U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

75–309 PDF 2012

AFTERMATH OF FRAUD BY 

IMMIGRATION ATTORNEYS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

IMMIGRATION POLICY AND ENFORCEMENT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JULY 24, 2012 

Serial No. 112–135 

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 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas, Chairman 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TED POE, Texas 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

DENNIS ROSS, Florida 

SANDY ADAMS, Florida 

BEN QUAYLE, Arizona 

MARK AMODEI, Nevada 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., 

Georgia 

PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois 

JUDY CHU, California 

TED DEUTCH, Florida 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

JARED POLIS, Colorado 

RICHARD HERTLING, Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

PERRY APELBAUM, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION POLICY AND ENFORCEMENT

ELTON GALLEGLY, California, Chairman 

STEVE KING, Iowa, Vice-Chairman 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

DENNIS ROSS, Florida 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

GEORGE FISHMAN, Chief Counsel 

DAVID SHAHOULIAN, Minority Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

JULY 24, 2012 

Page 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

The Honorable Elton Gallegly, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and 

Enforcement .......................................................................................................... 1 

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

of California, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Immigration Policy 

and Enforcement .................................................................................................. 2 

WITNESSES 

Waldemar Rodriguez, Deputy Assistant Director, Transnational Crime and 

Public Safety Division, Homeland Security Investigations, U.S. Immigration 

and Customs Enforcement (ICE), U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS) 

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

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

Sarah M. Kendall, Associate Director, Fraud Detection and National Security 

Directorate, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 13 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 15 

Chris Crane, President, National Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

Council 118, American Federation of Government Employees 

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

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

Laura Lichter, President, American Immigration Lawyers Association 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 33 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 35 

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Material submitted by Sarah M. Kendall, Associate Director, Fraud Detection 

and National Security Directorate, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services ......................................................................................................................... 43 

(1) 

AFTERMATH OF FRAUD BY 

IMMIGRATION ATTORNEYS 

TUESDAY, JULY 24, 2012 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION

POLICY AND ENFORCEMENT, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:08 p.m., in room 

2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Elton Gallegly 

(Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Gallegly, King, Gowdy, and Lofgren. 

Staff Present: (Majority) Dimple Shah, Counsel; Andrea Loving, 

Counsel; Emily Sanders, Professional Staff Member; (Minority) 

David Shahoulian, Subcommittee Chief Counsel; and Gary Merson, 

CIS Detailee. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. I call to order the Subcommittee and welcome to 

the hearing of the Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement. I especially want to welcome our witnesses and thank 

you all for joining us here today. 

I am joined by my colleague from California, the distinguished 

Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, Ms. Lofgren, and we will 

start the hearing with an opening statement and then we will 

allow Ms. Lofgren to have her opening statement. 

Unscrupulous notary publics, immigration consultants, and immigration lawyers have increasingly utilized fraudulent tactics to 

obtain immigration benefits for their clients. Unfortunately, this 

type of immigration fraud is usually identified after the fact, when 

an immigrant has already fraudulently obtained the benefit. 

In order to combat this fraud, on June 9, 2011, the executive 

branch unveiled a multi-agency nationwide immigration service 

scams initiative. As part of the initiative, the Department of Justice works with ICE and USCIS investigators to secure convictions—with sentences up to 8 years in prison and forfeiture and 

restitution of over $1.8 million—for those who commit fraud on the 

immigration system as legal representatives. 

But what of the immigrants who receive the immigration benefits based upon fraudulent applications? On its ICE Web site, ICE 

boasts of numerous instances where Homeland Security investigations charged, and the Department of Justice has gone on to prosecute and convict, attorneys committing fraud. In one of the largest 

cases in immigration fraud history, Earl Seth David and his law 

firm submitted fraudulent claims to labor and immigration authoriVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:14 Oct 04, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072412\75309.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
2 

ties concerning tens of thousands of immigrants sponsored for immigration benefits. David pled guilty and faces a minimum sentence of 25 years in prison. To date, the government has identified 

at least 25,000 applications submitted by his firm. 

In another example, Maryland lawyer Patrick Tzeuton was convicted of conspiracy to prepare false asylum applications, immigration fraud, and obstruction of official immigration proceedings. 

Tzeuton prepared over 1,100 asylum applications, many of which 

are believed to be fraudulent. In support of these applications, he 

and his assistants submitted fraudulent supporting affidavits such 

as fake medical certificates demonstrating that an immigrant had 

been beaten and tortured in Cameroon. So far, of the 1,100-plus 

cases he handled, only 40 have been identified for further action by 

ICE and referred to USCIS. Tzeuton was convicted in 2009. None 

of the immigrants involved have been removed as of this date. 

The jury is still out on whether DHS makes a concerted and vigorous effort to go back and revoke immigration benefits after attorneys have been found to engage in fraud. In some instances, DHS 

has apparently revoked thousands of benefits. In other cases, little 

seems to have been done, even where attorneys were convicted 

years ago and DHS boasted of uncovering the fraud. Clearly, how 

DHS responds to the David case will be the acid test of its commitment. 

Immigrants who obtain benefits by fraud with the assistance of 

counsel make a mockery of our immigration system, which is the 

most generous anywhere in the world. We must hope that at the 

very least when DHS proclaims that it has uncovered immigration 

attorney fraud, it will conduct a thorough case-by-case review of 

immigrants that that attorney represented. 

At this point I will yield to the gentlelady from California, the 

Ranking Member, Ms. Lofgren. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Today’s hearing is an important one. Immigration fraud undermines the integrity of the U.S. immigration system. At the same 

time, it harms innocent victims, delays adjudications for legitimate 

individuals and employers, and can cost the government significant 

resources. Immigration fraud, especially when committed by members of the Bar, is deplorable and it has no place in our system. 

One of the fraud schemes mentioned by the Chairman we will 

discuss today was massive. That is the fraud scheme of New York 

attorney Earl Seth David, who may have submitted as many as 

25,000 fraudulent applications and petitions, according to the U.S. 

Attorney’s Office in the Southern District of New York. USCIS, 

ICE, the Department of Labor, and the U.S. Attorney’s Office 

should be commended for identifying, investigating, and successfully prosecuting this fraud. But work needs to be done. As we will 

hear today, USCIS is reviewing the immigration cases connected to 

the David fraud scheme to ensure that benefits were properly 

granted, and USCIS will continue to take action to revoke or rescind those that were not. 

I oppose fraud, and earlier in this Congress I introduced the Student Visa Reform Act to address fraud in our student visa program. 

That legislation would require that colleges and universities be 

fully accredited before they can accept and enroll foreign students. 

3 

If enacted, my bill would go a long way toward ending large-scale 

immigration fraud schemes recently uncovered in various institutions throughout the country. I want to thank Chairman Smith for 

working with me on this bill and for his efforts to have the bill considered on the House floor. 

Based on what we learn at this hearing, we may very well need 

to work together to address fraud in other areas as well. For example, USCIS may need additional authority to conduct site visits or 

audits in questionable cases. When conducted in an efficient manner that is not redundant or overly burdensome, site visits and audits can be effective tools to combat fraud. I will work with my colleagues and USCIS leadership to explore this and other means to 

ensure the continued integrity of the immigration system. 

While we seek ways to prevent immigration fraud, I do want to 

sound a cautionary note and provide a bit of context. The immigration fraud we discuss today is significant, but we must keep in 

mind that USCIS adjudicates some 6 million immigration benefits 

applications and petitions annually—the vast majority for qualified 

and legitimate individuals and employers. 

Additionally, although some immigrants are complicit in fraud, 

some are unwilling victims. Some may have been truly eligible for 

immigration benefits but nevertheless charged exorbitant legal fees 

or left to wait months or even years for applications that were 

never properly filed. Some were taken advantage of and are now 

paying the price as their hopes of becoming permanent residents or 

U.S. Citizens are delayed or even shattered. So we must consider 

such victims when we decide how to move forward. To allow immigration fraud to irreparably harm vulnerable innocents who are in 

fact eligible for immigration benefits would only add insult to injury. 

We have a distinguished panel, including government officials 

from ICE and USCIS here today, and I look forward to hearing 

their testimony, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. I thank the gentlelady. 

At this time we will go to our panel of witnesses. Our first witness is Mr. Waldemar Rodriguez. He currently serves as the Deputy Assistant Director for Homeland Security Investigations’ Transitional Crime and Public Safety Division. Prior to this assignment, 

Mr. Rodriguez served as DAD for HSI Domestic Operations, acting 

as Assistant Director for the HSI Workforce Management Division 

and as the Unit Chief for HSI Workforce Management Staffing Solution Unit at the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. 

Mr. Rodriguez began his law enforcement career in 1991 as a police officer with the Puerto Rico Police Department. In 1997, Mr. 

Rodriguez entered the Federal service as a Special Agent with the 

Office of Inspector General, Federal Emergency Management Agency, and then transferred to the former U.S. Customs Service as a 

Special Agent in 2001. Mr. Rodriguez holds a Bachelor of Arts Degree in social services from the University of Turabo and a Master’s Degree in public administration from the University of Puerto 

Rico. 

Welcome, Mr. Rodriguez. 

4 

TESTIMONY OF WALDEMAR RODRIGUEZ, DEPUTY ASSISTANT 

DIRECTOR, TRANSNATIONAL CRIME AND PUBLIC SAFETY 

DIVISION, HOMELAND SECURITY INVESTIGATIONS, U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT (ICE), U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (DHS) 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Chairman Gallegly, Ranking Member Lofgren, 

thank you for the opportunity to discuss ICE’s efforts to address 

large-scale immigration benefit fraud, our investigation into the 

Earl David Law Firm, as well as our efforts to investigate benefit 

fraud facilitators in general. 

Benefit fraud undermines the integrity of the legal immigration 

system. In most cases, it involves the knowing and willful misrepresentation of a material fact on a petition or application to gain 

an immigration benefit. Fraudulently obtained benefits enable an 

alien who would otherwise be declined a visa or other immigration 

benefits to enter or reside in the United States and live in our communities under a guise of legitimacy. Large-scale fraud facilitators, 

such as those found in the Earl David law firm, have the potential 

not only to provide access to illegally obtained benefits and documents but to provide coverage for those engaged in criminal activity. 

Benefit fraud is complex and challenging to investigate and often 

involves sophisticated schemes and multiple coconspirators. These 

cases can require substantial resources and time to investigate and 

prosecute. USCIS refers suspected fraud to the ICE Benefit Fraud 

Units, or ICE BFUs, for all conspiracies as well as individual violators when certain criteria are met. Once the fraud referral is received by the ICE BFU, the BFUs vet and potentially refer the suspected instances of fraud to the appropriate Homeland Security Investigations office, or HSI. 

The memorandum of agreement between USCIS and ICE on the 

investigation of immigration benefit fraud was signed in September 

2008, to formalize this referral process. This MOA defines the roles 

and procedures that enable both agencies to focus resources on taking action against criminal organizations, fraud facilitators, and 

corrupt attorneys. 

HSI directs most of its antifraud efforts to the HSI-led Document 

and Benefit Fraud Task Forces, or DBFTFs. There currently 19 

DBFTFs nationwide working in collaboration with our Federal, 

State, and local partners. DBFTFs combat the criminal organizations that exploit the United States immigration system and investigate individuals who violate criminal or immigration laws who 

may pose threats to national security or public safety. 

While HSI is responsible for investigating the criminal aspects of 

those schemes, it also plays a role in preventing unauthorized applicants from obtaining and retaining benefits through fraud. HSI 

recognizes that in investigations of large-scale benefit fraud, the 

work does not end with the prosecution of the attorney, facilitator, 

or preparer. To that end, the ICE BFUs supply USCIS Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate, or FDNS, with its case 

findings on the completion of the criminal case. HSI and USCIS 

have agreed that HSIs will initiate removal proceedings when applicable on subjects who were criminally prosecuted. USCIS purVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:14 Oct 04, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072412\75309.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
5 

sues administrative action on the remaining beneficiaries of fraudulent applications identified over the course of the investigation. 

