U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

97–956 PDF 2016

OVERSIGHT OF THE UNITED STATES 

CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

IMMIGRATION AND BORDER SECURITY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

DECEMBER 9, 2015 

Serial No. 114–50 

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 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

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 

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia 

RON DeSANTIS, Florida 

MIMI WALTERS, California 

KEN BUCK, Colorado 

JOHN RATCLIFFE, Texas 

DAVE TROTT, Michigan 

MIKE BISHOP, Michigan 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

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 

HAKEEM JEFFRIES, New York 

DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

SCOTT PETERS, California 

SHELLEY HUSBAND, Chief of Staff & General Counsel 

PERRY APELBAUM, Minority Staff Director & Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION AND BORDER SECURITY

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina, Chairman 

RAU ́ L LABRADOR, Idaho, Vice-Chairman 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

KEN BUCK, Colorado 

JOHN RATCLIFFE, Texas 

DAVE TROTT, Michigan 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

GEORGE FISHMAN, Chief Counsel 

GARY MERSON, Minority Counsel 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

DECEMBER 9, 2015 

Page 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

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

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

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

of California, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Immigration and 

Border Security .................................................................................................... 2 

WITNESS 

The Honorable Leon Rodriguez, Director, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 4 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 6 

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Prepared Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative 

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

on the Judiciary ................................................................................................... 32 

Material submitted by the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Texas, and Member, Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security ................................................................................ 50 

OFFICIAL HEARING RECORD 

UNPRINTED MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Submission for the Record from the Honorable Bob Goodlatte, a Representative in 

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

This submission is available at the Subcommittee and can also be accessed at: 

http://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=104264. 

(1) 

OVERSIGHT OF THE UNITED STATES 

CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES 

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 9, 2015 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION AND BORDER SECURITY

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 1:15 p.m., in room 

2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Trey Gowdy 

(Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Gowdy, Goodlatte, Labrador, Smith, 

King, Buck, Ratcliffe, Lofgren, Conyers, Gutierrez, and Jackson 

Lee. 

Staff Present: (Majority) Andrea Loving, Counsel, Subcommittee 

on Immigration and Border Security; Tracy Short, Counsel, Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security; Kelsey Williams, 

Clerk; (Minority) Gary Merson, Chief Counsel, Subcommittee on 

Immigration and Border Security; Maunica Sthanki, Counsel; and 

Micah Bump, Counsel. 

Mr. GOWDY. The Judiciary Committee will come to order. 

Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a recess of 

the Committee at any time. 

We welcome everyone to today’s hearing on oversight of the 

United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. 

I will begin by recognizing myself for an opening statement. 

I first want to welcome our witness, Mr. Rodriguez. 

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, USCIS for short, is 

responsible for processing over 6 million immigration benefit applications per year as well as implementing programs important to 

immigration enforcement such as E-Verify and the Systematic 

Alien Verification for Entitlements Program, also known as SAVE. 

Even without concerns being raised about terrorists seeking to 

exploit our refugee program or other aspects of our immigration 

system to enter the United States, processing such large numbers 

of immigration benefits applications would be a daunting task. 

But those concerns are being raised, and they are on the forefront of my fellow citizens’ minds. And, as a result, I will look forward to hearing what changes, if any, Director Rodriguez has or 

will soon implement at USCIS to help ensure terrorists are not approved for visas or other immigration benefits. 
2 

Many of the people I work for are particularly concerned about 

the prospect of a terrorist being resettled in our communities 

through the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program. And while I know 

we discussed this very issue weeks ago in the Subcommittee, those 

concerns are not going away. We are still looking for assurances 

that refugee program vetting is secure and effective. 

Our concerns were only exacerbated by the remarks of our colleague, Homeland Security Chairman Mike McCaul, indicating that 

efforts to enter our country via fraud in the refugee program are 

currently—emphasize ‘‘currently’’—occurring. 

Aside from security vetting concerns, fraud is always a problem 

in immigration benefits processing. I know the current and former 

Directors of USCIS have come before this Committee and said how 

fraud detection is a number-one priority, but that it is difficult to 

reconcile when we consistently hear from sources within USCIS 

that leadership will not pursue antifraud technology; that rubberstamping of benefits applications is encouraged and even, in some 

instances, forced; and that USCIS’ own antifraud unit, the Fraud 

Detection and National Security Directorate, is routinely sidelined 

and underutilized. 

My constituents are proud that the United States has the most 

generous immigration policy in the world, and they are proud that 

the United States is a beacon of hope for foreign nationals seeking 

a better life. But they have a right to know that the immigration 

programs are being run in a manner that does not put them in 

danger, and right now they don’t feel that way. 

That is not to say that there is not some good news coming out 

of USCIS. The bright spot seems to be the E-Verify program, the 

use of which by employers is growing and which has had an extremely high successful verification rate. So I want to thank Director Rodriguez for his continued support of the E-Verify program, 

and I look forward to his testimony today. 

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

Lofgren. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And, Director Rodriguez, it is good to see you here again. Welcome to the Immigration Subcommittee. 

I am sure we will hear from you to the extent you are able to 

discuss security measures taken by the agency, especially in light 

of the news coming out of San Bernardino in my State, so I am 

going to focus on other elements that are part of your important 

mission. 

As we know, a year ago, Secretary Johnson issued a series of directives, two of which have been held up in a dispute with Republican Governors. I won’t address that because the Supreme Court 

is going to do so. I would like to talk about some of the issues that 

were not the subject of the litigation, specifically the parole program for immigrant entrepreneurs. 

You know, one of the things that keep our country ahead of the 

game economically is the tech sector. And we have failed in our 

necessary effort to reform the immigration laws, which is really the 

result that is necessary. But the President was trying to think and 

Secretary Johnson was trying to think about things that could be 

done consistent with the current law that would make the economy 
3 

work better, and one of the things was that parole program for immigrant entrepreneurs. 

Now, a lot of companies that are household names are right in 

my neighborhood. Intel, Google, Yahoo, eBay, et cetera, et cetera, 

et cetera, were founded by innovative immigrants. They now employ tens of thousands of people. And, according to new research, 

immigrants have created half of America’s top venture-backed companies, and those companies, in turn, have created an average of 

150 jobs each. And, of course, when you look at some of them, like 

Google, it is tens of thousands. 

So I am concerned that we haven’t launched the entrepreneur 

program. I am eager to know where that stands, and maybe you 

will be able to address it. 

I just want to touch on an action that I found gravely disappointing, and I realize it was not primarily the USCIS, but that 

was the October visa bulletin that was mistaken. Many people, immigrants, relied on the bulletin, as is reasonable to do, to their detriment. 

For example, I met personally with an individual who is a postdoc doing cutting-edge neuroscience research funded by the Federal 

Government, funded by the NIH. He was going to file for his permanent residence based on the priority date. He did not review his 

H-1B visa. Then the visa bulletin was amended, and he is nowhere. 

He is nowhere. It is crazy that someone who has been here for 

years, who we are funding, who may get a Nobel prize, is just nowhere. 

And so I don’t know how many people like him were disadvantaged, but I am wondering what efforts the agency has thought 

about just to ameliorate the harm done by that mistake in the bulletin. 

I am concerned that the program really set up to avoid the rush 

of refugees across our border who have come through Mexico fleeing violence, the alternative to process refugee applications in-country has not really worked. I don’t think any child has been admitted yet. And I am concerned. Whatever light you can put on that 

situation, I would appreciate knowing. 

And I also would like an update on the technology efforts that 

the agency has been making. When the President was elected, we 

were almost entirely paper-based, and I think we have made some 

progress but not as much as I expected or hoped that we would. 

And I am hoping you will be able to give us—you know, if you have 

a FedEx package, you can track where it is, you know, if you are 

expecting delivery. We haven’t been able to deliver that kind of 

customer service, and I think the American public would be better 

served if we could. 

So anything you can give us on those topics. And I know that you 

will talk about the security issues that the Chairman has also 

touched on. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I see my time is about to expire. 

Mr. GOWDY. The gentlelady yields back. 

We are pleased to welcome our distinguished witness today. 

Director, if you would please rise and allow me to administer the 

oath. Thank you, sir. 
4 

Do you swear that the testimony you are about to give is the 

truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I do. 

Mr. GOWDY. May the record reflect the witness answered in the 

affirmative. 

Director, you have a long and distinguished career as a prosecutor, which I am going to give short shrift to in my introduction, 

so forgive me for that. 

But today’s witness is the Director of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. He was sworn in as Director on 

July 9, 2014. 

He previously served as the Director of the Office of Civil Rights 

at the Department of Health and Human Services, a position he 

held from 2011 to 2014. From 2010 to 2011, he was chief of staff 

and Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights at the Department of Justice. 

He received a B.A. from Brown University and a J.D. from Boston College Law School. 

As I mentioned to you beforehand, I think you have prosecuted 

at about every level that one can possibly prosecute, so thank you 

for your service to our country. 

And, with that, I would recognize you for your opening statement. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE LEON RODRIGUEZ, DIRECTOR, UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION 

SERVICES 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Thank you, Chairman. It is great to be here in 

front of the Committee today and to address the myriad of issues 

that both you, Chair, and Ranking Member Lofgren have raised 

during your own opening remarks. 

I had planned in my opening remarks to discuss my own broad 

priorities for USCIS, specifically to fully and effectively implement 

the executive actions, to effectively and safely process our refugees, 

to continue to advance our transformation process, and to continue 

to maintain a high level of customer service and stakeholder engagement. 

However, the recent mass murder in San Bernardino, California, 

near Ms. Lofgren’s district, and a number of recent events, I think, 

as the Chairman pointed out, make it particularly important that 

we talk about security issues here this afternoon. 

I would note at the outset two things. One, I will not, unfortunately, have the luxury to be able to talk about specific cases. Some 

of these are cases under law enforcement investigation. In any 

event, there are privacy policies and laws that apply to specific 

files. 

Two, I would observe that, after nearly a quarter-century in and 

around law enforcement, one of the things that I have learned very 

much through personal experience is that violent criminals can 

come from pretty much any faith, any nationality. They can be 

U.S.-born; they can be immigrants. They can come from just about 

anywhere. 

My particular role, our particular role, in USCIS is to ensure 

that those who seek the privilege of admission to the United 
5 

States, be they as travelers or as immigrants, that they, in fact, be 

individuals who deserve that privilege, that they not be individuals 

who either intend our Nation harm or who intend to become criminals when they come here to the United States. 

