minority and female employees have little or no participation in formulating INS policy or in making agency decisions. 15

Obtaining Information from INS

INS maintains a number of district offices throughout the United States that are intended, in part, to provide information to the public about the necessary procedures to be followed in seeking benefits such as the right of U.S. citizens to bring close relatives into the United States, under the immigration laws. Many problems in INS information services were recognized by Leonel Castillo, former Commissioner of INS, shortly after his appointment. After taking office, he gave the following assessment of INS service functions at the Los Angeles district office:

People were lining up at midnight in hopes of being seen the next morning. Many telephone calls were going unanswered, or callers received only a busy signal. Information and forms were difficult, if not impossible, to obtain, without a trip to the office, and oftentimes, an all-day wait in line. 16

Because of these problems, former Commissioner Castillo introduced reforms such as establishing "satellite" offices to dispense forms and information, bringing automation to its operations through the Houston "model office," creating a training course for contact representatives, and improving INS application forms. These reforms have been acknowledged as "very promising starts" in correcting some of the deficiencies." According to one immigration lawyer, these measures have improved INS service to the public:

We have had a new Commissioner of the Immigration Service who has been in office for less than a year. In this short time, as Mr. Rosen has pointed out, and as we as practicing lawyers all recognize, there have been commendable improvements. First of all, there has been a very serious attempt to humanize the Immigration Service, correct many of its inequities, reduce

15 "Employment Profile," p. 46.

1 Leonel Castillo, Commissioner, INS, statement, in Undocumented Aliens: Hearings Before a Subcommittee of the House Committee on Appropriations, 95th Cong., 2d sess. (1978), p. 3. (hereafter cited as Castillo Statement). 17 Michael Cortes, vice president for research, advocacy, and legislation, National Council of La Raza, testimony, Washington Hearing Transcript, p. 21.

is Benjamin Gim, testimony before the New York State Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, open meeting, New York City, Feb. 16-17, 1978, vol. 1, p. 233 (hereafter cited as New York Open Meeting Transcript).

the backlog, and there has generally been an improvement in the atmosphere.18

Even employee attitudes were said to have improved; one immigration attorney testified that "in terms of discourtesy of the employees of INS, I must admit that they are getting better. . . ."19 Nevertheless, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has received much testimony that numerous problems exist with the INS information services. Former Commissioner Castillo recognized that these services needed to be improved and noted that the INS was considering methods to provide better service to the public. He stated:

With respect to the information functions, we agree that it is in need of improvement. Plans are presently being discussed to transfer responsibility for this function to Adjudications which will also assume responsibility for training contact representatives and the support personnel assigned to the information function. We feel these changes will improve the program by placing it under control of the division which is primarily responsible for granting immigration benefits to the public. 20

INS has had difficulty managing its contact points with the public to avoid giving callers the "runaround" when their calls are finally answered. Carl Wack, INS Associate Commissioner for Examinations, 21 freely acknowledged that there are serious problems in dealing with telephone inquiries by the public and attributed this in part to insufficient staffing at INS contact points:

We have in all our offices a problem with respect to the manning of our contact points with the public, where we are overwhelmed. In some areas we have put in as many as 10, 20 phones, manned phones, and even then the telephone company tells us that they take surveys and find that so many hundred calls a day, according to their equipment, have not been responded to.

However, in each office we do have a contact point and the phone that is listed is-will

19 Raymond Campos, testimony before the California Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, open meeting, Los Angeles, June 15-16, 1978, p. 117 (hereafter cited as Los Angeles Open Meeting Transcript).

30 Leonel Castillo, Commissioner, INS, letter to Louis Nunez, Staff Director, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Sept. 28, 1979 (hereafter cited as Castillo Letter).

21 Mr. Wack retired from the Service in May 1980. He was the Associate Commissioner for Examinations from October 1975 until his retirement.

automatically go to that number. That's part of the problem, by trying to concentrate the calls at one point; so that to eliminate the very problem you describe, we, in effect, overwork that particular instrument or individual.

They are not supposed to refer cases unless it is one of difficulty.22

Although Associate Commissioner Wack had instructed his employees to avoid referring callers to several different persons for information,23 this does not help those persons whose calls are not answered.

Persons who, having tried unsuccessfully to contact INS by telephone, go in person to INS offices to obtain information encounter similar difficulties: there are not enough employees detailed to answer questions. Long lines and long waits to obtain needed information and forms must often be endured at INS offices. One community leader in Los Angeles testified:

Similarly, Michael Cortes, vice president of the National Council of La Raza, stated that, "the outrageously long lines and the variety of other obstacles thrown up" tend to discourage people from seeking information and benefits to which they are entitled by law.2

The contact representatives who dispense information to the public at INS offices are hired at the GS-5-7 range and are considered clerical workers rather than immigration officers.26 Prior to 1978, contact representatives were not provided with any formal training in immigration law, although a new training course has since been implemented.27 Although contact representatives are not immigration officers, they are expected to answer a wide range of questions from the public and to make certain preliminary determinations as to the eligibility of

28

24 Pok Than, vice president of the United Cambodian Community, testimony, Los Angeles Open Meeting Transcript, p. 11.

25 Michael Cortes, testimony, Washington Hearing Transcript, p. 21. 26 Wack Testimony, Washington Hearing Transcript, p. 178.

27 Leonel Castillo, Commissioner, INS, testimony, Washington Hearing Transcript, p. 122. Three such training sessions were held in 1978. See also exhibit material submitted by Carl Wack, as reprinted in U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, hearing, Washington, D.C., Nov. 14-15, 1978, vol. II: Exhibits, pp. 331-32.

The Immigration Service, for those who have frequented their facility, is possibly the rudest agency that I have ever encountered in terms of their treatment of the public, particularly the alien public. 32

28 Contact representatives are currently part of the Information Services Division at INS; in the near future, however, they will be transferred to the Examination Division and their activities will be supervised by the Associate Commissioner of Examinations. Wack Testimony, Washington Hearing Transcript, p. 178.

29 Ibid., p. 178.

30 Ibid., p. 179.

31 In commenting on this chapter of the report, Commissioner Castillo not only denied the allegations but also stated that they were not specific enough for the Service to make any further response. Castillo Letter.

32 Austin Fragomen, professor of law, New York University and Brooklyn Schools of Law, New York Open Meeting Transcript, vol. 1, p. 247.

INS employees, he said, are characterized by "their lack of sensitivity and lack of respect in dealing with persons who are foreign-language-speaking individuals." Michael Cortes, vice president of the National Council of La Raza, also testified that INS employee attitudes are a common problem and can at times be characterized as bigotry. He said that the contact representatives "make disparaging remarks and are generally uncooperative toward folks who happen to be of a different color or language than themselves."34

Rude behavior and uncooperative attitudes, allegations denied by INS,35 on the part of INS employees, while unjustified, are possibly symptoms of a deeper problem, that is, the extent to which the differing needs and problems of persons who come from various countries can be understood. Pedro Lamdagen, a Pilipino immigration attorney, testified that Pilipinos encounter insensitive and brusque treatment from INS employees. He observed that:

there is perhaps an insensitivity to the needs and the possible alternative solutions or answers to the problems of a Pilipino seeking to assist the immigration of relatives or friends, and...there are problems very often in being summarily dismissed or really brusquely given an answer to a problem. . . .36

George Lee, an immigration lawyer, testified that INS officers in the Los Angeles office are not familiar with the difficulty of obtaining necessary documentary evidence from the People's Republic of China, possibly because of their ignorance of the structure of Chinese village life.37

Hiring more employees from minority groups could help to increase INS sensitivity and provide more courteous and knowledgeable service to the public. Such a move could also increase the public perception that INS is aware of and sensitive to community needs. Mr. Lamdagen testified that few Pilipinos are currently employed by INS as contact representatives:

I am aware of a few Pilipinos that have recently, in my observation at the local office of INS, been employed by the Immigration Service. I know one inspector in Travel Control,

33 Ibid., p. 251.

34 Cortes Testimony, Washington Hearing Transcript, p. 21. 35 Castillo Letter.

" Pedro Lamdagen, testimony, Los Angeles Open Meeting Transcript, p.

9.

