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

85–905 PDF 2014

ASYLUM ABUSE: IS IT OVERWHELMING 

OUR BORDERS? 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

DECEMBER 12, 2013 

Serial No. 113–56 

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 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

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 

SHELLEY HUSBAND, Chief of Staff & General Counsel 

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

C O N T E N T S 

DECEMBER 12, 2013 

Page 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

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

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

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

of California, and Member, Committee on the Judiciary ................................. 3 

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

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

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

State of Michigan, and Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary ......... 7 

WITNESSES 

Michael J. Fisher, Chief of the U.S. Border Patrol, Customs and Border 

Patrol 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 25 

Lori Scialabba, Deputy Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 26 

Daniel H. Ragsdale, Deputy Director, Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 27 

Joint Prepared Statement ................................................................................... 30 

Ruth Ellen Wasem, Specialist in Immigration Policy, Congressional Research 

Service 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 45 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 47 

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Material submitted by the Honorable Bob Goodlatte, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of Virginia, and Chairman, Committee on the 

Judiciary ............................................................................................................... 10 

Material submitted by the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Michigan, and Ranking Member, Committee 

on the Judiciary ................................................................................................... 68 

Material submitted by the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, and Member, Committee on the Judiciary ......................................................................................................................... 75

Material submitted by the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, and Member, Committee on the Judiciary ......................................................................................................................... 173 

Material submitted by the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, and Member, Committee on the Judiciary ......................................................................................................................... 184 

Material submitted by the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, and Member, Committee on the Judiciary ......................................................................................................................... 200 

Material submitted by the Honorable Jason Chaffetz, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of Utah, and Member, Committee on the Judiciary 204 
Page

IV 

Material submitted by the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, and Member, Committee on the Judiciary ......................................................................................................................... 212 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Material submitted by the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative 

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

Judiciary ............................................................................................................... 220 

Material submitted by the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, and Member, Committee on the Judiciary ......................................................................................................................... 224 
(1) 

ASYLUM ABUSE: IS IT OVERWHELMING 

OUR BORDERS? 

THURSDAY, DECEMBER 12, 2013 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:16 a.m., in room 

2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Bob Goodlatte 

(Chairman of the Committee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Goodlatte, Sensenbrenner, Coble, Smith 

of Texas, Chabot, Forbes, King, Franks, Gohmert, Jordan, Poe, 

Chaffetz, Marino, Gowdy, Labrador, Farenthold, Collins, DeSantis, 

Conyers, Scott, Lofgren, Jackson Lee, Johnson, Chu, Deutch, 

Gutierrez, and Garcia. 

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

Shah, Counsel; Kelsey Deterding, Clerk; (Minority) Perry 

Apelbaum, Staff Director & Chief Counsel; Danielle Brown, Parliamentarian; and Tom Jawetz, Counsel. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Good morning. The Judiciary Committee will 

come to order. And without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare recesses of the Committee at any time. 

I will begin with my opening statement. The United States of 

America is extremely hospitable to immigrants, asylees, and refugees. 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. 

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

countries 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 tempted 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 stretched beyond imagination 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. Unfortunately, some advocacy groups have un-
2 

dertaken a strategy of staging public violations of immigration laws 

in a brazen attempt to politicize the issue of immigration reform. 

They somehow seem to believe that this is productive. It is just 

the opposite. In one example, the so-called Dream 9 and Dream 30 

voluntarily crossed the border and returned to their home countries 

with orders of deportation. Just days later, pursuant to their plan, 

they were apprehended by Border Patrol and claimed that they had 

a credible fear of returning to the very country to which they just 

intentionally self-deported. 

Political stunts like these demonstrate the ineffectiveness of the 

asylum process and damage credible claimants. Unlawful or inadmissible aliens caught along the border or at ports of entry can 

claim a credible fear of persecution in order to seek a hearing before an immigration judge. 

Over the past several years, credible fear claims have been 

granted at ever-growing rates. Currently, data provided by the Department of Homeland Security shows that USCIS makes positive 

credible fear findings in 92 percent of all cases decided on the merits. Not surprisingly, credible fear claims have increased 586 percent from 2007 to 2013, as word has gotten out as to the virtual 

rubberstamping of applications. 

Not only is the rise in credible fear claims concerning, the Administration is contributing to undermining our asylum system by 

failing to follow current law as it pertains to the asylum process. 

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 then disappearing into the 

shadows. The detention standard was enacted precisely because 

large numbers of arriving aliens were absconding 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 a necessary for a legitimate law enforcement 

objective. However, these standards have been watered down by 

the current Administration via executive fiat. A December 8, 2009, 

policy directive issued by former ICE Director Morton provides that 

any arriving alien who has been found to have a credible fear and 

can establish identity and argue that they are not a flight risk or 

a danger to the community should be released by ICE. 

This is inconsistent with the statute that requires detention except in very limited circumstances. And not surprisingly, the timing of this memo appears to correlate with the uptick of credible 

fear claims in recent years. 

As a result of these lax detention standards and ease of being 

found to have a credible fear, claims have increased dramatically 

in recent years. The stellar efforts of our Border Patrol agents are 

in vain if the aliens they apprehend are simply released into our 

communities. Once released, many of these aliens, particularly 

those with meager or invented claims of asylum, simply melt into 

the population. 
3 

Critics allege that the purpose is not to obtain asylum, but rather 

to game the system by getting a free pass into the United States 

and a court date for which they do not plan to show up. Accounts 

indicate that aliens being coached in the asylum process and that 

aliens are being taught to use certain terms to ensure that they 

have—that they are found to have a credible fear. According to critics, many of these claims are often an orchestrated sham. 

In addition to this alarming trend, the House Judiciary Committee recently obtained an internal CBP memo that states many 

people claiming a credible fear of persecution at our ports of entry 

have a direct or indirect association with drug trafficking and other 

illegal activity, such as human smuggling. Since there are intelligence gaps and loopholes in the system, the asylum process is 

often being abused by individuals who would otherwise be subjects 

of interest or subjects of criminal investigations. 

Once these unscrupulous individuals falsely claim a credible fear 

of persecution, there is virtually no investigation by U.S. authorities. Because the Obama administration refuses to detain most of 

them, criminals and those who pose national security threats are 

then able to live and work in the U.S. for many years before their 

cases are ever heard by immigration judges. 

Ultimately, the Administration is demonstrating its inability and 

lack of desire to enforce the law. The threat of infiltration by criminal elements and cartels is putting the American public at risk. 

These decisions are neither prudent nor wise. To make matters 

worse, they undermine the confidence in a secure border necessary 

to develop a common sense, step-by-step approach to improving our 

immigration laws. 

I look forward to getting to the bottom of this disturbing problem 

today, and it is now my pleasure to recognize the Ranking Member 

of the Immigration and Claims Border Security Subcommittee, the 

gentlewoman from California, Ms. Lofgren, for her opening statement. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Five years ago, I became part of an increasingly rare process in 

the House of Representatives. A large bipartisan group of lawmakers met once or twice a week, sometimes more often, to try and 

devise a plan to fix our broken immigration system. And although 

the process went on hiatus for much of the last Congress, we renewed our efforts last fall and worked hard until just a few months 

ago when several Republicans in the group, for whom I have a 

great deal of respect, announced their departure from the group. 

That process may not have borne fruit, not yet at least, but at 

least it was something. I am afraid that when it comes to immigration, the work this Committee has done over the past year has not 

moved the ball forward. Hope springs eternal, however. And when 

I return for the next session in January, I will come ready to work. 

But back to today’s topic. Before I address the question put to us 

by the title of this hearing, I think it is important to review how 

our current expedited removal and credible fear processes came 

about and what they are. 

In 1996, Congress enacted the Illegal Immigration Reform and 

Immigrant Responsibility Act. I voted against the bill in committee. 

I voted against it on the floor, and I voted against it when it came 
4 

out of conference. I believed then, as now, that the bill was a meanspirited bill that would do drastic damage to immigrants and our 

immigration system. 

And one of the most pernicious aspects of that law was the creation of expedited removal, which allows people apprehended at 

our ports, along the borders, and in some cases, in the interior, to 

be deported with little due process. 

As Congress recognized at that time, expedited removal posed 

the real danger that bona fide asylum seekers would be summarily 

removed from the country to face persecution and torture abroad. 

In an effort to prevent that unacceptable outcome, the law required 

that every person subject to expedited removal be screened to determine whether they expressed a fear of returning to their home 

country. 

If so, the law required that except in very limited circumstances, 

they be detained until a trained asylum officer could interview 

them and determine whether or not they possessed a credible fear 

of persecution. We defined ‘‘credible fear’’ at that time to mean that 

there is a ‘‘significant possibility, taking into account the credibility 

of the statements made by the alien in support of the alien’s claim 

and such other facts as are known to the officer, that the alien 

could establish eligibility for asylum.’’ 

This is a lower standard than the ‘‘well-founded’’ fear standard 

that applies to a final decision on the merits of an asylum claim, 

and that was our intention. We understood that it can be nearly 

impossible to demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution just 

days after arriving in the country, and setting the bar too high 

would lead to unconscionable results. 

After the bill became law, we heard a wave of complaints regarding the effect that expedited removal was having on asylum seekers. And just 2 years later, Congress enacted the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998, and we established the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, an independent body 

whose commissioners are appointed by the President and congressional leadership of both parties. 

In that very first authorizing statute, Congress asked the Commission to study the impact of expedited removal on people fleeing 

persecution. The Commission issued its study in 2005 and concluded that because of expedited removal ‘‘and its serious flaws, the 

United States’ tradition of protecting asylum seekers—not to mention those asylum seekers’ lives—continues to be at risk.’’ 

One of the most striking findings had to do with ICE’s practice 

of paroling people out of detention. Policy guidance clearly authorized parole after an applicant had demonstrated a credible fear, 

had also established his or her identity, had also showed that he 

or she posed neither a flight risk nor a danger to the community. 

But while one ICE field office paroled 97.7 percent of applicants, 

another paroled just 0.5 percent. So it was recommended by the 

Commission that the issuance of regulations be undertaken to promote consistency. 

Now I want to turn to the question of today’s hearing, ‘‘Asylum 

Abuse: Is it Overwhelming our Borders?’’ Let us analyze that. 

First, are our borders overwhelmed? By historical measures, the 

answer is clearly no. Although we have seen an increase in at-
5 

tempted border crossings along our Southwest border over the past 

2 years, this is an increase from what appears to be a 40-year low 

just 2 years ago. 

And given the increases we have made in manpower and infrastructure at the border, there is no way to argue that they are 

more overwhelmed today than they have been for much of our recent history. 

Second, are some parts of our border overwhelmed? I hope to 

learn more about that today. But there is no question that we have 

seen a sharp increase in people expressing the fear of being returned to their home countries. There were 5,369 claims of credible 

fear in fiscal year 2009; more than double that number, 13,880, in 

fiscal year 2012; and nearly triple that number, 36,035, in this past 

fiscal year. 

Still, to keep things in perspective, only a small fraction of the 

people apprehended at and between our ports express such fear, 

and the overwhelming majority of people subject to expedited removal are removed from the country in a short period of time. 

So the final part of the question is whether the recent increase 

is a result of asylum abuse? And the truth is we don’t know yet. 

We can’t yet know. The cases that are driving the increase in fiscal 

year 2013 have largely not yet been adjudicated by the immigration 

courts. 

As this Committee has documented time and time again, the 

case backlog in our courts, caused primarily by inadequate investment in new judges, support personnel, and facilities, is preventing 

cases from being resolved in an acceptable timeframe. We do know 

a few things, however. 

The increase in credible fear claims is being driven by people 

from Central America. Sixty-five percent of the claims in fiscal year 

2013 came from Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador. Although 

claims by Mexicans have increased, Mexicans still make up only 7 

percent of all credible fear claims. 

Also, more than three-quarters of the claims are coming from 

people apprehended between the ports, not at the ports. Since people apprehended between the ports are not eligible for parole under 

the parole directive issued by ICE in 2009, this provides strong evidence that the directive itself is not drawing people to come here. 

Something is, in fact, going on. The number of people claiming 

credible fear of persecution or torture definitely increased in the 

last 2 years. But whether that is the result of better fear 

screenings, efforts to defraud the system, or a brewing refugee crisis in the Western Hemisphere is something we still need to explore. Prejudging that question, I believe, is dangerous and unwise. 

I look forward to learning from our witnesses, and I thank each 

of them for appearing today, and I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The Chair thanks the gentlewoman and is now 

pleased to recognize the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security, Mr. Gowdy of South Carolina, for his 

opening statement. 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to thank you for your work on this issue, and I want to 

yield my time to my friend from Utah, Mr. Jason Chaffetz, who has 
6 

done remarkable work on this issue, both on Judiciary and Oversight and Government Reform. 

Mr. Chaffetz? 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. I thank the Chairman. I thank you, Mr. Gowdy 

and Chairman Goodlatte, for allowing this hearing to happen. This 

is a problem, and it is an abuse, and I am glad we are addressing 

it. 

Today, we are going to examine the threats to our Nation’s border caused by the abuse of the credible fear process. In a reflection 

of the Obama administration’s undermining of the enforcement of 

our immigration laws, these credible fear claimants almost always 

get approved and are released into our communities. 

As a result, the integrity of our immigration system is compromised, and potential threats to our communities and national 

security are able to legally live and work here. When their asylum 

claims are ultimately denied, they simply add to the fugitive population here in the United States. This is all the more troubling because we have received reports that Mexican drug cartel members 

are abusing the credible fear process to bypass regular immigration 

checks in order get into the country. 

Thereafter, they expand their human and drug smuggling operations in the United States, and once here, some of these cartel 

members even engage in the same violent feuds that supposedly 

caused them to flee Mexico in the first place. DHS has confirmed 

some of these reports but has refused to provide us with the documentation they admit exists that details them. 

According to reports, cases show that two women made claims of 

asylum utilizing credible fear process, and 3 months later were apprehended at the Border Patrol checkpoint with more than $1 million in cocaine. One of the women was allegedly married to a cartel 

boss. 

Information provided by DHS also details cartel hit squad members who entered the United States after claiming they feared violence when they fell out of grace with their employers. And yet in 

another case two families involved in drug trafficking came to the 

United States, claiming credible fear of persecution, then began 

targeting each other once they were here. It is outrageous that 

dangerous criminals are gaming the system by claiming they have 

a credible fear of persecution when often they have been the perpetrators of violence themselves. 

To make matters worse, the availability of heroin and methamphetamine in the United States is on the rise due in part to an 

ever-evolving entrepreneurial spirit of the Mexican drug cartels, according to a new study released by the DEA. According to this report, the amount of heroin seized at the southern U.S. border has 

increased 232 percent between 2008 and 2012, apparently as the 

result of greater Mexican heroin production and growing incursion 

by Mexican drug traffickers into the United States market. 

Homeland security officials claim they screen everyone who 

makes a credible fear claim and try to identify and detain those 

who could be dangerous to the community. Clearly, whatever they 

are doing, it is ineffective. And as Chairman Goodlatte explained, 

it might be more effective if they adhered to the actual statute and 

not legislated from the executive branch. 
7 

It seems amazing to me that the Department of Homeland Security has not apparently sought to determine, one, why credible fear 

claims have risen from about 5,000 in 2008 to almost 36,000 in 

2013 or, two, why the rate that USCIS finds aliens have established credible fear currently is at almost 92 percent. Ninety-two 

percent are getting a rubberstamp. They are getting the golden 

ticket to come to the United States of America. 

What can be done administratively or statutorily to address this 

ongoing and escalating abuse to our system? While DHS has not 

yet provided insight into the causes or potential resolution of the 

crisis surrounding the level of credible fear applications, there are 

likely culprits. 

The low threshold for establishing a credible fear, ICE’s recent 

liberalization of the ‘‘mandatory detention policy for inadmissible 

aliens’’ who meet this low threshold, inadequate training for asylum officers, and institutional incentives to approve applications, 

something I am deeply concerned about—many of these abuses 

could be halted by the Administration itself. 

If word got out that bogus credible fear claims were not being 

rubberstamped and the claimants rewarded with almost certain release into the United States and work authorization, the vast increase in claims would quickly abate. 

However, if the Administration is not willing to take these steps, 

I am prepared to pursue necessary legislation to do the same. In 

the end, it doesn’t matter how many aliens are apprehended along 

the border if apprehension itself becomes the golden ticket to the 

country. 

When I visited Phoenix with Mr. Bentivolio and I went to the 

ICE office, we talked about the number of credible fear claims that 

were happening in the region. If you claim asylum in the Phoenix 

office and they assign you a court date, the court date you are 

going to get right now is in 2020. In the meantime, you are going 

to get free education, free healthcare, and you are probably going 

to get a work permit. 

That is not right, Mr. Chairman. I am glad you are holding this 

hearing today. I appreciate the time, and I yield back. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The Chair thanks the gentleman and is now 

pleased to recognize and welcome back the Ranking Member of the 

Judiciary Committee, who has been on a mission to help our country pay our respects to the people of South Africa and in memory 

of a great international leader and fighter for freedom, Nelson 

Mandela. 

And I will have another comment after your remarks. So I am 

happy to recognize the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Conyers. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And we have a couple of our other Members that were on that 

memorial trip with me, and we are very happy to be back and with 

the Committee. 

Now last month, I observed that the very first hearing this Committee held in the 113th Congress was the need for immigration reform. It made sense. One day after the election, the Speaker of the 

House, Mr. Boehner, called for a ‘‘comprehensive approach’’ to immigration reform, as he said it, ‘‘long overdue.’’ 
8 

A few months later, the Republican National Committee recognized that the party ‘‘must embrace and champion comprehensive 

immigration reform.’’ And I agree with both statements. 

So here we are on the last full day of the first session of the 

113th Congress, and so far, we have yet to see any real, decisive 

action in the House. Yes, we have had 14 hearings on the issue, 

considered 4 bills, each one less effective than the one before it, in 

Committee. But even in Committee, we have yet to consider critical 

parts to reform. 

We have seen no bill for the Dreamers. We have seen no bill providing a way for the 11 million people living in our communities, 

working in our fields and factories, attending our churches and 

schools to get right with the law and earn citizenship. They are 

still in the shadows. 

In fact, the only bill pending in the House that does these things 

is H.R. 15, which currently has 193 cosponsors. 

Throughout the year, I have been moved by the presence of immigrant children, Dreamers, who have attended our hearings, visited our offices, and held events of their own around the country. 

I have listened to faith leaders, business leaders, labor leaders 

explain the fierce urgency of enacting common sense immigration 

reform. And for the past month, just steps from where we sit today, 

advocates for immigration reform have abstained from all food for 

weeks on end in order to keep the Nation’s hunger for immigration 

reform at the forefront of our work here in Washington. 

And despite all of that, our final hearing for 2013 is yet another 

hearing that will leave the impression that when Republicans on 

this Committee think of immigrants, they think first of criminals 

or fraudsters or gang members. 

The issue we will address today is not unimportant. We know 

that the number of people seeking asylum at our borders has increased over the last 2 years. In some places, the increase has been 

quite dramatic. It is important that we figure out why this is happening because only after we do that we can 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 House. All year long, the majority 

has said that they want to take their time to do things right and 

approach immigration reform one piece at a time. 

Now I agree that we should be deliberative, but let us not fool 

ourselves. This issue isn’t new. We have been working to fix our 

broken system for over a decade now. The debates we are having 

in this Committee are debates we had going back as far as 1996, 

and then in 2005, and then throughout the last Congress, the 

112th. 

And we know that this much is true. Families, businesses, and 

communities all around this country are counting on us to do a lot 

more in 2014 than just hold another 14 hearings. 

And so, I stand ready to do the work that needs to be done. Let 

us begin the second session by bringing up H.R. 15. And if not, let 

us consider some of the Republican bills that I understand may be 

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. 
9 

And I thank the Chairman, and I yield back any time that may 

be remaining. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The Chair thanks the gentleman. In fact, the 

Chair wants to take this opportunity on the occasion of our last 

hearing of this year and the first session of this Congress to thank 

all the Members for the hard work they have put into this Committee. 

The Committee has held a total of 16 full Committee hearings, 

48 Subcommittee hearings, has passed 26 bills through the Committee and 27 bills through the House. Now you may wonder how 

we could pass 26 through the Committee and 27 through the 

House. The reason for that is there are a few, a small number of 

bills that went directly to the floor without Committee consideration and several others that the Committee shares jurisdiction 

with other Committees. 

But that is a record of accomplishment. And to the point raised 

by the gentleman from Michigan, the Committee will in the new 

year continue work in a very deliberative manner, but a very serious manner understanding that immigration reform is needed, and 

it will be a top priority. 

So I would encourage the Members to take the fact that we are 

holding the final hearing of the year on this subject as a sign of 

continued work, but also as a sign that we continue to learn of new 

problems that need to be addressed, including, unfortunately, the 

leaked memo which displays that the Administration knew far 

more about the nature of this problem and how it relates to criminal drug enterprises and, therefore, needs to be addressed as a part 

of our effort to do immigration reform and cover all aspects of immigration reform, including enforcement, appropriate legal immigration reforms, and finding the appropriate legal status for those 

who are not here lawfully today. 

So, with that, I will ask unanimous consent to enter into the 

record the following items: Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

memo, entitled Parole of Arriving Aliens Found To Have a Credible 

Fear of Persecution or Torture; USCIS Asylum Division data 

through fiscal year 2013; and a news article indicating that Border 

Patrol agents are being ordered to stand down when encountering 

drug smugglers, human smugglers, and traffickers. 

Without objection, those will be made a part of the record. 

[The information referred to follows:] 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 

Mr. GOODLATTE. And at this time, we will turn to our witnesses. 

We are very delighted to have all of our witnesses here today. And 

if you would all rise, I will begin by swearing you in. 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Let the record reflect that all of the witnesses 

responded in the affirmative. 

Thank you, and I will begin to introduce our witnesses. Please 

be seated. 

Ms. Lori Scialabba, currently serves as the Deputy Director of 

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, a position that she has 

held since May of 2011. Prior to being appointed Deputy Director, 

she served as the Associate Director of Refugee, Asylum, and International Operations. 

Prior to joining the Department of Homeland Security, Ms. 

Scialabba served as chairman of the board of immigration appeals 

in the Executive Office for Immigration Review and the Department of Justice. She received her bachelor’s degree in 1982 from 

the University of Maryland and her juris doctorate in 1985 from 

Memphis State University. 

Mr. Daniel H. Ragsdale currently serves as the Deputy Director 

for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the principal investigative agency of the Department of Homeland Security. In this capacity, he also serves as the agency’s chief management officer, overseeing the Office of Management and Administration. 

Mr. Ragsdale joined the former U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service’s General Counsel Office in 1996 and served as 

an attorney in New York, New York, as well as Tucson and Phoenix, Arizona. He received an undergraduate degree from Franklin 

and Marshall College and a J.D. from Fordham University School 

of Law. 

Mr. Michael J. Fisher is the Chief of the U.S. Border Patrol and 

a member of the Senior Executive Service. In this role, he is responsible for planning, organizing, coordinating, and directing enforcement efforts designed to secure our Nation’s borders. Chief 

Fisher entered on duty with the U.S. Border Patrol in June 1987 

as a member of Class 208. His first duty assignment as a Border 

Patrol agent was at the Douglas Station in the Tucson sector. 

Chief Fisher earned a bachelor’s degree in criminal justice and 

a master’s degree in business administration. He is also a graduate 

of the Senior Executive Fellows Program at the John F. Kennedy 

School of Government at Harvard University. 

Ms. Ruth Wasem is the specialist in immigration policy at the 

Congressional Research Service, U.S. Library of Congress. In this 

capacity, she has researched, written, and presented for the U.S. 

Congress on immigration and social welfare policies. 

She is also an adjunct professor of public policy at the Lyndon 

B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, University of Texas, where she 

teaches graduate courses on immigration policy. Ms. Wasem earned 

her master’s and doctorate degrees in history at the University of 

Michigan and received her baccalaureate degree from Muskingum 

University. 

Each of the witnesses’ written statements will be entered into 

the record in its entirety, and I ask that each witness summarize 
25 

his or her testimony in 5 minutes or less. To help you stay within 

that time, there is a timing light on the table. 

When the light switches from green to yellow, you will have 1 

minute to conclude your testimony. When the light turns red, it 

signals that the witness’ 5 minutes have expired. 

Welcome again to all of you. And Ms. Scialabba—oh, I am sorry. 

We are going to go first to Mr. Fisher. 

TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL J. FISHER, CHIEF OF THE 

U.S. BORDER PATROL, CUSTOMS AND BORDER PATROL 

Mr. FISHER. Chairman Goodlatte, Ranking Member Conyers, distinguished Members of the Committee, it is a privilege and, indeed, 

an honor to appear before you today to discuss U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection’s efforts to secure the borders. 

As this Committee is aware, the mission of the United States 

Border Patrol is to reduce the likelihood of attack to the United 

States while providing safety and security to its citizens against 

dangerous people seeking entry into the United States to do us 

harm. 

In the process of fulfilling this mission obligation, we employ a 

risk-based approach. Simply stated, we assess threats and 

vulnerabilities in order to deploy our greatest capabilities and resources against the highest risk. We execute this mission in a number of ways, not the least of which is through the predominant use 

of information and intelligence. 

It was one of these field intelligence reports that was the focus 

of an article that appeared in the Washington Times last month, 

describing a potential emerging threat and vulnerability surrounding the credible fear process. The report was authored by the 

Unified Command within the Alliance to Combat Transnational 

Threats, also called the ACTT, in El Paso, Texas. 

The ACTT has been in existence for a few years and is designed 

and structured to foster integrated operations. ACTT members include Federal, State, and local stakeholders from a number of sectors, the majority being law enforcement. As with most field intelligence reports, the dissemination within the ACTT community was 

wide, as designed, and labeled for official use only. 

This is common practice to not only protect sources and methods, 

but to preserve the interagency information in the event of criminal 

prosecution, which, in many cases, is the desired end state. It is 

too early for me to assess either the potential emerging threat or 

vulnerability from the single report. However, as we continue to 

collect against the illicit networks, as well as the identified intelligence gaps described in the report, and as we broaden our analytical effort, we will be—we will be in a better position to assess 

both. 

Chairman Goodlatte, Ranking Member Conyers, and again, distinguished Members of this Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I look forward to answering your questions. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Mr. Fisher. 

Now we will turn to Ms. Scialabba. 
26 

TESTIMONY OF LORI SCIALABBA, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, 

U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES 

Ms. SCIALABBA. Thank you, Chairman Goodlatte, Ranking Member Conyers, and distinguished Members of the Judiciary Committee—— 

Mr. GOODLATTE. You may want to pull the microphone a little 

closer to you. 

Ms. SCIALABBA. Oh, sure. It makes my eyes cross. [Laughter.] 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Sorry. 

Ms. SCIALABBA. Thank you for the opportunity to testify at today’s hearing, alongside with my colleagues from Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement. 

As you mentioned, I’m Lori Scialabba, Deputy Director of U.S. 

Citizenship and Immigration Services, and my testimony today will 

focus on how USCIS supports U.S. efforts related to border security 

while upholding our refugee protection obligations. 

The United States has a long and proud history of providing humanitarian protection. We are signatories to the 1967 protocol relating to the status of refugees, which bars contracting states from 

returning refugees to their countries of feared persecution. 

Our obligations under the protocol are primarily implemented 

through our Nation’s asylum process, which involves proceedings 

under two tracks, one in which an individual applies for asylum affirmatively with a USCIS asylum officer and the other in which an 

individual seeks asylum before an immigration judge with the Department of Justice. At the borders, individuals who wish to apply 

for asylum are initially processed through the expedited removal 

program, which will be the subject of the remainder of my testimony. 

Prior to the enactment of the Illegal Immigration Reform and 

Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, all individuals apprehended 

attempting to enter the United States unlawfully were placed in 

full proceedings before an immigration judge. These proceedings 

were time consuming and resource intensive. Individuals in such 

proceedings were generally not detained. 

The 1996 reforms allowed for the expedited removal of individuals seeking admission at air, land, and sea ports of entry without 

proper documentation. In 2004, the Department of Homeland Security implemented regulations expanding expedited removal to apply 

to individuals apprehended close to a U.S. border shortly after an 

illegal entry. 

All individuals placed in expedited removal proceedings are subject to mandatory detention and prompt return to their countries 

of origin. In creating this new removal process, however, Congress 

was mindful of the United States treaty obligations relating to the 

status of refugees and created a screening process known as credible fear to prevent persons from being returned to a country in 

which they would be persecuted or tortured. 

The USCIS Asylum Division administers the credible fear program. The credible fear screening is the third stage of the expedited removal process for individuals who express a fear of return 

or indicate an intention to apply for asylum. They are first encountered and placed into expedited removal by CBP. They are then detained by ICE, pending their credible fear interviews. 
27 

USCIS is the third agency to encounter the individual in the expedited removal process. USCIS conducts a credible fear interview 

to determine whether there is a significant possibility that the individual will be found eligible for asylum or withholding of removal. 

This determination does not confer any immigration benefit. It is 

simply a screening process employed. 

The final decision on asylum eligibility rests with an immigration 

judge. Credible fear interviews are conducted by a USCIS asylum 

officer while the individual is detained by ICE. Asylum officers 

comprise a professional cadre within USCIS, dedicated full time to 

the adjudication and screening of protection claims. They are extensively trained in national security issues, the security and law 

enforcement background check process, eligibility criteria, country 

conditions, interview techniques, making proper credibility determinations, and fraud detection. 

During the credible fear interview, individuals are questioned regarding their biographic information, their fear of persecution or 

torture, and whether there are concerns that may make them ineligible for asylum. 

USCIS conducts security checks, including biographic and biometric checks. USCIS coordinates with ICE and other law enforcement authorities as appropriate if there are reasonable grounds to 

believe that an individual may have engaged in criminal activity or 

is a security risk. 

While information relating to asylum seekers is sensitive and 

generally protected from disclosure, regulations and policies allow 

for USCIS to share information with law enforcement agencies for 

investigative and intelligence purposes, which is done routinely. As 

CBP and ICE have already encountered the individual early in the 

expedited removal process, they have also already conducted security checks on the individual. ICE relies on its security checks to 

inform any decision to release the individual from custody. 

If USCIS determines the individual does have a credible fear, he 

or she is subject to removal—does not have a credible fear, he or 

she is subject to immediate removal unless the individual requests 

a limited review of USCIS’s credible fear finding by an immigration 

judge. And an immigration judge can overrule our decision. If the 

immigration judge agrees with the USCIS that the individual does 

not have a credible fear, then the individual is removed. 

And I see my time is almost up. So I will thank you for the opportunity. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you. 

Mr. Ragsdale, welcome. 

TESTIMONY OF DANIEL H. RAGSDALE, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, 

IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT 

Mr. RAGSDALE. Good morning. Chairman Goodlatte, Ranking 

Member Conyers, and distinguished Members of the Committee, on 

behalf of the men and women of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, thank you for the opportunity to appear today 

to discuss the role ICE plays in protecting border security. 

ICE’s primary mission is to promote homeland security and the 

public safety through the criminal and civil enforcement of the Fed-
28 

eral laws governing border control, customs, trade, and immigration. ICE is the principal investigative arm of the Department of 

Homeland Security. 

ICE has two primary operating components, the Office of Homeland Security Investigation and the Office of Enforcement and Removal Operations. ERO’s primary role is to enforce our Nation’s 

immigration laws in a way that impacts public safety and border 

security. HSI is responsible for investigating and referring for 

criminal prosecution crimes related to human smuggling, trafficking, narcotics and weapons smuggling, counterproliferation, 

commercial fraud, child exploitation, among others. 

ICE also relies on a team of nearly 1,000 attorneys to fulfill its 

civil and criminal enforcement missions. In addition, ICE’s Office 

of Professional Responsibility promote security and the integrity of 

ICE’s workforce through investigating allegations of misconduct. 

Over the past 4 years, ICE has focused its resources on the rule 

of individuals who fit within our enforcement priorities. These priorities include people who are risks to national security, public 

safety, such as convicted criminals, recent illegal border crossers, 

and those who have struck immigration controls. 

Through this focus, ICE has been able to help ensure our public 

safety and seen solid success in enforcing this Nation’s immigration 

laws. These successes could not be achieved without the implementation of smart, effective, and efficient policies and our close working relationship with our DHS partners in order to meet our goals. 

For instance, 44 percent of the ICE detainees in our custody 

came from CBP. Our joint efforts are critical to the Nation’s border 

security. As discussed by ICE’s partners in their statements, individuals who are apprehended while attempting to unlawfully enter 

the United States and who indicate a fear of persecution or torture 

and an intent to apply for asylum are detained by ICE until they 

can present their claim to a specially trained USCIS asylum officer, 

who conducts a detailed screening for potential asylum eligibility. 

In December 2009, former Director John Morton issued a revised 

directive on the parole of arriving aliens found to have a credible 

fear of persecution or torture to ensure transparent and consistent 

parole determinations for arriving aliens seeking protection in the 

United States. Under this policy, aliens who arrive in the United 

States at a port of entry and who are found to have a credible fear 

of persecution or torture are considered for parole. 

While our procedures reflect the sound public policy position of 

favoring parole in positive credibility of fear cases, ICE takes its 

law enforcement responsibilities seriously and carefully considers 

each and every parole decision and balances with a need to protect 

public safety. 

As tactical requirements ebb and flow, we have redoubled our efforts to be nimble and collaborative as we respond to changing 

operational needs. We have put policies and infrastructure in place 

to do just that. 

For example, ICE targets and investigates the most dangerous 

transnational human smuggling organizations through the Illicit 

Pathways Attack Strategy, or IPAS. ICE designed this program to 

build, balance, integrate its authorities and resources, both foreign 
29 

and domestic, in a focused, comprehensive manner to target, disrupt, and dismantle transnational organized crime. 

In fiscal year 2013 alone, to address the crime of human smuggling and the additional threat it brings to border security, ICE arrested approximately 2,700 alien smugglers, obtained indictments 

and convictions against 3,600 individuals, and initiated almost 

2,000 smuggling investigations. 

In addition to combating transnational human smuggling organizations, we also target individuals and organizations who attempt 

to gain legal status in the United States through fraudulent means 

or identity theft. To combat these criminal threats, ICE has established 19 document and benefit fraud task forces throughout the 

U.S. 

As a result of these task forces, combined with our investigative 

efforts, in fiscal year 2013, we made over 1,500 criminal arrests for 

immigration fraud, identity theft, an increase of approximately 20 

percent since 2009. 

In sum, ICE remains committed to a detention policy that ensures violent priority aliens remain in custody while managing limited resources by providing effective alternatives for nonpriority 

aliens, commensurate with the risk they present. Current parole 

procedures for asylum seekers help ICE making custody determinations on a case-by-case basis while focusing both on protecting 

against threats to public safety and maintaining control of the Nation’s borders. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I look forward to 

the questions you may have. 

[The joint prepared statement of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security follows:] 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Mr. Ragsdale. 

Ms. Wasem, welcome. 

TESTIMONY OF RUTH ELLEN WASEM, SPECIALIST IN 

IMMIGRATION POLICY, CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE 

Ms. WASEM. Thank you. 

Chairman Goodlatte, Ranking Member Conyers, and distinguished Members of the Judiciary Committee, I am honored to be 

testifying this morning on behalf of the Congressional Research 

Service. 

My summary will provide a backdrop on your basic question: Is 

asylum abuse overwhelming our borders? In summation, there are 

three avenues—I’ll reiterate a bit of what Lori had testified on— 

three avenues to receive asylum. 

The first avenue is the affirmative, when a foreign national who 

is in the United States and not involved in any removal proceeding 

applies for asylum with a USCIS immigration officer. The second 

route, a defensive application is when a foreign national is in removal proceedings and asserts a claim for asylum as a defense to 

that removal proceeding before an immigration judge. And the 

third avenue, which is the principal topic of this morning’s hearing, 

is the credible fear review, which is triggered when a foreign national arriving without proper documentation is placed in expedited 

removal and expresses a fear of persecution. 

In this last instance, the foreign national is then put in the second path I mentioned, the defensive path, and goes before an immigration judge. In all of these instances, to be eligible for asylum, 

the foreign national must demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution that if returned home, they will be persecuted based upon 

one of five characteristics—race, religion, nationality, membership 

in a particular social group, or political opinion. 

The credible fear threshold is—means that there is a significant 

possibility that the foreign national could establish eligibility for 

asylum under one of those five enumerated grounds I just listed. 

These avenues and the standards for asylum are based on a substantial legislative history, three I want to mention. The Refugee 

Act of 1980, which codified the definition from the Refugee Protocol 

of 1967 in the Immigration Act. 

Secondly, the Illegal Immigrant Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, which made substantial changes to the asylum 

process. And among the most significant of those changes are the 

provisions which created expedited removal and added the credible 

fear review process. The ’96 law also requires mandatory detention 

of foreign nationals in expedited removal while they seek their 

credible fear determination. 

Thirdly, the REAL ID Act of 2005, which established express 

standards for proof for asylum seekers. 

Now I’m going to turn to some—a brief summary of some of the 

statistical trends that I found in preparing this testimony. Three 

points. Overall, asylum trends are down. Credible fear claims are 

up. And a handful of countries are driving these increases. 

Let’s look at Figure 1, where you can see that since the mid ’90’s, 

both the affirmative and the defensive asylum claims have de-
46 

creased. There was a slight increase since 2010, but the numbers 

have not yet reached the levels of the earlier years. 

As you can also see from Figure 1 in my testimony, the number 

of asylum cases approved has remained rather steady, except for 

an uptick in the early part of this century. Otherwise, the number 

of cases approved by both the immigration judges and the asylum 

officers and USCIS remains relatively the same. 

This next chart, of course, is where you see the big surge. 

Since—in the past year, since 2013, there has been a more than 

doubling of individuals expressing credible fear during expedited 

removal. 

Figure 7 reveals that a handful of countries are driving this increase. El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, and to a lesser extent, Mexico, India, and Ecuador. All but India are Western Hemisphere countries. This trend is similar when you look at the acceptance of the credible fear cases. 

Let me conclude by making this observation. An increase in asylum or credible fear claims, in and of itself, does not signify an increase in abuse of the asylum process any more than a reduction 

in asylum claims in credible fear would signify a reduction in 

abuse. While the current levels of asylum and credible fear do not 

yet approach that of two decades ago, the question for today is 

whether they have risen to a level that might strain the system 

that is designed to both protect refugees and control our borders. 

I’m happy to answer your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Wasem follows:] 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Ms. Wasem. 

We will now begin questioning. Mr. Ragsdale, this appears to be 

creating a sense of deja vu with regard to many of us. Under the 

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff, catch and release became notorious. This was the name of the DHS practice of 

apprehending non-Mexican aliens along the southern border, giving 

them a notice to appear in immigration court, and releasing them 

into the United States. 

Secretary Chertoff complained that, ‘‘When a non-Mexican is 

caught trying to enter the U.S. across the Southwest border today, 

he has an 80 percent chance of being released immediately because 

we have nowhere to hold him. Of course, he will be charged as an 

immigration law violator, and he will likely fail to appear at his 

immigration hearings.’’ 

Chertoff then announced a plan to end catch and release once 

and for all. He stated that, ‘‘When a large number of Brazilians 

began illegally crossing the Southwest border, we responded in 

July 2005 with ’Operation Texas Hold ’Em.’ We prioritized the existing space, dedicated bed space, and began detaining and removing all of the illegal Brazilians we apprehended. 

‘‘The word spread surprisingly swiftly. Within the first 30 days, 

the operation had already begun to deter illegal border crossings by 

Brazilians. In fact, the number of Brazilians apprehended dropped 

by 50 percent. After 60 days, the rate of Brazilian illegal immigration through this sector was down 90 percent, and it is still significantly depressed all across the border. 

‘‘In short, we learned that a concentrated effort of removal can 

actually discourage illegal entries by non-Mexicans on the Southwest border.’’ 

This seems to me to be the solution to the credible fear crisis. 

Why doesn’t DHS simply utilize Secretary Chertoff’s strategy, 

eliminate the incentive to make an abuse of credible fear claim, 

and end this growing problem? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. Thank you for the opportunity to answer that 

question. 

I was actually an attorney in Arizona during that—the Brazilian 

initiative, and I was part of the litigation strategy before the Executive Office for Immigration Review that worked successfully there. 

I was also detailed to the department in 2005 and ’04 to work on 

the Secure Border Initiative team with the former Secretary and 

came up with that strategy. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. It seems like it would be a good one. Why aren’t 

we doing it now? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. Well, we actually are doing it now. We’re doing 

it actually in what I’d say is a very smart way. The difference that 

we see today is if you look at the ICE detention capacity, we are 

making smart decisions to detain criminal aliens first. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Sir, the problem is one not just of criminal 

aliens, but of people who are making false claims simply to enter 

the United States. And Secretary Chertoff did not make that distinction. They detained every Brazilian. 

We just heard from Ms. Wasem that El Salvador, Guatemala, 

and Honduras have the highest numbers of these credible fear 

claims, and it would seem to me extremely appropriate to identify 
65 

people who are apprehended from those countries making credible 

fear claims, of detaining all of them so that there is not this problem. And word gets back to those countries, as it did back to Brazil, 

if you try this, it is not going to work. 

That would be the thing that would drive down asylum claims, 

as it did. And now they are back up, as you can see, and growing 

rather rapidly because there is not an effective policy dealing with 

all people making credible fear claims. 

Mr. RAGSDALE. Well, there is a balance here. We certainly understand that the use of expedited removal has allowed DHS to remove more people more quickly than immigration proceedings before an immigration judge, by far. So it is a very effective enforcement tool. 

The balancing technique—— 

Mr. GOODLATTE. If that is the case, why is it that ICE has requested fewer beds for detention in 2012 and 2013 than they have 

previously? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. Well, detention is only one piece of the puzzle. I 

think from what we’ve certainly heard from everybody’s testimony 

today is a need to increase immigration court capacity, more officers to work the detention process, it is a wider approach than just 

detention. 

Simply detaining someone with the same hearing capacity would 

lead to—— 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Well, we certainly agree there should be greater 

hearing capacity. But if you detain people from a particular country 

that is showing this rapid spike up, one of two things are going to 

happen. You are either going to find out that there is no uptick in 

the amount of—in the basis for credible fear claims. Or you are 

going to find out that there is something going on in that country 

that might justify that. 

But by doing that, you are going to find out. If you simply release 

them into the interior of the country, as was occurring back then, 

it is occurring again today, most of them do not ever show up for 

their hearings. 

Mr. RAGSDALE. Well, we are certainly working, from our chief 

counsel offices, with the Executive Office for Immigration Review 

to prioritize dockets. We are certainly doing everything we can to 

litigate those cases effectively before the Executive Office for Immigration Review. And when an immigration judge makes a decision 

and a removal order is entered, we are certainly making every effort to remove them. 

The answer is simply here it is a blended approach. The Executive Office for Immigration Review is a big player here, and the 

other point I should make is once a credible fear is found and an 

NTA is issued, an immigration judge has jurisdiction to set bond 

in those cases. So even if an immigration officer at ICE sets a bond 

decision, an immigration judge may redetermine it. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. My time has expired. I am going to ask you one 

more question. Currently, there is a 92 percent grant rate for credible fear cases. How many of these aliens are eventually granted 

asylum by an immigration judge, handled on the merits? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. Well, again, Executive Office for Immigration Review are the right place to get that statistic. If you look at the—— 
66 

Mr. GOODLATTE. All right. Let me ask you another one. Of those 

cases that were denied, how many are removed, and how many 

have absconded? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. Again, the Executive Office for Immigration Review is—— 

Mr. GOODLATTE. If you don’t have these numbers and you are 

making policy regarding whether or not you should detain people 

when they come in or release them, why don’t you have those numbers? It would seem to be me to be of great interest to ICE to know 

what is happening down the line. 

And I certainly understand that we can get those numbers from 

other places, but ICE should have those numbers and should be 

making their policy decisions on that basis. It would otherwise 

seem to be a key question in determining whether credible fear is 

becoming a superhighway of abuse. 

Mr. RAGSDALE. Well, I’m aware of the numbers. What I would 

suggest to you is those are two different legal standards. The asylum standard, as we’ve heard, is a higher standard where the credible fear standard, because of the very powerful enforcement tool 

in expedited removal, is only a significant likelihood that a successful asylum claim could be made. 

So ICE does not look behind a CIS adjudication on a credible 

fear. We take that decision and get the person in front of an immigration judge. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. On a case-by-case basis, that, of course, is the 

appropriate thing to do. But in terms of looking at trends of abuse 

along our border, considering that it is ICE attorneys that handle 

the EOIR dockets, they should know, your agency should know, you 

should know, as someone engaged in formulating this policy, what 

is going on so that you can take appropriate measures to stop it. 

That is not happening, and it is disturbing. 

My time has expired. I will turn now to the Ranking Member, 

the gentleman from Michigan, for his opening question. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you. I appreciate the witness’ testimony. 

I wanted to let our Committee know that we have three asylees 

that are present at the hearing. A refugee from Eritrea, Mr. 

Tesfatsion. A ‘‘Mr. E,’’ so fearful of his relationships with his government in Ethiopia that he will not use his full name, spent 6 

months in detention before he was released and granted asylum by 

an American—— 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The Chair would ask the Ranking Member to 

suspend for a moment. We have two individuals in the audience 

who are standing. There is no basis for doing so. Members of the 

audience must behave in an orderly fashion, or else they will be removed from the hearing room. 

And that will serve as your warning that under Rule 11 of the 

House rules, the Chairman of the Committee may punish breaches 

of decorum and order by censure and exclusion from the hearing. 

I apologize to the gentleman for the interruption. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Would the gentleman—point of order? 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The gentleman will state his point of order. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Do the rules prohibit a spectator from standing up 

as—and not saying anything, not making any gestures, no signs. 

Just standing up when they were recognized by a Member during 
67 

that Member’s presentation? Is that a breach of decorum under the 

rules? 

Mr. GOODLATTE. It is not if they are subsequently recognized by 

the Ranking Member. 

The gentleman may proceed. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, if I may, Mr. Chairman? Didn’t the two gentlemen who stood, weren’t they recognized? 

Mr. GOODLATTE. We are about to find that out from the Ranking 

Member. And the gentleman may proceed. 

Mr. JOHNSON. But it is okay. It is okay for them, if recognized 

by a Member here, to stand up? 

Mr. GOODLATTE. For a brief time, that is correct. 

Mr. JOHNSON. It would not be a breach of decorum? 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The Ranking Member will proceed. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you. 

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I hope this will not come out of my 

5 minutes. I appreciate the gentleman greatly for that. 

But I just wanted to mention them. There is nothing profound 

about them standing up or not. But I wanted to mention that they 

are here. Mr. Tesfatsion from Eritrea, and the Ethiopian refugee 

who can’t use his full name, and I don’t want him to stand up. 

Pedro from Equatorial Guinea. And I will put something about 

them—I ask unanimous consent to put a small statement about 

each of the three—— 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Without objection, they will be made a part of 

the record. 

[The information referred to follows:] 
68 
69 

Mr. CONYERS. And I thank the Chairman, and I thank my friend 

from Georgia as well. 

I wanted to concentrate on the whole question of whether there 

are instances in which a person, Mr. Ragsdale, who demonstrated 

credible fear, established her identity and proved that she poses 

neither a danger to the community nor risk of flight would be 

granted parole conditioned on the posting of a bond. 

Mr. RAGSDALE. First, I should probably clarify the policy that we 

are talking about from former Director Morton in 2009 applies only 

to what are called arriving aliens. So those are aliens that arrive 

at a port of entry and are considered for parole. Those folks would 

either be detained or could be paroled by an immigration officer. 

Folks who arrive between a port of entry and are found to have 

a credible fear are considered for release under a different section 

of the Immigration and Nationality Act, and those folks could, in 

fact, be considered for a bond, both by ICE and by an immigration 

judge. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you very much. 

Are there people who remain in your custody after a grant of parole because they are unable to post such a bond? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. If we’ve determined or an immigration judge has 

determined that a particular number of a bond is appropriate to 

guarantee appearance, you know, obviously, that is subject to the 

decision from either the judge or from the field office director. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you. 

And now, last, are you familiar with any cases of persons who 

established credible fear but were denied parole and were ultimately granted asylum after spending months in your custody? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. Again, every case on detention is made on the individual facts. 

Mr. CONYERS. Sure. 

Mr. RAGSDALE. So there may be a case that ICE did detain someone while the process went on, and that may be totally appropriate. 

The decision to grant protection is—either rests with USCIS or an 

immigration judge, not with ICE. 

Mr. CONYERS. All right. Dr. Wasem, we appreciate your being 

with us today. As you know, the bulk of the credible fear claims 

that were made in fiscal 2012 and 2013 were made by people from 

El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala. In your testimony, you 

looked at some of the apprehension and credible fear data pertaining to these people and suggest that the latest increase may 

represent a different pattern in migration. 

Could you expand on that a bit? 

Ms. WASEM. I’d be happy to, Ranking Member Conyers. 

In the written testimony, I took a look at apprehensions as well 

to try to better tease out what is going on with this uptick. And 

I observed that in 2005, which is on the chart, there were very high 

apprehensions as well of individuals from Guatemala and El Salvador. 

But we did not have the same level of credible fear requests 

then. And so, it—and then the patterns went down again, as Figure 9 in my testimony shows. So, clearly, something different is 

happening. I have subsequently also been able to take a look at 

some additional credible fear data by country in terms of the rate 
70 

of being approved or not approved, but passing that first credible 

fear—— 

Mr. CONYERS. What is that something different that may be happening? 

Ms. WASEM. It could be—account for several things. The percentage of credible fear found for Salvadorans and Guatemalans and 

Hondurans has gone up since 2008. Even when you—when you just 

look at the percentage of people asking, there has been change in 

the number who are being passed on as in that review process. 

So, earlier, a lower percentage of, say, Salvadorans, it was closer 

to 40 percent in 2008, were determined to meet a significant possibility. So that first level of review that USCIS is doing is showing 

a higher percentage. So something is going on. It could be in-country conditions. It could be things happening in Mexico. It could be 

our policy changes. 

It could be a number of different things, but it’s not—everything 

isn’t moving in the same direction with the other patterns. There 

is some interactive effects—— 

Mr. CONYERS. Okay. 

Ms. WASEM [continuing]. That warrant further analysis. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you very much. 

Director Ragsdale, a number of background and security checks 

must be completed before a credible fear interview can take place, 

of course, and I understand that many of those same checks are 

performed when ICE takes custody of the person and before the parole determination is made. 

Can you describe some of these checks that might be revealed? 

And if ICE encounters information, what action does ICE typically 

take, and would you have to go to court to prevent a person who 

appeared to be a risk before you can keep them from getting out 

of your jurisdiction? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. So we sort of come to this process sort of after 

both our partners in Customs and Border Protection and Citizenship and Immigration Services has run a lot of those same checks. 

Those are obviously criminal history checks. They are checks related to terrorism screening databases. They’re based on biometrics. They’re based on biographics. So we sit here with a very 

unified approach on how we do those record checks. 

If someone came to a port of entry, and there was derogatory information, and they were an arriving alien, we would make the decision whether or not to keep that person in our custody. If the person is found to have a credible fear and has arrived between a port 

of entry, we would set an appropriate bond or no bond, and then 

that person would be able to seek redetermination from an immigration judge. 

Mr. CONYERS. Now last question, sir. Director Scialabba, is there 

any circumstances under which you sometimes feel you can’t get 

the information that you need, and what are your alternative recourses? 

Ms. SCIALABBA. No, I wouldn’t say there is any circumstances 

where we feel like we can’t get information. We actually receive information from CBP, as well as ICE, when we’re doing credible fear 

interviews. We also do the interview. So we’re actually talking to 

the person that is in front of us, finding out what their story is, 
71 

whether they have any kind of history that may indicate there is 

any kind of criminal activity involved and those sorts of things. 

No. I don’t feel like we don’t get the information we need. I think 

there may be circumstances sometimes where there may be an ongoing investigation somewhere, and that information has not yet 

been put into databases that we check. 

And if that’s the situation, then we don’t really have access to 

that information unless one of our colleagues from CBP or ICE may 

have that information and provide that to us. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North 

Carolina, Mr. Coble, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Good to have you witnesses with us today. 

Ms. Scialabba, DHS indicated 97.8 percent of Indian claimants 

found—were found to have a credible fear of persecution. I am told 

that there is little political turmoil in India. Could this be irregular, or do you think those figures are correct? 

Ms. SCIALABBA. Sir, I believe the figures are correct. Credible 

fear really is a screening process. They aren’t all political persecution claims that are made. Sometimes they’re related to particular 

social groups. It could be related to inheritance, caste issues that 

are in India. So they’re not all political, but the percentage is correct. 

Mr. COBLE. And I am furthermore told that part of the problems 

plaguing India now result from socioeconomic reforms. Could it be 

that many of the Indians are fleeing poverty in lieu of persecution? 

Ms. SCIALABBA. It’s possible—I mean, that is a possibility. The 

screening process that we do, the credible fear screening process 

has a fairly low standard. It’s just a screening process to determine 

whether or not there’s a significant probability that an immigration 

judge may find asylum. 

When the person goes before the immigration judge, that’s when 

really the full panoply of issues and the story that the person may 

have is actually determined, and at that point, we also have a nice 

trial attorney who will cross-examine the person and get more information other than what we do in terms of this credible fear 

screening. 

Mr. COBLE. I thank you for that. Well, what sort of training do 

USCIS officers receive on country conditions? 

Ms. SCIALABBA. Our officers have extensive training in terms of 

their initial training for asylum. They also have extensive training 

on credibility determinations. 

For country conditions, our officers have 4 hours a week, where 

they are provided additional information. So if somebody is handling particular cases from a particular country, they will receive 

information on those country conditions. We also have access to the 

State Department documents on country conditions as well. 

Mr. COBLE. I thank you for that. 

Mr. Fisher, what do you think might be the reasons for the dramatic increase in applicants arriving at ports of entry, claiming 

credible fear, A? And B, how do you think DHS could best deal 

with this issue? 
72 

Mr. FISHER. Thank you for the question. 

I think, first, those that are coming to the ports of entry and in 

between the ports of entry, for that matter, we need more information. We need more requests, specific requests for information during the initial encounters that CBP officers make at the port of 

entry, and Border Patrol agents make between the ports of entry 

to fill some of those intelligence gaps right now. Generally, what 

happens when the credible fear claim is made within our custody, 

we generally turn that over to ICE ERO and then on to CIS for 

their interview process. 

So we have to be able to get more information to be real specific 

in terms of any potential vulnerabilities or the extent to which it 

may be exploited as it relates to our security risk. 

Mr. COBLE. I thank you for that, Mr. Fisher. Let me ask you another question. 

Does the spike in credible fear claims give rise to a particularized 

concern relating to our national security, and is it well documented 

that some of the illegal aliens arriving—let me get this question— 

arriving at our border and claiming credible fear or persecution or 

have been affiliated with criminal enterprises, such as drug cartels, 

in their home country? 

What is being done to address these concerns? 

Mr. FISHER. Thank you again for that question. Very insightful, 

sir. 

I would tell you that generally when we see a spike in any activity, any anomaly, we first set the conditions that, one, it is, in fact, 

a risk at some level until proven otherwise. So we take that affirmative step. 

And then, two, we work with the intelligence community, with 

our partners within law enforcement to make sure that we’re gathering all available information. Not just those that are contained 

in the databases so much, but as mentioned on the panel, investigative files. We want to figure out who is pending investigations, 

who’s open investigations with one of our partners, whether it’s the 

FBI or the DEA. 

And information is the key for us. The more we’re able to get information about these illicit networks, the better we are to be able 

to assess risk. 

Mr. COBLE. I thank you, Mr. Fisher. 

Mr. Chairman, I see that my amber light appears. So I will yield 

back. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The Chair thanks the gentleman and recognizes 

the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Wasem, if someone files a claim, how do you know before you 

have heard it whether it is a bona fide claim or a fraudulent claim? 

Ms. WASEM. If someone files a claim before you’ve heard it? 

Mr. SCOTT. Right. You can’t know. Is that right? 

Ms. WASEM. That’s—the credible fear standard, usually the final 

determination is when you go before a judge or an asylum officer, 

you have to provide evidence. This is some of the stuff that was in 

the REAL ID Act in 2005 was establishing what evidence is necessary to make that determination. 
73 

So the credible fear screening, if that’s—is—is a first cut of 

whether you have a significant possibility of being eligible under 

asylum, but it’s not a complete review of the process. 

Mr. SCOTT. Now some people will win, and some people will lose. 

What portion of the claims that are lost are differences of opinion, 

and how many are outright fraud? 

Ms. WASEM. I have no idea. 

Mr. SCOTT. If you—I think you mentioned in the handful of the 

countries that are driving the numbers, the portion of the claims 

that are actually bona fide is high or low? 

Ms. WASEM. Oh, let me be more clear in terms of particularly 

what I had said earlier with Ranking Member Conyers’ question. 

First, you have there has been an increase in the first pass at credible fear reviews, and then they go to the immigration judges. 

Mr. SCOTT. How long does that take? 

Ms. WASEM. And the judges then make the final determination. 

They’re—— 

Mr. SCOTT. How long does that—how long does that take? 

Ms. WASEM. I’m sorry? 

Mr. SCOTT. How long does that take? 

Ms. WASEM. Oh, it varies from where you’re at in the country 

and the system. But it can take some time to get a court date, and 

I think several people have mentioned the delays in getting a court 

date for that. But the individual, when they—what I’ve observed 

with the defensive cases, and this would be Figure 5 in my written 

testimony, is you can see there has been an increase in Salvadorans, Guatemalans, and Indians, for example, in getting actual 

approvals from the Executive Office immigration judges. 

But it’s still a very small percent. We’re talking 2 percent of all 

the approvals are from these countries, which have begun to surge. 

And I expect we won’t know for another year or two, as those cases 

work through, whether—in order to be able to even evaluate the 

credible fear review process. 

Mr. SCOTT. What kind of evidence is presented? Is this an adversarial process where both sides are represented? Or does the person just—— 

Ms. WASEM. When you go before the judges, yes. The credible 

fear review is not. 

Mr. SCOTT. Who is on the other side? 

Ms. WASEM. In credible fear, it’s the individuals from the USCIS 

asylum office. It’s an asylum officer for credible fear. By the time 

you get before an immigration judge, it’s a formal proceeding, and 

it’s part of removal. 

Mr. SCOTT. If you win before a judge, is that a permanent determination or for a specific time? 

Ms. WASEM. If you are granted asylum, any grant of asylum, 

whether it’s done by an immigration judge or by a USCIS asylum 

officer, puts you in a conditional status, and after a year, you can 

become a legal permanent resident of the United States. 

Mr. SCOTT. Okay. 

Ms. WASEM. So that final determination is a significant one. 

Mr. SCOTT. I yield the balance of my time to the gentlelady from 

California. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you. 
74 

I—I have been crunching the numbers, and I think it is important that as we proceed that it be fact based, not anecdotally based. 

And taking a look, Mr. Ragsdale, at the numbers that we got prior 

to the hearing, I am correct, I believe, that the parole directive applies only to people who presented themselves at a port of entry. 

And it does not apply to the three-quarters of the people who are 

found to have credible fear after being apprehended by the Border 

Patrol between the ports of entry. 

So when you take a look at the parole directive, it actually establishes an affirmative obligation on ICE to consider parole for all arriving aliens who demonstrate a credible fear of persecution or torture. That is correct, isn’t it? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. That is correct. 

Ms. LOFGREN. So if you look at the data, it seems to me that in 

the year since the parole directive was implemented, ICE has only 

made parole determinations for maybe two-thirds of the people who 

were granted credible fear after arriving at a port of entry. And if 

you go through the data, and maybe we can do this after the hearing, it looks to me that from the data you have given us, that parole is granted in about 75 percent of the cases. 

And since ICE may only be considering parole for two-thirds of 

the people eligible, the grant rate is actually closer to 50 percent. 

And since 75 percent of the people who claim credible fear are not 

even eligible for parole under the directive because they were apprehended by Border Patrol, the actual percentage of people found 

to have a credible fear who received a grant of parole is like 12 or 

13 percent. 

Mr. RAGSDALE. That’s right. So I can just put that in a little bit 

larger context. Roughly, in the last year, we’ve had about 220,000 

book-ins, we call them, from CBP. Only about 18,000 of those were 

from the ports of entry. Only about 6,000 of those are folks that 

have claimed credible fear. 

So the number of folks compared to people apprehended between 

the ports of entry, as opposed to at the ports of entry, it is a fraction. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Scott’s time has expired. So I will get my own. 

But I would like to ask unanimous consent to put the following 

statements into the record from the Center for Victims of Torture, 

the Evangelical Immigration Table, Human Rights First, Immigration Equality, Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Services, the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, the U.S. Commission on International 

Religious Freedom, the National Immigration Forum, the CAIR Coalition, the National Immigrant Justice Center, the American Immigration Lawyers Association, a letter signed by 118 national, 

State, and local organizations and 27 legal experts underscoring 

the importance of the asylum, the U.S. Conference of Catholic 

Bishops, and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Without objection, they will be made a part of 

the record. 

[The information referred to follows:] 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
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 
141 
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 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from 

Iowa, Mr. King, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I thank the witnesses for your testimony. 

First, I would like to turn to Mr. Ragsdale and follow up on a 

question, and that is that how many who claim credible fear fail 

to appear before an immigration judge? I know you testified that 

you are aware of that number. What is it? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. I am. It’s a blended number, which is why it’s difficult to calculate. In other words, there are not year-to-year distinct datasets. 

So, in other words, someone that arrives this year gets a hearing 

in front of an immigration judge, and it varies in city to city based 

on the docket, may not see an immigration judge for a final decision or failure to appear for their hearing until years later. So that 

data is, in fact, maintained by the Executive Office for Immigration 

Review. 

Mr. KING. When you draw a conclusion as to that data that you 

are aware of, what is that conclusion that you draw? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. It is somewhere around 20 percent. 

Mr. KING. Twenty percent fail to appear? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. Correct. 

Mr. KING. That is interesting. I remember John Ashcroft testifying before this Committee on a broader group of those who failed 

to appear, and his number that day some years ago was 84 percent 

are alien absconders. And so, that is a number I will want to examine more deeply. I appreciate your response. 

I would like to go with Mr. Fisher and ask you are your apprehensions at the—well, I want to ask some questions about drug 

interdiction at the border. Are those numbers up or down over the 

last, say, 5 years in your experience? 

Mr. FISHER. Over the last 5 years, depending upon marijuana 

versus cocaine, methamphetamines, we’ve seen up and down in 

both of those categories. 

Mr. KING. Okay. Well, let me just point this to marijuana itself. 

Are those numbers up or down on balance over the last 5 years? 

Mr. FISHER. They are up, sir. 

Mr. KING. Okay. And generally speaking, if you had to talk about 

the aggregate of drugs, are there more or less drugs coming across 

the border? 

Mr. FISHER. I think if you compared previous 10 years versus the 

last 5 years, generally those numbers would be up as well. 

Mr. KING. Still up. And the value of the drugs coming across the 

border, up or down? 

Mr. FISHER. Um, probably up as well, yes. 

Mr. KING. Okay. The value of the drugs are up. The transport 

of drugs across the border are up. What about the tragic deaths in 

the desert of those who attempt to come into the United States and 

don’t make it through to beyond the desert, Arizona and Texas in 

particular. Are those numbers up or down? 

Mr. FISHER. Recently, over the last couple of years, those numbers are down. 

Mr. KING. They are down. 

Mr. FISHER. Yes, sir. 
170 

Mr. KING. How many would you say are lost in the desert? What 

would that number be over the last year? 

Mr. FISHER. I don’t have the specific numbers with me, sir, but 

I’m happy to get that to you after the hearing. 

Mr. KING. It seems to me that I have seen some numbers that 

showed us desert numbers in around 250 that now over the last 

year or so have grown to perhaps as high as 450. Does that comport with your understanding? 

Mr. FISHER. That sounds about ballpark, sir. I’d have to take a 

look at the actual end of year report for ’13 and make—— 

Mr. KING. To me, then, those numbers would be up. I ask these 

questions this way because if there is equal or more drugs coming 

across the border and if the value of those drugs—or the volume 

of those drugs essentially are equal or more, if there are fewer people that are losing their lives in the desert trying to come into the 

United States, then I would just ask this question. Are your apprehensions at the border up or down, say, over the last 5 years? 

Mr. FISHER. Over the last 5 years, again, if you’re looking at the 

comparative back in the ’90’s, they are down. If you’ll look just over 

the last 2 years, fiscal year 2012 and 2013, and do the comparative, 

we’re slightly up. 

So, for instance, if you’re comparing fiscal year 2012 apprehensions with fiscal year 2013 apprehensions, we were up approximately 16 percent end of last year. 

Mr. KING. Okay. I am looking at numbers here that show 2004, 

1,164,000 apprehensions at the border; ’05, 1,189,000; and in ’06, 

1,089,000. ’07, it went to 876,000. And then it began to go down, 

according to this Border Patrol record I have, from 723,000 in ’08 

to 556,000 in ’09, 463,000 in ’10, 340,000 in ’11, and 364,000 in ’12. 

That would tell me that approximately one-third of the peak apprehensions between ’04 and ’05 are what actually the product of 

a large Border Patrol that we have now, roughly the same amount 

of drugs being interdicted, no reduction that I can see in the loss 

of lives in the desert. 

So I am troubled by the overall picture of this, and I would just 

make this point. It seems as though there is a decision made by 

this Administration that they are going to target the resources. It 

is a decision to target the resources the most effectively as possible 

at those persons who pose the most risk to Americans. That is, I 

think, consistently the policy that we have heard from this Administration. 

However, I am wondering what that picture would have been if 

we would have had a Rudy Giuliani broken window philosophy, 

and we had had people come from the Administration before this 

Committee and the Appropriations Committee and say this is what 

we need for resources to fully enforce the law, to fully control the 

border, to fully have enough beds to adjudicate, to send a message 

to everyone who is in this universe of 35,000 or 1-plus million that 

we are going to enforce the law. 

It seems to me that would be the most effective thing that we 

can do, and it looks to me like we are having less interdictions at 

the border, and that might indicate less aggressiveness at the border if we are picking up as many drugs and if we are losing as 

many or more people in the desert. 
171 

That is my overall view on this. I appreciate your testimony, 

yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The Chair thanks the gentleman and recognizes 

the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Lofgren, for 5 minutes. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I think it is important, in addition to being fact-driven on this, 

that we touch base also with the reason why we have an asylum 

system and why we have a refugee program. And that is because 

America is a beacon of hope for the rest of the world. 

I actually—in addition to being Ranking Member on the Immigration Subcommittee, I am one of the bipartisan co-chairs of the 

Refugee Caucus here in the House of Representatives, co-chaired 

by our colleague Chris Smith from New Jersey, who is well recognized as a human rights activist. It is important that we have— 

that we continue to be that beacon of freedom and that we should 

not lose sight of that. 

I think we ought to have some concern about this fact. If you 

come and escape torture, you make your claim of asylum, the first 

thing that happens to you is you get thrown in jail in the United 

States and you stay there usually for a very long time. 

We have some examples here, and I will just mention one. A Tibetan man who was detained and tortured by the Chinese because 

of his advocacy for freedom in Tibet. Detained for about a year in 

our custody when he made his asylum plea. 

A Baptist woman from Burma who was denied parole, even 

though she had proof of her identity, and was paroled only after 

25 months in detention. 

A man from Uganda who was arrested and tortured by police because of his sexual orientation, who was held in detention for 1 

year before he was granted political asylum. 

An Afghani man who came to the United States after being targeted by the Taliban as a U.S. loyalist because he provided translation services for our soldiers in Afghanistan. Despite establishing 

a credible fear of prosecution, he was detained for more than a year 

before he was granted asylum. So I think we have some soul 

searching to do on how we treat legitimate asylum seekers in this 

country. 

I think we also need to have these facts in place. I mean, there 

have been assertions that the credible fear process somehow confers some kind of protective status on the undocumented, and that 

is not true. I mean, you are subject to criminal investigation and 

prosecution if that is warranted. That somehow Government officials and counterterrorism agencies don’t have access to the asylum 

information. That is not correct. That individuals who are security 

threats or flight risks are eligible for release from detention. That 

is not so. That somehow extensive background and security checks 

aren’t required for this credible fear determination. And finally, 

that there is some basis for asserting that these credible fear 

claims are fraudulent. We don’t even know that because they 

haven’t been adjudicated before the courts at this time. 

In terms of, you know, no one believes it is proper for a person 

not to appear in court. I do not. None of the Members believe that. 

But I think it is important to take a look at the actual data, and 

if you take a look at the reports we have gotten from the Depart-
172 

ment of Justice, the number of failure to appear is going down. The 

percentage is going down. 

In 2008, the FTA rate was 10.3 percent, and in 2009, it was 6.5 

percent. In fiscal year 2010 and 2012, it was 5 percent. So is 5 percent acceptable? No. But it is on the right trajectory on what is 

happening. I think that we ought to keep that in mind. 

Finally, I do think that the—you know, there are lies, darned 

lies, and statistics. But we need to take a look at whether we are 

comparing apples to apples. And when you take a look, and maybe 

I could ask you, as Deputy Director of USCIS, the numbers, the 90 

and 92 percent that we keep hearing about, it seems to me that 

that may not be accurate because we are not counting the withdrawn applications, and there are plenty—there are people—I have 

seen cases where people who are actually probably valid asylees 

are so distressed by prolonged detention that they give up and go 

back to where they are from. 

So it looks to me that it is more on the nature of about 80 percent. Would you say that is correct? 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The time of the gentlewoman has expired. Without objection, Ms. Scialabba will have 1 minute to respond to the 

question. 

Ms. SCIALABBA. That is correct. Ninety-two percent are the number of credible fear interviews we do. However, there are a percentage of those people who will withdraw at some point, and I think 

the—I think the actual credible fear interviews that we do that go 

forward is about 84 percent. 

We are tracking the withdrawals now. We are keeping those statistics separate. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I would just note that I think—Mr. Chairman, I 

would like to ask unanimous consent to put into the record a letter 

from the Department of Justice to our colleague, Mr. Chaffetz, that 

has some of the statistics that I have referred to here. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Without objection, that will be made a part of 

the record. 

[The information referred to follows:] 
173 
174 
175 
176 
177 
178 

*The information referred to is not reprinted in this hearing record but can be accessed at 

http://www.cis.org/Immigration-Courts. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. And I will also ask unanimous consent to make 

a part of the record information provided to the Committee that 

shows that since 1996, nearly 800,000 nondetained aliens in removal proceedings simply became fugitives and did not report for 

future hearings.* 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. 

Franks, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. FRANKS. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, I was moved by some of the comments in your 

opening statement that pointed out that the United States has always been a very compassionate country that is committed to trying to be a place of refuge and relief for those that are fleeing genuine persecution, those that are genuinely in danger in their countries for a variety of reasons. And I think that is laudable and notable, and that is really the centerpiece of why we are all here 

today is that we are discussing this notion of making sure that 

America continues to be that last best hope, that bastion of freedom. 

But I will suggest to you that if, indeed, we allow that process 

to be abused, if we do not scrutinize between those who are genuinely persecuted and genuinely trying to seek a way to escape 

deadly or lethal persecution from those who would use it as strictly 

a facade to gain entrance into this country, then those that we disserve the most are those that are genuinely persecuted. Because 

that process inevitably leads to people that are persecuted not 

being able to find any sort of refuge. 

And I would really want to emphasize that because I am afraid, 

Mr. Chairman, that the process is being abused. And Mr. Fisher, 

I would just point to you. From your testimony, it appears that you 

do not have any conclusions why we are seeing now 36,000 credible 

fear applications in a single year, which is up from just 5,000 in 

2008. 

And perhaps it looks to me like the word has gotten out that 

credible fear claims might be a good way to get into the country, 

and not only is the abuse of credible fear process weakening our 

borders. It weakens the purpose of having these exceptions, and it 

increases the chances of those who are truly persecuted and not 

being able to escape. But it also appears that the Administration 

may be engaged in a sort of a wholesale effort to degrade our border security. 

Shawn Moran, the vice president of the National Border Patrol 

Council, the Border Patrol union, states that the Border Patrol 

management has begun the practice of ordering Border Patrol 

agents to stand down and cease pursuing drug smugglers, human 

smugglers and traffickers, and illegal aliens. He has warned that 

this process could lead to illegal aliens with possible terrorist connections entering the country. 

And so, I guess my first question, Mr. Fisher, is to you. Has any 

such stand-down policy or any effort made to try to diminish the 

practice of trying to diminish our law enforcement there at our bor-
179 

der, has any stand-down policy like that been issued to Border Patrol agents? 

And if not, what do you think the Border Patrol Council or the 

Border Patrol unions are really talking about here? 

Mr. FISHER. Absolutely not, to your question, Congressman. And 

I don’t know the motives and the context by which the union member would have made those statements. 

Mr. FRANKS. So they are just—this is just a false claim that 

there is no such indication either on the basis of budget concerns 

or on the basis of some other motivation that these efforts should 

be diminished or not as intense as before? 

Mr. FISHER. I have not written any directive nor have I signed 

any policy which would increase the risk to this country as it relates to our ability to continue to go after people that would do 

harm to this country once they’ve made an entry. 

Mr. FRANKS. And you know of no one on any level that has participated in any way in that regard. Correct? 

Mr. FISHER. I’m talking, sir, in terms of my direct command and 

control with the Border Patrol agents. That is not my policy, nor 

have I signed any directives—— 

Mr. FRANKS. Any oral comments to that effect to anyone? Any 

oral or verbal statements to the agency in general or the people 

that are kind of on the ground in general to that effect? 

Mr. FISHER. Sir, not that I’m aware of. 

Mr. FRANKS. Well, that is a good answer. 

Well, I guess, Mr. Chairman, I would just revert then to my 

original point that, indeed, if you do not know why—and you have 

said earlier, the other gentleman, that you have these numbers, 

but you haven’t told them to us—why we are seeing this enormous 

increase in credible danger claims. And if you do not know why 

that is the case, then I would just suggest to you that if our goal 

here is to serve the cause of human freedom, we have two bases. 

We have to make sure that the flagship of human freedom is not 

weakened somehow by the process, and that being America. And 

secondly, we have to make sure that we know the difference between those who are truly, lethally persecuted and those who are 

not. And I would suggest to you that the numbers indicate that we 

are missing that mark pretty profoundly. 

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

Mr. GOODLATTE. The Chair thanks the gentleman and recognizes 

the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee, for 5 minutes. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this 

hearing. I think whenever we can reinforce the truth, it is a very 

crucial hearing. 

I thank the Ranking Member as well for his cooperation. 

And I think the Chairman knows that as I start every hearing 

that addresses the ladies and gentlemen that are before us and we 

get into this area, I always offer that a scheme, a structure, such 

as comprehensive immigration reform truly will be part of the matrix that will help us move toward an effective structure that all 

of you can abide by. 

Let me thank you for your service as well, even in light of our 

still struggling with the final results of comprehensive immigration 

reform. 
180 

Let me also say that this issue of asylum addresses the most vulnerable people in the world, people who are coming, fleeing persecution, some leaving family members behind, some escaping barely 

with their lives, and looking over their shoulder and seeing the 

bloodshed of those family members or friends or communities left 

behind. And I truly believe in the message of the Statue of Liberty, 

which ultimately had the welcoming of those who were coming to 

this country for opportunity. But it still stands as a very important 

symbol for those who are fleeing persecution. 

And I might just to put in the record a list of moments when the 

United States needed to open its doors mostly, and in some instances, we did. In some, we did not. I start with the 1930’s. World 

War II created a massive refugee crisis, and U.S. immigration policy restricts the acceptance of Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi persecution. I think we would have wanted to reconsider our interpretation 

of what we did in that instance. 

In 1948, the United States increases immigration quotas, accepting large numbers of refugees and displaced persons from Europe. 

Some many, many years later after, of course, the horrific, horrific, 

catastrophic Holocaust. 

Then, of course, the 1990’s, the residual impact of civil war in 

Central America continues the Central American migration to the 

United States. We can document the violence during that time. 

2005, Iraqis associated with the United States Government faced 

political persecution during the conflict in Iraq. The United States 

slowly began accepting Iraqi refugees in larger numbers. 

And there were other times as well. And so, I would like this 

hearing not to move away from the idea of what asylum is all 

about, and as a member of the U.S. Congressional Human Rights 

Commission, I can tell you that we face these crises all the time. 

So I quickly want to ask questions of just an overall question 

that when we look at the landscape of asylum seekers that may 

utilize credible fear, and we take the number 100 percent in terms 

of looking at the world, not only South and Central America, let me 

ask all of you, is there an epidemic of people using credible fear not 

legitimately? 

So would you say 70 percent of the people coming use credible 

fear, and it is not true? Ms. Scialabba? 

Ms. SCIALABBA. Thank you, Congresswoman. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And I just need a yes or no answer. This is 

just a—would you say that the dominant number of people coming 

in use credible fear inappropriately? 

Ms. SCIALABBA. I don’t think that’s the purpose of the credible 

fear interview. But, no, I wouldn’t say that they’re using it inappropriately. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Ragsdale? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. It’s a little outside of my area of expertise, but 

I don’t think the numbers would support that conclusion. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Fisher? 

Mr. FISHER. Congresswoman, it is out of my area of expertise, 

and I could not make a judgment at that point. 

Ms. WASEM. Congresswoman, given that the—many of the uptick 

is still in the court system, I don’t think we can answer that question with any definitive data. 
181 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Well, I think that—let me just—well, you are 

in the GAO. The question is generically whether or not if you took 

100 percent of those seeking asylum, and they raised—they raise 

it in the courtroom, they raise the credible fear. Is the credible fear 

being offered by that asylum seeker, is 100 percent of the people 

using it inappropriately? I think that is a—— 

Ms. WASEM. Well, obviously, there are—excuse me. There is a 

portion of the individuals who have already worked through the 

credible fear and then the defensive process who ultimately obtained asylum. We don’t know exactly how many there are, but 

that data suggests that not all of them are abusing the system or 

the courts would not have granted them asylum. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I think that is the basic point that we want 

to emphasize that we don’t have an epidemic of abuse that can be 

documented. If you can’t document the other way, you cannot document that there is an epidemic of abuse. 

If I can just get an additional second for one question, Mr. Chairman? I would like to again go to the purpose of the credible fear 

process is not to identify meritorious asylum claims or to weed out 

claims that might not succeed before the immigration court. Isn’t 

the credible fear process designed to weed out clearly non-meritorious, frivolous cases? 

Isn’t it to also, in light of the limited purpose that the credible 

fear process is meant to serve, when we jeopardize the lives of bona 

fide asylum seekers if we were to raise the standard, that’s a very 

important point? 

And if you would answer that, Ms. Scialabba? 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The gentlewoman’s time has expired, but without objection, the gentlewoman—— 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. - will be given 1 minute to answer the question. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. So raising the standard, would that be a problem? And then, isn’t the credible fear process designed to weed out 

clearly non-meritorious, frivolous cases, and wouldn’t it be a problem to raise the standards, hurting other people just to try and 

weed out what may be an undocumented fear? 

Ms. SCIALABBA. I think the standard was carefully thought out 

when the legislation was passed. There is a lower standard that’s 

manifestly unfounded that we do not use. We use the standard of 

significant possibility because we don’t want to take the risk that 

somebody who has a legitimate claim to asylum or torture—we also 

look at the Convention against Torture as well as asylum—would 

be returned to their country and be persecuted or tortured. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. So you see no reason to raise the standard? 

That is what I am trying to—to make it harder? 

Ms. SCIALABBA. No, I—I think that standard was carefully 

thought through when it was enacted. 

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

Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gohmert, for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. SCIALABBA AND MR. Ragsdale, do you, as Deputy Directors, 

take an oath before you assume your office? 
182 

Mr. RAGSDALE. I took an oath the day I became a Federal employee. 

Mr. GOHMERT. But as Deputy Director, did you take an oath to 

become—to assume that role? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. I didn’t take another oath. In other words, I took 

the oath that I accepted when I joined Federal service. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Yes. Ms. Scialabba? 

Ms. SCIALABBA. I also took an oath when I joined Federal service. 

I’ve renewed that oath several times. I don’t think it was necessary. But—because I’ve been in Federal service my entire career, 

but I’ve renewed it several times, yes. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Okay, and that is an oath to follow the Constitution, correct, protect and defend? Correct? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. Yes. 

Mr. GOHMERT. And you understand under Article I, Section 8 

that the Congress is given the power to make the law when it 

comes to issues regarding immigration, naturalization, those type 

of things. Correct? 

Ms. SCIALABBA. That’s correct. 

Mr. RAGSDALE. Yes. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Okay. Thank you. 

Because I have before me, and I will read for you, it is from the 

Uniform—or from the United States Code, Volume 8, Section 1225, 

and this is under the Section B, entitled Asylum Interviews. And 

under subparagraph (ii), Referral of Certain Aliens, it says, ‘‘If the 

officer determines at the time of the interview that an alien has a 

credible fear of persecution within the meaning of clause (v), the 

alien shall be detained for further consideration of the application 

for asylum.’’ 

I don’t see anything other than ‘‘shall’’ and ‘‘be’’ as the verb 

there, ‘‘shall be detained,’’ the verbal clause there as to what actions can be taken. So since the Congress established that someone 

shall be detained, what law that Congress passed in accordance 

with Article I, Section 8 does—do your services rely on to avoid, 

and particularly you, Mr. Ragsdale, do you rely on to not follow the 

law that says ‘‘shall be detained’’? 

What law can you cite for me that avoids that ‘‘shall be detained’’ 

mandatory language? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. So I am familiar with that section of the act. It’s 

my understanding—and again, I certainly rely on my lawyers to 

tell me this. We do detain people during the credible fear process 

to find out whether or not our sister agency makes a finding that 

there is, in fact, a credible fear. 

I think this also has to be put into some context here. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Well, that is not my question about context. I am 

asking about the law because I am real concerned about it. We had 

people sitting right where you are who talked about this Administration making up its own laws, refusing to follow the Constitution, 

refusing to follow their oath in enforcing the law and faithfully executing the law. So I am trying to find out when you take action, 

what law are you following? 

Could it be some memo, a memo from ICE Director John Morton 

that says, hey, you know, if they establish their identity, pose no 

flight risk or danger, have a credible fear, you know, go ahead and 
183 

release them? Is that what you rely on, Director Morton’s memo to 

overcome United States law and the Constitution? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. Well, as the ranking career person, right, I follow 

the agency, the Administration’s policy. I will say there’s another 

section of the Immigration and Nationality Act from 1952 that 

does, in fact, recognize parole in certain circumstances, and I would 

posit that as the section that’s being followed here. 

Mr. GOHMERT. I would posit for you—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. Would the—— 

Mr. GOHMERT [continuing]. As a Member of Congress, and I am 

not yielding—that when there is a conflict between the law and a 

policy of an agency, the policy of the agency has to give way to the 

law as passed by Congress. It is a very discouraging aspect of this 

Administration that we seem to be having this problem a lot. 

And when the people who are charged with enforcing the law do 

not, they make up their own policies despite the law, then as one 

person said, then the general population gets the message they 

don’t have to follow the law either. 

I see my time has expired. Thank you. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask unanimous consent that the gentleman be given an additional 20 seconds so he 

might yield it to me. 

Mr. GOHMERT. My time is expired. I’m not asking any more time. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The Chair would recognize—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. I ask unanimous consent—— 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The Chair will recognize the gentleman from 

Georgia, and the gentlewoman can place her request to—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. I would like to ask unanimous consent to put the 

Section 212(d)(5)(A) and Section 214(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act into the record, disproving all of the comments just 

made by my colleague from Texas. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The first part of that will be made a part of the 

record. Without objection—— 

Mr. GOHMERT. Yes, I would object to that being part of the 

record, that ‘‘disproving what her colleague just said,’’ because it 

does not disprove what her colleague said. There is objection. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. But the statutory provision will be made a part 

of the record. 

[The information referred to follows:] 
184 
185 

Mr. JOHNSON. I believe it speaks for itself. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Without objection, that will be done. And now 

the gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I believe that our whole detention—immigration, detention setup 

is just a way for private industry to make money, and I will—I will 

deal with it like this. Are you, Mr. Ragsdale, familiar with the term 

the ‘‘detention bed mandate?’’ 

Mr. RAGSDALE. I am familiar with that term, yes, as it relates 

to—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. And that’s a term that came about in part due to 

the 2014 budget that was approved by this fiscally conservative, 

debt and deficit-reducing, Republican-controlled Congress, i.e., the 

Appropriations Committee that granted $147 million above what 

the Department of Homeland Security requested to maintain what 

amounts to an arbitrary quota of 34,000 detention beds that American taxpayers are going to pay for, regardless of whether or not 

they are filled. 

Is that correct? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. There is a section in the appropriations law that 

requires us to maintain 34,000 beds. That’s correct. 

Mr. JOHNSON. And it is something that you never requested? 

This was done for the purpose of detaining more immigrants. Isn’t 

that correct? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. Well—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes or no? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. More detentions happen when there is more 

funded beds. That’s correct. 

Mr. JOHNSON. And prisons are a task or a—prison—we need 

prisons to imprison people who need to be there, but our Government is—our Federal Government as well as many States have 

been on a trek to privatize the prison system. Isn’t that correct? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. There are commercial providers for detention 

services, yes. 

Mr. JOHNSON. About 50 percent of all detainees are held in private detention centers. And now if we want to reduce the debt and 

the deficit, but at the same time, we are increasing spending for 

the detention of immigrants, that is inconsistent, don’t you think, 

Mr. Fisher? 

Isn’t that inconsistent, those ideals inconsistent? 

Mr. FISHER. Well, sir, with respect, again outside of my area, 

but—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, no, no, no. Just I mean, that doesn’t—that 

doesn’t take any specific knowledge. That is just a matter of common sense. 

I mean, seems to me if you want to cut the budget, you want to 

cut food stamps. But yet, last year alone, we appropriated nearly 

$18 billion to immigration enforcement agencies, Mr. Fisher. That 

is about 24 percent higher than the $14.4 billion total allocation for 

law enforcement agencies across the board, including FBI, DEA, 

U.S. Marshals, and ATF. 

So, in other words, we have—I mean, we spend more money on 

homeland security, ICE, and detention and immigration enforce-
186 

ment than we do for FBI, DEA, U.S. Marshals, and ATF combined. 

Did you know that? 

Mr. FISHER. Stated that way, sir, no. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, well, I mean, that is the facts. Now while we 

are detaining, because we do detain these asylum seekers, do we 

not, Mr. Ragsdale? We detain them until they are granted parole, 

and we detain them for on average of 550 days. Isn’t that correct? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. Well, I’m not—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. Until they are granted parole? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. I’m not sure precisely what number you’re talking about there. As we’ve already heard this morning, aliens who 

arrive at or between ports of entry who—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, let me get it to—let me get it like this. How 

many day—how many months in general do we detain asylum 

seekers before we are able to make an assessment as to whether 

or not they qualify for asylum? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. So it varies on a case-by-case basis. CIS has done 

some very helpful work in expediting the credible fear process. 

That is now done in a number of days. 

The Executive Office for Immigration Review is the responsible 

party for making ultimate decisions on defensive asylum claims, 

and that is a longer process. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, it is clear to me that it is all about 

the money. I yield back. 

Mr. GOWDY [presiding]. The gentleman from Georgia yields back. 

The Chair would now recognize the gentleman from Texas, Judge 

Poe. 

Mr. POE. Thank the Chairman. 

I want to make it clear that I think that the concept of asylum 

is something that the country needs to do. Although I think it appears now that that is being abused by some specific individuals 

and by probably some groups. Otherwise, this chart wouldn’t look 

like what it looks like. 

The word has gotten out here is a way you can make a joke of 

the American law. And that just irritates me. So I want to talk 

about that group, not the legitimate folks who come to America for 

the reasons that we have America. 

The reports that the drug cartels, when they get in a conflict 

south of the border, they tell their folks that are in the conflict, go 

to America, seek asylum, heat is off, you can come back. We will 

let you know when it is time to come back. Have you heard of that 

report? Any of you. 

The Chief? 

Mr. FISHER. Congressman, thank you for that question. 

As a matter of fact, the intelligence report that I was referencing 

coming out of El Paso did have early collection that that, in fact, 

was happening. 

Mr. POE. Thank you. And being from Texas, that—drug cartels 

are the enemy of the country. That is why we need more border 

security is because of them, the criminal threat to the United 

States. Not because of some of the other reasons maybe that people 

talk about. That is what concerns me as a Member of Congress and 

a former judge, border security, we have to go after these people, 

these bad guys, these criminals. 
187 

The hypothetical question, and so I am just looking for an answer here. Can a person claim asylum when the person is not just 

crossing the border, and you guys catch them, but somewhere else? 

Let us say they are in Oklahoma for some reason. I will use Oklahoma. 

And they are stopped for speeding. A person, we don’t know this 

because we don’t do a background check sometimes on people from 

foreign countries because we don’t get that information. We don’t 

know anything about this person. We will never know anything 

about the person, but there is no criminal record that we have. 

They have been in the country who knows how long. They are 

stopped by the Oklahoma Highway Patrol for speeding. They seek 

asylum the moment that they are stopped. Does the law say that 

is a bona fide asylum seeker, and they treat it through that route? 

They are in Oklahoma. They are not anywhere close to the border. They aren’t even close to the Texas border. 

Ms. SCIALABBA. I’ll answer that question. A person who is 

stopped like that who doesn’t have proper documentation would be 

issued a notice to appear and appear before an immigration judge. 

They would not be part of the expedited removal process. They 

wouldn’t receive a credible fear interview. 

If they were here legally—— 

Mr. POE. No, they are not here legally. 

Ms. SCIALABBA. Okay. If they’re here illegally, then the way that 

it would be—the only way they could apply for asylum is if they’re 

placed into removal proceedings before an immigration judge. 

Mr. POE. I couldn’t hear you. 

Ms. SCIALABBA. If they’re here illegally, the only way they could 

apply for asylum is if they’re placed in removal proceedings before 

an immigration judge. They would make that application. 

Mr. POE. But they have claimed credible fear as soon as they are 

stopped by the police. 

Ms. SCIALABBA. At that point, they cannot. Credible fear does not 

apply in that situation. 

Mr. POE. Okay. Is there a—— 

Ms. SCIALABBA. It only applies—— 

Mr. POE. Let me—may I ask the question? Does the law require 

that that be claimed a certain distance from the border? That is my 

question. 

Ms. SCIALABBA. Expedited removal only applies 100 air miles 

from the border if the person hasn’t been present for more than 14 

days. And at the—— 

Mr. POE. Talking about an asylum seeker. They are talking 

about an asylum seeker. Does that—does the law say they have to 

be within 100 miles of the border or 25, or does it make a difference? 

Ms. SCIALABBA. Oh, no. It does not, not in terms of who can 

apply for asylum, no, sir. 

Mr. POE. That is the question. So the question, the answer to the 

question is you can be an asylum seeker when you are stopped in 

Oklahoma or Idaho or New York. You don’t have to be anywhere 

close to the border, and we don’t really know, since there is no 

criminal record, that the person, how long they have been in the 

country. 
188 

My question is very simple. Don’t you think we ought to change 

the law that asylum seekers, when crossing the border, ought to be 

seeking asylum rather than, oh, by the way, I am an asylum seeker 

now that you caught me? You think that might be a good change 

to the law to prevent abuses? 

Ms. SCIALABBA. Well, a person has to—— 

Mr. POE. Do you think that might be a good change of the law 

to prevent abuses or no? 

Ms. SCIALABBA. No, I do not. 

Mr. POE. Well, I think it should be. 

And the last question I have is, are there any organized groups 

that you know of that are helpful or responsible for this spike in 

the numbers other than possibly the drug cartels who are gaming 

the law, as they have always done? That is my last question for 

the Chair. 

Mr. FISHER. Congressman, I will take that. As we get more and 

more information about illicit networks, as they change their tactics, techniques, and procedures, they are, in fact, looking for areas 

of vulnerability, and in particular, as the report indicated, as it relates to credible fear, we have seen that as well. 

Mr. POE. All right. I thank the Chair. 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, Judge Poe. 

The Chair would now recognize the gentleman from Utah, Mr. 

Chaffetz. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Thank you. 

And I would like to concur with Judge Poe’s concern and belief 

that we do need an asylum process. We want people who come legally, lawfully. We have a rich heritage with this. But what is unconscionable, what we cannot stand for are people that abuse the 

system. 

My understanding, Mr. Ragsdale, is that there are approximately 

872,000 people, aliens, who remain in the United States despite 

final orders of removal. That would be an accurate number. Correct? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. We have a different number. We have our fugitive backlog at about 460,000. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. So somewhere between—we will to after this 

hearing share documents. But it is by the hundreds of thousands 

of people that are supposed to be removed from this country. They 

have orders from the Government to deport, and they don’t. 

We can get into the whole lack of an entry/exit program. We 

have hundreds of thousands of people that are not—I think that is 

a crisis. I think that is a huge problem, especially when ICE is 

going to have less beds and less officers. Let us talk about this. 

I am very curious, on page 6 of your joint testimony, it says asylum officers also ensure that the Federal Bureau of Investigation— 

well, let me go to this first. I guess it is to USCIS. How many asylum officers do we have in this Nation? 

Ms. SCIALABBA. There are currently 270. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. So there is 270 people that are supposed to take 

care of this 35,000-plus number, right? 

Ms. SCIALABBA. Yes. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Has that number, the 272, has that increased 

over the last 5 years, or pretty much the same? 
189 

Ms. SCIALABBA. It has increased, and we’re in the process of hiring 100 more asylum officers. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. How much time does that asylum officer take in 

interviewing somebody? 

Ms. SCIALABBA. Are you referring to a credible fear interview or 

an asylum—— 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Yes, yes. 

Ms. SCIALABBA. For an credible fear interview, it’s probably 

about 20 minutes is the interview. But prior to that, they would 

review all of the documentation that was accumulated and taken 

by the Border Patrol—— 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Okay. So they get about 20 minutes on average. 

Ms. SCIALABBA. On the actual interview. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. On the actual interview, right. And we heard in 

the Oversight Committee about how overworked a lot of these people are. But page 6 of the testimony, joint testimony, ‘‘Asylum officers also ensure that the Federal Bureau of Investigation name 

check and fingerprint checks have been initiated.’’ 

And I am curious about the word ‘‘initiated.’’ 

Ms. SCIALABBA. They’re generally initiated by CBP or ICE. Oftentimes, those responses aren’t back yet when we’re doing the 

credible fear interview, but they would be back before there was 

any kind of determination made in terms of release or parole. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. So can you assure us that 100 percent of the people who are ultimately—who are released have been given an 

FBI—not just given or initiated, but they have completed the FBI 

background check and the fingerprint check? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. So our policy requires that to happen. That’s exactly right. And what I would also say is whether it’s CBP, ICE, 

or CIS, at the various points, CBP would run all of those record 

checks at the time of apprehension. CIS would perform those same 

record checks at the time of the interview, and we would perform 

those same record checks for a third time before a release decision 

is made. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. So nobody is released prior to those being completed? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. We know as much about them as we possibly can. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Let me go back to parole. I am interested in the 

idea of parole. I am not an attorney, and my colleague Trey Gowdy 

says I am just bragging about that. But let me understand parole. 

How many people do we have that track—how many people are 

on parole? You are tracking them, right? ICE tracks them? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. Well, there are three agencies here, and all three 

agencies have parole authority. It comes up in different circumstances. From the ICE perspective, we could be talking about 

parole from custody, which is a different thing than parole at a 

port of entry. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. How many—— 

Mr. RAGSDALE. We could also be talking about parole on behalf 

of another law enforcement organization, which we do also at ICE. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. How many? What is that grand total? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. I would have to get you that number. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Do you have any idea of the estimate? I mean, 

you are supposed to be tracking them, right? So you supposedly 
190 

have their names. How many people are on parole within this system? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. I don’t want to speculate and give you the wrong 

number, but we will certainly get you that correct number. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. How long until I get that number? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. We will do it with alacrity. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Can you give me a date? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. Sir, I will give it to you in a week. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Thank you. 

When they go on parole, what sort of checks or backgrounds, or 

do they have to check in? Explain that process to me of being on 

parole. 

Mr. RAGSDALE. Well, it depends on the circumstance. So for 

someone who is in immigration proceedings and who is paroled 

from custody, they will have a hearing in front of an immigration 

judge, and the immigration court will determine their appearance 

schedule. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. So in my case of Phoenix, where they don’t get 

a date for 7 years, they would be in a parole status. What, what 

sort of—— 

Mr. RAGSDALE. So I think we’ve heard several times today that 

immigration court hearing capacity is an issue. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. It is a problem. 

Mr. RAGSDALE. It’s something outside of my control, but I certainly would agree that it is something that bears examination. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. But I want to know how many people you have 

tracking them, what you do to track them? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. We have about 5,000 officers in all—5,600 officers 

in all of ERO. So it is a small number considering the overall volume, whether it’s your number or mine. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Do you have anybody who is dedicated to following somebody on parole? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. We have folks that manage the docket, and 

again, we cannot make a demand to remove somebody until an immigration judge decides their case. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Do you have—sorry, Mr. Chairman, but I—— 

Mr. GOWDY. The gentleman from Utah is woefully over time. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Do you have anybody that tracks these people? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. Yes, we do. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. How many? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. We will get you a fulsome answer on that question. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. On that same date, a week from now? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. Yes. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Thank you, Chairman. 

Mr. GOWDY. I thank the gentleman from Utah. 

The Chair would now recognize my friend from Illinois, Mr. 

Gutierrez? 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I just want to talk a little bit about the asylum process, and first, 

I want to say that we are talking about credible fear and the President not enforcing the law and dangerous members of the drug cartels roaming our streets. I think it is important the Committee 

really, I believe, the last legislative day should be looking at a ho-
191 

listic approach of this within the confines of deportations and legalization, legal immigration, and including our asylum system. 

But I want to say that I think one of the things we need to focus 

on is the United States is still the international beacon of freedom 

for those facing oppression around the world. And people come here 

to take advantage of that, as well they should. That is what we 

want them to do. That is a very important job that we are doing. 

And so, I want to thank everybody for doing that important job. 

Now we have to figure out who the people are that are trying to 

take advantage. 

And I am sure there are people that take advantage of the food 

stamp program, but we are not going to let people go hungry. I am 

sure there are people who are taking advantage of unemployment 

compensation, but we are not going to tell somebody when they are 

unemployed we are not going to help them get back on their feet. 

I am sure there are people that take advantage of it, but you 

know what, fundamentally, this is a necessary program that we 

need to improve upon. The fact that it could take somebody 7 

years, lots of cases get decided well before 7 years. Depending on 

some jurisdictions, it is a year, 2, maybe 3 years at the out. 

The 7-year is like the outlier. It is like, you know, the one case 

that sticks out there like a sore thumb. It doesn’t usually—— 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Sure. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. We are talking about the Phoenix office. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. I understand that. But—— 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. That is only three judges. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. What I am trying—and as you will soon see, Mr. 

Chaffetz, I am going to get to that point. So I just want to put in 

for the record that this is really outliers these 7 years, right? It is 

not happening that way in the City of Chicago. It is not happening 

that way in a lot of jurisdictions. 

Now, in all of the jurisdictions it is taking too long. So I think 

Mr. Chaffetz’s question is a much more important question that we 

need to answer. It is great that you have a little under 300 people 

looking at asylum, and you are going to hire 100 more. The fact 

is we need to double it. Shouldn’t be taking 1, 2, 3 years after. 

And I just want to say that as a member of the majority party 

in the sense that my President got elected, the guy I voted for got 

5 million more votes than the guy you voted for. Nobody here, I can 

call them and somehow just some magic wand and I get somebody 

an asylum. I mean, there is a very rigorous process that has been 

taking care. 

And I understand that the majority party wants to look at this, 

but I assure you, they do background checks. You got to go to the 

FBI. And even after that, I think what you are going to find that 

you are not going to find evidence that anything other—even after 

they have established that and have gone on background checks, 

they have got to prove that they are not a flight risk. 

That means some people are a flight risk. Certainly that happens, but you have got to prove. I mean, I have worked on these 

cases. I have got to find a mom, a dad. I have got to find an uncle. 

I have got to find somebody, and we have to know who they are. 
192 

It is not like, oh, okay, we are doing a background check, but we 

really don’t know. We didn’t find you were a bad person. No, we 

have to not only find out that you are not a bad person, we have 

to actually know who you are. 

And I would just think that maybe we might want to take, Mr. 

Chairman, some other measures so that we can reduce the number 

of people that don’t show up to the cases. But let us remember, 

right, 75, 80 percent of the people do show up after they are released and do pursue the asylum claim. And they assume it, process it through the ultimate legal avenues that they have before 

them. 

So, I mean, let us try to put this in the focus that 8 out of 10 

actually apply. They go through the process. They are either successful, or they are not successful. And that it takes too long. 

There are things we can agree on. It takes too long. So let us 

come back, and let us hire many more people so you don’t have 7 

years in the Phoenix office, and we don’t have 2 or 3. It shouldn’t 

be taking. 

And there won’t be time today, but I think if we really looked 

into this, Mr. Chairman, what we are going to find, we are going 

to find hundreds, thousands of people who stay in jail, year in and 

year out, because they cannot prove if they are released. Yes, I 

knew I was going to find a strategy to use. But people do stay in 

jail for years until their asylum process. So that is an unfair process. 

So I think what we might want to look at is in the new year. 

And since the little yellow light is out, and the Chairman has always been so good to me, and we are in—we are going into a new 

year in 2014, I just want to say that, look, my hope is that next 

year, we can come back. We can look at this. 

Maybe they need ankle bracelets, Mr. Chairman. Maybe we need 

other monitoring processes to help them. So when they are released, we can monitor the folks. Maybe there are other avenues. 

But let us make sure that if somebody really fears death that 

America is still a safe beacon for them to be here. 

And I look forward. Merry Christmas to you guys, and great holidays. And I really look forward in 2014 to working with you, Mr. 

Chaffetz, and you, Mr. Chairman, and everybody on both sides of 

the aisle. 

Thank you. I have established some great friendships with you 

all, and it has been a good year for me, and I want to say thank 

you. 

Mr. GOWDY. Well, speaking just personally, I want to extend the 

same to you. And what a pleasure it has been to work with you 

for this past year. 

And the Chair will now recognize himself for 5 minutes. Mr. 

Ragsdale, I am not going to spend my 5 minutes debating statutory 

construction with you. There is a statute that says ‘‘shall be detained.’’ That just does not strike me as being an ambiguous statute. 

To my friend from California’s point, there is another statute, 

which is much more narrowly drawn. In fact, it is so narrowly 

drawn, it says ‘‘to meet a medical emergency or necessary for legiti-
193 

mate law enforcement objective.’’ I think you will agree that is 

much more narrowly drawn than ‘‘shall be detained.’’ 

So, since I know you agree with that, what percentage of those 

that are apprehended at the border are detained versus paroled? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. Last year, we had about 220,000 book-ins from 

CBP. 

Mr. GOWDY. What percentage would be detained versus paroled? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. Of the 220,000 book-ins, it looks like about 

25,000 were paroled, about 10 percent. 

Mr. GOWDY. So, of that 25,000, you mean all of them can meet 

that very precise exception, medical emergency or necessary for legitimate law enforcement objective? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. Well, and so, again, if you’re talking about parole, 

in other words, 212(d)(5) parole, and I certainly don’t want to debate statutory construction with the Chair, but urgent humanitarian needs and significant public benefit is a balance. The needs 

of the individual and versus the needs in terms of us balancing our 

resource requirements. 

If we look at 460,000—— 

Mr. GOWDY. Does the ‘‘shall be detained’’ statute contain that 

same balancing? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. Well, so there has been a fair amount of litigation 

about what ‘‘shall’’ means. We see it in the Ninth Circuit. We see 

it in the California. Believe me—— 

Mr. GOWDY. Yes, and no disrespect to my friends from California, 

but you are going to have to cite me something other than the 

Ninth Circuit. I don’t doubt that the Ninth Circuit can’t define 

‘‘shall.’’ I do not doubt that for a second. 

The rest of the country does know what ‘‘shall’’ means. So, because I am not going to debate statutory construction with you, I 

want to ask you this. Of those who are paroled, I prefer the phrase 

‘‘bond,’’ but paroled, is there is a bond? Is it a surety bond? Is it 

a PR bond? What ensures that they will come back? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. So immigration bonds are posted in a variety of 

ways. They’re normally cash bonds. Again, if it’s someone who has 

been apprehended between a port of entry, found to have a credible 

fear, is issued a notice to appear—— 

Mr. GOWDY. Who determines that credible fear? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. The Citizenship and Immigration Services. 

Mr. GOWDY. I have seen juries struggle for weeks and months to 

determine credibility. How long does it take them to ascertain 

whether or not someone is credible? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. I would have to defer to my colleague at CIS. 

Mr. GOWDY. Well, while you are deferring, I want to ask you 

about a memo that was produced to the Committee surreptitiously. 

This was a form that was being completed by an agent, and a supervisor wrote this at the bottom of the form, ‘‘We are not investigating potential fraud. We are adjudicating asylum claims.’’ 

Do you agree with me that that is an oxymoronic statement? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. I’m not familiar with that document. 

Mr. GOWDY. No, but you are familiar with the sentence because 

I just read it to you. ‘‘We are not investigating potential fraud. We 

are adjudicating asylum claims.’’ 

Ms. LOFGREN. Would the Chairman yield for a question? 
194 

Mr. RAGSDALE. I think inherent in the adjudication is detecting 

fraud. 

Mr. GOWDY. Pardon me? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. I would say inherent in the adjudication is detecting fraud. 

Mr. GOWDY. So would I. So would I. So why would a supervisor—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. A parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman. What 

document are you referring to, and does all the Members of the—— 

Mr. GOWDY. A document has been produced to me and another 

Member of the Committee in confidence. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Would it be possible to share that document with 

other Members of the Committee? 

Mr. GOWDY. I will be happy to ask the source of the document 

whether or not he has any objections to that. I do not. I am not 

going to endanger the confidentiality of this whistleblower, and I 

know that my friend from California would not ask me to do so. 

What I do find it striking that a supervisor is saying that we are 

not in the business of investigating fraud. We are here to adjudicate asylum claims. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. GOWDY. That just strikes me as being an oxymoronic statement. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, you are an attorney. 

Mr. GOWDY. Correct. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Proud attorney, I am sure, notwithstanding the 

comments that were made earlier by Mr. Chaffetz. But I know that 

you understand that rank hearsay, just hearsay on top of hearsay, 

copies of stuff, it is just not good, reliable evidence to—— 

Mr. GOWDY. Well, reclaiming my time, Mr. Johnson, I am happy 

to run through whatever exception to the hearsay analysis you 

want me to go through. But you and I both know that there are 

last time I counted 24 different exceptions to the hearsay rule. 

So—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. And this—— 

Mr. GOWDY.—I will be happy to debate with you some other 

time. You are welcome to ask for a second round of questions, but 

I am not going to spend my time debating hearsay exceptions with 

the gentleman from Georgia. 

What I am going to ask, Mr. Ragsdale, is this. What is the punishment for falsely asserting that you have a credible fear? What 

is the sanction? What is the disincentive for asserting it when it 

is not true? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. An immigration judge can make a frivolous asylum finding when they get to the ultimate asylum adjudication. 

Mr. GOWDY. And the sanction is what? That you are not going 

to benefit from your false assertion? Is there anything else—— 

Mr. RAGSDALE. Or have immigration benefit, for that matter. 

Mr. GOWDY. So if you weren’t going to win if you told the truth 

and you are not going to win if you don’t tell the truth, what is 

the punishment? What is the disincentive for that chart right 

there? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. Well—— 
195 

Mr. GOWDY. Because you and I both know the cartels are a lot 

more dangerous now than they were 5 years ago. 

Mr. RAGSDALE. Let me make it clear that we spend 25 percent 

of our criminal investigative hours on narcotics cases. We take that 

very seriously. It is the biggest piece of our investigative portfolio. 

So we are, like I say, very much concerned about the drug cartels. 

Mr. GOWDY. Well, tell me, walk me through that. Walk me 

through that credibility assessment then. 

Somebody says that I have a credible fear of the cartel. You could 

run an FBI check. I don’t think the FBI keeps crime stats in Mexico or Guatemala or Honduras. So how do you do it? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. What I’m saying—— 

Mr. GOWDY. Well, walk me through it. You brought it up. Walk 

me through it, Mr. Ragsdale. Walk me through your investigation 

of credibility when you can’t use U.S. law enforcement to do the investigation for you. 

Mr. RAGSDALE. We do not do the adjudication for credible fears. 

Citizenship—— 

Mr. GOWDY. Are you familiar with the process that is used? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. I’m not an asylum officer. I’ve never done it. 

