Mr. Lee's 4/2/07 Comment to Department of Homeland Security on Proposed Fee IncreaseAs a practitioner who can remember when I-130s cost $10, I-485s $30, and N-400s $15, it is astonishing to see the rate increases that your agency has proposed. With the biometrics fee, an I-485 would cost $975 and N-400 $615 (assuming that biometrics will still cost $70). The burden is crushing on many would be applicants who do not make as much as the average American. The rationale for such astronomical fee increases is chiefly for the agency to pay for its own services as it upgrades its infrastructure. I believe that the U.S.C.I.S. should scale back its ambitious plans to make the agency into a technological marvel. U.S.C.I.S. states that by law its collection of fees must pay for its operations and that is obviously true at present, but one does not see the city of New York or any other municipality attempting to fund new bridges or city buildings when in a fiscal crunch. At such time, municipalities know that it is time to strap their belts a little tighter. Such should be the philosophy of U.S.C.I.S.. Minimum and not maximum fee increases should be the order of the day. There is already a huge outcry against this fee increase which has resulted in Senate Bill 795 and its House counterpart, H.R. 1379, which will change U.S.C.I.S. from a totally fee based organization to one once again only partially dependent upon collection of fees by authorizing annual appropriations to the Department of Homeland Security for an amount equal to the difference between the fees collected by U.S.C.I.S. and the cost of providing the services. U.S.C.I.S. would then be allowed to set fees to ensure the recovery of either the full cost or a portion of the costs of providing the services. U.S.C.I.S. should be more sensitive to the financial situation of the immigrant population which provides such an integral boost to the nation's economy through its work, and ask for only minimal fee increases while Congress deliberates its funding bill for the agency. † The author is a 26+ year practitioner of immigration law based in New York City. He was awarded the Sidney A. Levine prize for best legal writing at the Cleveland-Marshall College of Law in 1977 and has written extensively on immigration over the past years for the ethnic newspapers, World Journal, Sing Tao, Pakistan Calling, Muhasha and OCS. He has testified as an expert on immigration in civil court proceedings and was recognized by the Taiwan government in 1985 for his work protecting human rights. His article, "The Bush Temporary Worker Proposal and Comparative Pending Legislation: an Analysis" was Interpreter Releases' cover display article at the American Immigration Lawyers Association annual conference in 2004, and his victory in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in a case of first impression nationwide, Firstland International v. INS, successfully challenged INS' policy of over 40 years of revoking approved immigrant visa petitions under a nebulous standard of proof. Its value as precedent, however, was short-lived as it was specifically targeted by the Administration in the Intelligence Reform Act of 2004. ‡ This article © 2007 Alan Lee, Esq.
|
Copyright © 2003-2012 Alan Lee,
Esq. |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |