Transcripts For CSPAN3 House Oversight Subcommittee On Medical Deferred Action Requests 20240714

This got under way a few moments ago. His mother fears returning to ghana now would be, quote, signing my sons death warrant. Serena badia, a 14yearold with a congenital heart condition has already gone beyond the Life Expectancy given to her by doctors in spain. Actually, i think shes 16. Shell correct us. An 8yearold girl in miami surfing from nerve cancer relies on her dad to take her to monthly treatments in new york. Her father needs deferred action to stay with his daughter. A man in venezuela has been able to care for his wife who suffers from a blood brain malformation and his daughter has neurobl neuroblastoma. This new policy threatens sick immigrants who may be forced to leave america and end their lifesaving treatment. It threatens u. S. Citizens and lawful residents who rely on immigrant Family Members for financial and emotional support while theyre here. It threatens crucial medical research and progress by undermining Clinical Trials that rely on the participation of immigrants with rare diseases. Well hear about that. The officials responsible for this policy must be held accountable for their recklessness and failure to take even the most basic steps to determine the incalcuable harm. The administrations decision to expel these immigrants was exacerbated by the limited time they were given to leave. According to medical experts, 33 days is not nearly enough time to even attempt to arrange for proper continuity of medical care overseas. For days, uscs and i. C. E. Squabbled about who was responsible for the decision and how to implement it and if, indeed, there was a new process. Families were left in panic with allconsuming dread and terror. Uscis said i. C. E. Would consider stay requests. I. C. E. Would only require vulnerable families to risk deportation before they can request a stay of removal. This is the unnecessary Collateral Damage facing every family caught between this bureaucratic tug of war between uscis and i. C. E. It appears that no one in either agency contemplated or cared about the full implications of this change for the families involved. This administrations recent socalled reversal of the policy does not resolve the life and death consequences faced by many more families. After these heartwrenching realities became public, the administration backtracked and announced it would reopen all deferral requests pending on august 7th, but there are Still Critical questions left unanswered. Will anyone who applied after august 7th be eligible for relief . Does the administration actually plan to grant relief to those who have reopened applications . What will happen to families that are currently receiving deferred action but will need to reapply once their twoyear stay expires . Without answers to these key questions, the administrations reversal appears primarily aimed at avoiding a tidal wave of criticism from the public. It gives the appearance of change without necessarily altering the essence of the policy. The Administration Must immediately and completely reverse this policy and continue granting deferred action requests in cases of people who are here today and those like them. There are people who applied after august 7th who are still facing the 33day deadline to leave america. A deadline that will arrive within days or weeks for some people. Thats unacceptable. There is no justification for the incompetence of this decision and theres no excuse for the recklessness displayed by our government in this whole affair. I look forward to having a serious and rigorous analysis of these events and a discussion of how we can all move Forward Together to repair the damage. Its now my honor to recognize our distinguished Ranking Member, mr. Roy from texas for his Opening Statement. I thank the distinguished chairman. Its nice to be back. I appreciate the witnesses for taking time out of your schedules and your lives for being here and i appreciate your testimony today. I think as we gather here today, it is important to remember and reflect that today is september 11th. That we as a nation reflect on the tragedy of the terrorist attacks 18 years ago today. Aid number of us on a bipartisan basis gathered on the Capitol Steps in a moment of silence. Our hearts and prayers and thoughts are with those affected by it and the Family Members, but importantly also that we remember those who in the Law Enforcement community, first responders, people that ran toward buildings and really want to thank all of our Law Enforcement community, including you and your life of Public Service and Law Enforcement supporting the United States. I would also, you know, note that i want to thank the chairman for moving the hearing to today. There was some discussion of it occurring during august. Would have been difficult for people to make it. Im glad its this week so we can have a better attendance. I think as we discuss this topic, and its an important topic, that perspective is important. This past summer weve seen, obviously, an unprecedented surge in migrants crossing into our country. We saw a growing humanitarian crisis at our border. Apprehensions are around 18,000 and weve outpaced the total for 2018, which was 521,000. Weve seen agencies such as Border Patrol and i. C. E. Struggling to fulfill their mission. The committees held three hearings in the month of july alone on border security. In august i made a visit to dha facilities in mcail callen, tex. To look and see whats occurring on our southern border. Theyre important conversations to have as a member of congress, as an american, as a christian. We should be compassionate and do the right thing. We should help those in need. The question, though, is we are a nation of laws, were a nation of sovereignty and were willing what question, i think, is important to ask is are we willing to send a clear message of what those laws are and figure out how to navigate within a system of rule of laws to understand how it impact our nation, who pays for health care and what the expectations are. My understanding, for example, is the average number of cases that were talking about today is about 1,000 a year, give or take. Thats an important number. These are real people. For each one of those thousand, its extremely important and we need to figure out the right processes and make them work. Lets keep in mind were talking about 1,000 cases and right now, as we previously discussed, weve had almost 900,000 people who have crossed and been apprehended into our country since october, almost 600,000 have been caught and released into our nation. These are matter of fact. Weve had a significant onslaught where theyre trying to figure out what to do. We have an overwhelmed system. The entire system is bulging at the seams because we, this body, refuse to do our job. Simply put. Were not doing our job to send clear signals to make sure the resources are there to adequately deal with the situation at hand. Lets think about, you know, the people who sdooemdeserve our compassion. I think all those people were talking about deserve our kam passion, including those of the 900,000 i just talked about, who are abused on a journey because theyre going through a tough journey with illicit, illegal organizations in mexico, who are often in stash houses, who are often being held for ransom, women, girls abused on a journey and we ignore that while we talk about how great open borders are. For some reason in the false name of compassion how good that is and our southern border. Lets talk about the 600,000 that were caught and released and in a sort of perpetual cycle in the United States. Lets talk about Human Trafficking in this country that is getting worse because were allowing illegal organizations to extend into our communities. And lets talk about the compassion owed to our Law Enforcement american nell, cbp, i. C. E. And other agents who are overwhelmed and being trashed on a daily basis by members of the United States congress. Trashed with deceitful and outright lies, disparaging these Law Enforcement officers doing their job. Today as we discuss medical deferred action, i think we should ask serious questions. Does the process we have work, yes or no . Is anybody left outside looking in who doesnt know what the rules of the road are . Lets establish what the rules of the road are and then lets follow them and send clear signals as to what those are and then lets operate in the right humane and compassionate way to handle those questions. What agency is best situated to handle status questions for those seeking health care . Is it uscis . Is it i. C. E. . Is it anybody else . Lets answer though questions honestly and not hide behind rhetoric. Lets set the rules and follow them. Im glad the agencies are here to correct information about pending action requests. My understanding is uscis has had 791 deferred action requests pending between august 7th and september 5th. Denial letters went to 424. 424 claims have been reopened and will be evaluated and receive letters indicating that truth. Certainly love to know the question as to what happened, in terms of the letters going out, how that occurred and now the reversal of that. I think we should look into that. Uscis did not issue any issue to appear for those 421 requests. Thats what i understand. Since august 7th uscis has rejected 40 deferred action requests. Since september 5th there have been no additional requests. We can make sure thats true. Thats what i understand. Historically uscis has been the only agency to grant deferred action to someone not in removal proceedings. Deferred action can be revoked at any time. When determining deferred action those specific criteria was used. Field officers used their discretion and the totality of the circumstances to make their decision. I want to know, is that accurate . Which asked how individuals who may have received deferred action came to the country initially, uscis says it does not track that data since theres no formal application for the process. I would like to know. Id like to know about it. I think well learn some much those things in the hearing today. In wrapping up, i want to reiterate what i said in our july hearing. If we want real reform, real change, we need to discuss the root of the problem. The problem, in my opinion, is we refuse as a congress to stand behind the rule of law and make clear that our immigration and border laws are enforced. I think we need clear rules of the road and i think we need to follow them. I think thats better for our nation. I think thats better for our sovereignty. I think thats better for the migrants looking to come here, those seeking for care, and a just and humane of dealing with things. I think we should stop sending mixed signals. Sending signals its okay to come here, overstay visas and basically have a system where we have indentured servitude in our country because we let this continue. We had 50,000 apprehensions at the border in august. You see lots of news accounts saying thats dropping down and how we should celebrate that. Its still enormously high. Its still an enormously high number. Were still overwhelmed at the border even as though decline in the heat of the summer. At the peak of the crisis there were 33,000 apprehensions at the bord border. We need to remember the underlying factors driving the crisis. We need to secure the border and do our job. All the pointing of fingers, the agencies and spewing of rhetoric here doesnt solve the problem but, rather, real reform will start here in congress. I want to thank the agencies for appearing today. Id like to thank all the witnesses for appearing today and look forward to hearing from each one of you through the rest of the hearing. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Roy, thank you very much. I want to associate myself with your comments about 9 11. Im glad, indeed, we were able to have a ceremony of all of the members of the house today observing this important remembrance. I now want to welcome our first panel of witnesses. It is my pleasure to have you here. I thank you all for the great pains youve come to join us. The witnesses are maria isabel boso, Jonathan Sanchez, shobo wadia, a clinical professor of law at center for immigrant rights at Penn State School of law, dr. Dunaher, a pediatrician from mass general hospital, chelsea pediatrics and mass general child health protection. Anthony moreno at Irish International immigrant service and thomas homan, former director of u. S. Immigrations and customs. For all the witnesses who are able, please rise and raise your right hands and i will begin by swearing the whole panel in. If you are not, please raise your hand. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you god . Let the record show the witnesses all answered in the affirmative. Please be seated. Please speak triktly into the microphones. Your written statements will be made part of the record, so well get a comprehensive look at what you have to say even if you dont get it all in within five minutes. With that, miss boisa, youre now recognized to give an oral presentation of your testimony. I would like to thank the members of the House Committee on on oversight to hear my story. My name is isabel bueso, im 24 years old. I came to the u. S. From guatemala when i was only 7 to participate in a Clinical Trial to save my life and life of those like me. I came here illegally and have been illegal resident in this country for over 16 years. But on august 13th the uscis sent a letter giving me and my family just 33 days to leave the country. We were grateful to learn our case would be reopened. Our future is still in question. This has been an overwhelming time for my family and me because of medical treatment i need thats not available in guatemala. I was born with a disease that effects less than 2,000 people in the world. Its a rare lifethreatening disorder. My Life Expectancy was very short and doctors said in 2011 i met dr. Homan in oakland who was conducting clinical retiles on therapy. He was desperately needing more patients to participate in this research. I was led to the trial and my family was excited to come to the usa on b2 visa so i could participate in the trial. As a young child it was not fun spending time in a hospital. I understood it was an honor and a privilege. As i mature it was a reward to know what i was doing was going to help a lot of people. I have continued participating in Clinical Trials until this day to help the next generation with my disease. The first time i participated it wasnt successful and needed fda approval of the first and only treatment. Thanks to the study, other with the disease in the u. S. Now have a safe and effective treatment that lep them live longer and have a Higher Quality of life. Doctors told me if i stopped the treatment, my condition would decline quickly and i could die within months. So after the fda approval, my family relocated to california so i could continue receiving this lifesaving treatment. I use a Power Wheelchair for mobility. I have a shouldnt unt in my br making Health Care Even harder. My parents left a middle class life, their careers, family and friends. My father is a computer engineer and sponsored on h1b visa so he could provide for us. In 2009 we granted deferred action for medical care. We renewed the status every two years. But this year due to change in policies, our request was denied. I want to live. I have worked hard to achieve my goal. I graduated from cal state and was director of student for the campus. I established a scholarship physical and mental disability and i now work as an advocate for people with rare diseases. I meant a California Congress person in our district. Im thankful for the opportunities this country has given me for the medical opportunity and to live longer than expected. Im thankful for the humane immigration policies that have made my life possible here. I want to make a difference for others. Im asking congress and administration to come together and right the wrong of this change in policy. This is not a partisan issue. This is a humanitarian issue. And our life depends on it. Thank you so much. Thank you very much, mr mr. Bueso. Mr. Sanchez. My name is Eduardo Sanchez and im a 16yearold with Cystic Fibrosis, a disease that affects the lungs. It also affects the digestive system and my pancreas. I want to tell you about my life back in my country, honduras and how my life has changed since i came to the usa on 2016. I was born in honduras in 2003. I lived there for the first 12 years of my life. When i was 3 months old my parents found i had cf. It was a scary day for them. It wasnt frightening because three years before i was born they had a daughter named samantha. She was born with a problem in her intestines. Unfortunately, the doctors in honduras didnt know how to treat her or how to help her. Six months and two days after she was born, my sister passed away. This was a pretty heartbroken moment for my parents. One month after they noticed that she had Cystic Fibrosis. And right now theyre worried that if i go back to my country, it will have the same thing to me. In the year 2016 we came to the usa legally with our tourist visas to search for a better Cystic Fibrosis treatment for me. When i go for the first time to boston Childrens Hospital in massachusetts, they made me a pulmonary function test and the results tell me i only have 40 to 42 of my pulmonary function test. The doctors at boston Childrens Hospital told my parents i came to the usa literally dying. They sent me home with some of the cf medication i should took and that i wasnt able to get on my country. The first time i start to get into treatment, i got pretty tired because i wasnt used to it. The doctors after they made me another pulmonary function test, this time it gave the answer of 60 through 69 on my pulmonary function test. Right now my base lung is 90 through 97 . Im sorry. Right now im using a medication called orcambi that helps the Cystic Fibrosis mutation lift for a bit of time, but this medication is only in two countries england and the United States of america. Cf requires a daily Home Treatment that takes around half an hour to or two hours if it is longer. This treatment is basically a nebulizers. I also take tons of medicines for my pancreas, my stomach, my lungs and the other organs that are affected by Cystic Fibrosis. However, since we got the letter, the medical deferred action application and telling us we need to leave the country in 33 days or wed be deported, my parents and i felt distressed, sad, scared and mad. Its incredibly unfair to kick out kids who are in hospitals or at home getting treatments to save their lives. The day the lawyers told us the medical Deferred Action Program was canceled, i started crying, telling my mom, i dont want to die. I dont want to die. If i go back to honduras, i will die. After this i feel so tired both emotionally and mentally. I could not even sleep properly. I feel disappointed with the usa government that they canceled this program. Sorry for that. On my point of view thinking that deporting sick kids like me, it will be a legal homicide because in our country doesnt exist any type of treatment. Thank you for your time. Thank you, mr. Sanchez. Dr. Wadhia. Ranking member jordan, chairman raskin, Ranking Member roy and distinguished members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to appear before you today. I am a law professor at penn state law in University Park and testifying in my individual capacity. My scholarship teaching and practice focus on Immigration Law. A field i have worked in for 20 years. I have published two books with nyu press. My first book, beyond deportation binds nearly a decade of research on the history of prosecutorial discretion and deferred action in immigration cases. My second book, banned examines Immigration Enforcement and discretion during the first 18 months of the Trump Administration. Deferred action enjoys a long history in both democratic and republican administrations. First called nonpriority status, deferred action operated informal for most of the 20th century. In the early 1970s as part of his effort to support his clients, john lennon and yoko ono, attorney leon wilde referred over 1800 deferred action cases. Many involving medical infirmty and humanitarian factors. In 1975, ins issued guidance on deferred action through operations instructions. In 1996, the operations instructions were moved into a new publication known as Standard Operating Procedures, or sop. The 2012 sop from uscis describes how an individual, legal representative or uscis can request deferred action. Deferred action does not provide a formal legal status, but the Legal Foundation to use it is crystal clear. The immigration statute, federal Court Decisions and legal opinions by ins and dhs have recognized the lee ggality of deferred action. Regulations published during the Reagan Administration explicitly identify deferred action as one basis for Work Authorization. Uscis has used deferred action in medical and humanitarian cases for decades. The idea is longstanding and, in fact, customary. In one data set i received in 2011, nearly half of the cases i could identify involved serious medical conditions. And many of the cases involved more than one factor. For example, deferred action was granted to a 47yearold schizophrenic who overstayed his visa, was the son of a lawful permanent resident and had sib lings who were u. S. Citizens. Over 100 of these cases involved peoples whose homes were destroyed by an earthquake in haiti. In another data set of 578 cases obtained from uscis in 2013, 336 were based on medical issues. One case involved a mexican female who entered the United States without inspection and had two u. S. Citizen children. One of her children had down syndrome and the other child had serious medical conditions. I received a third data set from uscis in 2016. Again, revealing that many deferred action requests were based on serious medical conditions. The data set included a child with burns on over 65 of their body, and parents of usc children with cerebral palsy. Uscis has a long history and the expertise of handling cases for vulnerable populations. And should continue to process humanitarian deferred action cases. Preserving an affirmative deferred action process at uscis allows a person to request what is often a lifesaving protection without having to undergo removal proceedings. And also saves the Government Resources. Further, nearly every legal opinion from ins and dhs on prosecutorial discretion instructs officers to exercise prosecutorial discretion at the earliest stage of the enforcement process. Stripping uscis of jurisdiction over deferred Action Forces a noncitizen to, instead, exhaust the enforcement process. Who is served by placing a cancer patient who might ordinarily request deferred action at uscis into the removal process . No one. Finally, uscis should improve transparency by publishing statistics about deferred action and providing greater notice and information to the public. Thank you, dr. Wadhia. Im afraid your time is up. Well have further time for questions. Dr. Danaher. Raking member jordan, chairman raskin, Ranking Member roy and distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. I am dr. Fiona danaher, a pediatrician at Massachusetts General Hospital where much of my clinical work is focused on the care of immigrant families. Ive come here today to express the profound terms my colleagues and i have over the Deferred Action Program. Our hospital cares for children who have benefitted from the program, including a young child with rare genetic disease. In the country of origin, this childs country is stigmatizing and deemed unworthy of care. The family was told the child would suffer from seizures and die within a year. Refusing to accept that nothing could be done, the family left everything behind to seek a Second Opinion at mass general hospitals specialized clinic devoted to this genetic condition. One of only a handful of such clinics in the world. Thanks to the familys determination and the care of a dedicated clinical team, this child has lived a longer and much richer life. Attending school and achieving some social skills. None of this would have been possible without the medical Deferred Action Program. Now the childs status is due for a renewal at a time when the program may arbitrarily end, jeopardizing hardwon progress. We often do so with baited breath. These children are, by definition, vulnerable. Whether they suffer from cancer, Cystic Fibrosis, cerebral palsy, they require care from a Multidisciplinary Team of special irses. Depending on their underlying condition, an error such as a missed dose of medication, a poorly covered sneeze could spell catastrophe. For many of these children, their health is so tenuous as to make travel unsafe and their clinicians would evwouldnt eve consider transferring them to another hospital, not another country. By lack of basic resources. Access to safe food and water is not a given in many parts of the world and chronically ill children routinely die from malnutrition or infection as a result. Unreliable electrical grids threaten the lives of children who rely on intervention such as pumps, medications that will spoil without refrigeration. Frail children can die from heatrelated conditions. Severe air pollution in developing countries poses a dire hazard for children with underlying lung disease and immunocompromised children cannot handle malaria, diarrhea, measles and pneumonia. Health systems in middle to low countries. Transporting an acutely ill child to another hospital can pose insurmountable challenges. Supply chains are inconsistent. Should the child make it to the hospital the medications or equipment the child may need may be unattainable. Adding insult to injury, such children could find themselves unable to access even the most rudimentary Palliative Care to ease the anxiety and physical pain of their passing. Perhaps no intervention is more crucial to minimize the suffering, than maintaining a loving Family Member at the bedside. Terminating the medical Deferred Program would leave some u. S. Children struggling not only with the physical burden of their disease but of the trauma of forced separation from their immigrants parents. No child can be expected to heal under such circumstances. This is not just bad medicine, it is unconsciousably inhumane. The u. S. Department of health and Human Services building here in washington, d. C. , bears an engraved quote from hubert h. Humphrey reading the moral test of a country is how it treats those in the dawn of life, children. Those in the twilight of life, the aged. And those in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped. My at mass general and i respectfully urge usdis to the moral imperative to heal and thrive. Thank you, dr. Danaher. Chairman ranking roy and chairman ranking and distinguished committee members, thank you for inviting me here today to hear the stories. I here in my capacity as the director of Legal Services at the immigrant services of the Irish Service where we provide Legal Services for immigrants from ireland and 23 countries around the world. In the Legal Program, we have represented dozens of families that accompany the applications for deferred action. I have seen an individual who fell temporarily and then fell gravely ill. Sometimes the injury or illness makes travel impossible and sometimes the lifesaving treatment is not available in the home country n. A vast majorative cases that we handle, it is a child whose life is at stake. We represent children with cerebral palsy, and muscular dystrophy and a child blinded with cancer in the eyes and a child suffering from multiple seizures everyday, and we have children confined to wheelchairs and have tracheotomy tubes and in this case, there is a family who does not want to break a law, but they cannot leave without putting a life in danger. In these dire circumstances, the government has always provided a relief valve. A process by which a family could come forward and rather than cowering in the shadows over a sick child and lay out the circumstances explained to uscis why the travel is impossible and even deadly, and that the government would allow them to continue the childs care. I know that lives have been saved by this program. I have sadly also known children that we have represented to die in the program, but even in the cases, the brief reprieve by the government bought those families precious time. This longstanding Legal Program is what protects the people from government actions that would shock the conscious, and betray our fundamental values of a nation. I was shocked three weeks ago when i received the first denial notice and then the next two weeks a dozen more. They all contained the same boilerplate language. The office does not consider these case at all and leave within 30 days or we may initiate the removal. There is no opportunity to advocate for the program or opportunity to prepare my clients for the denial letters. We immediately reached out to all of the families in the program already and i have had some of the most Difficult Conversations of my life over the past few weeks. The clients asks me what the government expects me to do, disconnect a child from lifesaving support and put them in a flight they may not survive, and they have asked me what i would do. When we filed applications for the u. S. Parents who suffer these Life Threatening Diseases and in these cases the termination will threaten more family separation, and parents right now having conversations about whether to orphan a child in order to extend his or her life. When the terrible reality became public the usciss initial response to the media was the deny they ended the program, but transferred it to i. C. E. And our clients wanted to know what danger they were in, and other Media Centers wanted to explain it to me, and i had to say that the only information i had, i was getting from them, but the transfer to i. C. E. Appears to be false. No new procedure and no new program, and the i. C. E. Officials have since confirmed again through the media that they have no plan to implement a plan. And after the latest press alert we began to receive notices that some cases may be reconsidered but we dont know what that means for the families. This is unclear if they are applying the same standard they have had or made up some new standard that we dont know. In the press alert and in the reconsideration notices, it is moving forward and leaves no option for the families in these dire circumstances or in the future. Because it was terminated in secret, we didnt know and we kept filing. We filed applications as late as august 16th and we dont know what that means for the case. This is a deferred action that applies to a few families, but it is immeasurable the need. And they have deferred for handful of families and that it is, and unless the congress or the i. C. E. Can compel them to reinstate it anyone in it or would benefit from it is a horribly worse position dye. Thank you very much for your testimony. Mr. Homan. Chairman and Ranking Members and distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear today on this very important subject which is the appropriate exercise of pros cue toir services. I have retired after serving 34 years nim gra s in immigration i am passionate about this subject, and before i delve into the subject of this hearing i want to pause to say this is the anniversary of the cowardly 9 11 terrorists attacks on our homeland and may god have mercy on those families and may we be protected from those who want to do damage to this country, and i want to salute those who made the ultimate sacrifice, and i, for one, will never forget. I want to clear up what is a common understanding. It is not lawful to have a Deferred Action Programt any federal agency, and the word program conjures that entire classes of aliens if they meet certain criteria are entitled to a benefit and that is deferred action, but it is not the case. When you break it down to the underpinnings of the law, it is actions of the prosecutorial action, and whether it is the stay, referral or stay or closure, and it may be exercised on the casebycase basis and not by a class according to criteria, and so again, the prosecutorial action is exercisable on a case bbycase basis and only then by the prosecuting agency and Law Enforcement agency that has the Statutory Authority over those laws. Aim here to answer the questions about this program. This is an important hearing and important questions to talk about. I want to uk change the course here for one minute, because i understand that this hearing is very important, and that is why i offered come to here to discuss in front of congress and the american people. One death that could be prevented is one too many, but i must voice my concern about these types of hearings. The house is quick to schedule a hearing when there is an operational change when they believe that this change may negatively violate our laws or may be in the country illegally, but i dont see this urgency on policies that put this country in danger, including the border that results in a humanitarian crisis, but a National Security crisis, and while we continue to have hearings that have inaccurate titles, and they are pushing a false narrative about the action of this administration and vilify the men and women in this administration, you are choosing to ignore a bigger problem that affects many, many more lives and more than this policy change. If you want to effect a policy that saves many more lives, you need to refocus. So where are the hearings to discuss the crisis on the border and the three loopholes that are causing the crisis and the hearings on the laws that are being abused and a program that is putting children in the hands of criminal organizations and where are the hearings to talk about the Settlement Agreements that is resulting in uncountless child Trafficking Victims and 32 of women sexually abused while the cartels are making millions of dollars because of congressional inaction, and these same cartels that have murdered Border Agents . Where are these hearings . That is because half of the Border Patrol is not on the front line. Where is that hearing . You want to conjure up a hearing about sending is Sick Children at home, and you dont want to focus on the laws, because many of our children have been raped and murdered after criminals have been released from jails. And thousands of angel moms and dads have been borne out of the policies, but we dont have those types of hearings on that. Our nations heroes and Border Patrol are under attack and the families are being attacked and bullied in public and churches and schools anded the companies that work with us are under attack and their lives are being threatened. Where is the hearing on that . Nothing but dead silence, but the members of congress joining in on the hate. It is truly unbelievable. I ask you the step back and take a breath, and at tack this administration less, and look at the underlying crimes that caused these problems. Do your job and fix the loopholes and make the hearings meaningful and take some legislative action after the hearing rather than staging more political theater. No member of congress should be against securing the border. No downside to it. No downside unless the ilLegal Immigration and no downside of the Illegal Drugs or no downside of taking the money out of the cartels hands. And this is a very important hearing. We need to discuss et and i am happy to be here, but we need to talk about these other issues. Than yk you for your testimo. We will begin the period of questioning from the members. I will recognize myself for five minutes for questions. On september 2nd after the subcommittee demanded uscis announce this hearing the administration announced a partial reversal including that it would quote reopen requests for deferred action that were quote pending on august 7th, 2019. You and your family were told by uscis in a letter dated august 13, 2019, that you need to leave the country by september 14th which is this coming saturday. Id like to put the letter up on the screen if we could, and in the meantime, let me ask you this, ms. Boyzo, you were recruited to participate in Clinical Trials, right . That is correct. So you were here for your own treatment, and the trials that could help anyone suffering . Yes, many, many, many Clinical Trials to help other people. Very good. And now if we are looking up on the screen, the uscis says if you fail to depart the u. S. Within 30 days of this letter, they may issue you a notice to appear, and commence removal proceedings against you with the Immigration Court. Was your request submitted before august 7th, 2019 . We sent our package in may. I am sorry . On may. In may. The month of may. In may. Have you vived anything from uscis about your case since this letter came on august 13th . No, we just received that letter on august 13th, and then we got another letter from the usci, is that they were s uscis, that they were going to reopen it, but it is uncertain. The. So you got that letter it is unclear. We dont know what that means . Yes, i have my lawyer here and he can answer the questions, too. And the uscis has not explained what the Practical Implications are of the partial reversal in the wake of the protests of what happened an including any requests submitted prior to august 7th would be approved. Mr. Moreno, in light of this punitive reversal, what concerns to you have for the people who have requested deferred action before august 7th . I would not call it a reversal, because the press alert issued still alerts that they have terminated the program and finish cases pending through august 7th. So i have clients with Sick Children right now who need access to the program and they are not able to file. Mr. Homan advised against using the idea of the program saying this is selective case by case granting of the deferral. What is your response to that . I dont see the distinction, because there are many programs with the individual discretionary parts of there, and it is Standard Operating Procedure, but if he does not like the word program, then. And do you feel confident that you will get a full and thorough review by uscis . I have told my clients that i hope they will be given the same consideration that in the past, but the language in the press alert about some state department regulation, we are not sure what it means. So i dont know. And there is more uncertainty about the critically ill kids who have submitted after august 7th, so what happens to the immigrants or the families who fell on the wrong side of the august 7th deadline . I have no idea. We have filed one case since then, and we have not received a d denial or anything about the new procedures in place, and we just dont know. And these are people in relatively similar circumstances in critical medical considerations . Yes, i have 19 families that we represent, and they are all critical medical conditions. How would you describe their mental condition given the legal uncertainty . It is absolute chaos. People are terrified and we have had more conversations with crying than in history and this is something to say in Legal Immigration office, and people are devastated, it is their childrens lives. And dr. Donaher, what is the attitude of the doctors and the nurses and the medical personnel given the current context of what has happened . Frankly, we are rather appalled. These patients are incredibly sick, and they need care, and wed like to provide it for them. Okay. My time has expired and i am happy to recognize mr. Hice for his five minutes. Mr. Chairman, we are a compassionate country, and that is going for the vast majority of the people on both sides of the aisle and the people in this country, and it is a privilege to help those in need and i welcome and thank everyone on the panel for being here today, but there are issues that are before us today that are broader than what is on the surface, and we have organizations for example, and uscis and i. C. E. Who are now being forced to make decisions that they should not be forced to make, because this congress refuses to pass and deal with serious Immigration Reform and implement it. This committee continues the same type of the political posturing and the attacks towards this administration regarding the border crisis while at the same time doing absolutely nothing to address the problem and to offer authentic solutions. If the democrats genuinely cared about the plight of migrants and unaccompanied children of sick immigrants and so forth, then lets come to the table and lets try to get solutions. Instead of the continued political posturing. Let me review a few things in the recent months that are unproductive active. In june, a member of this committee from the other side of the aisle remarked that the United States is running concentration camps on the southern border. Vilifying the men and women of i. C. E. , our Border Patrol agents who are putting their lives on the line everyday to defend us and protect this country, and then a group of my colleagues on this other side of the aisle issued a press release criticizing the emergency border supplemental bill that provided increased funding that would have helped. Then a dozen of my democratic members visited clint, texas, the cbc facility there and later alleging the unsanitary conditions there, and that individuals were being forced to drink out of toilets. Look, we can address problems in we are willing to get to the root of the issues and address them. We have the authority to do so here, but there are things staring us right in the face that we are totally ignoring like amending the broken asylum process and reviewing the florida Settlement Agreement and increasing the funding for the border security. Listen, i have been 230 tto the border and 6 of the 9 sectors, and ahave not seen ai have not things that have come from the colleagues of the other side of the aisle, but i have seen great hard working members of the cbp and others giving all they have got to do the job well done. Look, we have got to address solution solutions, and the solution is not open border policy and to decriminalize the border crossings. And mr. Homan, thank you for joining us, and why would having an open border policy pose a securityk . Well, for example right now, the Border Patrol has 50 of the staff off of the line. So if you are someone in the world who wants to do harm in the country, you wont buy a plane ticket, because too many backchecks or visa, because of the length of the program, but you will do it the way that half of the others have done when the border is not secure. So in essence decriminalizing the border cross is a enticement . Yes, it is like sanctuary city and Free College Education or free medical care and awarding illegal citizenship, and it is another enticement to put the people in the country to put themselves in the hands of criminal organizations. What does it do to the moral of the agents on the border when be it members of the press or members of Congress Push false narratives as to what is going on down there, what does that to do to the morale . And not only the men and women who carry the badge and guns, but the families. The spouses see them leave the security and safety of their home to defend this nation or the kids to be attacked. When i was i. C. E. Director, i had my kid with threats against him. And now, they are not thanked, but they are ridiculed by members of congress or the members of the media. This open door policy does not solve anything, but it is going to create more people, and coming into the country more illegally and more women will be rape and more children will die. I have said it for two years. Your time is up. And now, over the congresswoman eleanor norton. Delegate norton, you rup nare u. Thank you very much, and this is a very important hearing, because without you, we would have no notion of what is at stake here. The newspapers and the news reports didnt give us the fine detail, the fabric that you have given us. Ms. Buiso, you and your family were granted and it is amazing that anybody would want to take this away, and i didnt know that we had this. I am so pleased that we had this kind of the deferred, and we had something of this importance that we didnt even know about, and im sorry that we didnt know it, and that it was taken away is mind boggling to me. I am interested in this matter called the mp6, and i would like the know about the symptoms, and what they are and how rare it is . Could you enlighten us on that . Yeah, sure. So i would like to show a version of ms6 is a rare genetic disorder, and i was born without an enzyme in my body. I was born like a regular baby until by the third week, i had developed problem and getting sick a lot, and infection and e. R. , but mostly since my body without the enzyme, the only treatment that my parents found was in california w. That treatme treatment i take it once a week every week for six hours and i do it every week for 16 year, and without the treatment, it had helped me to live longer or i would not have lived to my teens as i mentioned before. I am really grateful, but also, it caused a little problem like my heart, my lungs, my bones, spine, ice and teeteyes and so e treatment that helped me live longer and not so become so severe. But it is really rare, and mp6, and it is very rare. It is so important to understand this condition. I wanted to ind caunderstand th there is pro quid quo, and without this those would not get the care, and without this treatment, we would not get what we could otherwise which is the course of the experience to help many more perhaps from the United States. I want to know the importance of having family. We couldnt possibly, could we, ask such people to continue this trial without family, and how important is that to have somebody besides you, and suppose somebody said, let that patient, that person remain, and what would that mean if there was nobody with you, and you were by yourself . No, i am grateful for my family. To come here for my treatment, and also an honor to continue to do it with Clinical Trial, and now the medicine that i am getting for the mp6 is giving it to the babies which means that they are going to, you know, have less problem, because they are starting earlier and more energy, and i am truly blessed to continue with the Clinical Trials so that the doctors and the researchers can know more about this, because it is a rare condition. But i am blessed to have my family. Yes, it seems to me that without the families present, it would not even be possible for these citizens to remain and get help for themselves and help us with others. Mr. Moreno, dawoes deferred actn help citizens and if so, how . Yes, absolutely. Half of the children in the families that we represent who have these illnesses citizens and the deferred action is filed by the parents so they are able to stay here and work and care for the child and contribute to the cost of their medical care and to pay the rent. So, there are, especially with the families and children, there are u. S. Citizens heavily impacted by this, and if they were forced to leave in 33 days, the result that they would have to choose between orphaning the child, leave the child behind to get the treatment or taking the risk of putting them on the flight or pulling them off of their care. And the gentle ladys time has expired. I want to thank the members of the panel for being here today. Truly an important issue. The health care in america is the greatest in the world, and having been the parent of a son who received lifesaving treatment when he was 3. You will do anything to help your child. Again, i just want to say that to the families and the people being treated. The question is for the panelists. Dr. Wattya and mr. Moreno, because you have been dealing with the deferred action and i will talk to you first, doctor, that you had mentioned in your testimony of the 1970s and 1980s and the much guidance and things such as deferred action, but i think that it is best if we as congress would lay it out in the law so it could not change. Have you contacted a member of congress about idea or solutions that we could put in legislation that would help to define this since there has not been clarity according to some tof the i have not had a specific conversation about codifying deferredtion into legislation, but what i can say Greater Transparency and identification of the factors that will be considered being available to the public is something that i greatly value. I would also say that we could have legislation. We need reform as the representative said earlier. Even with a comprehensive reform, we will always need discretion. So to the extent that the role that discretion and deferred action in particular play, and the action in particular plays in protecting people in humanitarian cases, we will always need that, so i see all of the cases as sort of the hail mary cases if you will, and that is going to enjoy a long history. It does, but in order to make sure that everybody understands the clarity of it, i think that would be, you know, it would go a long ways of the reform that we are looking at with Immigration Reform. Mr. Moreno, and you had talked about people being in the office and looking for clarity, and did you reach out the any of the federal agencies and ask them for clarity and did they respond to you on clarity . So, uscis doesnt really communicate with us anymore. Theres an 800 number that we can call that they have a private contracted Customer Service person who will call you back, but on the issues like this, the lines of communication have been slow. Did you call to ask them for guidance . The 800number, no. Any of them at all . Through the professional association of the Immigration Lawyers Association that i am a member of that, i have liaisons contacted within the uscis and there were contacts there to try to figure out what is going on and my understanding is that the response we got is that, yes, this program hawaii bes been eld and there wasnt any. And so as the doctor that is writing for it, and mr. Moreno, and i will make the offer, because i think that dr. Wattya, you are a constit sticstituent f you live near the college, but we are talking about people with situation, but the bigger issue of making sure it is clear on all parts of the immigration, so i would say that. Mr. Homan, if i could pivot to you. Can you talk about why it might be best to let uscis determine whether or not to grant deferred action, you know, should it be appropriate for the uscis or i. C. E. , and where should we have this program and who should be determining this . I dont think that cis should have this authority, because it should lie in the agency who has Statutory Authority. So i. C. E. Arrests and removes. So if youing ask for deferred action, there cant be a Long Authority oversight, but it should be i. C. E. Okay. I only have a couple of seconds here, but we as the United States have a lot of things that we need to make sure that people understand, and by the ambu iguy of the Immigration Laws, we have created confusion, and i would say to the chairman and other people, you know, if we didnt have clarity from these agencies and these people are confused, i would hope that we did, and we as the committee, the chair of the committee would have asked for that guidance, too, so we can put it out to people. And i dont know if any of you is asked the committee for guidance. The gentlemans time has expired, but i want to thank mr. Keller, who is a new member of the committee, but i would work with you for the legislative remedy of the criteria and the standards that are floating in the ether in the various departments. I will at this point call for five minutes on representative Debbie Wassermann schultz. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Before i ask my questions, since it has not yet been done, it is important to really make sure that the bigoted testimony of mr. Homan is called out as nearly untrue as being an outrage and as a former official directing the immigration and customs and enforcement agency, he should know better. Mr. Chairman. No, no, this is my five minutes. What did i say that was inaccurate . And i am not asking a question or the gentle lady is recognized for five minutes and made the point and i will try to resolve any issues. Thank you. So i think it is important that it is not accepted as accurate testimony. That having been said, ms. Boiso, and mr. Sanchez, thank you for your courage and both of you have said that this policy change constitutes a death sentence for you, and please note that the democratic colleagues and perhaps some of the colleagues on the other side of the aisle will do all we can to reverse what is a disgusting decision by the Trump Administration. Mr. Sanchez in your testimony, you spoke of your parents. Im a mother. I have a cousin with cystic fibro circumstances asis fibrosis, and many of the people in the room are parents, and less anguishing than to care for your child and much less one who needs life threatening care. And so your parents did what they could to keep you alive and our doctors and everyone here should do what we see in your parents whose love and tenacity that your parents showed and instead, you are here unfortunately to testify why you deserve to live. For that our country should be ashamed and i am so sorry. Ms. Boiso, i heard the testimony that you came to the u. S. To participate in a Clinical Trial for the drug that you take to survive. Can you tell us about the treatment and what would happen if you were not able to continue to treatment . So, i have been taking this weekly treatment every friday once a week, and it is through an i. V. , and i go to the hospital, and take six hours to do this and it helps me to live longer, because as i mentioned i was born without a enzyme. And if i stop the treatment they have been doing for 16 year, but if i stop the treatment that my body needs, because it is missing, then i will die. And your father wrote a letter for the office of citizens and immigrations asking for deferred action, and i want it up on the screen. He said it is imperative that Maria Isabelle continues this treatment for her disease. If she returns to guatemala, she would not have access to the medication and she would die. This is must be very difficult for you to think about, and having survived a lifethreatening illness, i know the fear, and what is scaring you the most about returning to guatemala . First of all the treatment, because i need the treatment. And then also my medical care that i need that has been, you know, with me being in california for so long. So it is really terrifying to think about it, but i have been praying a lot. So i am hoping that a resolution can come with this, because it is overwhelming and devastating, and just thinking about you will die when you have still so many dreams and hope for your life, it is really devastating. I really cant imagine, but i can imagine as a parent the fear that i would have for my own children if god por bforbid tha the case. Mr. Sanchez, i am somewhat familiar with the procedures that Cystic Fibrosis kids have to go through, and can you tell us about the treatments that you receive for the cf and would you get the same treatments in honduras . No, i wont be able to get them in honduras, because there is no machine, and there is no supplementaries for the treatments. There isnt anything in honduras for cf and they dont know, and the doctors dont know what cf is. As i my time is expiring if dr. Danaher could elaborate on the risks if the children are returned to their home countries. It is difficult for every child, but the care is so complex, but it is hard to imagine that any of the children in the program could receive the full treatment they need if they leave the country and this is why they were granted the status in the first place. Thank you. And i recognize mr. Jordan for five minutes. Mr. Moreno, the letters sent to the 424 families, none of them have been officially told that they would not be allowed to stay in the United States, is that accurate . They are just those individuals and those families are being, in the reevaluation, reopening of the case, but no definitive decision made on those families, is that accurate . Since the you mean the new letter since september 2nd. Yes. That is reconsidered. So they are back open, and we are waiting for a decision. That is right. And so we assume, and we hope and assume that the individuals are here now, and in some kind of, what some of the witnesses are in some kind of the Clinical Trial or some treatment plan, but they will be allowed the stay . I sure hope so. Yeah, so i do. We all do. And so that is the most logical and the likely outcome, and probably what will happen. So how long have you been in your business working with these families, because i think that you said you had 19 families with the pend application, and 19 outside of the 424 families in that category . So the 19 families that i have, there are some families that about half of the families that ha pending application, and another half that are split between the people who preparing to file initially and people in the Deferred Action Program now. And some within the 424 and some without . Yes. And okay. So you have been doing this for a number of years . Yes. How many years . I have been at the iic for 19 years and Immigration Lawyer for nine years, but i dont know the first one i have filed one. Have you ever had anyone denied . I have not, but i know they have been. I think that the reason i have not is that we in Legal Services have a well earned reputation of cherry picking the case, and we file them in very serious. But some people get denied . Absolutely. And not just in the Trump Administration, but this the Obama Administration and some in the Bush Administration . Yes, i have never had a categorical denial, because they are not considering these cases either. Right. And we just got a reopening and reexamination, and we all participate from information from usci, is that they can stay, but in the past, people in the similarly situated have been denied. On a casebycase basis, yes, but not categorically. I wanted to make this clear, because this is, whoa, we are hearing this side that it is unbelievable b through have been people similarly situated that have been denied in the past . Not similarly situated. None of the clients in the situation they are in with the need for the critical lifesaving needs are denied. Well, i dont believe they will be now, and i hope they are not here, and all of us are in that category, and based on the communication that we have seen, that seems to be where this is headed. But that just for the cases pending on august 7th, and the program has been eliminated Going Forward it seems. And they are going to be looked at on a casebycase basis. Just those pending on august 7th. Yes. And the program has been eliminated is our concern. Okay. Got it. Mr. Homan, is there a crisis on the border . Of course. And has there been a crisis there for a long time . Yes. Your testimony is that the broader issue, and where this is critically important, but we have a broader issue there and unbelievable numbers on the border and apprehensions and everything else. Yes, and if i could respond from the earlier remark from Wassermann Schultz and i have forgotten more about this issue than you will know, and for you the say that my testimony is not accurate, it is accurate. Bottom line, and if you want to go toetotoe, i am here on my own time to speak to the people about what is true. And i will go toe to toe everyday. And you have to allow me to answer the question, and rather than dropping a bomb and running away. It is not going to go away and if we want to abolish i. C. E. And give away college education, and free drivers licenses and free medical care, and you will never solve the problems on the border. It will not happen. And probably not when the congress is criticizing the agents up there doing their job, and probably not pictures of the cages when that which were from the Obama Administration and the crisis is fake and contrived and hold off spending the 4 4. 