Volimar tbh that's kind of a non-answer. Sure, "they hadn't in some time", but it doesn't explain why the increase is so high. And they say the process now has more pages, but it doesn't explain why it needed to increase this way beyond vague "oh we gotta prevent abuse" BS. It's ridiculous.
How so? This could destroy the touring industry and harm small and medium artists the most. Justified my arse.
So, this can be quite lengthy to explain and technical. But this is my wheelhouse, so I'll try to explain all the aspects as concise as possible.
First, "small" artists don't get visas to tour the U.S. There is no visa that simply allows for any artist from another country to come to the U.S. to perform. You are either being invited as part of a culturally unique program (P-3 visa), a reciprocal exchange agreement (P-2 visa), or you are a member of an internationally recognized entertainment group (P-1B visa). Internationally recognized meaning that your group has been established for a minimum of one year and is recognized internationally as "outstanding" in the discipline for a sustained and substantial period of time.
So, no small time act is qualifying for a P-1B visa and any such act invited as part of a P-3 or P-2 visa would have their petitioning organization assisting in paying the required fees and assisting with the visa application process.
Now, when it comes to the fees we have to get into how U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) are funded and determine fees. To start, everyone knew fees for all visa categories would have to be raised soon given the fact that they've been the same for a long time now and the increase in the amount of applications USCIS has been receiving over the years. That said, many were a bit shocked by the amount of the increase. It's not completely unjustified, but simply higher than people expected. But, let's get into funding and fees.
USCIS, similar to the Postal Service, is self-funded. They are funded entirely by the fees they charge for these visa applications. Thus, technically, the more applications they receive and the more personnel required to process said applications, the more fees they will have to charge. Unfortunately, because this is the government, it's not so simple. You see, it's not just that USCIS self-funds themselves with their fees and that's it. Rather, USCIS has to calculate and tell Congress each year how much they anticipate they will make each year through their application fees. And then Congress allocates that amount to them. USCIS then MUST actually make that amount back, otherwise they are in violation of the law.
But, to make things more complicated, there is another law that requires USCIS fees to be "reasonable." So, they cannot simply jack up prices to whatever they feel like, their fees must be reasonable and they MUST provide proof regarding how such fees are reasonable. And this is where we get into the aspect that USCIS is legislated to be inefficient. You see, as part of this reasonable analysis, USCIS will show how long it takes an officer to process a specific application type. So let's use the P-2 visa described above, let's say it takes the average officer about 5 hours to process such a P-2 visa. And so, USCIS calculates that 5 hours to argue that processing such a visa costs this much money and so a reasonable fee is $1,000.
Now, let's say USCIS improves efficiency, such as by allowing filing online, and manages to cut that 5 hours down to 2 hours. What does that mean? Well, it means that the fee is no longer reasonable. So, they are required to lower fees. But lowered fees means they make less money, which also means they cannot process as many applications in a timely manner. And they can only request money from Congress as they can show they will make every year. And so, USCIS is essentially legislated to be inefficient. Which is also why the majority of applications are still handled physically, through paper filings. And they must perform a balancing act of raising fees to meet the increased demand in U.S. visa sponsorship, but also be an amount that is still reasonable which also means just inefficient enough to justify the increased fees.
So...yeah.
apnews.com
