Transcripts For CSPAN3 Hearing On Deporting Critically Ill Kids 20240713

Decision to deport children with critical illnesses, a decision that was recently reversed following public outrage and pressure from the subcommittee. I would not recognize myself for five minutes to give an opening statement, and then i will turn to the Ranking Member. We are here to get to the bottom of the administrations mysterious campaign to deport critically ill children and their families. It appears that this policy has thankfully being reversed. After congress and the American People rose up in an outcry at the inhumanity in display in this policy. Im going to treat this hearing is not only in honor of the memory of our late beloved chairman logic cummings. But as a hearing in direct pursuit of a policy objective, that was close to his heart. Threatened deportation of six children such an outrage to chairman cummings, that was very last official act for his death was to issue subpoenas to administration to account to what the measures do account. On wednesday, in the waning hours of his life, through all his pain and difficulty, chairman cummings recognize the indelible stain this policy would leave on our, nation and he may have been holding the government accountable. His final official act, and we now have a sacred obligation to follow through on his subpoenas to make sure that we defend some of the most Vulnerable People on the planet. Six children who have come, and strangers to our land to seek medical assistance. So to our Witnesses Today, i want to be clear, this follows chairman cummings promised to unearth the truth behind his policy and his desire to ensure that the policy is truly reversed and that our government treats people in this category with the dignity they deserve. Not only do we owe that to our late beloved chairman but we owe it to maria is about race, to jonathan sanchez, and all the immigrants whose health and whose lives were threatened by the policy implemented by uscis. Uscis must explain what the current policy is on deferred action. It cannot keep the process shrouded in secrecy while these kids wait to hear their fate. If we go to the slide, september 18th, acting secretary of Homeland Security Kevin Mcaleenan ordered the acting homan director, mr. Cuccinelli, who is here with us today to quote, ensure that effective immediately, uscis resumes consideration of nonmilitary deferred action requests, on a discretionary case by case basis. It is unclear whether uscis actually granting relief to anyone since reversing course. He further ordered uscis to ensure that the procedure for considering and refining to deferred action requests is consistent throughout uscis and that discretionary case by case deferred action is granted only based on compelling facts and circumstances. What exactly does this mean . What is the problem the uscis right effects . What changes are being considered. Will only outside state cosby consulted . We want to have maximum transparency to ensure that uscis is not imposing unreasonable requirements an immigrant who deserve our attention and our mercy. In the meantime, uscis should explain what will happen to the people whose prior deferrals have expired while the renewals are still under review. We have heard from the family of a 12 year old boy with an incurable condition that could cause him to bleed to death if he is not treated correctly. Both of his parents applied in march to renew their deferrals but had been waiting for months without any decision at all. His fathers deferral expired in august. His mothers deferral expires in january. Without a, deferral neither parent can be authorized to stay at or work in the United States, threatening their ability to support and care for their sick son, so, what does uscis recommend families like his due while the agency is trying to decide how to reinstate deferred action . How many more people are stuck in this kind of limbo, and what can we do to protect them . We want basic answers to these questions and become here not any kind of gotcha spirit, we just want to deal with a very serious problem that was brought to our committee. The ongoing confusion regarding deferred action reflects the same kind of chaos that apparently produced this policy in the first place and that prompted our last hearing and for which the administration i hope today will provide us answers. What little weve been able to learn about how this policy would be implicated implies it was undertaken without any effort to ascertain what its effects would be on the people affected. We heard compelling stories of people who were directly harmed by that policy. A 24yearold woman suffering from a rare disease testified that deportation would be quote, a death sentence for me. She told us, i want to live. I am a human being with hopes and dreams in my life. Jonathan sanchez, a 16yearold suffering from cystic fibrosis, which is a disease that affects people in my family. Jonathan sanchez told us that upon learning he was facing deportation, he broke down in tears pleading, quote, i do not want to die, i dont want to die. If i go back to honduras now, i will die. In his words, quote, it is incredibly unfair to kick out sick kids who are in the hospital or at home taken treatments and you are just trying to have better opportunities to live. It is obvious from testimony that uscis i did not realize what the implications of its policy would be or new and decided to go ahead anyway. Either reality i think would be damning but the effect on murray and jonathan wouldve been entirely foreseeable if uscis had sought Public Feedback before instituting the new policy. According to uscis, they failed to consult on a single external stakeholder before jeopardizing these families. Making matters worse, usa as did not issue any public announcement about the policy or provide any guidance to people in murray or jonathan situation, or any of the critically ill children in their families about what would come next to what they should be doing. Why not . What was the reason for the secrecy and surprise . Is it uscis is practice to implement massive policy shifts like this without providing Public Notice . Sadly, the threat of deportation of sick kids is just one example of this administrations mistreatment of immigrant children. It is not the only one. Uscis over to killer is engaged in a pattern of development a policies that danger children. Since mr. Cuccinelli, he took, office uscis has eliminated automatic citizenship for some children of u. S. Soldiers stationed overseas, introduce new barriers for immigrant kids fleeing Domestic Abuse in their own country and rolled out a public charge rule. That is seared many parents and removing the children from help nutritional services. Each of these acts of an affront to the central tenet of chairman cummings philosophy, children, the living messages that we sent forward to a future that we ourselves will never see. The last hearing that chairman cummings attended was our september 11th hearing on this issue. Tweeting children with dignity was so important to him that he made a point to come down from baltimore despite is advanced failing health. At that hearing, a lot just said, quote i really do think things we are in a moral situation. People ares trying to live. Theyre trying to breathe the air of our country. They are trying to be better, theyre trying to be healthier. Chairman cummings who himself was trying to live at that moment, trying to be healthy, order that these children have the same access to medical treatment that he did. We will honor the chairmans memory and the humidity of all. Though seeking deferred action, by remaining vigilant, conducting rigorous oversight and working to guarantee that this Administration Treats Immigrants with the dignity it deserves. Mr. Cuccinelli, at mr. Evans, we are delighted that you came today, but we want to make sure that we see no further bureaucratic stonewalling and confusion on these matters. We want clarity. We are here for answers and we will not stop until we get them. Thank you for coming. I am now delighted to recognize the distinguished Ranking Member of our community, mr. Roy. Thank you, mister chairman. Thank you mr. Cuccinelli, mr. Allen, thank you for coming up here and visiting with us today. I will reiterate what i said here last week. Obviously our continued prayers are with the family of chairman cummings with his staff. We actually had a great event in the capitol hill last week, i wanted to participate in that, and we will continue to move forward in this committee. I carry for the chairmans legacy and wanting to do what is right, and to be better. I do want to say one thing. As we head into this, and it will not surprise the chairman that i will raise this issue that currently there are two depositions going on, and those depositions, at least two were scheduled to day, one i think is going on now in another part of the capital. It is impossible for me to be in two places at once, so im just here with the Ranking Member of the subcommittee and i want to carry it my duty shoe, that i am unable to hear that and unable to go easily see transcript, unable to easily catch up on what im missing because we are hearing i dont think thats the right way to carry out things. I think there will be a vote tomorrow on something on this process, but i was just as part of a problem realtime, so anyone watching, this this is the problem. Here i am sitting, there very few members on our side of the aisle, i would also send my prayers and wishes to mr. House whose father passed away yesterday and so i know he is not able to join us today, but i dont think this is the way we should be conducting those kinds of inquiries. Today, we have a hearing regarding the Administration Decision to deport critically ill children and their families. I would take issue with that title. I do not believe that was what the administration was seeking to do. I think they were talking but a process change and that we ought to get to that. This is a topic that involves deferred action request for people not lawfully present, seeking to stay, for sympathetic reasons. This is not the first. You mentioned a hearing we had on 9 11, but to be clear, deferred action is not a program. Deferred action is a decision, right . It is a decision it is a judgment call reserved for those with prosecutorial powers we ought to treat it that way and then we ought to have a discussion about policy changes, if there are any to be had, for anybody who was here and has overstayed a visa, and is in a situation that the chairman described. And was dealing with policy change that we are taking uscis at the, role it has no real underlying authority carry out, if i understand correctly, and then it would leave decisionmaking to those who actually have that power. At the time of the first hearing, uscis has already announced it will evaluate pending claims. Uscis a letter to the committee today before the hearing noting that individuals who had sent to production requests uscis were not under him in front of removal. It might be saying that none of the deferred action individuals have been targeted, and in a letter sent to the committee on september 19th, as the chairman, notes returning the deferred action process that was in place august 6th, so for better or, worse known as being treated any differently than they were on august 6th. I think what we have here is a question of how to have the right policy. Each and every one of, us i have any sympathy for anyone of us who is sick and living with uncertainty but we need real solutions. No one here in the administration wants anyone to not be able to get treatment or be treated unfairly or to live it uncertainty. But weve got to deal with the real world. We have people here who status and we have to figure what to do with that. Perpetuating a stay here over your visa and beg for intermittent to your deferrals they are not really rooted in the law, as he deferred action from those who do not prosecute and leave them in additional limbo, that is not a good policy. And yet that is the existing policy. If Congress Wants a different visa class or other ways to solve the problem, they should act. Congress want to solve problems,s congress should act. Congress has the power to make policies. This is not about gotcha politics. We should all seek solutions. I would remind our democratic laws that this was at the root of the scottish decision regarding the socalled daca class in the current debate on the daca class with regards to approving status for people who overstay their existing because, we have deferred action which by definition is prosecutorial discretion. That is what we are talking about here. We cant afford, we cannot give a status to a group of people in the name of prosecutorial discretion. And for perspective this involves a decision that affects roughly 900, people and that is currently at the status quo anti, but lets think what is actually happening right now. Border patrol agents along the southern border encounter Million People trying to illegally enter the country this year. 1 million. Today we are talking about nine, hundred and it is very important for those 900 but that number, specific numbers, under 77, 509, plus inadmissible,s there were 1. 