6 billion to teal with the crisis that is much worse, and that doesnt help. No, sir. And cities that are declaring themselves sanctuary cities. And it is not a message that deferred action is going away and prosecutory action is going away. I have removed stays for medical issues and i. C. E. Does not put their heart on a shelf and it is ridiculously false narrative and i will be here until the day i die to defend the men and women of the Border Patrol and i. C. E. Who put their life on the line. Thank you for your service. And we recognize congresswoman alexandria Ocasio Cortez. I would like to thank you for organizing this hearing for an important hearing. I would like to thank all of the witnesses for coming to testify before this committee. It is enormously taxing physically, emotionally, mentally to come here and to testify before this committee and to prepare for your testimony, and no less to test for the length at which you are all doing. So id like to thank you, and id like the recognize you are doing it not out of selfpreservation, but thousands of other people in the United States are protected. Id also like to apologize to you both for the behavior of some of the members of this committee where they are speaking in profoundly dehumanizing terms to you, and you dont deserve that. I would like to apologize to you on behalf of the United States of america for the dehumanizing policies that they are pursuing to better frankly targeting you and many people in the United States, and we are fighting for a better country that we can be proud of when it comes to how we treat all people and understanding the circumstances that they are coming, from and id like also like to understand the Intrinsic Value that you offer to everybody that you encounter in our country. Speaking of which, mrs. Boiso, do you remember in long time ago and you may not, but in 2003 participating in a Clinical Trial for mp6 in oakland, california. I was really young. I was 7, but i do remember coming here with my mom, and being participating in a Clinical Trial. You were 7 years old. Yes. 7 or 8, and in 2003. And do you remember, and again, i know that you were very young, but do you remember a girl named maria abreu. Is she from new york . She is from new york. Yeah. She is constituent of mine. And she wants to write and submit to the congressional record a letter of support for you to stay in the United States, and so mr. Chairman, i would like to seek unanimous consent to offer this into the record. Without objection, we will include the letter. And clearly, you had a profound impact on her, and it is a testimony to your character and who you are as a person. And that being said, professor wadya, the further action for children to stay in the United States to stay in the United States without fear of being deported, correct . And the deferred action is subject to strict internal controls and you have reviewed hundreds of actions of these cases and the reasons for deferring action is generally limited to very serious life and death issues isnt that correct . Correct. So, folks and people like mr. Sanchez and ms. Boiso are not Collateral Damage to this p program, but they are the reason. Correct. And is changing the policy to specifically target with lifethreatening diseases for deportation essentially killing them through deportation . Would you characterize that as cruel . I would. This is a cruel policy change, and it is fitting a pattern that we have been seeing over and over again before this committee of a culture and a policies specifically almost animated by cruelty. We hear over and over again, and we have heard it today from the folks across this committee that they are underresourced, that we have to continue to dumping billions of dollars into enforcement, and into putting the children in cage, and into a system that is quite literally killing people. But meanwhile, we are adding to the resource streams by forcing people to go through the ordeal, forcing this country through the ordeal of needlessly deporting people like ms. Boiso and mr. Sanchez and of course, you are underresourced, underresourced for the goal, because the goal is to deport people who have no reason on humanitarian grounds or otherwise to be deported. Would you agree with that, dr. Wadya and this is an assessment of how it strikes you . The witness may answer the question. It does and goes to my testimony of how we address resources, and this change in the policy throws a wrench into the rule of law, because of the fact that discretion is such a necessary component, and part of the rule of law. We have to make choices about who we are going to target for removal and who we are going to place on the back burner. And the gentle ladys time has expired. I want to recognize mr. Meadows for five minutes for the questions. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I was not going to ask questions, mr. Moreno, but you made a statement, what program is going away, and you said a program is going away in this deferred action in terms of the casebycase situation, and from what i understand it is not going away, but it is just the proposal is to move it to i. C. E. So why, what program is going away . I have not seen any proposal to move anything to i. C. E. So what program is going away . The deferred action before uscis. And i guess is that i am not aware of anything or any program has been recommended that goes away. I mean, these cases have been opened back up, but my understanding is that we were going to move it over so that the adjudication is going to be handled by i. C. E. And is that not correct . No, that not my understanding. Part of the problem is that there is no Public Notice of any of this. So but the statement to mr. Jordan a few minutes ago was that the program is going away. Yes. So what program is that . The deferred action at uscis. And you are basing that going away Program Based on what . The denial notice. That is one notice for one individual. Every one has been identical. I get it for the 400someodd but we are opening it up. Right. Here is what i dont want to do is to create a panic assuming that we are going to do away with deferred action, when i have not seen anything from either of the groups that would suggest that. The uscis field offices no longer receive deferred actions. To go to different processing. That is not here. But didnt you get a followup letter there that says they are opening up for the adjudication. So. Yes. And so they issued a press alert they would reopen the cases. So anybody in the queue right now. And uscis stopped the consideration of deferred action for nonmilitary requestors so the cases that were pending as of august 7th, they would clear out the cases, but the deferred action has been ended. So mr. Chairman, what i would like to, excuse me, madam chairman, did not see you pop in the chair there. And madam chairman, lets work together. I think that what we have got here is a situation where, listen, you dont have a compassionate bone in your body if you are not looking at this to say we are not going to address this, and we have to do that and what i dont want to do, mr. Moreno, is that we have a panic out there to do away with everything. I would like to work in a bipartisan way to figure out how we look at the humanitarian needs that we have and yet do it in a way that is systematically reasonable and yet efficient. Does that sound fair . I think it sounds fair, and it would be good for us to come together and at least provide some certainty in the lives of these people. I will yield the balance of my time to mr. Roy. Thank you, mr. Meadows, and adding to this, mr. Homan, you said that earlier, you think that i. C. E. Is the proper place to deal with these questions. Am i mistaken in my understanding that what we have got here is simply for better or worse for this hearing to decide and for the purposes of what mr. Med dose and ms. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez were talking about how this process should work. In other words, in this case, uscis is saying that we are not processing after august 7th, and we are not going handle these or make these deferred action decisions is after august 7th, so that is going to i. C. E. , and i. C. E. Will deal with the decisions they deal with respect to the expedited removal decisions or anything else, and then i. C. E. Can choose to figure out how the handle these questions if i. C. E. Is putting the policies in place to allow it to occur. Is that mr. Homan, your recommendation or thought . I. C. E. , they make prosecutorial decisions everyday on do we arrest or not arrest, and do we detain or not, and put in the proceedings or not, and remove or not remove, and like i said earlier, i have personally deferred for medical issues and it is not that the process is going to go away and it is a bureaucratic process going from one agency to another, and it is currently in an agency that should not be making decision on a another agency who has authority over. And we will ask the questions of the next panel of what their intent is and when i come back, i want to ask you, mr. Moreno, your head is shaking in both direction, and so i want to do that when we come back. And the chair recognizes the gentle lady from massachusetts, miss president sly. Thank you, madam chair, i do want to say that the colleagues acro across the aisle have stated that there are dramatics happening on this side of the aisle, and no drama, but hard facts, and this is repeatedly people have been asked to weaponize their lived experiences and their pain which has been brought about by negligent or by intentional attacks by this Administration Time and time again. People havem come before this committee to talk about the trauma of gun violence, the trauma of what is happening at our borders, the trauma of negotiating lifesaving medication like insulin, and now the trauma and the fear of children, people that are coming before this committee demanding that we see the humanity and the dignity in them appealing for their very lives. That is where we find ourselves. Just when i think that the occupant of the white house and his xenophobic administration cannot reach any new lows, they go even lower, and deciding to give seriously ill children and their families 33 days to leave the country or risk being deported. No dramatics. The hard facts. And because of the outrage by millions of americans, because this does fly in the face of the values that we espouse as a nation, and the public outkrishgs and the partnership of colleagues and the leadership of this committee, we are having this hearing today to shine a spotlight on this appalling policy that lives are hanging in the balance, and to hold this administration accountable, and no dramatics, and no posturing and just the hard facts. And to add insult to injury, they tried to do this under the radar and no public announcement, and no opportunity or effort to hear from those most impacted, appalling, shameful. These families stories have spurred righteous rage, public outcry and rightfully so. I want to thank mr. Sanchez and ms. Boiso for joining us for your bravery. You are true patriots by every definition in my estimation. I can only imagine how hard this is battling a chronic lifethreatening illness, layered by the threat of deportation. I want to thank your caregivers and families and for being here and doing what you do everyday. Mr. Moreno, can you succinctly clarify, because there has been a muddying of the waters here truly a revisionist history, and we would not have ms. Boiso and mr. Sanchez here doing what they are doing in the face of great emotional burdden if this was a fake panic. So can you please clarify the revisionist history by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and tell us why do you think it is necessary for the uscis to continue to grant deferred action and speak to what has transpired here. Sure. I will give you a little bit of the history as i understand it, and what we have learned. I think that dr. Wadya is better prepared to understand why this belongs at uscis and where this program has always been. There is no new program at i. C. E. , and none of my clients are eligible to apply from i. C. E. , and they cannot walk in and apply for deferred action as they have from uscis, and i believe what mr. Homan is talking about that he has granted stays of removal in the past, but it is only available to the people ordered removed and ordered on the super, i have and they are ordered to be remove and i. C. E. Is carrying through to deport them. And so on the way to the airport, you can ask us for permission to stay for a year, and maybe then we will consider it. So i dont know if the i dont understand it, but maybe the suggestion is that you drag the kids from the hospital beds into the courtrooms and make them go through a removal proceeding and have a judge ordered them deported and then turn them over to i. C. E. And then exercise discretion. I dont really understand. I have to reclaim the time, and dr. Wadya, is there anything that you would like to add to the record. When it comes to deferred action request, this is a policy in the jurisdiction of uscis since the inception. These are individuals who are not yet in the removal system. It has been terminated . It has been terminated. Okay. Thank you. The chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from west virginia. Thank you, madam chairman, and all members in the room. I want to thank you for sharing your life stories and experiences that you have had. It has helped to shed light on the plight people are facing and the clarity of the immigration system. I want to reiterate what the gentleman from North Carolina and texas are expressing as well. We need the clarity, and we need to understand how to move forward in a positive way. Mr. Homan, i would like the direct my questions to you mul hearings in this committee on the topic of immigration. Has all of this rhetoric helped move the ball forward on solving our nations larger immigration issues . I missed the last part of that question, maam. I said has all of this rhetoric helped move our nation into solving the immigration issues . No. How would you characterize the Trump Administrations response to this southern border crisis . I think hes doing the right thing. I think hes the right guy doing the right thing. The numbers are down 56 from the high only because of his actions, not by actions of anybody in this building. When we had acting secretary mcaleenan over in july he said that 5,000 migrants in the fiscal year of 2019 turned out to be fraudulent. How does our current Immigration Law incentivize illegal entry into our country . Because theres loopholes that exist that cause families and children to come to this country. And thats one thing of course im constantly attacked of being im the devil. But if anybody in this room has ever worn a green uniform i have seen many dead children and many women who are raped, 32 from the doctors without borders. Its not about is securing the border which no one on this panel should argue a secure border is a better United States but its not just about securing the border but about saving lives. And i feel whats going on here today and theres there are many cases that deserve deferred action significant medical issues. So dont say that this administration doesnt care about this because i personally have approved for medical care. But what im saying is theres a flip side to this coin. Many, many more lives are lost every year. Border patrol saved 4,000 lives last year, people who would have died if they werent rescued. People are grouping in the children. Repeat that number, please. 4,000 rescues. And what aim saying is we have hearing after hearing but i havent involved in one hearing talking about fixing the problem thats causing the surge. But you want to talk about family separation. You want to talk about terrible detention conditions. You want to talk about, you know, this deferred action. I get it, its all important. But when are with egoing to talk about fixing the problem and saving lives and securing our nation like everybody here i dont care if youre republican or democrat. Your number one responsibility is secure this nation and theres no downside on securing our border. If you dont like it, legislate. Dont ask people to ignore the law or bend the law or find loopholes here and loopholes there. Legislate, do your job and fix it. It can be fixed. But its going to take a back bone to get it done. So once again, given all the political rhetoric in congress within the last couple of months, there hasnt been a lot of action on fixing this from my colleagues on the other side. Can you elaborate on the importance of a congressional action on immigration. Its to save lives, its going to take the money out of the cartels hands that will traffic in children and smuggle people that are coming with relatives, they claim are relative but arent. We have numerous investigations children are being trafficked. I hear a lot of sympathy today and i share that sympathy. But lets not forget about the other population. Children are trafficked and used by criminal cartels. 32 of women are being raped. I dont understand why congress cant step up and take this seriously and fix the issue. This is fixable. But its people are too busy resisting this president , wanting to see the president of the United States fail in the most important issue facing this nation right now because its more important about politics and power than doing your job. It should be about love of country, love of securing this nation and protecting americans. And saving lives of people that are vulnerable trying to come to this country because of the enticements and because we failed to address the loop hole holes that are causing it. Thank you, mr. Homan. Thank you. Chair now recognizes chairman cummings for five minutes of questioning. Thank you very much. Mr. Marino, i just heard mr. Homan say do your job. And this could be fixed. Todays hearing is about deferred action. And if we had a house and if we had a senate that would pass legislation and we had a president that would sign it, this problem, which is the subject of this hearing today could be fixed. Am i right . Absolutely. I think that the program thats been in place for deferred action at uscis would be best formalized by legislation. But back to dr. Wadyas point that doesnt mean there doesnt have to be some discretion involved, right. I want to thank our witnesses again for being here today and i especially would like to thank ms. Beauso and mr. Sanchez. You are here to remind us that this administrations decision to stop requesting deferred action has had real consequences on real people. Let me start with you. What has been the hardest part about living with your disease . The hardest part about my disease, is that the question . Yes. Okay. I think its the problem that goes with it, in my body, that i need more surgeries. I had a Spine Surgery due to my condition. I guess when i was younger getting a needle every week because i was young and i didnt like it. But as i got older, i got used to it. At this point. But i dont like to see my disease as a horrible thing. Because, yeah, i have a disease but its opening the doors for others to continue with the Clinical Trials to help other people. But i think the hardest part about my disease is being in the hospital all the time, doctors appointments all the time which is not normal for all of my friends. But its my life. But yeah. And i really do think that we are at a moral its a moral situation. People are striving to live, trying to get into our country, trying to be better, trying to be healthy. Would you agree that this is a what was the question . Would you agree that this is were at a moral its a moral issue . In other words, when youre dead, youre dead. Yeah. You agree . Yeah. Yeah, because its been really an overwhelming situation just knowing you have to leave in 30 days and you know, when i saw the letter, the only thing i could think of, oh, my goodness, that medicine that has helped keep me alive for so long because as i mentioned before, many doctors thought i wasnt going to live to my teens here. And im 24 years old now. And i graduated from college. So so im really, really blessed on that. But yeah, so its really a death sentence for me. You participated in Student Leadership . Im sorry . You participated in the Student Leadership . In what . In other words, your student government. Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. I was the director. A director on my campus with the with the student government. Yes. I represented the whole campus on my own. Well, thank you for being here. Thank you. I yield back. Thank you. The chair now recognizes mr. Grossman for five minutes of questioning. Sure. First of all, mr. Homan, i would like to say i respect i have been at the border three times. I respect Law Enforcement, i deal with a lot of Law Enforcement, sheriffs department, police department. Corrections officers. Theres nobody i have a higher the compassion these folks have had under the most trying circumstances is something that should be commended. I feel bad that some other members of this institution like to slam you folks, to make cheap political points because if they ever met you and were honest, theyd have a higher respect for you. You have been involved for a long time. As a practical matter, could you ever under any circumstances see if they had that discretion, anybody from i. C. E. Kicking someone like the two people on the other end of the panel out of this country . Absolutely, theres cases here today that deserve the attention of the prosecutorial discretion. And i. C. E. Does that every day. We i personally have approved when i was i. C. E. Director. All right. This would never happen. What im trying to get at, do you believe these folks are here to create an unnecessary fear thats never going to happen anyway . In other words, they are scaring people who shouldnt be scared . Because your former organization would never kick somebody like this out of the country anyway . I understand their testimony and i applaud them for being here. And telling their story. They they have a good story to tell and regardless of the cis or an i. C. E. Officer, i think theyd make the right decision. You could not see them kicked out of this country, could you . No. Ill give you a couple of other questions. We right now have an overall crisis at the border and i think everybody down in knows a variety of things that can be done. Our underlying problem is we have way, way, way too many people in this country not here legally. Can you give us some suggestions for congress that we could that would reduce the number of people in this country illegally so we wouldnt have to make so many judgment decisions . Theres three things that we have been talking about for the last two years. One is a Settlement Agreement. Back in fy 14 and 15 when the family crisis first started, we detained families for 40, 50 days until they saw a judge. It wasnt and they went home in 20 days and it wasnt long enough to see a judge. We want to detain them long enough to see a judge. We did it under the Obama Administration. I dont know why we cant do it now. We hold trump to a higher standard of care. A majority lost their cases after they saw the judge and were removed. The second is looking at the Trafficking Victim act that is allowing children to be smuggled into this country and treating the children, and if you can prove theyre not a true victim of trafficking then they shouldnt get a whole different process than children from mexico get. They can be removed easier and reunited with the family. The third thing is the asylum levels. Most people pass the first interview at the border at about 88, 90 rate. But once they get in front of the Immigration Court, 88 of all Central Americans who claim fear at the border do not get relief from the Immigration Court. So the delta is too high. So we need to close that delta and make it more meaningful that people arent released into the United States not only to not appear in court but to not listen to the orders of the judge. Like i said, 90 lose their case. Theres over 100,000 removal orders for family units but less than 2 have left. Thank you. Now something has been said about in all of these hearings about separating families. We would be appalled if a minor child from the United States went off to honduras and the government wouldnt send them back to their parents. Right now, if somebody who is an unaccompanied minor comes to this country, do we send them back to their parents or do we keep them here . The unaccompanied alien children are given over to orr and less than 2 are removed. We talk about the 2500 separations but at the same time there are 14,000 children in custody at orr that were smuggled by criminal cartels. Thats inhumane. Nobody cares. I think the government takes better care of them than a criminal cartel would. Absolutely. Thank you. Youre recognized for five minutes of questioning. Thank you, madam chair. I want to thank the witnesses. I have a prejudice toward one in particular. And i want to thank my colleague miss pressley in particular as we represent the two of you and working with her on this issue, being from San Francisco and boston, were proud of our medical leading institutions of which you have both benefited from. And its been terrific as always working with my colleague from boston. And we hope to go further. On the bigger conversation, mr. Homan, i want to remind folks that most of us on this side want to have a secure border. But we want a humane border and we want the Police Agencies to follow the constitution and the legislation. Im not saying youre not but i have been proud to have Police Support every time i ran for office since 1991. I take a lot of ride alongs. I see a lot of good cultures and i have seen bad cultures. Im not saying judging that one way or the other. I believe we should be working on this together. And i would remind my colleagues in 2013 senate bill 744 was a bipartisan effort led by senator rubio, senator mccain, senator durbin and schumer and passed it was overwhelmingly bipartisan and because of members of a certain fraction in the Republican Caucus the speaker never brought it for a hearing or a vote. More recently, representative hurd a republican and representative aguilar in the last Congress Worked together on hr 479 6 and likewise that never received a hearing. If you wonder why there hadnt been hearings i think theres shared responsibility. Theres much more on the other side. And im open to working with people. Its a problem that a functioning congress would come up with a bipartisan solution. And members have tried that. Unfortunately there are people who dont in my view want to have a solution because it works for them politically. Isabelle, i want to walk through your experience. I want to say for the record what i heard from some of my colleagues on the other side, from mr. Jordan, and from mr. Meadows a commitment to us that they would work with us to make sure that you are in this country for a long time. Both of you and the people who are here. So lets just walk through what happened with us. You did everything you were asked of. You were asked by federal agency to come and be a part of this trial, to save lives, americans and others. You came here legally. You went under excruciating treatment for all the years. You still go every week. You paid for it with private pay insurance. Your family came here. You have been here legally the entire time. You have been approved four times as i understand, one in the Obama Administration for the deferred action and one during this administration. What did it feel like on august 15th to get this form letter that is to my anger, i have carried it in my pocket and it isnt signed by the regional director who id like to talk and find out why he didnt have the courage to sign it. He had to have somebody else sign it for them. And before you start, my district director who worked on these cases for years was traumatized because the people who we work with in the Regional Office in San Francisco, the first conversation with uscis was we cant talk about it, its policy. And i. C. E. , they said we cant talk about it. I think theyre embarrassed, they have mortgages to pay. To my colleagues im encouraged by them wanting to fix this. But on the other hand, somebody has to be held accountable for what happened and continues to happen and we still dont know what happen. So isabelle, just tell me with the remainder of my time as much as you want to talk about, what it felt like and what it continues to feel like for you and your family to live in circumstances like this where you still have to seek treatment. Really quick, the way i thought about this horrible letter was actually after my treatment. I was coming down with my mom, normal day like every friday. And then our lawyer calls saying that our letter for was denied and you have 30 days to leave. I cried. I was shaking, i was pale. I was so scared, like because its the first time that we received this letter because as i mentioned we have been here for 16 years legally. And this is the first time that we got denied. So my heart just stopped. Everything was shaking. I was scared. I ran to my Doctors Office and just told him about it. And then we we were just scared and right now im still overwhelmed with different emotions. So yeah. Thank you. Im really proud of you. Thanks. I yield back. Thank you. The chair now recognizes ms. Tlaib for five minutes of questioning. Thank you for your incredible courage to come before this committee. I cant underestimate the fact there are so many people that cannot be in this room and that youre here on their behalf. And so i think you i thank you from the bottom of my heart, even as a mother of two as somebody that knows people in my district depend on these humanitarian programs. So i want to thank you again, all of you so much. Also professor wadya and i have been trying to fight for comprehensive Immigration Reform on the outside as a young law student. When she was working on try to educate this chamber about why we needed to fix this broken immigration system. Im proud to see you here before the committee and you still have not backed down in trying to tell the truth about what needs to happen with our immigration system so thank you for that. Some have claimed here in this committee and folks that i have read that theres no need for cis to provide deferred action because i. C. E. Is capable of providing this. And you saw the person testifying for the other side that and i think its a lie. Its a lie. One of the thing i have been here eight months but gas lighting is a thing here. And i. C. E. Can defer to deportation, but i. C. E. Does this by issuing an administrative stay. There are critical differences under deferred action and the i. C. E. s administrative stay. Briefly describe what ice grants under the administrative stays. Great to reconnect with you as well, representative. So with the uscis these grants these requests are made affirmatively by people who are not yet in removal proceedings and often with compelling humanitarian reasons to be here like two of our witnesses. This is a practical form of relief too because it saves the Government Resources by not having to force someone to go into removal proceedings in order to request for protection. It also protects the individual from accruing unlawful presence during their time in unlawful detection. Contrast that the world where i. C. E. Is exercising discretion and i would agree with mr. Homan, i. C. E. Does exercise prosecutorial discretion in a variety of ways but theres a sharp contrast here. That discretion is often exercised after the person is in the removal system and often after the removal order has been issued. So the government has spent enormous resources and it may be months or years before a decision is made as to the individuals outcome. And an administrative stay or a stay of deportation is one type of prosecutorial discretion in Immigration Law. And it is often exercised after someone has a removal order so again we have the same practical legal and humanitarian impediments of choosing or using administrative stays as an alternative to affirmative deferred action at uscis. You know, even as a former Immigration Lawyer, i remember theres different consequences. I dont know if mr. Marino, if you know this or not as well. There are different liabilities here because what i would call additional consequences. If i. C. E. Runs this program because then it may impact whether or not in the future they can reenter the United States or obtain a visa in the future. Can you talk about that . Sure. If were talking about stays of removal that i. C. E. Currently does because it seems like theyre not taking over the deferred action. Theyre saying but we may grant you a stay once you have been ordered removed. People ordered removed face a ten year bar admissibility back into the United States. I can think of someone who was here for life saving treatment for a child and the child did pass away. The family returned home and then the father was able to come back as a permanent resident. Had they never been in deferred action that wouldnt have happened and his other daughter is in the college in the United States because that was available to them. Thank you. Mr. Homan, as a fellow american i want you to know your contribution as acting director of i. C. E. Under this administration will be remembered as one that was very ruthless and Inhumane Treatment and of the author of the sick you know, preventing people, Sick Children before this committee, seeking life saving medical treatment. And i will continue always this is probably the third time i think youre before this chamber that im deeply troubled by your Opening Statement and continued assault on this innocent lives and i ask the administration stop playing lives with the Many Americans that are directly impacted by the continued broken immigration system in our country. Thank you so much. Can i respond to that . No, were moving on to he was invoked. I would suggest he would be able to respond. How do i not respond to that . This is about transparency or not . Ill claim that time. The chair will now the chair will now recognize the chair recognize mrs. Roy for five minutes and you can feel free to use your time. Ill give you some time here on that. First to you, thank you for being here, i wish you both well and long lives and im glad youre able to get the care here. Ms. Bueso, i too in a program that was similar and im glad to get trial type of treatments and im glad youre able to do that. A quick question that i want to try to or a statement and then some clarification. It is my observation that when dhs rolls this policy change for lack of a better term when they rolled it out it was my view it was not rolled out the way it should have been rolled out. It should have been rolled out a different way and well see what that looks like in the next panel. If one thought that i. C. E. Was the best place to deal with deferred action it would seem to me that the debate then is whether you know, the question is where it should be. Should it be uscis or should it be at i. C. E. And if youre going to accept that premise then what should have been done was much clearer notice given and a different transition. Lets just assume for a minute i. C. E. Is the best place for it. Then the letter should have gone out or a reach out to say, hey, no issue. Youre going to keep getting health treatment. Were changing processes. This is the way i. C. E. Is now going to handle it. So forth and so forth. So id like to stipulate that thats my view. That thats if you ore transitioning the way you previously handle something then you need to have Something Like that. Well ask the second panel about that. Having said that, i do im interested in continuing to learn where it should exist. Well hear from the uscis in a minute, but i want to on that question, well come to the other stuff in a minute why you think i. C. E. Is the best place . Can you speak to the question at hand about the fear of somebodys here. Theyre in a tough situation. And theyre saying were getting shoved into the pipeline for expedited removal and then hoping there might be a question of discretion. Well can you kind of walk through how that might work in i. C. E. . What i have said is as Law Enforcement officer, prosecutorial discretion, case by case determination. Theres no law based on the case by case. Right. Now we have talked about states. Thats what i. C. E. Do, they give staged removal. Mr. Marino, what he says im not disagreeing with him. Is i. C. E. Prepared to make other decisions that cis would make thats a question for i. C. E. On the next panel. What i have talked is i. C. E. Needs the authority of prosecutorial discretion and thats a legal issue and i think those decisions, no other agency cant say that i. C. E. Can remove that person. That need to be i. C. E. s decision. Are they prepared to do that, because they dont, you have to ask the next panel that. Im not lying, im speaking to my 30 years of doing this. And what i think pros cue tomorrow discretion means. So and and the reason this matters i think is i hope theres general agreement about the process and the communication and what should have occurred there. That we can have a debate as i think we had a good conversat n conversation, ms. Ocasiocortez and well ask the next panel is. Its important not to send a signal of, you know, panic, to use mr. Meadows term that anything is going to be problematic Going Forward that will address the issue and try to reconcile whatever gaps there are here. I think its also important to note on this question of deferred action the questions of when it is a discretion for a prosecutor, right . This is the court of daca and dapa. We had this litigation in dapa. We went to the court and the court agreed that that was something more than discretion. That was something beyond discretion. And i think what we see here and a sort of separation here what were talking about here is discretion. I think ms. Wadya, your testimony, the data points you said one date i was able included 108 deferred actions and indicating that each one is case by case and there were eight that didnt qualify. I have no idea what the eight were. Thats a decision by you know case by case decision. I want to ask you one question, mr. Homan. Would you like to address and would you please address any of i want to address the last comments about me being appalling and first of all, i serve my country for 34 years. I saved many lives and i ran an agency lets be frank on what i. C. E. Did. I. C. E. Took opioids off this street that could have killed every man and woman and child in the United States twice. They have arrested a sexual predators that preyed on children. And they arrested hundreds of women who were victims of sex trafficking. Im proud of the agency and i. C. E. What we dont want to talk about is nearly 90 of everybody i. C. E. Arrests for immigration violations either have a criminal history or a pending criminal charge when theyre found. I mean, theyre found in the county jail which most likely theyre not a choir boy. So to to the work that men and women of i. C. E. Does i find it appalling that a woman of congress would do that. I have never seen hate toward a Law Enforcement agency that you want to abolish mr. Homan, the time has expeered. If you dont like, legislate it. Mr. Homan your time is expired. The chair now recognizes ms. Hill. Thank you. I was thinking about the 33 day notice issue and the fact that i worked in housing rights for a long time and a landlord is required to give more notice in most states for somebody to move out of an apartment let alone somebody whos facing life and death, children, trying to transfer medical care out of the country within 33 days. So who i have heard from the most over the last week or so since this was since this issue have come up were medical professionals. And days after the administrations policy reversal was revealed, the American Academy of pediatrics an organization of 67,000 pediatricians wrote a letter urging the administration to reverse course. Aap wrote we implore you to reverse this decision so countless children can apply for deferred action. For some children this is a matter of life and death. Aap also asked did uscis consult with any experts in the medicare care before making this decision . I understand youre a member of the aap although youre not testifying on behalf of the organization. But are you aware of any members of aap or other physician