U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

57–673 PDF WASHINGTON : 2024

EXAMINING CBP ONE: FUNCTIONS, FEATURES, 

EXPANSION, AND RISKS 

JOINT HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

BORDER SECURITY AND ENFORCEMENT 

AND THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

OVERSIGHT, INVESTIGATIONS, AND 

ACCOUNTABILITY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MARCH 21, 2024 

Serial No. 118–57 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov/ 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY 

MARK E. GREEN, MD, Tennessee, Chairman 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

CLAY HIGGINS, Louisiana 

MICHAEL GUEST, Mississippi 

DAN BISHOP, North Carolina 

CARLOS A. GIMENEZ, Florida 

AUGUST PFLUGER, Texas 

ANDREW R. GARBARINO, New York 

MARJORIE TAYLOR GREENE, Georgia 

TONY GONZALES, Texas 

NICK LALOTA, New York 

MIKE EZELL, Mississippi 

ANTHONY D’ESPOSITO, New York 

LAUREL M. LEE, Florida 

MORGAN LUTTRELL, Texas 

DALE W. STRONG, Alabama 

JOSH BRECHEEN, Oklahoma 

ELIJAH CRANE, Arizona 

BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi, Ranking 

Member 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

DONALD M. PAYNE, JR., New Jersey 

ERIC SWALWELL, California 

J. LUIS CORREA, California 

TROY A. CARTER, Louisiana 

SHRI THANEDAR, Michigan 

SETH MAGAZINER, Rhode Island 

GLENN IVEY, Maryland 

DANIEL S. GOLDMAN, New York 

ROBERT GARCIA, California 

DELIA C. RAMIREZ, Illinois 

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey 

THOMAS R. SUOZZI, New York 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

STEPHEN SIAO, Staff Director 

HOPE GOINS, Minority Staff Director 

NATALIE NIXON, Chief Clerk 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON BORDER SECURITY AND ENFORCEMENT 

CLAY HIGGINS, Louisiana, Chairman 

MICHAEL GUEST, Mississippi 

MARJORIE TAYLOR GREENE, Georgia 

TONY GONZALES, Texas 

MORGAN LUTTRELL, Texas 

JOSH BRECHEEN, Oklahoma 

MARK E. GREEN, MD, Tennessee (ex officio) 

J. LUIS CORREA, California, Ranking Member 

SHRI THANEDAR, Michigan 

ROBERT GARCIA, California 

DELIA C. RAMIREZ, Illinois 

BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi (ex officio) 

NATASHA EBY, Subcommittee Staff Director 

BRIEANA MARTICORENA, Minority Subcommittee Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT, INVESTIGATIONS, AND 

ACCOUNTABILITY 

DAN BISHOP, North Carolina, Chairman 

MARJORIE TAYLOR GREENE, Georgia 

MIKE EZELL, Mississippi 

DALE W. STRONG, Alabama 

ELIJAH CRANE, Arizona 

MARK E. GREEN, MD, Tennessee (ex officio) 

GLENN IVEY, Maryland, Ranking Member 

SHRI THANEDAR, Michigan 

DELIA C. RAMIREZ, Illinois 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi (ex officio) 

SANG YI, Subcommittee Staff Director 

LISA CANINI, Minority Subcommittee Staff Director 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

STATEMENTS

The Honorable Clay Higgins, a Representative in Congress From the State 

of Louisiana, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Border Security and Enforcement: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 1 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 3 

The Honorable J. Luis Correa, a Representative in Congress From the State 

of California, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Border Security and 

Enforcement: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 3 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 5 

The Honorable Dan Bishop, a Representative in Congress From the State 

of North Carolina, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Oversight, Investigations, and Accountability: 

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

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 8 

The Honorable Glenn Ivey, a Representative in Congress From the State 

of Maryland, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Oversight, Investigations, and Accountability ..................................................................................... 9 

The Honorable Mark E. Green, MD, a Representative in Congress From 

the State of Tennessee, and Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security: 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 13 

The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, a Representative in Congress From 

the State of Mississippi, and Ranking Member, Committee on Homeland 

Security: 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 14 

WITNESSES

Mr. Adam Hunter, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Immigration Policy, Office 

of Strategy, Policy, and Plans, U.S. Department of Homeland Security: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 16 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 18 

Ms. Diane J. Sabatino, Acting Executive Assistant Commissioner, Office of 

Field Operations, U.S. Customs and Border Protection: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 21 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 23 

Ms. Tammy Meckley, Associate Director, Immigration Records and Identity 

Services Directorate, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 26 

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

Ms. Marta Youth, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration, U.S. Department of State: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 29 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 31 

APPENDIX I 

Questions From Chairman Mark E. Green, MD for Adam Hunter ..................... 57 

Questions From Chairman Clay Higgins for Adam Hunter ................................ 58 

Questions From Vice Chairman Michael Guest for Adam Hunter ...................... 58 

Questions From Ranking Member J. Luis Correa for Adam Hunter .................. 59 
Page

IV 

Questions From Vice Ranking Member Delia Ramirez for Adam Hunter .......... 60 

Questions From Chairman Mark E. Green, MD for Diane Sabatino .................. 61 

Questions From Chairman Clay Higgins for Diane Sabatino .............................. 62 

Questions From Vice Chair Michael Guest for Diane Sabatino .......................... 62 

Questions From Honorable Marjorie Taylor Greene for Diane Sabatino ............ 63 

Questions From Ranking Member J. Luis Correa for Diane Sabatino ............... 63 

Questions From Vice Ranking Member Delia Ramirez for Diane Sabatino ....... 64 

Questions From Chairman Mark E. Green, MD for Tammy Meckley ................ 64 

Questions From Chairman Clay Higgins for Tammy Meckley ............................ 65 

Questions From Vice Chair Michael Guest for Tammy Meckley ......................... 65 

Questions From Ranking Member J. Luis Correa for Tammy Meckley ............. 66 

Questions From Ranking Member J. Luis Correa for Marta Youth ................... 66 

Questions From Honorable Delia Ramirez for Marta Youth ............................... 67 

APPENDIX II 

The Honorable Dan Bishop, a Representative in Congress From the State 

of North Carolina, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Oversight, Investigations, and Accountability: 

Report .................................................................................................................... 69 
(1) 

EXAMINING CBP ONE: FUNCTIONS, 

FEATURES, EXPANSION, AND RISKS 

Thursday, March 21, 2024 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON BORDER SECURITY AND

ENFORCEMENT, AND THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT, INVESTIGATIONS, 

AND ACCOUNTABILITY, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:54 p.m., in room 

310 Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Clay Higgins (Chairman 

of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Higgins, Bishop, Ezelle, Greene, 

Luttrell, Brecheen, Crane, Green (ex officio), Correa, Ivey, 

Thanedar, Ramirez, Suozzi, and Clarke. 

Mr. HIGGINS. The Committee on Homeland Security Subcommittee on Border Security and Enforcement, the Subcommittee 

on Oversight, Investigations, and Accountability will come to order. 

Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare the committee in recess at any point. 

Without objection, the gentleman from New York, Mr. 

D’Esposito, is permitted to sit on the dais and ask questions to the 

witnesses. 

The purpose of this hearing is to examine the expansion of the 

CBP One mobile application. While the app was created for commercial purposes, the Biden administration has expanded its purpose in January 2023 to allow otherwise inadmissible aliens to 

schedule appointments directly at ports of entry with U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection and be mass-paroled into the interior. 

I now recognize myself for an opening statement. 

Mr. Ranking Member and fellow Members of the committee, ladies and gentlemen appearing before us, welcome to the Subcommittee on Border Security and Enforcement, the Subcommittee 

on Oversight, Investigations, and Accountability. This is a joint 

hearing on the Customs and Border Protection’s CBP One mobile 

application. 

The purpose of today’s hearing is to examine how the Biden administration and the Department of Homeland Security have expanded the use of CBP One to parole inadmissible aliens into the 

United States. 

This hearing will focus on DHS’s use of CBP One to institute socalled lawful pathways for illegal aliens without proper documenta-
2 

tion, the application’s functions and features, and the security risks 

that might be exploited by cartels. 

DHS continues to fail in its basic homeland security mission to 

secure the border. Secretary Mayorkas’ open border policies, fueled 

by the expansion of CBP One app, has allowed virtually any foreign national from abroad to make an appointment to enter the 

country. Simply put, this application’s users know that a CBP One 

appointment is their ticket into the United States. 

In January, 2023, the Department of Homeland Security announced that CBP One would be expanded to include an appointment-scheduling function for illegal aliens without prior authorization to register for inspection and processing at ports of entry. 

CBP One was created to reduce wait times for perishable commercial goods passing through these ports of entry for legal trade, 

but the Mayorkas DHS has repurposed the CBP One app. 

Under Secretary Mayorkas, we have seen over 460,000 illegal 

aliens schedule appointments to present at these ports using the 

CBP One app. Most of these illegal aliens are paroled and released 

into the United States, and, in most cases, we really don’t know 

who they are. 

This is an abuse of parole by design. 

CBP originally allowed 1,000 CBP One appointments per day. As 

of May 2023, 3 months later, it was increased to 1,450 per day. 

Ironically, the Department continues to praise CBP One’s appointment capabilities while failing to do the thing that would solve the 

crisis, which is stop the flow of illegals across our Southern Border. 

Documents received by our committee show that from January 

through September 2023, more than 266,000, or nearly 96 percent 

of those illegal aliens who scheduled appointments via CBP One 

was simply issued a notice to appear and paroled into the United 

States. This means that only 4 percent of illegal alien parolees are 

detained or removed. 

CBP One is now being weaved into other parole programs like 

the Cuban, Haitian, Nicaraguan, and Venezuelan, with a CHNV 

Parole program and Family Reunification Parole, or FRP, which includes nationals and immediate family members from Columbia, 

Cuba, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, and Honduras. 

Through the end of 2024, over 357,000 Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans were granted parole. 

But in the end, Secretary Mayorkas’ shell game doesn’t end here. 

Illegal aliens are also taking advantage of a significant CBP One 

loophole, which allows them to present themselves at a port of 

entry instead of scheduling an appointment via the app if they experience problems due to, quote, language barrier, illiteracy, significant technical failure, or other on-going and serious obstacles. 

There are also numerous technical and security problems with 

CBP One. 

Secretary Mayorkas has encouraged those aliens to make use of 

the so-called lawfully, safe, and orderly pathways by using CBP 

One. Secretary Mayorkas has stated that these border policies are 

safe, orderly, and humane. But anyone familiar with the CBP One 

app knows that its border policies are somewhat of a racket designed to expedite illegal immigration into America and leave us at 

risk. 
3 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today. 

[The statement of Chairman Higgins follows:] 

STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN CLAY HIGGINS

MARCH 21, 2024 

Good afternoon and welcome to the Subcommittee on Border Security and Enforcement and the Subcommittee on Oversight, Investigations, and Accountability 

joint hearing on Custom and Border Protection’s CBP One mobile application. The 

purpose of today’s hearing is to examine how the Biden administration and the Department of Homeland Security have expanded the use of CBP One to parole inadmissible aliens into the United States. This hearing will focus on DHS’s use of CBP 

One to institute so-called ‘‘lawful pathways’’ for illegal aliens without proper documentation, the application’s functions and features, and the security risks that 

might be exploited by cartels. 

DHS continues to fail in its basic homeland security mission: to secure the border. 

Secretary Mayorkas’ open-border policies, fueled by the expansion of CBP One App, 

has allowed virtually any foreign national from abroad to make an appointment and 

enter the country. Simply put, this application’s users know that a CBP One appointment is their ticket into the United States. 

In January 2023, the Department of Homeland Security announced that CBP One 

would be expanded to include an appointment-scheduling function for illegal aliens 

without prior authorization to register for inspection and processing at ports of 

entry. CBP One was created to reduce wait times for perishable commercial goods 

passing through these ports of entry for legal trade. But the Mayorkas DHS has 

repurposed the CBP One app. 

Under Secretary Mayorkas, we have seen over 460,000 illegal aliens schedule appointments to present at these ports using CBP One. Most of these illegal aliens 

are paroled and released into the United States, and we don’t even know who they 

really are. 

This is an abuse of parole by design. 

CBP originally allowed 1,000 CBP One appointments per day in May 2023. Three 

months later, they increased to 1,450 per day. Ironically, the Department continues 

to praise CBP One’s appointment capabilities, while failing to do the thing that 

would solve this crisis: STOP THE FLOW. 

Documents received by our committee show that from January through September 2023, more than 266,000, or nearly 96 percent of those illegal aliens who 

scheduled appointments via CBP One, were simply issued a Notice to Appear and 

paroled into the United States. That means only 4 percent of illegal alien parolees 

are detained or removed. 

CBP One is now being weaved into other parole programs like the Cuban, Haitian, Nicaraguan, and Venezuelan, or CHNV parole program and Family Reunification Parole, or FRP, which includes nationals and immediate family members from 

Colombia, Cuba, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, and Honduras. Through 

the end of 2024, over 357,000 Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans 

were granted parole. 

But in the end, Secretary Mayorkas’ shell game doesn’t end here. Illegal aliens 

are also taking advantage of a significant CBP One loophole which allows them to 

present themselves at a port of entry instead of scheduling an appointment via the 

app if they experience problems due to ‘‘language barrier, illiteracy, significant technical failure, or other on-going and serious obstacles.’’ There are also numerous technical and security problems with CBP One. 

Secretary Mayorkas has encouraged these aliens to make use of the so-called 

‘‘lawful, safe, and orderly pathways’’ by using CBP One. 

Secretary Mayorkas has stated that these border policies are ‘‘safe, orderly, and 

humane’’ but anyone familiar with the CBP One application knows that his border 

policies are just a racket designed to expedite illegal immigration into America and 

leave us at risk. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today. 

Mr. HIGGINS. I recognize the Ranking Member for his opening 

statement. 

Mr. CORREA. Thank you, Chairman Higgins, for being here 

today. 

It’s always important that we shoot the tires and look at the 

issues, look at what we’re doing and really address and consider 
4 

one of the most important challenges this country has had in a 

very, very long time. 

We could think about it as immigration. I look at it as immigration refugees, terrorist issue all rolled into one. 

CBP One is just one tool of many other tools that we have in the 

tool chest right now to address these issues. 

It’s not enough, though, just to look at CBP One. We have to look 

also at the people that are actually coming to our ports of entry 

and requesting protections. We need to look at the totality of how 

the administration is addressing migration before people ever reach 

our borders. That’s why I’m glad that the State Department could 

join us here today. 

Bottom line, we are witnessing today a world-wide migration 

movement like we’ve never seen hardly ever. Reasons: We’re 

emerging from COVID, COVID that has devastated the world’s 

economies. South of the border we have economies of nations that 

are essentially nonfunctional anymore. 

Of course, all of us read the newspaper headlines about Haiti, 

but there are many other headlines that I would say we never talk 

about on a daily basis, and all of those should also hold our attention. 

We have to look at this issue comprehensively. What’s the challenge? What are the root causes? How to manage what I would call 

a world-wide migration of refugees. It’s not only the United States. 

I’ve talked to the Columbian ambassador. I visited Columbia. 

They have 3 million Venezuelans. Costa Rica. All of you have heard 

me say this. The Costa Rican ambassador telling us they’re struggling. They’re at the breaking point with their refugees. Mexico, of 

course, as well. 

We can look at Europe as well. They have their challenges as 

well, and others around the country. 

It’s not a Democrat or Republican issue. We have to work collectively to address these issues. 

So I am glad that, for example, myself and Congressman Luttrell 

put out a piece of legislation called the Emerging Innovative Border Technologies Act. Really asking the DHS to identify, integrate, 

and deploy cutting-age commercial technologies to improve border 

security. 

Mr. Chairman, and you, you and I have also worked on legislation together. We’ve got to come together and figure this out. 

CBP One is just one of the many tools this administration is employing to try to manage the border challenges. 

To be clear, under our laws, migrants have always been able to 

approach our ports of entry to ask for protection. This is nothing 

new. CBP One is just one tool that we use to manage this flow. 

It’s not enough just to say this is a U.S. issue. It’s not our issue. 

It’s not Mexico’s issue. It’s not Canada’s issue. It’s a hemispheric 

issue. We’ve got to work with our partners, our friends to fix this 

issue because it’s not going away. 

CBP One, yes. But this issue, if you go south of the border, 

again, look at those economies. Central America, South America. 

It’s not going away. 

I ask all of you today to give us your thoughts. CBP One, I want 

to hear more about it. What exactly does CBP One do? My col-
5 

league, Chairman Higgins says it’s a ticket to the United States. 

I want to know under what conditions is it a ticket into the United 

States. 

How many of those people that apply to CBP One are actually 

given that golden ticket to come to the United States? How many 

of those people that come into the United States can actually work 

or not work? 

I remember about a year, year-and-a-half ago being at the Tijuana border in Tijuana, San Ysidro border to look at the Ukrainian refugee camps that were being set up by the United States. I 

thought, this is the way to do it. Ukrainians that fly into Mexico, 

go into Tijuana, go into a baseball field that had been, essentially, 

created into a makeshift refugee center. 

Those refugees would come in. Within 48 hours they were processed. Pedestrian crossing west was open. They would come into 

the United States. There would be a relative or family that would 

assume financial responsibility for them. They were given a parole, 

a 2-year permit, and then they disappeared into the United States. 

That’s one way of handling it, but I think it’s a good way of handling it because you haven’t seen that issue emerge again. 

So I want to thank our witnesses today for being here. I hope you 

educate us into the specifics, the details of CBP One and how this 

has become part of your toolkit, your tool chest to address the challenges that you have at our border. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield. 

[The statement of Ranking Member Correa follows:] 

STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER J. LUIS CORREA

MARCH 21, 2024 

While I am encouraged by innovations like CBP One, we must recognize that 

these challenges extend well beyond our borders. It is not enough to look at how 

we are processing people who lawfully travel to ports of entry and request protection. We need to look at how the administration is addressing migration in the region before people ever reach our borders. That’s why I’m glad that the State Department could join us today. 

We are witnessing a world-wide migration challenge coupled with an outdated 

and under-resourced immigration system. Only Congress can truly fix this for good 

by expanding legal pathways, investing in the asylum system, and providing the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of State, and the Department of 

Justice with adequate funding and resources. Sadly, we have not gotten to that 

point. Instead, the administration is being innovative with the resources and authorities they already have. 

There’s more Congress can and must do to support border security efforts. For example, next week, Congressman Luttrell and I will be introducing the Emerging Innovative Border Technologies Act, which would require DHS to identify, integrate, 

and deploy cutting-edge commercial technologies to improve border security operations and better respond to life-threatening situations. 

I’m proud that we’ve been able to work across the aisle to improve border security 

in this way. I am happy to speak with any of my colleagues about this bipartisan 

piece of legislation. But we should also support the administration when it innovates with the tools it already has to improve operations at the border. CBP One 

is a great example of this. 

For years, both Democratic and Republican administrations have encouraged migrants go to ports of entry to ask for protection. This is allowed under our immigration laws. CBP One encourages migrants to not only go to ports of entry, but also 

to wait for appointments when CBP is prepared to process them. While there aren’t 

enough appointments available to meet the demand, people prefer using a lawful 

avenue to request protection when it is a realistic option. 

CBP One isn’t perfect. It’s just a scheduling tool that helps CBP facilitate more 

efficient, safe, and fair migrant processing at ports of entry. CBP One simply allows 
6 

someone to request an appointment at a port of entry. CBP One is not a waiver 

to walk into the United States without vetting. The app does not grant legal status 

or adjudicate asylum claims. 

And to be clear—under our laws, migrants have always been able to approach 

ports of entry to ask for protection. The CBP One app just makes this more efficient 

and allows CBP to collect advance information on the people presenting for an appointment. But CBP One addresses such a small part of the challenge before us. 

We should look broader. 

As I have said before, we need to continue partnering with our friends to the 

south, north, and across the globe to address the historic displacement of people 

world-wide. Shared challenges require shared solutions—this migration crisis affects 

more than just the United States. 

That’s why, last summer, Chairman Higgins and I introduced the Cooperation on 

Combatting Human Smuggling and Trafficking Act to enhance partnerships with 

Mexican, Central American, and South American law enforcement to disrupt human 

smuggling and human trafficking in the region. The Biden administration has also 

taken significant steps to develop comprehensive relationships with other countries 

through multilateral agreements and cooperative action. 

The Department of State has developed Safe Mobility Offices, also known as regional processing centers, to share information with refugees and vulnerable migrants about safe and lawful pathways for immigration to the United States, Canada, and Spain. The administration has strategically located the safe mobility offices 

in partner countries in Latin America along migration routes—such as in Colombia, 

which has received millions of asylum seekers fleeing totalitarianism in Venezuela. 

When people have a lawful pathway to the United States, they don’t need to pay 

smugglers for their journey. But even these positive steps are not enough. It is up 

to Congress to pass comprehensive immigration reform and approve necessary border security funding. If my colleagues genuinely believe that what is happening at 

the border is a national security challenge and humanitarian crisis, they should 

work with us to provide DHS with the necessary resources. 

Last, I want to thank our witnesses for their public service. I look forward to 

hearing your testimony about the work your respective agencies are doing to manage the challenges at the border in a humane and orderly way. 

Mr. HIGGINS. Thank you, Ranking Member Correa. 

I now recognize the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight, 

Investigations, and Accountability, the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Bishop, for his opening statement. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

You know, I think I’ll remark, as I open my statement, that I always appreciate the Ranking Member from California and the collegial tone of his remarks. I will say that I am going to articulate 

a point of view that, very respectfully, takes a different view than 

the comments he just offered in his opening statement. 

It is true that there is a lot of migration in the world today. A 

lot of that is the product of a destabilized world that results from 

the absence of strong leadership in the White House of the United 

States and grievous errors in judgment across the globe. 

But the inception of the dramatic change in our border security 

is extremely clear as to causation. It occurred immediately after 

the election, in the run-up to the inauguration, and ballooned into 

a historic disaster that continues now 4 years later in increasing 

proportions because of dramatic, 180-degree reversals of policy of 

administration of the border. 

If you are concerned about a crisis, at long last, the very last 

thing that you can do to solve the crisis is to disregard what you 

did to cause it in the first place. 

We have had many, many hearings on the global picture with respect to border security, and I know that there are differences on 

the respective sides of the aisle, and I have great respect for my 

colleagues. But the evidence is clear. Frankly, the American people 
7 

understand the evidence because they are living it in every community. 

The snapshot on the situation today is one little part that has 

extraordinary significance in itself, but it is just one piece, the CBP 

One mobile application, something that sounds very hip and modern. We created an app. We gave it a catchy name. 

But what lies behind the app is the same sort of abuse of power, 

Executive power to make things up that are not in the law and to 

use it and to give it a role in facilitating mass illegal immigration 

into the United States. 

Since January 2023, the Department of Homeland Security has 

expanded the use of the CBP One application in two ways. Specifically, to implement a purposeful and determined open borders 

agenda. 

First, inadmissible aliens located in Mexico can use the CBP One 

app to schedule appointments at the Southwest Border. Just schedule an appointment like you’re going to visit the doctor. 

Second, inadmissible aliens—this is one we’ve revealed the most 

about lately. It’s been out there for a while, but the scale of it is 

becoming clear. 

Inadmissible aliens from certain countries like Cuba, Haiti, Venezuela, and Nicaragua who participate in the Department’s parole 

programs that abuse the limits of the Secretary’s parole authority 

can use the CBP One app to request permission to fly from the city 

of origin right into cities throughout the United States, into U.S. 

airports. 

Let’s hear the numbers. Let’s hear them. The numbers, you hear 

people tell them. They vary slightly, but this is essentially the 

numbers. 

To date, more than 459,000 CBP One appointments have been 

scheduled at the Southwest Border ports of entry. In 2023 alone, 

more than 320,000 inadmissible aliens flew into U.S. airports 

through so-called parole programs using CBP One. These numbers 

do not even count toward the over 2.8 million aliens crossing our 

borders illegally Nation-wide since January 2023, which was the 

date of the beginning of the use of CBP One for this human moving 

thing, as opposed to the commercial purpose it was originally designed for. 

The aliens using CBP One aren’t just getting appointments, and 

they are not just hopping on flights. They are also nearly categorically being released into the United States. 

According to the Department’s own data, from January through 

September 2023, 96 percent, Mr. Higgins said it, of aliens with 

CBP One appointments at the Southwest Border were released. 

The probability of release is just as assured as for those flying into 

airports. 

From January through June 2023, 97 percent of aliens who flew 

into a U.S. airport were paroled into the United States. 

You’ve heard the saying. Every State is a border State. Now you 

understand exactly—another dimension why. This is astonishing, 

considering that the Department recently admitted in litigation 

that allowing these aliens to fly into U.S. airports creates ‘‘operational vulnerabilities that could be exploited by bad actors’’. 
8 

The administration claims that the use of the CBP One app will 

slow the flow of aliens illegally entering the United States and cut 

cartels out of the migration process. 

