[House Hearing, 112 Congress] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] AFTERMATH OF FRAUD BY IMMIGRATION ATTORNEYS ======================================================================= HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION POLICY AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION __________ JULY 24, 2012 __________ Serial No. 112-135 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on the JudiciaryAvailable via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov _____ U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 75-309 PDF WASHINGTON : 2012 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402-0001 COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY LAMAR SMITH, Texas, Chairman F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan Wisconsin HOWARD L. BERMAN, California HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina JERROLD NADLER, New York ELTON GALLEGLY, California ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT, BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia Virginia DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina STEVE CHABOT, Ohio ZOE LOFGREN, California DARRELL E. ISSA, California SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas MIKE PENCE, Indiana MAXINE WATERS, California J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia STEVE COHEN, Tennessee STEVE KING, Iowa HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr., TRENT FRANKS, Arizona Georgia LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico JIM JORDAN, Ohio MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois TED POE, Texas JUDY CHU, California JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah TED DEUTCH, Florida TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania JARED POLIS, Colorado TREY GOWDY, South Carolina DENNIS ROSS, Florida SANDY ADAMS, Florida BEN QUAYLE, Arizona MARK AMODEI, Nevada Richard Hertling, Staff Director and Chief Counsel Perry Apelbaum, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel ------ Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement ELTON GALLEGLY, California, Chairman STEVE KING, Iowa, Vice-Chairman DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California ZOE LOFGREN, California LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas TED POE, Texas MAXINE WATERS, California TREY GOWDY, South Carolina PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico DENNIS ROSS, Florida George Fishman, Chief Counsel David Shahoulian, Minority Counsel C O N T E N T S ---------- JULY 24, 2012 Page OPENING STATEMENTS The Honorable Elton Gallegly, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement............................. 1 The Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement............................. 2 WITNESSES Waldemar Rodriguez, Deputy Assistant Director, Transnational Crime and Public Safety Division, Homeland Security Investigations, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Oral Testimony................................................. 4 Prepared Statement............................................. 6 Sarah M. Kendall, Associate Director, Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Oral Testimony................................................. 13 Prepared Statement............................................. 15 Chris Crane, President, National Immigration and Customs Enforcement Council 118, American Federation of Government Employees Oral Testimony................................................. 25 Prepared Statement............................................. 27 Laura Lichter, President, American Immigration Lawyers Association Oral Testimony................................................. 33 Prepared Statement............................................. 35 LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING Material submitted by Sarah M. Kendall, Associate Director, Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services....................................... 43 AFTERMATH OF FRAUD BY IMMIGRATION ATTORNEYS ---------- TUESDAY, JULY 24, 2012 House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC. The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:08 p.m., in room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Elton Gallegly (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. Present: Representatives Gallegly, King, Gowdy, and Lofgren. Staff Present: (Majority) Dimple Shah, Counsel; Andrea Loving, Counsel; Emily Sanders, Professional Staff Member; (Minority) David Shahoulian, Subcommittee Chief Counsel; and Gary Merson, CIS Detailee. Mr. Gallegly. I call to order the Subcommittee and welcome to the hearing of the Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement. I especially want to welcome our witnesses and thank you all for joining us here today. I am joined by my colleague from California, the distinguished Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, Ms. Lofgren, and we will start the hearing with an opening statement and then we will allow Ms. Lofgren to have her opening statement. Unscrupulous notary publics, immigration consultants, and immigration lawyers have increasingly utilized fraudulent tactics to obtain immigration benefits for their clients. Unfortunately, this type of immigration fraud is usually identified after the fact, when an immigrant has already fraudulently obtained the benefit. In order to combat this fraud, on June 9, 2011, the executive branch unveiled a multi-agency nationwide immigration service scams initiative. As part of the initiative, the Department of Justice works with ICE and USCIS investigators to secure convictions--with sentences up to 8 years in prison and forfeiture and restitution of over $1.8 million--for those who commit fraud on the immigration system as legal representatives. But what of the immigrants who receive the immigration benefits based upon fraudulent applications? On its ICE Web site, ICE boasts of numerous instances where Homeland Security investigations charged, and the Department of Justice has gone on to prosecute and convict, attorneys committing fraud. In one of the largest cases in immigration fraud history, Earl Seth David and his law firm submitted fraudulent claims to labor and immigration authorities concerning tens of thousands of immigrants sponsored for immigration benefits. David pled guilty and faces a minimum sentence of 25 years in prison. To date, the government has identified at least 25,000 applications submitted by his firm. In another example, Maryland lawyer Patrick Tzeuton was convicted of conspiracy to prepare false asylum applications, immigration fraud, and obstruction of official immigration proceedings. Tzeuton prepared over 1,100 asylum applications, many of which are believed to be fraudulent. In support of these applications, he and his assistants submitted fraudulent supporting affidavits such as fake medical certificates demonstrating that an immigrant had been beaten and tortured in Cameroon. So far, of the 1,100-plus cases he handled, only 40 have been identified for further action by ICE and referred to USCIS. Tzeuton was convicted in 2009. None of the immigrants involved have been removed as of this date. The jury is still out on whether DHS makes a concerted and vigorous effort to go back and revoke immigration benefits after attorneys have been found to engage in fraud. In some instances, DHS has apparently revoked thousands of benefits. In other cases, little seems to have been done, even where attorneys were convicted years ago and DHS boasted of uncovering the fraud. Clearly, how DHS responds to the David case will be the acid test of its commitment. Immigrants who obtain benefits by fraud with the assistance of counsel make a mockery of our immigration system, which is the most generous anywhere in the world. We must hope that at the very least when DHS proclaims that it has uncovered immigration attorney fraud, it will conduct a thorough case-by- case review of immigrants that that attorney represented. At this point I will yield to the gentlelady from California, the Ranking Member, Ms. Lofgren. Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Today's hearing is an important one. Immigration fraud undermines the integrity of the U.S. immigration system. At the same time, it harms innocent victims, delays adjudications for legitimate individuals and employers, and can cost the government significant resources. Immigration fraud, especially when committed by members of the Bar, is deplorable and it has no place in our system. One of the fraud schemes mentioned by the Chairman we will discuss today was massive. That is the fraud scheme of New York attorney Earl Seth David, who may have submitted as many as 25,000 fraudulent applications and petitions, according to the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of New York. USCIS, ICE, the Department of Labor, and the U.S. Attorney's Office should be commended for identifying, investigating, and successfully prosecuting this fraud. But work needs to be done. As we will hear today, USCIS is reviewing the immigration cases connected to the David fraud scheme to ensure that benefits were properly granted, and USCIS will continue to take action to revoke or rescind those that were not. I oppose fraud, and earlier in this Congress I introduced the Student Visa Reform Act to address fraud in our student visa program. That legislation would require that colleges and universities be fully accredited before they can accept and enroll foreign students. If enacted, my bill would go a long way toward ending large-scale immigration fraud schemes recently uncovered in various institutions throughout the country. I want to thank Chairman Smith for working with me on this bill and for his efforts to have the bill considered on the House floor. Based on what we learn at this hearing, we may very well need to work together to address fraud in other areas as well. For example, USCIS may need additional authority to conduct site visits or audits in questionable cases. When conducted in an efficient manner that is not redundant or overly burdensome, site visits and audits can be effective tools to combat fraud. I will work with my colleagues and USCIS leadership to explore this and other means to ensure the continued integrity of the immigration system. While we seek ways to prevent immigration fraud, I do want to sound a cautionary note and provide a bit of context. The immigration fraud we discuss today is significant, but we must keep in mind that USCIS adjudicates some 6 million immigration benefits applications and petitions annually--the vast majority for qualified and legitimate individuals and employers. Additionally, although some immigrants are complicit in fraud, some are unwilling victims. Some may have been truly eligible for immigration benefits but nevertheless charged exorbitant legal fees or left to wait months or even years for applications that were never properly filed. Some were taken advantage of and are now paying the price as their hopes of becoming permanent residents or U.S. Citizens are delayed or even shattered. So we must consider such victims when we decide how to move forward. To allow immigration fraud to irreparably harm vulnerable innocents who are in fact eligible for immigration benefits would only add insult to injury. We have a distinguished panel, including government officials from ICE and USCIS here today, and I look forward to hearing their testimony, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back. Mr. Gallegly. I thank the gentlelady. At this time we will go to our panel of witnesses. Our first witness is Mr. Waldemar Rodriguez. He currently serves as the Deputy Assistant Director for Homeland Security Investigations' Transitional Crime and Public Safety Division. Prior to this assignment, Mr. Rodriguez served as DAD for HSI Domestic Operations, acting as Assistant Director for the HSI Workforce Management Division and as the Unit Chief for HSI Workforce Management Staffing Solution Unit at the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Mr. Rodriguez began his law enforcement career in 1991 as a police officer with the Puerto Rico Police Department. In 1997, Mr. Rodriguez entered the Federal service as a Special Agent with the Office of Inspector General, Federal Emergency Management Agency, and then transferred to the former U.S. Customs Service as a Special Agent in 2001. Mr. Rodriguez holds a Bachelor of Arts Degree in social services from the University of Turabo and a Master's Degree in public administration from the University of Puerto Rico. Welcome, Mr. Rodriguez. TESTIMONY OF WALDEMAR RODRIGUEZ, DEPUTY ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, TRANSNATIONAL CRIME AND PUBLIC SAFETY DIVISION, HOMELAND SECURITY INVESTIGATIONS, U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT (ICE), U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (DHS) Mr. Rodriguez. Chairman Gallegly, Ranking Member Lofgren, thank you for the opportunity to discuss ICE's efforts to address large-scale immigration benefit fraud, our investigation into the Earl David Law Firm, as well as our efforts to investigate benefit fraud facilitators in general. Benefit fraud undermines the integrity of the legal immigration system. In most cases, it involves the knowing and willful misrepresentation of a material fact on a petition or application to gain an immigration benefit. Fraudulently obtained benefits enable an alien who would otherwise be declined a visa or other immigration benefits to enter or reside in the United States and live in our communities under a guise of legitimacy. Large-scale fraud facilitators, such as those found in the Earl David law firm, have the potential not only to provide access to illegally obtained benefits and documents but to provide coverage for those engaged in criminal activity. Benefit fraud is complex and challenging to investigate and often involves sophisticated schemes and multiple coconspirators. These cases can require substantial resources and time to investigate and prosecute. USCIS refers suspected fraud to the ICE Benefit Fraud Units, or ICE BFUs, for all conspiracies as well as individual violators when certain criteria are met. Once the fraud referral is received by the ICE BFU, the BFUs vet and potentially refer the suspected instances of fraud to the appropriate Homeland Security Investigations office, or HSI. The memorandum of agreement between USCIS and ICE on the investigation of immigration benefit fraud was signed in September 2008, to formalize this