My Client Committed Suicide

by Jason Dzubow

Recently, I learned that one of my clients committed suicide. The client was a young man who filed his asylum case in 2015. He had been waiting for an interview ever since. I did not know this client very well. He started his case with a “helper” who did a poor job of helping. Later, he hired me, but since the case was stuck in backlog limbo, there was not much for me to do. Because I am busy, I have little time to check in with clients waiting in the backlog, and so I had not heard from this person for some time.

I mention all this because, the fact is, I do not know whether the long delay in his asylum case or the underlying issues that caused him to leave his country were contributing factors in his death. Very possibly, there were other issues as well. That said, I can’t imagine that the delay and uncertainty, and the other issues related to his asylum case, improved my client’s mental health. (more…)

Continue reading

165 Comments

Is It Time to Close the Border?

by Jason Dzubow

The number of migrants arriving at the U.S. Southern border has been increasing since President Biden took office. According to one DHS official, “We are on pace to encounter more individuals on the southwest border than we have in the last 20 years.” Border agents have been turning away most adults and families based on a Trump-era public health rule. But unaccompanied minors are being admitted, and the Biden Administration is ramping up efforts to accommodate them.

The border situation represents three different crises. First is the crisis of violence and poverty in Central America and Mexico, which is pushing people to flee those countries.

Second, is the border “crisis” itself. I put crisis in quotes, since the influx of migrants is very manageable. Last month, for example, about 9,500 unaccompanied minors arrived at the border. Our country has the resources to humanely process this many young people. Indeed, when compared with historic trends, the overall number of arrivals during the last decade is significantly lower than what we’ve seen in the 1980s and 1990s. And so if there is a crisis at the Southern border, it is more about our willingness to deal with the influx, rather than our capacity.

The third crisis–and the one I want to discuss here–is the political crisis. New polling from Populace illustrates the crux of the problem: There is a sharp partisan divide on the issue of immigration. Trump voters rank “severely restricting immigration” as the #3 most important issue facing America. In contrast, Biden voters rank this as the #46 most important issue (out of 55 issues surveyed). For the question of whether America “is open to immigration,” Trump voters rank this as # 52 and Biden voters rank it as # 27. In short, Trump voters have strongly negative feelings about immigration, while Biden voters have moderately positive views towards immigration. There are a few lessons we can draw from this survey. (more…)

Continue reading

115 Comments

The Other Family Separation Crisis

by Jason Dzubow

Under President Trump, the Department of Homeland Security engaged in a systematic campaign to separate families at the United States-Mexico border. The victims of that policy are still grappling with its traumatic effects. But the Trump Administration’s cruel approach towards migrants is not the only example of family separation that continues to affect people in the U.S. immigration system.

Hundreds of thousands of asylum seekers have fled their home countries and come to the United States for protection. These include democracy activists, journalists, religious minorities, women’s rights advocates, sexual minorities, and interpreters who served with U.S. troops.

In many cases, these people have been forced to leave family members behind, often in difficult and dangerous conditions. If they are granted asylum, applicants can file to bring their immediate relatives–spouse and minor children–to the United States. However, the process is very lengthy. Many applicants wait five, six or more years for a decision in their case. For those who finally receive asylum, the process of bringing family members to the U.S. can take another one to two years. Because of all these delays, most asylum seekers can expect to be separated from their loved ones for the better part of a decade. (more…)

Continue reading

144 Comments

To Solve the Border Crises, We Need to Decide Who Qualifies for Asylum

by Jason Dzubow

It’s less than two months since President Biden took office, and already it seems we are facing a new surge of arrivals at our Southern border. The increase is being attributed to the continuing dire conditions in Mexico and Central America, Mr. Biden’s promise to treat asylum seekers humanely, and pent up demand among migrants who were deterred by the Trump Administration’s harsh policies. Republican strategists are (predictably) teeing up Latin American migration as a “wedge issue” for the 2022 midterm elections, and so the situation at the border is not only a humanitarian crisis, but also a political crisis.