I remember when Secretary Mayorkas came and made that very 

claim. We’re going to see—in fact, he was a little smug the first 

time he appeared to say it. The number soon overwhelmed all the 

circumstances again, and it didn’t even last for long. So those 

claims belie the facts—or excuse me. The facts belie those claims. 

Since the CBP One expansion in January 2023, encounters of illegal aliens have reached monthly all-time highs, even well beyond 

the historic highs that began with the inauguration of the Biden 

administration and are on pace to reach 2 million again this fiscal 

year. 

Meanwhile, cartels are still in firm control of the migration process across the American border. They control the smuggling routes 

that aliens use to get to Mexico. They actively exploit security loopholes in CBP One to schedule appointments at the border. They 

clearly still control the Southwest Border, and they continue to 

make the U.S. Government the logistics arm of the international 

drug cartels. 

Alarmingly, data from the Department shows that aliens that 

make it to Mexico to schedule CBP One appointments at the Southwest Border come from what the FBI considers special interest 

countries, including Russia, China, and Iran. 

Despite the Department’s claim that inadmissible aliens are 

thoroughly screened and vetted, we know that the process is inadequate. If an alien has a criminal record in his country of origin, 

CBP has almost no way of knowing how many of the approximately 

750,000 aliens that have been released into this country under the 

administration’s expansion of the CBP One app have gone on to 

commit acts of violence against Americans. 

The country has witnessed the tragic results of these programs 

in the recent rape of a 15-year-old child in Massachusetts by a Haitian allowed into the United States through the CHNV program. 

The American people deserve robust screening and vetting processes for all perspective entrants. They deserve a secure border, 

and they deserve a Federal Government that upholds its fundamental duty to honor the law and to protect the safety and security 

of the American people. 

With the expansion of CBP One, however, I know that the administration, once again, intends on only managing the public perception of illegal immigration instead of actually securing the border. 

I want to thank these witnesses for being here and to take our 

questions. I look forward to their testimony. Mr. Chairman, I yield 

back. 

[The statement of Chairman Bishop follows:] 

STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN DAN BISHOP

MARCH 21, 2024 

Good afternoon, and welcome to this joint hearing of the Subcommittee on Border 

Security and Enforcement and the Subcommittee on Oversight, Investigations, and 

Accountability. Today’s hearing will examine the Department of Homeland Secu-
9 

rity’s expansion of the CBP One mobile application and its role in facilitating mass 

illegal immigration into the United States. 

• Since January 2023, the Department of Homeland Security has expanded the 

use of the CBP One application in two ways to implement its open borders 

agenda. First, inadmissible aliens located in Mexico can use CBP One to schedule appointments at the Southwest Border. Second, inadmissible aliens from 

certain countries like Cuba, Haiti, Venezuela, and Nicaragua, who participate 

in the Department’s abuse of parole programs, can use CBP One to request permission to fly into U.S. airports. 

• To date, more than 459,000 CBP One appointments have been scheduled at the 

Southwest Border ports of entry. In 2023 alone, more than 320,000 inadmissible 

aliens flew into U.S. airports through parole programs using CBP One. These 

numbers don’t even count toward the over 2.8 million aliens crossing our borders illegally Nation-wide since January 2023. 

• The aliens using CBP One aren’t just getting appointments or hopping on 

flights, they’re also nearly categorically being released into the United States. 

According to the Department’s own data, from January through September 

2023, 96 percent of aliens with CBP One appointments at the Southwest Border 

were released. The probability of release is just as assured for those flying into 

airports. From January through June 2023, 97 percent of aliens who flew into 

a U.S. airport were paroled into the United States. 

• This is astonishing considering that the Department recently admitted in litigation that allowing these aliens to fly into U.S. airports creates ‘‘operational 

vulnerabilities that could be exploited by bad actors.’’ 

• The administration claims that the use of the CBP One app will slow the flow 

of aliens illegally entering the United States and cut cartels out of the migration process. But the facts bely these claims. Since the CBP One expansion in 

January 2023, encounters of illegal aliens have reached monthly all-time highs 

and are on pace to reach 2 million again this fiscal year. Meanwhile, cartels still 

control the migration process. They control the smuggling routes that aliens use 

to get to Mexico, they actively exploiting security loopholes through CBP One, 

and they clearly still control the Southwest Border. 

• This expanded CBP One use is not a solution to the border crisis; it is a desperate attempt to solve the administration’s political crisis and manage the optics of a chaotic border by streamlining catch-and-release policies. It is open borders with the option to check in through a mobile app on a smartphone. 

• Alarmingly, data from the Department shows that aliens that make it to Mexico 

to schedule CBP One appointments at the Southwest Border come from what 

the FBI considers special interest countries, including Russia, China, and Iran. 

• Despite the Department’s claim that inadmissible aliens are thoroughly 

screened and vetted, we know that the process is inadequate. If an alien has 

a criminal record in his country of origin, CBP has almost no way of knowing. 

• How many of the approximately 750,000 aliens that have been released into the 

country under this administration’s expansion of the CBP One app have gone 

on to commit acts of violence against Americans? The country has witnessed the 

tragic results of these programs with the recent rape of a 15-year-old child in 

Massachusetts by a Haitian allowed into the United States through the CHNV 

program. 

• The American people deserve robust screening and vetting processes for all prospective entrants, they deserve a secure border, and they deserve a Federal 

Government that upholds its fundamental duty to protect the safety and security of the American people. With the expansion of CBP One, however, I fear 

that the administration once again intends on only managing the public perception of illegal immigration instead of actually securing the border. 

• I want to thank our witnesses for being here today, and I look forward to their 

testimony. 

Mr. HIGGINS. Thank you, Chairman Bishop. 

I now recognize the Ranking Member for the Subcommittee on 

Oversight, Investigations, and Accountability, the gentleman from 

Maryland, Mr. Ivey, for his opening statement. 

Mr. IVEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that. I want 

to thank the witnesses for appearing today. 

I also want to welcome Congressman Suozzi, our newest Member. I want to thank the New York voters for sending you here. 
10 

I want to note, too, and you’ll have a chance to speak about this 

more, that, you know, what you just said a moment ago, that the 

American people have a particular view about this. But the Congressman campaigned on trying to find bipartisan solutions to the 

immigration issue, to the border crisis, as you call it. The voters 

picked him, I think, in large part because of that. 

So congratulations and we welcome your insight. You’ve got previous experience as a Member, too. You’ve got more experience 

than I do as a Member, so welcome to the committee. 

I was hoping this first hearing was going to be on the exact issue 

that he ran on, which was fixing the crisis at the border. I was hoping that one of those fixes we could make would be considering the 

bipartisan Senate bill that took a comprehensive look at how to fix 

it. 

Whether you like everything in the bill or not isn’t really the 

issue. The hope I had was that we could at least take it up. We 

could have amendments and debates and the like. You know, if we 

had to add something or take something, that’s fine. But let’s try 

and find a bipartisan solution to this issue. 

Unfortunately, that’s not where we seem to be going right now. 

I think our recent history, you know, just before you got here, this 

committee spent months on the illegitimate impeachment of the 

Secretary, Mr. Mayorkas. We had hearing after hearing after hearing. The committee generated—the Republican staff generated, I 

don’t know, several hundred pages of allegations and this and that. 

They swore up and down that they had to impeach him because 

that’s what they needed to do to fix the problem at the border, and 

we told them at the time, (A), it was unconstitutional and illegitimate because they didn’t even come close to meeting the standard 

of high crimes and misdemeanors. So they had to kind-of fabricate 

standards. 

But, more importantly, it wouldn’t change anything of what’s 

going on day-to-day on the ground down there. What we told them 

at the time, and I’m continuing to say that today, is we need to 

definitely add more resources at the border. I’ll be asking you questions about that when the time comes up. 

But the Senate bill would have added 200 CBP officers, increased 

the number of USCIS officers examining asylum claims by 800. 

We’ve got a supplemental proposal from the White House that we 

didn’t really do much with. 

I know we’ve gotten testimony not only from, you know, witnesses at this table, but when we went to the border down in 

Texas, what was that, a few months ago, and had a chance to 

speak to them directly, they said we need more resources. We need 

more people down here. 

You know, we’ve got one guy covering X hundred miles of border. 

We’ve got people burning out. We’ve got people leaving because this 

is damaging to their families. They are relocating people to, you 

know, different places and the like, and they just don’t have 

enough bodies to do it. 

I know there’s been some conversations and, you know, even 

some hearings about adding numbers to that, but, you know, we’re 

struggling to get there. 
11 

Hopefully, the bill that’s coming through, the minibus, I guess 

we’re calling it, will help to address this in an immediate way. But 

we’re still, you know, kind-of dragging our feet on that because 

we’re focusing on the small issues instead of the big issues like that 

one. 

I also think, too, that the messages aren’t just coming from 

Democrats. They’re coming from the Supreme Court. Justice 

Kavanaugh—and, you know, I quoted this, his language and his 

opinion multiple times, not only in this committee but on the floor. 

But one of the things that Justice Kavanaugh wrote in United 

States v. Texas, which struck down or threw out one of the cases 

that Texas brought on this issue, and I’ll do it from memory I guess 

at this point, you know, for the past 27 years and 5 presidencies, 

you know, these policies have been in place, the prosecutorial discretion policies, because they just don’t have enough resources to 

hold everybody. 

So whoever is in charge has to make a decision about who gets 

released and who doesn’t. 

Now, they complain about who gets released, and they will pull 

up cases about somebody gets released and does something bad 

and, you know, fair enough. But the only way to fix it is to put 

more resources and expand the number of people who can address 

the problem. That would include, for example, judges, dramatically 

increasing the number of judges who can hear these cases so it 

doesn’t take 6 or 7 years. Maybe take 6 or 7 months. 

If we start turning people back quicker, then that might be one 

way to address this problem, too, and send the message back that 

you don’t just get to come here and stay for 6 years. But we haven’t 

made much headway on that with my colleagues on the other side 

either. 

I just want to make this—read this comment from Senator 

Lankford. He’s one of the individuals who led the crafting of the 

bipartisan Senate bill. He’s a Republican from Oklahoma and had 

been viewed as a very conservative member up until he came out 

with this bill. Former President Trump sort-of vilified him for that. 

You know, the Speaker and some of the House Republican colleagues got in step with that. 

But here’s what he said: Welcome to governance. You can do a 

partisan bill in the House. But in the Senate, we have to look at 

each other across the aisle and then figure out a way to be able 

to solve this. 

So I’m hoping that we can prove him wrong at some point, that 

we will get to a point here in the House where we decide we really 

want to try and do something and solve this. 

I know we’ve had bills considered here in the committee before. 

My recollection from one of those markups was I think every 

amendment the Democrats offered was rejected on a party line 

vote, if I recall correctly. I think you might have got something 

done on the floor, but other than that. 

Then during the impeachment hearing, they rejected all of the 

amendments on the party line vote up until they got tired of hearing them. Then they just summarily dismissed like 30 of the 

amendments. We didn’t have a chance to vote on them. 
12 

So I’m hoping we can move away from that approach and get to 

the point where we’re actually considering trying to work together. 

I feel like I’ve been able to do that with some of my colleagues on 

the other side. 

Congressman Bishop, I think we’ve been able to do hearings together in a way that’s been, in my view, bipartisan. We’ve been 

able to, you know, address those issues. We don’t agree on everything but at least we hash it out. 

I’m hoping that we can get there on this issue, too, because it’s 

too important to the American people to just keep letting it drift 

off and, you know, for these political reasons. 

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

Mr. HIGGINS. Thank you, Ranking Member Ivey. 

I now recognize the Chairman of the whole committee, the Committee on Homeland Security, Chairman Green, for his opening 

statement. 

Chairman GREEN. Thank you, Chairman. I appreciate you letting 

me sit in on your committee, both of you. And the Ranking Members, I appreciate them. I have deep respect for all of the folks who 

sit on this committee on both sides of the aisle. A lot of long nights 

have happened, mark-ups. We’ve got a mark-up coming up here 

pretty soon that should be a little easier with some bills from both 

sides. 

But I do want to take issue, though, with some of the things that 

have been said today. This notion about a historic migration crisis. 

I tend to agree with Mr. Bishop. You can trace the causation of 

this. There’s a massive shift in policy. 

There have been no significant increase in weather events in 

Latin America. Their GDP has actually increased, so you can 

blame COVID if you want to, but since COVID, their GDPs have 

all gone up. It’s not an issue of COVID causing the issue, certainly 

not now. 

It really pushes reason to suggest that it’s not—because we just 

completely did away with any constraints and created incredible incentives. If you come, you just get released into the country. People 

tested the system. They called home and mass waves came. It’s 

quite simple. 

I mean, if it was an asylum issue, you get out of your country. 

You’re in the next country. You’re safe. But they don’t do that. 

They keep coming. It’s not that issue. 

It’s not an issue of just Latin America. I mean, we’re talking 160 

countries encountered at the Southwest Border. The notion that it 

might be because people have different color skin, that’s just crazy, 

because when I was there, there were a huge group of Russians 

coming through. 

It’s funny. We want to block Russians from going into Ukraine, 

but we seem to want to welcome them into the United States if 

they fill out the CBP app. It doesn’t make a lot of sense to me, but 

it doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense to 80 percent of the Americans, too, if you poll them right now. 

In terms of the conduct of the committee recently and whether 

or not we should have impeached our first sitting Cabinet Secretary in the history of the country, you know, I’ve made my posi-
13 

tion very clear on this. The law is the law. The Constitution is the 

Constitution. 

The Constitution says Congress writes the laws and the Executive branch executes them. You can look at all the previous impeachments in the past. Every single one of them basically made 

the argument that the Executive branch didn’t get to pick which 

ones they wanted to enforce and which ones they didn’t. 

That brings us to this discussion about CBP One. This thing was 

designed for Customs, to get trade-in. I love Mr. Correa’s comments 

on this. He’s been really on top of how we need to facilitate the 

trade. I appreciate, in previous committee hearings, how you’ve 

really pushed that issue, and I liked CBP One for that. 

But making it a blanket automatic parole is against the law. 

Shall detain. That’s what the law says. It’s interesting. The law 

doesn’t say to DAs across the country, you shall capture every murderer, but it does say you shall detain everybody who comes in that 

has a felony conviction. 

Mr. Mayorkas was very clear. No, you don’t have to do that, employees of DHS, despite what the law says. 

We can’t have Cabinet Secretaries who just get to make it up on 

their own. That’s not what the Constitution—our founders, they 

spread power out and that’s how we get freedom. But a rogue Cabinet Secretary who just gets to make up and do whatever he wants 

because he doesn’t like the current system, that’s just not how the 

Constitution is set up. 

So should we pass some laws and fix these issues? Yes, we 

should. I would love to fix immigration law. The problem is we’ve 

got an unsecure border. It’s like an arterial bleed. Nine million people. 

I mean, just think of the teachers we’ve had to add in the country, if we want a 35-to-1 ratio, that’s about 15,000 teachers for this 

number of kids that have come in. Where are we going to get those 

in the blink of an eye? It’s untenable. 

Of course, the crime and stuff that’s associated with it when the 

cartels take advantage of this mass migration wave created by the 

change and the paradigm shift, that’s the reason for it. 

So I think getting to the bottom of just how the CBP One app 

is being used is very important. I think it’s critical, actually, because these particularly special privileges being provided to countries without there being any law passed on that needs to be deeply 

delved into. 

I appreciate both Chairmen for putting this committee hearing 

together, and I look forward to hearing from our witnesses. 

I yield. 

[The statement of Chairman Green follows:] 

STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN MARK E. GREEN, MD 

MARCH 21, 2024 

I would like to first thank Chairman Higgins and Chairman Bishop for holding 

this important hearing, today. The Department of Homeland Security’s unlawful use 

of the CBP One app to mass-parole hundreds of thousands of inadmissible aliens 

into the United States has now magnified the serious nature of President Biden and 

Secretary Mayorkas’ self-imposed border crisis. Rather than instructing the Department of Homeland Security to deter illegal immigration and foreign threats abroad, 

Secretary Mayorkas has created incentives to invite them in. I hope that today’s 
14 

hearing will shed light on the administration’s true intent for the CBP One app— 

which is to grant just about anyone in the world parole into the United States. 

The original purpose of the app under President Trump was to streamline the 

flow of legal commercial cargo for legitimate trade. However, under Secretary 

Mayorkas, it has become a means to streamline mass migration for mostly inadmissible aliens. 

This expansion of the radical, open-borders agenda provides just about any foreign 

national, including inadmissible aliens without proper documents, almost guaranteed parole. 

The Biden administration has made it crystal clear that they want them here and 

they are using CBP One for this purpose. While the administration touts their immigration policies as being ‘‘safe and humane’’ for migrants, they are forgetting that 

their duty is to protect Americans and prioritize homeland security above all else. 

I am confident that this committee will not let this administration forget that. 

Even more startling is that in January alone, the Department of Homeland Security processed over 45,000 inadmissible aliens into the country using the CBP One 

app. Not to mention that between January 2023 and the end of January 2024, approximately half-a-million inadmissible aliens ‘‘successfully scheduled appointments’’ 

with Customs and Border Protection. Of the half a million—how many were paroled 

into our country? 

Which leads us to question the Department’s rampant misuse of parole. By law, 

parole should only be used on a case-by-case basis. The Secretary’s use of parole is 

a perfect illustration of the abuse of authority that this administration is trying to 

get away with. 

Secretary Mayorkas has taken his ill-conceived interpretation of parole and has 

perverted it to accelerate the mass entry of aliens through his Cuban, Haitian, Nicaraguan, and Venezuelan, or CHNV, and Family Reunification parole programs. 

Thousands of foreign nationals are receiving pre-authorized travel from abroad to 

arrive at any U.S. airport of their choosing. Why is Secretary Mayorkas flying inadmissible aliens in? Make no mistake, this was by design. 

Well, I’ve got news for you. The committee is watching. America is watching. Secretary Mayorkas’ illegal use of CBP One to undermine our border and facilitate 

chaos is nothing more than a smoke screen. 

Under the guise of ‘‘law and order,’’ the Department is using CBP One to simply 

shuffle illegal aliens through the Southwest Border and disguising these unlawful 

border crossings as legal entries. 

As the committee seeks to gain insight about CBP One’s expansion, its intended 

purpose, and capabilities, from the witnesses before us here today, I would like to 

ask everyone in the room to think about this: Who is ultimately benefiting from this 

app? The migrants? The cartels? And does this make us safer? The answer is clearly 

‘‘no.’’ 

The administration’s utter refusal to secure our borders is once again on full display. With that, I yield back the balance of my time and look forward to hearing 

from our witnesses. 

Mr. HIGGINS. The gentleman yields. 

Other Members of the committee are reminded that opening 

statements may be submitted for the record. 

[The statement of Ranking Member Thompson follows:] 

STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER BENNIE G. THOMPSON

MARCH 21, 2024 

I am pleased the subcommittees are examining the Biden-Harris administration’s 

efforts to address increased rates of migration to the U.S. Southwest Border in a 

humane and effective way. We are currently seeing increased rates of migration 

across the world, with the United States and our neighbors being no exception. 

However, the solution to this challenge is not to repeat the cruel policies of the 

Trump administration, which oversaw the separation of families at the border and 

limited legal immigration pathways, leaving vulnerable populations in danger. Instead, President Biden has taken a proactive approach to combatting the root causes 

of migration in the Western Hemisphere while ensuring that there is an orderly and 

safe process for those who are making their case for admission under our laws. 

The administration has worked to foster cooperative agreements with regional 

partners in the Western Hemisphere to address the political, economic, security, and 

environmental conditions that lead to irregular migration. This increased collaboration with Mexico and other countries in Central and South America helps the 
15 

United States provide accurate information for those considering making the dangerous journey north and instead encourage the use of legal immigration pathways. 

One of the key components of the Department of Homeland Security’s efforts to 

incentivize noncitizens to use lawful and safe pathways is the CBP One app. This 

app allows migrants to schedule an appointment to present themselves at a port of 

entry, preventing the kind of chaos and dysfunction at the border seen during the 

Trump administration. Over the last year, more than 450,000 individuals have successfully used the app to schedule appointments at ports of entry, which creates an 

orderly and humane process for Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to address 

those who seek entry into the country. 

The app has also been used to facilitate humanitarian parole programs for those 

fleeing emergency situations in their home countries of Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and 

Venezuela. These are the same types of parole programs prior administrations have 

used, which have proven to be effective in reducing the number of migrants seeking 

to cross between ports of entry. 

The CBP One app is not a rubber stamp to any noncitizen that seeks entry; it 

merely serves as a scheduling tool, providing logistical support for migrants and 

CBP alike. Those who use it are still subject to the same screening and vetting that 

CBP uses to evaluate anyone else seeking entry into the country. But the orderly 

processing helps ease the burden on often overworked CBP Officers and Border Patrol Agents and maximize CBP resources. 

The success of the app demonstrates that most migrants will use safe, orderly, 

and humane pathways to make their case for admittance into the United States if 

given the option, rather than trying to cross illegally. CBP continues to work on improvements to the app, addressing any security vulnerabilities and ensuring that 

migrants who have been trying to obtain appointments for the longest time will be 

prioritized. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today about how this committee can 

support the administration’s efforts to address migration challenges with legal pathways, technological solutions, and international collaboration. 

Mr. HIGGINS. I’m pleased to welcome our panel of witnesses. I, 

again, apologize that there was delay getting started, but we appreciate your patience. 

I ask that our witnesses please rise and raise your right hand. 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

Mr. HIGGINS. Let the record reflect that the witnesses have answered in the affirmative. 

Thank you all. Please be seated. 

I would like to now formally introduce our witnesses. 

Mr. Adam Hunter is the deputy assistant secretary for immigration policy at the Department of Homeland Security. He was appointed on January 20, 2021. 

Mr. Hunter has more than 15 years experience in migration, national security, and international affairs issues. Before assuming 

his role at DHS, he was the executive director of Refugee Council 

USA, an organization working to protect and welcome refugees, 

asylum seekers, and other forcibly displaced populations. 

During a previous tenure in government, Mr. Hunter served as 

acting chief of staff at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 

and held other agency leadership and program management roles. 

Our next witness is Ms. Diane Sabatino. She’s the acting executive assistant commissioner of the Office of Field Operations within 

the United States Customs and Border Protection. 

As the senior official for the Office of Field Operations, Ms. 

Sabatino is responsible for overseeing the operations of 20 major 

field offices, 328 ports of entry, and over 70 locations in over 40 

countries internationally. 

She leads more than 32,000 employees and oversees an annual 

operating budget of $7.5 billion. 
16 

Ms. Sabatino previously served as a deputy executive assistant 

commissioner in the Office of Field Operations. 

Our next witness is Ms. Tammy Meckley. She is the associate director for Immigration Records and Identity Services Directorate at 

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. 

Ms. Meckley began her role as associate director in February 

2015. In this role, she manages the e-verify and Systematic Alien 

Verification for Entitlements, the SAVE program. 

She oversees the largest FOIA program in the Federal Government and leads USCIS’ e-processing initiative, which connects previously separate technology systems within the agency to improve 

decision timeliness, increase transparency during the application 

process, and accelerate the availability of on-line filing for all immigration benefits. 

Our next witness is Ms. Marta Youth. She is the principal deputy assistant secretary for the Department of State’s Bureau of 

Population, Refugees, and Migration. She joined the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration as a deputy assistant secretary in 

November 2020. 

Ms. Youth oversees the Office of the Executive Director, the Office of International Migration, and the Office of Assistance for 

Western Hemisphere. 

Ms. Youth was previously the director of Central American affairs and the Bureau of Western Hemisphere affairs. Ms. Youth 

has been a foreign service officer for more than 25 years and is a 

member of the senior foreign service. 

I thank the witnesses for being here today. The witnesses’ full 

statements will appear in the record. 

I now recognize Mr. Hunter for 5 minutes to summarize his 

opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF ADAM HUNTER, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR IMMIGRATION POLICY, OFFICE OF STRATEGY, 

POLICY, AND PLANS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Mr. HUNTER. Thank you, Chairman Higgins, Ranking Member 

Correa, Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Ivey, and Chairman 

Green. I appreciate the opportunity to be here and discuss the Department of Homeland Security’s efforts to carry out its statutory 

border security enforcement missions. 

At our Southwest Border, we continue to experience the impacts 

of global trends that have been building for many years. Violence, 

food insecurity, severe poverty, corruption, climate change, and, 

more recently, the fallout of the COVID–19 pandemic have all contributed to a significant increase in displacement around the world. 

These conditions drive unprecedented movements of people in 

our own hemisphere, too, where failing authoritarian regimes in 

Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, along with a worsening security 

in humanitarian crisis in Haiti, exacerbate conditions, and smugglers and cartels are all too eager to put migrants’ lives at risk for 

profit. 

You will hear more from my State Department colleague about 

these drivers, as well as the administration’s comprehensive hemi-
17 

spheric approach to reduce irregular migration in collaboration 

with partner governments in the region. 

For DHS’s part, we execute upon a two-part strategy to reduce 

irregular migration by strengthening consequences for individuals 

who cross the border unlawfully while also expanding lawful pathways and processes to incentivize use of safe and orderly alternatives to irregular migration. 

From our enhanced use of expedited removal, our increased removals and returns of individuals without a legal basis to remain 

in the country, to the circumvention of lawful pathways rule and 

other efforts, we are imposing serious consequences for unlawful 

entry. 

Through the expansion of lawful pathways and processes, including the CHNV parole processes and scheduling through the CBP 

One app at the border, we provide alternatives to irregular migration. Taken together, DHS has changed the calculus for migrants 

and further disincentivize the irregular journey, which often includes putting their lives in the hands of smugglers. 

Our efforts have yielded positive results. Between returning to 

full Title 8 processing enforcement on May 12, 2023, to now, DHS 

has removed or returned more than 630,000 individuals, the vast 

majority of whom crossed the Southwest Border. 

Put another way, our removals and returns over the last 10- 

month period alone exceeds each and every full fiscal year total 

going back to 2013. 

Border encounters are also lower this quarter with encounters of 

Cuban, Haitian, Nicaraguan, and Venezuelan nationals all notably 

below their peaks. 

Consequences are, however, not sufficient to deter irregular migration alone. To be most effective, the consequences we enforce 

must be paired with incentives for migrants to use safe, orderly, 

and lawful processes. 

The CBP One application specifically was first deployed in October 2020. Over time, new functionalities have been added. The app 

itself is not a pathway. Rather, it is an operational tool that supports CBP processes and services. 

The CBP One functionality used by noncitizens along the Southwest Border is limited to a scheduling function of an appointment. 

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, codified under Title 8 

of the U.S. Code, the Department is required to inspect noncitizens 

who present at a port of entry within the United States. 

The app is, therefore, for us an important tool for managing the 

border, more efficiently processing those who present, and safely 

and orderly carrying out DHS’s responsibilities under law. 

By allowing individuals to directly schedule an appointment from 

central to northern Mexico, the CBP One app effectively cuts out 

smugglers, decreases migrant exploitation, and improves safety and 

security. More than 500,000 noncitizens have successfully scheduled an appointment. 

As my colleague from U.S. Customs and Border Protection will 

discuss, CBP’s inspection, screening and vetting, processing at 

ports, and releases on parole from our custody have occurred under 

prior administrations and exist under our existing Title 8 authorities. 
18 

DHS continues to deliver strength and consequences for noncitizens who do not establish a lawful basis to remain in the United 

States, while simultaneously offering safe and orderly processes for 

noncitizens at our ports of entry. 

I’m proud to work alongside the dedicated 260,000 employees 

who make up DHS throughout its headquarters and operational 

components. The Department remains eager to work with this committee and other Congressional leaders on a bipartisan basis to update the United States’ framework and provide for durable solutions. 

In the mean time, DHS will utilize every tool currently at its disposal and within its authority to security the border and create a 

safe, orderly, and humane immigration system. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I look forward to your 

questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hunter follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ADAM HUNTER

MARCH 21, 2024 

INTRODUCTION

Chairman Higgins, Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Correa, and Ranking 

Member Ivey, and distinguished Members of the subcommittees: I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS or Department) efforts to carry out its statutory border security and enforcement mission, including by efficiently inspecting, vetting, and processing noncitizens who present for admission at Southwest Border ports of entry (POE). 

I have served the Department as the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Immigration 

Policy since January 20, 2021. I am proud to work alongside the 260,000 employees 

who make up DHS, including those represented by leadership from U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection (CBP) and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 

(USCIS) here today. 

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, as codified under Title 8 of the U.S. 

Code, the Department is required to inspect noncitizens who present at a POE within the United States seeking admission into the country. Those inspections, as well 

as the processing decisions that flow from them, are executed under Title 8 authorities. As a law enforcement agency, DHS follows the law. 

In full recognition of the requirement to inspect and process individuals under 

Title 8, and in furtherance of its mission to secure the Nation’s borders, even as historically high migrant arrivals have overstretched DHS’s limited resources, DHS 

has taken innovative steps to disincentivize irregular migration and minimize the 

risk of human smuggling. Core to these efforts is a two-part strategy to simultaneously (1) expand the availability of safe, orderly, and lawful pathways and processes to come to the United States, and (2) strictly enforce our Nation’s immigration 

laws by imposing consequences on individuals who do not avail themselves of safe, 

orderly, and lawful pathways and processes. These tandem efforts increase security 

and better utilize limited law enforcement resources. 

GLOBAL TRENDS

There are more people displaced throughout the world today than at any time 

since World War II. Violence, food insecurity, severe poverty, corruption, climate 

change, the fall-out of the COVID–19 pandemic, and dire economic conditions have 

all contributed to a significant increase in irregular migration around the globe. In 

the Western Hemisphere, failing authoritarian regimes in Venezuela, Cuba, and 

Nicaragua, along with an on-going security and humanitarian crisis in Haiti, have 

driven millions of people from those countries to leave their homes; further, these 

countries’ uncooperative governments or unstable reception conditions make it difficult to impose enforcement consequences on unlawful entry due to the severe restrictions we have on our ability to return their nationals. 

Increased encounters at our border are a direct result of global trends that have 

been building for many years. Historically, encounters along the Southwest Border 

in the 1980’s and 1990’s consisted overwhelmingly of single adults from Mexico who 
19 

were migrating for economic reasons and regularly crossed back and forth across the 

border. Until the early 2000’s, encounters routinely numbered more than 1 million 

a year. In the early 2010’s, following 3 decades of bipartisan border security investments, encounters reached modern lows, averaging fewer than 400,000 per year 

from 2011 to 2017. However, even during this period, DHS faced significant situational surges in migration by, for example, unaccompanied children in 2014, and 

family units in 2016. Between 2017 and 2019 alone, encounters along the Southwest 

Border more than doubled, and—following a significant drop during the beginning 

of the COVID–19 pandemic, which shut down cross-border movements around the 

world and depressed global migration—encounters continued to increase in 2021, 

2022, and 2023. 

DHS EFFORTS

In response to these global migration trends, DHS has taken a number of innovative steps that seek to change the calculus for intending migrants, including before 

they even begin an irregular migration journey. These measures include strengthened consequences for individuals who cross the border unlawfully, while significantly expanding lawful pathways to incentivize noncitizens to use safe and orderly 

processes to come to the United States without having to put their lives in the 

hands of smugglers for an arduous and dangerous irregular journey. 

These efforts and others have collectively yielded results: since the expiration of 

the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) public health order under 

Title 42 on May 12, 2023, to March 6, 2024, DHS removed or returned nearly 

600,000 individuals, the vast majority having recently crossed the Southwest Border. Nearly 100,000 of those removed or returned were traveling in family units. 

The majority of all individuals DHS encountered along the Southwest Border over 

the past 3 years were removed, returned, or expelled. In just the past 10 months 

alone, DHS has exceeded the full-year total number of individuals removed and returned during each fiscal year since 2013. 

The CBP One mobile application was deployed in October 2020 to serve as a single portal to a variety of CBP services, with early functionality supporting trade and 

cargo facilitation. As functionality has been added, the CBP One mobile application 

provides increased accessibility to some of CBP’s most utilized services. The CBP 

One mobile application has been key to supporting several of the Department’s efforts to incentivize use of lawful pathways and processes. However, the mobile application itself is not a lawful pathway; rather it is a technological tool that supports 

CBP processes. 

The CBP One functionality used by noncitizens along the Southwest Border is 

limited to scheduling an appointment to present at 1 of 8 designated POEs. Unlike 

the supporter-initiated parole processes, a noncitizen can schedule an appointment 

on their own, and seek to present oneself for inspection at a land POE. This scheduling function—announced as part of new border enforcement measures on January 

5, 2023—is an important tool to maintain a safe and orderly process for managing 

the border and more efficiently processing those who present at a POE, consistent 

with CBP and the Department’s statutory responsibilities. 

Prior to this, similar CBP One scheduling functionality was utilized for noncitizens seeking a humanitarian exception from the CDC’s public health order under 

Title 42 of the U.S. Code. Upon expiration of that public health order, DHS resumed 

processing all noncitizens presenting for admission at a POE under Title 8 authorities. As noted earlier, Title 8 requires DHS personnel to inspect noncitizens who 

present at a POE within the United States seeking admission into the country. The 

scheduling function was expanded to provide a mechanism in which any noncitizen 

located in Central and Northern Mexico could seek to schedule an appointment to 

present at a POE at a pre-scheduled time. This allows migrants to avoid needing 

to congregate at or near POEs for hours or days on end, and allows DHS to more 

efficiently prepare for the orderly processing of arriving migrants. 

Importantly, CBP One is used only as a scheduling tool. The application is not 

a tool to request parole. It is not a tool to claim asylum, nor is it used to screen, 

inspect, or process noncitizens for entry to the United States. The tool simply allows 

individuals of any nationality who are in Central or Northern Mexico to schedule 

an appointment to present themselves at a designated land POE. The advance biographic and biometric information individuals provide in CBP One to secure their 

appointment allows CBP to streamline its screening and vetting processes at the 

border. The efficiency gained by noncitizens’ use of the CBP One scheduling function 

has allowed CBP to significantly expand its capacity to process noncitizens more efficiently at land POEs on the Southwest Border compared to pre-pandemic processing. 
20 

By allowing individuals to directly schedule an appointment, the CBP One app 

effectively cuts out the smugglers, decreases migrant exploitation, and improves 

safety and security in addition to making the process more efficient. The tool itself 

is available in English, Spanish, and Haitian Creole, and CBP has published reference guides in 9 additional languages. Because CBP One is available across Central and Northern Mexico, it removes the need for noncitizens to congregate in and 

around border towns, where they can often be subject to manipulation by bad actors 

who seek to exploit them for profit. Transnational criminal organizations encourage 

and facilitate these migratory flows, spreading disinformation about what individuals will encounter along the route, at our border, and once in the United States, 

so they can exploit migrants as part of a billion-dollar criminal enterprise. The increasing role that drug cartels are playing in human smuggling throughout the region is particularly concerning given their complete disregard for human life, which 

has led to tragedies in the United States, Mexico, and many other countries. 

Since the launch of its scheduling functionality on January 18, 2023, through the 

end February 2024, more than 501,000 noncitizens have successfully scheduled an 

appointment to present in a safe and orderly manner at a designated POE through 

the CBP One app. When a noncitizen presents at a POE within the United States 

seeking admission into the country, they are inspected and processed by a CBP officer. During inspection, the CBP officer determines an appropriate processing disposition, including but not limited to, initiating removal proceedings by issuing a 

Notice to Appear before an immigration judge, and considering, on a case-by-case 

basis, whether to grant parole for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public 

benefit. When exercising such discretion, the CBP officer considers a variety of factors, including, but not limited to, the nature of the noncitizen’s inadmissibility, any 

humanitarian or public interest considerations relevant at the time of inspection, 

any previous apprehensions, previous grants of discretion, and the noncitizen’s intended purpose for seeking entry into the United States. Noncitizens who are determined to pose a national security or public safety threat, or who otherwise do not 

warrant parole as a matter of officer discretion, will not be authorized a grant of 

parole and may be detained pending further processing. Such factors are considered 

both for noncitizens presenting with CBP One appointments at a POE, and for those 

without a CBP One appointment. These factors and available processing dispositions under our longstanding Title 8 authorities also predate the use of CBP One. 

CBP One is also used as a second step in the workflow of certain parole processes, 

like those available to nationals of Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela and their 

immediate family members. For the parole processes, only after a noncitizen’s U.S.- 

based supporter has been confirmed by USCIS would the noncitizen beneficiary receive instructions to submit certain information through the CBP One application 

to be vetted and considered for travel authorization. If authorized, the beneficiary 

may travel to an air POE and seek a discretionary grant of parole by CBP on a caseby-case basis. 

CBP One is just one tool in broader DHS efforts to incentivize migrants to use 

safe and orderly processes and disincentivize attempts at irregular or unlawful 

entry to the United States. In addition, DHS has continued to implement the Circumvention of Lawful Pathways rule. Its provisions incentivize migrants to use the 

lawful, safe, and orderly processes that DHS has established and disincentivize dangerous border crossings by placing a common-sense condition on asylum eligibility 

for those individuals who fail to do so, and who do not otherwise qualify for an exception. 

Under the rule, individuals who circumvent the expanded lawful, safe, and orderly pathways or processes into the United States—to include, but not limited to, 

the use of the CBP One mobile app to schedule a time and place to present at a 

POE—and also fail to seek protection in a country through which they traveled on 

their way to the United States, are subject to a rebuttable presumption of asylum 

ineligibility in the United States unless they meet specified exceptions. Individuals 

who cannot establish a valid claim to protection under the standards set out in the 

rule are subject to prompt removal under Title 8 authorities, which carries at least 

a 5-year bar to admission to the United States and the potential to be criminally 

prosecuted for repeated unlawful entry. 

CONCLUSION

DHS remains vigilant and will continue to deliver the strengthened consequences 

that have been put in place at the border for noncitizens who do not establish a 

lawful basis to remain in the United States, while simultaneously offering safe and 

orderly processes for noncitizens at our POEs. However, we recognize that the underlying conditions prompting historic migration across the Western Hemisphere re-
21 

main, and smugglers will continue to weaponize disinformation to put migrants’ 

lives at risk for profit. 

We have demonstrated our commitment to work innovatively within our statutory 

authorities, and using the resources made available by Congress, to address the 

challenges we are facing at our border and in the region. I strongly urge Congress 

to act on the bipartisan bill that was presented in the Senate. This bill, if passed 

into law, would be the toughest and fairest set of reforms to secure the border we’ve 

had in decades. It will make our country safer, make our border more secure, and 

treat people fairly and humanely while preserving legal immigration, consistent 

with our values as a Nation. It would deliver much-needed resources to support and 

expand the DHS workforce after decades of chronic underfunding and builds on this 

administration’s approach of applying strengthened consequences for those who 

cross the border unlawfully, while making available safe and orderly pathways for 

those who qualify. 

The Department remains eager to work with this committee and other Congressional leaders, on a bipartisan basis, to update the United States’ immigration 

framework, including by modernizing the asylum system. Until Congress makes 

changes only Congress can make, DHS will continue to utilize every tool currently 

at its disposal and within DHS’s authorities to secure the border and create a safe, 

orderly, and humane immigration system. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I look forward to your questions. 

Mr. HIGGINS. Thank you, Mr. Hunter. 

I now recognize Ms. Sabatino for 5 minutes to summarize her 

opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF DIANE J. SABATINO, ACTING EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF FIELD OPERATIONS, 

U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION 

Ms. SABATINO. Good afternoon, Chairman Higgins, Ranking 

Member Correa, Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Ivey, and distinguished Members of the subcommittees. It’s an honor to testify 

today and discuss U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s use of mobile technology to modernize operations at our ports of entry as 

part of CBP’s critical mission to secure our borders and facilitate 

lawful travel and trade. 

I’m proud to represent the more than 32,000 dedicated personnel 

of CBP’s Office of Field Operations, commonly referred to as OFO, 

who work tirelessly every day across 328 ports of entry to protect 

our border, our homeland, and our communities. 

We must balance complex mission sets, including encountering 

inadmissible persons, facilitating lawful travel and trade, and combating criminal smuggling. Innovative technology has always been 

a critical aspect of our efforts to increase security, streamline and 

modernize processes, and improve stakeholder experiences. 

Since its deployment in October 2020, the CBP One mobile application has served as a single portal to a variety of CBP services. 

CBP One is a secure and flexible platform that effectively and efficiently supports multiple OFO enforcement processes and stakeholder services as part of our long-standing security and facilitation 

operations. 

For instance, the app has a role in the Department of Homeland 

Security processes, such as for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and 

Venezuelans, commonly referred to as CHNV. 

Subsequent to sponsor, screening, and vetting with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, noncitizens may apply for advanced 

travel authorization from CBP through an automated process and 

will undergo biometric and biographic screening. 
22 

The app streamlines this process by performing multiple systems 

checks, freeing officers from time-consuming manual data entry, 

and allows officers to focus on their important vetting activities, as 

well as other mission priorities at ports of entry. 

All individuals are vetted against law enforcement holdings, 

which includes the watch list, text, which is a comprehensive 

records database, travel data, criminal records, NCIC, and information provided by our U.S. Government and international law enforcement partners. 

The app also provides a scheduling function enabling noncitizens 

located in central and northern Mexico to submit advance information and make an appointment to present themselves at a specified 

land border port of entry for inspection and processing. This replaced a manual process that had previously been coordinated with 

NGO’s. 

The app increases security by enabling the submission of advance information that assists officers in identifying bad actors and 

preparing questions before an individual arrives at the border. This 

streamlines the inspection process tying data together, which directly supports our CBP officers during their inspections. 

Without advance information provided through the app, processing at the Southwest Border ports of entry would divert officers 

from other mission priorities, like interdicting illicit narcotics, such 

as fentanyl, conducting important outbound operations, looking for 

weapons and currency, and processing legitimate trade and travel, 

which directly supports our economy. 

The app is a valuable tool for modernizing and improving processes, but in no way does the technology replace the experience and 

expertise of a CBP officer. On-line citizens who arrive at a port of 

entry are inspected by a CBP officer. Our officers verify the identity, nationality, citizenship, and stated intent for entry of individuals, review law enforcement systems for prior immigration encounters or criminal history, and interview the individual. 

The integration of CBP One is part of our comprehensive border 

management operations, provides the best information possible to 

our CBP officers, which allows our officers to do what they do best, 

which is talking to people to determine intent and increase situational awareness. 

We facilitate the flow of trillions of dollars in legitimate cargo 

every year while enforcing hundreds of trade laws to protect American businesses and consumers. At the same time, we are facilitating growing volumes of international travel across all of our 

international operating environments. 

The efficiencies, such as the collection of advance information, 

strengthens the security of our borders and enhances our ability to 

address irregular migration challenges without compromising our 

missions, including, again, interdicting illicit drugs and facilitating 

the flow of legitimate trade and travel to ensure continued National and economic security. 

I appreciate the subcommittee’s continued support of our mission, as well as our work force, and I look forward to your questions. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Sabatino follows:] 
23 

1March 20, 2020, CDC Order under Sections 362 & 365 of the Public Health Service Act (42 

U.S.C.§§ 265, 268): Order Suspending Introduction of Certain Persons from Countries Where a 

Communicable Disease Exists. https://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/pdf/CDC-Order-Prohibiting-Introduction-of-PersonslFinall3-20-20l3-p.pdf. 2This comprehensive approach was outlined in the DHS Plan for Southwest Border Security 

and Preparedness issued in April 2022 and updated in December 2022. See https:// 

www.dhs.gov/news/2023/05/01/fact-sheet-update-dhs-planning-southwest-border-security-measures-title-42-public. 3https://www.cbp.gov/about/mobile-apps-directory/cbpone. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DIANE J. SABATINO

MARCH 21, 2024 

INTRODUCTION

Chairman Higgins, Ranking Member Correa, Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member 

Ivey, and Members of the subcommittees, thank you for the opportunity to discuss 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP) use of mobile technology to support and 

facilitate inspection and processing operations at U.S. ports of entry (POEs) as part 

of our critical mission to secure our borders and facilitate lawful trade and travel. 

I am honored to represent the dedicated men and women of CBP’s Office of Field 

Operations (OFO) who operate on the front lines to ensure our national and economic security. 

OFO is responsible for securing the Nation’s borders while facilitating lawful 

trade and travel at POEs, which includes the inspection of all arriving noncitizens 

seeking admission into the United States. 

The emergence of the COVID–19 pandemic and the March 2020 implementation 

of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) public health order,1 commonly referred to as the Title 42 Order, transformed the Southwest Border (SWB) 

environment and significantly altered CBP’s operations. From March 20, 2020, at 

11:59 p.m. ET, until the order ended at 11:59 p.m. ET on May 11, 2023, with the 

expiration of the COVID–19 public health emergency, CBP expelled noncitizens subject to the Title 42 Order, which suspended the introduction into the United States 

of certain noncitizens arriving at land and adjacent coastal borders, to protect 

against the spread of COVID–19. 

As a critical component of the whole-of-Government planning effort led by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) over 18 months,2 CBP made numerous preparations for the end of the Title 42 Order. These measures included, but were not 

limited to, deployment and development of new technology to improve processing efficiencies and security, and coordination with our Federal, State, local, international, and non-governmental partners. 

After the end of the Title 42 Order, with new resources, technologies, and processes in place, CBP has resumed applying its full range of immigration authorities 

under Title 8 of the U.S. Code to process all noncitizens encountered at the border, 

as we have done throughout our agency’s history. These authorities provide for 

meaningful consequences for inadmissible noncitizens, to include placing individuals 

in expedited removal or other immigration removal proceedings, as well as subjecting individuals to a minimum 5-year bar on reapplying for admission and potential criminal prosecution if they subsequently re-enter without authorization. 

Since well before the COVID–19 pandemic, OFO had been advancing its use of 

technology to improve service delivery and customer experience. Prior to the incorporation of technology, many of OFO’s inspection and facilitation processes required 

manually intensive procedures by CBP officers and stakeholders. Processes often required lengthy transaction times to allow officers to manually input data, such as 

biographical information, carrying an increased risk of data errors, and diverting officers from devoting their time and focus to critical security functions. 

The development and deployment of innovative technology has always been a critical component of OFO’s efforts to increase security, streamline processes, and improve stakeholder experience. CBP continues to invest in technology that standardizes, automates, and enhances manual processes and services by making them more 

efficient, accurate, and secure. 

Since its deployment in October 2020, the CBP One mobile application has served 

as a single portal to a variety of CBP services.3 As part of CBP’s comprehensive effort to strengthen the security of our Nation’s borders while enhancing legitimate 

trade, CBP One provides increased accessibility to some of CBP’s most utilized services and is an important tool to help CBP provide a safe, orderly, and humane mechanism for managing the border. 
24 

4 As of February 29, 2024. 

5 88 FR 31314 (published May 16, 2023). 

For that reason, CBP operationalized technology, specifically the CBP One mobile 

application, to support its approach to providing certain noncitizens with lawful, 

safe, orderly options for presenting themselves for inspection at a POE. 

CBP ONE AS PART OF CBP’S ENFORCEMENT AND PROCESSING OPERATIONS

The CBP One application, a secure and flexible platform, enables OFO to effectively and efficiently incorporate multiple enforcement processes and services into 

our long-standing security and facilitation operations. 

For example, in April 2022, the administration announced a process known as 

Uniting for Ukraine (U4U) that provides a pathway for Ukrainian citizens and their 

immediate family members who are outside the United States to come to the United 

States through an airport POE and stay temporarily in a 2-year period of parole. 

Ukrainians participating in U4U must have an eligible and verified supporter in the 

United States who agrees to provide them with financial support for the duration 

of their stay in the United States. U4U beneficiaries then submit required information to CBP on-line through CBP One. 

Building on the success of this process, in October 2022, DHS implemented a 

similar process to allow certain Venezuelan nationals and their immediate family 

members to request advance authorization to travel to the United States through 

an airport POE to seek a discretionary grant of parole. Similar processes were initiated in January 2023 for nationals of Cuba, Nicaragua, and Haiti. These four processes together are commonly referred to as ‘‘CHNV.’’ The CHNV processes leverage 

CBP One to collect the required applicant information. 

Separately from the parole processes described above, CBP One contains a 

functionality that provides noncitizens physically located in Central or Northern 

Mexico with the ability to schedule an appointment to present themselves at a land 

border POE for inspection and processing. This functionality was implemented in 

January 2023. Available in English, Spanish, and Haitian Creole (in addition to 

quick reference guides in a dozen languages), CBP One effectively cuts out smugglers, decreases migrant exploitation, and improves safety and security in addition 

to making the process more efficient. Without the advance information being provided through CBP One, processing at SWB land POEs would take additional time, 

thus diverting officers from other priorities. Since the CBP One scheduling feature 

was introduced, more than 530,000 noncitizens have successfully scheduled appointments to present themselves at a SWB land POE.4

Prior to the termination of the Title 42 order, the scheduling function was used 

by noncitizens to schedule an appointment to present at a SWB land POE to seek 

a humanitarian exception to the Title 42 Order. When the Title 42 Order ended and 

CBP returned to processing all noncitizens under its long-standing Title 8 authorities, the scheduling capability in the app enabled all noncitizens who have submitted the appropriate information and are within Central or Northern Mexico to 

request a date and time to present at a designated POE for processing. However, 

noncitizens are not required to use CBP One to present at a POE for processing, 

and CBP inspects and processes all noncitizens who arrive at a POE, regardless of 

whether they use the application to schedule an appointment or submit registration 

information. 

