In recent years, IRAP has observed dramatic delays in the refugee family reunification (I-730 follow-to-join) process, as well as an increase in time- and labor-intensive requests for evidence (RFEs) issued by USCIS. Last year, IRAP submitted a FOIA request seeking USCIS policies and data related to I-730 processing. The records we obtained through a lawsuit to enforce that request have yielded important insights into how USCIS has processed–and failed to process–refugee family reunification applications over the last six years. Most notably, the records showed that as thousands of refugee families await decisions, USCIS completed processing their applications at just 25% of the rate it did in 2016, and that Somali refugee families were roughly five times more likely on average to receive RFEs.
Documents and Data Reveal Lingering Effects of the Muslim and Refugee Bans
USCIS’s data tells a story that IRAP and our partners know all too well. After the Trump administration shut down the I-730 follow-to-join program for refugees in 2017, processing has never recovered. Even after IRAP successfully challenged the suspension in court, forcing the government to reopen processing, and after the Biden administration loudly touted the demise of the Muslim Ban, refugee I-730 processing continues to lag.
To put it concretely: over the last six years, USCIS domestic offices approved approximately the same number of I-730 refugee petitions as they approved in 2016 alone (see Graphic 1, below).
Delays in I-730 processing are particularly pronounced for refugee families from the countries targeted by the Trump administration’s Refugee Ban (primarily Muslim-majority countries that are subject to Security Advisory Opinion (SAO) screening). And while there has been an uptick in I-730 refugee processing over the last two years, it is nowhere near enough to meet the substantial backlog of applications. As of 2023 (the last year for which we have complete data), I-730 processing for refugees was still just 25% of pre-Muslim Ban rates–even as USCIS is processing more asylee I-730s than ever before.
The FOIA records also confirm that mandamus lawsuits do move the needle on cases experiencing long delays. For several years, IRAP and our partners have been filing mandamus lawsuits in federal court to force the government to speed up processing of long-delayed refugee family reunification applications. These lawsuits have largely been successful and have led to families reuniting after many years apart. USCIS documents reveal that mandamus cases receive “expedited processing” and that USCIS instructs officers not to send the paper file overseas if the petitioner has filed a mandamus lawsuit–cutting out needless time spent mailing physical files around the world.
Requests for Evidence Further Delay Cases and Impact Refugees from Muslim-Majority Countries Disproportionately
While actual adjudications and approvals slowed to a crawl, refugees continued to receive RFEs at the same rate as before–with a peak of 1900+ RFEs issued in 2020 (almost 4x the number of petitions approved that year) (see Graphic 2, below).
It is particularly common for USCIS to request DNA evidence in an RFE, which is expensive and burdensome for families seeking to reunite and frequently adds years to already-lengthy processing times. Although USCIS cannot require applicants to submit DNA evidence–and should not request DNA unless there is no credible evidence establishing the claimed relationship–in practice, USCIS often treats DNA evidence as a de facto requirement to prove parent-child relationships (a practice which IRAP has previously challenged as unlawful).
USCIS Field Guidance on International DNA Processing reveals that USCIS may issue DNA requests as a matter of course in countries where documentation is generally unreliable–an approach that disproportionately burdens refugees from countries like Somalia and Eritrea (see Graphic 3, below).
On the other hand, the Field Guidance limits USCIS’s discretion in important ways. For example, USCIS may not request DNA to disprove relationships (e.g. by showing that spouses are related), and it may not deny a petition solely because the DNA test does not reveal a close enough match. Similarly, USCIS may not deny a petition if the applicant does not timely submit DNA evidence, but must instead render a decision based on existing documentary evidence on the record.
Although this Field Guidance is dated 2014 and is described as “interim,” USCIS confirmed that this is the most recent final guidance on DNA requests. We encourage practitioners to review this guide and identify ways to push back on unlawful and unnecessary DNA requests. For more tips and tricks on how to avoid unnecessary RFEs–including DNA requests–check out IRAP’s recent Practice Advisory.
FOIA Records Reveal Other Policies that Impact Refugees from Muslim-Majority Countries
Refugees and asylees can file an I-730 petition for their qualifying relative even if they failed to disclose their relationship in their refugee interview or asylum application. Although failure to disclose the beneficiary previously warrants additional scrutiny, it is not grounds for denying the petition. However, USCIS subjects some Somali and Iraqi refugee petitioners in this position to a different process than all other nationalities.
If a petitioner from any other nationality omitted their qualifying relative on their I-590, then they would receive an RFE informing them of the omission and requiring a written submission with evidence explaining the discrepancy. In contrast, Somali and Iraqi petitioners who omitted their qualifying relative on their I-590 but disclosed the relative in other contexts would have their petition approved, but their qualifying relative would be questioned at the consular processing stage in order to resolve the discrepancy.
USCIS protocols do not appear to provide for any notice, so beneficiaries–who are prohibited from attending with legal counsel–may be informed of the discrepancy in the petitioner’s documents for the first time at the interview. USCIS does not appear to have provided any public acknowledgment or rationale for the different process. On its face, the process raises concerns–if USCIS is concerned about a petitioner’s omission, why would interviewing only the beneficiary be the best way to resolve that discrepancy? The policy effectively subjects Somali and Iraqi beneficiaries to scrutiny in an interview where the U.S. government also bars them from attending with a legal representative, in contrast to all other nationalities who would receive written notice of the issue in advance. Without a clearer rationale from USCIS and evidence of the impact on Somali and Iraqi families, the use of a different policy is troubling.
The FOIA records also confirm that USCIS officers who process refugees (including I-730 beneficiaries) from Syria and Iraq must undergo a special training on Middle East Refugee Processing. IRAP received copies of the relevant training materials, although most of the substance is redacted pursuant to the FOIA’s law enforcement exception.
Conclusion
Armed with this new information, IRAP will continue our advocacy to reunite refugee families, especially families from Muslim majority countries, and ensure that the government invests the necessary resources to do so. If you are interested in more information, you can find the raw data IRAP received here, and the full production of FOIA records here.
This post is intended for a legal practitioner and legal advocacy audience. If you would like more general legal information about refugee resettlement in English, Spanish, and other languages, or to request help from IRAP, please use IRAP’s Legal Information website.
If you would like to receive email alerts about IRAP’s legal practitioner resources, please sign up here.
