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 subject of bipartisan support i did what i did in the many other cases that were brought to my attention. I did my job and fulfill my responsibility. I did not lead to errors go unchecked but instead help ensure that those cases were decided correctly nothing more and nothing less. I took the advice of collies including agency council, took steps that would guard against the chance of misperception raise concerns that Broader National Security and follow the facts and apply the law. I became involved in court cases eb5 and other types. All applicants are entitled to and deserve a the fair and correct applications of the law. The cases in which i became involved when it was the case of the guatemalan orphan seeking to be united with her adopted American Family the pregnant mother seeking urgent humanitarian to escape forced abortion in china and the performing arts groups cultural influences and seeking the performing arts needs visa this basic principle was my guide and my responsibility to fulfill. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you. Thank you. Deputy secretary. I would now recognize myself for five minutes. Let me say first again i did not create this report. I have nothing to do with it. It raises serious allegations and you and all people know that i have an oversight responsibility under the constitution but i want to go through some of the issues that have been raised by the report to give you the opportunity to respond to that and first i know in april 2008 issued in ethics policy to all of your employees and i would like the clerk to provide the policy memorandum to the witness. I just want to ask you first why did you issue this ethics policy and what was the purpose behind it . Mr. Chairman i issue this ethics policy because the principles articulated in this policy are very important and are applicable to everyone in the agency. You correctly noted that Public Confidence in the decisionmaking of a Government Agency is critical to the Public Interest into our responsibility as Government Officials. In the service of that principle i issued this important ethics memorandum. And i think its a good memorandum. You coming from the Justice Department like myself say the purpose is to prevent situations that could appear to be preferential. What are the penalties outlined in this policy that fails to meet the standards set . Mr. Chairman the penalties depend upon the facts of a particular case. The memorandum does spell out that the penalties can cover a wide range of possibilities anywhere from a counseling to incrimination depending on what principles specific they are violated and the facts of the violation. At this point up to and including a rhino for employment in a memo. More than 15 civil servants, career employees came forward in your matter regarding your actions in the three ev five cases and according to the ig there allocations were unequivocal given special access to treatment for certain individuals and parties and i would like to ask you about these three cases specifically. First in the l. A. Films case. According to the ig report within an hour of speaking to ed rendell former governor and chair of the Democratic National committee you directed a uscis staff to stop processing that the miles of eb5 the petitions that you had already signed off on. Is that true . Mr. Chairman i dont remember the chronology of the communications in that particular case. I think there is a very important principle at stake though and that is the following following. That is a concern with respect to our turns to the law is raised it is our obligation to address that concern and have confidence that the ultimate decision that we are making in a case and heres to the law and the facts in every case. That is what i did in that case. On page 18 of the ig report it says you stop processing the denials but you have already signed off on them. I mean i guess you cant answer that question . Im just reading from the ig report. Mr. Chairman im not questioning the facts that the Inspector General laid out that particular point in the report. What i am sharing with you is that i dont recall the chronology of the communications in that case but the principle is vitally important that when we issue an adjudication in a case it is our obligation to adjudicate the case in adherence to the law based on the facts in that particular case. According to the report you also told staff to create a onetime review board that resulted in approval of 249 positions in the opinion of the career staff would have otherwise been denied. Do you know if thats true . That is not precisely true if i may. And if i can please share. Very specifically. I have very little time. S. Mr. Chairman to hear. In 2011 amends many complaints with respect to our administration of the eb5 case we developed a series of reforms reforms, proposals that they would flush out subsequently. One of those reforms that we discussed in agency and announce publicly into which the public responded was the creation of a decision board in eb5 cases to address complex issues that were unresolved between the agency and the partner. I appreciate it but you said it was used once in the specific case creates the appearance emet created a special process to accommodate special parties which i argue arguably were in violation of your own policy. If i could get to the case. According to the igs report not me you directed your employees to provide senator reids staff with weekly briefings. Is this correct . I dont recall doing so. That is case 36 of the i. T. Report isnt Standard Practice to provide weekly updates to the status of eb5 visa applications to outside parties . Mr. Chairman we have prided ourselves in a responsiveness to congress and how frequently our office of legislative affairs responded to the innumerable questions and inquiries and concerns from members of congress i could not speak to. I know that the dialogue between our agency and members of congress from both parties was constant and consistent throughout our administration of the eb5 program and for reasons that were quite understandable quite frankly. Well i mean in all three of these you have been able to confirm or deny the specific allegations set forth in the igs report. I believe it seems clear that your actions to the recent request to expedite this case providing staff with weekly updates. I understand the a. G. Is making the accusation and you are denying or youre saying you dont remember. That would in my judgment creative perception of preferential treatment in violation of your own ethical policies that you set forth sir. Let me go to the last one. The gulf coast case. According to the igs report following medications with current Virginia Governor and Democratic National committee Terry Mcauliffe is subsequently intervened in the decision on the gulf coast appeal even sing to career staff you would rewrite the decision yourself and that is set forth in the ig report. Can you respond to that and respond to these accusations r . Thank you very much mr. Chairman for that opportunity. I was asked by the then