Additionally, in May 2023, as part of the Government-wide post-Title 42 strategy 

to address the anticipated increase in migrants seeking to enter the United States 

by way of the SWB, DHS and the Department of Justice (DOJ) published a Final 

Rule 5 ‘‘Circumvention of Lawful Pathways,’’ establishing a rebuttable presumption 

of asylum ineligibility for certain noncitizens who fail to seek asylum or other protection in a country through which they travel and fail to take advantage of the existing and expanded lawful, safe, and orderly pathways and processes created by 

this administration, including the opportunity to schedule a time and place to 

present at a SWB land POE via the CBP One mobile application. 

The CBP One application is used in different ways to support various POE processes for travelers and stakeholders. For example, while CBP One includes 

functionality for those seeking to schedule an appointment to present at a land POE 

along the SWB, it has a separate and distinct functionality used by those seeking 

to request advance authorization to travel as part of established DHS parole processes, such as the U4U and CHNV processes. 

Noncitizens who are seeking to travel to the United States through the U4U or 

CHNV processes are required to have a U.S.-based supporter in the United States, 

who must first submit an affidavit of support with U.S. Citizenship and Immigra-
25 

tion Services (USCIS) and undergo required vetting. Following this review, if the 

supporter is verified, the intending beneficiary must submit certain information and 

documentation via CBP One to apply for an advance travel authorization. To be eligible to receive advance travel authorization under the U4U or CHNV processes, applicants must undergo rigorous biographic screening and security vetting and provide documentation verifying residency requirements; vaccination and other public 

heath requirements; and possession of a valid, unexpired passport. Once authorization is granted, U4U or CHNV participants can then travel by air to an interior 

POE and be considered for a grant of parole, which is determined by CBP on a caseby-case basis. 

APPLICATION SECURITY

As with all CBP technology, ensuring the security and intended functionality of 

the CBP One platform is critical. To schedule an appointment at the land border 

using CBP One, users are required to submit biographic information, pass a 

geolocation check, and complete a live facial photo submission to schedule appointments. The geolocation check and live photo are key security measures to combat 

fraud by ensuring the person scheduling an appointment matches their registration, 

is a real person, and is located in Central or Northern Mexico. 

CBP One utilizes more secure GPS location data, rather than internet protocol 

(IP) addresses, to establish a user is in the designated geolocated location before 

they may request or accept an appointment offer. This makes the use of a Virtual 

Private Network (VPN) ineffective. CBP One has also incorporated multiple additional security features such as the addition of CAPTCHA technology to authenticate human users, improved back-end system changes to combat bots and automation, and acting against accounts flagged for fraudulent activity. CBP continues to 

monitor CBP One and pursue additional functionality and security capabilities to 

combat against fraud and bad actors who prey on noncitizens. 

ARRIVAL AT A PORT OF ENTRY

CBP One is a valuable tool for streamlining processes, but in no way does the 

technology replace or automate an individual’s inspection by a CBP officer at a POE. 

Noncitizens who schedule an appointment at a land border POE through CBP 

One are inspected upon arrival by CBP officers to determine their admissibility to 

the United States. Officers must verify the identity, nationality/citizenship, and 

stated intent for entry of each individual. This can be established through questioning and review of travel documents. An inspection will always include a review 

of law enforcement systems for prior immigration encounters or criminal history of 

the noncitizen. Officers will perform further questioning to determine if the individual is admissible or should be referred for a secondary inspection. 

If an individual is deemed inadmissible for, as an example, not having the appropriate documentation for admission, they will be subject to appropriate immigration 

processes under Title 8. CBP officers retain discretion in determining the appropriate process for each noncitizen on a case-by-case basis and while considering the 

totality of the circumstances. As an example, a noncitizen may be issued a Notice 

to Appear (NTA) before an immigration judge or, depending on the charge of inadmissibility, may be issued an Order of Expedited Removal. Individuals processed for 

expedited removal proceedings who express a fear of persecution or torture, a fear 

of return to their country, or who express a desire to seek asylum, are referred to 

USCIS for a credible fear or reasonable fear interview. CBP officers do not determine the validity of any claims of fear. Individuals issued a NTA and placed in removal proceedings will have the opportunity to seek protection, including asylum, 

or other forms of relief before an immigration judge. 

Additionally, noncitizens may be granted parole, on a case-by-case basis, for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit, at a POE. In some cases, 

parole may occur following the issuance of an NTA. The authority for CBP to grant 

such a parole is found in 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5) and 8 CFR 212.5. Noncitizens who are 

determined to pose a national security or public safety threat, or who otherwise do 

not warrant parole as a matter of officer discretion, will not be authorized a grant 

of parole and may be detained pending further processing. 

CONCLUSION

CBP One, used alongside other resources, technology, and personnel, is a critical 

tool for helping front-line officers manage increased flows of irregular migration 

while maintaining a persistent focus on our other missions, like the interdiction of 

fentanyl, precursors, and other dangerous drugs. 
26 

As we respond and adapt to evolving border dynamics, OFO will continue investing in innovative technology and fulfilling our border security mission by deploying 

resources, streamlining processes, and putting measures in place to prevent disruptions to our critical border security operations. 

OFO remains committed, vigilant, and responsive to the full range of our responsibilities including interdicting illicit drugs, preventing dangerous people and goods 

from crossing into our borders, enforcing hundreds of trade laws, and ensuring the 

efficient flow of lawful trade and travel that is so important to our economy. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I look forward to your questions. 

Mr. HIGGINS. Thank you, Ms. Sabatino. 

I now recognize Ms. Meckley for 5 minutes to summarize her 

opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF TAMMY MECKLEY, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, IMMIGRATION RECORDS AND IDENTITY SERVICES DIRECTORATE, U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES 

Ms. MECKLEY. Chairman Green, Chairman Higgins, Chairman 

Bishop, Ranking Members Thompson, Correa, Ivey, and distinguished Members of the subcommittees. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today about the operations of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. 

USCIS is the Government agency that oversees lawful immigration to the United States, and I am proud to serve with over 20,000 

Government employees who work at more than 200 USCIS field offices across the country and the world to accomplish this mission. 

USCIS remains steadfast in its commitment to ensuring a fair, 

orderly, and humane immigration system consistent with U.S. law 

and international obligations. As part of our mission, USCIS helps 

administer parole processes for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, 

and Venezuelans and their immediate family members. 

These processes are designed to help support the Department of 

Homeland Security’s broader strategy to disincentivize irregular 

migration by simultaneously expanding the availability of safe, orderly, and lawful processes, and strictly enforcing our Nation’s immigration laws by imposing consequences on individuals who do 

not avail themselves of these lawful pathways. 

I am here today to explain USCIS’s role in the execution of these 

parole processes. DHS established the parole process for Venezuelans in October 2022, and the parole processes for Cubans, 

Haitians, and Nicaraguans in January 2023. 

Through these processes, certain nationals of Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, CHNV, and their immediate family members may request to come to the United States in a safe and orderly way. The processes are capped at 30,000 parolees per month 

across the 4 nationalities. 

USCIS’s role in the CHNV process is to assess whether the potential supporter in the United States who commits to providing financial and other support for the beneficiary by filing a form I– 

134A on-line request to be a supporter and declaration of financial 

support meets established requirements. 

To serve as a supporter in this process, an individual or an individual representing an entity must be a U.S. citizen, national, or 

lawful permanent resident, or hold a lawful status in the United 

States, such as temporary protected status, asylum, or be a parolee 

or recipient of deferred action for deferred enforcement departure. 
27 

The potential supporter must show evidence of sufficient financial resources to qualify as a supporter for purposes of CHNV parole process. USCIS uses Federal poverty guidelines as a general 

guide to assess financial sufficiency. 

Potential supporters who file a form I–134A on behalf of a beneficiary under these processes must be willing and able to receive, 

maintain, and support the listed beneficiary for the duration of 

their parole and articulate how they will do so. 

USCIS employs a multi-faceted approach to screening and vetting potential supporters. At filing, system checks are initiated 

automatically on supporters for all submissions. These checks will 

automatically flag cases with matching records or hits. 

USCIS officers determine whether the hit relates to the potential 

supporter. If a hit relates to a potential supporter, the USCIS officer will determine whether the hit impacts the potential supporter’s eligibility for these processes. 

USCIS also uses a wide range of risk-based modeling and biographic searches, initiate referrals to its fraud detection national 

security directorate for additional screening of potential supporters, 

and even site visits or administrative investigation where appropriate. This can occur at all stages of the process and is based on 

a continuously-reassessed risk factor and direct referral from reviewers, tips, or biographic data screens. 

Once a potential supporter has filed the form I–134A and is confirmed or nonconfirmed by USCIS, our role is complete. The beneficiary then receives email instructions for creating a USCIS online account and must confirm their biographic information and 

complete necessary attestations for themselves and, if applicable, 

immediate family members. 

Once this information has been submitted, CBP determines 

whether to issue an advance travel authorization to the beneficiary 

and makes a case-by-case parole determination at the port of entry. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to explain our role, and I 

would be happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Meckley follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF TAMMY MECKLEY

MARCH 21, 2024 

Chairman Higgins, Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Correa, Ranking Member 

Ivey, and distinguished Members of the subcommittees: Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today about the operational execution of some of the processes U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) helps administer. USCIS 

is the Government agency that oversees lawful immigration to the United States, 

and I am proud to serve with the over 20,000 Government employees and contractors that work at more than 200 USCIS offices across the country and the world 

to accomplish this mission. 

USCIS remains steadfast in its commitment to ensuring a fair, orderly, and humane immigration system, consistent with U.S. law and international obligations. 

As part of our mission, USCIS helps administer parole processes for Ukrainians, 

Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans and their immediate family members. These processes support the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) 

broader strategy to disincentivize irregular migration by simultaneously expanding 

the availability of safe, orderly, and lawful processes to come to the United States, 

and strictly enforcing our Nation’s immigration laws by imposing consequences on 

individuals who do not avail themselves of these lawful pathways. 

I am here today to explain USCIS’s role in the execution of these parole processes. 
28 

BACKGROUND

Building on the success of the Uniting for Ukraine parole process, DHS established the parole process for Venezuelans in October 2022 and the parole processes 

for Cubans, Haitians, and Nicaraguans in January 2023. Through these processes, 

certain nationals of Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela (CHNV) and their immediate family members may request to come to the United States in a safe and 

orderly way. The processes are capped at 30,000 parolees per month across the four 

nationalities. Eligible beneficiaries, who are outside the United States, may be considered by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), on a case-by-case basis for 

urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit, for advance authorization 

to travel and a temporary period of parole for up to 2 years. To participate, eligible 

beneficiaries must: 

• Have a confirmed supporter in the United States who must first complete a 

process with USCIS; 

• Undergo and clear robust security vetting; 

• Meet other eligibility criteria; and 

• Warrant a favorable exercise of discretion. 

PAROLE SUPPORTER DEFINITION AND REQUIREMENTS

USCIS’s role in the CHNV processes is to assess whether a potential supporter 

in the United States who commits to providing financial and other support for the 

beneficiary by filing Form I–134A, Online Request to be a Supporter and Declaration of Financial Support, meets established requirements. The supporter is the individual who pledges to provide financial support to the beneficiary for the duration 

of the parole authorization period. 

To serve as a supporter in this process, an individual or an individual representing an entity must: 

• Be a U.S. citizen, national, or lawful permanent resident; hold a lawful status 

in the United States, such as Temporary Protected Status or asylum; or be a 

parolee or recipient of deferred action or Deferred Enforced Departure; 

• Pass security and background vetting, including for public safety, national security, human trafficking, and exploitation concerns; and 

• Demonstrate sufficient financial resources to receive, maintain, and support the 

individual(s) they are agreeing to support for the duration of their parole period. 

The supporter is required to submit a Form I–134A for each individual they wish 

to support and demonstrate the adequacy of financial resources to support that individual during their stay in the United States. Financial support may be offered by 

organizations, businesses, or other entities, however, the I–134A must be filed by 

an individual. In those instances, USCIS reviewers may accept a letter of commitment from the organization and consider its financial resources. 

SUFFICIENT FINANCIAL EVIDENCE

The potential supporter must show evidence of sufficient financial resources to 

qualify as a supporter for purposes of the CHNV parole processes. USCIS uses the 

Federal Poverty Guidelines as a general guide to assess financial sufficiency. 

Potential supporters who file Form I–134A on behalf of a beneficiary under these 

processes must be willing and able to receive, maintain, and support the listed beneficiary for the duration of their parole, and articulate how they will do so. 

Examples of evidence to show sufficient financial resources can include tax documents, bank statements, and pay stubs. Potential supporters are also required to 

describe in detail their plan for providing essential support to beneficiaries, such as 

basic living needs, appropriate housing, and access to available services and benefits, such as learning English, securing employment, and enrolling in school. 

SECURITY SCREENING

USCIS employs a multi-faceted approach to screening and vetting potential supporters. At filing, system checks are initiated automatically on supporters for all 

submissions. These checks will automatically flag cases with matching records (or 

‘‘hits’’). USCIS officers determine whether the hit relates to the potential supporter. 

If the hit relates to the potential supporter, the USCIS officer will determine whether the hit impacts the potential supporter’s eligibility for these processes. For example: 

• The potential supporter is subject to an order of protection. 

• The potential supporter is under investigation for, has been arrested for (without disposition), or has been convicted of any of the following offenses: 
29 

1 An Egregious Public Safety case is defined by USCIS and U.S. Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement (ICE) in the 2020 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) Between USCIS and ICE Regarding the Referral of Immigration Benefit Fraud and Public Safety Cases. This includes murder, sexual abuse of a minor, and illicit trafficking of controlled substances or trafficking of persons but this is not exhaustive. 2 Immigration fraud is defined by USCIS in the Policy Manual under Chapter 2—Overview 

of Fraud and Willful Misrepresentation. 

• Egregious Public Safety;1

• Adam Walsh Act violations; 

• Domestic violence; 

• Sexual assault; or 

• Immigration fraud.2

• The potential supporter poses a potential national security, public safety, or 

trafficking concern, as indicated by the hit. 

• Any association with crimes involving children (child exploitation, child sex 

abuse, child abuse, etc.) or trafficking in persons. 

USCIS also uses a wide range of risk-based modeling and biographic searches to 

initiate referrals to its Fraud Detection and National Security (FDNS) Directorate 

for additional screening of potential supporters, and even site visits or administrative investigation where appropriate. This can occur at all stages of the process and 

is based on continuously reassessed risk factors and on direct referrals from reviewers, tips, or biographic data scrapes. 

Once the potential supporter has filed the Form I–134A and it is confirmed by 

USCIS, the beneficiary receives emailed instructions for creating a USCIS on-line 

account and linking their case. In the on-line account, the beneficiary reviews and 

confirms their biographic information and completes necessary attestations (including attestations for eligibility and vaccines) for themselves and, if applicable, immediate family members. Once this information has been submitted, CBP determines 

whether to issue an advance travel authorization to the beneficiary and makes a 

case-by-case parole determination at the port of entry. 

CONCLUSION

Thank you again for the opportunity to explain our role, and I would be happy 

to answer any questions. 

Mr. HIGGINS. Thank you, Ms. Meckley. 

I now recognize Ms. Youth for 5 minutes to summarize her opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF MARTA YOUTH, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, BUREAU OF POPULATION, REFUGEES, AND 

MIGRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

Ms. YOUTH. Good afternoon, Chair Higgins, Ranking Member 

Correa, Chair Bishop, Ranking Member Ivey, Chair Green, and distinguished Members of the committee. I’m pleased to be here today 

to share with you the latest on our efforts to respond to the challenge of irregular migration and forced displacement in the Western Hemisphere. 

The world is facing historic levels of human mobility and the 

Western Hemisphere is no exception. Last year, more than 20 million people were displaced across our region. 

For an effective response, we need more than humanitarian aid 

and increased enforcement. We need to consider the unique reasons 

that people are on the move. Some are fleeing persecution, violence, 

natural disasters. Others are seeking economic opportunity and 

others to be reunified with family members. 

The administration’s comprehensive policy is a solutions-oriented 

approach. We’re working to address the causes that lead people to 

migrate, create protection and integration mechanisms in the region so that people have the option to remain, the option to remain 
30 

closer to home, and facilitate safe, humane, orderly, and lawful migration pathways for others. 

Today I’ll share some of the work we’re doing as part of this 

broad, comprehensive, collaborative approach to migration management in the region. 

Since 2021, to address irregular migration and ensure our national security, the United States has led an expansion of lawful 

pathways to the United States. The Safe Mobility initiative known 

by the Spanish name Mobilidad Segura, is one of the many ways 

the United States is facilitating access to safe and lawful pathways 

to countries in the region so that refugees do not have to undertake 

dangerous journeys in search of safety. 

Safe Mobility offices are currently operational in Columbia, Costa 

Rica, Guatemala, and Ecuador. The Safe Mobility initiative revolutionized how we are able to screen, refer, and process individuals 

in the region for refugee resettlement. 

Safe Mobility offices also serve as hubs for providing information 

about lawful pathways, and it informs ineligible individuals about 

services and programs available to them in their application country or their country of origin so that they can have safe, supported 

options to remain where they are. 

We’re working to expand the reach and scope of the Safe Mobility 

initiative. Strengthening pathways to the United States and other 

countries through this initiative is groundbreaking and will prove 

essential to meeting the needs of the day, protecting our border, 

promoting safe and orderly migration, while still taking advantage 

of the wealth of benefits that refugees and migrants bring to local 

communities and the overall economy of the United States. 

While refugee resettlement is a critical lifeline for certain groups 

of people, asylum in other countries within Latin America is an excellent option for many in need of international protection. 

Humanitarian assistance, generously provided by Congress to the 

Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration, has had a significant impact in stabilizing displaced populations in host countries, 

especially by strengthening access to asylum and regularization in 

countries like Columbia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Mexico, and many 

others. 

These programs, in conjunction with partner country efforts, 

have provided access to protection and stability to millions of individuals and have helped to mitigate their movements to the U.S. 

border to seek safety. 

The United States is the global leader in delivering Humanitarian assistance world-wide, including in the Western Hemisphere. With this assistance, our international humanitarian organization partners deliver life-saving water, support for shelter, 

sanitation, and emergency medical assistance to refugees, asylum 

seekers, internally displaced persons, state-less persons, and vulnerable migrants. 

Our assistance stabilizes refugees and vulnerable migrants in 

their host communities, helps them integrate and rebuild their 

lives and find solutions closer to home so that displaced people can 

remain in host communities and avoid dangerous journeys to the 

United States. 
31 

Responding to the Western hemisphere’s largest migration and 

forced displacement crisis in history requires an approach as comprehensive as the reasons that people are on the move. When combining stronger, lawful pathways and protection options within the 

region with root causes programming, repatriation, border management, and increased consequences for irregular entry, these efforts 

make up the administration’s holistic approach to create safe, humane, lawful, and orderly migration options within the region. 

In closing, I would like to thank the Members of the subcommittees for the opportunity to discuss these critical issues and the 

work we’re doing to meet the challenges of the moment. We appreciate your support. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Youth follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARTA YOUTH

MARCH 21, 2024 

Good afternoon, Chair Higgins, Chair Bishop, Ranking Member Correa, Ranking 

Member Ivey, and distinguished Members of the committee. I am pleased to be here 

today to share with you the latest on our efforts to respond to the historic levels 

of irregular migration and forced displacement in the Western Hemisphere. 

MIGRATION AND FORCED DISPLACEMENT CHALLENGE—CONTEXT

The world is facing historic levels of human mobility, and the Western Hemisphere is no exception. Last year, over 20 million people were displaced across the 

region. While the United States has been the destination for many, we are far from 

alone. Of the more than 7.5 million Venezuelans living outside their country, over 

6.5 million are in Latin America and Caribbean. Costa Rica is now hosting over 

500,000 Nicaraguan refugees and migrants fleeing the Ortega regime. These individuals are on the move alongside others from Central and South America, from the 

Caribbean, and from elsewhere in the world. It is clear that no one country alone 

is impacted, and that no one country holds the solutions. For an effective response, 

we need more than just humanitarian aid and increased enforcement. We must consider the unique reasons people are on the move—some are fleeing persecution, violence, and natural disasters, others seek economic opportunity, and others family reunification. 

To account for these distinct needs and circumstances, the administration’s comprehensive approach is to address the causes that lead people to migrate, create protection mechanisms within the region, and facilitate safe, orderly, humane and lawful migration pathways. This holistic approach involves strengthening national asylum, registration, regularization, and integration frameworks; improving humane 

border enforcement and repatriation capabilities abroad; preventing refoulement; 

and increasing the consequences for irregular entry to the United States. 

We have worked to make this comprehensive approach regional, by partnering 

with 21 countries from across the hemisphere through the Los Angeles Declaration 

on Migration and Protection. Today, I will share some of the work we are doing as 

part of this broad, comprehensive, and collaborative approach to migration management in the region. 

Strengthening Pathways to the United States and Third Countries Outside Latin 

America and the Caribbean 

Since 2021, to address irregular migration and ensure our national security, the 

United States has led the largest expansion in decades of lawful pathways to the 

United States to help refugees, vulnerable migrants, and forcibly displaced persons 

in the Western Hemisphere. Individuals seeking international protection and other 

lawful pathways have various potential options for regular migration to the United 

States and other countries, including refugee resettlement, humanitarian parole, 

family reunification, labor pathways, and seeking asylum in host countries, subject 

to meeting eligibility criteria. They can also access various support services provided 

by international organizations and NGO’s in the region. 

The Safe Mobility initiative (known by the Spanish name Movilidad Segura) is 

one of the many ways the United States is facilitating access to safe and lawful 

pathways from countries in the region, so refugees do not have to undertake dan-
32 

gerous journeys in search of safety. Safe Mobility Offices (SMOs) are currently operational in Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, and Guatemala. 

The Safe Mobility initiative revolutionized how we refer and process individuals 

in the region for refugee resettlement. The SMOs also serve as hubs for providing 

information about humanitarian parole, family reunification, and labor pathways. 

Applicants apply via an on-line platform through which experts from international 

organizations, specifically the International Organization for Migration (IOM) and 

the U.N. Refugee Agency (UNHCR), help individuals assess which, if any, lawful 

pathways might work for them. More than 150,000 people already registered on 

MovilidadSegura.org. And if the individuals are not eligible for any of those lawful 

pathways, they are informed about services and programs available to them in their 

application country or country of origin to give them safe, supported options to remain where they are. 

The Safe Mobility initiative is designed to provide access to a range of lawful 

pathways to the United States but also to other countries as well. Refugee resettlement processing is just one option available via SMOs. Individuals who qualify for 

resettlement to the United States under the Safe Mobility initiative undergo expedited refugee processing based on lessons learned in the administration’s effort to 

rebuild the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP). These refugee applicants 

undergo the same rigorous and multi-layered interagency screening and vetting 

process as all other refugees and, if eligible, most will arrive in the United States 

in just a matter of months. 

As of March 3, through the Safe Mobility initiative, more than 22,200 individuals 

have been referred to USRAP for potential resettlement to the United States, and 

more than 14,000 individuals have been screened for other lawful pathways to the 

United States. More than 6,500 individuals have already arrived in the United 

States under the Safe Mobility initiative. 

We are also working with other migrant-hosting countries to expand lawful pathways, including labor pathways with Spain and Canada. Almost 300 vulnerable migrants in Costa Rica have been referred for resettlement to Spain via the SMO 

mechanism. We are working to expand the reach of the SMOs. An interagency working group focused on lawful pathways to third countries is working with other countries to connect them to the Safe Mobility initiative. 

Working closely with international organization partners, we are building capacity, running extensive messaging campaigns, and exponentially increasing the number of people who receive information or services via the SMOs. In the refugee pathway, for example, we aim to resettle between 35,000 and 50,000 individuals in fiscal 

year 2024, an historic and ambitious goal which would amount to an increase in 

refugee resettlement from the Western Hemisphere of over 450 percent from last 

year. 

Strengthening pathways to the United States and other countries through the 

SMOs is a groundbreaking approach that will prove essential in helping meet the 

needs of the day: protecting our borders, promoting safe and orderly migration, 

while still taking advantage of the wealth of benefits that refugees and migrants 

bring to local communities and the overall economy of United States. 

Strengthening Protection Options Within the Region 

While refugee resettlement is a critical lifeline for certain groups of people, asylum in other countries within Latin America is an excellent option for many in need 

of international protection. The humanitarian assistance funds Congress has generously provided to the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM) to administer has had a significant impact in stabilizing displaced populations in host 

countries, especially by strengthening access to asylum and regularization in countries like Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, and Mexico. These programs, in conjunction with partner country efforts, have provided access to protection and stability 

for millions of individuals and have helped to mitigate movements to the U.S. border to seek safety. 

