U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

86–648 PDF 2014

ASYLUM FRAUD: 

ABUSING AMERICA’S COMPASSION? 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

IMMIGRATION AND BORDER SECURITY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

FEBRUARY 11, 2014 

Serial No. 113–66 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

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

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia, Chairman 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TED POE, Texas 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

RAU ́ L LABRADOR, Idaho 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina 

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia 

RON DeSANTIS, Florida 

JASON T. SMITH, Missouri 

[Vacant] 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., 

Georgia 

PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

JUDY CHU, California 

TED DEUTCH, Florida 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

KAREN BASS, California 

CEDRIC RICHMOND, Louisiana 

SUZAN DelBENE, Washington 

JOE GARCIA, Florida 

HAKEEM JEFFRIES, New York 

DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

SHELLEY HUSBAND, Chief of Staff & General Counsel 

PERRY APELBAUM, Minority Staff Director & Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION AND BORDER SECURITY

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina, Chairman 

TED POE, Texas, Vice-Chairman 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

RAU ́ L LABRADOR, Idaho 

GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina 

[Vacant] 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

JOE GARCIA, Florida 

PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

GEORGE FISHMAN, Chief Counsel 

DAVID SHAHOULIAN, Minority Counsel 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

FEBRUARY 11, 2014 

Page 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

The Honorable Trey Gowdy, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of South Carolina, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security .......................................................................................................... 1 

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

of California, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Immigration and 

Border Security .................................................................................................... 3 

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

of Virginia, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary ................................. 4 

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

State of Michigan, and Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary ......... 6 

WITNESSES 

Louis D. Crocetti, Jr., Principal, Immigration Integrity Group, LLC 

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

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 12 

Jan C. Ting, Professor of Law, Temple University Beasley School of Law 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 20 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 21 

Hipolito M. Acosta, former District Director, U.S. Citizenship & Immigration 

Services (Houston) and U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service (Mexico 

City) 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 24 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 27 

Eleanor Acer, Director, Refugee Protection Program, Human Rights First 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 31 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 34 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Material submitted by the Honorable Trey Gowdy, a Representative in Congress from the State of South Carolina, and Chairman, Subcommittee on 

Immigration and Border Security ....................................................................... 80 

Material submitted by the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee 

on Immigration and Border Security ................................................................. 141 

Material submitted by the Honorable Trey Gowdy, a Representative in Congress from the State of South Carolina, and Chairman, Subcommittee on 

Immigration and Border Security ....................................................................... 215 

Material submitted by the Honorable Steve King, a Representative in Congress from the State of Iowa, and Member, Subcommittee on Immigration 

and Border Security ............................................................................................. 221 

Material submitted by the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee 

on Immigration and Border Security ................................................................. 237 

Prepared Statement of Michael Comfort, President, Comfort Western Enterprises LLC ............................................................................................................ 240 

(1) 

ASYLUM FRAUD: 

ABUSING AMERICA’S COMPASSION? 

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 2014 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION AND BORDER SECURITY

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:08 a.m., in room 

2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Trey Gowdy 

(Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Gowdy, Goodlatte, Poe, Smith of Texas, 

King, Jordan, Labrador, Holding, Lofgren, Conyers, Jackson Lee, 

and Garcia. 

Also present: Representative Chaffetz. 

Staff present: (Majority) George Fishman, Chief Counsel; Dimple 

Shah, Counsel; Andrea Loving, Counsel; Graham Owens, Clerk; 

and (Minority) David Shahoulian, Minority Counsel 

Mr. GOWDY. Welcome. This is a hearing on asylum fraud. The 

Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security will come to 

order. 

[Disturbance in hearing room.] 

Mr. GOWDY. Will the Capitol Police please remove the protestors? 

The Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security will 

come to order. 

Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare recesses of 

the Committee at any time. 

We welcome our witnesses today. 

Perhaps I am a little late in saying this, but I will say it nonetheless. We are delighted to have everyone here. If you disrupt the 

hearing, you will be removed. This is your one and only warning. 

Other Committee Chairmen may give you more than one warning. 

This is the one that I am going to give you. So if you want to participate, we are delighted to have you. If you want to protest, you 

can leave now or the police will escort you. 

With that, I welcome all of our witnesses. 

And I will recognize myself now for an opening statement and 

then the Ranking Member and then the Committee Chairman. 

If you want an American version of running of the bulls, stand 

at the bottom of the steps after votes on a fly-out day. We are all 

in a hurry to get home, and I am probably the worst culprit of all. 

A few weeks ago, a young boy and his sister were at the bottom 
2 

of the steps waiting on me. Mr. Gowdy, Mr. Gowdy, do you have 

a minute? The young boy was 10 and his precious little sister was 

either 3 or 4. The first time I asked her, she held up three fingers 

and then she held up four. So we kind of agreed on 3 and a half. 

I picked the little girl up and asked her brother what I could do 

to help him. I did not know if he wanted to talk about education. 

I did not know if he wanted to talk about medical research or immigration. What he said was he wanted was to pray for me and 

that was all he wanted. He wanted to say a prayer. So I held his 

sister and he said the most beautiful prayer at the foot of our Capitol. 

I think about that little boy and his sister from time to time, and 

I thought about them specifically over the weekend when my 

friend, the Ranking Member, sent me an article on people who 

were being persecuted in one country. And then a few hours later, 

I saw another article on a man in Central Africa whose throat was 

cut simply because he was a Christian. 

So we have the contrast between the greatness of this country 

where even a young boy and his sister can petition their Government at the foot of the Capitol, literally waiting on their Representative to practice the freedom of expression, the freedom of assembly, and the freedom of religious expression by openly praying in 

the shadow of the Capitol. And you contrast that with the reality 

that in other countries, you face persecution for your beliefs. You 

may be put to death for the possession of a book that we swear all 

of our witnesses in on in court. You may be denied access to education because of gender. You may be persecuted or killed if your 

religious beliefs do not match the religious beliefs of the majority. 

You will be victimized and the criminal justice system will be 

closed to you because you do not believe the right things or look 

the right way. 

Our fellow citizens recognize the gift we were given by being 

born in a land that values and practices religious freedom, and because we realize how fortunate we are, compared to the plights of 

others, there is a tremendous generosity of spirit we feel toward 

those who were born into, or live in oppression, discrimination, persecution, and retaliation. 

Americans are generous in spirit and that generosity is evidenced by our willingness to help, but Americans expect that generosity will be respected and not abused. We expect those that seek 

to come here are honest and fair in their petitions. We know that 

there are survivors of inconceivable and heinous atrocities. We are 

outraged. We are sympathetic. And more than just sympathy, we 

are willing to open our country to provide those in need with a refuge, with a sanctuary with safety and dignity. And about all we 

ask in return is that the system not be abused and that that generosity of spirit not be taken advantage of. 

So today we will examine how we can protect the integrity of our 

asylum program while ensuring we will not extend this special benefit to those who seek to take advantage or, worse yet, exploit 

American generosity to do us harm. 

With that, I would recognize the gentlelady from California, the 

Ranking Member. 
3 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I appreciate your 

comments recognizing the importance of the asylum system. 

America really stands as a beacon of hope and freedom around 

the world, and part of being that beacon of hope and freedom is our 

refugee program and our asylum program. Really, if you think back 

to the origins of the current asylum program, it was really put into 

shape after World War II when, much to our continuing shame, the 

United States turned away Jewish refugees who were fleeing Hitler 

who were then returned to Germany and who died in concentration 

camps. That was a wake-up call to the world and to the United 

States, and we put in place our asylum system. 

Recently there has been discussion of broad immigration reform, 

and I was encouraged that there might be some opportunity to 

move forward on a bipartisan basis. I still have that hope. But 

there has been concern expressed not only about immigration reform and the President, which I think is quite misplaced since the 

President has removed 2 million people in his first 5 years in office, 

more than President Bush removed in his 8 years in office, and 

there is vigorous enforcement of the immigration laws. 

But I also think that there is concern—and I have discussed this 

with the Chairman and I think I understand the origin—with the 

title of this hearing and the allegations not by the Chairman but 

by some that this is a system racked with fraud. 

Recently The Washington Times did a report citing an internal 

assessment of the asylum system, prepared by USCIS, but the report was from 2009. And they said that the audit finds the asylum 

system ripe with fraud. That is actually a gross mischaracterization of the USCIS assessment. And the odd thing is that 

the 2009 report was actually an assessment of what was going on 

in the year 2005, a number of years before President Obama actually was elected President. So I think it is important that we deal 

with the facts. 

And certainly the asylum system is not perfect. No system that 

we as people can design—we always want to improve our situation, 

but we need to recognize also that the system in place in 2005 is 

not the same as today. We need to get the facts out and recognize 

that the has done a great deal since 2005 to combat fraud, including placing fraud detection officers at all asylum offices, placing 

fraud detection officers overseas to aid in overseas document 

verification, hiring document examiners and increasing the capacity to do forensic testing of documents, providing its officers access 

to numerous additional databases to assist in fraud detection, and 

entering into additional information sharing agreements with foreign governments to combat fraud. 

I am happy to support smart changes that further assist USCIS 

to eliminate fraud and advance its mission to assess asylum claims 

in a fair and timely manner. These changes, I think, could include 

hiring additional asylum and fraud detection officers to reduce 

backlogs, balance workloads, and expand the infrastructure for investigating potential fraud in asylum applications; dedicating additional personnel and resources to overseas document verification so 

that all investigative requests are completed in a timely manner; 

taking steps to ensure that ICE actually investigates referrals from 

USCIS fraud detection officers concerning asylum fraud; ensuring 
4 

that ICE and DOJ dedicate appropriate resources to fully prosecute 

persons and groups that defraud the immigration system; and finally, assisting USCIS to expand training with respect to detecting 

and investigating fraud in asylum and other immigration applications. 

But we should make these changes not with our hair on fire because, as we address abuse, we must also address the many ways 

that the current system fails to protect legitimate and vulnerable 

refugees. We must ensure, for example, that our immigration 

courts are properly staffed and resourced. As funding for enforcement skyrocketed in recent years, funding for the courts lagged behind, leading to massive backlogs. These delays both increased the 

potential for fraud and prevent timely protection for legitimate refugees. Adequate resources are essential for maintaining the integrity and effectiveness of the system. 

I also think we should reconsider the 1-year filing deadline which 

is barring bona fide refugees from receiving asylum while undermining the efficiency of the asylum system. The deadline does not 

bar cases because they are fraudulent, it bars them based on the 

date they are filed, regardless of the applicant’s claim. And we certainly know of cases, a Christian woman who was tortured and 

abused whose valid claim was denied because of this arbitrary 

standard. We need to take a look at that. 

Our country can strengthen the integrity of the immigration system and also provide asylum to refugees in a timely, fair, and efficient manner. This fair and balanced approach is consistent with 

the country’s values and commitments, and I believe it is something that all of us on this Committee can embrace. Certainly none 

of us want to have a fraudulent situation, but we do want to maintain our Nation’s status as a beacon of light and freedom in the 

world. 

And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. GOWDY. I thank the gentlelady. 

The Chair will now recognize the Chairman of the full Committee, the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Goodlatte. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding this hearing. Thank you for the prompt action to get the assistance of the Capitol Police to remove the protestors. That was an 

unfortunate, but very necessary step to take. 

And you know, when you see the passion of people like that 

about this issue, one would only hope that they would actually 

come to a hearing like this and stay and listen to the array of different points of view that they will hear from our panelists and 

from the Members of the Committee and the questions from the 

Members of the Committee that reflect upon the seriousness and 

complexity of these issues that need to be addressed. I know that 

every hearing that I attend I learn more about how to solve the 

problems that we have with our American immigration policy. 

So thank you for allowing us to proceed in this manner. 

The United States of America is extremely hospitable to immigrants, asylees, refugees, and those needing temporary protected 

status. Our Nation’s record of generosity and compassion to people 

in need of protection from war, anarchy, natural disaster, and persecution is exemplary and easily the best in the world. 
5 

We have maintained a robust refugee resettlement system, taking in more United Nations designated refugees than all other 

countries in the world combined. We grant asylum to tens of thousands of asylum seekers each year. We expect to continue this 

track record in protecting those who arrive here in order to escape 

persecution. 

Unfortunately, however, because of our well justified reputation 

for compassion, many people are attempting to file fraudulent 

claims just so they can get a free pass into the United States. 

The system becomes subject to abuse and fraud when the generous policies we have established are used for ideological goals by 

the Administration. It also becomes subject to abuse when people 

seek to take advantage of our generosity and game the system by 

identifying and exploiting loopholes. 

The House Judiciary Committee recently obtained an internal 

document demonstrating that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 

Services’ National Security and Records Verification Directorate’s 

Fraud Detection and National Security Division completed a report 

in 2009 on asylum fraud in cases considered by asylum officers. 

They studied a sample of asylum applications that were affirmatively filed between May and October 2005. Pursuant to the report, 

a case was classified as fraudulent if reliable evidence pertaining 

to the applicant’s asylum eligibility proved a material misrepresentation and the evidence was more than just contradictory testimony 

given by the applicant. If the indicators of fraud existed and pertained to the applicant’s asylum eligibility, but fraud could not be 

confirmed by evidence external to the applicant’s testimony, the 

case was classified as exhibiting ‘‘indicators of possible fraud.’’ A 

total of 12 percent of cases, 29 out of 239, were found to have proven fraud and an additional 58 percent, 138 cases, had indicators of 

possible fraud, for a total 70 percent rate of proven or possible 

fraud. 

The Obama administration refused to make these findings public 

and has, to my knowledge, done nothing to address the concerns 

raised by the report. Instead, they felt their time was better spent 

contesting the report’s methodology and hiring private contractors 

to rebut the findings of fraud. We have asked USCIS for any reports ever generated by the private contractors, but no such report 

has been provided to date. 

The only check suggested in the 2009 FDNS report that is mandatory, and has been since 2006, is the US-VISIT check. All other 

checks in the report are currently discretionary. The report also 

states: ‘‘As a result of information gleaned from this study, FDNS 

plans to issue internal agency recommendations to improve USCIS 

processes and fraud detection.’’ According to DHS, recommendations were made since 2009 but as of yesterday they have not told 

us either what those recommendations were or whether they had 

ever been implemented. Finally, USCIS made clear that under this 

Administration, no other fraud reporting analysis has been generated. 

To make matters worse, under Obama’s tenure, approval rates 

by asylum officers have increased from 28 percent in 2007 to 46 

percent in 2013. If an asylum officer does not approve the application, it is referred to an immigration judge. Approval rates by im-
6 

migration judges of affirmative applications have increased from 51 

percent in 2007 to 72 percent in 2012. Combining these two bites 

at the apple, the vast majority of aliens who affirmatively seek asylum are now successful in their claims. This does not even take 

into account the appellate process. 

Additionally, when DHS grants an asylum application, the alien 

becomes immediately eligible for major Federal benefits programs 

that are not even available to most legal permanent residents, or 

not available to them for years. These programs can provide many 

thousands of dollars a year in benefits to each eligible individual. 

In 2012, 29,484 aliens were granted asylum. I am sending a letter to the Government Accountability Office to determine what the 

cost of these benefits are to the American taxpayer. If 70 percent 

of these grants were made based on fraudulent applications, American taxpayers are being defrauded out of hundreds of millions, if 

not billions, of dollars each year. 