4 eight billion enforcement actions, just putting in perspective the numbers, we are talking about 900 hundred 51 that we are talking about here in apprehensive. We are not talking with the two under 24 pounds of fentanyl seized crossing our southern border this fiscal year. One little sugar packet of fentanyl will kill everybody in this, room and weve got 224 pounds of it to come across our border. We are not hearing about the 1700 inbound weapons intercepted this, year up 300 from last year. Were not talking about the fact that cbp apprehended gang members from 20 different gangs. There are roughly 576,000 immigrants over half 1 Million People have been giving a final order of removal by a judge they are still wandering around the United States. According to ice, theyve seen a double digit drop in criminal arrest this year, theyve had to point at the border, this is what we have interior enforcement, we have real problems. Cartels and traffickers are taking advantage interpreter traffickers abused children as props for asylum. There are 473,000 family units this year. This is the highest on record. We can discuss the 500,000 reported case of fraud from alleged family unit the children who are being split difficult to get to come to a United States, lets talk about them getting abused today on the journey to mexico. We had 50,000 apprehensions in september, 50, thousand why . We had 100,000 that is the reality of whats happening on our border today, we are not having hearings on that. We are having to hearing on something that has no discernible difference from where it was on august 6th. I understand the concern of the chairman about some of the questions, about the policies but we are talking with something that has been largely addressed with respect to the concerns that the majority has and if we want to have a conversation with the policies, still around the roundtable and to grow we can do to have legislation that might address some of those concerns, lets talk about the other things we could do. Fixing asylum, catching release, flores, tvpra, all of these things could be fixed one piece of paper and what if we had the will to do it. We could find i. C. E. And Border Patrol properly. We could find i. C. E. At the level that president obama asked for, upwards of a billion dollars, in the unaccompanied alien children becoming 2014 2015, and yet we only got 200 billion vice in june after demanding to get a supplemental, on that 200 billion was constrained are not able to be. Use this area today is an issue that affects not hundred people for whom we have great sympathy and we ought to address the issue, but on an average day this year, that is three times less than the total number crossing during one Border Patrol shift. Think about that. One Border Patrol shift. Todays cbp apprehends roughly 1400 migrants a day. On an average day in, may that number was 5000. If the chairman wants to address the fact that these deferrals are not actual programs and our prosecutorial discretion, lets discuss that and figure out a system that will work and that we can Work Together and try to figure that out, and i would love to do that in the context of our very, very broken immigration system. Thank you, mister chairman. Thank you for your very thoughtful remarks, and as, always i am eager to work with you end with all of our colleagues on immigration reform, but you correctly the limit the object of todays hearings, and we are going to do it, and i will be very helpful that we get the answers we need and we can move on to work on other stuff. There are several members of the committee have come today, both out of their interest in the subject but also in a tribute to chairman cummings, so without objection, i would wave them on, mr. Arena, mr. Cooper, and another are members of the broader committee who are joining us on the subcommittee with miss kelly and mr. Gomez who arrived over here, and also, thank you for telling us about mister heiss his father. I wasnt aware of that. Our prayers and our thoughts go up to him. It seems were going to do many funerals these days, but we are sending him the strength and encouragement. All, right with, that i want to formally welcome our Witnesses Today, Ken Cuccinelli who was the acting director of the u. S. Citizenship and immigration services, and Homeland Security. Welcome, mr. Cuccinelli, as well as the acting director of immigration and customs enforcement, i. C. E. , at the u. S. Department Homeland Security. If the witnesses would kindly rise and raise their right hands and we will begin by swearing you in. Do you swear or affirm the testimony youre about to give is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the, truth so help you god . Then let the record show they would have answered in the, affirmative thank, you you may be, seated please speak directly to the microphones without objection. Any written statements you brought with you or that you decide to provide it will be made part of our record. Mr. Cuccinelli, you are now recognized to give an oral presentation of your testimony. Good, morning chairman and Ranking Member roy and distinguished members of the subcommittee. First, i want to express my condolences on the passing of chairman cummings. I appreciate his dedication to representing the people of marylands seventh district for 23 years. My name is kim cuccinelli, on the acting director of United States citizenship and immigration services. Uscis administers the nations lawful immigration system. The agencys mission is to safeguard the integrity and promise of that system, by efficiently unfairly adjudicating requests for immigration benefits while protecting americans securing the homeland and honoring our values. I can tell you that i am extremely proud of the work in professionals and i see every day by the employees at uscis and services. Fiscal year 2017 just ended, uscis achieved money President Trumps goal is to make our u. S. Immigration work better for america. As an agency, we have tirelessly worked hand in hand with our fellow dhs components to answer President Trumps calls to address the ongoing crisis at our southern border. We have taken significant steps to limit the loopholes in our asylum system, combatting fraudulent and frivolous claims, and strengthening the protections we have in place to preserve a humanitarian sustenance for those really eligible for it. The workload uscis faces each year is staggering, in fiscal year 2019, adjudicated nearly seven and a half million requests for immigration benefits, a 14 increase over the previous fiscal year, and that is with only a 2 increase in fee income. Demonstrating improved costeffectiveness, even as we face many challenges. This workload represents the full spectrum of immigration benefits that our laws provide to those seeking to come to the United States, temporarily or permanently, on those who seeks to become citizens of this nation. Last, year uscis naturalized 833,000 u. S. Citizens. The most more than a decade. Deferred action is the exercise of discretion to defer Removal Action on a case by case basis against an alien for a certain period of time. Deferred action is not an immigration benefit over specific form of relief. It does not provide lawful immigration status and does not excuse any past or future periods of unlawful presence. Importantly, deferred action can be terminated at any time at the agencys discretion. Historically, uscis does not receive many nonmilitary non dhaka deferred action request. For the past few, years uscis has received approximately 1000 such requests annually. Some of these requests are for a Family Support or medical issues. This is frequently been incorrectly reported arrest characterized by the media and some in congress as a medical deferred action program. To be clear, the it just does not and has not every administrative medical different action program. Only congress can provide permanent immigration relief to an entire class of aliens. Deferred action, enforcement aggression, to notify alien of the agencys decision to remove that aliens and remove however, uscis does not enforce orders of removal, thus, to better align uscis with its mission of administering the National Immigration system, uscis to terminate field offices would no longer accept nonmilitary quest for deferred action. This redirect of Agency Resources did not affect daca, which remains in effect according to the nationwide injunction all cases go through the court system. It also did not affect other deferred action requests that uscis are visitors under statute or other policies regulations or court orders. On september 2nd, uscis and how is the agency would reopen previously pending nonmilitary deferred action requests. Further, on september 18th, acting secretary mcaleenan directed uscis to resume consideration of nonmilitary deferred action requests under the cries discretionary case by case basis. Except as otherwise required by an act of statute regulation or court. Order he ensure that the procedure for considering and responding to deferred action requests is consistent throw uscis and that discretionary case by case the production is granted only based on compelling facts and circumstances. Ill cases that were denied around august seven 2019 have now been reopened are being considered, pursuant to the acting secretarys september 18th directive. That includes my statement, thank you. Good morning chairman raskin, Ranking Member roy and distinguished members of the subcommittee. I also want to express my condolences on the past minute passing of chairman cummings. September 11th 2000, 19 i. C. E. Testified on this matter before this committee. At the time of that hearing, the i. C. E. Witness, the acting executive the sources of associate rector for the removal operations, tim, robyn stated he was not aware of any wet ice being involved in the decision to end the program. Further explain that ice lacks in a program or mechanics to consider affirmative deferred action requests, and described a variety of ways that ice does utilizes discretion, as appropriate, on a case by case basis, throughout Immigration Enforcement process. Contrary to claims made by this committee and the media about the willingness to answer questions during that hearing, the only questions our witness declined to answer regarding possible future answers, relating to uscis issues of heat which he had no knowledge. As the committee was aware, within a few days at the hearing, acting secretary mcaleenan directed uscis to resume consideration of nonmilitary deferred action requests, on a discretionary case by case basis. In addition to previous testimony, they followed another letter dated october 15th, the adjust for the clarified that ice had no part in uscis is a previous decision, even though isis discretionary abilities are not at issue here today, and as uscis has resumed consideration of these requests, a process in which ice is not involved, im here today im prepared to answer questions you may have regarding ices roll, or more specifically, like thereof, in this matter. However, i would clearly state law the continued repetition thats a tremendous disservice to the dedicated professional men and women of ice, who just as importantly, it does a disservice to the American Public deserve transparency and facts regarding the operation of their government. In a day and age where individuals are committing violent acts from i. C. E. Offices and making threats against isis officers, agents, employees and their families, do continue to suggest that i said some role in this process is not only an accurate, as confirmed by information already provided to this committee, but also irresponsible. So im here today to defend the men and women of ice, either once again set the record straight. I look forward your questions. Thank you much for your testimony both of you, and at this point, having permitted to several members to join the subcommittee, will be with us today, we will move to the five minute questioning portion and i will recognize myself for five minutes first. Mr. Cuccinelli, threatening to the port sick kids was an appalling thing and it was public revulsion at this prospect that assembled us in our first hearing on it, and we were very glad that the administration reversed course and decided not to pursue that policy. I must ask you what, exactly is the policy in place right now . I understand, the circumstances that had been enunciated, are you considering being in the country for the purposes of receiving necessary medical treatment to be a compelling factor and circumstance . Mister chairman, the acting secretary returned this essentially to the process we were in before august 7th, and i would note that there is no program. That is part of the challenge here. This is about withholding action, not undertaking a formal process. It is about withholding action, in fact. And you saw what the acting secretary wrote, with respect to his phrase granted, in compelling facts and circumstances, that is the only, what i would call, substantive commentary in our workforce, in terms of reopening these cases and how to process them, and otherwise everything has continued as it was before. Okay, so as i understand it, there were at least 424 families whose deferred action request were pending, being told that if they did not that they could report possible deportation but then they were automatically reopened after the reversal of the policy. Can you tell me how many of those requests, of those 424 families, have been approved at this point . I cant relate to the specific 424. Those were ones given notice around august 7th. There were over 700 cases pending in that time, so we completed as of earlier this week, and since the reopening, 41 cases it was the last number i heard the beginning of the week, but 41 cases where people were granted. That is where im going. I have no idea whether those 40, one how they relate to the 424 who were among those who got notices on august 7th. Okay, but ive got to, say this is an occasion for some frustration because we requested a lot of documents on, this and i think we received one document, which is basically the statement that you received, about compelling facts and circumstances, so, we dont know what is going on there. We are sure there was both a formal reversal of the policy, i understand there is no formal program, but there was a policy of allowing people in this situation to stay in the country. Then it appeared there was a reversal of that policy and that we were going to some of these people essentially for deportation proceedings. Then there was congressional and public outrage, i think of a bipartisan character. That policy was reversed, but we want to make sure that what was going to take place on this sweeping encounter at oracle level, it is not taking place at a less visible ad hoc level. We want to make sure that the prior policy really is reinstitute it, and so is that your sense of what is going to happen, before the 24 people, do we have to have a hearing on each of these cases . I guess what im asking. Of, course we dont testify about individual cases, and i understand that you would like to see more written material, but we gave you in response to one of the letters, the entire universe of what is written on this topic and did not even cover one side of one page, because this is a pure process question in terms of how usc ease handles internally. And for other things, standards are laid out. We dont have a lot here. We dont have regulation. This is not taking action. It is withholding action. And so be on the secretaries states about grants only on compelling effects in circumstances, which i cant even compared anything before august 7th, because no equivalent existed before august 7th, that is the only item that has been added to the materials or