To address the problem, Mr. Biden is sending more resources to the border, expanding shelter capacity, and continuing a policy of the Trump Administration to turn away most adults and families based on the public health emergency (under Title 42 of the U.S. Code). His Administration is also trying to encourage would-be migrants to stay home. It seems pretty obvious that none of these measures will end the crisis. So what can be done? (more…)

Continue reading

168 Comments

What Asylum Seekers and Their Lawyers Need from President Biden: Predictability

by Jason Dzubow

Just before Christmas 2020 and without any advance warning, the Trump Administration changed the deadline for submitting documents to Immigration Court. Previously, documents were due 15 days before the Individual Hearing. The new rule requires that documents now be submitted 30 days before the Individual Hearing. For busy lawyers, who have many cases and many different deadlines, this was equivalent to throwing a wrench into the gears of the immigration machine. Changing a deadline like this has a ripple effect, and–more than two months later–we are still adjusting to the new rule.

Of course, this was not the first (or worst) effort by the prior Administration to sabotage the immigration system, but it does illustrate how a small procedural change can have an outsized impact: When a lawyer is struggling to adjust to a new rule, it affects the lawyer’s ability to do his best work, and this in turn has potential negative consequences for a client’s case. (more…)

Continue reading

194 Comments

The U.S. Citizenship Act of 2021 and Asylum

by Jason Dzubow

The U.S. Citizenship Act of 2021 is finally here. It was unveiled last week by Senator Bob Menendez and Representative Linda Sanchez. The bill is very ambitious in scope, and aims to legalize about 11 million people, including “undocumented” immigrants, Dreamers, and people with Temporary Protected Status.

The odds-makers in the media seem to give the bill little chance of passing through the Senate, which requires at least ten Republicans to join with all the Democrats and Independents in order to overcome a filibuster. Some Senators (notably Lindsey Graham) have signaled a potential willingness to support a smaller bill–maybe one that would legalize Dreamers (also known as beneficiaries of DACA). This dilemma–which proponents of immigration reform have faced for decades–is nothing new: Go big and have more trouble passing a bill, or go small and help fewer people. We will have to see how things go, and certainly immigrant advocates need to be lobbying for a more comprehensive bill.

The bill itself is over 350 pages long and covers many different aspects of immigration. In this post, I will focus on a few points that directly affect asylum seekers. You can find basic summaries of the entire bill at Vox and Wikipedia, and a more comprehensive summary from blogger extraordinaire Greg Siskind. Here, though, we’ll stick to discussing only those provisions that relate most directly to asylum seekers. (more…)

Continue reading

251 Comments

Torture Survivors Seeking Asylum Must be a Priority in Immigration Overhaul

by Jason Dzubow

This post is by Andrea Barron, the Advocacy Program Manager at the Torture Abolition and Survivors Support Coalition (TASSC International), based in Washington, DC.

President Biden has sent Congress a sweeping immigration bill that embraces America’s commitment to immigrants, a commitment the Trump Administration tried to destroy. The legislation outlines a pathway to citizenship for 11 million undocumented individuals and provides $4 billion to Central American countries to reduce the violence and poverty that push so many to emigrate. It also increases the number of judges in immigration courts. These are welcome proposals.

But the bill promises little to torture survivors and other affirmative asylum seekers. It fails to address a hidden asylum crisis in our country, a crisis not as visible as the migrants being detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Many torture survivors and thousands of other affirmative asylum seekers have been waiting four, five, and even six years to have their cases heard in the Asylum Office, a division of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). (more…)

Continue reading

131 Comments

President Biden’s Immigration Bill

by Jason Dzubow

As you’ve probably heard, President Biden has proposed a comprehensive immigration reform bill, called the U.S. Citizenship Act of 2021. What does this proposal mean for asylum seekers? Who is included? When–if ever–will it go into effect? We’ll discuss those questions here. Spoiler alert: The answer to each question is “I don’t know.”

The first thing to know is that the bill is not yet public. All we have is a summary. Assuming the Biden Administration is being truthful (and I’m willing to grant them the benefit of the doubt, at least for Mr. Biden’s first week in office), a bill was sent to Congress on day one of the new Administration. Only a select few Congress people have the text of the bill, including New Jersey Senator Bob Menendez, who plans to introduce the bill in the Senate. Eventually. (more…)

Continue reading

139 Comments

Teshuvah and the New Administration

by Jason Dzubow

There’s a concept in Judaism known as “teshuvah,” which means “returning.” The term implies a return to righteousness, and repenting for past sins. In Judaism, when we think of teshuvah during Rosh HaShana (the New Year) and Yom Kippur (the Day of Atonement), we think in terms of collective sin: We ask G-d to forgive us for the sins “we” committed, even if we did not personally commit those sins. We also pledge to right wrongs, even where we did not personally engage in wrongdoing. This is what I am thinking about as we inaugurate the Biden-Harris Administration after four years of President Trump.

(more…)

Continue reading

160 Comments

Fixing Asylum Part 4: Immigration Court

by Jason Dzubow

There are currently over 1.2 million cases pending before our nation’s Immigration Courts (how many of these cases involve asylum, we do not know). The average wait time for a case is 849 days. What has caused this large backlog, and what can be done to alleviate the long waits in Immigration Court?

There are a number of reasons for the Immigration Court backlog. As with the Asylum Office, the basic reason is that there are too many cases and not enough Immigration Judges (“IJs”) and support staff. But a significant aggravating factor is what Judge Schmidt calls “aimless docket reshuffling” or ADR, which he defines as “arbitrarily or maliciously moving cases around without actually deciding them.” In other words, different Administrations have different priorities, and when Administrations change (or change their priorities), cases get moved around in ways that do not result in their completion, but do result in significant delay. The Obama Administration was responsible for its share of ADR, but the Trump Administration–with its decision to make every case a priority–has turned ADR into high art. Other aggravating factors include increased resources for enforcement without a commensurate increase for the Immigration Courts and a significant influx of asylum seekers from Central America that began in about 2012. One last factor is EOIR leadership (EOIR is the Executive Office for Immigration Review – the agency that oversees the Immigration Courts), which under the Trump Administration has been composed of partisan loyalists who lack the competencies needed to run a large organization.

(more…)

Continue reading

144 Comments

Fixing Asylum Part 3: The Asylum Office

by Jason Dzubow

According to the most recent data, as of “July 31, 2020, USCIS had 370,948 asylum applications, on behalf of 589,187 aliens, pending final adjudication.” “Over 94% of these pending applications [about 348,691 cases] are awaiting an interview by an asylum officer.” The remaining cases–approximately 22,257–have been interviewed and are waiting for a decision.

In terms of resources, the most recent information I could find is from May 2019. At that time, there were 763 Asylum Officers and 148 supervisory officers. While the majority of these staff members was devoted to interviewing affirmative asylum seekers, “over 200 officers” were assigned to conduct credible fear interviews at the border (a credible fear interview or CFI is an initial evaluation of asylum eligibility). Assuming everything remains the same (meaning that there are about 563 officers available for affirmative cases) and assuming each officer conducts eight interviews per week, it would take about 15 months to get through the entire backlog–if no new cases enter the system.

Realistically, though, new cases are continuously being filed, Asylum Officers probably can’t adjudicate eight cases per week for 52 weeks a year, and–given the mess at the Southern border and President Elect Biden’s plan to send more resources to that region–it is likely that many more than 200 officers will be assigned to CFIs (which will make them unavailable for “regular” affirmative asylum interviews). In short, even if the pandemic magically disappears, it seems unlikely that we can get through the backlog anytime soon. We are today facing the same problem that has dogged the asylum system since at least 2013: There are too many cases and not enough officers.

So what can be done?

Hire More Officers: One obvious solution is to hire more Asylum Officers. While the President Elect has not indicated whether or not he would hire more AOs, he has set forth an ambitious humanitarian agenda for the U.S.-Mexico border, and it seems impossible that he could fulfill that goal without hiring many more Asylum Officers. Of course, this would cost money, and it is unclear whether USCIS has the means to pay for more officers or whether Congress would be willing to increase the agency’s budget.

Even if there is no additional money available, there are steps Mr. Biden can take to improve the asylum system.  

More Efficient Scheduling and Shorter Interviews: The data I found (pre-pandemic) shows that roughly 8% of asylum applicants are “no shows” for their interviews and another 15% cancel their interviews (what percentage of these are rescheduled, I do not know). This makes sense, given the long gap between filing for asylum and attending an interview: People leave the U.S. or find other ways to obtain status here; others fail to update their address and so never receive notice of the interview. To mitigate this problem, Asylum Offices schedule more interviews than they have the capacity to conduct, with the expectation that some applicants will not appear. This seems to me a huge waste of energy. Why not call applicants a few weeks in advance to determine whether they intend to appear for their interview? This should be done after the interview notice is mailed out, and that notice should indicate that the applicant will receive a call from the Asylum Office. Applicants who fail to respond to the phone call can be rescheduled and sent a warning letter by mail. Those who still do not respond can then be referred directly to Immigration Court. Where possible, the calls and notices should be in the applicant’s native language.