I am certainly not calling for reduced asylum protections. On the 

contrary, asylum should remain an important protection extended 

to aliens fleeing persecution. We merely seek to improve the integrity of the existing asylum program by reducing the opportunities 

for fraud and abuse while ensuring adherence to our Nation’s immigration laws. 

An overwhelming amount of fraud exists in the process and little 

is done to address it. Individuals are showing up in droves at the 

border to make out asylum claims. Adjudicators have the general 

mindset that they must get to ‘‘yes’’ in order to have successful careers. It is apparent that the rule of law is being ignored and there 

is an endemic problem within the system that the Administration 

is ignoring. Failing to address these problems undermines the good 

will and trust necessary to develop a common sense, step-by-step 

approach to improving our immigration laws. I look forward to addressing this disturbing problem today. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GOWDY. I thank the gentleman from Virginia. 

The Chair will now recognize the gentleman from Michigan, the 

Ranking Member of the full Committee, Mr. Conyers. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Chairman Gowdy. 

Less than 2 weeks ago, I was optimistic that we had turned a 

corner in the immigration debate when the Republican leadership 

released its new set of immigration principles. And although the 

principles were vague and subject to a wide range of interpretations, they nevertheless signaled real promise. A promise that my 

colleagues finally recognized the damage that our broken immigration system causes every day to families and businesses throughout 

the country. And a promise that this House would finally move forward on reforming the system for the good of us all. 

But just 1 week later, all that promise is all but gone. Why the 

sudden turnaround? Apparently it is all President Obama’s fault. 

Despite record deportations and the lowest level of border crossings 

in the last 40 years, my Republican colleagues say, in effect, they 

do not trust the President to enforce our immigration laws. 

Now, let me take this moment to assure them that the President 

is enforcing our immigration laws vigorously, a lot more than some 

of us would like. My district office, like many other district offices 
7 

*See Appendix for this submission. 

in the House, can attest to this. Our case workers spend days dealing with heart-wrenching deportations and family separation. Nevertheless, this record level of enforcement does not seem to be 

enough. 

And so this weekend, the Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer, 

offered a different approach. Pass immigration legislation now but 

have it take effect in 2017 when a new President is sitting in the 

Oval Office. Many Republicans rejected this proposal as soon as 

they heard it. Even though the offer would take Obama out of the 

equation, they did not like it. Why? Those who gave a reason said 

it was because they still do not trust Obama. 

Now, this blame game and disregard for the facts is now being 

reflected in today’s hearing, unfortunately. Last week, The Washington Times published an article about fraud in the asylum system citing a 2009 report from the United States Citizenship and 

Immigration Services. That report concerned asylum claims from 

2005, 3 years before President Obama took office. Nevertheless, our 

majority seems to be blaming Obama for that too, and they refuse 

to recognize that the system in place today, while not perfect, is a 

vastly improved one from the system in place in 2005. The 2009 

fraud report itself details several ways in which the system has 

been improved since 2005. But I guess it is just easier to blame 

President Obama. 

The issue we will address today is important. We know the number of people seeking asylum at our borders and in the interior of 

our country has increased over the last 2 years, and in some places 

at the border, the increase has been quite dramatic. It is important 

that we figure out why this is happening because only after that, 

can we figure out how to deal with it in a responsible way. But that 

is not all we have to do. Fixing our broken immigration system still 

lies ahead for the Congress, and I stand ready to do the work that 

needs to be done. 

So let us begin the second session by bringing up the bipartisan 

immigration bill that has already passed the Senate. If not, let us 

instead consider some of the Republican bills that I understand 

may be in the works. Let us just do something because doing nothing is no more an option for us than it is for the families that are 

being torn apart each and every day. 

I thank the Chairman and yield back. 

Mr. GOWDY. I thank the gentleman from Michigan. 

Before we recognize our witnesses, I would ask unanimous consent to add to the record, number one, a report by USCIS entitled 

‘‘I-589 Asylum Benefit Fraud and Compliance Report,’’ and number 

two, a DHS report entitled ‘‘Detained Asylum Seekers Fiscal Year 

2012 Report to Congress.’’* 

I will now recognize the gentlelady from California who I think 

also has—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to ask 

unanimous consent to place into the record statements from the 

Evangelical Coalition, (the National Association of Evangelicals, 

the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Con-
8 

**See Appendix for these submissions. 

ference, Liberty Council, World Relief); the U.S. Conference of 

Catholic Bishops; the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service; 

Church World Service; Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society; the United 

Nations High Commissioner for Refugees; the Center for Victims of 

Torture; Torture Abolition and Survivors Support Coalition; the 

National Immigrant Justice Center; the National Immigration 

Forum; Immigration Equality; and the American Immigration Lawyers Association, in opposition to changes that would hinder protection of refugees and asylees. 

I would also ask unanimous consent to place into the record a 

report from the Congressional Research Service outlining trends in 

asylum claims, pointing out that we are actually much lower in 

terms of asylum than in past years; and a letter from the Honorable Carlos Gutierrez, Governor Tom Ridge, Senator Mel Martinez, 

Governor Sam Brownback, Governor Jeb Bush, Grover Norquist, 

and others in support of refugees; as well as a letter from a broad 

coalition, including the Jubilee Campaign, National Association of 

Evangelicals, Southern Baptists, and others in support of changes 

to assist in refugee/asylee adjudication.** 

Mr. GOWDY. Without objection. 

We are delighted to have our panel today. I will begin by asking 

you to please all rise so I can administer an oath to you. 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

Mr. GOWDY. May the record reflect all the witnesses answered in 

the affirmative. 

I am going to introduce you en banc, and then—you can sit 

down. I am going to introduce you en banc, and then I am going 

to recognize you individually for your opening statement. The lights 

in front of you mean what they traditionally mean in life: yellow 

means speed up and red means stop. 

So, first, Mr. Louis Crocetti. Recently retired, Mr. Crocetti served 

the public for 37 years, 36 of which were dedicated to administering and enforcing U.S. immigration law. Mr. Crocetti started 

his immigration career as an immigration officer and progressed 

through the ranks to hold career Senior Executive Service level positions in both the Department of Justice and Department of 

Homeland Security. 

Shortly after retirement, Mr. Crocetti established a small business consultancy to help agencies and companies improve their effectiveness, efficiency, and integrity of current immigration-based 

policies, processes, programs, and operations. 

Mr. Crocetti holds degrees in criminal justice and jurisprudence 

from the University of Baltimore. 

Mr. Jan Ting. If I mispronounce somebody’s name—and I am 

sure I will—I apologize in advance. Mr. Ting currently serves as 

Professor of Law at the Temple University Beasley School of Law 

where he teaches immigration law, among other courses. In 1990, 

he was appointed by President George H.W. Bush as Assistant 

Commissioner for the Immigration and Naturalization Service of 

the U.S. Department of Justice. He served in this capacity until 

1993 when he returned to the faculty at Temple. 
9 

He received an undergraduate degree from Oberlin College, an 

M.A. from the University of Hawaii, and a J.D. from Harvard 

School of Law. 

Mr. Hipolito Acosta served as the District Director of the U.S. 

Citizenship and Immigration Services in Houston under the Department of Homeland Security in January 2004. He also assumed 

the leadership of legacy INS Houston District in August 2002 and 

served in that capacity until the creation of the Department of 

Homeland Security. Mr. Acosta began his career as an agent with 

the U.S. Border Patrol where he received the Newton-Azrak 

Award, the highest recognition given by the U.S. Border Patrol for 

courage and heroism displayed in the line of duty. 

Following his retirement, Mr. Acosta co-founded and is the managing partner of B&G Global Associates, an investigative training 

and security company. 

Mr. Acosta graduated from Chicago State University and Sul 

Ross State University. 

And finally, Ms. Eleanor Acer currently serves as Director of 

Human Rights First Refugee Protection Program where she oversees Human Rights First’s pro bono representation program and 

advocacy on issues relating to refugee protection, asylum, and migrants rights. Under her leadership, Human Rights First partners 

with volunteer attorneys in the United States to obtain asylum for 

more than 90 percent of its refugee clients. 

Before working for Human Rights First, Ms. Acer was an associate handling Federal litigation at Kirkpatrick and Lockhart. 

She received her J.D. from Fordham University School of Law 

and her B.A. in history from Brown. 

With that, welcome to each of you. Mr. Crocetti, we will start 

with you and recognize you for your opening statement. 

TESTIMONY OF LOUIS D. CROCETTI, JR., PRINCIPAL, 

IMMIGRATION INTEGRITY GROUP, LLC 

Mr. CROCETTI. Thank you, Chairman and Committee Members, 

and thank you for the invitation to offer my very first testimony 

as a private citizen. I think this will be much more enjoyable. 

Upon the abolishment of legacy INS and the creation of DHS, I 

was recruited by senior leaders in the new USCIS to determine the 

most effective way to detect and combat fraud in our new and extremely vulnerable post-9/11 world. In standing up FDNS, the 

Fraud Detection and National Security, we were in urgent need of 

data that could focus on the most vulnerable areas. At this point, 

both the GAO and the 9/11 Commission had issued reports concluding that our legal immigration system was being used to further criminal activities, the most significant of which is known terrorists who entered and embedded themselves in the United States 

between the 1990’s and 2004. 

In the absence of data from legacy INS, we developed two tools 

or programs that would help us collect and analyze data so that we 

could determine the types and volumes and indicators of fraud that 

existed and focus our efforts accordingly, as well as develop the 

systems, analytics-based systems, to make an effort to identify the 

fraud indicators at the time filing on the front end, which would 

have been unprecedented. 
10 

Today I will talk about the benefit fraud assessments because it 

relates directly to the benefit fraud assessment we are talking 

about. The other tool, however, I would like you to research is the 

Administrative Site Visit and Verification Program, which conducts 

post-approved compliance reviews to determine fraud rates and 

percentages, an essential tool that needs to continue to be done. 

Between 2005 and 2008, FDNS completed eight benefit fraud assessments, but due to internal differences of opinion about methodology and other issues, we were only able to finalize four. The asylum-based BFA is one of the reports that did not get finalized. In 

that the draft report does not contain one of the classification levels 

in Executive Order 13526, entitled ‘‘Classified National Security Information,’’ i.e., top secret, secret, or confidential, I am willing to 

discuss it here in the interest of national security and enhancing 

the integrity of our legal immigration system. 

One thing that is important to understand is the evidentiary 

standard for asylum, a very low burden. The applicant is more likely than not to be persecuted. If what he or she is saying is true 

and there is no negative or derogatory information to challenge the 

claim, asylum is likely to be granted. There are no mandatory documentary requirements. The possession of fraudulent identity or 

other documents or certain misrepresentations such as those to get 

visas and travel documents do not automatically disqualify an applicant. 

The decision is discretionary and based almost entirely on credibility. An applicant must, however, establish eligibility and present 

a persuasive claim. 

The methodology and case review process that we engaged consisted of taking a random sampling of 8,555 cases between May 1 

and October 31st, 2005. And, yes, Congresswoman, that is very old, 

old data, which is one of the things we must question. Why do we 

have to use old data? These cases were either approved or they are 

still pending as of January 1, 2006. 

In the methodology review process, there were two stages, levels 

of review. The first stage was FDNS field officers in the field would 

pull the cases in their jurisdictions and undertake a review. The 

second stage involved forwarding their findings to headquarters for 

a senior review team to look at the—holistically as a team to look 

at the findings and see if there were any necessary changes. 

In the stage one process, individual FDNS officers reviewed all 

the available documents, files, and oftentimes more than one file 

and other records. They also conducted a battery of government 

and open-source systems checks. If no inconsistencies or negative/ 

derogatory information existed, they classified the case as ‘‘no fraud 

indicators’’ and forwarded it on to headquarters for the second level 

review. 

If inconsistencies existed or derog or any negative information, 

they felt an overseas verification of facts or information would be 

helpful, they requested overseas investigation. 

If an overseas investigation was not likely to be of value to help 

in the verification of information or events, they categorized the 

case as containing ‘‘indicators of possible fraud’’ and then forwarded it to headquarters for second-level review. 
11 

If evidence of proven fraud, they simply categorized the case as 

‘‘proven fraud’’ and sent that into headquarters. 

The actual study population consisted of 239. And working with 

our Department of—DHS Office of Statistics using and the principles of accounting at a confidence level of 95 percent and a margin of error rate of plus or minus 5 percent. There was a finding 

of fraud in 29 of those cases, so that is 12 percent. 

I think one of the most important, however, percentages to remember is the number of cases that did not contain fraud, only 72 

of the 239 cases. Thirty percent of those cases all those FDNS officers and the senior review team categorized as ‘‘no fraud.’’ 

One hundred thirty-eight of the 239, or 58 percent, contained 

possible fraud indicators. When including 27 of the uncompleted 

overseas verification requests, that increased to 69 percent of possible indicators of fraud. 

There were only 59 of the 239 cases to overseas for information 

verification. Twenty-six of those 59, or 44 percent, were completed. 

We were unable to complete 17 of those cases because of competing 

priorities within the State Department and the unavailability of 

CIS in most of those locations. 

Initially all 59 overseas verification request cases were determined to contain no fraud indicators, but in the second-level review, the headquarters team did recategorize six, which is a very 

insignificant number of recategorization, reflecting the FDNS officers did a very good job in their review. 

One hundred five of the 138 cases, 76 percent, were found to 

have indicators of fraud and were placed in removal proceedings. 

We do not have data on what happened to those cases, but that is 

another issue with regard to the breakdown of data collection and 

reports between DOJ and DHS, specifically EOIR and CIS. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Crocetti follows:] 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, Mr. Crocetti. 

Mr. Ting? 

TESTIMONY OF JAN C. TING, PROFESSOR OF LAW, 

TEMPLE UNIVERSITY BEASLEY SCHOOL OF LAW 

Mr. TING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. 

In May 2011, the world’s attention was focused on the story of 

Nafissatou Diallo, a hotel housekeeper in New York, who claimed 

she was raped by Dominique Strauss-Kahn, then the head of the 

International Monetary Fund and thought to be a likely future 

President of France. 

How did Ms. Diallo, who was born in west Africa, come to be 

working in New York? She subsequently admitted that while in the 

U.S. illegally, she concocted a totally false story about being raped 

in her home country of Guinea in order to obtain legal asylum status in the United States. That admission is why the prosecution of 

Mr. Strauss-Kahn could not proceed. Ms. Diallo’s lawyer opposed 

dropping the prosecution, arguing that lying in order to get asylum 

was really not such a big deal, that it was commonly done, and it 

was the understanding of many people that that is how you get 

asylum in the United States. 

She was not the only successful asylum claimant whose lies are 

subsequently exposed. Back in 1999, another immigrant, coincidentally also named Diallo, died in New York City as a result of police 

gunfire and was discovered to have made numerous false claims to 

gain asylum in the United States. Amadou Diallo had claimed to 

be an orphan whose parents were murdered, though his parents 

showed up at his funeral. And he claimed to be from Mauritania 

although he was actually from Mali. 

While many are believed to obtain legal asylum status by lying, 

most go on eventually to become U.S. citizens and the lies they tell 

to get status are never uncovered. 