37 George Lee, testimony, Los Angeles Open Meeting Transcript, pp. 1214, 17. His testimony on this problem is presented in greater detail in a later

and I know of a few clerks with the Immigration Service, but to the extent of having muchneeded public contact with inquiries and applicants, I have not seen much of that, no.38

Similarly, Mr. Lee testified that very few Chinese are employed in any position by INS in Los Angeles:

There is an interpreter, and that interpreter is only used at the time when you have a hearing. There is no-there is just one lady clerk, but she is not meeting the public in the room where the Chinese people go in. . . .39

The lack of minority representation and the apparent lack of sensitivity and cultural awareness on the part of some INS employees has resulted in some applicants from minority communities being treated contemptuously and presumed to be wrong until they can prove otherwise. The Rev. Bryan Karvelis of the Brooklyn Diocese of the Roman Catholic Church testified that, in his view, this prevailing negative attitude toward aliens held by employees throughout INS is very burdensome for applicants:

[W]hen you go over to the central office here in Federal Plaza, the way the individuals who come up before judges, who are trying to make applications for various-regularizing their status, the attitude of [INS employees] is always very curt, always tends to put the burden of proof on the person who is coming. "You are wrong. You have to prove that you are right." It's just a kind of a general overall negative attitude. "We will try to keep you out of this country if we possibly can." I am speaking now, obviously, of attitudes. I'm not speaking now of any illegal actions on their parts, but rather attitudes. 40

This attitude can have a negative effect on many persons by discouraging them from filing applications for benefits to which they may be entitled. Victor Maridueno, a community leader, testified that the public is treated contemptuously by those INS employees who consider aliens "guilty" until proven otherwise:

section of this chapter entitled, "Exercise of Discretion by INS Adjudica

tors.'

"Lamdagen Testimony, Los Angeles Open Meeting Transcript, p. 10. 39 Lee Testimony, Los Angeles Open Meeting Transcript, p. 16.

40 Bryan Karvelis, testimony, New York Open Meeting Transcript, vol. 1, pp. 143-44.

There is no question in my mind that the most rude, imperious, and insensitive officials that I have ever observed are those of Immigration. I do not know if it is because they are overworked or because they believe that they are imbued with divine right that they perform their services in the contemptuous manner in which they maltreat the aliens that they are paid to service. More than one time have I heard officials addressing with ethnic slurs or abruptly brushing off the person who has approached them. These immigration officers are the antithesis of what this country stands for. In this nation, which is the flag bearer of democracy around the world, a person is innocent until proven guilty. For an immigration official, regardless whatsoever of the encounterer's circumstances, a person is guilty until he proves himself innocent.41

Access to Applicant's Files

After a person has succeeded in filing the appropriate forms, he or she often encounters problems in obtaining information on the status of the case. Kalman Resnick, an immigration lawyer, testified that there is no effective procedure for obtaining information on the status of a petition after it has been filed with INS:

[O]ne of the big problems, even after you've waited a year, if you do not hear about what's happening to your application, there are no procedures available for easily finding out what has happened to your application, either for the attorney or for the applicant herself or himself.42

A major reason given for the inability to obtain information on the status of a case is lost files. 43 Former INS Commissioner Castillo admitted that many files are indeed lost, not merely misplaced, by INS, and attributed this problem to the Service's manual retrieval system. At certain major district offices, including Los Angeles and New York, as many as 25 employees are detailed daily to search for missing files."

Recognizing these problems, INS has begun the development of a "model office" in Houston that uses a computer to track applications, retrieve files,

41 Victor Maridueno, past president of PROECUA (Association of Ecuadorian Professionals Overseas) and director of social services of Ecuadorian Cultural and Social House, testimony, New York Open Meeting Transcript, vol. 1, p. 233.

2 Kalman Resnick, testimony, Washington Hearing Transcript, p. 154. 43 See United States v. Guevara-Martinez, 597 F.2d 954 (5th Cir. 1979) (involving a case where the INS lost a file containing an I-130 petition for 9 months.)

and perform other functions. At the Houston office, most files can be retrieved "within a minute" through the automated tracking system." INS offices that have not been computerized, however, continue to present obstacles to applicants or petitioners who are trying to discover the status of their cases. Clearly, this results in delays for United States citizens and residents who want to be reunited with their families abroad and for resident aliens who wish to avail themselves of benefits under the immigration laws for which they are eligible.