This process is aided greatly by FDNS, a major partner in our 

DBFTFs and a significant contributor in the identification, investigation, and prosecution of these large-scale fraud schemes. Our 

HSI field offices regularly coordinate on a local level with their respective FDNS partners regarding benefits suspected to have been 

obtained fraudulently. This gives USCIS the opportunity to take 

necessary administrative action on these cases. By implementing 

criminal and administrative remedies and educating the public on 

these efforts, we seek to prevent the identified broad conspiracies 

from continuing, ensure the profits are eliminated, and deter others 

from perpetrating these schemes. 

The Earl David law firm case is just one example of the work 

HSI, FDNS, and our DBFTF partners have accomplished since the 

task force was established. HSI recognizes the importance of ensuring that all aspects of a benefit fraud investigation are addressed 

as it specifically pertains to the people who receive a benefit to 

which they were not entitled. We have identified best practices and 

are evaluating how to institutionalize these practices across the 

board, using our existing budget and resources. 

Along with USCIS, we will continue to work on these and other 

benefit fraud initiatives to ensure the integrity of the legal immigration system. ICE is committed to working these important cases 

and recognizes the significance of addressing the fraudulent beneficiaries identified through our criminal investigations. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you today. 

I would be pleased to answer any questions at this time or later. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you, Mr. Rodriguez. A particular thankyou for keeping an eye on the lights. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rodriguez follows:] 

6 


WR-1.eps
7 


WR-2.eps
8 


WR-3.eps
9 


WR-4.eps
10 


WR-5.eps
11 


WR-6.eps
12 

Mr. GALLEGLY. You heard the bells go off a few minutes ago. 

What that means is in about 8 minutes we are going to start voting. I think we have two votes. I would like to come back and finish 

this hearing. And, hopefully, we won’t keep you waiting too long. 

If you can stay with us for another half hour after we get back, we 


WR-7.eps
13 

can probably wrap this up. But we will probably be out for about 

a half hour. 

Our next witness, Ms. Sarah Kendall, is the Associate Director 

for the Fraud Detention and National Security Directorate at U.S. 

Citizenship and Immigration Services, USCIS. In May, 2012, Ms. 

Kendall joined USCIS directly from the National Security staff, 

where she served as the Director for Border and Interior Enforcement since January, 2010. 

Ms. Kendall received her Bachelor’s Degree in international affairs and Spanish from Trinity University in 1989. She received 

her Juris Doctorate from the University of Houston Law Center in 

1996. 

Welcome, Ms. Kendall. 

TESTIMONY OF SARAH M. KENDALL, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, 

FRAUD DETECTION AND NATIONAL SECURITY DIRECTORATE, U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES 

Ms. KENDALL. Chairman Gallegly and Ranking Member Lofgren, 

Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to 

testify before you today on behalf of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services on the processes for reviewing cases associated with 

attorneys and preparers convicted of immigration fraud. 

Created in 2004, the Office of Fraud Detection and National Security was promoted to a directorate by USCIS Director Alejandro 

Mayorkas in early 2010 to further reflect the prioritization of our 

agency’s mission to help safeguard our Nation’s security and to protect the integrity of the legal immigration system. As the newly appointed Associate Director of FDNS, I maintain oversight responsibility for USCIS’s fraud detection and national security efforts. I 

am eager to lead the directorate and I am excited about the mission and work of FDNS, which spans the USCIS priority areas of 

fraud and national security. 

FDNS is responsible for managing procedures and policies governing our fraud work, prevention work, and national security 

threats. FDNS performs administrative investigations designed to 

ensure consistent detection, documentation, and prevention of immigration benefit fraud. 

USCIS’s process for combating fraud involving attorneys and preparers includes close collaboration with our partners at ICE and 

our law enforcement agencies. We regularly apply what we have 

learned from these relationships through information sharing, investigation, and training. 

As Director Mayorkas testified before this Subcommittee on February 15, USCIS has undertaken significant steps to protect the integrity of the Nation’s immigration system and to help safeguard 

our Nation’s security. We take careful note of fraud indicators, patterns, and schemes, as we did in the David Law Firm case. This 

allows us to strengthen our standard operating procedures and reduce program vulnerabilities. 

I would like to take a minute to reiterate for you just a few of 

these proactive measures and provide a short list of what is already detailed in my written testimony on USCIS’s current 

progress and prioritization in the area of antifraud enhancements. 

14 

Since 2010, FDNS has increased the number of officers, analysts, 

and staff by approximately 25 percent and allocated new FDNS positions in field offices and service centers to strengthen coordination and collaboration with our front office and front line employees. USCIS and ICE have prioritized attorney and preparer fraud 

as one of the priority case types that is referred to ICE for criminal 

investigation and USCIS and ICE work closely together to successfully manage such cases. 

USCIS has issued recent NTA guidance to all field offices that 

instructs that when there is a finding of fraud in any case, the 

NTA will be issued and the matter will be referred to ICE. USCIS 

has worked with the Department of Justice, the Federal Trade 

Commission, and State and local authorities to launch the Unauthorized Practice of Immigration Law Initiative and we are members of the Sentinel Law Network. We have established guidelines 

for the eligibility of attorneys and other representatives who practice before us. We have implemented and improved antifraud training programs nationwide to provide adjudicators with new skills for 

fraud detection, referral, and the use of fraud indicators. 

We have launched fraud reporting tools to begin delivering fraud 

bulletins in real time to agency personnel. We have implemented 

the Validation Instrument for Business Enterprise, commonly 

known as the VIBE, to enhance our ability to verify key information about suspected sponsoring employers, organizations, or companies. 

Earlier in the process, we have performed 17,000 site inspections 

under the Administrative Site Visit and Verification Program. Finally, we have enhanced our oversight verification efforts through 

collaboration with the Department of State and enhanced information sharing for asylum fraud initiatives. 