referral process. This MOA defines the roles and procedures that enable both agencies to focus resources on taking action against criminal organizations, fraud facilitators, and corrupt attorneys. HSI directs most of its antifraud efforts to the HSI-led Document and Benefit Fraud Task Forces, or DBFTFs. There currently 19 DBFTFs nationwide working in collaboration with our Federal, State, and local partners. DBFTFs combat the criminal organizations that exploit the United States immigration system and investigate individuals who violate criminal or immigration laws who may pose threats to national security or public safety. While HSI is responsible for investigating the criminal aspects of those schemes, it also plays a role in preventing unauthorized applicants from obtaining and retaining benefits through fraud. HSI recognizes that in investigations of large- scale benefit fraud, the work does not end with the prosecution of the attorney, facilitator, or preparer. To that end, the ICE BFUs supply USCIS Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate, or FDNS, with its case findings on the completion of the criminal case. HSI and USCIS have agreed that HSIs will initiate removal proceedings when applicable on subjects who were criminally prosecuted. USCIS pursues administrative action on the remaining beneficiaries of fraudulent applications identified over the course of the investigation. This process is aided greatly by FDNS, a major partner in our DBFTFs and a significant contributor in the identification, investigation, and prosecution of these large-scale fraud schemes. Our HSI field offices regularly coordinate on a local level with their respective FDNS partners regarding benefits suspected to have been obtained fraudulently. This gives USCIS the opportunity to take necessary administrative action on these cases. By implementing criminal and administrative remedies and educating the public on these efforts, we seek to prevent the identified broad conspiracies from continuing, ensure the profits are eliminated, and deter others from perpetrating these schemes. The Earl David law firm case is just one example of the work HSI, FDNS, and our DBFTF partners have accomplished since the task force was established. HSI recognizes the importance of ensuring that all aspects of a benefit fraud investigation are addressed as it specifically pertains to the people who receive a benefit to which they were not entitled. We have identified best practices and are evaluating how to institutionalize these practices across the board, using our existing budget and resources. Along with USCIS, we will continue to work on these and other benefit fraud initiatives to ensure the integrity of the legal immigration system. ICE is committed to working these important cases and recognizes the significance of addressing the fraudulent beneficiaries identified through our criminal investigations. Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you today. I would be pleased to answer any questions at this time or later. Mr. Gallegly. Thank you, Mr. Rodriguez. A particular thank- you for keeping an eye on the lights. [The prepared statement of Mr. Rodriguez follows:]
__________ Mr. Gallegly. You heard the bells go off a few minutes ago. What that means is in about 8 minutes we are going to start voting. I think we have two votes. I would like to come back and finish this hearing. And, hopefully, we won't keep you waiting too long. If you can stay with us for another half hour after we get back, we can probably wrap this up. But we will probably be out for about a half hour. Our next witness, Ms. Sarah Kendall, is the Associate Director for the Fraud Detention and National Security Directorate at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, USCIS. In May, 2012, Ms. Kendall joined USCIS directly from the National Security staff, where she served as the Director for Border and Interior Enforcement since January, 2010. Ms. Kendall received her Bachelor's Degree in international affairs and Spanish from Trinity University in 1989. She received her Juris Doctorate from the University of Houston Law Center in 1996. Welcome, Ms. Kendall. TESTIMONY OF SARAH M. KENDALL, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, FRAUD DETECTION AND NATIONAL SECURITY DIRECTORATE, U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES Ms. Kendall. Chairman Gallegly and Ranking Member Lofgren, Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today on behalf of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services on the processes for reviewing cases associated with attorneys and preparers convicted of immigration fraud. Created in 2004, the Office of Fraud Detection and National Security was promoted to a directorate by USCIS Director Alejandro Mayorkas in early 2010 to further reflect the prioritization of our agency's mission to help safeguard our Nation's security and to protect the integrity of the legal immigration system. As the newly appointed Associate Director of FDNS, I maintain oversight responsibility for USCIS's fraud detection and national security efforts. I am eager to lead the directorate and I am excited about the mission and work of FDNS, which spans the USCIS priority areas of fraud and national security. FDNS is responsible for managing procedures and policies governing our fraud work, prevention work, and national security threats. FDNS performs administrative investigations designed to ensure consistent detection, documentation, and prevention of immigration benefit fraud. USCIS's process for combating fraud involving attorneys and preparers includes close collaboration with our partners at ICE and our law enforcement agencies. We regularly apply what we have learned from these relationships through information sharing, investigation, and training. As Director Mayorkas testified before this Subcommittee on February 15, USCIS has undertaken significant steps to protect the integrity of the Nation's immigration system and to help safeguard our Nation's security. We take careful note of fraud indicators, patterns, and schemes, as we did in the David Law Firm case. This allows us to strengthen our standard operating procedures and reduce program vulnerabilities. I would like to take a minute to reiterate for you just a few of these proactive measures and provide a short list of what is already detailed in my written testimony on USCIS's current progress and prioritization in the area of antifraud enhancements. Since 2010, FDNS has increased the number of officers, analysts, and staff by approximately 25 percent and allocated new FDNS positions in field offices and service centers to strengthen coordination and collaboration with our front office and front line employees. USCIS and ICE have prioritized attorney and preparer fraud as one of the priority case types that is referred to ICE for criminal investigation and USCIS and ICE work closely together to successfully manage such cases. USCIS has issued recent NTA guidance to all field offices that instructs that when there is a finding of fraud in any case, the NTA will be issued and the matter will be referred to ICE. USCIS has worked with the Department of Justice, the Federal Trade Commission, and State and local authorities to launch the Unauthorized Practice of