Order Code RL32235
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
U.S. Immigration Policy on
Permanent Admissions
Updated March 24, 2006
Ruth Ellen Wasem
Specialist in Immigration Policy
Domestic Social Policy Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

U.S. Immigration Policy on Permanent Admissions
Summary
When President George W. Bush announced his principles for immigration
reform in January 2004, he included an increase in permanent immigration as a key
component. The Bush Administration has not yet provided specific information on
what categories of permanent admissions it advocates should be increased and by
what levels. President Bush recently stated that immigration reform is a top priority
of his second term and is prompting a lively debate on the issue. Bills to revise
permanent admissions are being introduced, but only one has had legislative action
thus far in the 109th Congress. A provision in P.L. 109-13 (H.R. 1268, the emergency
FY2005 supplemental appropriation) makes up to 50,000 employment-based visas
available for foreign nationals coming to work as medical professionals.
Title IV of S. 2454, which Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist introduced, as well
as Title V in the draft of Senate Judiciary Chairman Specter’s mark would
substantially increase legal immigration and would restructure the allocation of these
visas. Proposals to alter permanent admissions are included in several comprehensive
immigration proposals (S. 1033/H.R. 2330, S. 1438, H.R. 3700, H.R. 3938, S. 1919).
Four major principles underlie U.S. policy on permanent immigration: the
reunification of families, the admission of immigrants with needed skills, the
protection of refugees, and the diversity of admissions by country of origin. These
principles are embodied in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The INA
specifies a complex set of numerical limits and preference categories that give
priorities for permanent immigration reflecting these principles. Legal permanent
residents (LPRs) refer to foreign nationals who live lawfully and permanently in the
United States.
During FY2004, a total of 946,142 aliens became LPRs in the United States.
Of this total, 65.6% entered on the basis of family ties. Additional major immigrant
groups in FY2004 were employment-based preference immigrants (including spouses
and children) at 16.4%, and refugees and asylees adjusting to LPR status at 7.5%.
Mexico led all countries with 175,364 aliens who became LPRs in the United States.
India followed at a distant second with 70,116 LPRs. The Philippines was third with
57,827. These three countries comprised almost one-third of all LPRs in FY2004.
There are significant backlogs due to the sheer volume of aliens eligible to
immigrate to the United States. By the end of FY2004, U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services (USCIS) reported 4.1 million immigrant petitions pending.
Citizens and LPRs often wait several years for the relatives’ petitions to be
processed. After USCIS processes the petitions, the relatives of U.S. citizens and
LPRs then wait for a visa to become available through the numerically limited
categories. The brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens are now waiting 12 years.
Unmarried adult sons and daughters of U.S. citizens who filed petitions five years
ago are now eligible for visas. Prospective LPRs from the Philippines have the most
substantial waiting times; consular officers are now considering the petitions of the
brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens from the Philippines who filed over 22 years ago.

---

Contents
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Current Law and Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Worldwide Immigration Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Per-Country Ceilings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Other Permanent Immigration Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Admissions Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Immigration Patterns, 1900-2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
FY2004 Admissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Backlogs and Waiting Times . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Visa Processing Dates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Petition Processing Backlogs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Current Issues and Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Legislation in 108th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Issues in the 109th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
President Bush’s Immigration Reform Proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Recaptured Visa Numbers for Nurses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Recaptured Employment-Based Visa Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Securing America’s Borders Act (S. 2454)/Chairman’s Mark . . . . . . 16
Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act (S. 1033/H.R. 2330) . . 17
Comprehensive Enforcement and Immigration Reform Act of 2005
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Immigration Accountability Act of 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Enforcement First Immigration Reform Act of 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Other Immigration Reduction Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Permanent Partners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Petition Processing and Adjudication Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
List of Figures
Figure 1. Annual Immigration Admissions and Status Adjustments,
1900-2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Figure 2. Legal Permanent Residents: New Arrivals and Adjustments of
Status, FY1995-FY2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Figure 3. Top Sending Countries (Comprising More Than Half of All LPRs):
Selected Periods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Figure 4. Legal Immigrants by Major Category, FY2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Figure 5. Top Twelve Immigrant-Sending Countries, FY2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
List of Tables
Table 1. Legal Immigration Preference System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

---

Table 2. Other Major Legal Immigration Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Table 3. FY2004 Immigrants by Category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Table 4. Priority Dates for Family Preference Visas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Table 5. Priority Dates for Employment Preference Visas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Appendix A. Top Fifty Sending Countries in FY2004 by Category of LPR . . . 22
Appendix B. Processing Dates for Immigrant Petitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

---

U.S. Immigration Policy on
Permanent Admissions
Overview
Four major principles underlie U.S. policy on legal permanent immigration: the
reunification of families, the admission of immigrants with needed skills, the
protection of refugees, and the diversity of admissions by country of origin. These
principles are embodied in federal law, the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)
first codified in 1952. The Immigration Amendments of 1965 replaced the national
origins quota system (enacted after World War I) with per-country ceilings, and the
statutory provisions regulating permanent immigration to the United States were last
revised significantly by the Immigration Act of 1990.1
The two basic types of legal aliens are immigrants and nonimmigrants. As
defined in the INA, immigrants are synonymous with legal permanent residents
(LPRs) and refer to foreign nationals who come to live lawfully and permanently in
the United States. The other major class of legal aliens are nonimmigrants — such
as tourists, foreign students, diplomats, temporary agricultural workers, exchange
visitors, or intracompany business personnel — who are admitted for a specific
purpose and a temporary period of time. Nonimmigrants are required to leave the
country when their visas expire, though certain classes of nonimmigrants may adjust
to LPR status if they otherwise qualify.2
The conditions for the admission of immigrants are much more stringent than
nonimmigrants, and many fewer immigrants than nonimmigrants are admitted. Once
admitted, however, immigrants are subject to few restrictions; for example, they may
accept and change employment, and may apply for U.S. citizenship through the
naturalization process, generally after five years.
Petitions for immigrant (i.e., LPR) status are first filed with U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services (USCIS) in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) by
the sponsoring relative or employer in the United States. If the prospective
immigrant is already residing in the United States, the USCIS handles the entire
1 Congress has significantly amended the INA numerous times since 1952. Other major
laws amending the INA are the Refugee Act of 1980, the Immigration Reform and Control
Act of 1986, and Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996.
8 U.S.C. §1101 et seq.
2 Nonimmigrants are often referred to by the letter that denotes their specific provision in
the statute, such as H-2A agricultural workers, F-1 foreign students, or J-1 cultural exchange
visitors. CRS Report RL31381, U.S. Immigration Policy on Temporary Admissions, by
Ruth Ellen Wasem.