The August 1st, 2011 issue of The New Yorker contains an article beginning on page 32 called ‘‘The Asylum Seeker’’ by Suketu 

Mehta, which tells in detail how illegal immigrants educate themselves on how to construct stories which make them sound like victims of persecution. The article features an asylum claimant who 

was making a completely bogus claim of having been raped. To 

strengthen her case, she attends group therapy sessions for rape 

victims at a public hospital and receives taxpayer-funded medications for her supposed depression, which she throws away. 

Such exposures of asylum claims are difficult to uncover, and the 

difficulties are compounded when the number of asylum applications is increasing. The total number of affirmative asylum applications has more than doubled in the last 5 years, exceeding 80,000 

in fiscal year 2013. Over the same 5 years, so-called credible fear 

asylum applications made at the border have increased sevenfold 

from less than 5,000 to more than 36,000 in fiscal year 2013. I 

have seen statistics from USCIS showing an approval rate of 92 

percent for credible fear claims in 2013. 

What should be done? I have four suggestions. 

First and most importantly, all proposed grants of asylum should 

be routed through the U.S. State Department for comment and an 
21 

opportunity to object, as was done when I served at the Immigration and Naturalization Service. I believe many of the career civil 

servants now working at CIS would support this proposal. Get the 

State Department involved. I think we can only improve asylum 

adjudication by restoring a role for the diplomats we trust to represent us in foreign countries who have firsthand experience in 

those countries and who are required to study their languages and 

cultures. They can call upon specialized resources in every country 

to evaluate questionable asylum claims. 

Second, I think Congress may want to reconsider the role of 

‘‘credible fear’’ in the expedited removal provision of the immigration statute. The statute already provides that ‘‘in the case of an 

alien who is an applicant for admission, if the examining officer determines that an alien seeking admission is not clearly and beyond 

a doubt entitled to be admitted, the alien shall be detained for a 

removal proceeding under section 240.’’ That is the standard that 

should be applied to all arriving aliens. 

Third, just as the credible fear standard may originally have had 

some utility but has lost value as alien smugglers game the system 

and spread the stories that work in demonstrating credible fear, so 

the asylum statute itself, section 208, while a useful addition to our 

immigration law when added in 1980, may have lost some value as 

the stories have been spread that work in convincing an adjudicator to grant asylum. 

I would like to see Congress consider enhancing section 241(b)(3), 

withholding of removal, by adding to that some of the benefits of 

asylum like adjustment of status to a permanent resident, and following to join for spouses and minor children under certain conditions, with a goal of replacing the asylum statute with a single enhanced withholding of removal statute for the protection of refugees. That statute has and will have a higher burden of proof than 

the asylum statute and should therefore be less susceptible to 

fraud. 

Fourth and finally, one last suggestion. Affirmative applicants effectively get two bites at the apple on asylum. As has been explained, if they are denied by the asylum officer, they get a shot 

at the immigration judge. And I think there is no reason to allow 

those two bites of the apple. Congress should consider making the 

asylum officer rejection determinative before the immigration judge 

and let the immigration judge rule on other possibilities for relief, 

including withholding of removal. 

That concludes my testimony, and I again thank the Committee 

for the opportunity to testify. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ting follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Jan C. Ting, Professor of Law, 

Temple University Beasley School of Law 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, for the invitation to 

testify on the subject of asylum fraud as an abuse of U.S. immigration law. 

In May, 2011, the world’s attention was focused on the story of Nafissatou Diallo, 

a hotel housekeeper in New York, who claimed she was raped by Dominique 

Strauss-Kahn, then the head of the International Monetary Fund and thought to 

be a likely future president of France. How did Ms. Diallo, who was born in West 

Africa, come to be working in New York? She admitted that while in the U.S. illegally, she concocted a totally false story about being raped in her home country of 
22 

1http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2018772/Nafissatou-Diallo-Dominique-Strauss-Kahnlawyers-accuse-maid-using-media-campaign.html 2http://www.nytimes.com/1999/03/17/nyregion/his-lawyer-says-diallo-lied-on-request-for-political-asylum.html 3http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/08/01/110801fa_fact_mehta 4Mary Beth Sheridan, ‘‘Ghanian Woman Convicted of Fabricating Tale’’, Washington Post, 

Jan. 17, 2003, page A1, http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-246521.html 5http://www.nytimes.com/1997/05/24/nyregion/doubts-cast-on-identity-of-nigerian-who-says-hes-a-political-refugee.html 6 U.S. v. Chen, 324 F.3d 1103 (9th C., 2003), http://openjurist.org/324/f3d/1103/united-statesv-chen 7For a recent story of how aliens are smuggled into the U.S. to make asylum claims, and the 

pressures on immigration judges who reject those claims, see Frances Robles, ‘‘Tamils’ Smuggling Journey to U.S. Leads to Longer Ordeal: 3 Years of Detention’’, New York Times, Feb. 

2, 2014, http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/03/us/tamils-smuggling-journey-to-us-leads-to-longerordeal-3-years-of-detention.html 

Guinea, in order to obtain legal asylum status in the U.S.1 Prosecutors concluded 

that prosecution of Mr. Strauss-Kahn could not proceed in light of that admission. 

While the U.S. has numerical limits on the numbers of legal immigrants it admits 

every year, it has no numerical limit on the number of refugees it accepts every year 

on the basis of their claim for asylum because they face persecution in their home 

country on account of race, religion, nationality, social group, or political opinion. 

Illegal immigrants, once they enter the U.S. either illegally or by overstaying a temporary visa, have a strong incentive to lie in making an asylum claim in order to 

obtain permanent legal status to work legally and qualify for becoming a U.S. citizen. 

Asylum claims are currently ruled upon either by officers of the Department of 

Homeland Security or by immigration judges of the Department of Justice in the 

course of deportation proceedings. If the story is found to be credible and convincing, 

and to meet the legal standard of a well-founded fear of persecution on account of 

race, religion, nationality, social group, or political opinion, and if the story-teller 

has not been convicted of a crime, the request for legal permanent residence in the 

U.S. on grounds of asylum is usually granted. 

Outside groups monitor the adjudicators to identify and apply political pressure 

on any whose asylum approval rate is lower than the average, or who approve some 

nationalities less than others, even though each case is supposed to be decided on 

its own set of facts. 

Ms. Diallo is not the only successful asylum claimant whose lies are subsequently 

exposed. Back in 1999 another immigrant, also named Diallo, died in New York City 

as the result of police gunfire, and was discovered to have made numerous false 

claims to gain asylum in the U.S. Amadou Diallo had claimed to be an orphan 

whose parents were murdered, though his parents showed up at his funeral, and 

he claimed to be Mauritanian, though he was actually from Mali.2

While many are believed to obtain legal asylum status by lying, most go on to 

eventually become U.S. citizens, and the lies they tell to get status are never uncovered. 

The August 1, 2011, issue of the New Yorker contains an article, beginning on 

page 32, called ‘‘The Asylum Seeker’’ by Suketu Mehta, which tells in detail how 

illegal immigrants educate themselves on how to construct stories which make them 

sound like victims of persecution.3 The article features an asylum claimant from Africa who is making a completely bogus claim of having been raped. To strengthen 

her case, she attends group therapy sessions for rape victims at a public hospital 

and receives taxpayer-funded medications for her supposed depression, which she 

throws away. 

Other stories of brazen lies told by illegal immigrants in pursuit of asylum include 

the case of Adelaide Abankwah, championed by feminist and human rights figures. 

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted asylum to Abankwah in 

1999 over the objections of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, which later 

proved fraud in her application including a stolen name and false passport. She was 

tried and convicted of perjury and passport fraud.4

See also the case of the Nigerian imposter calling himself Edwin Mutaru Bulus 

whose bogus asylum claim was exposed only after a sympathetic story was published in the New York Times.5 Xian Hua Chen, an illegal immigrant from China 

was convicted of perjury on his asylum application.6

Such convictions and exposures of false asylum claims are difficult and expensive 

to attain. And the difficulties are compounded when the number of asylum applications is increasing.7 The total number of affirmative asylum applications has more 

than doubled in the last five years, exceeding 80,000 in FY2013. Over the same five 
23 

8 Cindy Chang and Kate Linthicum, ‘‘U.S. seeing a surge in Central American asylum seekers’’, Los Angeles Times, Dec. 15, 2013, http://articles.latimes.com/2013/dec/15/local/la-me-ff-asylum-20131215 9Data Provided by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to House Judiciary 

Committee on December 9, 2013 10 Executive Order 12807, 57 Fed.Reg. 23133 (1992). 11Sale v. Haitian Centers Council, Inc., 509 U.S. 155 (1993). 

years, so-called ‘‘credible fear’’ asylum applications made at the border have increased sevenfold from less than 5,000 to more than 36,000 in FY2013.8 I have seen 

statistics from USCIS Asylum Division showing an approval rate of 92% for credible 

fear claims in FY 2013.9

The concept of ‘‘credible fear’’ was instituted by the former Immigration and Naturalization Service as an informal screening device for the large numbers of Haitian 

people interdicted via boats on the high seas headed for the United States after the 

Haitian coup of 1991. The idea was that people interdicted via boats who could not 

articulate a credible fear that could qualify them for asylum would be repatriated 

to Haiti without further deliberation. 

At that time it was unclear whether the U.S. had any legal obligation to boat people interdicted on the high seas under the Convention and Protocol Relating to the 

Status of Refugees or under U.S. law. It was hoped that the credible fear determination would satisfy any basic requirement for an individual hearing that might subsequently be required by U.S. courts. 

Overwhelmed by increasing numbers of interdicted boat people, President George 

H.W. Bush in 1992 issued an executive order authorizing the direct return to Haiti 

of its nationals interdicted on the high seas, without any screening at all.10

That policy was harshly criticized by candidate Bill Clinton during the 1992 presidential campaign. Those of us who worked to implement President Bush’s policies 

were gratified when the incoming Clinton administration announced on the eve of 

inauguration day, that despite earlier criticism, it would continue the Bush administration policy of repatriation to Haiti without any screening interview. The Clinton 

administration ended up defending that policy against its critics in federal court, 

and won a significant victory when the U.S. Supreme Court sustained the policy by 

an 8 to 1 vote and held that neither the Convention and Protocol on Refugees nor 

asylum and withholding provisions of U.S. immigration law apply to U.S. repatriations from the high seas.11

My point is that the credible fear test was developed on the fly as a temporary 

screening device to facilitate repatriations from the interdictions of large numbers 

of people on the high seas headed for the U.S. without authorization. It is at best 

an unintended consequence for the credible fear test to be used to facilitate the 

entry into the United States of undocumented immigrants who present themselves 

at the border without having to prove their eligibility for asylum. 

Two final points: The increasing numbers of asylum applicants is a not just a 

problem for the U.S. Anyone looking at recent developments in Western Europe, 

Australia, Canada, even Israel, can see that for many reasons including the worldwide recession, continuing turmoil and conflict, and rising expectations, the number 

of asylum seekers who need to be processed has risen and will continue to increase 

throughout the world. Policy planning should reflect this reality. 

And it bears repeating that the international and U.S. legal standard for who is 

a refugee and therefore eligible for asylum in the U.S., at the discretion of the U.S. 

government, is more restrictive than the broader, more colloquially used concept of 

refugee. Those fleeing poverty, joblessness, and economic stagnation in their home 

countries do not qualify under the legal standard for refugees. Those seeking better 

education, health care, and opportunities for their children do not qualify as refugees. Those fleeing high rates of crime and generalized violence in their home countries do not qualify as refugees. Those fleeing natural disasters, however acute, do 

not qualify as refugees. 

What should be done? 

First, all proposed grants of asylum should be routed through the U.S. Department of State for comment and an opportunity to object. 

There’s no simple solution to the false asylum claims, but I think the Department 

of State foreign service officers as a group are better able to determine actual conditions in various foreign countries, and therefore more likely to detect false stories 

and recognize the truth, than asylum officers or immigration judges based exclusively in the U.S. 

The role of the Department of State in the adjudication of asylum claims was reduced and then eliminated because during the Reagan administration, that department was thought to favor asylum claims from countries whose governments the ad-
24 

12 INA Section 235(b)(1), 8 U.S.C. Section 1225(b)(1). 13 INA Section 235(b)(2)(A), 8 U.S.C. Section 1225(b)(2)(A). 14See I.N.S. v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421 (1987). 

ministration opposed, like Nicaragua, and to reject asylum claims from countries 

whose governments the administration supported, like El Salvador and Guatemala. 

But the reality is there are always going to be some political pressures on these 

decisions, and there are strong political pressures today on the adjudicators at the 

Departments of Homeland Security and Justice. Political pressures on asylum adjudications can be mitigated by involvement of the State Department. Adjudicators 

with high rejection rates can defend themselves by presenting State Department 

comments. 

I think we can only improve asylum adjudication by restoring a role for the diplomats we trust to represent us in foreign countries, who have first-hand experience 

in those countries, and who are required to study their languages and cultures. 

They can call upon specialized resources in every country to evaluate questionable 

asylum claims. 

Second, Congress might want to reconsider the role of ‘‘credible fear’’ in the expedited removal provision of the immigration statute.12 The statute already provides 

that ‘‘in the case of an alien who is an applicant for admission, if the examining 

officer determines that an alien seeking admission is not clearly and beyond a doubt 

entitled to be admitted, the alien shall be detained for a (removal) proceeding under 

section 240.’’ 13 That is the standard that should be applied to all arriving aliens. 

Finally, just as the credible fear standard may originally have had some utility, 

but has lost value as alien smugglers game the system and spread the stories that 

‘‘work’’ in demonstrating credible fear, so the asylum statute itself, INA Section 208, 

while a useful addition to our immigration law when added in 1980, may have lost 

some value as the stories have been spread that ‘‘work’’ in convincing an adjudicator 

to grant asylum. 

How did the U.S. meet its obligations under the Convention and Protocol on the 

Status of Refugees before 1980? The answer is through withholding of deportation, 

now withholding of removal, Section 241(b)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality 

Act, 8 U.S.C. Section 1231(b)(3). That statute prevents the removal of an alien to 

any country if, ‘‘the alien’s life or freedom would be threatened in that country because of the alien’s race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social 

group, or political opinion.’’ 

I would like to see Congress consider enhancing Section 241(b)(3) by adding to it 

some of the benefits of asylum, like adjustment of status to legal permanent resident, and following to join of spouses and minor children, under certain specified 

conditions, with the goal of replacing the asylum statute with a single enhanced 

withholding of removal statute for the protection of refugees. That statute has and 

will have a higher burden of proof than the asylum statute 14, and should therefore 

be less susceptible to fraud. 

That concludes my testimony, and I again thank the committee for the opportunity to testify. 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, Mr. Ting. 

Mr. Acosta? 

TESTIMONY OF HIPOLITO M. ACOSTA, FORMER DISTRICT DIRECTOR, U.S. CITIZENSHIP & IMMIGRATION SERVICES 

(HOUSTON) AND U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION 

SERVICE (MEXICO CITY) 

Mr. ACOSTA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the 

Committee, and thank you for allowing me to testify on the subject 

of asylum fraud before you today. 