Immigration Law Initiative and we are members of the Sentinel Law Network. We have established guidelines for the eligibility of attorneys and other representatives who practice before us. We have implemented and improved antifraud training programs nationwide to provide adjudicators with new skills for fraud detection, referral, and the use of fraud indicators. We have launched fraud reporting tools to begin delivering fraud bulletins in real time to agency personnel. We have implemented the Validation Instrument for Business Enterprise, commonly known as the VIBE, to enhance our ability to verify key information about suspected sponsoring employers, organizations, or companies. Earlier in the process, we have performed 17,000 site inspections under the Administrative Site Visit and Verification Program. Finally, we have enhanced our oversight verification efforts through collaboration with the Department of State and enhanced information sharing for asylum fraud initiatives. The fraud improvements I have detailed in my testimony today allow USCIS to more swiftly recognize and address fraud in the immigration system. I want to assure the Subcommittee that USCIS and its FDNS Directorate take every measure to ensure that the agency deters, detects, and responds aggressively to immigration benefit fraud. On behalf of USCIS Director Alejandro Mayorkas and all of our colleagues at USCIS, I thank you for your continued support of the work of FDNS. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to provide you information on the status of our program, and I look forward to responding to your questions. Mr. Gallegly. Ms. Kendall, thank you very much for your testimony. [The prepared statement of Ms. Kendall follows:]
__________ Mr. Gallegly. With the panel's patience, we will have two votes, and I will do everything possible to have us back by 3 o'clock. I really do appreciate your patience, something that we have no control over. The Committee stands in recess until we return from this series of votes. [Recess.] Mr. Gallegly. Calling the Subcommittee back to order. Thank you very much for your patience. It seems inevitable that we end up having votes right in the middle of our hearings, but we have got to keep America going. Our next witness is Mr. Chris Crane. Mr. Crane currently serves as the President of National Immigration Customs Enforcement Council 118, American Federation of Government Employees. He has worked as an immigration enforcement agent for the U.S. Immigration Customs Enforcement, better known as ICE, at the Department of Homeland Security since 2003. Prior to his service at ICE, Chris served 11 years in the United States Marine Corps. Semper fi and welcome. TESTIMONY OF CHRIS CRANE, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT COUNCIL 118, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES Mr. Crane. Thank you, Chairman Gallegly and Ranking Member Lofgren. In preparation for my testimony, I spoke with ICE attorneys, Citizenship and Immigration Service employees and supervisors, and ICE employees and supervisors. All voice strong concerns that immigration fraud is widespread and ignored by the Federal agencies tasked with enforcing United States immigration laws. As a rule, when fraud is suspected or confirmed, no action is taken against the alien involved or their attorney. While fraudulent claims are common during court proceedings, not all private attorneys engage in fraudulent activity and not all aliens engage in fraudulent activity. Typically, the same attorneys engage in fraudulent activities again and again. ICE attorneys allege that supervisors and judges openly discuss these fraudulent activities but take no action. Some private attorneys blatantly lie to ICE, making fraudulent claims from being deported. Employees I spoke with are not aware of any private attorney being investigated or disciplined for attempting or succeeding in preventing the deportation of an alien through fraudulent and false claims made to ICE. The CIS adjudicators and field supervisors expressed similar concerns. Both indicate that CIS supervisors are aware that fraud occurs daily, but no action is taken. One employee attending a CIS town hall meeting reported that managers told CIS employees at the meeting that if 50 percent of the application for benefits is fraudulent, it should still be approved, showing the extent to which fraud is accepted by managers in the field. CIS employees report that aliens and their attorneys frequently lie during interviews to obtain benefits, but disciplinary action is not sought, no action is taken to stop future fraud, and the alien's application is not impacted. CIS adjudicators and field supervisors claim that training for fraud prevention is not provided and training requests are ignored. One CIS supervisors stated, ``It's as if they don't want employees trained in fraud detection.'' Similarly, most employees don't know how to report suspected fraud by private attorneys for investigation. Veteran CIS and ICE employees all indicated that reports to supervisors regarding suspected fraud by private attorneys resulted in no action and that as employees they did not know how to file reports of fraud outside their chain of command. As immigration fraud is a crime, it is no surprise that many aliens who receive status through fraud often commit crimes after receiving lawful status. These criminal activities often result in investigations by ICE. If an investigation indicates the alien or attorney engaged in immigration fraud, supervisors direct officers to ignore the fraud, officers are told that once lawful status is granted to an alien, even though violation of law was involved, no action will be taken to revoke the alien's status unless that status is revoked based on new convictions. Likewise, no action is taken against private attorneys involved. Employees maintain that ICE and CIS will only take action in cases involving large-scale fraud or the media. One CIS supervisor confirmed it is the unwritten policy of CIS that once lawful status is granted it will not be revoked, even when known that the status was obtained through fraud. As a rule, there is no consequence to private attorneys or their clients who engage in fraud, even when reported by CIS and ICE employees. Attorneys who are suspected of fraud continue to practice in immigration courts and CIS offices. As one ICE attorney stated, Why play by the rules when there is no consequence for violating the law? Employees believe that CIS has become a production line with a singular purpose of approving as many benefits applications as possible, ignoring fraudulent activities. Resisting these practices results in retaliation by managers. Private attorneys arrested for fraud often continue to represent aliens inside government facilities. One attorney was arrested following grand jury indictment for obtaining fraudulent visas for as many as 5,000 clients. Released on ankle monitor pending trial, the attorney was permitted to enter CIS facilities and continue representing aliens seeking benefits. A CIS employee arrested for the same crime would of course be prohibited from entering the CIS offices altogether. It is alarming that fraud has become an accepted practice within our immigration system. In post-9/11 America, it is concerning