The United States is the global leader in delivering humanitarian assistance 

world-wide, including in the Western Hemisphere. PRM provided more than $594 

million of the funding entrusted to us by Congress in humanitarian assistance in 

the Western Hemisphere in fiscal year 2023. With this assistance, our international 

humanitarian organization partners deliver lifesaving water, shelter, sanitation, and 

emergency health care to refugees, asylum seekers, internally displaced persons, 

stateless persons, and vulnerable migrants. Our assistance stabilizes refugees and 

vulnerable migrants in their host communities and provides solutions closer to home 

so that displaced people can remain in host communities and avoid dangerous journeys toward the United States. This assistance also helps host countries receive refugees and migrants as an opportunity for social inclusion and economic growth. 
33 

Those who are able to integrate and rebuild their lives closer to home are much less 

likely to continue the dangerous journey northward. 

The humanitarian funding PRM oversees bolsters our partners’ capacity-strengthening work with host governments to develop effective and efficient asylum systems, 

strengthen humane migration management mechanisms, and give local communities the resources they need to welcome and integrate refugees and other vulnerable populations. 

With our support through our partner, UNHCR, Mexico’s national refugee commission increased its registration and processing capacity by nearly 500 percent 

since 2018. In 2023, Mexico was the country with the third-highest number of asylum claims in the world. 

Through our humanitarian partners, we also support Costa Rica’s asylum agency, 

including 90 percent of its staff costs. Despite its relatively small size, the country 

hosts more than 600,000 Nicaraguans and received the fourth-highest number of 

asylum claims in the world in 2023, behind only the United States, Germany, and 

Mexico. 

Colombia and Ecuador have taken significant steps to improve migrant access to 

regularization and support services. With PRM assistance, partner organizations 

helped Colombia develop and implement a 10-year temporary protected status program that so far has allowed over 1.6 million Venezuelans to work and access health 

and education services in Colombia. And in Ecuador, PRM partners IOM and 

UNHCR provide essential staffing and technical support to Ecuador’s ambitious registration and regularization program. Since the program started in August 2022, 

more than 201,000 individuals completed registration, 83,600 have received a temporary residency visa, and more than 64,000 have received an Ecuadorian ID card. 

All these efforts to build asylum capacity and help migrants and refugees access 

legal status and services in the region have allowed millions of individuals to gain 

the legal status that allows them to remain and lead dignified lives throughout the 

region. 

In interviews with humanitarian partners, displaced persons in Mexico and at our 

Southwest Border often report moving and hiding within their home country multiple times before fleeing across a border. We know that when these individuals 

have a viable option to stay in their country safely, that is the option they choose. 

Through our U.N. and other partners, we work with governments in the region to 

strengthen local protection responses for internally displaced persons, so they need 

not resort to crossing an international border. 

When we talk about supporting options for people to restart their lives within the 

region as opposed to coming here, improving access to protection, whether through 

asylum or other temporary status, is only part of the challenge. 

All this work on strengthening administrative processing capacity and reforming 

legal frameworks only pays off if the circumstances in host countries enable refugees 

to rebuild their lives and become self-reliant. This means being able to enroll their 

kids in school, access local health care and other social services, get jobs and housing, and open bank accounts—which is why PRM also supports local integration efforts throughout the region. 

For example, we support UNHCR, in coordination with the government of Mexico, 

to help refugees get jobs, including in Mexican cities with labor shortages along the 

country’s industrial belt. Since its inception, this program has helped more than 

30,000 refugees find dignified, decent work and rebuild their lives in Mexico. The 

program has an average retention rate after a year of around 70 percent. 

Just this year, our support in Guatemala enabled the authorities there to transition to a fully on-line system for issuing work permits to asylum seekers with pending claims, reducing the average wait time from 15 to 4 business days. 

In Brazil, the Brazilian government voluntarily relocated more than 100,000 Venezuelans from the border to more than 930 Brazilian cities since 2018, representing 

a quarter of the 426,000 Venezuelans who have arrived in Brazil. This relocation 

effort, supported by PRM partners who rely on U.S. humanitarian funding, enables 

Venezuelans in Brazil to better access jobs, housing, and education, as well as reunite families. 

Our approach to integration includes support for host communities as well, which 

is critical to promoting social cohesion and mitigating the risk of rising xenophobia. 

Regional Circular Labor Migration Pathways 

One of the many reasons people migrate is for economic opportunity. When these 

workers lack lawful means to migrate, they are more vulnerable to exploitation and 

abuse, whether by human smugglers or traffickers or in the workplace. This is why 

our approach to expanding access to lawful pathways includes increasing the avail-
34 

ability of temporary labor pathways with worker protections to the United States 

but also to third countries, including within the region. 

The H–2 visa program is the primary pathway for seasonal migrants to find temporary work in the United States while supporting U.S. employers in certain sectors. On November 17, 2023, the Department of Homeland Security, in consultation 

with the Department of Labor, exercised a temporary increase of 64,716 H–2B temporary nonagricultural worker visas for fiscal year 2024. Twenty thousand of these 

visas are reserved for nationals of Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, and Honduras. At the same time, we are working across the U.S. 

Government to enhance safeguards in these programs, to better protect the rights 

of all workers in the United States. 

Beyond labor pathways to the United States, or as previously mentioned to Spain 

and Canada and other countries in the future, we are also working to strengthen 

pathways and protection for migrant workers elsewhere in the Western Hemisphere. 

PRM funding to IOM enables labor migration capacity building that engages governments and private-sector actors in the region to strengthen their labor pathways 

and implement ethical recruitment practices. One highly successful outcome of these 

efforts is Costa Rica’s bilateral temporary labor migration mechanisms in the agricultural sector. Over 27,800 migrant workers from Nicaragua and Panama have 

benefited from these mechanisms, making an important contribution to the Costa 

Rican economy during the coffee harvest. And we expect the program to expand to 

additional countries in Central America this year. 

This exemplifies the kind of programming PRM seeks to support. It increases 

worker protections and allows individuals to access economic opportunities while remaining closer to their families. It also leverages existing data on circular migration 

flows to regularize pathways where the need is greatest. In doing so, the program 

directly cuts down on irregular migration at its inception and reduces instances of 

abuse and exploitation. 

CLOSING

Responding to the Western Hemisphere’s largest migration and forced displacement crisis in history requires an approach as comprehensive as the reasons people 

are on the move. Expanding access to lawful pathways; strengthening local options 

such as asylum, regularization, and reintegration frameworks; and promoting integration into host communities are just one portion of the administration’s comprehensive plan. Combined with root causes programming, repatriation, border 

management, and increased consequences for irregular entry, these efforts make up 

the administration’s holistic approach to create safe, humane, lawful and orderly migration options within the region. 

In closing, I’d like to thank the Members of these subcommittees for the opportunity to discuss these critical issues and the work we are doing to meet the challenges of the moment. We appreciate your support. 

Mr. HIGGINS. Thank you, Ms. Youth, for your opening statement. 

Members will be recognized by order of seniority for their 5 minutes of questioning. An additional round of questioning may be 

called after all Members have been recognized. 

I’ll now recognize myself for 5 minutes of questioning. 

Before I begin, I would like to welcome Mr. Suozzi. I’m going to 

call you Suozzi forever. 

The gentleman from New York is, indeed, a gentleman. He won 

a special election, and we appreciate his presence on the committee. He’s a regular guy at the gym, and so we welcome you here, 

sir. I look forward to your input. 

Mr. SUOZZI. Thank you. 

Mr. HIGGINS. Mr. Hunter, how would you define—this is not a 

trick question, by the way. How would you define a border, a sovereign border? 

Mr. HUNTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A sovereign border in 

the United States, and for any country, is critical under laws to ensure—it is the responsibility of the country to ensure—— 
35 

Mr. HIGGINS. Would you describe a sovereign border as a definite 

line between a sovereign nation and, say, international waters or 

between sovereign nations? 

Mr. HUNTER. It is indeed, Mr. Chairman—— 

Mr. HIGGINS. Indeed, it is. 

Mr. HUNTER [continuing]. A demarcation, yes. 

Mr. HIGGINS. So you would concur that a sovereign border is a 

definite line? 

Mr. HUNTER. It’s where the United States exercises its authorities, yes, sir. It is where the United States—— 

Mr. HIGGINS. Thus we have shifted. So it’s where a sovereign nation exercises its authority upon sovereign soil, would you say, like 

our embassies—our embassies across the world are considered our 

sovereign soil, are they not? 

Mr. HUNTER. I believe so. I would defer to my State Department 

colleague on our consul-—— 

Mr. HIGGINS. So you’ve initially interpreted a border in the traditional and historical sense of what a border is. I recall years ago, 

in one of my many, many trips to the border, there was only a couple of us there, and I ventured across the water there on the rocks 

where the illegal immigrants had been crossing by the hundreds at 

this particular point. The agents present were quite concerned lest 

I take one step too many as I walked toward the center, they’re 

like, Congressman, don’t take another step—because one more step 

and I was in Mexico. 

That’s our sovereign border. This is the historical understanding 

of our border. But in April 2023, the Department of State and the 

Department of Homeland Security announced measures to, ‘‘to reduce unlawful migration across the Western Hemisphere, significantly expand lawful pathways for protection, and facilitate the 

safe, orderly, and humane processing of migrants’’. 

This is a quote that was cited by a couple of the panelists here 

before us today. These are the words of the Biden administration. 

This announcement further expanded the CBP One app, creating 

a whole new parole process and opening, Regional Processing Centers in the Western Hemisphere. 

As far as we know, the Regional Processing Centers—pay attention, America, with what’s going on here—these Regional Processing Centers, also known as Safe Mobility Offices, have been 

opened in Ecuador, Colombia, Guatemala, and Costa Rica, and 

have allowed DHS to quickly process illegal immigrants in the cartel pipeline, wishing to enter the United States, or stating that 

their intention is to enter the United States, should they continue 

their journey northward in the cartel pipeline that leads to the 

southern sovereign border of the United States of America. 

These Regional Processing Centers, which is hard to get a clear 

picture of, it’s difficult to get maps, numbers, deployments, mission 

parameters, makes no sense to me why, with the historic crisis at 

our border, you know, hundreds of thousands of individuals entering the country every month—not every year, every month—makes 

no sense to most Americans when they discover we’re processing 

and transporting immigrants from within foreign nations, not on 

sovereign American soil, not through ports of entry, but through 

these Regional Processing Centers. 
36 

Under this new system, the entire world has become the sovereign American border by the interpretation of the Biden administration. 

If you have legal authority to establish Regional Processing Centers in Ecuador, Colombia, Guatemala, and Costa Rica—and I’m 

about to ask you to please cite that legal authority—then why can’t 

you—can you put those up everywhere in the world? We no longer 

have a sovereign border to defend and enforce our laws? We can 

process illegal immigrants, undocumented illegal immigrants, 

unscreened, directly into the interior of our country. 

This is quite a concern. 

Ms. Sabatino, from these processing centers, are illegal, undocumented aliens being registered through CBP One app, granted parole and flown directly into the interior of the United States, bypassing what most Americans would recognize as our sovereign 

border? 

Ms. SABATINO. Thank you for the question, Chairman. With respect to individuals processed through the Safe Mobility Office, 

CBP does not have a role in identifying or—— 

Mr. HIGGINS. So who would you defer that to—Mr. Hunter? 

Ms. SABATINO. With respect to the Safe Mobility Office—— 

Mr. HIGGINS. With respect to illegal immigrants that are plucked 

out of the cartel pipeline in Central America, at a DHS-established 

Regional Processing Center, are any of those illegal aliens being 

flown directly from foreign nations into the interior of our country? 

Can we get a straight answer there? 

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, the operations at these Safe Mobility Offices are in partnership with the Department of State and 

these host-country governments. What we are doing are screening 

individuals who are maybe eligible for existing pathways such as 

refugee resettlement, and we are conducting full, refugee-resettlement screening and vetting processes—— 

Mr. HIGGINS. Are they being flown into the interior of our country? 

Mr. HUNTER. If they are indeed approved to be resettled as refugees, then the standard process is applied. They are being organized—— 

Mr. HIGGINS. This was how you try to get to a ‘‘yes,’’ America. 

The answer is, yes, illegal aliens are being pulled from the cartel 

pipeline at DHS-established Regional Processing Centers in Central and South America and flown directly into the interior of our 

country. 

My time has expired. I now recognize the Ranking Member for 

his questions. 

Mr. CORREA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and, again, I thank the 

witnesses for your information here. 

You know, I started out talking big picture, resources, causes, 

but let’s bring it down to what we may be able to do here. So let’s 

break it down. How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time. 

So let’s start out with what appears to be the issue right now— 

the border flooded with refugees, probably economic refugees that 

probably wouldn’t qualify for admission under the existing laws of 

the United States. 
37 

I don’t agree with that law because under this existing law, most 

of our ancestors probably wouldn’t qualify to come to this country. 

But that’s what the U.S. law is right now. 

You essentially have to establish that you’re fleeing from another 

country, for your life, your fear, kind-of a more-or-less legal reason 

that you can come to the United States. 

The challenge right now—and I’m going to ask all of you to help 

me frame this—is the processing of the refugees. Is that correct? 

Is that a big issue at the border right now? Yes? No? Mr. Hunter. 

Mr. HUNTER. Yes, Mr. Ranking Member, the challenge is the 

number of individuals that are seeking to enter the United States. 

We have a requirement under law that we inspect and process 

every individual who comes to a port of entry and—— 

Mr. CORREA. You don’t have the capability of doing it right now? 

Mr. HUNTER. Correct. We have limited resources, sir—— 

Mr. CORREA. You need more processing, USCIS officers and immigration judges, which we don’t. We have a massive backlog. So 

let’s think about this. Where are we putting our resources? Right 

now, tomorrow, we’re going to vote on a minibus—we call it a minibus—bill. 

We’re going to fully fund 22,000 Border Patrol agents. These are 

the green uniforms. That’s my understanding. I just read that a 

couple hours ago. 

People will process, at the gates to the United States, essentially 

there’s only 150 blue uniforms that will be essentially funded tomorrow. I think that’s just way too few. You’re—the people that are 

part of that processing to come to the United States or not. I don’t 

know if there’s any funding for USCIS offices and immigration 

judges. 

Again, you got people coming in. You want to process them under 

the law which—in a reasonable time period. If you were to do that, 

probably most of these individuals wouldn’t qualify to come to the 

United States. Is that correct? Please, anybody jump in. 

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Ranking Member, we do see that once individuals are in the United States, they do have the right to claim asylum, and most do before an immigration judge. That process, as 

you’ve observed, takes far too long. It can take 5 to 8 years to resolve, and the grant rates ultimately in that process, I believe, are 

under 30 percent. 

Mr. CORREA. Ms. Sabatino, any thoughts on that? 

Ms. SABATINO. Agree with Deputy Assistant Secretary Hunter. 

Mr. CORREA. Yes, yes. 

Ms. Meckley, Ms. Youth, any thoughts? What I’m trying to do is 

trying to figure out what everybody’s talking about here. OK? That 

we have a challenge at the border, a refugee crisis, economic or political. Under existing laws, if you’re an economic refugee, you 

wouldn’t qualify under our laws to come. If you’re a refugee because of fearing for life, you would qualify. 

Yet the argument is CBP One is that magic ticket to come to the 

United States. Is it, first of all, CBP One, the magic ticket to come 

to the United States or just a processing tool? 

Ms. SABATINO. I’ll take that one. 

Mr. CORREA. Yes. 
38 

Ms. SABATINO. CBP One is a processing tool. Certainly prior to 

the implementation of CBP One, with any mass or surge to any of 

our ports of entry, our officers would’ve been—— 

Mr. CORREA. You check that against your known databases? Yes? 

No? 

Ms. SABATINO. We check it against a host of law enforcement—— 

Mr. CORREA. You vet? 

Mr. Bishop, I can’t read your smile. So tell me, you disagree with 

that. 

Mr. BISHOP. Well, if the gentleman is yielding, how do they vet 

the criminal databases about where the people are coming from? 

Mr. CORREA. Ms. Sabatino, how do you vet this stuff? 

Ms. SABATINO. We run the individuals against the TSDS or the 

watchlist. We certainly run them against TECS, which is our comprehensive law enforcement database, and that database is comprised of information such as prior immigration encounters but also 

information provided by the Department of State or information 

that we’ve gleaned from other international partnerships, as well 

as—— 

Mr. CORREA. The same partnerships—I’m out of time, but if I 

can, Mr. Chairman, just have a moment—I’m trying to establish 

here that you do process the same databases that you probably 

have, that we have here in the centers that we have here in Washington, DC, to determine whether these individuals are suspected 

terrorists, watch list? Yes? No? 

Ms. SABATINO. The most important resource in this process is the 

CBP officer, the trained, skilled CBP officers, including our tactical 

terrorism response teams who interview the individuals that are 

suspected of having derogatory information. 

Mr. CORREA. I’m going to stop. I’m out of time, but what I was 

trying to establish folks is, what’s the bottleneck here? What’s the 

problem with the border and why are officers overwhelmed? Why 

can’t we make these quick decisions there, and what is it that it’s 

going to take? 

Tomorrow we’re going to vote on a minibus, more green uniforms, very few blue uniforms, but is that the solution, or are we 

still looking at still, you know, essentially swimming upstream. 

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to continuing this discussion. 

Thank you. 

Mr. HIGGINS. The gentleman yields. I now recognize the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Bishop. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do always find the juxtaposition of comments from Mr. Correa and mine to be helpful to 

me, because I think you’ve hit on it. 

Before you can solve a problem, you’ve got to discern what it is. 

So if you’re going to send more money for border agents to process 

people faster into the United States, it doesn’t make a lot of sense 

to me that you’re likely to have the result of fewer people coming 

into the United States. Just a guess. 

Well, no, no. I am—I am—I’m starting there, believe me, I’m getting ready to. Believe me. Believe me. 

Mr. Hunter, I was struck by the beginning of your testimony. 

You say—at the beginning of your testimony, you listed causes of 

this significant increase in irregular migration—violence, food inse-
39 

curity, severe poverty, corruption, climate change, fallout of the 

COVID–19 pandemic, dire economic conditions. That’s 7. 

Let me ask you this. I’m looking at the, I think this is the National Immigration Law Center, a pro-immigration group, says, it 

described this, and it’s one of—you can find this description anywhere—on January 20, 2021, just hours after being sworn in, 

President Joe Biden took several immigration-related actions that 

together signal a new era for immigration policy. They comprise an 

important first step, redressing some of the ways in which immigrant communities have been profoundly harmed in particular over 

the last 4 years, and toward the United States becoming more welcoming of immigrants and refugees. 

There’s an appearance of Secretary Mayorkas on CNN that 

everybody’s seen recently in which he said, we’ve rescinded so 

many Trump immigration policies, it would take too much time to 

list them—too many to list. 

I wonder, as you were describing the causes of increased migration, why did you omit all of those landmark changes in policy by 

the Biden administration? 

Mr. HUNTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the question. In illustrating the various drivers of irregular migration, I was highlighting why people are on the move. When it comes to policies—— 

Mr. BISHOP. Do those policies, those landmark policies, do they 

have anything to do with the significant increase in migration 

across the United States border that some of my colleagues are 

now saying is a crisis that Republicans need to solve? 

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, we have seen surges in irregular 

migration historically under Presidents of both parties—— 

Mr. BISHOP. But I’m asking about these policies and whether 

they caused the crisis that we now see. Will you answer that question? 

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, no, our policies did not cause the 

reasons in rogue regimes such as Cuba, Nicaragua—— 

Mr. BISHOP. So rogue regimes had something to do with it but 

not the dramatic change in policy by the Biden administration? Is 

that what you’re testifying to this Congress? 

Mr. HUNTER. The administration’s policy and our strategy at 

DHS is to reduce irregular migration. 

Mr. BISHOP. You believe it’s been successful then in reducing irregular migration? 

Mr. HUNTER. Within the boundaries of our authorities and resources, we have a two-pronged approach to enact and enforce—— 

Mr. BISHOP. OK, OK, enough. 

Ms. Youth, let me switch to you because you were very candid. 

You said since—excuse me—since 2021, to address irregular migration and ensure our national security, the United States has led 

the largest expansion in decades of lawful pathways to the United 

States. 

So would you say that the increased migration across the Southern Border is a feature, not a bug? 

Ms. YOUTH. No. So lawful pathways is—are the pathways that 

people can use to arrive safely through the Southwest Border—not 

through the Southwest Border—from—— 

Mr. BISHOP. That’s not what I asked you, though. 
40 

Ms. YOUTH. Yes. 

Mr. BISHOP. What I asked you is, would you say that the increased flow across the border is a feature, not a bug, of the policies of the Biden administration? 

Ms. YOUTH. No, I wouldn’t say that it’s a feature. 

Mr. BISHOP. Is it a failure of the Biden administration then? 

Ms. YOUTH. No, I wouldn’t say that it’s a failure. I would say 

that this is a symptom of something that is happening all over the 

world. There are more than—— 

Mr. BISHOP. Certainly not the fault of any Biden administration 

policy? 

Ms. YOUTH. There are 110 million people who are displaced globally, and 20 million of them are displaced in this region. This is 

something that we’re seeing throughout the globe. Our European 

partners are also facing similar challenges. This is not something 

that is simply—— 

Mr. BISHOP. I know. We’ve seen what happens in Europe and 

elsewhere in the world when American leadership there fails, too. 

But that doesn’t explain why we’ve had the massive numbers from 

the beginning of the Biden administration across the U.S. border. 

But I think you’ve hit on it, that the most significant expansion 

in so-called lawful pathways—let me ask you this question. Doesn’t 

the Congress make the law? 

Ms. YOUTH. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BISHOP. So the administration doesn’t make law, does it? 

Ms. YOUTH. No, sir. 

Mr. BISHOP. That’s exactly right. I’ve run out of time. 

Mr. HIGGINS. The gentleman yields. We will perhaps have a second round of questioning, just to remind Members. 

I now recognize Mrs. Ramirez for 5 minutes for questioning. 

Mrs. RAMIREZ. Thank you, Chairman Higgins. It’s good to be in 

this joint committee hearing. So I’m going to probably take it back 

a bit. I want to come back to the purpose of this hearing. That’s 

really examining CBP One. 

I want to first acknowledge out of the guests and stakeholders 

who have already provided feedback on CBP One’s functionality 

and accessibility, as well as DHS’s attempts to respond to feedback. 

You know, being a millennial, we talk a lot about technology, and 

I know that including mobile apps, it can play a critical role in 

modernizing our systems if thoughtfully developed and deployed. 

However, in our search for border-processing solutions, I do 

worry sometimes we sacrifice our responsibility to uphold the 

rights and safety of asylum seekers and—if we don’t have the adequate systems that promote equitable access to immigration options. 

Many issues with the CBP One app have been reported since its 

scheduling feature was rolled out. I’ve talked about it in a couple 

of the hearings here before. 

To name a few, the wait times to receive an appointment remain 

extremely long, and only a few ports of entry accept appointments, 

which has forced people, asylum seekers, to wait for months in 

Mexico, often in dangerous conditions and without the ability to 

support themselves. 
41 

The app presents access issues for people who do not speak one 

of the three languages. As we know it’s Spanish, I think, English, 

and Korean. 

For those that have low or no literacy or not technologically 

savvy, they may not have access to a smartphone or internet services. We’ve heard this before. 

We’ve talked about security concerns have been raised regarding 

exploitation by bad actors in the collection of sensitive and personal 

information. 

So for my first set of questions, though, I want to start with Ms. 

Sabatino. In 1 minute, could you please share with me, what are 

CBP’s plans to further address functionality issues with CBP One 

and make access to CBP One appointments more equitable? 

As you’re answering that, can you also follow up with what is 

CBP doing to further increase the number of daily available appointments? 

Ms. SABATINO. Thank you for the question. Certainly with respect to the enhancements in the application, there’s been 30 enhancements since this past summer, to ensure that bandwidth 

issues or other error messages have been mitigated. 

What’s also been challenging with respect to the use of the CBP 

One app is the cyber threats that we’re up against. We have a very 

comprehensive cyber strategy across CBP, not unique to CBP One, 

but we do encounter challenges, and we have made significant enhancements to that as well. 

With respect to the wait times for individuals in Mexico, it’s 

averaging about 21⁄2 months right now. 

We do have to take into consideration the operations at our ports 

of entry. We are not there just simply encountering inadmissible 

individuals who are attempting to enter the United States. 

We have the facilitation of lawful travel and trade. We also have 

to work outbound operations to interdict weapons and currency, 

and we have to make sure that we’re intercepting narcotics, specifically fentanyl. 

So to ensure that we are not walking away from any of the missions, streamlining this process, ensuring that we get advance information to officers and automate it to the extent possible, but not 

also walk away from those other critical missions, we’re not looking 

to expand the number of appointments—— 

Mrs. RAMIREZ. So you’re not looking—let me stop you there then 

because I want to—I just want to make sure I had that on record. 

So we’re not going to be expanding. I’m sure my colleagues on the 

other side are excited about that. 

