Gonzalez Address to Congress Immigration Sub-Committee Hearing on Backlog

Dropping a note to the immigration sub-committee chairperson wouldn't hurt either. I am just getting sick of this run around and illogical thinking. I smell something rotten here. A bunch of red tape for no reason - if you ask me.

First of all, they say it will take up to 2 years to bring N-400 processing time down to 6 months or less. In the meantime, the processing time more than doubles to 18 months. Okay, how about the additional applications that are expected to be filed in the next 2 fiscal years?

If the processing time is to be 6 months or less by September 2010, then it goes to reason that those who filed summer and fall of 2007 shouldn't be waiting 18 months - because that puts us in the beginning of fiscal year 2010. Do you see my point? At some point, they have to process all the backlogs to become current. My question is, when is that projected? In the meantime, DOs are still in business - its not like they have shut down, so there is no reason why we shouldn't be seeing movement on interviews and oaths. This 2-3 month silence gap between the scheduling of interviews is unacceptable. I mean if - according to CIS- they are equipped to process 700K (or half of the 1.2 that applied in 2007) then they should logically cut the backlog by half by end of this summer (2008). The 700K is the figure they are throwing around as the number of N-400 applicants on average for the past two years or so.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
While I will be applying until Oct, 2008, I can remember the USCIS saying the "increased fees will improve service, blah blah blah..." This happens every time.
:eek:
 
Lies, twisted lies and statistics ;) If one takes a close look at the graph provided at the bottom of the pdf it seems that compared to the last fee increase there was a quarter of a million more applications. This could have been planned ahead considering that 5 or 6 years after the previous considerable fee increase there would be more people in the U.S. and in particular more immigrants. So, looking at the fee increase of 2002 it should not have so hard to predict the upsurge. They were simply not prepared. I find it also bad that nobody is showing a graph of how much of the fee increase is going to improve service and how much is going to the enforcement side. I mean to fraud prevention and detection, background checks and others. It is my feeling that a disproportionate amount is going towards doing things against applicants and not for applicants. It is a perversion when an applicant is paying the government to investigate the applicant in a way that could get the applicant not only denied but perhaps kicked out of the country.

So, it would be good to get the percentages that go towards pure customer service and adjudication and the money that goes towards background checks and in general looking under the fingernails of the poor applicants. I think too much emphasis is put in making all immigrants look suspect and in almost expecting sainthood out of them, and little effort is being put in making sure they become good citizens and contribute well to society. I mean, people shouldn't have to worry as they do in this forum about minor crimes, arrests and traffic tickets and people should feel a bit more welcome in this country.

My 2 cents
 
One also has to factor in the July Visa bulletin goof up. That was simply bad timing and happened at the same time as the fee hike. Simply shocking !!!! and also unprecedented.

This is a very extraordinary situation and will require an extraordinary response. That can happen only when we all as a group put some pressure on the Senators.
 
Vik Pal said:
One also has to factor in the July Visa bulletin goof up. That was simply bad timing and happened at the same time as the fee hike. Simply shocking !!!! and also unprecedented.

This is a very extraordinary situation and will require an extraordinary response. That can happen only when we all as a group put some pressure on the Senators.
Click to expand...

Agreed Vik Pal! Which is why I personally sent an email to Senator Schumer and will also send an email to the sub-committee chair tomorrow. I have to dig for her information. I think if we flood Congress with concerned emails, it might help draw more attention to this situation.
 
Something I really don't know how do they do the math, the application is a little less than double the number of last year (2006)'s, how come the processing time is almost tripled?
Considering they are hiring more adjudictor to help reduce the backlog, I think 10 months should be reasonable.
 
caliSun said:
Something I really don't know how do they do the math, the application is a little less than double the number of last year (2006)'s, how come the processing time is almost tripled?
Click to expand...
The I-485 (green card) applications more than tripled due to the visa bulletin fiasco. That has eaten up a lot of their resources.
 
newuscitizen said:
Thats the reason i was frustrated for uscis giving preference to those applications while delaying others
Click to expand...
I don't think it's a preference ... it's just the simple fact that they have to process them, so some of their time is used up for that. They can't simply let them all collect dust for a year or two so they can process the naturalizations faster; people have to get their EAD approved so they can work, and fingerprints have to be taken for the I-485 applicants so security checks can be run.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Not to sound like a broken record, but the issue with expiring fingerprints is really bothering me. Let's assume it really does take 18 months to become naturalized. What exactly is the point of processing our fingerprints this early on in the process if they are going to expire anyway? Why not schedule our fingerprints a couple of weeks before the interview? The fingerprints are processed within 48 hours, which effectively eliminates the need to have them done this early on in the process. Another issue I've been thinking about is the validity of this 18 month timeline. Is it going to take 18 months to fully complete the process, or is it going to take 18 months to get an interview? If the latter of the two is the case, we'll have to allow a few more months to get our oaths, as there will be an inevitable oath backlog. Is this going to become a 2 year process???

If only I was flexible enough to actually kick myself in the head for procrastinating and not applying earlier, I'd be doing it on a regular basis. Oh well, no use crying over spilled milk.
 