that employees are not trained to detect fraud, employee reports of fraudulent activities are ignored, and agencies have not adopted zero tolerance policies to stop fraudulent activities. This concludes my testimony. Thank you. Mr. Gallegly. Thank you very much, Mr. Crane. [The prepared statement of Mr. Crane follows:]
__________ Mr. Gallegly. Our next witness, Ms. Laura Lichter, is the President-Elect of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, or AILA. She has been an elected member of AILA's leadership for over a decade and has served as the association's top liaison to key immigration enforcement bureaus of the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice. Ms. Lichter is AILA's liaison to the American Bar Association Commission on Immigration and serves on the Federal Bar Association's Immigration Law Section Advisory Board. Ms. Lichter recently served on the Homeland Security Council's task force on ICE's Secure Communities. She is also former chair of AILA's Colorado chapter. Ms. Lichter is the founder and managing partner of Lichter Immigration and Immigration Practice. Miss Lichter received her undergraduate at Swarthmore College and her JD from the University of Colorado School of Law. Double welcome to you this afternoon, Ms. Lichter. TESTIMONY OF LAURA LICHTER, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN IMMIGRATION LAWYERS ASSOCIATION Ms. Lichter. Thank you, Chairman, and thank you, Ranking Member Lofgren, for inviting AILA to testify on this extremely important issue. As many of my co-panelists have testified today, terrible harm results when unscrupulous individuals prey on the ignorance of others, falsely claiming that they can help people comply with our complicated immigration laws. The financial and human cost to these victims is enormous, as is the cost to integrity of the immigration system and the legal profession itself. AILA takes criminal or ethical violations quite seriously. But we are a voluntary bar membership organization. Our members must be licensed and in good standing in order to be part of our organization. But attorney discipline is the unique province of the State Bar and the Disciplinary Council for the Executive Office of Immigration Review and the Department of Homeland Security. Neither DHS nor EOIR have the authority, unfortunately, to effectively go after these criminals, and this Federal inaction needs to be addressed. AILA itself does not investigate or discipline its members. Only a State Bar can revoke the authority to practice law. Loss of membership in a voluntary Bar Association, on the other hand, has no impact on the authority to practice law and, ironically, only impacts the attorneys' access to resources that would help make a better lawyer. If an AILA member is suspended or disbarred or convicted of a serious crime such as immigration fraud, AILA takes immediate action to suspend that member. Over the past 10 years, AILA has removed from membership for ethics violations an average of six attorneys per year. That is an average of .0005 percent of our membership. When there is a complaint, we make sure that the victims know where to bring that complaint and what action they can take, whether or not that perpetrator is an AILA member. AILA takes its professional obligation to educate its members quite seriously. We also strive to educate the public. We have a dedicated Practice and Professionalism Center. We provide hundreds of hours to CLE each year. We have launched in recent years two websites, one in English, one in Spanish, that are entitled stopnotariofraud.org that identify how to bring complaints against unscrupulous practitioners whether they be admitted members of the Bar or simply posing as members of the Bar or notarios or immigration consultants. Despite these efforts, a handful of attorneys do engage in fraud and the effects of that fraud can be devastating. We condemn that unethical and illegal practice and remain committed to doing what we can as a Bar Association to end that practice. For our part, when AILA members identify victims of fraud, we try to assist those victims to pick up pieces by screening those files, providing free consultations, trying to organize pro bono representation or reduced fees to those victims. This is a serious problem, but I would urge this Committee to widen the scope beyond simply looking at immigration attorneys. As many of my co-panelists have mentioned today, the issue is not simply limited to licensed members of the Bar. It is notarios and other unscrupulous people who fill the vacuum that is created by a lack of adequate resources for indigent and low-income individuals. On AILA's part we try to provide pro bono, reach out through clinics, we have a military assistance program, and we also sponsor citizenship days to make sure that we can actually bring good information out into the community. I urge the Committee to realize that many of those implicated in these fraud schemes are in fact victims. They might not have understood that they weren't eligible for the benefit they sought. They might not have been terribly well educated. They may not have been able to read the applications or even seen the applications that were submitted on their behalf. They may have even been compelled to sign a blank form that was later submitted with inappropriate information on it. Weekly, I see people in my office who have been misled by these consultants or bad attorneys simply because they went into some place and a guy in a suit told them, ``Look, this is how we do it. Don't worry. You paid your money. I can get you status.'' I would suggest that given the complexity of immigration laws, that it is quite reasonable for people to be duped by those situations. Once people find out that they have been victimized, what do they do? Frankly, often not much, mostly because they are worried. They are scared. They are undocumented. They may not have much trust in the system if they come from a country where lawyers part of the problems, where there is real corruption. Unfortunately, our State and local bar authorities say this is not a priority. We don't see much action by them. Frankly, notarios are hard to find and harder to prosecute. Finally, I would urge the Committee not to confuse the question of eligibility or technical issues with actual fraud. Mr. Gallegly. Thank you very much, Ms. Lichter. [The prepared statement of Ms. Lichter follows:]
__________ Mr. Gallegly. Mr. Rodriguez, in your testimony you got into quite a bit of depth of the concerns of fraud. Do you believe that ICE and USCIS effectively share information and collaborate with each other in an efficient manner and how high a priority does ICE place on providing resources to immigration fraud investigations? Mr. Rodriguez. Yes, I do believe we have excellent cooperation and exchange of information, and that is evidenced by the number of cases that are before the Subcommittee in which if not all, most there have been significant FDNS participation. In terms of resources, just looking over a 3- year snapshot, consistently our case hours, basically converted to FTEs, have increased at a rate of over 20 percent. 