[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                 EXAMINING THE COURT-ORDERED REIMPLEMENTA-
                   TION OF THE REMAIN IN MEXICO POLICY

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

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                            SUBCOMMITTEE ON
                     BORDER SECURITY, FACILITATION,
                             AND OPERATIONS

                                 OF THE

                     COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                             MARCH 2, 2022

                               __________

                           Serial No. 117-47

                               __________

       Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security
                                     

[GRAPHIC AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 
                                     

        Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov

                               __________
                               

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
47-641 PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2022                     
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------   

                     COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

               Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi, Chairman
Sheila Jackson Lee, Texas            John Katko, New York
James R. Langevin, Rhode Island      Michael T. McCaul, Texas
Donald M. Payne, Jr., New Jersey     Clay Higgins, Louisiana
J. Luis Correa, California           Michael Guest, Mississippi
Elissa Slotkin, Michigan             Dan Bishop, North Carolina
Emanuel Cleaver, Missouri            Jefferson Van Drew, New Jersey
Al Green, Texas                      Ralph Norman, South Carolina
Yvette D. Clarke, New York           Mariannette Miller-Meeks, Iowa
Eric Swalwell, California            Diana Harshbarger, Tennessee
Dina Titus, Nevada                   Andrew S. Clyde, Georgia
Bonnie Watson Coleman, New Jersey    Carlos A. Gimenez, Florida
Kathleen M. Rice, New York           Jake LaTurner, Kansas
Val Butler Demings, Florida          Peter Meijer, Michigan
Nanette Diaz Barragan, California    Kat Cammack, Florida
Josh Gottheimer, New Jersey          August Pfluger, Texas
Elaine G. Luria, Virginia            Andrew R. Garbarino, New York
Tom Malinowski, New Jersey
Ritchie Torres, New York
                       Hope Goins, Staff Director
                 Daniel Kroese, Minority Staff Director
                          Natalie Nixon, Clerk
                                
                                ------                                

     SUBCOMMITTEE ON BORDER SECURITY, FACILITATION, AND OPERATIONS

             Nanette Diaz Barragan, California, Chairwoman
J. Luis Correa, California           Clay Higgins, Louisiana, Ranking 
Emanuel Cleaver, Missouri                Member
Al Green, Texas                      Michael Guest, Mississippi
Yvette D. Clarke, New York           Dan Bishop, North Carolina
Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi (ex  Andrew S. Clyde, Georgia
    officio)                         John Katko, New York (ex officio)
            Brieana Marticorena, Subcommittee Staff Director
           Natasha Eby, Minority Subcommittee Staff Director
                    Zachary Wood, Subcommittee Clerk
                            
                            
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

                               Statements

The Honorable Nanette Diaz Barragan, a Representative in Congress 
  From the State of California, and Chairwoman, Subcommittee on 
  Border Security, Facilitation, and Operations:
  Oral Statement.................................................     1
  Prepared Statement.............................................     3
The Honorable Clay Higgins, a Representative in Congress From the 
  State of Louisiana, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Border 
  Security, Facilitation, and Operations:
  Oral Statement.................................................     4
  Prepared Statement.............................................     6
The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, a Representative in Congress 
  From the State of Mississippi, and Chairman, Committee on 
  Homeland Security:
  Prepared Statement.............................................    10
The Honorable John Katko, a Representative in Congress From the 
  State of New York, and Ranking Member, Committee on Homeland 
  Security:
  Oral Statement.................................................     8
  Prepared Statement.............................................     9

                               Witnesses

Mr. Blas Nunez-Neto, Acting Assistant Secretary, Border and 
  Immigration Policy, Department of Homeland Security:
  Oral Statement.................................................    11
  Prepared Statement.............................................    13
Mr. Benjamine ``Carry'' Huffman, Acting Chief Operating Officer, 
  U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland 
  Security:
  Oral Statement.................................................    17
  Prepared Statement.............................................    19
Ms. Emily Mendrala, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Western 
  Hemisphere Affairs, U.S. Department of State:
  Oral Statement.................................................    22
  Prepared Statement.............................................    24
Mr. Timothy Roemer, Director and Chief Information Security 
  Officer, Department of Homeland Security, State of Arizona:
  Oral Statement.................................................    36
  Prepared Statement.............................................    37

                             For the Record

The Honorable Nanette Diaz Barragan, a Representative in Congress 
  From the State of California, and Chairwoman, Subcommittee on 
  Border Security, Facilitation, and Operations:
  Statement of the Women's Refugee Commission....................    45
  Statement of Human Rights First................................    50
  Statement of The Hope Border Institute (HOPE)..................    56
  Letter From the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights (CHIRLA).    59
  Statement of the California Welcoming Task Force...............    60
  Statement of the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies (CGRS)....    61

                                Appendix

Questions From Chairwoman Nanette Diaz Barragan for the 
  Department of Homeland Security................................    65
Questions From Chairman Bennie G. Thompson for the Department of 
  Homeland Security..............................................    66
Questions From Ranking Member Clay Higgins for Blas Nunez-Neto...    67
Questions From Ranking Member Clay Higgins for Benjamine 
  ``Carry'' Huffman..............................................    69
Question From Chairwoman Nanette Diaz Barragan for Emily Mendrala    70
Questions From Ranking Member Clay Higgins for Emily Mendrala....    70
Questions From Chairwoman Nanette Diaz Barragan for Timothy 
  Roemer.........................................................    71
Questions From Chairman Bennie G. Thompson for Timothy Roemer....    71

 
 EXAMINING THE COURT-ORDERED REIMPLEMENTATION OF THE REMAIN IN MEXICO 
                                 POLICY

                              ----------                              


                        Wednesday, March 2, 2022

             U.S. House of Representatives,
                    Committee on Homeland Security,
                          Subcommittee on Border Security, 
                              Facilitation, and Operations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 p.m., via 
Webex, Hon. Nanette Diaz Barragan [Chairwoman of the 
Subcommittee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Barragan, Correa, Clarke, Higgins, 
Guest, Bishop, and Clyde.
    Also present: Representative Katko.
    Chairwoman Barragan. The Subcommittee on Border Security, 
Facilitation, and Operations will be in order. Without 
objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a recess at any 
time.
    Thank you for joining today's hearing to examine the court-
ordered reimplementation of the Migrant Protection Protocols, 
MPP. Donald Trump's Remain in Mexico policy, or MPP, was 
inhumane. Rather than upholding U.S. asylum laws, he dismantled 
the asylum process and forced migrants to wait in dangerous 
conditions in Mexico until their asylum hearing. Under 
President Trump, there were more than 1,500 documented reports 
of kidnapping, torture, murder, rape, and assault amongst the 
70,000 migrants he enrolled into MPP. That is why the Biden 
administration is working to terminate this program.
    Earlier this year, I was thrilled to welcome some of those 
MPP enrollees into the United States under President Biden's 
wind-down. Unfortunately, since that time, a Texas district 
court ordered the Department to restart the Remain in Mexico 
policy. To date, we have seen about 700 enrolled into MPP in 
the San Diego, Rio Grande Valley, El Paso, and Laredo Sectors.
    I visited some of these migrants last week in San Diego and 
Tijuana, and I was disappointed with what I saw. When this 
reimplementation was rolled out, we were told that the program 
would be improved. We were told that there would be more access 
to legal counsel and it would be more humane for migrants.
    An important role of Congress and this committee is to 
conduct oversight of executive agencies. We are here today to 
examine how the administration has handled the reimplementation 
of MPP and whether they have met the high standards required 
for working with migrants presenting asylum claims. I argue 
that more work needs to be done.
    While at the port of entry in San Diego, I spoke to an 
elderly father who travelled through Central America to seek 
asylum with two young adult sons. He was entering the United 
States for his court hearing. One of his children was kidnapped 
on the journey to the United States and is still missing. Upon 
arriving at the border, he and his remaining son were 
separated. His 23-year-old son was allowed to stay with family 
in the United States. This man was enrolled in MPP. This man 
was elderly, illiterate, and could not speak English, nor could 
he write or read in Spanish. Despite his vulnerabilities, he 
was told to wait in Mexico.
    Despite the emphasis this administration places on family 
unity and the trauma these men had already suffered, this 
family was separated. This family separation was not a unique 
incident. We have heard similar reports from across the border, 
including of pregnant women being separated from their husbands 
and partners. This is not in line with our values. I urge this 
administration to expand its definition of a family unit, 
beyond just minor children and their guardians, to keep 
families together.
    Unfortunately, family separation wasn't the only problem I 
saw at the port of entry. The elderly migrant asked for my help 
and repeatedly showed me his Notice to Appear. However, I was 
told I couldn't take a picture of his information. I was told 
we could follow him to court and get it. So, my staff followed 
him to court, and this man repeatedly asked for her help. She 
wasn't even allowed to speak with him or take a picture of his 
information. If this is how a Member of Congress is treated, 
what does access look like for lawyers and advocates?
    I would also like to mention my concerns with CBP's 
implementation of the vaccine policy for MPP. Currently, 
migrants receive the second dose of the vaccine at the port of 
entry, on their way into court. Those who refuse to receive a 
U.S.-approved vaccine, are denied entry. Yet, as most of us 
know, side effects from the vaccine often start within hours. 
As we saw on our trip, most of these migrants are representing 
themselves. The vast majority request another fear screening 
while at court. Those of us privileged enough to participate in 
this hearing today were likely told to take it easy after 
receiving the vaccine. In comparison, these migrants are 
expected to conduct potentially life-altering interviews. These 
migrants remain in Federal custody the entire time they are in 
the United States. I ask the administration to take another 
look at how their vaccine program and protocols impact a 
migrant's ability to present their asylum claims and fear of 
return to Mexico.
    In addition, it was clear there were communication gaps 
between the various agencies and organizations working on MPP. 
These gaps had real consequence for migrants. For example, as 
CBP officers explained to me, the migrants had to approach the 
port of entry with the International Organization for Migration 
to be admitted for court. I then walked into Mexico with 
migrants who were being deported and listened to IOM and the 
State Department tell us, and these migrants, that they could 
present themselves to the port of entry at the designated time 
with their NTA, which isn't happening.
    Now, for some migrants, this gap in communication means 
missing court, a possible closed case, and removal in absentia.
    I also travelled to a migrant shelter in Tijuana where some 
MPP enrollees stay until their court date. I spoke to MPP 
enrollees and learned most could not secure a lawyer, despite 
calling the contact list provided by the Department. Migrants 
are given 24 hours to secure a lawyer, yet there is no 
guarantee that a lawyer is even available or will answer the 
call. If a lawyer is secured, it can be difficult, if not 
impossible, for the migrant and lawyer to adequately 
communicate about a decision that can literally be one of life 
or death.
    We must do better. To start, legal access for enrollees 
must be meaningful, and not only exist on paper. The agencies 
implementing this program must give migrants clear and 
consistent rules and guidelines. While I appreciate the 
administration's work to create meaningful changes to MPP and 
terminate the program, more needs to be done. I look forward to 
hearing from our witnesses how the administration plans to 
resolve the many issues remaining with the implementation of 
the Remain in Mexico policy.
    With that, the Chair now recognizes the Ranking Member of 
the subcommittee, Mr. Higgins of Louisiana, for an opening 
statement.
    [The statement of Chairwoman Barragan follows:]
                Statement of Chairwoman Nanette Barragan
                             March 2, 2022
    Thank you for joining today's hearing to examine the court-ordered 
reimplementation of the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP). Donald 
Trump's Remain in Mexico policy was inhumane. Rather than upholding 
U.S. asylum laws, he dismantled the asylum process and forced migrants 
to wait in dangerous conditions in Mexico until their asylum hearing. 
Under President Trump, there were more than 1,500 documented reports of 
kidnapping, torture, murder, rape, and assault amongst the 70,000 
migrants he enrolled into MPP. This is why the Biden administration is 
working to terminate this program.
    Earlier this year, I was thrilled to welcome some of those MPP 
enrollees into the United States under President Biden's wind-down. 
Unfortunately, since that time a Texas district court ordered the 
Department to restart the Remain in Mexico policy. To date, we've seen 
about 700 enrolled into MPP in the San Diego, Rio Grande Valley, El 
Paso, and Laredo Sectors.
    I visited some of those migrants last week in San Diego and 
Tijuana, and I was disappointed with what I saw. When this 
reimplementation was rolled out, we were told that the program would be 
improved. We were told that there would be more access to legal 
counsel, and it would be more humane for migrants.
    An important role of Congress and this committee is to conduct 
oversight of Executive Agencies. We are here today to examine how the 
administration has handled the reimplementation of MPP--and whether 
they've met the high standards required for working with migrants 
presenting asylum claims. I argue that more work needs to be done.
    While at the Port of Entry in San Diego, I spoke to an elderly 
father who travelled through Central America to seek asylum with two 
young adult sons. He was entering the United States for his court 
hearing.
    One of his children was kidnapped on the journey to the United 
States and is still missing. Upon arriving at the border, he and his 
remaining son were separated. His 23-year-old son was allowed to stay 
with family in the United States. This man was elderly, illiterate, and 
could not speak English--nor could he read or write in Spanish. Despite 
his vulnerabilities, he was told to wait in Mexico.
    Despite the emphasis this administration places on family unity, 
and the trauma these men had already suffered, this family was 
separated. This family separation was not a unique incident. We've 
heard similar reports from across the border, including of pregnant 
women being separated from their husbands and partners. This is not in 
line with our values. I urge this administration to expand its 
definition of a family unit, beyond just minor children and their 
guardians, to keep families together.
    Unfortunately, family separation wasn't the only problem I saw at 
the port of entry. The elderly migrant asked for my help and repeatedly 
showed me his Notice to Appear. However, I was told I couldn't take a 
picture of his information. My staff followed him to court, and this 
man repeatedly asked her for help. She wasn't allowed to speak with him 
or take a picture of his information.
    If this is how a Member of Congress is treated, what does access 
look like for lawyers and advocates?
    I'd also like to mention my concerns with CBP's implementation of 
the vaccine policy for MPP. Currently, migrants receive the second dose 
of the vaccine at the port of entry, on their way into court. Those who 
refuse to receive a U.S.-approved vaccine are denied entry. Yet as most 
of us know, side effects from the vaccine often start within hours. As 
we saw on our trip, most of these migrants are representing themselves. 
The vast majority request another fear screening while at court.
    Those of us privileged enough to participate in this hearing today 
were likely told to take it easy after receiving the vaccine. In 
comparison, these migrants are expected to conduct potentially life-
altering interviews. These migrants remain in Federal custody the 
entire time they are in the United States. I ask that the 
administration take another look at how their vaccine program and 
protocols impact a migrant's ability to present their asylum claims and 
fear of return to Mexico.
    In addition, it was clear there were communication gaps between the 
various agencies and organizations working on MPP. These gaps had real 
consequences for migrants. For example, CBP officers explained to me 
that migrants had to approach the Port of Entry with the International 
Organization for Migration to be admitted for court. I then walked into 
Mexico with migrants who were being deported and listened to IOM and 
the State Department tell us, and these migrants, that they could 
present themselves to the port of entry at the designated time with 
their NTA.
    For some migrants, this gap in communication means missing court, a 
possible closed case, and removal in absentia. I also travelled to a 
migrant shelter in Tijuana where some MPP enrollees stay until their 
court date. I spoke to MPP enrollees and learned most could not secure 
a lawyer, despite calling the contact list provided by the Department. 
Migrants are given 24 hours to secure a lawyer, yet there is no 
guarantee that a lawyer is even available or will answer the call. And 
if a lawyer is secured, it can be difficult, if not impossible, for the 
migrant and lawyer to adequately communicate about a decision that can 
literally be one of life or death.
    We must do better. To start, legal access for enrollees must be 
meaningful, and not only exist on paper. And the agencies implementing 
this program must give migrants clear and consistent rules and 
guidelines. While I appreciate the administration's work to create 
meaningful changes to MPP and terminate the program, more needs to be 
done. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses how the 
administration plans to resolve the many issues remaining with the 
implementation of the Remain in Mexico policy.

    Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Madam Chair. It is good to be 
reconvened in the committee hearing room. I am looking forward 
to when we can gather as a committee in person again and I beg 
your support on that endeavor. Thank you for having today's 
hearing.
    Since the start of the 117th Congress, this subcommittee, 
the Border Security, Facilitation, and Operations Subcommittee, 
has held 4 hearings. Yet, not a single hearing that directly 
addresses border security until today, despite the fact that, 
arguably, most Americans would likely agree that border 
security is one of the main concerns of the average American 
today. The impact upon our Nation is difficult to measure. So, 
I am glad we are having today's hearing. We have a lot to 
discuss what I think is long overdue. This should have been one 
of the busiest subcommittees in Congress and, yet, here we are 
with our first hearing to actually address the border security 
crisis. There have been over 2.1 million documented border 
encounters at our Southwest Border since President Biden has 
been in office, and that number continues to rise.
    I would like to thank your Federal Government partners for 
being here today. Although I am disappointed that our Federal 
partners requested to testify on a Federal Government-only 
panel, thereby excluding our Minority witness from the 
conversation. I believe it is important for our Federal 
partners to hear directly from State and local governments to 
work closely with those jurisdictional authorities, especially 
the border States. We need to be able to candidly discuss 
across jurisdictional boundaries how the Biden administration 
policies are impacting every sovereign State.
    One year into President Biden's term, we have witnessed a 
total disintegration in law and order at the Southern Border. 
The cartels run the border. Democrat policies have turned 
America's border into a porous superhighway where crime and 
drugs and human smuggling into our communities and 
neighborhoods is abundantly clear that Secretary Mayorkas, and 
the Biden White House, and the Democrats in Congress have no 
intent to support the front-line agents on the border with the 
necessary policies and resources to restore operational control 
of the border.
    Cartel control of our border is not Federal operational 
control in the sovereignty of our Nation. Instead of arresting 
and prosecuting those who violate our laws, CBP enforcement 
personnel have been restricted from doing their jobs. This 
crisis at the Southwest Border could have been avoided if the 
current administration were to aggressively enforce the laws 
that were in place and kept key Trump-era security policies 
fully intact.
    Since the President took office, not counting for the 
rising number of getaways, which my sources have at 35 percent, 
encounters have surpassed 150,000 for the 11th straight month. 
These record numbers stem from the Biden administration's 
failure to No. 1, secure the border, and No. 2, to discourage 
illegal immigration into the United States.
    We are discussing the migrant concerns as if there is no 
difference in America any longer between legal immigration and 
illegal crossing of our sovereign borders. The current crisis 
is a direct result of President Biden's actions, including 
suspension of the border wall construction, implementation of 
Executive action aimed at halting deportations, reinstituting 
the failed Obama-era prosecutorial discretion policy, the 
attempt to end the Migrant Protection Protocols, which we are 
discussing today, and expanding large-scale catch-and-release. 
The crisis this administration has created could have been 
averted or stopped at any time and still can be. We could stop 
this thing in 2 weeks if the Biden administration would fully 
reimplement common-sense policies like MPP.
    Although my colleague has stated that MPP participants were 
in a dangerous circumstance in Mexico, let me say they made the 
choice to begin a dangerous journey when they headed to America 
illegally. Our friends to the south are not necessarily--are 
not necessarily considering themselves as a dangerous nation. 
The MPP program, also known as Remain in Mexico policy, was 
originally initiated in January 2019 under the Trump 
administration. When MPP was first introduced, the United 
States returned to Mexico certain non-Mexican citizens and 
foreign nationals while their removal proceedings were pending. 
This program was successful resulting in decreased illegal 
border crossings, which enabled the U.S. Border Patrol to 
actually patrol our Southwest Border and remove almost 70,000 
illegal migrants from our country.
    This crisis is not just about migrants seeking asylum in 
the United States. Unfortunately, criminals, including 
murderers, child predators, weapons traffickers, drug 
traffickers, all the business that the cartels push, is flowing 
across our border. According to a DHS official, since October 
2021, there were over 220,000 documented cases of illegal 
aliens who were deemed got-aways. That fits loosely with my 
percentage that my understanding is about 35 percent of the 
total documented interactions. Criminals and drug cartels are 
benefiting the most from the Biden administration's border 
failures.
    According to a report by the Federal Commission on 
Combatting Synthetic Opioid Trafficking, Mexico is now the 
dominant source of fentanyl supply to the United States. Just 
this past year alone, CBP has seized over $760 million worth of 
fentanyl, and this is barely making a dent. This is what was 
seized. For example, it has been reported that overdose now is 
the leading cause of death for Americans aged 18 to 45 years 
old. This should be a wake-up call to President Biden's 
administration to end this madness and restore common-sense law 
enforcement at our border.
    The reimplementation of the MPP program can provide CBP the 
assistance it needs as it attempts to resecure our Nation's 
borders. In August 2021, a Federal court required the Biden 
administration to reimplement the MPP program in good faith, 
but there has been no evidence of any good-faith effort. In 
addition to Secretary Mayorkas openly seeking to terminate the 
MPP program for a second time, despite the court order, there 
was an average of only 13 individuals per day being enrolled in 
the program in January 2022. That is abhorrent. To put that in 
perspective, in the same time frame in January 2022, CBP had an 
average of almost 5,000 encounters per day at the Southwest 
Border. No one could call this current effort to reimplement 
MPP an actual good-faith effort.
    I expect to hear more about this administration's plan to 
reimplement the court-ordered MPP program in genuine good 
faith. We cannot let politics get in the way of sound governing 
or ignoring Constitutional obligation to secure our sovereign 
border. I look forward to the witnesses' testimony today and I 
thank them for appearing before us. Madam Chair, I yield back.
    [The statement of Ranking Member Higgins follows:]
                Statement of Ranking Member Clay Higgins
                             March 2, 2022
    Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for having today's hearing. 
Since the start of the 117th Congress, the Border Security, 
Facilitations, and Operations Subcommittee has held 4 hearings yet the 
subcommittee has not held a single hearing that directly addresses 
border security until today. Since January 2021 and under President 
Biden's leadership, there have been over 2.1 million border encounters 
at our Southwest Border and the number continues to rise.
    I would like to thank our Federal Government partners for being 
here today. Although, I am disappointed to hear that our Federal 
partners requested to testify on a Federal Government-only panel, 
thereby excluding our Minority witness from the conversation. I believe 
it is important for our Federal partners to hear directly from the 
State and local governments, especially the border States, how the 
administration policies are impacting their States.
    One year into President Biden's term, we have witnessed the total 
disintegration of law and order at the Southern Border. Democrat 
policies have turned America's border into a porous superhighway for 
crime, drugs, and human smuggling into our communities and 
neighborhoods. It is abundantly clear that Secretary Mayorkas, the 
Biden White House, and the Democrats in Congress have zero intent to 
support front-line agents with the necessary policies and resources to 
restore operational control at the border.
    Instead of arresting and prosecuting those who violate our laws, 
CBP enforcement personnel have been hamstrung from doing their jobs. 
This crisis at our Southwest Border could have been avoided if this 
administration were to aggressively enforce the laws in place and kept 
key Trump-era security policies fully entact.
    Since the President took office, not counting the rising number of 
gotaways, encounters surpassed 150,000 for the eleventh month straight. 
These record numbers stem from the Biden administration's failure to: 
(1) Secure the border, and (2) discourage illegal immigration to the 
United States. The current crisis is a direct result of Biden's 
actions, including:
   suspension of border wall construction,
   implementation of Executive Action aimed at halting 
        deportations,
   re-instituting the failed Obama-era prosecutorial discretion 
        policy,
   the attempt to end the Migrant Protection Protocols,
   and expanding large-scale catch and release.
    The crisis this administration has created could have been averted 
or stopped at any time, and still can be, if the Biden administration 
fully reimplements common-sense policies like MPP.
    The MPP program, also known as the ``Remain in Mexico'' policy, was 
originally initiated in January 2019 under the Trump administration. 
When MPP was first introduced, the United States returned to Mexico 
certain non-Mexican citizens and foreign nationals, while their removal 
proceedings were pending. This program was successful, resulting in 
decreased illegal border crossings, which enabled the U.S. Border 
Patrol to actually patrol our Southwest Border and remove almost 70,000 
illegal migrants from our country.
    This crisis is not just about migrants seeking asylum in the United 
States; unfortunately, criminals, including murderers and child 
predators, weapons, drugs are also flowing across our border. According 
to a DHS official, since October 2021, there were over 220,000 
documented cases of illegal aliens who were deemed ``gotaways.''
    Criminals and drug cartels are benefiting the most from the Biden 
administration's border failures. According to a report by the Federal 
Commission on Combating Synthetic Opioid Trafficking, Mexico is now the 
dominant source of fentanyl supply to the United States. Just this past 
year alone, CBP has seized over $760,000,000 worth of fentanyl, and 
this is barely making a dent. For example, it has been reported that 
overdose is now the leading cause of death for Americans aged 18 to 45 
years old. This should be a wake-up call for the Biden administration 
to end the madness.
    The reimplementation of the MPP program can provide CBP the 
assistance it needs as it attempts to resecure our Nation's borders. In 
August 2021, a Federal court required the Biden administration to 
reimplement the MPP program in good faith, but there has been no 
evidence of any good-faith effort. In addition to Secretary Mayorkas 
openly seeking to terminate the MPP program for a second time despite 
the court order, there was an average of only 13 individuals per day 
being enrolled into the program in January 2022. To put that in 
perspective, in the same time frame in January 2022, CBP had an average 
of almost 5,000 encounters per day at the Southwest Border.
    No one could call this a good-faith effort.
    I want to hear more about this administration's plan to reimplement 
the court-ordered MPP program in genuine good faith. We cannot let 
politics get in the way of sound governing or ignoring Constitutional 
obligations. I look forward to the witnesses' testimony today and I 
thank them for appearing before us.
    I yield back.

    Chairwoman Barragan. Thank you, Mr. Ranking Member. I am a 
little disappointed with the comments about this is the first 
hearing on border security because I--you and I have direct 
communication. You have my cell phone number. This is the first 
time I am hearing. We have had two hearings on unaccompanied 
children at the border, which is a border issue. We have had 
seaport hearings. We had moved a hearing at your request 
because you could not attend, which I happily did. But that did 
then take another spot, you know, for us to have to move it. 
So, I am more than happy to work with you and we are going as 
quickly as we can on hearings. So, I welcome your, you know, 
your communication with me on it.
    So, I thank you for, you know, for your statement, but I 
just wanted to also mention, you know, we provided the Minority 
the opportunity to have a witness today. The Minority was 
informed this was a hearing with Federal witnesses on MPP on 
January 18. You all had plenty of time to choose a Federal 
witness. We didn't hear anybody until Friday. That really left 
little time for us to have a discussion with the Department.
    Last, you all approved your witness to be on a second 
panel, which we are only going to do one round of questions so 
we can get to your witness as quickly as possible. So, we are 
trying to be fair and, again, you know, we--I am here to work 
with you and work with the Minority to make sure that, you 
know, we are doing all we can on this subcommittee. So, if you 
want to say something, Mr. Higgins, I am going to go ahead and 
yield to you before I move to Ranking Member Katko.
    Mr. Higgins. That is very kind of the gentlewoman to yield. 
Let me just state in the interest of bipartisan endeavor, that 
I appreciate your comments. I just suggest that this 
subcommittee has been, perhaps, not as engaged as we could be. 
I sit here in a committee hearing room with my Republican 
colleague, Representative Guest, and none others.
    So, we are completely prepared to engage and move forward 
to address the challenges of border security that face our 
Nation and that have, indeed, disintegrated our border States' 
ability to function as sovereign States without devoting a 
tremendous amount of manpower and treasure to securing their 
own borders because the Federal Government has failed. So,----
    Chairwoman Barragan. OK.
    Mr. Higgins [continuing]. I look----
    Chairwoman Barragan. So,----
    Mr. Higgins [continuing]. Forward to our discussions today 
and I thank you for the opportunity to comment.
    Chairwoman Barragan. OK. Well, for the record, the 
Chairwoman is here, virtually, along with other Republican 
Members. So, the fact that it is a full or virtual, people can 
go in person or virtual, people have every opportunity.
    With that and in the interest of time, I am going to--the 
Chair will recognize the Ranking Member of the full committee, 
the gentleman from New York, Mr. Katko, for opening statement.
    Mr. Katko. Thank you, Madam Chair, and it is good to see 
you again. I am pleased that the Border Security, Facilitation, 
and Operations Subcommittee is holding a hearing today related 
to the crisis on our Southwest Border, specifically, regarding 
the reimplementation of the critical Migrant Protection 
Protocols, otherwise known as the Remain in Mexico policy.
    I want to thank our witnesses for being here today and I 
look forward to hearing about the on-going efforts to fully 
reimplement this program. The Biden administration started 2022 
with a record number of Southwest Border encounters in the 
continuing crisis along our Northern and Maritime Borders. 
Every month, U.S. Customs and Border Protection is reporting 
concerning figures, not just in encounter numbers, but also in 
arrests of individuals with known criminal histories, gang 
members, weapons seizures, and illicit drugs, not to mention 
those that may be on a terror watch list. Fentanyl is plaguing 
communities across our Nation and in my hometown in central New 
York, poisoning far too many Americans and becoming the leading 
cause of death of young adults. Think about that, the leading 
cause of deaths in the age group from 18 to 40. That is a 
stunning statistic.
    Also concerning is a reported increase in the number of 
what we call got-aways. Those are individuals seen on Customs 
and Border Patrol technology illegally crossing the border and 
entering into the United States without being encountered by 
Border Patrol agents.
    The administration's required by Federal court order to 
reimplement the Migrant Protection Protocols in good faith. 
However, recent data shared with the committee has been dismal, 
to say the least. According to statistics provided by Border 
Patrol, there was a per-day average of nearly 5,000 Southwest 
Border encounters. Yet, the average number of legal migrants 
enrolled in Migrant Protection Protocols per day was only 13, 
only one-fourth of 1 percent of those caught. That is not 
right.
    Today, I would like to hear from our Federal partners at 
the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of State 
how their respective agencies are, in good faith, and I stress 
the term, good faith, reimplementing the Migrant Protection 
Protocols and the numbers shown--as the numbers above show 
otherwise.
    Not only is the surge of migrants at the border putting a 
strain on Border Patrol agents, but on local law enforcement 
and community resources as well. The number of border crossings 
has reached a shocking level. For example, border encounters in 
Yuma, Arizona went up by more than 2,000 percent since 2020. 
This is why fully reimplementing the Remain in Mexico policy is 
critical to stemming the flow of illegal crossings and will 
allow Customs and Border Protection to regain operational 
control at our Southern Border.
    Again, I am not here to cast aspersions on anyone, but it 
strains the imagination to think that if this Migrant 
Protection Protocols were being reimplanted as the court 
ordered, there would be a hell of a lot more than less than 1 
percent of the individuals being put in MPP protocols.
    So, I am looking forward to hearing about, if I have to get 
off this early, I trust that the Ranking Member can pursue this 
area for me with vigor. With that, I yield back. Thank you very 
much.
    [The statement of Ranking Member Katko follows:]
                 Statement of Ranking Member John Katko
                             March 2, 2022
    Thank you, Madam Chair. I am pleased that the Border Security, 
Facilitations, and Operations Subcommittee is holding a hearing today 
relating to the crisis on our Southwest Border, specifically regarding 
the reimplementation of the critical Migrant Protection Protocols, 
otherwise known as the Remain in Mexico policy. I want to thank our 
witnesses for being here today, and I look forward to hearing about the 
on-going efforts to fully reimplement the program.
    The Biden administration started 2022 with a record number of 
Southwest Border encounters and a continuing crisis along our Northern 
and Maritime Borders. Every month, U.S. Customs and Border Protection 
(CBP) is reporting concerning figures, not just in encounter numbers, 
but also in arrests of individuals with known criminal histories, gang 
members, weapon seizures, and illicit drugs. Fentanyl is plaguing 
communities across our Nation, and in my home town of Central New York, 
poisoning far too many Americans and becoming the leading cause of 
death of young adults.
    Also concerning is the reported increase in the number of 
``gotaways,'' individuals seen on CBP technology illegally crossing the 
border and entering into the interior of the United States, without 
being encountered by Border Patrol agents.
    The administration is required by Federal court order to 
reimplement MPP in good-faith, however, recent data shared with the 
committee has been dismal to say the least. According to statistics 
provided by CBP, there was a per day average of nearly 5,000 Southwest 
Border encounters, yet the average number of illegal migrants enrolled 
in MPP per day was only 13--only a quarter of 1 percent!
    Today, I would like to hear from our Federal partners at the 
Department of Homeland Security and the Department of State how their 
respective agencies are reimplementing MPP in ``good faith'' as the 
numbers show otherwise.
    Not only is the surge of migrants at the border putting a strain on 
Border Patrol agents, but on local law enforcement and community 
resources as well. The number of border crossings has reached a 
shocking level. For example, border encounters in Yuma, Arizona went up 
by more than 2,000 percent since 2020. This is why fully reimplementing 
the Remain in Mexico policy is critical to stemming the flow of illegal 
crossings and will allow CBP to re-gain operational control of our 
Southern Border.
    Once again, I look forward to the witnesses' testimony and I thank 
them for appearing before us. I yield back.