Vorpal said:
Not to sound like a broken record, but the issue with expiring fingerprints is really bothering me. Let's assume it really does take 18 months to become naturalized. What exactly is the point of processing our fingerprints this early on in the process if they are going to expire anyway? Why not schedule our fingerprints a couple of weeks before the interview? The fingerprints are processed within 48 hours, which effectively eliminates the need to have them done this early on in the process. Another issue I've been thinking about is the validity of this 18 month timeline. Is it going to take 18 months to fully complete the process, or is it going to take 18 months to get an interview? If the latter of the two is the case, we'll have to allow a few more months to get our oaths, as there will be an inevitable oath backlog. Is this going to become a 2 year process???

If only I was flexible enough to actually kick myself in the head for procrastinating and not applying earlier, I'd be doing it on a regular basis. Oh well, no use crying over spilled milk.
Click to expand...

As of now for NYC folks it seems to be becoming a 2 year process unless they significantly upgrade the infrastructure by providing most new resources to NYC.
 
Vik Pal said:
As of now for NYC folks it seems to be becoming a 2 year process unless they significantly upgrade the infrastructure by providing most new resources to NYC.
Click to expand...

What really kills me is that a year ago, NYC was the fastest DO in the nation. The average processing time was 2.8 months, and most applicants were completely finished with the process within 4-5 months. That's 4-5 months for the ENTIRE process, from priority date to oath date. Truthfully, even twice that would be acceptable. 8-10 months? Sounds reasonable to me. I don't see how that's so difficult to accomplish, considering that there are 2 DOs in NYC's jurisdiction (Manhattan and Garden City). The only way I can explain it taking 18 months or more is if the majority of the 1,000,000+ applicants came from NYC. If this is really the case, then shouldn't the other DOs have shorter timelines? Something just doesn't add up here.
 
LolaLi said:
I think if we flood Congress with concerned emails, it might help draw more attention to this situation.
Click to expand...

This is the ONLY way to clear this mess; otherwise talking nonstop and being frustrated about all this over here won't do any good at all. Believe me, if the energy/time/efforts/passion/compassion that you guys are spending/pouring in here about this important matter could have made a big difference or might have cleared this mess if they are spend on flooding nonstop emails to ALL of these Congress people.

Sending a few emails here and there and only by a few people won't change anything. If you guys won't raise your voice then I don't think Congress could know how terrible all this situation is...Also, do not forget to write to Newspapers/media as well. This matter actually has gotten govt. attention because of media when they started talking about it; otherwise this matter was dead until end of October of last year.

Always be proactive....especially when it comes to dealing with the most bureacratic agency of US govt.

Good luck...
 
Vorpal said:
Not to sound like a broken record, but the issue with expiring fingerprints is really bothering me. Let's assume it really does take 18 months to become naturalized. What exactly is the point of processing our fingerprints this early on in the process if they are going to expire anyway? Why not schedule our fingerprints a couple of weeks before the interview? The fingerprints are processed within 48 hours, which effectively eliminates the need to have them done this early on in the process.
Click to expand...
Or better yet, how about taking the fingerprints just once and deeming them valid until the end of the process? Or reusing prints that were already taken at the green card stage? It's as if they deliberately try to be inefficient.
 
JohnnyCash said:
This is the ONLY way to clear this mess; otherwise talking nonstop and being frustrated about all this over here won't do any good at all. Believe me, if the energy/time/efforts/passion/compassion that you guys are spending/pouring in here about this important matter could have made a big difference or might have cleared this mess if they are spend on flooding nonstop emails to ALL of these Congress people.

Sending a few emails here and there and only by a few people won't change anything. If you guys won't raise your voice then I don't think Congress could know how terrible all this situation is...Also, do not forget to write to Newspapers/media as well. This matter actually has gotten govt. attention because of media when they started talking about it; otherwise this matter was dead until end of October of last year.

Always be proactive....especially when it comes to dealing with the most bureacratic agency of US govt.

Good luck...
Click to expand...

I've recently contacted Congressman Vito Fossella, a local Representative from Brooklyn, NY. Congressman Fossella is an active supporter of a bill, authored by Yvette Clarke (another Brooklyn representative), that is of the utmost importance to all immigrants seeking immigration benefits. This bill concerns the infamous name check. If signed into law, which has a good chance of happening, it will legally bind the FBI to complete all name check procedures within 6 months. Congressman Fossella can be contacted here: http://www.house.gov/fossella/

I encourage everyone to contact him and express support of this bill. If we show enough solidarity, the nightmare known as name check will quite possibly disappear.
 
Well the reason is that their computer system is unable to store the finger prints for re-use.


Jackolantern said:
Or better yet, how about taking the fingerprints just once and deeming them valid until the end of the process? Or reusing prints that were already taken at the green card stage? It's as if they deliberately try to be inefficient.
Click to expand...
 
brb2 said:
Well the reason is that their computer system is unable to store the finger prints for re-use.
Click to expand...

I have a hard time believing that too. I was 13 when I was fingerprinted for my first green card. When that green card expired 10 years later, I wasn't required to submit new fingerprints for renewal, as they already had my old prints on file.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top