U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

96–954 PDF 2015

A REVIEW OF THE PRESIDENT’S EXECUTIVE 

ACTIONS ON IMMIGRATION 

JOINT HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY 

AND THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH CARE, 

BENEFITS AND ADMINISTRATIVE RULES 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT 

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JUNE 17, 2015 

Serial No. 114–44 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

( 

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

http://www.house.gov/reform 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah, Chairman 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan 

JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan 

PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

MICK MULVANEY, South Carolina 

KEN BUCK, Colorado 

MARK WALKER, North Carolina 

ROD BLUM, Iowa 

JODY B. HICE, Georgia 

STEVE RUSSELL, Oklahoma 

EARL L. ‘‘BUDDY’’ CARTER, Georgia 

GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin 

WILL HURD, Texas 

GARY J. PALMER, Alabama 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland, Ranking 

Minority Member 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

JIM COOPER, Tennessee 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

MATT CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois 

BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan 

TED LIEU, California 

BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey 

STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands 

MARK DeSAULNIER, California 

BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico 

SEAN MCLAUGHLIN, Staff Director 

DAVID RAPALLO, Minority Staff Director 

SEAN HAYES, Staff Director, Subcommittee on Health Care, Benefits and Administrative Rules 

ART ARTHUR, Staff Director, Subcommittee on National Security 

SARAH VANCE, Clerk 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY

RON DESANTIS, Florida, Chairman 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

JODY B. HICE, Georgia 

STEVE RUSSELL, Oklahoma, Vice Chair 

WILL HURD, Texas 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts, 

Ranking Member 

ROBIN KELLY, Illinois 

BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan 

TED LIEU, California 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH CARE, BENEFITS AND ADMINISTRATIVE RULES

JIM JORDAN, Ohio, Chairman 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan, 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

MICK MULVANEY, South Carolina Vice 

Chair 

MARK WALKER, North Carolina 

JODY B. HICE, Georgia 

EARL L. ‘‘BUDDY’’ CARTER, Georgia 

MATT CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania, 

Ranking Member 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Distict of 

Columbia 

BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey 

MARK DESAULNIER, California 

BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JIM COOPER, Tennessee 

MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico 

Vacancy 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER

AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on June 17, 2015 ............................................................................... 1 

WITNESSES 

Ms. Sarah R. Saldana, Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 6 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 8 

Mr. Leon Rodriguez, Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 8 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 9 

Mr. John Roth, Inspector General, Office of Inspector General, U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 9 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 11 

APPENDIX 

Letters to Secretary Jeh Johnson, Department of Homeland Security ............... 36 

Questions and Responses to Mick Mulvaney ........................................................ 62 

Questions from Representatives Hice, Walker, and Carter .................................

Statement for the hearing Record from NCAPA ................................................... 71 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER

AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
(1) 

A REVIEW OF THE PRESIDENT’S EXECUTIVE 

ACTIONS ON IMMIGRATION 

Wednesday, June 17, 2015 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY, JOINT WITH THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH CARE, BENEFITS AND

ADMINISTRATIVE RULES, 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM, 

Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittees met, pursuant to call, at 2:00 p.m., in Room 

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ron DeSantis [chairman of the Subcommittee on National Security] presiding. 

Present: Representatives DeSantis, Jordan, Russell, Walberg, 

DesJarlais, Hice, Meadows, Walker, Carter, Lynch, Cartwright, 

Lieu, Norton, Kelly, DeSaulnier, and Lujan Grisham. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Subcommittee on National Security and the Subcommittee on Healthcare, Benefits, and Administrative Rules convenes today to review the President’s executive actions on immigration. 

On November 20, 2014, just 2 weeks after the 2014 midterm 

elections, President Obama made far-reaching unilateral changes 

to our Nation’s immigration policy, despite saying on over 22 different occasions that he did not have the authority to do so. In his 

address on that day, the President said that: We’re a Nation of 

laws. Those who broke our immigration laws must be held accountable, especially those who are dangerous. That’s why over the past 

6 years, deportations of criminals are up 80 percent. And that’s 

why we’re going to keep focusing enforcement resources on actual 

threats to our security. We will prioritize, just like law enforcement 

does every day. 

The administration’s actions, however, have not matched the 

President’s rhetoric. According to documents provided to the House 

Judiciary Committee by DHS in April of this year, ICE arrests of 

criminal illegal aliens has declined 32 percent from the same period a year before, with 51,337 administrative arrests of criminal 

aliens in fiscal year 2015 compared to 75,171 arrests in the same 

period in fiscal year 2014. Those declines occurred across the board 

of criminal offenses. We have recently learned that between fiscal 

year 2010 and fiscal year 2014, 121 criminal illegal immigrants 

were charged with homicide following their release from ICE custody. The administration failed to remove these criminals from the 

United States. And 64 of those were released by ICE at its own discretion, not pursuant to any court order. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
2 

It was also revealed that the administration has repeatedly released the same criminal aliens. At our March 19 hearing on the 

President’s executive actions, the committee discussed the fact that 

in fiscal year 2013 ICE released 36,007 criminals, convicted criminals, that were in its custody. And we have learned that 1,000 of 

those criminals who were released have already been convicted 

again of new crimes. 

And if that were not bad enough, we have since learned that ICE 

released 156 of those repeat offenders again into American communities instead of returning them to their home country. 

Plainly, the President’s assertion his administration will keep focusing enforcement resources on actual threats to our security is 

not—is contradicted by those facts. Simply put, the President’s policy changes are not doing a good job of protecting the safety of the 

American people. 

Now, the legality of the immigration policy change has been 

called into question both by this Congress and by the Federal 

courts. And, in fact, on February 16, a Federal judge ruled that the 

administration failed to comply with the law when they implemented the President’s executive action. In a subsequent order, on 

April 7, that same judge stated that he was, quote, ‘‘extremely 

troubled by multiple representations made by the government’s 

counsel, both in the writing and orally, about the administration’s 

implementation of the revisions to his immigration policy.’’ 

Taken as a whole, these facts make it clear that the President’s 

unilateral changes are failing to achieve the stated purpose of protecting the American people. They also call into question the legality of certain actions taken by the administration in implementing 

those changes, and these are changes both in terms of the policy 

effect and the legality that they—that we will review today. 

Without objection, the chairman is authorized to declare a recess 

at any time. 

I now recognize the ranking member of the National Security 

Subcommittee, Mr. Lynch, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I also want to thank our panelists for your willingness to testify 

and help the committee with its work. 

Today will mark the fourth hearing held by this committee since 

the beginning of the 114th Congress to examine the executive actions on immigration announced by President Obama in November 

of 2014. We have also reviewed the Department of Homeland Security’s revised immigration enforcement policies at both the subcommittee and full committee level, and we have examined the economic impact of recent executive actions. We have even looked at 

the questionable premise that those executive actions will somehow 

encourage voter fraud in State and Federal elections. 

Now, I understand that these continued hearings may stem from 

disagreement over the administration’s course of action on immigration. I have my own concerns about the precedent set by executive actions when it comes to other major policy issues that may 

affect future Congresses. However, I also share President Obama’s 

frustration with the inability of some Members of Congress to support a balanced and sustainable immigration policy. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
3 

Too often this immigration debate becomes a battle between the 

throw-them-all-out crowd and the let-them-all-in crowd. But the 

truth of the matter is that we simply need to develop a responsible 

and sustainable immigration policy. And I think we all agree that 

the current arrangement is not working. 

The United States has always been a nation of immigrants and 

welcoming those who would help build our country and who want 

to come here for all the right reasons. That’s a fundamental American principle. That’s why I strongly believe that our primary focus 

as lawmakers and members of this committee should be to make 

every effort to overcome the legislative gridlock that has defined 

immigration reform thus far so that Congress affords itself the opportunity to thoroughly debate and shape our Nation’s immigration 

policy going forward. 

In addition, we must ensure that those Federal agencies responsible for immigration enforcement, such as the Department of 

Homeland Security, have the resources and tools that they need to 

do their jobs. Regrettably that is not the case. As noted in the Department-wide memo issued by Secretary Jeh Johnson in November of 2014, ‘‘Due to the limited resources, DHS and its components 

cannot respond to all immigration violations or remove all persons 

illegally in the United States.’’ This is especially true given that 

the Federal Government is still operating under sequestration. In 

addition, Congress recently approved a budget blueprint that contemplates cutting nondefense spending, including Homeland Security budget, by $500 million below the sequester-level spending 

caps. 

In spite of budgetary constraints, the Department of Homeland 

Security has detained and deported more individuals than during 

any other period in its history. According to the immigration—excuse me, the Migration Policy Institute, roughly 1.95 million people 

were removed from the United States between 2008 and 2013, 

those 6 years. That’s approximately the same number who were 

subject to removal during the 8 years of the Bush administration. 

In accordance with the guidance issued by Secretary Johnson 

last year, the Department also continues to conduct its enforcement 

and removal activities by prioritizing high-level threats to National 

security, border security, and public safety. Chief among the highest priority threats are undocumented immigrants suspected or engaged in terrorism or espionage, convicted felons, and those convicted of criminal street gang activity. 

DHS is also seeking to strengthen its ability to collect and analyze immigration data in response to the recommendations issued 

by DHS Inspector General Roth, who is a guest of ours today, in 

May of 2015, regarding how best to enhance enforcement efficiency. 

Specifically, the inspector general’s report notes that DHS agreed 

with the report’s recommendation and plans to initiate a 

multipronged approach to gathering essential data on its use of 

prosecutorial discretion through its Office of Immigration Statistics. 

Secretary Johnson ordered the Department and its components 

to fully comply with a February 2015 injunction issued by the U.S. 

District Court for the Southern District of Texas to halt the expansion of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program and the 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
4 

creation of a Deferred Action for Parental Accountability Program. 

In particular, Secretary Johnson announced on the day after the 

decision that DHS would not accept requests for expanded childhood arrivals and will suspend its plan to accept requests for the 

new parental accountability program. He has also requested that 

the Inspector General Roth investigate the issuance of approximately 2,000 expanded work permits by U.S. citizens ship and immigration services that were already in process but not halted 

quickly enough in violation of the injunction. And I understand 

that the Department has been cooperating with the Inspector General’s Office thus far. 

So, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to discussing the progress of 

this investigation and other issues pertaining to our improving immigration enforcement with our panelists. 

And I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. DESANTIS. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts. 

The chair now recognizes the chairman of the Health Care, Benefits, and Administrative Rules Subcommittee, Mr. Jordan, for his 

opening statement. 

Mr. JORDAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’ll be brief. 

Here are the facts. As the chairman indicated, 22 times the 

President said he couldn’t do what he did. Federal judge agreed 

with the President, what he said 22 times, and said the executive 

amnesty order was in fact wrong. That judge has said attorneys for 

the government, when they came before the court, misrepresented 

the facts. And after the injunction, the Department of Homeland 

Security violated the judge’s order when they sent 3-year work authorizations to approximately 2,000 individuals. Those are the 

facts. That’s what we need to get the answers to. That’s why I’m 

pleased our panel is here, so they can answer our questions. 