    Chairwoman Barragan. Thank you and thank the full 
committee's Ranking Member. I want to make sure that Members 
are reminded that the subcommittee will operate according to 
the guidelines laid out by the Chairman and the Ranking Member 
in their February 3, 2021, colloquy. Additional Members may 
submit statements for the record.
    [The statement of Chairman Thompson follows:]
                Statement of Chairman Bennie G. Thompson
                             March 2, 2022
    Good afternoon.
    I thank Chairwoman Barragan for holding this important hearing to 
examine the reimplementation of the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), 
also known as ``Remain in Mexico.''
    Donald Trump started this misguided policy to advance his anti-
immigrant agenda.
    Like family separation, MPP is another cruel, Trump-era policy that 
has left a stain on our Nation's tradition of protecting refugees and 
asylum seekers.
    MPP forces vulnerable migrants to wait in dangerous conditions in 
Mexican border towns until their asylum hearing.
    Many migrants have been victims of kidnappings, extortion, and 
assaults while being forced to remain in Mexico under MPP.
    Our border policies must be humane and reflect our values.
    We must treat people with respect and dignity, while following 
international law and honoring our obligations toward asylum seekers.
    MPP does not live up to those values. We have heard President Biden 
say just that. Hours after being inaugurated, he suspended new 
enrollments into the program.
    The administration began to wind down MPP and processed migrants 
with pending cases into the United States.
    Like many, I applauded when DHS officially terminated the Remain in 
Mexico policy.
    Unfortunately, a Federal Court in Texas ordered the Department to 
re-start the program.
    The administration has appealed the Court decision and issued a new 
MPP termination memo, which will go into effect once the current 
injunction is lifted.
    The Department has been forced to restart the MPP program, but the 
administration has worked with the government of Mexico and 
international organizations to make changes to the program, mostly for 
the better.
    For example, the Department committed to certifying that migrants 
have access to legal representation.
    While this is a welcome step, I continue to have significant 
concerns about implementation.
    If lawyers are not available to take migrants' calls or do not have 
sufficient time to consult with migrants, the access not meaningful.
    We look forward to hearing how the Department intends improve legal 
access going forward.
    DHS also directed employees to screen migrants for vulnerabilities 
and expanded the categories of asylum seekers considered too vulnerable 
to be returned to Mexico. This is, too, is a welcome improvement.
    However, not all of the changes have been for the better.
    Notably, the Department has chosen to expand eligibility for 
enrollment into MPP to nationals of any country in the Western 
Hemisphere, other than Mexico.
    This includes Haitian migrants and other non-Spanish speaking 
individuals, who are particularly vulnerable in Mexico.
    This change to the program was not required by court order, and it 
is disturbing to see the Department choose to expand a program it 
opposes.
    Furthermore, the committee's oversight has raised questions about 
implementation of many of the Department's promises, as well as 
coordination between the agencies and organizations carrying out the 
Remain in Mexico Policy.
    Particularly in light of these challenges, it is imperative that we 
conduct rigorous oversight of the Federal agencies and partners 
responsible for re-implementing the policy.
    That is what we are here to do today.
    I am grateful that the Supreme Court has agreed to expeditiously 
review the lower court's ruling requiring the Department to reimplement 
MPP.
    I am hopeful for a positive outcome that will allow the termination 
of this terrible policy.
    Until then, the Federal Government must work to ensure the safety 
of migrants enrolled in MPP and improve implementation of the program 
and protections for migrants.
    I look forward to hearing from our witnesses on how the 
administration is taking action to accomplish this.

    Chairwoman Barragan. Now, I would like to take the 
opportunity to welcome our first panel of witnesses.
    Mr. Blas Nunez-Neto is acting assistant secretary for 
border and immigration policy at the U.S. Department of 
Homeland Security. Mr. Benjamine ``Carry'' Huffman is the 
acting chief operating officer at U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection. Ms. Emily Mendrala is the deputy assistant 
secretary for Western Hemisphere affairs at the U.S. Department 
of State.
    Without objection, the witnesses' full statements will be 
inserted in the record. I now ask each witness to summarize his 
or her statement for 5 minutes, beginning with Mr. Nunez-Neto.

   STATEMENT OF BLAS NUNEZ-NETO, ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY, 
 BORDER AND IMMIGRATION POLICY, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

    Mr. Nunez-Neto. Chairwoman Barragan, Ranking Member 
Higgins, and Members of the subcommittee, thank you for the 
opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the court-
ordered reimplementation of the Migrant Protection Protocols, 
or MPP.
    I would like to begin by noting that Secretary Mayorkas has 
made clear that MPP is not aligned with this administration's 
values and poses an unjustifiable human cost on migrants and 
pulls resources away from more important efforts that seek to 
address the root causes of irregular migration and 
comprehensively manage irregular migratory flows at our border.
    Despite this, and consistent with our support for the rule 
of law, DHS has moved forward expeditiously with the court-
ordered reimplementation of this program. As of this week, MPP 
returns are now occurring in 4 locations across the entire 
Southwest Border. We also continue to expand enrollment numbers 
despite dealing with the unprecedented global COVID-19 pandemic 
that has impacted operations on both sides of the border.
    As part of the court-ordered reimplementation of MPP, we 
have made a number of changes that attempt to address the grave 
humanitarian concerns associated with the previous 
implementation, concerns shared by this administration and the 
government of Mexico. First, DHS is committed to excluding 
particularly vulnerable individuals from being put in harm's 
way. This includes individuals with known mental and physical 
health issues, disabilities, or advanced age, among other 
factors. Second, we have enhanced the policies and procedures 
that protect individuals from being returned to Mexico who fear 
facing torture or persecution there. CBP personnel now 
affirmatively ask enrollees about their fear of being returned 
to Mexico, something that brings this process more in line with 
international norms. We have also lowered the screening 
standard for individuals who express a fear of persecution or 
torture in Mexico.
    Third, DHS and DOJ are committed to providing individuals 
subject to MPP with reasonable and meaningful opportunities to 
access legal services. This includes providing them with 24 
hours to speak to a legal representative before undergoing a 
non-refoulement interview and also facilitating access to legal 
orientation programs and counsel before they attend their court 
hearings.
    Fourth, we are working to ensure that individuals enrolled 
in MPP receive a ruling on their cases to the greatest extent 
possible within 180 days to minimize the time they spend in 
Mexico. Fifth, as my Department of State colleague will 
explain, we have worked closely with the government of Mexico 
and international organizations to enhance the safety and 
security of individuals returned to Mexico. Sixth, we have 
created a case review process for individuals who believe they 
clearly should not be subject to MPP.
    I want to be exceptionally clear, however, that this 
administration recognizes these changes, while significant, are 
not sufficient to address the concerns we have identified with 
the program and we will continue to fight the court's ruling. 
As Secretary Mayorkas noted in his second termination memo, 
there is no version of MPP that can fully address the inherent 
flaws of the program and the human costs it imposes on migrants 
who may have legitimate claims to protection in the United 
States.
    DHS will continuously evaluate MPP's operations and 
effectiveness and make adjustments, as needed, as we comply 
with the court order. We are also committed to transparency and 
have been publishing a detailed monthly report on MPP 
operations.
    Last, as the Biden-Harris administration and Secretary 
Mayorkas have repeatedly acknowledged, the United States is a 
Nation with borders and laws that must be enforced. It is also 
a Nation that was built by immigrants. This administration is, 
as a result, committed to securing our borders while also 
offering protection to those fleeing persecution and torture.
    That said, our efforts to address irregular migration 
cannot solely be focused on our borders. Our immigration laws 
have not been updated in decades. During this time, we have 
seen a dramatic change in the nature and magnitude of migratory 
flows. These changes have only accelerated during the COVID-19 
pandemic. We are committed to working with Congress to 
transform our flawed and outdated immigration system so that we 
can both better secure our borders and create fair, orderly, 
and humane pathways for migrants seeking protection or 
opportunity in the United States.
    Thank you and I look forward to answering whatever 
questions the committee may have.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Nunez-Neto follows:]
                 Prepared Statement of Blas Nunez-Neto
                             March 2, 2022
                              introduction
    Chairwoman Barragan, Ranking Member Higgins, and distinguished 
Members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear 
before you today.
    I have been serving as the acting assistant secretary for border 
and immigration policy since October 1, 2021. My permanent role is the 
chief operating officer at U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), 
within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which I began on 
March 5, 2021. Since August 24, 2021, I have been concurrently serving 
as the vice chair for the Secretary of Homeland Security's Southwest 
Border Taskforce. I also previously served at DHS as an advisor to CBP 
Commissioner Gil Kerlikowske from January 12, 2015 to January 16, 2017.
    Before discussing the court-ordered reimplementation of the Migrant 
Protection Protocols (MPP), I want to highlight the fact that Secretary 
of Homeland Security Alejandro N. Mayorkas has repeatedly stated that 
MPP has endemic flaws and should be terminated. These flaws include 
that it imposed unjustifiable human costs on migrants, subverted the 
asylum system, pulled resources and personnel away from other priority 
efforts, and failed to address the root causes of irregular migration. 
DHS continues to vigorously defend its decision to terminate MPP in 
court and has taken the extraordinary step of asking for expedited 
review by the U.S. Supreme Court. In the interim, however, DHS is 
required to abide by the order to re-implement the program in good 
faith and it continues to do so, demonstrating this administration's 
commitment to the rule of law.
    As we move forward with this court-ordered reimplementation of MPP, 
DHS is seeking to do so in the most humane way possible. I want to make 
clear, however, that this administration recognizes that these changes, 
while significant, are not sufficient to address the concerns with the 
program that Secretary Mayorkas has identified, and that no matter what 
measures are put in place to attempt to protect migrants enrolled in 
MPP, we cannot ensure their safety and security in Mexico.
    We will continue to challenge the court's ruling, even as we abide 
by the court order to reimplement MPP in good faith.
                            terminating mpp
    On February 2, 2021, President Biden issued Executive Order (EO) 
14010, Creating a Comprehensive Regional Framework to Address the 
Causes of Migration, to Manage Migration Throughout North and Central 
America, and to Provide Safe and Orderly Processing of Asylum Seekers 
at the United States Border. EO 14010 directed the Secretary of 
Homeland Security to ``promptly review and determine whether to 
terminate or modify the program known as the Migrant Protection 
Protocols.''
    During the course of his first review, Secretary Mayorkas 
identified a number of critical factors that contributed to his final 
conclusions to terminate MPP:
   While DHS originally intended the program to more quickly 
        adjudicate legitimate asylum claims and clear asylum backlogs, 
        over the course of the program, asylum backlogs actually 
        increased before both the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
        Services (USCIS) Asylum Offices and the Department of Justice's 
        (DOJ) Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR).
   The focus on speed was not matched with sufficient efforts 
        to ensure that conditions in Mexico enabled migrants to attend 
        their immigration proceedings.
   As a result, a high percentage of cases resulted in an order 
        of removal in absentia (approximately 44 percent, based on DHS 
        data) which raised significant questions about whether the 
        process provided enrollees an adequate opportunity to appear 
        for proceedings to present their claims for relief and whether 
        conditions faced by some MPP enrollees in Mexico--including, 
        for example, the lack of stable access to housing, income, and 
        safety--resulted in the abandonment of potentially meritorious 
        protection claims.
   MPP as initially implemented did not sufficiently improve 
        border management so as to justify the program's extensive 
        operational burden and other shortfalls. The program also 
        imposed additional responsibilities on border personnel and 
        resources that detracted from other aspects of DHS's critically 
        important mission sets.
    Having completed the comprehensive and thorough review required by 
the EO, Secretary Mayorkas concluded that MPP should be terminated and 
issued a memorandum to that effect on June 1, 2021.
    On August 13, 2021, the U.S. District Court for the Northern 
District of Texas determined that the Secretary's June 1 memorandum was 
not issued in compliance with the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 
because it failed to address all relevant considerations. As a result, 
the District Court vacated the June 1 memorandum in its entirety, 
remanded the matter to DHS for further consideration, and ordered DHS 
to re-implement MPP. DHS sought a stay of this injunction to the Fifth 
Circuit, which was denied by both the Fifth Circuit and then the 
Supreme Court.
    As a result, Secretary Mayorkas began a second comprehensive review 
of MPP. During this process, the Secretary once again carefully 
reviewed the arguments, evidence, and perspectives presented by those 
who support re-implementation of MPP, those who support terminating the 
program, and those who have argued for continuing MPP in a modified 
form.
    After this review, Secretary Mayorkas again determined that MPP 
should be terminated. Secretary Mayorkas considered perspectives the 
District Court determined were insufficiently addressed in the June 1 
memorandum, including claims that MPP discouraged unlawful border 
crossings, decreased the filing of non-meritorious asylum claims, and 
facilitated more timely relief for asylum seekers, as well as 
predictions that termination of MPP would lead to a border surge, cause 
DHS to fail to comply with alleged detention obligations under the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, impose undue costs on States, and put 
a strain on U.S.-Mexico relations.
    Throughout the course of this second review, Secretary Mayorkas 
examined multiple factors that informed the Government's decision to 
terminate the MPP. These factors included:
   As described by an assortment of independent findings, 
        including those made by non-governmental organizations and U.S. 
        courts, MPP placed migrants in harm's way. Significant evidence 
        indicates that individuals awaiting their court hearings in 
        Mexico under MPP were subject to extreme violence and 
        frequently became targets for transnational criminal 
        organizations that profited by exploiting migrants' 
        vulnerabilities.
   As previously designed and implemented, MPP's non-
        refoulement screening process was inadequate. Issues included 
        individuals not being affirmatively asked questions about fear 
        of return to Mexico, insufficient access to counsel, and use of 
        the ``more likely than not'' standard during non-refoulement 
        screenings, a standard typically reserved for adjudication on 
        the merits of withholding of removal and Convention Against 
        Torture claims before an Immigration Judge.
   Individuals in MPP faced numerous barriers in accessing 
        counsel and receiving sufficient information about their court 
        hearings. There were several problems in communicating accurate 
        and up-to-date information to enrollees about rescheduled court 
        hearings. Opportunities for attorneys to meet with their 
        clients, outside of those meetings organized at the hearing 
        locations, were limited due to, among other constraints, 
        complications associated with cross-border communication and 
        U.S. attorneys not being licensed to practice law in Mexico.
   Due to these factors, among others, many individuals in MPP 
        were unwilling or unable to remain in Mexico during the course 
        of their removal proceedings. Comparing noncitizens enrolled in 
        MPP to similar noncitizens (i.e., non-Mexican single adults and 
        family units who were issued notice to appear) from the same 
        period who were not enrolled in MPP, EOIR granted relief to 3.4 
        percent of non-MPP enrollees who had been issued NTAs versus 
        1.1 percent of MPP enrollees. This discrepancy suggests that at 
        least some MPP enrollees with meritorious claims either 
        abandoned or were unable to adequately present their claims 
        given the conditions faced by migrants in Mexico and barriers 
        to legal access.
   Additionally, MPP was originally intended to reduce burdens 
        on border security personnel and resources and to help clear 
        the backlog of unadjudicated asylum claims. In reality, 
        however, Secretary Mayorkas observed that backlogs in 
        immigration courts and asylum offices grew significantly during 
        the period that MPP was in effect. MPP also diverted resources 
        from other priority Department missions by requiring DHS to 
        build, maintain, and operate the infrastructure and processes 
        supporting MPP.
   MPP also played a particularly outsized role in diplomatic 
        engagements with the government of Mexico (GOM), diverting 
        attention from more productive efforts to fight transnational 
        criminal and smuggling networks and address the root causes of 
        irregular migration and forced displacement.
   Last, MPP also diverts DHS's resources from the 
        administration's priority efforts to implement effective, fair, 
        and durable asylum reforms that reduce adjudication delays and 
        tackle the immigration court backlog. For example, both the 
        Dedicated Docket, designed so that immigration judges can 
        adjudicate cases within 300 days, and the Asylum Officer rule, 
        which will substantially streamline the asylum process, rely on 
        the same USCIS personnel.
    As a result, on October 29, 2021, Secretary Mayorkas issued a new 
memorandum terminating MPP that will be implemented as soon as 
practicable pending a final judicial decision to vacate the injunction. 
As part of our vigorous efforts to challenge this injunction, on 
December 28, 2021, the U.S. Government (USG) filed with the U.S. 
Supreme Court a petition for a writ of certiorari seeking expedited 
review of the judgment of the Fifth Circuit in Texas v. Biden, which 
rejected DHS's arguments and left the injunction in place. DHS's 
petition for writ of certiorari was granted by the Supreme Court on 
February 18, 2022, and oral arguments are anticipated in April. For as 
long as the injunction remains in place, DHS is bound to comply with it 
and make good faith efforts to reimplement MPP.
    Ultimately, while recognizing that MPP may potentially have 
contributed to some reduced migratory flows, Secretary Mayorkas 
concluded that the program imposes unjustifiable human costs, pulls 
resources and personnel away from other priority efforts, and fails to 
address the root causes of irregular migration. The Secretary also 
noted that MPP is inconsistent with the values and approaches taken by 
the Biden-Harris administration, which is pursuing a series of policies 
that disincentivize irregular migration while incentivizing safe, 
orderly, and humane pathways for persons seeking to enter the United 
States. These policies--including the on-going efforts to reform the 
U.S. asylum system and address the root causes of irregular migration 
in the region--seek to achieve sustainable, long-term change by 
addressing long-standing problems that have plagued the U.S. 
immigration system for decades. Once fully implemented, Secretary 
Mayorkas believes that these policies will address migratory flows more 
effectively while holding true to our Nation's values.
                       operational changes to mpp
    DHS, working with our Federal and international partners, has taken 
multiple steps to re-implement MPP while attempting to address some of 
the most profound humanitarian concerns that MPP presents. These 
changes are intended to minimize the harms associated with the program 
to the greatest extent feasible, but as Secretary Mayorkas has 
repeatedly confirmed, no changes short of termination are sufficient to 
fully address the inherent flaws and human costs of MPP.
    First, both the U.S. and Mexican Governments are committed to 
protecting particularly vulnerable individuals from being returned to 
Mexico and put in harm's way. Although GOM is not responsible for 
reimplementing MPP nor upholding U.S. court decisions, its cooperation 
is critical to operationalize the program. Unaccompanied children 
cannot be enrolled in MPP. Additionally, those with particular 
vulnerabilities including those with known physical and mental health 
issues, disabilities, and advanced age are not eligible for MPP. When 
CBP officials observe or learn of a particular vulnerability, they make 
case-by-case decisions about whether the vulnerability falls within an 
exception to enrollment. When there is doubt as to whether a 
vulnerability merits exception to enrollment, CBP has been instructed 
to err on the side of excepting the individual from MPP.
    Second, DHS has enhanced policies and procedures to protect from 
return those who may be subject to torture or persecution in Mexico. 
CBP officials are now required to proactively ask individuals subject 
to MPP if they fear being returned to Mexico. In the prior 
implementation, individuals were not asked these questions and had to 
instead affirmatively assert a fear of return to Mexico. Individuals 
who express a fear of being returned to Mexico are referred to USCIS 
for a non-refoulement interview. Rather than the ``more likely than 
not'' standard that was used in the previous version of MPP, USCIS 
officials now use the lower ``reasonable possibility'' standard. 
Importantly, they are provided access to telephones and are generally 
given 24 hours to consult with a legal representative in advance of 
their interview. It continues to be the case that individuals enrolled 
in MPP can tell a USG official that they fear return to Mexico at any 
time while they are in the United States, including during initial 
processing, court hearings, or any other encounters with USG officials.
    Third, DHS and DOJ are taking additional steps to provide 
individuals subject to MPP with reasonable and meaningful opportunities 
to meet with counsel or a legal representative. Upon enrollment, 
individuals are provided a legal resource packet. As already stated, 
individuals who express a fear of return to Mexico have 24 hours prior 
to their USCIS non-refoulement interviews to consult with legal 
representatives on the telephone. Under current operational guidance, 
CBP is to provide individuals enrolled in MPP with access to telephones 
during their time in custody, and volunteers from law firms and legal 
service providers are providing migrants with free telephonic legal 
consultations. At the request of an individual in MPP, legal 
representatives may participate by telephone in USCIS non-refoulement 
interviews. DHS and DOJ are coordinating returns to the United States 
for court hearings to allow individuals enrolled in MPP with 
substantial time to meet with counsel on the day of the hearing, and 
DOJ is providing access to the Legal Orientation Program for 
individuals in MPP. Counsel may be present at the noncitizens' court 
hearings by video or in person. Additionally, the Department of State 
is working with international organizations to increase access to legal 
and other informational resources via shelters in Mexico, including 
through provision of WiFi and outfitting of private spaces that can be 
used to consult remotely with legal representatives or others.
                       re-implementation to date
    On December 6, 2021, DHS began to enroll individuals in MPP and 
subsequently return them through a port of entry (POE) in El Paso, and 
court hearings began at the El Paso Immigration Court for individuals 
enrolled in MPP on January 3, 2022. On January 3, 2022, DHS began to 
enroll individuals in MPP and subsequently return them through a POE in 
San Diego, and court hearings began at the San Diego Immigration Court 
on February 1, 2022. On January 20, 2022, DHS began to enroll 
individuals in MPP and subsequently return them through a POE in 
Brownsville, and court hearings began at the Brownsville Immigration 
Hearing Facility on February 15, 2022. On February 28, 2022, DHS began 
to enroll individuals in MPP and will subsequently return them through 
a POE in Laredo, and court hearings will begin on or about March 28, 
2022 at the Laredo Immigration Hearing Facility. DHS intends to 
continue incremental expansion of returns across the Southwest Border 
in the coming months contingent on GOM's continued agreement to receive 
returns and location-specific reception capacity.
    As of February 28, a total of 1,602 individuals have been enrolled 
in MPP and 893 of them have been returned to Mexico, while 181 are 
still being processed. Not all individuals who are enrolled in MPP are 
actually returned to Mexico since some are disenrolled due to a 
particular vulnerability or a positive determination in their non-
refoulement interview.
    Of the 1,602 enrollments, only 1 was a family unit individual (who 
was later disenrolled), while the rest were single adults. To date, all 
individuals enrolled have been Spanish speakers primarily from 
Nicaragua, Venezuela, Cuba, Colombia, and Ecuador. In principle, anyone 
from the Western Hemisphere (other than Mexico) is potentially eligible 
for MPP processing if they are not an unaccompanied child or fall into 
another vulnerable group.
    Of the 1,602 enrollments, 82 percent (1,313) claimed a fear of harm 
in Mexico during initial enrollment and were referred to USCIS for a 
non-refoulement interview, 225 of which resulted in a positive 
determination (17 percent). The remaining 83 percent of those who 
claimed fear either received a negative determination (69 percent), had 
their cases administratively closed (12 percent), or remain pending (2 
percent). Individuals disenrolled from MPP generally still have a 
pending Notice to Appear before EOIR and continue their removal 
proceedings while remaining in the United States. During their non-
refoulement interviews, 2 percent were legally represented.
    DHS will continuously evaluate MPP operations and effectiveness and 
make necessary adjustments to improve the integrity and operations of 
the program, and the safety of those who are enrolled in it. As part of 
these efforts, DHS has created a case review process for individuals 
who believe they should not have been subject to MPP or should no 
longer be subject to MPP due to a particular vulnerability or a changed 
circumstance. Individuals or their representatives can email DHS with 
information about why the individual's enrollment is believed to have 
been incorrect or how the individual's circumstances have changed since 
enrollment, and DHS will promptly review their cases.
                               conclusion
    As the Biden-Harris administration and Secretary Mayorkas have 
repeatedly acknowledged, the United States is a nation with borders and 
laws that must be enforced, and it is also a nation that was built by 
immigrants. This administration is, as a result, committed to securing 
our borders while also offering protection to those fleeing persecution 
and torture. The Secretary has been clear that, in his view, MPP is not 
the best strategy for achieving either of these goals--even with the 
significant changes that have been made that seek to mitigate its 
inherent flaws.
    Despite the Secretary's views concerning MPP, DHS is bound by court 
order to make good-faith efforts to implement it until the injunction 
is lifted--and we have been complying with this court order.
    That said, efforts to address irregular migration cannot solely be 
focused on our borders. Our immigration laws have not been updated in 
decades, and during this time we have seen a dramatic change in the 
nature and magnitude of migratory flows. These changes have only 
accelerated during the COVID-19 pandemic. This administration is 
committed to working with Congress to transform our flawed immigration 
system so that we can better secure our borders and create fair, 
orderly, and humane pathways for migrants seeking protection or 
opportunity. A key part of these efforts involves the critical work our 
colleagues at the State Department are engaged in to create regional 
approaches to addressing migration that recognize it is a shared 
responsibility of all countries in the Hemisphere. DHS hopes to work 
alongside Members of this committee and this Congress to develop 
sustainable solutions to better manage migration at the border and in 
the region.
    Thank you. I am pleased to answer your questions.

    Chairwoman Barragan. Thank you for your testimony. I now 
recognize Mr. Huffman to summarize his statement for 5 minutes. 
Mr. Huffman.

