A Weekend Read - GAO Audit of CIS (BSIC) Funding and Backlogs

P

paulclarke1

Registered Users (C)
http://www.ilw.com/lawyers/immigdaily/congress_news/2004,0109-fees.pdf

In a nutshell.

1/. Fees recieved by CIS are insufficent to cover operating costs.
2/. CIS does not have a system to tracj an application through their system, therefore they have no idea of what is required to complete processing on a given application.
3/. CIS does not know how much each step in the application process costs.
4/. Given 2 and 3 they have no idea of how much it will cost to process the backlog.

It is worth a read.

My take. Until they know how much it will cost to process the backlog and can get the money for the job, there is no chance that things will improve.
 
You Must Look at The Table on Page 35

I just took another look at this. On page 35 of this they have included a table. The table says that as of 10/30/03, their projected time to process an I-485 petition was 33 months.
 
Question for P Clarke

Read page 35. When they say processing time average is 33h months now, is it for all all 485's or just those applications FILED in 2003
And, this is average for ALL 485 and not just employment so thre could be some noise there......

but very good info, thanks!!
 
While some Mar/Apr 2002 cases are being approved, there is a wide band of pending cases right from Aug-2001 to Feb-2002. So should this be attributed to the inability to track an application???
 
Answers

I think the 33 months relates to a new application as at Nov 03 RD, and is an average for all SC's. This is consistent with my analysis. For cases filed before that the wait time would be shorter. Unfortunately if you file after that date the wait time would be longer as the backlog continues to grow.

As for the other question I don't thinkt he spread in processing cases between Aug 01 - Apr 02 relates to their inaibility to track cases. I think any Aug - Jan case being worked now is either an RFE case or one where the adjudicator had a some question when they looked at it for the first time. Feb - Apr cases are being worked as per the SOP (below is an extract from page 131 of the I-485 INS SOP). FYI RAFACS is there case tracking system.

"Workload Distribution [WD] stages work by month of data entry receipt date. All files for that month are RAFACSed to a shelf labeled with the month of data entry receipt. INS supervisors regularly advise both the adjudicators and WD of current operating priorities. Therefore, when an adjudicator makes a request for work, WD is able to fill and distribute the request based upon priorities and the amount of work requested. "

Here is a link to the fill SOP

http://boards.immigration.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=99824&highlight=SOP
 
Disagree

with paulclarke1's statement that "I think any Aug - Jan case being worked now is either an RFE case or one where the adjudicator had a some question when they looked at it for the first time."

In my case:
- RD Dec 14th 2001, ND Dec 20th 2001
- Not a special registration country
- Same employer
- No address change
- No "special circumstances"
- No reason for any additional checks
- RFE for 2nd FP only, no other questions

Reason for the application pending 25 months?? - processing timing only!

FRUSTRATING!!!
 
Perhaps this is the Answer Then

CSC'ers receieved this reply

http://www.immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?threadid=109562

Russian, perhaps your cases is being held because of some problem in completing your security check.

Here is the relevant extract from the letter.

"Unlike most other applications, I-485's are not necessarily adjudicated in receipt date order. Adjudication can only occur after all background checks have been conducted, relating files located, and underlying petitions retrieved from file strage, including those of family members. With the added safeguards that were mandated after September 11, 2001, most applications required additional background checks before they could be properly adjudicated. As response times in conducting these checks varied greatly from case to case, these additional checks further disrupted the chronological processing of applications and significantly delayed the overall adjudication process. Even though we continued to adjudicate thousands of applications as checks were completed, our published processing time remained "frozen" while the background checks remained pending for many of the oldest cases."
 
Thanks for trying to help figuring out why I'm waiting so long!
However, I'm 99% sure that, given my life history, it would hardly take any time to complete my background check. I had it done for my job in 2 days.

No matter how hard we try to make sense out of BCIS "processing strategy", it just doesn't fall into any pattern whatsoever!
 
The unfortunate truth about background checks..

and names that get a "hit" is not how clean your record is. It is only as good as someone with a similar sounding name. If any of the databases has a reference to the same name, the Agency concerned has to put the "hit" to rest....making sure that person and you are not the same. All of us would like to believe that there is nothing amiss in our background and that the entire period of our stay in the US has been pristine.

This is what I have come to understand is the process and am willing to change my thinking if a better explanation is made.
 
fees received too small ...

Paul,
If the fees received are too less, then it could lead credence to the belief that many forum members have expressed which is - when they apply for their third EAD or a fresh AP, then the underlying I-485 gets adjudicated. This could mean that the cost to be incurred to process these items, gets diverted to the pending I-485 petition.

However it does not explain why despite the investing of Millions of $ of appropriation money (or additional funding) the CIS has not been able to reduce their backlog or establish better cost control.

starbucks
RD 12/14/01
 
I Don't Think So

Because they don't know how much it costs to adjudicate a petition and the current fees relate to a years old study. It could be that the 2nd and 3rd AP and EAD's actually cost more to adjudicate than the fee, if that is the case then they are draining money away from other functions.

This indicates a severe lack of internal cost controls. Unless you know how much something costs to do, it is not possible to say that throwing $160 or $500 million would meet the objectives.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top