And I think this is a hearing very necessary, Mr. Chairman. I 

appreciate the chance to be here. Appreciate you calling the hearing. 

With that, I yield back. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Gentleman yields back. 

The chair now recognizes my friend from Pennsylvania, the ranking member on the Health Care, Benefits, and Administrative 

Rules Subcommittee, Mr. Cartwright, for his opening statement. 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to 

our witnesses for joining us today. I look forward to hearing how 

the administration is working to uphold this Nation’s immigration 

laws. Following the issuance of the administration’s executive actions on November 20, 2014, a lawsuit temporarily halted the rollout of new and expanded deferred action programs. The Department of Homeland Security trained its personnel and has begun 

implementing and working on new prosecutorial discretion policies, 

and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE, prepared for 

the rollout of the new Priority Enforcement Program. 

In the midst of all that’s happened, I think some of my colleagues 

have forgotten the reasons for the actions in the first place. Our 

immigration system was and continues to be in dire need of reform. 

DHS faces 11 million undocumented immigrants and does not have 

the resources available to remove them all. Many of these individuals have been in this country for upwards of a decade, living in 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
5 

the shadows, raising their children, many of whom were born in 

the United States. 

The Senate passed a bipartisan comprehensive reform bill in 

2013, but legislative efforts have ground to a halt in the House because of Republican opposition. In the face of legislative inaction, 

DHS issued a series of memoranda attempting to address the growing undocumented population. One memo provided guidance to 

more consistently focus resources on removing the most dangerous 

criminals and the most serious threats to public safety. Another 

memo announced efforts to improve the partnership between DHS 

and State and local law enforcement. Yet another memo modified 

deferred action policies in order to provide temporary stability to 

hardworking peaceful immigrants who are willing to pay their 

dues. 

These executive polices attempted to solve problems, but the executive branch can only go so far legally. And the immigration system will remain broken until Congress passes a legislative solution. 

Republicans in Congress have been happy to challenge and question and criticize the administration for its actions instead of offering solutions. Now, given the recent Texas Federal Court injunction, it is my belief that the USCIS Director Leon Rodriguez understands his responsibility to comply with the law and that he has 

worked quickly to halt the implementation of the new and expanded deferred action programs as soon as possible. 

I also appreciate that the USCIS has taken full responsibility for 

the release of work permits after the injunction was ordered, and 

I look forward to hearing today about changes at USCIS that will 

ensure that this kind of thing doesn’t happen again. 

But while the courts hear the legal challenges to the administration’s actions and while Republicans in Congress criticize those actions themselves, the problems in our Nation’s immigration system 

persist. 

I urge that my colleague across the aisle turn their efforts toward lawmaking and away from bellyaching. Moving forward, I 

hope we can finally focus on comprehensive lasting legislative solutions. This is the work and attention our broken immigration system and the millions affected by it so desperately need. 

I thank you, and I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Gentleman yields back. Thank you. 

I will hold the record open for 5 legislative days for any members 

who would like to submit a written statement. 

We will now recognize our witnesses. And I’m pleased to welcome 

Ms. Sarah Saldana, Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Mr. Leon Rodriguez, Director of U.S. Citizenship and 

Immigration Service; and Mr. John Roth, inspector general at the 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security. 

Welcome all. 

Pursuant to committee rules, all witnesses will be sworn in before they testify. 

If you please rise and raise your right hands. 

Do you solemnly swear the testimony you are about to give will 

be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help 

you God? 

Thank you. Please be seated. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
6 

All witnesses answered in the affirmative. 

In order to allow time for discussion, please limit your testimony 

to 5 minutes. Your entire written statement will be made part of 

the record. 

And, with that, Ms. Saldana, you’re up for 5 minutes. Thank you. 

Ms. SALDANA. Thank you, Chairman Jordan and DeSantis and 

ranking member—— 

[Disturbance in hearing room.] 

Mr. DESANTIS. Committee will come to order. Please have the police escort the protesters out. Committee will come to order. 

Committee will suspend. 

rotesters will leave the hearing room. We ask the people who are 

watching, watch, listen, learn, but if you disrupt a hearing, you will 

be removed. 

I now recognize Ms. Saldana for 5 minutes. 

WITNESS STATEMENTS 

STATEMENT OF SARAH R. SALDANA 

Ms. SALDANA. Thank you. I don’t think I got to thank the Ranking Members Cartwright and Lynch and subcommittee members. 

I’m pleased to appear before you along with U.S. Citizenship and 

Immigration Services Director Leon Rodriguez. While Directors 

Rodriguez and I lead different agencies with certainly distinct missions, we are part of the same Department and are very mindful 

of the necessity to do all we can to ensure coordination between our 

components. 

In the 2 months since I first appeared before the full committee, 

I have continued to take steps to enhance ICE’s ability to achieve 

one its primary goals, that of enforcing our Nation’s immigration 

laws and keeping our country safe by ensuring we focus our resources on individuals who pose the greatest threat to our National 

security and to public safety. 

Secretary Johnson has made it clear to all of us that our borders 

are not open to illegal migration and that I should allocate enforcement resources accordingly, consistent with our laws and with our 

values. As such, ICE is endeavoring to use appropriate prosecutorial discretion and dedicating resources to the greatest degree 

possible toward the removal of individuals who are considered enforcement priorities, which includes criminals and recent border 

entrants. 

Guided by DHS’ enforcement priorities, the approximately 7,300 

personnel of ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations, or ERO, 

identify and arrest and detain convicted criminals and other removable aliens. We, as appropriate, supervise them through alternatives to detention or remove them from the United States 

through our immigration courts. 

While there is still a lot of work to be done, I’ve seen progress 

in my 6 months leading this agency. First and foremost, our employees are dedicated to accomplishing this mission with integrity 

and with professionalism. As a result of their tireless effort focusing on the priorities I mentioned, they are making our communities 

safer. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
7 

We are now removing a greater percentage of criminals than we 

have in the past. And I’m committed to continuing this trend. In 

fiscal year 2014, 85 percent, 85 percent, of individuals removed or 

returned from the interior were individuals previously convicted of 

a criminal offense, reflecting a significant increase in the rate of removal of individuals with convictions from 67 percent in fiscal year 

2011 compared to 38 percent in fiscal year 2008. 

The increasing number of convicted criminals removed from our 

country is the result of a change in ICE’s strategic focus, which revised policies and your initiatives have helped us achieve. That’s 

why I, along with our employees at ICE and the leadership of the 

Department, have been working hard to implement the new Priority Enforcement Program, PEP, where we engage State and local 

communities to enhance the agency’s ability to remove dangerous 

individuals. 

Recently, both the counties of Los Angeles and Contra Costa in 

California agreed to continue cooperating with ICE and DHS in implementing PEP. We anticipate they will be the first of many. 

That’s also why I’ve been working to bolster ICE’s ability to obtain 

travel documents from recalcitrant countries, a problem I know 

this committee is familiar with. I’ll continue to work closely with 

the Department of State to achieve better compliance from countries in accepting the return of their nationals. 

I should also mention my establishment of enhanced oversight 

and release procedures for ICE custody determinations involving 

detainees with criminal convictions on their records, to include developing a capability to provide appropriate criminal alien release 

information to State law enforcement authorities and relevant jurisdictions. I put this procedure in place to enhance public safety 

and greater public confidence in ICE’s enforcement and administration of immigration laws. Part and parcel of this effort is a law enforcement notification system currently being used in Virginia, 

Louisiana, and my home State of Texas, in its early stages currently and which we expect to be fully implemented across the 

country sometime before the end of the year. 

With respect to family residential centers, last month I announced a series of actions to enhance oversight over these centers 

to increase access and transparency to ensure that they continue 

to provide a safe and humane environment for detained families. 

While we routinely review and evaluate our facilities, all of our facilities, we understand the unique and sensitive nature of dealing 

with women and children in these settings. Even as we do this, 

however, we also cannot have an immigration system that encourages criminals to take advantage of people to abuse women and 

children while they attempt to smuggle them into the United 

States. And both ERO and HSI are working together to find and 

dismantle and bring to justice these organizations. 

As we move forward, I believe that ICE will be successful in the 

deliberate implementation of our mission objectives. I look forward 

to working with this committee, and I echo the sentiments of the 

Congressman with respect to reform of the laws, which are encompassed in this book, along with the regulations. This is a very complex system that needs to be reformed. 

[Prepared statement of Ms. Saldana follows:] 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
8 

For complete submitted testimony, please see the following 

website: 

https://oversight.house.gov/hearing/a-review-of-the-presidentsexecutive-actions-on-immigration/ 

Mr. DESANTIS. Thank you. Gentlewoman’s time is expired. 

The chair now recognizes Mr. Rodriguez for 5 minutes. 

You’re up. 

STATEMENT OF LEON RODRIGUEZ 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Good afternoon, chairman—chairmen, ranking 

members, and members of the committee. Thank you very much for 

inviting me to be here today. 

I have talked about my own personal story before. I am the son 

of Cuban refugees from south Florida. I have talked often about the 

sufferings that led them and my grandparents to make the choices 

to come here to the United States and the hopes and dreams that 

they brought with them when they came here. This has taught me 

as Director of USCIS that every file we see, whether it is a DACA 

request, naturalization request, a refugee filing, a worker visa filing, that all of these cases represent one family’s hopes and dreams 

and, in many cases, that family’s sufferings. I believe deeply in the 

work that we do as USCIS. And I believe in it because it requires 

us both from a perspective of immigration policy and operating the 

immigration system to answer fundamental questions about our 

country. 

Will we be a prosperous country, or will we not? Will we keep 

families together, or will we allow them to be fragmented and destroyed? Will we be guided by the rule of law, or will we not? Will 

we protect the National security, or will we not? Will we lead when 

there are issues, or will we just watch as those issues deepen, become worse, become problems and even crises? 

Unfortunately, for too long, our political system failed to answer 

these questions with respect to a number of aspects of our immigration system. Not simply the situation of those who are here in 

undocumented status, and the many members of their families who 

are here legally but also those aspects of our immigration system 

that bear critically on our economic prosperity and our civic stability. It is for this reason that the President issued his executive 

actions back in November of 2014, focusing on promoting integration of immigrants, promoting actual accountability of those who 

are here in an undocumented status, a condition that did not exist 

before the President took that step, and promoting within the confines of what the law allows him, an immigration system that fully 

promotes our economic success as a country. 

The President was building on the success of the 2012 DACA 

program, and there are many success stories. Young people who 

have become teachers, nurses, doctors—in one case now, even a 

lawyer—and who really demonstrate the potential that they have 

to contribute to the United States. Our work was enjoined by the 

court in Texas. The one thing I’d like to underscore about that is 

that it’s not over until it’s over. We believe in the legality of our 

policies, and we believe that in the end we will be vindicated by 

the legal process. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
9 

Nonetheless, when the court issues an injunction, I as the Director of USCIS, as an attorney, and as a former prosecutor, ordered 

the immediate cessation of all activities to implement the deferred 

action policies under the President’s executive actions. One of those 

actions was to stop the issuance of 3-year work authorizations that 

had actually been granted the week before the injunction was 

issued. Unfortunately, through a miscommunication, those work 

authorizations were issued anyway. I have taken full responsibility, 

both in this forum and before the court, and to say that I took it 

before the court is to say something significant. I am an attorney. 

