The Department of Homeland Security--  Structure and Meaning:

or Resistance is Futile!

 

 

In what is considered to be the largest restructuring of government in over 50 years, the President signed into law the Department of Homeland Security Act of 2002 on November __, 2002 (“DHSA2002”).  This most unrepublican of actions created an agency of over 150,000 employees in more than 25 separate bureaus and directorate.  While the “final” structure of the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) is still in flux (and likely will be for the foreseeable future), we now have a relatively good understanding of the structure and reporting lines.  (Attachment A).  What we lack, however, is a definitive conception of the interrelationship between the bureaus or the remaining immigration functions at the Department of Justice.

 

The Secretary of DHS has divided the former functions of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (“USCIS”) (along with those of several other agencies) into three primary immigration bureaus.  First, the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) is designed to handle the “service” and affirmative benefits functions of the old USICS.  Second, the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“BICE”) will be responsible for the investigations and enforcement of all immigration and customs matters.  Third, the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (“BCBP”) will deal with the former inspections and border patrol functions of the USCIS and Customs Service

 

The primary purpose of the DHS is to streamline and coordinate all government agencies that deal in some way with our national security (other than the Department of Defense).   Despite this primary intent several important and vital security apparatus were notably not included in DHS, e.g. the CIA and FBI.  While the secondary purpose of the DHS was not to create a large “police” agency, in fact, the DHS, with all law enforcement officers counted, is the largest law enforcement agency in the world.  As it pertains to immigration, the DHS was intended to become the clearinghouse for all immigration services and enforcement.  However, Congress has allowed the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) to maintain substantial influence over the immigration laws through the continued operation of the Executive Office of Immigration Review (“EOIR”) at DOJ. 

 

A.                  THE STRUCTURE OF THE BUREAU OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES

 

The DHSA2002 moved the “service” related functions of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (“USCIS”) to the USCIS.  These functions include the processing of naturalization and adjustment of status applications, immigrant and non-immigrant visa petitions and other petition-based affirmative cases.  The USCIS is headed by a Director appointed by the President.  As detailed in the flowchart (Attachment B), the USCIS Director report directly to the Deputy Secretary who, in turn, reports directly to the Secretary DHS.  The USCIS Director coordinates his bureau through a Chief of Staff.  Reporting to the Chief of Staff is the Associate Director of Operations  (“ADOC”)(William Yates).  

 

The ADOC is responsible for all four “sub-sections” of the USCIS.   The first of these subsections is “Area Operations,” which contains the functions of the Missouri Field Office, all three Regional Offices, all local offices (what used to be referred to as District Offices), and their satellite, sub-offices and application support centers. The second subsection is Service Center Operations, which contains the four ? FIVE? Service Centers and the Integrated Card Production System.  The third subsection is Asylum & Refugee Affairs Operations (”ARAO”).  The ARAO is responsible for all of  Asylum Branch Offices AND Refugee Affairs, both inside and outside the U.S.  The fourth subsection is Information and Customers Services, and all USCIS Call Centers. 

 

These subsections of USCIS match relatively closely with the old USCIS functions and responsibility areas and most of the individuals charged with running these subsections and local offices were those persons previously doing so under the USCIS.  This has both good and bad connotations for practitioners.  First the “good.”  We know the people running the show.  That cannot be a bad thing.  We also are intimately familiar with previous policy statements, guidance and procedures. With relatively few changes in leadership, these policies, guidance and procedure should not change much under the USCIS, and practice to date under USCIS reflects this fact. 

 

Now, for the “bad” news.  The USCIS is in a state of flux to the extent that the Secretary and Deputy Secretary of DHS dictate the USCIS’s ultimate policy.  The individuals currently at USCIS are those that have, in the past, been the most progressive in the context of interpreting and review statutes and regulations.  There interpretations have, many times, overcome the objections of the more “enforcement”-minded employees of the USCIS.  Now the enforcement-minded employees are not under the control of the USCIS, and also have a powerful ally in the head of the new enforcement bureaus with DHS.  How the Secretary reacts to the lobbying of the “enforcement” side will ultimately determine the policies of the USCIS. 

 

At the local office level most policies, procedures and people remain the same.  Oddly, the placement of a manager or employee within the USCIS, BCBP or BICE depended a great deal not on where they wanted to go, but rather, which of the several unions they had belonged to when they joined the USCIS.  The Detention Officers Union had substantially better retirement benefits, and, as a consequence of federal laws restricting the ability of federal agencies to reduce the benefits of employees, officers and managers that started in enforcement ended up managing or working in BICE or BCBP. That same is true of those managers and employees that went from the examinations sections of USCIS to the USCIS. 

 

Oddly, the NSEERS Registrations continue to be carried out by the USCIS’s examinations officers.  Many of these registrants have what might be considered “marginal” status cases.  When questions arise in the course of these USCIS interviews, the registrants are referred to BICE’s investigators for issuance of an NTA, in most cases.  While not quite a symbiotic relationship, these two bureaus are inextricably tied to each other.  The hope is, that they will be able to agree on policy interpretations, and not subject foreign nationals to differing interpretations of the same laws and regulations.