information that in adjudicating office or my reference. The way i would treat that is that the policy before was the cases of people being in the country to receive medical treatment established a compelling reason to be here, and these are all people in fact some circumstances. That is certainly the way i would understand it, and it is the way i would interpret, it i think i speak for a lot of my colleagues in saying that we would not want this to be the occasion for a new bureaucratic narrowing of the possibility of being in the country to continue the medical treatment they were here to get. When my time is up and im going to go ahead and recognize miss maloney, but we will come back around but well have some more details of the situation, this morning, or a recognized for five minutes. Okay, i will recognize mr. Roy. Okay, then we will pass it down. Thank, you mister chairman and thank you, gentlemen, for being here today. It is certainly a sensitive issue when we are talking about individuals that have medical problems, and it is always, we always want to make sure that we handle things properly, so i just want to make sure that for the record everything is straight. We are talking about different action, which means, we are deferring taking action against people that may or may not be in the country here, overstaying a visa here, while, they are here illegally, that is the request for the deferred action. So it is a request for the for action and the rules under the law, you are just enforcing the law currently on the books . Thats correct. Youre not making or anything else you, are just forcing it is on the books. Thats correct. So when people receive letters that said, if you are not in the country illegally, you need to show up, did the letter say action may be taken . Ye so the word made was in there. Okay. So it was not saying this is actually what, happened to saying, this may happen. Correct, at the end of the time, period and they were form letters adopted from other usage in the agency. It is pretty standard language and at the end of that time period, adjudicating officers would then revisit the case. So if i was a person would got one of those letters i can assure made my case i would not have necessarily been forced to leave the country. Well, it could be the case that the ncaa is not a feud, but of course, we never really reach that point in this process with the initial august 7th shutdown of this process, as it was reopened less than a month later. I dont think its any persons intent to make you believe he had a medical, problem im just making sure the people who are here actually had a decision made to let them stay by the u. S. Government. Well, it wouldve taken uscis out of the prosecutorial role of exercising prosecutorial discretion, which is what deferred action is. They were not have replaced with anything else, and it is, and hadnt rolled forward, than it would have been considered in the normal course, following from those letters. So, in other words, what really needs to happen is that we as congress should set up some kind of law, a program or anything, else it is not really program, it is just what we are not taking action on something that we should be. That is absolutely correct, and there is an equivalent. In the state department context, there is a bee to visa, people can come visit temporarily for medical purposes. They have a whole process set up for that. It is temporary and that is established pursuant to law passed by congress, what we are talking about today, it is not based on line, it is not based on regulation, since it is much like the executive creating law deciding how to use deferred, action and inherent prosecutorial authority, to achieve a goal, and if there is a goal in which Congress Agrees should be agreed and they pass a lot to, it i promise you we will implement that law. I think that is an important distinction, that you are not trying to do anything other than enforce the laws of our nation and if we as congress think that that law needs to be changed, and we make the changes, you will abide by the changes. Absolutely. Okay. And, again we are doing a discretionary case by case scenario, i think that does not leave any certainty for the people trying to enforce our law, or for the people that need to come and get treatment. Well, even deferred action can be revoked at any time, and it is not an immigration status, so, because it does not have a legal foundation, it is a very uncertain course for people to be on. I, mean deferred action, we can differ many things. It does not necessarily make them legal, and i guess that is the point of what im saying. We can decide we want to not enforce irs law and not collects taxes from a certain amount of people. It doesnt mean they still dont law oh not that they are following the law. And i would say to this committee, rather than replowing the ground we have already plowed, a decision as me change, i was just we give the administration and individuals trying to enforce our law the tools they need a congress to act on this rather than other things, thank you. I bring in the congressman from illinois. Thank, you mister chair. I want to understand i. C. E. His role in this process. Uscis to not notify the public about this disastrous decision they made an august. Add to the confusion, once the public found out the media reports uscis claim that i. C. E. Would be handling medical deferred action request Going Forward. At the, time i said it was never even on, with his hand, off according to press, reports ice was voted blindsided by the move from uscis, and ice was quote, scrambling to respond. Mr. Albums, was that true . Were you blindsided . Yes, as we have put it, right back to the committee, there were some discussions over the years with regard to this process, and anything contemporaneous with that decision was made by csis. I wasnt and how could you find out about the decision . I want to see that a chief of staff or people chris brought to my attention. And when was that . I dont have the exact date, it would be when i hit the media. It would be the day we put it that statement, so i think we are the 25th 27th of august but im not exactly sure. So that was the first time you learned that you are serious was telling the price that i. C. E. Would be taking over, differing action requests . I believe so, yes. We know from uscis is written responses to the subcommittee on september 24th that the agency has been discussing ending deferred action since october, 2017. In the same responses, we asked about collaboration with i. C. E. , uscis confirmed the discussions dig take place part of august 7th, 2019. To which is . It was i. C. E. Blindsided by the decision or had i. C. E. Been involved in planning this for months, even years . Without getting too far to the deliberative process, as i mentioned, there were discussions that were held over five years of work agencies with regards to this process, but nothing had been settled on that or agreements with regards to how that would go forward or be implemented, and they this largely fell off the mat or disappeared when you are serious one on their own. So was anyone of i. C. E. Aware of the exact discussions . Again, without getting into a little bit of process, we discussed lots of different programs on issues. There are discussions as to whether or not, there are discussions as to whether these were decisions that we were involved with, and it apparently just fell off the map. You there is nothing with regard to those type of discussions. Do you want i. C. E. To assume responsibility for the production from uscis . I think the directors already spoken to, that but to our comment, and do a few weeks, ago i. C. E. Does not have a process or mechanism to affirmatively adjudicate or provide any sort of deferred action. I. C. E. Exercises prosecutorial discretion with regard to hutu arrest, to detain, and it ultimately, if a judgment were for someone to be removed, to actually get remove. So we do have a process on the back end of that where someone can file for a state of removal issued by an immigration judge. As we are prosecutorial discretion lies. And happy discuss this with the acting secretary . We may have ive spoken with the acting director, certainly, after the fact. I probably was in one meeting with the acting secretary, but largely we have been removed from this process since it was put forward because it was not something that i see was involved in. And what are you recommendations . My recommendations are that it remains with the agency that adjudicate applications. At any point in, time has i. C. E. Considered implementing a deferred action process similar to the one it uscis, where an immigrant can proactively, secretly, under deportation proceedings . Not a proactive program. We have utilized for adoption in certain instances. For example, if there is a witness that we needed a criminal investigation or someone cooperate with a criminal investigation, that we were working, or that another Law Enforcement agency has and has requested. Again, it is only in conjunction with our Law Enforcement mission. It is i. C. E. Playing any role in the uscis review and updating of this policy that the acting secretary ordered . No, maam. You agree with the decision to order critically ill children to leave the country within three days or face deportation . I dont think that is what the letter said. What a letter required them to do is respond, and i would refer that to mr. Cuccinelli but the letter require them to respond within 30 days to make a determination as to whether or not a notice to appear would be filed. Notice to appear its only becoming part of that process. That begins the Immigration Court process. Ultimately, no one can be removed from this country absent a removal order for an immigration, judge so that is where i see stepson on the back end of that process. Evaluate our case by case basis someone files a stable, if someone has a significant humanitarian concern, a medical issue, that, sort that is when i see you can exercise prosecutorial discretion and grant that stay. I know im past my, time but here is a letter that says it within 33 days of the date, so now what you are saying. It says 33 days from the day, report for serious for determination as to whether or not a notice to appear will be issued. That notice to appear is not a removal order. That notice to appear is what starts Immigration Court process. Again, ultimately, only an immigration judge, except in certain circumstances that would not be relevant here, have the ability to issue a ruling. Thank you, mister albums. The general it is time is expired i know this will become an issue so i do want to read that issue that sentence we are on the same page here. If this was sent to, in this, case Maria Isabelle saraf but it was the exact same under the right to hundreds of, people this is what caused the controversy and a crisis in the first place. You are not authorized to remain in the United States. If you fail to depart United States within 33 days of the date of this letter, uscis may issue a notice to appear and commence removal proceedings against you. Excuse me, with the Immigration Court. This may result in your being ruefully noted states and found ineligible for a future visa or other u. S. Immigration benefits. So that was what was sent to critically ill children. That is what caused the crisis. Again, we are delighted that there was a decision to reverse this new policy, and with mr. Cuccinelli, there was no program in place, but there was a policy of not pursuing these, i think for the reason that was implicit in something that our colleague said, which is that this is a very tiny number of people compared to the whole universe of people who are actual immigrants to the country and most of them are here precisely to get medical treatment, so mr. Roy is passed this round and im going to recognized as maloney for five minutes. I want to thank the chairman for focusing on this important issue, this is one of several hearings that he has initiated on the subject, and i would like to ask director cuccinelli about the standards to be applied to deferred action programs. I want to make sure he understands that to many families, this is literally a life and death issue. Many, people some on the other side of the, aisle have indicated that they are not here illegally, but many are here legally, and they are under the deferred, action yet they are being threatened with deportation, and sitting in the front row behind you is nicholas a spin osaka, and he traveled here today to try to save his daughters life. He is seven years old and her name is julia, and there he is, julia, fighting for her life. She is in a special Treatment Program at seattles childrens hospital, because shes had most of her lower intestine removed and needs a full team of doctors to keep her alive. Julia is a u. S. Citizen, but her parents are not. Her mother is her nurse. Deferred action has allowed julias mom to stay in this country. But her deferral expired in september, her father helped support her to, his deferral expired three days ago, and they both applied for renewal this june but still have not heard about their cases. It has not been decided and julius doctors say that if he leaves this country and goes back to her home country, she will die. This gives her parents three options. I was a she only has three. Stay in the United States with their, daughter even though their deferrals have expired, leave the country and leave the daughter behind without any family to take care of her, or take their daughter home at which point her doctors say she would surely die, so i want to politely and respectfully ask you, mr. Cuccinelli, to look at mr. Espinal was a. He is right behind you. Mr. Aspen i, raise your hand so you can see you, and look him straight in the eye, and as a professional, ask him which of those options he should use. Madam chairman, dan reno was representing uscis at a last hearing, and one of the things he said that i think humanizes the agency and not only mine, but the agencys position in many cases is that the case we have to deal with other kinds of ones were talking about today. There are cases where it is possible that the long calls were very sympathetic person or family im reclaiming my time because i dont have much time. We had many people here at our hearings that were brought to this country by american scientists because they wanted to study their disease so that we could possibly save their lives and have medical research that could