Order Code RL34040
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’
Immigration Fees and Adjudication Costs: The
FY2008 Adjustments and Historical Context
June 12, 2007
Chad C. Haddal
Analyst in Immigration Policy
Domestic Social Policy Division

---

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ Immigration
Fees and Adjudication Costs: The FY2008 Adjustments
and Historical Context
Summary
The charging of fees for government services or benefits has long been practice
in the United States by the federal government. Such fees have usually been charged
as a service cost recovery only to those individuals who have used the service or
benefit—so called user fees. More recently, this question has focused on the
Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Citizenship and Immigration Service
(USCIS), which adjudicates immigration benefit applications. As immigration
services grow in complexity, questions have emerged concerning what users of fee-
based services should be obligated to pay for. As related to immigration, the current
debate tends to produce two answers to the funding question: (1) an agency should
either recover all of its costs through user fees, or (2) an agency should only charge
user fees that recover the costs directly associated with providing services or benefits.
On May 30, 2007, USCIS published a new fee schedule for immigration and
naturalization adjudications and benefits. These adjustments would increase fees by
an average of 88% for each benefit. USCIS officials claim that the new fee structure
is a necessary step to maintain proper service levels and avoid backlogs. The issue
for Congress concerning the proposed new USCIS fees is whether USCIS has enough
money to fulfill its mission and, if not, how that gap should be funded.
As part of the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), USCIS was
directed nearly two decades ago to transform its funding structure to become more
fee-reliant. Although the agency has been appropriated several hundred million
dollars in the last decade, these appropriations have largely been directed towards
specific projects such as the backlog reduction initiative. The vast majority of the
agency’s funding, however, comes from the adjudication fees of immigration benefit
applications and petitions. Consequently, if the agency is to operate in an efficient
manner without the buildup of backlogs, agency funding must be sufficient to cover
the overhead and adjudication costs.
Cost estimates by both USCIS and Government Accountability Office had found
that the previous fee structure was insufficient to cover the services’ entire operation.
How these funds will be raised remains a divisive issue, since there is disagreement
over whether such funding should come from fee increases or direct appropriations.
Fee increase proponents contend that even under the proposed fee schedule,
U.S. immigration benefits are a “good deal” by world standards. Fee increase
opponents are concerned about the potential impact of fee increases on lower-income
families, and further believe that the push for making the agency entirely fee-reliant
has resulted in a backlog buildup and promoted backlog definition changes. The
Citizenship Promotion Act of 2007 (H.R. 1379; S. 795) would provide for an
increase in directly appropriated funds to USCIS. Criticisms of the new fee schedule
have taken on a heightened significance in the face of issues such as backlog
reduction and comprehensive immigration reform. This report will not be updated.

---

Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
USCIS Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
USCIS Immigration Adjudications and Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
USCIS Naturalization Adjudications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
USCIS Humanitarian Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Other USCIS Immigration-Related Matters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
USCIS Fraud Detection and Admissibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Administrative Overhead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Immigration Examination Fees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Fee Increase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Notable Fee Increases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Projected Workload . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
GAO’s Recent Investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Costs and Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Variance in Processing Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Additional Cost Reductions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Funding and Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Projected Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Historical Perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Previous Fee Increases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Historical Workloads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Congressional Concerns, Legislative Developments, and Philosophical
Tensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Recovering Service Costs or Recovering Agency Costs? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Fee Waivers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Asylees and Refugees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Reducing Bottlenecks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Fees and Low Income Citizens and Legal Permanent Residents (LPR) . . . 26
Public Charges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Policy Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Backlog Reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Definition Changes and Measuring the Backlog . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Immigration Adjudication and Enforcement Linkages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Congressional Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Comprehensive Immigration Reform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

---

List of Figures
Figure 1. USCIS Appropriations by Type, FY2003-FY2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Figure 2. Receipts, Completions and Pending Applications for All
Applications and N-400 Naturalization, FY1999-FY2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Figure 3. USCIS Pending Forms and Backlog of Forms Eligible for
the Backlog Elimination Plan, June 2003-April 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
List of Tables
Table 1. Costs and Funding from Actual Fee-Paying Benefit Seekers
for FY2006 and Projected Fee-Paying Benefit Seekers for FY2008/09 . . . 17
Table 2. Selected Historical Immigration Benefit Application Fees . . . . . . . . . 19
Appendix A. USCIS Fees, Processing Time, and Workloads for Immigration
Benefit Applications and Petitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Appendix B. Processing Time, Completion Rates, and Total Cost Per Petition 38
Appendix C. Data on Applications for All Immigration Benefits and for
N-400 Naturalizations, FY1998-FY2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

---

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services'
Immigration Fees and Adjudication Costs:
The FY2008 Adjustments and Historical
Context
Introduction
The charging of fees for government services or benefits has long been practice
in the United States by the federal government. Immigrants, for example, have had
to pay admissions fees for entry into the country at least since 1903.1 Such fees have
usually been charged only to those individuals who have used the service or benefit,
in order that the government may recover the cost of providing that service—so
called user fees.2 While this principle is seemingly simple, the issue of cost recovery
for immigration services has grown more complicated in the past two decades. As
immigration services grow in complexity, taking on new obligations and tasks
tangentially related to services, questions have emerged concerning what users of fee-
based services should be obligated to pay for. This question becomes especially
difficult when an agency is established that is based almost entirely around providing
a fee-based set of services. In such cases, agencies have historically received direct
appropriations from Congress, thereby receiving some funding from non-users. As
related to immigration, the current debate centers around two approaches to the
funding question: (1) an agency should either recover all of its costs through user
fees, or (2) an agency should only charge user fees that recover the costs directly
associated with providing the given service or benefit.
More recently, this question has focused on the Department of Homeland
Security’s (DHS) Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS), which adjudicates
immigration benefit applications. This agency, which used to be a component of the
Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), has transformed to become its own
fee reliant agency, and has moved increasingly towards recovering full agency costs
from users.3 This movement resulted in a proposed new fee schedule, which coupled
1 32 Stat. 1213.
2 According to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the term “user fee” applies
to “fees, charges, and assessments the Government levies on a class directly benefitting
from, or subject to regulation by, a Government program or activity, to be utilized solely to
support the program or activity.” See OMB, Budget of the U.S. Government, FY2000,
Analytical Perspectives (Washington: 1999), chapter 4, “User Fees and Other Collections,”
pp. 93-104.
3 USCIS was originally named the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services (BCIS)
when the agency was officially created on March 1, 2003 as a part of the new Department
(continued...)

---

CRS-2
with the reduced request for direct appropriations would make USCIS almost
completely fee reliant. The final fee schedule for immigration and naturalization
adjudications and benefits that takes effect on July 30, 2007,4 will increase fees by
an average of 88% for each benefit and eliminate a number of fee waivers.5 As a
result, over 99% of the agency’s budget would come directly from user fees.6
With the funding transformation of USCIS has also come a transformation in
the stakeholder composition of the agency. As the agency funding becomes
increasingly fee-based, the general public becomes less of a stakeholder in the
agency’s activities. While such a shift may be a welcome transformation financially,
it raises functional questions over the degree to which congressional oversight would
be performed over an entirely fee-reliant agency. In essence, issues arise from this
agency transformation over whether the distribution of immigration benefits will be
driven by public policy or the market mechanism of agency cost recovery.
Opponents of the agency cost recovery contend that a fully fee-reliant agency
compromises the public interest, since the agency would only be accountable to itself
for its costs and expenditures.7 If these costs escalate through agency inefficiencies,
critics argue, fees could eventually elevate to levels that are prohibitively expensive
for some potential users. Moreover, the recent fee schedule by USCIS has raised
questions by some observers whether the prohibitive fee levels have already been
reached.
Historically, the role of Congress has been to appropriate some funds to
agencies adjudicating immigration benefits, particularly in relation to multi-year
special projects. Congress has also had an oversight role in how these funds, as well
as funds collected through fees, were being obligated by immigration agencies. As
such, congressional reactions to these new fees have been strong and divergent,
creating a continuum reflecting the overarching debate. The continuum tends to range
from service cost recovery advocates on one end to agency cost recovery advocates
on the other (hereafter referred to as service cost advocates and agency cost
advocates, respectively). Service cost advocates have called for congressional action
3 (...continued)
of Homeland Security (DHS). Prior to March 1, 2003, Citizenship and Immigration Services
(CIS) had been an entity within the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS),
which was dissolved with the creation of DHS. This adjudication agency was renamed U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services on September 1, 2003.
4 These fee adjustments constitute the first fee revision since October 26, 2005. The fee
structure is outlined in regulations in 8 CFR 103.7
5 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.
“Adjustment of the Immigration and Naturalization Benefit Application and Petition Fee Schedule,”
Federal Register, vol. 72, no. 103 (May 30, 2007), pp. 29851–29873.
6 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Fiscal
Year 2008 Congressional Budget Justifications.
7 U.S. Senator Barack Obama, “Obama, Gutierrez, Schakowsky Bill Would Send
Immigration Fee Hikes Back to the Drawing Board,” press release, March 7, 2007, p. 1.
This press release was distributed in association with the introduction of the Citizenship
Promotion Act of 2007 in both chambers of Congress (H.R. 1379 and S. 795).

---

CRS-3
to prevent the new fees from being implemented.8 Although they are generally not
opposed to the increased funding for USCIS, the opponents wish for USCIS to only
recover direct service cost and otherwise request direct appropriations to offset
agency costs.9 Agency cost advocates,10 however, contend that subsidizing agency
costs may keep fees low enough to potentially allow immigrants that qualify as
“public charges” under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) to receive
immigration benefits.11 These advocates further contend that the immigration
benefits U.S. immigrants receive are a “good deal” by world standards, even under
the new fee structure.12 USCIS officials claim that the new fee schedule, which is set
to become effective July 30, 2007, is a necessary step for them to maintain proper
service levels and continue with other agency functions.
An issue for Congress concerning the new USCIS fees is whether USCIS has
enough money to fulfill its mission and, if not, should that gap be funded through
increased fees. The fee increase, however, raises potential issues for some Members.
For example, although the new fees are based upon cost estimates which showed
previous fees were inadequate on a per application basis, there are questions
regarding how efficiently and effectively previously allocated resources have been
expended by the agency. Additionally, concerns exist over the agency’s expenditure
of previous direct appropriations aimed at reducing the agency’s application backlog.
Some have questioned whether future applicants should shoulder the cost of
processing previously submitted and previously funded applications. Allowing the
agency to become fully fee reliant, critics argue, would only make the agency less
accountable for any inefficiencies in processing.13 Another issue concerning the fee
increase is whether the reduction in fee waiver eligibility and the uniform fees for
most applicants are acceptable policies.
8 Ibid.
9 Ibid.
10 Statements by U.S. House Representatives Steve King and Daniel Lungren in U.S.
Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship,
Refugees, Border Security, and International Law, The Proposed Immigration Fee Increase,
110th Congress, 1st sess., February 14, 2007.
11 INA §212(a)(4). The term “public charge” is used in the context of drawing public
benefits for low income households.
12 Statements by U.S. House Representative Daniel Lungren in U.S. Congress, House
Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border
Security, and International Law, The Proposed Immigration Fee Increase, 110th Congress,
1st sess., February 14, 2007.
13 U.S. Senator Barack Obama, “Obama, Gutierrez, Schakowsky Bill Would Send
Immigration Fee Hikes Back to the Drawing Board,” press release, March 7, 2007, p. 1.