The fraud improvements I have detailed in my testimony today 

allow USCIS to more swiftly recognize and address fraud in the immigration system. I want to assure the Subcommittee that USCIS 

and its FDNS Directorate take every measure to ensure that the 

agency deters, detects, and responds aggressively to immigration 

benefit fraud. 

On behalf of USCIS Director Alejandro Mayorkas and all of our 

colleagues at USCIS, I thank you for your continued support of the 

work of FDNS. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, 

thank you for the opportunity to provide you information on the 

status of our program, and I look forward to responding to your 

questions. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Ms. Kendall, thank you very much for your testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Kendall follows:] 

15 


SMK-1.eps
16 


SMK-2.eps
17 


SMK-3.eps
18 


SMK-4.eps
19 


SMK-5.eps
20 


SMK-6.eps
21 


SMK-7.eps
22 


SMK-8.eps
23 


SMK-9.eps
24 

Mr. GALLEGLY. With the panel’s patience, we will have two votes, 

and I will do everything possible to have us back by 3 o’clock. I 

really do appreciate your patience, something that we have no control over. 


SMK-10.eps
25 

The Committee stands in recess until we return from this series 

of votes. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Calling the Subcommittee back to order. Thank 

you very much for your patience. It seems inevitable that we end 

up having votes right in the middle of our hearings, but we have 

got to keep America going. 

Our next witness is Mr. Chris Crane. Mr. Crane currently serves 

as the President of National Immigration Customs Enforcement 

Council 118, American Federation of Government Employees. He 

has worked as an immigration enforcement agent for the U.S. Immigration Customs Enforcement, better known as ICE, at the Department of Homeland Security since 2003. Prior to his service at 

ICE, Chris served 11 years in the United States Marine Corps. 

Semper fi and welcome. 

TESTIMONY OF CHRIS CRANE, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT COUNCIL 118, 

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES 

Mr. CRANE. Thank you, Chairman Gallegly and Ranking Member 

Lofgren. In preparation for my testimony, I spoke with ICE attorneys, Citizenship and Immigration Service employees and supervisors, and ICE employees and supervisors. All voice strong concerns that immigration fraud is widespread and ignored by the 

Federal agencies tasked with enforcing United States immigration 

laws. 

As a rule, when fraud is suspected or confirmed, no action is 

taken against the alien involved or their attorney. While fraudulent 

claims are common during court proceedings, not all private attorneys engage in fraudulent activity and not all aliens engage in 

fraudulent activity. Typically, the same attorneys engage in fraudulent activities again and again. 

ICE attorneys allege that supervisors and judges openly discuss 

these fraudulent activities but take no action. Some private attorneys blatantly lie to ICE, making fraudulent claims from being deported. Employees I spoke with are not aware of any private attorney being investigated or disciplined for attempting or succeeding 

in preventing the deportation of an alien through fraudulent and 

false claims made to ICE. 

The CIS adjudicators and field supervisors expressed similar concerns. Both indicate that CIS supervisors are aware that fraud occurs daily, but no action is taken. One employee attending a CIS 

town hall meeting reported that managers told CIS employees at 

the meeting that if 50 percent of the application for benefits is 

fraudulent, it should still be approved, showing the extent to which 

fraud is accepted by managers in the field. CIS employees report 

that aliens and their attorneys frequently lie during interviews to 

obtain benefits, but disciplinary action is not sought, no action is 

taken to stop future fraud, and the alien’s application is not impacted. CIS adjudicators and field supervisors claim that training 

for fraud prevention is not provided and training requests are ignored. One CIS supervisors stated, ‘‘It’s as if they don’t want employees trained in fraud detection.’’ 

26 

Similarly, most employees don’t know how to report suspected 

fraud by private attorneys for investigation. Veteran CIS and ICE 

employees all indicated that reports to supervisors regarding suspected fraud by private attorneys resulted in no action and that as 

employees they did not know how to file reports of fraud outside 

their chain of command. 

As immigration fraud is a crime, it is no surprise that many 

aliens who receive status through fraud often commit crimes after 

receiving lawful status. These criminal activities often result in investigations by ICE. If an investigation indicates the alien or attorney engaged in immigration fraud, supervisors direct officers to ignore the fraud, officers are told that once lawful status is granted 

to an alien, even though violation of law was involved, no action 

will be taken to revoke the alien’s status unless that status is revoked based on new convictions. 

Likewise, no action is taken against private attorneys involved. 

Employees maintain that ICE and CIS will only take action in 

cases involving large-scale fraud or the media. One CIS supervisor 

confirmed it is the unwritten policy of CIS that once lawful status 

is granted it will not be revoked, even when known that the status 

was obtained through fraud. 

As a rule, there is no consequence to private attorneys or their 

clients who engage in fraud, even when reported by CIS and ICE 

employees. Attorneys who are suspected of fraud continue to practice in immigration courts and CIS offices. As one ICE attorney 

stated, Why play by the rules when there is no consequence for violating the law? 

Employees believe that CIS has become a production line with a 

singular purpose of approving as many benefits applications as possible, ignoring fraudulent activities. Resisting these practices results in retaliation by managers. 

Private attorneys arrested for fraud often continue to represent 

aliens inside government facilities. One attorney was arrested following grand jury indictment for obtaining fraudulent visas for as 

many as 5,000 clients. Released on ankle monitor pending trial, the 

attorney was permitted to enter CIS facilities and continue representing aliens seeking benefits. A CIS employee arrested for the 

same crime would of course be prohibited from entering the CIS offices altogether. 

It is alarming that fraud has become an accepted practice within 

our immigration system. In post-9/11 America, it is concerning that 

employees are not trained to detect fraud, employee reports of 

fraudulent activities are ignored, and agencies have not adopted 

zero tolerance policies to stop fraudulent activities. 

