U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

88–919 PDF 2014

U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JULY 29, 2014 

Serial No. 113–99 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

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

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia, Chairman 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TED POE, Texas 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

RAU ́ L LABRADOR, Idaho 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina 

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia 

RON DeSANTIS, Florida 

JASON T. SMITH, Missouri 

[Vacant] 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., 

Georgia 

PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

JUDY CHU, California 

TED DEUTCH, Florida 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

KAREN BASS, California 

CEDRIC RICHMOND, Louisiana 

SUZAN DelBENE, Washington 

JOE GARCIA, Florida 

HAKEEM JEFFRIES, New York 

DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

SHELLEY HUSBAND, Chief of Staff & General Counsel 

PERRY APELBAUM, Minority Staff Director & Chief Counsel 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

JULY 29, 2014 

Page 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

The Honorable Bob Goodlatte, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Virginia, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary ................................. 1 

The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Michigan, and Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary ......... 3 

The Honorable Jason Chaffetz, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Utah, and Member, Committee on the Judiciary .......................................... 4 

The Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California, and Member, Committee on the Judiciary ................................. 6 

WITNESS 

The Honorable Leon Rodriguez, Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 

Services 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 9 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 11 

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Texas, and Member, Committee on the 

Judiciary ............................................................................................................... 7 

Material submitted by the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, and Member, Committee on the Judiciary ......................................................................................................................... 32

Material submitted by the Honorable Judy Chu, a Representative in Congress 

from the State of California, and Member, Committee on the Judiciary ........ 47 

Material submitted by the Honorable Louie Gohmert, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of Texas, and Member, Committee on the Judiciary ......................................................................................................................... 60

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

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

Material submitted by the Honorable Spencer Bachus, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of Alabama, and Member, Committee on the 

Judiciary ............................................................................................................... 79 

(1) 

U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND 

IMMIGRATION SERVICES 

TUESDAY, JULY 29, 2014 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:31 a.m., in room 

2141, Rayburn Office Building, the Honorable Bob Goodlatte, 

(Chairman of the Committee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Goodlatte, Coble, Smith of Texas, 

Chabot, Bachus, Forbes, King, Franks, Gohmert, Poe, Chaffetz, 

Marino, Holding, Collins, Smith of Missouri, Conyers, Scott, Lofgren, Jackson Lee, Chu, Deutch, Gutierrez, and Cicilline. 

Staff Present: (Majority) Shelley Husband, Chief of Staff & General Counsel; Branden Ritchie, Deputy Chief of Staff & Chief Counsel; Allison Halataei, Parliamentarian & General Counsel; Andrea 

Loving, Counsel; George Fishman, Counsel; Dimple Shah, Counsel; 

Kelsey Deterding, Clerk; (Minority) Perry Apelbaum, Staff Director 

& Chief Counsel; Danielle Brown, Parliamentarian; and Tom 

Jawetz, Counsel. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Good morning. The Judiciary Committee will 

come to order. 

Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare recesses of 

the Committee at any time. 

We welcome everyone to this morning’s hearing on oversight of 

the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, and I will begin by 

recognizing myself for an opening statement. 

Welcome to the House Judiciary Committee, Director Rodriguez. 

I understand that this is your first time testifying in front of Congress as the Director of USCIS. 

Your appearance comes at a time when Americans are feeling 

the repercussions of the illegal immigration crisis on the southwest 

U.S. border. 

Of course, if President Obama took seriously his duty to secure 

the U.S. border and enforce laws against illegal immigration, there 

would be no such crisis. 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection is the DHS agency getting 

most of the attention during this southwest border crisis. But there 

is no doubt that policies implemented by USCIS are a major source 

of the problem. And by that I mean policies such as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, a rubberstamping of credible 
2 

fear of persecution claims, and even higher asylum grant rates by 

USCIS officers. 

DACA is a major reason for the influx of illegal immigrants to 

the United States. And discussion of the program is pertinent since 

USCIS recently announced the method by which the renewal of initial 2-year grants of DACA will be processed. 

And along with that procedure, USCIS made changes to the 

original DACA guidelines and requirements, including gutting the 

education requirements. 

I have previously expressed concern about the lack of any constitutional authority to implement DACA, the costs of the program, 

increased wait times for processing of legal immigration petitions 

directly resulting from DACA processing, and fraud in the program. 

Fraud is of paramount concern since an immigration system subject to rampant fraud is a national security risk. 

So I was particularly astounded in May when the USCIS added 

question and answer number 21 to its existing DACA guidance. It 

is an absolute invitation for fraud in which USCIS virtually admits 

that it will not verify the validity of documents submitted by applicants as evidence of DACA eligibility. 

I understand that when USCIS leadership was asked about question 21, congressional staff members were assured that ‘‘generally, 

the majority of documents received are valid.’’ But forgive me if 

such an assurance is not comforting, especially now that USCIS is 

broadcasting its lack of intention to even attempt validation. 

USCIS processes over 6 million applications and petitions per 

year. I understand the magnitude of that responsibility. And the 

enormous volume of work should make antifraud measures all the 

more important. 

Unfortunately, what we have been hearing for years from sources 

at USCIS, and even the USCIS union, is the existence of a culture 

of ‘‘getting to yes,’’ unrelenting pressure on adjudicators to 

rubberstamp applications, and also of a culture where line adjudicators are routinely overridden when they deny applications or 

petitions. 

There are documented instances of employees in leadership at 

USCIS taking control of applications or petitions that have been 

brought to their attention by immigration lawyers or other outside 

forces. And I understand that there are ongoing investigations of 

such illegitimate interference in the adjudication process. 

The very notion that an application can be approved despite 

fraud on the part of the applicant, and that USCIS leadership will 

intervene if they get a call or email from an outside party interested in a certain visa application, is disturbing, to say the least. 

We know that the President has promised more administrative 

action to allow unlawful immigrants to remain in the United States 

and receive quasi-legal status and the right to work. In fact, some 

of the different tactics he may try to take were even outlined in a 

set of 2010 leaked USCIS memos regarding ‘‘Administrative Alternatives to Comprehensive Immigration Reform’’ and ‘‘Immigration 

Administrative Relief Options.’’ 

However, let’s be clear, such policies of this Administration, including many implemented at USCIS, as well as promises about fu-
3 

ture administrative legalizations, continue to encourage unlawful 

immigrant parents to smuggle their children into the United 

States. 

These policies and promises are putting money directly into the 

pockets of human smuggling and drug cartels. And they are undermining the fundamental constitutional principles that Congress 

creates the laws and the President is bound to enforce them. 

I am interested in hearing how, under Director Rodriguez’s leadership, USCIS will no longer contribute to this state of affairs. And 

I look forward to the director’s testimony. 

It is now my pleasure to recognize the Ranking Member of the 

Committee, the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Conyers, for his 

opening statement. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Chairman Goodlatte, and Members of 

the Committee. 

In a nutshell, the United States Citizenship and Immigration 

Services is vital in examining the young people who are coming 

across our southern border. 

And I want to suggest that before we leave for 5 weeks, that we 

try to ease the deportation of children and appropriate emergency 

funds, because we have too few judges, too few asylum officers. We 

have 243 immigration judges for 375,000 cases. We are talking 

about a more than 4-year backlog, my colleagues. So youngsters 

with valid claims should have a speedier way to have that determined. 

Now, those without valid claims, I am sorry to say, should be 

sent back. But that determination is what democracy is all about. 

And it is our responsibility to be careful in how we do this. 

I know the strong feelings about these youngsters pouring over 

here. But the question is, how do we dispose of it consistent with 

democratic principles that guide us? And nowhere should this be 

more keenly felt than the House Judiciary Committee itself. 

So we must determine, even though there may be violence, persecution, trafficking, we are at a recess, and we still don’t know. 

Throughout this session of Congress, there have been too many 

of us who have had but one theme: The President isn’t enforcing 

immigration law. 

And this is a myth, a myth that has been debunked in hearing 

after hearing, where we have heard about record-breaking detentions, removals, and prosecutions. 

Still, the majority is not persuaded by facts, and continues to 

blame the President for their inaction on immigration reform. 

Many of them have argued that the President’s use of prosecutorial discretion is unconstitutional, and we should be removing 

young people who seek the opportunity, if they qualify, to live, 

work, and study in the United States. They have said that our laws 

protecting people fleeing persecution and torture in their home 

countries should be rolled back, and that more of them should be 

detained for longer periods of time. 

And most recently, some have used a humanitarian crisis affecting women and young children in Central America to say that we 

cannot fix our broken immigration system and provide relief to millions of undocumented Americans living within our borders. And 

that begins right in this important Committee. 
4 

So today, let’s listen carefully. Over a year ago, the United States 

Senate passed a comprehensive immigration reform bill, allowing 

millions of individuals to apply for earned legal status. The House 

majority has refused to bring the bill or its companion bill, H.R. 15, 

for a vote. 

The Congressional Budget Office tells us that we would reduce our deficit by $900 billion over 20 years through these proposals. 

So this refusal to bring a bill to the floor, despite the fact that 

an overwhelming majority of Americans support comprehensive immigration reform, is something that I feel very badly about. If such 

a bill were brought to the floor, I am confident that it would pass 

even the House of Representatives in the 113th Congress. 

Unfortunately, I am beginning to think that the only immigration bill that we might ever see in this Congress will be a bill to 

strip protections that all of us unanimously agreed to extend to 

child victims of trafficking, persecution, torture, and abuse. 

I feel that we can do better than this. We were sent here to solve 

problems that demand action on comprehensive immigration reform. 

So I urge my colleagues, majority and minority in the House, to 

end the delay and to start acting. 

And I join the Chairman in welcoming our distinguished witness, 

and I yield back the balance of my time. Thank you. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the Ranking Member. 

It is my understanding that the Ranking Member of the Immigration and Border Security Subcommittee would like to make an 

opening statement. Ordinarily, we would ask at this time that 

Members put their opening statements in the record. However, noting her request, and noting that the Chairman of the Subcommittee is not present, the Chair will turn to the gentleman 

from Utah, Mr. Chaffetz, for an opening statement, and then turn 

to the gentlewoman. And then we will put all other opening statements into the record. 

So the gentleman from Utah, Mr. Chaffetz, is recognized for his 

opening statement. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. I thank the Chairman, and I appreciate you holding this. This is obviously a vital issue to the United States, and 

it is something that is exploding on our borders and exploding in 

this country. 

As somebody who represents good, hardworking Americans who 

are doing the right thing, they are paying the taxes, they are working hard, they are trying to take care of their kids, they may be 

an individual who has just graduated and trying get their feet on 

the ground, there is a whole other wave of people who are coming 

here. 

And I happen to believe, Mr. Chairman, that there is a proper 

place for asylum for those people who are truly in harm’s way, 

whose life is in danger. This is a country that has had open arms. 

But we are being taken advantage of, and by great numbers. 

The flow coming across our border is just absolutely unbelievable. By every metric, every account, everything I have seen, people 

who are coming here and trying to take advantage of the United 

States of America and our generosity are overwhelming the system. 

And the consequence is, we have people who are legally and law-
5 

fully trying to come to this country, we have been ignoring those 

people. 

The people who are legally and lawfully getting in line and trying to do it the right way, trying to come in the front door, what 

about those people? Because the resources that we have had to 

take for those who are not willing to play by the rules have put 

a great strain upon the system, a huge strain upon the system. 

And that is why I think this hearing here is so vital today. We 

have to address some very important topics. Those people who are 

coming across and claiming asylum—and they are not just coming 

from one or two countries. 

When I went and visited the border, I went to the detention facility in Phoenix, there were representatives from 60 different countries that were trying to come across the border. They were overwhelming the system. 

When I visited the Phoenix ICE office, and we were talking to 

them about what is going on in the system right now, you had people literally knocking on their door every day, saying, ‘‘Please, arrest me, because I want to get in the system.’’ 

The system just generally works like this. You come in, you 

make your claim, you are going to get some sort of court date. Now, 

in Phoenix, when I was there, what they told me, and this was in 

2013, is you would get a court date in 2020. 

In the meantime, what are you going to do? You are going to say, 

‘‘Well, because my court date is so far in the future, I need to be 

able to work.’’ And then we grant these people a work permit. 

So now they get free education, free health care, and they have 

a work permit to compete against somebody who is legally, lawfully 

here, whether they are on a green card or whether they are maybe 

a United States citizen competing for those jobs. 

Again, we can be compassionate, but the reality is, President 

Obama and this Administration have created a magnet. And the 

magnet says this, ‘‘Come step foot in the United States of America 

and nothing is going to happen to you. There is not going to be consequence to this.’’ 

It is unfair. It is not right. 

The President owns this issue. The President has created this 

situation. There is a reason why particularly the unaccompanied 

minors are flowing across the border. Because they don’t feel like 

anything is going to happen to them. 

We are going to take care of them. We will go ahead and take 

you and then we will pass you off to somebody else. If you have 

a little note in your pocket, we will pass you off to somebody else. 

Do we do any background checks on who we are passing these 

minors to? No. No, we don’t. 

Do we check the legal status of the person we are handing them 

off to? No. This Administration doesn’t do that. 

It is fundamentally and to its core wrong. And a key part of this 

system is what the United States Citizenship and Immigration 

Services does along with this process. 

We have a lot of good men and women. They are patriotic. They 

are working hard. They are trying to the right thing for their country. 
6 

But I worry about the direction that they are given, the direction 

that they are being given by their management. And I worry what 

this Administration is telling them to do or not to do. And that is 

of deep concern. 

So, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate you holding this hearing. A lot 

of Members have great questions that I look forward to hearing 

today. And I yield back. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The Chair thanks the gentleman, and recognizes the gentlewoman from California, the Ranking Member of the 

Immigration and Border Security Subcommittee, Ms. Lofgren, for 

her opening statement. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me begin by welcoming our witness not only to today’s hearing, but also to his new position as director of the U.S. Citizenship 

and Immigration Services. 

I think it is fair to say that USCIS doesn’t usually get the kind 

of attention that the rest of the components of DHS do, but its mission is very important. 

As we know, USCIS adjudicates a wide array of immigrant and 

nonimmigrant petitions. Families hoping to reunite, businesses 

searching for talent, persons fleeing persecution and torture, lawful 

permanent residents applying to become American citizens all go 

through your agency. And it is critically important to our country 

that your agency performs well. 