---

CRS-4
USCIS Functions14
USCIS performs a variety of functions that cumulatively determine the agency’s
costs.15 While most of these functions are direct results of the agency’s processing
functions, other costs such as administrative overhead result indirectly from these
obligations. Of the activities that are listed below, administrative overhead and
humanitarian functions are those which most frequently do not have a fee associated
with them.
There are three major activities that dominate the functions of USCIS: the
adjudication of immigration petitions, the adjudication of naturalization petitions,
and the consideration of refugee and asylum claims and related humanitarian and
international concerns. USCIS also processes a range of immigration-related benefits
and services, such as employment authorizations and change-of-status petitions.16
USCIS Immigration Adjudications and Services. USCIS adjudicators
determine the eligibility of the immediate relatives and other family members of U.S.
citizens, the spouses and children of legal permanent residents (LPR), employees that
U.S. businesses have demonstrated that they need, and other foreign nationals who
meet specified criteria. They also determine whether an alien can adjust to LPR
status.17
USCIS Naturalization Adjudications. USCIS is responsible for
naturalization, a process in which LPR may become U.S. citizens if they meet the
requirements of the law. Adjudicators must determine whether aliens have
continuously resided in the United States for a specified period of time, have good
moral character, have the ability to read, write, speak, and understand English, and
have passed an examination on U.S. government and history. All persons filing
naturalization petitions must be fingerprinted, as background checks are required of
applicants.
USCIS Humanitarian Functions. This activity, located in the USCIS
Office of International Affairs, adjudicates refugee applications and conducts
background and record checks related to some immigrant petitions abroad.18 The
largest component of this program is the asylum officer corps, whose members
14 Portions of this subsection were authored by Ruth Ellen Wasem.
15 For analysis of the USCIS budget see CRS Report RL34004, Homeland Security
Department: FY2008 Request for Appropriations, coordinated by Jennifer E. Lake and Blas
Nuñez-Neto.
16 For additional discussion on USCIS’ immigration-related responsibilities and
organizational structure, see CRS Report RL33319, Toward More Effective Immigration
Policies: Selected Organizational Issues, by Ruth Ellen Wasem.
17 See CRS Report RL32235, U.S. Immigration Policy on Permanent Admissions, by Ruth
Ellen Wasem.
18 For more on refugee and asylum policy, see CRS Report RL31269, Refugee Admissions
and Resettlement Policy, by Andorra Bruno, and CRS Report RL32621, U.S. Immigration
Policy on Asylum Seekers, by Ruth Ellen Wasem.

---

CRS-5
interview and screen asylum applicants. Although a small portion of the USCIS
workload, it can be a high-profile activity.
Other USCIS Immigration-Related Matters. USCIS also makes
determinations on a range of immigration-related benefits and services. The agency
decides whether a foreign national in the United States on a temporary visa (i.e., a
nonimmigrant) is eligible to change to another nonimmigrant visa. USCIS processes
work authorizations to aliens who meet certain conditions and provides other
immigration benefits to aliens under the discretionary authority of the Attorney
General (e.g., aliens granted cancellation of removal by the Executive Office for
Immigration Removal).
USCIS Fraud Detection and Admissibility. On an annual basis, USCIS
adjudicates millions of applications for immigration benefits. Adjudication of these
various immigration and naturalization petitions, however, is not a routine matter of
processing paperwork. USCIS must confirm not only that the aliens are eligible for
the particular immigration status they are seeking, but also whether they should be
rejected because of other requirements of the law.19 USCIS established the Office of
Fraud Detection and National Security to work with the appropriate law enforcement
entities to handle national security and criminal "hits" on aliens and to identify
systemic fraud in the application process. Many of these duties were formerly
performed by the INS enforcement arm that is now part of DHS’ Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (ICE).
Administrative Overhead. In addition to the functions listed above, USCIS
is also responsible for a host of administrative tasks that contribute to overhead costs,
including the maintenance of a number of databases and projects. The agency has
been granted several direct appropriations by Congress to deal with these databases
in previous years, partly due to the costs associated with the projects. For example,
USCIS is currently responsible for a project to modernize its systems and processes
in an effort to improve information sharing, workload capacity, and system
integrity.20 Additionally, USCIS is responsible for the Employment Eligibility
Verification (EEV) program for worksite enforcement,21 and is seeking to expand the
program through streamlined processes and marketing initiatives.22
19 For more information, see CRS Report RS20916, Immigration and Naturalization
Fundamentals, by Ruth Ellen Wasem.
20 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services,
Fiscal Year 2008 Congressional Budget Justifications.
21 For additional discussion of the EEV, see CRS Report RL33973, Unauthorized
Employment in the United States: Issues and Options, by Andorra Bruno, and CRS Report
RL33125, Immigration Legislation and Issues in the 109th Congress, coordinated by
Andorra Bruno.
22 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services,
Fiscal Year 2008 Congressional Budget Justifications.

---

CRS-6
Immigration Examination Fees
As previously mentioned, USCIS is a fee-reliant agency. The agency generally
will charge a user fee for the goods and services it provides.23 As part of the former
Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), USCIS was directed nearly two
decades ago to transform its funding structure with the creation of the Immigration
Examinations Fee Account (hereafter referred to as the exam fee account)—an
account designed to fund the agency’s activities and operations.24 Although the
agency has been appropriated several hundred million dollars in the last decade, these
appropriations have largely been directed towards specific projects such as the
backlog reduction initiative. The vast majority of the agency’s funding, however,
comes from the adjudication fees of immigration benefit applications and petitions.
For example, in the FY2008 budget request, the agency requested $30 million in
direct appropriations.25 The remaining $2.5 billion of the appropriations requested
would be funded from collected fees.26 Consequently, if the agency is to operate in
an efficient manner without the buildup of backlogs, agency funding must be
sufficient to cover the overhead and adjudication costs.
Fee Increase
The fees that fund the adjudication and petition processing at USCIS are
deposited into the exam fee account.27 The newly released fee schedule is based
upon the first comprehensive cost estimates of the activities funded by this account
since FY1998.28 GAO released a study in January 2004 that criticized the former
23 For further discussion on user fees and budget procedures, see CRS Report RS20439,
User Fees: Applicable Budget Enforcement Procedures, by Bill Heniff Jr.
24 P.L. 100-459 §209.
25 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services,
Fiscal Year 2008 Congressional Budget Justifications.
26 Ibid.
27 There are two other fee accounts at USCIS, known as the H-1B Nonimmigrant Petitioner
Account and the Fraud Prevention and Detection Account. The funding in these accounts
is drawn from separate fees that are statutorily determined (P.L. 106-311 and P.L.109-13,
respectively). Furthermore, the former fee funds are required to be paid by employers who
participate in the H-1B program. The latter fees are for activities related to detecting and
preventing fraud in benefit applications for initial grants of H-1B, H-2B, or L visa
classification to foreign nationals. USCIS receives 5% of the H-1B Nonimmigrant
Petitioner Account funding and 33% of the Fraud Detection and Prevention Account
funding (the remaining portion of these funds are appropriated to other agencies for
activities such as worker retraining and fraud prevention). In FY2006, the USCIS shares of
funding in these accounts were approximately $13 million and $16 million respectively, and
these funds combined for roughly 3% of the USCIS budget. (U.S. Department of Homeland
Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Fiscal Year 2008 Congressional
Budget Justifications)
28 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, “U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services,
Adjustment of the Immigration and Naturalization Benefit Application and Petition Fee
(continued...)

---

CRS-7
USCIS fee schedule for being “outdated” and not reflecting increased costs of
additional processing actions put into effect after the fee schedule.29 Subsequently,
USCIS performed the recommended comprehensive fee study. The outcome of the
most recent cost assessment was that the previous fees did “not reflect the current
processes or recover the full cost of services that should be provided.”30 In response,
the new petition and fee schedule will raise the fee average by $174, from an average
fee of $264 to $438.31
Notable Fee Increases. As the fee schedule shows in Appendix A,
although numerous forms will have an upward fee adjustment, there are four different
forms that will result in fee increases of more than $500: I-485, I-526, I-698, and I-
829. Forms I-526 and I-829 applications are for the “initial application of an alien
entrepreneur” and the “removal of conditional status on an alien entrepreneur’s legal
permanent residence (LPR) classification,” respectively. These immigrants must
provide $1 million to invest in a U.S.-based enterprise ($500,000 for targeted areas)
to qualify for entry as an alien entrepreneur.32 Form I-698 is a petition to adjust from
temporary to permanent status. All three of these forms are relatively low volume
petitions. As Appendix A shows, these three forms combined for a total volume of
1,519 petitions in FY2006, or less than one tenth of 1% of the total workload volume.
Critics of the fee schedule have reacted to the fee increase, most frequently with
respect to adjust status or register as a permanent resident (Form I-485).33 This form
is required by all foreign nationals applying for LPR status and experienced a volume
of 606,425 applications in FY2006. The application fee is scheduled to increase
from $325 to $930, an increase of $605 or 186%.34 Critics have argued that this fee
28 (...continued)
Schedule; Proposed Rule,” Federal Register, vol. 72, no. 21 (February1, 2007), p. 4892.
(Hereafter, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, “U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services, Adjustment of the Immigration and Naturalization Benefit Application and
Petition Fee Schedule; Proposed Rule.”)
29 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Immigration Application Fees: Current Fees are
not Sufficient to Fund U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ Operations, GAO-04-
309R, January 5, 2004
30 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, “U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services,
Adjustment of the Immigration and Naturalization Benefit Application and Petition Fee
Schedule; Proposed Rule,” p. 4888.
31 Ibid.
32 For additional information on alien entrepreneurs, see CRS Report RL33844, Foreign
Investor Visas: Policies and Issues, by Chad C. Haddal.
33 Letter from American Immigration Lawyers Association, to the Director of the Regulatory
M a n a g e m e n t D i v i s i o n , U S C I S , A p r i l 1 , 2 0 0 7 , a t
[http://www.bibdaily.com/pdfs/AILA%20fee%20comment%204-1-07.pdf].
34 Previously, all individuals ages 14-79 were required to pay the $325 I-485 application fee
and a $70 biometrics fee. For individuals under the age of 14, the I-485 fee was $225 with
no biometrics fee. Individuals over the age of 79 paid the full I-485 cost but were not
required to pay a biometrics fee. Under the new schedule, children under age 14 applying
(continued...)

---

CRS-8
increase places a significant burden on lower income families who must pay this fee
for each family member. USCIS has responded to these criticisms by noting that
despite the significant increase, applicants who file to adjust status would no longer
be charged for interim benefits, including applications for travel documents and
employment authorization. For applicants with interim benefits, USCIS estimates
that the multi-year cost for an adjustment of status to permanent resident is
approximately $800, thus accounting for most of the fee.35 Critics, however, have
noted that the new fee would also be charged to individuals who do not seek interim
benefits, such as juvenile family members.36
Projected Workload. Despite the significant fee increase, USCIS projects
a reduced workload volume for FY2008 and FY2009 (hereafter FY2008/09).37 Much
of this decrease comes from an assumption that temporary protected status (TPS) will
not continue for individuals of certain nationalities.38 The result of this assumption
is a projected decrease of 304,086 applications from FY2006 levels in both I-821
(application for temporary protected status) and I-765 applications (application for
employment authorization). In total, the workload volume for USCIS is projected
to decrease by 414,317 applications or 7%, from 5,991,362 to 5,577,045.
Furthermore, according to USCIS, the fee paying volume of the total workload is
projected to decrease by 960,204 applications or 17%, from 5,702,571 to 4,742,367.
The discrepancy between the workload volume and fee-paying reductions is partly
due to the absorption of interim benefit applications for work and travel authorization
into the adjustment of status application.39
34 (...continued)
with at least one parent will have to pay $600, while those over the age of 79 will have to
pay $930. Neither children under age 14 or adults over the age of 79 will be required to pay
the biometrics fee.
35 USCIS Director Emilio T. Gonzalez stated at a hearing that the average adult Form I-485
applicant seeks interim benefits twice while his or her application is being adjudicated.
(Testimony of USCIS Director Emilio T. Gonzalez, in U.S. Congress, House Committee on
the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and
International Law, The Proposed Immigration Fee Increase, 110th Congress, 1st sess.,
February 14, 2007)
36 Statements by U.S. Representatives Luis Gutierrez, Artur Davis, and Keith Ellison in U.S.
Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship,
Refugees, Border Security, and International Law, The Proposed Immigration Fee Increase,
110th Congress, 1st sess., February 14, 2007.
37 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, “U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services,
Adjustment of the Immigration and Naturalization Benefit Application and Petition Fee
Schedule; Proposed Rule,” p. 4903.
38 Ibid.
39 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, “U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services,
Adjustment of the Immigration and Naturalization Benefit Application and Petition Fee
Schedule; Proposed Rule,” p. 4903.