This concludes my testimony. Thank you. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you very much, Mr. Crane. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Crane follows:] 

27 


Crane-1.eps
28 


Crane-2.eps
29 


Crane-3.eps
30 


Crane-4.eps
31 


Crane-5.eps
32 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Our next witness, Ms. Laura Lichter, is the President-Elect of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, or 

AILA. She has been an elected member of AILA’s leadership for 

over a decade and has served as the association’s top liaison to key 

immigration enforcement bureaus of the Department of Homeland 

Security and the Department of Justice. Ms. Lichter is AILA’s liaison to the American Bar Association Commission on Immigration 

and serves on the Federal Bar Association’s Immigration Law SecVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:14 Oct 04, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072412\75309.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA

Crane-6.eps
33 

tion Advisory Board. Ms. Lichter recently served on the Homeland 

Security Council’s task force on ICE’s Secure Communities. She is 

also former chair of AILA’s Colorado chapter. 

Ms. Lichter is the founder and managing partner of Lichter Immigration and Immigration Practice. Miss Lichter received her undergraduate at Swarthmore College and her JD from the University of Colorado School of Law. 

Double welcome to you this afternoon, Ms. Lichter. 

TESTIMONY OF LAURA LICHTER, PRESIDENT, 

AMERICAN IMMIGRATION LAWYERS ASSOCIATION 

Ms. LICHTER. Thank you, Chairman, and thank you, Ranking 

Member Lofgren, for inviting AILA to testify on this extremely important issue. 

As many of my co-panelists have testified today, terrible harm 

results when unscrupulous individuals prey on the ignorance of 

others, falsely claiming that they can help people comply with our 

complicated immigration laws. The financial and human cost to 

these victims is enormous, as is the cost to integrity of the immigration system and the legal profession itself. 

AILA takes criminal or ethical violations quite seriously. But we 

are a voluntary bar membership organization. Our members must 

be licensed and in good standing in order to be part of our organization. But attorney discipline is the unique province of the State 

Bar and the Disciplinary Council for the Executive Office of Immigration Review and the Department of Homeland Security. Neither 

DHS nor EOIR have the authority, unfortunately, to effectively go 

after these criminals, and this Federal inaction needs to be addressed. 

AILA itself does not investigate or discipline its members. Only 

a State Bar can revoke the authority to practice law. Loss of membership in a voluntary Bar Association, on the other hand, has no 

impact on the authority to practice law and, ironically, only impacts the attorneys’ access to resources that would help make a 

better lawyer. 

If an AILA member is suspended or disbarred or convicted of a 

serious crime such as immigration fraud, AILA takes immediate 

action to suspend that member. Over the past 10 years, AILA has 

removed from membership for ethics violations an average of six 

attorneys per year. That is an average of .0005 percent of our membership. 

When there is a complaint, we make sure that the victims know 

where to bring that complaint and what action they can take, 

whether or not that perpetrator is an AILA member. AILA takes 

its professional obligation to educate its members quite seriously. 

We also strive to educate the public. We have a dedicated Practice 

and Professionalism Center. We provide hundreds of hours to CLE 

each year. We have launched in recent years two websites, one in 

English, one in Spanish, that are entitled stopnotariofraud.org that 

identify how to bring complaints against unscrupulous practitioners whether they be admitted members of the Bar or simply 

posing as members of the Bar or notarios or immigration consultants. 

34 

Despite these efforts, a handful of attorneys do engage in fraud 

and the effects of that fraud can be devastating. We condemn that 

unethical and illegal practice and remain committed to doing what 

we can as a Bar Association to end that practice. 

For our part, when AILA members identify victims of fraud, we 

try to assist those victims to pick up pieces by screening those files, 

providing free consultations, trying to organize pro bono representation or reduced fees to those victims. 

This is a serious problem, but I would urge this Committee to 

widen the scope beyond simply looking at immigration attorneys. 

As many of my co-panelists have mentioned today, the issue is not 

simply limited to licensed members of the Bar. It is notarios and 

other unscrupulous people who fill the vacuum that is created by 

a lack of adequate resources for indigent and low-income individuals. On AILA’s part we try to provide pro bono, reach out through 

clinics, we have a military assistance program, and we also sponsor 

citizenship days to make sure that we can actually bring good information out into the community. 

I urge the Committee to realize that many of those implicated in 

these fraud schemes are in fact victims. They might not have understood that they weren’t eligible for the benefit they sought. They 

might not have been terribly well educated. They may not have 

been able to read the applications or even seen the applications 

that were submitted on their behalf. They may have even been 

compelled to sign a blank form that was later submitted with inappropriate information on it. Weekly, I see people in my office who 

have been misled by these consultants or bad attorneys simply because they went into some place and a guy in a suit told them, 

‘‘Look, this is how we do it. Don’t worry. You paid your money. I 

can get you status.’’ 

I would suggest that given the complexity of immigration laws, 

that it is quite reasonable for people to be duped by those situations. Once people find out that they have been victimized, what 

do they do? Frankly, often not much, mostly because they are worried. They are scared. They are undocumented. They may not have 

much trust in the system if they come from a country where lawyers part of the problems, where there is real corruption. Unfortunately, our State and local bar authorities say this is not a priority. 

We don’t see much action by them. Frankly, notarios are hard to 

find and harder to prosecute. 

Finally, I would urge the Committee not to confuse the question 

of eligibility or technical issues with actual fraud. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you very much, Ms. Lichter. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Lichter follows:] 

35 


LL-1.eps
36 


LL-2.eps
37 


LL-3.eps
38 


LL-4.eps
39 


LL-5.eps
40 


LL-6.eps
41 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Rodriguez, in your testimony you got into 

quite a bit of depth of the concerns of fraud. Do you believe that 

ICE and USCIS effectively share information and collaborate with 

each other in an efficient manner and how high a priority does ICE 

place on providing resources to immigration fraud investigations? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Yes, I do believe we have excellent cooperation 

and exchange of information, and that is evidenced by the number 


LL-7.eps
42 

of cases that are before the Subcommittee in which if not all, most 

there have been significant FDNS participation. In terms of resources, just looking over a 3-year snapshot, consistently our case 

hours, basically converted to FTEs, have increased at a rate of over 

20 percent. 2010, 446 FTE hours; 2011, 543 FTE hours; and by the 

third quarter of this fiscal year we were already reaching 369. So 

I do believe that the outcomes of our efforts are there. They are 

part of the record. In this hearing specifically the cases show the 

importance that we give to these cases and we have prosecuted 

cases that are completely, or that are extremely sophisticated in 

those schemes and very hard to break and we have done that effectively time and time again. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. What kind of information is provided to USCIS 

by HSI with respect to the instances of fraud and what kind of actions might USCIS take in response? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Well, speaking about the type of information 

that we would provide, any information from cooperating defendants, information we might have obtained through proffer. The information can be generic in the sense of we find boilerplate language, but it can also mean this company that is referenced in 

these applications are shell companies. They do not exist. And we 

have testimony to that effect and we provide them with a memo 

for inclusion to the file so that they can follow up with their proceedings. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Ms. Kendall, how many bogus green card petitions did Attorney Koortzky, who used the power of attorney to 

sign petitions, how many were approved by DHS and how many of 

those petitions were revoked and how many aliens who had revoked actually been removed? 

