    [House Hearing, 113 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                   U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                           COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                 JULY 29, 2014

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 113-99

                                   __________

             Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

          Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov

                                       ______

                             U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

    88-919 PDF                     WASHINGTON : 2014
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
      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

                       BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia, Chairman
    F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr.,         JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
        Wisconsin                        JERROLD NADLER, New York
    HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina         ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT,
    LAMAR SMITH, Texas                       Virginia
    STEVE CHABOT, Ohio                   ZOE LOFGREN, California
    SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama              SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
    DARRELL E. ISSA, California          STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
    J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia            HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
    STEVE KING, Iowa                       Georgia
    TRENT FRANKS, Arizona                PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico
    LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas                 JUDY CHU, California
    JIM JORDAN, Ohio                     TED DEUTCH, Florida
    TED POE, Texas                       LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois
    JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah                 KAREN BASS, California
    TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania             CEDRIC RICHMOND, Louisiana
    TREY GOWDY, South Carolina           SUZAN DelBENE, Washington
    RAUL LABRADOR, Idaho                 JOE GARCIA, Florida
    BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas              HAKEEM JEFFRIES, New York
    GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina       DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island
    DOUG COLLINS, Georgia
    RON DeSANTIS, Florida
    JASON T. SMITH, Missouri
    [Vacant]

               Shelley Husband, Chief of Staff & General Counsel
            Perry Apelbaum, Minority Staff Director & Chief Counsel

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                                 JULY 29, 2014

                                                                       Page

                               OPENING STATEMENTS

    The Honorable Bob Goodlatte, a Representative in Congress from
      the State of Virginia, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary     1
    The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress
      from the State of Michigan, and Ranking Member, Committee on
      the Judiciary..................................................     3
    The Honorable Jason Chaffetz, a Representative in Congress from
      the State of Utah, and Member, Committee on the Judiciary......     4
    The Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress from the
      State of California, and Member, Committee on the Judiciary....     6

                                    WITNESS

    The Honorable Leon Rodriguez, Director, U.S. Citizenship and
      Immigration Services
      Oral Testimony.................................................     9
      Prepared Statement.............................................    11

              LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING

    Prepared Statement of the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a
      Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, and Member,
      Committee on the Judiciary.....................................     7
    Material submitted by the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative
      in Congress from the State of California, and Member, Committee
      on the Judiciary...............................................    32
    Material submitted by the Honorable Judy Chu, a Representative in
      Congress from the State of California, and Member, Committee on
      the Judiciary..................................................    47
    Material submitted by the Honorable Louie Gohmert, a
      Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, and Member,
      Committee on the Judiciary.....................................    60

                                    APPENDIX
                   Material Submitted for the Hearing Record

    Material submitted by the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative
      in Congress from the State of California, and Member, Committee
      on the Judiciary...............................................    76
    Material submitted by the Honorable Spencer Bachus, a
      Representative in Congress from the State of Alabama, and
      Member, Committee on the Judiciary.............................    79

                             U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND
                              IMMIGRATION SERVICES

                                  ----------

                             TUESDAY, JULY 29, 2014

                            House of Representatives

                           Committee on the Judiciary

                                Washington, DC.

        The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:31 a.m., in room
    2141, Rayburn Office Building, the Honorable Bob Goodlatte,
    (Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
        Present: Representatives Goodlatte, Coble, Smith of Texas,
    Chabot, Bachus, Forbes, King, Franks, Gohmert, Poe, Chaffetz,
    Marino, Holding, Collins, Smith of Missouri, Conyers, Scott,
    Lofgren, Jackson Lee, Chu, Deutch, Gutierrez, and Cicilline.
        Staff Present: (Majority) Shelley Husband, Chief of Staff &
    General Counsel; Branden Ritchie, Deputy Chief of Staff & Chief
    Counsel; Allison Halataei, Parliamentarian & General Counsel;
    Andrea Loving, Counsel; George Fishman, Counsel; Dimple Shah,
    Counsel; Kelsey Deterding, Clerk; (Minority) Perry Apelbaum,
    Staff Director & Chief Counsel; Danielle Brown,
    Parliamentarian; and Tom Jawetz, Counsel.
        Mr. Goodlatte. Good morning. The Judiciary Committee will
    come to order.
        Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare
    recesses of the Committee at any time.
        We welcome everyone to this morning's hearing on oversight
    of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, and I will
    begin by recognizing myself for an opening statement.
        Welcome to the House Judiciary Committee, Director
    Rodriguez. I understand that this is your first time testifying
    in front of Congress as the Director of USCIS.
        Your appearance comes at a time when Americans are feeling
    the repercussions of the illegal immigration crisis on the
    southwest U.S. border.
        Of course, if President Obama took seriously his duty to
    secure the U.S. border and enforce laws against illegal
    immigration, there would be no such crisis.
        U.S. Customs and Border Protection is the DHS agency
    getting most of the attention during this southwest border
    crisis. But there is no doubt that policies implemented by
    USCIS are a major source of the problem. And by that I mean
    policies such as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or
    DACA, a rubberstamping of credible fear of persecution claims,
    and even higher asylum grant rates by USCIS officers.
        DACA is a major reason for the influx of illegal immigrants
    to the United States. And discussion of the program is
    pertinent since USCIS recently announced the method by which
    the renewal of initial 2-year grants of DACA will be processed.
        And along with that procedure, USCIS made changes to the
    original DACA guidelines and requirements, including gutting
    the education requirements.
        I have previously expressed concern about the lack of any
    constitutional authority to implement DACA, the costs of the
    program, increased wait times for processing of legal
    immigration petitions directly resulting from DACA processing,
    and fraud in the program.
        Fraud is of paramount concern since an immigration system
    subject to rampant fraud is a national security risk.
        So I was particularly astounded in May when the USCIS added
    question and answer number 21 to its existing DACA guidance. It
    is an absolute invitation for fraud in which USCIS virtually
    admits that it will not verify the validity of documents
    submitted by applicants as evidence of DACA eligibility.
        I understand that when USCIS leadership was asked about
    question 21, congressional staff members were assured that
    ``generally, the majority of documents received are valid.''
    But forgive me if such an assurance is not comforting,
    especially now that USCIS is broadcasting its lack of intention
    to even attempt validation.
        USCIS processes over 6 million applications and petitions
    per year. I understand the magnitude of that responsibility.
    And the enormous volume of work should make antifraud measures
    all the more important.
        Unfortunately, what we have been hearing for years from
    sources at USCIS, and even the USCIS union, is the existence of
    a culture of ``getting to yes,'' unrelenting pressure on
    adjudicators to rubberstamp applications, and also of a culture
    where line adjudicators are routinely overridden when they deny
    applications or petitions.
        There are documented instances of employees in leadership
    at USCIS taking control of applications or petitions that have
    been brought to their attention by immigration lawyers or other
    outside forces. And I understand that there are ongoing
    investigations of such illegitimate interference in the
    adjudication process.
        The very notion that an application can be approved despite
    fraud on the part of the applicant, and that USCIS leadership
    will intervene if they get a call or email from an outside
    party interested in a certain visa application, is disturbing,
    to say the least.
        We know that the President has promised more administrative
    action to allow unlawful immigrants to remain in the United
    States and receive quasi-legal status and the right to work. In
    fact, some of the different tactics he may try to take were
    even outlined in a set of 2010 leaked USCIS memos regarding
    ``Administrative Alternatives to Comprehensive Immigration
    Reform'' and ``Immigration Administrative Relief Options.''
        However, let's be clear, such policies of this
    Administration, including many implemented at USCIS, as well as
    promises about future administrative legalizations, continue to
    encourage unlawful immigrant parents to smuggle their children
    into the United States.
        These policies and promises are putting money directly into
    the pockets of human smuggling and drug cartels. And they are
    undermining the fundamental constitutional principles that
    Congress creates the laws and the President is bound to enforce
    them.
        I am interested in hearing how, under Director Rodriguez's
    leadership, USCIS will no longer contribute to this state of
    affairs. And I look forward to the director's testimony.
        It is now my pleasure to recognize the Ranking Member of
    the Committee, the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Conyers, for
    his opening statement.
        Mr. Conyers. Thank you, Chairman Goodlatte, and Members of
    the Committee.
        In a nutshell, the United States Citizenship and
    Immigration Services is vital in examining the young people who
    are coming across our southern border.
        And I want to suggest that before we leave for 5 weeks,
    that we try to ease the deportation of children and appropriate
    emergency funds, because we have too few judges, too few asylum
    officers. We have 243 immigration judges for 375,000 cases. We
    are talking about a more than 4-year backlog, my colleagues. So
    youngsters with valid claims should have a speedier way to have
    that determined.
        Now, those without valid claims, I am sorry to say, should
    be sent back. But that determination is what democracy is all
    about. And it is our responsibility to be careful in how we do
    this.
        I know the strong feelings about these youngsters pouring
    over here. But the question is, how do we dispose of it
    consistent with democratic principles that guide us? And
    nowhere should this be more keenly felt than the House
    Judiciary Committee itself.
        So we must determine, even though there may be violence,
    persecution, trafficking, we are at a recess, and we still
    don't know.
        Throughout this session of Congress, there have been too
    many of us who have had but one theme: The President isn't
    enforcing immigration law.
        And this is a myth, a myth that has been debunked in
    hearing after hearing, where we have heard about record-
    breaking detentions, removals, and prosecutions.
        Still, the majority is not persuaded by facts, and
    continues to blame the President for their inaction on
    immigration reform.
        Many of them have argued that the President's use of
    prosecutorial discretion is unconstitutional, and we should be
    removing young people who seek the opportunity, if they
    qualify, to live, work, and study in the United States. They
    have said that our laws protecting people fleeing persecution
    and torture in their home countries should be rolled back, and
    that more of them should be detained for longer periods of
    time.
        And most recently, some have used a humanitarian crisis
    affecting women and young children in Central America to say
    that we cannot fix our broken immigration system and provide
    relief to millions of undocumented Americans living within our
    borders. And that begins right in this important Committee.
        So today, let's listen carefully. Over a year ago, the
    United States Senate passed a comprehensive immigration reform
    bill, allowing millions of individuals to apply for earned
    legal status. The House majority has refused to bring the bill
    or its companion bill, H.R. 15, for a vote.
        The Congressional Budget Office tells us that we would
    reduce our deficit by $900 billion over 20 years through these
    proposals.
        So this refusal to bring a bill to the floor, despite the
    fact that an overwhelming majority of Americans support
    comprehensive immigration reform, is something that I feel very
    badly about. If such a bill were brought to the floor, I am
    confident that it would pass even the House of Representatives
    in the 113th Congress.
        Unfortunately, I am beginning to think that the only
    immigration bill that we might ever see in this Congress will
    be a bill to strip protections that all of us unanimously
    agreed to extend to child victims of trafficking, persecution,
    torture, and abuse.
        I feel that we can do better than this. We were sent here
    to solve problems that demand action on comprehensive
    immigration reform.
        So I urge my colleagues, majority and minority in the
    House, to end the delay and to start acting.
        And I join the Chairman in welcoming our distinguished
    witness, and I yield back the balance of my time. Thank you.
        Mr. Goodlatte. I thank the Ranking Member.
        It is my understanding that the Ranking Member of the
    Immigration and Border Security Subcommittee would like to make
    an opening statement. Ordinarily, we would ask at this time
    that Members put their opening statements in the record.
    However, noting her request, and noting that the Chairman of
    the Subcommittee is not present, the Chair will turn to the
    gentleman from Utah, Mr. Chaffetz, for an opening statement,
    and then turn to the gentlewoman. And then we will put all
    other opening statements into the record.
        So the gentleman from Utah, Mr. Chaffetz, is recognized for
    his opening statement.
        Mr. Chaffetz. I thank the Chairman, and I appreciate you
    holding this. This is obviously a vital issue to the United
    States, and it is something that is exploding on our borders
    and exploding in this country.
        As somebody who represents good, hardworking Americans who
    are doing the right thing, they are paying the taxes, they are
    working hard, they are trying to take care of their kids, they
    may be an individual who has just graduated and trying get
    their feet on the ground, there is a whole other wave of people
    who are coming here.
        And I happen to believe, Mr. Chairman, that there is a
    proper place for asylum for those people who are truly in
    harm's way, whose life is in danger. This is a country that has
    had open arms. But we are being taken advantage of, and by
    great numbers.
        The flow coming across our border is just absolutely
    unbelievable. By every metric, every account, everything I have
    seen, people who are coming here and trying to take advantage
    of the United States of America and our generosity are
    overwhelming the system. And the consequence is, we have people
    who are legally and lawfully trying to come to this country, we
    have been ignoring those people.
        The people who are legally and lawfully getting in line and
    trying to do it the right way, trying to come in the front
    door, what about those people? Because the resources that we
    have had to take for those who are not willing to play by the
    rules have put a great strain upon the system, a huge strain
    upon the system.
        And that is why I think this hearing here is so vital
    today. We have to address some very important topics. Those
    people who are coming across and claiming asylum--and they are
    not just coming from one or two countries.
        When I went and visited the border, I went to the detention
    facility in Phoenix, there were representatives from 60
    different countries that were trying to come across the border.
    They were overwhelming the system.
        When I visited the Phoenix ICE office, and we were talking
    to them about what is going on in the system right now, you had
    people literally knocking on their door every day, saying,
    ``Please, arrest me, because I want to get in the system.''
        The system just generally works like this. You come in, you
    make your claim, you are going to get some sort of court date.
    Now, in Phoenix, when I was there, what they told me, and this
    was in 2013, is you would get a court date in 2020.
        In the meantime, what are you going to do? You are going to
    say, ``Well, because my court date is so far in the future, I
    need to be able to work.'' And then we grant these people a
    work permit.
        So now they get free education, free health care, and they
    have a work permit to compete against somebody who is legally,
    lawfully here, whether they are on a green card or whether they
    are maybe a United States citizen competing for those jobs.
        Again, we can be compassionate, but the reality is,
    President Obama and this Administration have created a magnet.
    And the magnet says this, ``Come step foot in the United States
    of America and nothing is going to happen to you. There is not
    going to be consequence to this.''
        It is unfair. It is not right.
        The President owns this issue. The President has created
    this situation. There is a reason why particularly the
    unaccompanied minors are flowing across the border. Because
    they don't feel like anything is going to happen to them.
        We are going to take care of them. We will go ahead and
    take you and then we will pass you off to somebody else. If you
    have a little note in your pocket, we will pass you off to
    somebody else.
        Do we do any background checks on who we are passing these
    minors to? No. No, we don't.
        Do we check the legal status of the person we are handing
    them off to? No. This Administration doesn't do that.
        It is fundamentally and to its core wrong. And a key part
    of this system is what the United States Citizenship and
    Immigration Services does along with this process.
        We have a lot of good men and women. They are patriotic.
    They are working hard. They are trying to the right thing for
    their country.
        But I worry about the direction that they are given, the
    direction that they are being given by their management. And I
    worry what this Administration is telling them to do or not to
    do. And that is of deep concern.
        So, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate you holding this hearing. A
    lot of Members have great questions that I look forward to
    hearing today. And I yield back.
        Mr. Goodlatte. The Chair thanks the gentleman, and
    recognizes the gentlewoman from California, the Ranking Member
    of the Immigration and Border Security Subcommittee, Ms.
    Lofgren, for her opening statement.
        Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Let me begin by welcoming our witness not only to today's
    hearing, but also to his new position as director of the U.S.
    Citizenship and Immigration Services.
        I think it is fair to say that USCIS doesn't usually get
    the kind of attention that the rest of the components of DHS
    do, but its mission is very important.
        As we know, USCIS adjudicates a wide array of immigrant and
    nonimmigrant petitions. Families hoping to reunite, businesses
    searching for talent, persons fleeing persecution and torture,
    lawful permanent residents applying to become American citizens
    all go through your agency. And it is critically important to
    our country that your agency performs well.
        It is also important to point out that USCIS is responsible
    for all of these important activities without any taxpayer
    money. It is entirely fee-driven except for a minor amount that
    is basically used to implement E-Verify. All of the applicants
    pay for the services they receive.
        Now, why is this important to our country? I sometimes
    mention my grandfather, who came to the United States in the
    early 20th century. He got on a boat, got off the boat, and I
    am in Congress today because he had the courage to want the
    American dream.
        And the director's own story of his family fleeing Turkey
    and Poland to escape anti-Semitism to Cuba, and then fleeing
    Cuba to escape communism. And here he is today, part of the
    rich American fabric.
        I have always admired immigrants who have enough get up and
    go to get up and go. They made our country. And we who are here
    have inherited that rich history, and we are now in a position
    to help shape the future for those who come after us. And it is
    incumbent upon us that we preserve that legacy.
        Now, there are many topics that will be discussed today,
    but I want to touch on the issue because it has already been
    mentioned about the unaccompanied children who have been
    apprehended at the southwest border.
        As we know, these individuals are, under law, placed in the
    safekeeping of the Department of Health and Human Services. But
    it is USCIS asylum officers who determine whether there is a
    well-founded fear of persecution. And in the director's written
    testimony, he explains that almost 65 percent of the asylum
    applications filed by unaccompanied children that have been
    adjudicated this fiscal year have been approved.
        Now, some argue that this somehow means that there is a
    rubberstamp of these applications, or that the asylum system is
    vulnerable to fraud and abuse. I look at that statistic and
    think that these are vulnerable children who are fleeing
    persecution and extreme violence, and they are thankful that
    they are receiving the protection to which they are entitled
    under domestic and international law.
        I think it is worth pointing out that an application for
    asylum isn't illegal. That is part of our immigration laws, and
    it has been since after World War II.
        Now, children who have been abandoned, abused, or neglected
    and who obtain a State court order can apply to USCIS for
    special immigrant juvenile (SIJ) status. The director notes
    that over 3,900 applications for this SIJ status have been
    received this fiscal year.
        Those of us who went to South Texas this month know that
    these applications require a finding by a State court that
    these children have been abandoned. A State court makes that
    determination, and it is only then that USCIS will proceed.
        Now, children who have been victims of severe forms of
    human trafficking are eligible for a T visa. It is important
    that we maintain and defend this procedure.
        As Mr. Conyers has pointed out, we had a nearly unanimous
    vote in 2008 that put the Congress and America on record saying
    we will fight human trafficking and we will make sure that the
    victims of human trafficking are given safe haven in the United
    States.
        Much of this discussion in the Congress and in the country
    has overlooked the fact that the Wilberforce act is about human
    trafficking, slavery, and sex trafficking. And if we are to
    eliminate the protections in that act, what we will be saying
    is that we will once again countenance the victims of
    trafficking being returned to their traffickers.
        I will say this, that we did make an exception for the
    children from contiguous countries. And we have learned, much
    to our sorrow, that those exceptions need to be revisited,
    because the United Nations, at our request, has reviewed our
    processes and found that children from contiguous countries who
    have been trafficked are, in fact, being returned to their
    traffickers.
        With that, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to this hearing,
    and I yield back.
        Mr. Goodlatte. The Chair thanks the gentlewoman.
        And without objection, all other Members' opening
    statements will be made a part of the record.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Jackson Lee follows:]
           Prepared Statement of the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a
        Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, and Member,
                           Committee on the Judiciary
        I would like to thank Chairman Goodlatte and Ranking Member Conyers
    for holding this timely oversight hearing on the United States
    Citizenship and Immigration Service.
        Mr. Chairman this hearing is timely because as you know we are a
    year and one month removed from having passed out of this Committee
    several bills pertaining to immigration.
        The bills were agriculture, border security, employment, and
    workplace compliance. But since then: nothing.
        We do the American people a disservice when we hold consecutive
    hearings on topics like asylum, Unaccompanied Minors, and other topics
    in order to sandbag the efforts of the millions of Americans who want
    to do comprehensive immigration reform.
        I wish to thank our witness: Mr. Leon Rodriguez, Director, USCIS.
        Director Rodriguez has a very rich personal history as an immigrant
    son from Turkey and Poland and a former prosecutor, leading me to
    believe that he will perform his duties in a professional manner.
        To that end, I appreciate his outreach to the 8.8 million permanent
    residents currently eligible to apply for citizenship who have not done
    so.
        The United States is a country made up of immigrants, and it is
    part of what makes us so strong and vibrant. And while immigration
    reform remains an unsolved challenge for our nation, House Democrats
    are leading the way towards comprehensive reform.
        Indeed, the decision made by President Obama two years ago to defer
    deportation action against young people who were brought here by
    undocumented parents but have been raised here in our country was an
    important step in the right direction.
        This decision has helped ensure that over half-a-million hard-
    working, eager, and talented individuals who came here not of their own
    choice, and who are contributing to our economy and our defense, can
    remain here and continue to be part of building a strong future for
    America.
        Now we are faced, Mr. Chairman, with the surge of unaccompanied
    children on our southern border. They do not pose a threat to our
    national security; nevertheless the Emergency Supplemental
    Appropriations Act must be passed before Congress leaves town for its
    district work-recess.
        Contrary to the shrill rhetoric used by some commentators, the
    nation is not being invaded by an army of children dispatched to do us
    harm. In fact Mr. Chairman, one month ago you and I witnessed the
    deplorable conditions with your own eyes--babies as young as three
    years old.
        We are confronted with a humanitarian crisis resulting from the
    alarming scale of violence and economic desperation in three Central
    American countries: El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala. Politicizing
    the issue will not solve the problem. Taking actions that address the
    root causes in the short and long term will.
        In the short term, we need to allocate the resources needed to deal
    with the increase in unaccompanied children seeking refuge in the
    United States.
        Under current law, each such child is placed in deportation status
    immediately but given the opportunity to present their case for asylum
    to an immigration judge. This is a fair process and avoids the re-
    victimizing of children who fled their home country to escape horrible
    violence.
        These cases involve children who are fleeing lethal violence or are
    victims of crime or human trafficking and are eligible for a temporary
    stay in the United States under the Trafficking Victims Protection
    Reauthorization Act of 2008, passed in 2008 by Congress and signed by
    President George W. Bush. That law provides persons fleeing lethal
    violence or escape from human trafficking the opportunity to have their
    case heard by an immigration judge.
        Yet this Congress has failed to provide any resources needed to
    fund the courts and judges needed to send these children through the
    legal system; therefore, we should fund the number of immigration
    judges needed. Without them, the result is a current average delay of
    578 days to hear over 366,000 pending cases.
        Because this situation is untenable for everyone--law enforcement,
    taxpayers, and individuals petitioning for relief, the first thing that
    we can and should do to reduce the backlog is pass the emergency
    supplemental and provide the funding needed to appoint 70 new
    immigration judges, as provided under legislation I recently
    introduced, H.R. 4990, the Justice For All Children Act.
        I remain committed to working with my colleagues, on a bipartisan
    basis, on this very important issue, and would hope for a spill-over
    effect into the realm of comprehensive immigration reform.
        I remain committed to advocating for common sense enforcement
    measures as part of a broader immigration reform package that will
    further secure our borders, ensure agricultural interests have an ample
    labor supply, universities and businesses are not short workers, and
    proper work-place compliance is achieved, but also uphold our values as
    a Nation of immigrants.
        Thank you. I yield back my time.
                                   __________