---

CRS-2
process, which is called “adjustment of status” because the alien is moving from a
temporary category to LPR status. If the prospective LPR does not have legal
residence in the United States, the petition is forwarded to the Department of State’s
(DOS) Bureau of Consular Affairs in their home country after USCIS has reviewed
it. The Consular Affairs officer (when the alien is coming from abroad) and USCIS
adjudicator (when the alien is adjusting status in the United States) must be satisfied
that the alien is entitled to the immigrant status. These reviews are intended to ensure
that they are not ineligible for visas or admission under the grounds for
inadmissibility spelled out in INA.3
Many LPRs are adjusting status from within the United States rather than
receiving visas issued abroad by Consular Affairs.4 In FY2004, a total of 679,305
aliens (64%) adjusted to LPR status in the United States while only 384,427 arrived
as LPRs from abroad. More than three-fourths (77%) of the employment-based
immigrants, two-thirds (63%) of the immediate relatives of U.S. citizens, and only
one-third (34%) of the other family-preference immigrants adjusted to LPR status
within the United States.
The INA specifies that each year countries are held to a numerical limit of 7%
of the worldwide level of U.S. immigrant admissions, known as per-country limits.
The actual number of immigrants that may be approved from a given country,
however, is not a simple percentage calculation. Immigrant admissions and
adjustments to LPR status are subject to a complex set of numerical limits and
preference categories that give priority for admission on the basis of family
relationships, needed skills, and geographic diversity, as discussed below.5
Current Law and Policy
Worldwide Immigration Levels
The INA provides for a permanent annual worldwide level of 675,000 legal
permanent residents (LPRs), but this level is flexible and certain categories of LPRs
are permitted to exceed the limits, as described below.6 The permanent worldwide
immigrant level consists of the following components: family-sponsored immigrants,
including immediate relatives of U.S. citizens and family-sponsored preference
immigrants (480,000 plus certain unused employment-based preference numbers
from the prior year); employment-based preference immigrants (140,000 plus certain
unused family preference numbers from the prior year); and diversity immigrants
3 These include criminal, national security, health, and indigence grounds as well as past
violations of immigration law. § 212(a) of INA.
4 For background and analysis of visa issuance and admissions policy, see CRS Report
RL31512, Visa Issuances: Policy, Issues, and Legislation, by Ruth Ellen Wasem.
5 Immigrants are aliens who are admitted as LPRs or who adjust to LPR status within the
United States.
6 § 201 of INA; 8 U.S.C. § 1151.

---

CRS-3
(55,000).7 Immediate relatives8 of U.S. citizens as well as refugees and asylees who
are adjusting status are exempt from direct numerical limits.9
Table 1. Legal Immigration Preference System
Category
Numerical Limit
Total Family-Sponsored Immigrants
480,000
Immediate
Aliens who are the spouses and unmarried
Unlimited
relatives
minor children of U.S. citizens and the
parents of adult U.S. citizens
Family-sponsored Preference Immigrants
Worldwide Level 226,000
1st preference
Unmarried sons and daughters of citizens
23,400 plus visas not required for
4th preference
2nd preference
(A) Spouses and children of LPRs
114,200 plus visas not required for
(B) Unmarried sons and daughters of LPRs
1st preference
3rd preference
Married sons and daughters of citizens
23,400 plus visas not required for
1st or 2nd preference
4th preference
Siblings of citizens age 21 and over
65,000 plus visas not required for
1st, 2nd, or 3rd preference
Employment-Based Preference Immigrants
Worldwide Level 140,000
1st preference
Priority workers: persons of extraordinary
28.6% of worldwide limit plus
ability in the arts, science, education,
unused 4th and 5th preference
business, or athletics; outstanding
professors and researchers; and certain
multi-national executives and managers
2nd preference
Members of the professions
holding
28.6% of worldwide limit plus
advanced degrees or persons of exceptional
unused 1st preference
abilities in the sciences, art, or business
3rd preference —
Skilled shortage workers with at least two
28.6% of worldwide limit plus
skilled
years training or experience, professionals
unused 1st or 2nd preference
with baccalaureate degrees
3rd preference —
Unskilled shortage workers
10,000 (taken from
the
total
“other”
available for 3rd preference)
4th preference
“Special immigrants,” including ministers
7.1% of worldwide limit; religious
of religion, religious workers other than
workers limited to 5,000
ministers, certain employees of the U.S.
government abroad, and others
5th preference
Employment creation investors who invest
7.1% of worldwide limit; 3,000
at least $1 million (amount may vary in
minimum reserved for investors in
rural areas or areas of high unemployment)
rural or high unemployment areas
which will create at least 10 new jobs
Source: CRS summary of §§ 203(a), 203(b), and 204 of INA; 8 U.S.C. § 1153.
7 For more information, see CRS Report RS21342, Immigration: Diversity Visa Lottery, by
Ruth Ellen Wasem and Karma Ester.
8 “Immediate relatives” are defined by the INA to include the spouses and unmarried minor
children of U.S. citizens, and the parents of adult U.S. citizens.
9 CRS Report RL31269, Refugee Admissions and Resettlement Policy, by Andorra Bruno.

---

CRS-4
The annual level of family-sponsored preference immigrants is determined by
subtracting the number of immediate relative visas issued in the previous year and
the number of aliens paroled10 into the United States for at least a year from 480,000
(the total family-sponsored level) and — when available — adding employment
preference immigrant numbers unused during the previous year. By law, the family-
sponsored preference level may not fall below 226,000. In recent years, the 480,000
level has been exceeded to maintain the 226,000 floor on family-sponsored
preference visas after subtraction of the immediate relative visas.
Within each family and employment preference, the INA further allocates the
number of LPRs issued visas each year. As Table 1 summarizes the legal
immigration preference system, the complexity of the allocations becomes apparent.
Note that in most instances unused visa numbers are allowed to roll down to the next
preference category.11
Employers who seek to hire prospective employment-based immigrants through
the second and third preference categories also must petition the U.S. Department of
Labor (DOL) on behalf of the alien. The prospective immigrant must demonstrate
that he or she meets the qualifications for the particular job as well as the preference
category. If DOL determines that a labor shortage exists in the occupation for which
the petition is filed, labor certification will be issued. If there is not a labor shortage
in the given occupation, the employer must submit evidence of extensive recruitment
efforts in order to obtain certification.12
Per-Country Ceilings
As stated earlier, the INA establishes per-country levels at 7% of the worldwide
level.13 For a dependent foreign state, the per-country ceiling is 2%. The per-country
level is not a “quota” set aside for individual countries, as each country in the world,
of course, could not receive 7% of the overall limit. As the State Department
describes, the per-country level “is not an entitlement but a barrier against
monopolization.”
10 “Parole” is a term in immigration law which means that the alien has been granted
temporary permission to be present in the United States. Parole does not constitute formal
admission to the United States and parolees are required to leave when the terms of their
parole expire, or if otherwise eligible, to be admitted in a lawful status.
11 Employment-based allocations are further affected by § 203(e) of the Nicaraguan and
Central American Relief Act (NACARA), as amended by § 1(e) of Pub. L. 105 - 139. This
provision states that when the employment 3rd preference “other worker” (OW) cut-off date
reached the priority date of the latest OW petition approved prior to November 19, 1997, the
10,000 OW numbers available for a fiscal year are to be reduced by up to 5,000 annually
beginning in the following fiscal year. This reduction is to be made for as long as necessary
to offset adjustments under NACARA. Since the OW cut-off date reached November 19,
1997 during FY2001, the reduction in the OW limit to 5,000 began in FY2002.
12 See CRS Report RS21520, Labor Certification for Permanent Immigrant Admissions, by
Ruth Ellen Wasem.
13 § 202(a)(2) of the INA; 8 U.S.C. § 1151.