Ms. KENDALL. I am sorry. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. The first question is: How many of these petitions 

were approved by DHS? The second question is: How many petitions were revoked: And of those that were revoked, how many actually were removed? 

Ms. KENDALL. In which case? 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Where Mr. Koortzky used the power of attorney 

to sign petitions. 

Ms. KENDALL. I don’t know that I have those exact statistics at 

my fingertips. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Could you provide those to the Committee in a 

reasonable amount of time for part of the record of the hearing? 

Ms. KENDALL. It would be my pleasure to do so. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

43 


75309A-1.eps
44 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Fine. 

Mr. Crane, in your testimony you paint a pretty grim picture of 

pervasive fraud throughout the system. You state little action is 

taken, even when there is known fraud. To what level does the 

fraud have to rise, in your opinion, before any official action is 

taken, based on your statement? 


75309A-2.eps
45 

Mr. CRANE. I think generally speaking it does have to be of a 

very large scale. There has to be a large number of individuals involved in it and it has to be something that probably is going to 

be to the scale of hitting the newspapers, making the news. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Do you think that increased enforcement and 

punishment against private attorneys would help deter pervasive 

policies? 

Mr. CRANE. I absolutely believe that is the case, but I think that 

we need to do something at the ground level with the employees 

to encourage them to do their jobs. These are law enforcement officers. Let them to do their jobs. Give them the time that they need 

to do the investigations. Give them a process to report these instances to and give them a way of controlling individuals that come 

into their offices and commit fraud. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you. My time has expired. I yield to the 

gentlelady, Ms. Lofgren. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I think that 

in some cases we are doing too much and in some cases not doing 

enough. This is part of the concern I have. We had a hearing a 

while ago about the use of requests for evidence. And I have a concern about when that is triggered. My understanding is that additional review is triggered if two or more of the following indicators 

are present: Less than $10 million in revenue, less than 25 employees, or the company is less than 10 years old. Well, that is a startup. Startups aren’t frauds per se. That is my district. 

So I don’t understand why that would be the indices. And yet I 

have seen requests for evidence to the largest employer in my district—not to say whether or not the petition should be approved. 

I mean, that is a separate issue. Does the company exist? Well, 

yeah. They have 50 buildings. Or, requests for financials from 

Microsoft or a request from the former prime minister of a major 

European country for evidence of his past employer—the country 

he ran. Those are things that are just crazy. And yet there are 

some things out there that really should be investigated. 

What are you doing to try and get the remedies applied to the 

problem areas and not bug the non-problem areas? 

Ms. KENDALL. Thank you. We are always conscious as an agency 

of our obligation to make sure that we are managing our programs 

in a rational and data-driven way. When we implemented the 

VIBE, one of the best options that the VIBE brought into our organization was the ability to have third-party information brought 

into the adjudicative process. This allows us to have a better quality way of verifying information so that we can reduce the number 

of unnecessary RFEs, for example. In addition to which, for example, we are doing an internal review in our site visit program to 

see how we can be more efficient in the way that we use site visits 

so that we are not unnecessarily burdening those that have been 

subject to site visits and perhaps we are being more fiscally responsible in reducing the number of site visits. Bundling, for example, 

if we can do multiple visa verification processes in one visit of a 

location as opposed to visiting the same location over and over. 

Ms. LOFGREN. That is very helpful. Whether or not the visa 

should be issued to a specific person is a separate issue. Whether 

the employer exists, you can find that out. 

46 

Ms. KENDALL. So we are always conscious of our obligation to improve our processes, find more ways to be more effective with the 

resources we have, and to work with communities of interest within the immigration world to be effective, and we are always interested in suggestions and concerns from the public. For this reason, 

we have a very proactive and aggressive means of soliciting comments from the public, and we are interested in any ideas the Committee has. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Let me ask you, you heard Mr. Crane’s testimony 

and it included pretty extravagant assertions made about fraud in 

the agency. Now I am mindful that Mr. Crane is president of his 

union, which we respect, but he is not representing ICE trial attorneys or HSI agents. Do you have comments on the assertions that 

he made as someone who actually is in charge of this? 

Ms. KENDALL. USCIS is absolutely committed to an adjudications 

environment which combats, detects, deters fraud in our process. 

We have an obligation to the American public to ensure the integrity of the immigration process. Director Mayorkas came to this 

Subcommittee in February of 2012 and expressed completely our 

obligation and commitment to getting to the correct answer in 

every adjudication that we undertake. This is reflected in the fact 

that our primary and first strategic objective at USCIS is national 

security and fraud detection. This is reflected by Director 

Mayorkas’ elevating fraud detection and national security to full directorate status in 2010, making it on par with the adjudications 

directorate within the agency. 

From 2010 forward, in the last 2 years, he has increased and the 

agency has invested 25 percent increases in personnel at the front 

line agency level to make sure that our adjudication staff is able 

to more effectively combat the fraud and national security threats 

that we find in our immigration beneficiaries stream. 

Further, we are currently implementing, in addition to the basic 

training on fraud that we do for every incoming employee in the 

agency, we are right now implementing fraud training for all existing employees that covers fraud indicators, how to better work with 

existing FDNS personnel, how to better understand FDNS processes, including a statement of findings, which is the fundamental 

document that records our investigative processes. We anticipate 

that that will be finished nationwide within the adjudications corps 

I believe in early fiscal year 2013. 