So we’re saying—and you also said that it’s taking about 21⁄2

months for people that are waiting in Mexico, those that already 

have those appointments and in some cases in really, really terrible 

conditions. We’ve read about that, and sometimes my colleagues, 

when they want to talk about caring about people, bring them up 

under the side. 

So let me stop and let me just go ahead and pivot for a minute 

here. I want to ask—and actually this question I’m going to ask of 

Ms. Meckley here. 

In 30 seconds—that’s all I have—how has the agency, in your 

opinion, consulted with those directly impacted by CBP One? Bor-
42 

der-enforcement efforts and those that are impacted, have you consulted with them as you’re trying to make some of these many enhancements that folks talk about? In your opinion, can you give me 

a little bit of that? 

Ms. MECKLEY. Sure. When it comes to the ability to file—for a 

supporter to file an I–134A on-line, we’ve integrated the entire system and experience between USCIS, and ICE—sorry—and CBP. 

There are parts of the process that USCIS is responsible for, in 

terms of reviewing that 134A, and if a supporter is found to have 

the financial and other support, you know, commitments and obligations are met, and that 134A is confirmed, then there is an exchange of information with CBP. 

So those systems—— 

Mrs. RAMIREZ. My time is up. If we have another round, I’ll follow up with you, but thank you. 

I yield back, Chairman. 

Mr. HIGGINS. The gentlelady yields. The gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. Ezell, is recognized for 5 minutes for questions. 

Mr. EZELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all for 

being here today in this very important matter. I appreciate that. 

I want to highlight, once again, how this administration is making it much easier for illegal immigrants to enter this country. This 

DHS has rolled out a phone CBP One app, and on this app, the 

immigrants, the migrants, enter a few details before they receive 

an appointment that is supposed to be a vetting process. 

Let me describe the details of this process. During this appointment, it’s been reported by the Texas Monthly magazine, ‘‘After arriving for their appointments, they are not given an interview or 

asked no questions on the issues they submitted on the app or 

about why they are coming to the United States. They are simply 

released into the country’’. 

I understand prior to their appointment, the information submitted is run through the U.S. criminal and national security databases. However, most of these individuals have never lived in the 

United States, so any crime would not be detected. 

Additionally, many of the migrants are attempting to come to the 

United States from countries that would never give us their criminal data, or from a country that doesn’t even keep a criminal database. 

Being a law enforcement officer my entire life, I’m very familiar 

with running individuals, having been a chief of detectives, and a 

sheriff, and a chief of police. I know the only information that you 

get out of an NCIC, or a criminal history check, is something that 

has been entered into a database. 

I’d like a little more explanation, Ms. Sabatino, if you could talk 

to me a little bit about how intensive is this background, especially 

on somebody that’s trying to deceive us or not give us proper information, or from a government that does not provide adequate information for us? 

Ms. SABATINO. Thank you for the question. In addition to the law 

enforcement database that we query against, we also leverage the 

watch list, travel data. I mentioned the criminal records that you 

referenced, NCICs. 
43 

But we also have a derogatory photo index, that we match potentially their photos to, to identify individuals. But it really is important about the information sharing that we have, maybe not necessarily with the country the individual is coming from, but with 

a number of our other foreign partners. 

It is the information sharing across the hemisphere and globe 

frankly that makes us successful in identifying threats. 

But also there’s a layer of, you know, partnering with the intelligence community to make sure that we have visibility on trends, 

identities, or issues, and then inform our CBP officers for the process. 

Again, why getting that advance information for our officers is so 

critical, that they have the time to actually assess and prepare for 

the individuals arriving at ports. 

Mr. EZELL. Do you really think we’re getting enough information 

on this app to adequately—and I’ll just open that up to everybody—are we getting enough information on this app to be able to 

really thoroughly vet these people before they get into the country? 

Ms. SABATINO. Thank you, sir. With respect to the information 

in the app, the biographic information, biometrics is also done 

through the app. The screening and matching against their facial 

derog. 

But I think we’re always looking for more information across all 

of our operational environments, whether it be trade or passenger 

operations. I think the more information-sharing agreements that 

we can establish with our international partners, the better off 

we’ll be. 

Mr. EZELL. What about developing sources, informants, that 

would help identify some of these folks that are coming over here? 

How well is that working for you these days? 

Ms. SABATINO. I think it’s also important to note the over 70 locations in 40 countries where we do have foreign-deployed CBP 

personnel that work directly with our foreign law enforcement 

partners, but not unique just to CBP. Certainly ICE has resources 

overseas, and this is this information-sharing network that we also 

leverage. 

Mr. EZELL. You know what we want here is a safe way to do this, 

and there’s so many folks that are coming across this border, as we 

all know, and it’s causing so many problems across the country. 

We’ve seen it on a daily basis, the crimes that have been committed, and we have got, as law enforcement, to step up, do everything within our power to make this happen so that we can protect 

Americans. 

Right now the American people are, on a daily basis, calling us, 

complaining, telling us that this border’s not secure. I’ve been down 

there myself. I’ve talked to the officers down there myself. 

I’m told they’re not being allowed to do their jobs. I’m told they’re 

not being able to completely do the things that they were hired to 

do because they’re having to do other duties. 

I think that we really need to, going forward, take this a little 

more seriously. I know that you’re following the orders of this administration, but I think that at some point we’ve got to step up 

and say, Hey, hey, this is enough—and do our jobs. 

So thank you very much again for this time. I yield back. 
44 

Mr. HIGGINS. The gentleman yields. 

I recognize Mr. Ivey, the gentleman from Maryland, for 5 minutes for questions. 

Mr. IVEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Hunter, you’ve testified in your original statement that CBP 

One helps to cut out smugglers, and I wanted to give you a chance 

to elaborate on that. How exactly does that work? 

Mr. HUNTER. Thank you, Mr. Ranking Member. What we are 

doing through CBP One in the border environment, as the executive assistant commissioner has spoken to, is creating a scheduling 

tool that migrants themselves can access. 

So we’re putting the power of determining where and when individuals present at a port of entry in the individual’s hand. They are 

not relying on that smuggler to take them across between ports of 

entry. 

Further, because the app is accessible in Central and Northern 

Mexico, we don’t need—and migrants themselves—don’t need to 

congregate in dangerous locations proximate to the border or be 

waiting near in long lines outside of our ports of entry. They can 

be in another location and then come for their arrival at a scheduled and appointed time. 

Mr. IVEY. All right. I wanted to ask you another question as well. 

Is it true that if a migrant has been fully cleared as a rightful refugee, that he or she is coming into the country legally and not illegally? 

Mr. HUNTER. Yes, Congressman. In our U.S. Refugee Admissions 

Program, those decisions are made overseas. We determine that an 

individual passes and qualifies as a refugee, and they are admitted 

as refugees. 

Mr. IVEY. All right. 

Mr. HUNTER. Immigration status. 

Mr. IVEY. Commissioner Sabatino, I wanted to ask you about 

staffing. You have a pretty large domain that you preside over. I 

think you’ve been asked a question about staffing already, but I do 

want to get a better feel for it because we’ve got some provisions 

floating around, you know, potentially funding new positions. 

But the number I saw was, there’s a shortage of 4,000 CBP officers. Is that correct? 

Ms. SABATINO. Thank you for the question. That number is absolutely based on our workload staffing model that identifies a need 

for approximately 4,000 CBP officers on the front line. 

Mr. IVEY. OK. I think there’s also an issue about judges shortages too which I wanted to—oh, I’m sorry—officers examining asylum claims, and the number I have there is 800. Is that right? 

Mr. HUNTER. That sounds about right, Congressman. We can certainly have our budget folks confirm those numbers. 

Mr. IVEY. OK. Then, you know, obviously these adding, you 

know, getting the number—I don’t know if we’re going to get to 

4,000 all at once—but adding those additional hires or even working our way toward it, what sort of assistance would that provide 

to you? How would that help you to address the issues at the border? 
45 

Ms. SABATINO. Well, thank you for the question, Congressman. 

Certainly bringing on incrementally is the best effort for us in 

terms of feasibility because of the training requirements. 

But the resource support also for our mission-support personnel, 

our training capacity, technology is also—investments in technology is very important to us. 

We do appreciate Congress’ continued investment in nonintrusive 

inspection technology, again, all part of our modernization efforts 

to enhance operations at the border and, again, put our officers 

back to doing what they do best, which is situational awareness. 

Mr. IVEY. On the technology piece—and I appreciate you raising 

that—when we went down to the border, one of the issues that 

came up was drones, and what we were told by some of the officers 

was that the cartels were using drones, and they had more, and I 

guess better, than we do down there. 

Now, that was like 6 or 7 months ago that we were down there, 

maybe longer, but I wanted to get your sense of what you’re seeing 

about drones, you know, and if we’re able to match what the cartels are doing with those. 

Ms. SABATINO. I certainly would have to defer to the subject-matter expertise of our Office of Air and Marine Operations. Though 

there are very sophisticated efforts by the cartels to leverage 

drones, to counter our operations and smuggle things across the 

border. 

Mr. IVEY. OK. One other question too, I think with respect to 

judges—and that’s the process of immigration judges, and that may 

be outside of your purview—but just from the standpoint of trying 

to expedite the process where these cases are resolved, so after 

they get from your baileywick and moved down the road, adding 

new judges, I mean, what kind of—do you know, if you know— 

what kind of backlog are they facing with respect to these cases, 

and, you know, what sort of additional resources would we need to 

address that? 

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Ranking Member, the immigration judges are 

with the Department of Justice Executive Office of Immigration Review, but you are right to observe that there are millions of cases 

in backlog there, and that’s why cases may take 5 to 8 years. 

As you’ve invoked earlier, sir, the bipartisan Senate bill would 

give us new authorities and resources within the Department of 

Homeland Security and our asylum core to bring that time down, 

if fully implemented, to 6 or 7 months. 

Mr. IVEY. I apologize for running over, Mr. Chairman, but thank 

you, and I yield back. 

Mr. HIGGINS. The gentleman yields. 

I recognize Mr. Luttrell, the gentleman from Texas, for 5 minutes. 

We’re going to be calling recess after Mr. Luttrell’s questioning— 

yes, we have time. After the gentleman from Texas questions, we’re 

going to have to go into recess for votes. 

Mr. LUTTRELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Hunter, I’m going to piggyback on what Mr. Ivey asked you 

about, about the smugglers and how the CBP One app—let’s just 

make believe I’ve never been in a foreign country, operating in a 

threat environment, maybe in this same space. 
46 

But can you assure us that—and I’ve been to Mexico quite a 

bit—can you assure us that those migrants that are coming up 

through the country, that are accessing the CBP One app are not 

in any way in a marshaling area, under command and control, and 

then handed their device to move forward and then tracked while 

they’re in country for whatever reason, either a coordinated movement inside the country or a plot to do something specific? 

You know, my concern is, when it comes to the AI space and 

how—you know, you can say nefarious actors, you can say whatever you want, but that exists—so are we sure that the CBP One 

app is secured? 

Because I can assure you, if you tried hard enough, I could probably tell you every single phone number in your phone if you gave 

me about 30 minutes. 

Mr. HUNTER. Thank you, Congressman, for the question. With 

the smugglers and the cartels, we in the Department will never say 

never because they are resourced, and they are motivated, and they 

are making a profit at the expense of migrants. 

What I can say is, what we are doing through CBP One is trying 

to cut out the smugglers at every step we can. So by putting more 

power in the hands of the individual migrants to schedule their appointment, we’re taking that power away from the smuggling organizations who have tended to use large groups and to enter between ports of entry. 

So we’re giving a pathway for migrants to have an alternative so 

they’re not required to work with the smugglers on that irregular 

entry. 

Mr. LUTTRELL. Does it seem like the individuals that are coming 

through the port of entry on the CBP One app fall in any specific 

categories? Fighting-age males? Is this something that we’re monitoring? Ms. Sabatino. 

Ms. SABATINO. Thank you for the question, but the demographics 

change, even port by port. We can certainly provide an overview of 

what the demographics are, and I think a fulsome briefing really 

on what the security measures are. It would probably take too long 

in this hearing, but to really walk through individually what those 

security measures are for the enhancement and to ensure like 

geolocation is only pinged to that phone when an individual, just 

to determine where they are at the time that they tried to opt in 

or schedule that appointment. 

Mr. LUTTRELL. OK. Ms. Meckley, can I make the assessment that 

you are the subject-matter expert on immigration and immigration 

policy? 

Ms. MECKLEY. I would not. 

Mr. LUTTRELL. Is anybody on that panel? 

Ms. MECKLEY. I would say Mr. Hunter. 

Mr. LUTTRELL. Would you? All right. Your lucky day, sir. My 

dear friend, Mrs. Ramirez, and I chat quite a bit, and I wish Mr. 

Garcia was here because he often holds up a white board with the 

immigration policy on it, and it’s absolutely horrific. 

I’m curious if the Department, if anybody on your side has, in 

any way, tried to restructure the immigration policy so it is more 

streamlined to present to us in any recent memory? Or did she just 

completely throw you under the bus? 
47 

Mr. HUNTER. No, I’m happy to take the question, Congressman, 

and my colleagues from USCIS. If you’re asking, Congressman, our 

immigration policies, our immigration law, our framework is complicated, is outdated, and is a patchwork. 

Mr. LUTTRELL. So are you telling me that or asking me? 

Mr. HUNTER. No, I’m affirming that. 

Mr. LUTTRELL. OK, good, all right, we agree. 

Mr. HUNTER. Yes—and has been outdated to provide the flexibility and tools that we need in the 21st Century. 

Mr. LUTTRELL. True. Are you waiting on us to write it up here, 

or are you guys going to—— 

Mr. HUNTER. Well, we have. So I know the President did submit 

a bill very early in the administration that outlined some reforms, 

and there was collaboration and technical assistance provided on 

the bipartisan Senate measure just 2 months ago, which really 

squarely gets at this issue of the asylum backlog and the resources 

we need to bring that down, which will disincentivize people from 

arriving who have nonmeritorious claims. 

Mr. LUTTRELL. Well, just considering you and your organization 

and those underneath you—I may not be talking directly to the 

person, but I bet you know who it is. You are the subject-matter 

experts. 

Amongst everything else that we deal with in the House of Representatives, we look to you for answers and guidance. I think 

that’s a fair assessment. 

It would be—and I am going to speak for Morgan on this one— 

if you came to my office with a revised immigration policy plan, I 

would be happy to look at it. I will walk across the hall to her office 

and say, what do you think? Then she and I would beat each other 

up, and then we would probably come to another agreement, come 

back and beat you up a little bit, and then the process is started, 

instead of us beating each other up every single, solitary day about 

immigration policy and border security, and then when we walk 

out of this meeting, nothing happens. 

But that time is—absolutely needs to go bye-bye. So I’m actually 

putting the basketball in your court, sir, and I’d be happy to revisit 

if you’d be happy to schedule a meeting with me and that young 

lady over there—I’m sorry, I’m speaking for you. 

You’re welcome. 

Mr. HUNTER. Congressman, we in the Department, would be delighted to—— 

Mr. LUTTRELL. Perfect. 

Mr. HUNTER [continuing]. Meet with you and other Members of 

the committee on substantive reform. 

Mr. LUTTRELL. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. HIGGINS. The gentleman yields. 

I recognize Mr. Suozzi from New York for 5 minutes for questions, and then—and then the gentleman’s name—he knows I’m 

from Louisiana. It’s a difficult name. 

Mr. SUOZZI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Luttrell, before you go, I want to be in on that meeting. I 

want to invite Mr. Bishop and Mr. Ivey as well to come to that 
48 

meeting, and I want to use the bipartisan Senate bill as a framework for us to start our conversation. 

So you said, Mr. Hunter, in your testimony that you removed or 

returned nearly 600,000 individuals this year. 

Mr. HUNTER. Congressman, thank you for the question. It’s actually been more. It was 630,000 just in the past 10 months. 

Mr. SUOZZI. So do you think that we could remove or return 

many, many more people if we had more border agents, more immigration judges, more detention beds, and revised policy as proposed in the Senate bipartisan bill? 

Mr. HUNTER. Yes, Congressman. If there are more individuals 

who are not—who under their—excuse me—who do not have the 

legal basis to remain in the country, then we have the capacity to 

remove. 

Mr. SUOZZI. So there are many people that don’t have a legal 

basis to be here. We conjecture, based upon the fact that you said 

earlier 70 percent of the people would be denied asylum if they 

were properly processed. 

I’ve numbers as high as 80 or 90 percent. So, you know, we keep 

on hearing about the 5,000 people a day, 5,000 people a day. We 

don’t want 5,000 people a day coming under the bipartisan Senate 

proposal. 

But those would be 5,000 applicants for asylum. If they were 

properly processed, with the proper number of immigration judges, 

proper number of border security agents, proper number of detention beds, and revised policy that’s been proposed in the bipartisan 

Senate proposal, then 90 percent of those 5,000—let’s say 80 percent or 70 percent, using your number before, but I’ve heard 90 

percent—would be, in fact, returned within 6 months instead of 

going through a 3-year, 4-year, 5-year, 8-year process. Is that correct? 

Mr. HUNTER. Generally speaking, Congressman, that’s my understanding. 

Mr. SUOZZI. So unlike what Mr. Bishop said before, the purpose 

of processing more people is not to let more people into the country. 

The purpose of processing more cases with more judges, more border security agents, more detention beds, and a better process is 

to actually deny the cases that will ultimately be denied but now 

takes 3, 5, 9 years to get done. 

If we did it in 6 months, 70 to 90 percent of those people would 

be returned in a very short period of time and would never be released into the country, because they’d actually be processed at the 

facility while staying in detention facilities. Is that correct? 

Mr. HUNTER. So, Congressman, what I’d underscore is, you know, 

we value our ability to welcome and accept asylum in this country—— 

Mr. SUOZZI. We all do, we all do, but right now that system is 

being corrupted by the cartels that we hear about all the time, people that are getting paid $7- to $10,000 per person in a multi-billion enterprise, and they are corrupting our system by telling people, Hey, make sure you say this, make sure you say that. 

Then because of our wonderful nature of the United States of 

America, these people are being put through a process, but that 
49 

process is taking too damn long. It’s taking 3 years, 5 years, 9 

years. 

We want to fix that process—instead of just arguing about it 

here, we want to fix that process, we want to process the cases, and 

we want to return 70 to 90 percent of the people in a short period 

of time. 

So I want to take Mr. Luttrell up. I want to invite Mr. Bishop. 

I want to invite Mr. Ivey. I want to invite anybody else who wants 

to come. Let’s start with the Senate bipartisan compromise that 

was negotiated by Ms. Sinema, and Mr. Murphy and a wonderful 

gentleman from Oklahoma, who I think is very conservative, ethical, honest, and hardworking, Mr. Lankford. Let’s use that as a 

basis, and let’s use that framework that was negotiated over a 4- 

month period, and let’s find an answer to this problem. 

Instead of just fighting about it over and over again, let’s actually do our jobs and fix it, and let’s process these cases, deport the 

people that should be deported and treat the other people that deserve to come to the United States of America under our historic 

generosity to the world, and let them in. 

But the rest of them, let’s stop them from breaking the rules, and 

let’s get them out. But to do that, Ms. Sabatino needs the resources, Ms. Meckley needs the resources, the Department of State 

needs the resources, you need the resources. 

You need border agents, you need immigration judges, you need 

detention beds, and you need a refined process that will stop people 

from breaking the system, breaking the rules. 

So we can do it. It’s pretty straightforward. I’m new to Congress, 

I just got here recently, but I’ve been watching TV, and we’re all 

freaking out when we see what’s going on at the border, all these 

people coming every day. It’s driving us crazy. People are freaking 

out. 

Democrats and Republicans and independents are worried about 

the broken system, and it’s because of the fact—not because Joe 

Biden and the Executive—COVID’s over. There was a surge before 

COVID under President Trump if you remember. Remember the 

whole thing with kids in the cages and stuff? There was a surge 

before COVID. It went down during COVID. There was a surge 

again once COVID was relieved. 

There’s more refugees in the world as Ms. Youth pointed out. 

There’s 110 million refugees, displaced persons, and asylum seekers, in the world now, the biggest number since World War II by 

quadruple. 

People are fleeing misery, and they’ll do whatever it takes to try 

to come to the greatest country in the world, the United States of 

America. 

We got to fix the process that’s designed to deal with 400,000 

people a year, not 21⁄2 million people a year. Let’s work together. 

Let’s fix the problem. Let’s do our jobs. 

Thank you very much for your testimony today. I appreciate you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HIGGINS. The committee going to go into recess, and we’ll reconvene 5 minutes after votes for Members who return. We thank 

the panelists for your patience. The committee is now in recess. 
50 

[Recess.] 

[5:22 p.m.] 

Mr. HIGGINS. The committee is reconvened. Thank you for your 

patience. Ladies and gentlemen, you’ve been quite tolerant of the 

impossible-to-anticipate, House voting schedule. 

My colleague, Mr. Brecheen is recognized for 5 minutes for questioning. 

Mr. BRECHEEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

So something we’ve gone down before, talking about the CBP 

One app, it was created of course in 2020, in October, and then the 

app was utilized by this administration to be increased. 

Originally the app was to alleviate the wait times for cargo inspection at ports, but then Secretary Mayorkas, Mr. Hunter, made 

the decision to let aliens schedule border appointments with the 

app, starting in 2022, 2023. Over 95 percent now of the 459,000 

aliens who have arrived at port of entry have been paroled and released into the country—95 percent of those who apply. That’s important to note. 

In addition, CBP One has been used to fly 386,000 foreign nationals from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela into U.S. airports. 

I want to just pause, because I think when the news of this last 

couple weeks broke that 386,000 foreign nationals from Cuba, 

Haiti, Nicaragua, Venezuela, got on a plane, flown into the United 

States, I think Democrat, Republican, the average American said, 

You’ve got to be kidding me. 

Secretary Mayorkas claims that this wide-spread use of the CBP 

One app is good because it supposedly reduces illegal border crossings. In reality, the Biden administration is simply shifting the 

flow of illegals from between ports of entry to this new process, 

this, quote, modern process. 

Let’s really be clear. We’re talking about inadmissible aliens. 

Just think about the term. You guys use it. I know you’re using 

the term ‘‘migrant’’ also often a lot. 

I’m not trying to be flippant. I think it’s really sad that we’ve 

moved to a place, we’re trying to confuse the American people and 

call these people migrants. 

Mr. Hunter, no offense intended, but I think it’s really sad that 

we’re wordsmithing. They’re illegal aliens. You guys still continue 

to use the word ‘‘inadmissible’’ because that’s supposed to mean 

something. This is illegal. 

So to talk about how the CBP One app has caused people not to 

go to ports of entry and what—many times they were being turned 

away. Now they’re not. Ninety-five percent of those who use the 

app are released into the United States. 

Just compare some year differences. Those who used to go to the 

ports of entry that were inadmissible aliens, 115,000 per month 

now in 2024, compared to 20,000 in 2020. So 115,000 now are going 

to the ports of entry compared to 20,000 in 2020. Why? Because of 

the marketing campaign of the Biden administration. 

When we use the term, there’s, you know, 110 million migrants, 

somebody tell me the tsunami that hit South America that I 

missed that was in the news. 
51 

I tell you what’s happened. Man, it’s hard not to be flippant 

when you just—the American people know that they are being 

hoodwinked by this administration on this, y’all. 

There wasn’t—there’s not 110 million—that’s one-third of the 

population of the United States, migrants that have had this migrant—they’re coming because President Biden put a marketing 

campaign out when he took office and said, come on in illegally. 

That’s truth. 

There’s not been this massive hurricane that’s hit South America. South America’s not under water. People are coming here because our laws are not standing for truth anymore. 

All right. Ms. Meckley, under the CHNV parole program, U.S. 

Citizenship and Immigration Services States that after an alien receives advance travel authorization to the United States, the alien 

is responsible for securing their own travel via air to international 

airport—to the international airport in the United States. 

How does the U.S. Government determine who provides the 

funding for aliens’ airfare to the United States? 

Let me ask it a different way. We’ve got NGO’s, nongovernment 

organizations, that are helping people break the laws. It’s ridiculous. 

Can you guarantee this body that funding from the U.S. taxpayer, through NGO’s, is not helping sponsor people? The 386,000 

people that have been flown into the interior of the United States, 

can you guarantee this body, U.S. taxpayers, in addition to this 

madness of them not doing regular process, flown in from their 

country into the United States, that the U.S. taxpayer inadvertently through NGO’s is not paying for that? 

Ms. MECKLEY. Sir, my role at USCIS is to oversee the reviews 

of the I–134A process. So I am responsible for the execution of that 

part of helping facilitate the information getting to CBP for them 

to make the parole determinations. 

As we do that, when we review the 134A, part of that review is 

looking at evidence for how the supporter will provide financial and 

other support to that beneficiary should CBP decide to parole that 

individual into the United States. 