I am a former prosecutor. And I have said very clearly to Judge 

Hanen: I am responsible. I am accountable for what my agency did. 

The question, now, though is as I take accountability, will we as 

a political system take full accountability for the challenges that 

we have in our immigration system. The President made it very 

clear at the time that he issued the executive orders, that they 

could be stopped immediately if instead we found a legislative solution to the ongoing now decades-long challenges presented by the 

undocumented, presented by the insufficiency of our immigration 

system to meet our economic needs. I stand here today ready to 

work with all of you to work toward those improvements. 

Thank you, and I look forward to your questions. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Rodriguez follows:] 

For complete submitted testimony, please see the following 

website: 

https://oversight.house.gov/hearing/a-review-of-the-presidentsexecutive-actions-on-immigration/ 

Mr. DESANTIS. Thank the gentleman. 

Chair now recognizes Inspector Roth for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN ROTH 

Mr. ROTH. Good afternoon, Chairmen Jordan and DeSantis, 

chairman member—Ranking Members Cartwright and Lynch, and 

members of the subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me here to 

today to discuss DHS’ collection of prosecutorial discretion data. 

DHS has instituted various policies over time that allow the use 

of prosecutorial discretion in making immigration enforcement decisions. However, the Department does not collect or use such data 

to help assess immigration policy, evaluate the effectiveness and 

results of enforcement actions, or be able to assess the reasonableness of the exercise of that discretion on the part of DHS personnel. 

Since DHS’ formation in 2003, ICE has implemented various 

policies to focus its efforts on criminal and civil enforcement priorities. It has also used policies for processing aliens with special circumstances, such as crime victims and witnesses, nursing mothers 

and the elderly, as well as ensuring that enforcement actions are 

not focused on sensitive locations, such as schools and churches. 

At the time of our audit, ICE’s removal actions were governed by 

a series of policy memoranda signed by then-ICE Director John 

Morton in March and June of 2011 and focused its enforcement resources on three things: One, aliens who pose a danger to national 

security or risk to public safety; two, aliens who recently violated 

the immigration controls at the border and ports of entry or knowVerDate Sep 11 2014 15:20 Oct 28, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\96954.TXT APRIL

AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
10 

ingly abused the visa process; and, three, aliens who were fugitives 

or otherwise obstruct immigrations controls. 

Additionally, a year later, in 2012, the Department issued guidance, known as the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, known 

as DACA, which allows the use of prosecutorial discretion to defer 

action or release some aliens who came to the United States as 

children and meet other criteria. Despite its reliance on discretion 

to prioritize enforcement resources, ICE often does not collect prosecutorial discretion data and does not always ensure that its statistics are accurate and complete. For example, ICE records its use 

of prosecutorial discretion broadly, without distinguishing the various types of exceptions to removal, such as DACA-related exceptions. 

Additionally, prosecutorial discretion statistics may be inaccurate 

because enforcement officers may not document every encounter 

with aliens it considers to be a low enforcement priority. ICE officials told us that field personnel often do not record their use of 

prosecutorial discretion because it is too time-consuming. As a result, data that supports decisions on the use of prosecutorial discretion may not be available. 

DHS should ensure it can support its decisions with solid data. 

A feedback mechanism for the use of prosecutorial discretion could 

help DHS identify gaps, set goals, determine budget requirements, 

and provide information to improve program performance. In terms 

of overall immigration enforcement policy, such a mechanism could 

help develop sound future programs and policies. In addition to assisting in the overall policymaking process, capturing the right information would allow the Department to ensure that the proper 

and evenhanded application of the policies exist. 

As it stands now, there’s no mechanism by which to assess the 

reasonableness of an individual officer’s exercise of discretion to 

compare prosecutorial discretion decisions for similarly situated 

aliens or to compare the use of prosecutorial discretion by various 

field offices. This data, if collected, could also be used to evaluate 

the performance of individual officers or field offices. 

Uneven or inconsistent policy enforcement can have a negative 

effect on DHS’ immigration enforcement mission. Here because the 

Department does not collect data on, much less monitor the use of 

prosecutorial discretion, we are unable to determine whether the 

Department is using prosecutorial discretion consistently or fairly. 

The Department agreed with our recommendations in our audit 

to improve collection and analysis and reporting of data on the use 

of prosecutorial discretion. DHS is planning a multipronged approach for assessing and accounting for its immigration enforcement efforts. We believe such a strategy is particularly important 

given that over the last two fiscal years, ICE, CBP, and USCIS collectively received on average about $21 billion annually for immigration enforcement. 

Chairmen DeSantis and Jordan, this concludes my prepared 

statement. I’d be happy to answer any questions you or members 

of the committee may have. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Roth follows:] 

For complete submitted testimony, please see the following 

website: 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
11 

https://oversight.house.gov/hearing/a-review-of-the-presidentsexecutive-actions-on-immigration/ 

Mr. DESANTIS. Thank you, Mr. Roth. 

Chair now recognizes himself for 5 minutes. 

Ms. Saldana, you recently reported to the Senate that 121 illegal 

aliens that had been released by ICE between fiscal year 2010 and 

2014 had been arrested for homicide since they were released. How 

many total homicides have these 121 individuals been charged 

with? 

Ms. SALDANA. Beyond the specific information—— 

Mr. DESANTIS. Can you hit your microphone, please. 

Ms. SALDANA. I’m sorry. Beyond the specific information we provided with respect to the homicide, I think we broke down the information, and I can’t tell you whether there are other homicides 

involved. 

Mr. DESANTIS. So you just know that those folks have been 

charged with a homicide, but it doesn’t rule out that they could 

have been charged with multiple homicides. Is that correct? 

Ms. SALDANA. I can’t say sitting here today that that’s not the 

case. 

Mr. DESANTIS. And do you know at this point how many convictions have resulted from those charges? 

Ms. SALDANA. No. I don’t. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Is that something that you’re interested in finding 

out? 

Ms. SALDANA. Certainly. I think we have, as the inspector general has pointed out, we’re working on our systems to try to be 

more flexible and responsive. We get a lot of inquiries with—in all 

shapes and sizes, which we’re trying to make our information system more flexible, and that’s taken a little time. But, yes, absolutely, we’re interested in that information, like I know you are, 

sir. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Do you know if any of those individuals had been 

convicted of a homicide-related offense before they were released by 

DHS? 

Ms. SALDANA. I do not have that information. I don’t believe 

that’s the case. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Okay. But that’s obviously something that’s important to know. What, if any, changes does ICE plan on making 

in light of the fact that you do have 121 individuals who were in 

ICE custody, were in the country illegally, have been released, and 

now have been charged with committing homicides. And just the 

way our criminal system works, I mean, most people who get 

charged end up getting guilty. I mean, let’s just—it’s probably over 

90 percent. Let’s just say it’s 60 percent. That’s a lot of people who 

have been killed. That’s a lot of families who have lost loved ones, 

and they can look at ICE and say: Look. Had you just done your 

job better, maybe my family member would be here today. So what 

policy changes are you going to make to prevent that from happening in the future? 

Ms. SALDANA. And I will say that is particularly disturbing, I 

know, to all the members of this committee and to myself as a 

prior U.S. Attorney in north Texas, and Dallas based. That is 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
12 

something that we’re always trying to do is to find criminals and 

to convict them. As a result, when I first came here—— 

Mr. DESANTIS. Well, and you probably did that very well. I know 

people on the state level in Texas and other places do it very well. 

The problem, though, is, is if they’re going and they’re being convicted and then ICE knows that they’re not here legally, and we 

know they’re convicts, and yet they still get released into society. 

And, in 2013, I know you weren’t ICE director then, 2013 DHS released 36,000 individuals who were in the country illegally had 

been convicted of crimes. They provided the crimes to us, and they 

included homicide. They included rape. They included drug trafficking. Some very, very serious offenses. 2014, you had 30,000 individuals, again, who were in the country illegally convicted of 

crimes and yet still released by DHS. 

And so the local and Federal law enforcement officers and the 

prosecutors, they play an important role, but if DHS is then going 

to release people who have been proven to be a danger to society 

into the public, well, then that leaves more Americans to be victimized by, in some cases, very violent crimes. 

Ms. SALDANA. And that’s why, Mr. Chairman, I established a 

procedure that I announced back in March for greater oversight 

over the release of any person who had a prior—serious prior conviction. In particular, I’m asking people to sign off a piece of paper 

the original person who makes the determination with respect to 

either custody or bond. I’m asking their supervisors to review it. 

I’ve actually put together a panel in headquarters which looks over 

all of these decisions to determine whether or not they were based 

on the facts and circumstances known to the individual and that 

they were right decisions. As I mentioned earlier, this—— 

Mr. DESANTIS. And if they’re not right decisions, what happens? 

Because I mentioned the 36,000 in fiscal year 2013. These are folks 

that have been convicted in our courts of, in many cases, very serious offenses. They weren’t in the country legally, they’re released, 

and now, even at this point in 2015, of those 36,000, by DHS’ own 

figures, 1,000 of those people have already been convicted of new 

crimes again in the future. And so, clearly, there is a breakdown 

there. So when that is not followed, what happens? Who is held accountable? Does anyone lose their job? 

Ms. SALDANA. It could be, sir. We’ll just have to see. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Has anyone lost their job—— 

Ms. SALDANA. Not yet. 

Mr. DESANTIS. —since you have been ICE director? 

Ms. SALDANA. No. Not in—— 

Mr. DESANTIS. So the 1,000 new convictions that we have seen 

for people who had already been convicted, there’s not been any accountability within ICE for that. To me, that’s a major failure. Because if I were somebody whose family member was victimized by 

a crime, I would want to know: Well, wait a minute. You guys 

should have known. The President’s policy is, you know, we’re 

going to go after the criminals, zero tolerance. We’re going to make 

it happen, and yet that hasn’t happened. So what do you say to the 

families who’ve seen the—who’ve been victimized? 

Ms. SALDANA. If I may, sir, I would say that those are tragedies. 

And I wish that our deportation officers and others making these 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
13 

decisions were omniscient and could see into the future and into 

the heart and soul of these individuals, but we go by the facts that 

we know—— 

Mr. DESANTIS. A criminal conviction for, say, aggravated assault, 

that’s not looking into the future, that’s looking into the past. I 

mean, as a prosecutor, if you have people who run afoul with the 

law and get convicted of violent criminal activity, those are people 

that are much more likely to commit crimes in the future than 

somebody who’s never committed a crime in their life. So it’s not 

just saying that this is all just trying to look into the future and 

you need clairvoyance; you can judge whether somebody’s a threat 

to society based on their past conduct. 

Ms. SALDANA. If you—if you’ll allow me to finish my answer, Mr. 