---

CRS-5
Two important exceptions to the per-country ceilings have been enacted in the
past decade. Foremost is an exception for certain family-sponsored immigrants.
More specifically, the INA states that 75% of the visas allocated to spouses and
children of LPRs (2ndA family preference) are not subject to the per-country ceiling.14
Prior to FY2001, employment-based preference immigrants were also held to per-
country ceilings. The “American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act
of 2000" (P.L. 106-313) enabled the per-country ceilings for employment-based
immigrants to be surpassed for individual countries that are oversubscribed as long
as visas are available within the worldwide limit for employment-based preferences.
The impact of these revisions to the per-country ceilings is discussed later in this
report.
The actual per-country ceiling varies from year to year according to the prior
year’s immediate relative and parolee admissions and unused visas that roll over. In
FY2003, the per-country ceiling was set at 27,827 and in FY2002 was 25,804.
According to the Department of State’s Bureau of Consular Affairs, the ceiling for
FY2004 was expected to be about 30,000. Processing backlogs, discussed later in
this report, also inadvertently reduced the number of LPRs in FY2003. Only
705,827 people became LPRs in FY2003. USCIS was only able to process 161,579
of the potential 226,000 family-sponsored LPRs in FY2003, and thus 64,421 LPR
visas rolled over to the FY2004 employment-based categories.15
Other Permanent Immigration Categories
There are several other major categories of legal permanent immigration in
addition to the family-sponsored and employment-based preference categories.
These classes of LPRs cover a variety of cases, ranging from aliens who win the
Diversity Visa Lottery to aliens in removal (i.e., deportation) proceedings granted
LPR status by an immigration judge because of exceptional and extremely unusual
hardship. Table 2 summarizes these major classes and identifies whether they are
numerically limited.
14 § 202(a)(4) of the INA; 8 U.S.C. § 1151.
15 Telephone conversation with DOS Bureau of Consular Affairs, Feb. 13, 2004.

---

CRS-6
Table 2. Other Major Legal Immigration Categories
Non-Preference Immigrants
Numerical Limit
Asylees
Aliens in the United States who have
No limits on
been granted asylum due to
receiving asylum,
persecution or a well-founded fear of
but 10,000 limit on
persecution and who must wait one
LPR adjustments
year before petitioning for LPR status
Cancellation of
Aliens in removal proceedings
4,000 (with certain
Removal
granted LPR status by an immigration
exceptions)
judge because of exceptional and
extremely unusual hardship
Diversity Lottery
Aliens from foreign nations with low
55,000
admission levels; must have high
school education or equivalent or
minimum two years work experience
in a profession requiring two years
training or experience
Refugees
Aliens abroad who have been granted
Presidential
refugee status due to persecution or a
Determination for
well-founded fear of persecution and
refugee status, no
who must wait one year before
limits on LPR
petitioning for LPR status
adjustments
Other
Various classes of immigrants, such
Dependent on
as Amerasians, parolees, and certain
specific adjustment
Central Americans, Cubans, and
authority
Haitians who are adjusting to LPR
status
Source: CRS summary of §§ 203(a), 203(b), 204, 207, 208, and 240A of INA; 8 U.S.C. § 1153.
Admissions Trends
Immigration Patterns, 1900-2004
The annual number of LPRs admitted or adjusted in the United States rose
gradually after World War II, as Figure 1 illustrates. However, the annual
admissions have not reached the peaks of the early 20th century. The DHS Office of
Immigration Statistics (OIS) data present those admitted as LPRs or those adjusting
to LPR status. The growth in immigration after 1980 is partly attributable to the total
number of admissions under the basic system, consisting of immigrants entering
through a preference system as well as immediate relatives of U.S. citizens, that was
augmented considerably by legalized aliens.16 The Immigration Act of 1990
16 The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 legalized several million aliens residing
(continued...)

---

CRS-7
increased the ceiling on employment-based preference immigration, with the
provision that unused employment visas would be made available the following year
for family preference immigration. In addition, the number of refugees admitted
increased from 718,000 in the period 1966-1980 to 1.6 million during the period
1981-1995, after the enactment of the Refugee Act of 1980.
Figure 1. Annual Immigration Admissions and Status Adjustments,
1900-2004
1,400
1,200
1,000
Legalized Aliens
800
600
400
200
0
1900
1905
1910
1915
1920
1925
1930
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990 1995 20002004
Source: Statistical Yearbook of Immigration,
U.S. Department of Homeland Security,
Office of Immigration Statistics, multiple fiscal years.
Aliens legalizing through the
Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 are depicted by year of arrival.
Many LPRs are adjusting status from within the United States rather than
receiving visas issued abroad by Consular Affairs before they arrive in the United
States. In the past decade the number of LPRs arriving from abroad has remained
somewhat steady, hovering between a high of 421,405 in FY1996 and a low of
358,411 in FY2003. Adjustments to LPR status in the United States has fluctuated
over the same period, from a low of 244,793 in FY1999 to a high of 679,305 in
FY2002. As Figure 2 shows, most of the variation in total number of aliens granted
LPR status over the past decade is due to the number of adjustments processed in the
United States. In FY2004, 61.7% (583,921) of all LPRs were adjusting status within
the United States.
16 (...continued)
in the United States without authorization.

---

CRS-8
Figure 2. Legal Permanent Residents: New Arrivals and Adjustments of
Status, FY1995-FY2004
Thousands
1200
Arrivals
Adjustments
1000
800
600
400
200
0
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Source: Statistical Yearbook of Immigration,
U.S. Department of Homeland Security,
Office of Immigration Statistics, (multiple years)
.
In any given period of United States history, a handful of countries have
dominated the flow of immigrants, but the dominant countries have varied over time.
Figure 3 presents trends in the top immigrant-sending countries (together comprising
at least 50% of the immigrants admitted) for selected decades and illustrates that
immigration at the close of the 20th century is not as dominated by a few countries as
it was earlier in the century. This finding suggests that the per-country ceilings
established in 1965 had some effect. As Figure 3 illustrates, immigrants from only
three or four countries made up more then half of all LPRs prior to 1960. By the last
two decades of the 20th century, immigrants from seven to eight countries comprised
about half of all LPRs and this patterns has continued into the 21st century.