Mr. GOWDY. So you are not familiar with how they determine 

credibility? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. I am familiar with the idea of credibility. As 

noted before, I am an attorney. I certainly know, as a prosecutor 

and a State prosecutor, you are well familiar with the concept. I 

certainly want, as a career law enforcement person, to want people 

to tell us the truth. I will tell you that we could prosecute folks for 

1001, if that’s what you’re asking me. 

Mr. GOWDY. Well, of course not. Because you and I both know 

that is not going to happen, and that is my point. There is no disincentive for claiming it, even if it is not true. 

Mr. RAGSDALE. The Immigration and Nationality Act does provide for a sanction. It is a frivolous asylum finding. That is the 

statute. 

Mr. GOWDY. Which means what? That you are not going to be 

successful? Well, you weren’t going to be successful if you told the 

truth. 

Mr. RAGSDALE. For that or any other immigration benefit for the 

rest of your life. 

Mr. GOWDY. If you fail to show up on bond or what is called parole in the statute, is that any negative inference with respect to 

the subsequent hearing on the merits? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. Immigration judges are the ones who are the fact 

finders and deciders of hearings after—— 

Mr. GOWDY. I am asking you. I am asking you, and if you don’t 

know, that is fine. Is it something an immigration judge can take 

into consideration that a person failed to keep their appointed 

court date? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. An immigration judge could take everything into 

consideration. 

Mr. GOWDY. Do they take that into consideration? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. Sir, I’m not an immigration judge. I couldn’t—I 

would be speculating. 
196 

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, I have waited patiently, as the 

red—— 

Mr. GOWDY. Mr. Johnson, with all due respect, had you not interrupted me, the red light would not have come on. So I am going 

to handle it the way I want to handle it. And if you would like a 

second round of questions, I am happy to entertain that. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, I would. 

Mr. GOWDY. Be delighted to. I would now recognize the 

gentlelady from California for a second round of questions. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you. 

I would like to note just a couple of legal points. Section 208 of 

the Immigration and Nationality Act, 208(c)(6) provides in the case 

of frivolous applications that the alien ‘‘shall be permanently ineligible for any benefits’’ under the chapter, which I think is a disincentive for proceeding. And I would like also to mention in terms 

of statutory construction, it is important to read the entire sentence 

in the—in Section 235(b)(1)(B)(iii)(IV). 

‘‘Any alien subject to the procedures under this clause shall be 

detained,’’ but only ‘‘pending a final determination of credible fear 

of persecution.’’ 

And so, it is not a permanent incarceration mandate. It is a mandate prior to the credible fear determination, and I have heard no 

indication that that is not being adhered to. So I think it is important to have those facts on the record. 

You know, I want to get back to the reason why we have asylum 

in this country, and I would ask unanimous consent to place in the 

record information from the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, chronicling the voyage of the St. Louis, one of the most 

shameful chapters in American history, where the German transatlantic liner, the St. Louis, traveled to Havana, where they were 

turned away. And then to Miami, where they were refused admission, and ultimately nearly all of the Jews who were on that liner 

perished in the Holocaust. 

That is not to say that inquiry into the process is impermissible, 

but it is that legacy that leads us to make sure that we have an 

asylum system that actually works, that continues to be a beacon 

of freedom. 

I think all of us are affected by matters on which we have 

worked, and I cannot help but recalling an asylum application that 

I weighed in on in the late 1990’s. An individual who had been a 

pilot in the Afghanistan air force, and he had, I believe, a credible 

fear. And ultimately, he was denied asylum and returned to Afghanistan where he survived about 1 week before the Taliban executed him. 

So there are real consequences for giving short shrift to the 

claims of asylum for individuals who show up on our shores seeking freedom. 

Now looking at, if I may, Ms. Scialabba, the—we don’t know the 

answer to what is going on in Honduras. The spike is primarily El 

Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. We know from our friends on 

the Foreign Affairs Committee, and Mr. Chairman, it might actually be a good idea to have some joint hearings with the Foreign 

Affairs Committee because this is their area of expertise on what 

is going on around the rest of the world. 
197 

But there is at least some evidence has come to me that there 

is tremendous upheaval going on in Honduras today. And I am 

wondering if you have any information, either from the initial decisions that are being made on some of these cases or from research 

that the agency has done, what upheaval or is there upheaval that 

is contributing to this spike from those countries? 

Ms. SCIALABBA. Thank you, Congresswoman. 

I can tell you what the claims are that we’re seeing, and they 

generally do involve fear of cartels, sometimes fear of the government. Sometimes it’s domestic abuse. Sometimes it’s political opinion that the basis is. But a lot of it is based on criminal activity 

and people being targeted by cartels, by gangs, by corrupt officials, 

and we also see the domestic violence claims. 

We also see some sexual orientation claims. I think those are the 

majority of—they fall into basically four categories for the most 

part of the claims that we’re seeing. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I see that my time has expired, Mr. Chairman. I 

yield back. 

Mr. GOWDY. I thank the gentlelady from California. 

Before I recognize the gentleman from Utah, I just want to read 

the—since we are now under the rule of completeness, reading the 

entire statute and all relevant provisions, ‘‘If the officer determines 

at the time of the interview that an alien has a credible fear of persecution, the alien shall be detained for further consideration of the 

application for asylum.’’ 

With that, I would recognize the gentleman from Utah, Mr. 

Chaffetz. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

So, Mr. Ragsdale, when somebody is going in for that final adjudication process, they have claimed asylum, and the judge rules 

that they are not going to be granted asylum. Do you or do you not 

take them into custody and deport them? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. Well, it depends on whether or not it’s a final 

order of removal. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. If it’s a final order of removal and they are there 

in the court, do you take that person, if they happen to show up, 

do you take them into detention and deport them? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. So in the very rare circumstance that someone 

gets a final order of removal from an immigration judge, we would 

make every effort to take that person into custody at that time. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Immediately, right there? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. Assuming it was a final order, yes. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. And if they—if they have been denied asylum, 

how do you go out and find that person, and what percentage of 

these people are you able to actually detain and deport? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. So if you say they’ve been denied asylum, and 

they are pursuing an appeal? 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Yes. Oh, no, no. They gone through all—they 

have exhausted their legal remedy. They have been ordered to be 

deported. Is it your primary responsibility to find and deport those 

people? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. Yes, we have a national fugitive operations program, and that is their function. 
198 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. And we have hundreds of thousands of people on 

this list. Correct? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. Correct. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. And this is the problem. If hundreds of thousands 

of people who would just ignore the law, they ignore the judge, they 

are supposed to be deported, they thumb their nose at us, and they 

just continue on here. That is the problem. 

Let us talk about USCIS. When somebody gets an opportunity to 

have their case adjudicated, they are claiming asylum. They have 

been, okay, let us go to the next step. In my case in Phoenix, it 

is going to take 7 years before they go to a judge. They can apply 

for a work permit. Correct? 

Ms. SCIALABBA. After 150 days, they can file an application. We 

have 30 days then to adjudicate it. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. And what percentage of people that apply for a 

work permit do you grant a work permit to? 

Ms. SCIALABBA. In most cases, they get the work authorization 

if they’re outside that timeframe. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. So, Mr. Chairman, they come here. They get detained. They see a judge. They get a court date, which, in the case 

of Phoenix, is some 7-plus years, and then they essentially get free 

education, free healthcare. They can apply for work permit. 

You tell me the overwhelming majority are going to get a work 

permit, and then they can compete for—there is no limitation on 

what job they can get. Correct? 

Ms. SCIALABBA. Let me clarify what I said because I made it a 

general statement, and it’s a little bit more complicated than that. 

If you’re talking about an affirmative asylum application, we have 

a timeframe, and we work with EOIR to do those within 180 days. 

Do they all get done in 180 days so the person doesn’t get work authorization? No, not necessarily. 

I was talking in terms of a defensive claim. If it goes directly to 

the immigration judge and the court hearing is going to be that far 

out, then, yes, it’s likely they’re going to get work authorization. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Because there is such a backlog we just go ahead, 

and so you see the perverse incentive, Mr. Chairman. The perverse 

incentive is you can claim asylum in the country. We have embassies and consulates. You can walk into there and claim asylum. 

Correct? Correct? 

Ms. SCIALABBA. Not exactly. No, that’s not exactly how it works. 

Most of our refugee applications come through UNHCR. You 

could go into an embassy and say that you want to have a refugee 

adjudication. It’s highly unlikely. It’s rare. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. But the perverse incentive here is come here illegally. Claim asylum. And then guess what? You are going to get 

free education, free healthcare, and you are going to apply and, 

most likely, odds are you are going to get a work permit. 

Ms. SCIALABBA. Well—— 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Instead of—instead of the person who tries to 

come here legally and lawfully isn’t willing to break the law. There 

is a backlog. There is a line. I advocate for more legal immigration. 

I want to fix legal immigration. It is not working. 

But that person is suddenly now working in the United States 

of America with this work permit. 
199 

*This material was submitted for the record earlier by Mr. Goodlatte (R-VA) and can be found 

on page 10. 

Ms. SCIALABBA. I think I would also point out that quite a few 

people who apply for asylum actually did come into the country legally, not illegally. Probably half of the people who apply for asylum did enter—— 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Do you have any statistic that backs that up? 

Ms. SCIALABBA. I believe we do, and we can provide those to your 

staff. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Let me also understand. You were trying to distinguish the difference between somebody who is at a port of entry 

and the points in between, that one was going to go through parole. 

The other was going to go through a different. Can you explain 

that again to me, the difference? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. And I apologize for a less than clear answer. 

There are different sections of law that the Immigration and Nationality Act allows for consideration for custody. One is under one 

section of the law. Another is under a different section of law. So 

while the terms ‘‘parole’’ and ‘‘bond’’ are used sort of in a 

vernacular, there are actually some legal distinctions in those sections. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. We need some help understanding that because 

we’re trying to look back at the law. I would ask unanimous consent to enter into the record the U.S. Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement memo issued on December 8, 2009, Parole of Arriving 

Aliens Found To Have a Credible Fear of Prosecution or Torture,* 

along with the record of determination, parole determination worksheet. 

Mr. GOWDY. Without objection, with respect to that document 

and the document that Ms. Lofgren from California asked a UC on 

earlier. 

[The information referred to follows:] 
200 
201 
202 
203 
204 
205 
206 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Thank you. My time has expired. So I yield back. 

Mr. GOWDY. The Chair will now recognize the gentleman from 

Georgia, Mr. Johnson. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you. 

My colleague from Utah makes some excellent points about the 

bottlenecks that are created which result in more people being held 

in detention centers because the system is backed up. We don’t 

have enough immigration judges, and we don’t have enough asylum officers. I believe he has made those points. 

And those points are correct, is that right, Mr. Ragsdale? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. I can’t give specifics as those are two agencies by 

which I’m not employed. But I will say that for ICE and for the 

DHS enforcement arms generally, immigration court capacity is a 

concern. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, let me ask Mr. Fisher, it does go to the benefit of the private prison industry is when we have the bottleneck 

caused by not having enough immigration judges and not having 

enough asylum officers. Does that sound reasonable to you? 

Mr. FISHER. Yes, sir. But again, that’s out of my area of expertise 

as a—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. I understand. I understand. 

Mr. FISHER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I understand. Well, Mr. Chairman, Americans are 

overwhelming in support of a path to citizenship. We all agree that 

strong enforcement has its place in a balanced approach to comprehensive immigration reform. But a path to citizenship is critical 

to reform. 

This week, I proudly took part in the Fast for Families campaign. 

By fasting, I stood alongside my Democratic colleagues on this 

Committee who are following the examples of Martin Luther King, 

Jr., Mahatma Gandhi, and Nelson Mandela, as we address what 

has become a moral crisis in our society here in America. 

You know, this is not about drug cartels. It is not about the rules 

of legislative construction or the rules of evidence, or even the rule 

of completeness. This is about a moral dilemma that we face in this 

country. Are we going to continue to sacrifice the liberty of immigrants, mostly from south of the border or from Africa, Hispanics 

and Black folks, being feasted upon by the private prison industry? 

Are we going to continue to let that scenario line the pockets of 

the corporate bosses, or are we going to do something that is humane, justice—humane, just, and consistent with America’s belief 

in due process? That is where we are right now. 

Now we have talked about a bottleneck caused by background 

checks, and I will note that Edward Snowden’s background check 

was done by a private contractor. The person who killed the folks 

over at the Navy Yard, background checks done by private industry. 

Have we outsourced the background and security checks that we 

do for asylum seekers to the private sector, anyone on the panel? 

Ms. SCIALABBA. I’ll answer for USCIS. No, we do not. 

Mr. RAGSDALE. And I’ll answer for ICE. No, we do not. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Do you have enough folks that are running those 

background and security checks employed at your agencies? 
207 

Ms. SCIALABBA. I’ll answer for USCIS. It’s the actual officer 

who’s going to do the credible fear interview or the asylum application who runs—who checks and runs those background checks. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Now, Mr. Fisher, your agency has the least to do 

with asylum applications out of the three agencies here. Do you— 

you don’t do any background checks as Border Patrol. Correct? 

Mr. FISHER. That is not correct, sir. 

Mr. JOHNSON. You do? 

Mr. FISHER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Do you do them and pass it on to the asylum seekers—or the asylum officers? 

Mr. FISHER. The records themselves? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes. 

Mr. FISHER. We complete post arrest, including biographic and 

biometric information. We run federated queries that reach out and 

touch multiple databases to identify the individual and to ascertain 

at some level the risk. 

Mr. JOHNSON. But you do not make any determination about 

whether or not an asylum seeker has actually established a case 

of fear, of credible fear? 

Mr. FISHER. That is true. 

Mr. JOHNSON. All right. I will yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. GOWDY. I thank the gentleman from Georgia. 

The Chair will now recognize the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. 

Gutierrez. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Could you please pronounce your last name for 

me? Not that I am going to get it right, but I am going to try. 

Ms. SCIALABBA. Scialabba. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Scialabba, okay. So, Deputy Director Scialabba, 

let me ask you a few questions, and Mr. Ragsdale, you chime in 

if you think you can be helpful, anyone who thinks they can be 

helpful. 

So how many people petition a year for asylum? How many people petition come—— 

Ms. SCIALABBA. Asylum and not credible fear? 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. No. Well, make a credible fear application? 

Ms. SCIALABBA. Last, during 2013, there were 36,000 people who 

applied, requested credible fear interviews. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Okay. And then, of those who applied for credible fear interviews, how many were paroled? 

Ms. SCIALABBA. That I will refer to my ICE colleague on. 

Mr. RAGSDALE. It’s approximately 25,000. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. About 25,000. So the remainder stay imprisonment until their cases are—— 

Mr. RAGSDALE. They were either detained or if a negative credibility—excuse me, a negative finding was found, they were removed. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. They were removed. Okay. So you have 36,000, 

25,000 move forward in the process. I am just trying to figure out 

because I am talking to Mr. Chaffetz, and we are trying to figure 

out what is happening numerically. 

Ms. SCIALABBA. We found credible fear in 30,000 cases. Some of 

those probably withdrew before they went before the immigration 

judge. Others will have gone before the immigration judge. In 
208 

terms of their custody, it will depend on whether they came in at 

a port of entry or whether they came in between the ports of entry. 

At the port of entry, we can parole them. If they came in between 

the ports of entry, we could set a—I’m speaking for ICE, sorry. 

They could set a bond, or the immigration judge can set a bond, 

and then they can be released that way. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. But before—well, you know what, we are really 

going to need to have some, Mr. Chairman, some—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. Would—— 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Yes? 

Ms. LOFGREN. Would the gentleman yield for a question? Because, Mr. Ragsdale, I am mystified by your answer on the parole. 

Because we got the information from ICE dated December 5th, 

which was last week, that indicates that the total approvals were 

2,467 for year 2013. 

Mr. RAGSDALE. Approvals of? 

Ms. LOFGREN. Parole. 

Mr. RAGSDALE. So of the 25,000 roughly, about 12,000 were released on bond. About 8,000 released on their own recognizance, 

and about 4,390 were released on parole. So it sort of depends, and 

the only thing I could sort of—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. Well, why would the agency have given us the 

number of 2,467 if it was 4,000? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. Well, I certainly apologize for the discrepancy. 

I’m not familiar precisely with what you’re looking at, but we will 

certainly make sure that’s clear to you. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Yes, and I think—Mr. Chairman, I think, I was 

talking to Mr. Chaffetz, and I think we are going to need some 

more information so that we can get some specific. Because I don’t 

think, I could be wrong, that—so you treat Mexicans and other nationals differently? Anybody can answer. 

Mr. RAGSDALE. No. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. No? There is not other than Mexicans and Mexicans as you are looking at them in terms of categorizing those that 

apply for asylum? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. They make—if they make—apply for protection. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Apply for protection there is no difference? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. Not that I’m aware of. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Really? Okay. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Will the gentleman yield? 

When I went to the Eloy detention facility, when I was down on 

the border, you have two categories of how you recognize them— 

OTMs, other than Mexicans, and Mexicans. It was pretty clear that 

somebody that was detained by the Border Patrol would, in many 

cases, be deported immediately, within, say, an hour or so in some 

cases back across the border. But if they were OTMs, a little different process they are going to go through. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. And I have heard the same thing, and we are 

not—with no hostility toward you, if you could help us? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. Just Mexico is a unique country. They can be removed physically by ground transportation. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. I understand, but there is a difference. You do 

categorize them differently—— 
209 

Mr. RAGSDALE. Their rights under the law are identical. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ [continuing]. Those who are Mexican and Mexican nationals and others. 

Mr. RAGSDALE. Their rights under the law to apply for protection 

are exactly the same. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. I understand their rights under the law are protected the same. Then why don’t you just treat them all the same? 

Why do you categorize them differently? 

First you are saying that you don’t categorize them differently, 

but all my information is that you do categorize them differently. 

And the moment you categorize somebody differently, you are kind 

of undermining their rights. I mean, I would rather be in the general category than in a category of people that really get shipped 

back rather quickly and get denied. 

I mean, if you were to take—let me just ask you a question. If 

you were to take Mexican national vis-a-vis nationals from India, 

Pakistan—— 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Africa. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ.—Africa, name the country, are you telling me 

that there is no difference in the percentage of denials between 

Mexicans and other nationalities? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. When you’re saying ‘‘denials,’’ do you mean—— 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. People who aren’t found with credible fear. People who never get asylum. People who are just said, adios, go back 

where you came from. The denial rate is no different? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. The denial rate for Mexicans, I would suspect, is 

higher. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Thank you. So I would like to know the number. 