There are other benefits to calling applicants prior to the interview: They can be reminded to submit all evidence in advance, and can be queried about what language they will speak at the interview. They can also be told to review the I-589 form and determine in advance what updates and corrections are needed. Better yet, the asylum interview notice can include a form to update the I-589, which is often submitted years before the interview. While not all applicants will be able to complete such a form on their own, many can, and this will save significant time at the interview.

Another way to save time at the interview would be to include a copy of the “bar” questions along with the interview notice. The “bar” questions determine whether a person is barred from receiving asylum (because they are criminals or terrorists, for example). Why not require applicants to review these questions ahead of time, and then certify at the interview that they read and understood each question? Most people will answer “no” to all the bar questions, and if the officer has specific concerns, she can raise those at the interview. Also, while we’re on the subject of bar questions, why do the officers need to ask these questions to children? I’ve seen officers question dependent children as young as three or four years old about whether they are terrorists. It’s just plain silly (though it can be entertaining). We would save a lot of time and trouble if parents could answer these questions for their minor children, or at least for children under a certain age–say 14 or 15.

LIFO vs. FIFO: Another issue related to scheduling is The Great LIFO-FIFO Debate–whether cases should be interviewed in the order received (first-in, first-out or FIFO) or whether the newest cases should receive priority (last-in, first-out or LIFO). All Asylum Offices are currently operating under the LIFO system. The logic is that interviewing new cases first will deter fraudulent asylum seekers, since they won’t be guaranteed a years-long wait for their interview (during which time they can live and work in the U.S.). The Asylum Division believes LIFO is working, as there was a 30% drop in new filings after it was implemented. However, I hope they will revisit this finding. My sense is that any decrease in filings was unrelated to the LIFO policy and instead came about for other reasons, such as fewer people arriving in the U.S. due to stricter visa requirements.

Also, from the perspective of asylum seekers, LIFO is very unfair. Old cases are given the lowest priority, meaning many people will (seemingly) never get to the front of the line. These applicants are facing severe hardships, including separation from family and endless uncertainty. At a minimum, a certain percentage of officers should be assigned to work on backlog cases, starting with the oldest. Better yet, we should return to FIFO and the Asylum Office Scheduling Bulletin, so we will have a more orderly and predictable process for scheduling interviews.

Create Rules for Expediting: One final point about scheduling interviews: We need a more formal system for expediting cases. Currently, it is possible to expedite, but there really are no rules about who is eligible to expedite or about what constitutes a valid reason to expedite. The predictable result is that many people try to expedite, which wastes Asylum Office staff time and also makes it more difficult for the most needy people to expedite their cases. There should be a national policy with publicized criteria about who is eligible for expedition. In my person opinion, the first priority should be people who are separated from their family members, especially minor children. For me, a distant second is a person with a documented mental or physical health issue. Until the Asylum Offices can expedite all the people in these two categories, I see no reason to allow for any other category of applicant to request expedited processing.

Premium Processing: A more radical idea to address the backlog–and one that I’ve been pushing for a while now–is premium processing for asylum seekers. Premium processing already exists for several USCIS forms, and allows an applicant to pay an additional fee (currently between $1,500 and $2,500) for faster processing of her case. Affirmative asylum seekers–in contrast to refugees–have paid their own way to the United States, and so presumably, many of them could afford an additional fee for premium processing. Also, while the idea of asylum seekers paying for their cases may seem unpalatable, the Trump Administration has already implemented a non-waivable $50 fee for all asylum applicants (as of now, that fee has been blocked by a federal court), and so the taboo of paying for humanitarian protection has already been broken. Thus, as I see it, there is no valid objection to implementing premium processing for asylum seekers, and–given the overwhelming humanitarian need–it is a solution whose time has come.

How would premium processing help? For those who pay, their cases would be interviewed more quickly. How quickly, I do not know, but premium processing for other USCIS forms is currently 15 days. I doubt that time frame would be realistic for an asylum case, but perhaps 60 or 90 days would be achievable. Even those who cannot pay would benefit, as the infusion of money into the system would benefit all applicants. An added benefit from the government’s viewpoint would be that faster processing would–if we accept the LIFO logic–help discourage fraudulent applications. So premium processing is a win all around: For the applicants who pay, for those who do not pay, and for the U.S. government.

