My My... Lookie here... Interesting reading...

[SirLancelot 1]

http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/C...ng_of_USCIS.pdf

From the Ombudsman's annual report 2006:

There are at least two impediments to USCIS implementing the cost and resource savings inherent in up-front and expedited (premium type) processing. As case backlogs grew, USCIS became reliant on the filing fee revenue to fund other unfunded programs. By expecting USCIS to be largely self-funded through fees, Congress created competing demands for USCIS management. USCIS must ensure revenue streams are adequate for the entire agency. At the same time, eliminating backlogs and improving USCIS efficiency risks the agency cutting off a significant percentage of its revenue. Unless alternative revenue sources are identified that are not dependent on slow processing or a backlog of cases, USCIS will have difficulty foregoing fee-based revenue without running afoul of antideficiency laws. Under the current USCIS financial structure, USCIS simply cannot afford to eliminate the backlogs or slow processing of regular applications.

Based on the findings of Secretary Chertoff’s Second Stage Review, the Ombudsman suggests that Congress consider a revolving fund account or other appropriated funding source for USCIS. A revolving fund used to defray current costs would be replenished from future fees and would: (1) enable the agency to test innovative processes; (2) address unexpected program requirements from new legislation; (3) avoid potential temporary anti-deficiency concerns; and (4) encourage USCIS leadership to innovate processes instead of continuing programs which do not enhance customer service, efficiency, and national security, but nevertheless generate essential revenue.

Edited September 5, 2006 by SirLancelot

[Keith & Xiang 0]

http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/C...ng_of_USCIS.pdf

From the Ombudsman's annual report 2006:

There are at least two impediments to USCIS implementing the cost and resource savings inherent in up-front and expedited (premium type) processing. As case backlogs grew, USCIS became reliant on the filing fee revenue to fund other unfunded programs. By expecting USCIS to be largely self-funded through fees, Congress created competing demands for USCIS management. USCIS must ensure revenue streams are adequate for the entire agency. At the same time, eliminating backlogs and improving USCIS efficiency risks the agency cutting off a significant percentage of its revenue. Unless alternative revenue sources are identified that are not dependent on slow processing or a backlog of cases, USCIS will have difficulty foregoing fee-based revenue without running afoul of antideficiency laws. Under the current USCIS financial structure, USCIS simply cannot afford to eliminate the backlogs or slow processing of regular applications.

Based on the findings of Secretary Chertoff’s Second Stage Review, the Ombudsman suggests that Congress consider a revolving fund account or other appropriated funding source for USCIS. A revolving fund used to defray current costs would be replenished from future fees and would: (1) enable the agency to test innovative processes; (2) address unexpected program requirements from new legislation; (3) avoid potential temporary anti-deficiency concerns; and (4) encourage USCIS leadership to innovate processes instead of continuing programs which do not enhance customer service, efficiency, and national security, but nevertheless generate essential revenue.

Ok, maybe perhaps because it is an early morning Tuesday and I've yet to have my first cup of coffee, I'm just not following the above??? Are they trying to say that they want to charge us more? If we do pay more do we get better service? How about giving the K1 and K3 the chance for a 15 day guarantee of approval much the same as the worker's visa? How many of you out there would be willing to pay $1,000 to have your spouse/fiancee here in 15 days? If they're lacking the funds this would be the way to go!

The views here expressed are not necessarily...........

Thanks,

Keith & Xiang

[SirLancelot 1]

Ok, maybe perhaps because it is an early morning Tuesday and I've yet to have my first cup of coffee, I'm just not following the above??? Are they trying to say that they want to charge us more? If we do pay more do we get better service? How about giving the K1 and K3 the chance for a 15 day guarantee of approval much the same as the worker's visa? How many of you out there would be willing to pay $1,000 to have your spouse/fiancee here in 15 days? If they're lacking the funds this would be the way to go!

The views here expressed are not necessarily...........

Thanks,

Keith & Xiang

Here is the entire report. It's an AWESOME read if you're into this type of info. It basically addresses most of the problems that's been aired out on here. A lot of our complaints have been addressed in a formal way with this report. I find it very enlightening. It still pisses me off that VSC is faster than CSC, but I'm getting a better picture of this whole mess. It's NOT at all easy to improve in a short amount of time.

http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/interweb/asse...Report_2006.pdf

Edited September 5, 2006 by SirLancelot

[sbgwolf1 0]

I just skimmed through it, but it seems pretty much to point out what we been saying all along. One would hope this report would provoke a reduction of backlog, or enable the expedited processing. No matter what, it is not showing the INS in a favorable light. Also, not only is there the issues, but some of the resolutions suggested...

Ombudsman for pres! haha.

wolf

[Dean iWait 0]

Tell me if I understand this correctly. They are stating that the backlogs and innefficiency are crucial to their budget? So if they clear the backlog they won't have enough money to operate? I mean sounds about right when you are talking about the federal gov.

[jjjimmy 0]

its called rolling your debt and can be true in any bussiness.What it means is not that they want to charge you more,it means that the money you sent was used to proccess applications that were filed at a earlier time and that the money that will be used to proccess you app. may have not been recieved yet...................charging more would be to easy a solution for the gov. i suspect if they honestly told applicants that due to budget problems there would be a fee to expidite they could solve there problem but as i said that would be far to easy.

[Dr_LHA 3]

Tell me if I understand this correctly. They are stating that the backlogs and innefficiency are crucial to their budget? So if they clear the backlog they won't have enough money to operate? I mean sounds about right when you are talking about the federal gov.

Well for one thing, the $1000 expediting fee for H1-B and other work based visas is a huge percentage of USCIS budget, if they speeded things up, businesses wouldn't feel the need to pay the extra $1000, resulting in a massive budget shortfall. The crazy thing is that expedited processing actually costs USCIS less money than the usual slow processing.

Also for Green Card applicants, slow processing means more people applying for EAD and AP. The faster the processing, the more people will not feel the need for these things. Again EAD and AP money is a large part of the USCIS budget, so losing this income would be disasterous. As such USCIS has good reasons for *not* speeding up their processing.

[mrsushi66 0]

Some great information. Thanks for a very informative post.

Paul

[rl2009 0]

Saturday was my love birthday, today she is out buying suitcase for her trip to come and marry me. God I hate her seeing this.