---

CRS-9
Figure 3. Top Sending Countries
(Comprising More Than Half of All LPRs): Selected Periods
Percent of All Immigrants
100
80
60
Italy
El Salvador
Cuba
Mexico
India
El Salvador
Mexico
India
Domin.Rep.
Domin.Rep.
India
40
Vietnam
Italy
Vietnam
Domin.Rep.
Korea
Russia
Canada
Vietnam
China
China
Korea
Philippines
Philippines
China
20
Canada
Philippines
Germany
Austria-
Mexico
Hungar
Mexico
Mexico
y
Germany
England
0
1901-1910
1921-1930
1951-1960
1981-1990
1991-2000
2001-2004
Source: CRS analysis of Table 2, Statistical Yearbook of Immigration, U.S. Department of
Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics, FY2004 (June 2005).
Although Europe was home to the countries sending the most immigrants during
the early 20th century, Mexico has been a top sending country for most of the 20th
century. Other top sending countries from the Western Hemisphere are the
Dominican Republic and most recently — El Salvador and Cuba. In addition, Asian
countries — notably the Philippines, India, China, Korea, and Vietnam — have
emerged as top sending countries today.
FY2004 Admissions
During FY2004, a total of 946,142 aliens became LPRs in the United States.
The largest number of immigrants are admitted because of a family relationship with
a U.S. citizen or resident immigrant, as Figure 4 illustrates. Of the total LPRs in
FY2004, 65.6% entered on the basis of family ties. Immediate relatives of U.S.
citizens made up the single largest group of immigrants, as Table 3 indicates.
Family preference immigrants — the spouses and children of immigrants, the adult
children of U.S. citizens, and the siblings of adult U.S. citizens — were the second
largest group. Additional major immigrant groups in FY2004 were employment-
based preference immigrants (including spouses and children) at 16.4%, and refugees
and asylees adjusting to immigrant status at 7.5%.17
17 The largest group in the “other category” are aliens who adjusted to LPR status through
cancellation of removal and through §202 and §203 of the Nicaraguan and Central American
(continued...)

---

CRS-10
Table 3. FY2004 Immigrants by Category
Total
946,142
Immediate relatives of citizens
406,074
Family preference
419,791
Employment preference
155,330
Refugee and asylee adjustments
71,230
Diversity
50,084
Other
49,069
Source: Statistical Yearbook of Immigration, FY2004, DHS Office of Immigration Statistics, June
2005.
Figure 4. Legal Immigrants by Major Category, FY2004
Family
65.6%
Cancellation
of Removal
& Other
5.2%
Diversity
5.3%
Refugees
7.5%
Employment
& Asylees
16.4%
0.95 million
Source: CRS presentation of FY2004 data from the DHS Office of Immigration Statistics.
As Figure 5 presents, Mexico led all countries with 175,364 aliens who became
LPRs in FY2004. India followed at a distant second with 70,116 LPRs. The
Philippines came in third with 57,827. These three countries comprise almost one-
third of all LPRs in FY2004, and two exceeded the per-country ceiling for preference
immigrants because they benefitted from special exceptions to the per-country
ceilings. Mexico did so as a result of the provision in INA that allows 75% of family
17 (...continued)
Relief Act of 1997.

---

CRS-11
second preference (i.e., spouses and children of LPRs) to exceed the per-country
ceiling, while India exceeded the ceiling through the exception to the employment-
based per-country limits.
The top 12 immigrant-sending countries depicted in Figure 5 accounted for
57% of all LPRs in FY2004. The top 50 immigrant-sending countries contributed
88% of all LPRs in FY2004. Appendix A provides detailed data on the top 50
immigrant-sending countries by major category of legal immigration.
Figure 5. Top Twelve Immigrant-Sending Countries, FY2004
Mexico
India
Philippines
China
Vietnam
Dominican Republic
El Salvador
Cuba
Korea
Colombia
Guatemala
Canada
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
Thousands
Family
Employment
Refugee/Asylee
Diversity
Other
Source: CRS presentation of FY2004 data from the DHS Office of Immigration Statistics.
Backlogs and Waiting Times
Visa Processing Dates
According to the INA, family-sponsored and employment-based preference
visas are issued to eligible immigrants in the order in which a petition has been filed.
Spouses and children of prospective LPRs are entitled to the same status, and the
same order of consideration as the person qualifying as principal LPR, if
accompanying or following to join (referred to as derivative status). When visa
demand exceeds the per-country limit, visas are prorated according to the preference
system allocations (detailed in Table 1) for the oversubscribed foreign state or
dependent area. These provisions apply at present to the following countries
oversubscribed in the family-sponsored categories: China, Mexico, the Philippines,
and India.

---

CRS-12
Table 4. Priority Dates for Family Preference Visas
Category
Worldwide
China
India
Mexico
Philippines
Unmarried sons
and daughters of
Apr. 22, 2001 Apr. 22, 2001 Apr. 22, 2001
Aug. 8, 1994 Aug. 22, 1991
citizens
Spouses and
Mar. 1, 2002
Mar. 1, 2002
Mar. 1, 2002
June 15, 1999
Mar. 1, 2002
children of LPRs
Unmarried sons
and daughters of
July 15, 1996 July 15, 1996 July 15, 1996 Feb. 15, 19921 July 8, 1996
LPRs
Married sons
and daughters of
July 22, 1998 July 22, 1998 July 22, 1998
Jan. 1, 1995
Feb. 8, 1991
citizens
Siblings of
citizens age 21
Nov. 8, 1994
Nov. 8, 1994
April 1, 1994 Aug. 15, 1993 Oct. 8, 1983
and over
Source: U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs, Visa Bulletin for April 2006.
As Table 4 evidences, relatives of U.S. citizens and LPRs are waiting in
backlogs for a visa to become available, with the brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens
now waiting almost 12 years. “Priority date” means that unmarried adult sons and
daughters of U.S. citizens who filed petitions on April 22, 2001 are now being
processed for visas. Married adult sons and daughters of U.S. citizens who filed
petitions seven years ago (July 22, 1998) are now being processed for visas.
Prospective family-sponsored immigrants from the Philippines have the most
substantial waiting times before a visa is scheduled to become available to them;
consular officers are now considering the petitions of the brothers and sisters of U.S.
citizens from the Philippines who filed over 22 years ago.
Due to P.L. 106-313's easing of the employment-based per-country limits, few
countries and categories are currently oversubscribed in the employment-based
preferences. As Table 5 presents, however, some employment-based visa categories
are once again unavailable. The Department of State’s Visa Bulletin for July 2005,
offered the following explanation: “The Employment Third and Third Other Worker
categories have reached their annual limits and no further FY2005 allocations are
possible for the period July through September. With the start of the new fiscal year
in October, numbers will once again become available in these categories.”18 The
Visa Bulletin for September 2005 offered further information: “The backlog
reduction efforts of both Citizenship and Immigration Services, and the Department
of Labor continue to result in very heavy demand for Employment-based numbers.
It is anticipated that the amount of such cases will be sufficient to use all available
numbers in many categories....demand in the Employment categories is expected to
18 The archived copies of the U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs, Visa
Bulletin, is available at [http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_1360.html].