save the lives of many other people, and i feel its a very human decision, but i think its terribly wrong to deport someone who has come here illegally, and in this case she is here legally but i would like to ask, you what would you decide if it was your child, and youre talking about humanizing the situation . Does whatever they can to take care of their children. Giving back to the specifics can you say here today that julias parents will not be penalized for standing while they fight for the request to stay here . If you put a human face audit, this policy has a devastating effect on people. If this administration claims it has been reversed then they need to tell people clearly in writing to all professionals in the government and to the people that were here exactly what this means in realtime and what the real possibilities are. I find this language discretionary and case by case basis. What does this mean . Can you get back and writing to me of this to find it in my time is up id like to see you to find this exactly for the purpose. We do not at spencer. I know this is not an action of programmer policy it is the withholding of action and you just described what might make an actual individual standards in a piece of legislation with scientific studies and doing medical care which sounds to me like you would make an excellent piece of legislation. We dont have that. Would it be applied exactly the same standard to defer action Going Forward as the agency used in the past . Yes or no . We did not explain we did not impose any standards in the case by case decision. Which then goes up functionally to for Regional Directors which are employees which talk to one another primarily to make sure that they are implementing this process consistently across the country. There are no standards other than what we see here from the acting secretary of the language of facts and circumstances. We dont have a legal basis and we welcome that to provide training . The time is expired we are there is one question embedded in the general ladies line of questions which was what would the recommendation be i heard you just say that parents will do all parents will do whatever they can for their kids and that they should continue to stay. Of course all, of you know that i can he there give the advice at the table and take the individual cases and accepting full well how the cases and the facts and circumstances like the secretary did and i dont want to do that you. Thank you. I am pleased to recognize miss pressley for her five minutes of questioning. Thank you very much mister chairman. This hearing has been a Long Time Coming later spent commentary from my colleagues across the aisle that we have Better Things to work on it should not be wasting our time. I never wanted to lose sight of the impact on real peoples lives. Over talking about policy and the American People said this year. So we are not wasting our time. Its disappointing that took these subpoenas to go before our committee today. In a moment ill turn more tear action. First, i want to send to the families that have been impacted by this egregious policy shift. Families like my constituents and serena ubinas and her mom. I told them when i met them that i would fight for their children as if they were my own. I intend to honor that. 16 year old Jonathan Bailey came to share his story. He spoke about how fibrosis has impacted his body and the death of his younger sister then honduras who suffered similarly up. The reckless actions of your agency as is very ability to receive life preserve medical care which is just unconscionable. For 83 days, mr. Chairman, nearly three months now. Weve been demanding answers of this administration. Mr. Cuccinelli you testified that you want more paperwork. But you simply dont have it. None of us here or government i dont want more paperwork. What we do want is a real answer and justice for these families and a peace of mind and they deserve that and the children deserve that. We have been demanding this administration for tremendous efforts to report the neighbors and their families. Well i am relieved, the policy has been reversed and people deserve answers and they will be able to remain in this country i like to thank the brief families for these and countless others an imminent fear and having to fight an illness that stepped up to shot light as well as the attorneys in the organization. Id like to request the consent for the record at first civil rights in boston as well as the american immigrant lawyers association. Without objection. Thank you. Your agencies have failed to turn over a signal documentary letter. In response to the subpoenas and way the chairman rest in power for the last official before his transition is shameful and consistent. I hope that you can answer the question that i have. They continue a refused to identify who made the decision to end consideration for the you see i. S. No it wants to put their name on this disastrous cruel and unamerican paul policy. They made that decision to be held into account. Mr. Cuccinelli, i remind you youre under oath. Who made the decision for the uscis to process the action request on august seven . I was my decision as the acting director. Do you stand by that decision . That decision has been reversed. Today, they have perceived no notification of the reversal of that. Can you tell me why that is . I think they have. We are a paper agency when it comes to matters like this. So, when cases are closed. A physical file is wrapped up and mailed to a Storage Facility and reopened the cases. Sorry, im running out of time i apologize. Just trying to answer the question. I have to reclaim my time. Would it be fair to say that you are not aware of some of the most consequential decisions and policies coming out of your agency . Is that initially where he said you did not know it was coming . I did not say that today. Earlier today in your testimony, yes or no, mr. Cuccinelli, did anyone at the white house play a role in this decision . This was an agency decision, solely, and other than discussion within the department of Homeland Security. Reclaiming, im, sorry did Stephen Miller play a role in this decision or not . Im not going to get into specific commentary back and forth, but i made this decision. The only discussions sorry, im sorry, for the record, mr. Cuccinelli as you noted, im under oath, so we need to be truthful. Yes, you are, so please answer, yes or no im not to just answer what you want me to answer. No, im asking you to answer yes or no, was the president involved in this decision . We cannot, as you well know, talk about content of discussions im sorry, but you just said that you made the decision yes. Okay, so was the president involved, yes or no . I made this decision. Was Stephen Miller . Alone. Your time is expired, thank you very much and we will turn now to miss mueller. Thank, you chairman. Miller, you are recognized for five minutes. Thank you. We have a crisis on our border. We have over 850,000 total apprehensions this year on our southern border. I commended thank President Trump for stepping up and taking action for my foot colleagues across the aisle have refused to appropriately and adequately address this crisis. During her last hearing on this topic, i posed the question regarding all of the rhetoric surrounding the crisis at our southern border and now i want to propose it and pose it to you. Director cuccinelli and director albums. Has all of this rhetoric helped move the ball forward on solving our nations larger immigration issues . Madam congresswoman, i cannot say that thats the case. Certainly there is extraordinary Public Interest in the subject and so you would expect a certain amount of rhetoric back and forth, but when it gets in the way of constructive discussions, and in fact, it has to some degree in the very subject area you are talking about deferred action, which we have focused on in the case, in medical cases, but i keep hearing reference to medical deferred action which does not exist. By example, inaccuracy and that does not help the public discussion and the harder the rhetoric gets the harder it is for people to step back and have a constructive discussion even about our disagreements and how to implement our agreement and so the answer to your question is hard to argue with. I think all of us own some piece of that but yet it uscis we just keep pressing forward to do the best job we can, whenever that environment is. Thank you, mr. Orbans . You are right in stating that we have a security crisis, both in terms of illegal aliens but also in terms of opioids and other contraband that are being smuggled into and out of this country isis dhs has frankly made it clear for many weeks now that i see it was not involved in this process, and yet here i sit what we have a tremendous crisis at the border, a tremendous Opioid Crisis. Last year we see east, you mentioned several hundred pound, we seized 11,700 pounds of fentanyl, we have to discover suffering grave miscarriage of this drug. I have testified in front of congress more than anybody from i. C. E. In the past two to three years, we are willing to come and speak about anything that my agency does and i am proud to do so, but when im dragged into an issue that has nothing to do with what my agency does, it does take away a resource, as im sure you understand, preparation for a hearing and paperwork on time, and i will also say that we did provide our documentation with regard to the subpoenas to dhs prior to the deadline it was established by this committee. Well, as you may, know my district is ground zero with the Opioid Crisis so it is very important to me. How has the strategy proposed by our president helped curb the flow of the illicit drugs . So, we have worked diligently, but domestically internationally with regards to trying to address the Opioid Crisis. As i mentioned, we see is more than almost 12,000 pounds last year. That is a significant increase over the prior year, we initiated more cases into narcotics organizations. We have expanded our border enforcement security teams to 69 this year, focusing a lot on International Mail facilities because we know a lot of the precursors in the material necessary to create these opioids is coming from overseas, often from china, so we have dedicated the resources towards where we think will have the most impact. Obviously, of Congress Give us more in resources, we can certainly do more. Just as an aside, i even noticed a year or so ago in my neighborhood all of a sudden theyre all these personnel surrounding a house, waiting on a mail delivery so it happens everywhere. Your opening statement, you also mentioned the threats and attacks on i. C. E. Officers, personnel and their families, can you shed some light on that . It is unfortunate i think a lot of the danger that is being unnecessarily placed on our personnel stems from misinformation or vilification or discussed in terms of are used to describe sworn federal Law Enforcement agencies and other federal civil servants. We have seen instances over the last several months with consultants being consulted and individuals shoot into one of our buildings where we had officers working on getting criminal aliens out of the communities. This heightened rhetoric and thats why i told congress before about this. If congress does not like the laws that we enforced, have every ability to change them. But we are not in a position to pick and choose what laws we should enforce. I vote to congress on the executive branch to override their decisions as the laws they pass. Thank you the time is expired. Mr. Albence i appreciate very much your answer and ice is here because of the work provided by the u. S. Csis which has anticipated in discussion with the original discussion and trying to get to the bottom of this decision which is why we want to make sure we have clarity to what the policy is and figure out how this takes place. With that i yield to mr. Gomez for five minutes. Mister chairman thank you so much and thank you for clarifying that i was about to do that before he got to it. Mr. Albence, democrats would be we want to focus on Illegal Drugs for entry in this country. Making sure that people should not be here are not here. People who have illegal guns and that is why were having this discussion. Instead of focusing on that were focusing there was a focus on kids who are terminally ill and illnesses that needed to be here and thats why we want you to focus on other stuff. There was a discussion and he couldnt get into that you couldnt get into who was in the discussion regarding different action. Can you tell me how far back the discussion early started . . I dont have the exact dates but have been three i. C. E. Isis directors ago. Its hard to keep track how many directors they have gone through but how many months up . Pushing a year after two years. When this administration and 2018 . Probably 2018. Okay. 17. Okay. Thank you. I want to get clarification on that. I want to go and to quickly into the questions. Mr. Cuccinelli, knew were apparently sent an email to the immigration lawyers and association saying, you as c i. S. Are informing the public of the changing person on the individual pieces. This is seem to be an approach that led to panic and confusion and that labels not acceptable. Mr. Cuccinelli, according to a recent news reporting you decided that it was not necessary to notify the public. It is a true . Congressman. But it is our typical practice when we change a process that doesnt that doesnt based on regulations or law to not do public notification. That is the rationale on a case by case basis. You did not notify the public. Why dont you think it was necessary because it was just a process . Thats it . Thats what he did it . Because it was destroying peoples lives . Everything we do deals with peoples lives ahead and various ways. But as i said, typically when were changing a process and not changing the legal standards or Something Else of that nature. Guidance to judy caters for instance they did not have that in the public. Your agency is september 24th said that you did not notify the public as it was merely an operational change which is why youre saying again. You really think telling children and families that have a 33 days to leave the country is merely an operational change . Youre referencing the letters that have been set out and the reality is. Dont tell me your answer the question . What does it say . It says you may get an ncaa. You are not authorized to remain in this country for