Bush wants to raise fee to $905!!!!

[rebeccajo 14]

I saw this in the news. I think it's really sad. The increase in immigration fees will only hurt those who are trying to immigrate legally and marry the person they love, like us in this forum. In my opinion I feel this administration is doing these things to make immigration in the U.S. less accessible and more difficult for the average person. I feel the same about the excessive taxes charged on international airfare. I know it's due to the increased security measures and that's a good thing, but it also makes it more difficult for someone to find an affordable ticket to travel overseas, and I think that is also part of the strategy of the administration. Try to reason it all you want, but it's too high. I think there is probably a very big difference between the fee and the actual cost incurred in reviewing an application. It's sad. It discourages marriage and legal immigration.

Brad, your ENTIRE process - filing the K1 through receiving her green card - took less than ONE year.

Honestly - I don't see what you are saying. Don't you wish it were that way for everyone?

[TracyTN 237]

so let me get this straight..all these changes will go into effect October 2007?

if that the case..i and filing like a mofo when this man gets here..just do it all when its cheaper

The document read fiscal year 2007, which would be June.

I dunno where you get June from. The federal fiscal year is from 1 October through 30 September.

Pardon me for making a mistake.

I said at the top of page four that m was right about October 07.

Edited February 1, 2007 by TracyTN

[Nancy2015 2]

And I wanted to wait with my AOS till 2008!!! I'm glad I didn't.

I think by the time I have to file to remove conditions the fee for I-751 will be about a thousand bucks. Nothing surprises me anymore...

[pink_cloud 0]

I don't think the new fee will deter people coming into the US, it will just deter them from coming in legally. I know I would certainly look for other ways to get in instead of paying what would be, to me, a small fortune. If it's affordable to come in legally one is more likely to go that route. If it's astronomical I think people are more likely to "suddenly" meet their loved one and get engaged/married whilst here on visa waiver.

I personally think it sucks that the fee is so high to become a citizen...but that's probably because that's the next step for me and I really didn't want to have to fork out $600 for it. I thought the test you have to take is punishment enough.

By the way, is there a fee for lifting conditions and if so, any talk of this fee increasing? What about the fee for renewing the 10 year greencard? It may work out cheaper to stay a LPR than become a citizen.

[rebeccajo 14]

By the way, is there a fee for lifting conditions and if so, any talk of this fee increasing? What about the fee for renewing the 10 year greencard? It may work out cheaper to stay a LPR than become a citizen.

Yes there's a fee for lifting conditions and yes it's going to go up too.

Personally, I'll pay just about whatever they want us to pay to naturalize. Just to get them off our backs. If we ever get the chance, that is.

Edited February 1, 2007 by rebeccajo

[ChristinaM 0]

If it's astronomical I think people are more likely to "suddenly" meet their loved one and get engaged/married whilst here on visa waiver.

I don't know where you're going with that line of thought, because all of those people have to pay for AOS in just the same way, and it's the AOS seeing the very significant fee increase.

[pink_cloud 0]

ChristinaM - The K1 visa is almost doubling in price, that's where I am going with that train of thought!!

[I'm Gone 60]

"The Bush administration" doesn't make a move without orders from Bush - that should be pretty clear to everyone by now. And no, it doesn't appear it will include EAD or AP. It does say " But the agency plans to eliminate other costs those legal residency applicants often pay while they are waiting for their permanent residency to be final" but it doesn't say what "other costs" they are talking about.

You can pin a lot things on Bush, but not this one.

The Independent Offices Appropriations Act (31 U.S.C. 9701) and Office of Management and Budget Circular No. A-25 requires agencies to review user charges periodically to ensure that they are recovering costs to the extent the law permits.

[John & Annie 0]

I am probably going to sound like an odd duck, but, I read through the entire report and they are doing what would logical for any company. Historically USCIS has been losing money on AOS, but making it on other petitions and applications.

If I were are business consultant, oh wait, I am; and I analyzed the USCIS. They are making a great decision.

On a personal level, being that my wife and i are going through the process and are currently stuck somewhere in the process. I am going to have to agree with RJ, if i have to pay more money to get through this process, fine. We do not have a lot of extra money, but if it means i need to brown bag my lunch and we don't go out for dinner for a month, so be it. My wife is worth every penny, and more.

In fact, I am totally ok with this process becoming more cumbersome and expensive, if it means that less fraud will occur and the legitimate cases will get approved without issue, I am for it.

I fought for this Country once, i am planning on continuing this fight with the legislature after we are done with this process. We need this reform, and more.

John

PS, this does not mean I believe USCIS is being run competently and once this goes through everything will be ok. But it is one step closer to being better.

[John & Annie 0]

"The Bush administration" doesn't make a move without orders from Bush - that should be pretty clear to everyone by now. And no, it doesn't appear it will include EAD or AP. It does say " But the agency plans to eliminate other costs those legal residency applicants often pay while they are waiting for their permanent residency to be final" but it doesn't say what "other costs" they are talking about.

Actually, yes it does. Read the document.

[ChristinaM 0]

My train of thought is that quite frankly, if you can't afford $285 for a K1, you shouldn't be applying for one. Perhaps I'm cruel and mean, but it's really not that much money when you think of what is to come. Someone has to cover the immigrating fiance(e) whilst they're waiting for their EAD, and if you can't afford the filing fee, how on earth do you expect to cover that period? Most immigrating spouses, from what I've seen, don't have a huge pot of money to bring with them.

$900-odd dollars for the AOS when the beneficiary is unable to work until it's filed (by virtue of the EA system) - now that's harsh. But if it covers unlimited EADs and APs, then it's a greater expense for some and an absolute blessing for others.

