US immigration reforms: Greg Siskind, immigration attorney, roots for transparency; questions the need for EADs and seeks timely processing

MUMBAI: Transparency needs to be the cornerstone when it comes to adjudication of applications by the US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), states Greg Siskind, immigration attorney and founder of an immigration technology startup.
In his suggestions to the USCIS – the agency had invited public comments, Siskind states that, “USCIS decisions should only be issued with the name of the USCIS examiner making the decision included. Issuing anonymous decisions sends a message that an agency is not interested in accountability regardless of whether the individual making the decisions has any bad motives.”
He explains that anonymous decisions are also inappropriate for a variety of reasons. Examiners are privy to confidential information of corporate entities– tracking trading on inside information is possible only if the examiner’s identity is known. Plus, it will also help identify conflicts of interest, if any. Bias and prejudices if any, as regards applications filed by immigrants, will be discernible to the public only if the identity of the examiners is known.
Siskind says that he was told by a USCIS public affairs officer that anonymity was needed to ensure the safety of officers. According to him, this is not a satisfactory answer, as there is no evidence that the concern has any connection to reality. He cites several instances, where the identity of the public officials is known, such as IRS auditors, judges of immigration courts and ICE attorneys. “And, of course, it includes local USCIS offices where interviews happen face to face with an examiner's identity known to the immigrant,” he states in his submission to the USCIS.
Biometric screening requirements have been recently suspended for H-4, L-2 dependant visa holders for two years beginning May 17, 2021 and this is expected to enable quicker processing. But this alone, may not end the woes of those waiting for their employment authorisation documents (EADs).

Siskind explains that in 2016, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) succeeded in rescinding an earlier rule that required EADs to be adjudicated in a 90-day timeframe. The agency's current processing times for EADs are abysmal, it is causing extreme hardships for immigrants and their employers.
He questions the very need for EADs. “DHS explained that the rule was needed because when the 90-day rule was established, the agency didn't have to include anti-fraud features in their documents. The proper way to have viewed the question is why are EADs needed in the first place?”
Siskind states that identity documents like passports have similar security features and when combined with a USCIS receipt with a number that could be matched by an employer in a secure system like E-Verify, the across-the-board EAD mandate is not justified. The millions (billions?) of dollars spent on EADs and the tremendous number of hours spent by USCIS employees producing these cards should be redeployed to other services.
DHS promised to offset the risks to workers by offering interim work authorization for 180 days while awaiting an EAD approval. According to Siskind, unfortunately, this was limited to too small of a group. It only applies to extensions and only to very select categories. It left out spouses of non-immigrants like H-4s and L-2s and those groups constitute large groups of workers. Also, 180 days isn't enough time given the current delays we are seeing.
“If the mandatory EAD has to stay with us, then we should bring back the 90-day adjudication timetable and roll out premium processing immediately,” he emphasises.
He also stresses on the need to be able to communicate with the USCIS via email and improving the E-filing system.