Chairman, I would really appreciate it because I think the American people have a right to know the full picture here. 

Every decision we make, there is not a single deportation officer 

or other agent within ERO who wants to let a dangerous criminal 

out in the streets to threaten the public. I can guarantee and assure you of that. They are law enforcement officers. And with respect to the ability—we have got to look at the record as it is. We 

don’t look at one single factor. We do look at the age of—just like 

a court of law, the Federal courts in which I practiced. They look 

at many different factors to determine whether to release an individual, and we are bound by some of the numbers that you threw 

out by the Supreme Court in its decision with respect to not being 

able to detain people beyond 6 months, typically. And the immigration courts that set bond and release some of these folks as well. 

So that is the complete picture and that’s what I can assure you 

of is I’m committed, and I have been doing this since I stepped into 

this position back in January to keep that number down and to try 

to avoid future tragedies like the ones you have described. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Point taken. Now, you said that there are multiple factors, so you can’t just look at one thing. So maybe someone 

has a blemish on their criminal record, but there’s other factors. 

You mentioned age. Answer me this, because there have been people that have been convicted of sexual assault who have been released, and by ICE’s own admission, it wasn’t because they—the 6 

months was up. Sometimes that happens, but there are other people who did not, where they were discretionary releases. So what 

other factors would outweigh a conviction for a sexual assault 

against a woman or a child, and why would we want that person 

in our society? 

Ms. SALDANA. This Congress and in this elaborate system that 

we’re talking about has entitled the individuals to bond and have 

said things like the age of the criminal conviction, the nature of the 

crime—— 

Mr. DESANTIS. No. I understand that. But how does that outweigh the seriousness of the offense when you’re talking about people who’ve committed sexual assaults, crimes against children, 

crimes against women? That’s what I don’t understand. I understand if somebody got a speeding ticket or something, but some of 

those I think there’s broad agreement in the American public that 

that is not something that we want to see where ICE is facilitating 

people to be back on the street. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
14 

Now, I have I’m over my time. So I appreciate you answering the 

questions. I know some of my colleagues will have more, and I am 

going to now recognize Mr. Lynch for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

You know, the way we approach the question, the wider question 

of immigration is really based on what narrative that we use. This 

committee, this hearing is set up on a narrative that really looks 

at illegal immigrants who have committed heinous crimes, homicides. And so someone using that narrative will have a very negative view towards immigration policy because you’re looking at that 

consequence. 

There’s another narrative, though. I had an opportunity as part 

of this National Security Subcommittee to visit, with the former 

chairman Mr. Issa, we went to Kandahar, Afghanistan, and I was 

honored. I have to say I was honored to be asked to participate in 

an immigration—citizenship ceremony. So here I am at this Godforsaken forward-operating base when about 100 young Marines, 

men and women, surprised at the number of young women, took 

the oath of citizenship for this country. Every one of them a noncitizen in American uniforms fighting for this country in a very difficult war zone from 19—and out of those, about 100 marines, a 

few soldiers as well—19 different countries, from Guatemala to Somalia to Ethiopia to Mexico. And, you know, I was standing there, 

and we had a chance to spend the afternoon with these young soldiers and marines, and I could not help but think about the quote 

that John F. Kennedy made famous. He said: Ask not what your 

country can do for you, but ask what you can do for your country. 

And I’m thinking, these young soldiers, these young marines, 

standing in the place of American citizens in a tough, tough war 

zone, chasing the Taliban up and down that province—and they’re 

not even citizens—trying to be—trying to be American citizens for 

all the right reasons, if you take that narrative and you see the 

good, the good, that is possible by adopting an immigration policy 

that actually values that desire to be part of this country for all 

the right reasons, you take a whole different—a much more hopeful 

view of immigration policy and what we could accomplish if we got 

it right. 

So, Ms. Saldana, or Director Saldana, I want to ask you about 

some of your comments earlier. You were talking about—look, we 

all know that if we got sequestration or even the proposed budget 

is $500 million below sequestration, which really cuts into your 

ability to do your job, and I’ve seen numbers that say that 85 percent of ICE’s removals from the United States in 2014 were convicted criminals. So it sounds like you’re meeting your priorities. 

I’m just wondering what impact—what impact is this going to 

have in going after the, you know, your priority—you said it was 

National security. So that’s going after terrorists and those involved in espionage, criminal activity—— 

Ms. SALDANA. Gangs. Those—— 

Mr. LYNCH. So how will this— tell me a little bit about how this 

might affect your ability to do your job and to try to make sense 

of this somewhat dysfunctional immigration policy that we have 

right now. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
15 

Ms. SALDANA. Well, I’m glad you asked that question because we 

have had a number of things working against us and increasing 

our expenses. For example, obviously, the influx of families, women 

and children, require even greater services than others. Those beds 

are much more expensive than a regular adult bed that you would 

have. We have operations that we conduct because we cannot get 

people from the State system immediately with some jurisdictions 

not cooperating with us. We have operations we have to conduct 

where we pull people off of their regular duties and go out and try 

to find dangerous criminals. That not only exposes the officers to 

safety issues, but it also can be a very detrimental situation with 

respect to the family who is present at the time that the officers 

show up. So, to us, even the disruption that occurred back in 

March, before March, with respect to not having even any kind of 

guarantee with respect to our 2015 budget, it wreaked tremendous 

havoc, never mind the 20,000 employees who would not be receiving a paycheck if sequestration continues in this manner. 

Mr. LYNCH. Right. Now, do you do any work with the victims on 

the victim side—— 

Ms. SALDANA. Absolutely. 

Mr. LYNCH. —in these cases, and is that piece going to be affected as well? 

Ms. SALDANA. Yes. And I’m glad you mentioned that, because we 

often forget, it’s not just ERO, but its HSI, our Homeland Security 

Investigation side of the house, that is affected by these budget 

constrictions. We—and they help us with respect to these smuggling networks. As I mentioned in my opening statement, not only 

do we have to take care of the families once they get across, but 

we ought to do the best we can to dismantle those smuggling organizations that put them at peril and bring them over into this 

country. So, yes, sir, that’s a more complete picture. 

Mr. LYNCH. Very good. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. DESANTIS. The gentleman’s time’s expired. 

The chair now recognizes Mr. Jordan for 5 minutes. 

Mr. JORDAN. Thank you. 

Director Rodriguez, President issues his executive order on November 20 of last year. Court case ensues. There’s a hearing on the 

preliminary injunction January 15, 2015. Your counsel represents 

to the court: No applications for revised DACA would be accepted 

until the 18th of February. No action would be taken on any of 

these applications until March 4. 

Did you know at the time that your counsel was misrepresenting 

the facts? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. No. And I’m not sure I would characterize it 

that way, Congressman. The fact was that beginning on November 

24, for individuals who were applying for either—— 

Mr. JORDAN. It’s pretty clear—if I could just interrupt for a second, Mr. Rodriguez. It’s pretty clear your counsel said, ‘‘Just to be 

clear, Your Honor,’’ and he reemphasized that point that no applications going to the 3-years deferrals would happen until at least 

February 18—or, excuse me, March 4, and yet the case—isn’t it 

true that you had had 100,000 of these applications—or not appliVerDate Sep 11 2014 15:20 Oct 28, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\96954.TXT APRIL

AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
16 

cations, but these actual 3-year deferrals go out to 100,000 individuals? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. 100,000 individuals under the original 2012 

DACA program who were being granted 3-year work authorizations 

rather than two. 

Mr. JORDAN. Exactly. Exactly. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I won’t characterize my counsel’s comments. 

Mr. JORDAN. Well, I mean, the judges said it. They were misrepresented to the judge. I’m saying did you know at the time that 

counsel for your side of the case misrepresented that fact to the 

judge? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I was not aware of the statement made by my 

counsel at that time. 

Mr. JORDAN. When did you learn that there had been a misrepresentation to the court? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I learned that the court believed that there had 

been a misrepresentation in March when we first informed the 

court in an attempt to be 100 percent clear with the court that we 

had in fact granted roughly 108,000 3-year work authorizations beginning on November 24, long before the lawsuit was even filed. 

And, by the way, Congressman, openly. 

Mr. JORDAN. Yeah. So you informed the court when? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. We advised the court, I believe, at the beginning 

of March. It would have been something like March 3 or March 4, 

when of our own initiative in order to be 100 percent frank and 

clear with the court our counsel took the initiative to advise the 

court that we had—— 

Mr. JORDAN. Okay. You advised the court on March 3 or 4, early 

March. When did you first learn that there may be a problem? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. We in—immediately after the injunction, we discussed the existence of these 108,000 3-year authorizations, again, 

individuals under the original 2012 program. This would have been 

sometime in the few days after the injunction was issued—— 

Mr. JORDAN. I’m looking for a date because you have got to remember the context, though, Director Rodriguez. We were having 

an important debate here in Congress relative to the Department 

of Homeland Security funding bill. The judge issues his injunction 

on February 16. You’re telling us: A few weeks later, we went on 

our own, just out of the kindness of our heart, even though the 

judge thinks you misrepresented the case to him, out the of kindness of your heart, you told the judge sometime early March, but 

that DHS bill came due on February 27. You said you knew about 

this shortly after the injunction. So sometime between February 16 

and February 27, you learned of it. I’m wondering why you didn’t 

tell us right away or tell the judge right away, which we would 

have known about and the American people would have known 

about. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. We told the court within a couple of weeks of the 

injunction in an effort to be candid with the tribunal, which our 

counsel felt that it was their obligation, and which certainly had 

I been counsel, I would have had the same attitude as well. We 

wanted to make sure that the court understood that. 

Mr. JORDAN. All I’m saying is it would have been nice in the heat 

of that debate, frankly, debate that the whole country was having, 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
17 

if we’d have had that information before the deadline of the DHS 

bill, which is February 27. You’re telling me you knew there could 

be a problem, and you decided to tell the judge, but you waited 

until after the 27th. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Congressman, I’m not sure I agree with the 

characterization. The fact is we told—once we understood that this 

was an issue that the court may not have understood, we made the 

decision to let the court know. It was our intention at all times to 

be candid with the court, and what I underscore is that we were— 

we had this up on our Web site. This was included in our filings 

with the court that the directive was to issue 3-year work authorizations immediately. That was part of our initial—— 

Mr. JORDAN. Well, I tell you what would have been a lot nicer. 

What would have been a lot nicer is if the counsel for your side, 

when they were in front of the judge, would have told him what 

you told the court, would have told him, ‘‘Hey, there’s already been 

100,000 go out,’’ instead of misrepresenting it to the court and saying, ‘‘That’s not going to happen until sometime in February, sometime in March.’’ That would have been better. But, the fact, that 

you learned before the 27th day and waited to tell the judge and, 

therefore, Congress and the American people until after the DHS 

bill, I think’s relevant. 

Last question if I could, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Roth, have you looked into this issue? 

Mr. ROTH. We are in the process of doing the field work on this, 

yes. 

Mr. JORDAN. And what does that mean, Mr. Roth? Is that going 

to be a report sometime soon, or when are we going to have something that—when’s your investigation or audit going to be done? 