failing to depart the United States within 30 days of this letter. Its pretty scary. What happens if the irs annual letter saying you have to report to the irs with the intel audit. Would you be concerned about that . I certainly Pay Attention to it has. Perhaps you would help if you all knew that if anyone presents to uscis 60 benefit and does not obtain some status that has at least not here illegally. We have a similar letter. Ill ask you if your questions. Did you approve this policy without having to figure out how you would implement it . No. No i did not. What was your plan to notify people requesting deferred action in the public that the uscis wet stop considering to defer action requests . As you noted earlier, our plan was to notify them while at the time individually and directly. Up that was the plan. You have no plan but you did . When that was the plan. But then you also stated that the function would be transferred over no. That is a dramatic mischaracterization and i think thats how i. C. E. God dragging in the first place. There was never any suggestion anywhere by anyone that we were going to transfer some affirmative application process with the preferred action over to ice. That is never ever been the case. And we just testified that he was first notified by a Public Affairs officer through the press. Is that correct . It is not transferring this to ice. Isis zero Discretionary Authority that has been described. We will to put it into simple terms ceasing the use of this discretionary which takes all the way back to i. N. S. When you decided to reverse the policy why didnt you issue a new public release or something that was being reversed . Gentlemans times expired you may answer the question. If you are referring to the secretaries reverse who didnt do that. Regarding the initial policy. I thought i heard reversal. Your full report policy reversal on september 18th. Dallas publicly said. Thank you so much. We will go to mr. Roy for five minutes. Thank you chairman. Mr. Albence it falls under ice for removable proceedings . Thats correct. Mr. Cuccinelli, let me ask you a question. As congress created a status for individuals who overstayed a visa . No. Is there a law directed to give status to any of the individuals that were talking about here today that congress has made clear and put into law . No. My colleagues mentioned a compelling reason to be here with a standard of some sort. Is that a visa category . Its very difficult to talk about and a policy level about how it would affect any particular case by definition its case by case. Is it a status . No. Its it as a human being or as a christian or someone of faith looking at someone through the eyes of a human being that is concerning or a compelling reason . Sure. Absolutely. Is anything in the letter that was set on august 7th factually untrue . No. Was it legally correct . Yes. My people quibble overtone but was factually correct . Yeah. You said you made a decision to change procedures. Yes. My perception of the procedure and tried to figure out the policy to be in the job im doing. If one overstate youre comes here and faces a health issue and in the process that you are here who are here illegally or your overstaying visa. The process really is essentially to go to uscis and to beg for some sort of intermittent twoyear deferral from an entity and me uscis without it being really rooted in any law that congress has put forward. And you seek deferred action from an essence ice by way of a u. S. Cias letter when uscis doesnt actually prosecute and leaving these individuals in limbo. Do i have roughly the characterization correct . Yes. It might help people understand why i said this was done. Back with i. N. S. The same person as regional director had the authority that ice now manages and the uscis authority at the same time. That was all one person. When i asked was broken up, the initial distribution of authorities. This was just given to three agencies. I dont think which much consideration of whats the difference between cbp, ice and uscis as it relates to Something Like what we are talking about. Im trying to clarify to procedures. Were you can you clarify what you are trying to clarify those procedures . Several years ago, the president indicated publicly that he wanted us to stop utilizing and expanding the law to provide benefits that are provided by congress or by regulation. Thats been an ongoing process of the uscis. There are lots of Little Things that have already taken place all publicly known. This is along those lines which is why i understand the system with the director all the way back at the end of 2017. And conversations with a field leadership which determined that was one of those types descriptive lee authorities. To start working to back out of utilizing that authority because it wasnt appropriate for uscis and its mission. Isnt this if the court to question . Theres so many levels i get frustrated with congress that doesnt act. I get frustrated they dont act and respect to this military force 18 years after he passed the first one in 2001 when people were listening into the military. We were in a life when we passed that in force but legislation an article one act and the National Emergency declaration i, happen to believe regardless of the White House Congress should reclaim its orbit and act and they should do what theyre supposed to do which is possible laws and hold you all accountable for carrying out those laws. It strikes me that part of the problem we have here, in this case, but also and things like dhaka. In terms of whoever is in the white house doesnt matter to me. Lets have clarity and the law but lets not expect bureaucrats, respectfully and those in the agencies to be making policies on the issues of the law that congress passes. In the case of dapa in the region of texas we located and we went to report but the question is whether or not we were referring status to a class of individuals is something you can plausibly say his actually process or a discretion. Its ridiculous for congress to build a policy on the back of asking borough cracks to make those decisions when we hold the pen and we decide what laws we want to have in place. Youre not building in policy, youre telling us to implement a policy and youre not giving a standard to asking us for standards that dont exist in the law and as i said earlier, you pass a law and i promise you we will implement it. The gentlemans time is expired. We thank him for his thoughtful comments and i want to say that i concur with a lot of article one and the exercising congressional power. On the docket question, the house of representatives have passed over in the senate so were waiting for senate action. It takes two to tango here and not just the house. Its the senate as well to affect and with that i will not recognize miss Wasserman Schultz for five minutes. The heat and the i. S. Has been bragged about illegal immigration and thats important for us to be clear about what you have been having to accomplish. My constituents, americans across the country arent fooled by this attempt to distinguish between documented and undocumented immigration. New and mr. Trump dont want anyone who looks in talks differently than caucasian americans to be allowed in this country. Thats false. Please, dont interrupt me. But theres nothing defamatory about it. The witness will get a chance to respond. Thank you very much. You want to block all immigration and make harder and demonstrated you will pursue this heinous white supremacist ideology at all costs. The uniform means making ill children and clerical damage in the progress and that goes to a comprehensive pattern of harm at the uscis under the leadership. We announced the administration will take public chargeable for example. Which was denied legal status to immigrants to use social services. Mr. Cuccinelli, has the uscis done any analysis of how many children based on the Political Services to to fear of losing legal status and id like you to answer that question please . After declaring that im not a white supremacist as youve alluded nor is the president. Facts matter. Yes they do. Truth matters. Please answer the question. You certainly cloaked in legislation. How many children based on Critical Services are taking the fear of losing critical status . Youre asking about public charge . Thats right. I dont have that information for me to say one behind you have that information . We talked to become about furred actions. Up here you mr. Could you know youre reclaiming my time you are the head of the House Oversight and reform subcommittee on civil rights and Civil Liberties uscis youre going to tell me you have a policy on a public charge role and dont know how many children off the top of your head it affected . Did you have to get through before you insisted this policy . There are thousands of pages long maam. When you talk about affecting children, one would think that someone in your position were going to establish such a heinous policy which significant reach and potentially harm thousands of children that would know how many children it would affect. You dont know . But you refer to as heinous policy and law which is wildly a bipartisan basis. You have implemented policy that yanks social services and denies the nice nothing. Legal status to immigrate here if they are going to use social services. In fact, they have reported families are terrified and some have dropped their children from the Central Programs like medicaid and temporary assistance for families. When you announce this role, you were asked whether rule is consistent with the poll at the statue of liberty which reads giving youre tired your poor, you should be free and your response you said the poem was only referred to people coming from europe and people coming from europe would not be a public charge. I did not say that. That is not what i said. This was the implication. You like to broadcast it. Its absolutely accurate. I heard you sit and i want to know what you think are immigration policy should treat immigrants from europe different than other parts of the world. You dont think so . Im not sure why you made that statement then. You said the poem. He said the poem was referring to people coming from europe there is no doubt about that. If the adaptation was that europe would not likely to be a public charge. Were you attempting to shut down the American Dream for immigrants which were not rich and white for the policy . No. Obviously. Surely we can live up to the liberty and open their arms to families you just want to make a better life for their children and not yanked the rug out from other them as you have with this public charge policy. And people understand that they are not welcome here if theyre brown or need help. Thats false. Elderly false. With the law back to 16 45. The witness does not have the floor. But i will now recognize mr. Clay per five minutes. Thank you mister chair for having this hearing. The American Academy of pediatrics or aap represent 60,000 psychiatry pediatrics over the country. Uscis and aap wrote i letter to you director cuccinelli and acting dhs secretary inaudible about heat decision that aap wrote and i quote. We employer you do reverse this decision with them in their families and continue to require to defer action for some children this is a matter of life and death. Mister cuccinelli, have you read that letter . Turn on your mic for me. The subcommittee received 15 more letters from state chapters up the American Academy patriotic in advance on september these letters were truly heartbreaking with children and families because of the situation and doctors in massachusetts reported family of the ten year old who had been blinded by i cancer had been ordered to leave the country. Along with the family of a seven year old suffering from severe epilepsy. Mr. Cuccinelli, did you know about either of those in this case when uscis decided to end the fair action . Congressman, it dont read individual cases when making a procedural decision like that. The answer to your question is no. Did you think about maybe these kids need some life saving medical attention . That they could only get here in this country . Congressman, we knew that as a practical matter who they had come to us seeking deferred action and they warrant an eight removal proceedings and none of the cases we talked about her removal proceedings and none were threatened with deportation and ive heard eyes people say that they were not on a targeted list. When we withdrew from the exercise of deferred action we knew that deferred action continued to be available for every single one of these evacuees. Pediatricians in indiana reported that parents of at least two Neonatal Intensive Care Units received letters from uscis. And within 33 days and just had a child that was so sick that she was in the and i see you and the moment the trial looks like the only thing you have to worry about and the u. S. Government ordered you to pack up and leave the country. Mr. Cuccinelli, did you know about these cases before the uscis decided to defer action . My answer is the same as the earlier examples. Which is . We do not look at particular cases when making this. You dont care . You asked me did i know. You bet i care. You care that somebody is in a nato intensive care unit . If you cared enough to pass a law we would enforce it. What would you recommend those parents do when they received a letter . What should they do . We expect most of them to do is very little. We spent a lot of those letters out and not in circumstances like this were talking about. You want them to leave the country . Pack up their staff, take their sick child and go . Neither that or make the case in the immigration process where its appropriate to do so. All in the middle of them being theyre trying to hope and pray that we save their child life . Which is why i defer to action elsewhere. Oh cruel really . Really . I dont believe this, i yield back. It gentlemans time has expired. Thank you for your questioning mr. Clay mr. inaudible we will wave him on to the committee and the subcommittee for purposes of questioning. You are now recognized. Id like to thank you for all the work you do and having been on the border myself some of the challenges that you guys are dealing with with the illegal immigrant population and i think its very underappreciated i think some of the stories ive heard that i respect Law Enforcement and general and are people that having to deal with this as you folks do. Mr. Albence, you