2010, 446 FTE hours; 2011, 543 FTE hours; and by the third quarter of this fiscal year we were already reaching 369. So I do believe that the outcomes of our efforts are there. They are part of the record. In this hearing specifically the cases show the importance that we give to these cases and we have prosecuted cases that are completely, or that are extremely sophisticated in those schemes and very hard to break and we have done that effectively time and time again. Mr. Gallegly. What kind of information is provided to USCIS by HSI with respect to the instances of fraud and what kind of actions might USCIS take in response? Mr. Rodriguez. Well, speaking about the type of information that we would provide, any information from cooperating defendants, information we might have obtained through proffer. The information can be generic in the sense of we find boilerplate language, but it can also mean this company that is referenced in these applications are shell companies. They do not exist. And we have testimony to that effect and we provide them with a memo for inclusion to the file so that they can follow up with their proceedings. Mr. Gallegly. Ms. Kendall, how many bogus green card petitions did Attorney Koortzky, who used the power of attorney to sign petitions, how many were approved by DHS and how many of those petitions were revoked and how many aliens who had revoked actually been removed? Ms. Kendall. I am sorry. Mr. Gallegly. The first question is: How many of these petitions were approved by DHS? The second question is: How many petitions were revoked: And of those that were revoked, how many actually were removed? Ms. Kendall. In which case? Mr. Gallegly. Where Mr. Koortzky used the power of attorney to sign petitions. Ms. Kendall. I don't know that I have those exact statistics at my fingertips. Mr. Gallegly. Could you provide those to the Committee in a reasonable amount of time for part of the record of the hearing? Ms. Kendall. It would be my pleasure to do so. [The information referred to follows:]
__________ Mr. Gallegly. Fine. Mr. Crane, in your testimony you paint a pretty grim picture of pervasive fraud throughout the system. You state little action is taken, even when there is known fraud. To what level does the fraud have to rise, in your opinion, before any official action is taken, based on your statement? Mr. Crane. I think generally speaking it does have to be of a very large scale. There has to be a large number of individuals involved in it and it has to be something that probably is going to be to the scale of hitting the newspapers, making the news. Mr. Gallegly. Do you think that increased enforcement and punishment against private attorneys would help deter pervasive policies? Mr. Crane. I absolutely believe that is the case, but I think that we need to do something at the ground level with the employees to encourage them to do their jobs. These are law enforcement officers. Let them to do their jobs. Give them the time that they need to do the investigations. Give them a process to report these instances to and give them a way of controlling individuals that come into their offices and commit fraud. Mr. Gallegly. Thank you. My time has expired. I yield to the gentlelady, Ms. Lofgren. Ms. Lofgren. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I think that in some cases we are doing too much and in some cases not doing enough. This is part of the concern I have. We had a hearing a while ago about the use of requests for evidence. And I have a concern about when that is triggered. My understanding is that additional review is triggered if two or more of the following indicators are present: Less than $10 million in revenue, less than 25 employees, or the company is less than 10 years old. Well, that is a startup. Startups aren't frauds per se. That is my district. So I don't understand why that would be the indices. And yet I have seen requests for evidence to the largest employer in my district--not to say whether or not the petition should be approved. I mean, that is a separate issue. Does the company exist? Well, yeah. They have 50 buildings. Or, requests for financials from Microsoft or a request from the former prime minister of a major European country for evidence of his past employer--the country he ran. Those are things that are just crazy. And yet there are some things out there that really should be investigated. What are you doing to try and get the remedies applied to the problem areas and not bug the non-problem areas? Ms. Kendall. Thank you. We are always conscious as an agency of our obligation to make sure that we are managing our programs in a rational and data-driven way. When we implemented the VIBE, one of the best options that the VIBE brought into our organization was the ability to have third-party information brought into the adjudicative process. This allows us to have a better quality way of verifying information so that we can reduce the number of unnecessary RFEs, for example. In addition to which, for example, we are doing an internal review in our site visit program to see how we can be more efficient in the way that we use site visits so that we are not unnecessarily burdening those that have been subject to site visits and perhaps we are being more fiscally responsible in reducing the number of site visits. Bundling, for example, if we can do multiple visa verification processes in one visit of a location as opposed to visiting the same location over and over. Ms. Lofgren. That is very helpful. Whether or not the visa should be issued to a specific person is a separate issue. Whether the employer exists, you can find that out. Ms. Kendall. So we are always conscious of our obligation to improve our processes, find more ways to be more effective with the resources we have, and to work with communities of interest within the immigration world to be effective, and we are always interested in suggestions and concerns from the public. For this reason, we have a very proactive and aggressive means of soliciting comments from the public, and we are interested in any ideas the Committee has. Ms. Lofgren. Let me ask you, you heard Mr. Crane's testimony and it included pretty extravagant assertions made about fraud in the agency. Now I am mindful that Mr. Crane is president of his union, which we respect, but he is not representing ICE trial attorneys or HSI agents. Do you have comments on the assertions that he made as someone who actually is in charge of this? Ms. Kendall. USCIS is absolutely committed to an adjudications environment which combats, detects, deters fraud in our process. We have an obligation to the American public to ensure the integrity of the immigration process. Director Mayorkas came to this Subcommittee in February of 2012 and expressed completely our obligation and commitment to getting to the correct answer in every adjudication that we undertake. This is reflected in the fact that our primary and first strategic objective at USCIS is national security and fraud detection. This is reflected by Director Mayorkas' elevating fraud detection and national security to full directorate status in 2010, making it on par with the adjudications directorate within the agency. From 2010 forward, in the last 2 years, he has increased and the agency has invested 25 percent increases in personnel at the front line agency level to make sure that our adjudication staff is able to more