    STATEMENT OF BENJAMINE ``CARRY'' HUFFMAN, ACTING CHIEF 
    OPERATING OFFICER, U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, 
                DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

    Mr. Huffman. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairwoman 
Barragan, Ranking Member Higgins, and Ranking Member Katko, and 
distinguished Members of the subcommittee. It is an honor to 
testify today on behalf of the U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection and discuss CBP's role in the implementation of the 
Migrant Protection Protocol program, or MPP, across our 
Southern Border.
    I currently serve as CBP's acting chief operating officer. 
While I am new to this role, my career in border security has 
spanned 37 years. It is fair to say it has been a career that 
has taken me across our hemisphere conducting this line of 
business. To that end, the border has always been a dynamic 
environment, but there is one constant I am reminded of every 
day, the men and women of CBP have a complex, important, and 
frequently dangerous mission. It is a mission we are called up 
to perform with the spirit of vigilance, service, integrity, 
and honor. I am honored to serve on the leadership team of one 
of the Nation's premier law enforcement agencies. Due to the 
challenges we face today, it is also the most humanitarian law 
enforcement agency in the country, possibly the world.
    I would like to point out that since the beginning of 2021, 
CBP has performed over 13,000 life-saving rescues in sometimes 
extremely dangerous conditions and terrain. Spent hundreds of 
millions of dollars providing medical support, and provided 
care for over 146,000 unaccompanied children, our most 
vulnerable migrant population. These are just a few examples of 
the care and compassion that defines CBP's values of vigilance, 
service, integrity, and honor.
    In regards to MPP, our primary responsibility involves 
enrollment of individuals and facilitating them through the 
ports of entry prior to and following their hearings. CBP's 
operational framework is grounded by three key principles 
essential to our mission. First, enforce the law and implement 
policy. Second, ensure individuals in our custody are provided 
care and afforded rights. Third, work collaboratively with our 
interagency and international partners.
    First, CBP is a law enforcement organization. We are 
committed to enforcing our Nation's law and implementing the 
policies of the Executive branch. I personally have worked 
under 7 administrations, and while strategies change, there has 
always been a commitment to enforcing the rule of law. To that 
end, CBP carries out its responsibilities in accordance with 
the U.S. laws and the DHS MPP policy guidance. CBP officers and 
Border Patrol agents determine whether an encounter or 
apprehended individual should be processed under MPP or under 
other procedures such as expedited removal. These 
determinations are made on a case-by-case basis and with the 
appropriate supervisory review.
    Trust in the rule of law is a pillar of our Nation and CBP 
is committed to faithfully executing its responsibility, which 
brings me to my second point, which is commitment to providing 
care and communicating afforded rights to individuals 
throughout the entire MPP process.
    During an MPP determination, CBP procedures are designed to 
identify the correct processing pathway for every migrant as 
soon as possible. This includes providing multiple 
opportunities to identify migrants in vulnerable populations. 
Once enrolled, we provide individuals with a list of legal 
service providers, including information on low-cost or free 
legal services. We also care for the health and welfare of 
migrants, which includes providing COVID vaccinations for MPP 
enrollees. Additionally, if at any time MPP enrollee states 
that he or she has fear of persecution or torture on return to 
Mexico, that migrant is referred to a U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigrations Services asylum officer for screening. CBP is 
committed to providing care and communicating rights to 
individuals throughout the MPP process.
    Third, it is important to recognize the interagency and 
international efforts in this area. CBP is one of many 
organizations involved in implementing MPP, and we must work 
effectively with all of our partners. DHS establishes guiding 
policies and parameters of MPP, and implementation is 
coordinated among multiple agencies. Within DHS, CBP works 
closely with USCIS and ICE. We also coordinate closely with the 
Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review, 
the Department of State, and the government of Mexico's 
National Institute of Migration. Clear and timely communication 
with non-governmental organizations is also a critical part of 
this partnering effort.
    Among other mandates, this administration has set a 
benchmark of allowing all MPP enrollees to have a hearing 
within 180 days. We work closely with our interagency 
colleagues to help us take swift and decisive action to enroll 
migrants, facilitate hearings, and meet administration's 
priorities.
    The border has always been a dynamic and complex 
environment. For CBP, we will continue to do our part in 
upholding the rule of law, ensuring individuals are properly 
cared for, and being a trusted partner to all of the entities 
working on this effort. Thank you for the opportunity to appear 
today and I look forward to your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Huffman follows:]
          Prepared Statement of Benjamine C. ``Carry'' Huffman
                             March 2, 2022
    Chairwoman Barragan, Ranking Member Higgins, and Members of the 
subcommittee, it is my honor to appear before you today to testify 
about the role of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) in the 
court-ordered reimplementation of the Migrant Protection Protocols 
(MPP).
    I am proud to be here representing the men and women of CBP, who 
serve the American people 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Based on my 
personal experiences of over 37 years in border security, I can attest 
that CBP remains committed to balancing the need for enforcing our 
Nation's laws, protecting U.S. economic interests, safeguarding the 
health of the American people and our workforce, and providing 
appropriate safety, security, and care for those in our temporary 
custody.
    The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), in consultation with its 
components, and following negotiations with the Government of Mexico 
coordinated by the Department of State, has been responsible for 
establishing guiding policies and parameters of MPP. Implementation of 
the day-to-day operations of MPP involves several U.S. and Mexican 
Departments and agencies, with support from the International 
Organization for Migration (IOM).\1\ Within DHS, CBP plays a central 
role in MPP, coordinating closely with our law enforcement and 
adjudicatory partners to ensure effective, consistent, and humane 
application of immigration laws, policies, and procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Customs 
and Border Protection (CBP), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service 
(USCIS), U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) Enforcement 
and Removal Operations (ERO) and Office of the Principal Legal Advisor 
(OPLA), in addition to the Department of Justice's (DOJ) Executive 
Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), and the Department of State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For CBP, MPP has two basic operational parts--initial enrollments 
and facilitating the passage of MPP enrollees through ports of entry 
(POEs) on their way to and on their return from immigration court 
hearings. The enrollment process includes the initial apprehension or 
encounter; the determination of whether the individual is subject to 
MPP; subsequent communication to MPP enrollees of enrollment 
requirements; the coordination of a non-refoulement interview and 
consultation with services providers for those enrollees who express a 
fear of return to Mexico; the coordination of court hearing dates and 
times; and the transport and return of the individual enrolled in MPP 
to Mexico to await a hearing. The return of MPP enrollees for court 
hearings involves processing them for temporary entry at designated 
POEs, transferring custody to U.S. Immigration and Customs 
Enforcement's Enforcement and Removal Operations (ICE ERO) for 
transportation to and from hearings (where necessary), and processing 
enrollees for their return to Mexico.
    Migrants from Western Hemisphere countries other than Mexico who 
are apprehended by U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) in the United States after 
crossing without authorization between POEs may be assessed to 
determine whether they may be subject to MPP. In March 2020, to reduce 
the spread of COVID-19, DHS, in conjunction with the Department of 
Justice's Executive Office for Immigration Review (DOJ EOIR), paused 
all immigration court hearings for individuals enrolled in MPP. 
Consistent with the January 20, 2021, memorandum issued by Acting 
Secretary David Pekoske, CBP temporarily suspended new enrollments into 
MPP pending further review.\2\ On February 2, 2021, President Biden 
issued Executive Order (EO) 14010, Creating a Comprehensive Regional 
Framework to Address the Causes of Migration, to Manage Migration 
Throughout North and Central America, and to Provide Safe and Orderly 
Processing of Asylum Seekers at the United States Border.\3\ In this 
Executive Order, President Biden directed the Secretary of Homeland 
Security to ``promptly review and determine whether to terminate or 
modify the program known as the Migrant Protection Protocols'' and 
``promptly consider a phased strategy for the safe and orderly entry 
into the United States, consistent with public health and safety and 
capacity constraints, of those individuals who have been subject to 
MPP.''\4\ In response, Secretary Mayorkas initiated a comprehensive 
review of MPP. CBP subsequently terminated MPP processes in accordance 
with Secretary Mayorkas' June 1, 2021, memorandum.\5\ Following a court 
order on August 13, 2021, permanently enjoining DHS from implementing 
or enforcing the June 1 memorandum,\6\ CBP participated in the DHS-led 
interagency effort to reimplement MPP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Memorandum from David Pekoske, Acting Sec'y of Homeland Sec., 
Suspension of Enrollment in the Migrant Protection Protocol Program 
(Jan. 20, 2021).
    \3\ Exec. Order No. 14010, 86 Fed. Reg. 8267 (Feb. 2, 2021).
    \4\ Id. at 8720.
    \5\ https://www.dhs.gov/publication/dhs-terminates-mpp-and-
continues-process-individuals-mpp-united-states-complete-their.
    \6\ https://www.dhs.gov/news/2021/08/24/dhs-statement-supreme-
court-decision-mpp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    New MPP enrollments under the court-ordered reimplementation of MPP 
commenced on December 6, 2021, in the El Paso Sector, with noncitizens 
reporting for their scheduled immigration court hearings beginning on 
January 3, 2022. MPP enrollments expanded to the San Diego Sector on 
January 3, 2022, with noncitizens reporting for their scheduled 
immigration court hearings beginning February 1, 2022. On January 20, 
2022, MPP enrollments expanded to the Rio Grande Valley Sector, with 
noncitizens reporting for their scheduled immigration court hearings 
beginning February 15, 2022. On February 28, 2022, MPP enrollments 
expanded to the Laredo Sector, with noncitizens reporting for their 
scheduled immigration court hearings beginning tentatively on March 28, 
2022.
    As DHS continues to work in good faith to reimplement MPP 
consistent with the court order, MPP enrollments are expected to resume 
in other Southwest Border locations and returns to Mexico facilitated 
at 7 ports of entry in San Diego and Calexico, California; Nogales, 
Arizona; and El Paso, Eagle Pass, Laredo, and Brownsville, Texas.
                           enrollment process
    In accordance with the December 2, 2021, DHS Guidance Regarding the 
Court-Ordered Reimplementation of the Migrant Protection Protocols,\7\ 
CBP officers and USBP agents, with appropriate supervisory review, 
determine whether an encountered or apprehended individual should be 
processed under MPP or under other procedures (e.g., expedited removal) 
on a case-by-case basis. Inadmissible noncitizens encountered at the 
Southwest Border within 96 hours of crossing between POEs are subject 
to placement in MPP if they are nationals of any country in the Western 
Hemisphere other than Mexico.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2022-01/
21_1202_plcy_mpp-policy-guidance_508.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The following persons are exempted from processing under MPP: 
Unaccompanied children (UC),\8\ U.S. lawful permanent residents; 
noncitizens with an advance parole document or in parole status; 
noncitizens with criminal history; noncitizens of law enforcement 
interest to the U.S. or Mexican Governments; and noncitizens with 
particular vulnerabilities, such as those with a known mental or 
physical health issue; a disability or a medical condition related to 
pregnancy; particular vulnerabilities given their advanced age; and 
those at increased risk of harm in Mexico due to their sexual 
orientation or gender identity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ 6 U.S.C.  279(g)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Upon initial MPP enrollment, CBP collects biometrics \9\ and all 
available biographic information for the case file and proactively asks 
questions to determine whether the individual possesses a fear of 
return to Mexico. If, in response to those questions, or at any other 
time while in the United States, an individual expresses a fear of harm 
if returned to Mexico, the individual is referred to U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration Services (USCIS) for a non-refoulement interview.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ CBP collects biometrics on all individuals age 14 and older 
during the intake process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Unless waived, individuals are to receive 24 hours to consult with 
a legal services provider prior to the non-refoulement interview. This 
24-hour period for consultation takes place in DHS facilities, and DHS 
is to ensure that individuals have access to legal resource packets, 
the ability to use telephonic or virtual means to contact counsel in a 
confidential space, and interpretation services if needed. Individuals 
who establish that there is a ``reasonable possibility'' that they will 
be persecuted on account of a statutorily protected ground (race, 
religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or 
political opinion) or that they will be tortured in Mexico are not 
subject to MPP and will not be returned to Mexico.
    CBP coordinates with ICE ERO and DOJ EOIR liaison officers to 
schedule the initial master calendar court hearing dates. When 
individuals are enrolled in MPP, they are issued a Notice to Appear 
(NTA) with the time and location of their initial court hearing, and an 
informational tear sheet instructing them as to what time to appear at 
the designated POE to allow sufficient time for processing, 
transportation, and if necessary, meeting with their attorney or 
accredited representative either in person or via remote communication 
prior to the hearing. CBP also provides MPP enrollees with a DOJ EOIR 
list of pro bono or low-cost legal service providers, specific to the 
court location where the case is docketed.
    MPP enrollees remain in CBP custody until return to Mexico can be 
arranged. All individuals enrolled in MPP who meet COVID-19 vaccine 
eligibility criteria are offered vaccinations and provided access to 
food, water, and restroom facilities. Proof of a COVID-19 vaccination 
is required for all individuals (age 5 and over) for reentry to the 
United States. CBP provides the Mexican National Migration Institute 
(INM) with an advance list of individuals who will be returned so that 
Mexican immigration officials can prepare documentation that 
temporarily permits the individuals to remain in Mexico pending their 
immigration proceedings in the United States. Following local 
agreements, CBP uses designated times and locations to coordinate the 
return of MPP enrollees to Mexico.
                    return process for court hearing
    Individuals enrolled in MPP wait in Mexico until their assigned 
court date. The MPP enrollee is responsible for obtaining 
transportation back to the POE, but in some cases, IOM and government 
of Mexico services facilitate transportation from specified locations 
in Mexico to the POE. MPP enrollees are instructed to arrive at the 
designated POE so that there is sufficient time before their scheduled 
hearings to meet with any retained counsel or legal representation in 
advance of the hearing. Any attorneys \10\ or witnesses coming from 
Mexico to attend removal proceedings or meet with clients must present 
themselves at a POE to be inspected and admitted to the United States, 
or considered for parole, consistent with all U.S. laws and policies. 
Attorneys and witnesses do not accompany MPP enrollees through the 
inspection process; they are processed separately and must arrange 
their own transportation to the hearing facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ In order to practice before DOJ EOIR, the attorney must be 
licensed in a U.S. State, territory, or the District of Columbia, or be 
accredited by DOJ EOIR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    At the POE, CBP officers use biometrics to verify the returning 
individual's identity, ensure requisite documents are in place, and 
process the individual to enter the United States for the immigration 
court hearing. CBP officers may use the CBP OneTM App to 
conduct identity verifications. This allows DHS users to submit a 
photograph to return biographic details of an individual including 
name, date of birth, A-number (alien number) if any, and citizenship. 
If CBP OneTM is not available, CBP officers will utilize 
other available means to conduct the required biometric verification.
    Once identity verification is complete, ICE ERO assumes custody and 
is responsible for the transportation or escort of MPP enrollees 
between the POE and court location, as well as the custody and care of 
the enrollees during all court proceedings. DOJ EOIR conducts the 
hearing with ICE's Office of the Principal Legal Advisor (ICE OPLA) 
representing the U.S. Government in proceedings. If the individual 
receives a final order of removal from an immigration judge, or is 
granted protection or relief from removal, they will be processed in 
accordance with ICE ERO policies and procedures. If the individual's 
removal proceedings remain on-going, ICE ERO will transport the 
individual back to the POE for coordination of return to Mexico. MPP 
enrollees typically return to the United States for multiple hearings.
    DHS established temporary immigration hearing facilities (IHFs) in 
Laredo and Brownsville in September 2019 to facilitate removal 
proceedings at the actual POE. Although these facilities were partially 
demobilized when MPP enrollments were suspended, the facilities were 
redeployed in the fall of 2021 and are fully operational. With MPP 
enrollees physically in the IHF, immigration judges conduct proceedings 
by video teleconference, and processes are designed to be as consistent 
as possible with DOJ EOIR guidance for in-person immigration court 
proceedings in permanent facilities. Just as in DOJ EOIR facilities, 
individuals at IHFs have the opportunity to meet with counsel or legal 
representatives ahead of their hearings in a confidential setting. 
Because the facilities are located within the physical space of 
existing POEs, access must be prioritized for those critical to the 
hearings, such as witnesses, family members, interpreters, and 
attorneys and accredited representatives who are representing 
individuals in these proceedings.
    After the hearing, ICE ERO transports or escorts the enrollee to 
the POE. CBP then returns any of the enrollee's possessions that were 
held at the POE and, if a new hearing date was scheduled, issues a new 
tear sheet with instructions on the date, time, and POE to which they 
must report for their next hearing date. The individual is then 
processed for return to Mexico.
    Again, if at any time while in the United States the MPP enrollee 
affirmatively states a fear of return to Mexico, they are referred to 
USCIS for a non-refoulement interview. If USCIS determines that there 
is a reasonable possibility that the individual will be persecuted or 
tortured in Mexico, the individual is disenrolled from MPP and CBP 
coordinates with ICE ERO to determine whether the individual may be 
maintained in custody or paroled, or if another disposition is 
appropriate. In this situation, the individual may not be subject to 
expedited removal, and may not be returned to Mexico to await further 
proceedings.
    CBP will again provide INM with an advance list of MPP enrollees 
who will be returned so that it can prepare documentation that 
temporarily permits the individuals to remain in Mexico until their 
next hearing date.
    CBP established dedicated MPP teams consisting of a combination of 
Office of Field Operations (OFO) and USBP personnel who are available 
to assist port and station personnel with questions or concerns about 
implementing MPP procedures. In addition, CBP welcomes assistance from 
the DHS Office of the Immigration Detention Ombudsman, which provides 
on-site visitation to MPP enrollees to observe implementation of MPP 
and reviews access to legal counsel. Each participating port and 
station have a designated MPP point of contact to ensure effective 
communication and coordination within CBP and with our Federal and 
international partner agencies.
                               conclusion
    CBP will continue to work with our partners to ensure MPP is 
applied appropriately, consistent with policy, and that MPP enrollees, 
including those who fear returning to Mexico, are provided clear 
information about their rights and responsibilities under MPP, and are 
treated with civility and in accordance with U.S. law and our mission. 
We will also continue to assess and reassess our performance, 
processes, and procedures to find areas where we can further improve 
MPP and better collaborate with our partners across the Department and 
Federal Government.
    Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I look forward to your 
questions.

    Chairwoman Barragan. Thank you, Mr. Huffman, for your 
testimony. I now recognize Ms. Mendrala to summarize--sorry--
Ms. Mendrala to summarize her statement for 5 minutes.

   STATEMENT OF EMILY MENDRALA, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, 
      WESTERN HEMISPHERE AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE

    Ms. Mendrala. Thank you. Chairwoman Barragan, Ranking 
Member Higgins, Ranking Member Katko, and Members of the Border 
Security, Facilitation, and Operations Subcommittee, thank you 
for inviting me to testify before you today. As deputy 
assistant secretary for the Bureau of Western Hemisphere 
Affairs at the State Department, I am honored to have this 
opportunity to discuss the Department's role in the 
implementation of the Migrant Protection Protocols, or MPP.
    This year marks the bicentennial of bilateral relations 
between the United States and Mexico. Our two governments share 
deep commitments to humane and orderly migration, transnational 
security, and economic prosperity in the Western Hemisphere. 
The Biden-Harris administration has repeatedly stated that MPP 
has endemic flaws, imposes unjustifiable human costs, and pulls 
resources and personnel away from other priority efforts. As 
the appeals process continues, we are working closely with the 
government of Mexico in accordance with the court order 
requiring us to make good-faith efforts toward reimplanting 
MPP.
    On December 2, 2021, the government of Mexico publicly 
announced its independent decision to accept individuals 
returned from the United States to Mexico under the 
reimplementation of MPP. The U.S. Government announced measures 
to mitigate safety and protection risks to MPP enrollees, 
addressing humanitarian concerns also shared by the government 
of Mexico.
    The U.S. Government leveraged the State Department's 
expertise supporting humanitarian programs to make available 
relevant support to MPP returnees in Mexico as we do for other 
vulnerable migrants or asylum seekers. The Department's Bureau 
of Population, Refugees, and Migration, or PRM, supports on-
going programming through humanitarian partners in Mexico for 
shelter, legal orientation programs, psychosocial services, 
access to Wi-Fi, and other support for which all vulnerable 
migrants, including MPP enrollees, are eligible. The Department 
of State is also supporting access to COVID-19 testing for MPP 
migrants prior to arrival at a port of entry to reenter the 
United States to attend court.
    In the previous implementation of MPP, some MPP enrollees 
were preyed upon by criminal groups upon reentry to Mexico. To 
mitigate this risk, the State Department is supporting 
facilitation of humane transportation for MPP enrollees in 
Mexico between shelters and ports of entry. Our international 
organization partner provides this transport assistance. Return 
times are coordinated to minimize travel within Mexico after 
dark or before sunrise. The government of Mexico provides 
security escorts for transport to further minimize risks.
    In negotiations with Mexico, we arranged for a dignified 
and organized reception in Mexico where Mexican authorities 
immediately provide MPP enrollees with documentation upon 
arrival that allows them to access local services and 
permission to work legally in the country. The Department of 
State, our international organization partners, provide 
assistance to ensure access to local services based on 
eligibility as determined by the government of Mexico.
    As we continue to work closely with the government of 
Mexico in accordance with the court order, the administration 
maintains that MPP contains endemic flaws and poses 
unjustifiable human costs and pulls resources and personnel 
away from other priority efforts. The United States and Mexico 
share an interest in sustainable solutions that humanely reduce 
irregular migration and forced displacement in, from, and 
through the region. This requires a comprehensive, long-term 
approach that works to address the root causes of irregular 
migration and forced displacement, while simultaneously 
enhancing collaborative regional approaches to expand access to 
international protection and other legal migration pathways and 
to humanely manage unprecedented mixed migration flows through 
consistent border enforcement, visa regimes, and other tools.
    Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member, and Members of the Border 
Security, Facilitation, and Operations Subcommittee, thank you 
again for the opportunity to testify and I look forward to your 
questions.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Mendrala follows:]
                  Prepared Statement of Emily Mendrala
                             March 2, 2022
    Chairwoman Barragan, Ranking Member Higgins, and Members of the 
Border Security, Facilitation, and Operations Subcommittee--thank you 
for inviting me to testify before you today. As deputy assistant 
secretary for the Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs at the State 
Department, I am honored to have this opportunity to discuss the 
Department's role in the implementation of the Migrant Protection 
Protocols (MPP).
    This year marks the bicentennial of bilateral relations between the 
United States and Mexico. Our two governments share deep commitments to 
humane and orderly migration, transnational security, and economic 
prosperity in the Western Hemisphere. The Biden-Harris administration 
has repeatedly stated that MPP has endemic flaws, imposes unjustifiable 
human costs, and pulls resources and personnel away from other priority 
efforts. As the appeals process continues, we are working closely with 
the government of Mexico in accordance with the court order requiring 
us to make good-faith efforts toward re-implementing MPP.
    On December 2, 2021, the government of Mexico publicly announced 
its independent decision to accept individuals returned from the United 
States to Mexico under the re-implementation of MPP. The U.S. 
Government announced measures to mitigate safety and protection risks 
to MPP enrollees--addressing humanitarian concerns also shared by the 
government of Mexico. The U.S. Government leveraged the State 
Department's expertise supporting humanitarian programs to make 
available relevant support to MPP returnees in Mexico as we do for 
vulnerable migrants or asylum seekers. The Department's Bureau of 
Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM) supports on-going programming 
through humanitarian partners in Mexico for shelter, legal orientation 
programs, psychosocial services, access to Wi-Fi, and other support for 
which all vulnerable migrants, including MPP enrollees, are eligible. 
PRM is also supporting access to COVID-19 testing for MPP migrants 
within 3 days prior to arrival at a POE to re-enter the United States 
to attend court.
    In the previous implementation of MPP, some MPP enrollees were 
preyed upon by criminal groups upon reentry to Mexico. To mitigate this 
risk, State/PRM is supporting facilitation of humane transportation for 
MPP enrollees in Mexico between shelters and ports of entry. Our 
international organization partner provides this transport assistance. 
Return times are coordinated to minimize travel within Mexico after 
dark or before sunrise. The Government of Mexico provides security 
escorts for transports to further minimize risks.
    In negotiations with Mexico, we arranged for a dignified and 
organized reception in Mexico where Mexican authorities immediately 
provide MPP enrollees with documentation upon arrival that allows them 
access to local services and permission to work legally in the country. 
PRM international organization partners provide assistance to ensure 
access to local services based on eligibility as determined by the 
government of Mexico.
    As we continue to work closely with the government of Mexico in 
accordance with the court order, the administration maintains that MPP 
contains endemic flaws, imposes unjustifiable human costs, and pulls 
resources and personnel away from other priority efforts. The United 
States and Mexico share an interest in sustainable solutions that 
humanely reduce irregular migration and forced displacement in, from, 
and through the region. This requires a comprehensive long-term 
approach that works to address the root causes of irregular migration 
and forced displacement while simultaneously enhancing collaborative, 
regional approaches to expand access to international protection and 
other legal migration pathways and to humanely manage unprecedented 
mixed migration flows through consistent border enforcement, visa 
regimes, and other tools.
    Madame Chairwoman, Ranking Member, and Members of the Border 
Security, Facilitation, and Operations Subcommittee--thank you again 
for the opportunity to testify. I look forward to your questions.