---

CRS-13
be far in excess of the annual limits, and once established, cut-off date movements
are likely to be slow.”19
When the Visa Bulletin for October 2005 became available, it was evident that
third preference visas (professional, skilled and unskilled) were oversubscribed on
a worldwide level. The countries that are particularly effected by the oversubscription
of the employment-based preference categories are China and India. The visa waiting
times have eased somewhat, as indicated by the data from the Visa Bulletin for April
2006, which is presented in Table 5.
Table 5. Priority Dates for Employment Preference Visas
Category
Worldwide
China
India
Mexico
Philippines
Priority workers
current
Jan. 1, 2004
Jan. 1, 2005
current
current
Advanced
degrees/
current
Jan. 1, 2003
July 1, 2002
current
current
exceptional
ability
Skilled and
professional
May 1, 2001
May 1, 2001
Feb 1, 2001
April 8, 2001
May 1, 2001
Unskilled
Oct. 1, 2001
Oct. 1, 2001
Oct. 1, 2001
Oct. 1, 2001
Oct. 1, 2001
Schedule A*
current
current
current
current
current
S p e c i a l
current
current
current
current
current
immigrants
Investors
current
current
current
current
current
Source: U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs, Visa Bulletin for April 2006.
* Schedule A refers to §502 of Division B, Title V of P.L. 109-13, which makes up to 50,000
permanent employment-based visas available for foreign nationals coming to work as nurses.
Petition Processing Backlogs
Distinct from the visa priority dates that result from the various numerical limits
in the law, there are significant backlogs due to the sheer volume of aliens eligible
to immigrate to the United States. As of December 31, 2003, USCIS reported 5.3
million immigrant petitions pending.20 USCIS decreased the number of immigrant
petitions pending by 24% by the end of FY2004, but still had 4.1 million petitions
pending.21 The latest processing dates for immediate relative, family preference, and
employment-based LPR petitions are presented in Appendix B for each of the four
USCIS Regional Service Centers.
19 The U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs, Visa Bulletin, is available at
[http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_1360.html].
20 According to USCIS, other immigration-related petitions, such as applications for work
authorizations or change of nonimmigrant status, filed bring the total cases pending to over
6 million. Telephone conversation with USCIS Congressional Affairs, Feb. 12, 2004.
21 DHS Office of Immigration Statistics. For USCIS workload statistics, see
[http://uscis.gov/graphics/shared/aboutus/statistics/Workload.htm].

---

CRS-14
Even though there are no numerical limits on the admission of aliens who are
immediate relatives of U.S. citizens, such citizens petitioning for their relatives are
waiting at least a year and in some parts of the country, more than two years for the
paperwork to be processed. Citizens and LPRs petitioning for relatives under the
family preferences are often waiting several years for the petitions to be processed.
Appendix B is illustrative, but not comprehensive because some immigration
petitions may be filed at USCIS District offices and at the National Benefits Center.
Aliens with LPR petitions cannot visit the United States. Since the INA
presumes that all aliens seeking admission to the United States are coming to live
permanently, nonimmigrants must demonstrate that they are coming for a temporary
period or they will be denied a visa. Aliens with LPR petitions pending are clearly
intending to live in the United States permanently and thus are denied nonimmigrant
visas to come temporarily.22
Current Issues and Legislation
Legislation in 108th Congress
Legislation reforming permanent immigration came from a variety of divergent
perspectives in the 108th Congress. The sheer complexity of the current set of
provisions makes revising the law on permanent immigration a daunting task. This
discussion focuses only on those bills that would have revised the permanent
immigration categories and the numerical limits as defined in §201-§203 of the
INA.23
On January 21, 2004, Senators Chuck Hagel and Thomas Daschle introduced
legislation (S. 2010) that would, if enacted, potentially yield significant increases in
legal permanent admissions. The Immigration Reform Act of 2004 (S. 2010), would
have among other provisions: no longer deduct immediate relatives from the overall
family-sponsored numerical limits; treat spouses and minor children of LPRs the
same as immediate relatives of U.S. citizens (exempt from numerical limits); and
reallocate the 226,000 family preference numbers to the remaining family preference
categories. In addition, many aliens who would have benefited from S. 2010's
proposed temporary worker provisions would be able to adjust to LPR status outside
the numerical limits of the per country ceiling and the worldwide levels.
Several bills that would offer more targeted revisions to permanent immigration
were offered in the House. Representative Robert Andrews introduced H.R. 539,
which would have exempted spouses of LPRs from the family preference limits and
22 §214(b) of INA. Only the H-1 workers, L intracompany transfers, and V family members
are exempted from the requirement that they prove that they are not coming to live
permanently.
23 For discussion of other major immigration legislation, see CRS Report RL32169,
Immigration Legislation and Issues in the 108th Congress, coordinated by Andorra Bruno.
Other CRS reports on the reform of other immigration provisions are available at
[http://www.crs.gov/products/browse/is-immigration.shtml].

---

CRS-15
thus treated them similar to immediate relatives of U.S. citizens. Representative
Richard Gephardt likewise included a provision that would have treated spouses of
LPRs outside of the numerical limits in his “Earned Legalization and Family Unity
Act” (H.R. 3271). Representative Jerrold Nadler introduced legislation (H.R. 832)
that would have amended the INA to add “permanent partners” after “spouses” and
thus would have enabled aliens defined as permanent partners to become LPRs
through the family-based immigration categories as well as to become derivative
relatives of qualifying immigrants.
Legislation that would have reduced legal permanent immigration was
introduced early in the 108th Congress by Representative Thomas Tancredo. The
“Mass Immigration Reduction Act” (H.R. 946) would have zeroed out family
sponsored immigrants (except children and spouses of U.S. citizens), employment-
based immigrants (except certain priority workers) and diversity lottery immigrants
through FY2008. It also would have set a numerical limit of 25,000 on refugee
admissions and asylum adjustments. Representative J. Gresham Barrett introduced
an extensive revision of immigration law (H.R. 3522) that also included a significant
scaling back of permanent immigration.
Issues in the 109th Congress
President Bush’s Immigration Reform Proposal. When President
George W. Bush announced his principles for immigration reform in January 2004,
he included an increase in permanent legal immigration as a key component. The
fact sheet that accompanied his remarks referred to a “reasonable increase in the
annual limit of legal immigrants.”24 When the President spoke, he characterized his
policy recommendation as follows:
The citizenship line, however, is too long, and our current limits on legal
immigration are too low. My administration will work with the Congress to
increase the annual number of green cards that can lead to citizenship. Those
willing to take the difficult path of citizenship — the path of work, and patience,
and assimilation — should be welcome in America, like generations of
immigrants before them.25
Some commentators are speculating the President is promoting increases in the
employment-based categories of permanent immigration, but the Bush
Administration has not yet provided specific information on what categories of legal
permanent admissions it advocates should be increased. Details on the level of
increases the Administration is seeking also have not been provided.
The President featured his immigration reform proposal in the 2004 State of the
Union address, and it has sparked a lively debate. Most of the attention has focused
on the new temporary worker component of his proposal and whether the overall
24 The White House, Fact Sheet: Fair and Secure Immigration Reform, Jan. 7, 2004.
Available at [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/01/20040107-1.html].
25 President George W. Bush, “Remarks by the President on Immigration Policy,” Jan. 7,
2004. Available at [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/01/20040107-3.html].