Mr. BRECHEEN. I need to do this just because of my time. Yes 

or no, can you guarantee the taxpayer that they’re not footing the 

bill for bringing these—for the flight cost of bringing these people 

in through NGO’s? 

Ms. MECKLEY. Sir, I don’t know whether or not it is. As I’m saying, is we review the 134A, and they have to provide financial documentation that says they can support that individual during and 

throughout the parole validity period. 

Mr. BRECHEEN. Yes. 

Mr. Chairman, I’m going to yield back to you, but I’ll just note 

that there’s no confidence in this administration that NGO funding, 

that the taxpayer is not picking up the $500 to $1,000 per flight 

expense to fly them in also. 

Mr. HIGGINS. The gentleman yields. 

The gentleman, our colleague, Mr. Crane, is recognized for 5 

minutes for questioning. 

Mr. CRANE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
52 

I want to start with you, Mr. Hunter. You made some statements 

today talking about the causation of this crisis that we see at our 

Southern Border. You cited poverty, corruption, climate change, to 

name a few. Is that correct? 

I want to run by some actual quotes from President Biden for 

you real quick. On September 12, 2019, then-candidate Biden said, 

We’re a Nation who says if you want to flee and you’re fleeing oppression, you should come. 

Did you hear him say that, sir? Yes or no? 

Mr. HUNTER. I didn’t specifically hear that quote. 

Mr. CRANE. OK. Thank you. On June 27, 2019, candidate Biden: 

Those who come seeking asylum, we should immediately have the 

capacity to absorb them, keep them safe. 

Did you hear him say that? 

Mr. HUNTER. I don’t specifically recall that quote, sir. 

Mr. CRANE. OK. Would you agree with those statements, though, 

that we should absorb them, that we should have the capacity to 

absorb them, we should do that? 

Mr. HUNTER. Congressman, we’re required under law to inspect 

individuals who present, and individuals do have the right to seek 

asylum in the United States. 

Mr. CRANE. So would you alter—would you add that to your list 

now that we’ve gone over that, that it wasn’t just pot—it’s not poverty, corruption, climate change, a tsunami, like my friend here, 

Mr. Brecheen was talking about? 

Do you think that 1 of 2 people that could’ve been the President 

of the United States, the leader of the free world, saying that to 

the entire country and to the entire world during, you know, a television hearing, do you think that had anything to do with what 

we’re seeing now at the Southern Border? 

Mr. HUNTER. Congressman, it sounds like there is a recognition 

that there are people who are fleeing persecution, and in my reference to the particular governments—Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela—there are individuals who are fleeing persecution under 

those regimes. 

Mr. CRANE. OK. So—but it does—one of the leaders of the free 

world said, Hey, if you want to come here, you should come, right? 

So that’s really what’s really going on here. That’s what my 

friend, Mr. Brecheen, was talking about. That’s what many people 

are talking about up here. You know, this isn’t the, you know, global climate movement that many of my colleagues on the other side 

are trying to make it out to be. 

A lot of what it is, is globalism, sir. There are a lot of people 

around the world that are very, very powerful, and they don’t want 

anybody to have borders. They want globalism. World Economic 

Forum is one of them. That’s what, unfortunately, what many of 

our leaders actually take their cue from. 

What do you guys have to say to Americans who are living in 

fear every day of another terrorist attack? Let’s start with you, Ms. 

Sabatino. 

Ms. SABATINO. No. Thank you for the question. 

We invest significant resources, starting with our National Targeting Center, which also plays a significant role in the screening 
53 

and vetting of individuals, whether they are through these processes or any individuals arriving to the United States. 

Mr. CRANE. What do you guys have to say to Americans who 

have seen their schools, hospitals, and community spaces overtaken 

by migrants? 

Do you guys—you get a chance. You are on TV right now. Do you 

guys have anything to say to them? 

What about do you have anything to say to Americans who are 

afraid that the cartels are taking over their towns? 

How about anything to say to Americans who have lost their 

children to fentanyl? Do you have anything to say to them? 

Go ahead, Mr. Hunter. 

Mr. HUNTER. Congressman, in regards to the irregular migration 

challenges, it is a singular focus of our Department to reduce irregular migration in the hemisphere and unlawful entry. 

Mr. CRANE. OK, well, thank you for that, but you are doing a 

horrible job, and the American people know it. OK? I mean, you 

guys are doing the worst job in the history of this country. So the 

fact that you even answered that as if that’s your responsibility 

just it shows me—tells me how detached from reality you absolutely are. 

Mr. Hunter, where were you on 9/11, sir? Do you remember 

where you were? 

Mr. HUNTER. I do, indeed, Congressman. I was working in Washington, DC, at a NGO on Dupont Circle at the time. 

Mr. CRANE. What about you, Ms. Sabatino? Where were you? 

Ms. SABATINO. I was an immigration inspector at John F. Kennedy International Airport. 

Mr. CRANE. You remember exactly where you were that day? 

Ms. SABATINO. I do. 

Mr. CRANE. Ma’am, what about you? Do you remember? 

Ms. MECKLEY. Yes. I worked for the executive office for the U.S. 

Attorney’s Department of Justice. 

Mr. CRANE. Ms. Youth. 

Ms. YOUTH. I was serving in Madrid at the time, but I was in 

Geneva at a training. 

Mr. CRANE. OK. 

Well, the reason I asked you guys that, do you remember what 

Americans were saying right after that? Do you remember what 

Americans were saying? Do you remember them saying, never 

again? We’re never going to let this happen again? Do you guys remember that? Yes or no? 

Go ahead, Ms. Youth. Do you remember Americans saying that? 

Ms. YOUTH. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CRANE. Ms. Meckley. 

Ms. MECKLEY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CRANE. Ms. Sabatino. 

Ms. SABATINO. Yes. 

Mr. CRANE. Well, guess what, guys? It is going to happen again. 

It is not a question of if. It is a question of when. For every one 

of you guys that have sat by and supported these policies and these 

tools that we are talking about today that have allowed an expedited—this mass migration into the United States, you are going 

to share a little bit of that ownership. All right? 
54 

That changed so many of our lives forever. We said never again. 

Here we are implementing policies and tools that are making it so 

easy for individuals who don’t love this country, who want to do 

harm to this country—and we are not talking about everybody. We 

know there are plenty of people who just want to come here for a 

better life. But you guys all know there are plenty of people in this 

country right now that want to do Americans harm. 

This is my question for you, and we don’t have time to answer 

it. But I want you to think about this. When the next major attack 

like 9/11 or a series of 9/11s happen in this country, will you still 

continue to support these policies and these tools? Because we’re 

not going to forget it. 

We’re not going to forget who was at the helm. We’re not going 

to forget who was in these positions. We’re not going to forget the 

policies. We’re not going to forget the tools, and we’re not going to 

forget the committee hearings like we had today where you guys 

could have condoned this administration and you guys didn’t. All 

right. 

Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. HIGGINS. The gentleman yields. 

The gentlewoman, Ms. Greene, is recognized for 5 minutes of 

questioning. 

Ms. GREENE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Mr. Crane, for pointing out the most important 

things that people outside of this city talk about. 

While you all are paid with a taxpayer-funded paycheck, I want 

you to know that most Americans are concerned exactly about what 

Mr. Crane talked about. 

There’s also many Americans, like in my home State of Georgia, 

that are still grieving the death of a young woman named Laken 

Riley who was brutally murdered by an illegal alien that came into 

this country in Venezuela, who had injured a child in New York 

and was not deported. 

In my district, fentanyl is a real problem. It’s a serious problem. 

Fentanyl doesn’t discriminate based on politics or identity, sexual 

orientation, or race. Fentanyl is killing people every single day. 

It’s also something that’s extremely concerning for everyone in 

my district. This is such an outrage to most Americans. Again, they 

pay all of our paychecks with their hard-earned tax dollars that our 

country is under invasion. It is an invasion. 

Now, while we believe that people should legally immigrate to 

America and follow the laws, all of our laws are being completely 

broken. The fact that over 10 million people have come into our 

country, and there are 2 million gotaways on your watch, 2 million 

gotaways that are capable of doing something like Mr. Crane just 

talked about, a terrorist attack or the daily crime committed 

against innocent Americans, whether it’s a tragic car accident that 

kills Americans in the car, whether it is a fentanyl poisoning, a 

murder that comes—the fentanyl comes from China to Mexico and 

come into our country, or whether it’s a brutal murder like what 

happened to Laken Riley, it’s happening every single day. 

The CBP One app is the most fascinating thing to me. While 

Congress just banned TikTok, we have this app that our Government funds that shocking statistics, more than 459,000 individuals 
55 

have scheduled Southwest Border appointments with the CBP One 

app since January 2023, and 96 percent of those scheduled appointments with the app were issued and a notice to appear and paroled 

into the country. Ninety-six percent. 

The CBP One app is like a welcoming app. Welcome to America. 

Come on in. 

You aren’t vetting people. We’ve heard from witnesses before our 

committee. We heard from one mother whose daughter was 

horrifically raped and murdered, and the man that raped and murdered her daughter had gang tattoos, cartel tattoos all over him. 

He was allowed in the country, and he brutally raped and murdered her daughter, and her daughter’s boyfriend still has the 

voicemail on his phone of her last 2 minutes of life while she was 

calling him in panic. That voicemail is her being raped and murdered. 

This is what our country is dealing with, and it seems to fall on 

deaf ears when we talk to witnesses like you. It’s unbelievable. 

Ms. Sabatino, according to DHS, applicants for the CHNV program, ‘‘undergo a clear and robust security vetting’’. A clear and robust security vetting. In order to obtain advance travel authorization through CHNV parole program, an individual provides biometric information, including a photograph using the CBP One app. 

Now, on our committee—well, they’re all gone—there are Democrats that assigned a letter, literally signed a letter saying that it’s 

unfair, completely unfair that transgender migrants have to provide a photo. That’s unfair to them, and they would like to take 

away the photo requirement on the CBP One app. 

Are all individuals in the CHNV parole process required to submit biographical information through CBP One? 

Ms. SABATINO. Biographic and biometric. It’s the photo. 

Ms. GREENE. Can you imagine not having a photo? 

Ms. SABATINO. The facial biometric matching is a significant security enhancement to the CBP One app. 

Ms. GREENE. Are you keeping criminals out of our country with 

the CBP One app? 

Ms. SABATINO. The CBP One app really is just a tool to move the 

information, but we are taking the biographic and biometric information and matching it against watch list, our law enforcement 

databases, travel data, criminal records, as well as our derogatory 

photo index. 

Ms. GREENE. So do you sleep good at night? Like, do you know 

for a fact that you’re keeping these criminals out of our country 

with the CBP One app? You’re confident that you’re keeping out 

rapists, murderers, cartel members, terrorists? You’re confident 

that you’re keeping them out of our country? 

Ms. SABATINO. Congresswoman, as a 26-year career employee, 

I’m very well aware of the challenges that we are up against, and 

I sleep well knowing that our CBP officers and front-line personnel 

are doing their level best to protect the American communities. 

Ms. GREENE. So the CBP One app processes the information and 

expedites people from over 160 countries around the world into our 

country, and you sleep good at night, and you’re confident in the 

CBP One app? 
56 

Ms. SABATINO. The CBP One app doesn’t expedite individuals. It 

actually affords advance information to our officers to do that robust vetting and screening and the facial—obtaining the photos to 

do the facial biometric match to our derog index. 

Ms. GREENE. So you don’t think already having the information 

in an app with the photo when the migrants can come and pick a— 

select a date and time to come meet with Border Patrol, that 

doesn’t expedite the process? You’re saying that’s not an expedition 

of the process? 

Ms. SABATINO. I think I can highlight a number of instances over 

the last 10 years where migrants showing up at our ports of entry 

without any advance information quickly overwhelm our teams and 

then redirect our teams from doing things like interdicting fentanyl 

or outbound operations, seizing weapons and currency that funds 

the cartels. 

We have a lot of different disciplines and responsibilities at the 

ports of entry. Without that streamlined process, we would be solely focused on processing individuals who are required to afford the 

opportunity to request asylum at our ports of entry. 

Ms. GREENE. Sure. So maybe thousands of people showing up at 

one time at a port of entry or at the border along the way would 

be considered an invasion. That’s what most Americans are calling 

it. 

Most Americans are against the fact that their taxpayer dollars 

are having to pay for a handy dandy app that people can download 

and enter the information so they can be expedited into America. 

It’s outrageous. 

Mr. Chairman, I am going to go ahead and yield. Thank you. 

Mr. HIGGINS. The gentlelady yields. 

The Chair has been quite generous with time today to both sides 

of the aisle. I’m happy to recognize the Ranking Member. 

Mr. CORREA. I’m going to pass. 

Mr. HIGGINS. Any response? 

We have agreed to submit further questions in writing, panelists, 

out of respect for your time. You’ve been here all day and quite patient with interruptions of anticipated schedule. 

So I thank the witnesses for their testimony and the Members 

for their questions. The Members of the subcommittees may have 

additional questions for the witnesses, and we would ask the witnesses to respond to these in writing. 

Pursuant to committee rule VII(D), the hearing record will be 

held open for 10 days. 

Without objection, the subcommittees stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 5:42 p.m., the subcommittees were adjourned.] 
(57) 

A P P E N D I X I 

QUESTIONS FROM CHAIRMAN MARK E. GREEN, MD FOR ADAM HUNTER

Question 1. Who made the decision to transition the CBP One app from a commercial application to a migrant/immigration processing tool? Was the Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS) Office of Strategy, Policy, and Plans included in discussions with Secretary Mayorkas on the expansion of CBP One? 

Answer. On January 5, 2023, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 

announced new border enforcement measures, to include the use of the CBP One 

mobile application for noncitizens to schedule appointments to present themselves 

at ports of entry (POEs), facilitating a safe, orderly, and lawful migration management process. Initially, DHS used this functionality for noncitizens seeking a humanitarian exception to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) 

Title 42 public health order. Once Title 42 ended by operation of law on May 12, 

2023, noncitizens seeking entry to the United States were able to use CBP One to 

schedule an appointment to present at certain POEs across the Southwest Border 

(SWB) to help ensure safe and orderly processing. This decision was made by Department leadership in coordination with all impacted offices, including the DHS Office of Strategy, Policy, and Plans. The advance biographic and biometric information the noncitizens provide in CBP One to secure their appointment allows U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to streamline their screening and vetting 

processes of these noncitizens at POEs. The efficiency gained by noncitizens’ use of 

the CBP One scheduling function allowed CBP to significantly expand its capacity 

to process noncitizens more efficiently at land POEs on the SWB compared to prepandemic processing. 

Question 2a. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) regularly puts out English 

tweets about the consequences for coming to the United States illegally. However, 

in a Spanish interview with Univision Miami, Assistant Secretary Nunez-Neto 

seemed intent on letting the audience know that the ‘‘lottery’’ (meaning CBP One) 

will give people hope that their application will be reviewed, and that this application will allow them to get into the United States faster. Does the Department’s 

messaging to illegal aliens regularly expressing the ease in which aliens can ‘‘schedule’’ their arrival in the United States with the app, act as a pull factor or an invitation for illegal migration? 

Question 2b. Since January 2023, how many aliens, who use the CBP One app 

to schedule their arrival at a Southwest Border port of entry, also apply for and are 

qualified to receive asylum? 

Answer. CBP One is used only as a scheduling tool for those who have decided 

to seek admission at a port of entry (POE). The application is not a tool to request 

parole or claim asylum, nor is it used to screen, inspect, or process noncitizens for 

entry to the United States. The tool simply allows individuals of any nationality 

who in certain parts of Mexico to schedule an appointment to present themselves 

at a designated land POE. The advance biographic and biometric information that 

individuals provide in CBP One to secure their appointment allows CBP to streamline its screening and vetting processes at the POE, where the noncitizens may then 

be placed into immigration proceedings. The noncitizen may seek asylum during the 

course of their immigration proceedings, where their asylum claim will be evaluated. 

DHS has been clear—there are safe, lawful, and orderly pathways to come to the 

United States, and consequences for those who do not use them. Those who come 

lawfully will be able to stay in the United States for the time that they are authorized to be here and may be granted employment authorization, while those who 

come unlawfully will be subject to strengthened consequences and may be quickly 

removed. From May 12, 2023 to April 3, 2024, DHS has removed or returned over 

660,000 individuals, the vast majority of whom crossed the SWB, including more 

than 102,000 individuals who arrived as members of family units or groups. Total 
58 

removals and returns since mid-May exceed removals and returns in every full fiscal 

year since 2011. 

QUESTIONS FROM CHAIRMAN CLAY HIGGINS FOR ADAM HUNTER

Question 1. DHS initially launched CBP One in 2020 to streamline inspections of 

commercial goods, such as perishable cargo. However, in 2023 the Biden administration decided to expand CBP One’s capabilities that would attract an unlimited number of inadmissible aliens to the United States. Why did the Department decide to 

open the flood gates to include appointments for these inadmissible aliens? 

Answer. The advance biographic and biometric information individuals provide in 

CBP One to secure their appointment allows CBP to streamline its processing at 

the border, including screening and vetting processes. The efficiency gained by noncitizens’ use of the CBP One scheduling function, as opposed to simply presenting 

themselves to seek admission, has allowed CBP to significantly expand its capacity 

to process noncitizens more efficiently at land POEs on the SWB compared to prepandemic processing. 

DHS has been clear—there are safe, lawful, and orderly pathways and processes 

to come to the United States, and consequences for those who do not use them. 

Those who come lawfully will be able to stay in the United States for the time that 

they are authorized to be here and may be granted employment authorization, while 

those who come unlawfully will be subject to strengthened consequences and quickly 

removed. 

Question 2a. Aliens are generally inadmissible to the United States based on certain health-related grounds (INA 212(a)) and by law, aliens are generally required 

to undergo a medical examination before entering the United States. Are aliens who 

use CBP One to either schedule an appointment at a port of entry or who are part 

of the Cuban, Haitian, Nicaraguan, and Venezuelan (CHNV) parole program required to undergo medical examinations and a vaccination report? 

Question 2b. If so, please describe the extent of the examination and vaccination 

report. 

Answer. Before traveling to the United States, noncitizens using the Cuban, Haitian, Nicaraguan, and Venezuelan (CHNV) parole processes must comply with established requirements, including vaccination requirements and other public health 

guidelines, and confirm that they meet public health requirements. Noncitizens 

seeking travel authorization through the CHNV processes must attest as part of the 

process that they have completed vaccine requirements or are eligible for an exception to vaccine requirements for measles, polio, and the first dose of COVID–19 vaccine approved or authorized by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration or Emergency Use Listed by the World Health Organization. Within 90 days of arrival to 

the United States, noncitizens seeking travel authorization through the CHNV processes must attest that they have undergone screening for tuberculosis. CBP One is 

merely a scheduling tool, and is not used to screen, inspect, or process noncitizens 

for entry into the United States; noncitizens who present at the POE with or without a CBP One appointment undergo Office of Field Operations processing at the 

POE. 

QUESTIONS FROM VICE CHAIRMAN MICHAEL GUEST FOR ADAM HUNTER

Question 1a. In October 2023, the committee received information on CBP One 

after multiple requests and the threat of a subpoena. These documents revealed 

that nearly 96 percent of inadmissible aliens who scheduled appointments to 

present at Southwest Border ports of entry were issued a Notice to Appear and released into the United States on parole. 

Why were nearly 96 percent of those who made appointments at 1 of the 8 Southwest Border ports of entry paroled, rather than placed into Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody for detention? 

Answer. Upon arrival at the POE, individuals are inspected by CBP and required 

to submit additional information, to include fingerprints, for further biometric vetting. CBP officers retain discretion to determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether 

or not each noncitizen is eligible for parole or another lawful pathway. Noncitizens 

who are determined to pose a potential national security or public safety threat, or 

otherwise do not warrant parole as a matter of discretion upon inspection, will be 

processed under an appropriate processing pathway and may be referred to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for a custody determination. 

Question 1b. What are the determining factors for placing an individual on a 

‘‘case-by-case’’ basis on parole given that nearly 96 percent of those who made appointments were paroled? 
59 

Answer. Noncitizens encountered by CBP are processed under Title 8 authorities 

as required by law. CBP officers retain discretion to determine eligibility for parole 

on a case-by-case basis given the totality of the circumstances presented in each individual case. Noncitizens are vetted and screened using information available at 

that time to identify potential threats to national security or public safety. As noted 

above, those determined to pose a potential threat, or who otherwise do not warrant 

parole as a matter of discretion, will be processed under an appropriate processing 

pathway and may be referred to ICE for a custody determination. 

Question 1c. How many aliens of the 96 percent who were granted entry into the 

United States via the app, claimed asylum after they arrived at a port of entry? 

Answer. As noted above, CBP One is used only as a scheduling tool. The application is not a tool to request parole or claim asylum, nor is it used to screen, inspect, 

or process noncitizens for entry to the United States. The tool simply allows individuals of any nationality who are in certain parts of Mexico to schedule an appointment to present themselves at a designated land POE. The advance biographic and 

biometric information individuals provide in CBP One to secure their appointment 

allows CBP to streamline its processing at the border, including screening and vetting processes. The efficiency gained by noncitizens’ use of the CBP One scheduling 

functionality has allowed CBP to significantly expand its capacity to process noncitizens more efficiently at land POEs on the SWB compared to pre-pandemic processing. As noted above, noncitizens who present with CBP One appointments are 

placed in immigration proceedings. Those who are issued Notices to Appear in removal proceedings or who receive a positive fear determination from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) would present any requests for relief—such 

as asylum—to the immigration judge. Accordingly, questions regarding the number 

of individuals who eventually make such requests should be directed to the U.S. Department of Justice. 

QUESTIONS FROM RANKING MEMBER J. LUIS CORREA FOR ADAM HUNTER

Question 1. Mr. Hunter, it’s been suggested that the U.S. Government is paying 

for the plane tickets of individuals granted parole through the Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela (CHNV) parole program. As part of the parole process, the 

non-citizens of these countries who apply for parole through this program must have 

a U.S.-based supporter confirmed by USCIS, and they must submit certain information to be screened and vetted to be considered for travel authorization. 

Can you confirm that once an individual meets all the requirements of this program and is deemed safe for travel to the United States, that the individuals or 

their sponsors pay for the plane tickets to travel to the United States and that the 

U.S. Government does not pay for these plane tickets? 

Answer. If approved to travel to the United States through the CHNV parole processes, individuals are responsible for arranging their own travel via air to an interior POE in the United States, rather than arriving at the SWB. The U.S. Government does not pay or arrange travel for noncitizens to the United States through 

the CHNV parole process. 

Question 2a. For all witnesses, as we face the largest global mass migration of 

individuals this world has ever seen the strength of our global partnerships has 

never been more important. This is not just a U.S. issue, it’s a global issue. Shared 

challenges require shared solutions, and we must continue to work with our partners around the globe to address the migration issues we are seeing. We also know 

that with these challenges the risk to our national security is elevated. We cannot 

forget that the 9/11 hijackers were here in the United States on tourist and business 

visas and there has not been a terrorist attack on the United States from an undocumented migrant. We must look broader than the people asking for protection 

at our border. As we continue to use all of the tools in our toolkit to create a more 

humane, safe, and orderly immigration system, we must remain vigilant to maintain our national security. 

Can you describe what your agency partnerships are like with our closest partners in Mexico and Canada as well as with countries in the Western Hemisphere? 

Answer. DHS works with countries throughout the hemisphere—including, but 

not limited to, Canada, Mexico, Guatemala, Costa Rica, Colombia, Ecuador, and 

Panama—to expand efforts to counter human smuggling organizations, humanely 

secure borders, share information, increase labor mobility, and expand protection 

and lawful pathways. The government of Mexico (GOM) continues to be a leader in 

the region when it comes to innovative and balanced efforts to manage migration. 

DHS developed an innovative approach that provided certain CHNV nationals with 

a safe, orderly way to come to the United States and imposed new consequences on 

those who crossed unlawfully. As a result of close coordination with the GOM, 
60 

CHNV nationals who do not use these new processes and are encountered at the 

land border may be returned or removed to Mexico. 

In March 2023, the United States and Canada announced coordination on efforts 

to incentivize lawful migration processes and reduce irregular migration, including 

an Additional Protocol to the 2002 U.S.-Canada Safe Third Country Agreement to 

reduce asylum claims between land POEs, expanding new lawful pathways to Canada, and investments in capacity-building and programming in the region to support 

migration management and humanitarian protection. DHS also launched a 2-month 

coordinated campaign with Panama and Colombia to deter the illicit movement of 

people through the Darie ́n region. In addition, the United States has expanded lawful pathways to the United States and encouraged partner countries to do the same, 

disincentivizing tens of thousands of migrants and refugees from pursuing irregular 

migration via the Darie ́n. 