---

CRS-9
Background
Since the passage of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (INA),40
immigration statutes have prescribed a number of fees for certain government
services. Furthermore, under a general “user” statute in Title V of the Independent
Offices Appropriations Act of 1952,41 government agencies were authorized to
charge fees for services they performed. Legislation in 1968 removed the
enumeration of statutory fees under the INA,42 and subsequently immigration fees
were prescribed in regulations under the authorization of the latter “user” statute.43
Following the 1968 legislation, the INS continued to periodically adjust fees as
it deemed necessary.44 However, more concerted efforts towards making the
adjudication functions of the INS more fee-reliant began during the second term of
the Reagan Administration. At the same time that Congress passed the Immigration
Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA),45 which included a legalization program
for certain unlawfully present aliens, the INS decreased fees for stays of
deportation,46 but increased the fees for certain other deportation related motions. In
the publication of the final fee schedule after passage of IRCA, the agency stated that
it believed it was legally required to recover all of its costs for services it provided.47
The 1987 amendment to the fee schedule added fees for the legalization program
under IRCA, and despite opposition to the $185 filing fee, the INS maintained that
the charge was necessary to ensure that the program was self-funding.48 In 1988,
40 P.L. 82-414.
41 P.L. 82-137, 31 USC §9701.
42 P.L. 90-609.
43 Charles Gordon, Stanley Mailman, and Stephen Yale-Loehr, Immigration Law and
Procedure, vol. 1, §3.25[1] (Matthew Bender, Rev. Ed.).
44 Prior to the recently published proposed fee schedule, USCIS underwent at least 14
revisions of its fee schedule. While some of these revisions were due to cost assessments,
others were minor inflation adjustments. These fee schedule revisions occurred in 1969,
1976, 1978, 1983, 1986, 1987, 1991, 1994, 1995, 1998, 1999, 2001, 2004, and 2005.
45 P.L. 99-603.
46 In present terms, a “stay of deportation” is referred to as a “cancellation of removal.”
These changes occurred with passage of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act of 1996. (P.L. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009)
47 In its publication of the new schedule, the INS stated: “The INS and the EOIR believe it
is clear that 31 U.S.C. 9701 and OMB Circular A-25 require Federal agencies to establish
a fee system in which a benefit or a service provided to or for any person be self-sustaining
to the fullest extent. We believe arguments to the contrary are wholly without merit. Fees
are neither intended to replace nor to be influenced by the budgetary process and related
considerations, but instead, to be governed by the total cost to the agency to provide the
service. A policy of setting fees on any basis other than cost would violate this principle.”
(U.S. Department of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization Service, “8 CFR Part 103,”
Federal Register, vol. 51, no. 213 (November 4, 1986), pp. 39993-39994)
48 Charles Gordon, Stanley Mailman, and Stephen Yale-Loehr, Immigration Law and
(continued...)

---

CRS-10
Congress mandated the creation of the exam fee account in the Departments of
Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations
Act of 1989,49 such that the funding for the legalization fees could be isolated. These
fees would then be available to the INS to recover any costs associated with
providing immigration services. The Chief Financial Officers Act of 199050
implemented the requirement that a federal agency perform biennial fee reviews to
determine the full cost of providing fee-based services.51
Following the passage of the Immigration Act of 1990,52 the INS experienced
a period of unprecedented growth in applications and petitions for immigration
benefits.53 This growth was further compounded in 1995 when approximately 3
million individuals who had legalized under IRCA became eligible to naturalize.54
At roughly the same time, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO)
released a report on the financial practices of the INS.55 It found that the INS had
inadequate controls over its fee funding and was vulnerable to fraud and other
abuses. GAO also found that despite a large increase in fee funding, the agency
suffered from inadequate service processing times and poor leadership and
management.56 The INS responded to this report through centralization initiatives
within the bureau and by stating that the new fee schedule of 1991 would reduce the
growing applications backlog.57 Yet, by 1993 concern among observers had grown
that the increasing fees were not producing the promised performance results, and
48 (...continued)
Procedure, vol. 1, §3.25[1] (Matthew Bender, Rev. Ed.).
49 P.L. 100-459.
50 P.L. 101-576.
51 Prior to the review of 2005, the most recent examination fee review had been performed
by the Department of Justice for the INS in FY1999.
52 P.L. 101-649.
53 For additional analysis of immigration trends and legislation, see CRS Report RL32235,
U.S. Immigration Policy on Permanent Admissions, by Ruth Ellen Wasem.
54 In response to the growth in naturalization applications, the INS launched an initiative
called Citizenship USA, which had the explicit goal of reducing the naturalization backlog
and naturalize eligible applicants within six months of submitting an application. According
to GAO, the program experienced numerous quality and integrity problems, and resulted in
some ineligible applicants receiving citizenship. (U.S. Government Accountability Office,
Immigration Benefits: Several Factors Impede Timeliness of Application Processing, GAO-
01-488, May 2001)
55 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Immigration Management: Strong Leadership
and Management Reforms Needed to Address Serious Problems, GAO/GDD-91-28, January,
1991.
56 Ibid.
57 Testimony of INS Commissioner Gene McNary, in U.S. Congress, House Committee on
the Appropriations, Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, and the Judiciary
Appropriations, Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related
Agencies Appropriations for 1992, 102nd Congress, 1st sess., March 18, 1991.

---

CRS-11
some critics asserted that the INS was using a portion of funds from the exam fee
account for enforcement activities rather than adjudication services.58
Between 1993 and 2001, the INS continued to come under fire for not meeting
its service obligations, despite increases in funding from fees and appropriations.59
Many observers suspected that the INS was using a portion of its immigration benefit
collections to fund non-service activities such as border security and interior
enforcement. As a result of this suspected interweaving of service and non-service
funding, there was a significant push to separate the service and enforcement
functions of the INS.60 These efforts resulted in a series of recommendations made
by the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform (Commission).61 In its report, the
Commission recommended that the INS be dismantled and the adjudication and
enforcement functions be divided up between the Department of State (DOS) and
DOJ, respectively.62 The Clinton and Bush Administrations, however, categorically
rejected the proposal of INS dismantlement, and instead pushed for internal
reforms.63
Subsequent to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Congress decided to
formally separate the enforcement and adjudication functions, as well as dissolve the
INS. With the passage of The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (HSA),64 Congress
established USCIS, a new immigration adjudication agency, within the newly formed
Department of Homeland Security (DHS).65 INS did attempt to increase its fees in
FY2003 to cover certain additional costs related to security checks, but DOJ did not
act upon the request due to the upcoming transition of immigration functions from
58 Testimony of Theodore Ruthizer, president of the American Immigration Lawyers
Association, in U.S. Congress, House Committee on Government Operations, Subcommittee
on Information, Justice, Transportation, and Agriculture, Immigration and Naturalization
Service: A Mandate for Change, 103rd Congress, 1st sess., March 30, 1993.
59 For example, GAO issued another report which found that despite making some progress,
the INS had yet to adequately resolve many longstanding management issues. (U.S.
Government Accountability Office, INS Management: Follow-up on Selected Problems,
GGD-97-132, July 1997)
60 For further discussion, see CRS Report RL30257, Proposals to Restructure the
Immigration and Naturalization Service, by William J. Krouse, available upon request; and
CRS Report RL31388, Immigration and Naturalization Service: Restructuring Proposals
in the 107th Congress, by Lisa M. Seghetti, available upon request.
61 U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform, Becoming an American: Immigration and
Immigration Policy, report to Congress, Executive Summary, September 1997.
62 Ibid, pp. XL-LVIII.
63 CRS Report RL30257, Proposals to Restructure the Immigration and Naturalization
Service, by William J. Krouse, available upon request.
64 P.L. 107-296.
65 For discussion on USCIS organizational issues, see CRS Report RL31388, Immigration
and Naturalization Service: Restructuring Proposals in the 107th Congress, by Lisa M.
Seghetti, and CRS Report RL33319, Toward More Effective Immigration Policies: Selected
Organizational Issues, by Ruth Ellen Wasem.

---

CRS-12
DOJ to DHS.66 In the years since the agency was created, USCIS has been largely
dependent upon fees to fund its services, with direct appropriations being provided
mainly for temporary special projects such as the backlog reduction initiative.
GAO’s Recent Investigations
The HSA required that GAO report on whether USCIS would be likely to derive
sufficient funds from fees to carry out its functions without directly appropriated
funds.67 The HSA specified that funding for USCIS services would come directly
from fees, and that these fees should be sufficient to fully cover the cost of the
agency’s services.68 As a result, GAO released a report on fee-based funding and the
processing costs of USCIS services for FY2001 through FY2003.69
The principal finding of GAO’s investigation was that USCIS fees were
insufficient to cover the services’ entire operation. GAO determined that the costs
were not fully covered by fees because the fee schedule was based upon an outdated
fee study, and in the interim additional processing requirements and costs had
developed. According to GAO’s cost analysis, the three year total for FY2001
through FY2003 showed that $458 million, or approximately 11.4% of total
operating costs were not covered by fee collections.70 During the same period,
Congress provided an annual direct appropriation to INS of which approximately
$441 million was used for administrative and overhead costs.71
In addition to USCIS’ fee collection shortages, GAO additionally determined
that USCIS did not have an effective strategy for reducing processing times to an
average of six months,72 or a strategy for reducing the backlog of pending
applications.73 GAO consequently recommended that USCIS undergo a
66 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Immigration Application Fees: Current Fees are
Not Sufficient to Fund U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ Operations, GAO-04-
309R, January5, 2004, p. 22.
67 P.L. 107-296, § 477(d)(3).
68 P.L. 107-296, § 457.
69 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Immigration Application Fees: Current Fees are
Not Sufficient to Fund U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ Operations, GAO-04-
309R, January5, 2004.
70 Ibid., p. 13.
71 President’s Budget Request for FY2002 through FY2004.
72 As part of a presidential directive on processing time, the agency has as a goal to reducing
the processing time of all immigration benefits to six months or less. (Remarks by the
President at INS Naturali za t i o n C e r e mo n y ( J u l y 10, 2001), at
[http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/07/20010710-1.html])
73 The applications backlog was addressed further in a subsequent study by GAO, which
found that USCIS had reduced significant portions of its backlog by introducing criteria to
redefine “backlogged” applications as “pending.” (U.S. Government Accountability Office,
Improvements Needed to Address Backlogs and Ensure Quality of Adjudications, GAO-06-
(continued...)

---

CRS-13
comprehensive fee study to determine the cost of processing new immigration
applications, and that the agency determine the cost of eliminating the backlog of
pending applications. USCIS generally agreed with GAO’s recommendations and
performed a comprehensive fee study which served as the justification for the new
fee schedule.
Costs and Processing
The cost of USCIS’ various activities is unknown. However, according to
published data on costs from the initial fee proposal, the majority of the agency’s
costs come from processing activities. These costs involve the various activities that
USCIS conducts in order to adjudicate an application or petition. Processing services
therefore accumulate costs in the areas of: informing the public, capturing biometrics,
intake operations, conducting interagency border inspection system checks,
reviewing records, making determinations, performing fraud detection and
prevention, and issuing documents. In recent years, USCIS has come under scrutiny
for poorly assessing these costs and the agency has been criticized for what some
have deemed as inefficient processing performance. GAO has concluded that this
processing under-performance is linked directly to the agency’s insufficient recovery
of its costs. USCIS has accepted GAO’s conclusions and has been actively engaged
in obtaining an accurate assessment of its costs—a process from which the proposed
fees stem.
CRS conducted its own analysis of the data released by USCIS in order to
illuminate the cost claims associated with immigration benefits being made by the
agency. This analysis is included in the sections below on costs, funding, and
historical workloads. Because most of the data which the analysis is based reflects
FY2006 and projected figures for FY2008 and FY2009, the conclusions drawn are
only applicable to the current and forthcoming financial situation of USCIS, except
where otherwise noted.
Variance in Processing Costs
One of the primary adjudication interests for many observers is the cause for the
wide variance in the processing costs of different immigration benefit applications.
USCIS has stated that the costs and new fee increases are related to the amount of
processing time74 involved for each application.75 CRS analysis of FY2006 data
73 (...continued)
20, November 2005.
74 There are as of February 2007 four immigration benefit applications that take over 20
months for USCIS to process: Form I-695, Form I-698, Form I-829, and Form N-300. As
shown in Appendix B, these forms currently have processing times of 23, 27, 39, and 24
months, respectively. Despite the long processing times and significant deviation from the
President’s processing time goals, these applications constitute a relatively small portion of
the actual workload. Cumulatively, the FY2006 workload of applications with processing
times of over 20 months was 1,039, which represents less than one tenth of 1% percent of
(continued...)