And we have been working diligently in recent years to enhance 

our ability to weed out both individuals who are criminals and who 

are threats to our national security. And to give some examples of 

the kinds of things that we do, we have enhanced the resources 

against which we vet all immigrants, not just refugees but also all 

immigrants. We have developed improved techniques for fraud detection, for interviewing, in order to advance that. 

Now, in light of the events in San Bernardino, the President and 

the Secretary have both directed USCIS to review both the K-1 

visa program as a whole, which we are in the process of doing right 

now, but also to do a retrospective look at cases approved in recent 

years under the K-1 visa program. And we are fully along in conducting that effort. 

I remain mindful, however, that our charge in USCIS is really 

to look at the security of our entire process. So, while we are focusing on K-1 today, I want to make clear to this Committee and, importantly, also to the American public that our focus will be across 

all of our lines of business to ensure that bad guys don’t gain admission to the United States. 

I am blessed at USCIS with a tremendous staff who is dedicated 

both to following the law, to serving the American people, and, importantly, to preventing fraud and threats to our national security. 

As a couple of examples of the kinds of things that we have done, 

in light of concerns about our asylum program, we have been increasing the presence of fraud detection and national security officers in our asylum offices. We have doubled the number of those 

individuals in recent years. Similarly, in the EB-5 program, we 

have doubled the number of fraud detection and national security 

officers there, as well. 

There are many other topics that I would like to address, and, 

hopefully, through questioning, I will have the opportunity to address a number of the issues that Ranking Member Lofgren raised. 

But I would like to conclude with this observation. I read something in the paper just a few days ago that really rang of truth to 

me. And that was the notion that the worst thing that we can do 

to the terrorists that wish us harm, the terrorists who are trying 

to recruit others to harm us, is to continue to be a beacon to people 

throughout the world. 

The fact that many of the very same people who those terrorists 

would like to recruit, in fact, are seeking admission to the United 

States is the most severe indictment of what they are trying to do. 

That inspires me as much as anything else to do the work that I 

do as USCIS Director. 

Thank you, Chairman, for having me here today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rodriguez follows:] 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, Director. 

I will recognize myself for 5 minutes of questioning. 

Director, I am going to make a series of what I think are factually supported assertions. If any of the assertions are incorrect, I 

want you to correct them, because hypotheticals or realities are no 

good if there is an incorrect factual assertion. 

So it appears as if the female terrorist in California entered the 

United States in July of 2014 on a K visa. And there is an application process which includes some level of investigation on our end. 

And, as I understand the application process, it may well be that 

USCIS and the State Department have some level of engagement, 

at least at the application process. 

And then, as I understand it, there is or is supposed to be an inperson interview at an embassy or a consulate, which is another 

level of investigation. So you have the application, which may involve USCIS and the State Department. Then you have an in-person interview. And the way I count, that is at least two and maybe 

more levels of inquiry or investigation. 

And then we fast-forward. The FBI Director today, I believe, tells 

us that there is evidence that the female terrorist was radicalized 

2 years ago. And there is a media account, and you are free to put 

whatever stock you would like in a media account, but it has been 

widely reported that the male terrorist was part of a plot in 2012 

to do harm in this country. 

So it appears to me that the investigations done by our government would have occurred after both her radicalization and after 

his previous plot to commit an act of terror. And yet the visa was 

approved and she immigrated here. And 14 body bags later, we are 

trying to figure out what went wrong. 

So assume arguendo that the FBI is right, which is not an unreasonable assumption; the female terrorist was radicalized well before her application to come to the United States. How did we miss 

that twice? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. So, again, I will take that question as a hypothetical, given my inability to speak to the specific factual scenario. 

I think, in addition to the interviews that you described, individuals are also vetted against law enforcement and intelligence databases at multiple stages in the K-1 visa process. So when we adjudicate the petition by the U.S.-based person, usually the fiance ́ on 

our side of the ocean, there is a series of background checks done 

at that time. The State Department does another more fulsome series of checks. And then we see that individual then again at the 

time of adjustment once they are in the United States. 

The nature of the interview depends on what derogatory information we have about the individual. So, in the absence of a specific— 

we ask a series of questions that obviously are intended to vet that 

individual out, but in the absence of a specific basis, we probe, basically, the record that is before us. 

One of the things that we are looking at right now is—and, 

again, I think about this not just in terms of the fiance ́ visa program, but I really think of it in terms of everything that we do— 

are there things that we need to be doing differently prospectively 

to probe even more deeply to ensure that we are not admitting individuals who will come here to do us harm. 
24 

Mr. GOWDY. I wholeheartedly concur that we should be looking 

at all visas, no matter what letter occurs in front of them. It just 

so happens that this is a K visa, but the analysis could very well 

be the same regardless of what kind of visa it was. 

And I am not trying to put words in your mouth, but what I hear 

you saying is we don’t know if anything would have been done differently, and it is a thorough investigation, and yet we still missed 

it, which tells me that I have to go back to South Carolina and tell 

people there is just going to be an error rate. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Well, you know, one of the issues that we are 

looking at are what are our authorities at different points in the 

process. So, for example, at the point when we adjudicate the petition, as it stands right now, as long as the bona fides of the petition 

are established by the U.S.-based petitioner, regardless of what derogatory information may exist against that individual, we don’t— 

and, again, I am talking generally. I am not talking about any specific case. That is certainly an issue we are looking at as to whether we need to think differently about what we do in that stage of 

the process. 

We are also looking at what we do on the back end of the process, at the time when we actually give that person a green card or 

we give them a conditional green card, are there additional measures we need to be taking at that stage, as well. 

Mr. GOWDY. Director, do you know whether or not the female terrorist in California was interviewed in person at an embassy or a 

consular post? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Again, respectfully, Chairman, I am not at liberty in this setting to talk about any specifics. 

Now, I can tell you what our practice is. There have been exceptions to this. Generally, it is our protocol that we only interview 

people in the K-1 visa program in cases where there is some issue 

that needs to be explored as part of the case. That could be derogatory information about the individual. It could be factual questions, 

not necessarily derogatory, about the application. 

That is the existing practice as we speak. That is certainly going 

to be part of our review. 

Mr. GOWDY. Do you know how long the investigation lasted from 

the time she applied for a K visa until the time she was interviewed at whatever consular post or embassy? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Again, I am not at liberty to discuss a particular 

case. 

From the time they get in—if I am understanding the question, 

from the time they are interviewed at the consular post to the time 

that we adjust them? Is that the question, sir? 

Mr. GOWDY. I was more interested in from the time she applied 

until the time there was whatever first interview, whether or not 

there was research done into her school, if any, attended; social 

media, if any; employment history, if any. 

And I am out of time, so I am going to go to the gentlelady, and 

I will give her exactly the same amount of time I took. 

I will just tell you this. I appreciate—because I hear it a lot from 

Administration folks, that they cannot discuss an ongoing investigation. I would just note the obvious. They are dead. So I don’t 
25 

know that we are terribly worried about their privacy considerations. 

And I am not lodging this allegation at you specifically. I can just 

tell you, I have been around 5 years now, and it just strikes me 

that sometimes folks cite an ongoing investigation or prosecution 

when they just really would prefer not to answer the question. 

Because there is not going to be a prosecution of either one of 

these terrorists. You and I agree on that. So I am not sure what 

we are worried about jeopardizing by allowing Congress to look at 

her file. 

What investigative or prosecutorial strategy would be jeopardized 

by allowing Ms. Lofgren and I to look at her immigration file? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Again, I am really citing the general practices 

in rules. I mean, I think you and I are both aware of cases where, 

in fact, regardless of the fact that there may be two dead perpetrators, where there are still actually investigative reasons to maintain secrecy. I am not speaking necessarily to this specific case. 

That is the practice that I have lived by, be it in my role as USCIS 

Director or when I was a prosecutor previously, that I did not talk 

about cases that were ongoing, regardless of those characteristics. 

I understand why this body would want them. I understand why 

that information might be helpful to this body in discharging its responsibilities. I don’t see myself as at liberty to share that information at this time. 

Mr. GOWDY. The Chair will now recognize the gentlelady from 

California. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Just picking up where the Chairman has left off, I will disclose 

that my office did call over and ask for a copy of the K-1 application, and we were advised that it was the FBI who had said, really, 

this needs to remain confidential at this point because of their investigation. And I accept that. You know, I want the FBI to be able 

to do everything it is supposed to do. When they are done, however, 

I want to take a look at all of it. 

And so I think how long that investigation will take none of us 

can know. But I know that the Chairman, I am sure, would share 

my desire that, once it is over, let’s take a look at all of it. We 

wouldn’t want to jeopardize the ongoing investigation. 

In terms of what USCIS does, the interview for—and not talking 

about this case, but just how one obtains nonimmigrant visa, be it 

the K-1 or H-1B or whatever, the applicant applies abroad, and it 

isn’t USCIS that does the interview. It’s the State Department, 

isn’t it? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Yes, that’s correct. All we do at that stage is adjudicate the bona fides of the petition here, meaning the bona fides 

of the relationship. The actual interview, the actual screening, is 

conducted by the State Department at a consular post overseas. 

Ms. LOFGREN. And you’re not a law enforcement agency per se. 

What you’re doing, in terms of the criminal element and checking 

it out, is checking with the FBI and the database and the like to 

see what comes up. Isn’t that right? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. That is correct. I will amend that to say we do 

see ourselves as having both a national security and law enforcement responsibility—— 
26 

Ms. LOFGREN. Yes. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ [continuing]. To ensure that people who trip either of those wires are—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. Of course. But you don’t have an army of agents 

as a law enforcement agency. You rely on the FBI to do that. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Nobody on my staff carries guns as part of their 

job. 

Ms. LOFGREN. All right. 

So, in terms of the—if a person comes over on a K-1 visa, say, 

they have 90 days in which to get married to the American who 

has petitioned for them. What happens then? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. At that point, I believe they have 120 days— 

once the individual is here, they have 120 days within which to 

seek adjustment, which, in the ordinary course, most people actually do. 

At that point, they become, essentially, conditional permanent 

residents. And I apologize, I don’t know the exact duration. 

Ms. LOFGREN. So it’s conditional, and the marriage has to prove 

valid. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Yes. 

Ms. LOFGREN. And, after 2 years, then the couple goes in and 

they apply to remove the condition because they’re still married, 

it’s a valid marriage. Is that correct? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Correct. 

Ms. LOFGREN. So, at that point, you are still interviewing to 

make sure that there is nothing that you can discover that is 

fraudulent or wrong, aren’t you? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. We are both interviewing and also running additional checks, you know, of the kind that are frequently discussed 

before this Committee. We’re doing additional checks on those individuals. 