We have further inculcated into our standard operating procedures requirements of referral of fraud cases from the adjudications 

to the FDNS side of the house to make sure every adjudicator in 

our agency knows where fraud is to be referred and can be trained 

on how that can be done. 

Further, through my testimony I have explained, but I will reiterate this because it is important to understand this, in every opportunity given built antifraud measures into our programs and we 

look aggressively to improve those programs at every opportunity. 

We have built the Administrative Site Visit and Verification Program, which this year completed 17,000 site visits, which is about 

compliance, not ‘‘I gotcha’’ culture but compliance with our existing 

site visit, which is 2,000 more site visits than last year’s program. 

47 

We have increased our international information sharing on 

fraud for asylum cases. We have implemented a nationwide antifraud training for adjudicators, which I have just mentioned. We 

have basically built MOAs with ICE, in which the three priority 

case types—preparer, attorney, and interpreter case fraud—is a 

priority, which is separate from conspiracy and multiple conspiracy 

fraud. 

And finally, we have made sure that referral of NTAs to ICE, because of fraud, is a priority. 

These are the priorities of the agency. I believe that they speak 

for themselves, ma’am. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. The time of the gentlelady has expired. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the witnesses for 

your testimony. Some of that I think I heard a couple of times and 

so I have got that soaked in. But I have a question for Ms. Kendall, 

and that is that some in this country would advocate that we really 

shouldn’t have borders, that if you just let the supply and demand 

of the labor markets determine the flow of people, that people have 

a right to go anywhere in the world they would like to go and work 

and earn a living and provide for their families, et cetera. So I just 

would point out that that philosophy does exist in this country and 

other places around the world. 

If that were the public policy of the United States of America, 

would there be anything for USCIS to do? 

Ms. KENDALL. If there were fraud involved in that, there would 

be a job for FDNS, sir. 

Mr. KING. Could I point out that if there were completely open 

borders, without any restrictions, there wouldn’t be any fraud. So 

is your answer there wouldn’t be anything for USCIS to do if we 

didn’t have immigration laws? 

May I ask the witness to answer yes or no to that? 

Ms. KENDALL. Sir, I don’t have a clear answer, beyond I don’t 

know—— 

Mr. KING. Well, I think that is the does the Sun come up in the 

East question for USCIS, actually. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. KING. I would be happy to yield. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I think that, number one, and I appreciate the 

gentleman yielding, I am not familiar with the individuals who are 

recommending no borders, but certainly it is the U.S. Immigration 

and Citizenship Service. And so individuals who are applying for 

citizenship, if we didn’t have immigration laws, we would still have 

people applying to become U.S. citizens. 

Mr. KING. Reclaiming my time. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I think obviously the witness is a little flummoxed 

by the hypothetical, and I think I understand why. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. It is the gentleman’s time. 

Mr. KING. Reclaiming my time from the gentlelady from California who is well versed in these type of questions and an immigration attorney in her own right whom I respect. I think it is important for us to ask these kind of questions because each time we 

go to work during the day there has got to be a purpose, and that 

purpose is that Congress writes laws, and then we direct the execuVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:14 Oct 04, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\072412\75309.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
48 

tive branch to carry out those laws, and looking again, reviewing 

the testimony of Mr. Rodriguez, it says that a benefit fraud involves, I quote, ‘‘the knowing and willful misrepresentation of a 

material fact on a petition or application to gain an immigrant immigration benefit. Types of benefit fraud include employment-based 

fraud, asylum fraud, and marriage fraud.’’ 

And as I read that and I listen to the testimony, I began to wonder, and I pose this question again to you, Ms. Kendall, if the 

President’s memorandum that was issued by Secretary Napolitano 

dated June 15th which sets up four classes of people and directs 

USCIS to issue work permits, if that is implemented into place, is 

there going to be more or less reason for benefit fraud to come before USCIS? 

Ms. KENDALL. I am not in the position to discuss the particulars 

of the deferred action memorandum and program that will flow 

from it today. 

Mr. KING. Okay, thank you, Ms. Kendall. 

Ms. KENDALL. I can—— 

Mr. KING. I understand that you are not in a position to answer 

those questions. I will just answer it for you that if somebody is 

between the ages of 16 and 30 and there is no reason for marriage 

fraud if you can claim that you have been in the United States for 

5 years, went to school, et cetera. So I would submit that we are 

going to see a lot more fraud, a lot more document fraud, a lot 

more fraud from people that want to qualify under this selective 

amnesty program that the President did his press conference on 

June 15th that is the subject of this memorandum, and we are here 

discussing fraud, and every time that we see some form of amnesty, we see a tremendous amount of fraud that is associated with 

it. I might take the 1986, for example, that the numbers tripled on 

what were anticipated. We are looking with this memorandum of 

800,000 to 1.4 million, and that likely will triple, and I will go on 

record as saying that is more likely than those estimates being accurate. 

But I turn to Mr. Crane and ask him, do you anticipate that 

there will be a significant amount of fraud associated with this 

memorandum of June 15th? 

Mr. CRANE. Absolutely I do as well as employees in the field on 

the CIS and ICE side. I think from CIS managers that I have 

talked to in the field, there is some discussion at CIS headquarters 

that this is going to be done through the service centers, which 

would mean that the interview process would more than likely be 

taken out, so people would just basically be sending their applications to an individual, they would be approved, there will be no 

interview process, and that is going to open the doors wide open 

for fraud in multiple different ways, one of them being that that 

fraud is not going to be detected, those trends are not going to be 

detected until it is all over. I mean, we are dealing today, CIS and 

ICE, with the fraud that took place back in the 1980’s, we are still 

dealing with that today. So absolutely employees in the field are 

very concerned that this is going to result in widespread fraud. 

Mr. KING. Have you seen any direct effect of this memorandum 

to date? 

Mr. CRANE. I have not, sir. In terms of fraud I have not. 