---

CRS-14
published by USCIS76 indicates that as processing time increases, the costs tend to
increase as well.77 Moreover, analysis indicates that the new fees also tend to reflect
the current processing time involved across all categories of immigration benefits.
Thus, the new fees will statistically constitute an improvement over the previous fees,
since there is virtually no relationship between the previous fee and processing
time.78
In addition to the relationship of fees to processing time, USCIS has asserted
that the costs (and consequently the proposed fees) tend to be inversely related to the
volume of applications received for a given immigration benefit.79 Based upon
application volumes for FY2006, this assertion only results in a strong relationship
for the lowest volume applications such as Forms I-695, I-829, and N-300. Yet,
when correlating the current workload to total costs and proposed fees, the analysis
showed that only a weak, inverse relationship existed.80 Furthermore, the same data
show that there is almost no relationship between the projected workload to the
proposed fee.81 Thus, while there is support for the relationship of new fees to
processing time, the evidence supporting the relationship of new fees to immigration
benefit workloads is significantly weaker. In other words, the data that USCIS
provided do not support the asserted relationship of fees to processing time.
Additional Cost Reductions. In addition to the increase in fees, USCIS
projects that some costs will be recovered through future reductions in workload.
Although such reductions do not reduce costs on a per application basis, they do
contribute to a reduction in the overall agency costs. For example, one of the more
significant reductions in activity costs comes from the assumption that temporary
74 (...continued)
the FY2006 total workload of 5,991,362. Furthermore, based upon the benefit forms in
question, these applicants are unlikely to face immediate removal, be in violation of status
due to the application being pending, or otherwise have to apply for continuing benefits.
75 Testimony of USCIS Chief Financial Officer Rendell Jones, in U.S. Congress, House
Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border
Security, and International Law, 110th Congress, 1st sess., February 14, 2007).
76 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services,
“Adjustment of the Immigration and Naturalization Benefit Application and Petition Fee
Schedule; Proposed Rule,” pp. 4888-4915.
77 Analysis of the total cost to processing time show a correlation score of 0.67, which is
both strong and positive. The correlation score between the proposed fee and processing
time was 0.62.
78 These scores constitute significant improvements over the relationship of the previous
fee to processing time, which with a score of -0.07 indicates virtually no relationship.
79 Testimony of USCIS Chief Financial Officer Rendell Jones, in U.S. Congress, House
Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border
Security, and International Law, 110th Cong., 1st sess., February 14, 2007.
80 The correlation score of -0.28 indicates that while the relationship did exist it was weak
and inverse in nature.
81 Correlation analysis of the projected workload to the new fee returned a correlation score
of -0.11.

---

CRS-15
protected status for nationals from certain Central American countries will not
continue. Protections under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief
Act of 1997 (NACARA)82 are assumed not to be renewed in the projected workload,
and the combined effect of reduced volumes of Temporary Protected Status
applications (Form I-821) and employment authorizations (Form I-765) is a projected
decrease of 304,086 applications.83 Additionally, the workload volume would also
be reduced for Form I-881, which pertains to the suspension of deportation or
application of special rule under NACARA §203.84
Funding and Appropriations85
In the push to make USCIS an entirely fee-based agency, USCIS has requested
and Congress has tended to appropriate decreasing direct appropriations for USCIS
activities. These appropriations are depicted in Figure 1 below. The President’s
FY2008 budget request proposes a level of direct appropriations that is 88% lower
than that of FY2003 (the year USCIS was created). The $923 million in total direct
appropriations during this time period (plus an additional $24 million transferred to
other accounts) have largely been dedicated towards backlog reductions and other
special USCIS projects, according to USCIS officials. Since FY2003, approximately
$414 million of these discretionary funds have been used specifically for the backlog
reduction initiative. Furthermore, Figure 1 demonstrates that while the proportion
of discretionary appropriations to the total appropriated amount has decreased, the
mandatory appropriations from fee-based collections has increased. In FY2003, of
the $1.4 billion appropriation to USCIS, approximately $1.2 billion or 84% were
mandatory appropriations from fee-based collections. By FY2007, this same
proportion had increased to $1.8 billion or 91% of the agency’s appropriations. In
the FY2008 budget request for $2.5 billion, 99% of the funds are proposed to be fee-
based collections. The requested amounts for FY2008 includes the new USCIS fee
increases.
82 P.L. 105-100, title II. For additional discussion, see CRS Report 98-3, The Nicaraguan
Adjustment and Central American Relief Act: Hardship Relief and Long-Term Illegal Aliens,
by Larry M. Eig. The report is available from the author.
83 U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, “Adjustment of the Immigration and
Naturalization Benefit Application and Petition Fee Schedule; Proposed Rule,” p. 4903.
84 According to the DHS Office of Immigration Statistics’ Immigration Monthly Statistical
Report: FY2005, 79,251 cases, or roughly 78% of the pending asylum application total, were
due to NACARA or the Haitian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act (HRIFA) of 1998 (P.L.
105-277, title IX).
85 The calculations performed by CRS in this section are based upon the initial fee proposal,
and not on the final rule. The only fee difference between these two publications is the
adjustment to Form I-485. The fee proposal called for a fee of $905, while the final fee
scheduled adjusted the fee to $930 for adults, and $600 for children under age 14 applying
with at least one parent. CRS assumes in its analysis that this change will have little impact
on the overall revenues of USCIS.

---

CRS-16
Figure 1. USCIS Appropriations by Type, FY2003-FY2008
Direct Discretionary Appropriation
Fee-Based Mandatory Appropriation
Millions
3,000
2,500
2,000
ns
io
riat
p 1,500
o
2,539
pr
p
A
1,776
1,698
1,000
1,199
1,310
1,551
500
226
215
160
182
114
26
0
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007 (Est.)
2008 (Req.)
Fiscal Year
Source: CRS presentation of data from the President’s Budget Request for FY2005 through FY2008.
Note: The numbers used for FY2003-FY2006 are actual figures. The amount for FY2007 is
estimated. Appropriated amounts for FY2008 reflect the requested funds. The total requested amount
for FY2008 was $30 million, of which $4 million would be transferred to other accounts. FY2004
appropriations do not reflect an additional $20 million in discretionary appropriations funds that were
transferred to other accounts.
Projected Funding. In terms of the projected funding of USCIS from fee-
based collections, the proposed funding based on fee-paying volumes would have
decreased under the previous fee structure. Due to various factors such as the
removal of temporary protected status from NACARA eligible persons, USCIS
forecasts a decrease in the fee-paying volume of 17% from approximately 5.7 million
to 4.7 million fee-paying applicants.86 As shown in Table 1 below, funding from
applications scheduled for fee increases were approximately $1.44 billion. Based
upon the projected volumes of fee-paying applicants under the previous fee structure,
the projected fee funding for FY2008/09 would have totaled $1.25 billion, a
reduction from the FY2006 fee funding of $188 million or 13.1%. By contrast, this
same projected volume under the scheduled new fee structure would generate
projected funding of $2.33 billion, representing an increase of 62.1% over the
FY2006 fee funding. Consequently, the funding differences between the current and
new fees under the projected volumes are $1.08 billion, with the new fees generating
86.5% more funding in FY2008/09 than the previous fees would.
86 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, “U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services,
Adjustment of the Immigration and Naturalization Benefit Application and Petition Fee
Schedule; Proposed Rule,” pp. 4888-4915.

---

CRS-17
Table 1. Costs and Funding from Actual Fee-Paying Benefit
Seekers for FY2006 and Projected Fee-Paying Benefit Seekers
for FY2008/09
Processing
Fee Funding
Change from
Activity Cost
Change from
Calculation
(in Millions)
FY2006
(in Millions)
FY2006
Funding from FY2006 fee-
paying volumes with previous
$1,438
N/A
$2,259
N/A
fees
Funding from projected fee-
paying volumes for
$2,331
62.1%
$1,983
-12.2%
FY2008/09 with scheduled
new fees
Funding from projected fee-
paying volumes for
$1,250
-13.1%
$1,983
-12.2%
FY2008/09 with previous fees
Source: CRS analysis of USCIS data. Data is available in U.S. Department of Homeland Security,
“U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Adjustment of the Immigration and Naturalization
Benefit Application and Petition Fee Schedule; Proposed Rule,” Federal Register, vol. 72, no. 21
(Feb.1, 2007), pp. 4888-4915.
Note: Projected funding in the table do not include fees submitted to the H-1B Nonimmigrant Account
or the Fraud Prevention and Detection Account, nor do they include premium processing fees
collected. The FY2006 processing activity cost does not include the fee waiver and exemption costs
of $150 million or the asylum and refugee costs of $191 million. For FY2008/09, USCIS expects these
fee waiver/exemption costs and asylum/refugees costs to account for the difference between fee
funding and processing activity cost. Thus, these programs and operations are expected to cost $348
million. Differences between the CRS reported figures and those provided by USCIS may be due to
rounding and the fact that CRS figures do not account for inflation. CRS’ numbers are only
approximations.
An additional finding in Table 1 shows that based upon its own cost estimates
USCIS has recently collected funding that is significantly below its processing costs.
According to the USCIS cost estimates, processing activity costs for FY2008/09
would be approximately $1.98 billion given the projected fee-paying volumes. With
the proposed budget funding, fee funding would completely recover processing costs
in this time period. The projected processing activity costs for FY2008/09 would be
a 12.2% reduction from the FY2006 level of roughly $2.26 billion. Furthermore, the
projected financial situation for FY2008/09 constitutes an improved financial profile
for the agency as compared to FY2006. In FY2006, only 63.6% of processing
activity costs were recovered from fee funding, while under the scheduled new fee
structure the fee collections should exceed processing cost by almost $350 million.
Thus, analysis of the numbers shows that in order to recover activity processing costs
additional funds to previous fees (either through additional appropriations or fee
increases) would be needed.
Historical Perspectives
Congress has been concerned for many years about the immigration petition
processing difficulties dating back to the INS. As such, some Members question
whether the scheduled new fees will remedy the processing ills that have historically

---

CRS-18
plagued the agency. In light of these historical difficulties there are two concerns tied
to the proposed fee structure: (1) the effect of previous fee increases on workloads
(also known as the elasticity of demand),87 and (2) the general trends of the USCIS
workload over time. The analysis below of each of these factors helps illuminate the
potential impact that a fee increase may produce by illustrating the effects of recent
fee increases.
Previous Fee Increases
According to historical fee schedules presented by USCIS, the agency has
undergone two larger upward adjustments of its most common fees (see Table 2) in
the past decade, in FY1998 and FY2004. Each of these adjustments was based upon
the cost reviews implemented in FY1998.88 Although other upward adjustments to
the fee have occurred in the last eight years, they have generally reflected inflation
and thus constituted minor increases in fees.89 The fee adjustments of FY1998 and
FY2004 were more significant and thus warrant further examination.
Subsequent to the fee review implementation of FY1998, the immigration
benefits workload increased by roughly 62%, from 4.5 million in FY1998 to 7.3
million in FY2001.90 Furthermore, the fee increase of FY2004 resulted in a workload
increase of 14% over the subsequent two years from 5.3 million in FY2004 to 6
million initial receipts in FY2006. However, between FY1998 and FY2002, when
the fee increases were significantly smaller, the number of initial receipts for
immigration benefits initially increased to a peak level of 7.3 million in FY2001,
before decreasing to a level of 6.3 million in FY2002. Thus, the data revealed a direct
relationship between USCIS workload and the fees for the five most common
immigration benefit applications, as opposed to the expected inverse relationship of
fees and workload moving in opposite directions.
In order to compare application fees, CRS looked at fees for the five
applications that had more than 400,000 initial receipts in FY2006.91 These five
87 The elasticity of price on demand is a concept within economic theory that measures the
responsiveness of a change in demand for a good or service to a change in price. Using this
measure, economists may determine how changing the price of a good or service changes
the demand for that good. Goods and services whose percentage change in demand for
quantity of the good are greater than the percentage change in the price of that good are said
to be “elastic.” Alternatively, goods and services whose percentage change in demand for
quantity of the good are less than the percentage change in the price of that good are said
to be “inelastic.”
88 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, “U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services,
Adjustment of the Immigration and Naturalization Benefit Application and Petition Fee
Schedule; Proposed Rule,” pp. 4891-4892.
89 Ibid.
90 Ibid, pp. 4888-4915.
91 The number 400,000 was chosen on the basis that it was a seemingly logical cut-point in
the projected workloads for FY2008/09. For the projected workloads, 400,000 applications
(continued...)

