Deferred action and in arizona versus United States, the Supreme Court relied upon the broad discretion exercised by the federal immigration officials including, quote, whether it makes sense to remove all, and strike down all of arizonas sweeping Immigration Law. Because it could result in harassment of sole aliens, thats their term for example, a veteran, a College Student or someone assisting in a criminal investigation, should not be removed, the law, quote violates of the the principle that the removal process is entrusted at the federal government. The idea that the enforcement efforts should be focused on high priority targets. And immigration context have been issued as far back as 1976 under president george w. Bush the Customs Enforcement i. C. E. Reafirmedeprrl prosecutorial discretion to use discretion in identifying responding to healthrelated cases. Indeed 15 years ago democratic and republican members of congress joined together to the then attorney general urging her to
Colleagues to develop the perception that i was favoring individuals with an interest in these cases. I thought i had taken steps to guard against this very possibility even an appearance of impropriety is not acceptable get a flavor for good on this important manner i and stand his colleagues not necessarily have known what i did to to adhere to applicable guidelines in these three cases. Nor would they necessarily have been aware of my involvement in many other cases many of which were responsive to concerns and inquiries of members of congress for both parties. This context would better guard against the possibility of such perception. I support and embrace secretary johnsons protocols developed to more ably and sure employees understand the involvement of their supervisors in specific cases. The protocols will benefit directors who become involved and provide guidance in certain cases. I regret the perception by own involvement cause. In the three cases at issue cases that were the
Actions the staff shouldve decided these matters differently. Misplaced priorities he focused on a few applicants and steak holders with particularly troubling given the massive scope with his responsibility. They heard hearing and testimony. From the report, they found he appeared to pay place favorites and insert himself improperly that influence the outcome of cases. Cases. These are very serious allegations. If they are true they should not be ignored. Although they did not allege that these acts were criminal in nature they without a doubt raise questions about judgment. This is not the first time the Inspector General office has reviewed allegations. In a separate report in late 2009 they placed pressure on career staff to reverse the outcome of a petition filed by a university that he was connected to. He wrote a memo that said each year employees have a duty to add impartially in his or her duty. Any favoritism can call into affect our inability to fairly honestly and properly
Asked by our constituents all the time to support very projects. Deputy secretary theres been some question about this review board that you allegedly created to review the l. A. Films case. Are you aware of that . Yes, but that was not created for that case. That was created for all cases. The concept of the decision board was generated in 2011. I discussed with career employees the application of that decision board to the issue of difference, which was of tremendous concern in the community, in the eb5 program. I discussed its application with a number of career employees in 2012 and ongoing. So it was not limited to that one case. Zblf the decision board or deference board, as it was termed subsequently was a reform applicable to the eb5 program writ large and it was needed and especially with respect to the the issue of difference, which caused so much consternation in the community, wh u when uscis would make a decision. Investors would invest. Capital would be infused. Business
Security will come to order. The pur o pos of this hearing is to receive testimony regarding the immigrant Investor Program known as the eb5 program. I now recognize myself for an Opening Statement. On march 24th the department of Homeland Security Inspector General released a report detailing allegations against deputy secretary mayorkas that relate to his time as director of uscis and his oversight of the eb5 program. The igs Office Conducted more than 50 interviews, reviewed more than 40,000 phone records and obtained more than 1 million documents and emails. This investigation was unprecedented in that there were more than a dozen whistle blowers that came forward to the Inspector Generals office. The findings are troubling as the ig made some very serious charges against mr. Mayorkas. Leave among them were that he used his position to influence outcomes in select cases for the benefit of politically connected and powerful individuals. In general, these allegations fall under four