    Chairwoman Barragan. Thank you so much for your testimony. 
I want to thank the witnesses, all of you, for your testimony. 
I will remind the subcommittee that we will each have 5 minutes 
to question the panel. I will start with myself and then we 
will alternate with the first question going to you, Mr. 
Huffman of CBP. Mr. Huffman, are migrants allowed to share 
information regarding the Notice to Appear and other MPP-
related documents with advocates?
    Mr. Huffman. Yes, ma'am, they are to those advocates that 
have been recognized to represent them, certainly they can 
share their information.
    Chairwoman Barragan. Mm-hmm. Would a sitting Member of 
Congress be allowed to photograph an individual's NTA if that 
individual grants permission?
    Mr. Huffman. So, ma'am, I think it has been a long-standing 
procedure for CBP, and has for years, to protect the--in the 
interest of protecting the migrant--the security and the 
privacy of migrants. When they are in our custody, in our care, 
they are not allowed then to be photographed or take those 
pictures as you described what happened to you the other day. I 
mean, I regret it that you didn't--you weren't satisfied with 
your interaction that day, but just to be clear, that is not--
that is how we have always done it with folks that are in our 
custody or in our care is to limit access to others outside 
the--not certified to represent them in those cases.
    Chairwoman Barragan. OK. Mr. Huffman, just so you are 
aware, this was not trying to take a picture of the migrant. 
This was the migrant trying to give me his information so I 
could follow up on the separation of him and his son and was 
offering it to me. So, I just, you know, I think it is--as a 
lawyer, when there is an attorney-client privilege, the 
privilege belongs to the client. In this case, I think the 
privacy belongs to the migrant if they, you know, want somebody 
to follow up and I don't see the harm in doing that. Again, it 
was not a picture of the migrant. It was simply a picture of 
his Notice to Appear to get his information down.
    OK. My second question goes to Mr. Nunez-Neto. Would you 
say that this administration prioritizes keeping families 
together?
    Mr. Nunez-Neto. Yes, Chairwoman, DHS is committed to 
preserving family unity.
    Chairwoman Barragan. OK. Now, I just want to remind you 
like during my oversight trip, I met with a migrant who was, as 
I mentioned, illiterate and separated from his 23-year-old son 
and he was enrolled in MPP. How does that align with the policy 
of keeping families together?
    Mr. Nunez-Neto. Thank you, Chairwoman, for that question. 
As you know, the definition of a family unit that DHS uses is 
based on the TVPRA definition of an unaccompanied child. It 
basically notes that a parent or a legal guardian traveling 
with the minor children is a family unit. Parents traveling 
together with adult children have traditionally not been 
treated as a family unit at the border. They have been treated 
as single adults. That said, we have directed CBP to ensure 
wherever possible that individuals who are traveling together 
and are subject to MPP, should either be enrolled together or 
disenrolled together if they have familial ties. As Chief 
Huffman would likely point out, however, this can be pretty 
difficult to operationalize, you know, in the border depending 
on when and how people cross.
    Chairwoman Barragan. OK. Well, I want to just encourage you 
and the administration to rethink the family unit definition, 
and as you mentioned, trying to keep families together. It just 
was a little challenging to see a vulnerable elderly man being 
the one that was an MPP and separated.
    I just want to follow up to my second question as well, can 
DHS or CBP, do you have the power to alter the guidelines on 
how to define a family?
    Mr. Nunez-Neto. Chairwoman, we are happy to work with you 
and the committee on what our current policies are and maybe 
have a conversation around, you know, what we can do to better 
reflect our shared concern about family--families being kept 
together.
    Chairwoman Barragan. OK. Maybe my question is kind-of just 
directed on who has the authority to change that definition? Is 
it DHS? Is it CBP? Is it somebody else?
    Mr. Huffman. On behalf of CBP, I don't believe we have the 
authority to change that definition. I think that is a policy 
issue and then as Mr. Nunez-Neto reflected, it is codified in 
the TVP--TV Protected Trafficking Victims Protection Act, as 
well. So, that would be a policy-level decision, perhaps even a 
legislative change. I am not really sure.
    Chairwoman Barragan. OK. My understanding is that DHS has 
the written guidance on MPP guidelines and so, it would be DHS, 
but we can, you know, talk about that off-line more.
    I want to move on to question--well, with my time expiring 
here, with only 7 seconds left, I am going to--I am going to go 
ahead and wrap up. I just thank our witnesses for being here 
and your willingness to answer questions. Votes are going to be 
called around 20 minutes or so. So, I want to make sure we give 
everybody ample time to get questions in as much as they can 
before they have to run to vote.
    So, with that I will wrap up and I will now recognize the 
Ranking Member of the subcommittee, the gentleman from 
Louisiana, Mr. Higgins, you are recognized for your 5 minutes.
    Mr. Higgins. I thank the Chairwoman. Mr. Nunez-Neto, in 
your written testimony, you say that as of February 28, a total 
of 1,602 individuals have been enrolled in MPP and 893 of them 
have been returned to Mexico, while 181 are still being 
processed. But not all individuals who are enrolled in MPP are 
actually returned to Mexico since some are disenrolled due to a 
particular vulnerability or a positive determination of their 
non-refoulement interview. The numbers here seem very low. At 
the reference from January 2019 through January 2021, nearly 
70,000 individuals were enrolled in MPP and the program was 
stopped. Now it allegedly is being reinstituted.
    Most Americans get the sense, as we reasonably assess this 
alleged good-faith effort to reinstitute MPP, as reflective of 
the court order, most Americans would reasonably assess that a 
good-faith effort is being slow-rolled at best or being 
resisted perhaps would be more accurate. Sir, do you support 
MPP as a policy or do you oppose it?
    Mr. Nunez-Neto. Thank you, Ranking Member. As I have noted 
in my written testimony and oral statement, this administration 
opposes the MPP, but is committed to reimplementing it per 
the----
    Mr. Higgins. OK. So,----
    Mr. Nunez-Neto [continuing]. Court order in good faith.
    Mr. Higgins [continuing]. Thank you. Thank you for that 
clarification. So, why would--why would we expect DHS to 
legitimately comply with the court order in good faith when it 
is clear that DHS leadership opposes MPP as a policy? I think 
it is, I mean, we expect compliance with the law. That means to 
fully comply with the law means to bring all your authority to 
bear on compliance with that law. That would be the definition 
of a good-faith effort. But what we are seeing in these numbers 
are certainly translate to a lack of actual effort to comply.
    How long do you think it would take for MPP to be fully 
implemented? In fact, what would the numbers need to be for you 
to say it is now fully reimplemented given the fact that we are 
trending another 2 million-plus illegal crossings this year? 
What would be a success? You say, how should America measure a 
good-faith effort to reimplement MPP reflective of the court 
order that exists?
    Mr. Nunez-Neto. Thank you, Ranking Member. I would like to 
point out that the previous implementation of MPP took a number 
of months to ramp up and increase enrollments. We are actually 
in line with their numbers for the first couple of months of 
implementation. That said, we are implementing MPP during a 
global pandemic and the government of Mexico has required that 
individuals be tested and quarantined when they are returned to 
Mexico. That has limited to some extent our ability to enroll. 
We are hopeful that as the pandemic eases and restrictions 
begin to be raised, that we will be able to increase 
enrollments a little faster. We are committed----
    Mr. Higgins. Well, let me----
    Mr. Nunez-Neto [continuing]. To doing this in good faith, 
sir.
    Mr. Higgins [continuing]. Let me just in the interest of 
time, let me just clarify that our understanding is that the 
illegal immigrants that are not returned to Mexico that are 
released into the interior of America are not tested for COVID. 
That is my understanding. They are distributed across the 
United States without getting tests. So, I appreciate you 
pointing out that we are dealing with COVID. We are now well 
into the third year or 14 days to flatten the curve. So, we are 
all very familiar with the barriers that COVID has presented.
    But the sanctity of our sovereign border is at stake. We 
are losing our Nation at the Southern Border.
    Under MPP, Mr. Nunez-Neto, my final question, please 
explain what happens to migrants who are specifically 
disenrolled in MPP when they do not appear in front of an 
immigration court as specified in their custody paperwork? What 
happens if they don't show up for court?
    Mr. Nunez-Neto. Sir, individuals who are disenrolled from 
the MPP would be processed under a different Title 8 pathway, 
and that could include expedited removal or some other 
authority. For individuals who are enrolled in MPP and who do 
not show up for their court hearing, some of that really 
depends on the immigration judge and, you know, the OPLA ICE 
attorneys' determination. But we are already seeing some in 
absentia orders of removal being issued.
    Mr. Higgins. That would be by ICE? You are saying they 
would be referred to ICE?
    Chairwoman Barragan. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Madam. Perhaps he could answer that 
final question.
    Chairwoman Barragan. Well, I specifically cut my questions. 
I stopped without even asking another question when I had 7 
seconds left because I want to make sure we get to the 
Minority's witness as quickly as we can because there is going 
to be a huge interruption with votes. My concern is who will be 
engaged in returning.
    Mr. Higgins. Yes, ma'am.
    Chairwoman Barragan. So, I am going to----
    Mr. Higgins. That was a yes or no question, but I 
understand. I yield.
    Chairwoman Barragan. OK. The witness is welcome to in his 
next question to answer the question if he would like. The 
Chair will now recognize other Members for questions they may 
wish to ask the witness. As previously outlined, I will 
recognizes Members in order of seniority, alternating between 
Majority and Minority.
    Members are reminded to unmute themselves when recognized 
for question. The Chair recognizes, for 5 minutes, the 
gentleman from California, Mr. Correa.
    Mr. Correa. Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank all of 
our witnesses for being here with us today. You have a 
difficult job. We all have a very challenging job. I kind-of 
agree with Mr. Higgins. We have, you know, the numbers are 
probably very significant. But I do believe that we can protect 
our border and accept more refugees to the United States, after 
all, we are a country of immigrants.
    You know, as part of my job here being on Homeland, I try 
to go out and look at the field to see what you all are doing, 
what your challenges are. Last year, I went out to El Paso, 
Texas to address the refugee challenges there and I remember I 
met the two young ladies, Yuri and Yareli, the 3- and 5-year-
old girls that had been thrown over the border by smugglers. 
Mr. Huffman, if it wasn't for your smart and alert border 
officers, those young ladies would have perished out in the 
desert. So, thank you and thank them.
    You know, I met with Central American ambassadors in the 
past few months, and one of them was telling me that probably 
80 percent of those refugees from his country, by the time they 
get to the United States border, 80 percent of the women are 
sexually violated and molested. It is an ugly road, but when 
you are hungry, when your life is threatened, you take risks.
    You know, I wish I could say this thing is going to get 
better, but I took a tour out to Tijuana, San Ysidro border 
crossing about a month ago. As I was crossing the border, I 
started up a conversation with a Border Patrol border agent, 
and he jokingly asked me if I knew Russian. I asked him, I 
said, what is your punchline, bro? He said, you see those 20 
vehicles in secondary inspection? I said, yes, I do. He says, 
they are full of Ukrainian and Russian immigrants, and a lot of 
those guys try to run the border with their vehicles, and we 
have stopped them. My point to you is, given what is going on 
in Russia right now, given what is going on in Ukraine, given 
what is going on in other parts of the world, this problem is 
not going away. We have to figure out, like Mr. Higgins said, 
how to protect our borders. But like I would say, how to open 
up our borders to refugees that we can accept and be part of 
our great country and our great society.
    I concur with the Chairperson. I have opposed the Remain in 
Mexico policy for a lot of reasons and part of it is that I 
have seen that it doesn't work. I know President Biden ended 
this policy, but apparently now he is expanding it. So, you 
know, without debating this a little bit, the facts are the 
facts. Without debating this, I would ask you, gentlemen, and 
as witnesses, just help us come up with a solution here. Can we 
come up with ways to have these refugees possibly, you know, 
apply for refugee status in their home country? What can we do 
to keep them safe? It breaks my heart when I see human beings 
that look my family, that look like my neighbors be in such 
dire straits. Mr. Nunez-Neto, what do you think? What can we do 
in the 2 minutes I have left? Thank you.
    Mr. Nunez-Neto. Thank you for that question, sir. I agree 
wholeheartedly with you that there is more that needs to be 
done. As I noted in my opening statement, you know, we haven't 
reformed our immigration system in decades. Our laws are simply 
outdated and have not kept up with the changes that we have 
seen at the border. We are seeing surges of migration happen--
--
    Mr. Correa. I would probably say, sir, that our immigration 
laws have not changed and kept up with the reality of the 
world.
    Mr. Nunez-Neto. That is right.
    Mr. Correa. Continue.
    Mr. Nunez-Neto. No, I agree completely, sir. That is why I 
think, you know, you have seen administrations of both parties 
move through executive action to make changes. I do not believe 
that is the way----
    Mr. Correa. Very quicky--I am sorry to cut you off. Mr. 
Huffman, like I mentioned to you, out in El Paso, your agents 
were excellent using that electronic infrared night stuff to 
patrol the borders. What can we do better in that respect?
    Mr. Huffman. So, I appreciate you recognizing the acts of 
our agents. As I mentioned in my thing, I do believe we are the 
most humanitarian law enforcement agency in the country because 
of the circumstances we have been put into and we have been 
placed into that role. The reliance on that technology is great 
and the support we get from Congress to allow us to increase 
our reliance on technology to give us greater situation on what 
is going on around on the Southwest Border is huge. Those kind 
of things help us effect those type of rescues, plus help us 
secure the border, and address the narcotics smuggling issue, 
all those things together. The technology, and the personnel, 
and the infrastructure, are key to our success on the Southwest 
Border----
    Mr. Correa. How much time----
    Mr. Huffman [continuing]. In addition to----
    Mr. Correa [continuing]. Do I have left, Madam Chair?
    Chairwoman Barragan. Thank you. Your time has expired. I 
was about to chime in as he was completing his----
    Mr. Correa. Thank you very much.
    Chairwoman Barragan [continuing]. His response. The 
gentleman yields.
    Mr. Correa. Yes.
    Chairwoman Barragan. The Chair recognizes, for 5 minutes, 
the gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. Guest.
    Mr. Guest. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Mr. Nunez-Neto, I 
want to talk a few minutes and walk through a couple things. It 
appears from your testimony, your written testimony, a brief 
history that on February the 2nd, President Biden issued an 
Executive Order directing Secretary Mayorkas to review MPP. 
Five months later, on June the 1st of 2021, Secretary Mayorkas 
concluded and issued a memorandum that the program should be 
terminated. Following that there was a court challenge to that 
on August the 13th 2021. The Federal court from the Northern 
District of Texas ordered this program to continue or to be 
reimplemented. There was an appeal of that both to the 5th 
Circuit and later to the Supreme Court, both of which were 
denied. You say there in your testimony, you say DHS is 
required to abide by the order to reimplement the program in 
good faith, and has continued to do so, demonstrating this 
administration's commitment to the rule of law.
    So, looking at recent border figures, in December of last 
year, the total number of encounters along the Southwest Border 
was 179,219 individuals. In January, that number dropped to 
153,941. So, taking the January figures for total numbers of 
encounters at 179,219, and then looking at the individuals from 
the statistics I have that were enrolled in the program and 
actually returned to Mexico, I see only 191 individuals. So, if 
my math is correct, that would be less than 1/10 or almost 
right at 1/10 of 1 percent of every encounter that was returned 
to Mexico in December. Looking at January's figures, again in 
January, 153,941. There were 212 that were returned in the 
initial program, and another 42 in the post-reentry. Again, a 
staggering figure of barely over 1/10 of 1 percent.
    So, with figures that are so low that they barely register, 
it is difficult for me and other Members on this committee for 
us to believe that you are acting in good faith to reinstitute 
this program. I want to give you a brief opportunity to explain 
how those figures being so miniscule, how we can have faith 
that you are doing what you say you are doing, which is acting 
in good faith and following the law. Because that is what, as 
law enforcement officers at the Department of Homeland 
Security, we are required to follow the law whether we like it 
or not. You have been very clear. You don't like the law. You 
think it is a bad law. You think it should go away. The 
Secretary thinks that. The President thinks that. The court has 
now ordered you to do that and it seems to us that you are just 
saying we don't care what the Federal court says, we will 
deport a handful of people, but it is less than 1/10 of 1 
percent. So, please share with me, please convince me during 
these next couple of minutes, as to how you and how the 
Department is acting in good faith on a policy that you are 
very clear you don't like, you disagree with, and you wish you 
didn't have to apply.
    Mr. Nunez-Neto. Yes, thank you, Representative. I would 
like to point out just right off the bat that we are still 
implementing the CDC's Title 42 Public Health Authority at the 
border. So, in the month of January, as you noted, roughly half 
of the individuals we encountered of that number you cited were 
actually expelled under Title 42 and were not processed under 
Title 8 authorities. That said, you know, as I noted in my 
previous answer, under the Trump administration, it took a few 
months for MPP to ramp up enrollments. It is a new program. It 
takes a while for us to get started. We are doing this during a 
pandemic and Mexico has imposed some restrictions on how we can 
return people, including when and the kind of testing and 
quarantine that needs to be available on the Mexican side for 
them to accept people.
    So, we are committed to increasing enrollments. We are 
working with DOJ to add immigration judges and courtrooms. We 
are working internally to streamline our processes. We have 
been expanding across the border and just started in Laredo, 
Texas this week. So, sir, with all due respect, we are 
implementing in good faith and are committed to continuing to 
expand enrollments in the coming months.
    Mr. Guest. Thank you. Very quickly, Mr. Huffman, thank you 
first for your service. I want to ask you if you agree with 
this statement, the director of the Arizona Department of 
Homeland Security, who is in our second panel, made this 
statement. When applied properly, MPP helps protect the lives 
of every Arizona communities and those throughout the Nation. 
When MPP--with MPP, law enforcement spends less time chasing 
the same traffickers, smugglers, and coyotes, and more time 
protecting Arizona and America. Do you agree with that 
statement?
    Mr. Huffman. So, again, thank you for the question and the 
opportunity to respond to that. I haven't heard the statement 
previously, but as I think even the Secretary recognized, there 
was some success with MPP of reducing flows across the 
Southwest Border, although there was a lot of other things 
going on at the same time to understand how MPP was really, I 
don't want to say pressure-tested under the circumstances we 
have now, but as my colleague from DHS said, we are committed 
to implementing in good faith as best we can. We continue to 
find efficiencies at the border to make it work better and 
faster. One of the challenges is it involves the 
synchronization of many organizations outside of just CBP and 
DHS to make it work, to reconstruct that, and get it in place 
is taking a little bit of time. But it is consistent with the 
numbers--if you measure against the same time from the same 
time period last time to this time, so far the numbers are 
pretty consistent. We hope to ramp up as we increase, as you 
mentioned the availability for court, but we are working hard 
to get there as fast as we can.
    Chairwoman Barragan. The gentleman's----
    Mr. Guest. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I yield back.
    Chairwoman Barragan. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. 
The Chair recognizes, for 5 minutes, the gentleman from North 
Carolina, Mr. Bishop, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Mr. Nunez-Neto, I 
noticed that your testimony began, Mr. Guest followed up, and 
Ms. Mendrala's testimony also began with making clear that you 
disapprove the policy behind the MPP. Of what relevance is 
that? You would agree with me wouldn't you that if you have got 
an obligation under law, that you have to perform the 
obligation under law without regard to whether you like or not. 
Isn't that true?
    Mr. Nunez-Neto. That is true, sir, and we are, as I have 
noted, complying in good faith with the court order and we 
believe very much in the rule of law.
    Mr. Bishop. Yes, but you didn't answer my question. Of what 
relevance is it and why do you start off your statement by 
making clear that you disapprove the law that you are required 
by court to follow?
    Mr. Nunez-Neto. We disapprove of this program and the 
President and the Secretary have made quite clear that MPP is 
not aligned with this administration's values, and actually 
distracts from some of the important priorities that we have 
that we believe will have a similar effect on reducing border 
flows, sir.
    Mr. Bishop. So, now you have repeated your preference. But 
again, my question is, you are supposed to carrying out the 
law. The Constitution requires you faithfully to execute the 
law. So, my question is, not why you believe--not why your 
preferences are what your preferences are, but why do you start 
your testimony before this committee concerning compliance with 
MPP, compliance with the court's order, why do you begin it by 
telling us what your preferences are?
    Mr. Nunez-Neto. Sir, we believe the law supports our 
position that the Secretary has the authority to terminate MPP. 
We are committed to fighting the court's order all the way up 
to the Supreme Court, if needed, and have done so already, and 
will continue to do so, and are looking forward to the 
arguments before the Supreme Court, which will happen in April.
    Mr. Bishop. Would it be--but that doesn't change the fact 
of what your legal duty is now, does it, sir? You are under an 
obligation by order of a court. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court 
has declined to grant a stay from that order, right?
    Mr. Nunez-Neto. That is correct, sir, and that is why we 
have moved forward with implementation and are reimplementing 
in good faith with the court's order.
    Mr. Bishop. Would it be possible to sabotage a policy with 
which you disagree even while professing that you are 
proceeding in good faith to execute it?
    Mr. Nunez-Neto. All I can say to that, sir, is that we are 
committed to implementing in good faith. We have worked around 
the clock many thousands of hours across the U.S. Government to 
reimplement this program that we disagree with. We are 
committed to continuing to comply in good faith and continue to 
increase enrollments even as we fight this court order.
    Mr. Bishop. Yet we have the sheer data that indicates that 
given the level of illegal migration at the border, almost none 
of the persons being encountered are being put into MPP.
    Mr. Huffman, I would like to ask you, I noted that as being 
implemented, if there is a--people will be disqualified from 
MPP or not put into MPP if they have a physical or mental issue 
or some other disability, but a physical or mental issue. What 
would prevent lawyers from--that are furnished to prospective 
enrollees, from coaching them to say that they are depressed or 
have anxiety? Would that then--if they then repeated that to a 
CBP agent, would that keep them from being going into MPP?
    Mr. Huffman. Sir, thank you for the question and for that. 
So, not really having privy to what their consultation with the 
attorneys are, but certainly people have been enrolled and then 
disenrolled when vulnerabilities were found out at a later 
time. How they arrived at those vulnerabilities, or how they 
became, I don't really have insight into. But the scenario you 
described, I guess is certainly possible.
    Mr. Bishop. So, well, then what are the prophylactic 
devices or prophylactic measures to make sure you are not 
susceptible to just fraudulent manufacturing of evidence or 
indications like that to keep somebody from being enrolled in 
MPP?
    Mr. Huffman. Sir, we try to focus on those when we are 
deciding who is going to be the best suitable candidate to be 
enrolled into the program would be least likely having any 
vulnerabilities that would show up at a later date because for 
us to enroll someone, and then have to disenroll them, is a--it 
takes time, operational time away from the work. So, we focus 
on those that we are confident will--we have a high likelihood 
to get through the program and not become vulnerable or 
declared vulnerable at a later date.
    Mr. Bishop. So, I don't hear any protection for that 
whatsoever, which to me, it sort-of gives the lie to entire 
notion of a good-faith compliance. If you start off your 
statement by saying you don't want to, you know, you despise 
the program. You note your obligatory obligation to faithfully 
to--excuse me--to execute in good faith and dispose one notion 
to the courageous CBP right there. There is no defense for 
that. You can just evade it at will. That is what I think is 
happening. So, I yield back.
    Chairwoman Barragan. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. 
The Chair will now recognize, for 5 minutes, the gentleman from 
Georgia, Mr. Clyde, you are now recognized.
    Mr. Clyde. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. OK. This question I 
have is for Ms. Mendrala. Thank you for your testimony, ma'am. 
Twice in your statement, you say the Biden-Harris 
administration has repeatedly stated that MPP has endemic flaws 
and poses unjustifiable human costs and pulls resources and 
personnel away from other priorities. Now, can you justify that 
statement for me? I mean, do you support--first off, do you 
support MPP?
    Ms. Mendrala. Thank you for the question, sir. As my 
colleague from DHS recently stated, the administration has 
repeatedly----
    Mr. Clyde. Ma'am?
    Ms. Mendrala. Can you hear me? Hello, can you hear me?
    Chairwoman Barragan. We can hear you. We can hear you.
    Mr. Clyde. I have got you now.
    Ms. Mendrala. OK. As my colleague from DHS has repeatedly 
said, the administration has stated on several occasions that 
the--that it does disagree with the policy of MPP but is, 
nevertheless, committed to the rule of law and to implement in 
good faith the court order to reimplement MPP.
    Mr. Clyde. OK. But you say it has endemic flaws and poses 
unjustifiable human costs. All right. I mean, I am not seeing 
unjustifiable human costs. I am not seeing endemic flaws in the 
MPP. In fact, I think it is a vital program that is both fair 
and necessary. The MPP is the law of the land and the courts 
have rightly ordered DHS to implement it. So, that is what DHS 
needs to be doing and doing it wholeheartedly.
    The purpose of the MPP is to ensure people that are coming 
illegally across our border stay in Mexico. Those who have that 
desire and that request for asylum that they stay outside our 
country so that they don't just forget to show up for their 
asylum hearing and end up in our country as an illegal, as an 
illegal immigrant. So, I think it is a very important program. 
I think that the administration is way off-base in fighting 
this program. Obviously, it is the law. It is legal. It is 
fair. It is humane, all right? I don't believe the court would 
have ordered it to be implemented if it was--if it imposed 
unjustifiable human costs. I think that is totally 
inappropriate--or had endemic flaws.
    My next question for you. In your testimony, you say, state 
PRM is supporting facilitation of human transportation for MPP 
enrollees in Mexico between shelters and ports of entry. Our 
international organization partner provides this transportation 
assistance. So, who pays for this? Are there tax dollars 
involved?
    Ms. Mendrala. Yes, sir. It is funded by the Department of 
State through our Bureau of Population, Refugees, and 
Migration.
    Mr. Clyde. OK. So, there are tax dollars involved here. All 
right. So, what you are saying then is you are paying for 
transportation in another country, in Mexico, to bring these 
people from wherever they are to the port of entry. You know, 
they got to the border by themselves the first time they showed 
up. Now, here we are paying using taxpayer dollars to bring 
them for wherever they are in Mexico back to the border for 
their hearing. Now, what is your obligation under the law to 
provide that transportation?
    Ms. Mendrala. Sir, the court ordered us to reimplement in 
good faith MPP and do so recognizing that the government of 
Mexico is a party to that agreement. Over the course of several 
months, we negotiated with the government of Mexico the terms 
of reimplementing MPP. The government of Mexico had several 
concerns with the prior iteration of MPP implementation, 
humanitarian concerns with which we agreed. One of the concerns 
was that individuals returned under MPP fell victim oftentimes 
to criminal organizations upon their return. So, we took 
several steps in consort with the government of Mexico to 
improve the humanitarian conditions for those MPP enrollees in 
Mexico.
    Mr. Clyde. So, what you are saying then is that without the 
United States paying that transportation, that MPP probably 
would not have been negotiated between Mexico and the United 
States? Is that right?
    Ms. Mendrala. We negotiated several aspects of humanitarian 
treatment of MPP enrollees in Mexico and security concerns were 
at the top of that list. Mexico is also providing security 
accompaniment to those transportation routes to and from ports 
of entry. The Department of State is also working with 
international organization partners to facilitate shelter, to 
improve Wi-Fi access at shelters so individuals can have access 
to counsel while in Mexico and other services as well.
    Mr. Clyde. You know, I wish we treated our United States 
citizens that well. I just don't see it. I just don't see 
treating folks who have broken the law, as they have done here, 
and giving them all these benefits is all that does is 
encourage more people and more people and more people to 
illegally enter this country and that is a disgrace. I yield 
back.
    Chairwoman Barragan. The gentleman yields back. Given that 
votes have not been called, we are going to take this 
opportunity to close out the first panel.
    I just want to remind all our viewers that it is not 
illegal to head to America to go to the border and apply for 
asylum and seek asylum. Unfortunately, the opportunity to 
present yourself at the border to do that is not happening so, 
this--we need to get back to that and maybe that will help 
having people come between ports of entry, which is what we are 
talking about here today.
    So, I want to thank the panelists on the first panel for 
being here, for appearing, for your testimony. You are now 
excused. I am going----
    Mr. Clyde. Madam Chair, point of clarification on your 
comment, please?
    Chairwoman Barragan. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Clyde. We are talking about people here that are not 
arriving at a port of entry. We are talking about people here 
who are illegally crossing the border between ports of entry, 
and that is----
    Chairwoman Barragan. Mr. Clyde, that is----
    Mr. Clyde. Yes.
    Chairwoman Barragan [continuing]. That is exactly----
    Mr. Clyde. Go ahead.
    Chairwoman Barragan [continuing]. My point. My point is----
    Mr. Clyde. Right, OK.
    Chairwoman Barragan [continuing]. That.
    Mr. Clyde. That is illegal.
    Chairwoman Barragan. My point is that people are coming 
between ports of entry because right now, the border is closed 
and not allowing people to legally come and present themselves 
at a port of entry to claim asylum, which has been the law and 
the process. So, that is what I was pointing out. So, you and I 
are kind-of on the same page just we are saying it differently.
    I want to move on to our second panelist because it is--it 
is a guest of our Ranking Member here. I want to make sure he 
has an opportunity to ask questions of his guest. So, thank 
you, Mr. Clyde. The first panel is now excused. Thank you again 
for appearing.
    I now welcome our second panel. Mr. Tim Roemer is the 
director of the Arizona Department of Homeland Security for the 
State of Arizona. Without objection, the witness's full 
statement will be inserted in the record. I now ask Mr. 
Roemer--so, I now ask Mr. Roemer's witness--our witness to 
summarize his statement for 5 minutes. You are now recognized.

  STATEMENT OF TIMOTHY ROEMER, DIRECTOR AND CHIEF INFORMATION 
  SECURITY OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, STATE OF 
                            ARIZONA

    Mr. Roemer. Chairwoman Barragan, Ranking Member Higgins, 
and distinguished Members of the committee, good afternoon and 
thank you for the opportunity to testify. I would like to 
summarize my statement for the record by focusing my opening 
remarks on Arizona's support for border security and how the 
border crisis in our home State affects the rest of the Nation 
from a National security, public safety, and humanitarian 
perspective.
    I would like to first start by thanking the brave men and 
women of CBP and all law enforcement on the front lines of the 
border that work tirelessly to protect our State and Nation, 
day and night. Their efforts are sincerely appreciated and we 
must come together to do more from a policy and legislative 
perspective to support their efforts. The dedication of these 
brave men and women along the border is what stands in the way 
of dangerous criminals reentering the country, many with 
previous convictions of violent crime within the United States, 
the seizure of deadly drugs on their way into our communities 
across the Nation, and the rescue of migrants struggling to 
make it safely into our country.
    This past year, we saw many records being broken and it is 
heartbreaking to watch knowing all too well that many were 
avoidable with stronger action. From a record-breaking number 
of drug overdose deaths to a record number of migrant deaths, 
our border has become increasingly deadly. The Migrant 
Protection Protocols are a thoughtful policy that protects 
migrants looking to the United States of America for a better 
life. We need strong, lasting, and consistent application of 
not just MPP, but also immediate action on the part of the 
Federal Government to protect our communities, both on the 
border and throughout the Nation. This isn't just a matter of 
border security. It is a matter of National security and public 
safety.
    In Arizona, we are on the front lines and the front door to 
this National crisis. Our border communities, cities, towns, 
sheriffs, police chiefs, and health care facilities are on the 
front lines of this National emergency. They are the first to 
suffer from border policy that is not well-reasoned. Dangerous 
and deadly drugs, human smuggling, and cartel actions thrive 
off of an unsecured border and patchwork enforcement of even 
helpful policies.
    An unsecured Southern Border creates a public safety 
crisis, not just in Arizona but across local, State, Tribal, 
and Federal jurisdictions throughout the country. When applied 
properly, MPP helps protect the lives of every Arizona 
community and those throughout the Nation. Consistent 
application of strong border security policies including MPP 
gives Federal law enforcement authorities the ability to stop 
the individuals who are taking advantage of the asylum system 
and allows the system to work better for those in need. MPP 
allows authorities to take significant action, as opposed to 
the catch-and-release tactics from the past that are sadly 
becoming all too real again today. With MPP, law enforcement 
spends less time chasing the same trafficker, smuggler, and 
coyotes and more time proactively and effectively protecting 
Arizona and America from dangerous drugs and transnational 
criminal organizations who continue to profit off of vulnerable 
populations.
    In an operation just this December, Arizona DPS seized over 
664 pounds of methamphetamine and 37 pounds of fentanyl. These 
drugs were being transported from southern Arizona toward 
Phoenix and the street value of these drugs seized in just this 
one operation was $5.1 million. As Governor Ducey has said, 
drugs are slipping through the cracks and into the bloodstream 
of our communities. The cartels are using America as a business 
venture and are continuing to capitalize on Federal policies 
and an insecure border.
    Arizona ranchers, farmers, law enforcement, victim 
services, non-profit organizations, and community members, our 
officials, and our State officials, are impacted by MPP. MPP 
and border security is not an immigration issue, but a 
humanitarian issue. Humans are treated as transnational items 
by transnational criminal organizations and having patchwork 
mismanaged, the border security policy is not only 
insufficient, but irresponsible. The cartels continue to profit 
billions of dollars off of human smuggling and MPP is a 
critical tool to keep migrants safe.
    In closing, Arizona has done and continues to do everything 
within our legal authority to provide law enforcement and 
communities with the resources they need to protect our border. 
While border security is not a simple problem to solve, we need 
to come together to find these solutions. Thank you again for 
allowing me the opportunity to testify, and I am happy to 
answer your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Roemer follows:]
                  Prepared Statement of Timothy Roemer
                        Wednesday, March 2, 2022
    Chairwoman Barragan, Ranking Member Higgins, distinguished Members 
of the subcommittee, and other Members in attendance, good afternoon 
and thank you for allowing me to testify on the Migrant Protection 
Protocols (MPP) and how this policy has impacted Arizona, our 
communities, and our efforts to combat the opioid crisis and dangerous 
criminal activity coming across our Southern Border.
    MPP is a thoughtful policy that protects migrants looking to the 
United States of America for a better life and those living in the USA. 
This is a common-sense policy the Biden administration repealed without 
thought about the implications to communities and States along the 
border and those migrants it is meant to protect. The Biden 
administration only began considering reinstating the policy once such 
action was court-ordered.
    Chairwoman Barragan, Members, we need strong, lasting, and 
consistent application of the Migrant Protection Protocols but also 
immediate action on the part of the Federal Government to protect our 
communities--both on the border and throughout the Nation. This isn't 
just a matter of border security--it's a matter of National security.
    In Arizona, we are the front door to this National crisis. Our 
border communities, cities, towns, sheriffs, police chiefs, and health 
care facilities are on the front lines of this National emergency and 
are the first to suffer from border policy that is not well-reasoned.
    Dangerous and deadly drugs, human smuggling, human trafficking, 
labor trafficking, firearms smuggling, and cartel actions thrive off an 
unsecured border and patchwork enforcement of even helpful policies.
    An unsecured Southern Border creates a public safety crisis not 
just in Arizona but across local, State, Tribal, and Federal 
jurisdictions throughout our country.
    When applied properly, MPP helps protect the lives of every Arizona 
community and those throughout the Nation. Consistent application of 
strong border security policies, including MPP, gives Federal law 
enforcement authorities the ability to stop individuals from taking 
advantage of the asylum system and allows the system to work better for 
those in need. In addition, MPP allows authorities to take substantial 
action instead of ``Catch-And-Release'' tactics from the past that are 
sadly becoming all too real again today.
    With MPP, law enforcement spends less time chasing the same 
trafficker, smuggler, and coyotes and more time proactively and 
effectively protecting Arizona and America from dangerous drugs and 
transnational criminal organizations who continue to profit off 
vulnerable populations.
    Policies like MPP and Title 42 kept the situation at the border 
under control. Unfortunately, the Biden administration's reversal of 
these policies chipped away at the progress made securing the border 
under the previous administration to make a political statement while 
putting public safety at risk.
    Meanwhile, we all saw a record number of drug overdose deaths 
Nation-wide in 2021. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention 
reports over 100,306 drug overdose deaths in our country last year. 
This is a 28.5 percent increase from the previous year. Furthermore, 
the data shows that estimated opioid overdose deaths increased to 
75,673 in the 12 months ending in April 2021, up from 56,064 the year 
before. Overdose deaths from synthetic opioids, primarily fentanyl, and 
psychostimulants such as methamphetamine, also increased in the 12 
months ending in April 2021. Cocaine deaths increased as well.
    As Governor Ducey has said, ``These drugs are slipping through the 
cracks and into the bloodstream of our communities.''
    In 2021, the DEA seized more than 9.5 million pills in Arizona, a 
substantial increase from the 6 million they seized in 2020.
    In December 2021, the DEA, Scottsdale Police, and the Arizona 
Attorney General's Office worked to seize more than 1.7 million pills 
in a 2-month-long drug bust investigation.
    In a separate operation in December, the Arizona Department of 
Public Safety Troopers seized over 664 pounds of methamphetamine and 37 
pounds of fentanyl. Troopers seized these drugs along smuggling routes 
between southern Arizona and Phoenix. These drugs were being smuggled 
to Phoenix to be then sold Nation-wide. The street value of the drugs 
seized during the operation is over $5.1 million.
    The cartels use America as a business venture and continue to 
capitalize on Federal policies and an insecure border.
    Arizona ranchers, farmers, law enforcement, victim services, non-
profit organizations, community members, local leaders, and elected 
officials in our communities and State are all impacted by the migrant 
population. MPP and border security is not an immigration issue but a 
humanitarian issue.
    Transnational criminal organizations routinely treat vulnerable 
humans as transactional and reusable goods. Therefore, having a 
patchworked and mismanaged approach to border security policy, 
including MPP, is not only insufficient but irresponsible.
    Transnational criminal organizations (TCO) profit billions of 
dollars on human smuggling. Officials estimate TCOs profited $3 billion 
from those smuggled into Arizona last year alone. These profits are 
fueling the drug smuggling operations of the cartels.
    The albeit temporary repeal of MPP and similar policies have put 
vulnerable children in danger.
    One family spent 6 hours in a storm on a small boat, with kids 
getting horribly sick. The family was kidnapped by a drug cartel and 
forced to pay a ransom to live during the journey.
    Another family was torn apart forever when a mother and her 10-
year-old daughter were found dead, and her 2-year-old son was the only 
member to survive the dangerous journey. The 2-year-old son was turned 
over to the Federal Government's custody--and as Governor Ducey has 
said, the Federal Government doesn't make a very good parent.
    MPP is a critical tool to keep migrants safe--but it must be 
accompanied by consistent use and a consistent message enforcing the 
rule of law.
    According to a 2020 report from Doctors Without Borders, over 57 
percent of interviewed migrants and asylum seekers experienced some 
type of violence, including cases of assault, extortion, torture, and 
sexual assault. These crimes are devastating and directly result from 
the administration's misleading messaging that our Nation's borders are 
open.
    In my role, I have visited the border several times throughout my 
career and purposely several times during these last 2 years to see 
first-hand how the policies are impacting border security and the 
humanitarian crisis.
    U.S. Border Patrol made nearly 1.66 million arrests for unlawful 
crossings on the U.S.-Mexico border during the fiscal year 2021, the 
highest annual number of apprehensions on record. As the number of 
migrants crossing increases, so does the number of criminals ready to 
exploit these vulnerable individuals.
    Arizona encompasses two enormous, dangerous, geographically, 
politically, and economically complex CBP sectors, Tucson and Yuma. 
Here in Arizona, I hear from our law enforcement officials and 
community leaders every day as they recount the unfathomable number of 
apprehensions. Yet, across the Southwest Border, we are seeing a record 
number of apprehensions, leading to an unknown number of getaways and 
migrants.
    This last year, the Yuma Sector apprehended a Saudi immigrant with 
ties to a known terrorist organization.
    Criminal organizations are smart. They are aware of the narrative 
and practice of Federal policies and feed off of any perceived weak 
points. The art of misdirection and knowing when to fight your battles 
is not a secret held close. The Art of War is also a cautionary tale in 
these situations. TCOs know how to overwhelm the already exacerbated 
and preoccupied Federal law enforcement who diligently do their duties 
as directed by the Biden administration. TCOs know how to get dangerous 
drugs, personnel, and materials into and out of the United States by 
using innocent migrants as distraction tactics during their dangerous 
operations.
    In closing, Arizona has done and continues to do everything within 
our legal authority to provide law enforcement and communities with 
resources to help secure our border and protect our communities. Still, 
Arizona and our Nation need the Federal Government to do its job and 
secure the Nation's border.
    This starts with ensuring common-sense policies like the Migrant 
Protection Protocols are enforced in a strong, consistent, and reliable 
fashion.
    While border security is not a simple problem to solve, strong 
rhetoric, consistent policies, and lasting application of MPP is one 
action the Biden administration could take TODAY to protect Arizonans 
and Americans across the country.
    I'd like to thank the brave men and women of law enforcement from 
CBP and all law enforcement on the front lines of the border that work 
tirelessly to protect our State and Nation day and night. Their efforts 
are sincerely appreciated, and we must come together to do more from a 
policy and legislative perspective to support their efforts.
    Thank you again for allowing me the opportunity to speak to this 
distinguished committee on this important topic.