Ms. LOFGREN. And so if somebody came on any kind of visa like 

that, there’s, you know, many, many grounds for inadmission to the 

United States, whether or not you are married to an American or 

a fiance ́. I mean, if you have committed drug smuggling or if you 

are a human trafficker, you are not admissible to the United 

States, no matter what. If you are intending to commit a crime in 

the U.S. or you have terrorist ties, you are not admissible to the 

United States. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. That is correct. If there are indications that you 

are a criminal or that you are intending to immigrate or travel to 

the United States to commit a crime, then that would—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. So the real question is not whether or not the law 

needs to be changed. That is the law. It’s a matter of how that information is discovered and by whom. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Correct. And one of the issues that we’re looking 

at is our authority at different points in the process, in addition to 

our practices at different points in the process, to ensure that we 

are trapping those issues at every opportunity that we can. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I’m going to switch to another subject. There was 

a report both in Disney and Southern California Edison who were 

using the H-1B program to replace U.S. workers. It was pretty outrageous reports. And Secretary Johnson described it, and I quote, 

as a very serious failing of the H-1B program and that Congress 
27 

could help put an end to this through increased enforcement mechanisms for situations where an employer does, in fact, replace 

American workers with H-1B visa holders. 

What type of enforcement mechanisms do you think are needed 

to ensure that the H-1B program is not used to displace American 

workers? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. So I think this is an area where we would be 

very happy to work with this Committee to provide technical assistance. 

I think one of the issues to which you are speaking, one that I 

was very interested to learn as I was digging into the H-1B process, is that you can accomplish a certain result through contractors 

that you couldn’t necessarily accomplish directly. And that is certainly a discussion that we would be happy to have with this Committee as a technical assistance matter. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Well, we may take you—I’ve got some ideas on 

that, as well. I mean, some of it is regulatory, but some of it is economic. And we might change the utility of that method through 

just the economic parameters of the program. 

You know, I want to touch just—and I know that we’re over, but 

the Chairman said I got the same amount of time, so I want to talk 

about the Special Immigrant Juvenile program. As we know, this 

category has been in the law since 1990, and it provides protection 

to children who essentially have been abandoned by their parents. 

The juvenile court in the given State is the one that makes that 

determination on whether the child before the State court has 

been, in fact, abandoned. 

Now, although your agency is charged with combating fraud, I 

am hearing reports that your adjudicators are seeking evidence essentially to collaterally attack the decisions that have been made 

by State courts about dependency. And I am wondering, absent information about specific fraud, would that be something your agency should do? And what would be the legal basis for a collateral 

attack on a State court determination of juvenile dependency? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Yeah, the concerns about our examination of 

State court findings are issues that have been raised to us frequently by stakeholders. As a former county attorney, I actually 

come with the background of having represented a child welfare 

agency myself, so I understand this process pretty well. 

Those inquiries by our staff members are not meant as collateral 

attacks, but they occur in circumstances where the order issued by 

the family court or the juvenile court or whatever the court of jurisdiction may be does not satisfy, on its face, the requirements of the 

law. In essence, it doesn’t say everything that it needs to say in 

order to qualify under the Special Immigrant Juvenile. It is at that 

point that our officers are asked to look further to ensure that 

those elements are established. 

Ms. LOFGREN. All right. That is very helpful information. 

I see my time has expired, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. GOWDY. The gentlelady yields back. 

Director Rodriguez, at the end of this, I am going to make sure 

the Congresswoman has exactly the same amount of time I have. 

It’s just if I don’t ask that question now, I probably will forget to 
28 

ask it before I go to Chairman Smith, which is that something she 

said prompted me to want to ask this. 

It strikes me that there are at least two things we could say to 

our fellow citizens, one of which is, ‘‘We missed it,’’ as it relates to 

the female terrorist, and that’s just a risk that we’re going to have 

to accept as an open society. The other alternative is to say, ‘‘This 

is what we have learned from that fact pattern, and this is what 

we are doing differently to prevent the next one.’’ 

Which is it? And what assurances could you give that we are 

going to do it differently so there is not a repeat of this fact pattern? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Again, I think the point that I made earlier is 

we’re looking at everything. In other words, we are looking at cases 

that may have happened today, and we are looking at all the issues 

related to where we can do our job better and make sure that, to 

the extent of our ability—we’re never going to eliminate all risk— 

but, to the extent of our ability and the resources that we have, 

that we reduce risk to the greatest extent possible. 

That is a commitment that I make to the American people. That 

is the purpose of having me, as a former prosecutor, as the head 

of the agency, is to really press us to not miss those opportunities 

to do better and to keep the American people safer. 

Mr. GOWDY. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from the great 

State of Texas, Mr. Smith. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Director Rodriguez, it seems to me that the President’s words 

and actions are having an unfortunate impact on both immigration 

levels and on immigration policy. For example, the President’s proposed amnesty led to a surge last year in illegal immigrants coming from Central America, and we’re seeing a similar surge today. 

The President’s proposed changes in our Cuban policies have led 

to a recent surge in Cubans particularly coming across our southern border. Now, they are not illegal immigrants, but the point is 

it has led to a surge as a result of his policies. 

Because of this Administration’s lack of enforcing current laws, 

the number of sanctuary cities has doubled under this Administration. All that is worrisome to me, as is the Administration’s policy 

toward Syrian refugees, which is what I want to ask you about. 

In regard to those applying for asylum from Syria, do you feel 

that we are able to get as much information about their backgrounds as we are applicants for asylum from other countries? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I think we do have. It’s very hard to compare 

because I think it would be easier to take two cases and compare 

two cases. I think comparing one broad body of individuals to another broad body or different nationalities, I think, is a different 

kind of scenario—— 

Mr. SMITH. Right. But you say generally you think we’re getting 

as much information and there’s as much data? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I think we are getting a lot of information that 

is useful, that enables us—— 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ [continuing]. In particular cases to deny individuals applications for refugee status, to put questionable cases on 
29 

hold. I don’t feel able to engage in the kind of comparison that 

you’re inviting me to engage in. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. Well, initially, you said you thought we were 

getting the same. You’re aware, of course, of the FBI Director saying that we are not getting the same amount of data on Syrian refugees as we are other individuals. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. If I understood—— 

Mr. SMITH. Are you aware that the Director of FBI said that? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Oh, yeah, no, I’m aware of that. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. And if I may, Congressman, I think the main 

comparison that was being made—and it’s a hard comparison to 

argue with—is that we’re not in Syria. We don’t have boots on the 

ground in Syria. We did have boots on the ground in Iraq. 

That doesn’t mean that we’re blind. 

Mr. SMITH. No, no. And I’m not implying that. 

The Director of FBI said, ‘‘My concern about bringing Syrian refugees into the United States is that there are certain gaps I don’t 

want to talk about publicly in the data available to us.’’ 

As a result of that, do you think it is more risky to admit individuals from Syria than other countries because we don’t have as 

much information? Or do you think there’s no more risk involved 

in admitting individuals from Syria? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. There is risk in our business. 

Mr. SMITH. No, no. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. And our job is to—— 

Mr. SMITH. That wasn’t my question. I wasn’t asking you about 

general risk. I was asking you, specifically, is it riskier to admit individuals applying for asylum from Syria than from other countries. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I think individuals who come from places where 

terrorists are active, where terrorists are seeking to recruit, command from us a higher level of scrutiny. That is why Syrian refugees, in particular, receive the toughest, most—— 

Mr. SMITH. Right. I understand that, but that doesn’t count for 

anything if there’s no information available. If you don’t have good 

data, you don’t have a good result, no matter how good the process 

is. I’m not questioning the process. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. But that’s the point I’m trying to make through 

concrete example. We have denied people admission because of information that we learned from law enforcement—— 

Mr. SMITH. Is your denial rate for those applying for refugee status from Syria a higher denial rate than other countries? And, if 

so, what is the rate? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Well, I think the denial rate is a deceptive statistic, and I will tell you why. It is very easy to demonstrate a 

claim for refugee status in Syria. Syria is a mess. And there is all 

kinds of sectarian violence, violence based on political opinion. 

Mr. SMITH. Yeah. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. So it would be very hard not to establish a claim 

for refugee status. The question is, is the individual inadmissible 

because they are a terrorist or a criminal? 
30 

Mr. SMITH. I understand that. What was the answer to my question, what is the denial rate for those applying from Syria versus 

the denial rate for those applying from other countries? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. At this point, I believe it is approximately 20 

percent. 

Mr. SMITH. Twenty percent denial? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Yes. Of the group that we have admitted so far. 

In other words, there are a number of individuals in the pipeline, 

so that rate could shift. 

Mr. SMITH. So you admit 80 percent of the refugees from Syria. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Given the very small pool that we’ve seen so far. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. In other words, I don’t think that necessarily 

speaks to what our rates are going to be. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. Seems to me, you know, for a group that seems 

to be riskier and a group on which you have less information than 

those applying for refugee status from other countries, it seems to 

me that that is a dangerously high admission rate. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Yeah, actually—and let me correct that. That is 

a rate of non-admission. 

Mr. SMITH. Right. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. In other words, those could be individuals who 

have either been outright denied or who are on hold. 

Mr. SMITH. I understand. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. They have not been admitted as yet. Again, 

that’s why I say that that could shift over time. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GOWDY. The gentleman yields back. 

The Chair will now recognize the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. 

Conyers. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Welcome, Mr. Director. 

Tell me, what is the Immigration Services doing to ensure that 

the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals renewal applications 

are adjudicated in a timely fashion so that young people don’t suffer some of the grave consequences we’ve heard about? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Thank you, Congressman Conyers. That is an 

important question. 

We did have some circumstances early on, because of delayed applications, because of issues related to either errors in applications, 

background checks, where some individuals were not being approved prior to the expiration of their deferred action. 

We have taken a number of steps to ensure, especially for those 

individuals who actually apply on time, that we are able to finish 

adjudicating those applications before the expiration. 

So what we have done is, first of all, we have extended the time 

at which we give them initial notification of the fact that they’re 

coming up for renewal. We now do it 180 days before expiration 

rather than 150 days. 

We have accelerated the time in the cycle when we begin adjudicating issues that we find with applications. Be it if there are, for 

example, criminal history hits that need to be analyzed or if there 
31 

are errors in the application, we’re doing that earlier in the adjudication cycle than we used to. 

And we have engaged in extensive engagement with communitybased groups to make sure that individuals understand what they 

need to do in order to be ready for us to be able to adjudicate the 

case in a timely manner. 

And those are examples of two among a number of steps that 

we’ve taken. In fact, we’ve seen considerable improvement, and I 

believe all about a fraction of 1 percent of cases are now adjudicated within 120 days of application and, I believe, roughly 90 

percent prior to expiration of those cases. 

Mr. CONYERS. I’m happy to hear that. 

Let me turn to the subject of Haitian Family Reunification Parole. This program has the potential to help many more Haitian 

families, and I want you to tell me what you see as challenges involved in expanding the Haitian Family Reunification Parole Program to include all of the Department of Homeland Security-approved Haitian beneficiaries and not just a small subset. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Again, I think, as you know, generally, parole is 

a tool that is a kind of relief that we use on a case-by-case basis 

either where there is a humanitarian reason or where there is a 

significant public interest. 

What we have done in the Haitian case is created parameters in 

those cases for individuals who have a qualifying family relationship, who are within a certain horizon prior to the ability to adjust. 

That, for us, in designing that policy, seemed to be the right parameters to put on that case. In fact, that has offered relief to a 

number of individuals. 

But we can certainly continue to engage on ways that we can 

possibly improve that program. We certainly know that Haiti, in 

particular, is a country that has had great difficulties in recent 

years. The reason we have the policy altogether is because we believe that it is in the interests of the United States to help Haiti 

and the Haitian people get back on their feet. So we can certainly 

continue to engage on that topic. 

Mr. CONYERS. And let me close by asking you about, with reference to Syrian refugees, since USCIS holds responsibility for conducting in-person interviews with refugee applications to determine 

eligibility, how can it do so in a manner that most appropriately 

assesses for potential threats? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Thank you for that important question. 

Our officers are—first of all, many of them are very experienced. 

The ones who are sent to work in those particular groups of cases 

are among the most experienced. They are briefed extensively, both 

from classified and nonclassified sources, on country conditions 

within Syria. They have benefits of prior interviews conducted of 

those individuals. They have the benefits of the background checks 

conducted of those individuals. 

Those all provide very strong tools for those individuals to conduct thorough and intensive interviews to identify possible bases of 

inadmissibility. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And may I ask unanimous consent to have my statement on this subject entered into the 

record? 
32 

Mr. GOWDY. Yes, sir. Without objection. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Conyers follows:] 

Prepared Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative 

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

The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services is the federal agency 

charged with overseeing lawful immigration into the United States. The agency’s responsibilities include: adjudicating immigration applications, granting citizenship, 

issuing green cards, and making decisions on asylum and other matters for eligible 

individuals, all of which are crucial to our Nation’s security and economy. 

But, I want to preface my remarks by noting that we are holding this hearing 

just two days after a Republican frontrunner in the ongoing race for the Presidency 

of the United States proposed banning Muslims from immigrating to America. 

This is a vile, unconstitutional, and fascist idea that must be confronted and condemned. I will not stand by while an entire religion is maligned. 

As many of you know, my district has one of the largest Arab-Muslim communities in the United States. The community I represent is hard-working, law-abiding, and shares the same American dream as immigrants who came before them. 

The last time Director Rodriguez appeared before our Committee, the Majority alleged that USCIS improperly approves fraudulent petitions and does not properly 

screen applications. Unfortunately, the Majority may make similar allegations of 

fraud and abuse during today’s hearing. 

I agree that we must take all appropriate steps to root out fraud. This is a matter 

of public safety and the integrity of our immigration system. But I fear that my Majority colleagues often substitute political posturing for legitimate discussion. We 

should not insert our disagreements on immigration policy into a discussion on 

agency practice and operations. 

Today, I look forward to hearing, first, about how USCIS plans to address asylum 

backlogs and efforts to ensure there are no more delays in Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals renewal applications. 

Processing delays threaten people’s livelihoods and can disrupt their education, 

healthcare benefits, driving privileges, and even housing and food stability. 

Second, USCIS has been on the front line of implementing the President’s executive actions. While two of these programs, the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and the expanded Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, have been enjoined, 

the other executive actions have been or are in the process of being implemented. 

Accordingly, I look forward to hearing the Director’s updates on USCIS’s progress 

on these executive actions. 

Third, USCIS has led the Administration’s efforts to thoroughly screen Syrian 

and other refugees. Refugees are subject to the highest level of vetting—more than 

any other traveler or immigrant to the United States. 

USCIS relies on methodical and exhaustive background checks, which typically 

range 18 from 24 months on average and longer in many cases. These checks are 

performed by the Departments of Homeland Security and State, in conjunction with 

the CIA, FBI, and other law enforcement and intelligence agencies. 

Nevertheless, I would like to know whether any additional steps should be taken 

to ensure refugee screening is conducted efficiently and effectively. 

In closing, I must note that notwithstanding the advances made by USCIS over 

the past year, our broken immigration system cannot be fixed by agency action 

alone. We must pass comprehensive immigration reform. 

Although the House Majority has refused to bring such a bill to the floor, an overwhelming majority of Americans support comprehensive immigration reform. 

The American people sent us here to solve problems. They demand action on comprehensive immigration reform and I urge my Majority colleagues to list to the 

American public. 

Mr. GOWDY. The gentleman yields back. 

The Chair would now recognize the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. 

King. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And, Director Rodriguez, I thank you for coming back a second 

time within a month’s period of time to testify to us here today. 
33 

I was listening to your earlier testimony, and I was interested in 

a statement that you made. ‘‘Violent criminals can come from just 

about anywhere’’ was a summation of that, although there was a 

little more detail in your statement, as I recall. 

And I’m curious; that statement I don’t have any doubt is true, 

but is there a higher incidence among those violent criminals—let’s 

say, for example, are they more likely male or female? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Again, I take the cases as they come. I don’t 

screen based on whether people are men or women or where they 

come from, because the point is just about everybody can be a bad 

guy. 

Mr. KING. You’ve been in law enforcement for 25 years, and you 

don’t have a judgment on whether they’re more likely male or female? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I have seen male violent criminals, female violent criminals. That’s the point I was trying to make. They can be 

just about anybody. 

Mr. KING. We recognize that, and I recognized that in my first 

sentence to you, I believe. But could we establish here that there 

are more male than female that are committing violent crimes? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I speak to my job as a law enforcement officer. 

When people commit violent crimes or have histories that disqualify them from particular benefit, we do our jobs. 

Mr. KING. Can we recognize that the population of our male prisons are substantially greater than the populations of our female 

prisons? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Sure. 

Mr. KING. Would that be an indicator, then, that—— 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. As far as I know, that is correct. 

Mr. KING. We know that’s correct. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Yeah. 

Mr. KING. And so wouldn’t that be an indicator that males commit more crime and likely more violent crime and more homicides 

than females? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Sure. 

Mr. KING. Okay. So it took us a little while to get to that, and 

I’m thinking it’s going to be a little harder to narrow this down a 

little more. 

Is it against the law to profile? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. It is, certainly, based on race. For example, 

based on national origin, it is against the law to profile. 

Mr. KING. Against the law. Could you cite the laws that prohibit 

law enforcement from profiling? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I couldn’t specifically cite it. It’s based on 

caselaw. It’s based on constitutional caselaw. 

Mr. KING. Not on statute? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. That I’m aware of, there’s certainly not a Federal statute that prohibits—— 

Mr. KING. So, as law enforcement officers, are you prohibited 

from looking for a person based upon a profile? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. You can—for example, if you have somebody 

who is suspected of a crime and there are identifiers—I think this 

is part of where you’re trying to go—identifiers based on their race, 

their national origin, some other identifying characteristic about 
34 

that individual, of course you’re allowed to know that in order to 

be able to catch that individual. 

Mr. KING. And it could be multiple identifying characteristics. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Sure. 

Mr. KING. It could be height, it could be skin color, it could be 

sex, it could be clothing, it could be a vehicle they drive, it could 

be patterns that they have? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Patterns of behavior. 

Mr. KING. Patterns of behavior. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. The bar they go to, I guess, is sort of the example you might be going to. Sure. 

Mr. KING. And then if we happen to see that criminals are coming out of that—I just described a profile, by the way. If they happen to see that criminals are coming out of that profile, are you 

prohibited, then, to give greater scrutiny, by law, to that profile 

that is consistently coming back to us as the most likely profile of 

a violent criminal? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Again, I think as a matter of criminal investigation—and I think, also, this principle applies to antiterrorist investigations—you go where the activity is. So I don’t think that’s 

based on what race the person comes from, what national origin a 

particular group comes from. You go where the activity is. 

Mr. KING. Okay. But we would also know that if we—and I’m not 

going to speak to this specifically, but when we walk through prisons, we get a pretty good idea of the makeup of the prisoners there. 

And you can’t walk out of there and not have some ideas about 

where you’re likely to find crime on the streets in America. Would 

you agree with that? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I think that’s a fairly complicated topic, actually, 

Congressman King. 

Mr. KING. Okay. We got to this place here less than a month ago, 

too, and I wondered if you went back and reviewed a couple of Federal sections of Code, 1101 and 1158, that require that you consider 

the race, the religion, the nationality, the membership in a particular social group, or political opinion as a factor when you do the 

background checks on individuals that are applying for asylum. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Well, those are the bases for either asylum or 

a refugee claim, would be persecution based on membership in 

those categories. 

Mr. KING. Okay. But last time you said that you don’t inquire 

as to religion. Have you had a chance to reconsider? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. And I have to be clear. I misspoke. We actually 

do inquire as to religion as part of the interview. That may be relevant to many elements of the claim. 

Mr. KING. Thank you. I’m glad we got that clarified, and I’m glad 

you had an opportunity to do that. 

And then do you recognize that there are Muslims who are persecuted because of their religion? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Without a doubt, yes. 

Mr. KING. And that there are Christians that are persecuted because of their religion? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Without a doubt, yes. 

Mr. KING. And that there are applications for asylum in both of 

those categories. 
35 

It’s curious to me, when I look at the report from 2015, from 

Syria, 1,573 Sunni Muslims admitted under that and 29 Christians. That would seem to be very disproportionate, to me, when 

I look at the pictures of the film and go over there and see the 

numbers of victims that are displaced and persecuted. In a population of Assyrian Christians that was something like 2 million, 

now down under 400,000, we could only find 29 out of that group, 

but we found 1,573 Sunni Muslims. 

So I’d ask you to consider the religion in perhaps a different light 

than you might be. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Appreciate that feedback. I will certainly let you 

know that we have, both in Syria and in Iraq, we have screened 

and admitted refugees, not just Muslims but from a number of 

other religious minorities, including Christians. 

As I understand it, Christians represent about 1.3 percent of the 

cases seen by UNHCR. So, you know, part of what the proportions 

that you’re talking about reflect is the population of who’s in Syria. 

Last I checked, barrel bombs don’t discriminate. 

Mr. KING. Or the U.N.’s regulator. 

And I’ve run out of time. I thank you, and I yield back. 

Mr. GOWDY. The gentleman from Iowa yields back. 

The Chair will now recognize the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. 

Gutierrez. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Thank you. 

Good to see you, Mr. Director. Thank you for coming and joining 

us and for your service. 

So I won’t try to figure out if you discriminate against Christians 

or Muslims, who you are showing some preference for. I think 

that’s another hearing here. But I’d like to ask you about the new 

guidance on the 3- and the 10-year bar. 

How far are you along to implementation of that new guidance, 

given that one of the most infamous and onerous impediments to 

legal immigration was changing the law in 1996 here with the 3- 

and the 10-year bar? Before that, there was no 3- and 10-year bar. 

Where are we along the way on giving guidance? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. And, Congressman, I share your views about the 

importance of that guidance. There was a clear lack of understanding as to the definition of extreme hardship as a basis for a 

waiver from those 3- and 10-year bars. The draft guidance that we 

issued, I guess a couple of months ago now, was meant to bring 

clarity to that purpose. 

We opened it for comment for 45 days. I will tell you that we received a number of productive comments that we think we will be 

incorporating into the guidance. That comment period is closed 

now, so we’re in the process of incorporating the comments that we 

got. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Yes. How much longer do you predict? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I would venture, again, without being able to be 

exactly specific about it, just a very small handful of months before 

we’ll be ready to issue that as final. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Okay. 

And then who exactly is going to receive this guidance? What’s 

the name of this officer within your service that’s going to receive 

this guidance? 
36 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. They will be Immigration Services officers. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Immigration Services officers. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. We will also, of course, make it public. We will 

take steps to train the staff that will be adjudicating those cases 

so that they understand not just what the guidance says but how 

to use it. And, also, we will—— 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. And how many of these officers exist? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Well, I think, as you know, I have thousands of 

officers—— 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. You have thousands of them. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Yeah. What I can’t tell you right now is how 

many of those are eligible receivers for those kinds of cases. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. For those kinds of—but we have thousands of 

them that could be eligible. 

But they just don’t only determine the 3- and the 10-year bar; 

they determine a wide variety of things. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. That is correct. I would guess that we will have, 

you know, sort of, particular groups of officers working on these 

cases. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. That’s where I was—you must just be able to 

read exactly what I’m thinking. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. It’s been said, Congressman. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Yeah. You’re good. 

I thought, since it’s new guidance—they’re using the old guidance, right? And you’re giving them new training. We might—and 

there’s thousands of them, and you don’t need thousands of them 

to do the 3- and the 10-year bar. You can take a group of people. 

You might want to train a group of people. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Yeah, I mean, it’s curious—— 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. So do we know who the 3- and the 10-year bar 

guy is that’s been trained? Or woman. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Again, I’m not exactly sure who we’re going to 

pick as the eligible, sort of, group of receivers for those cases. I will 

observe this. My guess is that the volume of those kinds of applications will go up now that there’s more clarity. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Okay. Now that there’s more clarity. 

And just for my friends on the minority and the majority side, 

I think this is important, because this could help us. Fifteen, 20 

percent of the 11 million undocumented, with no action of the Congress of the United States, through the sponsorship of an American 

citizen or permanent resident that is eligible to sponsor them, could 

get their undocumented status cleared up. We could start doing the 

work that America sent us here to do. So I think it’s a very important job. 

Secondly, because my time is running out—I’ve got 40 seconds 

more. So, historically, people become citizens, there is an uptick in 

citizenship applications when three things happen: A, you guys increase the price, so people want to get in before there’s an increase 

in price. That’s not happening on citizenship. 

But there are two other things that historically we’ve seen increase people’s participation in becoming citizens. And since 6 million of the 8 million are Mexican nationals that are eligible to become citizens, this is particularly important to a group of people 

that have been called murderers and rapists, and it’s very par-
37 

ticular to them that they could become citizens at this particular 

point. 

So the other two factors are an election and they feel under attack. Well, the feeling under attack, I think even the majority 

would probably say, yep, that one, they’re under attack. And 

there’s an election that they can use to respond to that attack. That 

has been traditionally. 

Are you ready for what I expect to be hundreds of thousands of 

permanent residents who can be—if the past is any indication of 

what you’re going to confront in the coming months, are you ready 

for that uptick in citizenship applications as we get ready to go into 

2016 and those permanent residents legally admitted to the United 

States who feel under attack and want to participate get to participate? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I would add to the drivers the fact that we’re 

also engaged, because there are 9 million legal permanent residents, many of them now for a very long time, in a very active 

process of promoting civic, linguistic, and economic integration of 

legal permanent residents. So we think that, too, will drive people. 

And the answer is, yes, we ready. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. So, in addition to the two that I gave that will 

be drivers, there’s the third. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. We are. And one of—— 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. You guys are out there engaging the community 

civically. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. We are. And because of the importance of naturalization, in particular, we have made sure to bring those processing times in line with target. They are at target. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. My time is up, and the Chairman is so good. I 

just want to make sure that everybody knows we’re out there 

teaching them English, the Constitution of the United States, and 

getting them ready to be American citizens. And nobody can be 

against that. 

Thank you. 

Mr. GOWDY. The gentleman yields back. 

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

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

And, with your permission, I will give my opening statement, 

and then, if times allows after all the other Members have asked 

their questions, I will—— 

Mr. GOWDY. Permission granted. 

Mr. GOODLATTE [continuing]. Ask some questions of Director 

Rodriguez. 

So, Director, your appearance before this Subcommittee comes at 

a time when Americans are feeling increased concern about the security of our Nation and, in particular, about the way U.S. immigration policy is being exploited by those who wish to harm this 

country’s citizens. 

Quite frankly, Americans don’t believe that their interests are 

being put front and center when it comes to decisions about whether or not to issue an immigration benefit to a foreign national. And 

your agency has the responsibility to show a commitment to reversing that belief. 
38 

Today, I hope you can convince us that the USCIS is, in fact, 

putting American interests first, but I am dubious, given recent 

events, immigration benefits data, decisions by your agency, and 

even your own written testimony. 

At the beginning of your testimony, you give the slightest nod to 

‘‘safety and security,’’ one small part of a sentence in fact, and then 

launch into an unabashed commitment to your top priority of implementing the President’s executive actions on immigration. 

As you know, I and many Americans believe that such executive 

action is unconstitutional. It’s a usurpation of Congress’ plenary 

power over immigration law and policy. And despite the outcry to 

that effect, your agency continues to approve Deferred Action for 

Childhood Arrival applications, with a denial rate of only 6.5 percent out of nearly 700,000 approvals. 

But there are many other reasons that my constituents and I 

don’t have confidence in the USCIS. For instance, when the General Accounting Office finds, as it did in a scathing report released 

last week, that USCIS has very limited fraud training for asylum 

officers, that USCIS doesn’t regularly assess fraud risks and, thus, 

doesn’t have in place mechanisms to mitigate fraud, and that, even 

when random reviews of asylum cases to assess whether the cases 

are being adjudicated correctly are conducted, fraud is not considered. 

The fact that the USCIS approved for a K visa a radicalized Islamic extremist, who went on to murder 14 Americans and injure 

many more, does not exactly instill confidence in the work that the 

USCIS is doing. 

The fact that my staff was told that there were no plans to review previously approved Special Immigrant Juvenile cases in light 

of suspected rampant fraud brought to light by a news organization’s superior investigative work does not instill confidence in the 

work that the USCIS does. 

The fact that USCIS issues policy memos determining that individuals initially classified as unaccompanied alien minors can continue to pursue UAM status despite the fact that they subsequently 

live with their parents doesn’t instill confidence. 

The fact that, despite valid concerns about the vetting of refugees 

raised by Members of Congress, the American people, and even the 

Federal Bureau of Investigation and intelligence officials within the 

Administration, USCIS simply tells us not to worry, the vetting 

process is good enough, doesn’t instill confidence. 

The fact that the USCIS keeps abusing what is supposed to be 

its limited discretionary parole authority to create new classes of 

foreign nationals eligible for parole in the United States despite 

Congress’ unwillingness to do so doesn’t instill confidence. 

The fact that there continues to be a seeming rubber-stamping 

of ‘‘credible fear’’ claims for the record high number of individuals 

surging across the southwest border doesn’t instill confidence. 

And the fact that sources tell us that USCIS is considering making it easier for individuals with DUI convictions to get DACA 

doesn’t instill confidence. 

The American people are not impressed with paying lip service 

to security and antifraud measures in written testimony to Congress. They deserve action ensuring their safety and security. 
39 

I appreciate your appearing before the Subcommittee and look 

forward to asking you some questions to follow up on these comments that I have made so that you can assure me, despite all that 

I have outlined and the numerous examples I have yet to outline, 

that the USCIS is putting American interests first. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GOWDY. The gentleman from Virginia yields back. 

The Chair would now recognize the gentleman from Colorado, 

the former fellow prosecutor, Mr. Buck. 

Mr. BUCK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Good afternoon, Mr. Rodriguez. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. It’s nice to see you, Congressman. 

Mr. BUCK. I wanted to ask you, how did Ms. Malik get into the 

country? How did she slip through the procedures that you have? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Again, I am constrained, given, one, there’s an 

ongoing law enforcement investigation and, two, existing policy and 

law with respect to alien files, I am constrained from talking about 

an individual case. 

Mr. BUCK. Okay. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I can certainly describe the process. 

Mr. BUCK. You are a former prosecutor. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BUCK. And I was a former prosecutor also. I didn’t specialize 

in prosecuting dead people. I’m wondering why you can’t talk about 

someone’s application after they have been killed or after they’ve 

died. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Again, without speaking to the specific case at 

hand, without a doubt, there is a law enforcement investigation 

that is ongoing right now. 

Mr. BUCK. Well, there are a lot of law enforcement investigations 

going on right now throughout the country. But how does information on her application that you would have examined or that your 

agency would have examined implicate a Federal investigation? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Our practice is, when there is an ongoing law 

enforcement investigation and when we’re talking about an alien 

file, that we don’t talk about specific cases in public. So those are 

the constraints that I’m under, Congressman. 

Mr. BUCK. Okay. 

What have you learned from the fact that your agency allowed 

someone into this country who ended up participating in a mass 

killing? What changes has your agency made to its procedures? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. We are in the process right now, at the directive 

of the President and the Secretary, of reviewing both cases, the K1 cases in the last 2 years, and also overall looking at our procedures. 