effectively combat the fraud and national security threats that we find in our immigration beneficiaries stream. Further, we are currently implementing, in addition to the basic training on fraud that we do for every incoming employee in the agency, we are right now implementing fraud training for all existing employees that covers fraud indicators, how to better work with existing FDNS personnel, how to better understand FDNS processes, including a statement of findings, which is the fundamental document that records our investigative processes. We anticipate that that will be finished nationwide within the adjudications corps I believe in early fiscal year 2013. We have further inculcated into our standard operating procedures requirements of referral of fraud cases from the adjudications to the FDNS side of the house to make sure every adjudicator in our agency knows where fraud is to be referred and can be trained on how that can be done. Further, through my testimony I have explained, but I will reiterate this because it is important to understand this, in every opportunity given built antifraud measures into our programs and we look aggressively to improve those programs at every opportunity. We have built the Administrative Site Visit and Verification Program, which this year completed 17,000 site visits, which is about compliance, not ``I gotcha'' culture but compliance with our existing site visit, which is 2,000 more site visits than last year's program. We have increased our international information sharing on fraud for asylum cases. We have implemented a nationwide antifraud training for adjudicators, which I have just mentioned. We have basically built MOAs with ICE, in which the three priority case types--preparer, attorney, and interpreter case fraud--is a priority, which is separate from conspiracy and multiple conspiracy fraud. And finally, we have made sure that referral of NTAs to ICE, because of fraud, is a priority. These are the priorities of the agency. I believe that they speak for themselves, ma'am. Ms. Lofgren. Thank you very much. Mr. Gallegly. The time of the gentlelady has expired. Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the witnesses for your testimony. Some of that I think I heard a couple of times and so I have got that soaked in. But I have a question for Ms. Kendall, and that is that some in this country would advocate that we really shouldn't have borders, that if you just let the supply and demand of the labor markets determine the flow of people, that people have a right to go anywhere in the world they would like to go and work and earn a living and provide for their families, et cetera. So I just would point out that that philosophy does exist in this country and other places around the world. If that were the public policy of the United States of America, would there be anything for USCIS to do? Ms. Kendall. If there were fraud involved in that, there would be a job for FDNS, sir. Mr. King. Could I point out that if there were completely open borders, without any restrictions, there wouldn't be any fraud. So is your answer there wouldn't be anything for USCIS to do if we didn't have immigration laws? May I ask the witness to answer yes or no to that? Ms. Kendall. Sir, I don't have a clear answer, beyond I don't know---- Mr. King. Well, I think that is the does the Sun come up in the East question for USCIS, actually. Ms. Lofgren. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. King. I would be happy to yield. Ms. Lofgren. I think that, number one, and I appreciate the gentleman yielding, I am not familiar with the individuals who are recommending no borders, but certainly it is the U.S. Immigration and Citizenship Service. And so individuals who are applying for citizenship, if we didn't have immigration laws, we would still have people applying to become U.S. citizens. Mr. King. Reclaiming my time. Ms. Lofgren. I think obviously the witness is a little flummoxed by the hypothetical, and I think I understand why. Mr. Gallegly. It is the gentleman's time. Mr. King. Reclaiming my time from the gentlelady from California who is well versed in these type of questions and an immigration attorney in her own right whom I respect. I think it is important for us to ask these kind of questions because each time we go to work during the day there has got to be a purpose, and that purpose is that Congress writes laws, and then we direct the executive branch to carry out those laws, and looking again, reviewing the testimony of Mr. Rodriguez, it says that a benefit fraud involves, I quote, ``the knowing and willful misrepresentation of a material fact on a petition or application to gain an immigrant immigration benefit. Types of benefit fraud include employment-based fraud, asylum fraud, and marriage fraud.'' And as I read that and I listen to the testimony, I began to wonder, and I pose this question again to you, Ms. Kendall, if the President's memorandum that was issued by Secretary Napolitano dated June 15th which sets up four classes of people and directs USCIS to issue work permits, if that is implemented into place, is there going to be more or less reason for benefit fraud to come before USCIS? Ms. Kendall. I am not in the position to discuss the particulars of the deferred action memorandum and program that will flow from it today. Mr. King. Okay, thank you, Ms. Kendall. Ms. Kendall. I can---- Mr. King. I understand that you are not in a position to answer those questions. I will just answer it for you that if somebody is between the ages of 16 and 30 and there is no reason for marriage fraud if you can claim that you have been in the United States for 5 years, went to school, et cetera. So I would submit that we are going to see a lot more fraud, a lot more document fraud, a lot more fraud from people that want to qualify under this selective amnesty program that the President did his press conference on June 15th that is the subject of this memorandum, and we are here discussing fraud, and every time that we see some form of amnesty, we see a tremendous amount of fraud that is associated with it. I might take the 1986, for example, that the numbers tripled on what were anticipated. We are looking with this memorandum of 800,000 to 1.4 million, and that likely will triple, and I will go on record as saying that is more likely than those estimates being accurate. But I turn to Mr. Crane and ask him, do you anticipate that there will be a significant amount of fraud associated with this memorandum of June 15th? Mr. Crane. Absolutely I do as well as employees in the field on the CIS and ICE side. I think from CIS managers that I have talked to in the field, there is some discussion at CIS headquarters that this is going to be done through the service centers, which would mean that the interview process would more than likely be taken out, so people would just basically be sending their applications to an individual, they would be approved, there will be no interview process, and that is going to open the doors wide open for fraud in multiple different ways, one of them being that that fraud is not going to be detected, those trends are not going to be detected until it is all over. I mean, we are dealing today, CIS and ICE, with the fraud that took place back in the 1980's, we