---

CRS-19
forms (which are described in Table 2) were: Form I-90 (replace permanent resident
card), Form I-129 (petition for nonimmigrant worker), Form I-130 (petition for alien
relative), Form I-485 (adjustment of status), and Form I-765 (employment
authorization). Using the assumption that the demand for these applications has been
historically strong, CRS asserted that increases in these fees would be a reasonable
indicator for the potential impact (if any) of fee increases on overall demand for
immigration benefits. In FY2006, these five applications accounted for 3.96 million
applications, or approximately 66% of the fee-based applications processed by
USCIS, not including fees for capturing biometric information.92 Thus, even when
accounting for concurrent applications, the fee changes on these particular forms are
likely to affect a significant proportion of the applicants.
Table 2. Selected Historical Immigration Benefit Application
Fees
FY1994
FY1998
FY2002
FY2004
Form
(in dollars)
(in dollars)
Change
(in dollars)
(in dollars)
Change
I-90
$75
$110
47%
$130
$185
42%
I-129
$75
$110
47%
$130
$185
42%
I-130
$80
$110
38%
$130
$185
42%
I-485
$130
$220
69%
$255
$315
24%
I-765
$70
$100
43%
$120
$175
46%
Average
$86
$130
51%
$153
$209
37%
Source: CRS presentation of USCIS data. Data is available in U.S. Department of Homeland
Security, “U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Adjustment of the Immigration and
Naturalization Benefit Application and Petition Fee Schedule; Proposed Rule,” Federal Register, vol.
72, no. 21 (Feb.1, 2007), pp. 4888-4915.
Note: Form I-90 is the Application to Replace Permanent Resident Card; Form I-129 is the Petition
for a Nonimmigrant Worker; Form I-130 is the Petition for Alien Relative; Form I-485 is the
Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status; and Form I-765 is the Application for
Employment Authorization.
As shown in Table 2, Forms I-90, I-129, and I-130 were each set at $110 in
FY1998, which was an increase of approximately 38-47% from FY2004 for these
three applications. In FY2004, these three forms experienced fee increases of 42%
to $185 from the FY2002 level of $130. As for Form I-485, its fee increased by 69%
in FY1998 when compared to FY2004, from $130 to $220, and was later adjusted
upward by 24% from $255 in FY2002 to $315 in FY2004. Form I-765 was adjusted
upward by 43% in FY1998 to $100 from its FY1994 level of $70, and later increased
by 46% from $120 in FY2002 to $175 in FY2004. On average, the fees of these five
91 (...continued)
represents approximately 7% of the fee-paying application total, not including biometrics.
92 Capturing and processing biometric information is not included in the workload totals
presented in the analysis of this report, except where specifically noted.

---

CRS-20
most common forms were increased by 51% between FY1994 and FY1998, while
the time span of FY2002 to FY2004 showed an average increase of 37%.
Based upon the patterns of initial receipts by USCIS, the impact of past fee
increases on demand for immigration benefits seems negligible. Despite the
increases in fees, the application rate for immigration benefits remained in the
millions. That is not to say that fee increases do not affect the disposable income of
the individual petitioners or does not represent a potential financial hardship for some
applicants. Rather, the overall demand for immigration benefits tends to be inelastic.
In other words, fee increases have little or no effect on demand. A possible
interpretation of the pattern of initial receipts is that the number of initial receipts is
more responsive to external factors, such as terrorist attacks (e.g., September 11,
2001) or natural disasters (e.g., Hurricane Mitch striking Honduras).93 Depending
upon the external factor, an event may cause demand for immigration benefits to
increase or decrease. Consequently, the variation in the upward trends in
immigration benefit applications are a complex interaction of push-pull factors of
potential immigrants with international events that affect the actual or perceived
supply of immigration benefits available.
Historical Workloads
In recent years, USCIS has experienced a varying workload on an annual basis.
Figure 2 depicts the USCIS workload in terms of initial receipts, pending, and
completed applications.94 (The raw data is presented in Appendix C). The figure
further distinguishes the data between naturalizations (Form N-400) and all other
immigration benefit applications. As the initial receipts of all benefit applications
demonstrates, the number of initial receipts of applications showed an upward trend
between FY1999 and FY2001. Subsequent to this time period, the total number of
receipts has remained below the FY2001 peak. The completed applications totals
steadily increased between FY1999 and FY2002. In FY2003 this total declined by
13%, but began to increase again in FY2004. In comparison to the initial receipts and
completed applications, the number of pending applications increased markedly from
FY1999 to FY2003. In this time period, the number of pending applications
increased by 170%, before dropping by 41% between FY2003 and FY2005.
93 Historical data show that the application rate for immigration benefits dropped
immediately following the terrorists attacks of September 11, 2001. Conversely, subsequent
to the destruction caused by Hurricane Mitch in the Honduras, applications for immigration
benefits for Honduran nationals increased.
94 The category of ‘initial receipts” are those applications which are received in a given
fiscal year. Pending applications includes all applications pending at USCIS, both from the
current fiscal year and previous fiscal year. Completed applications consists of the total of
those applications that are approved and denied in the given fiscal year. Since not all
applications that are received in a given fiscal year are adjudicated in the same fiscal year,
there may appear to be some numerical discrepancy across categories in certain fiscal years.
These discrepancies are generally attributable to the “rolling over” of applications from one
fiscal year to the next.

---

CRS-21
Figure 2. Receipts, Completions and Pending Applications for All Applications and N-400
Naturalization, FY1999-FY2005
Millions
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
l
d
l
d
l
d
l
d
l
d
l
d
l
d
ia
ng
ia
ng
ia
ng
ia
ng
ia
ng
ia
ng
ia
ng
it
te
it
te
it
te
it
te
it
te
it
te
it
te
In
le
le
le
le
le
le
le
p
endi
In
p
endi
In
p
endi
In
p
endi
In
p
endi
In
p
endi
In
p
endi
m
P
m
P
m
P
m
P
m
P
m
P
m
P
Co
Co
Co
Co
Co
Co
Co
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Naturalization
Other
Source: CRS Presentation of DHS Office of Immigration Statistics data.
Note: The category of “completed” applications is compiled from DHS data on “approved” and “denied” applications.

---

CRS-22
Unlike the pattern for the cumulative benefit application total in Figure 2, the
totals for N-400 Naturalization applications show a distinct convergence pattern
across initial receipts, completions and pending applications. Prior to FY2002, the
number of initial receipts and pending applications experienced significant declines,
while the number of completions increased. However, beginning in FY2002, these
three categories converged relative to previous years. This pattern sustained itself
through FY2005. Consequently, USCIS experienced a minor workload decrease in
the number of naturalization applications between FY2002 and FY2005. This
stagnation in the pending applications occurred despite the decrease in the cumulative
reduction of immigration benefits applications pending. Thus, it is unclear whether
the convergence pattern for N-400 applications was a result of an agency emphasis
on processing other pending benefit applications, or if the convergence occurred due
to resource shortages or factors external to the agency.
Congressional Concerns, Legislative
Developments, and Philosophical Tensions
The issue of fee increases for immigration benefits has sparked a lively debate
between proponents and critics about the proper course of action for Congress.
Agency cost advocates argue in favor of a laissez-faire approach, contending that it
has been Congress’ intent for USCIS to recuperate all agency costs through fees and
become fully fee-reliant.95 Service cost proponents, however, are worried about the
level of the fee increase and that wealth may become a de facto driving element of
immigration policy.96 These same critics have also stated concerns over the
potentially detrimental effects to congressional oversight of executive agencies that
receive no direct congressional appropriations. An added layer of complexity
develops when these opposing views are factored together with (1) the contextual
relationship of fees to income levels, (2) the linkages between legal adjudication and
enforcement activities, and (3) the potential for comprehensive immigration reform.
Thus, the cleavage of agency cost recovery versus service cost recovery has sparked
a number of related issues for Congress.
Recovering Service Costs or Recovering Agency Costs?
The fundamental division running through the USCIS fee debate is the issue of
which costs USCIS should recover. While there is general agreement that the agency
should recover the direct costs of the adjudication services it provides, there is
disagreement over whether this cost recovery should extend to indirect costs as well.
Since it was established as its own agency in 2003, USCIS has moved towards
recouping an increasing proportion of its costs through fees paid for applications and
95 Statements by U.S. House Representatives Steve King and Daniel Lungren in U.S.
Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship,
Refugees, Border Security, and International Law, The Proposed Immigration Fee Increase,
110th Congress, 1st sess., February 14, 2007.
96 U.S. Senator Barack Obama, “Obama, Gutierrez, Schakowsky Bill Would Send
Immigration Fee Hikes Back to the Drawing Board,” press release, March 7, 2007, p. 1.

---

CRS-23
petitions. In the FY2008 budget request, approximately 99% of the budget funding
is proposed to stem from fee-based collections, making USCIS a fee-reliant agency.97
What has concerned some observers is that under the current budgetary system
applicants allegedly bear the cost of other agency functions in addition to those being
directly sought.
User fees are intended to represent a payment for a benefit that is provided, and
is frequently related to the cost of the service that is being provided. In some cases,
additional collections are permitted to recover certain specified costs, such as the
costs of processing refugees and asylees who do not pay their own fees. However,
for many service cost advocates, the trend towards recovering full agency cost places
too much of a financial burden on the applicant.98 Moreover, service cost advocates
have argued that making USCIS more dependent upon direct appropriations from
Congress would increase the congressional oversight functions and provide an
additional check on an executive agency.99 These critics believe that the push for
making the agency entirely fee-funded has resulted in a backlog buildup and
promoted changes to the definition of the agency’s application backlog.100 Service
cost advocates believe that more rigorous oversight by Congress of directly
appropriated funds would both protect the interests of applicants for immigration
benefits and provide more transparency and accountability in the agency.101
Fee Waivers
Under regulations, individuals applying for certain benefits may also apply for
a fee waiver if that applicant can demonstrate an inability to pay.102 The criteria for
demonstrating an inability to pay are general, as it is USCIS policy to treat each case
as unique and judge each case upon its merits.103 For example, while it is desirable
that an individual provides documentation to demonstrate financial hardship, in some
cases detailed testimony may be deemed sufficient by a USCIS supervising officer
97 Reports by the Congressional Budget Office and GAO conducted during the Clinton
Administration found that collections of user fees had increased during the 1970s and 1980s.
GAO studied 27 fee-reliant agencies and found that fees had also increased by
approximately 27% between FY1991 and FY1996. (U.S. Congressional Budget Office, The
Growth of Federal User Charges: An Update, October 1999; U.S. Government
Accountability Office, Federal User Fees: Budgetary Treatment, Status, and Emerging
Management Issues, AIMD-98-11, December 1997)
98 National Council of La Raza, “NCLR Critical of Fee Increases for Immigration Services,”
press release, April 15, 2007, p. 1, at [http://www.nclr.org/content/news/detail/25082].
99 Fawn Johnson, “Democrats Aiming to Roll Back Planned Hike in Citizenship Fee,”
CongressDaily, March 7, 2007, at [http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0307/030707cdpm2
.htm.
100 Ibid.
101 Ibid.
102 8 CFR 103.7(c).
103 Memorandum, William R. Yates, "Field Guidance to Granting Fee Waivers Pursuant to
8 CFR 103.7(c)," March 4, 2004, at [http://www.uscis.gov/files/article/FeeWaiverGd3404.
pdf].