It is also important to point out that USCIS is responsible for all 

of these important activities without any taxpayer money. It is entirely fee-driven except for a minor amount that is basically used 

to implement E-Verify. All of the applicants pay for the services 

they receive. 

Now, why is this important to our country? I sometimes mention 

my grandfather, who came to the United States in the early 20th 

century. He got on a boat, got off the boat, and I am in Congress 

today because he had the courage to want the American dream. 

And the director’s own story of his family fleeing Turkey and Poland to escape anti-Semitism to Cuba, and then fleeing Cuba to escape communism. And here he is today, part of the rich American 

fabric. 

I have always admired immigrants who have enough get up and 

go to get up and go. They made our country. And we who are here 

have inherited that rich history, and we are now in a position to 

help shape the future for those who come after us. And it is incumbent upon us that we preserve that legacy. 

Now, there are many topics that will be discussed today, but I 

want to touch on the issue because it has already been mentioned 

about the unaccompanied children who have been apprehended at 

the southwest border. 

As we know, these individuals are, under law, placed in the safekeeping of the Department of Health and Human Services. But it 

is USCIS asylum officers who determine whether there is a wellfounded fear of persecution. And in the director’s written testimony, he explains that almost 65 percent of the asylum applications filed by unaccompanied children that have been adjudicated 

this fiscal year have been approved. 
7 

Now, some argue that this somehow means that there is a 

rubberstamp of these applications, or that the asylum system is 

vulnerable to fraud and abuse. I look at that statistic and think 

that these are vulnerable children who are fleeing persecution and 

extreme violence, and they are thankful that they are receiving the 

protection to which they are entitled under domestic and international law. 

I think it is worth pointing out that an application for asylum 

isn’t illegal. That is part of our immigration laws, and it has been 

since after World War II. 

Now, children who have been abandoned, abused, or neglected 

and who obtain a State court order can apply to USCIS for special 

immigrant juvenile (SIJ) status. The director notes that over 3,900 

applications for this SIJ status have been received this fiscal year. 

Those of us who went to South Texas this month know that these 

applications require a finding by a State court that these children 

have been abandoned. A State court makes that determination, and 

it is only then that USCIS will proceed. 

Now, children who have been victims of severe forms of human 

trafficking are eligible for a T visa. It is important that we maintain and defend this procedure. 

As Mr. Conyers has pointed out, we had a nearly unanimous vote 

in 2008 that put the Congress and America on record saying we 

will fight human trafficking and we will make sure that the victims 

of human trafficking are given safe haven in the United States. 

Much of this discussion in the Congress and in the country has 

overlooked the fact that the Wilberforce act is about human trafficking, slavery, and sex trafficking. And if we are to eliminate the 

protections in that act, what we will be saying is that we will once 

again countenance the victims of trafficking being returned to their 

traffickers. 

I will say this, that we did make an exception for the children 

from contiguous countries. And we have learned, much to our sorrow, that those exceptions need to be revisited, because the United 

Nations, at our request, has reviewed our processes and found that 

children from contiguous countries who have been trafficked are, in 

fact, being returned to their traffickers. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to this hearing, and I 

yield back. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The Chair thanks the gentlewoman. 

And without objection, all other Members’ opening statements 

will be made a part of the record. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Jackson Lee follows:] 

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Texas, and Member, Committee on the Judiciary 

I would like to thank Chairman Goodlatte and Ranking Member Conyers for holding this timely oversight hearing on the United States Citizenship and Immigration 

Service. 

Mr. Chairman this hearing is timely because as you know we are a year and one 

month removed from having passed out of this Committee several bills pertaining 

to immigration. 

The bills were agriculture, border security, employment, and workplace compliance. But since then: nothing. 
8 

We do the American people a disservice when we hold consecutive hearings on 

topics like asylum, Unaccompanied Minors, and other topics in order to sandbag the 

efforts of the millions of Americans who want to do comprehensive immigration reform. 

I wish to thank our witness: Mr. Leon Rodriguez, Director, USCIS. 

Director Rodriguez has a very rich personal history as an immigrant son from 

Turkey and Poland and a former prosecutor, leading me to believe that he will perform his duties in a professional manner. 

To that end, I appreciate his outreach to the 8.8 million permanent residents currently eligible to apply for citizenship who have not done so. 

The United States is a country made up of immigrants, and it is part of what 

makes us so strong and vibrant. And while immigration reform remains an unsolved 

challenge for our nation, House Democrats are leading the way towards comprehensive reform. 

Indeed, the decision made by President Obama two years ago to defer deportation 

action against young people who were brought here by undocumented parents but 

have been raised here in our country was an important step in the right direction. 

This decision has helped ensure that over half-a-million hard-working, eager, and 

talented individuals who came here not of their own choice, and who are contributing to our economy and our defense, can remain here and continue to be part of 

building a strong future for America. 

Now we are faced, Mr. Chairman, with the surge of unaccompanied children on 

our southern border. They do not pose a threat to our national security; nevertheless 

the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act must be passed before Congress 

leaves town for its district work-recess. 

Contrary to the shrill rhetoric used by some commentators, the nation is not being 

invaded by an army of children dispatched to do us harm. In fact Mr. Chairman, 

one month ago you and I witnessed the deplorable conditions with your own eyes— 

babies as young as three years old. 

We are confronted with a humanitarian crisis resulting from the alarming scale 

of violence and economic desperation in three Central American countries: El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala. Politicizing the issue will not solve the problem. 

Taking actions that address the root causes in the short and long term will. 

In the short term, we need to allocate the resources needed to deal with the increase in unaccompanied children seeking refuge in the United States. 

Under current law, each such child is placed in deportation status immediately 

but given the opportunity to present their case for asylum to an immigration judge. 

This is a fair process and avoids the re-victimizing of children who fled their home 

country to escape horrible violence. 

These cases involve children who are fleeing lethal violence or are victims of crime 

or human trafficking and are eligible for a temporary stay in the United States 

under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008, passed in 2008 

by Congress and signed by President George W. Bush. That law provides persons 

fleeing lethal violence or escape from human trafficking the opportunity to have 

their case heard by an immigration judge. 

Yet this Congress has failed to provide any resources needed to fund the courts 

and judges needed to send these children through the legal system; therefore, we 

should fund the number of immigration judges needed. Without them, the result is 

a current average delay of 578 days to hear over 366,000 pending cases. 

Because this situation is untenable for everyone—law enforcement, taxpayers, and 

individuals petitioning for relief, the first thing that we can and should do to reduce 

the backlog is pass the emergency supplemental and provide the funding needed to 

appoint 70 new immigration judges, as provided under legislation I recently introduced, H.R. 4990, the Justice For All Children Act. 

I remain committed to working with my colleagues, on a bipartisan basis, on this 

very important issue, and would hope for a spill-over effect into the realm of comprehensive immigration reform. 

I remain committed to advocating for common sense enforcement measures as 

part of a broader immigration reform package that will further secure our borders, 

ensure agricultural interests have an ample labor supply, universities and businesses are not short workers, and proper work-place compliance is achieved, but 

also uphold our values as a Nation of immigrants. 

Thank you. I yield back my time. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. We now thank our only witness, the director, for 

joining us today. 
9 

Director Rodriguez, if you would please rise, I will begin by 

swearing you in. 

[Witness sworn.] 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Let the record reflect that Director Rodriguez 

responded in the affirmative. 

Mr. Rodriguez serves as the director of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, the Department of Homeland 

Security agency responsible for administering and processing immigration benefits, including asylum, naturalization, and visa petitions. 

Prior to joining USCIS, Mr. Rodriguez was, first, an Assistant 

U.S. Attorney in Pittsburgh, led the Department of Labor’s Wage 

and Hour Division, and served as the head of Office of Civil Rights 

within the Department of Health and Human Services, respectively. 

He attended Brown University, where he earned a bachelor of 

arts in history in 1984. Mr. Rodriguez received his J.D. from Boston College in 1988. 

Thank you very much for coming, and we look forward to your 

testimony. 

Your written statement will be entered in its entirety into the 

record, and I ask that you summarize your testimony in 5 minutes. 

To help you stay within that time, there is a timing light on the 

table. When it turns yellow, that means you have 1 minute left to 

summarize your testimony. 

Thank you, and thank you for being here today, and you may 

begin. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE LEON RODRIGUEZ, 

DIRECTOR, U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Thank you, Chairman Goodlatte. And good 

morning, Ranking Member Conyers, Congressman Chaffetz, Ranking Member Lofgren, and the other Members of the Committee. 

I am extremely honored to be the new director of the United 

States Citizenship and Immigration Services, and to be before you 

today. I hope that today is the beginning of a long and fruitful and 

constructive relationship that I will have with this Committee as 

a whole and with its members, in particular. 

I am also honored to be the leader of more than 18,000 extremely 

dedicated men and women who are the employees of the United 

States Citizenship and Immigration Services. I have worked in 

many different government positions. I have worked in the private 

sector. And I can say, even after the short time in office, that as 

a country, we really should be pleased to have extreme level of talent, commitment, and work ethic that characterizes so many of the 

people that I have had the opportunity to meet in these last 3 

weeks. 

I accepted this job because I am a patriot. I am a patriot who 

believes that America is, indeed, unique in its freedom, its equality, 

its energy, and its enterprise. And those qualities are the product 

of the kind of people who are in this country and who come to this 

country. 
10 

They are people who work hard. They are people who take risks. 

They are people who are dedicated to making a better life for their 

family. 

Those kinds of people come from all over and do all kinds of 

things. They can be tomato pickers. They can be physicists. They 

can be captains of industry. They can be plumbers. 

And for me, the challenge as Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, and the reason I am embracing this challenge, 

is to create a fair and efficient system for those individuals to find 

a place in our society. 

I am the son and grandson of immigrants. My parents did flee 

communism in Cuba, and my grandparents fled both anti-Semitism 

and hardship in both Turkey and Poland. These are certainly 

motivators for my work here as well. Like so many, my parents 

hoped for a better future for me and for my sister as well. 

I have spent the majority of my career as a law enforcement officer. I don’t need to have done that to know that there are many 

people who wish the United States harm. So I do view it as a very 

solemn and important part of my work to safeguard the security 

and safety of the United States. 

I would like to relate two particular experiences that I have had 

during my few days as director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. I had the honor of attending a naturalization ceremony, where 53 different countries were represented, showing the 

remarkable energy and talent that continue to pursue the dream 

of becoming new Americans every day. 

And I had the opportunity recently to meet with the recently returned refugee processing team from our Refugee Asylum and 

International Operations Division that had recently come back 

from Iraq. These are incredibly dedicated and talented public servants, who I can say with great confidence inspired me when I 

heard the stories of the work that they do. 

Now we have some challenging issues to talk about today. I have 

no doubt that we will be talking about the Deferred Action for 

Childhood Arrivals program. I can say that as a former prosecutor, 

I have exercised discretion. I have worked for leaders who exercised that discretion. That is not anything novel in the various enforcement enterprises in our country. 

It is my view that DACA provides an opportunity to exercise 

prosecutorial discretion. For example, for an individual who I just 

met who is about to receive her degree at Harvard, or another individual who is in medical school and trying to decide whether to be 

a dermatologist or an OB/GYN. 

I imagine we will also speak this morning about the crisis at the 

border. I think, as has been noted, the President has, indeed, recognized this as a very serious problem, as has my agency and as has 

Secretary Johnson. 

I would like this morning to talk in more detail about how our 

asylum process works, and the degree to which these asylum 

claims actually play a role in this crisis. 

I look forward to our continuing conversation this morning. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rodriguez follows:] 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Director Rodriguez. 

With the indulgence of the Committee, I would like to take a few 

minutes away from this hearing to talk about someone who was a 

dear friend of mine, a mentor, and a Member of the House Judiciary Committee, my predecessor representing the Sixth District of 

Virginia, Congressman M. Caldwell Butler, who passed away last 

night around midnight. 

He served in the House of Representatives from a special election 

in 1972 until his retirement at the beginning of 1983. He served 

on this Committee, I believe, that entire time. 

And he served here with great distinction at a time when this 

Committee went through some very difficult issues, including his 

being very actively involved in the Watergate investigation and in 

the impeachment proceedings related to former President Richard 

Nixon. 

He was a public servant in the truest sense of the word. He has 

given immeasurably to his country, his State, and his community, 

Roanoke, Virginia, where he lived his entire life, and to which he 

was extremely dedicated. 

He attended the Roanoke public schools, and he earned an undergraduate degree at the University of Richmond and his law degree from the University of Virginia. He was admitted to the Virginia bar in 1950, and he commenced practice in Roanoke. He also 

served in the United States Navy. 

He served in the Virginia House of Delegates from Roanoke from 

1962 to 1971, and served as the minority leader from 1966 to 1971. 

He was a friend of everyone who knew him, and someone who 

I had great respect. He will be badly missed. His wife, June, passed 

on just a month ago. And it is a great loss for the Roanoke community and for our country. 

And I thank the Committee for allowing me to remember him for 

a few moments here. 

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The gentleman from Michigan served in the 

House of Representatives and on this Committee with Congressman Butler, and I would love to recognize him for a few words. 

Mr. CONYERS. I thank you very much, and so did Zoe Lofgren 

serve with him. 

I remember him very well. There are very few conservatives that 

I remember going back that far as clearly as I remember him, because he was an impressive Member of the Congress. 

We exchanged views on an almost regular basis, but our friendship was never impaired by the different perspectives that we had 

on how government should run. So I join you, Mr. Chairman, in observing and remembering a distinguished Member of the House Judiciary Committee. 

I would like to yield to the gentlelady from California, for any 

comments you might make. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I appreciate your yielding. 

I was a young law student working for Congressman Don Edwards, also a Member of the Committee, and I remember Mr. Butler very well. He was a person who we all admired, even if we did 

not agree on everything that he thought. He was a man of tremen-
25 

dous principle, totally honest, and totally brave in standing up for 

what he thought was right and the Constitution. 

He will be greatly missed. I count myself as one of his many admirers, and I remember him quite fondly from my days as a young 

staffer. 

I thank the gentleman for yielding. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman from Michigan and the 

gentlewoman from California for their remarks. 

We all offer our sincere condolences to the Butler family. They 

are in our thoughts and prayers in this difficult time. 

It was a great honor to know and to have the privilege of working for Caldwell Butler. I learned a great deal from him over the 

years. And his guidance and wisdom will be missed by me and 

many others. 

I thank you all for allowing me to say a few words. 