        Mr. Goodlatte. We now thank our only witness, the director,
    for joining us today.
        Director Rodriguez, if you would please rise, I will begin
    by swearing you in.
        [Witness sworn.]
        Mr. Goodlatte. Let the record reflect that Director
    Rodriguez responded in the affirmative.
        Mr. Rodriguez serves as the director of the United States
    Citizenship and Immigration Services, the Department of
    Homeland Security agency responsible for administering and
    processing immigration benefits, including asylum,
    naturalization, and visa petitions.
        Prior to joining USCIS, Mr. Rodriguez was, first, an
    Assistant U.S. Attorney in Pittsburgh, led the Department of
    Labor's Wage and Hour Division, and served as the head of
    Office of Civil Rights within the Department of Health and
    Human Services, respectively.
        He attended Brown University, where he earned a bachelor of
    arts in history in 1984. Mr. Rodriguez received his J.D. from
    Boston College in 1988.
        Thank you very much for coming, and we look forward to your
    testimony.
        Your written statement will be entered in its entirety into
    the record, and I ask that you summarize your testimony in 5
    minutes.
        To help you stay within that time, there is a timing light
    on the table. When it turns yellow, that means you have 1
    minute left to summarize your testimony.
        Thank you, and thank you for being here today, and you may
    begin.

       TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE LEON RODRIGUEZ, DIRECTOR, U.S.
                  CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES

        Mr. Rodriguez. Thank you, Chairman Goodlatte. And good
    morning, Ranking Member Conyers, Congressman Chaffetz, Ranking
    Member Lofgren, and the other Members of the Committee.
        I am extremely honored to be the new director of the United
    States Citizenship and Immigration Services, and to be before
    you today. I hope that today is the beginning of a long and
    fruitful and constructive relationship that I will have with
    this Committee as a whole and with its members, in particular.
        I am also honored to be the leader of more than 18,000
    extremely dedicated men and women who are the employees of the
    United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. I have
    worked in many different government positions. I have worked in
    the private sector. And I can say, even after the short time in
    office, that as a country, we really should be pleased to have
    extreme level of talent, commitment, and work ethic that
    characterizes so many of the people that I have had the
    opportunity to meet in these last 3 weeks.
        I accepted this job because I am a patriot. I am a patriot
    who believes that America is, indeed, unique in its freedom,
    its equality, its energy, and its enterprise. And those
    qualities are the product of the kind of people who are in this
    country and who come to this country.
        They are people who work hard. They are people who take
    risks. They are people who are dedicated to making a better
    life for their family.
        Those kinds of people come from all over and do all kinds
    of things. They can be tomato pickers. They can be physicists.
    They can be captains of industry. They can be plumbers.
        And for me, the challenge as Director of U.S. Citizenship
    and Immigration Services, and the reason I am embracing this
    challenge, is to create a fair and efficient system for those
    individuals to find a place in our society.
        I am the son and grandson of immigrants. My parents did
    flee communism in Cuba, and my grandparents fled both anti-
    Semitism and hardship in both Turkey and Poland. These are
    certainly motivators for my work here as well. Like so many, my
    parents hoped for a better future for me and for my sister as
    well.
        I have spent the majority of my career as a law enforcement
    officer. I don't need to have done that to know that there are
    many people who wish the United States harm. So I do view it as
    a very solemn and important part of my work to safeguard the
    security and safety of the United States.
        I would like to relate two particular experiences that I
    have had during my few days as director of U.S. Citizenship and
    Immigration Services. I had the honor of attending a
    naturalization ceremony, where 53 different countries were
    represented, showing the remarkable energy and talent that
    continue to pursue the dream of becoming new Americans every
    day.
        And I had the opportunity recently to meet with the
    recently returned refugee processing team from our Refugee
    Asylum and International Operations Division that had recently
    come back from Iraq. These are incredibly dedicated and
    talented public servants, who I can say with great confidence
    inspired me when I heard the stories of the work that they do.
        Now we have some challenging issues to talk about today. I
    have no doubt that we will be talking about the Deferred Action
    for Childhood Arrivals program. I can say that as a former
    prosecutor, I have exercised discretion. I have worked for
    leaders who exercised that discretion. That is not anything
    novel in the various enforcement enterprises in our country.
        It is my view that DACA provides an opportunity to exercise
    prosecutorial discretion. For example, for an individual who I
    just met who is about to receive her degree at Harvard, or
    another individual who is in medical school and trying to
    decide whether to be a dermatologist or an OB/GYN.
        I imagine we will also speak this morning about the crisis
    at the border. I think, as has been noted, the President has,
    indeed, recognized this as a very serious problem, as has my
    agency and as has Secretary Johnson.
        I would like this morning to talk in more detail about how
    our asylum process works, and the degree to which these asylum
    claims actually play a role in this crisis.
        I look forward to our continuing conversation this morning.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Rodriguez follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                   __________

        Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you, Director Rodriguez.
        With the indulgence of the Committee, I would like to take
    a few minutes away from this hearing to talk about someone who
    was a dear friend of mine, a mentor, and a Member of the House
    Judiciary Committee, my predecessor representing the Sixth
    District of Virginia, Congressman M. Caldwell Butler, who
    passed away last night around midnight.
        He served in the House of Representatives from a special
    election in 1972 until his retirement at the beginning of 1983.
    He served on this Committee, I believe, that entire time.
        And he served here with great distinction at a time when
    this Committee went through some very difficult issues,
    including his being very actively involved in the Watergate
    investigation and in the impeachment proceedings related to
    former President Richard Nixon.
        He was a public servant in the truest sense of the word. He
    has given immeasurably to his country, his State, and his
    community, Roanoke, Virginia, where he lived his entire life,
    and to which he was extremely dedicated.
        He attended the Roanoke public schools, and he earned an
    undergraduate degree at the University of Richmond and his law
    degree from the University of Virginia. He was admitted to the
    Virginia bar in 1950, and he commenced practice in Roanoke. He
    also served in the United States Navy.
        He served in the Virginia House of Delegates from Roanoke
    from 1962 to 1971, and served as the minority leader from 1966
    to 1971.
        He was a friend of everyone who knew him, and someone who I
    had great respect. He will be badly missed. His wife, June,
    passed on just a month ago. And it is a great loss for the
    Roanoke community and for our country.
        And I thank the Committee for allowing me to remember him
    for a few moments here.
        Mr. Conyers. Mr. Chairman?
        Mr. Goodlatte. The gentleman from Michigan served in the
    House of Representatives and on this Committee with Congressman
    Butler, and I would love to recognize him for a few words.
        Mr. Conyers. I thank you very much, and so did Zoe Lofgren
    serve with him.
        I remember him very well. There are very few conservatives
    that I remember going back that far as clearly as I remember
    him, because he was an impressive Member of the Congress.
        We exchanged views on an almost regular basis, but our
    friendship was never impaired by the different perspectives
    that we had on how government should run. So I join you, Mr.
    Chairman, in observing and remembering a distinguished Member
    of the House Judiciary Committee.
        I would like to yield to the gentlelady from California,
    for any comments you might make.
        Ms. Lofgren. I appreciate your yielding.
        I was a young law student working for Congressman Don
    Edwards, also a Member of the Committee, and I remember Mr.
    Butler very well. He was a person who we all admired, even if
    we did not agree on everything that he thought. He was a man of
    tremendous principle, totally honest, and totally brave in
    standing up for what he thought was right and the Constitution.
        He will be greatly missed. I count myself as one of his
    many admirers, and I remember him quite fondly from my days as
    a young staffer.
        I thank the gentleman for yielding.
        Mr. Conyers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Goodlatte. I thank the gentleman from Michigan and the
    gentlewoman from California for their remarks.
        We all offer our sincere condolences to the Butler family.
    They are in our thoughts and prayers in this difficult time.
        It was a great honor to know and to have the privilege of
    working for Caldwell Butler. I learned a great deal from him
    over the years. And his guidance and wisdom will be missed by
    me and many others.
        I thank you all for allowing me to say a few words.
        We will now turn to the questioning of Director Rodriguez.
        Director, I know that you are new to the job, so I would
    like to get your perspective on some things that have concerned
    us greatly and see whether there is an opportunity to correct
    some things, or to clarify what the USCIS is doing in certain
    areas.
        As I mentioned in my opening statement, question 21 of the
    revised Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA,
    frequently asked questions, states, ``Will USCIS verify
    documents or statements that I provide in support of a request
    for DACA?''
        And the USCIS answer is, ``USCIS has the authority to
    verify documents, facts, and statements that are provided in
    support of request for DACA. USCIS may contact education
    institutions, other government agencies, employers, or other
    entities in order to verify information.''
        This answer seems to put applicants on notice that USCIS in
    most cases will not in fact verify the validity of documents
    submitted to satisfy eligibility requirements. And thus, the
    frequently asked questions invites fraud.
        If USCIS takes seriously its stated antifraud commitment,
    why is it a good step to basically notify potential applicants
    that documents will not be verified?
        Mr. Rodriguez. I really appreciate the opportunity to work
    with you and this Committee on various concerns that they may
    have. And as I understand the concern here is the suggestion
    that there will not be a systematic verification of the
    authenticity of documents presented at the time of DACA
    renewals.
        It is my understanding that there is scrutiny of these
    documents, certainly at the time of initial application. We
    have a robust fraud detection and national security directorate
    that includes a number of former law enforcement and military
    officials among its ranks that engages in a variety of
    systematic checks of any individual who seeks any sort of
    benefit from USCIS as to criminal history, terrorist behavior,
    possibly other threats to the United States.
        And our adjudicators also receive training, so that they
    can in appropriate instances flag applications for benefits
    that appear to present fraud.
        It is for that reason that the agency felt comfortable in
    saying that in the ordinary course of business, while there
    would not be a specific attempt to authenticate particular
    documents, that there is an ability that our adjudicators have
    to look at documents. And if they do present concerns at the
    time of the review during the adjudication process, to flag
    those applications for further review.
        Mr. Goodlatte. A great many applications contain fraudulent
    documents. It would seem to me that a better policy would be to
    say that the documents are going to be reviewed and to leave
    applicants with the impression that they should not submit
    fraudulent documents, that they will be checked, and that if
    they are found to be fraudulent, that there are severe
    consequences that would befall someone submitting fraudulent
    documents to your organization.
        Mr. Rodriguez. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the concern that
    you have raised. I am in the process right now of reviewing all
    of the agency's processes. Certainly, one of the things that I
    will be dedicating special attention to are any issues related
    to national security or fraud. Those are, certainly, high
    priorities for me.
        Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you. Let me go on to another question.
        The President has indicated his intention to continue to
    act administratively to change U.S. immigration policy when and
    if Congress does not do so in a manner to the President's
    liking.
        He has previously acted on DACA, expansion of parole,
    reducing the issuance of notices to appear for unlawful
    immigrants, prosecutorial discretion regarding removal of
    unlawful and deportable aliens, and several other means.
        As you entered the agency a few weeks ago, you must have
    received a briefing on the status of the next administrative
    action. Would you please tell us what is next on the
    President's agenda?
        Mr. Rodriguez. Let me be clear, and I think the
    Administration has also been clear about this, no decisions
    have been made. The directive that we have received is to
    examine possibilities for different avenues to exercising that
    prosecutorial discretion. I know that our Secretary is in a
    process of engaging with frontline employees at DHS, Members of
    Congress from both sides of the aisle, and stakeholders from a
    broad spectrum of American society.
        That process is ongoing, and no decisions have yet been
    made in that process.
        Mr. Goodlatte. The Speaker's Border Crisis Working Group,
    of which I am a member, recently met with Secretary Johnson.
    During that meeting, I asked the Secretary what would be needed
    in order to address the surge in those claiming credible fear.
    Secretary Johnson indicated that a change in law to strengthen
    the credible fears standard would be necessary to fix the
    current situation.
        Do you agree with Secretary Johnson that such a fix is
    needed?
        Secretary Johnson then said that while a fix is needed, now
    is not the appropriate time to fix the credible fear standard.
    When claims have gone from 5,000 to an estimated 50,000 in a
    short number of years, and your testimony indicates that those
    claiming credible fear are part of the surge, why is this not
    the time to fix this weak standard?
        Mr. Rodriguez. I would like to put this issue in a little
    bit of perspective. At this point, roughly 15 percent of
    individuals being apprehended at the border are presenting
    credible fear claims. We have surged our own capacity to
    address these claims. We have moved personnel to the various
    border processing areas, such as Artesia, to process those
    claims. We have accelerated our review time to a period of 8
    days, so as to ensure----
        Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you.
        Mr. Rodriguez. I am sorry.
        Mr. Goodlatte. Go ahead.
        Mr. Rodriguez. Yes, so as to ensure that we adjudicate
    those claims as efficiently as possible.
        I think that because at least USCIS has been able to surge
    in that manner, I think that is the basis for which the
    Secretary may have suggested that now may not be the time to
    address this particular issue.
        Mr. Goodlatte. In point of fact, the initial credible fear
    hearing is now resulting in 92 percent of those cases being
    approved to move on to the next status in the process, which
    involves the detention of people or releasing those people into
    the United States. As we know, a great percentage of those do
    not return for their subsequent hearing. So it would seem to me
    that increasing that standard, and doing it now, would send
    word to people that if they truly are seeking political asylum
    in the United States, they should state that when they come to
    this country and be prepared to show that it is at least as
    likely than not that they have a case that deserves to go on to
    that final hearing, rather than simply being rubberstamped
    through, as I would argue they are being now.
        Mr. Rodriguez. Congressman, I think I would not necessarily
    adopt the view that these claims are being rubberstamped
    through.
        On my third day in office, I sat in on a credible fear
    interview. I am a former prosecutor. I have conducted probably
    thousands of interrogations myself. I was very favorably
    impressed, actually, by the quality of the interrogation that I
    saw, by the probing nature of the interrogation that I saw. So
    I do think these interviews are being conducted in an effective
    manner.
        That said, the legal standard to establish credible fear is
    obviously a threshold standard that only then qualifies the
    individual for later adjudication.
        Mr. Goodlatte. But those later adjudications are now rising
    to approval rates that approach 70 percent, which is, to my
    knowledge, much higher than it has been in previous years.
        Mr. Rodriguez. In acknowledging that concern, Chairman, I
    look forward to a continuing conversation about this issue.
        Mr. Goodlatte. The Chair thanks the gentleman. The time has
    expired.
        And the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan, Mr.
    Conyers, for his questions.
        Mr. Conyers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Would you discuss, Director Rodriguez, the sheer numbers
    that we are talking about? How many young people have come
    across our southwest border so far this year and last year and
    the year before?
        Mr. Rodriguez. Congressman, I apologize that as I sit
    before you, I can't tell you the specific numbers. Certainly,
    those numbers have grown over time. They remain essentially in
    the tens of thousands. But it is a fact that those numbers
    continue to grow.
        Mr. Conyers. I have 50,000 for 2013, 25,000 for 2012, and
    an even lesser number for 2011. Does that figure in agreeably
    with your thoughts on this?
        Mr. Rodriguez. My general understanding is that the trend
    until very recently was an upward trend. I think that trend has
    begun to level off.
        One thing I would note is I have actually started reading
    Latin American newspapers in Honduras, Guatemala, and El
    Salvador. Spanish is actually my first language. And there are
    increasingly stories in that media, one, about individuals
    being returned; two, about the fact that DACA offers no benefit
    to these individuals.
        And I think that, and the marshaling of efforts by the
    government, specifically by my agency, appears possibly to have
    started to take some effect with individuals in Central
    America.
        Mr. Conyers. Now, what about personnel? I mentioned that
    just a handful of judges and so forth here. I don't think we
    can realistically, on your 15th day in office, ask you why we
    aren't doing more when I have some pretty low figures of
    personnel that you have.
        Mr. Rodriguez. Well, this is actually my fifth transition,
    Congressman, into a new agency. One of the key aspects of doing
    that is that you need to be ready to drink from a fire hose,
    jump on a 100 mile an hour train, chew gum and rub your head
    all at the same time. So I have been busy trying to do exactly
    that.
        What I do know is the agency has recognized this additional
    burden. It has added 150 asylum officers, or is in the process
    of adding 150 asylum officers, noting the additional demands
    that are being placed on it, at least in part by the situation
    at the border.
        Mr. Conyers. You were the lead attorney in United States v.
    Flores, which involved enslavement of Mexican and Guatemalan
    nationals who had been smuggled from border areas in Arizona to
    farms in South Carolina and Florida. What, if you can recall,
    did you get out of that experience in working with vulnerable
    populations? And how do you think it may positively affect your
    work as the director of this very important office that you
    hold now at United States Citizenship and Immigration Services?
        Mr. Rodriguez. Thank you, Congressman Conyers, for that
    question.
        Prosecuting that case really was a career highlight for me.
    On many levels, I have to tell you, I was inspired by the
    stories of the victims that I met in that case. These were
    individuals very often from indigenous areas of Guatemala. For
    many of them, Spanish was actually a second language. Their
    first languages were actually indigenous dialects in those
    countries.
        Yet, these were strong, hardworking, really amazing
    individuals. And the opportunity to vindicate their rights and
    to fight the victimization that had occurred to them was really
    an important career opportunity for me.
        It, certainly, sensitized me to the fact that human
    trafficking and labor exploitation are very serious problems
    that particularly befall individuals who work in our shadow
    economy, as these individuals did. And that, certainly, will
    influence, will sensitize me to certain issues that USCIS
    faces.
        Mr. Conyers. Well, I think your experiences have prepared
    you well for your responsibility. We want to work as closely as
    we can. This Committee has a great concern about this challenge
    at our southwest border, and we would like to stay in touch
    with you far past your 2 weeks and 1 day on the job.
        Mr. Rodriguez. I look forward to a very fruitful
    relationship, Congressman. Thank you.
        Mr. Conyers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Smith of Texas [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Conyers.
        The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Coble, is recognized
    for his questions.
        Mr. Coble. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Rodriguez, good to have you with us this morning.
        Mr. Rodriguez, the Bush administration required that
    certain employers, such as Federal contractors, those employing
    foreign students in the optical practical training program, and
    others, use E-Verify. What plans do you have to expand
    mandatory E-Verify use?
        Mr. Rodriguez. Right now, there obviously are a very
    limited segment of employers who are actually subject to
    mandatory E-Verify. I have been pleased to see that the
    accuracy rate for E-Verify is at a very high level and that our
    ability to adjudicate temporary nonconfirmations appears to be
    very effective, and that employers who utilize E-Verify report
    very high levels of satisfaction with that system.
        Our agency has, in fact, prepared a report to this body,
    which was delivered some time ago, that talked about what would
    be required to move to universal mandatory E-Verify. It is a
    capability that we could achieve. And I look forward to
    continuing conversation about how we get there.
        Mr. Coble. I thank you for that.
        How do you ensure that those employers required to use E-
    Verify, such as Federal contractors and employers of students
    in the optical practical training program, are in fact using
    the system?
        Mr. Rodriguez. Congressman, I will acknowledge that, as
    part of the many things I am trying to learn as I come onto the
    agency, I have not yet had the opportunity to be briefed on
    that specific issue. I, certainly, would look forward to
    following up with your office about the steps that we take to
    verify utilization by that particular portion of employers.
        Mr. Coble. If you would keep us current on that, I would be
    appreciative to you.
        Mr. Rodriguez. You can count on it, Congressman.
        Mr. Coble. When will the USCIS implement its programs to
    allow individuals to lock their Social Security numbers for
    work authorization purposes in an effort to prevent the number
    from being used fraudulently to obtain employment or a job?
        Mr. Rodriguez. I do understand that we have the capacity to
    lock Social Security numbers in those instances where we
    believe a Social Security number is being used fraudulently. I
    am not familiar with the ability of specific individuals to
    lock their own Social Security numbers. I imagine they can ask
    us to do it.
        Again, that is an area where I look forward to working with
    your office to make sure we get you the answers you need.
        Mr. Coble. I thank you, sir.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Smith of Texas. Thank you, Mr. Coble.
        The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott, is recognized.
        Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And thank you, Mr. Rodriguez.
        Just a bit about the present process. if we are going to
    shorten the waiting period for determining status, obviously,
    we have to hire more personnel. Who do we need to hire, and how
    much would it cost to significantly reduce the time for
    hearings?
        Mr. Rodriguez. I am in the process right now of reviewing
    various issues related to wait time. I do know that there was a
    time when, for example, our I-130 petitions, the family
    petitions, where the wait time for those had become
    unacceptably long. The agency has been able to restore the wait
    times to about 5 months, a more acceptable timeframe.
        I am going to continue as part of my transition into the
    agency to look at this issue of wait times, to ensure that we
    are moving as sufficiently as possible.
        It is important to note that we are a fee-funded agency.
    There are pressures on us from all sides to do all kinds of
    things with our fees. We need to live within our budget, is the
    bottom line.
        So we are going to continue to look at how we operate most
    efficiently and deliver the highest level of customer service
    within the fee structure that we have.
        Mr. Scott. You mentioned 5 months. What is your goal? Is
    there any way you can get down to a couple days?
        Mr. Rodriguez. The goal for those is about 5 months. I am
    not sure that we would ever be in a position to get it down to
    a couple days for those family petitions.
        There are other categories that we are able to process far
    more quickly. In some cases, we are required by law actually to
    process certain benefits more quickly.
        That goal really represents, over time, what has been seen
    as the target time for adjudication of those particular
    benefits.
        Mr. Scott. Now, people are entitled to attorneys at their
    own expense. I understand in many cases there are pro bono
    attorneys available. Is that true?
        Mr. Rodriguez. I have no doubt that there are pro bono
    attorneys who are available to assist people with various
    aspects, various immigration issues.
        Mr. Scott. What do lawyers typically charge for these cases
    when they are paid?
        Mr. Rodriguez. I don't know, Congressman. Actually, just
    having been a former private practice lawyer myself, I imagine
    there is a wide variety of what lawyers may cost in this
    particular field.
        Mr. Scott. If someone is deported, where do they go?
        Mr. Rodriguez. Where do people go if they are deported?
        Mr. Scott. Right.
        Mr. Smith of Texas. Director Rodriguez, your mike is not
    on. You might want to repeat that last sentence.
        Mr. Rodriguez. Sorry. My agency, of course, Congressman,
    does not handle deportations and enforcement and removal.
        I did have some little bit of experience as a private
    practice lawyer with the removal process. This can vary a lot.
    My understanding, generally, is that people are in detention,
    in some cases. And at some point, they are sent back, generally
    flown back to their country of origin.
        But honestly, because it is not what my agency does, I am
    not fully familiar with that process.
        Mr. Scott. We have had an influx of young children coming
    to our borders. Have other countries experienced similar
    influxes?
        Mr. Rodriguez. I am at least aware that Mexico has had its
    own influx driven by many of the same factors as the
    individuals coming to our country. I am not fully familiar with
    where else those individuals might be going.
        Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to
    the gentlelady from California.
        Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Scott.
        I will have many questions, but I wanted to address the
    issue of in absentia rates.
        Oftentimes, we hear complaints that the unaccompanied
    children don't show up for the immigration hearings. In fact, I
    have heard some of my colleagues across the aisle say 90
    percent of the kids do not show up. PolitiFact correctly ruled
    that claim as false. Most recently, the Department of Justice
    testified before the Senate that half of the kids show up.
        But we now have a complete picture, because the American
    Immigration Council has analyzed the raw immigration court data
    made public by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse.
    They looked at every single case of juveniles appearing in
    immigration court beginning in 2005 through June of this year.
        Looking at only closed cases of children not detained, over
    60 percent of the children appeared in immigration court.
        But here is an important data point: When the child has a
    lawyer, 92.5 percent of those children appeared in court. It
    never dipped below 89 percent in any fiscal year.
        So I would like to ask unanimous consent to put in the
    record that analysis prepared by the Immigration Policy Center,
    indicating this very high appearance rate.
        Mr. Smith of Texas. Without objection, the analysis will be
    made part of the record.
        [The information referred to follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                   __________