are still dealing with that today. So absolutely employees in the field are very concerned that this is going to result in widespread fraud. Mr. King. Have you seen any direct effect of this memorandum to date? Mr. Crane. I have not, sir. In terms of fraud I have not. Mr. King. I thank you and I yield back. Mr. Gallegly. I thank the gentleman for yielding back. Mr. Gowdy. Mr. Gowdy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Kendall, do you know who will be charged with investigating to determine whether or not the June 15 memo is applicable for those seeking, I think the word the Administration uses is ``deferred action?'' Whose responsibility will it be to determine whether or not those factors have been met? Ms. Kendall. USCIS I believe is the responsible party for adjudicating those requests, sir. Mr. Gowdy. So whose resources will be consumed determining whether or not all of those qualifiers are met in terms of age, the absence of any serious misdemeanor or felony convictions, education, whose responsibility is it to expend the resources to determine whether or not those qualifying conditions have been met? Ms. Kendall. I mean, beyond the basic idea that USCIS has been determined as the agency that will adjudicate the deferred action requests---- Mr. Gowdy. Well---- Ms. Kendall [continuing]. I am not in a position to discuss the particular program details, although I am part of a team of leaders at USCIS that is integrally involved with program development for the deferred action program, particularly---- Mr. Gowdy. I am probably missing something because I thought the reason for that memo was because you want to direct your resources other places, and then it just struck me when the Secretary was here last week whose resources are going to be consumed determining whether or not the memo is applicable or not? Ms. Kendall. I can address the issues of attorney preparer fraud, that is what I came to talk about here today, sir. I can address only those issues for today's hearing. I am part of a team of professionals who are preparing the deferred action program, consistent with what is expected in that memo. I can't offer any further details, as that program is in development at this time. Mr. Gowdy. Mr. Crane, if my notes are correct, you said half the information, that adjudicators were told that as long as half the information contained in an alien's application for benefits is true, the application should be approved? Mr. Crane. That is what one supervisor allegedly told their employees, yes. Mr. Gowdy. Half just doesn't seem like that much. Fifty percent is an F on the test in South Carolina. Trust me, I know, from firsthand experience, a 50 is an F. Mr. Crane. One question can mean the difference between having legal status and not having it. So for 50 percent to be fraudulent, it is completely unacceptable. I mean, one question is not acceptable on an application for status in the United States. Mr. Gowdy. Ms. Lichter, can you talk to me about punishment for attorneys who engage in fraud, the full panoply of punishment. You mentioned the Bar can suspend you or disbar you I suspect. Some States the Supreme Court handles sanctions against attorneys. Are there any criminal statutes that would be applicable to attorneys who engage in fraud, pervasive or otherwise? Ms. Lichter. And my general disclaimer is I am an immigration attorney, not a criminal defense attorney. Mr. Gowdy. That is okay, I am sure you are aware of what can send you to jail and what cannot. Ms. Lichter. Right. And framing---- Mr. Gowdy. You don't do homicide cases, but you know you can't do that, so---- Ms. Lichter. Correct. As a practical matter, I think most attorneys are going to run afoul of the ethical restrictions in their Bar long before they trip any criminal sanctions, and if the Bar---- Mr. Gowdy. Are there criminal sanctions? Ms. Lichter [continuing]. If the Bar is doing their job, that person's license to practice law would be revoked. Ms. Lofgren. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. Gowdy. I will be happy to. Ms. Lofgren. I would just note we had a situation in my county where there was a member of the Bar who was defrauding people. We took it to the district attorney, they prosecuted them for theft. Mr. Gowdy. Under State law? Ms. Lofgren. Under State law, and he did time. Mr. Gowdy. Good. Punishment for those--you used the term ``victims,'' that may be the appropriate phraseology in some instances, and ``co-conspirators'' may be the appropriate phraseology in some other instances. Again, what is the full panoply of consequences for those who--not victims, not people who were taken advantage of, but people who were just willing to circumvent the system and go to attorneys in an effort to have fraudulent documents prepared, what is the full panoply of consequences for those people who are not attorneys? Ms. Lichter. Well, as a practical matter, the consequences that are faced by the true bad actors are, unfortunately, almost exactly the same as for the true victims of these scams. Certainly criminal proceedings might be appropriate in certain circumstances. By and large most people who find themselves on the wrong end of an application are finding themselves permanently barred from ever adjusting their status or ever finding a path toward citizenship. We have a very unforgiving system, and my biggest concern with some of the seeking out of fraud is not trying to take enough time to understand that we have probably more victims here than true co-conspirators. Mr. Gowdy. Mr. Chairman, my time has expired. Mr. Gallegly. I thank the gentleman. I am going to take the privilege of the Chair and ask one last question of Ms. Lichter. As an immigration lawyer and as someone who is well known across the country as an immigration lawyer, can you tell me what you understand the statute for the penalty for either manufacturing or using a counterfeit document for immigration purposes, what the penalty is in the statute? Ms. Lichter. It again is going to depend on whether somebody is prosecuted under a State law or under Federal law. Mr. Gallegly. I am talking about Federal law. Ms. Lichter. Honestly, I do immigration civil defense, so I know that if somebody has a particular conviction the first thing I am going to look to see, is this a bar to admissibility, is this a ground of removability? And then I am going to take my analysis from there. Mr. Gallegly. Well, I would just advise that you may take a look at the 1995 law and see that the penalty for counterfeiting a document for this purpose or the penalty for using such document is exactly the same as counterfeiting currency or using counterfeit currency. See, we all leave today a little more learned. With that, I appreciate all of the witnesses' testimony, and I would ask that all Members have 5 legislative days to submit to the Chair additional written questions for the witnesses which will be forwarded and ask the witnesses to respond as promptly as you can so the answers will be made a part of the record of the hearing. Without objection, all Members have 5 legislative days to submit any additional material for inclusion in the record, and with that the Subcommittee stands adjourned. Thank you. [Whereupon, at 3:53 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]