Eliminate the Asylum Office: A final idea–perhaps the most radical of all–is to eliminate the Asylum Office altogether, at least for most cases. Under the current system, an applicant files an asylum case, and if he loses, his case is usually referred to Immigration Court where an Immigration Judge reviews the case de novo and issues a brand new decision. As an advocate, I am grateful for a second chance to present my clients’ cases. But in terms of “the system,” this type of redundancy is not very efficient. One solution might be to shift all asylum cases where the applicant is out-of-status to the Immigration Court. Or maybe just leave vulnerable applicants–such as minors–at the Asylum Office. While this idea has been floating around for years, it is still unclear whether it would result in more or less efficiency. In any event, given the current mess, nothing should be off the table, and the idea of (mostly) eliminating the Asylum Office might warrant further study.

For the sake of asylum seekers and their families, and for the integrity of our humanitarian immigration system, we need major changes to the affirmative asylum system. Perhaps some of these ideas can contribute to that effort.

Continue reading

166 Comments

Fixing Asylum Part 2: USCIS Forms

by Jason Dzubow

Here’s a point that should be self-evidence, but isn’t: Bureaucracy exists to facilitate the implementation of the law. Congress passes a law, and then government agencies create a system of policies and procedures to put that law into effect. In principle, this system should be easy to use and efficient, and should allow people to obtain the benefits to which they are entitled. In other words, it should be the exact opposite of what we have with the USCIS.

There are many problems with the agency that adjudicates immigration benefits (including asylum), but here, I want to focus on one particular area of concern: USCIS forms. USCIS forms are poorly designed, confusing, inconsistent, culturally insensitive, and inefficient. Here, we’ll discuss these problems in a bit more detail, and I will make some suggestions for improvement.

Let’s start with the most basic question on every USCIS form–the applicant’s name. Almost every form has boxes for an applicant’s first, middle, and last name. The problem is that naming convention vary widely, depending on where you are from. Many cultures do not have a first-middle-last name format, and so the USCIS question does not make much sense. One solution might be to ask the question in a more specific way: “Write your name as it appears on your passport.” Of course, not everyone has a passport, so maybe a second question can ask: “Write your name as it appears on your birth certificate or other government-issued identity document.” In addition to these iterations, the name question would also need to ask about “all other names used” (as many USCIS forms currently do). The confusion surrounding this very basic question–What is your name?–illustrates the difficultly of creating one-size-fits-all forms.

Form a forum for reforming forms.

Another problem arises with regard to addresses and places of employment. One issue here is that address formats vary widely by country, and the forms generally only allow for addresses in the format that we use in the United States. Another issue is that different forms request address and employment histories in different ways. So for example, the I-589 form (application for asylum) allows you to list one address or one job per line, so that your address and job histories fit onto one page (with room to spare). The I-485 (application for permanent residency), by contrast, requires this information in a different format, so that less information takes up much more space. The N-400 (application for citizenship) requests the same information in a third format. Maybe this is a minor quibble, but the inconsistencies between the various forms is confusing, and it is not confined only to the applicant’s address and work histories.

One area where inter-form differences sometimes create problems is the issue of arrest history. Different forms ask about this in different ways. Sometimes, USCIS wants information about all arrests. Other times, they want only information about criminal arrests or convictions. In some questions, USCIS wants to know about arrests anywhere in the world; other times, they want only arrests that occurred in the United States. Indeed, if you look at the main forms a successful asylum applicant will complete over the course of their time with USCIS, there are probably dozens of questions about criminal activity, and those questions are inconsistent between forms, and–in many cases–confusing, even for someone trained in the law.

Speaking of confusing questions, if you look at the lists of questions on the I-485 and the N-400, you will see scores of yes/no questions about all sorts of activities. Some of these questions are not amenable to a yes-or-no answer. Others (many others) are poorly written and difficult to understand. In many cases, the two forms ask similar questions using different language. All this can easily trip up an applicant and can lead to unintentional inconsistencies where there really are none.

Another problem is the large number of yes-or-no questions on many forms (the I-485, for example, has over 100 yes/no questions). These questions relate to everything from criminal and immigration violations, to national security, to persecution of others, to membership in totalitarian political parties, to prostitution and illegal gambling. Most people check almost all the boxes “no,” but periodically, they may need to check “yes.” Given the vast number of questions, the fact that almost all are “no,” and the fact that many of the questions are confusing, it is easy to slip up and miss a “yes” answer. This can lead to big trouble, including having your application denied.

These examples represent just a few of the problems with USCIS forms, and every immigration lawyer can cite many more. The short answer is that all USCIS forms need a major overhaul. This should be done with an eye towards making the forms shorter (the I-485 and the N-400 are each 20 pages long). The forms should be made consistent with each other in terms of format and the substance of questions asked. They should accommodate different naming and address conventions.