Several months ago, I spoke to a national of a Central American 

country in his early 30’s who had been deported 3 years earlier 

after having resided in the United States for over 8 years. During 

the period he was here, he established a very successful business 

enterprise and immediately, upon arriving in his country, returned 
25 

to the U.S. via Mexico using the services of a human smuggler to 

get back to his business. 

Sometime after his illegal reentry, he sought the services of an 

immigration attorney to explore avenues to legalize his status. For 

a substantial fee, one of the options presented and recommended 

to him by the attorney was to file a credible fear claim. This legal 

advice was given despite the fact that he was already ineligible to 

file but the legal representative intended to use our own deportation record to show that he had been outside the country and would 

falsify the date of return. Even more egregious was the recommendation that cigarette burn marks could be placed on his 

body as evidence of torture in his country when he had been forced 

to return. 

Fortunately, in this instance, the alien did not pursue the advice 

given. Instead, he sought other legal counsel and reported the incident to appropriate authorities. 

While it is unknown what the outcome of the fraudulent claim 

finally would have been, this alien had an incentive to submit a 

fraudulent asylum claim to obtain legal status in the United 

States, especially when encouraged by immigration services providers who they consider experts and rely upon their advice for 

legal representation. 

With USCIS statistics indicating that 92 percent of the credible 

fear claims were approved during fiscal year 2013, the odds were 

certainly in his favor of receiving a favorable ruling despite the 

fraud. 

Ports of entry and some Border Patrol offices have reported 

surges of individuals presenting credible fear claims, including 

large numbers of Mexican citizens fleeing violence or threats from 

vicious narcotics trafficking cartels operating throughout that country. The violence occurring in Mexico and in some Central American countries is indisputable. The violence associated with the 

criminal organizations is real but under our legal standards does 

not qualify individuals for asylum. Yet, we have seen a staggering 

more than 500 percent increase during the 5-year period of claims 

along our southern border. 

Our immigration history has shown that Mexican citizens and 

Central American aliens have long sought to enter our country in 

search of a better way of life and opportunities. This has included 

those who have entered our country illegally or individuals who 

overstayed their visas. With our enhanced border security and better technology, illegal entry along our southern border has become 

much more difficult, and the cost to pay smugglers has in some 

cases reached up to $5,000 to be smuggled to interior cities of the 

United States. Given the possibility of being released into our communities until our recent lenient detention policy, filing a claim has 

been a much more attractive option than entering the United 

States illegally. 

Recent trends in the filing of asylum applications to abuse immigration laws have occurred in the past, and I believe it useful to 

learn from the previous abuse and mistakes over the years. One of 

the largest surges along our southern border occurred in the late 

1990’s when a catch and release policy for Central Americans who 

claimed they were fleeing violence and persecution in their native 
26 

countries was instituted. A memorandum detailing intelligence we 

had received indicating that smuggling organizations were planning to flood the border was not heeded. Within 2 weeks of my 

memorandum, hundreds of aliens were entering the border city of 

Brownsville, Texas, a large number of which would simply be guided across the river and turn themselves in at the U.S. Border Patrol office in that city. With an order to show cause and a hearing 

date not determined, they simply continued their journey to their 

final destination, in many cases to rejoin relatives already in the 

country. When hearings were finally scheduled, the notices were in 

many cases returned as undeliverable or, if received, they simply 

failed to show up. 

Ironically, 4 years after I retired and more than 21 years after 

this surge, I was asked to provide testimony in a deportation hearing of one of those individuals we had arrested and released in 

1988. 

Smuggling organizations, whether from Latin American countries or elsewhere, are quick to adjust to perceive weaknesses in 

our enforcement actions. When I was serving as the District Director of our office at the U.S. embassy in Mexico City, a smuggling 

organization with ties in the United States established a pipeline 

using the airport in Mexico City as a transit point for Iraqi nationals destined for the United States. Successful in getting small numbers to the border city of Tijuana and ultimately into the U.S. 

where they were able to file for asylum, it was not long before the 

numbers swelled to over 200, all who claimed they were fleeing 

their country because of religious persecution. 

It is important to note that some of those in this group had already been residing in different European countries but desired to 

rejoin relatives already in the United States. 

Ultimately, all those that were smuggled through Mexico City 

were allowed to enter the United States. That I am aware, no follow-up was ever conducted to determine what measures were taken 

to identify all of those in that particular group. 

Working with our counterparts in Mexico City resulted in the arrest of one of the participants at the Mexico City airport, and to 

my knowledge, this activity ceased. 

How can we address this fraud? Through my long career, I can 

state that I personally participated in the processing and I can also 

attest to how serious and dedicated our adjudicating officers are in 

trying to protect the national security of our country and our communities. And at the same time, they must be fair in adjudicating 

an application for benefit, many times with very limited information. I applaud them for those efforts and strongly believe we 

should provide them with all the available tools necessary that 

have been identified through a system in this important function 

for our country. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me this opportunity to 

before you today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Acosta follows:] 
27 

Prepared Statement of Hipolito M. Acosta, former District Director, U.S. 

Citizenship & Immigration Services (Houston) and U.S. Immigration & 

Naturalization Service (Mexico City) 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, my name is Hipolito M. Acosta. 

In March 2005, I retired as the District Director of the U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services (USCIS) Office in Houston, Texas after serving in various positions 

throughout the United States and two foreign countries during more than twentynine years of service. Prior to reporting to my last assignment, I served as the District Director of the U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service office at the U.S. 

Embassy in Mexico City, a jurisdiction that covered Latin America and the Caribbean, including an INS office operating at the U.S. Interest Section in Havana, 

Cuba. Thank you for this opportunity to testify on our nation’s asylum program. 

Our nation has been a generous one in receiving immigrants from throughout the 

world who have sought protection from well-founded fears of persecution because of 

race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion. In my long career in this field, I had the privilege of working on refugee and 

asylum matters as a front line officer as well as senior manager under the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). I bring to this hearing the unique perspective of having processed and adjudicated applications filed by Cubans during 

the Mariel Boatlift in 1980; Vietnamese applicants in Vietnam and the Philippines; 

served as the INS Officer in Charge of our processing team on the U.S. Naval Ship 

Comfort during the Haitian exodus in 1994 and finally, processed applicants at the 

INS office in Havana, Cuba in 1995. I will add that in addition to personally conducting credible fear interviews, as a senior officer of the agency I was tasked with 

reviewing all denial recommendations of other processing officers and signing off on 

the denials, a responsibility I took seriously as I knew very well the consequences 

applicants might face if we denied claims in error. I share with you my experience 

in the asylum field for a number of reasons, the most important being that lessons 

learned throughout those years are still valuable today as we see yet another surge 

in asylum applications, especially along our Southwest border. 

CHALLENGES AND FRAUD IN ASYLUM PROCESSING

Adjudicating officers are tasked with an awesome responsibility that will have a 

lasting impact on the lives of those seeking asylum in our country. More importantly, they must take into account the security implications for our nation and 

communities when making those determinations. Oftentimes, those decisions are 

made with testimonial presentations and limited documentary evidence to assist 

them. Even when fraudulent documents are presented, that it itself is not sufficient 

to deny a credible fear claim. 

There are many pros and cons to consider and discuss when addressing our asylum process and with limited time, I believe it important to address an area that 

poses not only a challenge when making these determinations but more importantly 

a factor that has often led to abuse of our generous policy—a lenient detention policy. In sum, my experience in this field and our history will show that a policy that 

includes the possibility of being paroled upon making a credible fear claim at our 

ports of entry or being granted relief while already inside the country is a huge 

magnet for aliens who would normally not qualify for other immigration benefits. 

This also provides a golden opportunity for individuals or organizations who want 

to profit from this activity, whether human smuggling or in assisting applicants 

with false claims. Please allow me to share with you my personal experiences that 

I believe will substantiate that position. This is a recent example of one such case. 

A Honduran national was arrested and deported from the United States after residing in the country illegally for eight years. During that period, he established an 

extremely successful business enterprise and immediately upon arriving in his country, returned to the United States via Mexico using the services of a human smuggler to continue business operations. Two or three years after his illegal reentry, he 

sought the services of an immigration attorney to explore avenues available to legalize his status. For a huge fee and after having paid a large retainer, one of the options presented and recommended to him by the attorney was to file a credible fear 

claim. This despite the fact he had already been in country for more than one year. 

Since there was an actual deportation on file, the attorney offered that this record 

would be used to substantiate that he had departed the country and his illegal reentry date would be based on what period they wanted to submit. Even more egregious was the recommendation by the attorney that cigarette burn marks would be 

placed upon him to be used as evidence of torture when he had been returned to 

Honduras and would likely be subjected to more torture because of his social class. 

Fortunately and despite the hefty retainer paid, he decided he wanted no part of 
28 

this scheme, sought legal counsel elsewhere and reported the incident to authorities. 

While this is not the typical fraudulent type of claim, there are undoubtedly many 

more that would try to game the system. 

Ports of entry along are Southern border and U.S. Border Patrol offices have reported large surges of individuals presenting credible fear claims, including large 

numbers by Mexican citizens fleeing violence or threats from vicious narcotics and 

criminal cartels operating throughout Mexico. It is undisputable that violence, extortion, kidnappings and other criminal activity has reached alarming levels in some 

Latin American countries but especially much more so in Mexico, where the great 

majority of organized criminal activity is controlled by the different Cartel groups. 

The criminal activity of the cartels is not limited to the aforementioned crimes, as 

smuggled aliens report that organizations involved in human smuggling are controlled by the cartels, oftentimes in collusion with law enforcement authorities. 

With our enhanced border security and the cartel choke holds, the possibility of 

being allowed into the United States by making a credible fear claim and subsequently being released is an attractive magnet for citizens of Mexico and other Central American countries who would normally not qualify for non-immigrant visas. 

Why take a chance with an illegal border crossing when this option is available? 

This is also an attractive option for cartel members who fall out of favor within their 

own ranks, lose ground in some of the turf battles or simply want to continue their 

illicit activities in the United States but don’t want to take the risk of apprehension 

by the U.S. Border Patrol while attempting illegal entry. The fact that many might 

have never been in the U.S. and would therefore not show up on any database check 

presents a huge problem for our officers when trying to make a determination on 

their claims. Our country has already experienced what the outcome can be when 

a lax detention policy is in place. These are important and expensive lessons that 

must not be allowed to repeat. I can share this through my personal involvement 

in one such surge in 1988. 

SOUTH TEXAS—LATE EIGHTIES

Recent reports and statements have been made that aliens are arriving at ‘‘rates 

never seen before’’ claiming a ‘‘credible fear’’ of persecution while seeking to avoid 

being returned to their country of origin. These reports refer to the large surges of 

foreign nationals, largely from Central America and Mexico, claiming asylum at 

U.S. ports of entry and across our borders. These reports are not entirely correct 

as we have had larger numbers surge our borders using this same scheme as occurred in the later eighties. What’s important here is not the numbers of then and 

now but the reason for these surges. 

The answer is rather simple—the ability to make a claim, whether genuine or not, 

that results in release and being able to continue travel into the United States to 

rejoin family members and in most cases, never report for any immigration hearings 

scheduled has been the magnet for those seeking entry into the United States. 

In late 1988, the Harlingen, Texas District Office, facing budgetary restraints and 

limited detention space, instituted a policy of releasing on recognizance aliens from 

Central America who claimed they were fleeing violence and persecution in their 

homeland. Served with an Order to Show Cause with a time and date of the hearing 

to be set at a future date, the apprehended aliens were allowed into the community 

with instructions that they could not leave the border area. Not only did they not 

remain in the South Texas areas, the great, great majority of those released continue their northward treks with the assistance of smuggling organizations operating on both sides of the border. 

As the Supervisory Special Agent in Charge of the U.S. Border Patrol Anti-Smuggling Unit in Brownsville, Texas I had received very reliable information through 

our contacts in Mexico and Central America that human smuggling organizations 

were recruiting heavily and planning to flood the border. Armed with this information, I immediately expressed my concerns through a memorandum I submitted 

through channels to our then Regional Commissioner, asking that the practice and 

policy be rescinded. My request was not heeded or addressed. As records will indicate, my concerns became a reality and South Texas was flooded with thousands 

of Central American aliens, many of whom would simply walk across the river and 

guided to the local U.S. Border Patrol office to turn themselves in for processing and 

release. On numerous occasions, this number was over one thousand aliens encountered per day. References have been made that South Texas was flooded as a result 

of the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act and the amnesty provisions but 

that is far from true. What attracted these large numbers was the ability to evade 

detention and slip into the shadows in interior cities of the United States with the 

documents provided by our immigration authorities. Then and now, criminal organi-
29 

zations availed of our policy to profit. Could criminals have been included in those 

surges and could that happen today? Our experiences have already shown that 

smugglers, criminals and those that would harm our country would gladly avail of 

whatever method or scheme they can use to enter the United States. The following 

is an example of how this opportunity was used during the surges of 1988 and 1989. 

Knowing they would not be detained, smuggling was brazenly and completely 

done in the open. On one occasion, agents under my supervision and I witnessed 

two busloads of Central American aliens being off-loaded on the Mexican side of the 

river while being escorted by law enforcement officials. Ultimately, we detained approximately 110 aliens who had been transported through Mexico and directly to 

the river by human smugglers. We filed charges on 10 human smugglers, the owner 

of a local low-end hotel and seized a number of taxi-cabs being used by the smuggling operation. 

Aliens and human smugglers from Latin American countries are not the only ones 

attracted by our generous detention policies when pursuing credible fear claims. In 

mid-2000, a small number of Iraqi nationals made their way through Mexico to the 

border city of Tijuana using the services of a Detroit based smuggling organization. 

Corrupt Mexican immigration officials at the airport in Mexico City facilitated their 

entry into the country. Once on the border, the small number of arrivals commenced 

making credible fear claims and soon word spread. Within a short period of time, 

over two hundred had arrived in Mexico. When four smugglers in the group were 

arrested by Mexican authorities, extensive media attention was given to the plight 

of the Iraqi nationals who all claimed had fled their homeland seeking refuge from 

persecution because of their Christian religion. Some of those encountered had actually been out of Iraq for several years. Also not known to the public was the fact 

that Mexican immigration authorities had arrested a large number trying to transit 

the Mexico City airport and had arrested at least one of their own immigration officers with information we had provided them. Our agency made a determination that 

we would not oppose the Mexican government releasing the large number of Iraqis 

they had held in custody with the understanding that those released would have 

to depart Mexico within a ten day period. Those released did in fact leave Mexico 

City—proceeding directly to Tijuana where they ultimately would apply for admission based on their claims of a well-founded fear of persecution. 

Of particular note is the fact that many of these claimants had been in different 

countries prior to using Mexico as a jumping point. I would not dispute the fear of 

religious persecution by the Iraqi applicants but the risk to our country—this is pre9/11—was that in some cases there was no way to verify the true identities or backgrounds of all those in this large group. Of equal importance is determining if any 

type of follow-up was ever done on those that were allowed into the country and 

granted status. 

Reaching our borders or getting inside the country has generally proven to enhance the possibility of being allowed to remain when claiming credible fear, regardless of whether the persecution exists or not. Not being able to reach our shores 

however, is a different story. An excellent example is that of the Haitian nationals 

and Cubans. 