---

CRS-16
proposal constitutes an “amnesty” for aliens living in the United States without legal
authorization.
President Bush recently stated that immigration reform is a top priority and is
sparking a lively debate on the issue. In an interview with the Washington Times,
the President responded to a question about where immigration reform ranks in his
second term agenda by saying, “I think it’s high. I think it’s a big issue.” The
President posited that the current situation is a “bureaucratic nightmare” that must
be solved.26
Recaptured Visa Numbers for Nurses. Section 502 of Division B, Title
V of P.L. 109-13 (H.R. 1268, the emergency FY2005 supplemental appropriation)
amends the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-first Century Act of 2000 (P.L.
106-313) to modify the formula for recapturing unused employment-based immigrant
visas for employment-based immigrants “whose immigrant worker petitions were
approved based on schedule A.” In other words, it makes up to 50,000 permanent
employment-based visas available for foreign nationals coming to work as nurses.
This provision was added to H.R. 1268 as an amendment in the Senate and was
accepted by the conferees.
Recaptured Employment-Based Visa Numbers. On October 20, 2005,
the Senate Committee on the Judiciary approved compromise language that would,
among other things, recapture up to 90,000 employment-based visas that had not
been issued in prior years (when the statutory ceiling of 140,000 visas was not met).
An additional fee of $500 would be charged to obtain these recaptured visas. This
language was forwarded to the Senate Budget Committee for inclusion in the budget
reconciliation legislation. On November 18, 2005, the Senate passed S. 1932, the
Deficit Reduction Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 2005, with these provisions as
Title VIII. These provisions were not included in the House-passed Deficit
Reduction Act of 2005 (H.R. 4241).
The conference report (H.Rept. 109-362) on the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005
(S. 1932) was reported during the legislative day of December 18, 2005. It did not
include the Senate provisions that would recapture employment-based visas unused
in prior years. On December 19, the House agreed to the conference report by a vote
of 212-206. On December 21, the Senate removed extraneous matter from the
legislation pursuant to a point of order raised under the “Byrd rule” and then, by a
vote of 51-50 (with Vice President Cheney breaking a tie vote), returned the amended
measure to the House for further action.
Securing America’s Borders Act (S. 2454)/Chairman’s Mark. Title
IV of S. 2454, the Securing America’s Borders Act, which Senate Majority Leader
Bill Frist introduced on March 16, 2006, as well as Title V in the draft of Senate
Judiciary Chairman Specter’s mark circulated March 6, 2006 (Chairman’s mark)
would substantially increase legal immigration and would restructure the allocation
of these visas. The particular provisions in S. 2454 and the Chairman’s mark are
essentially equivalent.
26 Washington Times, Jan. 12, 2005.

---

CRS-17
Foremost, Title IV of S. 2454 and Title V of the Chairman’s mark would no
longer deduct immediate relatives of U.S. citizens from the overall family-sponsored
numerical limit of 480,000. This change would likely add at least 226,000 more
family-based admissions annually (based upon the current floor of 226,000 family-
sponsored visas). The bills would increase the annual number of employment-based
LPRs from 140,000 to 290,000. They also would no longer count the derivative
family members of employment-based LPRs as part of the numerical ceiling. If each
employment-based LPR would be accompanied by 1.2 family members (as is
currently the ratio), then an estimated 348,000 additional LPRs might be admitted.
The bills would “recapture” visa numbers from FY2001 through FY2005 in those
cases when the family-based and employment-based ceilings were not reached.
Title IV of S. 2454 and Title V of the Chairman’s mark would raise the current
per-country limit on LPR visas from an allocation of 7% of the total preference
allocation to 10% of the total preference allocation (which would be 480,000 for
family-based and 290,000 for employment-based under this bill). Coupled with the
proposed increases in the worldwide ceilings, these provision would ease the visa
wait times that oversubscribed countries (i.e., China, India, Mexico, and the
Philippines) currently have by substantially increasing their share of the overall
ceiling.
Title IV of S. 2454 and Title V of the Chairman’s mark would further reallocate
family-sponsored immigrants and employment-based visas. The numerical limits on
immediate relatives of LPRs would increase from 114,200 (plus visas not used by
first preference) to 240,000 annually. They would shift the allocation of visas from
persons of “extraordinary” and “exceptional” abilities and persons having advanced
professional degrees (i.e., first and second preferences), and increase the number of
visas to unskilled workers 10,000 to 87,000 — plus any unused visas that would roll
down from the other employment-based preference categories. Employment-based
visas for certain special immigrants would no longer be numerically limited.
Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act (S. 1033/H.R. 2330).
On May 12, 2005, a bipartisan group of Senators and Congressmen27 introduced an
expansive immigration bill known as the Secure America and Orderly Immigration
Act (S. 1033/H.R. 2330). Among other things, these bills would make significant
revisions to the permanent legal admissions sections of INA.28 Specifically Title VI
of the legislation would
! remove immediate relatives of U.S. citizens from the calculation of
the 480,000 annual cap on family-based visas for LPR status,
thereby providing additional visas to the family preference
categories;
27 In the Senate, the co-sponsors are Senators John McCain, Ted Kennedy, Sam Brownback,
Ken Salazar, Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman. In the House, the co-sponsors are lead
by Representatives Jim Kolbe, Jeff Flake and Luis Gutierrez.
28 For an analysis of other major elements of these bills, see CRS Report RL32044,
Immigration: Policy Considerations Related to Guest Worker Programs, by Andorra
Bruno.