We will now turn to the questioning of Director Rodriguez. 

Director, I know that you are new to the job, so I would like to 

get your perspective on some things that have concerned us greatly 

and see whether there is an opportunity to correct some things, or 

to clarify what the USCIS is doing in certain areas. 

As I mentioned in my opening statement, question 21 of the revised Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, frequently 

asked questions, states, ‘‘Will USCIS verify documents or statements that I provide in support of a request for DACA?’’ 

And the USCIS answer is, ‘‘USCIS has the authority to verify 

documents, facts, and statements that are provided in support of 

request for DACA. USCIS may contact education institutions, other 

government agencies, employers, or other entities in order to verify 

information.’’ 

This answer seems to put applicants on notice that USCIS in 

most cases will not in fact verify the validity of documents submitted to satisfy eligibility requirements. And thus, the frequently 

asked questions invites fraud. 

If USCIS takes seriously its stated antifraud commitment, why 

is it a good step to basically notify potential applicants that documents will not be verified? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I really appreciate the opportunity to work with 

you and this Committee on various concerns that they may have. 

And as I understand the concern here is the suggestion that there 

will not be a systematic verification of the authenticity of documents presented at the time of DACA renewals. 

It is my understanding that there is scrutiny of these documents, 

certainly at the time of initial application. We have a robust fraud 

detection and national security directorate that includes a number 

of former law enforcement and military officials among its ranks 

that engages in a variety of systematic checks of any individual 

who seeks any sort of benefit from USCIS as to criminal history, 

terrorist behavior, possibly other threats to the United States. 

And our adjudicators also receive training, so that they can in 

appropriate instances flag applications for benefits that appear to 

present fraud. 

It is for that reason that the agency felt comfortable in saying 

that in the ordinary course of business, while there would not be 
26 

a specific attempt to authenticate particular documents, that there 

is an ability that our adjudicators have to look at documents. And 

if they do present concerns at the time of the review during the adjudication process, to flag those applications for further review. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. A great many applications contain fraudulent 

documents. It would seem to me that a better policy would be to 

say that the documents are going to be reviewed and to leave applicants with the impression that they should not submit fraudulent 

documents, that they will be checked, and that if they are found 

to be fraudulent, that there are severe consequences that would befall someone submitting fraudulent documents to your organization. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the concern that you 

have raised. I am in the process right now of reviewing all of the 

agency’s processes. Certainly, one of the things that I will be dedicating special attention to are any issues related to national security or fraud. Those are, certainly, high priorities for me. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you. Let me go on to another question. 

The President has indicated his intention to continue to act administratively to change U.S. immigration policy when and if Congress does not do so in a manner to the President’s liking. 

He has previously acted on DACA, expansion of parole, reducing 

the issuance of notices to appear for unlawful immigrants, prosecutorial discretion regarding removal of unlawful and deportable 

aliens, and several other means. 

As you entered the agency a few weeks ago, you must have received a briefing on the status of the next administrative action. 

Would you please tell us what is next on the President’s agenda? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Let me be clear, and I think the Administration 

has also been clear about this, no decisions have been made. The 

directive that we have received is to examine possibilities for different avenues to exercising that prosecutorial discretion. I know 

that our Secretary is in a process of engaging with frontline employees at DHS, Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle, 

and stakeholders from a broad spectrum of American society. 

That process is ongoing, and no decisions have yet been made in 

that process. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The Speaker’s Border Crisis Working Group, of 

which I am a member, recently met with Secretary Johnson. During that meeting, I asked the Secretary what would be needed in 

order to address the surge in those claiming credible fear. Secretary Johnson indicated that a change in law to strengthen the 

credible fears standard would be necessary to fix the current situation. 

Do you agree with Secretary Johnson that such a fix is needed? 

Secretary Johnson then said that while a fix is needed, now is 

not the appropriate time to fix the credible fear standard. When 

claims have gone from 5,000 to an estimated 50,000 in a short 

number of years, and your testimony indicates that those claiming 

credible fear are part of the surge, why is this not the time to fix 

this weak standard? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I would like to put this issue in a little bit of 

perspective. At this point, roughly 15 percent of individuals being 

apprehended at the border are presenting credible fear claims. We 
27 

have surged our own capacity to address these claims. We have 

moved personnel to the various border processing areas, such as 

Artesia, to process those claims. We have accelerated our review 

time to a period of 8 days, so as to ensure—— 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I am sorry. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Go ahead. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Yes, so as to ensure that we adjudicate those 

claims as efficiently as possible. 

I think that because at least USCIS has been able to surge in 

that manner, I think that is the basis for which the Secretary may 

have suggested that now may not be the time to address this particular issue. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. In point of fact, the initial credible fear hearing 

is now resulting in 92 percent of those cases being approved to 

move on to the next status in the process, which involves the detention of people or releasing those people into the United States. 

As we know, a great percentage of those do not return for their 

subsequent hearing. So it would seem to me that increasing that 

standard, and doing it now, would send word to people that if they 

truly are seeking political asylum in the United States, they should 

state that when they come to this country and be prepared to show 

that it is at least as likely than not that they have a case that deserves to go on to that final hearing, rather than simply being 

rubberstamped through, as I would argue they are being now. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Congressman, I think I would not necessarily 

adopt the view that these claims are being rubberstamped through. 

On my third day in office, I sat in on a credible fear interview. 

I am a former prosecutor. I have conducted probably thousands of 

interrogations myself. I was very favorably impressed, actually, by 

the quality of the interrogation that I saw, by the probing nature 

of the interrogation that I saw. So I do think these interviews are 

being conducted in an effective manner. 

That said, the legal standard to establish credible fear is obviously a threshold standard that only then qualifies the individual 

for later adjudication. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. But those later adjudications are now rising to 

approval rates that approach 70 percent, which is, to my knowledge, much higher than it has been in previous years. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. In acknowledging that concern, Chairman, I look 

forward to a continuing conversation about this issue. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The Chair thanks the gentleman. The time has 

expired. 

And the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. 

Conyers, for his questions. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Would you discuss, Director Rodriguez, the sheer numbers that 

we are talking about? How many young people have come across 

our southwest border so far this year and last year and the year 

before? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Congressman, I apologize that as I sit before 

you, I can’t tell you the specific numbers. Certainly, those numbers 

have grown over time. They remain essentially in the tens of thousands. But it is a fact that those numbers continue to grow. 
28 

Mr. CONYERS. I have 50,000 for 2013, 25,000 for 2012, and an 

even lesser number for 2011. Does that figure in agreeably with 

your thoughts on this? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. My general understanding is that the trend 

until very recently was an upward trend. I think that trend has 

begun to level off. 

One thing I would note is I have actually started reading Latin 

American newspapers in Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador. 

Spanish is actually my first language. And there are increasingly 

stories in that media, one, about individuals being returned; two, 

about the fact that DACA offers no benefit to these individuals. 

And I think that, and the marshaling of efforts by the government, specifically by my agency, appears possibly to have started 

to take some effect with individuals in Central America. 

Mr. CONYERS. Now, what about personnel? I mentioned that just 

a handful of judges and so forth here. I don’t think we can realistically, on your 15th day in office, ask you why we aren’t doing more 

when I have some pretty low figures of personnel that you have. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Well, this is actually my fifth transition, Congressman, into a new agency. One of the key aspects of doing that 

is that you need to be ready to drink from a fire hose, jump on a 

100 mile an hour train, chew gum and rub your head all at the 

same time. So I have been busy trying to do exactly that. 

What I do know is the agency has recognized this additional burden. It has added 150 asylum officers, or is in the process of adding 

150 asylum officers, noting the additional demands that are being 

placed on it, at least in part by the situation at the border. 

Mr. CONYERS. You were the lead attorney in United States v. Flores, which involved enslavement of Mexican and Guatemalan nationals who had been smuggled from border areas in Arizona to 

farms in South Carolina and Florida. What, if you can recall, did 

you get out of that experience in working with vulnerable populations? And how do you think it may positively affect your work 

as the director of this very important office that you hold now at 

United States Citizenship and Immigration Services? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Thank you, Congressman Conyers, for that question. 

Prosecuting that case really was a career highlight for me. On 

many levels, I have to tell you, I was inspired by the stories of the 

victims that I met in that case. These were individuals very often 

from indigenous areas of Guatemala. For many of them, Spanish 

was actually a second language. Their first languages were actually 

indigenous dialects in those countries. 

Yet, these were strong, hardworking, really amazing individuals. 

And the opportunity to vindicate their rights and to fight the victimization that had occurred to them was really an important career opportunity for me. 

It, certainly, sensitized me to the fact that human trafficking and 

labor exploitation are very serious problems that particularly befall 

individuals who work in our shadow economy, as these individuals 

did. And that, certainly, will influence, will sensitize me to certain 

issues that USCIS faces. 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, I think your experiences have prepared you 

well for your responsibility. We want to work as closely as we can. 
29 

This Committee has a great concern about this challenge at our 

southwest border, and we would like to stay in touch with you far 

past your 2 weeks and 1 day on the job. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I look forward to a very fruitful relationship, 

Congressman. Thank you. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SMITH OF TEXAS [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Conyers. 

The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Coble, is recognized for 

his questions. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Rodriguez, good to have you with us this morning. 

Mr. Rodriguez, the Bush administration required that certain 

employers, such as Federal contractors, those employing foreign 

students in the optical practical training program, and others, use 

E-Verify. What plans do you have to expand mandatory E-Verify 

use? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Right now, there obviously are a very limited 

segment of employers who are actually subject to mandatory EVerify. I have been pleased to see that the accuracy rate for EVerify is at a very high level and that our ability to adjudicate temporary nonconfirmations appears to be very effective, and that employers who utilize E-Verify report very high levels of satisfaction 

with that system. 

Our agency has, in fact, prepared a report to this body, which 

was delivered some time ago, that talked about what would be required to move to universal mandatory E-Verify. It is a capability 

that we could achieve. And I look forward to continuing conversation about how we get there. 

Mr. COBLE. I thank you for that. 

How do you ensure that those employers required to use EVerify, such as Federal contractors and employers of students in 

the optical practical training program, are in fact using the system? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Congressman, I will acknowledge that, as part 

of the many things I am trying to learn as I come onto the agency, 

I have not yet had the opportunity to be briefed on that specific 

issue. I, certainly, would look forward to following up with your office about the steps that we take to verify utilization by that particular portion of employers. 

Mr. COBLE. If you would keep us current on that, I would be appreciative to you. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. You can count on it, Congressman. 

Mr. COBLE. When will the USCIS implement its programs to 

allow individuals to lock their Social Security numbers for work authorization purposes in an effort to prevent the number from being 

used fraudulently to obtain employment or a job? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I do understand that we have the capacity to 

lock Social Security numbers in those instances where we believe 

a Social Security number is being used fraudulently. I am not familiar with the ability of specific individuals to lock their own Social Security numbers. I imagine they can ask us to do it. 

Again, that is an area where I look forward to working with your 

office to make sure we get you the answers you need. 

Mr. COBLE. I thank you, sir. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 
30 

Mr. SMITH OF TEXAS. Thank you, Mr. Coble. 

The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott, is recognized. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you, Mr. Rodriguez. 

Just a bit about the present process. if we are going to shorten 

the waiting period for determining status, obviously, we have to 

hire more personnel. Who do we need to hire, and how much would 

it cost to significantly reduce the time for hearings? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I am in the process right now of reviewing various issues related to wait time. I do know that there was a time 

when, for example, our I-130 petitions, the family petitions, where 

the wait time for those had become unacceptably long. The agency 

has been able to restore the wait times to about 5 months, a more 

acceptable timeframe. 

I am going to continue as part of my transition into the agency 

to look at this issue of wait times, to ensure that we are moving 

as sufficiently as possible. 

It is important to note that we are a fee-funded agency. There 

are pressures on us from all sides to do all kinds of things with our 

fees. We need to live within our budget, is the bottom line. 

So we are going to continue to look at how we operate most efficiently and deliver the highest level of customer service within the 

fee structure that we have. 

Mr. SCOTT. You mentioned 5 months. What is your goal? Is there 

any way you can get down to a couple days? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. The goal for those is about 5 months. I am not 

sure that we would ever be in a position to get it down to a couple 

days for those family petitions. 

There are other categories that we are able to process far more 

quickly. In some cases, we are required by law actually to process 

certain benefits more quickly. 

That goal really represents, over time, what has been seen as the 

target time for adjudication of those particular benefits. 

Mr. SCOTT. Now, people are entitled to attorneys at their own expense. I understand in many cases there are pro bono attorneys 

available. Is that true? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I have no doubt that there are pro bono attorneys who are available to assist people with various aspects, various immigration issues. 

Mr. SCOTT. What do lawyers typically charge for these cases 

when they are paid? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I don’t know, Congressman. Actually, just having been a former private practice lawyer myself, I imagine there 

is a wide variety of what lawyers may cost in this particular field. 

Mr. SCOTT. If someone is deported, where do they go? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Where do people go if they are deported? 

Mr. SCOTT. Right. 

Mr. SMITH OF TEXAS. Director Rodriguez, your mike is not on. 

You might want to repeat that last sentence. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Sorry. My agency, of course, Congressman, does 

not handle deportations and enforcement and removal. 

I did have some little bit of experience as a private practice lawyer with the removal process. This can vary a lot. My understanding, generally, is that people are in detention, in some cases. 
31 

And at some point, they are sent back, generally flown back to 

their country of origin. 

But honestly, because it is not what my agency does, I am not 

fully familiar with that process. 

Mr. SCOTT. We have had an influx of young children coming to 

our borders. Have other countries experienced similar influxes? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I am at least aware that Mexico has had its own 

influx driven by many of the same factors as the individuals coming to our country. I am not fully familiar with where else those 

individuals might be going. 

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 

gentlelady from California. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Scott. 

I will have many questions, but I wanted to address the issue of 

in absentia rates. 

Oftentimes, we hear complaints that the unaccompanied children 

don’t show up for the immigration hearings. In fact, I have heard 

some of my colleagues across the aisle say 90 percent of the kids 

do not show up. PolitiFact correctly ruled that claim as false. Most 

recently, the Department of Justice testified before the Senate that 

half of the kids show up. 

But we now have a complete picture, because the American Immigration Council has analyzed the raw immigration court data 

made public by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse. 

They looked at every single case of juveniles appearing in immigration court beginning in 2005 through June of this year. 