Mr. ROTH. Sure. We’re conducting interviews as we speak, reviewing emails, doing the kinds of things that we would typically 

do. My projected timeline is hopefully weeks, not months, but I 

can’t give you a firmer date than that. 

Mr. JORDAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. RUSSELL. [Presiding.] The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Cartwright, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Well, Mr. Rodriguez, I want to spend a little more time exploring 

USCIS’ rollout of DAPA and expanded DACA. DAPA meaning Deferred Action for Parents of Americans. In light of the Texas Federal Court decision, Director Rodriguez, I understand you have 

taken great pains to comply with the Texas Federal Court’s injunction. Is that correct? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. That is correct, Congressman. Immediately, literally, this—the court’s injunction became known to us around 

11:30 p.m. On Presidents’ Day. By 1 o’clock in the morning we had 

issued a directive to cease all implementation of either the expanded DACA policy or the DAPA policy, including to halt any 

issuance of 3-year work authorizations. 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Okay. So you immediately swung into action to 

enforce this injunction. Right? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. That is correct, Congressman, including rolling 

back materials on our Web site, forms, instructions, in order to absolutely comply in every respect with the court’s injunction. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
18 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Okay. Now, I understand that DHS has admitted that some work authorizations were provided after the court’s 

injunction was ordered, and your written testimony makes it clear, 

‘‘USCIS also took immediate steps intended to ensure we ceased 

issuing 3-year work permits.’’ Director Rodriguez, can you describe 

what those immediate steps were and why they didn’t work? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. The concrete immediate step that was taken was 

that all of those work authorizations that we’re talking about were 

in a—what is essentially a giant print queue. What was supposed 

to—and so we halted them, and what was supposed to have occurred is that they should have been essentially reversed and sent 

back to the immigration services officers who were reviewing the 

case. Instead, there was a miscommunication which led those print 

orders to go to the contractor that actually prints the 3-year work— 

3- or 2-year work authorizations, as the case might have been, and 

they were printed. 

We discovered this in the process correcting other errors that we 

had made and immediately notified on our own initiative both the 

States and the court. We have advised all of the affected requesters 

of the fact that they are getting 2- rather than 3-year work authorizations. We have required them to return their 3-year work authorizations. In fact, close to half of them already have, and 

are—— 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Let me stop you there. 

So what you’re telling us is that it wasn’t that you got caught 

or somebody blew the whistle on you, you picked up the error on 

your own. Is that correct? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Well, let me characterize it. We caught ourselves. 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Caught yourselves and you reported yourselves—— 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. That is correct, Congressman. 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. —is that right? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Yes. 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. And that was all out of an effort to be candid 

with the tribunal in Texas. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. That is correct, and also, frankly, to be fair with 

our customers and let them know exactly where they stood with respect to their cases. 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. And then you went to the people that got the 

3-year work authorizations and started to explain to them that 

they didn’t—they weren’t getting 3 years, they were getting the 2 

years, as they supposed to. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Each and every one of them, Congressman, was 

sent a letter advising them of the error, directing them to return 

their 3-year authorization and advising them that they would be 

given a 2-year authorization. 

As I indicated, we have already recaptured a number of those 3- 

year work authorizations and are issuing 2-year authorizations. 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. All right. Well, Director Rodriguez, this here is 

Washington, D.C., and we don’t blow anything out of proportion 

here. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Oh, no, sir. Never. Never. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
19 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. But, nevertheless, some reports have indicated 

that the USCIS intentionally failed to comply with the Texas Federal Court’s injection. Director Rodriguez, I just want to clear this 

up once and for all. How would you react to those criticisms? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Congressman, I’m a public servant. I am an officer of the court as an attorney. I think you have already observed, 

we actually owned up to the error that we had made. That makes 

it fairly clear that the intent all along had been to comply with the 

court’s order. 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. All right. Now, as it currently stands, are you 

moving forward with plans to process DAPA applications at that 

facility? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. In absolutely no respect, Congressman. As I 

said, we immediately, literally within minutes, halted all activities 

that amounted to the implementation of either the expanded DACA 

or the DAPA program immediately upon the court’s injunction. No 

policies have been developed. No people have been hired. Nothing 

has been done to implement those programs. 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Well, I thank you for your work, and I yield 

back. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Thank you, Congressman. 

Mr. RUSSELL. The gentleman yields back. 

The chair will now recognize himself for 5 minutes. I do appreciate your service. And when we have had you here in hearings before, it is obvious that you serve administration to administration 

in attempts to make our system both lawful and to secure our 

country. 

However, that doesn’t necessarily negate the fact that we still 

have problems. As Mr. Lynch pointed out earlier about those that 

were enlisted on fields of battle to gain their citizenship, I just 

might point out, having commanded some soldiers in foreign fields 

in that category, they were legally here in this country and had 

been properly vetted with no criminal histories. 

And that’s the essence of what we’re getting at here today is 

within the constructs of enforcing the law and doing these things 

that we must do, we can’t just let policies, political, regardless of 

administration, take away our immigration process and result in 

the crimes that we are discussing, penetration of our borders that 

weaken our national security and could open us up even to terrorist attack. 

Mr. Roth, is it correct that the Department does not collect and 

analyze data on the use of prosecutorial direction? 

Mr. ROTH. That is correct. 

Mr. RUSSELL. Can you explain why this is significant? 

Mr. ROTH. Yes. It’s best to do it by example. For example, if ERO 

officers go into, say, a house to look for a specific violent felon, 

there might be three or four other individuals that would be susceptible to deportation. By the fact that those officers exercise prosecutorial discretion on those individuals means it’s really invisible 

to the policymakers as to, one, who’s exercising prosecutorial discretion and why? Is it uniform across the country? Should it be uniform across the country? Are there categories of individuals for, 

perhaps, we should not exercise prosecutorial discretion, in other 

words, try to refine the policy as we go? It’s really a fundamental 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
20 

sort of precept of good government that you ought to be able to 

record and measure the activities that you do. 

Mr. RUSSELL. Well, did DHS explain what data it reviewed in 

setting those priorities for apprehension, detention, removal of undocumented immigrants, illegal aliens? 

Mr. ROTH. They did not as far as prosecutorial discretion. Obviously, they capture a number of different data points of information 

with regard to the number of apprehensions, the number of deportations, those kinds of things, estimates of the number of individuals illegally in the United States. But they do not capture what 

we think is an important thing, which is the exercise of discretion. 

Mr. RUSSELL. I think on this theme, part of the concern is that 

these data gaps weaken our immigration enforcement efforts. Director Saldana, I have read reports where ICE agents have complained they have not been able to access alien criminal history. 

What is being done to take corrective action on criminal history 

record access to make sure that they can see the problem before 

it becomes a problem? 

Ms. SALDANA. And, actually, I’ve actually sat down and run 

through our data points and all the information that an officer may 

have available to them at the time of apprehension, booking, whatever. And there is criminal information that comes through the 

NCIC and the FBI database with respect to prior convictions. 

I will say, the inspector general, that we agreed and concurred 

that we could be more systematic about our collection of data. But 

we do have a lot of information on the exercise of prosecutorial discretion. The issue, I understood, was it’s not systematic. And that’s 

what we’re working towards. In other words, our lawyers, for example, because prosecutorial discretion can be exercised at any 

point of an immigrant’s processing or going through the process, 

keep a record of when they exercise prosecutorial discretion. 

With respect to detention and bond decisions, that exercise of 

prosecutorial discretion is recorded. The issue is and the reason we 

concurred with the ultimate finding was we are currently working—and have been actually for several months—on systematically 

recording that information and consistently. You can imagine a law 

enforcement officer out there in the field trying to do his job, 

knocking on a door at 6 in the morning and, yes, they may not stop 

to—— 

Mr. RUSSELL. I know you have had some efforts in the Intensive 

Supervision Program, and that’s laudable. But the problem is what 

is being done to ensure that the Intensive Supervision Program is 

maintained until the immigration status of the individual is determined? Right now, there have been identified gaps where that supervision is neglected before their immigration status is done. And 

why is that? And what will you do to correct that? 

Ms. SALDANA. Well, actually, that’s what I’m saying. I think we 

have, and I think it was noted in the report, we have, the Department itself, not the agency, has been working to make this systematic actually across all the agencies, this information database, and 

have committed to working that. I’m not even sure right now I can 

remember where the report noted, the hope is that we can get that 

completed some time this year. But that is a huge effort that is 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
21 

being undertaken by our policy people and our technical people. 

And I think it’s very well underway. It just takes time. 

Mr. RUSSELL. Well, I appreciate those answers. Unfortunately, as 

time moves by, we see some drastic consequences. I am out of time. 

And I will now recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. 

Lieu. 

Mr. LIEU. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to spend some time 

discussing an issue that is very important to me and to many 

Members of Congress and that is the continued detention of 

women, children, and infants in prison-like conditions. As you 

know, in 2009, the Department of Homeland Security shut down 

the Texas, Hutto, a jail-like family facility, because it was inhumane, because of reports of abuse, and harsh conditions. 

So I was surprised in your testimony that you said your agency 

is opening up additional facilities. And that’s particularly surprising to me because, as you know, the American Immigration 

Lawyers Association has stated that virtually all of these folks can 

qualify for asylum because they are fleeing terrifying conditions of 

violence, abuse, and crime, and they have a fear of removal. 

You also know that last November, Homeland Security Secretary 

Johnson wrote in a memo, and ‘‘Field office directors should not expend detention resources on aliens who are pregnant or nursing, 

who demonstrate that they are primary caretakers of children or 

an infirm person or whose detention is otherwise not in the public 

interest.’’ 

So, in light of that guidance, I’m asking, why does ICE continue 

to expend precious resources to detain thousands of families en 

masse, including children and infants, in prison-like conditions? 

Ms. SALDANA. Congressman, I want to be sure that I wasn’t— 

that I didn’t misstate something. We do not have more new facilities that are being opened. We did, we do have Dilley with additional space that was opened. It’s the same residential center. We 

have three across the country: One in Dilley; one in Karnes; and 

one in Berks, Pennsylvania. 

But with respect to your question, we, you know, up until actually the surge last summer and the spring, we had one facility essentially in Berks, Pennsylvania, with 100 beds. We had to get 

going quickly to ensure that we had someplace to put these families and the children in sanitary, good, humane facilities. I’ve been 

to both Karnes and to Dilley. I’ve toured the entire facilities. This 

is detention. It’s not prison. I think, in fact, sir, that people have 

repeated the idea that there are, there is barbed wire at our family 

residential centers and that the guards are armed. One only has 

to step into the facility to see that those claims are false. 