        Mr. Smith of Texas. And the gentleman from Virginia's time
    has expired.
        I will recognize myself for questions.
        Director Rodriguez, my first one is this. Last Thursday,
    The New York Times reported on a leaked DHS memo laying out a
    program to allow individuals in Honduras who are not eligible
    for refugee status to be paroled in the United States.
        As you know, historically, parole has been used in very
    rare instances on a case-by-case basis for temporary
    admittance, for urgent humanitarian reasons, or significant
    public benefit.
        Your own Web site notices that parole ``is used sparingly
    to bring someone who is otherwise inadmissible into the United
    States for a temporary period of time due to a compelling
    emergency.''
        Since the USCIS grants parole, would you tell the Committee
    how such a program intended for a large group of individuals
    would not be an illegitimate expansion of parole authority?
        We use parole for aliens who are clearly not being
    persecuted. Why isn't that a violation of current law?
        Mr. Rodriguez. First of all, I think it is important to
    underscore that in this area as well, no decisions have been
    made. Secretary Johnson, my colleagues throughout DHS,
    recognize the significance, the importance of dealing----
        Mr. Smith of Texas. Would you agree that if such were to
    occur, it would be unprecedented?
        Mr. Rodriguez. I would not be able to say.
        Mr. Smith of Texas. Okay, give me an example of where there
    is precedent for such type of action.
        Mr. Rodriguez. Again, I think the main thing is that any
    parole program or any other sort of program would need to be
    according to certain criteria.
        Mr. Smith of Texas. Assuming that the leaked memo is
    accurate, we have never had a program where individuals in
    another country have been able to take advantage of the system
    as the President, presumably, or you, have proposed. And I
    can't think of any precedent. Again, can you think of any
    precedent?
        Mr. Rodriguez. I could not specifically tell you whether
    there is or is not a precedent at this point.
        I underscore that no decisions have been made.
        Mr. Smith of Texas. Okay.
        Mr. Rodriguez. I will say that we are working very hard
    throughout DHS to find solutions to what we all agree is a
    significant issue being presented at our border.
        Mr. Smith of Texas. Okay. If there is a precedent, we would
    all like to know it. But I assume since you can't think of one,
    that there is not.
        Let me go to my next question. Even the USCIS union has
    stated that USCIS adjudicators are being pressured to ``get to
    yes'' on petitions and applications for immigration benefits.
        Don't you agree that any USCIS emphasis on adjudicators
    having to make quotas on the number of applications or
    petitions adjudicated in a day undermines the integrity about
    which you seem concerned in your opening testimony?
        Mr. Rodriguez. You know, interestingly enough, Congressman,
    I think that for as many individuals that have told me that
    there is a culture of getting to yes, I have heard other
    individuals saying that there is a culture of getting to no.
        Let me suggest that the culture we need to have and the
    culture that I have observed is a culture of getting to the
    right answer.
        Mr. Smith of Texas. Right.
        Are you aware of any pressure on the adjudicators to try to
    get to an affirmative answer?
        Mr. Rodriguez. I am aware that those allegations have been
    made.
        Mr. Smith of Texas. I know. But are you aware of any
    incidents where that has happened?
        Mr. Rodriguez. I am not aware of any specific incidents
    where that has occurred.
        Mr. Smith of Texas. Okay. Let me go now to the program that
    has already been mentioned several times today that was
    unilaterally instituted by the President 2 years ago that has
    allowed almost 600,000 individuals to stay in this country who
    were previously in an illegal status.
        Among the documents that could be proffered by these
    individuals to show that they were eligible for the program are
    educational records, employment records, and military records.
    What I would like to ask you is, how often does USCIS actually
    verify whether the educational records, military records, or
    employment records submitted are actually valid and are not an
    indication of fraud?
        Mr. Rodriguez. Congressman, I would not be able to give you
    a specific percentage as to when that occurs. What I would be
    able to tell you is that it is my understanding, based on my
    initial review of how our agency operates, that extensive
    training is given to our adjudicators.
        Mr. Smith of Texas. I understand that, but if you are not
    going to verify the records, if you are just going to take them
    at face value, that is an open invitation to a lot of
    individuals to apply for the legalization program and have
    pretty good confidence that they are going to be approved
    whether they are eligible or not.
        Mr. Rodriguez. Well, but our people are trained to look for
    indicators of fraud.
        Mr. Smith of Texas. Right. Why wouldn't you be able to give
    us an estimate as to how many out of 100 applications would be
    verified?
        Mr. Rodriguez. I am not able to. I am not sure that we have
    studied that in that way. It is the sense that I get from the
    staff that does this work that their judgment is that most of
    these documents are in fact valid and authentic.
        Mr. Smith of Texas. Okay.
        Thank you, Director Rodriguez. That concludes my questions.
        The gentlewoman from California, Ms. Lofgren, is recognized
    for hers.
        Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Director, I wanted to ask a little bit about how we are
    doing the credible fear interviews for families detained in
    Artesia. It is my understanding that the Committee staff has
    requested data regarding the positive and negative, and we
    don't have that yet. So I am looking forward--I guess you don't
    have it yet, either--but we are looking forward to receiving
    that.
        But here are some of the concerns that have been relayed to
    me.
        Recent news reports indicate that there was a 9-year-old
    boy from Guatemala who threatened to commit suicide while he
    was there, if he was deported, but that he was sent back
    anyhow. There are other instances where families were put on a
    plane and then were taken off when consular staff was able to
    provide information that they would be killed if they were
    returned.
        So here's my question: It is my understanding from
    attorneys who have represented some of the older children that
    the credible fear interviews are being held in groups. For
    example, a mother would be interviewed with her children
    present.
        I think that is problematic, because if that mother has
    been the victim of rape or other kinds of serious matters, she
    may be reluctant to discuss that in front of her children.
        Similarly, older children who might have been subject to
    sexual abuse might be reluctant to say that in front of a
    parent.
        So I am looking to you to see, is it possible to have these
    credible fear interviews done with the necessary privacy to
    elicit actual truth from some of these individuals. And if they
    don't have a fear matter, they will be removed. But if they are
    in fact the victim of trafficking, we want to find that out.
        Mr. Rodriguez. Thank you, Congresswoman, for that question.
    It is my understanding that our staff is trained first to
    interview children, specifically in techniques required for
    interviewing children--I am a former sex crimes special victims
    prosecutor, and I know full well that is a different process
    than interviewing adults--and also, generally, for interviewing
    people who have endured some sort of trauma.
        I am aware of the concern that you raise. As part of my
    transition, I will look into these particular concerns as soon
    as I can, and to determine whether there is anything we need to
    do differently.
        Ms. Lofgren. I appreciate that, and we will look forward to
    receiving further information from you.
        I wanted to address the issue, just briefly, of the data
    that was recently transmitted by the department about the
    number of unaccompanied children applying for asylum. And I
    would ask unanimous consent to put my analysis in the record.
    But I think it is flawed data because it does not include the
    children who received special immigrant juvenile status because
    a State court has found them to be abandoned, and certain key
    trafficking victim visas and the like.
        So I would ask that you review that analysis, Mr. Director,
    and see if you concur in the analysis.
        I also want to talk about the need for efficiency in the
    agency. It is tough to do, but coming from Silicon Valley, it
    is important to me that we do it once, do it right, and not
    come back.
        For example, I recently had a situation that came to my
    attention from a business case where there was a request for
    evidence and notice of intent to deny that don't make any
    sense.
        For example, in one case, there was an allegation that the
    businessperson had departed the country, but he hadn't. He had
    been able to disprove that, but he had to prove it over and
    over and over again, the same point.
        I am looking for you, prospectively, how do we get
    technology deployed so that these matters aren't re-litigated,
    wasting the time, not only of the government, but of the
    businesses and families that rely on quick resolution?
        And then a final question on the 5-month I-130 delay. On
    the business side, we allow individuals to pay an additional
    fee for rapid adjudication of a matter. We haven't really
    gotten into that on the family side, but I am wondering if we
    can look at that.
        For example, if you are an American citizen and you marry
    someone from another country, the 5 months might be fine. You
    have no plans to leave the United States, whatever. But if the
    spouse is a technology business guy in the valley, he has to
    travel all over. And it might be worth a substantial fee to get
    it resolved because of the need to travel.
        So could you take a look at that opportunity, to see if the
    different family circumstances could be accommodated in that
    way?
        Mr. Rodriguez. Thank you for both of those questions.
        I would like to share that, for me, one of my top
    challenges and top priorities is tackling our agency's
    information systems. In many cases, the systems that we have
    are either paper systems or legacy electronic systems that
    really are not enabling us to operate--we are operating very
    well, as much as anything else, because of the ingenuity and
    work ethic of our people. But we could be operating even better
    if we had the kind of modern information systems that we could
    use.
        So for me, making sure that, at a minimum, before I
    conclude my tenure, that we can see the light at the end of the
    tunnel for those challenges will be a top priority.
        I think your second question was whether we can look at the
    possibility of premium processing for other benefit areas than
    the kinds of business visas where premium processing is now
    utilized. I, certainly, will look into that and communicate
    with this Committee about those possibilities.
        Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Goodlatte [presiding]. The Chair thanks the
    gentlewoman.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Chabot,
    for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Chabot. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you for your service, Mr. Director.
        My first question would be this. My district is basically
    most of the City of Cincinnati, most of the greater Cincinnati
    area. We are down in the southwestern portion of Ohio. We
    oftentimes refer to our area as the tri-state area, because we
    have Kentucky right across the Ohio River and Indiana is right
    next to my district as well. So they call it the tri-state
    area.
        There was an article recently printed in the Cincinnati
    Enquirer that indicated that thus far there have been 842 of
    these unaccompanied children that--let me ask you a question
    about that, first of all.
        We keep referring to them as children. I have also seen an
    article recently that pointed out that actually something like
    91 percent of them are teenagers. To your knowledge, is that
    accurate? I understand, of course, that there is a big
    difference between a teenager that was 12 and just turned 13
    and one that is 19 and just turned 20. But in your
    understanding, 90 percent or so of these folks would be
    teenagers, rather than like 5- or 6-year-old kids?
        Mr. Rodriguez. First of all, let me let you know that I
    spent a lot of time in your district. I had a case as a Federal
    prosecutor in Cincinnati and really enjoyed my time there.
        The question really for us is a legal question. And under
    the law, these are children, in terms of what their rights are
    under the law.
        Mr. Chabot. I understand. I am an attorney as well. We
    called them for years infants even if they are under 21 years
    of age, the age of majority, which is now in Ohio, for example,
    come down to 18. So we call them infants, but, in general,
    terminology, when people think of infants, they are talking
    about a baby.
        So my only question really thus far is, do you know, is it
    accurate to say that 90 percent--the article said 91 percent--
    but 90 percent of them are teenagers, meaning that they are
    from 13 to 19?
        Mr. Rodriguez. I don't know specifically what the age
    spread is of these children.
        Mr. Chabot. That is okay. Thank you.
        So getting on to the question that I put the question
    within, so 842 are apparently going to the tri-state area. I
    think 360 of those are to Ohio, the State that I happen to have
    one of the districts in. Now exactly how many are in the
    greater Cincinnati area, it didn't point out.
        But my question is this, it says that they are going to
    families, for example, going to individuals. They are trying to
    kind of farm them out to different people who are going to
    watch them until their hearings are ultimately held or whatever
    happens happens.
        But how much of an effort is there to determine the legal
    status of the people who they are going to?
        Mr. Rodriguez. So, Congressman, what I would have to share
    is that I am a little bit outside my lane here, in the sense
    that the actual placement of these young people, these
    children, is conducted by the Administration for Children and
    Families at HHS.
        Mr. Chabot. So you don't know?
        Mr. Rodriguez. I really don't know what they do to deal
    with that.
        Mr. Chabot. Okay. Because it would seem to me that that
    would be, and I don't want to put you on the spot, but it seems
    to me that would be a pretty important thing to be determined
    by the executive branch of the government and probably the
    legislative branch ought to know that as well. But if we are
    taking folks who are here--and I hesitate to say they are here
    illegally, because of the way the law was written, which was
    supposed to deal with trafficking issues, where people were
    criminally trafficked, and so legislation was passed back in
    2008, as we know. So there are some questions whether they are
    here legally or illegally.
        But the point is, if people who don't have really legal
    status and a lot of Americans are concerned about our here, and
    we are putting them with people who are also here illegally,
    may be under different circumstances, that doesn't seem like a
    very good idea to me.
        Would agree with that? Even if you don't know----
        Mr. Rodriguez. Again, I am outside my lane, so I don't want
    to substitute my judgment, either legally or for a policy
    matter, for the individuals who are actually responsible for
    that placement.
        Mr. Chabot. Okay. Well, let me cut you off because I have
    one other question I want to get to.
        As you are probably aware, carnivals and the fair industry
    rely on Labor's H-2B seasonal guest workers to supplement their
    domestic workforce. These fairs are important to American
    agriculture as they not only serve as a primary showcase of our
    grown in America products for the public, but also for the
    important fundraising, which supports youth and civic programs.
        Beginning in early December 2013, a significant portion of
    H-2B employers in the mobile amusement industry paid premium
    processing fees for expedited USCIS handling of their H-2B
    petitions. Apparently, there is a long delay going on, relative
    to actually getting approval of these, and it is setting back a
    bunch of businesses across America.
        Because I am running out of time, and it is going to be
    tough for you to answer the question, if I could have my staff
    follow up with you to see if we can't determine why that delay
    is happening and expedite that matter, so we can get folks
    hired here who we really do want to come legally, can we work
    together on that?
        Mr. Rodriguez. Yes.
        Mr. Chabot. I see a thumbs-up. I appreciate that very much.
    I noticed your staff are in the background nodding in the
    affirmative, so thank you very much.
        Mr. Rodriguez. Thank you, Congressman.
        Mr. Goodlatte. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from
    Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee, for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank the Chair very much.
        Mr. Rodriguez, congratulations on your prior service to
    this Nation and now a new start in your service to this Nation.
    The President as they say, befitted himself well, as he always
    does, in your appointment.
        I think it is important to take note of what I heard as I
    came in, as you were explaining to Mr. Conyers an extensive
    background where you understand your responsibilities of
    enforcing the law, but you also understand the plight of
    people.
        So let me start, first of all, by asking about the plight
    of people and the ability of this government to balance,
    particularly under Immigration Services following the law,
    those surges that may come for reasons of fleeing. And I know
    that there is Office of Refugee Resettlement that has dual hats
    in State and Homeland Security as well.
        So why don't you just give me a brief philosophy. I have a
    short period of time, and I have some more pointed questions.
        But just how do we balance that? You have been a
    prosecutor. We are on the Judiciary Committee. We are not
    calling for the violation of laws, but we are trying to find
    that balance. How do you see that balance?
        Mr. Rodriguez. Congresswoman, I certainly appreciate you
    pointing to my experience as a prosecutor. Every chief
    prosecutor that I have ever worked for has exercised
    prosecutorial discretion in some way. They have determined
    priorities.
        So when I was a street prosecutor, we knew that we needed
    to dedicate more prosecutorial resources to murderers than to
    individuals who were trying to get on the subway for free. So
    similar principles apply in our immigration processing as well.
        I think your question is also how do we deal with surges.
    And one of the things that I have been pleased to see as the
    new director of CIS is we have dealt with surges in our work
    for different reasons at many different times.
        In one respect, the first surge was actually the birth of