mentioned a Violent Attacks and ice officers and personnel and their families. Could you elaborate on that a little bit. We had all unfortunate yet to be caught in the fire i weapon and to our facilities where we had officers working and weve had protests groups lay our buildings under siege and threatening the individuals that work there with aggressive actions against the many of whom were those who work for us or not unlawful. We have attorneys and support specialists and the government 30, 40 or 50 years to have nothing but honorable worked at entire time and i think reckless language to denigrate them as individuals and the things they have dumb only serves to heighten and turn to action people who would not be in the right minds. How is this committees insistence on these hearings on this issue impact you . As i mentioned previously as dhs is made clear this was involved in the decision which was siestas and i was the process thats already spoken in this decision and as you could understand with an agency 20,000 strong more than 400 criminal laws things that serve as distractions are very difficult for us to try to keep focus on the very important task we have in regards to getting criminal aliens out of our communities and the opioid and fentanyl an epidemic whether its withdrawal predators and Sexual Exploitation and even with all of this big tech unaided women do the best they can put the way they talk. The vast majority of people from my district respect we are trying to do and i feel its very tragic when other people who are looking at another question. Here in the lose a law only lately talking about sanctuary cities and their citizens and immigrants. With the issue be better explored by the Oversight Committee but overall. Would you agree . I would welcome help from anyone in congress that gave it to us. Can you speak to the harms of sanctuary cities that is a cause to us as american citizens in general . Well if i had them testify before a few weeks ago and there are more as we speak convicted criminal aliens which has what we do not cooperate with us which will go out and commit further crimes and preventable crimes with preventable victims and we have more jurisdictions that choose not to cooperate with us and cut him in harms way and remembering which will keep every communities safe. I think of it like my area. Some people dont like when they send criminals. Its hard for me to understand sometimes we have jurisdiction which is arrested the exact same individual for a criminal violation and forcing the laws yet when we come to take enforcement action against the same individual, sometimes hours later we enforce the laws that we are to uphold we are permitted from doing so. Part of the answer and doing so live in a nicer part of the community where they dont have to worry about that being committed but in the Senate Judiciary hearing one of our colleagues seemed confused about the sanctuary cities and that ice was looking for local Law Enforcement and could you set the record straight and educate some of this by whats going on . Any other Law Enforcement agency we launch based on probable cause. Both of the individuals will lodge containers art criminals. The enforcement sides, 70 of the people we arrest are out of state jails and prisons. 90 of the people we arrest and this has been consistent for the better part of the last decade are a convicted criminal with a criminal charge and to smaller buckets within that with individuals with what they prosecute aggressively from 2009 to 2018 and those who have had their immigration to work through the entire process as now i had a boy did complying with that order. We had 576,000 fugitives that grows every day. The gentlemans time is expired i recognize the vice chair miss ocasiocortez for five minutes. Mr. Cuccinelli, i want to confirm something that had heard earlier with my colleague from massachusetts. If i hear correctly that as your testimony today, you are the individual who made a decision to end the florida action . Im the acting director that we implemented this and im responsible for that. At that time, its my decision. It was your decision . Yes maam. I appreciate that and trying to get to the bottom of that question for quite some time and im sure it will help us in the future examination of this issue. Mr. Cuccinelli, and your agencies 24th response to this committee you stated that they uscis did not engage stakeholders to solicit feedback on anticipated consequences of the policy change. Why did you do that . We are changing a process and not operating off of illegal and rhetoric ways that are not a practice im not aware of any other instances that we see that kind of implementation. You not consider the impact it would happen critically ill children before making the decision . We understood that even with uscis backing out of the role of affirmatively granting action in a limited number of cases that this existed within the entire dhs system. In august you told fox news that do you see this as a betting agency and im not a benefits agency. Congress created uscis separate from i. C. E. To serve immigrants. In fact, its uscis own law which created the agency to focus exclusively on the administration of a benefit application. So, mr. Cuccinelli, uscis is a benefit agency. Why do you consider it not to be one . Perhaps the best way to say that is that i would characterize this as a betting agency first but also i benefits agency. You all in congress have laid out a whole lot of benefits that we educate for immigrants and potential immigrants in this country. Thats part of our business admission and my phrasing is to emphasize the role we also play as an element of Homeland Security in assuring the safety and security and integrity of both the country and that immigration system. Mr. Cuccinelli, i think whats tough here is that i respect congress hasnt done its job in many respects with the immigration policy. Its been a failure for a very long time which are looking to find of lot of policies correctly but we still have created a mission for uscis through which the agency cant interpret the spirit of this law. It says right here on uscis website. The core values are defined as integrity, respect, integration and vigil vigilant and theres a reason that uscis is separate from icy i. C. E. And cbp. I dont understand how the pouring critically ill kids its consistently anything part of the values. Mister cuccinelli do you believe that you treated children with cancer and assisted fibrosis and other diseases what dignity and courtesy and decided to end consideration with ordering them to leave the country within 33 days . There was nothing secret about what we did because this process change would make individual notifications and you yourself just referred to the ability to view the mission as one chain after another. There is no law or regulation that does that. We do the best we can for fulfilling our role and limiting ourselves to our role, but securely went there is no continuing avenue. You have discretion in the role. Heres the thing that i cant figure out. You have, thousands tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of cases if not millions of cases in this country and decided to prioritize the deportation of critically ill kids. Im trying to figure out why. We do not do that. We have gone through out of im reclaiming my time. With respect. Ill give you a moment with respect. When you make this decision at a time a specific time youre making this decision at the cost of other decisions. Why did you make this decision to report critically ill kids for almost all the other decisions that you had to make at the agency . The timing is right you can answer the question. We dont report anyone. We made the decision at the end of a long road that predates me coming into my current position and discussions across dhs. It was made on august 7th, at that point it is my decision and one of the things that we testify to from what we had in the last hearing is to your point there are trade offs as we know quite correctly that 1000 of these cases absorb resources which we are not paid for that would otherwise deal with the problems in the naturalization cases and we did more last year than in the whole decade and there are still more coming in and i hear from many all legitimately concerns about backlogs in some areas and improved in erie areas. We have limited resources and this is an undertaking by uscis that as not been assigned by congress and with the authority to have the same relief which continues to exist with uscis not continue to participate in the way that we now do again. Thank you mister cuccinelli. That was his time is expired. Now the District Of Columbia ana thank chairman raskin and i want to say painfully necessary he hearing. Of course, to these witnesses at the hearing before because they were in the midst of an ongoing discussion with the dhs to resolve it and when the world should come to congress with understanding the role of congress. And making sure that this is not reappear of this kind. Mr. Cuccinelli, he saw a letter to chairman raskin on september 19th informing him that dhs secretary mcaleenan directed u. S. Csis to open consideration of non military request under investigation today, on a discretionary case by case basis. Dhs has provided the committee with its september 18th role watching the same directive. What was the decision made to reverse to defer action on a case by case basis when he came to these Sick Children . That was not a change congresswoman holmes norton. It was deferred action as a case by Case Consideration. There was a category . No maam. There was no action you implied in your comment that this was just about people seeking medical concerns. Check children. They are among those. We are at the filing that people are getting older and thats their basis. There was no directive whatsoever to reverse the policy to case by case and we did not understand the policy to be at the thug either the case by case will for. Thats a testimony . Yes. We have to look at every case and looking at the category of six children. I want to me im asking you because of a decision that directly conflicts with the recommendation your agency reportedly repaired for the acting secretary. Just ten days prior to the reversal and im afraid to a memo with policy and strategy for a september 9th meeting with secretary maclean and, you were selected to be that up. Are you familiar with that memo . I dont have it memorized for a familiar with what youre referring to. The uscis has not produced that now more for us but the press reports indicated that the memo recommended the secretary revoke uscis authority to grant request for deferred action. Reportedly, it said here is the quote, from the memo, runs counter to the president s agenda to enforce our existing roles and potentially contrary to his goal of making sure that aliens all selffulfilled rolls. Mr. Cuccinelli, did you director policy a strategy to send that memo i just heard from . We certainly did send a memo with recommendation to the secretary before he made his ultimate decision and included six or seven as i recall different alternatives. Did you agree with that recommendation that the authority of uscis to grab the deferred action request should be revoked . Particularly im interested even as it regards to Sick Children . It was a broader comment that with the breakup of i. N. S. , this is already was in the prosecutorial arms of Homeland Security. Even with respect to children . Not appropriate for uscis me it wasnt just related in this category and new mentioned six children which im sure everyone else is very sympathetic to but that is a category that is exactly the kind of thing we would look for in legislation is a category we do not have the power or authority to create a categorical rant of the benefits. Mister chairman, i want to say of course there is administrate of 30 to create within legislation and we need to tell them what they already know and i thank you very much mister chairman. Well back and we could pursue this with miss norton so she knows Administrative Law which is an interesting conversation. We come now to mr. inaudible its difficult for me to listen that its our responsibility in this administration as the president has publicly said that in the second article of the constitution gives them authority to do what he wants and the amount of discretion that you have tried and new in the administration tried to say and field is challenged in court which so far helped things like the border wall and the separation of children. Your attorney i assume referred to action in the early seventies in this administration which has been allowing discretion and the Administrative Discretion and now you say that Congress Needs to act and as we said the Historical Perspective in the last five sessions, set up bill 7 44 said they passed out of the house led by senator schumer and rubio and were told through articles in the press and interviews but mr. Bannon that he and others went to elements of the caucus which we are not privy to but argue that that rule should never come up because it should be in for politics. The last session will be very well respected and introduced a similar bill. With the speaker that never brought up. Any member is free to put up this legislation in and would encourage my colleagues on the other side to do that id be happy to work with them. The context that its everyones fault defies what youve been told in the press with the dynamics of any other congress. Having said that i want to turn my attention specifically to one case and weve got the process in that passion and mr. A no who was there last time and the families have become dear friends and came here legally by the way. They were here earlier under a tourist visa and invited to the United States to be part of a medical trial that was seven years old when they came here and her doctor was well respected at the university of california and childrens facility who went back to guatemala as you can get weekly treatments so you said all these people were here in this case and thats truth and maybe we can argue somebody parameters and near direction for the Field Office Director thank you for your request for u. S. Citizenship and no longer consider affirmative action and requesting the u. S. Department of Homeland Security for certain military members. The evidence of record shows when you submit a jury request you are part of the United States and some eager departments pa contrary tree earlier comments. Youre