Mr. LIEU. Thank you. I think 135 Members of Congress would 

disagree with you. On May 27 of this year, I joined them and 

signed a letter that said to Secretary Johnson, we are troubled by 

the Department of Homeland Security’s continued detention of 

mothers and children in secure, jail-like facilities. And it describes 

some of what happens. We are disturbed by the fact that many 

mothers and children remain in family detention, despite serious 

medical needs. In the past year. We have learned of the detention 

of children with intellectual disabilities, a child with brain cancer, 

a mother with a heart disorder, and a 12-year-old child who has 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
22 

not eaten solid food for 2 months. We also learned of a 3-year-old 

child who was throwing up for 3 days and was apparently offered 

water as a form of medical treatment. It was only after the child 

began throwing up blood on the fourth day that the facility finally 

transferred her to a hospital. This is simply unacceptable. We cannot continue to hear reports of serious harm to children in custody 

and do nothing about it. 

So, Mr. Chair, I would like to enter this letter into the record. 

Mr. RUSSELL. Without objection. 

Mr. LIEU. I would also like to enter a letter into the record dated 

June 1, 2015, from 33 Members of the Senate that says similar 

things. And then I would like to quote from this report, one of 

many, called ‘‘Locking Up Family Values Again,’’ a report on the 

practice of family detention by the Lutheran Immigration Refugee 

Service and the Women’s Refugee Commission. 

Mr. LIEU. It opens up with a quote from the advocacy director 

of Human Rights Watch: Karnes was quite the visit for me. There’s 

nothing like walking into a prison, and the first thing you hear is 

a crying baby, two things that should never go together, never ever. 

So I note in your testimony that you call these facilities family 

residential centers. It is so positive sounding. It’s like a place you 

might see at Disney World. These are actually jail-like facilities. 

They should be called family prison facilities or family detention facilities or family jail facilities but not family residential centers. 

And every time you use that term, you’re misleading the American 

public. So I’m going to ask you, will you stop using that term and 

call it what it is? 

Ms. SALDANA. No, sir. Have you visited—— 

Mr. LIEU. Just note, now that you are on notice, every time you 

use that term, I believe you will now be intentionally misleading 

the American public. 

And I yield back. 

Ms. SALDANA. I’m sorry you feel that way, Congressman. I would 

love to take you through to one of our centers. 

Mr. LIEU. Me and 135 Members of Congress feel that way and 

33 Members of the Senate still feel that way. 

Mr. RUSSELL. The gentleman has yielded back. 

And the chair will now recognize the vice chairman, Mr. 

Mulvaney from South Carolina, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MULVANEY. Thanks very much. Reset the clock please. 

Ms. Saldana, who do you report to? 

Ms. SALDANA. The Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Jeh Johnson. 

Mr. MULVANEY. And then he reports to the President? 

Ms. SALDANA. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MULVANEY. Great. Could we run the video please? 

You have a chance to follow along on the video screen for the 

next 2 minutes or so. 

Let me follow up on a couple different things then. You said before that there were communities and local governments that were 

denying you access. Tell me about that. 

Ms. SALDANA. This is one of the challenges I mentioned in my 

opening statement, sir. And I enlist the help of anybody that I can 

get help from on this issue. Because our biggest priority is crimiVerDate Sep 11 2014 15:20 Oct 28, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\96954.TXT APRIL

AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
23 

nals, convicted felons in particular, we need to work with State and 

local jurisdictions who are apprehending undocumented workers for 

offenses against State and local law. They have them in their custody. We can now communicate with the State and local jurisdiction and get some notice in advance through our detainer request 

to let us know that they’re about to release them because they’ve 

served their State custody sentence and that we can take possession of them because of their violation of the law, and now we have 

a convicted criminal here. 

Mr. MULVANEY. But they’re denying you the ability to do that? 

Ms. SALDANA. Some jurisdictions are. 

Mr. MULVANEY. Why? 

Ms. SALDANA. I can’t speak for them. I will tell you it is, some 

of them have policies and laws that are—— 

Mr. MULVANEY. Do you believe that you have—I’m sorry to cut 

you off—do you believe you have the legal right to force them to 

comply with your request? 

Ms. SALDANA. We do not have, I cannot say that the detainer notices are mandatory. They are definitely discretionary. 

Mr. MULVANEY. Would it surprise you if the administration had 

taken a different position on that in the recent past? 

Ms. SALDANA. Well, we have argued that, and there’s pending 

litigation everywhere on this topic. I think you may be familiar 

with the Oregon case. But we are trying to work—— 

Mr. MULVANEY. Would it help you if we clarified the law to make 

it clear that it was mandatory that those local communities cooperate with you? 

Ms. SALDANA. Thank you, amen, yes. 

[video shown.] 

Mr. MULVANEY. Thank you. That was Thursday, March 19. Before the papers got printed the next morning, you had retracted 

that statement. And you went on to say that any effort at Federal 

legislation now to mandate State and local law enforcement’s compliance with ICE detainers will, in our view, be highly counterproductive. So my question is, after you gave that testimony, did 

you talk to Jeh Johnson or anyone in his office? 

Ms. SALDANA. Yes, I have. 

Mr. MULVANEY. Okay. I’m sorry, let me be more clear. Between 

the time that you gave that testimony and the time you retracted 

that statement later that afternoon, did you talk to anybody at Jeh 

Johnson’s office? 

Ms. SALDANA. Yes. 

Mr. MULVANEY. What did they tell you? 

Ms. SALDANA. What did they tell me? They asked me what I 

meant by that. And that’s what my statement was. It was not a 

retraction, sir. 

Mr. MULVANEY. Oh, no, it was absolutely a retraction. 

Ms. SALDANA. It was a clarification of the fact that, I’m used to 

the law enforcement—— 

Mr. MULVANEY. I can play it back again, Ms. Saldana, if you 

want to. But everybody here knows it was a retraction. That’s fine. 

There’s nothing wrong with retracting statements. People do it all 

the time. But I asked you if you would like some help in getting 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
24 

the localities to cooperate with you, you said, ‘‘Thank you, Amen, 

yes.’’ And we all said: Great, we think we can do that. 

And that night, you said any effort to do that would be counterproductive. And I’m asking you, did Jeh Johnson ask you to change 

your statement? 

Ms. SALDANA. He did not. 

Mr. MULVANEY. Did anybody else ask you to change your statement? 

Ms. SALDANA. Change the—no. 

Mr. MULVANEY. Did Jeh Johnson ask you to clarify your statement? 

Ms. SALDANA. We discussed a clarification to make sure people 

understood that we need to work with State and local governments 

to ensure public safety in our communities. 

Mr. MULVANEY. So when I asked you if we could help you by requiring State and local governments to cooperate with you and you 

said, ‘‘Thank you, Amen, yes,’’ that meant, ‘‘Thank you, Amen, no,’’ 

is that what you’re telling me now? 

Ms. SALDANA. No. 

Mr. MULVANEY. Do you still want us to help you force the localities to cooperate with you on turning over criminals to your agency? 

Ms. SALDANA. Sir, the forcing part is the issue. The forcing is not 

going to bring these people to the table. It’s the efforts of all of us 

to make clear that this new program—— 

Mr. MULVANEY. Would you like us to pass a law that would require local governments to turn dangerous illegal immigrants directly over to ICE? 

Ms. SALDANA. No. 

Mr. MULVANEY. Why not? 

Ms. SALDANA. Because we’re in the middle of—not only myself 

and our employees at ICE—— 

Mr. MULVANEY. You have given testimony that says—— 

Ms. SALDANA. May I finish, sir? 

Mr. MULVANEY. No. You may not. You have given testimony that 

says that one of the reasons you’re concerned about the lack of cooperation is the safety of your agents. If we were to pass a law that 

would require towns and cities to turn dangerous criminal illegals 

directly over to your agents, would that make your agents safer? 

Ms. SALDANA. We’re working right now with those State and 

local jurisdictions in order—— 

Mr. MULVANEY. Great answer to a question I did not ask. If Congress were to pass a law to do that, would your people be safer? 

Ms. SALDANA. If you passed a law requiring them? 

Mr. MULVANEY. Yes. 

Ms. SALDANA. I don’t know that that can happen, sir, because 

we’re in the middle of discussions with State and local—— 

Mr. MULVANEY. I didn’t ask you that. If we did it, would it make 

your—we all know the answer, and the answer is yes. I will get a 

chance to ask you the last question, the question is this, apparently 

either you or Jeh Johnson wants to put the politics ahead of the 

safety of your people. And I find that absolute unacceptable. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
25 

Mr. RUSSELL. The chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Illinois, Ms. Kelly. 

Ms. KELLY. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Ms. Saldana, would you say 

what you wanted to say? 

Ms. SALDANA. Yes. And that is my interest is in public safety and 

the safety of our officers. And if we are allowed a period of time 

to work with State and local jurisdictions in order to accomplish 

what I hope this committee wants to accomplish, and that is removing serious criminal convicted aliens from the United States, 

then that’s what we’re working towards. And that’s how we got Los 

Angeles to say they would cooperate with us and Contra Costa, as 

well, in California. And we’re working with several other jurisdictions. Always best, always best to try to get people to come to the 

table and discuss matters than to force things down their throats. 

Ms. KELLY. Thank you. 

Mr. Roth, I have reviewed your report from last month on the 

Department’s need to strengthen data collection for its enforcement 

efforts. I think we all agree that, ideally, DHS would always be collecting more, not less, data. I would like to explore how this can 

best be done when resources may already be stretched thin. Last 

November, the Department’s memo on exercising prosecutorial discretion stated, ‘‘It is generally preferable to exercise such discretion 

as early in the case or proceeding as possible in order to preserve 

government resources.’’ 

Director, do you agree with that? 

Ms. SALDANA. Yes. 

Ms. KELLY. And can you explain specifically how the use of prosecutorial discretion helps preserve ICE’s resources? 

Ms. SALDANA. As I testified earlier, I am, up until December 16 

or 22, I was the United States attorney for North Texas, responsible for 100 counties, working with 100 different jurisdictions locally, as well as local police departments. I had the responsibility 

for over 3,000, the enforcement of over 3,000 Federal statutes as 

a United States attorney. There’s no way with 100 lawyers that I 

could bring to bear enforcement of all those laws. 

So part of my job, and it’s a difficult part, is deciding which cases 

will have the greatest impact on community safety because I can’t 

take every one of them. That is the very reason why these executive actions the Secretary announced on November 20 are essential 

because we have a multibillion dollar budget, almost $6 billion, but 

there are 11.5 million people in the country unlawfully. We have 

over 2 million in process, at one stage or another of immigration 

proceedings. There is no way, I would think, that this committee 

would support funding the removal of each one of those because it 

would cost billions and billions of dollars. So prosecutorial discretion is just essential. 

Ms. KELLY. And how frequently would you say a typical ICE 

agent exercises this discretion on the job? 

Ms. SALDANA. Every day it’s a part of their job. And they come 

across different situations at all times. 

Ms. KELLY. Thank you. 

Mr. Roth, in your written testimony, you said: Given the shear 

number of removable aliens and the finite resources available to reVerDate Sep 11 2014 15:20 Oct 28, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\96954.TXT APRIL

AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
26 

move them, DHS has decided it must focus on those who pose the 

greatest risk. 

As a former prosecutor, you used prosecutorial discretion many 

times, isn’t that right? 

Mr. ROTH. That’s correct. 