---

CRS-18
! lower the income requirements for sponsoring a family member for
LPR status from 125% of the federal poverty guidelines to 100%;
! recapture for future allocations those LPR visas that were unused
due to processing delays from FY2001 through FY2005;
! increase the annual limit on employment-based LPR visa categories
from 140,000 to 290,000 visas; and
! raise the current per-country limit on LPR visas from an allocation
of 7% of the total preference allocation to 10% of the total
preference allocation (which would be 480,000 for family-based and
290,000 for employment-based under this bill).
Comprehensive Enforcement and Immigration Reform Act of 2005.
The Comprehensive Enforcement and Immigration Reform Act of 2005 (S. 1438),
introduced by Senators John Cornyn and Jon Kyl on July 20, 2005, has provisions
that would restructure the allocation of employment-based visas for LPRs. Among
the various proposals, Title X of this legislation would make the following specific
changes to the INA provisions on permanent admissions:
! reduce the allocation of visas to persons of “extraordinary” and
“exceptional” abilities and persons having advanced professional
degrees (i.e., first and second preferences);
! increase the number of visas to unskilled workers from a statutory
cap of 10,000 annually to a level of 36% of the 140,000 ceiling for
employment-based admissions (plus any other unused employment-
based visas);
! eliminate the category of diversity visas; and
! recapture for future allocations those employment-based visa
numbers that were unused from FY2001 through FY2005.
Immigration Accountability Act of 2005. As part of a package of 4
immigration reform bills, Senator Chuck Hagel has introduced the Immigration
Accountability Act of 2005 (S. 1919), which would provide for “earned adjustment
of status” for certain unauthorized aliens who meet specified conditions and would
expand legal immigration. In terms of permanent legal admissions, S. 1919 would
among other provisions:
! no longer deduct immediate relatives from the overall family-
sponsored numerical limits of 480,000;
! treat spouses and minor children of LPRs the same as immediate
relatives of U.S. citizens (i.e., exempt from numerical limits); and
! reallocate the 226,000 family preference numbers to the remaining
family preference categories.
The Hagel immigration reform proposal also includes legislation revising the
temporary worker programs, border security efforts, and employment verification.

Enforcement First Immigration Reform Act of 2005. Title VI of the
Enforcement First Immigration Reform Act of 2005 (H.R. 3938), introduced by
Representative J.D. Hayworth, focuses on revising permanent admissions. H.R. 3938

---

CRS-19
would increase employment-based admissions and decrease family-based admissions.
More specifically, it would
! increased the worldwide ceiling for employment-based admissions
by 120,000 to 260,000 annually;
! within the employment-based third preference category, double
unskilled admission from 10,000 to 20,000;
! eliminate the family-based fourth preference category (i.e., adult
sibling of U.S. citizens); and
! eliminate the diversity visa category.
H.R. 3938 also has two provisions aimed at legal immigration from Mexico: §604
would place a 3-year moratorium on permanent family-preference (not counting
immediate relatives of U.S. citizens) and employment-based admissions from
Mexico; and §605 would amend the INA to limit family-based immigration from
Mexico to 50,000 annually.
Reducing Immigration to a Genuinely Healthy Total (RIGHT) Act of
2005. On September 8, 2005, Representative Thomas Tancredo introduced the
“Reducing Immigration to a Genuinely Healthy Total (RIGHT) Act of 2005" (H.R.
3700), which would substantially overhaul permanent admissions to the United
States. Among other provisions, H.R. 3700 would
! reduce the worldwide level of employment-based immigrants from
140,000 to 5,200 annually;
! limit the 5,200 employment-based visas to persons of
“extraordinary” and “exceptional” abilities and persons having
advanced professional degrees (i.e., first and second preferences);
! eliminate the family preference visa categories; and
! eliminate the category of diversity visas.
Other Immigration Reduction Legislation. Representative J. Gresham
Barrett has introduced an extensive revision of immigration law (H.R. 1912) that also
includes a significant scaling back of permanent immigration. This legislation is
comparable to legislation he introduced in the 108th Congress.
Permanent Partners. Representative Jerrold Nadler has introduced
legislation (H.R. 3006) that would amend the INA to add “permanent partners” after
“spouses” and thus would enable aliens defined as permanent partners to become
LPRs through the family-based immigration categories as well as to become
derivative relatives of qualifying immigrants. This bill is comparable to legislation
he introduced previously.
Petition Processing and Adjudication Funding. USCIS funds the
processing and adjudication of immigrant, nonimmigrant, refugee, asylum, and
citizenship benefits largely through monies generated by the Examinations Fee

---

CRS-20
Account.29 The Administration increased the fees charged to U.S. citizens and legal
permanent residents petitioning to bring family or employees into the United States
and to foreign nationals in the United States seeking immigration benefits.30 In
FY2004, 86% of USCIS funding came from the Examinations Fee Account. In
FY2005, USCIS has budget authority for $1.571 billion from the Examinations Fee
Account.31 Congress provided a direct appropriation of $60 million in FY2005 to
reduce the backlog of applications and to strive for a six-month processing standard
for all applications by FY2006.32
The Administration sought $1.81 billion for USCIS for FY2006. This figure
would have been an additional $79 million for FY2006, a 5% increase over FY2005.
For direct appropriations, the Administration requested $80 million — a cut of $80
million from FY2005 and a cut of $155 million from the $235 million Congress
appropriated in FY2004. A decrease of 26% in backlog reduction and customer
service activities was proposed for FY2006. The House-passed bill making FY2006
appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security (H.R. 2360) would have
provided an increase of $40 million above the President’s request for a total of $120
million, which would have been $40 million less than FY2005. The Senate-reported
version of H.R. 2360 would have provided $80 million for USCIS in direct
appropriations, recommending $40 million less than provided in H.R. 2360 as passed
by the House, and $80 million less than enacted in FY2005.
On September 29, 2005, the conference committee approved and filed the
conference report (H.Rept. 109-241) to H.R. 2360. The conferees recommend a total
of $1,889 million for USCIS, of which 94% comes from fees. The remaining 6% is
a direct appropriation of $115 million, which includes $80 million for backlog
reduction initiatives as well as $35 million to support the information technology
transformation effort and to convert immigration records into digital format. The
FY2006 appropriations amount is a decrease of 28% from the $160 million
appropriated in FY2005. As a result of a 10% increase in revenue budgeted from
fees, the FY2006 total is 6% greater than the FY2005 total. The President signed H.R
2360 as P.L. 109-90 on October 18, 2005.
Many in Congress have expressed concern and frustration about the backlogs
and pending caseload, and Congress has already enacted statutory requirements for
29 § 286 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. 8 U.S.C. § 1356.
30 For example, the I-130 petition for family members went from $130 to $185, the I-140
petition for LPR workers went from $135 to $190, the I-485 petition to adjust statuswent
from $255 to $315, and the N-400 petition to naturalize as a citizen went from $260 to $320.
Federal Register, vol. 69, no. 22, Feb. 3, 2004, pp. 5088-5093.
31 P.L. 108-334, conference report to accompany H.R. 4567, H.Rept. 108-774.
32 The President’s Budget request for FY2002 proposed a five-year, $500 million initiative
to reduce the processing time for all petitions to six months. Congress provided $100 in
budget authority ($80 direct appropriations and $20 million from fees) for backlog reduction
in FY2002. P.L. 107-77, conference report to accompany H.R. 2500, H.Rept. 107-278.