Not unlike the Mexican situation of today, Haitians have long had issues with ensuring protection of its citizens. The random acts of violence are well known as are 

the disparity in social classes. In 1994, I served as the Officer-in-Charge of the INS 

processing team onboard the U.S. Naval Ship Comfort. The vessel was used as a 

processing facility for thousands of who had fled Haiti but were interdicted at sea 

by the U.S. Coast Guard. The approval rate for those processed was in the low 

twenty percent, yet no one could dispute the hardship and violence prevalent in 

Haiti but our officers were required to adjudicate with the statue regulating wellfounded fears of persecution. Had the number of Haitians interdicted reached out 

shores or borders, it is unlikely that we would have been able to process and return 

them to the country as efficiently as we did. This factor coupled with the high denial 

rate resulted in a complete slowdown of the mass exodus. 

DETECTING FRAUD OR CRIMINAL BACKGROUNDS WHEN DOCUMENTS ARE NOT

AVAILABLE CUBAN MARIEL BOATLIFT PROGRAM

During the early part of 1980, close to 125,000 Cubans arrived on our shores in 

what became known as the Cuban Mariel Boatlift. When interviewed at the various 

processing sites established throughout the United States, all sought to establish 

they were fleeing their homeland because of persecution or a well-founded fear of 

persecution because of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social 

group, or political opinion. 
30 

Assigned to our U.S. Immigration and Naturalization processing team in Ft. 

McCoy, Wisconsin, I had an opportunity to interview and process several hundred 

applicants and their families. I have no doubt that many did indeed suffer persecution as a result of their opposition to an oppressive regime or other factors that 

would qualify them as asylum applicants. It is also true however, that many simply 

wanted to join relatives already in the United States and in fact, the Cuban government used this opportunity to empty their prisons and place hardened criminals on 

the vessels departing Cuba. Smugglers in South Florida seized on the open invitation to enrich themselves by offering their services to relatives in the United Sates 

willing to pay to have their relatives smuggled. 

During interviews of applicants and their families, INS interviewing officers could 

easily determine the applicants had been coached prior to their interview. Their stories were consistently the same and in fact, we determined that when applicants 

were notified that they had been approved and sent to the waiting area, through 

sign language known to many of those who had been imprisoned in Cuba, would 

communicate what presentations or claims were being accepted to those still waiting 

to be interviewed. Through sources we developed inside the housing area, a second 

INS officer and I were able to learn the sign language used and would often surprise 

applicants with what story they were going to present as they commenced their 

credible fear claim interviews. Once confronted with this information, they readily 

admitted to the coaching. 

Of particular concern was the large number of applicants who had spent years 

in Cuban prisons but not for political activity or oppression as many claimed. They 

had been sent to prison for criminal activity that included theft, rape, robberies, 

murder, etc. These applicants too were coached on how to claim asylum. Fortunately, we developed sources who provided information on a great number of these 

criminals and through interviews, were able to establish that they were a danger 

to our communities were they to be released. 

Laureano Buffuartue was one of these asylum applicants. Detained in Cuba at the 

age of twelve for theft, he did not see freedom again until placed on one of the vessels destined for the United States. With information provided by confidential 

sources, I interviewed Mr. Buffuartue who readily admitted to killing three men 

during his prison time. Had this information not been developed, there is likelihood 

that through appropriate coaching, Mr. Buffuartue would have made a fraudulent 

claim and if approved, would have ended in one of our communities. Like Mr. 

Buffuartue, there were hundreds of other asylum seekers who were detained but 

many more that number who ultimately were released. 

The discovery of Mr. Buffuartue occurred in 1980 but I am sure this could happen 

today with the influx of asylum seekers at our Ports of Entry or those detained 

along our border who make a claim to credible fear. These could include criminals 

for which no background check, including FBI checks or those done through other 

data-bases would disclose their identity or true background. This type of information 

would only be revealed through the interview conducted by an officer with the skills, 

knowledge and time to pursue this matter or from information from foreign agencies. 

The persecution claims presented by the Cubans in Mt. McCoy, Wisconsin were 

not limited to asylum applicants already in the United States. In 1996, I conducted 

refugee interviews at the U.S. Interest Section in Havana, Cuba and found that 

many of the same stories were presented to adjudicating officers. When additional 

documents were requested, applicants had no problems in obtaining those documents through the Cuban authorities. It was also not uncommon to discover that 

the documents obtained in many cases contained fraudulent information that would 

benefit an applicant in pursuing his credible fear claim. During one interview with 

a family unit that consisted of sixteen family members, I informed the principal applicant that he had not met the criteria to establish a well-founded fear of persecution based on his testimony and documentation. He and his immediate family however, qualified for parole into the United States based on an immigrant visa petition 

filed by relatives in the country already. He and the family members refused the 

offer of parole and chose to stay in Cuba because they would not qualify for benefits 

granted to refugee entrants and would have to pay for their transportation. Had 

they really feared persecution, there is no doubt they would have fled at this opportunity. 

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The examples of fraudulent claims in the asylum process I mention in my presentation are just a few of many that have occurred throughout the years. Studies conducted have shown the vulnerabilities in the process and what is necessary in com-
31 

bating this fraud. I urge that some of the measures I mention here are continued 

or expanded to assist USCIS in making the asylum determinations: 

The close and continued cooperation between USCIS, ICE and DOJ is crucial in 

pursuing prosecution of immigration service providers involved in massive fraud 

and misrepresentation such as in the example earlier in this document of an attorney suggesting that a client consider having burn marks placed on his body as evidence of torture. Prosecution is crucial not only of the immigration service providers 

but the applicants themselves who conspired and assisted with the Service providers 

in submitting their fraudulent claims to obtain benefits. Action against the applicants should include detention and deportation as a result of filing fraudulent applications. 

Extensive data-base checks must continue and as in previous case studies indicate, must be completed before a benefit is granted. 

Overseas verification of documents is crucial when fraud indicators are present 

and can best be addressed through a timely response from overseas offices. These 

requests must be given high priority by the receiving office and if a response is not 

received within a mandated time period, call-up measures must be implemented. 

Finally, extensive studies should be conducted on a yearly basis to analyze and 

identify fraud patterns and practices. This information is vital for adjudicators in 

making their determinations and in identifying vulnerabilities in the program. 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, Mr. Acosta. 

Ms. Acer? 

TESTIMONY OF ELEANOR ACER, DIRECTOR, REFUGEE 

PROTECTION PROGRAM, HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST 

Ms. ACER. Thank you very much. Chairman Gowdy, Ranking 

Member Lofgren, and Members of the Subcommittee, it is an honor 

to be here today to offer our views about U.S. asylum policy. 

My name is Eleanor Acer and I direct the Refugee Protection 

Program at Human Rights First. Human Rights First is an independent advocacy organization that challenges America to live up 

to its ideals and assert its leadership on human rights. In our 

work, we develop partnerships with retired military leaders, former 

law enforcement officials, faith leaders, tech companies, and others 

to drive home the point that human rights are universal ideals and 

American values. With offices in New York, Washington, D.C., and 

soon in Houston, Texas, we oversee one of the largest pro bono refugee representation programs in the country, working in partnership with volunteer lawyers at some of the Nation’s leading law 

firms. 

Providing refuge for the persecuted is a core American value reflecting this country’s deep commitment to liberty and human dignity, as well as its pledge under the post-World War II Refugee 

Conventions Protocol. 

At Human Rights First, we see every day the ways in which people are protected through the U.S. asylum system. They are victims 

of religious persecution, women targeted for honor killings, trafficking, and horrific domestic violence, people targeted because of 

their ethnicity or sexual identity, and human rights advocates who 

stand up against oppression. You know these stories, Mr. Chairman, because as Americans we are defined by our global stance 

against injustice and a fair system for equal opportunity. 

A strong asylum and immigration system that adjudicates cases 

in a fair and timely manner and includes effective tools for fighting 

abuse is essential to the integrity of the U.S. asylum process and 

to protect those fleeing persecution. When individuals or groups de-
32 

fraud the system, it hurts everyone, and steps should be taken to 

counter those abuses and punish the perpetrators. 

U.S. authorities have a range of tools to address these abuses. 

Many of the existing tools are outlined in my written testimony, including multiple identity and background checks, personnel in multiple agencies charged with detecting and investigating fraud, and 

the ability to refer for prosecution those who perpetrate fraud. That 

is particularly important because it sends a message that fraud 

will not be tolerated. 

But you asked today if these safeguards are in place, what else 

can be done to strengthen the asylum system. And with the increase in credible fear claims on the border, are there additional 

steps that should be taken to safeguard the system? There are 

ways to handle these challenges that will reflect American values 

and strengthen the asylum system. 

First, as I mentioned, the immigration agencies should utilize 

and increase as necessary anti-fraud tools and prosecutions should 

be continued and stepped up. 

Another critical step also deserves attention. USCIS and EOIR 

should be properly staffed and resourced to adjudicate cases in a 

fair and timely manner and to eliminate backlogs that can be a 

magnet for abuse. Delays both increase the vulnerability of our immigration system to abuse and prevent refugees from having their 

cases adjudicated in a timely manner, often leaving refugee families stranded in difficult and dangerous situations abroad. 

Asylum office and immigration court staffing should be increased 

to ensure timely and personal credible fear interviews, timely referrals of affirmative asylum claims that are not granted in the immigration courts, and the elimination of prolonged delays and substantial backlogs in the immigration courts. 

As we seek to strengthen the system, we should also address the 

many ways in which refugees often find themselves lingering for 

months in jails and jail-like detention centers or denied or delayed 

in receiving protection. Unjust and unnecessary barriers that deny 

or delay protection to refugees, like the filing deadline bar to asylums, should be eliminated. 

In addition, the recommendations of the bipartisan U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom relating to expedited removal and detention should be implemented, including its recommendations on parole for eligible asylum seekers and the expansion of legal orientation presentations. 

Congress should support the increased use of alternatives to detention as well, as detailed in my testimony. 

While steps can and should be taken to strengthen the asylum 

system, it is absolutely essential that any changes in the law be 

very thoroughly thought out so that they do not further risk returning refugees to persecution or further prolonging detention in 

cases where it is unnecessary. 

Thirty years ago, President Ronald Reagan signed into law the 

Refugee Act of 1980, which passed Congress with bipartisan support enshrining into domestic law America’s historic commitment 

to protect the persecuted. Yesterday, as was noted earlier, 10 leading Republicans issued a statement in support of this country’s 

commitment to protect the persecuted, stating that, quote, our poli-
33 

cies toward refugees are at the heart of our American values. These 

individuals included former Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez, Governor Tom Ridge, Senator Mel Martinez, Dr. Paula 

Dobriansky, Governor Sam Brownback, Governor Jeb Bush, Grover 

Norquist, Jim Ziglar, Alberto Mora, and Suhail A. Khan. Mr. 

Chairman, we appreciate your entering that document into the 

record today. 

America should not abandoned its compassion but should stand 

firm as a beacon of hope that will not turn its back on those seeking protection from persecution. 

Thank you very much for the opportunity to share these views 

with you today. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Acer follows:] 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 

***See Appendix for this submission. 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, Ms. Acer. 

Before I recognize the Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent 

to add to the record the article referenced by Mr. Ting entitled The 

Asylum Seeker from The New Yorker. I hear no objection.*** 

I would now recognize the gentleman from Virginia, the Chairman of the full Committee, Mr. Goodlatte. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Crocetti, in your testimony you mentioned that once the public became aware of these fraud reports, there was pressure to release them broadly, and thereafter, the contents of the reports became politicized. What did you mean by that? And explain how the 

content might have changed once there was pressure to release 

them broadly. 

And in that same regard, once the content of the fraud report became public, did USCIS interfere in the workings of the Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate, the FDNS, and what do 

you think would be the best way to ensure that the FDNS is able 

to continue its work unhindered? 

Mr. CROCETTI. Thank you, Chairman. 

It is important to understand that back in 2004-2005, when we 

developed this benefit fraud assessment tool, we had no data. So 

our immediate need was developing an internal tool in which to 

focus our procedures and guidance to the fraud officers that were 

just being hired and trained and placed out into the field. There 

was no intention or plan to use it as a public document to release 

externally. 

Taking that approach actually was very helpful because we were 

able to actually complete four benefit fraud assessments, and the 

one in particular, the religious worker assessment, in which we 

found a 33 percent fraud rate, resulted in the development of regulations that have since made significant improvements in that program and considerably reduced double-digit fraud rates to singledigit. That was the objective of the benefit fraud assessment. 

As the information became more public—it started with the H1B, 

of course, given the interests of the H1B visas, et cetera—we realized corporately as an agency that we had to make modifications 

to the methodology and the approach because all of the information 

was going to be disclosed publicly. So I was instructed that the assessments would no longer contain a recommendation with regard 

to recommended improvements because there was an internal concern that there would be a knee-jerk reaction that could perhaps 

be too extreme. And the data that we were using certainly had 

some methodology issues, and I can explain that. 

One of the things in our immigration world—it is just like trying 

to find any files. Over the years, you have seen a number of reports. Getting legacy data from legacy mainframe systems and then 

trying to locate files and getting those files and obtaining everything—— 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Crocetti, let me interrupt since I have a 

very limited amount of time. 

Mr. CROCETTI. Okay. 
60 

Mr. GOODLATTE. I will give you one more question here. In your 

testimony you state that in order to ensure the integrity of any 

benefit or entitlement program, the ability to detect, confront, 

deter, and prevent fraud—we need that. To do this effectively, we 

must be both proactive and reactive, proactive in the sense of performing fraud and risk assessments, compliance and quality assurance reviews, and other studies and analyses, and reactive as in 

conducting investigations with regard to individually suspected 

fraud cases. 

In your opinion, is USCIS proactively preventing fraud today? 

Mr. CROCETTI. Yes, but I believe the agency is too reactive. I do 

not believe the agency is as proactive as it could be, which is 

evinced by the fact that we have not had any benefit fraud assessments done in the past several years. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you. 

Mr. CROCETTI. And I think our reactive nature of just identifying 

fraud leads and investigating them is exactly why legacy INS 

failed. And we have to be more proactive and have the internal 

controls, studies, and analyses to make sure we have real-time 

data. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Got it. 

Mr. Ting, pursuant to the Immigration and Nationality Act, arriving aliens are subject to mandatory detention whether they are 

found to have credible fear or not until it is determined whether 

they have legitimate asylum claims. This crucial requirement is designed to prevent aliens from being released into our communities 

and becoming fugitives. The detention standard was enacted for 

the very reason that large numbers of arriving aliens absconded 

after claiming asylum and being released. 

Under the statute and corresponding regulations, under limited 

circumstances, parole from detention is available to meet a medical 

emergency or, if it is necessary, to meet a legitimate law enforcement objective. However, these standards have been watered down 

by the current Administration via executive fiat. 

Why do you think that out of 14,525 aliens claiming credible fear 

in 2012, only 884, 6 percent, remain in detention? What does this 

high release rate say about ICE’s parole policy and the surge in 

credible fear applicants? 

Mr. TING. Yes. I think the Administration is misusing the credible fear test to admit large numbers of people at our border who 

should not be admitted. And I agree that there is a conflict, I think, 

in the statute, frankly, between the mandatory detention provision 

and the provision that says we are going to use the credible fear 

standard to provide a kind of screening at the border. So I think 

there is a contradiction, and I think the Committee should think 

about clarifying that. 