    Chairwoman Barragan. Thank you, Mr. Roemer, for your 
testimony. As Mr. Roemer is Ranking Member Higgins' witness, I 
will start by recognizing him for questions. The Chair will now 
recognize Mr. Higgins, the Ranking Member, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Higgins. I thank our Chairwoman. Mr. Roemer, thank you 
for being here today to speak of behalf of the challenges our 
Nation faces at the Southern Border. Your perspective from the 
State of Arizona and you with your official duties gives you an 
excellent--gives you an excellent view to the realities that 
face our Nation.
    May I ask you to talk about the policies of the Biden 
administration and how they are affecting your State? For 
instance, can you talk about MPP and whether fully 
implementing, or reimplanting MPP would make a significant 
difference in dealing with the surge, and how your perspective 
of that relates to the kind-of anemic numbers that we are 
seeing from this alleged good-faith effort out of the 
administration?
    Mr. Roemer. Well, thank you Ranking Member Higgins for your 
question. I believe if we just look at the metrics and the data 
on this issue, the answer is there for us, which is that MPP 
was implemented in 2019. If you look at 2019 and 2020 metrics 
of Southwest Border apprehensions and you combine those 2 years 
combined, it still is not anywhere near the number of 
apprehensions we saw on our Southwest Border just last year in 
fiscal year 2021. That proves to me that MPP when implemented 
and used effectively, does work. It does allow our Border 
Patrol and law enforcement on the border to spend more time out 
there in law enforcement actions and less time of the 
processing, which does make us safer. When they are out there 
doing proactive work, is when our Nation and our State are at 
our strongest. But when they are just tied up doing processing 
at the sheer numbers that we have seen, it puts them in a 
difficult position and it affects all of our communities around 
the Nation.
    Mr. Higgins. Do you see the criminal network responding 
proactively be very aware to the absence of regular patrol and 
law enforcement on the border when those law enforcement 
personnel have been pulled to processing duties? You seeing----
    Mr. Roemer. Yes.
    Mr. Higgins. You are seeing that the cartel recognizes that 
and knows that and ramps up their own actions?
    Mr. Roemer. Yes, Ranking Member Higgins, absolutely. 
Unfortunately for us, the cartels are very good at the business 
side of this. They are very well-versed and experienced. What 
they do is they use a couple of different techniques to allow 
migrants to go over the border in certain numbers to pull 
resources and then they use that opening to either bring in 
dangerous narcotics and dangerous drugs into our communities, 
or they use that time to use the dangerous individuals. So, we 
have seen them using that tactic.
    The DPS operation I noted in my remarks was in partnership 
with local law enforcement and Governor Ducey's directive to do 
more to secure our State and our Nation, we surged DPS and the 
National Guard to a portion of the border east of Yuma. We were 
able to quickly seize massive amounts of drugs, were well over 
500 pounds in that operation that were coming into the Nation. 
We know based on our own intelligence, that what was happening 
is the cartels were sending the big groups through San Luis and 
Yuma to tie up law enforcement while they then ran the 
dangerous drugs or dangerous individuals to the east.
    Mr. Higgins. Exactly. Finally, sir, because we are going to 
try and move quickly here, and I thank the Chairwoman for 
allowing us to do so, in my remaining 45 seconds here, can you 
describe to the committee just what you see on the ground in 
Arizona from your local communities? How are your local 
communities feeling the impact of this unprecedented illegal 
crossing at our Southern Border and criminal activity?
    Mr. Roemer. Ranking Member Higgins, they are frustrated, 
and many are. We saw the mayor of Yuma, Arizona declare an 
emergency based on the high numbers that are coming through 
Yuma Sector. So, they are extremely frustrated. They see the 
impacts that it is having on their health care facilities, on 
their hospitals, on their law enforcement's ability to respond 
to emergencies, and they share that with us directly. The 
Governor is listening to those local leaders and local law 
enforcement and that is why we are surging resources to the 
border to help protect the State and the Nation.
    Mr. Higgins. Thank you, sir, for your candid answers today 
and for being here. Madam Chair, I yield.
    Chairwoman Barragan. Thank you, Mr. Ranking Member Higgins. 
The Chair will now recognize other Members for questions they 
may wish to ask the witness. As previously outlined, I will 
recognize Members in order of seniority, alternating--well, I 
am not going to alternate between Majority and Minority. I am 
going to give the preference to the Minority since this is a 
Minority witness. I am going to skip myself and just wait for 
my comments, given that votes have been called. So, I will go 
after Mr. Bishop and Mr. Clyde go as I am just closing out 
remarks. So, with that said, in order to get to my colleagues 
here, the Chair will recognize, for 5 minutes, the gentleman--
let me just check to see who I have on here--the gentleman from 
North Carolina, Mr. Bishop, you are up first.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Mr. Roemer, I am 
sorry you weren't together with the previous panel. Did you get 
a chance to hear the interactions and the testimony from the 
previous panel?
    Mr. Roemer. Yes, sir, I did. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Bishop. Yes, sir, thank you. Mr. Correa, who is now no 
longer on the screen, I don't think, very admirably and 
candidly described the suffering and the inhumanity that has 
resulted from in no way stanching the flow of this 2 million 
illegal immigrants into the United States. Even if, you know, 
not all 2 million are being released into the United States 
rootless and so forth, the suffering that Mr. Correa correctly 
described from everything I hear, is, you know, 80 percent of 
females being raped, young girls being raped. He talked about 
the young girls being dropped off from the wall that the Nation 
saw and was shocked by. This is happening every day.
    I just wonder, you know, I have never heard Mr. Nunez-Neto, 
despite repeated testimony before the committee or 
subcommittee, or any other Biden administration witness ever 
express a personal preference or a concern about the inhumanity 
to which millions now of migrants are being subjected by having 
this uncontrolled Southern Border. I just wonder, sir, in your 
experience, are you aware of any logic that would--by which one 
who is purportedly concerned with inhumanity allegedly visited 
upon people who are enrolled in MPP by not having Wi-Fi, or 
lawyers, or transportation, how that would possibly be seen as 
justifying discontinuing MPP, when the result is to have this 
unbelievably, unconstrained flow of migrants who are suffering 
all the other inhumanity that Mr. Correa described? Do you 
perceive any logic that explains that?
    Mr. Roemer. Well, Congressman Bishop, I thank you for the 
question. You know, really I applaud, you know, all Members of 
Congress for their important, you know, work on this issue. 
From a humanitarian crisis, sure, absolutely, with all due 
respect, I completely understand the humanitarian concerns. It 
is something that is there. However, with that said, MPP when 
implemented properly, does actually protect the individuals 
coming into the Nation. What I have seen on the ground is that 
the drug cartels and transnational criminal organizations are 
ruthless criminals. We need every tool implemented to the full 
extent of the law to combat these criminals.
    We see it, you know, day in and day out. I think MPP based 
on the metrics I cited previously, does work. I will give you a 
quick statistic. If you look at CBP data on the dangerous 
individuals that have been caught coming across the border and 
you look at fiscal year 2021, there were 60 individuals 
arrested with a previous conviction for homicide or 
manslaughter. That is 60 just in fiscal year 2021 alone. I went 
back and I tallied up the previous 5 years on that topic, and I 
counted 19. So, 19 in the previous 5 years with a previous 
homicide or manslaughter conviction and 60 in fiscal year 2021. 
Already in this next fiscal year, we have seen 22 so far this 
year. Then in addition to that, in the publicly-available data, 
I see 1,178 that had previous assault charges and 488 with 
sexual offenses.
    So, my point with the statistics are is that what we are 
seeing is these dangerous transnational criminal organizations 
are not just bringing in dangerous drugs through the border. 
They are bringing in dangerous individuals as well. Policies 
like MPP allow law enforcement to get back to their law 
enforcement duties and not be caught up in processing. That is 
what I see on the ground as having a significant impact on this 
important issue.
    Mr. Bishop. Well, I thank you for those comments. They are 
extraordinarily cogent. I just, it continues to elude me why 
Members of the Majority on this committee and DHS on the Biden 
administration is pleased or satisfied to see the U.S. 
Government become the logistics arm for the Mexican cartels, 
and yet, expresses no end of remorse, rather than viewing it as 
an opportunity to implement MPP in a manner that is consistent 
with all the humanitarian concerns that they are troubled by. 
But that, unfortunately, is not what we are seeing. I 
appreciate your testimony very much, and I yield back.
    Chairwoman Barragan. Thank you, Mr. Bishop. I will save my 
5 minutes and my remarks until after the gentleman from 
Georgia, Mr. Clyde, is recognized. Mr. Clyde, you are 
recognized for 5 minutes, given that votes have been called and 
I want to make sure you get your 5 minutes of time.
    Mr. Clyde. Well, thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Mr. Green, 
are you aware of any legal ports of entry that are closed?
    Mr. Roemer. No, sir, I am not.
    Mr. Clyde. OK, all right. I didn't think so. I didn't think 
there were any legal ports of entry that were closed. So, there 
should be no reason that an illegal--or that an immigrant who 
wants to come here under a case of asylum couldn't go to a 
legal port of entry. Is that correct?
    Mr. Roemer. Yes, sir, that is my understanding.
    Mr. Clyde. OK, all right. So, let me ask you another 
question about--a question about MPP. Obviously, you know, the 
Trump administration was the one who implemented it and then on 
February 5, 2021, President Biden issued Executive Order 14010 
to suspend it. Then he had Secretary Mayorkas review it and 
then on June 1, 2021, Secretary Mayorkas determined that MPP 
should be terminated and issued a memorandum on that effect--or 
to that effect. Less than 2\1/2\ months later, the U.S. 
District Court in Northern Texas determined that that was not 
legal, and the Secretary was not in compliance with the 
Administrative Procedures Act and ordered the DHS in good faith 
to reimplement the MPP program.
    So, there is already a roadway for the implementation of 
the MPP program. It had only been just a few months since it 
was officially terminated before it was ordered to be 
reinstituted. So, how long do you think it should have taken or 
should have taken to reimplement this particular program that 
had only been shut off literally for 2\1/2\ months?
    Mr. Roemer. Well, sir, I think it should have been 
implemented, you know, reimplemented immediately because the 
statistics show that it works. So, I will also note that per my 
previous comments about the cartels, what they are doing is 
they are controlling who comes across the border. Our best 
estimates is that the transnational criminal organizations 
charge between $5,000 and $10,000 per person to come across the 
border. In Arizona last fiscal year, we had about 305,000 
apprehensions that we know about of people coming across the 
border. If we do the math and we say $10,000 a person at over 
300,000 people coming in across the border, that doesn't even 
account for the recidivism rate or the get-aways, we are 
looking somewhere in the ballpark of these transnational 
criminal organizations profiting approximately $3 billion on 
human smuggling alone. Those figures are what fuel their 
pockets and the drugs to then be trafficked and smuggled into 
the United States.
    So, they are using the human smuggling side to fuel other 
dangerous criminal enterprises and that is really what is 
considered most significant and of concern to us on the ground. 
That is why we have seen the Governor take significant action.
    Mr. Clyde. Those are absolutely terrible statistics. 
Imagine if our Government--basically that is exactly what is 
happening. Our Government is funding these criminal 
organizations, these cartels through allowing illegal 
immigration to occur to the tune of $3 billion. It is stunning. 
You know, we as a Government have to do better. I don't think 
that we are actually helping the immigrant at all by allowing 
them to come illegally when the legal ports of entry are truly 
open. With that, thank you, and I yield back.
    Chairwoman Barragan. Thank you. Thank you for the 
questions. I am now going to yield myself and recognize myself 
for 5 minutes. I will start the clock now.
    I almost don't know where to begin. I am not sure I can get 
through in 5 minutes to respond to the slew of inaccurate 
information that has been put out there.
    Mr. Roemer, you mentioned that you are relying on 
statistics and then you cite to, you know, criminals and when 
we are talking here about MPP. So, let me begin to help you get 
an understanding of why the statistics that you are providing 
are not apples to apples and why they are inaccurate.
    First of all, you are talking about 2019 numbers and you 
are comparing 2019 numbers. I just remind you there was 
something called a pandemic and COVID and borders were shut 
down between here and Central America starting in March 2020. 
People were unable to leave their country, and the 
administration started putting people into Title 42. They were 
turning people away because of COVID and they were using Title 
42 and not putting them into MPP. So, if you want to take the 
statistics and data from 2019 and start comparing them when you 
still have the implementation, by the way, of Title 42, 
something I don't even agree with, then it is not accurate to 
rely on those statistics and to make those comparisons.
    So, it bothers me to kind-of hear these comparisons being 
made without the explanation of why more people were not put 
into MPP that is because they were put into Title 42 and 
comparing years where you had a pandemic and COVID. Now, that 
is one of the reasons why I think when you talk about the 
number of apprehensions at the border don't equal in 2019 and 
2020 what they are in 2021, that you just can't make that 
because we still have Title 42 where people are still being put 
in there and being turned away.
    The other thing is that you went on to mention at great 
length information about criminals and, you know, the concerns 
of people's records. Migrants with a criminal history cannot be 
enrolled in MPP. That is true now. That is true under Trump. 
This program is not intended to deter criminals and so, that 
is--I really don't see the relevance other than the 
continuation of folks on the other side who don't believe in 
the values I believe on immigration, and to trying to 
criminalize migrants who are fleeing violence in their home 
countries and coming over. In America, it is completely legal 
to head to America and to present yourself at a port of entry 
to claim asylum.
    Now, we have heard repeatedly that the ports of entry are 
open. You were even asked this question whether ports of entry 
were open. Ports of entry are only open to those traveling with 
travel documents. Ports of entry are not open for migrants to 
come and present themselves and present their claim of fear to 
get into the system to claim asylum. That is not happening. Mr. 
Roemer, if you are not aware of this, I am going to make an 
offer to take you to the border so that you could see how 
people cannot do it. I have done it before. I have traveled 
with these groups. I have seen first-hand people are being 
turned away at the border who are trying to present themselves 
legally. It is not allowed. It is not being allowed, OK?
    So, this notion that the ports of entry are open, this 
notion that the border is open, is completely false. It is open 
to Americans. It is open to people who have documents. But it 
is not open. That is one reason that I and immigration 
advocates are calling for immigration reform and are calling 
for this administration to eliminate Title 42 and to get back 
to the process of what is legal in this country. What is legal 
in this country is to allow migrants to come to a port of 
entry, for example, San Ysidro and to say I am here to apply 
for asylum to get into the system and to be allowed to be 
admitted into this country pending their court hearing. That is 
not happening. That is not happening, OK?
    So, again, I just had to make sure that we, you know, I 
took this opportunity to do that because, you know, this 
division on immigration is often based on misinformation and 
people who take facts and distort them and it is just very 
troubling.
    So, with that, I don't really have any questions for you, 
Mr. Roemer. I wanted to take my 5 minutes. I wasn't even going 
to use my 5 minutes but after the line of questioning and what 
I was hearing, I had to take the opportunity to make sure to 
correct, (A) the record, and (B) what I have been seeing at the 
border and what I know to be the case.
    So, I want to take this opportunity to close out our second 
panel. I want to thank the witnesses for their testimony. The 
testimony has been valuable and I appreciate the panelists on 
the first panel and the second panel. I want to thank the 
Members for their questions.
    Without objection, I want to submit statements for the 
record from the Women's Refugee Commission, the Human Rights 
First, the Hope Border Institute, Coalition for Humane 
Immigrant Rights, California Welcoming Task Force, and the 
Center for Gender and Refugee Studies.
    [The information follows:]
              Statement of the Women's Refugee Commission
                             March 2, 2022
    Dear Members of the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Border 
Security, Facilitation, and Operations: The Women's Refugee Commission 
(``WRC'') submits this statement to the House Homeland Security 
Subcommittee on Border Security, Facilitation, and Operations for the 
March 2, 2022 hearing, ``Examining the Court-Ordered Reimplementation 
of the Remain in Mexico Policy.''
    WRC is a non-profit organization that advocates for the rights of 
women, children, and families fleeing violence and persecution. We are 
leading experts on the needs of refugee women and children and the 
policies and programs that can protect and empower them. The Migrant 
Rights and Justice (``MRJ'') Program focuses on the right to seek 
asylum in the United States and strives to ensure that migrants and 
refugees, including women and children, are provided with humane 
reception in transit to and in the United States, given meaningful 
access to legal protection, and are protected from exposure to gender 
discrimination or gender-based violence.
    Since 1996, MRJ staff have made numerous visits to the Southwest 
Border region, including along Mexico's Northern Border, as well as to 
immigration detention centers for adult women and families and to 
shelters housing unaccompanied children throughout the country. WRC has 
interviewed hundreds of detained women, families, and children seeking 
asylum in the United States.\1\ Based on the information that we 
collect on these visits and our analysis of the laws and policies 
relating to these issues, we advocate for improvements, including by 
meeting with government officials and service providers and by 
documenting our findings through fact sheets, reports, backgrounders, 
and other materials. We make recommendations to address identified or 
observed gaps or ways in which we believe the corresponding department 
or agency can improve its compliance with the relevant standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Reports of our findings include: Women's Refugee Commission, 
Prison For Survivors: The Detention of Women Seeking Asylum in the 
United States, (2017); Women's Refugee Commission, Lutheran Immigration 
and Refugee Service, and Kids in Need of Defense, Betraying Family 
Values: How Immigration Policy at the United States Border is 
Separating Families, (2017); Women's Refugee Commission and Lutheran 
Immigration and Refugee Service, Locking Up Family Values, Again: A 
Report on the Renewed Practice of Family Immigration Detention, (2014); 
Women's Refugee Commission, Migrant Women and Children at Risk: In 
Custody in Arizona, (2010); Women's Refugee Commission, Torn Apart by 
Immigration Enforcement: Parental Rights and Immigration Detention, 
(2010); Women's Refugee Commission, Innocents in Jail: INS Moves 
Refugee Women From Krome to Turner Guilford Knight Correctional Center, 
(2001); Women's Refugee Commission, Behind Locked Doors: Abuse of 
Refugee Women at the Krome Detention Center, (2000); and Women's 
Refugee Commission, Liberty Denied: Women Seeking Asylum Imprisoned in 
the U.S., (1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    We commend the subcommittee for conducting this vital hearing. WRC, 
alongside scores of other faith, immigration, human rights, and 
organizations, agree with and have consistently corroborated Secretary 
of Homeland Security's assessment that the human toll that the Remain 
in Mexico (``RMX'') policy causes is ``intolerable.''\2\ Under the last 
iteration of the Remain in Mexico policy, over 70,000 individuals were 
sent back to wait for their U.S. immigration hearings in dangerous 
Mexican border cities.\3\ Advocates tracked over 1,500 kidnappings and 
other violent crimes that occurred to individuals in Remain in Mexico--
some of which occurred while individuals were in transit to the port of 
entry for their U.S. court hearing.\4\ In the prior iteration of the 
policy, fewer than 8 percent of individuals were able to secure access 
to legal counsel. Despite existing guidance exempting people with known 
physical or mental health issues from Remain in Mexico, WRC witnessed 
individuals with severe health conditions who were enrolled anyway.\5\ 
Without access to housing or other basic services in Mexico, thousands 
of individuals in Remain in Mexico were forced to wait in squalid 
conditions in makeshift migrant encampments.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Alejandro N. Mayorkas, Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) 
Termination Memo (Oct. 29, 2021), https://www.dhs.gov/publication/
migrant-protection-protocols-termination-memo. See Women's Refugee 
Commission and IMUMI, Stuck in Uncertainty and Exposed to Violence: The 
Impact of US and Mexican Migration Policies on Women Seeking Protection 
in 2021 (Feb. 2, 2022), https://www.womensrefugeecommission.org/
research-resources/stuck-in-uncertainty-and-exposed-to-violence-the-
impact-of-us-and-mexican-migration-policies-on-women-seeking-
protection-in-2021/; Women's Refugee Commission, WRC Response to 
Request for Input on Family Separation (Jan. 25, 2022), https://
www.womensrefugeecommission.org/research-resources/wrc-response-to-
request-for-input-on-family separation/; ``Immigrants' Rights 
Organizations Urge the Biden Administration to Permanently End Remain 
in Mexico and Title 42 Policies,'' (Dec. 17, 2021), https://
www.womensrefugeecommission.org/research-resources/immigrants-rights-
organizations-urge-the-biden-administration-to-permanently-end-remain-
in-mexico-and-title-42-poli- cies/; Women's Refugee Commission, Asylum 
Denied: Remain in Mexico 2.0 (Dec. 15, 2021), https://
www.womensrefugeecommission.org/research-resources/asylum-denied-
remain-in-mexico-2-0/; ``Coalition Letter on US Department of Homeland 
Security's Stated Intention to Issue a New Memorandum Ending the 
Migrant Protection Protocols (Remain in Mexico) Program,'' (Oct. 14, 
2021), https://www.womensrefugeecommission.org/research-resources/
coalition-letter-us-department-homeland-security-stated-intention-
issue-new-memorandum-ending-migrant-protection-protocols-remain-in-
mexico/; ``Urgent Actions the Biden Administration Must Take Following 
Supreme Court Decision on Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP),'' (Aug. 
30, 2021), https://www.womensrefugeecommission.org/research-resources/
urgent-actions-the-biden-administration-must-take-following-supreme-
court-decision-on-migrant-protection-protocols-mpp/; ``Civil Society 
Organizations Call on the Mexican Government to Reject Any 
Reinstatement of Migrant Protection-Protocols (MPP),'' (Aug. 24, 2021), 
https://www.womensrefugeecommission.org/research-resources/civil-
society-organizations-call-on-the-mexican-government-to-reject-any-
reinstatement-of-migrant-protection-protocols/.
    \3\ U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Migrant Protection 
Protocols FY22, https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/migrant-protection-
protocols.
    \4\ Human Rights First, Delivered to Danger (Feb. 19, 2021), 
https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/campaign/remain-mexico.
    \5\ Women's Refugee Commission, Chaos, Confusion, and Danger: The 
Remain in Mexico Program in El Paso (May 16, 2019),https://
www.womensrefugeecommission.org/research-resources/chaos-confusion-and-
danger/.
    \6\ See Nicole Narea, ``The abandoned asylum seekers on the US-
Mexico border,'' Vox (Dec. 20, 2019), https://www.vox.com/policy-and-
politics/2019/12/20/20997299/asylum-border-mexico-us-iom-unhcr-usaid-
migration-international-humanitarian-aid-matamoros-juarez.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The former iteration of RMX also led to different forms of family 
separations. In some cases, families, including biological parents and 
children, were separated by Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') 
through RMX. CBP would process some family members into the United 
States for their immigration proceedings and return other members to 
Mexico to wait for their U.S. court hearings. These separations 
inflicted immense irreparable trauma on families and created huge due 
process barriers during immigration proceedings. WRC documented 
numerous cases of this type of family separation.\7\ For example, CBP 
officials ripped apart Alvaro, an indigenous Guatemalan man who spoke 
little Spanish, and his son, Enzo, claiming that their birth 
certificates and documents were false. CBP sent Alvaro back to Ciudad 
Juarez through Remain in Mexico and Ezo to an Office of Refugee 
Resettlement shelter. It took nearly 3 months of anguish and the help 
of pro bono immigration attorneys for the father and son to be 
reunited. In other cases of family separation, for families who were 
returned to Mexico through RMX, parents were forced to make the 
impossible decision to send their children across the border to safety 
in the United States.\8\ According to WRC's analysis of CBP data on 
individuals entering the United States without inspection subsequent to 
being returned to Mexico under the prior iteration of RMX, 900 children 
crossed the U.S. Southern Border alone after being returned to Mexico 
with their families.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ Women's Refugee Commission, Separation of families via the 
`Migrant Protection Protocols,' (Aug. 20, 2019), https://
www.womensrefugeecommission.org/research-resources/separation-of-
families-via-the-migrant-protection-protocols/.
    \8\ Kids in Need of Defense, Forced Apart: How the ``Remain in 
Mexico'' Policy Places Children in Danger and Separates Families (Feb. 
24, 2020), https://supportkind.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/MPP-KIND-
2.24updated-003.pdf.
    \9\ U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Migrant Protection 
Protocols Fiscal Year 2022 (see ``Individuals Apprehended Entering the 
US Without Inspection Subsequent to Being Returned to Mexico through 
MPP''), https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/migrant-protection-
protocols.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In August 2021, a Texas judge ordered the Biden administration to 
restore RMX ``in good faith.''\10\ The administration appealed that 
order and issued a new memo terminating RMX in October 2021.\11\ We 
further expand on pressing issues concerning the reimplementation of 
Remain in Mexico below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ Texas v. Biden (Aug. 13, 2021), https://www.documentcloud.org/
documents/21042967-81321-ruling-in-texas-missouri-v-biden-
administration.
    \11\ Alejandro N. Mayorkas, Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) 
Termination Memo (Oct. 29, 2021), https://www.dhs.gov/publication/
migrant-protection-protocols-termination-memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 expansion of nationalities eligible for enrollment in remain in mexico
    Under the administration's reinstatement of Remain in Mexico, 
individuals from all Western Hemisphere countries besides Mexico are 
subject to placement in the program, significantly expanding it.\12\ 
Under the Trump administration, RMX was originally applicable only to 
Spanish speakers.\13\ However, the Department of Homeland Security 
(``DHS'') routinely returned individuals from Central and South America 
who spoke Indigenous languages to Mexico, and later began returning 
Brazilians under the program.\14\ The Biden administration's decision 
to expand RMX, which was not ordered by the Court, and in particular 
its decision to include Haitians, is alarming. Haitian and other Black 
migrants and asylum-seeking individuals face pervasive, targeted anti-
Black racism and discrimination in Mexico and are at particular risk 
for harm upon return to Mexico.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ Robert Silvers, Guidance regarding the Court-Ordered 
Reimplementation of the Migrant Protection Protocols (Dec. 2, 2021), 
https://www.aila.org/infonet/dhs-releases-guidance-on-court-ordered.
    \13\ Juany Torres, Priscilla Lugo, Emma Israel, and Jessica Eller, 
Migrant Protection Protocols (May 2020), https://www.strausscenter.org/
wp-content/uploads/MPP-Two-Pager-2020-4-1.pdf.
    \14\ TRAC Immigration, Details on MPP (Remain in Mexico) (Nov. 
2021), https://trac.syr.edu/phptools/immigration/mpp/.
    \15\ S. Priya Morley et al., ``There is a Target on Us''--The 
Impact of Anti-Black Racism on African Migrants at Mexico's Southern 
Border, IMUMI and Black Alliance for Just Immigration (2021), https://
imumi.org/attachments/2020/The-Impact-of-Anti-Black-Racism-on-African-
Migrants-at-Mexico.pdf; S. Priya Morley et al., A Journey of Hope: 
Haitian Women's Migration to Tapachula, Mexico, IMUMI, Haitian Bridge 
Alliance, and the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies (2021), https:/
/cgrs.uchastings.edu/sites/default/files/A-Journey-of-Hope-Haitian-
Womens-Migration-to%20-Tapachula.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
   failure to accurately exempt individuals based on vulnerabilities
    In the newest iteration of Remain in Mexico, the U.S. Government 
once again promised to exclude ``vulnerable individuals'' from the 
policy. In the prior iteration of RMX, a DHS Civil Rights and Civil 
Liberties (``CRCL'') report from 2019 revealed that CBP officers 
violated the DHS principles and sent individuals with medical issues 
back to Mexico.\16\ WRC also witnessed this violation first-hand, 
observing the case of a 4-year-old Honduran child with Guillain-Barre 
syndrome who was nonverbal and could not walk on her own. Despite her 
obvious health issues, this child was nevertheless unconscionably 
placed into RMX with her mother and older sister.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\ Hamed Aleaziz, ``A Leaked US Government Report Documents How 
People With Medical Conditions And Disabilities Were Forced Into The 
`Remain In Mexico' Program,'' Buzzfeed News (Oct. 21, 2021), https://
www.buzzfeednews.com/article/hamedaleaziz/leaked-report-remain-in-
mexico-children.
    \17\ Women's Refugee Commission, Chaos, Confusion, and Danger: The 
Remain in Mexico Program in El Paso (May 16, 2019), https://
www.womensrefugeecommission.org/research-resources/chaos-confusion-and-
danger/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The new DHS policy guidance outlined exemptions from Remain in 
Mexico for individuals with known mental and physical health issues, 
advanced age, or those vulnerable to increased risk based on sexual 
orientation or gender identity. However, within the first month of the 
program's reimplementation, attorneys identified more than two dozen 
individuals who were enrolled in the program who should have been 
exempted, including LGBTQ individuals and people suffering from known 
medical conditions.\18\ DHS created a redress mechanism where 
individuals placed in the RMX can request a review of their 
enrollment.\19\ However, DHS first returned some individuals to Mexico 
prior to the creation of this mechanism, and since then it is unclear 
if all individuals enrolled in RMX have been made aware of this 
mechanism. Furthermore, even a short period enrolled in the program for 
``vulnerable'' individuals eligible for exemption could be dangerous 
for their safety and well-being.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\ Adolfo Flores and Hamed Aleaziz, ``U.S. Border Authorities 
Have Incorrectly Placed Immigrants With Medical Conditions In The 
Relaunched `Remain In Mexico' Program, Attorneys Say,'' Buzzfeed News 
(Dec. 20, 2021), https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/adolfoflores/us-
border-authorities-wrongly-sought-to-force-asylum.
    \19\ U.S. Department of Homeland Security, MPP Additional Resources 
(Feb. 10, 2022), https://www.dhs.gov/mpp-additional-resources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        lack of due process and meaningful legal representation
    WRC is deeply concerned that Remain in Mexico is fundamentally 
incompatible with due process \20\ and that individuals in Remain in 
Mexico face nearly insurmountable hurdles in securing meaningful legal 
representation or accessing protection. The reimplementation of Remain 
in Mexico provides that individuals in the program are given 24 hours 
to consult an attorney prior to their non-refoulement interview 
(``NRI'') in CBP custody, but many are unable to reach an attorney in 
that time frame.\21\ In addition, CBP facilities generally lack 
confidential spaces for these sensitive consultations. The most recent 
DHS data shows that the majority of individuals are unable to consult 
an attorney during the NRI process and the majority of individuals who 
express fear are sent back to Mexico.\22\ In December 2021 and January 
2022, while 87 to 89 percent of RMX enrollees claimed fear, about 75 
percent of NRIs resulted in negative fear decisions. Advocates have 
documented that individuals in RMX have said they did not receive a 
clear explanation of the NRI process by CBP.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\ Approximately 1 percent of individuals returned to Mexico in 
the first iteration of RMX were granted relief, an egregiously low 
grant rate that demonstrates the due process barriers inherent in the 
policy.
    \21\ Julia Neusner and Ana Ortega Villegas, ``Nothing Humane About 
This Process:'' Biden Administration Launches ``Remain in Mexico'' 
Revamp at El Paso Port of Entry, Human Rights First (Dec. 16, 2021), 
https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/blog/nothing-humane-about-process-
biden-administration-launches-remain-mexico-revamp-el-paso-port.
    \22\ Office of Immigration Statistics at the Department of Homeland 
Security, Migrant Protection Protocols Cohort Report (Feb. 2022), 
https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2022-02/- 
22_0215_plcy_mpp_cohort_report_feb2022.pdf.
    \23\ Yael Schacher, MPP as a Microcosm: What's Wrong with Asylum at 
the Border and How to Fix It, Refugees International (Feb. 11, 2022), 
https://www.refugeesinternational.org/reports/2022/2/10/mpp-as-a-
microcosm-whats-wrong-with-asylum-at-the-border-and-how-to-fix-it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In addition, barriers to accessing legal support make it extremely 
difficult, if not nearly impossible, for RMX enrollees to have a fair 
opportunity to present their case in court. The prior implementation of 
RMX put attorneys who crossed into Mexico to meet with their clients in 
danger,\24\ and many shelters in Mexico are not equipped to provide 
confidential meeting spaces. According to the DHS implementation 
guidance for the current iteration of RMX, ``CBP will provide MPP 
enrollees information provided by the Department of State about where 
they can locate places in Mexico to engage in telephonic or video 
communications with counsel.'' Virtual legal representation--including 
via videoconferencing on televisions or tablets--creates significant 
barriers for attorneys to effectively communicate with and represent 
their clients.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \24\ Human Rights First, Remain in Mexico Restart Threatens Safety 
of Attorneys and Humanitarian Workers (Nov. 30, 2021), https://
www.humanrightsfirst.org/resource/remain-mexico-restart-threatens-
safety-attorneys-and-humanitarian-workers.
    \25\ Women's Refugee Commission, Asylum Denied: Remain in Mexico 
2.0 (Dec. 15, 2021), https://www.womensrefugeecommission.org/research-
resources/asylum-denied-remain-in-mexico-2-0/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       safety concerns in mexico
    WRC and other civil society organizations are concerned that 
enrollees will continue to face significant risks and exposure to 
violence in northern Mexico while waiting for their cases to be heard 
in the United States. In December 2021, advocates documented that many 
of the first individuals enrolled in this iteration of Remain in Mexico 
suffered harm in Mexico, including kidnapping and violence at the hands 
of Mexican officials, before being selected for the program.\26\ Since 
RMX's reinstatement in December 2021, individuals have been returned to 
Matamoros (with government-provided transportation to Monterrey), 
Tijuana, and Ciudad Juarez, with the expectation that individuals will 
soon also be sent back to Nuevo Laredo. The State Department's current 
Travel Advisory for Mexico includes a ``Do Not Travel'' warning level 
for the Mexican State of Tamaulipas (where Matamoros and Nuevo Laredo 
are located); a ``Reconsider Travel'' warning level for the Mexican 
States of Baja California (where Tijuana is located); and Chihuahua 
(where Ciudad Juarez is located), due to crime and kidnapping.\27\ In 
2021, the Mexican government classified Tijuana and Ciudad Juarez as 
the two most violent municipalities in Mexico due to the cities' high 
homicide rates.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \26\ Human Rights First, Inhumane Again: Remain in Mexico Rollout 
Confirms Endemic Flaws of Unfixable Policy (Dec. 2021), https://
www.humanrightsfirst.org/sites/default/files/
Inhumane%20Again%20Remain%20in%20Mexico%20Rollout%20Confirms%20Endemic%2
0- Flaws%20of%20Unfixable%20Policy.pdf.
    \27\ U.S. Department of State Bureau of Consular Affairs, Mexico 
Travel Advisory, https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/
traveladvisories/traveladvisories/mexico-travel-advisory.html.
    \28\ Lidia Arista, ``En 22 de los 50 municipios prioritarios suben 
hasta 50 percent los homicidios dolosos,'' Expansion Politica (Jan. 20, 
2022), https://politica.expansion.mx/mexico/2022/01/20/en-22-
municipios-prioritarios-suben-homicidios-dolosos.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
               difficulties accessing services in mexico
    In the first iteration of Remain in Mexico, the U.S. and Mexican 
governments failed to fulfill their promise to ensure access to housing 
and services for individuals returned to Mexico. According to the DHS 
policy guidance for this iteration of Remain in Mexico, the Department 
of State will ``assist in coordinating safe transportation in Mexico to 
and from the [ports of entry]'' and coordinate with the Government of 
Mexico to ensure access to shelters in Mexico.\29\ However, the 
Department of State has yet to publicly release details about 
assistance with transportation and shelter for individuals enrolled in 
Remain in Mexico, including the allocation of funding to international 
organizations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \29\ Robert Silvers, Guidance regarding the Court-Ordered 
Reimplementation of the Migrant Protection Protocols (Dec. 2, 2021), 
https://www.aila.org/infonet/dhs-releases-guidance-on-court-ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
   the incomplete winddown of the first iteration of remain in mexico
    From February to August 2021, the Biden administration worked in 
collaboration with international organizations, regional task forces, 
and local nonprofit organizations on a wind-down process that allowed 
approximately 13,000 individuals returned to Mexico under the first 
iteration of Remain in Mexico policy to continue their immigration 
cases in the United States rather than waiting in Mexico. The 
Department of Homeland Security suspended the process due to the court 
order and said that it would not resume the wind-down as long as the 
injunction remains in place, stranding families and adults who had been 
waiting in dangerous conditions in Mexico for their U.S. immigration 
proceedings since 2019.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \30\ Adolfo Flores and Hamed Aleaziz, ``Remain In Mexico'' Asylum-
Seekers Thought There Was Hope Under Biden, But Despair Is Sinking Back 
In,'' Buzzfeed News (Sept. 10, 2021), https://www.buzzfeednews.com/
article/adolfoflores/asylum-seekers-remain-in-mexico-biden.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 on-going barriers to access to protection at the u.s. southern border
    There are on-going barriers to access to protection at the U.S.-
Mexico border separate from Remain in Mexico's reimplementation. Since 
March 2020, a provision of health law has been misused to summarily 
block and expel most individuals arriving at the U.S. Southern Border, 
either back into Mexico or even directly to home countries where they 
may face persecution, including Haiti, Honduras, Guatemala, El 
Salvador, and Brazil. This policy, known as Title 42, has been 
resoundly rejected by thousands of medical professionals,\31\ hundreds 
of civil society and human rights organizations,\32\ and more than 100 
Members of Congress.\33\ Due to Title 42, currently there is no way 
virtually no way for individuals to approach a port of entry and seek 
asylum,\34\ leading people to cross the border along dangerous routes 
between ports of entry to seek safety.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \31\ Physicians for Human Rights, ``1,300+ Medical Professionals 
from 49 U.S. States and Territories Call on CDC to End ``Junk Science'' 
Border Expulsion Policy'' (Oct. 28, 2021), https://phr.org/our-work/
resources/u-s-medical-professionals-demand-cdc-end-title-42/.
    \32\ ``Immigrants' Rights Organizations Urge the Biden 
Administration to Permanently End Remain in Mexico and Title 42 
Policies'' (Dec. 17, 2021), https://www.womensrefugeecommission.org/
research-resources/immigrants-rights-organizations-urge-the-biden-
administration-to-permanently-end-remain-in-mexico-and-title-42-
policies/.
    \33\ ``Booker, Bush Lead 100 Congressional Colleagues in Urging 
President Biden to Reverse Inhumane Immigration Policies Impacting 
Black Migrants'' (Feb. 16, 2022), https://www.booker.senate.gov/news/
press/booker-bush-lead-100-congressional-colleagues-in-urging-
president-biden-to-reverse-inhumane-immigration-policies-impacting-
black-migrants.
    \34\ Women's Refugee Commission, Restoring Access to Asylum: Safely 
Reopening Ports of Entry at the US-Mexico Border (Oct. 19, 2021), 
https://www.womensrefugeecommission.org/research-resources/restoring-
access-to-asylum-safely-reopening-ports-of-entry-at-the-us-mexico-
border/.
    \35\ David J. Bier, How the U.S. Created Cuban and Haitian Illegal 
Migration, Cato Institute (Feb. 15, 2022), https://www.cato.org/blog/
how-us-created-cuban-haitian-illegal-migration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               conclusion
    Despite efforts to mitigate the harms of the policy, the 
reimplementation of Remain in Mexico has not resolved its fundamental 
flaws with the policy: Individuals continue to wait for their U.S. 
immigration hearings in dangerous Mexican border cities; individuals 
continue to face near-insurmountable barriers to due process and 
meaningful access to legal representation; and the U.S. Government has 
not consistently applied exemptions based on its own vulnerabilities 
guidance. We provide the following recommendations to Members of this 
subcommittee regarding the reimplementation of Remain in Mexico.
                            recommendations
    Members of Congress should conduct regular and robust oversight 
over the relevant agencies responsible for implementing Remain in 
Mexico to ensure that the Biden administration takes all lawful and 
appropriate steps to uphold its promise to end the unlawful and 
dangerous policy once and for all and to ensure that:
   The Department of Homeland Security renews its efforts to 
        bring individuals subjected to the previous iteration of Remain 
        in Mexico into the United States to continue their immigration 
        cases in safety, rather than continuing to wait in Mexico.
   The Department of Homeland Security continues to release 
        monthly updates on the cohorts of individuals enrolled in RMX, 
        and works to incorporate data from the Executive Office for 
        Immigration Review (``EOIR'') on hearing outcome/legal 
        representation and from Immigration and Customs Enforcement 
        (``ICE'') on transfer outcomes for individuals disenrolled from 
        RMX.
   Customs and Border Protection properly and consistently 
        screens individuals for potential exemptions from the Remain in 
        Mexico program across sectors.
   Customs and Border Protection does not interfere with access 
        to legal representation during NRIs and provides confidential 
        spaces for legal consultations prior to NRIs and immigration 
        court hearings.
   All relevant agencies, including the Department of State, 
        disclose the amount of funding provided to international 
        organizations to support individuals returned to Mexico in 
        Remain in Mexico and release regular reports on the support 
        provided to individuals returned to Mexico, including 
        transportation, housing, video and telephone conferencing, and 
        know-your-rights sessions.
   The Department of Homeland Security works with the 
        Department of State to track all reported kidnappings and other 
        violent crimes suffered by individuals returned to Mexico in 
        Remain in Mexico.
   Members of Congress should continue to conduct periodic 
        monitoring trips to U.S. and Mexican border cities where 
        individuals are returned to visit CBP facilities and Mexican 
        shelters, immigration courts--including tent courts used for 
        Remain in Mexico hearings--and to meet with international 
        organizations and local legal and humanitarian service 
        nonprofit organizations supporting or representing those in 
        Remain in Mexico.
   We also urge Members of Congress, including this committee, 
        to ensure that DHS expeditiously takes steps to end the use of 
        Title 42 expulsions and promptly restores access to asylum at 
        the Southern Border, including at ports of entry.
    We thank you for your consideration and time reviewing the Remain 
in Mexico policy's reimplementation. We look forward to engaging 
further with Members of this subcommittee to ensure necessary oversight 
is conducted of this policy.
                                 ______
                                 