    our agency. Our agency was created in the early part of the
    Bush administration. It was separated away from the former INS.
    That required a huge lift by leadership and staff in order to
    make this now an independent, fully functioning agency.
        When DACA came along, we had a surge as well. And we
    learned a number of very useful lessons from that experience,
    which we can apply for whatever surges we may face in the
    future.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me thank you for that. You made a very
    valid point.
        I just want to take a moment of personal privilege to
    acknowledge the late Leonel Castillo, who was a constituent of
    mine, a neighbor of mine, who was formerly an Immigration and
    Naturalization Services Commissioner under Jimmy Carter. It
    just came to my mind, and I am just making a moment of personal
    privilege on that.
        I only say that because he seemed to have had that same
    philosophy. That was many, many years ago.
        As I look at the work that you all have to do, 10 million
    applications, over 50 different types of petitions and
    applications. A prosecutor always lays out his or her case to
    win. I think you have to be orderly.
        From your perspective, a comprehensive immigration reform
    structure, obviously, it is the work of the executive and
    Congress, but an ordering of the responsibility that you have
    which will then see an enhancement of staffing, it would see
    more resources because one of the proposals, of course, are the
    fines that individuals would pay to get in an orderly line, no,
    not in front of those have been in line.
        What is your assessment on getting order to the immigration
    system in America?
        Mr. Rodriguez. So, of course, thank goodness, we are not
    charging fines. We are actually charging fees, because these
    are----
        Ms. Jackson Lee. And I stand corrected. They are fees.
        Mr. Rodriguez [continuing]. Immigration opportunities.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. There will be a multiple of fees.
        Mr. Rodriguez. That individuals are paying.
        I think order is sort of one of our core business
    objectives.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. And would you add to that, because I see
    my time is going, you started out, but that we can deal with
    the question of dealing with humanitarian crises in your whole
    answer. Thank you.
        Mr. Rodriguez. Yes. We have to, of course, address those
    aggressively when they occur. I think that is the nature of
    your question.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Well, the nature of my question is, that
    if we pass comprehensive immigration reform, you sort of put in
    order all that you are dealing with now. You have the ability
    through laws to address these questions. Would it be better to
    have an order that allows you now to get your hands around the
    many disparate aspects of immigration in this country, one of
    which are individuals here to work, who are already here in
    this country?
        Mr. Rodriguez. That is what we have done. That is what we
    will always do, is balance different lines of business for the
    most efficient processing across our lines of business.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. And the EB-5 petitions, are they something
    that you can work with as well that generates jobs and other
    aspects of economic opportunity?
        Mr. Rodriguez. Yes, the EB-5 petitions are. We are in the
    process right now of affecting some important changes that were
    started by now Deputy Secretary Mayorkas, among other things,
    centralizing our EB-5 processing and fully staffing the EB-5
    office with economists and other sorts of professionals who
    will really enable us to very efficiently and correctly process
    those applications.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me just say the Chairman and I have
    looked at this issue. I think we had some legislation that was
    moving at one point in time. So I am looking forward to the
    ordering of that, because I think there is merit to the EB-5,
    in terms of its investment, if it is in an orderly process, and
    as well the benefits that come. But I want to make sure that
    the benefits are not overly excessive for the investment in the
    job creation that is so very important.
        I will just finish on this note. Is it important for a
    Nation that has shown itself to have been built on immigration
    and laws, to have a humanitarian element to continuing in this
    process of immigration, even in the 21st century? We know what
    we did in the 1800's, the 1900's, the 20th century, in terms of
    the flow of immigration. Do we still have that role now in the
    21st century?
        Mr. Goodlatte. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alabama, Mr.
    Bachus, for his questions.
        Mr. Bachus. Thank you.
        We have had several words that have been used time and time
    again here this morning. I have heard the word ``discretion.''
    I have heard the term ``humanitarian.'' You used the words
    ``freedom'' and ``enterprise.'' You stressed pillars of our
    democracy.
        But I have heard ``discretion, discretion, discretion.'' I
    have heard you say that six times.
        But what I haven't heard you say is ``rule of law.'' You
    are a prosecutor. You enforce the law. My parents, your
    parents, are immigrants. They came here legally. They followed
    the law rule of law.
        What I am seeing here is when you have a rule of law, there
    is a reason. And you may exercise discretion toward someone
    that violates that law, but there is also the victim.
        You have dealt with a lot of victims. You met with those
    who have survived their death, a lot of times.
        Someone on the Democratic side said ``plight of the
    people.'' I would like to talk about those who are suffering
    from the President's actions on encouraging--and I think it is
    encouraging. He admitted that DACA has incentivized
    unauthorized immigration, particularly with respect for
    children. He said that is a problem. That is why people are
    sending people here.
        The plight of people. I am going to talk about a very
    conservative paper, and that is Cameron Smith, who is general
    counsel of the Alabama Policy Institute, a very conservative
    organization, and The New York Times. They agree on one thing.
    They said the program, talking about DACA, is benefitting some
    immigrants, but it extends the visa wait for others.
        He talks about DACA and the lengthy backlogs on visa and
    citizenship applications where people are following the law.
    You mention all the people who have been transferred to the
    border from immigration to deal with these children. What The
    New York Times said, and this is an article I would like you to
    read, maybe when you get back, February 8, 2014: ``The long
    waits came when the agency''--your agency--``shifted attention
    and resources to a program President Obama started in 2012 to
    give deportation deferrals to young undocumented immigrants,
    according to Administration officials.'' Not me.
        They go on and talk about U.S. citizens petitioning for
    green cards for immediate relatives are at a high, if not the
    highest priority in the way Congress sets up the immigration
    system.
        But there are nightmare story after nightmare story of a
    man coming back from Czechoslovakia, his wife, a citizen,
    having to wait 8 months and still not a hearing. A family in
    Australia, he is American, she is Australian, they have
    children. He has been back for 6 months. They are still there.
        I don't think it was intended. In fact, the Congress also
    passed a resolution here, just July 8, saying there are now 900
    children in Congo, Democratic Republic of Congo, waiting on
    being united with their adoptive parents here in the United
    States because Immigration quit processing these applications
    and assigned it to the State Department, and the State
    Department has slowed down on it.
        Now I don't know why you did that, but there is a
    resolution--and I am going to submit for the record a letter
    signed by about 20 Democratic Senators, Elizabeth Warren, Mitch
    McConnell, a Republican, but on both sides, and about 90 of us
    from the House, who said please process these claims, please
    pay attention to the Democratic Republic of Congo and quit
    slowing these things up.
        So the victims, just like The New York Times said, the
    program benefits some. DACA is benefiting some. You are having
    children coming here. You are offering humanitarian things.
        But we have a lot of relatives and families who are being
    separated because you have taken resources, and even the
    Administration in this letter said you have taken, because of
    this plight of the border, some immigrants extending visa wait
    for others. These are people who go through the process.
        Let me close with what Cameron Smith said in the Birmingham
    Business Journal. The governance by rule of law is being
    challenged, as it may be in times crucially important to the
    American system. By circumventing immigration law, the
    President has encouraged even more unlawful immigration. In
    response, America has a choice to either create yet another
    incentive for unlawful activity by caring for immigrant
    children and attending to their health needs or processing
    those who are going through the system.
        I would just like to submit this to you and say to you,
    please don't sacrifice families in Asia, families in Europe,
    and deploy all your resources about these children. It tugs at
    our heartstrings, but what you are not seeing are all these
    examples of people who are suffering.
        And rule of law, you are a prosecutor, rule of law is what
    this country is built on.
        Mr. Goodlatte. The gentleman is very eloquent, but his time
    has expired. Is there a question in there to the director?
        Mr. Bachus. Well, if you could respond.
        Mr. Goodlatte. If he wants to respond, we will give him a
    brief response.
        Mr. Bachus. I don't know if you are aware of the resolution
    of Congress on the Congolese children.
        Mr. Rodriguez. I look forward to reviewing these materials.
    I am aware of the Congo situation. I look forward to discussing
    that with you.
        I am committed to the rule of law. That is why, when I
    mentioned to Congressman Smith the question about the culture
    of getting to yes. To me, the culture is getting to the right
    answer under the facts and under the law.
        And, absolutely, we have an obligation of stewardship to
    the people that you describe to run an efficient and fair
    system.
        Mr. Bachus. All right, thank you.
        Mr. Goodlatte. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from
    California, Ms. Chu, for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Chu. Thank you.
        First, I would like to put into the record this document
    from the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles
    on their recommendations pertaining to oversight of USCIS at
    the Department of Homeland Security.
        Mr. Goodlatte. Without objection, it will be made a part of
    the record.
        [The information referred to follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                   __________
        Ms. Chu. Thank you.
        Director Rodriguez, I am gratified to hear that you were a
    prosecutor and that you were in a strong position to challenge
    false claims, to tell truth from fact.
        What I want to know is whether the current credible fear
    system works. I understand that the current credible fear
    asylum system is a robust process that requires an asylum
    seeker to demonstrate a significant possibility of succeeding
    in demonstrating a past persecution or well-founded fear of
    future persecution to an immigration judge.
        So, Mr. Rodriguez, could you briefly walk us through what
    an asylum officer does when conducting a credible fear
    interview? And how does the officer test the credibility of an
    applicant? And how does an officer determine whether there is a
    significant possibility that the individual could be eligible
    for asylum?
        Mr. Rodriguez. Thank you, Congresswoman. I appreciate that
    question.
        I don't mind sharing really one of the most important sort
    of transitional activities that I have conducted was actually
    sitting in on a credible fear interview.
        It is important to note that the credible fear standard is
    a threshold standard. In other words, it is not the final
    determination of whether somebody gets asylum. It is simply a
    threshold determination to determine whether that individual
    who otherwise is in an expedited removal proceeding can fully
    assert those claims.
        I observed the credible fear interview. I understood it to
    be based on a basic rubric that is used by the asylum office to
    evaluate those claims.
        It asked questions specifically targeted to determine
    whether in fact the individual could potentially show a
    credible fear of persecution or torture, on various bases,
    race, national origin, membership in a particular social group.
        From that interview, I was satisfied that there is an
    appropriate matrix of questions and appropriate training to our
    asylum officers to assess those individuals, given what is the
    threshold standard that applies under credible fear.
        And I will be continuing to look into that to satisfy
    myself that my initial assessment is correct.
        Ms. Chu. In fact, I would like to know about that training.
    It is my understanding that asylum officers receive extensive
    training to detect fraud and make credibility determinations,
    such as through the USCIS academy.
        Can you elaborate on how they are trained to detect such
    fear? And would you say that USCIS officials are effective in
    detecting such legitimate cases of credible fear?
        Mr. Rodriguez. Thank you, because I realized that I hadn't
    answered that portion of your initial question.
        Yes, the manner in which the questioning was done did ask
    questions that go to the question of whether the individual
    presenting the credible fear claim is themselves a credible
    person, in a sense, whether their story hangs together, whether
    it makes sense, given both the general facts, the country
    conditions, and the applicable legal standard in that case.
        Now, I am not fully familiar with the exact training
    curriculum. That is something that I will look into and make a
    judgment about.
        Ms. Chu. And then, are they effective?
        Mr. Rodriguez. And whether they are effective. My sense is
    that the interviews are effective. My initial assessment is
    that they are effective in determining whether that threshold
    standard is actually met.
        Ms. Chu. There are those in the public who are saying that
    the increase in asylum applications are evidence of fraud in
    and of itself. I am struck by the fact that not only has the
    recent increase in credible fear claims been driven largely by
    an increase in claims from El Salvador, Honduras, and
    Guatemala, but the percentage of cases from those three
    countries that have resulted in a positive finding of credible
    fear have also been increasing.
        Mr. Rodriguez, is there reason to believe that
    deteriorating conditions in those countries explain the
    increase in credible fear claims and the increase in credible
    fear findings?
        Mr. Rodriguez. Congresswoman, the deteriorating conditions
    in those countries are in fact well-documented. In terms of
    violent crime, human rights abuses, those sorts of concerns are
    in fact well-documented. In fact, there is reason to believe
    they play a role in the situation we are seeing at our border.
        Ms. Chu. And are they to be distinguished from the other
    countries in Central America?
        Mr. Rodriguez. I am most familiar right now with the
    Northern Triangle, because it is really where a lot of our
    workload is coming from. I know that similar concerns have
    emerged from other countries in Latin America and, frankly,
    throughout the world.
        Ms. Chu. And finally, temporary protective status for
    Filipinos. This is very important to individuals in my
    district. Since the devastation of the earthquake, we have been
    constantly asking for that temporary protective status, so that
    Filipinos could send remittances and get protective status.
    What is status of that?
        Mr. Rodriguez. I appreciate that question. There is, as you
    know, ongoing consideration as part of an interagency review
    process to determine whether temporary protected status should
    be granted in the case of the Philippines. That process is
    ongoing.
        I do know that prior to my arrival, the agency expedited a
    number of other benefit categories, for which various Filipino
    nationals or Filipino immigrants might be eligible in order to
    afford relief to those individuals in that area.
        We will continue to work on concluding the evaluation of
    the TPS process.
        Ms. Chu. I hope it is soon, Mr. Rodriguez.
        Mr. Rodriguez. Thank you. I appreciate that.
        Ms. Chu. Thank you. I yield back.
        Mr. Goodlatte. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
    Virginia, Mr. Forbes, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Forbes. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
        Mr. Director, thank you so much for being here today. Let's
    just cut to the chase. The President is not enforcing the
    immigration laws, because any time you issue an order for the
    massive unilateral nonprosecution of individuals who are
    breaking the law, that is, by definition, not enforcing the
    law.
        And what bothers me even more than that, because I
    recognize there are some people on this Committee who don't
    want him to enforce the law, and other people who want him to
    enforce the law, but when we have the head of the ICE agents
    union sitting in the chair right beside you and the head of the
    Border agents union, 12,500 people, who, unlike you, have been
    on the job much longer than 3 weeks, who have conducted
    literally thousands of interviews with these individuals coming
    across the border, and they say unequivocally that the reason
    we are having this crisis is because of the President's
    policies, and they have told the President that through their
    agents, that is what concerns this Committee.
        But one of the other concerns we have is this: They are
    concerned about gang members who are being released and coming
    through because their efforts are being taken somewhere else.
        So I want to ask you this, in that probing interrogation
    that you talked about earlier that you were so impressed with,
    if during the background check or other information that is
    uncovered during the review of a request for deferred action,
    an individual's presence in the United States threatens the
    public safety or national security, is it not true that that
    individual will not be able to receive deferred action?
        Mr. Rodriguez. That is correct.
        Mr. Forbes. All right. Does gang membership qualify as a
    threat to public safety or national security?
        Mr. Rodriguez. Without a doubt.
        Mr. Forbes. Does former gang membership qualify?
        Mr. Rodriguez. In general, yes, former gang membership
    would also be a potentially disqualifying----
        Mr. Forbes. If an individual renounces their membership in
    a violent criminal gang, are they eligible for asylum or
    withholding from removal? Or are they continued to be
    recognized as a potential public safety or national security
    threat?
        Mr. Rodriguez. Generally, they would be seen as a threat