period of authorize asian you are not authorize in the United States and if you feel to part within 33 days of this what are, the main uscis issue a notice to appear against you in the immigration board. She was asked the last meeting how she will take this letter and with that the hospital receiving treatment and her mom gave it a letter when told us that she vomited and so upset they had to take her. When he said when there is a process here and its congress is process. He says that he wouldnt answer my question but he said there wouldve been a file and would have known about her and patch of gone up the chain so did you ever hear about it . Before you may distraction before this was decided no sir. Did you ever think of the consequences for people like her to do ever think that with all the other things and i respect that and respect the fact that Congress Needs to come together but you still have consequences at the record shows multiple administrations and the case was deferred for action so all of a sudden things change and shes here and under programs with lives and others and the Government Program and irresponsible for that do you care to respond . When we withdrew on august 7th granting affirmative request or preferred action we knew that Authority Continue to exist and anyone who wouldve received such a letter could or would have been in process where they could also get it from a more appropriate source. , and dealing with a particular case is what mr. Reno is dealing with and doesnt mean that all cases are all known at any given time by a regional director or Field Operations or myself at any given time. Usually, only a small portion are ever learned about. Digital be types as expired. All recognize mr. Cloud now for five minutes. Im going to yield my time. I wouldve been here if not competing for the circumstances here so ill just as a couple of quick questions. Mr. Cuccinelli, effort a great colleague my colleague from new york talking about affix. Can you clarify for the record whether or not there is or is not a benefit to being deferred or are we talking about inaudible as to how we answered these cases . Take tougher action is the prosecutorial discretion and were not in the prosecuting agency. The closest thing to that is issuing the anti which solves the process and to the prosecutorial process and you not participate in that. Thats really preferred action is historically insisted and appropriate and frankly its inherent with that authority. Its not inherent in our authority at uscis. We talked about this a little bit ago. The cost of duty caving applications like were talking about here in these deferred actions and these deferred action cases which will be the cost of julie kelly knows and what that means to the resources up naturalization. Can you hear it how important that is in the decisionmaking role . I didnt mean to suggest that people doing this would automatically spend 100 percent at that time. I was trying to get the subcommittee point of reference. The congress will bid correctly alluded to the fact that there are trade offs. Not for doing that for not doing Something Else and we like any other agencies struggle to keep up with their workload but unlike most agencies in the federal government. We are 96 plus percent be funded by part of the community we serve and operate what amounts to a balanced budget function youre here. We have the opportunity to become financially flexed to more work that hasnt been assigned by congress or by law or regulation. One of my colleagues reference uptick about people who are here legally getting wrapped into this. I want to clarify for the record that that is not the case. Correct . All that has been done and all attempting to be done was noticing folks that were here i did not have status and congress is not giving a produce that is for you to give and this was a letter clarifying their status . Thats right. Just to understand you have a situation where someone is coming back for a repeat deferred action requested traditionally there is no requirement and can also be the duration of treatment that identified that. At that point in time, it will at least be under the then existing deferred action grant so, however you like to praise that. I yield back to my colleague from texas. I only got a minute left but can you tell me what law authorizes the uscis action to any immigrant who zero legally . There is no specific law that does that. This is a derived authority within the secretary thats for you specifically case by case circumstances that came when i and asked was broken up. Uscis lets not establish the rule . Absolutely not and has never existed in its predecessor as far as i know. Is it being treated as its formally established . All of the discussion with students a program that a lot of people use the medical action for an or other reasons people used to hurt action and are perfectly good reasons why were talking about the medical. Other requests are made as well. How many requests to receive each year . If you count not just the request youre but Family Members who might be requesting to stay to be with another Family Member for reasons its probably into five to six to 700 range. Do you feel we have the resources to deal . We can do the work but then were not doing other work which is legally side and thats the tradeoff. Thank you chair. Thank you very much mister cloud. Well do one another round to clean up some questions with any members that would like to do it the more. Ill start with the gentleman from massachusetts miss pressley. Are forever chairman Elijah Cummings our mind it is that the charge of this committee is to be affection and effective pursuit of the truth. Im encouraged that today we have made some progress. I want to thank you under all freer honesty mr. Cuccinelli and taking responsibility for that decision to reverse the policy. He was mentioned on the record that the agency had this analysis to ascertain what would be the impact of such an abrupt policy change. Do you believe that your agency did enough analysis to assess that in fact . Wasnt clear earlier as were preparing in regulation an internal discussion and characterizes a study. It stood to impact the lives are critically ill children and in hindsight do you think you should have done full analysis . Well, i do think if i had to do it over again category that i would not have applied to people impending. For no other reason than to not surprise them with a change in circumstance. That would be the main thing that would be done differently. Its been wildly reported that the council and the doj can terminate and Homeland Security under vacancies reform act and also been reported that the president ial personnel in the white house as except a decision with every president accordingly and would you accept the decision of the doj and the office that you are an eligible to serve as acting secretary . Im a privy to anything youve just described so i cannot answer that question. His Public Record but could you can be your response . As you may know, the last government is four State Government and i am no expert. Areas of very well which i dont know very well is federal Employment Law including things like the vacancy act and i have not studied the pattern. The department of justice and the president ial Personnel Office have ruled and to serve as acting secretary. If i have to serve, contrary to the law would you declined . I would not do anything contrary and if i understood with the law i wouldnt do it. If President Trump able to replace the acting secretary with deferred action in place in the uscis and this is for mr. Cuccinelli and mr. Albence. I dont think its appropriate to comment forward and i told you and what i would characterize in the mistake as it was to apply this retroactively and i think the underlying philosophy which would understand the deferred action available for all people that the policy has Going Forward. And i will tell you that its not coveted by another secretary to do thats disappointing. You have accepted respectfully and accepted responsibility for making this egregious policy reversal and have also expressed regret and have used the word mistake. So, im not sure why it is challenging for you to just offer if you are the acting secretary which would keep the deferred action protection with the uscis . I dont expect to see any change work artless of who the secretary is, unless the program itself mr. Albence, your response . I dont think theres any reason to speculate because i dont see that happening. Would you get the policy in place . I would look at any decision Going Forward and i support the decision. Reclaiming my time and in closing i want to remind to not lose sight of why we are here. The families and the critically ill children and their lives are on the line i talked a lot about process and this is about people. We should never forget that and thank you and i yield. A general lady lilt back and thank you for your comments. Mr. Cloud is recognized for five minutes. Mr. Cuccinelli, you start to get into the lack of resources to do what you are legally mandated to do. Can you speak to that . I could use a lot more than five minutes for that congressman. The most ill start with what i think is the highest profile backlog we have which i would say is accurately characterized as a backlog which is asylum cases. Over half of them are two years old and im referring to the asylum pieces if they were here to talking about offensive asylum claims and we deal with the affirmative silent claims and their 340,000 cases and from as soon as i arrive. We plan and execute and on the plan of executing a Higher Campaign for asylum officers to start attacking up backlog and the main way of back locking that is pressure in court. We broke the record again last year just to use one example. Reasonable fear associated with the and tpp ram. The same people are doing that work and none of what i just described to you is paid for. None of it. So, when we construct our fees we have to build into those things we do charge for it the cost and the things that we dont charge for and humanitarian work or the variety of forms. You mention this program is not formally established and it would be . Really, the only avenue is legislation. This authority as i said was around him that was when it is in a region in the same person that is responsible for all of our visa work and he benefits i was talking about earlier. With the division of ins, those authorities were divided and it appears looking back and i wouldnt even call it a solution. The knee jerk reaction was to assign the same authority to all three agencies even though we dont have prosecutorial responsibility. Since uscis is using your own discretion for affirmative action, can you speak to so many common illnesses that are rendered for medical treatment . The white . Some of the common medical illnesses . I have to say, my information is anecdotal. Weve been talking about this as you all have over the course of the last several months so are you some of the i put a selection of cases for instance to review at random. To see what the cases were quick to get an idea of what educators workload was associated with. What i had to do and contend with and it runs the gamut and it runs from the kind of cancer insisted fibrosis which obviously is one of the most sympathetic types at you can imagine. Two things that look like one even know i dont decide these pieces and are abusive with the example. Which is not in the same lead and people are getting older and i also mentioned earlier that some of these and a good number of them are not medical, there are other claims has two reasons they want to stay and candidly, the cases we talk about here even though we cant aside sitting at this table are the ones you would think are most likely to be found by a career employee which decides these as the secretaries language with the circumstances but i cant sit here and prejudge even in knowing that im sympathetic it. You mentioned its our job to manage the resources and can you explain whats the best thing we can do with the limited resources . A gentlemans time is expired, please answer the question. Dont make his guess. Congresswoman norton referenced the category of six children and said category. If it category you or should be assigning it to us and of course the Supreme Court is going to take it back and it follows the pattern of the top a case that roy mentioned which can the executive branch use the authorities that congress hasnt given any direction on to create categorical defense and is the position of this administration it and well use it our discretion nonetheless the beginning of this process on august 7th which has the authority to grant which does exist with this process and theyd rather go to uscis but the fact of the matter is, that the appropriate and historically appropriate getting outside the prosecutorial discretion and the Prosecutorial Agency i will now recognize mr. Disowning for five minutes it even though its clear or at the discretion so it i would suggest to you and happy response that were looking for support from legal experts which is for example i would ask in the interim that as she goes through and being told by her attorney somebody questions it up the last four times she went through that you would work with us because i assume that were in a position where she is in the New York Times he may know she maybe a little bit different and we are working for republicans to tailor a bill that has helped them and the relationship between both parties, which will work on something with kevin take so i hope there is some kind of response to at least work with us to see if we can provide legislative remedy for this person. I dont agree with your initial comment on our 30 but we will absolutely work with you. On make it very clear, we dont even have to agree with what youre doing to help do it correctly. We will do that and bring the subject to help do that and we will gladly do that. It sounds a little patronizing but i accept it. Simply because it, people can have the opposite impression and i thought patronizing at all its to point out that this is a function. That was my irish sense of humor. We issued what came to the letter and it was this big public response which was a bipartisan hearing here and what you should do about it. Theres a memo that the press got a hold of with your policy director and shouldnt backtrack as you are originally going to do and did you have an opinion at that time after our hearing that is a bell in some