                    Statement of Human Rights First
                             March 2, 2022
    Human Rights First thanks the House Committee on Homeland Security, 
Subcommittee on Border Security, Facilitation, and Operations for 
holding a hearing on ``Examining the Court-Ordered Reimplementation of 
the Remain in Mexico Policy.''
    Since 1978, Human Rights First has worked to protect and promote 
fundamental human rights. We have long advocated for U.S. compliance 
with international refugee and human rights law in addition to 
providing pro bono legal representation--in partnership with many of 
the Nation's leading law firms--to asylum seekers in U.S. asylum and 
immigration court proceedings. Since 2019, Human Rights First has 
issued a series of human rights reports (March 2019, August 2019, 
October 2019, December 2019, May 2020, December 2020, and January 2022) 
and factsheets (January 2020, April 2021, and December 2021) 
documenting the harms inflicted by the Remain in Mexico (RMX) policy 
and its reimplementation--as well as the similar Title 42 policy, which 
also evades the refugee laws enacted by Congress and endangers refugees 
seeking asylum. Human Rights First has also joined a series of amicus 
briefs in cases challenging the Remain in Mexico policy (October 2020, 
January 2021, August 18, 2021, August 23, 2021, and September 2021). In 
addition, Human Rights First's attorneys have represented asylum 
seekers subjected to the RMX policy, including the first--and one of 
the very few--refugees who received asylum through the inherently 
flawed RMX.
    The Biden administration has rightly concluded that significant due 
process issues are ``endemic to the [RMX] program's design'' and that 
it should be ended. However, the administration's stated position is at 
odds with its decision to expand the Remain in Mexico policy to include 
additional nationalities and its decision to evade refugee law by using 
the similarly dangerous Trump administration Title 42 policy to block 
and expel people seeking protection at the border. Use of these 
policies to circumvent international refugee protection obligations and 
U.S. refugee law is counterproductive and sets a dangerous example for 
other countries and future administrations. The United States should 
lead by example, upholding the right to asylum at its own borders as it 
looks to other countries to do the same--including as people flee from 
Ukraine in search of protection.
    As outlined below, Congress has a critical role to play in ensuring 
that the Executive branch and the Department of Homeland Security 
uphold and comply with the refugee laws that Congress enacted, as well 
as the Refugee Convention and its Protocol, and end Trump-era policies 
that trample on those laws and legal treaty commitments. Congress must 
hold the Biden administration accountable to its refugee protection 
obligations.
         remain in mexico endangers migrants and asylum seekers
    Returning migrants and asylum seekers to Mexico to await their U.S. 
immigration court hearings is dangerous and inhumane. Under the Trump 
administration, RMX resulted in massive human rights violations against 
migrants and asylum seekers forcibly returned to Mexico. During the 2 
years that the Trump administration implemented RMX, Human Rights First 
tracked at least 1,544 publicly-reported cases of kidnappings, murder, 
torture, rape, and other violent attacks against people returned to 
Mexico. They include a Honduran woman and her 7-year-old daughter who 
were abducted from inside the Mexican migration office in Nuevo Laredo 
immediately after DHS returned them to Mexico following an RMX 
immigration court hearing, a Salvadoran asylum seeker who was killed in 
Tijuana in November 2019 after having been returned under RMX, and a 
19-year-old Cuban asylum seeker who was shot and killed in Ciudad 
Juarez in May 2021. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 
concluded in its October 2021 memorandum terminating RMX that 
``significant evidence indicates that individuals were subject to 
extreme violence and insecurity at the hands of transnational criminal 
organizations that profited from putting migrants in harms' way while 
awaiting their court hearings in Mexico.''
    The Biden administration also continues to use the Trump-era Title 
42 policy to block and expel migrants and asylum seekers to danger in 
Mexico and the countries they fled under the pretext of protecting 
public health--a policy that the State Department's top legal expert 
determined was illegal and has been repeatedly condemned as specious by 
leading public health experts. The U.S. Department of State advises 
American citizens to avoid travel to the very border regions of Mexico 
where asylum seekers are returned under Remain in Mexico and Title 42. 
As of February 2022, the Mexican border state of Tamaulipas remained at 
a designated Level Four ``Do Not Travel'' threat level as ``[o]rganized 
crime activity--including gun battles, murder, armed robbery, 
carjacking, kidnapping, forced disappearances, extortion, and sexual 
assault--is common along the northern border'' and ``[h]eavily armed 
members of criminal groups often patrol areas of the State and operate 
with impunity, particularly along the border region from Reynosa to 
Nuevo Laredo.'' In addition, the State Department advisory reports that 
in Baja California ``[t]ransnational criminal organizations compete in 
the border area to establish narco-trafficking and human smuggling 
routes,'' warns of ``[b]attles for territory between criminal groups'' 
in Chihuahua state which borders New Mexico and Texas, and acknowledges 
that to Arizona's south ``Sonora is a key location used by the 
international drug trade and human trafficking networks.''
    Since President Biden took office, Human Rights First has tracked 
at least 8,705 additional reports of kidnapping, rape, human 
trafficking, torture, and other violent attacks against migrants 
expelled to or blocked in Mexico due to the Title 42 policy. Migrants 
and asylum seekers the Biden administration is returning to Mexico 
under RMX are forced to endure escalating dangers in Mexico. For 
example, in January 2022 a Venezuelan asylum seeker told Human Rights 
First he was beaten and robbed in Ciudad Juarez as he was returning to 
his shelter after obtaining a COVID-19 test to be able to attend his 
RMX hearing. Other RMX enrollees have been robbed in shelters in Mexico 
after DHS returned them. Mexican authorities, including police and 
immigration officers, perpetrate and refuse to investigate violent 
attacks against asylum seekers and migrants, including through 
collusion with powerful cartels that use their control over Mexican 
territory to kidnap, torture, and extort returned/expelled asylum 
seekers who are targeted due to their status as migrants as well as 
their race, gender, sexual orientation, and ties with family in the 
United States. These targeted attacks are not limited to the U.S.-
Mexico border region.
    Cartels and other organized criminal groups subject migrants and 
asylum seekers to kidnappings, extortion, and other violence throughout 
the country, including in central and southern Mexico.
  remain in mexico blocks refugees from asylum protection and cannot 
             provide fair access to the u.s. asylum system
    Under the Trump administration, RMX denied asylum seekers due 
process and drastically restricted access to counsel, legal 
information, and the ability of asylum seekers to attend and 
participate in their own immigration hearings. Just to reach U.S. 
immigration courts, asylum seekers were forced to risk kidnapping and 
violence. Many were abducted while traveling through border regions to 
attend hearings or directly outside ports of entry before or after 
their hearings. As a result of the policy's inherent flaws, in absentia 
removal orders were issued in at least 44 percent of RMX cases. 
Immigration judges have ordered asylum seekers in RMX deported when 
they missed court hearings even after being informed that the asylum 
seekers were kidnapped in Mexico. As a result of these dangers, 
refugees with protection needs have given up on their cases rather than 
risk their lives to attend court, and some have even returned to their 
home countries at risk of further persecution because of the harms they 
had suffered while trapped in Mexico.
    Many U.S. attorneys and humanitarian groups have unable to travel 
to dangerous Mexican border regions to represent asylum seekers 
stranded under RMX because of the risks to their safety. Their fears 
are justified. As Human Rights First explained in a November 2021 
factsheet, U.S.-based attorneys have been threatened with kidnapping 
and violence in connection with their representation of people in RMX. 
Given the many security, logistical, due process and ethical 
impediments to legal representation that are inherent to RMX, the vast 
majority of RMX returnees were not able to find lawyers, according to 
immigration court data analyzed by the Syracuse University 
Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC). As of December 2020, 
97 percent of individuals in RMX whose cases had been decided did not 
have an attorney. By contrast, in non-RMX proceedings, only 9 percent 
of non-detained asylum seekers whose cases concluded in fiscal year 
2018 did not have legal representation at any point during their 
proceedings. Of the nearly 70,000 people placed in RMX under the Trump 
administration, only 523 people--less than 1 percent--were granted 
relief while in RMX.
 the biden administration's reimplementation of rmx has not addressed 
               the policy's fundamental, unfixable flaws
    The inherently flawed RMX policy cannot be made safe, as its 
reimplementation by the Biden administration has already made clear. 
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers continue to return 
migrants and asylum seekers to grave danger in Mexico, including 
individuals who were previously harmed or threatened there, including 
by Mexican government officials. More than 90 percent of the more than 
673 people placed by CBP in RMX since December 2021 are from Nicaragua 
(59 percent), Venezuela (23 percent), and Cuba (10 percent)--countries 
from which many are fleeing repressive regimes and deepening political 
and humanitarian crises. Very few have been able to find attorneys to 
represent them in immigration court to assist them in preparing their 
applications for asylum. The changes to RMX procedures implemented by 
the Biden administration cannot fix its fundamental flaws. Indeed, the 
UNHCR representative to the United States stated, in response to the 
reimplementation of RMX, that ``the announced adjustments to the policy 
are not sufficient to address [UNHCR's] fundamental concerns'' about 
the safety and due process rights of asylum seekers subjected to RMX.
    Soon after its reinstatement in December 2021, the asylum officers' 
union described the RMX policy as ``irredeemably flawed'' and stated 
that its restart ``makes our members complicit in violations of U.S. 
Federal law and binding international treaty obligations of non-
refoulement that they have sworn to uphold.'' The Round Table of Former 
Immigration Judges wrote, ``there has been no greater affront to due 
process, fairness, and transparency than the MPP, or ``Remain in 
Mexico'' policy. Instituted under the Trump administration, it appears 
to have been motivated by nothing other than cruelty.''
Return to Danger, Risk of Refoulement
    CBP officers continue to return migrants and asylum seekers to 
grave danger in Mexico, including individuals who were previously 
harmed there, where they are at risk of onward refoulement by Mexican 
officials.
    In a January 2022 report, ``A Shameful Record,'' Human Rights First 
documented cases of people returned by CBP to Ciudad Juarez under RMX 
after severe harm in Mexico. For example, a Nicaraguan asylum seeker 
who had been recently kidnapped near the border in Mexico and tortured 
by electrocution and beatings for 3 weeks was sent back to Mexico by 
CBP in December 2021. Nearly all of the 16 RMX returnees Human Rights 
First interviewed in Ciudad Juarez in December 2021 reported having 
suffered violence, kidnappings, and/or extortion in Mexico--including 
at the hands of Mexican police or other government officers. Likewise, 
the Border Project, which provided legal consultations to individuals 
being returned to Ciudad Juarez in December 2021, reported that more 
than 70 percent of the 87 individuals that Border Project attorneys 
spoke to had been persecuted by Mexican police and other government 
officials. As the Border Project noted in a communication to Human 
Rights First, this level of violence by Mexican officials ``raises 
serious concerns about the Biden administration's assurances that the 
Government of Mexico will assist in protecting the migrants returned'' 
under RMX.
    Asylum seekers returned to Mexico by the Biden administration are 
at grave risk of chain refoulment, i.e., illegal return, to countries 
where they would face persecution or torture. The Mexican government 
has deported asylum seekers whom the Biden administration had expelled 
or blocked from seeking U.S. protection under Title 42--including some 
who presented documentation showing they had legal status in Mexico. 
Though the Biden administration is offering to bus people returned to 
the dangerous border city Matamoros under RMX to Monterrey, a city in 
Mexico's interior, they remain at risk of violent crime or chain 
refoulment. For example, a Venezuelan asylum seeker told Human Rights 
First that Mexican police twice extorted him in Monterrey before he was 
placed in RMX and returned to Mexico in December 2021. This Venezuelan 
asylum seeker also reported that Mexican immigration authorities in 
Monterrey had threatened and forced him and other asylum seekers on to 
a bus to the south of Mexico, where Mexican immigration officers 
detained him, even though he had documentation showing he was legally 
present in Mexico. The asylum seeker was released in southern Mexico 
with instructions to leave Mexico within 10 days or face deportation to 
Venezuela.
Flawed Fear Screenings
    RMX fear of return to Mexico screenings remain fundamentally flawed 
at every stage. The Biden administration has chosen to use a heightened 
screening standard, instead of the credible fear standard set by 
Congress for the expedited removal process, for RMX non-refoulement 
interviews (NRI). The ``reasonable possibility'' standard applied in 
these preliminary telephonic screenings is equivalent to what asylum 
seekers must show to establish eligibility for asylum after a full 
immigration court hearing. These interviews are conducted while 
individuals are being held--often for days--in freezing CBP holding 
cells and generally without counsel present--only 20 (3 percent) of 595 
people in RMX who claimed fear of return to Mexico in December 2021 and 
January 2022 had an attorney present for their NRI. Unsurprisingly, few 
individuals have been found to have a fear of return to Mexico under 
RMX. According to DHS data, 88 percent of migrants and asylum seekers 
placed in RMX in December 2021 and January 2022 expressed fear of 
return to Mexico, but only 14 percent of those screened were found to 
face ``a reasonable possibility'' of harm in Mexico, despite DHS's own 
recognition that people in RMX are targeted for kidnappings and other 
violent crimes. The extraordinarily low percentage of individuals 
receiving positive RMX fear determinations under the Biden 
administration is nearly identical to when these screenings were 
conducted under an even more heightened standard by the Trump 
administration (13 percent of individuals subjected to RMX between 
January and October 2019 were found to have a fear of return to 
Mexico).
    Information from the Border Project and Human Rights First 
interviews with individuals returned to Mexico under RMX indicate that 
CBP officers interfere with meaningful access to counsel for RMX fear 
screenings including by pressuring individuals in RMX to waive their 
opportunity to speak with an attorney, failing to inform individuals in 
RMX of their opportunity to access counsel prior to a nonrefoulement 
interview, and blocking individuals in RMX from hiring or consulting 
private legal counsel. Many individuals returned to Mexico in December 
2021 described the non-refoulement interview as confusing and chaotic. 
They told Human Rights First that they did not understand the purpose 
of the interview and were unsure who they had spoken with on the phone 
during the interview. For instance, a Nicaraguan asylum seeker said 
that he had a conversation by telephone while detained in CBP custody 
but did not know whether he had spoken with a government official or 
had received a consultation with a legal office. Indeed, none of the 18 
people Human Rights First interviewed in December 2021 after they were 
returned to Ciudad Juarez under RMX were certain whether they had 
spoken with a lawyer prior to being returned to Mexico, even though 
free legal consultations were available to anyone in RMX at the time.
Failure to Screen for Vulnerabilities
    DHS has also returned to Mexico individuals with serious medical 
conditions and LGBTQ persons, despite DHS guidance exempting from RMX 
``those with a known mental or physical health issue'' and ``those at 
increased risk of harm in Mexico due to their sexual orientation or 
gender identity.'' People with health issues wrongly returned by CBP to 
Mexico under RMX include a man with cancer. In December 2021 Human 
Rights First found that CBP officers were failing to ask health 
screening questions and falsely recording on the ``Initial Health 
Interview Questionnaire'' that migrants and asylum seekers placed in 
RMX have reported that they do not have any serious medical conditions. 
None of the 18 individuals in RMX who Human Rights First interviewed in 
Ciudad Juarez in December 2021 had been asked the 11 health screening 
questions on the form. Some were not asked any health-related 
questions, while others said that CBP officers inquired only generally 
about health issues. None of the RMX enrollees Human Rights First 
interviewed were asked any questions about their gender identity or 
sexual orientation.
Separating Families
    CBP continues to separate families, returning some family members 
through RMX to danger in Mexico. In December 2021, the Border Project 
identified approximately 10 RMX returnees who had been separated from a 
spouse or adult children. One man who was returned to Mexico under RMX 
told the Border Project that he had been separated from his wife, who 
was 6 months pregnant and suffering from epilepsy and asthma. A 
Venezuelan asylum seeker told Human Rights First that he had been 
separated from his adult brother and uncle approximately 10 RMX 
returnees who had been separated from a spouse or adult children. One 
man who was returned to Mexico under RMX told the Border Project that 
he had been separated from his wife, who was 6 months pregnant and 
suffering from epilepsy and asthma. A Venezuelan asylum seeker told 
Human Rights First that he had been separated from his adult brother 
and uncle. DHS has also used the illegal Title 42 expulsion policy to 
separate countless families.
Throwing Out Belongings
    In addition, CBP is returning individuals without their belongings. 
Multiple individuals reported to Human Rights First that CBP officers 
discarded their personal possessions and that they were returned to 
Ciudad Juarez in December 2021 under RMX without their clothing, shoes, 
coats, or medication among other personal items--in violation of CBP's 
detention standards. This cruel and unnecessary practice exacerbates 
the challenges RMX enrollees face when left to wait for months in 
unfamiliar Mexican cities with few resources to support themselves.
Due Process Barriers, Lack of Representation
    The Biden administration's reimplementation of RMX has not 
addressed its inherent due process denial. Like the first iteration of 
RMX, a very small number of individuals in RMX have managed to secure 
legal counsel. For example, only 6 percent (5 of 82) of asylum seekers 
had legal counsel when they appeared at the El Paso immigration court 
for the first 2 days of RMX hearings in early January 2022, according 
to a court observer with Refugees International. By comparison, 93 
percent of asylum seekers had legal counsel in non-RMX asylum 
proceedings in fiscal year 2022 so far. Many asylum seekers returned to 
Mexico under RMX have reported that attorneys on the U.S. Government-
provided list of legal service providers are not taking RMX cases 
(often due to security concerns) or do not have capacity to assist 
them. RMX court observers in El Paso and San Diego report that the 
first RMX hearings were confusing and chaotic. Observers in both courts 
heard RMX enrollees tell judges that they tried but were unable to find 
legal counsel.
    Since the Biden administration's reimplementation of RMX, 
immigration court judges have already issued in-absentia removal orders 
for some individuals who were not able to attend RMX hearings in 
January 2022. Judges rescheduled hearings for others who were unable to 
attend, but it is unclear how their new hearing dates will be 
communicated, as people in RMX often lack stable housing cannot always 
receive mail. Despite the Biden administration's claim that its version 
of RMX would be more transparent, DHS has limited access to RMX 
proceedings, improperly threatening an attorney monitoring RMX hearings 
in January 2022 with legal action for publicizing her observations 
(then later retracting the threat).
         remain in mexico is illegal and cannot be made lawful
    By returning asylum seekers to wait in danger in Mexico under the 
Remain in Mexico program, the U.S. Government is violating U.S. 
immigration law and international treaty commitments to avoid 
refoulment. As extensive research by Human Rights First and other human 
rights groups have documented, the U.S. Government's RMX policy (in 
addition to the Title 42 policy) returns people to highly dangerous 
regions of Mexico where they have subsequently faced, or are likely to 
face, horrific danger, including murder, rape, torture, kidnapping, 
human trafficking, and other violence. These returns violate the U.S. 
Government's non-refoulement obligations under Article 33 of the 1951 
Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (binding on the United 
States through its accession to the 1967 Protocol relating to the 
Status of Refugees), the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, 
Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, the International 
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and customary international 
law, which prohibit returning people to countries where they would be 
at risk of persecution, torture, or other serious harm.
     continuing illegal expulsions under the deadly title 42 policy
    At the same time the Biden administration is using RMX to return 
people seeking U.S. humanitarian protection to Mexico, it continues to 
embrace and defend, rather than end, the Trump administration's Title 
42 policy, which misuses public health authority to violate U.S. non-
refoulement obligations, block asylum at U.S. ports of entry, and expel 
people seeking refuge to danger in Mexico and the countries they fled. 
The suffering of families, adults, and children subjected to this 
policy continues to mount, with at least 8,705 kidnappings and other 
attacks on people blocked or expelled to Mexico under Title 42 since 
President Biden took office. Since September 2021, the Biden 
administration used this policy to illegally expel more than 18,000 
Haitians to life-threatening insecurity in Haiti. The U.S. Department 
of State's top legal expert, former Yale Law School Dean Harold Koh, 
resigned from the Department in October 2021 after concluding that the 
Biden administration's continued use of Title 42 to expel people 
seeking protection is ``illegal and inhumane.''
    Epidemiologists and public health experts have continued to condemn 
the misuse of Title 42, explaining in September 2021 that the Centers 
for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) order ``does not provide 
adequate public health justifications for expelling asylum-seeking 
families at the border'' and that ``expulsions magnify the risks of 
COVID-19 transmission.'' In a September 2021 letter to Biden 
administration officials and the CDC director, public health experts 
again expressed concern that the CDC has ``endorsed and extended the 
implementation of the scientifically baseless and politically motivated 
Title 42 order.'' The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has 
urged the United States to ``swiftly lift the public health-related 
asylum restrictions that remain in effect at the border and to restore 
access to asylum for the people whose lives depend on it, in line with 
international legal and human rights obligations.''
                       action needed by congress
    Congress has a critical role to play in upholding U.S. refugee law 
and treaties, urging all possible steps to end the Remain in Mexico 
policy and its expansion, and urgently pressing for an end to the 
similar Title 42 policy and others Trump-era policies that evade 
refugee law, effectively block refugees from U.S. asylum and endanger 
their lives. Congress should:
   Continue to conduct oversight and strongly urge the Biden 
        administration to comply with U.S. and international refugee 
        law, definitively end the Remain in Mexico policy, stop 
        misusing Title 42 to evade refugee law, and fully restore 
        asylum processes at the Southern Border--including at ports of 
        entry, and to take all necessary administrative and judicial 
        steps needed to do so. Congress should also request updates on 
        action the administration has taken to end other Trump-era 
        policies including the asylum entry and transit bans, the 
        ``Death to Asylum'' rule, and the interim final rule 
        implementing Asylum Cooperative Agreements (ACAs).
   Update and reintroduce the Refugee Protection Act, to ensure 
        U.S. asylum laws uphold U.S. commitments under Article 33 of 
        the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, the 
        Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or 
        Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and the International 
        Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
   While the inherently flawed and unfixable Remain in Mexico 
        and/or Title 42 policies continue to be implemented, conduct 
        oversight and advance recommendations to U.S. agencies to 
        ensure that:
     DHS (through information it receives from asylum seekers 
            through USCIS, CBP, and/or ICE interviews and 
            communications) and the U.S. State Department track all 
            reported incidents of kidnappings and other violence 
            against individuals after they are returned to Mexico via 
            RMX or Title 42, and harms suffered by persons expelled to 
            other countries--including Haiti--under Title 42 without 
            being provided with access to the safeguards of U.S. 
            refugee law;
     DHS and CBP allow, provide, and facilitate unimpeded 
            access to in-person legal consultations and legal 
            representation to people in its custody, including in 
            connection with RMX NRI interviews, eliminate the limit on 
            time permitted to consult with legal counsel, and prohibit 
            the conduct of any fear interviews without the presence of 
            in-person legal counsel when an asylum seeker requests such 
            representation; and
     DHS and CBP allow and provide NRI interviews at POEs upon 
            request by asylum seekers or their counsel, and take steps 
            to ensure that CBP appropriately screens, identifies, and 
            exempts individuals who should be exempt from placement in 
            Remain in Mexico under DHS's internal implementation 
            guidelines.
   Conduct official visits to Mexican, Guatemalan, and Honduran 
        border towns where asylum seekers have been returned/expelled, 
        CBP facilities and Border Patrol stations on the southern U.S. 
        border, immigration detention centers, immigration courts, and 
        humanitarian organizations in the border region assisting 
        asylum seekers and migrants. Examine potential structural 
        improvements to anticipate, plan for, and manage humanitarian 
        protection and uphold compliance with U.S. refugee law and 
        treaties, such as a new or reconfigured and elevated U.S. 
        agency with a humanitarian and refugee protection mission, 
        expertise, and capacities.
                              ATTACHMENT*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    * The document has been retained in committee files and is 
available at https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/sites/default/files/
ShamefulRecord.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 ______
                                 