49 

Mr. KING. I thank you and I yield back. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. I thank the gentleman for yielding back. Mr. 

Gowdy. 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Kendall, do you know who will be charged with investigating 

to determine whether or not the June 15 memo is applicable for 

those seeking, I think the word the Administration uses is ‘‘deferred action?’’ Whose responsibility will it be to determine whether 

or not those factors have been met? 

Ms. KENDALL. USCIS I believe is the responsible party for adjudicating those requests, sir. 

Mr. GOWDY. So whose resources will be consumed determining 

whether or not all of those qualifiers are met in terms of age, the 

absence of any serious misdemeanor or felony convictions, education, whose responsibility is it to expend the resources to determine whether or not those qualifying conditions have been met? 

Ms. KENDALL. I mean, beyond the basic idea that USCIS has 

been determined as the agency that will adjudicate the deferred action requests—— 

Mr. GOWDY. Well—— 

Ms. KENDALL [continuing]. I am not in a position to discuss the 

particular program details, although I am part of a team of leaders 

at USCIS that is integrally involved with program development for 

the deferred action program, particularly—— 

Mr. GOWDY. I am probably missing something because I thought 

the reason for that memo was because you want to direct your resources other places, and then it just struck me when the Secretary 

was here last week whose resources are going to be consumed determining whether or not the memo is applicable or not? 

Ms. KENDALL. I can address the issues of attorney preparer 

fraud, that is what I came to talk about here today, sir. I can address only those issues for today’s hearing. I am part of a team of 

professionals who are preparing the deferred action program, consistent with what is expected in that memo. I can’t offer any further details, as that program is in development at this time. 

Mr. GOWDY. Mr. Crane, if my notes are correct, you said half the 

information, that adjudicators were told that as long as half the information contained in an alien’s application for benefits is true, 

the application should be approved? 

Mr. CRANE. That is what one supervisor allegedly told their employees, yes. 

Mr. GOWDY. Half just doesn’t seem like that much. Fifty percent 

is an F on the test in South Carolina. Trust me, I know, from firsthand experience, a 50 is an F. 

Mr. CRANE. One question can mean the difference between having legal status and not having it. So for 50 percent to be fraudulent, it is completely unacceptable. I mean, one question is not acceptable on an application for status in the United States. 

Mr. GOWDY. Ms. Lichter, can you talk to me about punishment 

for attorneys who engage in fraud, the full panoply of punishment. 

You mentioned the Bar can suspend you or disbar you I suspect. 

Some States the Supreme Court handles sanctions against attorneys. Are there any criminal statutes that would be applicable to 

attorneys who engage in fraud, pervasive or otherwise? 

50 

Ms. LICHTER. And my general disclaimer is I am an immigration 

attorney, not a criminal defense attorney. 

Mr. GOWDY. That is okay, I am sure you are aware of what can 

send you to jail and what cannot. 

Ms. LICHTER. Right. And framing—— 

Mr. GOWDY. You don’t do homicide cases, but you know you can’t 

do that, so—— 

Ms. LICHTER. Correct. As a practical matter, I think most attorneys are going to run afoul of the ethical restrictions in their Bar 

long before they trip any criminal sanctions, and if the Bar—— 

Mr. GOWDY. Are there criminal sanctions? 

Ms. LICHTER [continuing]. If the Bar is doing their job, that person’s license to practice law would be revoked. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. GOWDY. I will be happy to. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I would just note we had a situation in my county 

where there was a member of the Bar who was defrauding people. 

We took it to the district attorney, they prosecuted them for theft. 

Mr. GOWDY. Under State law? 

Ms. LOFGREN. Under State law, and he did time. 

Mr. GOWDY. Good. Punishment for those—you used the term 

‘‘victims,’’ that may be the appropriate phraseology in some instances, and ‘‘co-conspirators’’ may be the appropriate phraseology 

in some other instances. Again, what is the full panoply of consequences for those who—not victims, not people who were taken 

advantage of, but people who were just willing to circumvent the 

system and go to attorneys in an effort to have fraudulent documents prepared, what is the full panoply of consequences for those 

people who are not attorneys? 

Ms. LICHTER. Well, as a practical matter, the consequences that 

are faced by the true bad actors are, unfortunately, almost exactly 

the same as for the true victims of these scams. Certainly criminal 

proceedings might be appropriate in certain circumstances. By and 

large most people who find themselves on the wrong end of an application are finding themselves permanently barred from ever adjusting their status or ever finding a path toward citizenship. We 

have a very unforgiving system, and my biggest concern with some 

of the seeking out of fraud is not trying to take enough time to understand that we have probably more victims here than true coconspirators. 

Mr. GOWDY. Mr. Chairman, my time has expired. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. I thank the gentleman. I am going to take the 

privilege of the Chair and ask one last question of Ms. Lichter. As 

an immigration lawyer and as someone who is well known across 

the country as an immigration lawyer, can you tell me what you 

understand the statute for the penalty for either manufacturing or 

using a counterfeit document for immigration purposes, what the 

penalty is in the statute? 

Ms. LICHTER. It again is going to depend on whether somebody 

is prosecuted under a State law or under Federal law. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. I am talking about Federal law. 

Ms. LICHTER. Honestly, I do immigration civil defense, so I know 

that if somebody has a particular conviction the first thing I am 

going to look to see, is this a bar to admissibility, is this a ground 

51 

of removability? And then I am going to take my analysis from 

there. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Well, I would just advise that you may take a 

look at the 1995 law and see that the penalty for counterfeiting a 

document for this purpose or the penalty for using such document 

is exactly the same as counterfeiting currency or using counterfeit 

currency. See, we all leave today a little more learned. 

With that, I appreciate all of the witnesses’ testimony, and I 

would ask that all Members have 5 legislative days to submit to 

the Chair additional written questions for the witnesses which will 

be forwarded and ask the witnesses to respond as promptly as you 

can so the answers will be made a part of the record of the hearing. 

Without objection, all Members have 5 legislative days to submit 

any additional material for inclusion in the record, and with that 

the Subcommittee stands adjourned. 

Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 3:53 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

Æ