Lost files can result in more than a delay in the adjudication of a petition or application. Lee Teran, an attorney, described a situation in which her client, a permanent resident alien who had lost his passport and I-151 resident alien identification card, was subjected to an exclusion hearing by INS. Because INS was unable to locate his immigration file, he was excluded and not allowed to enter the United States. Ms. Teran testified that “as far as I know the file was never located," and as a result, her client was unable to enter for a year and half.46

Despite the serious consequences that may result from lost files, testimony received by the Commission indicates that in some INS offices lost files continue to be a problem and that the situation is not improving. As one experienced immigration attorney stated:

[M]any times after several inquiries and being told that a particular case is being processed, you'll finally be told that the file was lost. It seems that the problem of lost files is a problem that's getting worse, at least in the district office that I deal with here in Washington, D.C.47

Processing Backlogs

Once a person has filed a petition or application, INS must determine whether or not to grant the benefits requested. For several years the large number of petitions and applications awaiting INS adjudication has been a subject of public criticism. The problem was recognized by former Commissioner Castillo. In reviewing a draft of this report prior to publication, he commented:

"Castillo Testimony, Washington Hearing Transcript, p. 128. 45 Ibid.

"Lee Teran, testimony before the Texas Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, open meeting, San Antonio, Sept. 12-14, 1978, vol. 3, pp. 181-83 (hereafter cited as Texas Open Meeting Transcript).

"Ronald Chirlin, testimony, Washington Hearing Transcript, p. 160.

One of the criticisms in the report is that immigration benefits delayed are, for all practical purposes, immigration benefits denied. To help expedite decisions on applications for such benefits, the INS Adjudications Division implemented new procedures which combined related applications and petitions. By doing this, we significantly reduced adjudication time and also cut by at least 50 percent the number of INS/applicant transactions necessary before the benefit was granted. These new procedures have been met with great favor by the public; applicants for the combined benefits are now receiving those benefits more quickly than ever before. Because of the success which this program has experienced, we are expanding it to further increase our ability to deliver benefits.48

Expedited adjudications decisions were necessary, for testimony received by the Commission indicated that in many cases U.S. citizens were required to wait over a year before INS approved their visa petitions to bring in close relatives, that permanent residents had to wait 1-1/2 years after filing their petitions before they could become naturalized citizens, and that "unwarranted delays" of 2 to 3 years existed in processing applications for other immigration benefits.50

The result of such processing delays is, in effect, to deny immigration benefits to persons who are entitled to them by law. Former Commissioner Leonel Castillo recognized the extent of this backlog and the serious consequences it has upon those whose families are separated and whose lives are disrupted:

The [backlog] of pending cases to be adjudicated, even simple ones, [was] so great that it took months or even years to reunite relatives, to obtain adjustment to permanent resident alien status, or, in some cases, to receive a simple extension of a stay for a student.51

to all concerned when benefits are delayed. However, the backlog problem must be put into perspective in terms of Adjudications workload and resources. Since 1976, receipts of all categories of applications and petitions have increased by 50 percent, from 1.2 to 1.8 million cases.

This tremendous workload increase has not been accompanied by a commensurate increase in Adjudications resources with which to do the additional work. Management improvements which we have made, such as combined processing, are by themselves insufficient to cope with the workload. Unless the resources necessary to eliminate excess adjudication time are provided, the backlog problem and its effects will continue.52

Although the Commissioner did not agree with our analysis of the effect of the backlog, it is clear from his comments that the problem is far from solved.

The INS has made several moves to improve the speed and efficiency of the service process: mobile "task forces" composed of adjudications officers from various offices have been sent for a specified time to other INS district offices with huge backlogs to help process those cases; 53 the Service has expanded the community outreach program to train community volunteers in immigration law to enable them to assist people in completing INS forms and applying for immigration benefits;54 and INS has implemented a "remoting out" program by which applications are farmed out to personnel in other branches of the Service who, because of the nature of their assignments, have free moments during their duty day.55 While these measures have helped to reduce the number of complex applications awaiting INS action, the processing backlog is still present, according to Ralph Kramer, INS Deputy Assistant Commissioner for Adjudications:56

At the present time in September [1978], we had 234,000 applications and petitions pending. This is down from 241,000 when we began our crash program and our efforts to reduce the backlog in a serious vein. That was in June 1977. However, there's been a distinct difference.

While the total numbers appear to be relatively the same.. [w]hat we are now dealing with

53 Ralph Kramer, testimony, Washington Hearing Transcript, p. 174.

54 Castillo Testimony, Washington Hearing Transcript, pp. 122, 127.

55 Kramer Testimony, Washington Hearing Transcript, p. 174.

56 Mr. Kramer retired from the Service in January 1980. He was the Deputy Assistant Commissioner for Adjudications from September 1974 until his retirement.