organizations that were consulted prior to the reversal on deferred action . No. What would you have advised uscis if you had been consulted about the decision . I would have advised them that this a Life Saving Program that is is absolutely necessary for the childrens wellbeing. And that to inform families via a letter that their status in this country is at risk is not only cruel but it is harmful to the childrens health. Theyre already under tremendous stress. And to add on top of that this fear, not only for their own health care, but for their safety is just mind boggling. I would also say that its extremely difficult to transfer care anywhere within a month inside or outside of the country. Oh, yeah, trying to transfer your country across the state lines or Community Lines is incredibly difficult. So since announcing this hearing two weeks ago, the committee has received letters from more than a dozen state chapters of the American Academy of pediatrics expressing deep concern over the administrations decision on deferred action. It provides stories of critically ill children who could be at risk under the new policy including two infants in a Neonatal Intensive Care Unit whose parents received letters telling them to leave the country within 33 days with a child an infant in intensive care. Mr. Marino, you noted that the vast majority of cases your organization represents involve children whose lives are at stake. You said, quote, we represent children confined to wheelchairs, connected to feeding tubes and tracheostomy tubes. What has the reaction been by the doctors . I think they have been as shocked as we have and as our clients have been. Its astounding to think that this would happen at all and that it would happen just with a boiler plate form letter with 33 days notice to get out. So a lot of we partner with multiple hospitals in the boston area. And so theyre familiar with this program. We work with social workers and doctors on these cases and they all know about it and they send people to us when they have an emergency situation. Like this persons visa is going to expire, we cant discharge them. They send them to us so, you know, they were very aware of this program. And shocked to see it had ended and especially the way it had ended. Thank you. Ms. Bueso, thank you for your testimony and thank you, mr. Sanchez as well. You have devoted your life to advocating on behalf of people with rare diseases. What is the reaction from the 33 days and the kind of care that theyre having to worry about and the parents are having to worry about, just anything you want to add to what you already said. I think i want to advocate for the community. Everyone is just in shock. Even my friends and theyre like shocked. They didnt see this coming. Obviously i have friends who theyre scared. And theyre in fear. I try my best to calm them down but i think everyone that knows me are just in shock. And just terrified for me. Well, thank you, all. I would just reiterate that as as this is coming from the medical Provider Community we need to be looking at this. Not only as a humanitarian issue but as a matter of life or death. And we cannot ever simplify it to something that is about a an immigration policy and a form letter. It is not that simple. This is human lives. Thank you. I yield back. Thank you for your questioning and finally we go to mr. Gomez for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chair. First, one of the things i want to kind of rereally emphasize is that this administration tends to make decisions in a very rash way. Without a lot of thought. And we have seen this time and especially when it comes to the immigration issue. Especially when it comes to Border Patrol, i. C. E. , everything. Its just with no real thought about the consequences. And then they have one rationale when it starts, anyone another rationale when they get called out. You know, we have seen this when it came to the child tolerance child separation policy. Jeff sessions said we hope this defers people from coming to the United States. The outrage happened across the country. They reversed policy. Then all of a sudden theyre saying we never had a child separation policy and this a pattern that they have when it comes to this. They say one thing, they do another. I know thats not this panel but thats why they lack credibility. Not the women of the Border Patrol or i. C. E. Im saying the administration when it comes to making decisions on this important on these important issues. They lack credibility. All right . Because they say one thing and do another. Mr. Marino, what did the letter say . So the letter said that the initial letter said that uscis field offices no longer considered deferred action cases. And then it said you are not authorized to remain in the United States if you dont depart within 33 days we may initiate removal proceedings against you. Anything else . Footnotes . No. Pictures . No. Nothing, right . I have a copy of it. And it i think it even said yeah. Thank you for your request for deferred action. And then all of a sudden, now they have got pushback, oh, you know what, well change it. Were considering moving it from one you know, agency to another. This is what the administration does. This like it is what i think is a dumpster fire. How many acting directors and secretaries does this administration have . And i joke around, even if you wanted to invoke the 25th amendment i dont think they have a cabinet large enough to invoke the 25th amendment. So its just ridiculous and its frustrating because they go after the most vulnerable. 424 families. Thats like 424 families. And it moves me because its like youre going after folks that really need to be here to live. First, i love your story about going to college, congratulations. How did you and your family first find out about the deferred action, that it ended. The way we found the letter, that it was denied was after my treatment. My mom and i were like normal day, walking out of the elevator and our lawyer called my mom saying that he received a letter for so my mom and dad, my oldest sister and myself said the policy change, you have 33 days to leave. Without no notification, nothing. How did your mother react . She cried. She cried with me. We were on the floor. We were just in shock. Because as i mentioned before, i have been here legally for 16 years and this is the first time that this happened to me and my family. So we both cried tears. I was shaking to the point that my mom thought id have to go to the e. R. Because i just lose it, honestly. And how does your family feel about the partial reversal of policy . It just its not clear. Were just like we just want something that is 100 guaranteed. Because as me and my family and im sure other families, we definitely do not want to go through this again. Yeah. The next two years. So we want to make sure thats Something Like guaranteed, 100 . Because this has not been an easy ride for any of us at all. Just being scared for our own lives, that we depend for medical attention. Yeah. Now, and you need and your family needs predictability especially since because of the condition that you have. I want to remind folks this is about these individuals. They went after 424 individuals with medical needs. All right . Without really any concern about what they would how they would react. Their families, the stress it would put out. Just a form letter. You know, thats it. My staff calls constituents when they write in letters to give them, you know, to say that they got the letter and they have a discussion. We make more than 424 calls in a month with just my four staffers. You could have they could have called, could have had a case worker. I believe this administration doesnt give a lot of thought on how a lot of these policy changes will be implemented. I yield back. Thank you very much for your questioning. Gentleman yields back. I want to thank the entire first panel for really extraordinary and important testimony and id echo that representative Eleanor Holmes norton said earlier which is that america really didnt understand about the existence of the Deferred Action Program and you have given us a great education and i want to thank you, i want to thank miss pressley for their initiative in bringing this forward and bringing their constituents forward. Now as the witnesses are switching out, were going to call forward the second panel. All of you should be aware that you can receive additional written questions for the hearing record and if you get them, please give us a prompt response. And were going to go right to the second panel. We welcome them and we thank you. Thank you for your testimony. As were switching over here, were going to enter lets see. I want to enter into the record 43 letters that the committee has received in recent days including letters from the American Academy of pediatrics and many of the state chapters, from the american Immigration Lawyers Association, the National Organization for Rare Disorders as well as a number of other immigration and patient right advocate groups. These letters discuss the grave consequences of the decision by uscis for children who benefit from medical deferred action and i ask they be entered into the official hearing record. Its so ordered. Okay. The committee will recess for just two minutes for a break and if we could switch over the panelists that would be terrific. All right. If everybody could find their seats, if all the members could resume their seats that would be terrific. We are now delighted to welcome our final witnesses. We thank you for coming today. We thank you for your patience. We are joined by timothy s. Robbins the acting associate director for enforcement and removal operations at the u. S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in the department of Homeland Security. And daniel reno, the associate director for Field Operations directorate at the u. S. Citizenship and uscis and the department of homeland department. If the witnesses would please raise and raise their right hand. Do you swear or affirm the testimony youre about to give is the truth, nothing but the truth, so help you god. Both witnesses answered in the affirmative. Thank you very much. The microphones are sensitive so please speak directly into them. Without objection, your entire written statements will be made part of the record and with that director robbins, youre now recognized to give an oral presentation of your testimony. Chairman raskin, Ranking Member roy and distinguished members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today and to clarify any public confusion over i. C. E. s role in this matter as was stated in the recent correspondence from uscis, dhs may issue a notice to appear and commence removal proceedings under section 240 of the immigration and nationality act. Before an immigration judge against a removable aliens. It is critical to understand that i. C. E. May only remove an alien from the United States when that alien has been issued a final removal order. Such orders are the result of a process provided for by law during which an alien has the opportunity to avail himself of a variety of procedural safeguards and seek relief from removal. For example, an alien in the section 240 removal proceedings can contest removability, to apply for relief, to view, examine and object to government evidence and witnesses and to appeal decisions to the board of immigration appeals all while having the proceedings before the immigration judge simultaneously translated at government expense into language that the alien understands. There are currently over 920,000 aliens in ina removal proceedings nationwide. I. C. E. Has broad discretion and exercises that discretion as appropriate. On a case by case basis in a variety of ways. For instance, discretion may be exercised in the course of deciding which aliens to arrest, which aliens to release from custody pending their removal proceedings, what the position of i. C. E. Will be on a claim, motion or appeal made by an alien in Immigration Court and which aliens will be prioritized for removal. I. C. E. Does not exercise discretion on a categorical basis to exempt entire groups of aliens from the Immigration Laws enacted by congress. Deferred action is a discretionary act of administration convenience and i. C. E. May exercise it in a given case. It is not an illegal benefit and provides no lawful immigration status. In the United States. I. C. E. Does not accept applications for deferred action. However, consistent with federal regulations an alien who becomes subject to the final removal order such as when his or her section 240 proceeding may using form i246 for deportation of removal. A stay of removal may be sought by aliens subject to final orders of removal. I. C. E. Will consider all relevant factors in deciding whether to issue the stay of removal including a claimed medical basis for the request. However, such stays are considered solely and acts as discretion on a case by case basis. Thank you for inviting me today. I look forward to answering any questions you may have on i. C. I. C. E. s role. Thank you for your testimony. Good afternoon. Chairman raskins, Ranking Member roy and jordan and distinguished members of the subcommittee. Im daniel reno, im the associate director of the directorate of the citizenship and immigration services. In addition to theed a jutdcation of applications and petition that require facetoface interviews such as adjustment of status and naturalization, Field Operations is the directorate responsible for making decisions on the field offices for both military deferred action and nonmilitary deferred action. Which is the subject of todays hearing. My directorate does not decide applications or renewals of deferred action for childhood arrivals or daca. Or other deferred action requests required by statute such as those related to the t or u non american classifications. At the outset, i want to restate what dhs relayed to the Committee Last evening. Because a lawsuit has been filed against uscis regarding the issues being discussed at todays hearing, i will be limited in what information i can provide in response to questions today. Deferred action is a discretionary act of administrative convenience and by which dhs may delay or decline to exercise Immigration Enforcement authority in a given case. Deferred action is discretionary decision made on a case by case basis. Deferred action is not an immigration ben fit or a specific form of relief. Its a decision not to act. Deferred action does not provide lawful immigration status. And it does not excuse any periods of unlawful presence before or after the deferred action begins. Importantly, deferred action can be terminated at any time at the agencys discretion. To better align uscis with the mission of administering the Law Enforcement immigration system on august 7, 2019, uscis determined that field offices would no longer accept requests by nonmilitary persons for deferred action. To be clear, this does not mean the end of all types of deferred action. This redirection of Agency Resources does not affect daca which remains in effect while cases go through the court systems. It does not affect other others processed under statute or other policies, regulations or court orders. Keep in mind, uscis does not enforce orders of removal. As deferred action is largely a Law Enforcement tool used to delay removal from the United States, uscis has not received many nondaca requests. Uscis has received very few deferred action requests. Many received by the uscis are due to Family Support or medical reasons. This has been incorrectly reported or mischaracterized by the media as a medical Deferred Action Program. To be clear, uscis does not and has never administered a medical Deferred Action Program. Again, deferred action related to military Service Members and their families and daca beneficiaries was not affected by the august 7, 2019, redirection of Agency Resources and consideration of those cases is ongoing. In addition, all cases that were denied in august are being reopened an reconsidered. I want to emphasize because a Law Enforcement has been filed against the uscis regarding deferred action, i will be limited in what information i can provide in response to questions today. I can tell you that i have had the privilege of working for uscis and the predecessor the immigration and Naturalization Service for 31 years. Im extremely proud of the work and professionalism i see by the employees at uscis in service to the nation and i will answer your questions the best i can given the current litigation. Thank you for your testimony. Im going to begin by recognizing ms. Wasserman schultz but one question before she starts. Were both of you able to watch the witnesses in the prior panel . Some of the witness testimony, but not all. Okay. And mr. Reno, you watched the testimony . Yeah. Very good. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Gentlemen, welcome to the Oversight Committee. We heard the argument today that i. C. E. s ability to provide administrative stays is sufficient to take the place of usc uscis deferred action but thats not true. And received an order of removal from i. C. E. , and in addition, the individuals who are ordered removed can face significant consequences including inent jillty for the future visa and i. C. E. Does not grant benefits to Work Authorizations or eligibility for Health Benefits. And finally, i. C. E. Administrative stays are only available in one year increments. Mr. Robbins, do you agree an administrative stay of removal from i. C. E. Does not provide the same benefits to immigrants as the deferred action process at uscis . I cant speak as to the benefits that are provided based on the stay but i can tell you that prosecutorial discretion we use it from the point of arrest throughout the enforcement why cant you speak to the benefits because what i laid out what i just laid out accurate as far as your understanding . The differences in the two processes . My understanding is that i would have to defer to my colleague from the uscis when it comes to employment authorization. We do not adjudicate the employment authorization, but the stay request and on a case by case basis. Theyre only available in one year increments . No more than one year. They could be it could be ye. I. C. E. Does not grant benefits to Work Authorizations . We do not. Through the deferred action process, you do grant those things . Correct . Thank you for your question. If someone were to receive deferred action, they have the opportunity to apply for employment authorization. Thats a discretionary decision. They are also potentially eligible for Health Benefits as well. I cant speak to whether they are else libl for Health Benefits. They would not be available for Health Benefits under a deportation process . Correct . We do not adjudicate Health Benefits either. Although you wont come out and say, in detail you have described they are quite different and one provides benefits and the other does not. One program is longer than one year, potentially, and the other is not. Individuals could apply for the deferred action before being ordered removed. When granting an application for deferred action, it can provide a family with Work Authorization allowing them to support themselves while their child receives the treatment they need. And uscis deferral lasts up to two years. Finally, a person granted deferred action by uscis is not considered to be, quote, unlawfully present in the the United States. Which can be an important factor in future immigration proceedings. Do you agree those are meaningful differences between i. C. E. Administrative stays and deferred action by uscis . Im not able to compare and c contrast the two. Have i said anything in inaccurate about the differences between the two processes . Is uscis allow them to support themselves while their child receives the treatment they need . Is that something that uscis does allow . As i have testified, someone who is a recipient of deferred action but also the parents can apply, a family can be applied. Any individual for any reason who happens to have deferred action. Uscis does last up to two years, correct . Is is that correct . Do you agree besides the fact that you just outlined meaningful differences, thats very clear. Are either of you aware of any plans to provide these additional benefits to families of clritically ill children or others in the events that you shift to a process that has i. C. E. Deal with this enforcement mechanism . Dhs is still considering a pathway forward. Those are internal discussions that were not prepared to discuss. Okay, well i appreciate making sure that the information that arose during this entire hearing makes it clear that what was indicated was not accurate and that these are very distinct and different programs. One that provides a lengthier period of certainty with benefits, the other that is simply an enforcement action. Thank you. I yield back. Thank you, im going to recognize myself for five minutes now. Both of you jgentlemen have don a good job describing the legal architecture of deferred action. Its a discretionary matter conducted on a case by case basis. You dont categorically exempt entire groups, if im reading you correctly. What i dont get is what is the motivation behind the new policy . Whats the rational for the new policy . I know some of my republican colleagues were asking to relay the same question. Why did all of this happen . Can either of you answer that . Unfortunately, we are not going to be able to answer that because of the ongoing litigation. Were not able to respond to that. What is the new policies, as you understand it. Theres so much confusion. Because of the litigation specifical specifically, as the committee was informed last evening by letter, these are areas we are not going to be able to discuss today. You cant tell me why theres a new policy and you cant tell me what the new policy is. That is my testimony, yes. Let me come to you. I can see that theres an effort to find some shelter for the government in the idea of prosecutorial discretion. What would the benefit be in removing from the country, deporting from the country a young person with Cystic Fibrosis or cancer or another serious disease. I think its safe we can agree that when it comes to sympathetic cases, thats what discretion is for. I. C. E. Is enforcing immigration and has used discretion move in forward. So what changed . I assume you saw the anxiety and the agony and the pain these teams are going through. What changed . Currently, i. C. E. Does not have a process, an application process or an adjudicated process for affirmative stays for deferred action. We use discretion from arrest through a removal and then we have the ability to adjudicate stay requests and theres a process for that process. What has changed . I cant speak to the rational or what has changed in regards to the adjudication of the deferred action request. I cant answer that question. What would need to be done to get Homeland Security just to reverse this whole disastrous road that it went on when it sent out those letters. One thing we are currently having ongoing discussions with dhs about the pathway forward when it comes to deferred action. Were just not prepared to comment on that. I appreciate your honesty about that. I know i speak for a lot of colleagues, certainly on my side of the aisle, that this really is a moral crisis in the country. I understand that you described the numbers of people affected is very few. And in terms of the overall number of people you have to deal with, i understand that. Its still a thousand or more people. And as representatives in congress, we hear from them in their families and its our job to take into act peoples real life situations so anything we can do to work with the administration to reverse this and enter into discussions about new regulation to bring greater clarity to the process . I think youd find a lot of support here. But the United States of america is a great country. It has a big heart. And when the people of america see this kind of testimony, we know in the forefront of medical and scientific process in the world. People come to america to get their lives saved. Not to get their lives messed up. Thats why its caused crisis and anxiety not just in those families, but across the country and in congress when we see this being done in the name of our people. So let me just ask you finally, when will you be ready to conclude your deliberations . Id love to be able to give you an answer. Can you say they wont be removed from the country until you get back to us with a a policy answer as to what the policy is. When it comes to i. C. E. And our discretion, the people of the population and correct me if im wrong, these are affirmative actions. They are not in proceedings. They are currently that is not a population that we currently target. But i do not have a list of those people of actually who has previously applied for deferred action. And you can assure us, i understand you can assure us youre not targeting anyone in this situation for removal at this point. I can assure you that enforcing Immigration Law is a very difficult responsibility that i. C. E. Does professionally and with compassion. This is a vulnerable population that has never been, we would use discretion on cases very similar to these. I cant speak to these specific cases because i do not have the fac facts. But i cant assure you that every case applied to the Deferred Action Program or process would not be louvremove. I just dont know all the cases. I appreciate the fact youre not ready to articulate what the policy is, but we are going to be diligent as the Oversight Committee in making sure that people in this situation have their rights and their interests considered consistent with the values of the american people. Thank you for your testimony. I recognize now ms. Presley for five minutes of questions. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Hello, gentlemen. Im thankful were a able to have you before the committee today. I understand there was some frustration with the urgency with can which we were asking you to come, but whatever inconvenience you may have experienced pales in comparison to the trauma and the fear and the inconvenience your medical deferred action denial letters have imposed on immigrant children and families. Im sure you know last month i along with 130 colleagues sent a letter to your agencies demanding the reversal to end the processing of deferred action. Can you confirm whether the agencies will be meet iing the questions that we outlined this that letter responding to our dead line by september 14th . I cant speak specifically of that. Can you confirm receipt of the letter . I cannot, but i would not receive that letter directly. But we take them seriously and to meet the established guidelines and dead lines. Mr. Robins . Yes, maam. Thank you. I have some additional conditions. Its able to discuss the reasons for any change. I can consult with the legal team and decide if we can provide that in writing. What department did this directive come from. What department did this policy change directive come from . Again, im not sure i can answer that question. You cant answer the genesis of this policy and what office offered the directive . Is that correct . Maam, im not an attorney. I dont pretend to understand or know all of the aspects of law. Ill make a request. When attorneys ask me or instruct me there are some things youre being in the middle of litigation, you should not speak on. That you respond to the the dead line. That we have committed. Also if you could respond to the questions that im asking you now. How many requests has your Agency Processed since usciss september 2nd announcement . How can your agency ensure that theres no retaliation against applicants . Again, as my colleague testi testified, the path forward is frankly a subject of litigation also. And it is at this point. Can can you provide a time line for which families can expect to hear from uscis on the status of their request . I know that this is import t important. But i cannot give a definitive time line. So these families are just hanging in the balance . Can can you provide a timeline in the letter that youll be responding to by september 14th . I do not know the answer to that question. What is the geographic breakdown of where these patients are currently residing in the u. S. . And are there particular areas more impacted . Im trying to see if there are any trends here. One of the challenges with how historically we have been looking at deferred action requests is we do not have a form. Theres no fee for the grant of deferred action. And we do not have a system in which to put these in. Soda ta related to the basis, which do vary, which are geographic to get your questions. We cannot be precise in that area. Just to reiterate again, to be clear, the deadline to respond to the letter that was submitted signed by nearly 10 of my colleagues, the dead line is this friday. Again, can you commit to answering our questions by then . The witness may answer that question. I think i have answered it. We will do our best. I have not seen the letter. I do not know frankly if we have received it yet. I know we take those letters seriously. Obviously, its a serious issue. Well do what we can to provide you the information in a timely manner. I dont want to set a new press sent. You said you do respond by deadline. So lets not create a new precedence. So i look forward to your responses. Thank you. You are recognized for five minutes. I want to thank the witnesses. And your comment about moral crisis, mr. Chairman, is important for all of us to think about individually and collect collective ly. Reminded of my favorite the quotes. The hottest places in hell are reserved for individuals who remain neutral at times of moral crisis. I have tried to think about the people that we have interacted with your agency in San Francisco and how difficult it must be to carry out a policy that then turns out to cause the kind of anguish we came across, my constituent who testified from near where you are just next to you, when she got the letter from your department of which you oversee, as i understand, her mother vomited in a hospital. They cried because they knew that was a death sentence. How do you respond to that as a human being. I was asking for you personally. You have the title. You oversee this. It was a mistake . Im empathetic to the situation . Was it a mistake . We heard from my colleagues this policy was a mistake. Do you think it was a mistake . Im an operator. Im not a policymaker. So operationally, my role is to comment on policy is to the extent that we can make it operationally feasible or to indicate when its not. Im not in the position to pass judgment on whether i like or dont like a statute. Or a policy. It is those are some of the hardest times in my career and in in those of the the people who work with me. Where either we are required to grant a benefit to someone we believe is a threat or we believe has its also hard when we have to sigh say no. I was asking specifically on behalf of the prn who lives in my district. Are you implying shes a threat to National Security . Im not implying that. You have said that the attorney cant answer questions because of litigation, but we have been told by the Supreme Court over and over again that private litigation is not inhibiting testimony to congress in our investigation. I was not told that by the committee. You should get your own attorney. Do you know who made the decision to stop accepting the processing deferred action requests on august 7th that led to the letter. That, as you just indicated, thats something thats under litigation that im not able to respond to. What role did the acting direct player play . Thats the same question. Im not able to answer. Was anyone at i. C. E. Involved in the decision. Why didnt you make a public announcement or communicate about the decision . I think the nature of our announcement is is also under litigation. Did you do any internal studies about how many children might die as a result of being forced to lead the United States under this new policy . I think its important to note that the denial does not report the removal of any individual. No individuals, to the best of my knowledge, have even been issued a notice to appear, which commences will proceedings. If youre asking if we had analysis of how many people would be impacted by this, we had an idea of the number of population that received defer action, but the reasons why the process was changed, im not at liberty to say at this time. Before that letter r was sent is out, any discussion anywhere about the consequences of that letter. Was anyone aware of that . Again, the letter did not order their departure from the United States. I think your question is missing a few steps in the process. Theres room for discretion. U is, cis could choose not to issue an nta and that person would never be in proceedings unless otherwise had you ever issued this letter with the content before . The time is is expired. You can answer that question. We have issued denial notices on deferred action requests. Historically, we have denied about half of the deferred action requests we receive. There was a question earlier from one of the members about a thousand applicants per year. And we have denied the majority of those. Thank you. The time is expired. Alexandria ocasiocortez is recognized. Thank you. The Supreme Court has ruled several times that ongoing litigation is is not valid grounds for resisting an answer to congressional questions. So i was wondering why are you citing those illegitimate grounds . Im not prepared or capable of arguing legal precedent with you. Im here representing the agency. So why did the agency change the policy . As i mentioned earlier, thats something and as i mentioned the Supreme Court, this has been sued. This very question has been sued on. We dont have to debate on the it. The Supreme Court determined that its not ground to resist an answer to an inquiry. So why did i. C. E. Change the policy . Why was the policy around deferred action changed . Im going to answer again at the advice of counsel, im not able to discuss that information. Due to what reason are you citing . The advice of counsel im not answering that question. I hope youll understand i dont know what else to say. Theres no reason being offered, we cannot understand. I can only say that youre arguing with the wrong person. Im not in a position to all right. Ill move on. Theres been a lot of chaos caused by this policy change. And the administration because they did not advise congress on how this would be enforced or what would happen there are a lot of outstanding questions so hopefully these questions are relatively straight forward. How many cases will be reopened as a result of your agencys partial reversal on deferred action . We have reopened every case that was denied on or after august 7 president that total is i dont have an exact number. Approximately 424. People who applied before august 7th be allowed to submit new evidence or will their files be frozen as of august 7th . Typically, when we consider a request or a benefit application, we will provide the opportunity for the alien to augment the record if theres additional evidence needed. Will the reopened cases be evaluated using the same standards and the same process that your agency is previously applied to request for deferred action . That question im not able to answer. You cannot answer if youll be using the same standards that you used before . I cannot answer questions regarding what standards well be using Going Forward. Will field officers still follow the process outlined in usciss procedures or a new procedure . I dont know. I am able to answer that, i think. I just dont know the answer. That depends on what the process will be. I think its important to note that the it came up in the last hearing that the Standard Operating Procedure describes the mechanics of how to process a case. Its not a guide to the use of discretion. Will uscis impose limits or caps on the number of deferred action cases that may be granted from reopened cases . I dont know. Your september 2nd announcement stated, and aquote, as deferred action case load is reduced, the career employees who decide such cases will be more available to address other types of Legal Immigration applications on a more efficient basis. But media reports indicate that uscis only receives a thousand medical deferred action requests each year. They have about 19,000 employees and contractors that handle hundreds of thousands of requests each year. So are these a thousand requests really such a large burden they justify ending deferred action for people with serious life and death medical conditions entirely and risk iing their lives . As you know, speaking to the language on the letter, uscis has a sizable workload. A thousand requests equals about 2,000 naturalization applications in terms of workload. So to the 2,000 people we could have naturalized, i think those cases are pretty important to them as well. Mr. Chair, i think its important that we acknowledge here that we are getting open resistance that are citing illegitimate legal grounds, no legal grounds for resisting the answers to these congressional inquiries, no insight to the rational, little to no insight into the future of these decisions. This is a threat to the roul of law when it comes to immigration policy. How can people be in compliance or make an effort to be in compliance if they dont know what the enforcement is or would be in the future. The i thank you for your comments. It inspires me, actually, to close with another five minutes of questioning. I invite other colleagues who want to pursue it. We learned a a lot with the first panel about how this program is traditionally worked. What peoples expectations are. A lot of us felt great pride that america could play this role for sick kids from around the world. Were seeing a different america on display right now in this discussion of of the rattleout of this policy. I dont mean to put the blame on the two of you. It must be uncomfortable. You have been sent forward to defend policies that werent your idea in the first place. But i have a few final questions i want to try to pursue with you. Could you share whatever data he was working from with us. Or did that come from another source . Im not familiar with the data discussed. Did you know . If theres data, we can share that. Just to be clear, can you tell us who made the decision to stop accepting and processing the deferred action requests on august 7th . No, because of litigation and the advice of counsel, im not able to. For reasons that alexandria ocasiocortez said, litigation is irrelevant to the statement of a fact. So thats been established. Could you tell us whether the acting director played a role in this decision . With all due respect, we sent a letter to the committee yet outlining how this testimony would go. We determine how this testimony would go. Not you. I appreciate you appreciate a difficult situation, but it shouldnt be unknown to you why or how im in this situation. So no, im not able to answer that. Really this is a great mystery to me. Ordinarily when we ask government witnesses to come in, they are prepared to answer the questions, they are prepare d t tell where policies came from. Im baffled. I have never seen a situation like this before. At least for the record and if you cant answer it, thats fine. Can you tell us what role the acting director played in this decision . No, sir, im not able to. Can you tell us what the acting secretary of homeland played . No, sir. The role that anyone at the white house including steven miller, the ark terkt chitect om im grags policy played . No, sir. Mr. Robins said he could not tell me why the policy was developed or even what the policy is. I want to be clear. This is basically where you are too on it. I remember when i was in School Learning that the five critical ingredients of history is who, what, why, where and when. I want to make sure its the case that you cant answer any of these. Can you tell us why we have the new policy . No, because of the pending lawsuit and the advice of counsel. Who order ed the policy . I cannot. Where the policy came from . The same reason, i cannot. Can you tell me when the policy was developed or when it will be finalized . No, sir. Can you tell me what the policy is . Because of the pending lit fwags, im not able to share that. Im afraid to say this is the perfect Trump Administration public policy. We dont know where it comes from, we dont know why we have it, we dont know who came up with it, when it was adopted or even if it was adopted and we dont know what it is. And again, i dont mean to make you the fall guy, obviously, you have been sent forth to give this testimony today, but it is the occasion for great frustration in the congress of the United States the representatives of the people. Can you tell me how many families received denial letters because of the policy change . That i can tell you. 424, approximately, denial notices were sent on or after august 8th. How many have been reopened . All 424. Why not reopen all of the requests . Essentially, we did. There were approximately 791 pending questions on august 7th. We proceeded to deny 424 and then the balance of 300 something, we did not take any action on. Those remain pending. The 424 that we denied, we reopened. So all of the cases that were pending on august 7th are now open, active requests. And after all 7th, are people still facing the 33day cutoff . At this point, there never was a 33day cutoff. As someone in the Previous Panel indicated, i think the word boilerplate. We use standard language in some of our denial notices. We have a standard process whereby if were issuing a status denial or a denial of someone removable from the United States or appears to be removable from the United States such as out of status, we include a statement indicating that essentially in 33 days, we will review their case. We will see if they have departed. If it they have not, then we will make a determination of whether to issue a notice to appear. Thats an opportunity where we can exercise discretion and decide not to issue a notice to appear, in which case proceedings would not begin. Thank you for that answer. My time is expired. Im going to recognize ms. Presley for another five minutes, if she seeks. Thank you, mr. Chair. I wish i could feign just incredible surprise at the lack of responsiveness here, but it is par for the course with this administration. We often have witnesses that come before us and i can cant call it anything other than what it is. Its stone wall iing. Its obstructing. I want to make something very clear. This is not about your answers just to this committee. Youre answering to the american people. And this emergency hearing was called because of a rallying cry, a public outcry, an outrage. Our chairman said its unfair to make you guys the fall guys, but i think its not right to make you the fall guys to defend a policy that you cant. Not because you dont have the answers, but its indefensible. Theres not much you could offer. But nevertheless, we persist. So let me just pick back up again on the 33 days. I want to talk about Jonathan Sanchez from my district. 16 years old who endured a great not knowing what his what life holds for him in the future or if he will be able to preserve and maintain his life sat here for a number of hours enduring a dehumanizing environment by many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. So he could deal with that, you can deal with this. So Jonathan Sanchez testified earlier today. He testified that doctors in honduras did not even know what Cystic Fibrosis was. Im not sure if you heard his testimony earlier, but his yo g youngest sister died as a result of the disease in honduras because they did not understand her disease or how to treat her. 33 days is not enough time to arrange for transportation or the many other steps that would be needed to transport a critically ill child to another country. Simply put, its a death sentence for many of these patients. When the administration decided to end deferred action, was any thought put into what would happen to the the critically ill children and their families . I think that the thought was that we would follow our notice to appear memo. Which i i droibed earlier. We would provide people a standard period of time by which time we would review the case and determine whether it was appropriate and in the best interest to issue a notice to appe appear. Was that specific window considered sufficient given the extin waiting circumstances . I think there seems to be an assumption in that question that there would be an nta coming at the end of the 33 days. And what im saying is that that would be an opportunity for us to issue prosecutorial discretion is decide not to issue a notice to appear. When uscis ordered jonathan to lee the country in 33 days, did you consider the fact that treatment for that disease is unavailable in honduras . Im not sure if im saying that right, but we did not order anyone to leave the country. Thats not our goal. If you go back to my written testimony, i describe our role and what it is t isnt. We do not order people to leave the country. Were missing each other here. Because its inconsistent with what the families testified to and the letters they provided to corroborate their experiences. Will the gentle lady yield for a moment . The letter that you sent said if you fail to depart the United States within 33 days of the date of this letter, uscis may issue a notice to appear and commence removal proceedings against you at the Immigration Court. Thats coming from uscis. Thats not coming from i. C. E. Thats all true. So in what sense are you not threatening to remove people from the country . Words have meaning. What we indicate that if they do not what we indicate is if they do not depart the country within 33 days, they may be issued a notice to appear. That is accurate. At that notice to appear for the purpose of commencing removal proceedings. It does not say they will or leave the country. With all due respect, were talking about people who have Cystic Fibrosis and childhood cancer. In a change of policy that indicates they are going to be removed or have a likelihood of being removed. Im going to yield another 30 seconds to my colleague. Thank you, mr. Chair. For the questions you have not answered based on pending litigation, do you actually know the answers to those questions . Do you know the answers and youre not share iing them . Or you dont know . Do you know the answers to the questions i have asked that you have declined to answer . I understand your question. I was trying to decide if i i do not know the answers to all of your questions. To any of them . To any of the questions i asked regarding the genesis of the policy, was it ordered by political appointee, what office did this come from, how many cases have been processed, do you know the answers to any of those questions . I certainly think that without a pending lawsuit i would be able to provide additional information. I yield. We come to mr. Growthman for five minutes. As i mentioned earlier today in the first panel, i think you do a tremendous job. I have been at the border three time this is year. I know you are in a difficult job. Everybody who i have run into has been the pinnacle of professionalism. Everybody has exhibited 100 concern about people in this country who are not citizens. Goes out of their way to provide medical care that would not even be available to american citizens, and they do it without complaining. So id like to thank you for all your agencies do. Looking at the this letter they are talking about, it appears this letter is is a form letter. Do you think thats true . Thats correct. Would anybody who made out this letter know that she had a medical condition . I think that when the letter was drafted, we certainly understood there was a wide range of cases under consideration that would be denied, including some medical issues, yes. But did you know specifically when you sent this letter to her that she had a medical condition . S. I dont know the answer to that question. I would like to say, yes, we probably pulled the case, looked at it and decided to deny it. I think what youre trying to tell us here is is that there are opportunities to appeal. And when you appeal, certainly the two people on the Previous Panel were not going to be kicked out of this country. Right . We have a process. Many people have to be kick ed out. Some people shouldnt. As you work your way through the process, people like these two folks almost certainly will not be kicked out of the country. Is is that accurate . I think its accurate to say that, in my career, in my experience, when you run into a situation similar to the individuals that were here earlier, prosecutorial discretion would be used. The point im trying to make here, what bothers me what the other party is is doing, they are trying to scare people to believe they are going to be kicked out. I dont know whether you feel in your position you can agree with me or not agree with me, but if you have two people brought before this committee today, brought all the way to washington, d. C. And told they should be scared to death they are going to be kick ed out of this country, i just think its a little bit appalling. Do either of you in your age agencies believe that as this worked through the process, either of these two individuals would be kicked out of this country . I us cant speak to the individuals because i dont know the facts of the case, but the reality is people with medical issues. Two young people with severe medical issues. I cant see them being beijing removed in the future. But i cant speak to their specific case. But cases similar to that, we would use discretion. As far as i. C. E. Is concerned, we would use discretion at the very point on whether we arrest. Do either of you believe these folks were going to be kicked out of the country . I do not believe that someone in a similar situation would. Same question. I would agree. For political reasons to embarrass President Trump, we have brought two people in here who are not going to be kicked out of this country, scared them to death they might be kicked out, and its just not going to happen. Theres no way its going to happen. Ill give you another question. A lot of the i ask this of the prior person here. Sometimes in this hearing its this idea of minors without their parents are being pulled apart. In this country in both your positions, do you see minors in this country without their parents . Unaccompanied minors . I dont really understand the question. We have unaccompanied minors in the country. Correct. Does the United States send them back or try to poll tol rate putting them in the country . They have due process. That due process is available to everyone illegal in this country. So minors come here and can run away from their parents and right now the United States doesnt do anything about it . I think its unfair to say the United States doesnt do anything about it. They can wind up in this country for two or three years without a hearing. For minors that cross the border that we are aware of apprehended at the border, theres due process for those unaccompanied minors. The time is expired. I want to go back to a comment. Am i direct in saying that somebody knew about the medical condition when that letter was sent out . Thats what you just testified . Remind you shes asked for four times and got accepted prior to this. So what you just said is somebody pulled her file. Thats my best estimate of what happened. So someone is under your directi direction. Someone pulled the file . They understood cases were pending. It would be in process. And that uscis had stopped issuing deferred action. So they issued the letter. I dont want to pretend or accuse that individual or make it seem like that individual made the wrong call in a heartless way. We certainly are empathetic. We are bound by the regulations and the policies that we have. And thats how we operate. As i said earlier, sometimes that means that we have to say yes to someone wed rather not because we think theres fraud or misrepresentation or there could be harm to the country, it also means sometimes that we have to say no to people that frankly we feel bad for and empathize with. Thats the hard work done by immigration officer ace cross the country every day. So shes been approved four times in the past. Youre going to look at the file again. Is there any chance that she would be denied because the guidelines have changed . Given that shes byebye approved four times including during this administration . I have not looked at the case. I understand what we heard today. Im not able to comment. I thought you just did comment and ask answer that you could not imagine that she would not be allowed to stay in the country. Are you change iing that testim . My testimony was that i agree with my colleague and i defer to my expertise. I was referring to removal. When youre talking about stayed in this country, would we remove someone in that situation i cant speak to her specific case. I dont know the facts. He was trying to say this was some kind of big political show because there was no chance any of these people would be removed. Now were getting is answer saying theres a chance that the constituent would be removed and she was terrified long before she came to this committee. We didnt know anything about this. Theres terror among hundreds of people in extreme medical condition. Lets stop playing games. I us liked it better when you said you couldnt testify. Dont say theres no chance that people are going to get kicked out of the country and then turn around and say that his constituent could get kicked out of the country. Im sorry. Your time is is restored to you. Do you care to respond to that as a humane institution . If you try to remove her knowing my constituents, you better bring a lot of buss, because a lot of us are going to be arrested trying to protect her. What i was trying to make clear if you allow me, i cannot judge this case here for the people that were talking about. What i said was similar cases that have compassionate and compelling humanitarian reasons, we use discretion every day. We have in the past enforcing Immigration Law and we will in the future. We continuously use discretion on who we arrest, who we place in proceedings and ultimately remove. I cant see a similar case being removed from the country placed in the proceedings and ultimately removed. I cant speak to her specific case because its unfair to try to do that here in this hearing room. What i can say is aur officers on a regular basis used discretion on sympathetic cases. And humanitarian, compelling cases. And our officers do it very well. I appreciate that. Im sorry that many moral people in Public Service are have to go through this. To me, this was not contrived. The constituents came to me and we heard their testimony about vomiting in a hospital after she had gotten hours of treatment. But whats changed is this letter. If either of you is listening, i do feel sorry for these gentlemen being placed here because i know where the speedometer is, in my view. But this was a heartless, cruel thing to send out. Knowing that somebody in your organization now this we have to get to the bottom of this. We have to hold people accountab accountable. If they are not going to testify and use a contrived defense to give us the truth. Do we find them in contempt of congress . As my colleague said, they are responding to the american public. Somebody needs to be held accountable for doing this and it needs to be corrected. So im to say that im disappointed as an american to sit here. I dont know where our level of decency will come to a point where all of us can say a letter like this is not in the spirit of america. Somebody should be held accountable. I thank you for your leadership on putting this on the agenda. I thank you both for appearing today. Oh, alexandria ocasiocortez will get to close it out. Thank you, mr. Chair. I think one of the things thats difficult about this moment is that all of us like to think all of us want to do a good job. And i understand the difficult position that it is when people are career servants and when the politicization of this administration goes in so deep that it politicizes otherwise career positions, i understand and respect that. But i also understand that at some point in our lives, we reach a moral cross roads. And the panel right before this one, we heard from a teenager whose little sister died because she couldnt have access to medication and he has the same disease that she does. And a young woman who has been in this country for 16 years depending on medical treatment and deporting her will kill her. This policy will murder her. And we are trying to get to the bottom of the origins of this policy change. And we have to ask you. And you all are citing counsel, which has given you illegitimate reasons to resist answering these questions. The Supreme Court has ruled on it. Its not a debate. So let me see if i can summarize this testimony and see if theres any last chance that you all may want to change your answer. You will not tell us who decided this policy. You will not tell us who thought it was a good idea. You will not Tell Congress if the white house ordered this policy. You will not Tell Congress will you vetted the policy with anyone before you put it in place. You will not Tell Congress why the policy was changed. You will not Tell Congress what the future policy will be. You will not Tell Congress that when the future policy will be announced and will not Tell Congress when you plan to let these families with life and death diagnosis know their fates. Is that all correct . I think on the balance, it is correct. Now, the claims are based on this idea that theres ongoing litigation. The Supreme Court has ruled ongoing litigation is not a reason to resist that answer. Its never been the standard under a democratic or republican congress. And we have a job that we have to do too. Our job is ordered by the constitution of the United States to conduct oversight on these conditions that will kill people. So i would say we should have a chance to answer these questions by this friday in response to a letter. One question i have is who is your counsel . Who advised you to do this . I take counsel from the dhs general counsel. Which individuals at dhs general counsel advise d you to resist . I do not know who made that ultimate decision. But which individual told you to do it specifically . Certainly, someone told you. Was it a letter . Was it a meeting . I will take that back. It was a letter or a meeting . You wont even tell us who told you to defy the Supreme Court . I was never told to defy the Supreme Court. To cite reasons in defiance of the Supreme Court. To answer your question, i will take those questions back and if i can provide those answers, i would be happy to do so. Thank you for agreeing to do that. And i think that we need to have these questions by this friday. People are terrified. Their medications are on the line. Their entire lives are on the line. Is and mr. Chairman, if i may, i think we should consider, and i believe after this hearing we have no recourse, but to consider discussing a subpoena to get this information if we dont get it as requested. I want to thank for the insight on b this. I want to thank both of you for coming and for participating as much as you felt you could. Given the institutional constraints youre operating under, this committee is not done with this issue at all. We will be in touch about next steps. We do look forward to working with you to quell iing the chao unleashed when the letter was sent in august and thank all of you for come iing. The meeting is adjourned. If you missed any of the hearing, youll be able to find it online at c span. Org. Also today Memorial Services were held across the country to mark the 18th anniversary of the 9 11 terror attacks. Tonight on cspan, well have President Trumps remarks at the white house and speaking at the pentagon b ceremony at 8 00 eastern. And then at 9 15, todays service from pennsylvania. On cspan 2, the new york city remembrance ceremony. Next some of todays events mark ing the 9 11 anniversary starting with President Trump at the white house