    and denied a benefit. But again, these things depend on facts
    and circumstances.
        Mr. Forbes. Your testimony earlier was that if they were a
    member of a gang, then they would be viewed as a public safety
    or national security threat.
        Mr. Rodriguez. That is correct. If they are a current
    member of a gang, then they would be----
        Mr. Forbes. All right. Then my question is this, how do you
    know? I don't think they have ID badges or membership cards.
    Are you asking them in the interview if they were ever a member
    of the gang?
        Mr. Rodriguez. Among the things that I have prosecuted in
    the past is organized crime, specifically.
        Mr. Forbes. I got all that. I just want to know.
        Mr. Rodriguez. I want to tell you about my ability to judge
    what I am seeing.
        Mr. Forbes. I appreciate that. What I want to know is what
    your agency is doing in their interviews. Are they asking the
    question, ``Are you a gang member or are you not a gang
    member?'' when they are doing these interviews?
        Mr. Rodriguez. The agency through the Fraud Detection and
    National Security Directorate is doing a robust series of
    checks to determine whether an individual has a disqualifying
    criminal history.
        Mr. Forbes. Are they asking the individuals if they have
    ever been a member of a violent criminal gang?
        Mr. Rodriguez. I am not able to speak to that specific
    question.
        Mr. Forbes. See, that is what just absolutely frightens me,
    when you come in here and testify about the broad comprehensive
    nature we need to review and change this process, when that is
    asked of you by the other side of the aisle. But when we ask
    you a simple question on the fact that you have testified that
    gang membership constitutes a public safety or national
    security threat, and we don't even know if we are asking that
    question, that gives me cause for concern.
        If you don't know whether we are asking the question, do
    you know what an individual would have to do to renounce that
    gang membership? Do they just have to say, ``I am no longer a
    member?''
        Mr. Rodriguez. Congressman, I am looking into those issues
    right now. It is my understanding that we have generally been
    very effective at screening out individuals who pose some sort
    of national security or criminal justice threat.
        Mr. Forbes. Mr. Director, I don't want to be harsh on you.
    Can you understand why the American people are so frustrated
    with this Administration? When you come in here and you say
    gang membership is a threat to national security, it is a
    threat to public safety, and you as the director don't even
    know on the interviews if you are asking the question if they
    were a member of the gang and you don't know whether or not
    they can just say, ``Oh, yes. I was a member, but I am no
    longer a member.'' That is concerning.
        I will finish with this, and then I will let you respond,
    when the border agents who are having to do this are telling us
    they are worried because we are letting gang members into the
    country, and then we find you don't even know if we are asking
    that question, that is a big concern to us.
        And I will let you respond, because my time has expired.
        Mr. Rodriguez. Sure. What I do know is where we do have
    cause to believe that an individual has been----
        Mr. Forbes. The question ought to be asked every single
    time in every interview, if you think it is a public threat and
    a national security issue, which you testified it was.
        And to say if you have cause, if somebody shows up and they
    make the allegation, you ought to be at least asking that
    question, if the border agents are saying this is a big
    concern.
        And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back with a great deal
    of frustration.
        Mr. Goodlatte. The Chair thanks the gentleman, and
    recognizes the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Gutierrez, for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Gutierrez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am looking
    forward to writing my letter to Leader Pelosi. I want to come
    back to this Committee in the next Congress of the United
    States. Nothing is more interesting than coming to this
    Committee, each and every time.
        Well, guess what, welcome, Mr. Rodriguez.
        Mr. Rodriguez. It is good to be here.
        Mr. Gutierrez. You finally heard the Republicans say they
    love a union, one union, and one union only. Of course, it is
    the union that helps them promote the kind of xenophobic
    attitude toward immigrants that they like to promote in the
    Congress of the United States.
        And that is unfortunate, but they do like a union. Finally,
    there is one. I don't know if they are members of the AFL-CIO
    or what they are. It is the Border Patrol.
        But just so we get clear, he keeps talking about the
    testimony about the ICE union. Are there ICE members on the
    border stopping people from crossing the border?
        Mr. Rodriguez. My understanding is that is the
    responsibility of U.S. Customs and Border Patrol.
        Mr. Gutierrez. There we go. So there is one union you
    should stop talking about at the border, since ICE agents
    aren't at the border of the United States. But why let the
    facts get in the way of a good story.
        So here, once again, we talk about gang members. Do you ask
    5 years olds whether they are gangs?
        Mr. Rodriguez. Again, I am looking into----
        Mr. Gutierrez. Because you have to ask them all. You have
    to ask them all, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 year olds.
        Mr. Rodriguez. It is my understanding that when we believe
    that somebody presents a national security or criminal justice
    threat, based on the biometric data that we collect, then we do
    follow up. I imagine we don't often do that with 5 year olds,
    are probably never do it with 5 year olds.
        Mr. Gutierrez. That is what I thought. But they are
    probably going to want you to ask 5 year olds if they are gang
    members.
        Do you check them for Ebola, for the Ebola virus?
        Mr. Rodriguez. Well, I do know that individuals----
        Mr. Gutierrez. Because they are very concerned about that.
        Mr. Rodriguez. I do now that individuals do receive health
    screenings at the border, Congressman.
        Mr. Gutierrez. They do receive health screenings. So maybe
    next time they are going to ask you. You should check them, see
    if they have that virus before they contaminate everybody in
    the United States when they come across.
        So what we hear constantly is about, just so that we have
    it clear, I wish I had the article, but it appears the American
    public, 70 percent of the American public, looks at the
    children at the border as refugees. They don't look at them as
    people coming here to take away jobs from hardworking American
    citizens. They look at them as refugees.
        They don't look at them as, what is it, gun-toting, tattoo-
    wearing, disease-ridden criminal elements who are coming to
    destroy America, but as refugees.
        I would suggest that people go down to the border and
    visit. I think you will see that they are refugees, too.
        There is going to be another trip, bipartisan trip, this
    coming Thursday. I look forward to participating in that.
        And I am a member of the Permanent Select Committee on
    Intelligence, and we have absolutely no reports from our
    intelligence services--and this isn't these guys. These are the
    guys who are there to protect us and everything. They are
    saying they have found no relationship between those people
    crossing the border and gangs. None. They haven't been able to
    find any. They are searching, because they want to find some
    for you, but they haven't found any yet, any connection yet.
        I am not trying to say that there aren't any, but it is
    just not the prevalent case. What you have are children fleeing
    violence, fleeing poverty, and trying to reunite with their
    families. All of those things are true.
        I want to ask you a question, because there was a time in
    California when they had good old Governor Pete Wilson decide
    he would propose Proposition 187. Using similar language that
    is being used today about disease-ridden, gang-banging, tattoo-
    wearing people taking away jobs and corrupting America, so he
    proposed Proposition 187, so they wouldn't be able to get
    educated.
        Do you know how many people became citizens of the United
    States of America in 1994, 1995, 1996?
        Mr. Rodriguez. I confess that I don't actually know how
    many people became U.S. citizens in those years.
        Mr. Gutierrez. Over 1 million. Over 1 million, promoted by
    none other than Pete Wilson. So Pete Wilson said, you know, I
    really don't like those immigrants. You know what immigrants
    did? They came.
        But here is the issue, Mr. Rodriguez. It was 95 bucks back
    then. It is now how much?
        Mr. Rodriguez. It is my understanding that the
    naturalization fee now, I think, is about $680.
        Mr. Gutierrez. So it is a lot more than it was back then.
        Are you doing anything in order to make citizenship--
    because it just seems to me that if somebody wants to become a
    permanent resident of the United States, they just want to
    renew their permanent residence, it is around the $400 range.
    But it is over $600 if you want to become a citizen. Why is it
    so much more expensive, if you want to be a citizen than if you
    just want to be a permanent resident?
        Mr. Rodriguez. The price of any particular benefit, the
    cost of any particular benefit, is determined by the time and
    effort involved in adjudicating that benefit. Naturalization,
    we are talking about a language interview. We are talking about
    a general interview. So there is a significant time and effort
    involved. We have to pay our own way.
        Mr. Gutierrez. My time is up.
        Mr. Rodriguez. And we have fee waivers that are granted to
    about 20 percent of our applicants.
        Mr. Gutierrez. Okay. You might want to decide, thank you
    for the indulgence of the Chair, you might want to decide to
    kind of switch.
        That is to say, if I want to make a permanent relationship
    with the United States--i.e., be a citizen of the United
    States--you might want to have that cost less than I just want
    to maybe hang around for 10 more years and not make that
    permanent. Because the guy who does want to become a citizen,
    or the woman, he learns English and civics and takes a big
    chance because he might fail the test, whereas the other person
    just pretty much automatically gets extended for 10 more years.
        You might want to switch that around, since there are 8.8
    million permanent residents who can become citizens today, 6
    million of them Mexican nationals who could become citizens
    overnight. You might want to think about that, so they can
    defend themselves against those who would portray them as
    tattoo-wearing gang-bangers.
        Mr. Chaffetz [presiding]. We thank the gentleman.
        I now recognize the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. King, for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Director Rodriguez, I do appreciate your testimony. I would
    like to give you a little bit of a narrative on what is on the
    front of my mind listening to this. And that is that I took Mr.
    Gutierrez's advice last weekend and went down to the border,
    started at the mouth of the Rio Grande River, right there at
    the physical border. I planted a flag there, by the way. I
    worked my way upstream all the way to Laredo.
        Stopped in at multiple places in Brownsville and McAllen
    and other places on up the river and received briefings at
    those ports of entry from Customs and Border Protection, from
    Border Patrol, from each law enforcement entity that is down
    there, including the Department of Public safety of Texas and
    Texas Rangers, and talked to people on the street.
        Here's what comes out of that for me, and that is they will
    all tell us that DACA is the magnet. And one of the excuses is
    the 2008 law for the other than Mexican unaccompanied alien
    children. That is developing into a broader policy because it
    is being exploited.
        These children are being sent into the United States at the
    expense of the American taxpayer.
        But when I met with them, I went also to an HHS not-for-
    profit subcontractor who is housing 188 of the unaccompanied
    alien children between the ages of 10 and 17. There were 144
    males and 44 females. That is the 188.
        And there, and many other places, we learned this. They
    said that in some cases 100 percent of the females who are
    being sent out of Central America are given birth control
    before they leave because it is anticipated that they will be
    raped along the way. I don't believe that number is 100
    percent. I see other numbers that are less than that.
        But those who are sexually abused, the reports that we got
    in asking this question nearly every stop ranged between one
    third of the females who are coming up--this is the children,
    the under 18 children, between one third of them raped and up
    to 70 percent of them raped.
        That does comport with the expectation that handing them
    birth control pills--so apparently it is this. I expect that my
    daughter, my granddaughter, my niece, my neighbor, whoever it
    is that is in custody, when they send them is going to be
    raped, and I can deal with the sexually transmitted diseases
    and the mental trauma and the physical trauma, as long as she
    doesn't have a baby that comes along with that. That seems to
    be the psychology.
        And we went into the detention centers in the Border Patrol
    and we saw unaccompanied alien children, males and females. We
    saw mothers with nursing babies. We saw women who were ready to
    have a baby. And we watched that process go all the way
    through. And we went to the bus station to see where they were
    being dispatched out across the country.
        I did go and do these things. And asylum is a big piece.
        Sunday night, we sat at a border crossing upstream from
    that crossing and downstream from Laredo. And I have in this
    phone here a video of a raft of two coyotes who loaded a
    pregnant female in it and brazenly took her across the river
    within plain sight of the Border Patrol and the local city
    police, deposited her on the shoreline. She gave herself up for
    asylum. And before she gets hearing, the baby is an anchor
    baby.
        There is not a level of anxiety down there about this
    happening on an hourly basis in broad daylight in front of the
    Border Patrol and in front of the city police. There is anxiety
    on my part because I am watching the rule of law being
    deconstructed by this Administration.
        I have in my hand here, this is a request for proposals
    from your operation, dated June 19, which I would ask unanimous
    consent to introduce it into the record.*
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        *Because of its voluminous size, the information referred to is not
    reprinted in this hearing record but is on file with the Committee and
    can also be accessed at http://docs.house.gov/
    meetings/JU/JU00/20140729/102548/HHRG-113-JU00-20140729-SD004.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Mr. Chaffetz. Without objection, so ordered.
        Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        This RFP is 162 pages, titled ``Solicitation Contract Order
    for Commercial Items.'' And one of the things it says in the
    RFP is this: Based on experience over the past few years, USCIS
    estimates that application petition receipt levels could
    increase or decrease from \2/10\ of 1 million on up to 2
    million forms per year over the next 5 years.
        For asylum applications up to 2 million? And the decision
    has not been made by this Administration to expand DACA, which
    is the foundation for this human tragedy of thousands of girls
    being raped on their way from Central America to the United
    States.
        And apparently we don't have a conscious about what is
    happening to these girls--and boys, too, by the way, in
    significant numbers are being sexually abused, not to mention
    the murders and death that take place along the way.
        This Administration has made the decision. This RFP put out
    by your Administration would not have been put out, if the
    decision were not at least on the cusp of imminent.
        Can you tell me what might cause the Administration to
    retract from this, this decision, this RFP asking for the
    ability to process--by the way, USCIS, this is from the report,
    needs to acquire records management and support services for
    its service centers. The objective of the acquisition is to
    provide comprehensive records management services for four
    service centers in a manner that ensures efficient and
    effective adjudication, financial responsibility, and excellent
    customer service. I appreciate that part. And it anticipates
    implementation of new laws and policies as a cause for this.
        I think the Administration has made the decision to totally
    tear asunder the rule of law and grant administrative amnesty
    to 5 or more million people, and do so while this Congress is
    out of session.
        How would you respond to that, Director Rodriguez?
        Mr. Rodriguez. First of all, let me start by saying, DACA
    offers no benefit to the individuals coming over the border.
    They are not eligible for DACA or any version of DACA.
        Secondly, to the extent, and I am not familiar with the
    specific contract that you described, we prepare for surges in
    work that can come from all kinds of sources.
        So I will, certainly, look into that particular contract
    when I return to my office this afternoon, but I would not
    necessarily attribute it to the situation at the border.
        As far as adults, roughly 15 percent are asserting credible
    fear claims. As far as children, it is in the low single
    digits, the number of children who are actually making asylum
    claims at some point in the process. That is a different
    process than the credible fear process.
        I just thought those facts would be potentially helpful.
        Mr. King. Do we have those who are lawfully present during
    DACA, and there is an anticipation that DACA will be expanded,
    they think that if they get into America, they get to stay in
    America. And we know that that number is well above 98 percent
    who get into America who get to stay in America.
        And the asylum applications, this woman will apply for
    asylum. And before she is heard, the baby will be born, and
    there will be an anchor in this country. And that came right
    under my nose.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Chaffetz. I thank the gentleman.
        I will now recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gohmert,
    for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Gohmert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And thank you for being here, Director. I am looking at
    numbers from USCIS from March 2014, and it indicates that looks
    like through March 2014 that there has been a cumulative total
    since 2012 of 553,197 requests approved under DACA, the
    President's law that passed his lips, but not Congress.
        Do you have any updated numbers since March? Where are we
    now? It is obviously more than 553,000.
        Mr. Rodriguez. We will make sure to get the Committee
    specific updated numbers. I believe, but please don't hold me
    to this, the number now is----
        Mr. Gohmert. Well, who do I hold--I want to get somebody I