So you see, my point is, first of all, we are talking about drug cartels, and the drug cartels the last time I read are from Mexico. And 

they only represent 7 percent, right, of all of those who are applying for credible—what is the percentage? 

Ms. SCIALABBA. It’s 7 percent. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Seven percent. So now we are only talking about 

7 percent of the totality of them. And we do know that they go 

through rigorous background checks. You are not going to release 

them until the FBI does a background check on them. 

I think the Chairman makes a good point. Maybe we need to 

have some—so you have no relationship in checking on somebody 

with another country in terms of checking whether these people are 

criminals? You have no way? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. These are domestic law enforcement data. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. These are domestic law enforcement. Well, 

maybe we should begin to look at that. 

Mr. RAGSDALE. Well, so there certainly is some information that 

we share from our international affairs program. There are some 

biometrics that are shared with the governments of Honduras, El 

Salvador, and Guatemala. There is some information. 

But the NCIC query, the TECS query—— 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. What you are saying is the Drug Enforcement 

Agency of the United States and the Justice Department of the 

United States and those of us in the Federal Government that are 

fighting drugs and crime—— 

Mr. RAGSDALE. Those records are checked. 
210 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Excuse me? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. Those records are checked. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Those records are checked. Good. And we are not 

checking with our counterparts in other countries? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. Not every country has the same systems. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Not every country. How about Mexico? Let us try 

one country. 

Mr. RAGSDALE. We share some information with Mexico. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. That is what I always understood up until—I 

mean—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Yes. 

Ms. LOFGREN. It mainly depends on the political relationship we 

have with the foreign country. I mean, we share terrorism information with Russia. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Because—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. And quite a few other things. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And we are going to 

conclude. Because here is what I find astonishing. We do—I mean, 

the success against a drug cartel, in great measure, is due to the 

intelligence services of the United States of America in identifying 

where they are at and locating them for the Mexican government. 

That is just a fact. 

And when the new government, the new government was just 

brought in, they were quite astonished at the level of cooperation 

that exists between our intelligence services, our law enforcement 

services, including others, and I don’t want to say anymore because, you know, then all of a sudden you are giving away state 

secrets. But I have read this stuff in Newsweek and Time. 

Here is my point. I think, Mr. Chairman, we can make good 

points. It is taking too long, and we should try to figure out those 

that are taking advantage of the system. I don’t believe personally 

that drug dealers and members of the drug cartel are showing up 

at our border and saying, voila, why don’t you check me out? 

I think they have other avenues to enter the United States 

through other mechanisms other than checking in with you, including a flight to Canada and coming through the border that is virtually unchecked on the northern part. 

So, having said that, I think also, though, I want to just emphasize what Congresswoman Lofgren said. You know, people are coming here. We have got to design a system that doesn’t cause their 

ultimate death because we are the beacon of hope. We are the place 

where people come to seek refuge. 

So I think you are making good points. I think, together, we can 

put monitoring systems. We can do other checks and balances so 

that the majority. But let us just establish it is only 7 percent from 

Mexico. So I don’t want headlines tomorrow, right, all of these drug 

cartels. 

And it is really not about the drug cartels. Most of this has nothing to do with the drug cartel. And it is really people trying to get 

credible fear. 

And I do want you to come back with information about Mexicans and other than Mexicans because I understand they are all 

the same, but they are treated differently statistically. And I would 
211 

like to know why a claim from a Salvadoran national, a Honduran 

national, or a Guatemalan national is treated differently than one 

of a Mexican national. 

Because I am going to tell you something. From all of the information we receive here, whether through the Intelligence Committee or through other sources of information, it is virtually dangerous in many of those places equally. I wouldn’t want to dial 911 

and expect the police to show up. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GOWDY. I thank the gentleman from Illinois. 

The Chair would now recognize the gentlelady from California. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like unanimous consent to put in this document that explains the legal authority, both in terms of case law as well as statutory authority for parole, as well as you and I have—I think have 

a great working relationship, suggests that we might sit down at 

some point after this and go through the section of law. Because 

I think if we do, we will come to a meeting of the minds. 

Mr. GOWDY. Yes, ma’am. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. What is—pardon me. But what is the source of 

this document that interprets the law for us? 

Ms. LOFGREN. It is from the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. It is a recitation of the statutes as well as the cases. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. That would be great. 

Mr. GOWDY. Without objection, I will look forward to working 

with the gentlelady from California, as I always do. 

[The information referred to follows:] 
212 
213 

Mr. GOODLATTE. I will recognize myself for the final round of 

questions. And I was listening to my friend from Illinois talk just 

a few moments ago, and my friend from Utah, who, although they 

sit on different sides of the aisle, both strike me as incredibly compassionate people who don’t want anyone who is being persecuted 

to not be able to avail themselves of the protections and the freedoms of this country. 

No one has ever accused me of being compassionate. Nonetheless, I did introduce a bill that if you—that there will be no foreign 

aid to any country that discriminates on the basis of religion or 

who denies equal access to education based on gender. Now that 

bill has zero chance of passing, but I say that just to say I don’t 

want anyone who is under a legitimate threat of being persecuted 

because of a belief to have to stay where they are. 

But I also don’t like fraud. And when I see that chart, what that 

chart requires me to accept is that the world is twice as dangerous 

in 2013 as it was in 2012. Because the numbers are more than double for 2013 than 2012, and that strains credibility. 

If you are just watching C-SPAN at home, which means you have 

nothing better to do. But if you are watching this hearing at home, 

you just know intuitively that the world is not twice as dangerous 

as it was in 2012. So what explains the spike? What explains it? 

Could any part of it be fraud? Could any part of it be that the 

message has gotten out that if you utter these talismanic words, 

regardless of the authenticity, that you are going to be better off? 

I have heard about Honduras, and I have heard about Guatemala. The numbers are also up in India, Nepal, Bangladesh, China. 

So if the word has gotten out that you can game the system, which, 

by the way, also undercuts the legitimacy of legitimate claims. It 

is just not that it divert resources. It undercuts the legitimacy of 

people who are being persecuted. 

So we ought to—if we can agree on nothing else, and there are 

days I don’t think that we can. But we ought to be able to agree 

that we don’t want people gaming the system, and we don’t want 

fraud. 

Mr. Ragsdale, are you familiar with the Dream 9 or the Dream 

30? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. I am familiar with them, yes. 

Mr. GOWDY. Okay. 

Mr. RAGSDALE. Not personally, but I have obviously—— 

Mr. GOWDY. Can you help me explain, if I am asked when I go 

back home, how would you voluntarily leave this country with its 

protections and its safeties, cross the border to make a political 

statement, and already have your paperwork drafted by a lawyer 

where you are asserting a credible fear? How is that successful? 

How can you be credibly fearful of returning to a country that 

you just voluntarily returned to? How does that work? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. Again, ICE does not make credible fear determinations. That is done by CIS. So we cannot look behind that decision. 

Mr. GOWDY. Who should I ask? 

Mr. RAGSDALE. What I can report to you is statistics. 

Mr. GOWDY. I don’t want statistics. I want—I want to know how 

I can explain how people who leave this country to make a political 
214 

statement and then want to hide behind this, how do I explain 

that? 

Ms. SCIALABBA. There are situations where people will return to 

the country that they are originally from, and then they will experience some sort—the people that you’re talking about initially 

were not asylum applicants. They had deferred action under the 

childhood arrival provision. 

Mr. GOWDY. Oh, I know that. How long were they out of the 

country? 

Ms. SCIALABBA. Not—well, it varies. Case by case, it varies. 

Mr. GOWDY. What was the shortest amount of time they were 

gone? 

Ms. SCIALABBA. Oh, honestly, I don’t know off the top of my 

head. 

Mr. GOWDY. Well, just give me a good guess. I am not going to 

hold you to it. 

Ms. SCIALABBA. Maybe a week. 

Mr. GOWDY. A week? So in the course of a week, you can develop 

a credible fear claim. And by the way, you actually developed it before you ever left because you had your attorney prepare the paperwork. 

Ms. SCIALABBA. That I’m not aware of. But let me—— 

Mr. GOWDY. Well, I am just telling you. It undercuts the credibility of people who have legitimate claims when you demagogue it 

and you politicize it. 

Ms. SCIALABBA. Well, I can give you two examples of cases that 

came, that did that, went back to Mexico, and I’m not advocating 

that they should have done that. But went back to Mexico and 

came back. And the claim was for one was based on sexual orientation. So that is a legitimate on which the claim of credible fear—— 

Mr. GOWDY. I am not debating the legitimacy of that. I am debating the logic of returning to a country that you are so fearful of 

that you want to permanently stay in another country. I am just 

telling you it strains logic, and it strains credibility, and it smacks 

of making a political point. 

Is that chart accurate? 

Ms. SCIALABBA. Yes, it’s accurate. 

Mr. GOWDY. All right. Is the world twice as dangerous in 2013 

as it was in 2012? 

Ms. SCIALABBA. I think you will see, if you look at the history of 

credible fear, that the nationalities will change on a regular basis 

and the fluctuations will change on a regular basis. 

Mr. GOWDY. Well, I am looking at it. I am looking. I don’t see 

any fluctuation that even approaches 2013 juxtaposed with 2012. 

Ms. SCIALABBA. It does not. It does not. 

Mr. GOWDY. Okay. So what do you explain the spike in 2013? Is 

there any chance it could be that we have figured out if you just 

utter this talismanic phrase, you are going to be better off? 

Ms. SCIALABBA. Well, I will tell you we have been working closely 

with ICE and CBP because we are concerned with the large number of people who are claiming credible fear. But the stories that 

we’re hearing and that they’re telling us do rise to the low level 

that’s required for credible fear referral. It’s only a screening process. 
215 

Mr. GOWDY. Okay. And I want you to tell me, as an old washed 

up prosecutor, how you analyze credibility. 

Ms. SCIALABBA. Our asylum officers are trained on credibility. 

You have to look at what the story that they’re telling you, whether 

it’s consistent, whether it’s detailed, and whether it has a nexus to 

one of the five grounds for asylum. Persecution—— 

Mr. GOWDY. What kind of investigation do you do? 

Ms. SCIALABBA. We do all the background checks. 

Mr. GOWDY. Well, but it is tough to do a background check if you 

haven’t been convicted of a crime. I mean, what are you going to 

check? A credit history? 

Ms. SCIALABBA. No. We check the FBI fingerprints—— 

Mr. GOWDY. Okay. I haven’t been convicted of a crime. 

Ms. SCIALABBA. We do TECS checks as well, which is a database 

from CBP. 

Mr. GOWDY. How long does this investigation last? How long 

does the interview last? 

Ms. SCIALABBA. These are checks, not investigations. 

Mr. GOWDY. Okay. How long does a check last? 

Ms. SCIALABBA. We are not an investigative agency. 

Mr. GOWDY. How long does a check last? 

Ms. SCIALABBA. The checks are run through the databases. 

They’re pretty quick. 

Mr. GOWDY. I am just telling you. I don’t know whether you were 

a prosecutor in a former life or not. I can just tell you this. It is 

really tough to assess credibility. Some people can’t do it in weeks 

or months. 

I hope—I would love to see a program that Luis Gutierrez and 

Jason Chaffetz and Zoe Lofgren and Louis Gohmert all agree is 

being done so well and that there is so much of an interest in ferreting out fraud that we don’t have to have this hearing again. But 

I can just tell you, when you see a spike like the one from 2013 

to 2012, it is impossible to explain to the people we work for anything other than someone has figured out how to game the system. 

Can you appreciate that? 

Ms. SCIALABBA. I can appreciate that. 

Mr. GOWDY. All right. Thank you. 

On that note of conciliation, Mr. Chaffetz? 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. I will be brief. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Going back to those people that are going through this assessment and checking, their performance evaluation—these asylum officers, their performance evaluation, is any part of their performance evaluation based on the number of approvals or disapprovals? 

Ms. SCIALABBA. No, it is not. And all cases are reviewed by a supervisor. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. How many supervisors are there? 

Ms. SCIALABBA. Seventy-five supervisors. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Is any part of their performance evaluation based 

on how long they have to take on each case? 

Ms. SCIALABBA. No. I mean, we—no, it’s not. We have requirements on how quickly we want to move cases through the process, 

but someone’s rating is not based on the number of cases that they 

are doing or not doing. We have goals. We definitely have goals. 
216 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. In your ideal world, how long should it take to 

move a case through the system, and what is the reality of how 

long it is actually taking? 

Ms. SCIALABBA. Which system are you referring to? 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Well, the one you just referred to. 

Ms. SCIALABBA. Expedited removal? 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Yes, sure. That one. 

Ms. SCIALABBA. Expedited removal. On average, it’s about 19 

days before a case is referred to us for a credible fear interview. 

We’re doing them within 8 days. We do the interview for credible 

fear and then refer the case back to ICE. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. And is there a goal that you said you are going 

to add 100 new officers or 100 new people to this. I am trying to 

get the metric that says this is how big the backlog is. 

Ms. SCIALABBA. We don’t have a backlog on credible fear. Where 

we’re suffering is in the affirmative asylum process because we’ve 

devoted the resources to the credible fear process. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. So how, again, you are hiring 100 new people, 

and you have 270, did you say? 

Ms. SCIALABBA. Two hundred seventy, yes. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. So what is the backlog or why—I think I understand why. But I want to hear from you, why are you hiring 100 

new people where 270 was insufficient? 

Ms. SCIALABBA. Because we were devoting people who would normally be doing affirmative asylum applications to the credible fear 

process because of the spike that you’re seeing there of people applying for credible fear. And we need to add the asylum officers to 

stay current with the affirmative asylum process also. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Do you meet with all of these people in person? 

Ms. SCIALABBA. Which? 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. When you are interviewing. You are trying to assess—going to Mr. Gowdy’s point, when you are trying to assess 

somebody’s credibility, do you meet with all of these people in person? 

Ms. SCIALABBA. On the credible, you’re referring to credible fear? 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Yes. 

Ms. SCIALABBA. No, we don’t meet. We do V-tel, we do in-person, 

and we also do telephonic. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. So you are assessing somebody’s credibility on the 

telephone? 

Ms. SCIALABBA. In some instances, yes. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. And how long is that interview going on? 

Ms. SCIALABBA. Those interviews are about 20 minutes. It’s a 

screening process. It’s not a process to determine whether someone 

is actually going to get asylum. It’s to determine whether there’s 

a significant possibility that they could get asylum from an immigration judge. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. And this is the concern, Mr. Chairman and to the 

other Members of this panel, 20-minute telephone conversation we 

are assessing them, and in many cases, we are allowing them to 

stay here for 7 years. They get a work permit. They can get free 

education, free healthcare. I mean, all these benefits for simply 

touching base here. 
217 

I yield back. I appreciate this hearing. It has been a fruitful dialogue. 

One last encouragement. We need metrics. Metrics that we can 

work on the same pages. This has been an ongoing problem with 

Homeland Security, to get metrics that we can all look at, not dispute. We just need your ongoing help. Just please help us with that 

so we get—we want to get it right, but we need the metrics to do 

so. 

Appreciate the Chair, and appreciate this hearing and yield back. 

Mr. GOWDY. The gentleman from Utah yields back. 

I will give my friends on the other side the same amount of time. 

It seemed longer, but I think he only took 5 minutes. So I am going 

to divide it. However Mr. Johnson and Mr. Gutierrez want to use 

it, and I am done. So—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The majority is arguing here that the credible standard of fear— 

the credible fear standard, which is set by statute, is too low. And 

they are also arguing that because of an alleged spike in the number of claims of credible fear, then there must be something that 

the Obama administration has to do with that. In other words, this 

is Obama’s fault that we are having a spike in these credible fear 

asylum claims. 

Now it is true that this fear found rate is higher than it has been 

since fiscal year 2006, when it was also 83 percent. It is 83 percent 

now. It is an 83 percent figure now. It was 83 percent in fiscal year 

2006, was it not, Ms. Wasem? 

Ms. WASEM. I believe that’s correct. 

Mr. JOHNSON. And matter of fact, fiscal year 2000, the credible 

fear rate was 93 percent of the cases. Is that correct? 

Ms. WASEM. I do not have the 2000 data. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, according to my data, it was a 93 percent 

rate. And in fiscal year 2001, the rate was 94.5 percent, and it only 

dropped below 90 percent after 2005, and that is attributable probably to two things. One, there was a policy change that stopped 

placing Cubans arriving at land ports of entry into expedited removal. And second, the 2004 REAL ID Act contained changes in 

asylum law that made asylum harder to obtain. 

And as a result, this decreased the percentage of cases in which 

asylum officers were able to find a significant possibility that the 

alien could establish eligibility for asylum under Section 208. But, 

and I will say also that when one looks around the world, take 

India, for example, one of my colleagues from the other side cited. 

The rapes of women, does that contribute to these requests for asylum? 

Syria, the displacement of so many people, hundreds of thousands of people. South Sudan, Somalia, Central African Republic, 

Democratic Republic of Congo, all of these fights that are going on, 

Egypt. 

And at this point, I will yield the balance of my time to Mr. 

Gutierrez. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I just want to make sure we work with Mr. Chaffetz because 

I believe he is correct that when you finally are granted asylum, 

you do have special provisions for education and for healthcare 
218 

once you are granted so that you can integrate. But I would like 

to see—I don’t think you just show up at the border, get a credible 

fear and that somebody gives you Blue Cross Blue Shield and a 

Pell grant. That is just not happening. 

But I do think at the end of the process that is happening, as 

well as it should as established by law. I would like to look at that. 

And I do think, Mr. Chairman, we have a responsibility. I love this 

program. I want this program, and I know you want—you have 

dedicated your public lives to this program. I want it to work. 

And if you see something wrong in a program and you don’t attack it, then you are really not safeguarding the program. You are 

really not demonstrating your true love for the program and its 

principles. And too many people’s lives are at stake to let a few 

people who are, you know, as whatever, using the system for their 

own personal gain. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank the gentleman from Illinois. 

This concludes today’s hearing. I want to say thank you to all the 

witnesses for attending, for your testimony, for your comity with 

each other and with the Committee. 

Without objection, all Members will have 5 legislative days to 

submit additional questions for the witnesses or additional materials for the record. 

With that, the hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 1:24 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 
(219) 

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD
220 
221 
222 
223 

f 
224 

Material submitted by the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, and Member, Committee on the Judiciary 
225 
226 
227 

Æ