One, a couple of issues that we have identified—remember, we’re 

in this process at two different points. We are at the petition stage, 

when a U.S.-based petitioner is filing a petition for an applicant 

who is abroad. At that point, our only authority, given to us by this 

Congress, is to adjudicate the bona fides of the application. If there 

are inadmissibilities at that point, we don’t have authority at that 

point to do anything about it. 

Mr. BUCK. Well, what authority would you like to have? 
40 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Well, that’s, I think, a discussion that we can 

have going forward. 

Mr. BUCK. Can we have it today in 2 minutes and 1 second? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. We can give technical assistance to this Congress. I’m identifying a particular gap that we’ve seen. 

Mr. BUCK. Could you do anything in terms of developing a profile 

on this particular individual that would help you in your determination of whether other individuals should come into the country? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I’m sorry, Congressman. I know your time is 

short. I don’t think I understood the question. 

Mr. BUCK. Sure. Did you do anything—we all understand what 

happened in San Bernardino, and you know who did it. And you 

had information on this individual that you can’t share with us. 

Did you look at that information and make any changes to your 

background checks and what information you need and what information you’d like before admitting somebody into this country? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. We are weighing changes now and are also looking to see what other changes we may want to make. 

Mr. BUCK. What are you weighing? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Right now, I can’t speak more specifically than 

that, other than to see if there are enhancements to background 

checks, not just in K-1 but possibly in other areas; the points at 

which we do those background checks. Those are among the kind 

of issues that we are looking at. 

Mr. BUCK. Okay. 

Mr. Chairman, based on my inability to get any specific information that’s helpful, I will yield back. 

Mr. GOWDY. The gentleman yields back. 

And I’m sure the gentleman’s frustration is fueled in some part 

not because of this witness, but it’s the Director of the FBI, himself, who has given us some of this information. For instance, I 

read today that the female terrorist was radicalized years before 

her application. That came from the Director of the FBI. 

So I’m not blaming today’s witness. I’m sure he’s doing exactly 

what he was told to do. But you can’t cherry-pick certain information and share that with the public and then hide behind an ongoing investigation and expect to be taken seriously. But that’s not 

a reflection on today’s witness. 

With that, the gentleman from Idaho, Mr. Labrador. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you, Mr. Rodriguez, for being here today. 

I want to start with the affirmative asylum process. You are no 

doubt aware of the December 2 GAO report regarding fraud in the 

asylum process, and I’m sure you were just as troubled as I was 

by the ultimate conclusions. 

I notice that there is significant backlog in affirmative asylum 

adjudications that linger way beyond the established timetables for 

adjudications. Can you provide this Committee with the exact number of cases currently pending adjudication for over 180 days? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I can’t provide that specifically, other than to acknowledge that that number is significant. I can assure this Committee that we are working as fast as we can to hire up asylum 

officers so that we can move those caseloads. 
41 

I also have some things I’d like to say, if the opportunity presents itself, about the GAO report. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Is it your testimony that this is solely due to the 

lack of resources, that the delay is solely due to the lack of resources? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. We’ve certainly seen a significant increase in the 

volume of asylum cases, and so it has necessitated an increase in 

resources to process those cases. 

Mr. LABRADOR. While adjudication times are important to keep 

the process moving, I’m concerned that the GAO found that there 

was no enterprise-wide fraud risk assessment completed by the 

agency. 

I could understand a delay in adjudications if such a fraud assessment was underway. Can you explain why USCIS has not completed such an assessment? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I would say that we are taking a number of 

steps based on the findings that the GAO made. We are adopting 

most of the recommendations that they have made. 

I would also indicate the fact that there have been a number of 

prosecutions for asylum fraud which resulted from our asylum officers identifying those cases as fraud cases. 

So I, to some degree, take issue with certain omissions in the 

GAO report. We are embracing its recommendations. We think it 

will make our work better. 

Mr. LABRADOR. So do you believe that fraud is a pervasive problem in the asylum context? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I believe that it is something that we need to do 

everything we can to prevent. I certainly perceive it as a risk. 

Mr. LABRADOR. So, obviously, when you say ‘‘everything we can 

to prevent it’’—but is it a pervasive problem in the asylum context? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Again, I view it as a risk. I’m not sure that I 

would agree that it is a ‘‘pervasive problem.’’ I view it as a risk that 

we need to safeguard against. 

Mr. LABRADOR. So how many asylum cases are being granted in 

the United States right now, percentage-wise? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I believe it’s roughly 25,000 in recent years. 

Mr. LABRADOR. So what percentage is that of the adjudicated 

cases? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I couldn’t tell you specifically what percentage 

it is. We can certainly get you that information. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Okay. 

Based on USCIS internal investigations and audits, does the 

agency have an estimated percentage of the number of fraudulent 

asylum applications that are affirmatively filed each year? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Again, we know the cases that we found. And 

that’s why I point to the cases where our asylum officers detected 

fraud and flagged those cases. 

We can certainly get you a number of cases where we have specifically identified the—— 

Mr. LABRADOR. Okay. Can you get us a percentage and—— 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Yeah, we can give you a briefing on what we 

know about the, sort of ‘‘pervasiveness’’ of fraud in our cases. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Are asylum officers given the training and resources necessary to detect fraud? 
42 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. They are. And, in fact, they have. They have detected fraud. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Do you believe that the 35 fraud detection and 

national security officers embedded at asylum offices nationwide is 

sufficient to combat the fraud in the process? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. That represents, as I think you know, a doubling 

of the number of fraud detection and national security officers assigned to the asylum. I think that has permitted them to provide 

much greater support to the asylum offices. We’re obviously going 

to continue evaluating whether that is enough, and if we need to 

increase the number, we’ll increase the number. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Do you currently believe it is enough? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I have no reason to believe that it’s not enough. 

Mr. LABRADOR. But what other steps is the agency taking to address this issue? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. The main issues is to continue to train our officers and to make sure that they’re getting the resources they need 

to combat fraud. 

Mr. LABRADOR. I yield back my time. 

Mr. GOWDY. The gentleman from Idaho yields back. 

The Chair would now recognize the former U.S. attorney from 

Texas, Mr. Ratcliffe. 

Mr. RATCLIFFE. Thank you, Chairman Gowdy. 

Director Rodriguez, I want to follow up on a point raised by 

Chairman Goodlatte in his questioning to you, and it’s about your 

stated testimony that your top priority is to implement the President’s executive action on immigration. 

I know you’re a former prosecutor. I am, as well. We both took 

an oath to defend the Constitution. I was one of the first folks who 

questioned the constitutionality of the President’s actions in that 

regard. And while that certainly may not matter to you, I think 

what should matter to you is the opinion of a Federal judge, followed by the opinion of a Federal circuit court of appeals, which 

ruled that the constitutionality of the President’s action still remains very much in doubt. And so for you to make, you know, what 

would appear to be a highly questionable, likely unconstitutional 

action of the President your highest priority is troubling for me. 

This is especially true when there’s very little doubt that it was 

the President’s action in that regard, regarding executive amnesty, 

that was the catalyst for the 2014 surge of unaccompanied alien 

children across our southern border. And even though the courts 

have now issued an injunction on the President’s amnesty, the belief in other countries that you can still simply show up here in the 

United States and be granted amnesty and legal status is very 

much a pervasive belief in those countries. 

And, accordingly, we are, as you know, still seeing a continued 

rise in the influx of unaccompanied alien children. According to the 

Department of Health and Human Services, in just the past 2 

months, the number of unaccompanied minors crossing into the 

United States is 10,000, in just the last 2 months. That’s a spike 

in activity. 

And I know this is a fact because HHS contacted my office to let 

me know that, as a result of this dramatic increase, they’re going 

to have to open additional facilities to handle the influx. And two 
43 

of those facilities are going to be in Texas and are going to open 

on Friday. And one of those facilities is going to open on Friday in 

my district, in Royse City, Texas. 

So, to be clear, we certainly didn’t advocate for this, and we 

didn’t support the policies, which have been the catalyst for this 

crisis, but, nevertheless, we’re left with dealing with the aftermath 

of the President’s actions in this regard. And, as I hope you can appreciate, this is an issue of great concern to my constituents. 

So I want to ask you, the inspector general report back in 2012 

found that 25 percent of the Immigration Service officers were 

pressured to, in their opinion, get to ‘‘yes’’ in handling questionable 

applications. 

And I know that you were not the Director back in 2012, but 

given that the President’s executive amnesty has been put on hold 

by the courts but your stated priority remains administering the 

President’s executive actions in that regard, what assurance can 

you give me—I hope that you can—that presently staffers aren’t 

being asked to approve questionable applications as a way to implement the President’s intended policies in this regard? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. So I’ll tell you exactly what I have done. I have 

communicated with my entire workforce through townhalls, I have 

visited USCIS offices throughout the world, and I have communicated very directly to my officers that the authority to make decisions about cases rests with them and with their supervisors, that 

my role is certainly to set policy, to set procedures, but the individual cases are theirs to decide. 

I have a tremendous amount of respect for my workforce. I have 

gotten to know many of them. I would say that all of them take 

their professionalism far too seriously and their oath far too seriously to be bullied by anybody into making anything other than the 

decision that they believe is right based on the law, based on our 

policies, based on our procedures. 

I haven’t seen the inspector general report that says that 25 percent, ‘‘feel that way.’’ What I have seen is what I have seen, being 

fully engaged with my workforce as its Director, and I have not 

seen evidence of that. 

Mr. RATCLIFFE. Mr. Chairman, it appears my time has expired, 

so I will yield back. 

Mr. GOWDY. I thank the gentleman from Texas. 

And the Chair would now recognize the gentleman from Virginia, 

the Chairman of the full Committee, Mr. Goodlatte. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you. 

Director Rodriguez, it’s my understanding that there was a teleconference last week between the Refugee, Asylum, and International Operations Division and the USCIS office personnel regarding refugee processing. And, on that call, the Deputy Associate 

Director of RAIO, Jennifer Higgins, told the field office personnel 

that, as refugee pools decrease in places from which we have resettled many refugees in recent years like Malaysia and Nepal, our 

real focus is going to be in the Middle East, Jordan, Turkey, Iraq, 

Russia, Kenya. 

Is what Director Higgins said true, that in the next few years essentially the bulk of refugees will be coming from places like Jor-
44 

dan, Turkey, and Iraq, places where we know security is of great 

concern? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. So, Chairman, I am not going to be able to comment on internal deliberations, but let me answer the main question that you’re asking. 

It is, in fact, that there are certain refugee streams that we’ve 

been seeing in recent years where, basically, they are drying up— 

I don’t know that I would necessarily have used that phrase, but 

where the cases are essentially slowing down. 