    can hold to it.
        Mr. Rodriguez. I want to get you--I just don't have it at
    my fingertips right now. I will get you the exact information
    you need.
        I believe the number is now at 714,000 individuals who have
    DACA receipts.
        Mr. Gohmert. I see. You said in answer to an earlier
    question that you have heard people say that there is a culture
    of getting to yes, but you also heard people say there is a
    culture of getting to no. And I would submit to you based on
    your own numbers that the figures bear out there is a culture
    of getting to yes.
        You can't get to 700,000, and maybe have 20,000 noes, and
    not have a culture of yes. So I would encourage you to look
    more harshly at those who say there is a culture of no.
        You said you observed a credible fear interview. Let me ask
    you, in your prosecutorial role, did you ever prosecute any
    drug crimes?
        Mr. Rodriguez. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Gohmert. Okay. So I am curious, during your prosecution
    of drug crimes, did you ever refer to someone who gave money to
    buy a big load of drugs as a drug trafficking victim? Someone
    who paid massive money to get a load of drugs, did you ever
    refer to them as a drug trafficking victim?
        Mr. Rodriguez. Let me suggest that perhaps we are talking
    about apples and oranges. But, no, I certainly did not refer to
    somebody giving----
        Mr. Gohmert. Well, let's talk about the apples and oranges,
    Director.
        When someone pays a human trafficker to move them, then I
    would submit to you they are not a victim. They are a
    participant in the human trafficking business. They are keeping
    the human traffickers in business.
        And when I was down there, the weekend before last, south
    of McAllen, right on the river, talking late at night to one of
    the border patrolman there who is Hispanic, he was telling me
    that 90 percent of the time when he asked them out there by the
    river, they say, ``Oh, I was fleeing gangs and gang violence.''
    And he said, ``I get tough with them because I know where they
    are coming from and I speak the language well. I tell them you
    may tell that garbage to somebody else, but you and I both know
    that it was gangs that brought you up are.''
        That is who the drug cartels normally hire to bring people
    up here through Mexico. And he said 90 percent of the time or
    better, they will say, ``Well, you are right, but we were told
    to say we are fleeing gang violence.''
        Are you aware, Director, of who it is the powerful drug
    cartels in Mexico hire to move people who have paid their
    thousands of dollars across Mexico to the U.S.? Do you who they
    hire?
        Mr. Rodriguez. No, not specifically. I mean, obviously, I
    know the human trafficking environment involves drug cartels,
    involves all kind of alien smugglers. It is not exactly our
    lane, so I am not fully familiar with that.
        Mr. Gohmert. Would you call them criminals?
        Mr. Rodriguez. Human traffickers and drug cartels?
        Mr. Gohmert. Yes.
        Mr. Rodriguez. Sure.
        Mr. Gohmert. That get paid to move people illegally into
    the United States.
        Mr. Rodriguez. Sure, I have prosecuted alien smuggling.
    Yes, of course; they are criminals.
        Mr. Gohmert. And so I would submit to you that is what we
    are talking about. We are talking about people who are paying
    criminals.
        And I would submit to you that the evidence will get down
    and dirty and show that there are many gang members who are
    getting paid to transport people to the U.S., only to have them
    get here and say, ``I am fleeing gang violence.''
        So I would encourage you to be more skeptical in these
    interviews, without further evidence.
        And, Mr. Chairman, I would ask that I be allowed to submit
    to the record the evidence from Honduran Security Minister
    Arturo Corrales that there has been a tremendous drop in
    homicides between 2012 and June 2014, from 3,245 to 2,634. So
    it doesn't appear the evidence is that things are deteriorating
    down south.
        Thank you. I yield back.
        Mr. Chaffetz. Without objection, so ordered. We will enter
    that into the record.
        [The information referred to follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                   __________
        Mr. Chaffetz. We will now go ahead and recognize the
    gentleman from Texas, Mr. Poe, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Poe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you once again for being here.
        Of course, I am from Texas. I have been to the border a
    lot. I was there this weekend and saw Federal officials and
    State officials, both trying to secure the Texas-Mexico border.
        Went down the Rio Grande River. They see us coming in a
    State boat. The folks that are in the water swim back. Coyotes
    in a raft moving folks. He bails and leaves the raft on its
    own. Rocks were thrown at us going down the river. It does not
    seem to be uncommon, based upon the law enforcement officers
    that I was with.
        I just asked a lot of questions to the people who are on
    the frontline about the influx of people really from all over
    the world. Border Patrol sector chief, I asked him, who is
    coming? He said it is 144 countries that have come recently
    from all over the world, including Ukraine, coming into Texas
    from Mexico.
        It shows the magnitude of the problem.
        I was in Honduras and Guatemala earlier in the year. I saw
    the beginning of some of these folks who were making the trek.
        And here's the message, whether it is a right message or
    not, that if you get to the United States, you can stay,
    especially if you are 17 or under. You are going to be able to
    stay. The United States will take care of you.
        And so based on that, people move. The people motivating
    this are the drug cartels. And in this whole scheme of things,
    the winners, the people are making money, are the drug cartels
    and the coyotes. They are the ones who make the money off of
    smuggling people and trafficking people, which, as you know, as
    a lawyer, that is different. But they make the money.
        Drug dealers for $6,000 tell folks in Central America, give
    us $6,000, that will get you three tries to get into the United
    States. Get the Texas-Mexico border, individuals are turned
    over to coyotes. Many of them, not all, but many of them, are
    criminal gangs, and MS-13 gang, juveniles under 17, criminals,
    to smuggle them into the United States.
        Many of them are used as bait, in the sense that they start
    moving some people into United States. Drug cartels call Border
    Patrol and say here comes some more folks crossing the border.
    They use them as decoys to move their drugs further downriver
    across the river.
        So the drug cartels are the criminals, and the MS-13 gang
    and the smugglers.
        So the message is out there, right or wrong, that we will
    take care of folks. People hear that all the way down in
    Central America and all over the world, 144 countries coming
    in.
        My question goes back to deferred action that has been
    talked about incessantly since you have been here all morning.
        Do you think that expanding deferred action to include more
    people is legal? If the Administration does it, set Congress
    aside, if the Administration just defers action to another
    group of people--I am not talking about specific individuals,
    but to another group--do you think that would be legal or not?
        Mr. Rodriguez. It is my legal understanding, and this is
    something that has been acknowledged by scholars across the
    political spectrum, that, yes, there is prosecutorial
    discretion, which can be exercised in these sorts of
    situations.
        Mr. Poe. Is there a limit?
        Mr. Rodriguez. Of course, there is a limit. It is based on
    whatever the law actually allows.
        Mr. Poe. What does the law allow?
        Mr. Rodriguez. In most enforcement realms, generally, there
    is pretty broad discretion.
        Mr. Poe. So it could allow everybody?
        Mr. Rodriguez. I am sorry?
        Mr. Poe. Technically, if it is broad, that could be
    expanded to allow everybody, just everybody who wants to come.
    I mean, if it is discretionary.
        Mr. Rodriguez. I don't think that is what anybody is
    suggesting or saying.
        Mr. Poe. But you are not saying that it is unlawful to
    expand it.
        Mr. Rodriguez. Again, it is my understanding, based on my
    experience, based on my reading, that there is pretty broad
    prosecutorial discretion.
        Mr. Poe. Based on your position, where you are and in this
    long chain of immigrants and all the things we have been
    talking about, expanding that concept of deferred action, do
    you think more people will come or less?
        Mr. Rodriguez. I think the key thing when we talk about
    DACA, it----
        Mr. Poe. Excuse me. Do you think more people would be
    encouraged to come to the United States?
        Mr. Rodriguez. Not if they don't believe that there is a
    benefit. And I think it has been made very clear that there is
    no benefit for individuals who are currently trying to cross
    our border, unless they have a claim, such as an asylum claim.
        Mr. Poe. But they may perceive that DACA will apply to
    them, whether they realize the legal ramifications or not, once
    they are here. Don't you think that would encourage more to
    come?
        Mr. Rodriguez. I, certainly, think it is possible that
    there are unscrupulous individuals who are trying to deceive
    those people who are attempting to enter our country through
    the border.
        The fact is, nothing like DACA offers those individuals any
    benefit.
        Mr. Poe. They are surprised when they get here, in many
    cases, that DACA does not apply to them. Is that a fair
    statement?
        Mr. Rodriguez. I have actually looked at Latin American
    media, where it is reported that DACA offers them no benefits.
        Mr. Poe. All right, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    I am over time.
        Mr. Chaffetz. I thank the gentleman.
        I will now recognize the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr.
    Holding, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Holding. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Rodriguez, thank you for being here. We will start with
    a little bit of housekeeping.
        In reviewing your confirmation proceedings over in the
    Senate, I note that at the April 3 executive meeting, Senator
    Grassley pointed out that you had admitted to the Judiciary
    Committee that you were personally aware of emails between
    political employees and career prosecutors discussing the
    decision to decline to prosecute the new Black Panther Party
    voter intimidation case, and that had contradicted the
    testimony of your boss, Mr. Perez.
        So I thought I would take the opportunity to ask you if you
    were aware of any emails between Lois Lerner, or a different
    member of the Internal Revenue Service, and career prosecutors
    in the Department of Justice regarding the prosecution or
    investigation of conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status?
        Mr. Rodriguez. You are asking me if I know anything about
    Lois Lerner, Congressman?
        Mr. Holding. If you are aware of any emails.
        Mr. Rodriguez. I only know what I have read in the paper
    about that situation.
        Mr. Holding. So while you were in the Department of Justice
    as Chief of Staff for the civil division.
        Mr. Rodriguez. Civil Rights Division.
        Mr. Holding. Civil Rights Division. You are not aware of
    any emails?
        Mr. Rodriguez. I have no involvement or any awareness other
    than what you and I both read in the papers, Congressman.
        Mr. Holding. Are you aware of when the Civil Rights
    Division was tasked with beginning the investigation of the
    IRS?
        Mr. Rodriguez. I left the Civil Rights Division to go to
    the Department of Health and Human Services in September 2011.
    I think you are asking about a specific individual who was
    designated to conduct some review. I am not fully familiar--
    that happened, I am pretty sure, long after I left the Civil
    Rights Division.
        Mr. Holding. Okay. Also during your confirmation hearing,
    it was determined or discovered that you served on the board of
    directors of Casa de Maryland, which is an organization that
    was known for finding employment for individuals without proper
    documentation.
        So I assume you supported this objective of the
    organization while you were on the board of directors.
        Mr. Rodriguez. In the context of the community in which I
    live, yes, I did support that mission.
        Mr. Holding. Okay. Do you believe that prosecutorial
    discretion could be used to allow for finding employment or
    allowing employment for individuals without proper
    documentation?
        Mr. Rodriguez. If the individual has a right, for example,
    through some sort of deferred action or parole, or some other
    mechanism, to be in the United States, then yes, then those
    individuals can then be given employment authorization.
        In fact, it is often a good idea, so that they are not in
    the shadow economy.
        Mr. Holding. So, in your opinion as an attorney, an
    experienced attorney at that, as the President looks at his
    options to continue to act as administratively to change U.S.
    immigration policy--the Chairman asked you at the beginning of
    the hearing as to what you had reviewed, what were the
    President's next plans.
        I would like to change the question a little bit and ask,
    in your learned opinion, what you know of the law, what you
    think the President's options are to act administratively to
    change U.S. immigration policy?
        Mr. Rodriguez. So, of course, no decisions have been made.
    I think it is important to underscore that at the beginning.
        I think the options are many that are permissible under the
    law. I think that is a deliberation that is ongoing as we
    speak.
        Mr. Holding. Give me two examples.
        Mr. Rodriguez. I am not really in a position to be able to
    give specific examples other than to make the general
    observation that the options are many.
        Mr. Holding. You can give examples, just based on your
    understanding of the law. You don't have to relate them to what
    the President is actively considering.
        Mr. Rodriguez. Certainly, DACA, as we have done it already,
    is one, obviously, very concrete example of how that discretion
    might be exercised.
        Mr. Holding. All right.
        I was looking at a USCIS chart regarding the number of DACA
    requests by requester country of birth. And it lists the top 25
    countries of the requester's birth. But there are 19,200
    requests on this chart from other and unknown countries.
        How many of those DACA requests have you received from
    applications whose home countries are listed as state sponsors
    of terrorism?
        Mr. Rodriguez. I could probably tell you the top five.
    Beyond that, I am not specifically aware of numbers.
        Mr. Holding. Could you get back to the Committee and give
    us specific numbers on that?
        Mr. Rodriguez. Absolutely, Congressman. Yes, we can.
        Mr. Holding. Think very much.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield.
        Mr. Chaffetz. I am going to go and yield myself now 5
    minutes.
        Director, again, we thank you for being here. I want to
    walk through the process and understand some of the metrics.
        So if you came to this country illegally, you can apply for
    DACA, correct?
        Mr. Rodriguez. If you qualify under the various criteria.
        Mr. Chaffetz. How old can you be before you file for DACA?
    How old can you be?
        Mr. Rodriguez. It is my understanding you can be no older
    than 31.
        Mr. Chaffetz. So you can be a 30 year old and apply for
    Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.
        Mr. Rodriguez. That is correct.
        Mr. Chaffetz. At that time, the guidance says, that you can
    apply for employment, a work permit.
        Mr. Rodriguez. That is correct. In order that you not be in
    the shadow economy, that you pay taxes, that you not be in a
    dependent status in any way.
        Mr. Chaffetz. So you come here illegally, and then you
    apply for DACA and you get a work permit.
        Now you said that there are more 700,000 people that have
    been put into this process, correct?
        Mr. Rodriguez. I want to confirm those numbers with the
    Committee.
        Mr. Chaffetz. Your written testimony says over 580,000, but
    you are now saying something like 700,000. It is hundreds of
    thousands of people.
        Mr. Rodriguez. It is hundreds of thousands, yes.
        Mr. Chaffetz. So you are here illegally. You haven't gone
    through the proper channels. Now you are going to apply for
    DACA. You can be 30 years old. You get a work permit.
        How many of those work permits have been terminated or
    revoked?
        Mr. Rodriguez. So, first of all, the key thing about these
    DACA individuals is that they were brought here. They did not
    come here. They were individuals who were brought here as
    children.
        Mr. Chaffetz. How do you verify that?
        Mr. Rodriguez. Based on their ages and what we know about
    their----
        Mr. Chaffetz. They could be 30 years old, so----
        Mr. Rodriguez. They would have been brought here as
    children. I mean, that is one of the criteria to establish.
        Mr. Chaffetz. How long are these interviews?
        Mr. Rodriguez. I am not specifically----
        Mr. Chaffetz. How long was the interview you sat in?
        Mr. Rodriguez. I am sorry?
        Mr. Chaffetz. You sat in on one of these interviews.
        Mr. Rodriguez. That was in an asylum interview that I sat
    in on.
        Mr. Chaffetz. How long was that interview?
        Mr. Rodriguez. That was a full hour, that interview.
        Mr. Chaffetz. And we heard previous testimony from I
    believe the last hearing we had that normally these interviews
    are 15 to 20 minutes.
        Mr. Rodriguez. If we are talking about asylum interviews,
    my understanding is in fact that they are generally far longer
    than that, that they are closer to about an hour.
        Mr. Chaffetz. So a credible fear hearing you think is how
    long?
        Mr. Rodriguez. It was an hour. The one I observed was an
    hour, and it is my understanding that that is the norm.
        Mr. Chaffetz. I think the record will correct you on that
    one.
        Of the people who apply or get DACA, they now have a work
    permit, so they can compete for a job against a United States
    citizen. How many of those get terminated?
        If you are, for instance, convicted of a felony, how many
    of those have been terminated?
        Mr. Rodriguez. As of June 31, I don't know the specific
    reasons for termination, 147 people have been terminated.
        Mr. Chaffetz. So wait, there are over 700,000 and there
    have been how many who have been terminated? 100?
        Mr. Rodriguez. I would rely, actually, on the number that
    is in my testimony.
        Mr. Chaffetz. It is not specific. There is no number.
        Mr. Rodriguez. Oh, I thought you had a specific number.
        Mr. Chaffetz. No, that is the problem.
        We have been asking----
        Mr. Rodriguez. In any event, you and I agree. We are
    talking about hundreds of thousands of people. There is no
    dispute about that. And 147 individuals have been terminated as
    of the end of June.
        Mr. Chaffetz. How do you get this information? If somebody
    is convicted of a felony in Utah or North Carolina, how do you
    get that information? Whose responsibility is that?