             Statement of The Hope Border Institute (HOPE)
                             March 1, 2022
    The Hope Border Institute (HOPE) thanks the House Homeland Security 
Committee for holding a hearing on the reimplementation of Remain in 
Mexico. HOPE is a Catholic social justice organization working bi-
nationally in El Paso, Texas and Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua to uphold the 
right to asylum and dignity for people on the move in our region. In 
addition to research and advocacy for asylum restoration and rights-
respecting border policy, we operate the Border Refugee Assistance Fund 
to provide humanitarian support for migrants and asylum seekers forced 
to remain in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico. As a borderland organization, we 
are all too familiar with the harms that result from the 
externalization of asylum and are advocating for a full restoration of 
the asylum system and an end to policies that deny people on the move 
access to U.S. territory.
    In 2019, the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) changed the 
landscape of asylum in our region. Over 20,000 people were placed into 
the first version of the program in El Paso and Ciudad Juarez, 
including highly vulnerable individuals such as families with children, 
indigenous people and mentally disabled people. The cruelty of the 
program lay in the fact that people were stranded with few resources in 
an extraordinarily dangerous environment where kidnapping, extortion, 
assault, and other forms of violence against migrants were commonplace. 
Access to attorneys was severely limited and the challenge of 
navigating the complex asylum system while living in danger meant that 
pursuing and winning an asylum case was next to impossible.
    The restart of MPP--and the unnecessary termination of the wind-
down program, leaving thousands of people stranded in Mexico with no 
opportunity for parole--has been a devastating step backwards for 
asylum seekers. While the Biden administration is under court order to 
restart the program, its expansion to nationals of all Western 
Hemisphere countries and continued human rights violations during 
implementation are discouraging signs.
    Changes to the structure of the program have not ameliorated 
serious concerns about human rights and dignity. MPP never has been and 
never will be a rights-respecting program. People we have spoken to and 
accompanied in both versions of the program describe compelling root 
causes that drove them from their homes, violence and extortion 
throughout their journey in Mexico, fear of being forced to stay in 
Mexico, and a desire to reunite with family in the United States and 
build a new life in peace.
    At the moment, with the Title 42 expulsion policy in place for the 
indefinite future, MPP has perversely become the only de facto 
opportunity for asylum at the U.S.-Mexico border, an alarming fact 
because MPP is so deeply flawed and does not represent true access to 
asylum. This results in a discriminatory impact on those who are 
subject to Title 42 (such as people from Mexico, Guatemala, and 
Honduras), while putting those who are subject to MPP in a deeply 
unsafe position where their chances of securing representation and 
winning an asylum case are extremely low. HOPE's research has 
documented some of these human rights concerns through conversations 
with individuals living in shelters and observation of MPP court 
proceedings.
                safety, human rights, and vulnerability
    In January and February of this year, HOPE conducted interviews 
with asylum seekers who are currently enrolled in MPP and living in a 
shelter operated by the Mexican Federal Government in Ciudad Juarez. 
These interviews surfaced major concerns with the implementation of the 
program, in particular the impact on individuals' physical and mental 
health and their access to due process in court. Notably, most of those 
we interviewed fled home because of persecution and their political 
opposition to authoritarian governments in Nicaragua and Cuba that the 
U.S. Government has spoken out against.
   The asylum seekers described feeling deeply unsafe in Mexico 
        and refused to leave the shelter for fear of being kidnapped or 
        extorted. A significant number also expressed fear of living 
        within the shelter due to the presence of Mexican police and 
        soldiers and noted that the shelter was unhygienic, the food 
        was inadequate and they did not have access to medical care 
        while sick with illnesses like chickenpox. Despite requesting 
        non-refoulement interviews and sharing their experiences with 
        asylum officers of being extorted, robbed, and kidnapped along 
        the journey through Mexico, they were returned anyway.
   Many asylum seekers presented vulnerabilities that should 
        have exempted them from MPP, including a Black indigenous man 
        from Nicaragua whose dominant language is a dialect called 
        Miskito, another man who is bisexual and one man who has a 
        health issue in his lungs. Two of the men had expressed these 
        vulnerabilities to asylum officers or immigration agents in the 
        United States but were returned to Mexico; the bisexual man was 
        afraid to disclose his sexuality to asylum officers or 
        immigration agents for fear of being discriminated against.
   The majority of those interviewed had left their country 
        because of persecution related to political affiliation. One 
        man from Nicaragua worked as an electoral count manager 
        (fiscal) for an opposition political party. After raising 
        inconsistencies with vote counts during the 2021 elections, 
        police and paramilitaries stalked him at his home and he fled 
        in fear of his life. He was experiencing major psychological 
        distress after being placed in MPP and did not feel safe or 
        well living in the shelter. Another man from Cuba worked as a 
        math and physics teacher and was persecuted for his refusal to 
        participate in communist party activities and incorporate the 
        party agenda into his curriculum. After he participated in the 
        July 11-12 protests in Cuba, he was detained and questioned by 
        police for a full day with no food or water, was fired from his 
        job and said that state agents in civilian clothes from the 
        comittee de la defensa de la revolucion harassed his family at 
        their home.
   People placed into MPP are given limited info packets about 
        MPP and the asylum process, but the paperwork is in a mixture 
        of Spanish and English, making it difficult for monolingual 
        Spanish speakers to understand everything. One man from Cuba 
        who was unrepresented said he was learning about asylum and 
        preparing for his case by watching YouTube videos. Another 
        person noted that he knows several people in MPP who cannot 
        read or write, making it extremely difficult for them to 
        prepare a case and understand the written materials they were 
        given.
   Many of those we interviewed described mental and physical 
        health issues stemming from shelter conditions as well as an 
        extreme fear of leaving the shelter for any reason. A 
        particular concern was having to leave the shelter to obtain a 
        COVID test in order to attend court. No transportation is 
        offered to clinics or testing labs in Cd. Juarez, forcing them 
        to leave the shelter against their will simply to meet the 
        prerequisite for attending court.
                   obstacles to due process in court
    In addition to interviews with people enrolled in the program, HOPE 
observed several days of MPP court proceedings in January and February 
2022.
   None of those we observed had legal representation. At least 
        one man said that he had attempted to contact pro bono 
        attorneys on the contact list but was unable to reach them.
   Nonprofit service providers in El Paso have declined to take 
        on many MPP cases because of lack of capacity and obstacles to 
        due process, but they are still listed on the pro-bono, low-
        cost legal access list. This gives respondents the impression 
        that substantial legal services are available when in fact they 
        are not.
   On January 31, two men from Colombia were deported in 
        absentia after failing to appear for their court hearing in El 
        Paso. Despite the fact that shelter and transportation to the 
        ports of entry are coordinated with the Department of Homeland 
        Security, the U.S. State Department and the International 
        Organization for Migration (and thus the Government would 
        presumably have information about why the men were unable to 
        appear in court), no information was provided to the judge and 
        the men were deported. This is especially concerning because 
        deportations in absentia were frequent in the first version of 
        MPP, often because individuals had been kidnapped on the way to 
        ports of entry, had become ill or felt too unsafe to leave 
        their residence to present at the ports.
   People in court expressed confusion about basic elements of 
        the asylum process, such as which country's governments are 
        involved in decision making and whether requesting more time to 
        find an attorney would prohibit them from having a non-
        refoulement interview about fear of return to Mexico.
   People in court were anxious to express fear of return to 
        Mexico and ensure they would have non-refoulement interviews 
        (NRI's). Government data on MPP reveals that following initial 
        enrollment in January 2022, 89 percent of individuals requested 
        non-refoulement interviews (NRI's), but 73 percent of the NRI's 
        resulted in a negative fear determination.
   Judges incorrectly asked respondents on several occasions 
        whether they live in Casa del Migrante, a private shelter in 
        Cd. Juarez that does not currently house people in MPP. Because 
        ``casa del migrante'' can refer to both the specific Casa del 
        Migrante or a generic ``casa de migrante'' or migrant shelter, 
        respondents have tended to answer the question in the 
        affirmative when they are actually living in a federally-
        operated shelter with a different name.
    It is clear from our research that grave human rights issues are 
still present within the Migrant Protection Protocols and that new 
safeguards to ensure the safety, well-being, and due process of people 
in the program are not adequate. The program's founding intent was to 
deny access to asylum and to make people so desperate and unsafe in 
Mexico that they would give up and return home. We can and must do 
better to offer protection to people fleeing from grave harm and 
looking to the United States as a last resort.
                            recommendations
    We recommend that Congress:
   End funding for the Migrant Protection Protocols.
   Work with the administration to resume the MPP wind-down 
        process that was in place in 2021 to allow people in the first 
        version of MPP to be paroled in from Mexico, from third 
        countries and countries of origin.
   End Title 42 and a current patchwork approach to asylum 
        protections at the border that discriminates based on 
        nationality while leaving the most vulnerable at risk.
   Restore full access to asylum at ports of entry without 
        resorting to metering and other forms of externalization, 
        including reliance on NGO's to screen individuals in Mexico for 
        extreme vulnerabilities.
   Build capacity to safely process asylum seekers at the 
        border in a dignified manner and release people to reunite with 
        family or sponsors in the U.S. interior. This should not 
        include mass detention or indefinite stays in processing 
        facilities.
   Partner with community organizations in border communities 
        to facilitate safe release and travel for asylum seekers. 
        Expand funding for community-based case management systems that 
        assist people in accessing social services at their destination 
        and offer legal representation and support with attending court 
        hearings.
    The El Paso border community is ready and willing to welcome asylum 
seekers and people on the move with dignity, as we have done for 
generations. Putting vulnerable people who fled for their lives in 
harm's way and denying their right to seek protection on U.S. soil is 
not the answer to changing migration patterns and the root causes of 
migration.
    Thank you for the opportunity to submit this statement.
                                 ______
                                 
     Letter From the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights (CHIRLA)
                                     March 2, 2022.
Chair Nanette Diaz Barragan,
Committee on Homeland Security, Subcommittee on Border Security, 
        Facilitation, and Operations, Washington, DC 20515.
Ranking Member Clay Higgins,
Committee on Homeland Security, Subcommittee on Border Security, 
        Facilitation, and Operations, Washington, DC 20515.
Chair Bennie Thompson,
Ranking Member John Katko,
Committee on Homeland Security, Washington, DC 20515.
Re: Hearing ``Examining the Court-Ordered Reimplementation of The 
Remain In Mexico Policy''

    Dear Chairs Barragan & Thompson & Ranking Members Higgins & Katko: 
On behalf of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights (CHIRLA), the 
largest State-wide immigrant rights organization in California, I 
submit this statement for the record for today's hearing entitled 
``Examining The Court-Ordered Reimplementation of the Remain In Mexico 
Policy.'' As an organization serving the immigrant community for the 
past 35 years, CHIRLA has worked to gain and maintain both trust and 
credibility as a reliable source of accurate information of events both 
in California and south of the U.S.--Mexico border.
    Since December 2018, CHIRLA has monitored both the initial ``Remain 
in Mexico'' policy (Migrant Protection Protocols, MPP 1.0) and more 
recently the impact of the court-ordered re-implementation of MPP 2.0. 
In both instances, CHIRLA bears witness to how the Orwellian 
nomenclature used for this program is wholly matched by the sheer 
cruelty of its impact on immigrants who are put through its grinding 
process.
    Indeed, CHIRLA's base analysis of MPP is mostly shared by the Biden 
Administration, and this is what makes the ongoing court-ordered 
implementation, which is effectively an extension of MPP, both baffling 
and disconcerting. As a candidate, President Biden identified MPP as 
the first ``detrimental asylum policy'' that needed to be ended.\1\ 
After first suspending new enrollments in MPP, pursuant to Executive 
Order 14010, DHS Secretary Mayorkas on June 1, 2021 and then again on 
October 29, 2021 issued memos on the ``termination'' on MPP.\2\ The 
basic reason for the termination was the clear and convincing evidence 
of MPP ``imposing substantial and unjustifiable human costs on the 
individuals who were exposed to harm while waiting in Mexico.''\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://joebiden.com/immigration/.
    \2\ https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/
21_1029_mpp-termination-memo.pdf.
    \3\ Id. p. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        chirla's role in mexico
    Since 2017, CHIRLA has run an international program based in 
Mexico, from the border with the United States, to Mexico City and 
currently in Tapachula, Chiapas near the border with Guatemala. In the 
course of this work, CHIRLA's team regularly encounters MPP enrollees 
as well as other immigrant victims of the U.S. asylum system's 
decimation.
                chirla's perspective on policy solutions
    Aside from the ongoing multi-year process, led by the Biden 
Administration and Vice President Kamala Harris, of dealing with the 
root causes in Central America and elsewhere that compel immigrants to 
migrate, we believe there are immediate actions that the Federal 
Government can take to improve the situation. These include:
    1. First Reduce the Scope of MPP 2.0 and then Terminate It 
        (Again).--There is no reason for the Biden Administration to 
        have expanded the eligible pool beyond MPP 1.0's Spanish-
        speaking countries and Brazil. The expansion will impact e.g. 
        Haitians, already being expelled en masse using Title 42.
    2. End the Use of Title 42 to Expel Immigrants Arriving at the 
        Border.--Title 42 remains the central pillar of the anti-asylum 
        regime built by the Trump Administration. While this has been 
        ended for children, it has not for families arriving together 
        or for single adults.
    3. Restitution for Victims of MPP 1.0 and 2.0.--The Biden 
        Administration in its initial wind down of MPP allowed pending 
        MPP enrollees to actually apply for asylum, with some 13,000 
        being processed into the United States for further 
        adjudication. However, there are tens of thousands of other MPP 
        victims who missed court hearings due to fear, kidnapping, and 
        more and were thus ordered deported in absentia. These 
        individuals also need an option to apply for asylum as was 
        their original intent.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/migrant-
protection-protocols.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  idel antonio--victimized by mpp 2.0
    Recently, a member of the CHIRLA family has been subject to the 
cruelty and arbitrariness of MPP 2.0. His name is Idel Antonio, and 
this is his story:
   He participated in the protests against the Cuban Government 
        in November 2021. He has since been targeted and has seen 
        friends jailed;
   Despite not wanting to leave Cuba, where he has 3 young 
        children, fear of the government compelled him to leave;
   In Mexico, he endured extortion, constant movement around 
        the country, corrupt officials, and attempted kidnappings;
   Unaware of the new MPP, and out of fear of persecutors in 
        Mexico, he attempted to cross the border.
   He did not mention the full extent of the crimes he endured 
        in Mexico, though he did express fear.
   Moreover, he was unable/unaware of the possibility of 
        securing legal counsel, and therefore failed the fear interview 
        and was placed in MPP 2.0.
   Although he was sent to a ``permanent'' shelter in Ciudad 
        Juarez, he continues to live in fear of his Mexican 
        persecutors;
   Idel Antonio's case highlights the impossibility of 
        ``justly'' implementing this monstrous program.
    Thank you for considering CHIRLA's statement.
    Please contact our General Counsel, Carl Bergquist, at 
[email protected], and our International Program Manager, Arturo 
Viscarraa, at [email protected], should you have any questions.
            Sincerely,
                                            Angelica Salas,
Executive Director, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights (CHIRLA).
                                 ______
                                 
            Statement of the California Welcoming Task Force
                             March 2, 2022
    ``The California Welcoming Task Force calls for an end to the 
inhumane and illegal Migrant Protection Protocols program. It is time 
to rebuild our asylum system to welcome human beings with dignity.''
    SAN DIEGO.--Three years ago the United States implemented the 
Migrant Protection Protocols (``MPP'') program forcing individuals 
seeking asylum to return to dangerous Mexican border cities where their 
well-being and lives are in danger. MPP is a ruthless and unjust policy 
impacting the lives of vulnerable people.
    Despite initially taking steps to end MPP, the Biden administration 
has reimplemented the policy and expanded it to include any person from 
the Western Hemisphere. Individuals from countries such as Haiti and 
Jamaica who were previously excluded from the program can now be 
exposed to well-documented discrimination and harm in Mexico. The 
administration's attempts to make this inhumane policy humane are not 
only futile, but they have also demonstrably failed. We denounce the 
reimplementation and expansion of this policy.
    The California Welcoming Task Force can attest to the harsh reality 
and failures of the MPP program:
   On January 5, 2022, two Colombian men who sought asylum in 
        the United States days earlier were sent back to Tijuana, 
        Mexico under the program. Members of the California Welcoming 
        Task Force identified several problems with their processing, 
        including dehumanizing conditions in U.S. Customs and Border 
        Protection (CBP) custody, lack of access to counsel, lack of 
        access to health care and lack of access to necessities in 
        Tijuana. The shelter where they were placed in Tijuana has not 
        received the support necessary to guarantee access to clean 
        water, for example.
   Two women seeking asylum were sent back to Tijuana under 
        Remain in Mexico and so far the U.S. Department of Homeland 
        Security (DHS) has refused to approve requests for their 
        removal from Remain in Mexico to allow them to safely seek 
        asylum within the United States. Migrant women in Tijuana are 
        often targets of kidnapping, assault, or even sex trafficking.
   A person seeking asylum forced by Customs and Border 
        Protection into the program who contacted an attorney with 
        Immigrant Defenders Law Center while still in custody told the 
        attorney that they were a member of the LGBTQ community. DHS 
        had said that, under the current implementation of Remain in 
        Mexico, such individuals would not be enrolled in Remain in 
        Mexico. After intervening, the attorney was able to get the 
        individual removed from enrollment, but only after significant 
        time and resources were invested by the legal service 
        organization interviewing the individual and communicating with 
        DHS.
   An asylum seeker who was injured by a government official 
        for expressing his political opinion was placed into the 
        Migrant Protections Protocol. With his arm in a sling, he 
        informed border officials of the recent surgery and physical 
        pain in his arm. Despite clearly needing protection from the 
        United States and to be with family in the United States, he 
        was placed in MPP and sent to Tijuana. During the non-
        refoulement interview border officials took off his sling and 
        bandage.
   We have observed court hearings where MPP respondents were 
        not properly served with important court documents by the 
        Department of Homeland Security.
   Attorneys have spoken with MPP respondents who were unable 
        to attend their court hearing due to misinformation on 
        transportation arrangements by IOM to the San Ysidro Port of 
        Entry. Others missed their court hearing after being 
        misinformed to present themselves directly to the San Ysidro 
        Port of Entry instead of arranging transportation with IOM.
   MPP respondents who pass the fear of Mexico interview (non-
        refoulement interview) are held in Border Patrol stations for 
        extensive periods of time, sometimes up to 5 days. Border 
        Patrol stations have no showers and conditions are harsh.
   MPP respondents have informed us they were told to sign 
        documents while in Border Patrol custody that they did not 
        understand and were not in their native language.
    Dehumanizing and illegal immigration policies must end. We must end 
Remain in Mexico. We must welcome human beings with dignity.
                                 ______
                                 