FYI, Pink Cloud, some VWP adjusters do pay for both the K1 and the AOS. I was one of them

[SirLancelot 1]

As an immigrant to the US, I don't mind paying what it costs to do the processing. (Though my wife is entitled to question why her taxes don't cover the service.)

But immigrants (and *only* immigrants) have to also cover the cost of processing refugees and asylum seekers? Now that's seems a touch unfair.

(We also have to pay for the immigration processing of 'certain other applicants', what's that about - defecting Cold War spies??)

Why haven't more people commented on what GnG brought up? I don't think people understand what he or she has said.

GnG is completely correct. This is outrageous that the immigrant is subsidizing the refugees and asylum seekers. It's the law makers, acting on the behalf of the citizens of the US, who allow for asylums and refugees. Why place the burden of the actual implementation onto the other immigrants? That's ridiculous! Clearly it is the general tax payers who should be subsidizing this--if it is to be free--or the refugee and asylum seekers should be paying for the cost themselves. It certainly shouldn't be covered by the other immigrant applicants.

I hear you GnG and I agree with you 100%!

[John & Annie 0]

As an immigrant to the US, I don't mind paying what it costs to do the processing. (Though my wife is entitled to question why her taxes don't cover the service.)

But immigrants (and *only* immigrants) have to also cover the cost of processing refugees and asylum seekers? Now that's seems a touch unfair.

(We also have to pay for the immigration processing of 'certain other applicants', what's that about - defecting Cold War spies??)

Why haven't more people commented on what GnG brought up? I don't think people understand what he or she has said.

GnG is completely correct. This is outrageous that the immigrant is subsidizing the refugees and asylum seekers. It's the law makers, acting on the behalf of the citizens of the US, who allow for asylums and refugees. Why place the burden of the actual implementation onto the other immigrants? That's ridiculous! Clearly it is the general tax payers who should be subsidizing this--if it is to be free--or the refugee and asylum seekers should be paying for the cost themselves. It certainly shouldn't be covered by the other immigrant applicants.

I hear you GnG and I agree with you 100%!

your right, I did not address this issue.

There are actually funds provided by Congress, if you read the report you will find this. They do not focus on this aspect, and i do not blame them.

The majority of the USCIS is self funded by application fees.

I will dive into the report to see what percentage of immigrants fall under the refugee of Asylum seekers category. I think we will find that it is a very small percentage and if those people were required to pay fees, it would have a very minimal impact. We are not talking about a vast number of people.

[John & Annie 0]

As an immigrant to the US, I don't mind paying what it costs to do the processing. (Though my wife is entitled to question why her taxes don't cover the service.)

But immigrants (and *only* immigrants) have to also cover the cost of processing refugees and asylum seekers? Now that's seems a touch unfair.

(We also have to pay for the immigration processing of 'certain other applicants', what's that about - defecting Cold War spies??)

Why haven't more people commented on what GnG brought up? I don't think people understand what he or she has said.

GnG is completely correct. This is outrageous that the immigrant is subsidizing the refugees and asylum seekers. It's the law makers, acting on the behalf of the citizens of the US, who allow for asylums and refugees. Why place the burden of the actual implementation onto the other immigrants? That's ridiculous! Clearly it is the general tax payers who should be subsidizing this--if it is to be free--or the refugee and asylum seekers should be paying for the cost themselves. It certainly shouldn't be covered by the other immigrant applicants.

I hear you GnG and I agree with you 100%!

your right, I did not address this issue.

There are actually funds provided by Congress, if you read the report you will find this. They do not focus on this aspect, and i do not blame them.

The majority of the USCIS is self funded by application fees.

I will dive into the report to see what percentage of immigrants fall under the refugee of Asylum seekers category. I think we will find that it is a very small percentage and if those people were required to pay fees, it would have a very minimal impact. We are not talking about a vast number of people.

Here you go:

USCIS has received appropriated dollars for the past several years to improve

processing times as part of a five year effort to reduce a backlog of immigration

applications. In FY 2006, Congress appropriated $115 million for USCIS, subject to later

rescissions. Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2006, 109-90, 119

Stat. 2064, 2080 (Oct. 18, 2005). In FY 2007, Congress appropriated $181,990,000

forUSCIS. Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2007, 110 Stat. 1355,

1374 (Oct. 4, 2006). During the time since the last comprehensive fee adjustment,

USCIS has increased emphasis on national security and public screening of applicants,

and on quality controls. At the same time, certain immigration benefit determinations

have become more complex as legislation has created new programs and eligibilities.

This resulted in a significant funding gap between revenues and costs that led to

decreases in performance and services. Because USCIS did not conduct a comprehensive

fee review earlier, it has been limited to the revenue that the current fee structure

provides. This funding gap has resulted in inadequate facilities to provide services to

customers, inadequate investments in infrastructure to improve service, and, most

notably, inadequate case processing capacity to keep up with the volume of applications

and petitions filed, creating a very significant backlog that would still exist today if not

for the temporary appropriated dollars received from FY 2002 to FY 2006. However,

significant backlogs will recur unless USCIS restructures its fees to provide adequate

case processing capacity.

Spending reductions to meet the funding gap would result in a reversal of the

considerable progress USCIS has made over the last several years to reduce the backlog

of immigration benefit applications and petitions. Such a reversal would likely include

increases in customer complaints, requests to expedite certain applications and petitions,

litigation seeking mandamus against USCIS, and other negative consequences that

consume more resources in an ad hoc and reactive manner. This fee rule is essential to

bringing fees into alignment with desired levels of service.

[Dr_LHA 3]

ChristinaM - The K1 visa is almost doubling in price, that's where I am going with that train of thought!!

If you come here on a VWP, you have to file I-130 instead of the I-129F, for which the fee is about the same IIRC, so you won't save that much money (although obviously you won't have the hassle of the embassy interview).