        Mr. Rodriguez. It comes to us through various mechanisms.
    It could be reported to us by the individual as part of the
    renewal process.
        Mr. Chaffetz. Really? You think that is going to happen?
        Mr. Rodriguez. Or it comes to us by other processes.
        Mr. Chaffetz. So you just wait for it?
        Mr. Rodriguez. From law enforcement agencies, we find the
    information----
        Mr. Chaffetz. Do you get reports of this? Do you have a
    list of this information? Do you surf the databases? Is there
    anything proactive that you do to get this information?
        Mr. Rodriguez. My understanding, at this point in my
    tenure, is that we get the information from a variety of
    different sources.
        Mr. Chaffetz. When you get this work permit, are there any
    limits to the type of work you can do? Can you get a job in law
    enforcement?
        Mr. Rodriguez. If you are otherwise qualified for that job.
    Now, I know very often law enforcement agencies have various
    sorts of----
        Mr. Chaffetz. But there are no limits on the type of job
    you can get.
        Mr. Rodriguez. In and of itself, there is no limit unless
    that job itself has some limits associated with it.
        Mr. Chaffetz. What do you say to the United States citizen
    who is doing everything legally and lawfully, that they are now
    competing for a job with somebody who came here illegally and
    applied, and the Obama administration said, well, we are going
    to defer that. You can go ahead and compete for that.
        What do you say to that person?
        Mr. Rodriguez. I have had the opportunity during the course
    of this brief time of my tenure to meet some of DACA
    recipients. These are individuals who are going to school.
        In one case, somebody who is about to graduate from----
        Mr. Chaffetz. What do you say to the citizen who now has to
    compete with 700,000 people in the workforce that wouldn't be
    there otherwise?
        Mr. Rodriguez. We have explained about the exercise of
    prosecutorial discretion. We don't have the resources to remove
    10 million, 11 million individuals. And so the question is, are
    we going to let them persist in the shadow economy or are we
    going to have them work and pay taxes.
        So the choice that has been made is to enable them to work
    and pay taxes and go to school and become upstanding citizens.
        Mr. Chaffetz. That is not what the law is, and that is what
    is sickening about this.
        I yield back.
        I now recognize the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Franks.
        Mr. Franks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it.
        Sir, I guess the first thing to deal with any problem is to
    try to dissect it and to analyze what it is.
        From my perspective, there are two main concerns that I
    have: number one, that the rule of law and the Constitution of
    the United States has been undermined here and continues to be
    undermined; and number two, that there are tens of thousands of
    children who have been put at terrible risk and who continue to
    be put at risk.
        Now I am convinced--I am just going to tell you up front
    where I am coming from--the EPIC intelligence report from July
    7, 2014, interviewed a significant number of these unlawful
    immigrants who were coming over. And 95 percent of them, 95
    percent of them, cited that the primary reason for migrating to
    the United States was the perception of United States
    immigration law granting free passes, or permisos, allowing
    them to stay.
        So there is no question in my mind, you have projected from
    2011 through 2015 now a 2,230 percent increase in these
    unlawful immigrants coming over the United States border.
        Now that a systemic issue there. And I am absolutely
    convinced that the President's telegraphing of a message to
    Central America and Mexico and other places is the fundamental
    reason that has occurred.
        So I lay the suffering and some of the things that happened
    to these children at the feet of the President of the United
    States. I have no doubt about that. Certainly, that is an
    opinion, but it is a strong conviction, and I think one upheld
    by the evidence.
        So my question is really to try to deal with those two
    things.
        First of all, I know your oath of office included swearing
    to uphold the Constitution. I am not trying to be tough on you
    or arrogant here, but I am just trying to make a very important
    point.
        How will you be able to defend the President's end run
    around Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4, which specifically
    bestows on Congress the duty to create immigration law, given
    his rewriting the law at his executive whim?
        How do you deal with your oath of office in following some
    of those perspectives?
        Mr. Rodriguez. Well, among other things, I don't accept the
    characterization that we are simply ceasing in any way to
    enforce immigration law. We are exercising our discretion to
    prioritize the most important cases, the most serious cases,
    for enforcement and removal and investigation, and focusing on
    those and dealing with individuals who are not in those
    categories.
        Mr. Franks. All right, let me try to accept that then.
        So then, would you agree that the President--I will ask you
    an open question. Does the President now have the ability with
    existing funding to help begin to stem the flow of unlawful
    immigrants into the United States? Does he have that capability
    now?
        Mr. Rodriguez. There is, certainly, some capabilities.
    Certainly, the Administration has made clear that it needs
    additional funding in order to deal with what has been a
    significant surge, one that we all agree is a significant
    issue, a significant surge across the border.
        Mr. Franks. But he cannot do that now, correct?
        Mr. Rodriguez. More resources are needed to deal with that.
        Mr. Franks. So are you saying that without additional
    funding, that the President cannot cease to use his
    prosecutorial discretion authority to shield whole categories
    of unlawful immigrants from prosecution, or he cannot implement
    tougher standards for credible fear claims? He cannot do that
    without additional funding, correct?
        Mr. Rodriguez. Well, the credible fear standard is a
    standard that is in law and that is----
        Mr. Franks. And it is also a standard that, as you know,
    has been accepted almost 600 percent greater incidence than it
    was before under this Administration--almost 600 percent. And I
    am just wondering, how do we close our eyes to the fact that
    this President's message to Central America and other places
    was that we won't do anything. And if somebody comes over, that
    is their perception.
        And it occurs to me that if the President is the cause of
    this, and I absolutely believe that the American people
    understand that he is, that he also then has the ability to
    send a different message, and to end both the suffering of
    these children, and I believe that is real.
        You know, sometimes they try to make it that people who
    want to secure the border, like I do, that somehow we don't
    care about the children. And we do. And I am convinced that the
    children that we might give a better living standard here, we
    are going to hurt four or five more by incenting them to make
    that treacherous, dangerous trip, wherein they run into all
    these kinds of problems.
        So if we are going to stem that issue, can't we call upon
    the President to send a message back that, no, there is a false
    thought that they will just be welcomed here and they won't be
    sent back? Because right now, they don't think so.
        And he is getting ready to do some other executive order
    that, certainly, underscores that concern.
        Mr. Rodriguez. The message that these individuals, for the
    most part, will ultimately not qualify to stay in the United
    States, that message has been delivered.
        Mr. Franks. Well, they are not hearing it, my friend.
    Because 95 percent of them say that this is what they are
    coming. And that is this President's fault.
        I wish I didn't have to yield back, but I yield back.
        You can go ahead and answer the question.
        Mr. Rodriguez. The flights have started going back, and the
    message has been delivered that in fact, in most cases, these
    individuals will not be able to stay in the United States. That
    message has been delivered by the President, by the Secretary.
    It has been delivered in many different ways, including by
    leadership in those countries.
        Mr. Franks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Chaffetz. Thank you.
        Director, can you clarify, when you say in most cases they
    are going to be sent back, there is no metric that I see that
    says that.
        Mr. Rodriguez. Well, in other words, recognizing that some
    individuals may be able to claim a status that enables them to
    stay in the United States, either qualify for asylum or be able
    to establish some other status that enables them to stay in the
    United States. In the majority of cases, these individuals will
    need to be returned to their countries.
        Mr. Chaffetz. I now recognize the gentleman from Georgia,
    Mr. Collins, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
    time, and let's get right to it.
        Just a little bit ago, DHS Secretary Johnson testified
    before this Committee, on May 29. He claimed that the
    Administration's unilateral amnesty policies have created legal
    ambiguity for the status of illegal aliens.
        I objected to that point at the time. On page 6 of your
    testimony, you write that DACA does not confer legal status on
    the recipient.
        So you agree with me that Secretary Johnson is wrong that
    any deferred action or prosecutorial discretion creates a legal
    ambiguity.
        Mr. Rodriguez. Well, it, certainly, doesn't create a
    permanent status. I think that is the thrust of your question.
        Mr. Collins. No, the thrust of my question is are they here
    legal or not. What Secretary Johnson basically said was,
    because of this mismatch of policies, we have created legal
    ambiguity for people who walk across our borders illegally. And
    according to your testimony, you say DACA was part of that
    mismatch of priorities and programs.
        Would you agree with Secretary Johnson? Do you agree that
    there is a legal ambiguity, or do you agree that they are
    coming in illegally to the United States, coming in illegally,
    that there is an ambiguity to that situation?
        Mr. Rodriguez. I don't know the specific context in which
    Secretary Johnson might have been speaking. People who are
    benefiting from DACA, do they otherwise have a legal right to
    be in the United States, and it is a requirement in order to
    qualify for DACA that you not have another legal basis to be in
    the United States.
        Those are individuals who in fact are not gaining any sort
    of permanent status through being able to be in the DACA
    program.
        But I don't know the context in which Secretary Johnson's
    comments about legal ambiguity were made, so I am not really
    able to speak to that.
        Mr. Collins. Okay, then I will just ask you directly. Do
    you believe there is a legal ambiguity that is caused by the
    differences--and he actually included States and other things.
        It goes back down to the bottom line. If you cross over our
    border illegally, that doesn't automatically, by the basis of
    fact or changing or diversion or discretion, change the legal
    fact that you walked across our border illegally, correct or
    not?
        Mr. Rodriguez. I suppose that is true by definition,
    Congressman. In order to qualify for the DACA status, again,
    you have no other legal basis. It means you have no other legal
    basis to be in the United States.
        Mr. Collins. Let me just follow up on that. I apologize. I
    have had to go out. I have had several other meetings going on.
        But I think earlier when Mr. Chaffetz was asking you, you
    had said that a requirement of DACA is that they were brought
    here by someone else. That is just not true.
        DACA only requires claiming to have entered before age 16,
    even if lawfully on a visa, and be under 31 when applying.
        I think sometimes there needs to be--I think there is some
    misunderstanding here on DACA and some of the things that many
    of us don't like because of the way it basically has subverted
    the regular process.
        Let's just move on to something else at this point.
        What steps have been taken as part of the advance team
    planning effort Secretary Johnson mentioned on February 7, in
    anticipation that there will be some sort of path to
    legalization? How much has been spent on that?
        Mr. Rodriguez. I don't specifically know. I do know that
    there were efforts to prepare for the possibility of
    comprehensive immigration reform, specifically as contemplated
    in S. 744. I can, certainly, get back to you with that
    information.
        Mr. Collins. Okay, can we have time and money on the
    written answer that you will provide back?
        Mr. Rodriguez. Yes.
        Mr. Collins. Thank you.
        The New York Times reported that the Obama administration
    is prioritizing the processing of DACA applications over those
    trying to enter the country lawfully. In fact, until recently,
    a U.S. citizen could obtain a green card for an immediate
    relative in 5 months or less. But after the Administration
    instituted DACA, the service diverted its attention to DACA
    recipients, and the typical wait lengthened to 15 months.
        Why are you prioritizing illegal aliens over the immediate
    relatives of U.S. citizens?
        Mr. Rodriguez. First of all, I am pleased to report that
    the I-130 petitions have now returned within normal processing
    times. We have surges of work that come from all kinds----
        Mr. Collins. So you are saying they are within 5 months
    now?
        Mr. Rodriguez. Now it is within 5 months or around 5
    months.
        Mr. Collins. Okay, I apologize. Around 5 months or 5
    months? Because around 5 months could be 8. It could be 10. It
    could be 2. I mean, I am just trying to get clarification here.
        Mr. Rodriguez. It is at 5 months, Congressman.
        Mr. Collins. At 5 months, okay. Thank you.
        Let's go back then. I am glad it is back to where it should
    be, but why was there ever be a process in which you are
    prioritizing these applications over those who were immediate
    relatives of U.S. citizens?
        Mr. Rodriguez. Congressman, we have surges of work that
    come from all different sources. Our job is to implement the
    entirety of our mission to balance among different lines of
    business.
        One of the things from DACA experience is we actually
    learned some important lessons on how we absorb surges in work,
    which is why we were able over time to return to a normal
    processing time for these I-130's.
        Mr. Collins. Okay. Again, it is just frustrating. I know
    for those who are here legally, who are doing it the right way,
    to have been put off for any length of time over a program that
    has put them behind the priorities. That is just something that
    is very frustrating as you look at it.
        How much does the service spend on DACA applications?
    Again, spent moneywise, timewise, again, on these applications.
    You talk about the surge, how have you adapted? How much have
    you had to divert? What does it cost you in that realm?
        Mr. Rodriguez. My understanding, and I don't know the
    specifics, but what I do know is that the fee collected for
    employment authorization and for biometrics has enabled us to
    pay for the cost of processing DACA applicants.
        Mr. Collins. Can you get----
        Mr. Rodriguez. We can get back to with specific
    information.
        Ms. Lofgren. Would the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Collins. My time has expired, at this point.
        Ms. Lofgren. I just wanted to, as you proceed, it is my
    understanding, but please confirm this, that all of these
    applications were paid for by the applicants through their
    fees, and there were no taxpayer funds involved in these
    application processes.
        Mr. Rodriguez. Congresswoman, that is my understanding as
    well.
        Mr. Chaffetz. If the gentleman from Georgia will yield
    back?
        Mr. Collins. I yield back.
        Mr. Chaffetz. As we wrap up, Director, we have just a few
    items that we would appreciate if you would provide for the
    Committee.
        First, regarding DACA applications, could you provide the
    metrics by which you can sustain this claim that there is net
    expense to this? My understanding is that there is no DACA fee.
    There is for biometrics. There is for the worker application.
    But if you have 700,000-plus people getting DACA applications,
    and there is not DACA application fee, I would be curious to
    figure out where you get those funds.
        Mr. Rodriguez. We will provide you information on the cost
    of DACA.
        Mr. Chaffetz. When do you anticipate that we are going to
    get this? What is reasonable for us to get these documents?
        Mr. Rodriguez. Would 30 days be appropriate? I am not sure
    if information is immediately available, or whether it is going
    to take us some time to assemble it.
        Mr. Chaffetz. Okay, 30 days. That would be fine.
        The next one is, of the 147 felony convictions, DACA
    recipients, the 147 who have been referred to ICE for removal,
    we would love to know how many of those have actually been
    removed from the United States. And have they been referred to
    ICE for removal?
        I probably should have asked that in reverse order. How
    many of those 147 have been referred to ICE for removal? And
    how many of them have actually been removed from the United
    States?
        We also need updated credible fear numbers, and we would
    also like to know how many work authorizations have been
    granted. This would be comprehensive over everything that you
    do. You can break it out in categories, but, certainly, how
    many work authorizations have been approved.
        Mr. Rodriguez. Thank you, Congressman. We will work to get
    you that information as soon as possible.
        Mr. Chaffetz. If you can break that number out for the work
    authorizations for DACA, we would also appreciate it.
        Again, is it reasonable to think that we could have these
    questions within the 30-day window?
        Mr. Rodriguez. I believe so. If I am mistaken about that, I
    will, certainly, let the Committee know.
        Mr. Chaffetz. We hope that you can prioritize that.
        We appreciate your participation here. Welcome.
        This concludes today's hearing. I want to thank the witness
    for attending.
        Without objection, all Members will have 5 legislative days
    to submit additional written questions for the witness or
    additional materials for the record.
        The hearing is now adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 1:06 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

                                A P P E N D I X

                                  ----------

                   Material Submitted for the Hearing Record

     Material submitted by the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in
      Congress from the State of California, and Member, Committee on the
                                   Judiciary

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Material submitted by the Honorable Spencer Bachus, a Representative in
       Congress from the State of Alabama, and Member, Committee on the
                                   Judiciary

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]