Ms. KELLY. Would you agree that this discretion involves making 

judgment calls? 

Mr. ROTH. Absolutely. 

Ms. KELLY. And, Mr. Roth, in writing the May 4 report, did your 

office conduct a cost-benefit analysis as to how more discretion data 

would improve enforcement outcomes, and why or why not? 

Mr. ROTH. We were not able to simply because we don’t know 

how often prosecutorial discretion is used. I think, as Director 

Saldana noted, we know how much is used later on in the process, 

when ICE lawyers, for example, take people out of the system. The 

thing that we don’t know—and we think we should know, and the 

Department agrees that they should know—is how often that discretion is exercised at the very point of encounter, which, as you 

know, would be the most cost-effective way to do it. But until we 

actually understand what we’re talking about, it’s impossible to do 

a cost-benefit. 

Ms. KELLY. So DHS responded to a draft of the inspector general’s report by stating this data project will, ‘‘provide a framework 

for measuring and evaluating the Department’s enforcement actions from a range of perspectives.’’ 

Is it fair to say that sometimes the use of this discretion can be 

difficult to quantify? 

Mr. ROTH. The number of times you use the discretion should be 

able to be quantified. Now, the reasons that you use it or the judgment that is used is, obviously, something that will vary depending 

on sort of what situation the officer has. But the raw numbers 

themselves, and if I could just use an example, we wrote an audit 

of the workforce enforcement that ICE does. And there they do collect statistics. And one of the things that jumped out at us in that 

audit was the fact that, for example, New Orleans 5 percent of the 

time imposed fines, yet Chicago did it 35 percent of the time. That 

raises the obvious question, how is Chicago different than New Orleans? It might be perfectly appropriate. But it certainly raises 

questions that you want to ask. So until you collect that data, 

though, you’re not even going to be able to understand which questions you should ask. 

Ms. KELLY. I’m out of time. Thank you so much. 

Mr. RUSSELL. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from 

Georgia, Mr. Hice, 5 minutes. 

Mr. HICE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Saldana, do you have any idea how many convicted criminals 

have been arrested by ICE this year? 

Ms. SALDANA. I believe that number is, let’s say for 2014, it’s 

177,960. About 56 percent of those that were removed from the 

country. Are you asking for 2015 thus far, sir? 

Mr. HICE. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. SALDANA. I don’t have that readily available but I’m happy 

to provide it. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
27 

Mr. HICE. I would appreciate that. Would you have any idea how 

many have been released this year? 

Ms. SALDANA. This year we have I think somewhere in the neighborhood of—actually, I don’t have that number, sir. 

Mr. HICE. I’m assuming, then, you don’t have any projections 

this year from previous years? 

Ms. SALDANA. For? 

Mr. HICE. For how many are going to be arrested, how many are 

going to be released. 

Ms. SALDANA. No. Projections? 

Mr. HICE. Yes. 

Ms. SALDANA. No, we don’t. 

Mr. HICE. Okay. Well, based on the last couple of years, there’s 

been over 50,00 released. So it would be my assumption, then, we 

will continue down that trend. Last time that we had, that you appeared here, I had spoken to the sheriff of Gwinnett County, Georgia, which is one of the top five counties in the country dealing 

with the problem of illegals being released in their county. I was 

told by the sheriff before coming in here that his department has 

had no communication whatsoever with Homeland Security or ICE 

before criminals have been released back into his county. We spoke 

about that, and you assured me that you would start informing 

local law enforcement agents when criminal aliens are released 

back into their communities. Is that system—and, in fairness, you 

said you didn’t know when that would occur. My question is, is 

that system in place now? 

Ms. SALDANA. Well, I think what I said was: It is not systematic. 

We have relationships all over the country where people pick up 

the phone and call each other. 

What I want is a systematic process. That’s what I’m always interested in, in establishing systems and procedures that will assure 

that. That’s what that Law Enforcement Notification System is 

about that I mentioned in my opening statement, LENS, which we 

have tested already in Texas, Louisiana, and one other State, Virginia, I think, those three States. And we plan to have all the 

States connected to a systematic notification system by the end of 

the year. 

Mr. HICE. Well, your comment to me was that your Department, 

your agency would be informing local law enforcement agents and 

departments when you release criminals back into their communities. And that is not in place still? 

Ms. SALDANA. That has begun, sir, in three States, Texas included, where we have a substantial amount of activity. It is—— 

Mr. HICE. When is it going to be completed, I want to know next 

time I call one of my sheriffs, that they will be able to say to me 

that you contacted them, your Department contacted them when 

thieves, murderers, rapists, whatever, have been released back into 

their communities. 

Ms. SALDANA. As I said earlier, by year end, we should have the 

entire country covered. And your department will get a phone call 

this afternoon. 

Mr. HICE. Okay. So you are saying to this committee that by the 

end of the year, every local law enforcement agent throughout the 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
28 

country will be notified before an illegal is released back into their 

community? 

Ms. SALDANA. The way I described it, sir, it is a notification system that goes through the State. You know, we can’t, I don’t know, 

we have 254 counties in Texas, which is a large number. What we 

ask them to do is to connect up with the State notification system. 

We give the information to the State. And the State has already 

in place—— 

Mr. HICE. So local law enforcement will not be notified, the State 

will. So it will be left to the State to communicate it abroad? 

Ms. SALDANA. Yes. And we’re discussing it with the Governors of 

those States. And people who implement the system, they’re more 

than happy to do this. 

Mr. HICE. Does ICE or any other agency in our government monitor the activities of criminals following their release? 

Ms. SALDANA. Many of them are released with conditions, including supervision, reporting in, ankle bracelets, other conditions that 

are imposed in making the decision to release somebody under 

those conditions. 

Mr. HICE. This is an issue that I think people are sick and tired, 

Americans cannot fathom, cannot understand why illegal individuals in this country who are repeat offenders of crime are continually released back in their communities. They shouldn’t be in the 

country the first place, let alone walking freely in our communities 

to the tunes of tens and tens and tens of thousands. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I just express my great concern with this. 

And I yield my time. 

Mr. RUSSELL. The gentleman yields back. 

The chair now recognizes the gentlelady from New Mexico, Ms. 

Lujan Grisham, for 5 minutes. 

Ms. LUJAN GRISHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I’m going to talk about a couple of folks in my district. One 

young woman, Yuridia Loera was brought to this country when she 

was 2 years old. She currently attends the University of New Mexico, my alma matter. Because of DACA, frankly, she was able to 

travel to Nicaragua and volunteer at a nonprofit for underprivileged children. Now, Yuridia wants to attend medical school and 

provide health care to underserved rural communities. And given 

that that reflects the entire State and we are in dire straits currently about making sure that we can meet just primary care access issues pre-ACA, during ACA, and the growing number of minority individuals in a minority-majority State, this is a wonderful 

thing in a State like mine and I can tell you in the Southwest in 

general. 

Another woman, Marian Mendez Setta is a senior at UNM and 

she’s studying psychology and philosophy with a concentration in 

pre-law. And maybe she’ll go to my law school also at the University of New Mexico. She comes from a low-income family. And because of DACA, she’s able to work to not only pay for her school, 

but she helps her parents out financially as well. I do the very 

same for my mother, very strong cultural values in my Hispanic 

community. 

Now, Chairman Chaffetz, I think, did an interesting thing in this 

committee, and we’re looking all around us at these beautiful walls 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
29 

with images of hard-working individuals who are dedicated to their 

work and their families and their communities. Considering that 

Congress failed to act on comprehensive immigration reform to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to work, learn, and contribute to the country, I support, frankly, the President’s actions on 

immigration. 

However, I have heard several concerns about inconsistencies in 

how the President’s actions are being applied. Immigration advocacy groups have been tracking reports concerning violations of the 

priorities memo. And after receiving hundreds of phone calls, they 

are hearing that ICE field offices may not be applying the priorities 

appropriately. Furthermore, on April 15, over 100 organizations 

wrote to DHS, Secretary Johnson, expressing similar concern. That 

letter states, ‘‘we have received numerous reports indicating that 

several ICE offices are failing to comply with the priorities memo.’’ 

Even people who do not fall under any priority whatsoever have 

been removed. Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter this letter into 

the record. 

Mr. RUSSELL. Without objection. 

Ms. LUJAN GRISHAM. Thank you. 

On top of this, we have most recently heard concerning reports 

that ICE may be mining DMV databases to target low or non-enforcement priority individuals, issues that I heard about well before 

I was elected in 2012, not particularly related to this priorities 

memo but consistent in patterns and practice that I find not only 

very concerning but offensive. 

Even as we speak, immigration advocates are fasting in protest 

at ICE headquarters just down the street over ICE’s failure to 

apply prosecutorial discretion in line with the memo. 

Director Saldana, these mounting reports are extremely upsetting. Can you explain to me the inconsistencies in how the priorities, frankly, are being applied on the ground? 

Ms. SALDANA. Yes, of course. 

As a matter, again, we’re talking about priorities and the fact 

that decisions on even arresting, removal, bond are all made on the 

basis of these priorities and the judgment of the person of all—— 

Ms. LUJAN GRISHAM. Are you arguing that there are no inconsistencies? Because so far, your statement to me is it’s being applied consistently, correctly, and adequately. I just want to make 

sure I’m following you. 

Ms. SALDANA. No. No. No. I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to say that 

if I did. What I’m saying is every case is different, Congresswoman. 

Every case is different. We have specifically trained all our folks 

on the legal side and on the officer side to look at all the facts and 

circumstances of that matter. So—— 

Ms. LUJAN GRISHAM. I want to reclaim part of my time. Does 

that mean that you don’t think that—do you agree that you’re applying the priorities memo effectively? Because I don’t think that 

you are. And what I really want to know is what you can do to assure me and this committee of your full compliance. 

Ms. SALDANA. As an example, the perception is not the reality. 

Ninety-six percent of the people we currently detain in our facilities meet priorities 1 and 2. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
30 

Ms. LUJAN GRISHAM. I’d have to say that I don’t believe that 

that’s accurate in my community. And I will demonstrate that in 

a much more direct way. 

And I would like, Mr. Chairman, for that to also be included as 

part of the record. 

Mr. RUSSELL. Without objection. 

Mr. RUSSELL. And the gentlelady’s time is now expired. Votes 

have just been called. 

However. I do believe that we will have time to get through the 

next two members’ questions. 

And, with that, the chair will now recognize the gentleman from 

North Carolina, Mr. Walker. 

Mr. WALKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Obviously, today, we are talking about a very emotional issue, 

this goes beyond policy and really has to deal with human life. 

I’m very grateful for Mr. Roth, Mr. Rodriguez, and Ms. Saldana 

for coming in today. But I do believe that we have got to look at 

very closely as far as some of the problems we are seeing. 

The gentlewoman from New Mexico just talked a young lady 

from DACA and how it was working out for her. Let me tell you 

another example of someone from the—that was released even 

after a drug charge, a gentleman by the name of Emmanuel Hernandez, in my home State of North Carolina, murdered four people. 

This was after he was a known gang member and after he was 

picked up with a drug offense. He applied for DACA, and his deportation was halted. 