I have proposed taking the credible fear standard entirely out of 

the statute—I do not think that is what the credible fear test was 

invented for—and preventing that conflict from arising, leave the 

mandatory detention in, but take the credible fear test out, which 

is obviously being used to admit people who ought not be admitted 

to the United States. 

I was just talking to some old INS people here and we were saying that in the old days when people came to the border and said 
61 

we want asylum in the United States, we would say, fine, come 

back in 2 weeks or whenever and we will have someone at the border. You can do the interview at the border, but we are not going 

to let you in pending that hearing. And this credible fear standard 

has given the Administration a way to say we are going to let you 

in now and you can come back later on for a substantive hearing 

if you want. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GOWDY. I thank the gentleman from Virginia. 

The Chair will now recognize the Ranking Member of the full 

Committee, the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Conyers. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you so much, sir. 

First of all, I would like to welcome Eleanor Acer from Human 

Rights First. They have been before us before and the work that 

your organization does is phenomenal. And I am very glad that you 

are the Director of the Refugee Program. 

Now, one of the witnesses, Mr. Ting, recommends eliminating 

asylum protection and instead enhancing what is now known as 

withholding of removal. This got my attention right away, and I 

wanted to evaluate your feelings about such a proposal. 

Ms. ACER. Thank you, Congressman, for that question, and 

thank you for your kind comments. I appreciate them. 

That issue was resolved long ago, and it definitely would not be 

a good idea now. The United States should not be denying its protection to refugees with well-founded fears of persecution. That is 

not who we are and it does not send a very good signal to the rest 

of the world. 

The higher withholding standard basically is too high. I mean, 

what would we have? People leaving Syria and fleeing for persecution and we are going to say, okay, is it a 55 percent chance likely 

that you are going to be returned to persecution? That is not an 

appropriate standard. We should not make people take those kinds 

of risks with their lives. It is just unworkable really. 

The well-founded fear is the standard that is in the Refugee Convention, that our Supreme Court—and that we have been applying 

for many years. There is no reason to dial back the clock. There 

are many other methods of dealing with whatever concerns there 

are that need to get addressed in the system. 

Thank you. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you very much. 

I wanted to talk about access to counsel, whether we are going 

to save money or be more efficient. Are there any cases that 

Human Rights First has worked on where a case outcome might 

have been different or where less strain may have been put on the 

immigration system had a client been represented earlier in the 

process? 

Ms. ACER. You know, we actually see many cases of individuals 

who go through the asylum office who are unrepresented. We interview cases very thoroughly before we take them on, and we see 

people all the time who have been referred from the asylum office, 

but yet, they have got credible cases that meet the standards. And 

then we are able to recruit pro bono lawyers to take those cases 

on, to gather the extensive documentary and other evidence that is 
62 

often submitted in cases, to gather supporting evidence where it is 

available and where it is reasonable to expect it. And that really 

makes a difference for people. Counsel makes an incredible difference. We see day in and day out how much it does. And so many 

people go through the system unrepresented. I think it is around 

50 percent, and for those in immigration detention, around 80 percent are unrepresented. 

Mr. CONYERS. Is it reasonable that we should shoot for a goal 

that would allow people to have lawyers in case they cannot afford 

them? 

Ms. ACER. Yes, I think it is a real problem because technically 

we do allow people to have lawyers, but people are often in very 

remote detention centers. There are no legal services available 

there. There may be very limited nonprofit. You may find a local 

Catholic Charities office an hour away struggling to reach this facility. So it is incredibly important for people to be represented 

through our system. It is a very complicated system, issues of 

whether families stay together and, in asylum cases, whether or 

not someone is returned back to persecution. These are critical 

issues and people are navigating a very complicated system all by 

themselves. 

I know people think that somehow it is sort of really, really easy 

to get asylum. We have pro bono lawyers who work with us who 

work at major law firms, and they cannot believe how complicated 

these cases are often and they are often shocked at how difficult 

the process is. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you very much. 

We are trying to figure out—and I am going to ask this question 

of the former chief of the Fraud Detection Office, Mr. Crocetti. We 

are trying to improve the ability to detect and fight fraud. Have 

you noticed changes over the years? Do you see any improvement 

going on? 

Mr. CROCETTI. Yes. I mean, when compared to pre-9/11 under 

legacy INS, absolutely. There have been unprecedented improvements and more proactive efforts, i.e., the benefit fraud assessments, administrative site visits. 

However, I am concerned that over the past couple or so years, 

things have not progressed and they are not as proactive. And I am 

very concerned about that. I am very passionate about it obviously. 

I just cannot let go of it. But we need to be much more proactive 

in the area of benefit fraud assessments and compliance reviews to 

know where the fraud is and not wait until we are reacting and 

investigating cases. The volume is overwhelming. As it is now, they 

cannot handle it. 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, I thank you. 

My time is up, so I yield back. 

Mr. GOWDY. I thank the gentleman from Michigan. 

I am going to swap places with the gentleman from Utah and go 

last, and I would now recognize the gentleman from Utah, Mr. 

Chaffetz. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. I thank the Chairman. 

It has been established here in the testimony affirmative asylum 

claims have doubled—doubled—in the last 5 years to more than 

80,000. Mr. Ting, you talked about perhaps some of the ways to re-
63 

solve this, but what do you think the root cause of this is? Why do 

we see such a growth in this area? 

Mr. TING. Well, I think the explanation is going to be complicated. I think it boils down to communications and transportation, that we live in a communications age. It is much easier for 

people all around the world to understand the possibilities that are 

out there for them, and it is easier for them to get to the United 

States, one way or another, to take advantage of those possibilities. 

One of my former colleagues in the economics department at 

Temple used to say the poor people of the world may be poor but 

they are not stupid. They are as capable of doing cost-benefit analysis to determine what is in their own self-interest as anyone in 

this room, he used to say. And they do it all the time, and we understand that. They use cost-benefit analysis to decide what they 

are going to do, and if the costs are low and the benefits are high, 

it makes sense to do something. And if you do not want them to 

do that, you have to raise the costs and lower the benefits. It is 

simple economics. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into the 

record—I ask unanimous consent—an article that was in The Wall 

Street Journal dated January 29. It is titled ‘‘Flow of Unaccompanied Minors Tests U.S. Immigration Agencies.’’ It is basically referring to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops that had forecasted 60,000 unaccompanied minors from Central America to 

cross the southwest border this year alone. That is up from about 

5,800 roughly a decade ago. 

The surge that we are seeing of unaccompanied minors, which 

creates a whole host of problems and challenges, 60,000 of them— 

do you see a root cause for that? Let us start with actually Mr. 

Crocetti here. 

Mr. CROCETTI. I am not familiar with that issue. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Ting, do you have any theories or insight 

or—— 

Mr. TING. Well, I think it is dramatic. It is still literally child’s 

play to get across the border. Right? I mean, unaccompanied minors are getting across the border. That is how open the border is. 

But I think the same phenomenon is at work. We live in the 

Internet age. Everyone understands everything that is going on everywhere. People understand possibilities that they may not have 

been aware of before. They know how to—— 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Thank you. 

Mr. Acosta, can you speak to this point—on the two points here? 

Mr. ACOSTA. I can. As the Director in Mexico City, I actually led 

large-scale investigations where it was substantiated that unaccompanied minors were being smuggled by organized organizations 

operated from Central America, Mexico, and all the way into the 

United States. 

If you look at some of the statistics I believe from July of 2012 

to May of last year, there were more than 23,000 unaccompanied 

minors that were taken into custody. That does not count the ones 

that were able to reach the interior cities of the United States. 

That is a substantial number. There is a large amount of business 

for the cartels, the human smuggling operations that are operating 

in Latin America, and this is a very attractive business because the 
64 

cost for each child coming into the United States in some cases was 

$5,000 to $7,500 per child. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Expand on that, the cartels, and what you see 

them doing with human and drug smuggling. 

Mr. ACOSTA. Much more so now, Congressman, the human cartels are very organized throughout Mexico and certainly through 

Central America. They are very specific in what they do. They are 

good at what they are doing. And while we mentioned that 23,000 

were taken into custody, it is not to say that they did not obtain 

a benefit in being detained along our borders because, for the most 

part, a large number of those unaccompanied minors were ultimately released to their parents who were residing in the United 

States. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. And again, along with this, how is it that our 

public policy—is it facilitating this? Is it encouraging this? Is it deterring them? What is it doing? 

Mr. ACOSTA. We have always had a large amount of children 

coming to the United States. With the large undocumented population that we have in the country, it is going to continue. Certainly with our detention policy, with our release policy, it is a 

great encouragement for families to be reunited with their minor 

children. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Yes, go ahead. 

Ms. ACER. I am sorry. I was just going to add in one other factor 

that we have not touched on, and obviously, it is not necessarily 

something this Committee is focusing on, but that is the violence 

that is driving many of these children to end up coming here. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Do you believe there is fraud? 

Ms. ACER. I also would really urge—— 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. No, I am asking. 

Ms. ACER. Of course, sir, there are incidents of fraud, and my 

testimony has detailed many. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. You have 25 pages of testimony. 

Ms. ACER. I am glad you read them, sir. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. But it does not talk about fraud. That is the 

whole heart of this hearing. How do we prevent this? How do we 

fight against it? 

I am in favor of the person who is legally, lawfully trying to go 

through this process, but the worry is you got so many people taking advantage of the system because—I mean, look at the numbers. 

It is just astronomical growth. 

Ms. ACER. Thank you, Mr. Congressman. I actually did detail in 

there many, many safeguards that exist in the system. And I really 

want to stress the importance of making sure—— 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. You did not talk about the detection of fraud. 

Ms. ACER [continuing]. The courts and asylum officer are actually well staffed enough to actually conduct their interviews and to 

eliminate that backlog, which I am concerned—— 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. I thank the Chairman. Appreciate it. 

Mr. GOWDY. I thank the gentleman from Utah. 

The Chair would now recognize the gentlelady from Texas, Ms. 

Jackson Lee. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me thank the Chairman for his courtesy 

and the Ranking Member for her courtesy as well and thank all 
65 

the witnesses, some of whom I have had the pleasure of working 

with. 

Mr. Acosta, thank you for your service. Since we have engaged 

with each other over a number years when you served in your capacity in the Federal Government and I believe we have had these 

discussions, do you think a passing of a comprehensive immigration reform, delineating any number of methods of entry which 

then would separate, in essence, the bad guys from the good guys 

would be helpful in law enforcement? 

Mr. ACOSTA. If I understand the question correctly, ma’am, it is 

would passing a comprehensive immigration reform help. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Yes, in delineating the good guys from the bad 

guys. 

Mr. ACOSTA. Well, I do not believe that comprehensive immigration reform would serve that particular purpose. I think that we 

need to institute the measures that we have that we are talking 

about today with the security checks of anybody that appears at 

our borders that is already inside the country. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. So you do not think the passage of immigration reform that gives new permission to work would be helpful to 

law enforcement at the border? 

Mr. ACOSTA. Well, I think that any method that we can identify 

who is inside the country is certainly beneficial to our country. But 

I think I would separate—— 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. So you say that certain aspects of it might be 

beneficial. 

Mr. ACOSTA. Well, I think that in identifying individuals in our 

country, but I think that is something that we should be doing anyway with law enforcement authorities working, especially when 

people game the system to get into our country. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Well, you have the laws to deal with that, but 

you do not have the laws to ensure a fair process for people who 

may want to enter the country for work or otherwise. But thank 

you very much for your answer. 

Let me just proceed with you, Ms. Acer, and let me thank you. 

And I understand you may be coming to Houston, so I look forward 

to knowing your location. I work extensively with a number of leaders in the business community, the Partnership, that is, the Chamber, the Greater Houston Partnership, solely 100 percent in support of comprehensive immigration reform. You may be coming to 

a location that will be receptive to some of your issues. 

But let me just take note of the fact in as calm a voice as I might 

do so, and I have a question for you. As I understand, before I 

came into the chambers, there were persons expressing their First 

Amendment rights, and obviously, through the protocol of this 

Committee, were removed from the Committee. But they were expressing their consternation, their frustration, their hurt, and their 

pain. 

One hundred fifty years ago when African Americans were experiencing that kind of pain, they engaged in something called Freedom Summer, and it was to emphasize to the Nation that we are, 

in essence, deserving of a fair play and justice. 

So as a Member of Congress, I am committed to abiding by the 

laws, but I would expect that we will see thousands upon thou-
66 

sands of individuals from all backgrounds coming to this Congress 

in the summer and finally saying enough is enough, the persons 

who may have been given asylum and others expressing themselves for someone to listen. 

We can sit here in this Committee and talk about violations of 

the asylum law passed by Senator Kennedy in 1980. It started out 

with 50,000 asylum seeker provisions. Now I think we are up to 

75,000. That is now some 24 years—more than 24 years—30-some 

years later. 

So all I can say to my colleagues on this Committee is be prepared. Be prepared for those who are feeling the pain of injustice. 

And let me be very clear as I pose this question to you. As I understand, asylum seekers come from potentially Syria, if they are 

not involved in terrorist activities. They come from some of the 

bloodshed and war-torn areas on the continent of Africa. They may 

come from, in years past, places like Burma. They come with the 

frustration of an onerous, murderous condition seeking asylum. All 

of a sudden, we have got asylum tuned only to the southern border, 

which baffles me because I have been on this Committee for a long 

time and I know that asylum seekers are children and parents 

coming from the worst conditions around the world that Americans 

may not even imagine. 

So let me ask the question since I met with an immigration judge 

before I came here. In the southern district, we may have just two 

immigration judges. They are literally bent over for the lack of resources, the lack of staff, and the overloading. So I ask this question. What is the impact of the immigration court backlog on asylum seeker cases? Are there cases at Human Rights First that have 

been directly impacted by the backlog? In your opinion, what needs 

to happen to address the backlogs in our immigration courts? And 

I would appreciate your answer. 

And I thank the Chairman for his charity on this answer. I note 

that there are 350,000 cases on hold right now. 

Mr. GOWDY. Despite the fact that the red light is on, you may 

answer the question. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the Chairman. 

Ms. ACER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Yes, the backlog in the immigration courts is having a tremendous impact on our pro bono cases. First of all, it is actually making it harder for us to recruit pro bono lawyers because what lawyer is going to take on a case that might not have a court date for 

2 or 3 years? 

Also, that kind of a wait time for an asylum seeker is just not 

appropriate. It is not good for the integrity of the system and it 

does not help individuals who need to have their cases resolved, 

want to get on with their lives, and sometimes have children who 

are left stranded in very difficult or dangerous situations abroad. 

So I would definitely encourage anything this Committee can do to 

deal with the immigration court backlog and now also the asylum 

office backlog. 

Mr. GOWDY. I thank the gentlelady from Texas. 

The Chair will now recognize the gentleman from Texas, former 

Judge Poe. 

Mr. POE. I thank the Chairman. 
67 

I do not know that the issue before us is whether there should 

be asylum or not asylum. I think the issue before us is the people 

who cheat to get in the United States. So I want to zero in on that 

issue specifically. 

I appreciate the fact that you are here, Mr. Acosta. Thank you 

for your service especially in the Houston area. You did a good job 

and you still have an excellent reputation for your work. 