Looking at only closed cases of children not detained, over 60 

percent of the children appeared in immigration court. 

But here is an important data point: When the child has a lawyer, 92.5 percent of those children appeared in court. It never 

dipped below 89 percent in any fiscal year. 

So I would like to ask unanimous consent to put in the record 

that analysis prepared by the Immigration Policy Center, indicating this very high appearance rate. 

Mr. SMITH OF TEXAS. Without objection, the analysis will be 

made part of the record. 

[The information referred to follows:] 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 

Mr. SMITH OF TEXAS. And the gentleman from Virginia’s time 

has expired. 

I will recognize myself for questions. 

Director Rodriguez, my first one is this. Last Thursday, The New 

York Times reported on a leaked DHS memo laying out a program 

to allow individuals in Honduras who are not eligible for refugee 

status to be paroled in the United States. 

As you know, historically, parole has been used in very rare instances on a case-by-case basis for temporary admittance, for urgent humanitarian reasons, or significant public benefit. 

Your own Web site notices that parole ‘‘is used sparingly to bring 

someone who is otherwise inadmissible into the United States for 

a temporary period of time due to a compelling emergency.’’ 

Since the USCIS grants parole, would you tell the Committee 

how such a program intended for a large group of individuals 

would not be an illegitimate expansion of parole authority? 

We use parole for aliens who are clearly not being persecuted. 

Why isn’t that a violation of current law? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. First of all, I think it is important to underscore 

that in this area as well, no decisions have been made. Secretary 

Johnson, my colleagues throughout DHS, recognize the significance, the importance of dealing—— 

Mr. SMITH OF TEXAS. Would you agree that if such were to occur, 

it would be unprecedented? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I would not be able to say. 

Mr. SMITH OF TEXAS. Okay, give me an example of where there 

is precedent for such type of action. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Again, I think the main thing is that any parole 

program or any other sort of program would need to be according 

to certain criteria. 

Mr. SMITH OF TEXAS. Assuming that the leaked memo is accurate, we have never had a program where individuals in another 

country have been able to take advantage of the system as the 

President, presumably, or you, have proposed. And I can’t think of 

any precedent. Again, can you think of any precedent? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I could not specifically tell you whether there is 

or is not a precedent at this point. 

I underscore that no decisions have been made. 

Mr. SMITH OF TEXAS. Okay. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I will say that we are working very hard 

throughout DHS to find solutions to what we all agree is a significant issue being presented at our border. 

Mr. SMITH OF TEXAS. Okay. If there is a precedent, we would all 

like to know it. But I assume since you can’t think of one, that 

there is not. 

Let me go to my next question. Even the USCIS union has stated 

that USCIS adjudicators are being pressured to ‘‘get to yes’’ on petitions and applications for immigration benefits. 

Don’t you agree that any USCIS emphasis on adjudicators having to make quotas on the number of applications or petitions adjudicated in a day undermines the integrity about which you seem 

concerned in your opening testimony? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. You know, interestingly enough, Congressman, 

I think that for as many individuals that have told me that there 
38 

is a culture of getting to yes, I have heard other individuals saying 

that there is a culture of getting to no. 

Let me suggest that the culture we need to have and the culture 

that I have observed is a culture of getting to the right answer. 

Mr. SMITH OF TEXAS. Right. 

Are you aware of any pressure on the adjudicators to try to get 

to an affirmative answer? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I am aware that those allegations have been 

made. 

Mr. SMITH OF TEXAS. I know. But are you aware of any incidents 

where that has happened? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I am not aware of any specific incidents where 

that has occurred. 

Mr. SMITH OF TEXAS. Okay. Let me go now to the program that 

has already been mentioned several times today that was unilaterally instituted by the President 2 years ago that has allowed almost 600,000 individuals to stay in this country who were previously in an illegal status. 

Among the documents that could be proffered by these individuals to show that they were eligible for the program are educational records, employment records, and military records. What 

I would like to ask you is, how often does USCIS actually verify 

whether the educational records, military records, or employment 

records submitted are actually valid and are not an indication of 

fraud? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Congressman, I would not be able to give you a 

specific percentage as to when that occurs. What I would be able 

to tell you is that it is my understanding, based on my initial review of how our agency operates, that extensive training is given 

to our adjudicators. 

Mr. SMITH OF TEXAS. I understand that, but if you are not going 

to verify the records, if you are just going to take them at face 

value, that is an open invitation to a lot of individuals to apply for 

the legalization program and have pretty good confidence that they 

are going to be approved whether they are eligible or not. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Well, but our people are trained to look for indicators of fraud. 

Mr. SMITH OF TEXAS. Right. Why wouldn’t you be able to give us 

an estimate as to how many out of 100 applications would be 

verified? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I am not able to. I am not sure that we have 

studied that in that way. It is the sense that I get from the staff 

that does this work that their judgment is that most of these documents are in fact valid and authentic. 

Mr. SMITH OF TEXAS. Okay. 

Thank you, Director Rodriguez. That concludes my questions. 

The gentlewoman from California, Ms. Lofgren, is recognized for 

hers. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Director, I wanted to ask a little bit about how we are doing 

the credible fear interviews for families detained in Artesia. It is 

my understanding that the Committee staff has requested data regarding the positive and negative, and we don’t have that yet. So 
39 

I am looking forward—I guess you don’t have it yet, either—but we 

are looking forward to receiving that. 

But here are some of the concerns that have been relayed to me. 

Recent news reports indicate that there was a 9-year-old boy 

from Guatemala who threatened to commit suicide while he was 

there, if he was deported, but that he was sent back anyhow. There 

are other instances where families were put on a plane and then 

were taken off when consular staff was able to provide information 

that they would be killed if they were returned. 

So here’s my question: It is my understanding from attorneys 

who have represented some of the older children that the credible 

fear interviews are being held in groups. For example, a mother 

would be interviewed with her children present. 

I think that is problematic, because if that mother has been the 

victim of rape or other kinds of serious matters, she may be reluctant to discuss that in front of her children. 

Similarly, older children who might have been subject to sexual 

abuse might be reluctant to say that in front of a parent. 

So I am looking to you to see, is it possible to have these credible 

fear interviews done with the necessary privacy to elicit actual 

truth from some of these individuals. And if they don’t have a fear 

matter, they will be removed. But if they are in fact the victim of 

trafficking, we want to find that out. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Thank you, Congresswoman, for that question. 

It is my understanding that our staff is trained first to interview 

children, specifically in techniques required for interviewing children—I am a former sex crimes special victims prosecutor, and I 

know full well that is a different process than interviewing 

adults—and also, generally, for interviewing people who have endured some sort of trauma. 

I am aware of the concern that you raise. As part of my transition, I will look into these particular concerns as soon as I can, and 

to determine whether there is anything we need to do differently. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I appreciate that, and we will look forward to receiving further information from you. 

I wanted to address the issue, just briefly, of the data that was 

recently transmitted by the department about the number of unaccompanied children applying for asylum. And I would ask unanimous consent to put my analysis in the record. But I think it is 

flawed data because it does not include the children who received 

special immigrant juvenile status because a State court has found 

them to be abandoned, and certain key trafficking victim visas and 

the like. 

So I would ask that you review that analysis, Mr. Director, and 

see if you concur in the analysis. 

I also want to talk about the need for efficiency in the agency. 

It is tough to do, but coming from Silicon Valley, it is important 

to me that we do it once, do it right, and not come back. 

For example, I recently had a situation that came to my attention from a business case where there was a request for evidence 

and notice of intent to deny that don’t make any sense. 

For example, in one case, there was an allegation that the 

businessperson had departed the country, but he hadn’t. He had 
40 

been able to disprove that, but he had to prove it over and over and 

over again, the same point. 

I am looking for you, prospectively, how do we get technology deployed so that these matters aren’t re-litigated, wasting the time, 

not only of the government, but of the businesses and families that 

rely on quick resolution? 

And then a final question on the 5-month I-130 delay. On the 

business side, we allow individuals to pay an additional fee for 

rapid adjudication of a matter. We haven’t really gotten into that 

on the family side, but I am wondering if we can look at that. 

For example, if you are an American citizen and you marry 

someone from another country, the 5 months might be fine. You 

have no plans to leave the United States, whatever. But if the 

spouse is a technology business guy in the valley, he has to travel 

all over. And it might be worth a substantial fee to get it resolved 

because of the need to travel. 

So could you take a look at that opportunity, to see if the different family circumstances could be accommodated in that way? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Thank you for both of those questions. 

I would like to share that, for me, one of my top challenges and 

top priorities is tackling our agency’s information systems. In many 

cases, the systems that we have are either paper systems or legacy 

electronic systems that really are not enabling us to operate—we 

are operating very well, as much as anything else, because of the 

ingenuity and work ethic of our people. But we could be operating 

even better if we had the kind of modern information systems that 

we could use. 

So for me, making sure that, at a minimum, before I conclude my 

tenure, that we can see the light at the end of the tunnel for those 

challenges will be a top priority. 

I think your second question was whether we can look at the possibility of premium processing for other benefit areas than the 

kinds of business visas where premium processing is now utilized. 

I, certainly, will look into that and communicate with this Committee about those possibilities. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I yield back. 

Mr. GOODLATTE [presiding]. The Chair thanks the gentlewoman. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Chabot, for 

5 minutes. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you for your service, Mr. Director. 

My first question would be this. My district is basically most of 

the City of Cincinnati, most of the greater Cincinnati area. We are 

down in the southwestern portion of Ohio. We oftentimes refer to 

our area as the tri-state area, because we have Kentucky right 

across the Ohio River and Indiana is right next to my district as 

well. So they call it the tri-state area. 

There was an article recently printed in the Cincinnati Enquirer 

that indicated that thus far there have been 842 of these unaccompanied children that—let me ask you a question about that, first 

of all. 

We keep referring to them as children. I have also seen an article 

recently that pointed out that actually something like 91 percent 
41 

of them are teenagers. To your knowledge, is that accurate? I understand, of course, that there is a big difference between a teenager that was 12 and just turned 13 and one that is 19 and just 

turned 20. But in your understanding, 90 percent or so of these 

folks would be teenagers, rather than like 5- or 6-year-old kids? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. First of all, let me let you know that I spent a 

lot of time in your district. I had a case as a Federal prosecutor 

in Cincinnati and really enjoyed my time there. 

The question really for us is a legal question. And under the law, 

these are children, in terms of what their rights are under the law. 

Mr. CHABOT. I understand. I am an attorney as well. We called 

them for years infants even if they are under 21 years of age, the 

age of majority, which is now in Ohio, for example, come down to 

18. So we call them infants, but, in general, terminology, when people think of infants, they are talking about a baby. 

So my only question really thus far is, do you know, is it accurate 

to say that 90 percent—the article said 91 percent—but 90 percent 

of them are teenagers, meaning that they are from 13 to 19? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I don’t know specifically what the age spread is 

of these children. 

Mr. CHABOT. That is okay. Thank you. 

So getting on to the question that I put the question within, so 

842 are apparently going to the tri-state area. I think 360 of those 

are to Ohio, the State that I happen to have one of the districts 

in. Now exactly how many are in the greater Cincinnati area, it 

didn’t point out. 

But my question is this, it says that they are going to families, 

for example, going to individuals. They are trying to kind of farm 

them out to different people who are going to watch them until 

their hearings are ultimately held or whatever happens happens. 

But how much of an effort is there to determine the legal status 

of the people who they are going to? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. So, Congressman, what I would have to share is 

that I am a little bit outside my lane here, in the sense that the 

actual placement of these young people, these children, is conducted by the Administration for Children and Families at HHS. 

Mr. CHABOT. So you don’t know? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I really don’t know what they do to deal with 

that. 

Mr. CHABOT. Okay. Because it would seem to me that that would 

be, and I don’t want to put you on the spot, but it seems to me that 

would be a pretty important thing to be determined by the executive branch of the government and probably the legislative branch 

ought to know that as well. But if we are taking folks who are 

here—and I hesitate to say they are here illegally, because of the 

way the law was written, which was supposed to deal with trafficking issues, where people were criminally trafficked, and so legislation was passed back in 2008, as we know. So there are some 

questions whether they are here legally or illegally. 

But the point is, if people who don’t have really legal status and 

a lot of Americans are concerned about our here, and we are putting them with people who are also here illegally, may be under 

different circumstances, that doesn’t seem like a very good idea to 

me. 
42 

Would agree with that? Even if you don’t know—— 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Again, I am outside my lane, so I don’t want to 

substitute my judgment, either legally or for a policy matter, for 

the individuals who are actually responsible for that placement. 

Mr. CHABOT. Okay. Well, let me cut you off because I have one 

other question I want to get to. 

As you are probably aware, carnivals and the fair industry rely 

on Labor’s H-2B seasonal guest workers to supplement their domestic workforce. These fairs are important to American agriculture as they not only serve as a primary showcase of our grown 

in America products for the public, but also for the important fundraising, which supports youth and civic programs. 

Beginning in early December 2013, a significant portion of H-2B 

employers in the mobile amusement industry paid premium processing fees for expedited USCIS handling of their H-2B petitions. 

Apparently, there is a long delay going on, relative to actually getting approval of these, and it is setting back a bunch of businesses 

across America. 

Because I am running out of time, and it is going to be tough 

for you to answer the question, if I could have my staff follow up 

with you to see if we can’t determine why that delay is happening 

and expedite that matter, so we can get folks hired here who we 

really do want to come legally, can we work together on that? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Yes. 

Mr. CHABOT. I see a thumbs-up. I appreciate that very much. I 

noticed your staff are in the background nodding in the affirmative, 

so thank you very much. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Thank you, Congressman. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from 

Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee, for 5 minutes. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the Chair very much. 

Mr. Rodriguez, congratulations on your prior service to this Nation and now a new start in your service to this Nation. The President as they say, befitted himself well, as he always does, in your 

appointment. 

I think it is important to take note of what I heard as I came 

in, as you were explaining to Mr. Conyers an extensive background 

where you understand your responsibilities of enforcing the law, 

but you also understand the plight of people. 

So let me start, first of all, by asking about the plight of people 

and the ability of this government to balance, particularly under 

Immigration Services following the law, those surges that may 

come for reasons of fleeing. And I know that there is Office of Refugee Resettlement that has dual hats in State and Homeland Security as well. 

So why don’t you just give me a brief philosophy. I have a short 

period of time, and I have some more pointed questions. 