 

 

B.                  THE STRUCTURE OF THE BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT

 

BICE is located within the Directorate of Border Security and Transportation and is lead by a Director who reports to the Under Secretary for Border Security and Transportation, who in turn reports to the Deputy Secretary.  (Attachment C).    Consequently, BICE is actually a level lower in the organizational structure of the DHS than USCIS.    BICE is divided into three regional sections, which in turn are divided into local offices headed by Acting Directors.  These local offices generally reflect the local office set up of the USCIS, although in some areas, where there was no local USCIS office, the larger Customs Enforcement office is serving as the local office. 

 

The primary purpose of BICE is to carry out the investigative, detention and removal functions of the former USCIS.  Virtually all USCIS officers involved in the Investigation and Detention and Removal Sections are now with BICE in those same functions.   BICE is also detailing some investigations officers to USCIS to conduct field investigations requested by USCIS. 

 

C.                  THE STRUCURE OF THE BUREAU OF CUSTOMS AND BORDER ENFORCEMENT

 

 

Like his counterpart at BICE, the Director of BCBP reports to the UnderSecretary of Border Security and Transportation.  BCBP is also one level removed from the Deputy Secretary, but also carries with it the primary purpose of DHS, to keep goods and people out of the U.S. who might threaten its national security.  As such, the BCBP will carry much weight as it weighs in with its interpretations of the former USCIS’s policies and procedures.

 

               

D.                  THE OMBUNDSMAN FOR CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES

 

Now, isn’t this a curious sight.  Congress created, as part of the DHS an Office of the Ombundsman for Citizenship and Immigration Services.   Congress made the Office very powerful, by having the Director of this Office reporting directly to the Deputy Secretary, just as the Director of USCIS does.  To date, no one has been appointed to fill the position of Director of this Office, nor is there any indication where the Office would be physically located. 

 

Why would Congress create and Office of Ombundsman?  First and foremost, it is likely intended as purely a selfish act.  If there is one office at DHS that deals with “problem” immigration cases, it will make it much easier for Congressional Offices to assist constituents in resolving problem cases.  Second, this Office is intended to serve as a “clearinghouse” for problem issues.  Where trends develop that might be reflective of either bad training or bad policy, the Office of Ombundsman should be able to spot that issue and work toward a resolution of it with the USCIS, BICE or BCBP. 

 

 

E.                   THE MISSING COMPONENTS—WHERE ARE THEY NOW?\

 

It is still unclear where a key section of people from USCIS has ended up.  District Counsel (“DC”) and Assistant District Counsel (“ADC)(Trial Attorneys) were part of the Office of General Counsel of the USCIS.  It should come as no surprise that many of these attorney wanted to remain part of the Department of Justice, and were seeking classification as Special Assistant United States Attorneys (“SAUSA”).  It appears their wish did not come true, however.  The latest information available indicates that DCs and ADCs will become part of BICE.  For now, however, the DCs and ADCs have been instructed to simply indicate that they are part of DHS generally, without reference to a specific Bureau.  The former General Counsel of the USCIS is now serving as Transition Counsel to the USCIS.  Several members of his headquarters-based staff are serving in similar positions or as assistant counsels in BICE and BCBP. 

 

The local DCs and ADCs continue to function as government prosecutors before the Executive Office for Immigration Review’s Immigration Court and Board of Immigration Appeals.  However, those attorneys who previously served as USCIS’s appellate counsel in the Office of Immigration Litigation (“OIL”) within the Department of Justice, will continue serve the needs of the USCIS, BICE and BCBP, and will remain  in the Department of Justice. 

 

DISCUSSION OF OTHER “MISSING DEPARTMENTS” IF ANY

 

F.                   THE CONSULAR AFFAIRS FUNCTIONS OF DHS

 

An unclearly resolved issue remains as to the function of DHS’s Security Officers and procedures as they relate to the consular affairs functions of the Department of State (“DOS”).  The DHSCA2002 calls for the DHS to place “security” officers at each of the U.S. Consulates abroad to deal with homeland security issues as they develop in nonimmigrant and immigrant visa process.  This particular function of the DHS did not sit well with line officers of the DOS.  To date, no such officers have been hired, nor has the DHS outlined in regulations the powers and authority of its “consulate security officers.”  In the minds of many in the private sector, such DHS Security Officers are reminiscient of the “political officers” of the old Soviet Union, who used sail on the its ships and function within its army and air force units to ensure communist doctrinal purity.  One never wanted to run afoul of these “political officers,” for doing so meant certain reassignment, demotion or a trip to Siberia.

 

The DHSCA2002 gives authority to these DHS Security Officers to deny the issuance of a visa (immigrant or non-immigrant) to a visa applicant a U.S. Consulate, even after the consular officer has authorized issuance of the visa.  The grounds for such a denial are not yet clear, but will likely be related to the DHS Security Officer’s determination that the person is a threat to national security.  Why a consular officer would not make such a determination based upon the same evidence available to the DHS Security Officer is unclear, but Congress obviously had a strong disdain for DOS consular officers as a result of the issuance of various types of visas to the terrorist of September 11, 2001. 

 

 

SUMMARY

 

So, while the structure of DHS and the issues surrounding its ability to deal with the complex nature of immigration issues that the USCIS was unable to resolve are as clear as mud, we do, at least now, have separate agencies whose focus on specific types of immigration issues, e.g. enforcement, benefits, or border protection, should result in more internally consistent policies.  Until, however, the DHS addresses the diverse nature of these separate functions within it’s immigration-related duties, there will be policy differences and conflicts that will severely affect foreign nationals dealing with each of the Bureaus.