At the same time, the Syrian example speaks for itself. You have 

4 million applicants for refugee status in Jordan, Lebanon, and 

Turkey. They are coming from a country that is absolutely devastated, more than half of its population displaced. The President 

has been clear in his directive to us that we admit at least 10,000 

people from Syria in this fiscal year, along with an overall target 

of 85,000. We have been very public about that, about those goals. 

So, yes, we are perceiving that in certain places the refugee 

streams are drying up, where, in fact, they’re increasing from other 

countries. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. And it doesn’t concern you that there might be 

security issues in some parts of the world, that it is more difficult 

to vet the refugees? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Oh, of course, it concerns me. And that’s why a 

big part of what I have dedicated myself to is to digging into our 

security vetting process, observing our officers in action, visiting 

them on site, which I have already done—I traveled to Turkey back 

in June. I’ve had engagements with my refugee officers, with my 

asylum officers, as well, to assure myself that we are, in fact, deploying what we have described, and I now believe correctly, as an 

intensive, multilayer process to ensure that refugees deserve the 

status—— 

Mr. GOODLATTE. All right. Well, let me interrupt, because I’m 

going to run out of time, and we have votes on the floor. 

Would it be acceptable for a USCIS asylum officer to grant asylum in cases that they suspect fraud? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. If we suspect fraud, then we need to chase down 

that issue. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. What changes do you plan to make regarding 

asylum processing procedures, given that asylum officers in seven 

out of eight asylum offices the GAO spoke with told the GAO‘‘that 

they have granted asylum in cases in which they suspected fraud’’? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. We are enhancing our training. I am engaging 

with my workforce so that I hear those concerns directly, not just 

through reports. And we will continue to support our officers, both 

in training and also—— 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Support or admonish them to change their practices? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. To support them. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. And to continue to approve cases where fraud 

is suspected? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. If they suspect fraud, then those issues should 

be chased down. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. In May of 2013, the USCIS issued a guidance 

memo regarding asylum applications filed by unaccompanied alien 
45 

children. I have heard from several immigration judges that this 

memo is problematic. One of the end results is that an individual 

initially classified by DHS as a UAC can continue to benefit from 

the UAC status despite the fact that they actually live with their 

parents in the United States. 

How does it possibly make sense that an individual is classified 

as a UAC when the Department of Health and Human Services officials have released them into the care of a parent? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I will need to dig into that issue further, Congressman. That memo was issued before I arrived at the agency. 

I will familiarize myself and get—— 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Does that raise some concerns to you? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Again, I need to know the facts and circumstances related to that directive. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. I understand that the fraud detection and national security officers conduct open-source research on refugee applicants as part of security screening. So they check to see if there 

is evidence that an event that the applicant claimed has occurred 

as evidence in support of a refugee claim actually did occur. 

But isn’t it true that, with open-source checking, an applicant 

could simply describe an event that he or she has heard about or 

has knowledge of and that it really doesn’t prove the individual 

was present at the event? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I am fairly confident that my fraud detection/national security officers are looking at a whole lot more than opensource information when they’re checking claims by our applicants. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Well, I wonder if you could give us a comprehensive description of what it does mean to use open source, 

number one; and, number two, what, in addition, is done when 

open source, in some instances, seems to be the only thing they cite 

as the basis for approval of the claim. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I mean, again, depending on the facts and circumstances, I could see where the open source does not raise the 

concerns that you’re talking about. I also know, however, that our 

officers look to classified, confidential, secret sources, as well, as 

part of our vetting, as part of their evaluation of claims made by 

applicants, be it for refugee status or whatever other benefit lines 

we’re talking about. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you. 

And, Mr. Director, if I might ask, when do you think you could 

provide those answers to the Committee? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Within 2 weeks of today. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. All right. That would be very good. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time has expired. 

Mr. GOWDY. Yes, sir. The gentleman yields back. 

Director, they have called votes. There are 6 minutes left in the 

vote. 

I’m happy to try to get the gentlelady from Texas in. I don’t want 

to jeopardize anybody missing votes. Do you want to go vote? 

I hate to do it to you. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I don’t mind a water break. 

Mr. GOWDY. Okay. 
46 

There are two votes, so we’ll cast both procedural votes. And 

then we’ll come back immediately and recognize the gentlelady 

from Texas. Thank you. 

We’ll be in recess. 

[Recess.] 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I want to thank the Chairman and Ranking 

Member for yielding. 

I want to raise a question about the U visa and those who work 

with immigrant crime victims. And I have had legislation on that 

issue regarding benefits that immigrant victims, crime victims, can 

get. 

But they were asking you to implement a parole program for 

those on the U visa waiting list. And can you tell us what is delaying implementing this program that is so vital to immigrant crime 

victims so that they can participate in the criminal justice system 

and render justice? 

And what comes to mind, of course, first, is the domestic violence, the issue of being taken advantage of, robbed, assaulted, 

raped, based upon their vulnerability and their inability to testify. 

And can I give you a series of questions? So it’s the U visa and 

how long it’s been taking to implement it. I’d be very interested in 

that. 

We had the Director from Department of Justice from the EOIR, 

dealing with immigration courts, but I also know that you work, 

with your responsibilities, to deal with asylum seekers coming into 

the United States. And I just wanted a sort of forceful, if you can 

give it, confidence of the vetting process that you have for those 

refugees. 

Some landed in Houston on Monday, and I hope that the response in Houston was a celebratory one. Because of the recent discussions—they happen to be from Syria—all the news cameras and 

stations were going to film or record their coming into the State. 

I might say that we have been taking refugees in the State of 

Texas for a very long time, and I’m delighted that the State of 

Texas abandoned what was an illegal action to attempt to stop the 

refugees from coming in. But I’d be happy for a—as forceful and 

vigorous as you can. 

My last question, which is one that I may want to probe a little 

bit more, but I really want to track the fiance ́ visa. And let me be 

very clear. Over the years, I’ve seen a number of our men and 

women who have worn the uniform who have brought in their 

fiance ́s from the place in which they have taken up arms. And 

these were wonderful marriages, and this was a wonderful tribute 

to the diversity of people. 

But in the instance of the terrorists and this individual, I cannot 

help but wonder, having discovered publicly that this person had 

been radicalized for 1 or 2 years, as to where we were in that visa 

vetting program. Because it hurts the program, and it should not. 

But she went to very conspicuous places. She was an educated 

woman, which is unusual—when I say ‘‘unusual,’’ in terms of how 

far education is allowed to go in some communities. 

So if you can at least give me some framework. And, as I understand it, her point of departure was Saudi Arabia. And so I am 

very disturbed that she even got into the United States and re-
47 

ceived a fiance ́ visa. And maybe I should ask the question, and I 

can receive it in whatever form, but how long that process took. 

So if you could just start quickly with the U visa and then the 

asylum question, refugee question, and then this K-1 visa, I’d appreciate it very much. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. So, as to the U visa program, I know we’ve been 

working on—the parole program, we’ve been working on developing 

that policy. I know that there is eagerness and urgency, and we 

will continue to work expeditiously. And I appreciate your urging 

us to get it done. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And you keep me updated, please, the Committee. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. As to refugee screening, I would point out that 

we have admitted 785,000 refugees since September 11 and 3 million since the beginning of the modern refugee program, let alone 

how many we admitted prior to the modern program. Not quite 20 

of those 785,000 have been arrested on charges related in some 

way to terrorism. 

So it shows, historically, how that process has, on the whole, admitted people who came here to be law-abiding, hardworking citizens, raising families, just like all of us here. 

Notwithstanding that, we have continued to tighten up the vetting. It is an intense, redundant, multilayered process that involves 

three interviews—one by UNHCR, one by the State Department 

contractor, one by my officers, who are trained in depth on country 

conditions—not to mention extensive background checks that are 

done tapping from intelligence community resources, law enforcement community resources. 

And the key point of evidence here is, in fact, individuals have 

been denied, individual’s cases have been put on hold, either because of derogatory information that was found as a result of those 

background checks or because of things that were discovered during the interview process. 

Finally, as to the fiance ́—— 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Rodriguez, before you go to the last one, 

in my review of the process, there are at least 21 steps. Some of 

those probably are yours; some of them are the State Department. 

But what you are suggesting is it is a layered review. 

And just as a testimony which Members don’t give, I have in my 

State Texas Impact, Catholic Charities, and Interfaith Ministries, 

of which I used to be the chairman of the board. All have been engaged in refugee resettlement over the years, and I have to strain 

myself to find an incident out of the refugee resettlement program. 

You have an ally in me. But I think it is important for the American people to know how stringent the vetting process is. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. No, I appreciate that observation, Congresswoman. I think it is important that the American people understand how intensive a process it truly is, in particular, when people 

are coming from war-torn environments, terrorism-plagued environments like Syria. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you. 
48 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Finally, as to the fiance ́ visa program, I appreciate your observation that most of the relationships that are a 

part of that program are legitimate relationships between people 

who love each other and are trying to start a life together. 

In fact, one of the things that I focused on in most of today’s 

hearing is on the fact that our security posture really needs to be 

for all visa categories. We’re examining the fiance ́ visa program. 

We are looking for different points where we can make improvements in that process. We’re looking retrospectively at those cases 

and identifying whether there are gaps that we need to address. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. May I just pursue a line of questioning? 

When you say reviewing it, I mean, what would you look at? I 

mean, if you want to look at the present circumstance objectively, 

without going into the details, you have a person that seems to 

have traveled to—or came from very challenging areas. And she 

wasn’t marrying a former military or a military person. And it 

seems that there needed to be more assessment, longer period of 

time, than what we did. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Those are exactly the issues that we’re delving 

into. Right now, I can’t speak to the specific case. I’m constrained 

from doing that. But those are the issues we’re digging into right 

now. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me finish, if the Chairman would indulge 

me just for a moment—— 

Mr. GOWDY. Well, I’ve indulged you for 3 1/2 minutes over the 

allotted time. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. You’re very kind, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GOWDY. Can you assure me this will be your final question? 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Yes, I will do so. 

Mr. GOWDY. Okay. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you so very much, Mr. Chairman. 

The Ranking Member and myself went down to the border, a 

summer or two ago, dealing with Central American families that 

we still maintain were fleeing horrific conditions, persecution. And 

they are in the asylum process, which is seemingly delayed, and 

they are now in detention in a lot of numbers. 