---

CRS-24
to qualify the individual for a fee waiver.104 More commonly, individuals
demonstrate eligibility for a fee waiver by providing documentation such as evidence
that the individual has qualified for or received a “federal means-tested public
benefit” within the last 180 days or tax documents showing the individual’s income
was at or below the poverty level.105 Once the USCIS officer with jurisdiction over
the request is satisfied that the individual is unable to pay the fee, a fee waiver may
be granted.
The new fee schedule will remove the fee waivers for several benefit
applications and petitions.106 USCIS has justified this proposal on the basis that an
inability to pay would invoke the Immigration and Nationality Act’s (INA)
§212(a)(4), which states that an alien who is likely to become a public charge is
inadmissable,107 and as such would be ineligible for the benefit.108 However, under
the previous fee structure the USCIS’ field guidance memorandum stated that for the
fee waiver petitions for Form I-485: “The granting of a fee waiver does not
necessarily subject the applicant or petitioner to a public charge liability under other
provisions of the INA, such as deportability under §237(a)(5) or inadmissability
under §212(a)(4).”109 Additionally, this public charge rationale does not apply to U.S.
citizens who may be petitioning USCIS on behalf of a relative or fiancé, even though
104 The applicant’s affidavit of his or her inability to pay is the only required document.
105 Additional qualifying documents for fee waivers may include:
! Evidence verifying the applicant’s disability;
! Employment records, including pay stubs, W-2 forms, and tax returns;
! Receipts for essential expenditures, including rent, utility, food, medical
expenses, and child care;
! Evidence of applicant’s living arrangements, such as living in a relative’s
household or having numerous dependents residing in his or her
household; and
! Evidence of essential extraordinary expenditures for the applicant or
dependents residing in the United States.
(Charles Gordon, Stanley Mailman, and Stephen Yale-Loehr, Immigration Law and
Procedure, vol. 1, §3.25[1] (Matthew Bender, Rev. Ed.)). For further information on federal
public assistance for noncitizens, see CRS Report RL33809, Noncitizen Eligibility for
Federal Public Assistance: Policy Overview and Trends, by Ruth Ellen Wasem.
106 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.
“Adjustment of the Immigration and Naturalization Benefit Application and Petition Fee Schedule,”
Federal Register, vol. 72, no. 103 (May 30, 2007), pp. 29851–29873.
107 For further discussion on inadmissability, see CRS Report RL32564, Immigration:
Terrorist Grounds for Exclusion and Removal of Aliens, by Michael John Garcia and Ruth
Ellen Wasem.
108 The forms for which a fee waiver would no longer be available include Form I-90, Form
I-485, Form I-751, Form I-765, Form I-817, Form N-300, Form-336, Form N-400, Form N-
470, Form N-565, Form N-600, Form N-600k, and Form I-290B (if related to a motion or
appeal on a waiver eligible application). See Appendix A.
109 Memorandum, William R. Yates, "Field Guidance to Granting Fee Waivers Pursuant to
8 CFR 103.7(c)," March 4, 2004, at [http://www.uscis.gov/files/article/FeeWaiverGd3404.
pdf].

---

CRS-25
these citizens would also be ineligible for fee waivers.110 At a congressional hearing
on the new fee structure, USCIS representatives testified that across all potential fee
waiver categories, 85% of the applicants who applied for a fee waiver based on
financial hardship were granted a waiver.111
Asylees and Refugees. One potential issue with the new fee schedule is
that refugees and asylees adjusting their status would be treated differently. As stated
in the USCIS final fee schedule, asylees will not be able to seek a fee waiver when
applying to adjust status to legal permanent residence on Form I-485. Refugees will
not have to pay any fees because they are specifically exempted from adjustment of
status fees. While asylees are exempted from paying any fees for their initial asylum
application, they must apply for fee waivers to avoid paying to adjust their status or
register as permanent residents. The new fee schedule will no longer provide this
waiver option. Despite USCIS’ claims that aliens that could potentially become a
public charge are inadmissable, asylees are exempt from this ground of
inadmissability. Thus, it is unclear from the USCIS’ publications what the legal
justification is for not allowing asylees to seek fee waivers for I-485. Furthermore,
from a policy perspective it is unclear why USCIS is developing disparate fee
policies between refugees and asylees on applications for adjusting status and
registering permanent residence.
Reducing Bottlenecks. By removing several fee waivers, USCIS does not
only stand to potentially reduce its costs for internal processing, it also may gain
more control over its processing times. Currently, fee waivers are one of four types
of applications that must be sent to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) for
background checks through the National Name Check Program (NNCP).112 This
program, which conducts electronic and manual searches of the FBI’s Central
Records System, has been accused by the USCIS Ombudsman of serving as a
bottleneck in the processing of immigration benefits.113 By eliminating several fee
waivers, fewer applications will be subject to the NNCP.
110 Immediate relatives of U.S. citizens are not subject to a public charge determination when
petitioning.
111 Testimony of USCIS Chief Financial Officer Rendell Jones, in U.S. Congress, House
Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border
Security, and International Law, 110th Congress, 1st sess., February 14, 2007).
112 The other types of applications that require NNCP background checks are asylum,
adjustment of status to legal permanent resident, and naturalization. USCIS pays the FBI
for NNCP services with a portion of the biometrics fee funding. The NNCP is one of
several types of security checks USCIS conducts.
113 According to the USCIS Ombudsman, processing delays due to FBI name checks were
an issue in 15.7% of all written case problems the Ombudsman’s office received. The
Ombudsman has recommended that USCIS not participate in NNCP because of the costs
and inconveniences caused by processing delays. He has additionally suggested that these
delays inadvertently increase the risk to national security, since it may extend the time a
criminal or terrorist remains in the United States. Moreover, the Ombudsman contends that
since the NNCP is only a name check, and not a biometric check, its security value is
limited. (U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Citizenship and Immigration Service
Ombudsman, Annual Report 2006, June 29, 2006, pp. 23-26)

---

CRS-26
Fees and Low Income Citizens and Legal Permanent
Residents (LPR)
The principal stated concern of the service cost advocates is the effect of these
fees on lower income citizens and LPR that are applying for immigration benefits.114
These opponents of the new fees argue that the new fee schedule will place a
disproportionate hardship on citizens and LPR with lesser financial means to seek
immigration benefits such as naturalization.115
As evidence of the possible disproportionate impact the fee-increase would
have, service cost advocates note the absence of any per family cap for immigration
benefits. Although the new fee structure has some discounted rates for juveniles
under the age of 14, unless a waiver is granted all family members must pay for
individual applications for a given benefit. Under the new fee structure there will not
be a per family fee cap either, and a number of applications would no longer allow
for financial waivers.116 Service cost advocates have argued that the significant level
of the fee increases may force some families to seek benefits incrementally as
opposed to as a family unit, and may cause some families to forgo benefits for certain
family members all together.117
Public Charges. To further illustrate the potential impact of fee increases on
lower-income families, service cost advocates have cited the effect on a U.S. citizen
or LPR seeking to sponsor the admission of family members, but with an income
slightly above the public charge level.118 Under INA §212, an admissions officer may
consider an affidavit of support to serve as a sponsor for an immigrant who might be
deemed a potential public charge. The statutory requirement for such an affidavit is
that the sponsor must maintain the sponsored alien(s) at a level that is not less than
125% of the federal poverty line specified by the Department of Health and Human
Services.119 For a family of four, the 2007 poverty guidelines120 specifies an income
level of $20,650 as the upper limit of the poverty level for the 48 contiguous states
114 Letter from American Immigration Lawyers Association, to the Director of the
R e g u l a t o r y M a n a g e m e n t D i v i s i o n , U S C I S , A p r i l 1 , 2 0 0 7 , a t
[http://www.bibdaily.com/pdfs/AILA%20fee%20comment%204-1-07.pdf].
115 Ibid.
116 The proposed fee structure does not mention allowing any discounted rates on
applications for juveniles under the age of 14.
117 Letter from American Immigration Lawyers Association, to the Director of the
R e g u l a t o r y M a n a g e m e n t D i v i s i o n , U S C I S , A p r i l 1 , 2 0 0 7 , a t
[http://www.bibdaily.com/pdfs/AILA%20fee%20comment%204-1-07.pdf].
118 Statements by U.S. Representatives Luis Gutierrez, Artur Davis, and Keith Ellison in
House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees,
Border Security, and International Law, The Proposed Immigration Fee Increase, 110th
Cong., 1st sess., February 14, 2007
119 INA §213A(a)(1).
120 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “Annual Update of the HHS Poverty
Guidelines,” Federal Register, vol. 72, no. 15, January 24, 2007, pp. 3147–3148.

---

CRS-27
and the District of Columbia.121 For such a household, a gross income of $25,813
would render the U.S. citizen or LPR eligible for sponsorship. Given the scheduled
new fee structure, however, if the sponsor wanted to adjust the status of the
sponsored aliens, applying for the three sponsored aliens simultaneously would cost
a total of between $2,130–2,790, depending on the age of the dependents, plus fees
for biometrics.122 The removal of fee waivers would place the full financial
obligation of these fees upon the applicants and sponsor. Critics thus contend that
such high fees could place hardship on immigrants wishing to apply for immigration
benefits.
By contrast, agency cost advocates contend that such examples of potential
hardships actually serve as a justification for USCIS’ proposed removal of numerous
fee waivers.123 They note that under INA §212(a)(4) a person who is likely to
become a public charge is inadmissable to the United States.124 Agency cost
advocates thus contend that if an alien applicant requires a fee waiver on the basis of
income, that alien is inadmissable to the United States and should be disqualified
from receiving such a benefit. Consequently, based upon immigration statutes,
agency cost advocates argue that potential financial hardship is not a valid basis for
developing a USCIS fee schedule. Furthermore, they contend that the new
immigration benefit fees should be viewed in a comparative context, claiming that
relative to other advanced industrialized countries the USCIS benefit fees are
lower.125
Policy Impact. Despite the possibility of admitting potential public charges,
some opponents of the scheduled new fee increases are concerned about the impact
of the fee increase on immigration policy.126 As one of the principal pillars of U.S.
121 The poverty guidelines specify an upper income level of $25,820 for Alaska, and $23,750
for Hawaii for a four person household.
122 The new fee schedule will set the fee for capturing and processing biometrics at $80.
Since children under age 14 and adults over age 79 are exempt from the biometrics
requirement, the biometrics fee for a family of four would vary depending upon the ages of
the household members. USCIS may also waive the biometric fee on an individual basis.
Additionally, children under the age of 14 who are applying with at least one parent will be
charged an application fee of $600.
123 Statements by U.S. House Representatives Steve King and Daniel Lungren in U.S.
Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship,
Refugees, Border Security, and International Law, The Proposed Immigration Fee Increase,
110th Congress, 1st sess., February 14, 2007.
124 As noted earlier, this criterion is not applicable to denying fee waivers to U.S. citizens
petitioning on behalf of family members or a fiancé.
125 Statements by U.S. House Representatives Steve King and Daniel Lungren in U.S.
Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship,
Refugees, Border Security, and International Law, The Proposed Immigration Fee Increase,
110th Cong., 1st sess., February 14, 2007.
126 Letter from American Immigration Lawyers Association, to the Director of the
R e g u l a t o r y M a n a g e m e n t D i v i s i o n , U S C I S , A p r i l 1 , 2 0 0 7 , a t

---

CRS-28
immigration policy, family unification has been central to the INA since its passage
in 1952. Some critics of the fee increase are concerned that the size of the fee
increase will cause a latent shift in immigration policy, where benefits will in a de
facto manner be denied to otherwise qualifying aliens on the lower end of the income
ladder. These critics believe the new fees may force some families to choose which
of its members, if any, should receive benefits, and thereby would run counter to one
of the INA pillars. Therefore, some of these critics believe that Congress should
provide USCIS with some direct appropriations to avoid the creation of an income-
based double standard in the USCIS benefit processing.127
Backlog Reduction
An item that has concerned Congress for a number of years has been USCIS’
backlog of unadjudicated applications.128 The USCIS adjudication process has also
been a stated priority of President George W. Bush, who has sought to reduce the
application processing time for immigrant benefits to six months or less.129 Congress
has called upon the service to improve its processing time and to eliminate the
backlog. To this effect, since FY2002, Congress has appropriated $574 million
towards backlog reduction efforts, including $494 million in direct appropriations.
Although USCIS reports that the backlog has been reduced since Congress began
appropriating direct funds for backlog elimination, questions remain concerning
whether most of the backlog has been eliminated because of newly provided
definitions of what constitutes a backlog. USCIS Director Emilio T. Gonzalez has
stated that the current backlog of applications due to factors under the control of
USCIS was approximately 65,000.130 Critics continue to be concerned, however,
about the more than 1 million additional applications that have been pending for
more than six months that USCIS does not count in its backlog figures, and that the
seriousness of the USCIS backlog is masked by changes in the agency’s backlog
definition.131
126 (...continued)
[http://www.bibdaily.com/pdfs/AILA%20fee%20comment%204-1-07.pdf].
127 Ibid.
128 Statements by U.S. Representatives Luis Gutierrez, Artur Davis, and Keith Ellison in
U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration,
Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law, 110th Cong., 1st sess.,
February 14, 2007
129 Remarks by the President at INS Naturalization Ceremony (July 10, 2001), at
[http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/07/20010710-1.html].
130 Ibid.
131 The DHS Inspector General has expressed concern that the changing backlog definitions
“will not resolve the long-standing processing and IT problems that contributed to the
backlog in the first place. (U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of the Inspector
General, USCIS Faces Challenges in Modernizing Information Technology, OIG-05-41
(September 2005), p. 28) The USCIS Ombudsman also criticized the definition changes,
saying that “these definitional changes hide the true problem and the need for change” (U.S.
Department of Homeland Security, Citizenship and Immigration Service Ombudsman,
(continued...)

