the end of the program.
i've heard that the delays are so extreme, five months or more, that in some cases you've got a student the graduated college. they go on to their phd. they have an internship that is over before they even get approval to do it. so the whole idea of having this program is undercut by the delay. you 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've had a number of questions on the family side. very important. but the statistics, nearly 50% of all h1b petitions received rfps 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 someone i have known for many years. a serial entrepreneur. the ceo of several companies and now he has a startup. he had an h1 b holder that was reviewing and instead of getting a renewal, he had a question from cis, was it really well fitted to the job? his question was, what would uscis know about that phd, versus him as the employer, and secondly, why this big study on a renewal of an h1 b? what changed? was their first response wrong? people are just feeling jerked around, for lack of a better term. what we've got our canadian recruiters coming into american tech centers and luring people away. the tech economy in toronto is
going faster than the tech economy in silicon valley and washington. a lot of people think it is because of uscis and our immigration policies. can you tell me about why we are doing the rfps that we are doing in the program, for renewals in particular? >> so that one is mine. i can tell you that a number of changes have been made, affecting the h-1b process over the past couple of years. i'm sure you are familiar with them. when there is a change introduced, we have to first retrain our folks, and educate the public on what the requirements are as we now understand them. whatever happens, it is usually pretty predictable that we will have an increase in requests for evidence. perhaps an increase in denial. usually over time, as the public becomes familiar with
what the requirements are and adjudicators become more efficient, then we will see requests, the impact of those changes, become more stable. >> let me ask you another question. somebody said, why don't we have some judgment being shown in these cases? we know there are entities that have used the h-1b program and there is not going to be a single person on this panel was scrutinized that situation. we all agree on that. then you have situations where that is not the case and have people who are being denied and they appeal and they win their appeals, every single time. so what has happened is you just added money, 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 some assessment on what you're doing here? >> so i won't say there has been a study of the decisions coming from the aao, but i will tell you that as we
received decisions from the aao that overturned the decision of the adjudicator, we do review those and determine whether it was a training issue or some other guidance that needs to be clarified or what have you. >> just a final question, i've also received a lot of complaints about the use of denials or ftes, compared to the more informal notice of intent process that used to be more prevalent. for example, i have had tech people say, you know, there is a clerical error on the application. instead of calling up and saying was it this date or that date or was there a typo on this line, they would request evidence or deny it, even worse. you have to go through the whole process. why is that? what is the value in that? >> i think this gets back to
the change in policy that we were discussing previously. the prior policy did require that pretty much in every circumstance, even if records seem to be fully there, that request for evidence would be issued in a policy change that allowed for folks to go straight to a decision if they felt the record is complete. 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 we can get data on that. >> since i have asked others to keep within their five minutes, my five minutes is up. i will note that we have also been called to vote. we have additional questions. sheila, you came in later. before we end this hearing, let me turn to ms. jackson-lee for her five minutes and then we will have time to get to the floor.
the gentle lady from texas is recognized. >> i think the chair and thank you for holding this hearing. to the witnesses, uscis acknowledges per policy changes that slowed processing and increased the backlog. does uscis, and i know we've had a series of questions like this, make any efforts to improve data collection and analysis to better understand the impact of future policy changes and processing time on case backlog? >> we do reviews, looking back in time to see the policy effects. certainly when we have information about the various policies, we tried to make estimates of how long things will take. we regularly do reviews every year on this nature. >> what is your backlog now? if you had to give a landscape approximation of how many
backlog cases, do you have a handle on that? >> we have 2.4 million cases in backlog and overall, 5.9 million cases pending. >> and those individuals, do they have a document indicating pending case? are they subject to the actions of immigration enforcers, because they are not status? or do you continue to provide them with updated paperwork that their present status is due to your backlog? >> i can take that. so everybody who files a petition or application with us will receive a receipt and that will indicate that the case is pending. depending on what they are applying for, that might provide them with a status or some protection from removal. it depends really on what
their status was before they applied and what the status was that they are seeking. >> employment application delays have been substantial. delays on employment authorization of impact on many stakeholders and can result in prolonged benching or job loss. families are put in disarray, because families are dependent on the person seeking the employment status. you have any way of channeling the employment requests, because these people have a legitimate base of income, family members dependent on them, is there anyway to stovepipe those requests? >> so we are concerned with processing times for the authorization documents and one of the things we did is to provide for auto extension, so if someone has an employment authorization document and they need an extension, depending on the category their old card is automatically extended while we process their case. that was one of the things we tried to do to provide some relief. also, this category of work is
very important, but it also competes with the other categories of work that we have with our limited resources. i can tell you we do prioritize it and compared to other processing times for other applications, they are typically handled much more quickly, but not as quickly as we would like. >> would you consider going back and analyzing 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? >> yes. >> are you appointees or civil servants? >> where civil servants. >> first of all, let me thank you for your service. i've probably run into you before. are you noting different 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 if this administration is for any emigration. illegal or illegal. not illegal, but helping undocumented, helping people in the country, i have no idea. that sets the tone for the work you do and people accessing your services, which are very important. in the funding, that we in congress, i'm not sure if it is reaching you. i notice you have staff turnover. what is happening with the staff turnover and the people that come in that you see? >> 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 in terms of hiring could take several months. not only to bring someone on board, but then to get them trained and experienced. >> so congress is giving you the resources to hire as you need? >> we are fee funded, so we
don't usually need to look to congress to authorize our staffing levels. >> so you can expand your staffing levels of necessary? >> with the fee, yes. >> right, and you will look into the stove piping of fees? >> yes. >> thank you, i yield back. >> thank you, the gentlelady yields back. >> i ask that a statement from the chamber of commerce be included in the record. >> without objections, so ordered. i would also ask unanimous consent that the following statement be made part of the record from the american council on education, the american immigration counsel, the asian-pacific institute on gender-based violence, the association of american universities, boundless immigration, church world services, the compete america coalition, forward us, her justice, invest in america, national immigration forum, the national partnership for americans, and again, the information technology
industry council, without objection, those statements are made part of the record. as a parting comment, i think planning ahead is something that will be very helpful, in terms of changes in 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 on the fee. it is just a crazy way to run an outfit. i know it wasn't your decision, but that kind of stuff creates chaos in the community. in the business community. it is counterproductive in terms of a good economy for the united states. with this, we will recess until after the vote.
we will have five legislative days for 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, for planning purposes, if people need to catch a snack or something. so, we are in recess.
>> back toward her. we had a number of votes and hopefully we will get some of the other members who are on their way back, but for now we will start with our second panel. i would like to introduce all of them, but 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? in the record will show that each of the witnesses replied in the affirmative. now we will introduce our four witnesses. mr. lindt is president of the lawyers association and a pane