In close coordination with the U.S. Department of State (DOS), DHS announced 

the Safe Mobility Initiative to establish offices in Colombia, Costa Rica, Guatemala, 

and Ecuador that streamlines access to lawful pathways to the United States and 

other countries, including expedited refugee processing and various humanitarian 

and employment opportunities. Throughout the region, DHS and DOS are working 

bilaterally with numerous partner countries to encourage the strengthening of visa 

policies, better and more targeted screening of individuals flying into the hemisphere, and enhanced capture and exchange of biometric and biographic data. All 

these efforts, when taken together, represent significant strides in managing the extraordinary migration challenge that is facing this hemisphere. 

The United States remains committed to supporting our partners within Latin 

America and the Caribbean as they integrate millions of migrants, mostly Venezuelans. Partners throughout the region have offered legal status and integration 

opportunities to the more than 7.7 million displaced Venezuelans who have fled 

their country, stabilizing them in the region and preventing further displacement 

or irregular movement to our border. The United States offers financial and technical assistance to receiving countries that have opened regularization opportunities 

to displaced migrants. 

Question 2b. Can you describe how these partnerships help strengthen our national security to help prevent another 9/11 from occurring on our soil again? 

Answer. DHS collaborates with international and Federal partners to deter irregular migration to ensure that the United States is sharing responsibility throughout 

the Western Hemisphere. DHS continues to build our partnerships with our foreign 

partners, to include increasing our information-sharing capabilities and providing 

capacity-building support. These efforts improve partners’ ability to detect criminal 

and terrorists crossing borders, and improves DHS’s ability to vet against foreign 

data. For example, through the International Biometric Data Sharing Program, 

DHS is able to conduct a biometric check against its foreign partners’ biometric data 

to authenticate a traveler’s identity and quickly receive immigration and criminal 

history information, as well as indications the individual may represent a national 

security threat. DHS is also working with governments in the Western Hemisphere 

to expand the Biometric Data Sharing Partnership, which improves a country’s 

identity management capabilities and establishes biometric information sharing between DHS and the partner country. Through this initiative, DHS trains partners 

to collect data on migrants and to use data provided by DHS to help identify security risks. Information obtained through these initiatives and other operational partnerships with regional partners assist CBP in identifying and taking appropriate action against noncitizens who pose a national security or public safety threat, and 

support DHS investigations into transnational criminal activities. 

QUESTIONS FROM VICE RANKING MEMBER DELIA RAMIREZ FOR ADAM HUNTER

Question 1a. Regarding the exception to the rebuttable presumption of asylum ineligibility that exists under the ‘‘Circumvention of Lawful Pathways Final Rule’’ for 

people who can demonstrate they are unable to access an appointment through CBP 

One: How many exceptions have been granted to date? Please provide the supporting data. 

Answer. In the credible fear context, an Asylum Officer determines whether there 

is a significant possibility that the noncitizen could establish that they are not subject to the ‘‘Circumvention of Lawful Pathways’’ Rule, or that they could establish 

an exception to or rebut the Rule’s presumption of asylum ineligibility. USCIS does 

not track the specific exception or rebuttal ground a noncitizen is found to have 

demonstrated. However, since the Rule went into effect on May 12, 2023, up to April 

30, 2024, USCIS found that 20,122 noncitizens in credible fear screenings demonstrated a significant possibility that they could establish an exception or rebut the 
61 

presumption. The final determination on the application of the Rule’s presumption 

of asylum ineligibility is made at the time the asylum application is adjudicated. 

Question 1b. What are DHS’s criteria for granting the exception? 

Answer. Noncitizens who cross the Southwest land border or adjacent coastal borders of the United States without authorization after traveling through a third 

country will be presumed ineligible for asylum unless they, or a member of their 

family with whom they are traveling, meet one of the articulated exceptions: • They were provided authorization to travel to the United States pursuant to a 

DHS-approved parole process; • They used the CBP One app to schedule a time and place to present at a POE, 

or they presented at a POE without using the CBP One app and established 

that it was not possible to access or use the CBP One app due to a language 

barrier, illiteracy, significant technical failure, or other on-going and serious obstacle; or 

• They applied for and were denied asylum in a third country en route to the 

United States. 

Unaccompanied children are exempted from the rebuttable presumption. 

Noncitizens can rebut the presumption of asylum ineligibility in exceptionally 

compelling circumstances, including if they demonstrate that, at the time of their 

unauthorized entry, they or a member of their family with whom they were traveling: 

• Faced an acute medical emergency; 

• Faced an extreme and imminent threat to their life or safety, such as an imminent threat of rape, kidnapping, torture, or murder; or 

• Were a victim of a severe form of trafficking, as defined in 8 CFR § 214.1. 

Question 1c. How would someone demonstrate they were unable to access an appointment through CBP One? Would not speaking 1 of the 3 languages available 

on the app or not having access to reliable internet service be sufficient evidence? 

Answer. As required by regulation, a noncitizen could only be eligible for this exception if they presented at a POE and could demonstrate that it was not possible 

to access or use the DHS scheduling system due to language barrier, illiteracy, significant technical failure, or other on-going and serious obstacle. The decision about 

whether an exception applies is made by DHS officials locally based on the totality 

of the circumstances and evidence presented. 

Question 2a. The wait times to receive a CBP One appointment remain extremely 

long and only a few ports of entry accept appointments, which has forced people to 

wait for months in Mexico, often in dangerous conditions and without the ability to 

support themselves. 

What is the United States Government’s role in and strategy for ensuring the 

safety and protection of people waiting for a CBP One appointment? 

Answer. The U.S. Government continues to work with the GOM to promote the 

safety and protection of noncitizens waiting in Mexico for a CBP One appointment. 

Currently, 8 U.S. POEs are available for selection in CBP One to schedule an appointment. 

Question 2b. What insight does your agency have on the conditions that those who 

are waiting for an appointment encounter and endure while they stay in Mexico, 

particularly those who are not Mexican nationals? 

Question 2c. What coordination is occurring with the government of Mexico to 

meet the needs of those who are waiting for a CPB One appointment? 

Answer. DHS respectfully defers to DOS. 

Question 3. How has your agency consulted with those who have used or could 

use CBP One to enter the United States, as well as with immigration advocates and 

services providers, to inform the development of CBP One and U.S. border enforcement efforts? How is your agency engaging with those directly impacted to optimize 

the app and inform migration policies going forward? 

Answer. DHS engages extensively at the State and local levels, including with law 

enforcement entities, public health authorities, and nongovernmental organizations 

in California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas, as well as other locations as needed. 

This regular coordination includes focusing on local transport and capacity planning, 

resolving logistical challenges, addressing community concerns, and hearing feedback on CBP One and issues impacting POEs. 

QUESTIONS FROM CHAIRMAN MARK E. GREEN, MD FOR DIANE SABATINO

Question 1a. One function of CBP One is to facilitate the Advance Travel Authorization (ATA) for aliens who apply for parole through the CHNV (Cubans, Haitians, 

Ncaraguans, and Venezuelans) parole program. If granted, this travel authorization 

allows aliens to fly directly into U.S. airports to be processed for parole. 
62 

From January 2023 to now, how many aliens have been granted advance travel 

authorization through the CHNV parole program? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 1b. According to data received from the Department, from October 2022 

through June 2023, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) granted parole to 

97.5 percent of CHNV applicants. Of the roughly 2.5 percent of CHNV applicants 

that were denied parole, can you testify that each CHNV applicant that was denied 

parole has been removed from the country and has not re-entered? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 1c. What are Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP) procedures to 

screen and vet CHNV applicants prior to the issuance of an advance travel authorization? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 1d. When CBP is evaluating CHNV applicants, how does CBP determine 

an applicant’s criminal history? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

QUESTIONS FROM CHAIRMAN CLAY HIGGINS FOR DIANE SABATINO

Question 1a. Despite the app’s original intent, cartels have turned CBP One into 

a lucrative tool, demonstrating the need for continued vigilance and adaptive security measures. 

What are the current security vulnerabilities in the CBP One app? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 1b. According to several Border Patrol Chiefs, the cartels control the 

Southwest Border. Is it true that cartels are capitalizing on the app by facilitating 

entry and charging fees for their services? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 1c. What is CBP doing to combat the cartels from exploiting the CBP 

One app? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 2a. According to CBP’s website, foreign nationals ‘‘located in Central or 

Northern Mexico... may use the CBP One app to submit information in advance 

and schedule an appointment to present themselves at... Southwest Border land 

ports of entry (POEs).’’ Is CBP more concerned with facilitating mass parole or the 

immigration laws passed by Congress? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 2b. Can you confirm to the American people that CBP hasn’t encountered criminals, gang members, or terrorists who have used the app to enter the 

United States? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 3. CBP has outlined certain exceptions for CBP One allowing some 

aliens to present at ports of entry without appointments. Why is CBP allowing unauthorized aliens without appointments to circumvent the Department’s own rule 

to present at a Port of Entry? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

QUESTIONS FROM VICE CHAIR MICHAEL GUEST FOR DIANE SABATINO

Question 1a. The original justification for the roll-out and subsequent expansion 

of CBP One at ports of entry was to facilitate a safe, orderly, and humane process. 

However, that has not been the case. The Border Patrol recorded a record of nearly 

250,000 enforcement encounters in December 2023. 

Since January 1, 2023, how many individuals are processed daily at ports of 

entry, and of those, how many made appointments to schedule their arrival using 

CBP One? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 1b. Each time the number of appointments increased, who was a part 

of the discussion on expansion and how was it decided what number to expand to? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 1c. What is the difference in processing inadmissible aliens presenting 

at ports of entry who made appointments through CBP One and those who did not? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 2a. CBP recently told the committee that they are addressing 

vulnerabilities in the app’s features that might allow foreign nationals to manipulate the appointment scheduling process or app’s features. 

What is CBP doing to ensure that the data that aliens are inputting into the app 

is accurate? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 
63 

Question 2b. Media reports have shown that some aliens have grown frustrated 

with the app’s appointment feature and they often try multiple times a day every 

day to get an appointment. Is it possible for aliens to create duplicate profile accounts or appointments? Is there a limit to how many appointment submissions can 

be made in the app? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 2c. What happens to aliens that CBP has caught providing fake information in CBP One? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 2d. Last August, it was reported that cartels were selling virtual private 

networks (VPN) services to aliens trying to make appointments outside of Northern 

and Central Mexico. Since then, CBP has said that they have patched this problem. 

Are there still vulnerabilities in the app that cartels or foreign nations can exploit? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 2e. Have any aliens caught providing fake information been released into 

the country? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

QUESTIONS FROM HONORABLE MARJORIE TAYLOR GREENE FOR DIANE SABATINO

Question 1a. To obtain advance travel authorization through the CHNV parole 

program, an individual provides biometric information, including a photograph, 

using CBP One. 

Are all aliens in the CHNV parole process required to submit biographical information through CBP One? Please confirm all the biographical information that is 

required in the CBP One app prior to be processed by CBP. 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 1b. What other information, if any, are aliens required to submit? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 1c. When vetting for advance travel authorization approval, does CBP 

vet against criminal records in Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, or Venezuela? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 2. Last year, CBP informed the committee that they were working toward an ‘‘orderly and safe management’’ plan to deal with the unprecedented number of aliens surging at the Southwest Border. CBP also noted that the goal of CBP 

One’s scheduling function is to replace paperwork and time consumed by Office of 

Field Operations (OFO) officers on processing. Is the priority of CBP simply managing the flow of aliens or is it to deter and discourage illegal immigration? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 3a. One criterion to qualify for the CHNV parole program is that the 

applicant must fly into an interior port of entry. 

How many airports are aliens, who apply for CHNV, are flying into? Please list 

the names of all airports that CHNV aliens are flying into. 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 3b. Are any of these airports outside the United States? If so, please list 

the airports outside of the United States that aliens are flying to. Why are aliens 

flying into international airports outside the United States? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 3c. Who is responsible for paying for the alien’s airline tickets? Can nongovernmental organizations pay for an alien, who applies to and is accepted into, 

the CHNV parole program, their airline tickets? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 4a. CBP states that it continues to work closely with U.S. Immigration 

and Customs Enforcement (ICE) as well as U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to quickly process aliens encountered at the border and remove those 

who do not establish a legal basis to remain in the United States. Can you give specific examples of aliens who scheduled an appointment through CBP One or presented at a Port of Entry that ultimately did not have a legal basis to remain in 

the United States? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 4b. What happens to aliens who do not have a legal basis to remain in 

the United States under DHS’s new parole guidelines? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

QUESTIONS FROM RANKING MEMBER J. LUIS CORREA FOR DIANE SABATINO

Question 1a. For all witnesses, as we face the largest global mass migration of 

individuals this world has ever seen, the strength of our global partnerships has 

never been more important. This is not just a U.S. issue, it’s a global issue. Shared 
64 

challenges require shared solutions, and we must continue to work with our partners around the globe to address the migration issues we are seeing. We also know 

that with these challenges the risk to our national security is elevated. We cannot 

forget that the 9/11 hijackers were here in the United States on tourist and business 

visas and there has not been a terrorist attack on the United States from an undocumented migrant. We must look broader than the people asking for protection 

at our border. As we continue to use all of the tools in our toolkit to create a more 

humane, safe, and orderly immigration system, we must remain vigilant to maintain our national security. 

Can you describe what your agency partnerships are like with our closest partners in Mexico and Canada as well as with countries in the Western Hemisphere? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 1b. Can you describe how these partnerships help strengthen our national security to help prevent another 9/11 from occurring on our soil again? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

QUESTIONS FROM VICE RANKING MEMBER DELIA RAMIREZ FOR DIANE SABATINO

Question 1. Your written testimony states that the CBP One app ‘‘effectively cuts 

out smugglers, decreases migrant exploitation, and improves safety and security.’’ 

Please elaborate on the evidence CBP has to support this statement. 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 2. The CBP One app can present access barriers for people who do not 

speak 1 of the 3 languages the app is available in, have low or no literacy, are not 

technologically adept, or may not have access to a smartphone or internet services. 

What are CBP’s plans to address language access, technical support, and 

functionality issues with CBP One? What are CBP’s plans to make access to CBP 

One appointments more accessible to people who encounter these barriers? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 3a. Regarding the exception to the rebuttable presumption of asylum ineligibility that exists under the ‘‘Circumvention of Lawful Pathways Final Rule’’ for 

people who can demonstrate they are unable to access an appointment through CBP 

One: How many exceptions have been granted to date? Please provide the supporting data. 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 3b. What are DHS’s criteria for granting the exception? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 3c. How would someone demonstrate they were unable to access an appointment through CBP One? Would not speaking 1 of the 3 languages available 

on the app or not having access to reliable internet service be sufficient evidence? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 4. How has your agency consulted with those who have used or could 

use CBP One to enter the United States, as well as with immigration advocates and 

services providers, to inform the development of CBP One and U.S. border enforcement efforts? How is your agency engaging with those directly impacted to optimize 

the app and inform migration policies going forward? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

QUESTIONS FROM CHAIRMAN MARK E. GREEN, MD FOR TAMMY MECKLEY

Question 1a. How many total applications have been submitted for the Cuban, 

Haitian, Nicaraguan, and Venezuelan (CHNV) parole? Please also include the total 

number of applications U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) received 

from Venezuelan nationals in October 2022? 

Of the total number of applications submitted for CHNV parole, how many of 

these applicants have been confirmed/approved? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 1b. Does this include the total number of approved applications of Venezuelan nationals from October 2022? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 2a. The CHNV parole program requires applicants to find a U.S.-based 

financial support who agrees to provide applicants with financial support during parole. 

What are the requirements to become a financial supporter? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 2b. How much money does a ‘‘supporter’’ need to have to support an inadmissible alien? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 
65 

Question 2c. Can nongovernmental organizations be listed on an alien’s application as a financial supporter? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 2d. What would be the causes/reasons why someone would be declined 

to serve as a financial supporter? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 3a. It has been reported that individuals using the CBP One app are 

using the same financial sponsor. In some cases, for instance in Pittsburgh, PA, dozens of Uzbeks nationals used the same sponsor without the sponsor even knowing 

it. 

How is USCIS screening and vetting CHNV applicants and their financial sponsors? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 3b. Allegedly, some aliens come into the country using the CBP One app 

under a false name and then when they get to USCIS they provide their real name 

and DOB because they want to obtain work authorization. Are you able to confirm 

whether this is true? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

QUESTIONS FROM CHAIRMAN CLAY HIGGINS FOR TAMMY MECKLEY

Question 1. As of January, over 357,000 aliens were granted parole under CHNV. 

Can you tell me what role USCIS plays in these two parole programs and where 

does the CBP One app come into play? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 2. Why is the Department pre-authorizing the travel of aliens through 

parole to fly directly into the country and how many of these aliens have been processed for admission by your agency into the United States? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 3. DHS has stated that aliens who are outside the United States and 

lack U.S. entry documents may be considered, on a case-by-case basis, for advanced 

authorization to travel and a temporary period of parole for up to 2 years for urgent 

humanitarian reasons or ‘‘significant public benefit.’’ What is the public benefit of 

allowing hundreds of thousands of parolees—many of whom we don’t know much 

about—into the United States? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 4a. On their website, the Department of State (DOS) claims that USCIS 

is responsible for the adjudication of the individuals at Safe Mobility Offices. It was 

even reported that Secretary Mayorkas surged asylum officers to these sites when 

they were opened. Can you confirm that USCIS is processing illegal immigrants at 

these processing centers in foreign countries? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 4b. Under this process, when do these aliens get processed through a 

point of entry? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 5a. Is the Department encouraging illegal aliens to use the CBP One 

App at Safe Mobility Offices? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 5b. Do you understand how this can be interpreted as facilitating illegal 

entry into American sovereign soil? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

QUESTIONS FROM VICE CHAIR MICHAEL GUEST FOR TAMMY MECKLEY

Question 1a. Under the CHNV parole program, a supporter needs to pass a security and background vetting along with demonstrating sufficient financial resources 

to receive, maintain, and support the beneficiary. 

What security and other background vetting checks does USCIS conduct on the 

supporter? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 1b. What is the validity of those security checks and how recent are the 

results at the time of adjudication? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 1c. What checks does USCIS conduct to determine if a supporter is demonstrating sufficient financial resources to receive, maintain, and support a beneficiary? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 
66 

Question 1d. Can the financial resources threshold for supporters be waived? If 

so, how often? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

QUESTIONS FROM RANKING MEMBER J. LUIS CORREA FOR TAMMY MECKLEY

Question 1a. For all witnesses, as we face the largest global mass migration of 

individuals this world has ever seen the strength of our global partnerships has 

never been more important. This is not just a U.S. issue, it’s a global issue. Shared 

challenges require shared solutions, and we must continue to work with our partners around the globe to address the migration issues we are seeing. We also know 

that with these challenges the risk to our national security is elevated. We cannot 

forget that the 9/11 hijackers were here in the United States on tourist and business 

visas and there has not been a terrorist attack on the United States from an undocumented migrant. We must look broader than the people asking for protection 

at our border. As we continue to use all of the tools in our toolkit to create a more 

humane, safe, and orderly immigration system, we must remain vigilant to maintain our national security. 

Can you describe what your agency partnerships are like with our closest partners in Mexico and Canada as well as with countries in the Western Hemisphere? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 1b. Can you describe how these partnerships help strengthen our national security to help prevent another 9/11 from occurring on our soil again? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

QUESTIONS FROM RANKING MEMBER J. LUIS CORREA FOR MARTA YOUTH

Question 1. Ms. Costanzo Youth, your written testimony states the Safe Mobility 

initiative is one of the ways the United States is facilitating access to safe and lawful pathways from countries in the region, so refugees do not have to undertake a 

dangerous journey. You state Safe Mobility Offices are currently operational in Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, and Guatemala. 

Can you clarify what the roles of the Safe Mobility Offices are and what their operations include? 

Answer. The Safe Mobility initiative is one of the many ways the United States 

is facilitating access to safe and lawful migration pathways, so refugees and vulnerable migrants don’t have to undertake dangerous journeys in search of safety and 

better opportunities. They access the initiative at no cost through the 

MovilidadSegura.org website and Safe Mobility Offices (SMOs) in Colombia, Costa 

Rica, Ecuador, and Guatemala. SMOs complement the range of existing services 

available for refugees and migrants in host countries. SMOs facilitate expedited refugee processing via the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program as well as provide information and referrals to humanitarian parole, family reunification, and labor pathways. SMOs are also increasing access to information about lawful migration pathways to other countries besides the United States, such as Spain and Canada. 

Question 2a. For all witnesses, as we face the largest global mass migration of 

individuals this world has ever seen the strength of our global partnerships has 

never been more important. This is not just a U.S. issue, it’s a global issue. Shared 

challenges require shared solutions, and we must continue to work with our partners around the globe to address the migration issues we are seeing. We also know 

that with these challenges the risk to our national security is elevated. We cannot 

forget that the 9/11 hijackers were here in the United States on tourist and business 

visas and there has not been a terrorist attack on the United States from an undocumented migrant. We must look broader than the people asking for protection 

at our border. As we continue to use all of the tools in our toolkit to create a more 

humane, safe, and orderly immigration system, we must remain vigilant to maintain our national security. 

Can you describe what your agency partnerships are like with our closest partners in Mexico and Canada as well as with countries in the Western Hemisphere? 

Answer. The Department works with partners in the region to address irregular 

migration and forced displacement, in line with the shared goals of the Los Angeles 

Declaration on Migration and Protection. We collaborate with Mexico on asylum capacity-building and refugee integration in Mexico, and with Canada via the Comprehensive Regional Protection and Solutions Framework Support Platform, asylum 

capacity-building in the region, and refugee resettlement. We partner with Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, and Guatemala to host and operate Safe Mobility offices 

through our implementing partners to facilitate access to lawful pathways. 

Question 2b. Can you describe how these partnerships help strengthen our national security to help prevent another 9/11 from occurring on our soil again? 
67 

Answer. With PRM funding, our humanitarian partners strengthen humane migration management mechanisms and offer local communities the resources they 

need to host refugees and other vulnerable populations. PRM assistance facilitates 

migrant and refugees’ successful long-term integration closer to home, discouraging 

them from undertaking dangerous irregular journeys to the United States. Separately, the International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL) bureau focuses on improving partner capacity to secure land, air, and sea borders; acquisition 

of new technologies; and facilitation of coordination with U.S. law enforcement. 

QUESTIONS FROM HONORABLE DELIA RAMIREZ FOR MARTA YOUTH

Question 1a. The wait times to receive a CBP One appointment remain extremely 

long and only a few ports of entry accept appointments, which has forced people to 

wait for months in Mexico, often in dangerous conditions and without the ability to 

support themselves. 

What is the United States Government’s role in and strategy for ensuring the 

safety and protection of people waiting for a CBP One appointment? 

Answer. Since 2021, the United States has led the largest expansion of lawful 

pathways to the United States in decades to provide refugees, vulnerable migrants, 

and displaced persons in the Western Hemisphere with safe and humane options. 

PRM supports programming in Mexico to meet humanitarian needs and increase access to protection for refugees, asylum seekers, and vulnerable migrants. Our international organization partners deliver life-saving water, shelter, sanitation, and 

emergency health care to the most vulnerable migrants. The Department defers to 

the Department of Homeland Security on details regarding questions related to CBP 

One. 

Question 1b. What insight does your agency have on the conditions that those who 

are waiting for an appointment encounter and endure while they stay in Mexico, 

particularly those who are not Mexican nationals? 

Answer. Humanitarian partners on the ground, including UNHCR, IOM, and 

UNICEF, frequently report protection concerns in Mexico for refugees, asylum seekers, internally-displaced persons, and vulnerable migrants. Specifically, the Department understands some migrants face extortion and violence at the hands of 

transnational criminal organizations in Mexico. For additional details regarding 

CBP One applicants, the Department defers to the Department of Homeland Security which administers and monitors the implementation of CPB One application. 

Question 1c. What coordination is occurring with the government of Mexico to 

meet the needs of those who are waiting for a CBP One appointment? 

Answer. In close coordination with the Mexican government, PRM’s partners provide technical and material support to reinforce Mexico’s shelter capacity and 

strengthen humane migration management mechanisms. PRM funds partners like 

UNHCR, IOM, and UNICEF to build the capacity of Mexican government officials, 

particularly in providing protection for the most vulnerable migrants. For additional 

details regarding CBP One applicants, the Department defers to the Department of 

Homeland Security which administers and monitors the implementation of CPB 

One. 

Question 2. How has your agency consulted with those who have used or could 

use CBP One to enter the United States, as well as with immigration advocates and 

services providers, to inform the development of CBP One and U.S. border enforcement efforts? How is your agency engaging with those directly impacted to optimize 

the app and inform migration policies going forward? 

Answer. The Department has engaged with colleagues from the U.S. Department 

of Homeland Security (DHS) to provide feedback on the CBP One application based 

on information gathered from users and other stakeholders in Mexico. For further 

questions, the Department respectfully defers to DHS which administers and monitors the implementation of CPB One application. 

(69) 

A P P E N D I X I I 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 

Æ