But just how do we balance that? You have been a prosecutor. 

We are on the Judiciary Committee. We are not calling for the violation of laws, but we are trying to find that balance. How do you 

see that balance? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Congresswoman, I certainly appreciate you 

pointing to my experience as a prosecutor. Every chief prosecutor 
43 

that I have ever worked for has exercised prosecutorial discretion 

in some way. They have determined priorities. 

So when I was a street prosecutor, we knew that we needed to 

dedicate more prosecutorial resources to murderers than to individuals who were trying to get on the subway for free. So similar principles apply in our immigration processing as well. 

I think your question is also how do we deal with surges. And 

one of the things that I have been pleased to see as the new director of CIS is we have dealt with surges in our work for different 

reasons at many different times. 

In one respect, the first surge was actually the birth of our agency. Our agency was created in the early part of the Bush administration. It was separated away from the former INS. That required 

a huge lift by leadership and staff in order to make this now an 

independent, fully functioning agency. 

When DACA came along, we had a surge as well. And we 

learned a number of very useful lessons from that experience, 

which we can apply for whatever surges we may face in the future. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me thank you for that. You made a very 

valid point. 

I just want to take a moment of personal privilege to acknowledge the late Leonel Castillo, who was a constituent of mine, a 

neighbor of mine, who was formerly an Immigration and Naturalization Services Commissioner under Jimmy Carter. It just came 

to my mind, and I am just making a moment of personal privilege 

on that. 

I only say that because he seemed to have had that same philosophy. That was many, many years ago. 

As I look at the work that you all have to do, 10 million applications, over 50 different types of petitions and applications. A prosecutor always lays out his or her case to win. I think you have to 

be orderly. 

From your perspective, a comprehensive immigration reform 

structure, obviously, it is the work of the executive and Congress, 

but an ordering of the responsibility that you have which will then 

see an enhancement of staffing, it would see more resources because one of the proposals, of course, are the fines that individuals 

would pay to get in an orderly line, no, not in front of those have 

been in line. 

What is your assessment on getting order to the immigration system in America? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. So, of course, thank goodness, we are not charging fines. We are actually charging fees, because these are—— 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And I stand corrected. They are fees. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ [continuing]. Immigration opportunities. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. There will be a multiple of fees. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. That individuals are paying. 

I think order is sort of one of our core business objectives. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And would you add to that, because I see my 

time is going, you started out, but that we can deal with the question of dealing with humanitarian crises in your whole answer. 

Thank you. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Yes. We have to, of course, address those aggressively when they occur. I think that is the nature of your question. 
44 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Well, the nature of my question is, that if we 

pass comprehensive immigration reform, you sort of put in order 

all that you are dealing with now. You have the ability through 

laws to address these questions. Would it be better to have an 

order that allows you now to get your hands around the many disparate aspects of immigration in this country, one of which are individuals here to work, who are already here in this country? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. That is what we have done. That is what we will 

always do, is balance different lines of business for the most efficient processing across our lines of business. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And the EB-5 petitions, are they something 

that you can work with as well that generates jobs and other aspects of economic opportunity? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Yes, the EB-5 petitions are. We are in the process right now of affecting some important changes that were started by now Deputy Secretary Mayorkas, among other things, centralizing our EB-5 processing and fully staffing the EB-5 office with 

economists and other sorts of professionals who will really enable 

us to very efficiently and correctly process those applications. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me just say the Chairman and I have 

looked at this issue. I think we had some legislation that was moving at one point in time. So I am looking forward to the ordering 

of that, because I think there is merit to the EB-5, in terms of its 

investment, if it is in an orderly process, and as well the benefits 

that come. But I want to make sure that the benefits are not overly 

excessive for the investment in the job creation that is so very important. 

I will just finish on this note. Is it important for a Nation that 

has shown itself to have been built on immigration and laws, to 

have a humanitarian element to continuing in this process of immigration, even in the 21st century? We know what we did in the 

1800’s, the 1900’s, the 20th century, in terms of the flow of immigration. Do we still have that role now in the 21st century? 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The time of the gentlewoman has expired. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Bachus, 

for his questions. 

Mr. BACHUS. Thank you. 

We have had several words that have been used time and time 

again here this morning. I have heard the word ‘‘discretion.’’ I have 

heard the term ‘‘humanitarian.’’ You used the words ‘‘freedom’’ and 

‘‘enterprise.’’ You stressed pillars of our democracy. 

But I have heard ‘‘discretion, discretion, discretion.’’ I have heard 

you say that six times. 

But what I haven’t heard you say is ‘‘rule of law.’’ You are a prosecutor. You enforce the law. My parents, your parents, are immigrants. They came here legally. They followed the law rule of law. 

What I am seeing here is when you have a rule of law, there is 

a reason. And you may exercise discretion toward someone that 

violates that law, but there is also the victim. 

You have dealt with a lot of victims. You met with those who 

have survived their death, a lot of times. 

Someone on the Democratic side said ‘‘plight of the people.’’ I 

would like to talk about those who are suffering from the President’s actions on encouraging—and I think it is encouraging. He 
45 

admitted that DACA has incentivized unauthorized immigration, 

particularly with respect for children. He said that is a problem. 

That is why people are sending people here. 

The plight of people. I am going to talk about a very conservative 

paper, and that is Cameron Smith, who is general counsel of the 

Alabama Policy Institute, a very conservative organization, and 

The New York Times. They agree on one thing. They said the program, talking about DACA, is benefitting some immigrants, but it 

extends the visa wait for others. 

He talks about DACA and the lengthy backlogs on visa and citizenship applications where people are following the law. You mention all the people who have been transferred to the border from 

immigration to deal with these children. What The New York 

Times said, and this is an article I would like you to read, maybe 

when you get back, February 8, 2014: ‘‘The long waits came when 

the agency’’—your agency—‘‘shifted attention and resources to a 

program President Obama started in 2012 to give deportation deferrals to young undocumented immigrants, according to Administration officials.’’ Not me. 

They go on and talk about U.S. citizens petitioning for green 

cards for immediate relatives are at a high, if not the highest priority in the way Congress sets up the immigration system. 

But there are nightmare story after nightmare story of a man 

coming back from Czechoslovakia, his wife, a citizen, having to 

wait 8 months and still not a hearing. A family in Australia, he is 

American, she is Australian, they have children. He has been back 

for 6 months. They are still there. 

I don’t think it was intended. In fact, the Congress also passed 

a resolution here, just July 8, saying there are now 900 children 

in Congo, Democratic Republic of Congo, waiting on being united 

with their adoptive parents here in the United States because Immigration quit processing these applications and assigned it to the 

State Department, and the State Department has slowed down on 

it. 

Now I don’t know why you did that, but there is a resolution— 

and I am going to submit for the record a letter signed by about 

20 Democratic Senators, Elizabeth Warren, Mitch McConnell, a Republican, but on both sides, and about 90 of us from the House, 

who said please process these claims, please pay attention to the 

Democratic Republic of Congo and quit slowing these things up. 

So the victims, just like The New York Times said, the program 

benefits some. DACA is benefiting some. You are having children 

coming here. You are offering humanitarian things. 

But we have a lot of relatives and families who are being separated because you have taken resources, and even the Administration in this letter said you have taken, because of this plight of the 

border, some immigrants extending visa wait for others. These are 

people who go through the process. 

Let me close with what Cameron Smith said in the Birmingham 

Business Journal. The governance by rule of law is being challenged, as it may be in times crucially important to the American 

system. By circumventing immigration law, the President has encouraged even more unlawful immigration. In response, America 

has a choice to either create yet another incentive for unlawful ac-
46 

tivity by caring for immigrant children and attending to their 

health needs or processing those who are going through the system. 

I would just like to submit this to you and say to you, please 

don’t sacrifice families in Asia, families in Europe, and deploy all 

your resources about these children. It tugs at our heartstrings, but 

what you are not seeing are all these examples of people who are 

suffering. 

And rule of law, you are a prosecutor, rule of law is what this 

country is built on. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The gentleman is very eloquent, but his time 

has expired. Is there a question in there to the director? 

Mr. BACHUS. Well, if you could respond. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. If he wants to respond, we will give him a brief 

response. 

Mr. BACHUS. I don’t know if you are aware of the resolution of 

Congress on the Congolese children. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I look forward to reviewing these materials. I 

am aware of the Congo situation. I look forward to discussing that 

with you. 

I am committed to the rule of law. That is why, when I mentioned to Congressman Smith the question about the culture of getting to yes. To me, the culture is getting to the right answer under 

the facts and under the law. 

And, absolutely, we have an obligation of stewardship to the people that you describe to run an efficient and fair system. 

Mr. BACHUS. All right, thank you. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from 

California, Ms. Chu, for 5 minutes. 

Ms. CHU. Thank you. 

First, I would like to put into the record this document from the 

Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles on their 

recommendations pertaining to oversight of USCIS at the Department of Homeland Security. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Without objection, it will be made a part of the 

record. 

[The information referred to follows:] 
47 
48 
49 

Ms. CHU. Thank you. 

Director Rodriguez, I am gratified to hear that you were a prosecutor and that you were in a strong position to challenge false 

claims, to tell truth from fact. 

What I want to know is whether the current credible fear system 

works. I understand that the current credible fear asylum system 

is a robust process that requires an asylum seeker to demonstrate 

a significant possibility of succeeding in demonstrating a past persecution or well-founded fear of future persecution to an immigration judge. 

So, Mr. Rodriguez, could you briefly walk us through what an 

asylum officer does when conducting a credible fear interview? And 

how does the officer test the credibility of an applicant? And how 

does an officer determine whether there is a significant possibility 

that the individual could be eligible for asylum? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Thank you, Congresswoman. I appreciate that 

question. 

I don’t mind sharing really one of the most important sort of 

transitional activities that I have conducted was actually sitting in 

on a credible fear interview. 

It is important to note that the credible fear standard is a 

threshold standard. In other words, it is not the final determination of whether somebody gets asylum. It is simply a threshold determination to determine whether that individual who otherwise is 

in an expedited removal proceeding can fully assert those claims. 

I observed the credible fear interview. I understood it to be based 

on a basic rubric that is used by the asylum office to evaluate those 

claims. 

It asked questions specifically targeted to determine whether in 

fact the individual could potentially show a credible fear of persecution or torture, on various bases, race, national origin, membership 

in a particular social group. 

From that interview, I was satisfied that there is an appropriate 

matrix of questions and appropriate training to our asylum officers 

to assess those individuals, given what is the threshold standard 

that applies under credible fear. 

And I will be continuing to look into that to satisfy myself that 

my initial assessment is correct. 

Ms. CHU. In fact, I would like to know about that training. It is 

my understanding that asylum officers receive extensive training to 

detect fraud and make credibility determinations, such as through 

the USCIS academy. 

Can you elaborate on how they are trained to detect such fear? 

And would you say that USCIS officials are effective in detecting 

such legitimate cases of credible fear? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Thank you, because I realized that I hadn’t answered that portion of your initial question. 

Yes, the manner in which the questioning was done did ask questions that go to the question of whether the individual presenting 

the credible fear claim is themselves a credible person, in a sense, 

whether their story hangs together, whether it makes sense, given 

both the general facts, the country conditions, and the applicable 

legal standard in that case. 
50 

Now, I am not fully familiar with the exact training curriculum. 

That is something that I will look into and make a judgment about. 

Ms. CHU. And then, are they effective? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. And whether they are effective. My sense is that 

the interviews are effective. My initial assessment is that they are 

effective in determining whether that threshold standard is actually met. 

Ms. CHU. There are those in the public who are saying that the 

increase in asylum applications are evidence of fraud in and of 

itself. I am struck by the fact that not only has the recent increase 

in credible fear claims been driven largely by an increase in claims 

from El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala, but the percentage of 

cases from those three countries that have resulted in a positive 

finding of credible fear have also been increasing. 

Mr. Rodriguez, is there reason to believe that deteriorating conditions in those countries explain the increase in credible fear claims 

and the increase in credible fear findings? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Congresswoman, the deteriorating conditions in 

those countries are in fact well-documented. In terms of violent 

crime, human rights abuses, those sorts of concerns are in fact 

well-documented. In fact, there is reason to believe they play a role 

in the situation we are seeing at our border. 

Ms. CHU. And are they to be distinguished from the other countries in Central America? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I am most familiar right now with the Northern 

Triangle, because it is really where a lot of our workload is coming 

from. I know that similar concerns have emerged from other countries in Latin America and, frankly, throughout the world. 

Ms. CHU. And finally, temporary protective status for Filipinos. 

This is very important to individuals in my district. Since the devastation of the earthquake, we have been constantly asking for that 

temporary protective status, so that Filipinos could send remittances and get protective status. What is status of that? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I appreciate that question. There is, as you 

know, ongoing consideration as part of an interagency review process to determine whether temporary protected status should be 

granted in the case of the Philippines. That process is ongoing. 

I do know that prior to my arrival, the agency expedited a number of other benefit categories, for which various Filipino nationals 

or Filipino immigrants might be eligible in order to afford relief to 

those individuals in that area. 

We will continue to work on concluding the evaluation of the TPS 

process. 

Ms. CHU. I hope it is soon, Mr. Rodriguez. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Thank you. I appreciate that. 

Ms. CHU. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Forbes, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

Mr. Director, thank you so much for being here today. Let’s just 

cut to the chase. The President is not enforcing the immigration 

laws, because any time you issue an order for the massive unilateral nonprosecution of individuals who are breaking the law, that 

is, by definition, not enforcing the law. 
51 

And what bothers me even more than that, because I recognize 

there are some people on this Committee who don’t want him to 

enforce the law, and other people who want him to enforce the law, 

but when we have the head of the ICE agents union sitting in the 

chair right beside you and the head of the Border agents union, 

12,500 people, who, unlike you, have been on the job much longer 

than 3 weeks, who have conducted literally thousands of interviews 

with these individuals coming across the border, and they say unequivocally that the reason we are having this crisis is because of 

the President’s policies, and they have told the President that 

through their agents, that is what concerns this Committee. 

But one of the other concerns we have is this: They are concerned about gang members who are being released and coming 

through because their efforts are being taken somewhere else. 

So I want to ask you this, in that probing interrogation that you 

talked about earlier that you were so impressed with, if during the 

background check or other information that is uncovered during 

the review of a request for deferred action, an individual’s presence 

in the United States threatens the public safety or national security, is it not true that that individual will not be able to receive 

deferred action? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. That is correct. 