---

CRS-21
backlog elimination.33 Former USCIS Director Eduardo Aguirre acknowledged the
challenges his agency faces in testimony before the House Judiciary Subcommittee
on Immigration, Border Security and Claims last year.
We fully realize that the increased funding requested in the budget alone will not
enable us to realize our goals. We must fundamentally change the way we
conduct our business. We are aggressively working to modernize our systems
and increase our capacity through the reengineering of processes, the
development and implementation of new information technology systems, and
the development of mechanisms to interact with customers in a more
forward-reaching manner.34
The 109th Congress is expected to closely oversee progress in backlog reduction and
improvements in petition processing.
33 For example, see §§ 451-461 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-296).
34 U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration, Border
Security and Claims, Hearing on Backlog Reduction Plan for Immigration Applications,
June 17, 2004.

---

CRS-22
Appendix A. Top Fifty Sending Countries in FY2004 by Category of LPR
Family
Employment-
Sponsored
Based
Immediate
Refugee and
Diversity
Cancel of
Country of Birth
Total
Preferences
Preferences
Relatives
Asylee
Programs
Removal
Other
Mexico
175,364
62,463
7,225
99,718
D
D
3,357
2,467
India
70,116
13,307
38,443
16,942
1,181
90
21
132
Philippines
57,827
17,406
15,497
24,708
35
11
71
99
China, People’s Republic
51,156
13,658
15,583
20,947
876
76
3
13
Vietnam
31,514
14,890
D
10,338
2,831
D
D
3,246
Dominican Republic
30,492
18,099
212
12,087
32
8
14
40
El Salvador
29,795
3,744
996
4,874
263
—
19,791
127
Cuba
20,488
2,340
34
976
16,678
298
5
157
Korea
19,766
2,474
8,662
8,602
D
12
D
12
Colombia
18,678
3,011
2,166
12,945
375
9
63
109
Guatemala
17,999
2,317
585
6,169
D
D
8,410
126
Canada
15,567
742
6,694
7,785
17
56
D
271
United Kingdom
14,915
679
6,437
7,566
D
152
D
75
Jamaica
14,414
5,211
662
8,496
D
D
14
25
Poland
14,250
3,746
2,187
5,350
31
2,850
30
56
Haiti
13,998
5,400
122
5,520
536
—
12
2,408
Ukraine
13,655
200
767
3,061
4,980
2,975
8
1,664
Russia
13,358
175
1,994
6,710
2,571
1,097
15
796
Pakistan
12,086
3,629
2,591
5,330
419
9
32
76
Peru
11,781
2,355
1,119
7,062
323
795
48
79
Bosnia-Herzegovina
10,552
15
38
401
10,060
35
—
3
Brazil
10,504
308
3,605
6,362
26
129
24
50
Iran
10,434
2,062
745
3,275
3,966
349
8
29
Nigeria
9,374
925
685
4,549
188
2,959
22
46
Taiwan
8,961
3,163
2,295
2,865
D
613
D
19
Ecuador
8,611
1,928
1,153
5,057
33
328
55
57
Ethiopia
8,237
347
D
1,760
1,522
4,517
D
5
Bangladesh
8,061
2,099
963
2,981
198
1,756
28
36
Japan
7,694
144
2,176
4,834
5
513
—
22
Germany
7,099
150
1,931
3,951
568
464
5
30

---

CRS-23
Family
Employment-
Sponsored
Based
Immediate
Refugee and
Diversity
Cancel of
Country of Birth
Total
Preferences
Preferences
Relatives
Asylee
Programs
Removal
Other
Guyana
6,329
3,957
203
2,146
D
9
D
6
Venezuela
6,220
431
1,498
3,917
214
127
12
21
Egypt
5,522
886
556
2,099
313
1,643
7
18
Honduras
5,505
1,662
424
3,068
93
10
207
41
Trinidad and Tobago
5,384
1,689
589
3,034
D
31
D
34
Ghana
5,328
553
222
3,216
D
1,152
D
35
Kenya
5,323
154
362
1,651
406
2,730
5
15
Argentina
4,805
232
1,402
2,906
120
121
5
19
Romania
4,557
295
780
2,216
79
1,145
32
10
Thailand
4,314
418
565
2,957
246
D
D
41
Bulgaria
4,194
110
475
1,172
65
2,342
19
11
Israel
4,160
264
1,322
2,293
13
249
4
15
Morocco
4,128
110
222
1,530
3
2,251
—
12
Nicaragua
4,000
453
56
1,289
137
10
17
2,038
Hong Kong
3,951
2,386
744
710
22
78
—
11
Somalia
3,929
21
D
191
3,640
69
D
1
Turkey
3,833
158
719
1,836
25
1,084
5
6
Lebanon
3,811
1,230
527
1,875
134
25
7
13
France
3,595
132
1,387
1,890
D
160
D
14
Cambodia
3,534
864
D
2,262
91
65
D
212
Top fifty total
829,168
202,992
137,620
353,479
53,315
33,402
32,356
14,848
Source: CRS analysis of data from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, FY2004 Statistical Yearbook of Immigration, 2005.
Note: “D” means that data disclosure standards are not met; “ — “ represents zero.

---

CRS-24
Appendix B. Processing Dates for Immigrant Petitions
Regional Service Centers
Immigrant
Category
California
Nebraska
Texas
Vermont
Immediate
Sept. 16, 2005
N/A
Sept. 16, 2005
Dec. 3, 2005
relatives
Unmarried sons
Jan. 17, 2003
Jan. 17. 2003
May 7, 2001
Jan. 15, 2006
and daughters of
citizens
Spouses and
Jan. 1, 2005
Jan. 1, 2005
Mar. 1, 2001
Oct. 22, 2005
children of LPRs
Unmarried sons
Feb. 7, 2005
Feb. 7, 2005
Jan. 4, 1999
Dec. 17, 2005
and daughters of
LPRs
Married sons and
April 30, 2001
April 30, 2001
May 7, 2001
Nov. 26, 2005
daughters of
citizens
Siblings of
April 30, 2001
April 30, 2001
Sept. 1, 1999
Sep. 23, 2000
citizens age 21
and over
Priority workers
Oct. 6, 2005
Oct. 1, 2005
Jan. 4, 2006
Aug. 20, 2005
— extraordinary
Priority workers
Oct. 6, 2005
Nov. 12, 2005
Jan 4, 2006
Oct. 1, 2005
— outstanding
Priority workers
Sept. 30, 2005
Dec. 17, 2005
Jan. 4, 2006
Aug. 13, 2005
— executives
Persons with
Oct. 31, 2005
Dec. 10, 2005
Jan. 4, 2006
Sept. 30, 2005
advanced degrees
or exceptional
abilities
Skilled workers
Oct.12, 2005
Oct. 16. 2005
Jan. 4, 2006
Nov. 19, 2005
(at least two years
experience) or
professionals
(B.A.)
Unskilled
Oct. 7, 2005
Jan. 15, 2005
Jan. 4, 2006
Nov. 19, 2005
shortage workers
crsphpgw
Source: CRS presentation of USCIS information dated March 20, 2006; available online at
[https://egov.immigration.gov/cris/jsps/index.jsp].

---