Also, USCIS needs to do something about the overwhelming number of yes/no questions. There are too many questions, many are difficult to understand or redundant (or both), and many are irrelevant (do we really need three questions about Nazi activity between 1933 and 1945?). The number of questions should be reduced and the questions themselves should be simplified so that you don’t need a law degree to understand what the heck USCIS is asking about.

One final point on forms: Why are we still printing forms and mailing paper copies to the agency (to a plethora of different mailing addresses)? A limited number of forms can be filed online, and USCIS should expand e-filing, so that all forms and evidence can be filed online. E-filing would also solve the problem of USCIS rejecting forms for simple mistakes or for not writing “N/A” in every empty box. 

To reform its forms, USCIS needs help. It needs to hear from immigration advocates, immigrants, and other stakeholders. Forms should be more understandable and more able to accommodate cultural differences. Questions should be standardized across different forms, and the format of the forms should be made more consistent. All forms should be available for online filing. 

Improving USCIS forms is long overdue. Fixing the forms will make USCIS more efficient, and will ultimately save everyone time, trouble, and money. The purpose of USCIS forms is to facilitate the application process and to help USCIS determine who is–and is not–eligible for an immigration benefit. More efficient forms will help move USCIS towards these goals.

Continue reading

104 Comments

USCIS Receipt Delays – An Update

by Jason Dzubow

If you’ve filed an application or petition with USCIS lately, you’ve probably noticed that receipts have been substantially delayed. Many people are waiting six, seven, eight weeks or more for receipts. Below is an announcement from USCIS about the delays at their Lockbox facilities, along with some tips about filing. Hopefully, once we have new leadership at the agency, we will start to see some improvement. Also, of course, if we turn the corner on the pandemic, that should help as well. Anyway, below is the USCIS announcement, and I have added relevant links, for your enjoyment–

USCIS Updates: USCIS Lockbox

The USCIS lockbox facilities have received a significant increase in filings in recent weeks. This increase, along with facility capacity restrictions necessary to protect the health and safety of the lockbox workforce during the COVID-19 pandemic, is causing significant delays for processing receipt notices. We continue to work to minimize delays. Once we process your submission, we will review your package.

Your USCIS receipt will arrive. Eventually…

If you properly filed your form, we will send a receipt notice to the mailing address provided on your form, normally within 30 days. If your submission is incomplete or improperly filed, we will reject it per current procedures.

You can take steps to decrease the time it takes us to process and send your receipt notice or find out the status of your case:

· File online (if this option is available for your form type) and receive immediate confirmation that we have received your form instead of waiting for the mail;

· Create a free USCIS online account and check the status of your case from your mobile device, anywhere, anytime using our case status online tool; or

· Complete Form G-1145, E-Notification of Application/Petition Acceptance, and clip it to the front of your form to request a text message and/or email when we accept your form.

We also encourage you to follow the tips below when submitting evidence with your application package:

· Review the form instructions and checklist of required initial evidence on the form webpage (if this option is available for your form);

· Submit single-sided photocopies of requested documents, unless the form instructions specifically state you must submit an original document;

· With the exception of passport photos, please copy photographs to an 8.5”x11” sheet of paper instead of sending originals. Always send in original passport photos where requested;

· Submit only the required evidence and supporting documentation listed in the form instructions. If we need additional information, we will request it from you; and

· If you cannot provide the required primary evidence when filing a form, review the form instructions for appropriate secondary evidence.

For more information about USCIS filing tips, please visit our Form Filing Tips webpage.

Here’s a couple bonus tips from me (Jason – not USCIS). Sign up for informed delivery with the U.S. post office. With this service, you will get an email with photos of all the mail that is coming to your house. That way, if USCIS sends something important (and I suppose most USCIS mail is important), you will know in advance to expect it. Also, when you send your application to USCIS, send it by certified mail (we generally use flat rate mail through the U.S. postal service, which costs $7.75), so you will be able to track whether it was received. Finally, if you have to pay a fee, use a personal check, if possible. That way, you will know when the check is cashed and if you get a copy of the check from your bank, it should have the USCIS receipt number stamped onto it.

Hopefully, we will soon have a new Administration that will do a better job managing USCIS. Regardless of that, the more you can do to track and monitor your applications, the better.

Continue reading

76 Comments