Mr. FORBES. All right. Does gang membership qualify as a threat 

to public safety or national security? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Without a doubt. 

Mr. FORBES. Does former gang membership qualify? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. In general, yes, former gang membership would 

also be a potentially disqualifying—— 

Mr. FORBES. If an individual renounces their membership in a 

violent criminal gang, are they eligible for asylum or withholding 

from removal? Or are they continued to be recognized as a potential public safety or national security threat? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Generally, they would be seen as a threat and 

denied a benefit. But again, these things depend on facts and circumstances. 

Mr. FORBES. Your testimony earlier was that if they were a 

member of a gang, then they would be viewed as a public safety 

or national security threat. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. That is correct. If they are a current member of 

a gang, then they would be—— 

Mr. FORBES. All right. Then my question is this, how do you 

know? I don’t think they have ID badges or membership cards. Are 

you asking them in the interview if they were ever a member of 

the gang? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Among the things that I have prosecuted in the 

past is organized crime, specifically. 

Mr. FORBES. I got all that. I just want to know. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I want to tell you about my ability to judge what 

I am seeing. 

Mr. FORBES. I appreciate that. What I want to know is what your 

agency is doing in their interviews. Are they asking the question, 

‘‘Are you a gang member or are you not a gang member?’’ when 

they are doing these interviews? 
52 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. The agency through the Fraud Detection and 

National Security Directorate is doing a robust series of checks to 

determine whether an individual has a disqualifying criminal history. 

Mr. FORBES. Are they asking the individuals if they have ever 

been a member of a violent criminal gang? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I am not able to speak to that specific question. 

Mr. FORBES. See, that is what just absolutely frightens me, when 

you come in here and testify about the broad comprehensive nature 

we need to review and change this process, when that is asked of 

you by the other side of the aisle. But when we ask you a simple 

question on the fact that you have testified that gang membership 

constitutes a public safety or national security threat, and we don’t 

even know if we are asking that question, that gives me cause for 

concern. 

If you don’t know whether we are asking the question, do you 

know what an individual would have to do to renounce that gang 

membership? Do they just have to say, ‘‘I am no longer a member?’’ 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Congressman, I am looking into those issues 

right now. It is my understanding that we have generally been 

very effective at screening out individuals who pose some sort of 

national security or criminal justice threat. 

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Director, I don’t want to be harsh on you. Can 

you understand why the American people are so frustrated with 

this Administration? When you come in here and you say gang 

membership is a threat to national security, it is a threat to public 

safety, and you as the director don’t even know on the interviews 

if you are asking the question if they were a member of the gang 

and you don’t know whether or not they can just say, ‘‘Oh, yes. I 

was a member, but I am no longer a member.’’ That is concerning. 

I will finish with this, and then I will let you respond, when the 

border agents who are having to do this are telling us they are 

worried because we are letting gang members into the country, and 

then we find you don’t even know if we are asking that question, 

that is a big concern to us. 

And I will let you respond, because my time has expired. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Sure. What I do know is where we do have 

cause to believe that an individual has been—— 

Mr. FORBES. The question ought to be asked every single time in 

every interview, if you think it is a public threat and a national 

security issue, which you testified it was. 

And to say if you have cause, if somebody shows up and they 

make the allegation, you ought to be at least asking that question, 

if the border agents are saying this is a big concern. 

And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back with a great deal of 

frustration. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The Chair thanks the gentleman, and recognizes the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Gutierrez, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am looking forward 

to writing my letter to Leader Pelosi. I want to come back to this 

Committee in the next Congress of the United States. Nothing is 

more interesting than coming to this Committee, each and every 

time. 

Well, guess what, welcome, Mr. Rodriguez. 
53 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. It is good to be here. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. You finally heard the Republicans say they love 

a union, one union, and one union only. Of course, it is the union 

that helps them promote the kind of xenophobic attitude toward 

immigrants that they like to promote in the Congress of the United 

States. 

And that is unfortunate, but they do like a union. Finally, there 

is one. I don’t know if they are members of the AFL-CIO or what 

they are. It is the Border Patrol. 

But just so we get clear, he keeps talking about the testimony 

about the ICE union. Are there ICE members on the border stopping people from crossing the border? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. My understanding is that is the responsibility of 

U.S. Customs and Border Patrol. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. There we go. So there is one union you should 

stop talking about at the border, since ICE agents aren’t at the border of the United States. But why let the facts get in the way of 

a good story. 

So here, once again, we talk about gang members. Do you ask 

5 years olds whether they are gangs? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Again, I am looking into—— 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Because you have to ask them all. You have to 

ask them all, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 year olds. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. It is my understanding that when we believe 

that somebody presents a national security or criminal justice 

threat, based on the biometric data that we collect, then we do follow up. I imagine we don’t often do that with 5 year olds, are probably never do it with 5 year olds. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. That is what I thought. But they are probably 

going to want you to ask 5 year olds if they are gang members. 

Do you check them for Ebola, for the Ebola virus? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Well, I do know that individuals—— 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Because they are very concerned about that. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I do now that individuals do receive health 

screenings at the border, Congressman. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. They do receive health screenings. So maybe 

next time they are going to ask you. You should check them, see 

if they have that virus before they contaminate everybody in the 

United States when they come across. 

So what we hear constantly is about, just so that we have it 

clear, I wish I had the article, but it appears the American public, 

70 percent of the American public, looks at the children at the border as refugees. They don’t look at them as people coming here to 

take away jobs from hardworking American citizens. They look at 

them as refugees. 

They don’t look at them as, what is it, gun-toting, tattoo-wearing, 

disease-ridden criminal elements who are coming to destroy America, but as refugees. 

I would suggest that people go down to the border and visit. I 

think you will see that they are refugees, too. 

There is going to be another trip, bipartisan trip, this coming 

Thursday. I look forward to participating in that. 

And I am a member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and we have absolutely no reports from our intelligence 
54 

services—and this isn’t these guys. These are the guys who are 

there to protect us and everything. They are saying they have 

found no relationship between those people crossing the border and 

gangs. None. They haven’t been able to find any. They are searching, because they want to find some for you, but they haven’t found 

any yet, any connection yet. 

I am not trying to say that there aren’t any, but it is just not 

the prevalent case. What you have are children fleeing violence, 

fleeing poverty, and trying to reunite with their families. All of 

those things are true. 

I want to ask you a question, because there was a time in California when they had good old Governor Pete Wilson decide he 

would propose Proposition 187. Using similar language that is 

being used today about disease-ridden, gang-banging, tattoo-wearing people taking away jobs and corrupting America, so he proposed Proposition 187, so they wouldn’t be able to get educated. 

Do you know how many people became citizens of the United 

States of America in 1994, 1995, 1996? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I confess that I don’t actually know how many 

people became U.S. citizens in those years. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Over 1 million. Over 1 million, promoted by none 

other than Pete Wilson. So Pete Wilson said, you know, I really 

don’t like those immigrants. You know what immigrants did? They 

came. 

But here is the issue, Mr. Rodriguez. It was 95 bucks back then. 

It is now how much? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. It is my understanding that the naturalization fee now, I think, is about $680. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. So it is a lot more than it was back then. 

Are you doing anything in order to make citizenship—because it 

just seems to me that if somebody wants to become a permanent 

resident of the United States, they just want to renew their permanent residence, it is around the $400 range. But it is over $600 if 

you want to become a citizen. Why is it so much more expensive, 

if you want to be a citizen than if you just want to be a permanent 

resident? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. The price of any particular benefit, the cost of 

any particular benefit, is determined by the time and effort involved in adjudicating that benefit. Naturalization, we are talking 

about a language interview. We are talking about a general interview. So there is a significant time and effort involved. We have 

to pay our own way. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. My time is up. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. And we have fee waivers that are granted to 

about 20 percent of our applicants. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Okay. You might want to decide, thank you for 

the indulgence of the Chair, you might want to decide to kind of 

switch. 

That is to say, if I want to make a permanent relationship with 

the United States—i.e., be a citizen of the United States—you 

might want to have that cost less than I just want to maybe hang 

around for 10 more years and not make that permanent. Because 

the guy who does want to become a citizen, or the woman, he 

learns English and civics and takes a big chance because he might 
55 

fail the test, whereas the other person just pretty much automatically gets extended for 10 more years. 

You might want to switch that around, since there are 8.8 million permanent residents who can become citizens today, 6 million 

of them Mexican nationals who could become citizens overnight. 

You might want to think about that, so they can defend themselves 

against those who would portray them as tattoo-wearing gangbangers. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ [presiding]. We thank the gentleman. 

I now recognize the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. King, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Director Rodriguez, I do appreciate your testimony. I would like 

to give you a little bit of a narrative on what is on the front of my 

mind listening to this. And that is that I took Mr. Gutierrez’s advice last weekend and went down to the border, started at the 

mouth of the Rio Grande River, right there at the physical border. 

I planted a flag there, by the way. I worked my way upstream all 

the way to Laredo. 

Stopped in at multiple places in Brownsville and McAllen and 

other places on up the river and received briefings at those ports 

of entry from Customs and Border Protection, from Border Patrol, 

from each law enforcement entity that is down there, including the 

Department of Public safety of Texas and Texas Rangers, and 

talked to people on the street. 

Here’s what comes out of that for me, and that is they will all 

tell us that DACA is the magnet. And one of the excuses is the 

2008 law for the other than Mexican unaccompanied alien children. 

That is developing into a broader policy because it is being exploited. 

These children are being sent into the United States at the expense of the American taxpayer. 

But when I met with them, I went also to an HHS not-for-profit 

subcontractor who is housing 188 of the unaccompanied alien children between the ages of 10 and 17. There were 144 males and 44 

females. That is the 188. 

And there, and many other places, we learned this. They said 

that in some cases 100 percent of the females who are being sent 

out of Central America are given birth control before they leave because it is anticipated that they will be raped along the way. I 

don’t believe that number is 100 percent. I see other numbers that 

are less than that. 

But those who are sexually abused, the reports that we got in 

asking this question nearly every stop ranged between one third of 

the females who are coming up—this is the children, the under 18 

children, between one third of them raped and up to 70 percent of 

them raped. 

That does comport with the expectation that handing them birth 

control pills—so apparently it is this. I expect that my daughter, 

my granddaughter, my niece, my neighbor, whoever it is that is in 

custody, when they send them is going to be raped, and I can deal 

with the sexually transmitted diseases and the mental trauma and 

the physical trauma, as long as she doesn’t have a baby that comes 

along with that. That seems to be the psychology. 
56 

*Because of its voluminous size, the information referred to is not reprinted in this hearing 

record but is on file with the Committee and can also be accessed at http://docs.house.gov/ 

meetings/JU/JU00/20140729/102548/HHRG-113-JU00-20140729-SD004.pdf. 

And we went into the detention centers in the Border Patrol and 

we saw unaccompanied alien children, males and females. We saw 

mothers with nursing babies. We saw women who were ready to 

have a baby. And we watched that process go all the way through. 

And we went to the bus station to see where they were being dispatched out across the country. 

I did go and do these things. And asylum is a big piece. 

Sunday night, we sat at a border crossing upstream from that 

crossing and downstream from Laredo. And I have in this phone 

here a video of a raft of two coyotes who loaded a pregnant female 

in it and brazenly took her across the river within plain sight of 

the Border Patrol and the local city police, deposited her on the 

shoreline. She gave herself up for asylum. And before she gets 

hearing, the baby is an anchor baby. 

There is not a level of anxiety down there about this happening 

on an hourly basis in broad daylight in front of the Border Patrol 

and in front of the city police. There is anxiety on my part because 

I am watching the rule of law being deconstructed by this Administration. 

I have in my hand here, this is a request for proposals from your 

operation, dated June 19, which I would ask unanimous consent to 

introduce it into the record.* 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

This RFP is 162 pages, titled ‘‘Solicitation Contract Order for 

Commercial Items.’’ And one of the things it says in the RFP is 

this: Based on experience over the past few years, USCIS estimates 

that application petition receipt levels could increase or decrease 

from 2⁄10 of 1 million on up to 2 million forms per year over the 

next 5 years. 

For asylum applications up to 2 million? And the decision has 

not been made by this Administration to expand DACA, which is 

the foundation for this human tragedy of thousands of girls being 

raped on their way from Central America to the United States. 

And apparently we don’t have a conscious about what is happening to these girls—and boys, too, by the way, in significant 

numbers are being sexually abused, not to mention the murders 

and death that take place along the way. 

This Administration has made the decision. This RFP put out by 

your Administration would not have been put out, if the decision 

were not at least on the cusp of imminent. 

Can you tell me what might cause the Administration to retract 

from this, this decision, this RFP asking for the ability to process— 

by the way, USCIS, this is from the report, needs to acquire 

records management and support services for its service centers. 

The objective of the acquisition is to provide comprehensive records 

management services for four service centers in a manner that ensures efficient and effective adjudication, financial responsibility, 

and excellent customer service. I appreciate that part. And it anticipates implementation of new laws and policies as a cause for 

this. 
57 

I think the Administration has made the decision to totally tear 

asunder the rule of law and grant administrative amnesty to 5 or 

more million people, and do so while this Congress is out of session. 

How would you respond to that, Director Rodriguez? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. First of all, let me start by saying, DACA offers 

no benefit to the individuals coming over the border. They are not 

eligible for DACA or any version of DACA. 

Secondly, to the extent, and I am not familiar with the specific 

contract that you described, we prepare for surges in work that can 

come from all kinds of sources. 

So I will, certainly, look into that particular contract when I return to my office this afternoon, but I would not necessarily attribute it to the situation at the border. 

As far as adults, roughly 15 percent are asserting credible fear 

claims. As far as children, it is in the low single digits, the number 

of children who are actually making asylum claims at some point 

in the process. That is a different process than the credible fear 

process. 

I just thought those facts would be potentially helpful. 

Mr. KING. Do we have those who are lawfully present during 

DACA, and there is an anticipation that DACA will be expanded, 

they think that if they get into America, they get to stay in America. And we know that that number is well above 98 percent who 

get into America who get to stay in America. 

And the asylum applications, this woman will apply for asylum. 

And before she is heard, the baby will be born, and there will be 

an anchor in this country. And that came right under my nose. 

I yield back. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. I thank the gentleman. 