of these other cases. Did you support the secretarys decision to change the policy . Yes. I thought it was critical to get the question as ive advising in Something Like that we gave him a wide variety of options presented to him with respect to my earlier comments with both congressman pressley where i think it was a mistake to implement this and the retroactive pieces where you can really see that. But philosophically, it was appropriate for this authority to rest with the prosecutorial a woman of Homeland Security which is not under uscis. These folks under different circumstances be able to prevent themselves. This is for both of you. They are in limbo and dad keeps working and they pay for their insurance and third taxpayers beneficial to the community and we got a degree with honors, so how do we work and go through this process until we get to the point where should we should keep the preferred action. We have as you know we opened this case and i cant speak to timelines for particular cases but i do know we have them decided. We are getting through some of the work that we have seen an uptick in violence since this public discussion began. That is behind that they were already in the pipeline so would not be affected by that uptick. I cant speak to exactly how long it would take for each of the cases to be decided. I can check it separately when we leave here. The idea with this regard is in this situation and if we could work to ensure we are going to have the due process as we outlined it will work through it in the decisionmaking and the legislation that would be this group of people which i like to hear. Well do each one of those things. I yield back mister chairman. Thank you for having a hearing on this topic and thank the witnesses for showing up. This information has been out of the press with false narratives for the last several weeks and months. I want to lament the for committee. This committee is having an impeachment process three stories underground beneath the capitol visitors in a closed room and three dollars to get there and a lot of my colleagues would like to be here today are down there on the democratic side and the republican side. I want to say i think its a shame that that is simultaneously having. Not just that its happening outside our view in sight and sound of the American Public but that is happening at the same time and with that i yield about my time to the Ranking Member chip roy. Ive made that point before and ill make it again, i agree. We shouldnt be having these things occur and this is too important of an issue. Last week i do the same thing and was unable to participate on this important matter and i will reiterate that is difficult to get to try to figure out to go to get information that we will be present for in an easy fashion and any of the committee can do it. Some of this may get remedy tomorrow . Amateur pot. We happen to believe house rules that the records of this body are the possession of every member that have an open way of receiving this information and its critically important to know that this is whats been going on and suddenly maybe ought to have. Theres a little bit of repetition because i appreciate some of the colleagues from california that we could work with you all and tried to solve the issues royal policy perspective as a congress to solve this issue. In carrying out the action, you can jump in here and ill characterize it this way. One might say that it couldve been written a different way and this is what has been discussed and this is what mr. Cuccinelli has said but it is highlighted in a shoe that is been lingering where they used the word lambeau even in a letter from uscis. There is no status given and am i correct about that . Uscis gives a letter that basically says you have a letter, hey, uscis we have northward to say whether its i. C. E. Going to exercise their prosecution all institution which set it might be okay for a couple of years. Zachary . Probably. That deferred action can be revoked at any time and in circumstances where there might be a reason and a removable proceeding which could be the talk about those individual cases that they do happen and we coordinate our efforts. Was anyone being targeted or any one of these families targeted for removal after sad letter went out . No. Absolutely not. Acknowledging the concerns of these letters and everyone knows how that was received and i think were all doing stuff that is in a fast paced environment but maybe we could executed it. The letters go out a a process matter that are being targeted for removal. Not the best of my knowledge. We wouldnt even have known existed. And then i know these people existed. I appreciate the tone. We appreciate there is a long president of affirmative action and has been approved for this administration. But from my perspective, this is what it was. Understanding what may you may have meant but its important to realize that each review in medical circumstances overall and would be reviewed each time so wait misunderstood. We may disagree on perspectives and attorneys have said that its a likely outcome through the process that will get through all of them. That changed the president. I understand what you mean now. I wont try to take any additional time. I would just be to say that the president were talking about it is in my view a flat president. Its a patch to gather the circumstance of dealing with the prop up the prosecution and is not set out so i get a little frustrated which has been great and how nameless they may be and has been the evils of whats transparent to infused mr. Cuccinelli and dhs a desire for people and to have a system where the rule of law mean something. Its a rhetorical question on the exercise but the obvious way to think about this is case by case but asking the question for each person where you draw a line . I goes right to my closing top here. I want to thank the committee for a very productive conversation and educating us in participating but i want to thank you particularly for expressing regret in a mistake that was made which was the retroactive complication and a shift in the presumption. I thank you for that. I want to ask you a question about that go where it obviously caused great anguish in families that were affected and i know you to be man with a heart and this may have looked like it was easy pickings in terms of going a whole series of administrative paul policies and you just take the leash and some way but for us its a major figure because that reaction pain was affected her families. What does that mean about Going Forward . Given that the combined factors of circumstances they are operating under. There are certain things clearly about cancer, assisted fibrosis and diseases that weve heard about coming forward and said this was the humors aging and someone was granted. I didnt say there were granted. I put on where the Authority Comes from which is not a madeup authority. Through a 2003 delegation and a citizenship undersecretary birmingham and the authority to grant a fourth of action. It is presumably operated which is a case by case basis and what seems to be treading certain categories which is commonsensical versus people who want to be here to age. Is that youre thinking . Youre trying to have some interactive . A couple of points mister chairman. First of all, the authority sight of the security act is how you traces back statutory when it comes to the secretary and the preferred action which is prosecutorial decision which is in the description today. When you point to in the statute doesnt provide other case by Case Consideration which doesnt provide guidance or category. Maybe this is a question for mr. Albence would, you pursue deportation with the grant and deferred action and do you know of any cases where thats happened or anything in the future . Im not aware of any cases of that happening. I havent had any case where that has happened. They get involved when theyre on a crime whether there and deferred action. Is it you thought mr. Cuccinelli they are trying to elaborate with these circumstances . No sir. To be clear, from the acting secretary mcaleenan which is to continue as a case by case and what we do eternally and i heard some comments a little bit different than this is to maintain consistency as the for people who reach those records any decision changes with these cases periodically not conversations i participate in and cases to make sure that it is similarly situated with similar outcomes. With access or denials and that is just for consistency. It doesnt introduce the standards or the measuring stick to provide guidance of how it may come out. We may have a difference of opinion on that but the only point i will make and i appreciate what you just said but the point i would make as when there is a case by case decision it just means that each of the facts are on their own presentation which is the rules and standards apply as to how the decision has been made. Let me shift to another question. Weve got to get on the discovery here we have it in relative short order because as the law branch in government in order to make the laws which will probably chalk us over the immigration law. We do it when we get the information about what we need. Specifically in respect to a couple of things on september 9th it was announced that weve ever seen it a and that was one thing i would like to gety and the other thing that you received from mr. Mcelwain in and respect which is 37 days after the, date. Whether you brought that with you. That was just a simple update. If we could have that that would be terrific. We dont have any update about anything thats happened. To be clear, the request were still in litigation. They have not dropped her cases. That has nothing to do with congress. Let me finish. We have to review our materials to no opposition. We are not were doing all of that in the review now. All of what we can provide we certainly will. This is part of the love i know very well. Any once requirement to comply with a subpoena plan for information is not stated by any existence of other proceedings and we can get you all of the Case Authority ways but we cant wait for cases to be decided or removed. I mean to suggest that. It just complicates our own review as we gather them. We would at least like an answer today if you can tell us when you be able to with the subpoena that they signed on the day that he died several hours before. Do you know when you will to comply . I can tell you now all have to revisit this morning before i came and after visit with the review team. Can you tell me when youll be able to tell me . Well give you all eastern and estimate by the end of the day. We want and need that information. Can you tell us by the end of the day mr. Albence . Reviled are material on october 20th so at this point its unknown with the Environmental Review its the same view as mr. Cuccinelli has and for privileged information and will release it. Other people with you today back and tell us . Its with the department, these are all i. C. E. People. Thats the i would have to answer the question. I can ask him what i think i could have been cleared. Okay, if you can get back to me. As promptly as possible. We have some letters for the record, we have to admit without objection lets see we have letters from several disability organizations with coalition and the assistance group. Discussing the consequences of these policy changes from deferred action which is to be entered into the record and finally, mr. Cuccinelli i am seated and mr. Cummings chair so im mindful of extraordinary career and im here to help people and ive got an opportunity to just ask you about one another case that ive been able to get an answer from a department about. If you all enjoyed me with this. Its the case of an Afghan National and was a u. S. Military interpreter in the afghan war. He fled afghanistan with his family and was unable to seek entry into the u. S. Under humanitarian war as the discretion. He served this country thankfully for nearly a decade as an interpreter for the operators who have written letters and support and his defense. Since fleeing to pakistan, where he is within his family and be not multiple times by Pakistani Police advocates for the report thats been tortured he is finally being released and was being held. The bipartisan advocacy and his case was reopened and we want to be informed by you on a discretionary basis and a lack of credibility which meant and have been denied the ability on the matter. Were concerned that he will be in the pakistan with the forces that are against him in the same way him and his younger daughter has. I would like if you would be able to have clarification on the basis of this denial and the fact that show that these Young Children i Security Risk i dont want Security Risks entering the country but the committee ad putting his life at risk im a republican and Democrat Members to take a look at this and if you want to clarify and provide a brief and force on the status of the special immigrant with the way times for processing which is been radical with former interpreters and combat zones. Would you be willing to work with us . With respect to the individual case i would have to presume there is no privacy labor so i have to find out what im allowed to share and the way we operate within Privacy Restrictions and i am happy to determine that and go back around and contact you. Please do. These advocates are asking whatever we can do to save his life and someone who served with the Afghan Government and honorably they are asking us to take the case and has been a dramatic drop of interpreters and i dont think its fair and i dont think by all means but if hed be willing to meet with us then i think would be doing a little bit of fairness. Let me see how much is permitted to share and let you know. We could go from there in terms of sharing what we can. Anything else mr. Roy . I thank the chairman for the last ten or 15 minutes in particular with the back and forth conversation in california. I appreciate your participation with the Ranking Member and with my staff that aside a prophesy labor released and its something that you can double check with your people. I want to thank all of the Witnesses Today for your testimony i, know youve got important in business to attend to so thank you very much i mean theres five legislative days with the chair and with the witnesses for a response and if anybody has any questions we thank you for your influence and the hearing is now adjourned