      Statement of the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies (CGRS)
                             March 2, 2022
    The Center for Gender & Refugee Studies (CGRS) defends the human 
rights of refugees seeking asylum in the United States. We undertake 
strategic litigation to advance sound asylum laws and protect due 
process rights. Our current docket includes Federal lawsuits 
challenging anti-asylum border policies, including Remain in Mexico, 
and high-impact appellate cases that present opportunities to restore 
paths to protection. Additionally, we provide free expert consultation, 
comprehensive litigation resources, and cutting-edge training Nation-
wide to attorneys and advocates working with asylum seekers. We also 
advocate for the fair and dignified treatment of asylum seekers and 
promote policies that honor our country's legal obligations to 
refugees.
    We are grateful that the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on 
Border Security, Facilitation, & Operations is examining the court-
ordered reimplementation of the Remain in Mexico policy, formally known 
by its Orwellian name, the ``Migrant Protection Protocols'' (MPP). We 
appreciate this opportunity to provide a statement for the record.
    CGRS is deeply familiar with the cruelty and illegality of MPP, 
having challenged many aspects of its first iteration in Innovation Law 
Lab v. Mayorkas and Immigrant Defenders Law Center et al. v. Mayorkas. 
In both cases we represent individual plaintiffs who have experienced 
the horrors of Remain in Mexico first-hand and legal service providers 
who have struggled to represent them. CGRS has supported the Biden 
administration's efforts to end the policy by submitting amicus briefs 
in Texas v. Biden before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and the 
Supreme Court.
    congress must recognize that remain in mexico violates u.s. and 
                           international law
    When the Trump administration launched MPP in 2019, it completely 
upended long-standing practices toward people seeking asylum at the 
U.S. Southern Border. It was an unprecedented policy change that made 
it impossible for most asylum seekers arriving at the border to safely 
pursue their protection claims in the United States. MPP was widely 
criticized by U.S. legal experts, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 
employees, and international bodies, including the UN Refugee Agency 
(UNHCR) and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. They 
explained that, by returning asylum seekers to dangerous conditions and 
undermining their ability to mount a successful asylum case, MPP 
violated the United States' non-refoulement obligations under the 1967 
Refugee Protocol and the Convention Against Torture--that is, our 
promise not to return people to persecution or torture. These 
commitments have been reflected in both statutory law and Federal 
regulations.
    The courts agreed. As counsel in Innovation Law Lab v. Mayorkas, 
CGRS successfully challenged the legality of the first version of MPP. 
In April 2019 the District Court for the Northern District of 
California granted a preliminary injunction, which would have 
temporarily halted the policy. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals 
initially stayed the injunction--allowing MPP to remain in effect--but 
restored it in February 2020, ruling unequivocally that MPP violates 
both U.S. and international law. The Trump administration then appealed 
to the Supreme Court, which put the injunction on hold as it considered 
the case, leaving the policy in place until the Biden administration 
formally terminated it in June 2021. Following the termination, the 
Supreme Court sent the case back to the district court, which vacated 
the injunction as moot. The case remains pending.
reimplementation of mpp is based on the lower courts' misunderstanding 
                        of the facts and the law
    The Biden administration's decision to terminate MPP was based on a 
sound analysis of the law and recognition of the untenable conditions 
created by the policy. DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas' second 
memorandum terminating MPP cited copious evidence that the policy's 
humanitarian and due process defects were ``endemic to the program's 
design'' and beyond reform. In contrast, the legal positions adopted by 
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, and upheld 
by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, grossly distorted the law and 
the facts. If the Supreme Court allows the Fifth Circuit's decision to 
stand, it will send a dangerous message that a single court ruling can 
arbitrarily override laws enacted by Congress.
    CGRS joined partners in submitting an amicus brief on behalf of 
non-profit organizations and former immigration judges in Biden v. 
Texas, supporting the administration's decision to terminate Remain in 
Mexico. Our amicus brief highlights fatal flaws in the lower court 
decisions, which fault Secretary Mayorkas for failing to consider MPP's 
``benefits''--namely, its purported success in deterring migration and 
fraudulent asylum claims. The evidence in the case reveals the opposite 
to be true. No matter what cruel policy the Trump administration 
devised--from family separation, to MPP, to Title 42--violence and 
insecurity in their home countries have continued to force people to 
seek refuge in the United States. MPP merely denied asylum seekers safe 
access to the U.S. immigration court system, trapping desperate 
families and adults in precarious conditions that exposed them to 
further violence and depriving them of a meaningful opportunity to 
present their asylum claims.
    Far from bringing greater integrity to the asylum process, the 
program's procedural deficiencies, compounded by the inherent dangers 
in northern Mexico, made it impossible for most asylum seekers to 
access legal representation and prevented many from even making it to 
immigration court. Under the Trump administration, only 7 percent of 
people placed in Remain in Mexico were able to obtain a lawyer, 
compared with 60 percent of asylum seekers applying inside the United 
States. As the sobering evidence in the Texas case shows, many placed 
in MPP were kidnapped at the time of their hearings and denied 
protection through no fault of their own. Of the nearly 70,000 asylum 
seekers enrolled in Trump's MPP, just 523 were granted asylum.
    Remain in Mexico continues to cause incalculable violence and 
suffering. The Remain in Mexico policy has caused enormous harm to 
people seeking asylum. People returned to Mexico under MPP are 
frequently kidnapped and assaulted by cartels and other organized crime 
groups that regard asylum seekers as prime targets. Extortion of people 
subject to MPP is so routine, experts have likened the policy to ``a 
stimulus package for cartels.'' Human rights investigators have 
documented numerous cases of pregnant women, children, LGBTQ+ people, 
and people with disabilities suffering horrific abuses after being 
returned to Mexico under MPP. While the Biden administration pledged to 
make humanitarian improvements to the program, MPP 2.0 has been plagued 
with the same problems as the original policy. Conditions in Mexico 
remain incredibly dire for people seeking asylum. Since President Biden 
took office, Human Rights First has documented at least 8,705 public 
reports of violent attacks--including rape, kidnapping, and murder--
against people blocked from requesting protection at the U.S. border 
and/or expelled to Mexico under the Title 42 policy.
    Unsurprisingly, in MPP 2.0's first 2 months of implementation, 88 
percent of asylum seekers placed in the program have expressed fear of 
return to Mexico. Border officials have rejected 75 percent of these 
fear claims, despite copious evidence of the harm that befalls asylum 
seekers forced back over the border. Human rights investigators report 
that the Biden administration is returning even people who have already 
experienced severe violence in Mexico.
    the texas case does not preclude the biden administration from 
            providing redress to those subjected to mpp 1.0
    Even while the Texas v. Biden case proceeds, CGRS and our partners 
continue to litigate a separate case, Immigrant Defenders Law Center et 
al. v. Mayorkas, which challenges on-going harms suffered by asylum 
seekers who remain stranded outside the United States due to the 
effects of the policy's first incarnation under Trump. Individual 
plaintiffs in the case recently filed a motion for class certification, 
requesting that they be allowed to represent a class of similarly 
situated individuals who had their cases terminated or received final 
removal orders after being deprived of meaningful access to the U.S. 
asylum process under MPP 1.0. Our lawsuit alleges that the Biden 
administration unnecessarily and unlawfully suspended the wind-down 
process that had previously enabled many such individuals to re-enter 
the United States to pursue their asylum claims. The following quotes 
and excerpts from our plaintiffs' declarations offer a glimpse of the 
horrific circumstances facing asylum seekers returned to Mexico. Their 
experiences represent just the tip of the iceberg that is the profound 
trauma inflicted by Remain in Mexico under both the Trump and Biden 
administrations.
   ``My daughter and I lived in horrible conditions in the 
        migrant camp in Matamoros, and I was kidnapped and raped while 
        we waited in Mexico for my immigration court hearings,'' our 
        plaintiff Dania Doe stated in her declaration. ``I thought we 
        were going to die . . . I begged [U.S. officials] not to return 
        us to Mexico, but they did not listen . . . I was never able to 
        find an attorney to represent me in my immigration case, and 
        the immigration judge denied my asylum claim.''
   ``Nobody explained why they were returning us to Mexico or 
        what would happen,'' our plaintiff Sofia Doe stated in her 
        declaration. ``I missed my third immigration hearing because I 
        was experiencing complications with a high-risk pregnancy and 
        had just been released from the hospital. As a result, my 
        family and I received in absentia removal orders. In addition, 
        my husband was assaulted while he was working in Mexico, and he 
        has now been missing since early December . . . I feel alone, 
        afraid, and trapped in Mexico.''
   ``I would never wish this experience on anyone,'' our 
        plaintiff Francisco Doe said in a recent statement. ``It has 
        been so difficult since the first day, when they just left us 
        here to survive by ourselves. People don't know about the 
        suffering we've experienced here. I just want to be safe and 
        reunited with my family in the U.S.''
   ``MPP was such a lie because I never had any opportunity to 
        present my case,'' our plaintiff Gabriela Doe said in a recent 
        statement. ``I am so frustrated and scared, and I am so afraid 
        that something will happen to me here in Mexico. This has been 
        so difficult for me, especially since I am just trying to 
        protect my young daughter and have nevertheless seen her suffer 
        because of MPP. This has been the terror of our lives, and I 
        just want our lives to continue and to free my daughter of this 
        agony. We are in agony every day, being in limbo and not 
        knowing what we can do.''
                               conclusion
    Federal law, as well as our treaty commitments, require the United 
States to ensure that noncitizens are not returned to countries where 
they face persecution or torture. Congress must ensure through 
oversight and appropriations that the inhumane and unlawful Remain in 
Mexico policy is ended, once and for all. Congress should also ensure 
that the Biden administration does everything in its power to mitigate 
the harms of MPP 1.0 by providing redress to people subjected to the 
original version of the policy and ensuring that they have a meaningful 
opportunity to present their claims for protection.

    Chairwoman Barragan. The Members of the subcommittee may 
have additional questions for the witnesses and we ask that you 
respond expeditiously in writing. The Chair reminds Members 
that the committee record remains open for 10 days. Without 
objection, the committee will stand adjourned. Thank you.
    [Whereupon, at 3:42 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]



                            A P P E N D I X

                              ----------                              

 Questions From Chairwoman Nanette Diaz Barragan for the Department of 
                           Homeland Security
    Question 1. During my recent oversight trip, Border Patrol agents 
stated that they only ask migrants about fear of returning to Mexico 
and not whether they meet specific vulnerabilities that would exempt 
them from MPP.
    Why is this the case and will DHS consider changing this?
    Answer. Determining whether an individual has a particular 
vulnerability, such as a known physical or mental health issues, 
advanced age, and at increased risk of harm in Mexico because of their 
sexual orientation or gender identity, is separate from determining 
whether an individual has a fear of returning to Mexico.
    There are multiple points in the screening and enrollment process 
during which U.S. officials may become aware that a potential enrollee 
in MPP may have vulnerabilities that should except them from MPP, 
including following the health screening or upon notification by a 
representative or legal consultant assisting migrants placed in MPP. 
When such vulnerabilities are identified, individuals are disenrolled 
from MPP. Individuals who are enrolled in MPP but believe they should 
not be due to a vulnerability or fear of potential persecution or 
torture in Mexico may contact DHS at the following email inbox: 
[email protected].
    If at any point while enrolled in MPP, an individual in the United 
States expresses to a U.S. Government official a fear of harm if 
returned to Mexico, the individual will be referred to U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration Services (USCIS) for a non-refoulement interview. 
Individuals who demonstrate a reasonable possibility of being 
persecuted on account of a statutorily-protected ground or tortured 
upon return to Mexico will not be subject or remain subject to MPP.
    Question 2a. While in San Diego, CBP informed us that migrants had 
to arrive at the port of entry with the International Organization for 
Migration (IOM) for their court appearance. However, the IOM and State 
Department were telling migrants that they could arrive at the port of 
entry on their own or with advocates from other organizations.
    What is the policy and how will this communication lapse be 
addressed?
    Question 2b. What actions will the administration take to help 
migrants who arrived at the port of entry on their own at the 
designated time but were not allowed in by CBP? Is the administration 
even tracking this group?
    Answer. Individuals enrolled in MPP are provided documents by the 
U.S. Government that indicate the next time and date of their hearing, 
and the location and time the individual needs to arrive at a specified 
port of entry to access the court hearing. There are shelters run by 
the government of Mexico and non-governmental organizations; however, 
individuals may choose to reside in a location of their choice. While 
transportation is provided from designated locations to and from the 
port of entry (POE) to enter the United States for their court 
hearings, it is not a requirement, and individuals may elect to arrive 
to the port of entry on their own means. Some individuals choose to 
arrive at the POEs of their own accord, and they are processed into the 
United States to attend their court hearings. Individuals who do not 
meet health requirements or who arrive late may be rescheduled for a 
new hearing. We are unaware of any situation where an individual in MPP 
who arrived on their own at the proper time and location and who met 
all health requirements was not processed by the U.S. Customs and 
Border Protection (CBP).
    Question 3. What special accommodations does CBP provide illiterate 
migrants, or migrants who speak indigenous languages native to certain 
areas of Mexico and Central America, to ensure they understand the 
process and the documents they are signing?
    Answer. CBP officials provide migrants a legal resource packet and 
verbally explain the MPP process in a language that is understood by 
the migrant, using interpreters as needed. For migrants who cannot 
understand and speak English, interpreters are provided by the U.S. 
Government and at no cost to the migrant. Interpreters are available to 
migrants during their initial encounter and processing, and non-
refoulement interview conducted by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services, and court hearings. Individuals in MPP also view a video in 
Spanish which explains basic information about MPP.
    Question 4. Does DHS, the State Department, or the IOM track the 
number of individuals who decide to disenroll from MPP and remain in 
Mexico or return to their country of origin? If so, can you provide 
information on when and where individuals who have decided to disenroll 
from MPP have gone?
    Answer. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has no way 
to track how many individuals chose to abandon their immigration cases, 
nor the reasons that might lead to that decision. DHS defers to the 
U.S. Department of State any information that might be available about 
migrant communication with the International Organization for Migration 
and to the Department of Justice for statistics related to requests to 
withdraw applications for admission during immigration proceedings.
    Question 5. How is the reimplementation of MPP impacting the other 
priority missions on the Southwest Border, such as processing legal 
trade and travel at ports of entry?
    Answer. Each time an MPP enrollee returns to the United States to 
attend a court proceeding, which could happen multiple times over the 
life of a case, DHS personnel are required to conduct additional rounds 
of processing. None of this is required for those in removal 
proceedings outside of MPP.
    The labor-intensive process of bringing migrants back into the 
United States for their court proceedings directly impacts staffing at 
the 4 U.S. ports of entry where migrants reenter, taking front-line 
personnel away from other key missions such as facilitating lawful 
cross-border trade and travel. In addition, DHS has devoted significant 
resources and personnel to building, managing, staffing, and securing 
specialized immigration hearing facilities to support DOJ's Executive 
Office for Immigration Review. As Secretary Mayorkas has stated, any 
perceived benefits of the policy do not justify the costs, particularly 
given the way in which MPP detracts from other regional and domestic 
goals, foreign-policy objectives, and domestic policy initiatives that 
better align with the administration's values.
   Questions From Chairman Bennie G. Thompson for the Department of 
                           Homeland Security
    Question 1. Why are so few individuals being found to have a fear 
of return to Mexico during their NRI despite reports of thousands of 
kidnappings and attacks against migrants and asylum seekers returned to 
Mexico this past year?
    Answer. If, at any point in the removal process, an individual 
enrolled in MPP and present in the United States expresses to a U.S. 
Government official a fear of harm if returned to Mexico, the 
individual is referred to USCIS for a non-refoulement interview. 
Individuals who demonstrate a reasonable possibility of being 
persecuted on account of a statutorily-protected ground (race, 
religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular 
social group) or tortured upon return to Mexico will not be subject or 
remain subject to MPP. USCIS officers are provided trainings on the 
appropriate standard to apply in these interviews. Fears of generalized 
violence do not meet the ``reasonable possibility'' standard, which 
requires the noncitizen to demonstrate that they will be individually 
persecuted on account of a particular protected ground.
    As detailed in the most recent report covering data through 
February 2022, a total of 1,357 individuals claimed fear following 
their initial enrollment in MPP, accounting for 86 percent of the 1,569 
noncitizens enrolled. About 70 percent of those fear claims resulted in 
a negative fear decision. DHS publishes monthly data about the 
reimplementation of MPP on the DHS website.
    Question 2. Why did DHS make the choice to expand the program to 
non-Spanish speaking individuals, like Haitians? These individuals are 
particularly vulnerable, and I find that choice very concerning.
    Answer. The United States and Mexico remain concerned about the 
change in migration patterns and the number of migrants irregularly 
migrating to the United States. As such, both the U.S. and Mexican 
governments agreed to include nationals of any Western Hemisphere 
country other than Mexico in the court-ordered reimplementation of MPP 
in order to not categorically exclude any nationality from the region, 
lest that be exploited by human smugglers for recruitment purposes.
    As of the date of this hearing, no Haitians have been enrolled in 
the court-ordered re-implementation of MPP.
    Question 3. While we appreciate DHS is taking steps to provide 
migrants with counsel, we have heard concerns that access to counsel in 
this program is not meaningful. There are very few lawyers available 
and 24 hours to consult is too little time to prepare. How does DHS 
intend to strengthen legal access?
    Answer. The Biden-Harris administration is deeply committed to 
ensuring individuals have meaningful opportunities to access counsel. 
DHS and DOJ both work closely with legal service providers to 
facilitate access at both the non-refoulement interview and hearing 
stages.
    All noncitizens enrolled in MPP are provided with 24 hours to 
consult with a legal representative or consultant prior to their non-
refoulement interview while the noncitizen is in CBP custody. A 
noncitizen may request to waive the 24-hour consultation period. If a 
noncitizen requests to waive this consultation period, the asylum 
officer confirms that the noncitizen knowingly and voluntarily waived 
the 24-hour period. Extending the 24-hour consultation period would 
further lengthen the noncitizen's time in custody, leading to 
noncitizens spending extended periods of time in Border Patrol 
facilities unsuitable for this purpose.
    At the time of the non-refoulement interview, asylum officers ask 
every noncitizen if they have a legal representative or consultant. If 
a noncitizen has a legal representative or consultant, that person may 
attend the interview telephonically. Interviews may be rescheduled to 
allow for the presence of the legal representative or consultant as 
long as it does not unreasonably delay processing. Asylum officers also 
confirm that noncitizens who did not waive the consultation period were 
provided with a legal services provider list and access to telephones 
during the 24-hour period.
    Question 4. How is DHS headquarters ensuring that CBP sector chiefs 
are implementing the practices and protocols set by headquarters?
    Answer. DHS and CBP work together on MPP reimplementation, to 
include public and internal guidance provided to those implementing 
this program. In any instance where DHS or CBP leadership identify 
areas of MPP reimplementation that need correcting, those corrections 
are made expeditiously.
     Questions From Ranking Member Clay Higgins for Blas Nunez-Neto
    Question 1a. In Mr. Nunez-Neto's written testimony he says, ``As of 
February 28, a total of 1,602 individuals have been enrolled in MPP and 
893 of them have been returned to Mexico, while 181 are still being 
processed. Not all individuals who are enrolled in MPP are actually 
returned to Mexico since some are disenrolled due to a particular 
vulnerability or a positive determination in their non-refoulement 
interview.''
    Looking at these numbers, less than 60 percent of those originally 
enrolled in MPP were returned to Mexico. Returns for December, January, 
and February together totaled less than 900. Given that less than 60 
percent of those enrolled in MPP were returned to Mexico, should there 
be an examination of how migrants are chosen to be initially enrolled 
in MPP?
    Answer. In order to ensure MPP reimplementation is humane, migrants 
who have a particular vulnerability or establish a fear of being 
returned to Mexico are disenrolled from MPP. It is not always evident 
who has vulnerability or fear when the enrollment process is initiated. 
However, DHS continues to refine and improve MPP reimplementation 
including examining how to better identify those who are likely to be 
good candidates for MPP enrollment, while also ensuring that MPP is 
applied humanely and consistently.
    Question 1b. How long does DHS believe it will take for MPP to be 
fully reimplemented across all Sectors?
    Question 1c. For DHS to consider MPP fully reimplemented, how many 
individuals will be being enrolled per day?
    Answer. Even in the last administration, MPP returns have never 
occurred in all sectors along the Southwest Border (SWB). Currently, 
MPP returns are occurring in strategic locations along the SWB agreed 
to by both the U.S. and Mexican governments. DHS maintains the ability 
to enroll anyone encountered by USBP along the entire SWB into MPP for 
return to Mexico at any designated locations. DHS is closely 
coordinating the court-mandated reimplementation of MPP with the 
government of Mexico to address security concerns and operational 
constraints. The number of enrollees continues to increase consistent 
with the DOJ's court capacity and the capacity of our partners in 
Mexico to safely receive individuals returned to Mexico. Whether, when, 
and how to continue expand MPP enrollments or whether, when, and how to 
begin returns at new locations, are issues that are under constant 
consideration in coordination with all the MPP reimplementation 
partners.
    Question 1d. Under MPP 2.0, please explain what happens to 
migrants, who are specifically disenrolled in MPP, when they do not 
appear in front of an Immigration Court as specified on their custody 
paperwork?
    Answer. Individuals who are disenrolled from the Migrant Protection 
Protocols remain in removal proceedings under Section 240 of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act and are required to attend future court 
hearings. Given the unique nature of each case, it is impossible to 
provide an answer for what happens in every instance when an individual 
fails to appear in court. However, generally, if documentary evidence 
supports it, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) attorneys 
will seek an in absentia removal order if an individual fails to appear 
in court.
    Question 1e. When considering enrolling an individual into MPP, 
what guidance does Border Patrol use to determine whether or not an 
individual is eligible for the 24-hour consultation hold?
    Answer. If an individual enrolled in MPP and present in the United 
States expresses to a U.S. Government official a fear of harm if 
returned to Mexico, the individual is referred to USCIS for a non-
refoulement interview. Individuals who demonstrate a reasonable 
possibility of being persecuted on account of a statutorily-protected 
ground (race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership 
in a particular social group) or tortured upon return to Mexico will 
not be subject or remain subject to MPP. In such a situation, 
individuals are processed into the United States for the remainder of 
their removal proceedings.
    All noncitizens enrolled in MPP are provided with 24 hours to 
consult with a legal representative or consultant prior to their non-
refoulement interview. A noncitizen may request to waive the 24-hour 
consultation period. If a noncitizen requests to waive this 
consultation period, the asylum officer confirms that the noncitizen 
knowingly and voluntarily waived the 24-hour period.
    Question 2. In Mr. Nunez's testimony, he states that there has only 
been one family unit individual (who was later disenrolled). Is there a 
plan to enroll family units?
    Answer. DHS makes every effort, as permitted under the law, to 
preserve family unity. There is nothing in the public guidance that 
precludes enrollment of family units.
    Question 3a. In Mr. Nunez's testimony, he mentions a list of 
vulnerabilities that include those with known physical and mental 
health issues, disabilities, and advanced age are not eligible for MPP. 
When CBP officials observe or learn of a particular vulnerability, they 
make case-by-case decisions about whether the vulnerability falls 
within an exception to enrollment.
    Is DHS keeping records of what the vulnerabilities are that are 
being claimed?
    Question 3b. How is DHS ensuring that individuals do not claim fake 
vulnerabilities?
    Question 5a. On the vulnerable exemptions for individuals who are 
being enrolled in MPP: Please provide to the committee the complete 
list of all vulnerabilities that are considered under MPP.
    Question 5b. What standard does DHS use for the individual's 
claimed vulnerability? Is it a reasonable fear? A creditable fear? 
Please explain.
    Question 5c. Could you walk through the distinct steps DHS uses to 
screen a migrant for a vulnerability that would result in the 
individual's disqualification from MPP?
    Question 5d. Can a migrant claim one vulnerability initially--that 
is denied, be enrolled in MPP, and subsequently claim a different 
vulnerability after enrollment? If so, how are those claims treated and 
is there of record of vulnerabilities claimed?
    Answer. Particularly vulnerable individuals, to include those with 
known physical or mental health issues, advanced age, and at increased 
risk of harm in Mexico because of their sexual orientation or gender 
identity, are exempted from MPP on a case-by-case basis. While DHS 
tracks the number of individuals disenrolled from MPP, the collected 
data is not broken down by vulnerability type.
    However, vulnerability is different from fear. Individuals are 
proactively asked questions about fear of return to Mexico and provided 
time to consult with legal representatives if they raise a fear. The 
standard for non-refoulement interviews is the ``reasonable 
possibility,'' in line with certain other USCIS screening processes.
    If an individual enrolled in MPP and present in the United States 
expresses to a U.S. Government official a fear of harm if returned to 
Mexico, the individual is referred to USCIS for a non-refoulement 
interview with an asylum officer. Individuals who demonstrate a 
reasonable possibility of being persecuted on account of a statutorily-
protected ground or tortured upon return to Mexico will not be subject 
or remain subject to MPP. All asylum officers who conduct MPP non-
refoulement interviews (NRIs) have completed extensive training and 
have experience interviewing asylum seekers. Prior to conducting MPP 
NRIs, all asylum officers and supervisory asylum officers received MPP-
specific training.
    If an individual believes their circumstances changed significantly 
since they were first placed in MPP such that they should be removed 
from MPP, or that they clearly should not have been enrolled in MPP due 
to a particular vulnerability, they may submit a request to DHS for 
consideration on a case-by-case basis.
    Question 4a. DHS demobilized several MPP facilities in January 
2021--immediately after President Biden took office.
    Why did this occur and what costs has DHS incurred as the 
Department has stood these facilities back up?
    Answer. DHS spent a one-time cost of roughly $7.9 million to fully 
re-establish the Immigration Hearing Facilities (IHFs) used for MPP, 
with an additional $6.4 million a month for IHF operational costs. The 
IHFs were never completely demobilized and have existed since their 
initial procurement in the summer of 2019.
    The IHFs in Brownsville and Laredo, TX began operations around mid-
September 2019. These facilities continued operating as IHFs through 
April 17, 2021. At that time, CBP assumed the original IHF contract 
from ICE and converted the facilities into Centralized Processing 
Centers. The modification resulted in a reduced facility footprint to 
approximately 30% of the original IHF size at a cost of $2 million per 
month. The Brownsville and Laredo facilities were re-converted to IHFs 
effective November 4, 2022.
    Question 4b. Where did the money from standing these facilities 
back up come from?
    Answer. ICE is funding this effort from its fiscal year 2022 base 
resources to CBP via Interagency Agreement.
    Question 6. Please explain how the Department of Homeland Security 
intends to, ``to reimplement MPP in good faith'' as required by Federal 
court order.
    Answer. The administration continues to vigorously challenge the 
court injunction that requires reimplementation of MPP, and the 
termination will be effective as soon as practicable once the 
injunction is lifted.
    To comply with the court order, DHS is closely coordinating the 
court-mandated reimplementation of MPP with the government of Mexico to 
address security concerns and operational constraints. We continue to 
increase the number of individuals returned to Mexico at each 
designated port of entry as is operationally feasible and continue to 
closely coordinate the court-mandated reimplementation of MPP with the 
government of Mexico to address security concerns and operational 
constraints.
  Questions From Ranking Member Clay Higgins for Benjamine ``Carry'' 
                                Huffman
    Question 1. We heard from Border Patrol agents on the ground along 
the Southwest Border that DHS had instructed that certain individuals 
with existing family ties in the United States is not allowed to be 
enrolled or disenrolled in MPP.
    Please explain why these individuals are not eligible for MPP, 
despite not expressing a credible or reasonable fear, or having a 
vulnerability. Moving forward under MPP 2.0, will individuals with 
family ties in the United States be exempt from MPP?
    Answer. This is incorrect. An individual's family ties in the 
United States have no bearing on whether they are enrolled in Migrant 
Protection Protocols (MPP) where they are otherwise suitable for 
enrollment in the program. Rather, the Guidance Regarding the Court-
Ordered Reimplementation of the Migrant Protection Protocols states 
that: ``Family units will not be separated for the purposes of MPP 
enrollment'' (emphasis added). Simply put, members of family units 
arriving at the Southwest Border will either all be enrolled together 
in MPP or will all be placed together into a different processing 
pathway.
    Noncitizens who are excepted from MPP are:
   Unaccompanied children (UC), as defined in 6 U.S.C. 
        279(g)(2);
   U.S. lawful permanent residents;
   Noncitizens with an advance parole document or in parole 
        status;
   Noncitizens with criminal history;
   Noncitizens of law enforcement interest to the U.S. or 
        Mexican Governments, and
   Noncitizens with particular vulnerabilities.
    The following individuals will be presumed to be excepted from 
processing under MPP due to their particular vulnerabilities:
   Those with a known mental or physical health issue, 
        including a disability or a medical condition related to 
        pregnancy;
   Those with particular vulnerabilities given their advanced 
        age; and
   Those at increased risk of harm in Mexico due their sexual 
        orientation or gender identity.
    Question 2a. According to U.S. Customs and Border Protection's 
(CBP's) Southwest Border encounter numbers, in January 2022, there were 
almost 5,000 encounters per day. And the January 2022 MPP enrollee 
numbers were less than 13 per day.
    How does CBP make the decision to enroll a migrant in MPP versus a 
different Title 8 processing pathway (like expedited removal or issuing 
a notice to appear for immigration proceedings)?
    Answer. CBP agents and officers make a case processing disposition 
determination, to include enrollment in a specific processing pathway, 
at the time of apprehension or encounter taking into account the 
totality of the circumstances, to include available downstream 
processing resources such as U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement 
(ICE) detention capacity and criteria. Inadmissible noncitizens 
encountered within 96 hours of crossing between the ports of entry may 
be subject to placement in MPP if they are nationals of any country in 
the Western Hemisphere other than Mexico and are otherwise suitable for 
enrollment in the program pursuant to the DHS Guidance Regarding the 
Court-Ordered Reimplementation of the Migrant Protection protocols. The 
U.S. Government is currently enrolling individuals into MPP in good 
faith to comply with the court order. Enrollments are based on the DHS 
guiding principles.
    Question 2b. One of CBP's roles in the implementation of MPP is 
determining whether an individual is subject to MPP. How does CBP 
determine of those almost 5,000 individuals who will be enrolled in 
MPP?
    Answer. As of March 17, the U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) is expelling 
approximately 50 percent of daily apprehensions pursuant to the Centers 
for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Title 42 public health order 
(CDC Order). Individuals not subject to the CDC Order, including those 
not eligible for either expulsion under Title 42 such as unaccompanied 
children (UC) may be processed under any available Title 8 processing 
disposition and enrolled in any applicable processing pathway. 
Available dispositions and pathways include but are not limited to 
Expedited Removal, Reinstatement of Prior Order of Removal, and Warrant 
of Arrest/Notice to Appear. CBP agents and officers make a case 
processing disposition determination, to include enrollment in MPP, at 
the time of apprehension or encounter considering the totality of the 
circumstances, to include available downstream processing resources 
such as U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention 
capacity and criteria. Inadmissible noncitizens encountered within 96 
hours of crossing between the ports of entry may be subject to 
placement in MPP if they are nationals of any country in the Western 
Hemisphere other than Mexico and are otherwise suitable for enrollment 
in the program pursuant to the DHS Guidance Regarding the Court-Ordered 
Reimplementation of the Migrant Protection protocols.
   Question From Chairwoman Nanette Diaz Barragan for Emily Mendrala
    Question. Does DHS, the State Department, or the IOM track the 
number of individuals who decide to disenroll from MPP and remain in 
Mexico or return to their country of origin? If so, can you provide 
information on when and where individuals who have decided to disenroll 
from MPP have gone?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
     Questions From Ranking Member Clay Higgins for Emily Mendrala
    Question 1a. In Mr. Nunez-Neto's written testimony he says, 
``Additionally, the Department of State is working with international 
organizations to increase access to legal and other informational 
resources via shelters in Mexico, including through provision of WiFi 
and outfitting of private spaces that can be used to consult remotely 
with legal representatives or others.''
    What are the organizations involved and how much has each received 
to take part in this effort?
    Question 1b. Could you go into more detail on what services are 
being funded, and at what levels?
    Question 1c. How does this funding level compare to State 
Department funding of the original MPP program?
    Question 1d. What is the State Department's overarching strategy 
and spending plan for MPP-related projects?
    Question 1e. How much funding has the State Department provided to 
international organizations and non-profits for the reimplementation of 
MPP?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 2. Please explain how the Department of State intends to, 
``to reimplement MPP in good faith'' as required by Federal court 
order.
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
   Questions From Chairwoman Nanette Diaz Barragan for Timothy Roemer
    Question 1. During my recent oversight trip, Border Patrol agents 
stated that they only ask migrants about fear of returning to Mexico 
and not whether they meet specific vulnerabilities that would exempt 
them from MPP.
    Why is this the case and will DHS consider changing this?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 2a. While in San Diego, CBP informed us that migrants had 
to arrive at the port of entry with the International Organization for 
Migration (IOM) for their court appearance. However, the IOM and State 
Department were telling migrants that they could arrive at the port of 
entry on their own or with advocates from other organizations.
    What is the policy and how will this communication lapse be 
addressed?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 2b. What actions will the administration take to help 
migrants who arrived at the port of entry on their own at the 
designated time but were not allowed in by CBP? Is the administration 
even tracking this group?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 3. What special accommodations does CBP provide illiterate 
migrants, or migrants who speak indigenous languages native to certain 
areas of Mexico and Central America, to ensure they understand the 
process and the documents they are signing?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 4. Does DHS, the State Department, or the IOM track the 
number of individuals who decide to disenroll from MPP and remain in 
Mexico or return to their country of origin? If so, can you provide 
information on when and where individuals who have decided to disenroll 
from MPP have gone?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 5. How is the reimplementation of MPP impacting the other 
priority missions on the Southwest Border, such as processing legal 
trade and travel at ports of entry?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
     Questions From Chairman Bennie G. Thompson for Timothy Roemer
    Question 1. Why are so few individuals being found to have a fear 
of return to Mexico during their NRI despite reports of thousands of 
kidnappings and attacks against migrants and asylum seekers returned to 
Mexico this past year?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 2. Why did DHS make the choice to expand the program to 
non-Spanish speaking individuals, like Haitians? These individuals are 
particularly vulnerable, and I find that choice very concerning.
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 3. While we appreciate DHS is taking steps to provide 
migrants with counsel, we have heard concerns that access to counsel in 
this program is not meaningful. There are very few lawyers available 
and 24 hours to consult is too little time to prepare. How does DHS 
intend to strengthen legal access?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
    Question 4. How is DHS headquarters ensuring that CBP sector chiefs 
are implementing the practices and protocols set by headquarters?
    Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.

                                 [all]