It brings me to the point that many times the Members of Congress who are not on the border States do not have a clue what 

is taking place on the border. And having been to the Texas-Mexico 

border and then Arizona-Mexican border, New Mexico numerous 

times, it is a different area. It is a different world, and only, it 

seems to me, people who work there daily and the people who live 

there on both sides of the border really see what is taking place 

on the border. 

But specifically, the issue before us is those people who lie to get 

into the United States, not bona fide asylum seekers, not people 

coming here the right way, but want to lie to get here. 

And my understanding, Mr. Acosta—and I would like for you to 

weigh in on this. The different drug cartels that operate, Sinaloas, 

the Zetas, whoever, they get into a confrontation south of the border, a shoot-out. Their members, I understand, are told to go to the 

United States until things cool off, and one of the ways, when they 

get in the United States, if they are apprehended by your guys, 

which many of them are, they are told to seek asylum and go 

through the process of an asylum seeker to be safe in the United 

States from their territorial rivals, drug cartels. 

Now, I do not know if that is true or not. I have heard that several times, but I would like for you and your expertise to weigh in 

on that situation of criminal gangs, criminal cartels, whatever 

using fraud asylum to stay in the United States temporarily or permanently. 

Mr. ACOSTA. Thank you, Congressman. It is a pleasure seeing 

you and thank you for the kind comments. 

Well, I think it goes without saying that we in Houston recognize 

that we have a large presence of cartel members who entered the 

country legally and illegally, and the violence has not been limited 

to the south in Mexico. As you recall, about a year ago, there was 

a shoot-out where a truck driver was shot by cartel members who 

were pursuing a shipment of narcotics that was destined north. 

Just 2 weeks ago, there was a young lady from Honduras who had 

filed for asylum who was killed in an open street in Houston, which 

received a tremendous amount of publicity, and it turns other there 

is a possibility that gang violence was partly behind that. 

We know that cartel members—we know that criminals will seek 

any avenue to enter the United States if we make it accessible and 

it makes it easier to come to the United States—one, want to flee 

perhaps turfs that they might have lost in Mexico, secondly to perhaps continue their criminal activities here in the United States. 

It is all too common and very well known to our law enforcement 

authorities in Houston and throughout the State of Texas. So I 

think that the statements that are made that cartel members are 

coming into our communities is very true, whether it is legal or 
68 

not, and nothing is to prevent them from filing fraudulent asylum 

claims. 

On a personal case, I know that I arrested a heroin trafficker 

more than 30 years ago when I was an agent in Chicago. Thirty 

years later, the two sons of that individual were actually heading 

up the cartel operations of the Sinaloa Cartel in Chicago, Illinois. 

So I think that exemplifies the risk that we have in our community 

for any individual entering the country, as you state, by lying, 

whether they are coming in for asylum or seeking any other benefit. And I think we owe it to the American people to be vigilant 

not only along our borders but inside the cities in the United 

States. 

Mr. POE. Would you agree with me that when we have the fraudulent claims—those really do damage to the bona fide people that 

are seeking asylum from persecution all over the world who are 

trying to get here? That hurts their cases because you have the 

fraudulent, the cheats, that are trying to use the same system. 

Would you agree or not? 

Mr. ACOSTA. Congressman, over the years, this has been proven 

that not only do they hurt other individuals seeking asylum, but 

it jams the system. It backlogs the cases that we adjudicate. It 

takes away from resources that we could be adjudicating, cases 

that deserve to be granted. And, yes, they do hurt the genuine 

cases that need to be approved or adjudicated on a timely basis. 

Mr. POE. I thank the Chairman. 

Mr. GOWDY. I thank the gentleman from Texas. 

The Chair will now recognize the gentleman from Florida, Mr. 

Garcia. 

Mr. GARCIA. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I want to start 

by thanking the Chairman for his efforts and the consideration he 

has shown the other side of the aisle. 

It is still my sincere hope that we can get to comprehensive immigration. However, it is disappointing that instead of working to 

that end, we are here playing with probably the least fortunate of 

all folks who come before our immigration system. 

I cannot help but question the Committee and Congress’ commitment to getting something done. It took a year for the Republicans 

to come out with principles. Yet, 1 week later, Speaker Boehner, 

the only one that can bring a bill to the floor, back-peddled on immigration reform. Why? 

We have 197 co-sponsors to H.R. 15. I know a lot of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would like to vote for a bill 

to get this done and move forward. But, no. 

My colleagues claim that they do not trust the President. After 

1.9 million deportations, how much more enforcement? No President has spent more money on the border than the President of the 

United States. We have the lowest border incursions in over 40 

years. There is an unprecedented manpower on the border. In fact, 

when the Government shut down, places like El Paso had 30,000 

and 40,000 workers going home. We now have some of the securest 

cities in America across the border from some of the most insecure 

cities. 

The time has come to get immigration reform. We should focus 

on that. I know the Chairman is willing to do that, but we have 
69 

got to get the leadership on the other side to put this on the floor 

and get a vote out. 

Mr. Chairman, I will yield back the balance of my time. I will 

yield back to my colleague. 

Mr. GOWDY. The gentleman has yielded to the gentlelady from 

California. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

We do not have as many Members as you do today, so I am 

grateful to get a little bit of time just to make some corrections 

here. 

In Mr. Ting’s testimony at page 4—it was referenced by our colleague—there is an indication that there were 80,000 affirmative 

asylum applications made in fiscal year 2013. I would like unanimous consent to put into the record a report from the Congressional Research Service that actually indicates there were only 

44,000 affirmative asylum claims in that fiscal year. 

Now, this is an increase from the 25,000 in fiscal year 2009, but 

much lower than the 77,000 claims in fiscal year 1997 or the 

63,000 claims in fiscal year 2001. So I think it is important to see 

that these claims go up and down and they often relate to what is 

going on in other parts of the world. 

For example, right now, as has been mentioned, there is an epidemic of violence in Mexico and also in Central America. And so 

there has been an increase in claims from people who are escaping 

from that violence. 

Not only is the United States being impacted with asylum 

claims, our neighbors to the south are being impacted. For example, the increase in asylum applications lodged by Central Americans to countries other than the United States have increased, a 

432 percent increase in the number of asylum applications in Mexico, Panama, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and Belize. So there is an epidemic and we are experiencing it, but our neighbors to the south 

actually are seeing an even greater increase than we are. 

Now, that does not obviate the need to be alert to fraudulent 

claims. Nobody is arguing that we should not be vigorous in aggressively protecting ourselves from fraudulent claims, not the advocates for refugee services or asylees. In fact, we know if there is 

fraud, it hurts legitimate applicants. So there is not a disagreement 

on that score. 

I would just note, Mr. Crocetti—and thank you for the service 

that you provided for our country for so many years and your continued interest in this. Many, as a matter of fact most, of the recommendations discussed in the report have been implemented in 

terms of the access to the databases and on and on. I assume, as 

you said earlier, that implementation of these recommendations 

have actually helped decrease fraud in the system you had indicated earlier. 

If I am hearing you correctly—and I am going to take this to 

heart—the suggestion you are making is that we need a systematic 

kind of assessment as we go forward. I am not sure that that is 

not happening, but I think that that makes sense. And I intend to 

pursue this with the Administration. It is really a matter of if we 

are doing well, we want to make sure that we continue to do well. 
70 

For example, the drug cartel members—they are not eligible for 

asylum. I mean, they are barred under the act, but we want to 

make sure that we find out who they are. 

And with that, I thank the gentleman for yielding and I yield 

back. I will wait for my own time. 

Mr. GOWDY. I thank the gentlelady from California. 

The Chair will now recognize the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Jordan. 

Mr. JORDAN. I yield my time to the Chairman. 

Mr. GOWDY. I appreciate that, and I will hold my time until the 

end and recognize the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. King. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate this hearing 

today and the witnesses. 

A number of things come to mind to me. As I listen to the discussion about 70 percent fraud—or likely fraud is the way I would interpret that—and I think about my business world, if I had 70 percent of any of the division or department or endeavor I was involved in and it had been going on since maybe 2005—and we lament that we do not have current data to work with—I would first 

start with what can we do to put this all back together. Can we 

do that quickly? If not, what would the world look like if we did 

not have this program? 

And I listened to Chairman Goodlatte speak about how the 

United States provides asylum to a greater number than all the 

other Nations in the world put together. So this is a great, big bite 

out of the broader society that we are in. 

But it does not seem to me that there is a high level of anxiety 

about solving this problem. It seems that there are people here politically that are willing to accept a significantly high level of fraud 

without an urgency to fix it. When I see the numbers of unaccompanied adults arriving here in the United States, a number that I 

believe Mr. Acosta said has gone to a multiple of seven times what 

it was—I listened to Chris Crane, the President of the ICE Union 

on a public statement the other day that he thought that they 

would probably interdict around 50,000 unaccompanied minors in 

the United States, and now I see this number of 60,000 unaccompanied minors. 

This is something to me that I would ask the reason for this. I 

would probably turn to Mr. Acosta on this. Can it be rooted in the 

reauthorization of the unaccompanied alien minor protections from 

2008? Did you see a change in that in the acceleration then as the 

unaccompanied minors got two bites at the apple and all of the access to benefits? 

Mr. ACOSTA. Well, I think we have seen a large increase for a 

number of reasons. One is because over the years, Congressman, 

we have had a high percentage of illegal entries into our country. 

We went from early 2000 with estimates of 30 million illegal aliens 

in our country to over 12 million illegal aliens in our country right 

now, many who come from Central and South America, many who 

left their children behind. When we talk about the change, we have 

seen a lot of the efforts by the parents to continue reuniting the 

children. 

I will add that 1 year ago we had a reduction of the illegal entry 

of adults coming into our country, but the numbers of unaccom-
71 

 See Appendix for this submission. 

panied minors entering the country illegally continued to increase 

in the surges that we are talking about right now. 

Mr. KING. And are most of them being brought in by coyotes? 

Mr. ACOSTA. Well, with my experience when I was the Director 

in Mexico City, we had large smuggling organizations that were 

participating in this scheme. And I will share with you that my belief from what I know, most of the human smuggling operations are 

working jointly with the members of the cartels in Mexico. It is 

well organized. And I can assure you that if a large number of children are being sent to the United States and smuggled into the 

United States, it is with the knowledge of cartels or other human 

smuggling organizations. 

Mr. KING. Are you aware of any of them being required to bring 

illegal drugs on their back as a price to their entry into the United 

States? 

Mr. ACOSTA. I am not aware of any children. However, we know 

the tactics that the cartels use. You might recall, Congressman—— 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Acosta. 

Mr. ACOSTA [continuing]. Several years ago, 72 people were executed in Mexico by cartel members. 

Mr. KING. Thank you. We know that those numbers have gone— 

the deaths have all been in the thousands, and it is tragic down 

there. And I appreciate your bringing that up. 

I would just point to a Center for Immigration Studies report by 

Jessica Vaughn, ‘‘Deportation Numbers Unwrapped.’’ And I would 

ask unanimous consent to enter it into the record.** ** 

Mr. GOWDY. Without objection. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I would point out too this. Within the context of this discussion, we have heard repeatedly that the deportations under the 

President are greater than they have ever been. And this report is 

an objective report, and it is a summation that goes clear back. It 

shows that the deportations right now—the removals right now all 

together, and that in the definition of deportations used in this report, are lower than they have been since 1973. The highest deportations that we had may have taken place in 1986 except under 

Bill Clinton in his last year in 2000, he actually set the record with 

a number over 1.8 million deportations. So I make that point here 

into the record, and I will introduce that report. 

But I would turn to Mr. Ting and ask this question. If you have 

a problem and you are trying to fix this problem and you do not 

see that there is a solution coming—I appreciated your comment 

about the cost-benefit analysis that people make no matter what 

their particular economic status might be. And now here from the 

United States’ viewpoint, cost-benefit analysis—it is not working so 

good for us, and we are having trouble analyzing that. So I would 

ask you do you believe that if we applied a bonding requirement 

to the people that are being released into this country under the 

asylum application, if that would help fix this problem and what 

your view might be on that. 

Mr. TING. Well, it would certainly alter the cost-benefit analysis. 

There would be one additional cost to worry about. And I think, 
72 

again, if we want less of anything, we have to raise the costs and 

lower the benefits. That is just a basic fact of economic life. 

Mr. KING. I thank you. 

My time has expired and I yield back. 

Mr. GOWDY. I thank the gentleman from Iowa. 

The Chair will now recognize the gentleman from Idaho, Mr. 

Labrador. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wonder if the Chairman would yield to a question real quick. I am wondering. I have 

heard a lot of comments about immigration reform during this 

hearing today, and I know you and I were not here during 2008 

to 2010. But I wonder if the Chairman recalls what immigration 

reform was passed by the Democrats when they were in charge of 

Congress and the people of America had received promises from 

the President of the United States that they would do comprehensive reform when they were in power. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. LABRADOR. No. 

Mr. GOWDY. I would tell the gentleman from Idaho, as he knows, 

I was a prosecutor during that time period doing my best to get to 

heaven. So I cannot tell you what did or did not happen during 

that Congress. 

Mr. LABRADOR. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Crocetti, we heard testimony last month that asylum credible fear interviews are just 20 minutes long or less. Do any of you 

believe—do you or anybody on the panel believe that giving the 

asylum officers maybe 20 minutes is very difficult to make a credible fear determination? 

Mr. CROCETTI. Yes, I do. I think it is very difficult to make an 

accurate finding in less than 20 minutes or 30 minutes. 

Mr. LABRADOR. So how would you suggest changing that? 

Mr. CROCETTI. Well, one of the things that is absolutely essential 

to a decision maker, an adjudicator, is that as many system checks 

as possible could be done to identify any and all information to determine credibility and an individual’s identity. So you can collect 

the biometrics and you can do the background checks, but the odds 

are there are not any records on most of these people. So now you 

got to focus on the consistency of the story and the credibility. 

Overseas verification of information and facts—one of the things I 

would do is build and expand the overseas capability of CIS to 

verify events, facts, and information instead of rushing judgment to 

making decisions in 10, 20, 15 minutes and releasing people. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Mr. Ting, do you have any comments about that? 

Mr. TING. Well, I would build the State Department into this 

process rather than building an entirely new infrastructure for CIS 

overseas. There is an infrastructure over there. It is called our Foreign Service. We have knowledgeable people in every country who 

speak the language and have studied the culture, and that is a resource that ought to be drawn upon. It used to be drawn upon routinely in asylum adjudications, and it ought to again. In fact, again, 

talk to the career CIS people. I think there are a lot of career CIS 

people who agree with that and who regret that the State Department has been taken out of the process. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Mr. Acosta, do you have any comments on that? 
73 

Mr. ACOSTA. Yes. Having actually served 13 years outside the 

United States with INS, I know that our offices are as responsive 

as possible. They are experts at this particular process. 

While I do not disagree completely with what Dr. Ting is saying, 

I think we have the expertise but we need more resources for CIS 

outside the country because that is the business that we are in. I 

know that adjudicators take it very seriously and I know they can 

respond. But as Mr. Crocetti stated, we need timely responses. We 

cannot wait 90 days to adjudicate a petition inside the United 

States. And in some cases, as the report presented here today has 

shown, we did not receive responses on, I believe, something like 

27 of the requests that were sent outside the United States. That 

is not acceptable, Congressman. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Ms. Acer? 