---

CRS-29
Definition Changes and Measuring the Backlog. The definition of the
“backlog” of applications for immigration benefits has been altered several times
since FY2002. Generally, these redefinitions have involved determining that an
aspect of the adjudications process lies outside the control of USCIS and thus
classifying a case as pending as opposed to backlogged. In some cases, these
reclassifications involved delays with background checks conducted by other
agencies. Other cases, however, have reclassifications that were due to such factors
as the agency awaiting customer information, or in some naturalization cases the
applicant still needing to take the oath. Critics contend that these changes in the
backlog definition were a significant factor in causing the backlog to decrease132 from
approximately 3.5 million backlogged cases in March 2003 to 914,864 cases at the
end of FY2005—a reduction of nearly 2.6 million cases.133 Notably, as Figure 3
below shows, over half of the backlog reduction occurred in the time span of June-
August of 2004, when the agency twice redefined what constituted a backlog. Thus,
while the backlog was reduced by 1.9 million applications in this time period, the
number of pending applications increased by almost 1.5 million cases. But because
of the multiple definition changes of the backlog, the actual number of backlogged
applications is unclear.
131 (...continued)
Annual Report 2006, June 29, 2006, p. 9).
132 Ibid.
133 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Backlog
Elimination Plan: Fiscal Year 2006, 2nd Quarter Update, September 28, 2006.

---

CRS-30
Figure 3. USCIS Pending Forms and Backlog of Forms Eligible for the Backlog Elimination Plan, June 2003-
April 2006
Thousands
7,000
6,000
Backlog Definition Changed
5,000
Pending
4,000
3,000
2,000
Backlog
1,000
0
3
4
5
5
5
6
6
6
-03
03
-0
-03
-03
-03
-04
04
-04
04
-04
04
04
-04
-04
05
05
-05
-05
-05
-0
-0
-05
06
-0
ct
ar
r-0
y-04
ct
c-04
ar
pr
y-05
t-05
ar
r-0
Jun
Jul-03 ug-
ep
ov
ec
ug-
ep-
ov
ug
ep
ov-0 ec
A
S
O
N
D
Jan Feb- M
Ap
Jul
Jul-05
Ma
Jun-
A
S
O
N
De
Jan- Feb- M
A
Ma
Jun
A
S
Oc
N
D
Jan- Feb-0 M
Ap
Source: CRS presentation of USCIS data presented in U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Backlog
Elimination Plan: Fiscal Year 2006, 2nd Quarter Update, September 28, 2006, p. 1.
Note: On June 16, 2004, USCIS decided that the backlog calculation would no longer include applications received in the previous six months.
In July 2004 the agency also decided not to include cases in the backlog total where benefits were not immediately available for the applicant.

---

CRS-31
In 2005, GAO released a report on the USCIS backlogs and the reduction
strategy that the agency had in place.134 The report noted the importance many
observers have attached to reducing the backlog, as some believe the backlog creates
incentives for businesses and individuals to circumvent legal immigration
procedures. The report noted that although a number of improvements had been made
in the adjudications process, the agency still needed to streamline some of its
processes and provide for a better quality assurance program.135 USCIS reportedly
planned to both address the current backlog and prevent future backlogs through
improved resource allocation and investments in technological transformation. Yet,
as GAO noted, USCIS did not expect these changes to be complete until FY2010.136
Subsequent to GAO’s backlog report, USCIS has made additional strides to
reduce its backlog and increase its processing efficiency.137 Appendix B offers the
processing times as of September 30, 2006. According to the published data, there
were 20 immigration benefit forms for which the processing time was less than six
months, 13 forms with processing times exceeding six months, and two forms for
which processing times were not made public. When combined with the workload
totals from Appendix A, the forms exceeding the six month processing standard
combined for a workload volume of 1,519,598, or approximately 25.4% of the
FY2006 workload volume.
Despite these improvements in processing times, questions remain about
USCIS’ current and future handling of the backlogs and whether the proposed fee
increase will affect the agency’s ability to deal with these backlogs. USCIS claims
that the scheduled new fees are more aligned with the agency’s adjudication costs,138
and respond to the criticisms raised by the Government Accountability Office over
the USCIS cost structure.139 Thus, the agency contends that the new fees will put the
134 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Immigration Benefits: Improvements Needed
to Address Backlogs and Ensure Quality of Adjudications, GAO-06-20, November 2005.
135 One of the criticisms GAO presented was that despite the reduction in pending
applications, a majority of the pending applications at the time were for naturalization and
adjustment of status. GAO was skeptical that USCIS would be able to reduce the processing
time below the President’s adjudication target time of six months. However, as in Appendix
B demonstrates, by January 2007 the average processing times for adjustment of status had
been reduced to 7.07 months, while the processing time for naturalization had been reduced
to 5.57 months.
136 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Immigration Benefits: Improvements Needed
to Address Backlogs and Ensure Quality of Adjudications, GAO-06-20, November 2005, p.
5.
137 GAO reported that USCIS’ strategy for the backlog reduction initiative since FY2002
was to commit approximately 70% of backlog reduction funds to authorizing overtime and
employing approximately 1,100 temporary adjudicator staff. (Ibid, p.5)
138 U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, “Adjustment of the Immigration and
Naturalization Benefit Application and Petition Fee Schedule; Proposed Rule,” pp. 4893-
4894.
139 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Immigration Application Fees: Current Fees
(continued...)

---

CRS-32
agency in a better position to prevent future backlogs.140 Some critics, however,
believe that due to the interagency dependence for conducting background checks,
USCIS is not necessarily in a position to prevent all future backlogs, even with
funding that fully covers the adjudication costs.141
Immigration Adjudication and Enforcement Linkages
Among some service cost advocates, there have been concerns about the
potential economic impact and the flow of illegal immigrants the scheduled new fee
increase might create. A number of observers have contended that timely and
affordable processing of immigration benefits are an essential element for managing
the levels of illegal immigrants. These observers contend that slow processing times
and higher fees encourage illicit work arrangements and visa overstays, since workers
are either priced out of the immigration benefits or placed in limbo by extended
waiting periods for USCIS adjudication.142 In particular, these fees could affect the
behavior of workers in low wage sectors of the economy. Additionally, some service
cost advocates have been concerned that if these fee changes do price out lower wage
workers, then it could adversely affect businesses that depend upon lower cost alien
workers.
Contrary to some of these concerns, a statutorily mandated143 study was
conducted by the agency on the impact the fee increase would have on small
businesses. Using analysis of a random sample of immigration applications, USCIS
determined that all employers in the sample would exhibit an impact on their sales
revenue of less than 1%. Additionally, since the study concluded that the average
impact on small entities was less than 0.06% of sales revenue, the proposed rule was
deemed by USCIS to be economically insignificant.144 Critics argue that pricing out
low wage foreign labor would benefit U.S. citizens by providing employment
139 (...continued)
are Not Sufficient to Fund U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ Operations, GAO-04-
309R, January5, 2004.
140 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.
“Adjustment of the Immigration and Naturalization Benefit Application and Petition Fee
Schedule,” Federal Register, vol. 72, no. 103 (May 30, 2007), pp. 29851–29873.
141 For immigration benefit applications, USCIS submits names to the FBI for checks against
the National Name Check Program (NNCP) for the following benefits: asylum, adjustment
of status to legal permanent resident, naturalization, and waivers. According to the FBI,
most electronic requests are returned by the system within 48–72 hours, at which time some
additional manual secondary checks are conducted. Some officials for USCIS have claimed
that the FBI’s NNCP has served as one source of processing bottlenecks which has
contributed to the existing backlogs.
142 U.S. Senator Barack Obama, “Obama, Gutierrez, Schakowsky Bill Would Send
Immigration Fee Hikes Back to the Drawing Board,” press release, March 7, 2007, p. 1.
143 Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C §601(6).
144 Hereafter, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, “U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services, Adjustment of the Immigration and Naturalization Benefit Application and
Petition Fee Schedule; Proposed Rule,” p. 4913.

---

CRS-33
opportunities in those economic sectors, as well as driving up wages by limiting
supplies.145 Service cost advocates, however, contend that in order to keep prices of
their products lower and product demand high, some business owners may seek out
unauthorized aliens if low wage authorized aliens are unavailable.146
Congressional Response. Representatives Gutierrez and Schakowsky
introduced H.R. 1379, also known as the “Citizenship Promotion Act of 2007,”
which would prevent USCIS from increasing the citizenship application fees to levels
above application processing costs. Senator Obama has introduced an identical
version for consideration in the Senate (S. 795). This legislation would require that
USCIS only charge applicants the direct costs associated with providing immigration
services. The legislation would also mandate that USCIS be provided with a direct
appropriation from Congress for any indirect costs associated with immigration
services. These cost estimates would stem from a USCIS report the agency would
be required to submit to the Judiciary Committees in the Senate and House of
Representatives identifying direct and indirect costs of providing immigration
services, as well as distinguishing such costs from immigration enforcement and
national security costs. No estimates have been released detailing the impact of this
legislation on the fees applicants would have to pay. Despite the potential of being
criticized for shifting some of the adjudication costs to taxpayers, sponsors of H.R.
1379 contend that the bill would offer benefits beyond direct savings for immigration
benefit applicants, such as improved congressional oversight over USCIS.
Comprehensive Immigration Reform
As Congress considers comprehensive immigration reform, the issues of
managing adjudication workloads and recovering service costs could play a role in
the debate. There are some who believe that if comprehensive immigration reform
happens, it will result in significantly higher inflows of migrants and an increase in
applications for immigration benefits.147 These beliefs are based upon previous
efforts at comprehensive immigration reform, as well as the current effort entitled the
Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007 (S. 1348), which would result in
the creation of several new immigration categories and wider visa eligibility for
aliens abroad. Thus, if these changes occur, USCIS would likely see an increase in
demand for immigration benefits and an increase in its adjudication costs.
Based upon the possible projected inflows produced by various immigration
analysts, many observers believe that USCIS is not in a position to process such a
145 George J. Borjas, “Increasing the Supply of Labor Through Immigration Measuring the
Impact on Native-born Workers,” Center for Immigration Studies Backgrounder, May 2004,
at [http://ksghome.harvard.edu/~GBorjas/Papers/cis504.pdf].
146 U.S. Senator Barack Obama, “Obama, Gutierrez, Schakowsky Bill Would Send
Immigration Fee Hikes Back to the Drawing Board,” press release, March 7, 2007, p. 1.
147 Testimony of USCIS Director Emilio T. Gonzalez, in U.S. Congress, House Committee
on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and
International Law, The Proposed Immigration Fee Increase, 110th Cong., 1st sess., February
14, 2007.

---

CRS-34
projected application increase.148 Given the reported difficulties USCIS has had with
reducing its backlog and pending applications, some observers believe that USCIS
would require a substantial funding increase in order to address both the additional
application receipts and the existing backlog. GAO, for example, has noted that
when the 3 million individuals who legalized under IRCA in 1986 became eligible
for naturalization in 1995, the application backlog increased markedly.149 Some
additionally believe that if a legalization program took effect, the resulting increase
in the application rate for immigration benefits would make a direct appropriation
necessary to adequately staff USCIS prior to the legalization taking effect.150 They
say an increase in fees would potentially accomplish this task by allowing USCIS to
build up a sufficient cash balance to handle some increases in demand for benefits.
Conclusion
Although the current debate is based upon the division between recovering
service costs versus recovering agency costs, the near doubling of fees for
immigration benefits may signal an eventual shift in future fee debates. If fees for
immigration benefits move beyond the tipping point of what Members find
acceptable, the focus could shift from what applicants should pay for to what should
the government charge. Current discussions over the possibility of a sliding scale for
fees has already hinted at this debate shift. Whether this shift would come to fruition
likely hinges on the ability of USCIS to control its costs and provide immigrants with
a set of services that Members deem acceptably priced. Yet, the debate will also
likely be impacted by whether Congress continues to support the notion of a fully
fee-reliant USCIS and whether Members agree upon legislation for comprehensive
immigration reform.
148 For an example of projected immigration increases under S. 2611, see Robert Rector,
Senate Immigration Bill Would Allow 100 Million New Legal Immigrants over the Next
Twenty Years, The Heritage Foundation, Web Memo no. 1076, May 15, 2006, and Robert
Rector, Immigration Numbers: Setting the Record Straight, Web Memo no. 1097, May 26,
2006. Additionally, see CRS Congressional Distribution Memorandum CD06164, Legal
Immigration: Modeling the Principal Components of Permanent Admissions, and CRS
Congressional Distribution Memorandum CD06124, Legal Immigration: Modeling the
Principal Components of Permanent Admissions, Part 2, by Ruth Ellen Wasem, available
upon request.
149 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Immigration Benefits: Several Factors Impede
Timeliness of Application Processing, GAO-01-488, May 2001.
150 National Council of La Raza, “NCLR Applauds Introduction of ‘Citizenship Promotion
Act of 2007,’” press release, March 7, 2007, at [http://www.nclr.org/content/news/
detail/44631].