Ms. Saldana, earlier you brought in a book and laid it there on 

the desk. The book basically is the Immigration National Act. And 

I don’t know if you’re familiar with section 236–C, which is basically the detention of criminal aliens. Are you familiar with that 

section, Ms. Saldana? 

Ms. SALDANA. Yes. 

Mr. WALKER. Let’s take a look at that. And I’ll read what it says. 

It says: The Attorney General shall take into custody any alien 

who is, A, is inadmissible by reason of having committed any offense covered in section 212 and is deportable by reason of having 

committed any offense covered in section 237. There’s four offenses 

under that: Aggravated felony, controlled substance, firearm possession, and espionage. That’s custody. 

Now let me jump to the section that is No. 2, that’s release. It 

says: The Attorney General may release, okay, only—‘‘only,’’ very 

key word—only if the alien satisfies the Attorney General that the 

alien will not pose a danger to the safety of other persons or of 

property and is likely to appear for any scheduled proceeding. 

Now, what is confusing to many of our American citizens is why 

the lack of consistency here. So my question for you today is, can 

you guarantee, is it safe that the most serious, noncitizen illegals 

and aliens who have been recently ordered to be deported, will they 

be removed under the President’s executive actions? 

Ms. SALDANA. They will, sir. But with respect to those that are 

under an immigration court, I can’t predict what the immigration 

court will do. And, of course, that’s a large portion of the people 

that come through our proceedings. They end up claiming some exVerDate Sep 11 2014 15:20 Oct 28, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\96954.TXT APRIL

AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
31 

emption or seeking asylum or something. Their considerations are 

with USCIS and with the immigration courts. 

Mr. WALKER. But according to the Immigration National Act that 

you brought in and the paragraph that I just read under release, 

that contradicts what the Attorney General says as far as grounds 

to be released. Do you see the contradiction in that? 

Ms. SALDANA. We’re talking about the mandatory release—mandatory custody provisions? 

Mr. WALKER. Yes. 

Ms. SALDANA. We abide by those. 

Mr. WALKER. Then please tell me why there is a growing number, millions of noncitizens continue to remain in this country illegally, of which some, obviously, are criminals, how does the Department expect to address this increased danger to our citizens? Tell 

me what is being done proactively to follow basically the letter of 

the law by the Attorney General. 

Ms. SALDANA. Let me mention the, again, the, my guidance to 

the field on March 13. I’ve actually visited with all the field office 

directors—there’s 26 of them, I believe—across the country and 

have advised them how it is we’re going to go about our business 

and with respect to the considerations for any individual being 

flight risk and safety, public safety. It’s just like any bond decisions 

that a court would make. And we have trained them accordingly 

as well. 

And then I want to point out the fact that I’ve established this 

system back in March which specifically sets an extra enhancement 

of supervisory approval over any release of a convicted criminal 

that is being considered by a supervisor with a signoff, by a pool 

of experts that I have at headquarters who come in and review all 

of these releases. I’m talking about March of 2015. The data that 

has been quoted has been information relating to fiscal years 2008 

through 2014. I can’t speak for what happened then. But I do know 

that we take this very seriously at the agency. And that’s why I 

instituted that additional supervisory review of release of criminals. 

Mr. WALKER. Final question before I run out of time here, what 

is the recidivism rate for all aliens who were previously apprehended, subsequently released, and who have committed a new 

crime? Do you have that number? 

Ms. SALDANA. I don’t have it with me, but it’s very low, I mean, 

compared to certainly the recidivism rate in the general—— 

Mr. WALKER. Would you like to take, is there a round number 

that you would like to suggest what it is? 

Ms. SALDANA. I can’t. I won’t speculate, sir. I can provide that 

number. 

Mr. WALKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I yield back. 

Mr. RUSSELL. Gentleman or, I’m sorry, the chair now recognizes 

the gentlelady from D.C., Ms. Norton. And I would ask for brevity 

so that we can accommodate the last two members here. 

Ms. NORTON. I will remember that, Mr. Chairman. 

There’s concern in the District of Columbia because the D.C. 

Council passed a law, it allows driver’s licenses. There have been 

some reports in the papers about ICE’s use of DMV data to initiate 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
32 

removal proceedings against immigrants. I would have some concerns. And I’m wondering if you can tell me whether DMV databases are being used for removal purposes. 

Ms. SALDANA. Not for removal purposes, ma’am. I will tell you, 

since I’ve been in this position, since January, I’ve had to run down 

more allegations and reports in the media that end up yielding a 

case quite contrary to that which was reported. 

Ms. NORTON. You do have access, though, to these databases? 

Ms. SALDANA. We can check in with the Departments of Public 

Safety of the different communities, may be required as part of an 

investigation, for example. But not for removal purposes. 

Ms. NORTON. So you have to be granted them by the jurisdiction? 

Ms. SALDANA. I’m pretty sure that it’s the department of public 

safety itself whatever jurisdiction we’re in that maintains that. And 

we would communicate with them to see if we could get that information. 

Ms. NORTON. And if they wanted to refuse them, they could? 

Ms. SALDANA. Yes. 

Ms. NORTON. That’s very important to clarify. 

Mr. Chairman, I have here and would like to ask be entered into 

the record the briefs filed in Texas v. The United States. There are 

15 States plus the District of Columbia that have filed briefs in this 

case that say that there would be improvement in their own economies. And I ask that these briefs be entered into the record. 

Mr. RUSSELL. Without objection. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. RUSSELL. The gentlelady yields back. 

The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Carter, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CARTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Saldana, Mr. Walker asked you earlier about the recidivism 

rate for aliens who were previously apprehended, subsequently released, and who have committed a new crime. You said you do not 

have those numbers available? 

Ms. SALDANA. We have looked at them because we had this question previously. And I just remember that it was comparative to 

the regular criminal—— 

Mr. CARTER. All right. Can you provide this committee with 

those numbers please? 

Ms. SALDANA. Yes. Absolutely. 

Mr. CARTER. Okay. Mr. Chairman, will you note that those numbers will be provided to us? 

Mr. RUSSELL. So noted. 

Mr. CARTER. Thank you. Thank you. 

Mr. Roth, in your report, you found that ICE field officers said 

they might not have access to an individual’s criminal history or 

their country of origin. Is this correct? 

Mr. ROTH. The criminal history in their country of origin. For example, if it’s a Mexican national, they may not be able to have the 

criminal history that may have occurred within their country of origin. 

Mr. CARTER. So what happens when an ICE field agent doesn’t 

have this history? 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
33 

Mr. ROTH. Well, they’re not able to evaluate it in the use of their 

discretion. 

Mr. CARTER. Do other ICE officials have this, that information? 

Mr. ROTH. This is a vulnerability that we found during the 

course of our fieldwork that we notified ICE of. But my understanding is largely the answer is no. 

Mr. CARTER. Why would the field officers not have that information but some of the other officers may have it? 

Mr. ROTH. Well, I’m not 100 percent sure as to which countries 

and what parts of ICE may have access to that information. 

Mr. CARTER. Ms. Saldana, why would some of the ICE field officers not have access to some of this information? 

Ms. SALDANA. Well, it needs to be provided by the country—by 

the country in question. And some countries are more cooperative 

with the United States than others. 

Mr. CARTER. So we just depend on them to give it to us? We don’t 

demand that they give it to us? 

Ms. SALDANA. Oh, we can demand. But there’s not much we can 

do. I’m working with the Department of State to try to help with 

respect to countries that have been recalcitrant in their cooperation 

with us to urge them to assist us. I even went to China a couple 

of months ago to sign a repatriation agreement, which is a very notable event, where they agreed to come to the United States, send 

two people to the United States to actually assist with repatriation. 

So we’re making inroads. But, diplomatically, it’s a huge world. 

Mr. CARTER. I understand. But how can we expect the ICE field 

agents to apply prosecutorial discretion without access to those 

records? That’s a lot to expect out of them, don’t you think? 

Ms. SALDANA. Yes, it is, sir. Again, as I said earlier, every decision we make on custody bonds, decisions to remove or put someone in immigration proceedings is made on the basis of the information we have available. That’s—— 

Mr. CARTER. What if the information is not available? What do 

we do then? 

Ms. SALDANA. With respect to other countries, we can try MLAT, 

our procedure through countries asking for information regarding 

a person’s criminal history. We can try gentle persuasion. But 

when push comes to shove, you all have provided, the Congress has 

provided for certain punitive measures to be taken against recalcitrant countries. But that’s something the Department of State is 

involved in. 

Mr. CARTER. Do we, so we ask the illegal aliens, we ask their 

country for their criminal records? 

Ms. SALDANA. Yes. 

Mr. CARTER. But we don’t always get it? 

Ms. SALDANA. Right. 

Mr. CARTER. And if we don’t get it, then we’re just—we can’t— 

we can’t use discretion. I mean, I really—you know, we want to do 

everything we can to give our field agents the opportunity to perform their work and to do their duty. Yet, if we can’t get the information, I don’t know how we’re going to do that. Would you agree? 

I mean, that’s a real problem. 

Ms. SALDANA. It is a real problem. And we certainly appreciate 

any help this committee can provide. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
34 

Mr. CARTER. What can we do? Tell us what we can do to help 

you. 

Ms. SALDANA. Well, I mean, I think there are statutes on the 

book that provide for working with our countries. And when they 

don’t cooperate, perhaps going further with respect to some punitive measures. But that’s not something ICE does. That’s something the Department of State is charged with, the laws that you 

all, the Congress, has passed with respect to that. 

Mr. CARTER. Okay. 

Mr. Chairman, that’s all I have today. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. RUSSELL. The gentleman yields back. I would like to thank 

our witnesses for taking the time to appear before us today. 

Seeing no further business, without objection, the subcommittees 

stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:50 p.m., the subcommittees were adjourned.] 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
(35) 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
36 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 1 here 96954.001
37 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 2 here 96954.002
38 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 3 here 96954.003
39 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 4 here 96954.004
40 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 5 here 96954.005
41 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 6 here 96954.006
42 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 7 here 96954.007
43 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 8 here 96954.008
44 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 9 here 96954.009
45 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 10 here 96954.010
46 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 11 here 96954.011
47 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 12 here 96954.012
48 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 13 here 96954.013
49 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 14 here 96954.014
50 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 15 here 96954.015
51 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 16 here 96954.016
52 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 17 here 96954.017
53 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 18 here 96954.018
54 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 19 here 96954.019
55 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 20 here 96954.020
56 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 21 here 96954.021
57 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 22 here 96954.022
58 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 23 here 96954.023
59 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 24 here 96954.024
60 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 25 here 96954.025
61 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 26 here 96954.026
62 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 27 here 96954.027
63 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 28 here 96954.028
64 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 29 here 96954.029
65 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 30 here 96954.030
66 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 31 here 96954.031
67 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 32 here 96954.032
68 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 33 here 96954.033
69 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 34 here 96954.034
70 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 35 here 96954.035
71 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 36 here 96954.036
72 

Æ 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 37 here 96954.037