Ms. ACER. Congressman, thank you. 

Yes, I would add that I think one of the most important things 

that can be done is to staff USCIS’ asylum office so it has enough 

officers to conduct credible fear interviews and to devote as much 

time as needed in each individual case and that those interviews 

should be conducted in person not by videoconference. I think that 

is very important as well. 

I also wanted to note—there was a question before about bond. 

Many asylum seekers actually are only given an opportunity for release with bond. And I spoke just the other day to an ABA project 

working with people at the border, and they stressed to me how 

few people are actually getting released right now. 

I would like to also add—— 

Mr. LABRADOR. If I can reclaim my time. Thank you. 

Mr. Crocetti, you also mentioned in your testimony that once the 

public became aware of these fraud reports, there was pressure to 

release them broadly. Thereafter, the contents of the reports became politicized. What did you mean by that? Can you please explain how the content might have changed once there was pressure 

to release them broadly? 

Mr. CROCETTI. Well, once FDNS lost most of the control of the 

instrument, the benefit fraud assessment, after it went through an 

internal review process. And senior management is obviously very 

concerned about what a document (that is speaking for the agency) 

is going to say publicly because it has repercussions. So as a result 

of that, there were also the internal politics with regard to getting 

the approval process. It would take forever. I would refer to it— 

as I am sure most of you have heard—paralysis by analysis. And 

we could no longer get the reports done due to internal and external politicalization. 

And I would suggest, as in my statement, that Congress mandate 

that these reports and analyses be done and that a report be provided to Congress in an ongoing manner. Because if you do not— 

and I have been through this for nearly 4 decades—it changes with 

the Administration and the party, the majority party, and it keeps 

jerking the agency back and forth. We careerists would really like 

to have a mandate so we could focus on that and get it to you with 

little political interference. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Thank you very much. 

I yield back my time. 
74 

Mr. GOWDY. I thank the gentleman from Idaho. 

And the Chair will now recognize the gentlelady from California, 

Ms. Lofgren. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I think sometimes extravagant things are printed in the press 

and it is really a distortion of what is really going on. And that 

does not mean that there are not things that we can do to make 

this system work better. And I think there have been some helpful 

discussions here. 

I have long thought that the country conditions—really, the State 

Department is in the best position to provide that information, and 

they do so on a yearly basis but they do not update it. 

Having said that, sometimes there is open source information. I 

mean, I remember many years ago when I was an immigration 

lawyer and I had an asylum case, and here was the case. It was 

a gentleman who was here, and he was Iranian. The Shah fell to 

the radicals. But he was Jewish. And what they were doing in Iran 

was they were machine-gunning the Jews. We could not get any information out of Iran at the time, but there was plenty of open 

source information. And we were able to make the credible fear 

case. Obviously, the law has changed since that time, especially the 

1996 act that I participated in. 

I think it is important to note in terms of the report that you 

have discussed, Mr. Crocetti, that the indicators of possible fraud 

that have been referred to—specifically the report says that the 

negative credibility finding does not necessarily demonstrate that 

there would be fraud. I mean, there can be a lot of reasons why 

you might have a credibility issue. You may have a poor memory. 

You could have a translation error. 

The failsafe is that you are going to court and you are going to 

have a vigorous process where we have, in most cases, the asylee 

applicant is not represented, but the Government sure is. And if 

you can make that claim, you have got some failsafe there. 

So I think that does not mean that this is a perfect system, but 

I think that the concerns that were expressed by Mr. Acosta about 

things that happened in 1980 and 1988 and 1994—certainly those 

were very much on the agenda of Congress when we revisited these 

issues. In the 1996 act, I think we have created some problems 

there in terms of the material support issue, for example. We have 

not gone into that because this is not a hearing about that. But as 

we know, for example, if you take up arms in any case, you are 

barred. 

And I remember talking to Secretary of State Colin Powell because the Montagnards, the Mennonites who were Montagnards, 

were barred from asylum. And, of course, Colin Powell, before he 

was Secretary of State, was a soldier in Vietnam and he had a tremendous attachment to the Montagnards and what they did for 

American soldiers. They were barred under our asylum laws because of their role on our side in the war. And while we messed 

around trying to refine this issue, we finally just took the 

Montagnards out of the mix. But to make that sensible it is very 

important. 

I would just like to also note that my friend, Mr. Labrador, constantly says, well, when the Democrats were in charge, we did not 
75 

do immigration reform. Obviously, immigration reform did not 

pass. But I would like to note that in the 109th Congress, the 

Democratic controlled Senate passed a bipartisan comprehensive 

reform bill, and the House, then Republican controlled as now, refused to take it up and passed an enforcement-only bill. In the 

110th Congress, the Democrats in the Senate tried to pass a bipartisan bill, but the Republicans blocked it and it fell apart. And I 

chaired the Immigration Committee on this side. We tried to do 

something modest, which was to provide relief for the families of 

U.S. soldiers. And I will never forget that appalling markup where 

our efforts to help the husbands and wives of American soldiers 

was defeated by the rhetoric. In the 111th Congress, that is when 

we had our 25-member bipartisan group working to put together a 

bipartisan bill, which we eventually did. But we did pass the 

DREAM Act which the Senate was unable to pass. 

So I remain hopeful that we will be able to work together to refine this system, but even more, those of us here working in good 

faith can put our heads together and come together with an effort 

to reform the immigration laws. 

And just a final issue, Mr. Chairman. As I had mentioned privately, we do have an issue of unaccompanied minor children. 

There is a surge. Those are not asylum cases. Those are children 

who have been actually apprehended at our border. We need to understand what is going on there. There is a multinational effort underway that includes El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala, Mexico, 

and the United States to try and come to grips with that. It is my 

hope that we again—I just mentioned that I would love to have the 

Chairman participate—that we can work in a multinational way to 

make sure that the right thing is happening there and that children are not exploited or injured. 

With that, I yield back my time. 

Mr. GOWDY. I thank the gentlelady from California. 

The Chair will now recognize himself for questions. 

Mr. Ting, there have been a number of studies referenced today 

with various levels of fraud detected, some as high as 70 percent, 

some 30 percent. I am not smart enough to know what the percentage of fraud is. I think I am smart enough to know that nothing 

will sap the generosity of my fellow citizens quicker than fraud and 

a perception that we are doing nothing about it. So whether the 

number is 10 percent, they expect us to do everything we can to 

eradicate that 10 percent. 

So against that backdrop, I want to pursue two different lines 

with you. Firstly, detect and deter. I think Mr. Crocetti said the 

standard is a mere preponderance of the evidence, which is the 

lowest legal standard by which you would prove any claim in any 

court. That does not get any lower than slightly tilting the scales 

of justice. Has there ever been any thought to raising the standard 

of proof above mere preponderance of evidence? 

Mr. TING. Well, I actually think preponderance of the evidence 

is a pretty respectable test. The test for withholding of removal is 

more likely than not. And as somebody has said, you know, 51 percent does it. 

Mr. GOWDY. It is not even 51 percent. It is 50.1 percent. 
76 

Mr. TING. Yes, 50.1 percent does it. That is a preponderance of 

the evidence. And that was the test when we did not have 208, 

when we only had withholding of removal. That was the test for 

withholding of removal. 

And indeed, when 208 was adopted, the position of the Service 

and the BIA was that the standard would be the same under asylum. And they litigated that issue. It went all the way to the Supreme Court in a case that I cited in my presentation called 

Cardoza-Fonseca in 1987. The Supreme Court in a split decision 

ruled that there was a standard even lower than that that applies 

to asylum. And the example that was used in the majority opinion 

was that if there is even a 10 percent possibility of persecution, 

that that would be sufficient under 208. That would not be sufficient under withholding of removal, but 10 percent as opposed to 

the 50.1 percent that you just talked about for withholding of removal, that a 10 percent possibility of persecution would be sufficient, legally sufficient, for authorization of asylum. 

So that is why I am saying maybe we ought to get back to that. 

Maybe that 50.1 percent is not such a bad standard compared to 

the 10 percent the Supreme Court has authorized in Cardoza-Fonseca. 

Mr. GOWDY. I would agree 50.1 is more than 10, but 50.1 is the 

lowest standard above which any claim has to be proven in a court 

in this country. 

Mr. Crocetti also mentioned, because I made a note, that these 

are credibility-intensive inquiries, that credibility is sometimes the 

only thing that is going to be judged. And juries struggle for weeks 

sometimes to determine whether or not a witness is credible, and 

the judge always instructs the jury you may believe part of what 

a witness says, you may believe one thing a witness says, you are 

free to weigh and balance that credibility however you want. And 

you look at the tools that juries use: corroboration, physical evidence, bias. Bias is incredibly important when you are determining 

credibility. 

So what tools are used in this analysis to determine whether or 

not somebody is telling the truth or not? 

Mr. TING. Of all the information, you have to determine whether 

there is anything that raises a question, any red flags, and as soon 

as you have one lead, if you will, you continue to pursue that and 

see if you get others. And once you challenge their credibility, as 

far as I am concerned, then you lean toward an unfavorable decision. Now, in the case of asylum with CIS, that is simply referring 

them to the immigration judge. So there could be two different 

standards there being applied. 

Mr. GOWDY. Well, Chaffetz had a hearing on Oversight, and I 

asked a witness—I cannot recall his name, but he was somebody 

who works for the Government that is in enforcement—that the 

fact that you lie on one part of your petition or application should 

not be considered as any evidence of veracity or lack thereof on another part, which I just find to be mind-boggling that you can pick 

and choose which questions you are going to answer truthfully and 

which ones you are not. 
77 

But leaving the detect and deter for a second, I want to get to 

the punishment. What are the consequences for falsely asserting an 

asylum claim? 

Mr. TING. Well, you are charged with fraud and misrepresentation, and then you are removable. 

Mr. GOWDY. Are those prosecuted with vigor? 

Mr. CROCETTI. Well, I would have to defer to ICE or the Department. 

Mr. GOWDY. But you have been around a long time. Despite your 

youthful appearance, you have been around a long time. So my 

question is, if there is no disincentive to asserting a claim, if you 

are not going to be prosecuted for making a false claim or for fraud, 

where is the disincentive to doing it? 

Mr. CROCETTI. Well, one of my frustrations throughout my career 

is the fact that whenever there is a ground of inadmissibility, there 

seems to always be an exception or a waiver available. And as provided in my testimony, I think we need to think differently and approach things a little bit differently. Maybe requiring one to be outside the country for a couple years is not quite the hardship that 

we have made it over the years. And until we start really getting 

serious and holding people accountable for their representation, we 

are going to continue to encourage fraud because the fraudsters, if 

you will, know there is a mechanism to get a waiver or an exception or whatever. 

Ms. ACER. Mr. Chairman, can—I am sorry. 

Mr. GOWDY. Well, I am out of time. In fact, I am woefully out 

of time. So I am just going to say this in conclusion. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I ask unanimous consent to give you another 

minute so she—— 

Mr. GOWDY. Yes, but that is only so she can answer. You do not 

really want to give me another minute. I am happy because of her 

generosity. I am happy for you to answer the question if you want. 

I would also like you to answer this one other question, because 

I do not know it, while you are answering that one. 

If you abscond while you are on bond, does that impact your 

credibility in a subsequent proceeding? 

Ms. ACER. Let me just jump in first to just reiterate again that 

fraud hurts everyone, including bona fide asylum seekers, and we 

really do need to make sure that whatever measures we look at are 

actually tailored to deal with fraud and do not block innocent individuals. 

I want to go back to your prosecution point, which I think is an 

important one. There have been, I think, stepped-up prosecutions 

in recent years and some really major ones which send a very 

strong signal. They are not just dealing with things in the past. It 

sends a signal in the future that fraud will not be tolerated. So I 

want to agree that those who perpetrate fraud absolutely need to 

be dealt with. 

I want to go back to this impression that the asylum system is 

somehow really easy. It is actually really difficult for people who 

are in the system and people who are bona fide refugees who go 

on to be granted. It is a hard system for them. So I just want to 

add that one point in as well. 
78 

*****See Appendix for this submission. 

Oh, on the bond question. Sorry. So for individuals who do not 

comply with bond, there can be a range of consequences. I mean, 

the most important thing is that they actually are re-detained if 

they have not complied with bond—— 

Mr. GOWDY. I know. I am asking whether it impacts your credibility. 

Ms. ACER. I am sorry. I was in the middle of saying that. Sorry, 

sir. 

Yes, indeed, it could potentially impact your credibility, anything. 

If you said you are going to show up and you do not can impact 

your credibility potentially. 

Mr. GOWDY. Well, on an almost note of accord, we will end with 

me simply making this observation. I am convinced that everybody 

at this panel and frankly everyone on this dais would move heaven 

and earth to help someone who is legitimately making a claim for 

asylum. I am convinced of that. And those who behaved and remained in the hearing room, I am convinced of that as well. 

But I have got to stress—at least in my district—I cannot tell 

you about the rest of the country—what will undercut people’s generosity of spirit quicker than anything else is fraud. And not only 

is it going to impact the fraudster, it is going to impact people making legitimate claims if we do not do something to get that number 

down as low as we can. 

So with that, on behalf of all of us, thank you for your time, your 

expertise, your collegiality with one another and with the members 

of the panel. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Could I ask unanimous consent to place in the 

record a statement from the United We Dream Network?***** 

Mr. GOWDY. Without objection. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you. 

Mr. GOWDY. This concludes today’s hearing. Thanks to all of our 

witnesses for attending. 

Without objection, all Members will have 5 legislative days to 

submit additional questions for the witnesses or additional materials for the record. 

The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:09 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 
(79) 

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD
80 

Material submitted by the Honorable Trey Gowdy, a Representative in Congress from the State of South Carolina, and Chairman, Subcommittee on 

Immigration and Border Security 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 

APPENDIX 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 
131 
132 
133 
134 
135 
136 
137 
138 
139 
140 

f 
141 

Material submitted by the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee 

on Immigration and Border Security 
142 
143 
144 
145 
146 
147 
148 
149 
150 
151 
152 
153 
154 
155 
156 
157 
158 
159 
160 
161 
162 
163 
164 
165 
166 
167 
168 
169 
170 
171 
172 
173 
174 
175 
176 
177 
178 
179 
180 
181 
182 
183 
184 
185 
186 
187 
188 
189 
190 
191 
192 
193 
194 
195 
196 
197 
198 
199 
200 
201 
202 
203 
204 
205 
206 
207 
208 
209 
210 
211 
212 
213 
214 

f 
215 

Material submitted by the Honorable Trey Gowdy, a Representative in Congress from the State of South Carolina, and Chairman, Subcommittee on 

Immigration and Border Security 
216 
217 
218 
219 
220 

f 
221 

Material submitted by the Honorable Steve King, a Representative in Congress from the State of Iowa, and Member, Subcommittee on Immigration 

and Border Security 
222 
223 
224 
225 
226 
227 
228 
229 
230 
231 
232 
233 
234 
235 
236 

f 
237 

Material submitted by the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee 

on Immigration and Border Security 
238 
239 

f 
240 

Prepared Statement of Michael Comfort, President, 

Comfort Western Enterprises LLC 
241 
242 
243 
244 

Æ