We’ve made some progress. But what are you doing with those 

families that have basically been documented that they are fleeing 

murder, pillage, drugs, heinous acts, and they’re in detention as opposed to moving through the asylum process? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Yeah, actually, you know, what we have been 

doing is moving with the ‘‘credible fear’’ and ‘‘reasonable fear’’ 

screenings as quickly as we can. Our processing times for those are 

now below 9 days—I think we’re down to around 6 or 7 days right 

now—to conduct those screening processes. 

Again, if there is a positive finding, then, you know, they move 

forward into the NTA process with the immigration courts. If 

there’s a negative finding, they go home; they’re removed. 

So we are moving expeditiously in that process. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Thank you. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I have two items to put into 

the record, if I might: a letter dated May 7, 2015, to Mr. Leon 

Rodriguez from a number of organizations, dealing with the ques-
49 

tion of the U visa and the numbers of women who experience domestic violence, sexual assault, dating violence, who need to come 

under the U visa, and for it to be moved quickly. 

I ask unanimous consent for the letter to be put into the record. 

Mr. GOWDY. Without objection. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I have an op-ed indicating ‘‘Gilman: Asylumseeking families need help, not detention,’’ dated December 1, 2015. 

I would like to ask for it to be placed into the record. 

The GOWDY. Without objection. 

[The information referred to follows:] 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you. 

Mr. GOWDY. The gentlelady yields back. 

The Chair would now recognize the gentlelady from California 

for any concluding remarks or observations she may have. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a couple of comments. 

I note that the agency is now posting on the Web site waiting 

times in months. It’s kind of like the visa bulletin for asylum cases. 

And it’s backlogged in every office, but I can’t help but notice that 

Los Angeles is twice as long as any other area. So I am hoping that 

efforts will be made to not particularly let L.A. Just completely fall 

off the cliff. Fifty months is—I mean, it’s all too long, but that’s 

really unacceptable. 

I wanted to comment briefly on the open-source issue and also 

consolidating information on asylum. I remember the first asylum 

case I ever worked on was an Iranian who was in the United 

States when the fundamentalists took over and the Shah was deposed, and he was Jewish. And open-source data—I mean, they 

were machine-gunning Jews in Iran, and that was the key element 

to making his case. So the fact that there’s open-source information 

doesn’t mean that it’s not helpful. 

But I’ve always wondered why—and I’d like to, you know, suggest that this be done not only—it should be done in the immigration courts, as well—why don’t we consolidate country information 

and update it, you know, every day? 

I mean, you can read in the paper that last month gangs murdered all the bus drivers in San Salvador and left their bodies in 

the buses. You know, there’s more information—I mean, there are 

things that are material that should be available and shouldn’t 

have to be made part of the record in each and every case. Their 

background data and the assurance of the facts ought to be made 

available. And then applicants can add to it if they wish, but just 

the background data ought to be provided. 

I wanted to mention also that discrepancies in an asylum case 

does not equal fraud. If you have a woman—as Sheila and I, when 

we went down to visit asylum applicants in Dilley and Karnes, and 

we met a lot of women, many of whom had been raped and abused. 

And, honestly, if you put, ‘‘I was raped on X date’’ on one document 

and a different date on another document, it doesn’t mean you’re 

making it up. I mean, you need further inquiry, obviously, but the 

fact that there are discrepancies when people are fleeing chaos and 

violence does not, per se, indicate fraud. And I think it’s important 

to note that for the record. 

I also was concerned by your comment that it’s completely handsoff with officers making determinations. And I think it should be 

hands-off in terms of political interference, but officers can make 

mistakes, and there needs to be some way to correct it. Not that 

they’re bad people, but I remember getting requests for evidence on 

whether a particular petitioning company existed, and it was 

Microsoft. And, you know, that doesn’t mean that the application 

should be approved because there’s a whole—but I could tell them 

that Microsoft did exist as a company. 

We had to request for evidence on whether the job description of 

a former Prime Minister of a European ally of the United States 
62 

was legit. I mean, these are things that were just boneheaded mistakes, and there’s got to be some capacity to fix that, not just say, 

well, we can’t interfere. 

And I’m hoping that it’s a management issue, more than anything else, to make sure that mistakes are made—every congressional office gets complaints, and each one of us has to respond and 

send them to you for correction. And there should be some way to 

deal with that in a systematic way that makes sure, obviously, 

there’s not political interference but that errors are caught and corrected if that is the case. Because usually people contact us when 

they’ve run out—they don’t know what else to do but call their 

Congressman. 

And, finally, just a comment on the Syrian refugees and the 

amount of information available to them. I think comparing the 

Syrian refugees to the Iraqi refugees may be a mistake, because 

the fact is we know more about the Iraqi refugees than any other 

refugees ever, because most of them were our translators and 

they’re people that we know firsthand, we have extensive contacts 

with them. I think the real comparison is a Congolese refugee or 

somebody who fled complete chaos where we don’t have anybody on 

the field. 

And so the challenge is, how do you find out the truth when you 

don’t have—because the situation is so hazardous, you can’t have 

American officials in the field. And the truth is you do that by creating crowd-sourcing, in a sense, I mean, by recreating an entire 

history of an area and then seeing if what the person is saying is 

true or not true. And we’re going to make mistakes, but we’re not 

going to be reckless in that decisionmaking either. 

So I want to thank the Chairman for giving me the additional 

time so we’ll be even. I would just finally note that if you read the 

Fifth Circuit decision on the administrative actions taken by the 

Secretary of Homeland Security, it was really focused on the Administrative Procedure Act and whether the Administrative Procedure Act applied in these discretionary actions. It wasn’t really a 

finding of unconstitutionality. I just thought it was worth pointing 

that out for the record. 

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

Mr. GOWDY. The gentlelady yields back. 

Director, I want to thank you for your patience. I want to make 

a couple of observations, and then I want to end it by allowing you 

to answer an open-ended question. 

The first observation I want to make is for folks that are following this issue. And I would argue, and I know you would agree, 

a lot of folks are following this issue nationwide because of what 

happened in California and, frankly, because of some comments 

made by other Administration officials with respect to the refugee 

program. There’s a justified, legitimate sense of angst. 

And I’m glad to hear that you did not confine your remarks today 

to just the K visa process, that you understand that there’s both 

a prospective and retrospective need to evaluate all the visa processes. So I want to thank you for that. 

I want to say this delicately but as firmly as I can. I realize that 

we learn a lot post-tragedy. It’d be great if we could learn some of 

these lessons pre-tragedy. We just have a tendency to want to 
63 

focus—I’ve read more articles today in the last couple of days about 

the K visa program than I have probably read in the last 10 years. 

It’d be great if it did not take something like what happened in 

California for all us, frankly, to redouble our efforts to make sure— 

the first objective should be to prevent it from happening, not to 

figure out what happened afterwards. 

I have no reason to quarrel with the statistics, the crime statistics, that one of my colleagues shared with you. I don’t know 

whether they’re accurate or not, but I have no reason to quarrel 

with them, other than to say this: The margin for error is very, 

very, very small. In fact, it’s nonexistent. And we can get it right 

a lot of the time. We can get it right the overwhelming majority 

of the time. But there’s still risk. And, at some point, as a country, 

we’re going to have to weigh and balance the risk with what we 

perceive to be the reward of the program. 

What I want to do at the end is, I’m not going to ask you questions that I know you cannot answer, but I do want to put the 

questions on the record. So I don’t expect you to answer them, I 

realize that you cannot answer them, but I want people to have a 

sense of what I think Congresswoman Lofgren and I would both 

like to ask. She’s willing to wait until the Bureau concludes its investigation. I’m a little, maybe, more skeptical of whether or not it 

can’t be done now. 

But, regardless, I would like to know if the female terrorist did 

travel to the United States in July of 2014 on an approved K visa. 

The media reports are that she did. If the Director of the FBI can 

say certain things, I would think that that could be either confirmed or not confirmed. 

At which embassy or consular post was the visa issued? 

Are the reports correct that one or more of the addresses she listed on her visa application were wrong? And it can be mistakenly 

wrong or it can be fraudulently wrong, and it’s important which it 

was, if either. 

Did she undergo an in-person interview with a consular officer? 

And if so, how long did that in-person interview last? 

When did she first apply for the K visa? 

What does the investigation consist of before you get to the inperson consular interview? Were her neighbors interviewed in the 

country of origin? Her work history, school, employers? 

You know, it strikes me, Director, that this country is conferring 

a privilege on people to allow them to immigrate here. Therefore, 

we should be able to ask to see whatever information we think 

would be relevant to that inquiry, whether it is cell phone records, 

if that’s applicable in a country, or whether it is interviewing 

neighbors. 

I want to make this one observation. I’m not going to pressure 

you. You say you can’t answer the questions. I get that. I respect 

the fact that prosecutors and law enforcement officers oftentimes 

cannot comment on whether or not an investigation is even ongoing. 

I would tell you that people like consistency because it breeds 

confidence. And our President has, on at least two different occasions, commented during an ongoing investigation. And I try not to 

criticize him gratuitously, but when you comment on an ongoing in-
64 

vestigation, as he has done twice, on the merits, the facts, and then 

you ask Administration officials who come before Congress and, in 

my judgment, correctly note that they could not comment on an ongoing investigation, it breeds a lack of confidence. 

I don’t think the lack of confidence is with you. I just think the 

President would do well to take the same advice that you have received, which is, if you don’t know what you’re talking about, it’s 

better to say nothing. 

With that, we’re all going to go back to our districts at some 

point, hopefully in the next week or so, and I think we’re likely to 

be asked, are we safer than we were a month ago, are we safer 

than we were 6 months ago, with respect to what we’ve learned 

about the visa. 

I want to let you close us out by giving an assurance, if you’re 

able to, that we’ve already taken steps to at least make us safer 

than we were the day before the incident happened in California. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Thank you, Chairman, for that invitation. 

Again, without being able to go right now into the specific details, there are affirmative steps that we are preparing to take now 

that will certainly enhance our visibility into the backgrounds of at 

least certain categories of individuals who seek admission to the 

United States. I think as we complete our process of review, we 

will be able to talk in greater detail as to what that means. 

Mr. GOWDY. When and if you learn that it is appropriate for the 

Ranking Member and I or anyone else who’s interested to review 

that file, we would like to do so. I don’t want to interfere with an 

investigation, but I also don’t want that to be cited as a reason if 

it’s not legitimate. So if it’s brought to your attention that it’s okay, 

Ms. Lofgren and I will be happy to come to wherever the file may 

be. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Understood, Chairman. Thank you. 

Mr. GOWDY. With that, we want to thank you again, particularly 

for accommodating our vote schedules and for answering all the 

Members’ questions and the collegiality with which you always 

interact with the Committee. 

With that, we are adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:36 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

Æ