I will now recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gohmert, for 

5 minutes. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you for being here, Director. I am looking at numbers 

from USCIS from March 2014, and it indicates that looks like 

through March 2014 that there has been a cumulative total since 

2012 of 553,197 requests approved under DACA, the President’s 

law that passed his lips, but not Congress. 

Do you have any updated numbers since March? Where are we 

now? It is obviously more than 553,000. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. We will make sure to get the Committee specific 

updated numbers. I believe, but please don’t hold me to this, the 

number now is—— 

Mr. GOHMERT. Well, who do I hold—I want to get somebody I can 

hold to it. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I want to get you—I just don’t have it at my fingertips right now. I will get you the exact information you need. 

I believe the number is now at 714,000 individuals who have 

DACA receipts. 

Mr. GOHMERT. I see. You said in answer to an earlier question 

that you have heard people say that there is a culture of getting 

to yes, but you also heard people say there is a culture of getting 

to no. And I would submit to you based on your own numbers that 

the figures bear out there is a culture of getting to yes. 
58 

You can’t get to 700,000, and maybe have 20,000 noes, and not 

have a culture of yes. So I would encourage you to look more harshly at those who say there is a culture of no. 

You said you observed a credible fear interview. Let me ask you, 

in your prosecutorial role, did you ever prosecute any drug crimes? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Okay. So I am curious, during your prosecution 

of drug crimes, did you ever refer to someone who gave money to 

buy a big load of drugs as a drug trafficking victim? Someone who 

paid massive money to get a load of drugs, did you ever refer to 

them as a drug trafficking victim? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Let me suggest that perhaps we are talking 

about apples and oranges. But, no, I certainly did not refer to 

somebody giving—— 

Mr. GOHMERT. Well, let’s talk about the apples and oranges, Director. 

When someone pays a human trafficker to move them, then I 

would submit to you they are not a victim. They are a participant 

in the human trafficking business. They are keeping the human 

traffickers in business. 

And when I was down there, the weekend before last, south of 

McAllen, right on the river, talking late at night to one of the border patrolman there who is Hispanic, he was telling me that 90 

percent of the time when he asked them out there by the river, 

they say, ‘‘Oh, I was fleeing gangs and gang violence.’’ And he said, 

‘‘I get tough with them because I know where they are coming from 

and I speak the language well. I tell them you may tell that garbage to somebody else, but you and I both know that it was gangs 

that brought you up are.’’ 

That is who the drug cartels normally hire to bring people up 

here through Mexico. And he said 90 percent of the time or better, 

they will say, ‘‘Well, you are right, but we were told to say we are 

fleeing gang violence.’’ 

Are you aware, Director, of who it is the powerful drug cartels 

in Mexico hire to move people who have paid their thousands of 

dollars across Mexico to the U.S.? Do you who they hire? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. No, not specifically. I mean, obviously, I know 

the human trafficking environment involves drug cartels, involves 

all kind of alien smugglers. It is not exactly our lane, so I am not 

fully familiar with that. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Would you call them criminals? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Human traffickers and drug cartels? 

Mr. GOHMERT. Yes. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Sure. 

Mr. GOHMERT. That get paid to move people illegally into the 

United States. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Sure, I have prosecuted alien smuggling. Yes, of 

course; they are criminals. 

Mr. GOHMERT. And so I would submit to you that is what we are 

talking about. We are talking about people who are paying criminals. 

And I would submit to you that the evidence will get down and 

dirty and show that there are many gang members who are getting 
59 

paid to transport people to the U.S., only to have them get here 

and say, ‘‘I am fleeing gang violence.’’ 

So I would encourage you to be more skeptical in these interviews, without further evidence. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I would ask that I be allowed to submit to 

the record the evidence from Honduran Security Minister Arturo 

Corrales that there has been a tremendous drop in homicides between 2012 and June 2014, from 3,245 to 2,634. So it doesn’t appear the evidence is that things are deteriorating down south. 

Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Without objection, so ordered. We will enter that 

into the record. 

[The information referred to follows:] 
60 
61 
62 
63 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. We will now go ahead and recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Poe, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. POE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you once again for being here. 

Of course, I am from Texas. I have been to the border a lot. I 

was there this weekend and saw Federal officials and State officials, both trying to secure the Texas-Mexico border. 

Went down the Rio Grande River. They see us coming in a State 

boat. The folks that are in the water swim back. Coyotes in a raft 

moving folks. He bails and leaves the raft on its own. Rocks were 

thrown at us going down the river. It does not seem to be uncommon, based upon the law enforcement officers that I was with. 

I just asked a lot of questions to the people who are on the frontline about the influx of people really from all over the world. Border Patrol sector chief, I asked him, who is coming? He said it is 

144 countries that have come recently from all over the world, including Ukraine, coming into Texas from Mexico. 

It shows the magnitude of the problem. 

I was in Honduras and Guatemala earlier in the year. I saw the 

beginning of some of these folks who were making the trek. 

And here’s the message, whether it is a right message or not, 

that if you get to the United States, you can stay, especially if you 

are 17 or under. You are going to be able to stay. The United 

States will take care of you. 

And so based on that, people move. The people motivating this 

are the drug cartels. And in this whole scheme of things, the winners, the people are making money, are the drug cartels and the 

coyotes. They are the ones who make the money off of smuggling 

people and trafficking people, which, as you know, as a lawyer, 

that is different. But they make the money. 

Drug dealers for $6,000 tell folks in Central America, give us 

$6,000, that will get you three tries to get into the United States. 

Get the Texas-Mexico border, individuals are turned over to 

coyotes. Many of them, not all, but many of them, are criminal 

gangs, and MS-13 gang, juveniles under 17, criminals, to smuggle 

them into the United States. 

Many of them are used as bait, in the sense that they start moving some people into United States. Drug cartels call Border Patrol 

and say here comes some more folks crossing the border. They use 

them as decoys to move their drugs further downriver across the 

river. 

So the drug cartels are the criminals, and the MS-13 gang and 

the smugglers. 

So the message is out there, right or wrong, that we will take 

care of folks. People hear that all the way down in Central America 

and all over the world, 144 countries coming in. 

My question goes back to deferred action that has been talked 

about incessantly since you have been here all morning. 

Do you think that expanding deferred action to include more people is legal? If the Administration does it, set Congress aside, if the 

Administration just defers action to another group of people—I am 

not talking about specific individuals, but to another group—do you 

think that would be legal or not? 
64 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. It is my legal understanding, and this is something that has been acknowledged by scholars across the political 

spectrum, that, yes, there is prosecutorial discretion, which can be 

exercised in these sorts of situations. 

Mr. POE. Is there a limit? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Of course, there is a limit. It is based on whatever the law actually allows. 

Mr. POE. What does the law allow? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. In most enforcement realms, generally, there is 

pretty broad discretion. 

Mr. POE. So it could allow everybody? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I am sorry? 

Mr. POE. Technically, if it is broad, that could be expanded to 

allow everybody, just everybody who wants to come. I mean, if it 

is discretionary. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I don’t think that is what anybody is suggesting 

or saying. 

Mr. POE. But you are not saying that it is unlawful to expand 

it. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Again, it is my understanding, based on my experience, based on my reading, that there is pretty broad prosecutorial discretion. 

Mr. POE. Based on your position, where you are and in this long 

chain of immigrants and all the things we have been talking about, 

expanding that concept of deferred action, do you think more people will come or less? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I think the key thing when we talk about DACA, 

it—— 

Mr. POE. Excuse me. Do you think more people would be encouraged to come to the United States? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Not if they don’t believe that there is a benefit. 

And I think it has been made very clear that there is no benefit 

for individuals who are currently trying to cross our border, unless 

they have a claim, such as an asylum claim. 

Mr. POE. But they may perceive that DACA will apply to them, 

whether they realize the legal ramifications or not, once they are 

here. Don’t you think that would encourage more to come? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I, certainly, think it is possible that there are 

unscrupulous individuals who are trying to deceive those people 

who are attempting to enter our country through the border. 

The fact is, nothing like DACA offers those individuals any benefit. 

Mr. POE. They are surprised when they get here, in many cases, 

that DACA does not apply to them. Is that a fair statement? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I have actually looked at Latin American media, 

where it is reported that DACA offers them no benefits. 

Mr. POE. All right, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. I am 

over time. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. I thank the gentleman. 

I will now recognize the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. 

Holding, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. HOLDING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Rodriguez, thank you for being here. We will start with a little bit of housekeeping. 
65 

In reviewing your confirmation proceedings over in the Senate, 

I note that at the April 3 executive meeting, Senator Grassley 

pointed out that you had admitted to the Judiciary Committee that 

you were personally aware of emails between political employees 

and career prosecutors discussing the decision to decline to prosecute the new Black Panther Party voter intimidation case, and 

that had contradicted the testimony of your boss, Mr. Perez. 

So I thought I would take the opportunity to ask you if you were 

aware of any emails between Lois Lerner, or a different member 

of the Internal Revenue Service, and career prosecutors in the Department of Justice regarding the prosecution or investigation of 

conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. You are asking me if I know anything about 

Lois Lerner, Congressman? 

Mr. HOLDING. If you are aware of any emails. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I only know what I have read in the paper about 

that situation. 

Mr. HOLDING. So while you were in the Department of Justice as 

Chief of Staff for the civil division. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Civil Rights Division. 

Mr. HOLDING. Civil Rights Division. You are not aware of any 

emails? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I have no involvement or any awareness other 

than what you and I both read in the papers, Congressman. 

Mr. HOLDING. Are you aware of when the Civil Rights Division 

was tasked with beginning the investigation of the IRS? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I left the Civil Rights Division to go to the Department of Health and Human Services in September 2011. I 

think you are asking about a specific individual who was designated to conduct some review. I am not fully familiar—that happened, I am pretty sure, long after I left the Civil Rights Division. 

Mr. HOLDING. Okay. Also during your confirmation hearing, it 

was determined or discovered that you served on the board of directors of Casa de Maryland, which is an organization that was 

known for finding employment for individuals without proper documentation. 

So I assume you supported this objective of the organization 

while you were on the board of directors. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. In the context of the community in which I live, 

yes, I did support that mission. 

Mr. HOLDING. Okay. Do you believe that prosecutorial discretion 

could be used to allow for finding employment or allowing employment for individuals without proper documentation? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. If the individual has a right, for example, 

through some sort of deferred action or parole, or some other mechanism, to be in the United States, then yes, then those individuals 

can then be given employment authorization. 

In fact, it is often a good idea, so that they are not in the shadow 

economy. 

Mr. HOLDING. So, in your opinion as an attorney, an experienced 

attorney at that, as the President looks at his options to continue 

to act as administratively to change U.S. immigration policy—the 

Chairman asked you at the beginning of the hearing as to what 

you had reviewed, what were the President’s next plans. 
66 

I would like to change the question a little bit and ask, in your 

learned opinion, what you know of the law, what you think the 

President’s options are to act administratively to change U.S. immigration policy? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. So, of course, no decisions have been made. I 

think it is important to underscore that at the beginning. 

I think the options are many that are permissible under the law. 

I think that is a deliberation that is ongoing as we speak. 

Mr. HOLDING. Give me two examples. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I am not really in a position to be able to give 

specific examples other than to make the general observation that 

the options are many. 

Mr. HOLDING. You can give examples, just based on your understanding of the law. You don’t have to relate them to what the 

President is actively considering. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Certainly, DACA, as we have done it already, is 

one, obviously, very concrete example of how that discretion might 

be exercised. 

Mr. HOLDING. All right. 

I was looking at a USCIS chart regarding the number of DACA 

requests by requester country of birth. And it lists the top 25 countries of the requester’s birth. But there are 19,200 requests on this 

chart from other and unknown countries. 

How many of those DACA requests have you received from applications whose home countries are listed as state sponsors of terrorism? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I could probably tell you the top five. Beyond 

that, I am not specifically aware of numbers. 

Mr. HOLDING. Could you get back to the Committee and give us 

specific numbers on that? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Absolutely, Congressman. Yes, we can. 

Mr. HOLDING. Think very much. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. I am going to go and yield myself now 5 minutes. 

Director, again, we thank you for being here. I want to walk 

through the process and understand some of the metrics. 

So if you came to this country illegally, you can apply for DACA, 

correct? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. If you qualify under the various criteria. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. How old can you be before you file for DACA? 

How old can you be? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. It is my understanding you can be no older than 

31. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. So you can be a 30 year old and apply for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. That is correct. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. At that time, the guidance says, that you can 

apply for employment, a work permit. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. That is correct. In order that you not be in the 

shadow economy, that you pay taxes, that you not be in a dependent status in any way. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. So you come here illegally, and then you apply for 

DACA and you get a work permit. 
67 

Now you said that there are more 700,000 people that have been 

put into this process, correct? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I want to confirm those numbers with the Committee. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Your written testimony says over 580,000, but 

you are now saying something like 700,000. It is hundreds of thousands of people. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. It is hundreds of thousands, yes. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. So you are here illegally. You haven’t gone 

through the proper channels. Now you are going to apply for 

DACA. You can be 30 years old. You get a work permit. 

How many of those work permits have been terminated or revoked? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. So, first of all, the key thing about these DACA 

individuals is that they were brought here. They did not come here. 

They were individuals who were brought here as children. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. How do you verify that? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Based on their ages and what we know about 

their—— 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. They could be 30 years old, so—— 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. They would have been brought here as children. 

I mean, that is one of the criteria to establish. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. How long are these interviews? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I am not specifically—— 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. How long was the interview you sat in? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I am sorry? 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. You sat in on one of these interviews. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. That was in an asylum interview that I sat in 

on. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. How long was that interview? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. That was a full hour, that interview. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. And we heard previous testimony from I believe 

the last hearing we had that normally these interviews are 15 to 

20 minutes. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. If we are talking about asylum interviews, my 

understanding is in fact that they are generally far longer than 

that, that they are closer to about an hour. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. So a credible fear hearing you think is how long? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. It was an hour. The one I observed was an hour, 

and it is my understanding that that is the norm. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. I think the record will correct you on that one. 

Of the people who apply or get DACA, they now have a work permit, so they can compete for a job against a United States citizen. 

How many of those get terminated? 

If you are, for instance, convicted of a felony, how many of those 

have been terminated? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. As of June 31, I don’t know the specific reasons 

for termination, 147 people have been terminated. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. So wait, there are over 700,000 and there have 

been how many who have been terminated? 100? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I would rely, actually, on the number that is in 

my testimony. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. It is not specific. There is no number. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Oh, I thought you had a specific number. 
68 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. No, that is the problem. 