---

CRS-35
Appendix A. USCIS Fees, Processing Time, and Workloads for Immigration Benefit
Applications and Petitions
FY2006
FY2008/09
Actual to
Previous
Scheduled
Fee
Actual
Projected
Projected
Form No.
Description
Fee (in
New Fee (in Difference Workload Workload Workload
dollars)
dollars)
Volume
Volume
Difference
Application to Replace Permanent Resident
I-90
$190
$290
$100
682,149
552,025
(130,124)
Card.
Application for Replacement/Initial
I-102
$160
$320
$160
24,139
24,035
(104)
Nonimmigrant Arrival—Departure Document.
I-129
Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker.
$190
$320
$130
417,955
400,000
(17,955)
I-129F
Petition for Alien Fiancé(e).
$170
$455
$185
66,177
66,177
0
I-130
Petition for Alien Relative.
$190
$355
$165
747,012
743,823
(3,189)
I-131
Application for Travel Document.
$170
$305
$135
371,880
339,000
(32,880)
I-140
Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker.
$195
$475
$280
140,158
135,000
(5,158)
Waivers
Waiver Applications
$265
$545
$280
45,459
45,459
0
I-290B/
Appeal for any decision other than BIA; Motion
$385
$585
$200
47,645
47,645
0
Motions
to reopen or reconsider decision other than BIA.
Petition for Amerasian, Widow(er), or Special
I-360
$190
$375
$185
16,086
16,000
(86)
Immigrant.
Application to Register Permanent Residence or
I-485
$325
$930
$605
606,425
613,400
6,975
Adjust Status.
I-526
Immigrant Petition by Alien Entrepreneur.
$480
$1,435
$955
600
600
0
Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant
I-539
$200
$300
$100
233,531
220,000
(13,531)
Status.
Petition to Classify Orphan as an Immediate
I-600/
Relative/Application for Advance Processing of
$545
$670
$125
29,500
29,601
101
600A
Orphan Petition.
For Filing Application for Status as a
I-687
$255
$710
$455
38,278
500
(37,778)
Temporary Resident.

---

CRS-36
FY2006
FY2008/09
Actual to
Previous
Scheduled
Fee
Actual
Projected
Projected
Form No.
Description
Fee (in
New Fee (in Difference Workload Workload Workload
dollars)
dollars)
Volume
Volume
Difference
I-690
Application for Waiver of Excludability.
$95
$185
$90
3,293
3,293
0
I-694
Notice of Appeal of Decision.
$110
$545
$435
3,696
3,696
0
Application for Replacement Employment
I-695
$65
$130
$65
29
56
27
Authorization or Temporary Residence Card.
Application to Adjust Status from Temporary to
I-698
$180
$1,370
$1,190
831
494
(337)
Permanent Resident.
Petition to Remove the Conditions on
I-751
$205
$465
$260
143,360
143,000
(360)
Residence.
I-765
Application for Employment Authorization.
$180
$340
$160
1,462,583
1,300,000
(162,583)
I-817
Application for Family Unity Benefits.
$200
$440
$240
5,762
5,762
0
I-821
Application for Temporary Protected Status.
$50
$50
$0
N/A
N/A
N/A
Application for Action on an Approved
I-824
$200
$340
$140
40,105
40,785
680
Application or Petition.
I-829
Petition by Entrepreneur to Remove Conditions.
$475
$2,850
$2,375
88
88
0
Application for Suspension of Deportation or
I-881
Special Rule Cancellation of Removal (pursuant
$285
$285
$0
22,509
0
(22,509)
to section 203 of P.L. 105-100) (NACARA).
Application for Authorization to Issue
I-905
$230
$230
$0
2
10
8
Certification for Health Care Workers.
I-914
Application for T Nonimmigrant Status.
$270
$0
-$270
403
400
(3)
N-300
Application to File Declaration of Intention.
$120
$235
$115
91
100
9
Request for Hearing on a Decision in
N-336
$265
$605
$340
13,692
14,000
308
Naturalization Procedures.
N-400
Application for Naturalization.
$330
$595
$265
730,642
734,716
4,074
Application to Preserve Residence for
N-470
$155
$305
$150
669
669
0
Naturalization Purposes.

---

CRS-37
FY2006
FY2008/09
Actual to
Previous
Scheduled
Fee
Actual
Projected
Projected
Form No.
Description
Fee (in
New Fee (in Difference Workload Workload Workload
dollars)
dollars)
Volume
Volume
Difference
Application for Replacement
N-565
$220
$380
$160
31,902
32,000
98
Naturalization/Citizenship Document.
Application for Certification of
N-600/
Citizenship/Application for Citizenship and
$255
$460
$205
64,711
64,711
0
600K
Issuance of Certificate under Section 322.
Total, Services other than Biometrics
5,991,362
5,577,045
(414,317)
Capturing and Processing Biometric
Biometrics
$70
$80
$10
3,318,000
3,154,330
(163,670)
Information.
Total
9,309,362
8,731,375
(577,987)
Source: CRS presentation of USCIS data. Data is available in U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services, “Adjustment of the Immigration and Naturalization Benefit Application and Petition Fee Schedule; Proposed Rule.” Federal Register,
vol. 72, no. 21(Feb. 1, 2007), pp. 4888-4915; and U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.
“Adjustment of the Immigration and Naturalization Benefit Application and Petition Fee Schedule,” Federal Register, vol. 72, no. 103 (May 30,
2007), pp. 29851–29873..
Note: Waiver applications include Form I-191, Application for Advance Permission to Return to Unrelinquished Domicile; Form I-192, Application
for Advance Permission to Enter as Nonimmigrant; Form I-193, Application for Waiver of Passport and/or Visa; Form I-212, Application for
Permission to Reapply for Admission into the U.S. After Deportation or Removal; Form I-601, Application for Waiver on Grounds of Excludability;
and Form I-612, Application for Waiver of the Foreign Residence Requirement.

---

CRS-38
Appendix B. Processing Time, Completion Rates, and Total Cost Per Petition
Processing Time (in Completion Rate
Total Cost (per
Form No.
Description
months)
Total
Unit)1
I-90
Application to Replace Permanent Resident Card.
4.38
1.43
287
Application for Replacement/Initial Nonimmigrant
I-102
2.91
1.30
316
Arrival—Departure Document.
I-129
Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker.
2.03
0.49
316
I-129F
Petition for Alien Fiancé(e).
2.9
5.76
451
I-130
Petition for Alien Relative.
6.02
1.86
354
I-131
Application for Travel Document.
1.97
0.88
302
I-140
Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker.
3.31
2.87
473
Waivers
Waiver Applications
9.39
3.1
543
I-290B/
Appeal for any decision other than BIA; Motion to reopen or
7.73
N/A
583
Motions
reconsider decision other than BIA.
I-360
Petition for Amerasian, Widow(er), or Special Immigrant.
6.34
3.21
2,480
I-485
Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status.
7.07
6.25
900
I-526
Immigrant Petition by Alien Entrepreneur.
4.14
6.41
1,424
I-539
Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status.
2.07
1.91
296
I-
Petition to Classify Orphan as an Immediate Relative/Application for
3.39
1.53
665
600/600A
Advance Processing of Orphan Petition.
I-687
For Filing Application for Status as a Temporary Resident.
10.59
5.53
707
I-690
Application for Waiver of Excludability.
10.19
5.63
602
I-694
Notice of Appeal of Decision.
4.5
4.72
542
Application for Replacement Employment Authorization or
I-695
22.76
14.85
1,329
Temporary Residence Card.
I-698
Application to Adjust Status from Temporary to Permanent Resident.
26.85
4.83
1,360
I-751
Petition to Remove the Conditions on Residence.
3.74
1.82
463

---

CRS-39
Processing Time (in Completion Rate
Total Cost (per
Form No.
Description
months)
Total
Unit)1
I-765
Application for Employment Authorization.
1.97
0.66
336
I-817
Application for Family Unity Benefits.
3.94
2.91
435
I-821
Application for Temporary Protected Status.
2.54
N/A
N/A
I-824
Application for Action on an Approved Application or Petition.
3.63
2.18
338
I-829
Petition by Entrepreneur to Remove Conditions.
38.94
8.69
2,832
Application for Suspension of Deportation or Special Rule
I-881
Cancellation of Removal (pursuant to section 203 of P.L. 105-100)
0.35
N/A
N/A
(NACARA).
Application for Authorization to Issue Certification for Health Care
I-905
N/A
N/A
N/A
Workers.
I-914
Application for T Nonimmigrant Status.
3.64
N/A
N/A
N-300
Application to File Declaration of Intention.
23.88
1.67
748
N-336
Request for Hearing on a Decision in Naturalization Procedures.
6.22
1.34
603
N-400
Application for Naturalization.
5.57
1.17
590
N-470
Application to Preserve Residence for Naturalization Purposes.
16.18
3.39
640
N-565
Application for Replacement Naturalization/Citizenship Document.
4.35
1.18
379
N-
Application for Certification of Citizenship/Application for
5.27
1.97
457
600/600K
Citizenship and Issuance of Certificate under Section 322.
Biometrics Capturing and Processing Biometric Information.
N/A
N/A
79
Source: CRS presentation of USCIS data. Data is available in U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. “Adjustment of the Immigration and
Naturalization Benefit Application and Petition Fee Schedule; Proposed Rule.” Federal Register, vol. 72, no. 21(Feb. 1, 2007), pp. 4888-4915.
Note: Waiver applications include Form I-191, Application for Advance Permission to Return to Unrelinquished Domicile; Form I-192, Application
for Advance Permission to Enter as Nonimmigrant; Form I-193, Application for Waiver of Passport and/or Visa; Form I-212, Application for
Permission to Reapply for Admission into the U.S. After Deportation or Removal; Form I-601, Application for Waiver on Grounds of Excludability;
and Form I-612, Application for Waiver of the Foreign Residence Requirement.

---

CRS-40
Appendix C. Data on Applications for All Immigration Benefits and for N-400 Naturalizations,
FY1998-FY2005
Applications for Immigration Benefits
N-400 Naturalization Benefits
Fiscal
Initial
Approved
Denied
Completed
Pending
Receipts
Approved
Denied
Completed
Pending
1998
4,531,702
3,661,246
344,192
4,005,438
1,992,137
932,957
473,152
137,395
610,547
1,802,902
1999
4,534,938
3,572,263
314,833
3,887,096
2,487,403
765,346
872,427
379,993
1,252,420
1,355,524
2000
5,483,792
4,734,328
353,479
5,087,807
2,928,254
460,916
898,315
399,670
1,297,985
817,431
2001
7,333,338
5,606,705
460,844
6,067,549
4,083,052
501,646
613,161
218,326
831,487
618,750
2002
6,324,496
5,690,938
635,557
6,326,495
4,383,154
700,649
589,728
139,779
729,507
623,519
2003
6,419,618
4,833,017
665,895
5,498,912
5,370,248
523,370
456,063
91,599
547,662
628,025
2004
5,253,844
5,658,329
764,473
6,422,802
4,151,484
662,794
536,176
103,339
639,515
653,128
2005
5,609,957
5,893,064
777,438
6,670,502
3,182,223
602,972
600,609
108,247
708,856
552,940
Source: Data is compiled from tables published in the DHS Office of Immigration Statistics' Fiscal Year End Statistical Report for
FY1999-FY2005.
Note: The data in these tables are referred to as "to date" and are thus not the numbers considered final by DHS. Thus, some final adjustments to
these numbers may have occurred. The category of ‘initial receipts” are those applications which are received in a given fiscal year. Pending
applications includes all applications pending at USCIS, both from the current fiscal year and previous fiscal year. Completed applications consists
of the total of those applications that are approved and denied in the given fiscal year. Since not all applications that are received in a given fiscal
year are adjudicated in the same fiscal year, there may appear to be some numerical discrepancy across categories in certain fiscal years. These
discrepancies are generally attributable to the “rolling over” of applications from one fiscal year to the next.

---