Congress has cut federal funding for public media — a $3.4 million loss for LAist. We count on readers like you to protect our nonprofit newsroom. Become a monthly member and sustain local journalism.
Immigrants waiting longer for US citizenship as backlog builds
A spike in U.S. citizenship applications before and after the November 2016 election has led to a backlog of more than 708,000 pending requests nationwide, with typical wait times for applicants doubling since last year.
The typical processing time for U.S. citizenship applicants used to be about 5 to 7 months. But that's changed. Federal data shows the average wait is now 10 months in Los Angeles County, for example.
Mario Solis of South Los Angeles applied to become a citizen about a year ago after more than 20 years in the United States. Solis, who is from El Salvador and a legal U.S. resident, submitted his citizenship application along with his fingerprints.
He said he's still waiting to receive an appointment with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services officials. So far, there's been no word.
"Nothing, absolutely nothing," Solis said in Spanish. "It's been since November and I'm still waiting for my interview."
Providers of immigration services have noticed the longer processing time.
“Slowly, after the election, that has been increasing pretty steadily — where it went from 6 to 7 [months], 7 to 8," said Karla Cortez, who manages citizenship services for the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles. "And now I was checking as recently as yesterday, and we are at about 10 months."
There are several factors contributing to the delays: Immigration officials received 971,242 naturalization applications in fiscal year 2016, a 24 percent spike over the year before.
As applications have gone up, so has the backlog. Pending applications have grown from 399,397 in the third quarter of fiscal year 2015 to 708,638 in the third quarter this year, the most recent data available.
Applications began spiking prior to the November 2016 election, in part because some legal residents wary of the Trump administration's harsh immigration rhetoric took steps to protect themselves, say legal service providers.
"Many people who were lawful permanent residents are saying, 'I am no longer safe in this country as a lawful permanent resident. I have to become a citizen,'" said Los Angeles immigration attorney Alma Rosa Nieto.
Nieto said she's noticed more vetting of applicants for U.S. citizenship under the Trump administration. Then there's a much longer application form, one put in place in the Obama era.
"If an officer had to review 10 applications that are 10 pages long, and now they are reviewing 10 applications that are 20 pages long, and they have to do more vetting, of course it is going to take more time," Nieto said.
Others, including Solis, wanted to vote. Solis declined to state his political preference, but he said casting a ballot was one of the main reasons he applied.
"If you are not a citizen, you can't vote," said Solis, 69. "You can't exercise that right. We all have an obligation to do it, regardless of who the candidates are."
Solis also said he has been in the U.S. a long time, and his wife and adult son became naturalized citizens last year. He said the process for them took no longer than six months.
Immigrant advocates said the Trump administration is not dedicating sufficient resources to fix the backlog. Cortez, with CHIRLA, said the group has sent letters to officials seeking to address the problem.
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services officials said in an email that they’re trying to do that.
"To address the increased processing times, USCIS is allocating additional employee overtime and recruiting to fill vacancies across the country," a statement from the agency read.
As Editor-in-Chief of our newsroom, I’m extremely proud of the work our top-notch journalists are doing here at LAist. We’re doing more hard-hitting watchdog journalism than ever before — powerful reporting on the economy, elections, climate and the homelessness crisis that is making a difference in your lives. At the same time, it’s never been more difficult to maintain a paywall-free, independent news source that informs, inspires, and engages everyone.
Simply put, we cannot do this essential work without your help. Federal funding for public media has been clawed back by Congress and that means LAist has lost $3.4 million in federal funding over the next two years. So we’re asking for your help. LAist has been there for you and we’re asking you to be here for us.
We rely on donations from readers like you to stay independent, which keeps our nonprofit newsroom strong and accountable to you.
No matter where you stand on the political spectrum, press freedom is at the core of keeping our nation free and fair. And as the landscape of free press changes, LAist will remain a voice you know and trust, but the amount of reader support we receive will help determine how strong of a newsroom we are going forward to cover the important news from our community.
Please take action today to support your trusted source for local news with a donation that makes sense for your budget.
Thank you for your generous support and believing in independent news.

-
The L.A. City Council approved the venue change Wednesday, which organizers say will save $12 million in infrastructure costs.
-
Taxes on the sale of some newer apartment buildings would be lowered under a plan by Sacramento lawmakers to partially rein in city Measure ULA.
-
The union representing the restaurant's workers announced Tuesday that The Pantry will welcome back patrons Thursday after suddenly shutting down six months ago.
-
If approved, the more than 62-acre project would include 50 housing lots and a marina less than a mile from Jackie and Shadow's famous nest overlooking the lake.
-
The U.S. Supreme Court lifted limits on immigration sweeps in Southern California, overturning a lower court ruling that prohibited agents from stopping people based on their appearance.
-
Censorship has long been controversial. But lately, the issue of who does and doesn’t have the right to restrict kids’ access to books has been heating up across the country in the so-called culture wars.