We have been asking—— 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. In any event, you and I agree. We are talking 

about hundreds of thousands of people. There is no dispute about 

that. And 147 individuals have been terminated as of the end of 

June. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. How do you get this information? If somebody is 

convicted of a felony in Utah or North Carolina, how do you get 

that information? Whose responsibility is that? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. It comes to us through various mechanisms. It 

could be reported to us by the individual as part of the renewal 

process. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Really? You think that is going to happen? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Or it comes to us by other processes. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. So you just wait for it? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. From law enforcement agencies, we find the information—— 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Do you get reports of this? Do you have a list of 

this information? Do you surf the databases? Is there anything 

proactive that you do to get this information? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. My understanding, at this point in my tenure, 

is that we get the information from a variety of different sources. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. When you get this work permit, are there any 

limits to the type of work you can do? Can you get a job in law 

enforcement? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. If you are otherwise qualified for that job. Now, 

I know very often law enforcement agencies have various sorts 

of—— 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. But there are no limits on the type of job you can 

get. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. In and of itself, there is no limit unless that job 

itself has some limits associated with it. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. What do you say to the United States citizen who 

is doing everything legally and lawfully, that they are now competing for a job with somebody who came here illegally and applied, and the Obama administration said, well, we are going to 

defer that. You can go ahead and compete for that. 

What do you say to that person? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I have had the opportunity during the course of 

this brief time of my tenure to meet some of DACA recipients. 

These are individuals who are going to school. 

In one case, somebody who is about to graduate from—— 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. What do you say to the citizen who now has to 

compete with 700,000 people in the workforce that wouldn’t be 

there otherwise? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. We have explained about the exercise of prosecutorial discretion. We don’t have the resources to remove 10 million, 11 million individuals. And so the question is, are we going 

to let them persist in the shadow economy or are we going to have 

them work and pay taxes. 

So the choice that has been made is to enable them to work and 

pay taxes and go to school and become upstanding citizens. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. That is not what the law is, and that is what is 

sickening about this. 
69 

I yield back. 

I now recognize the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Franks. 

Mr. FRANKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. 

Sir, I guess the first thing to deal with any problem is to try to 

dissect it and to analyze what it is. 

From my perspective, there are two main concerns that I have: 

number one, that the rule of law and the Constitution of the 

United States has been undermined here and continues to be undermined; and number two, that there are tens of thousands of 

children who have been put at terrible risk and who continue to be 

put at risk. 

Now I am convinced—I am just going to tell you up front where 

I am coming from—the EPIC intelligence report from July 7, 2014, 

interviewed a significant number of these unlawful immigrants 

who were coming over. And 95 percent of them, 95 percent of them, 

cited that the primary reason for migrating to the United States 

was the perception of United States immigration law granting free 

passes, or permisos, allowing them to stay. 

So there is no question in my mind, you have projected from 

2011 through 2015 now a 2,230 percent increase in these unlawful 

immigrants coming over the United States border. 

Now that a systemic issue there. And I am absolutely convinced 

that the President’s telegraphing of a message to Central America 

and Mexico and other places is the fundamental reason that has 

occurred. 

So I lay the suffering and some of the things that happened to 

these children at the feet of the President of the United States. I 

have no doubt about that. Certainly, that is an opinion, but it is 

a strong conviction, and I think one upheld by the evidence. 

So my question is really to try to deal with those two things. 

First of all, I know your oath of office included swearing to uphold the Constitution. I am not trying to be tough on you or arrogant here, but I am just trying to make a very important point. 

How will you be able to defend the President’s end run around 

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4, which specifically bestows on Congress the duty to create immigration law, given his rewriting the 

law at his executive whim? 

How do you deal with your oath of office in following some of 

those perspectives? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Well, among other things, I don’t accept the 

characterization that we are simply ceasing in any way to enforce 

immigration law. We are exercising our discretion to prioritize the 

most important cases, the most serious cases, for enforcement and 

removal and investigation, and focusing on those and dealing with 

individuals who are not in those categories. 

Mr. FRANKS. All right, let me try to accept that then. 

So then, would you agree that the President—I will ask you an 

open question. Does the President now have the ability with existing funding to help begin to stem the flow of unlawful immigrants 

into the United States? Does he have that capability now? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. There is, certainly, some capabilities. Certainly, 

the Administration has made clear that it needs additional funding 

in order to deal with what has been a significant surge, one that 
70 

we all agree is a significant issue, a significant surge across the 

border. 

Mr. FRANKS. But he cannot do that now, correct? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. More resources are needed to deal with that. 

Mr. FRANKS. So are you saying that without additional funding, 

that the President cannot cease to use his prosecutorial discretion 

authority to shield whole categories of unlawful immigrants from 

prosecution, or he cannot implement tougher standards for credible 

fear claims? He cannot do that without additional funding, correct? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Well, the credible fear standard is a standard 

that is in law and that is—— 

Mr. FRANKS. And it is also a standard that, as you know, has 

been accepted almost 600 percent greater incidence than it was before under this Administration—almost 600 percent. And I am just 

wondering, how do we close our eyes to the fact that this President’s message to Central America and other places was that we 

won’t do anything. And if somebody comes over, that is their perception. 

And it occurs to me that if the President is the cause of this, and 

I absolutely believe that the American people understand that he 

is, that he also then has the ability to send a different message, 

and to end both the suffering of these children, and I believe that 

is real. 

You know, sometimes they try to make it that people who want 

to secure the border, like I do, that somehow we don’t care about 

the children. And we do. And I am convinced that the children that 

we might give a better living standard here, we are going to hurt 

four or five more by incenting them to make that treacherous, dangerous trip, wherein they run into all these kinds of problems. 

So if we are going to stem that issue, can’t we call upon the 

President to send a message back that, no, there is a false thought 

that they will just be welcomed here and they won’t be sent back? 

Because right now, they don’t think so. 

And he is getting ready to do some other executive order that, 

certainly, underscores that concern. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. The message that these individuals, for the most 

part, will ultimately not qualify to stay in the United States, that 

message has been delivered. 

Mr. FRANKS. Well, they are not hearing it, my friend. Because 95 

percent of them say that this is what they are coming. And that 

is this President’s fault. 

I wish I didn’t have to yield back, but I yield back. 

You can go ahead and answer the question. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. The flights have started going back, and the 

message has been delivered that in fact, in most cases, these individuals will not be able to stay in the United States. That message 

has been delivered by the President, by the Secretary. It has been 

delivered in many different ways, including by leadership in those 

countries. 

Mr. FRANKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Thank you. 

Director, can you clarify, when you say in most cases they are 

going to be sent back, there is no metric that I see that says that. 
71 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Well, in other words, recognizing that some individuals may be able to claim a status that enables them to stay in 

the United States, either qualify for asylum or be able to establish 

some other status that enables them to stay in the United States. 

In the majority of cases, these individuals will need to be returned 

to their countries. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. I now recognize the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. 

Collins, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the time, 

and let’s get right to it. 

Just a little bit ago, DHS Secretary Johnson testified before this 

Committee, on May 29. He claimed that the Administration’s unilateral amnesty policies have created legal ambiguity for the status 

of illegal aliens. 

I objected to that point at the time. On page 6 of your testimony, 

you write that DACA does not confer legal status on the recipient. 

So you agree with me that Secretary Johnson is wrong that any 

deferred action or prosecutorial discretion creates a legal ambiguity. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Well, it, certainly, doesn’t create a permanent 

status. I think that is the thrust of your question. 

Mr. COLLINS. No, the thrust of my question is are they here legal 

or not. What Secretary Johnson basically said was, because of this 

mismatch of policies, we have created legal ambiguity for people 

who walk across our borders illegally. And according to your testimony, you say DACA was part of that mismatch of priorities and 

programs. 

Would you agree with Secretary Johnson? Do you agree that 

there is a legal ambiguity, or do you agree that they are coming 

in illegally to the United States, coming in illegally, that there is 

an ambiguity to that situation? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I don’t know the specific context in which Secretary Johnson might have been speaking. People who are benefiting from DACA, do they otherwise have a legal right to be in the 

United States, and it is a requirement in order to qualify for DACA 

that you not have another legal basis to be in the United States. 

Those are individuals who in fact are not gaining any sort of permanent status through being able to be in the DACA program. 

But I don’t know the context in which Secretary Johnson’s comments about legal ambiguity were made, so I am not really able to 

speak to that. 

Mr. COLLINS. Okay, then I will just ask you directly. Do you believe there is a legal ambiguity that is caused by the differences— 

and he actually included States and other things. 

It goes back down to the bottom line. If you cross over our border 

illegally, that doesn’t automatically, by the basis of fact or changing 

or diversion or discretion, change the legal fact that you walked 

across our border illegally, correct or not? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I suppose that is true by definition, Congressman. In order to qualify for the DACA status, again, you have no 

other legal basis. It means you have no other legal basis to be in 

the United States. 

Mr. COLLINS. Let me just follow up on that. I apologize. I have 

had to go out. I have had several other meetings going on. 
72 

But I think earlier when Mr. Chaffetz was asking you, you had 

said that a requirement of DACA is that they were brought here 

by someone else. That is just not true. 

DACA only requires claiming to have entered before age 16, even 

if lawfully on a visa, and be under 31 when applying. 

I think sometimes there needs to be—I think there is some misunderstanding here on DACA and some of the things that many of 

us don’t like because of the way it basically has subverted the regular process. 

Let’s just move on to something else at this point. 

What steps have been taken as part of the advance team planning effort Secretary Johnson mentioned on February 7, in anticipation that there will be some sort of path to legalization? How 

much has been spent on that? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I don’t specifically know. I do know that there 

were efforts to prepare for the possibility of comprehensive immigration reform, specifically as contemplated in S. 744. I can, certainly, get back to you with that information. 

Mr. COLLINS. Okay, can we have time and money on the written 

answer that you will provide back? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Yes. 

Mr. COLLINS. Thank you. 

The New York Times reported that the Obama administration is 

prioritizing the processing of DACA applications over those trying 

to enter the country lawfully. In fact, until recently, a U.S. citizen 

could obtain a green card for an immediate relative in 5 months 

or less. But after the Administration instituted DACA, the service 

diverted its attention to DACA recipients, and the typical wait 

lengthened to 15 months. 

Why are you prioritizing illegal aliens over the immediate relatives of U.S. citizens? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. First of all, I am pleased to report that the I130 petitions have now returned within normal processing times. 

We have surges of work that come from all kinds—— 

Mr. COLLINS. So you are saying they are within 5 months now? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Now it is within 5 months or around 5 months. 

Mr. COLLINS. Okay, I apologize. Around 5 months or 5 months? 

Because around 5 months could be 8. It could be 10. It could be 

2. I mean, I am just trying to get clarification here. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. It is at 5 months, Congressman. 

Mr. COLLINS. At 5 months, okay. Thank you. 

Let’s go back then. I am glad it is back to where it should be, 

but why was there ever be a process in which you are prioritizing 

these applications over those who were immediate relatives of U.S. 

citizens? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Congressman, we have surges of work that come 

from all different sources. Our job is to implement the entirety of 

our mission to balance among different lines of business. 

One of the things from DACA experience is we actually learned 

some important lessons on how we absorb surges in work, which 

is why we were able over time to return to a normal processing 

time for these I-130’s. 

Mr. COLLINS. Okay. Again, it is just frustrating. I know for those 

who are here legally, who are doing it the right way, to have been 
73 

put off for any length of time over a program that has put them 

behind the priorities. That is just something that is very frustrating as you look at it. 

How much does the service spend on DACA applications? Again, 

spent moneywise, timewise, again, on these applications. You talk 

about the surge, how have you adapted? How much have you had 

to divert? What does it cost you in that realm? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. My understanding, and I don’t know the specifics, but what I do know is that the fee collected for employment 

authorization and for biometrics has enabled us to pay for the cost 

of processing DACA applicants. 

Mr. COLLINS. Can you get—— 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. We can get back to with specific information. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. COLLINS. My time has expired, at this point. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I just wanted to, as you proceed, it is my understanding, but please confirm this, that all of these applications 

were paid for by the applicants through their fees, and there were 

no taxpayer funds involved in these application processes. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Congresswoman, that is my understanding as 

well. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. If the gentleman from Georgia will yield back? 

Mr. COLLINS. I yield back. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. As we wrap up, Director, we have just a few 

items that we would appreciate if you would provide for the Committee. 

First, regarding DACA applications, could you provide the 

metrics by which you can sustain this claim that there is net expense to this? My understanding is that there is no DACA fee. 

There is for biometrics. There is for the worker application. But if 

you have 700,000-plus people getting DACA applications, and there 

is not DACA application fee, I would be curious to figure out where 

you get those funds. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. We will provide you information on the cost of 

DACA. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. When do you anticipate that we are going to get 

this? What is reasonable for us to get these documents? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Would 30 days be appropriate? I am not sure if 

information is immediately available, or whether it is going to take 

us some time to assemble it. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Okay, 30 days. That would be fine. 

The next one is, of the 147 felony convictions, DACA recipients, 

the 147 who have been referred to ICE for removal, we would love 

to know how many of those have actually been removed from the 

United States. And have they been referred to ICE for removal? 

I probably should have asked that in reverse order. How many 

of those 147 have been referred to ICE for removal? And how many 

of them have actually been removed from the United States? 

We also need updated credible fear numbers, and we would also 

like to know how many work authorizations have been granted. 

This would be comprehensive over everything that you do. You can 

break it out in categories, but, certainly, how many work authorizations have been approved. 
74 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Thank you, Congressman. We will work to get 

you that information as soon as possible. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. If you can break that number out for the work 

authorizations for DACA, we would also appreciate it. 

Again, is it reasonable to think that we could have these questions within the 30-day window? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I believe so. If I am mistaken about that, I will, 

certainly, let the Committee know. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. We hope that you can prioritize that. 

We appreciate your participation here. Welcome. 

This concludes today’s hearing. I want to thank the witness for 

attending. 

Without objection, all Members will have 5 legislative days to 

submit additional written questions for the witness or additional 

materials for the record. 

The hearing is now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 1:06 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 
(75) 

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD
76 

Material submitted by the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, and Member, Committee on the Judiciary 
77 
78 

f 
79 

Material submitted by the Honorable Spencer Bachus, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of Alabama, and Member, Committee on the Judiciary 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 

Æ