secretary of the office to look into this eb5 case because it was the subject of considerable concern not only by stakeholders outside of the government but by members of congress of both parties as well. It was at that direction that i looked into the case and learned that there were serious legal issues at play in that case, legal issues the seriousness of which my own colleagues recognized. I was a prosecutor in the Campaign Finance reform and the chinese influenced election protected tell you im going to pursue this for the eb5 applicants and what was behind that with respect to some these foreign nationals. I think it warrants further work. In conclusion i would like to say your 2010 ethics policy and begin a state in your policy quote often the appearance of preferential treatment can be damaging of a organization with preferential treatment. Therefore employees should avoid matters if his or her produces patient may cause a reasonable person to question the employees of partiality. I believe in my judgment reviewing this matter and the responses you have given today not and not really being able to respond specifically that your actions in these create created special access and special favoritism. I think you also violated your own ethics policy. At the end of the day you know you and i are both career employees and now you are a political appointee but political appointee should be held to the same ethical standards as rankandfile members at the department. And with that the chair in a recognized as the Ranking Member. Thank you very much mr. Chairman. Deputy secretary mayorkas the Inspector General was the forest a few weeks ago. I asked him some questions about the normal process by which he reviewed this eb5 program. All of us as members of congress are constituents ask us all the time to contact this agency on our behalf do what you can and for the most part we do. Its not unusual for a member of congress to contact a fellow agency about a constituents interest in a program. Eb5 is a job creator. That was one of the reasons it was put together. But i am going to specifically to the three ev five cases mentioned in the Inspector Generals report. The gulf coast case. The Inspector General talked about context from democrats. Are you aware of any contacts from republicans in this same case . Yes congressman. That eb5 case was the subject of bipartisan support and we received communications are members of congress of both parties. I think if i may articulate a very important principle here that the individual who brings an issue to our attention does not decide the disposition of that issue. The disposition of the issue is neutral to the messenger but scrupulously loyal to the laws and the facts in the case. Thank you. Now you know this is not mp and individuals but my former Governor Haley barbour is known in the republican National Committee a very active person in the community and somebody who is interested in jobs. Im told that he contacted your office on the half of the gulf coast. Is that correct . Yes congressman. I want people to understand that perception, here you have a republican governor contacting a democratic administrator on the half of a job creator but in the ig report gives the impression that only democrats were contacted. I understand that both my senators contacted your office on behalf of this very same policy is that correct . Happily i believe that is correct. A former member of this committee that just left a few weeks ago contacted you on behalf of this very same project project. Am i correct . I believe so. In the point im trying to make is we get into the Inspector Generals report that would lead you to believe that only democrats contacted on behalf of this job creation program. That goes to the l. A. Films program. A former member of this committee i am told that a former member of this committee contacted you republican contacted you on behalf of this program. Are you aware of that . I dont recall. I know that that case was the subject of communications from both parties of congress. Are you aware of bipartisan contacts in support of this program . I am. So they assumed that three cases presented to us by the ig did not include any republican Member Support for those projects as you saw. As best i can recall. I asked the ig in this hearing and he did not answer the question but i would say again the report was incomplete. Gentlemen, ladies we asked we are are asked their constituents all the time to support various projects. There have been some questions about that deference that you allegedly created to review the 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 deference which was 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 . The decision board or the difference board as it was termed subsequently was a reform that was applicable to the eb5 program writ large and it was needed and especially with respect to the issue of deference which caused so much consternation in the community when uscis would make a decision decision, investors would invest. Capital with the viewed. Business projects would begin and the agency would change its interpretation reverse the course and projects would collapse in jobs would be lost. And my last question mr. Mayorkas goes to was it unusual for the director or the agency to refer items to counsel for their review and opinion of . I did that congressman with some frequency depending on the issue. And with respect to the eb5 case cases without that stakeholder you sought counsel in these cases. Quite frequently we would discuss legal issues and other issues involved in these cases. Thank you. I yield back. The chairman recognizes the gentleman from new york. Mr. Mayorkas thank you for being with us today and to reiterate the chairmans comments, we didnt make this report and we are duty bound to follow up on it so i want to ask a series of questions. If you could keep your answers as brief as possible unless i ask for an explanation. With regard to the l. A. Film issue did you speak to governor rendell about that issue . I believe i did in a conference call. They believe i did to the best of my recollection. Your best recollection do you recall was said during that discussion . I do not. You do recollect that you spoke about this issue . I know i spoke with him about in eb5 case and i believe it involves the l. A. Films case. Im not certain congressman. The difference review board that was referenced as part is the l. A. Film regional issue it did in fact exist after this after the l. A. Regional center issue . To learn from me the Inspector Generals report that it was not convened since the l. A. Films case. My hope is that number one the agency was not issuing incorrect decisions. Im sorry to cut you off. I just want to know if the facts are reviewed in your answer is it was not. Based on the Inspector Generals report it was not. I left sometime after and so i did not keep track of the difference review board especially because of the changes i made in our administration and the leadership that i brought, the new office that i created in the due process as we put in place. Thank you. With respect to the difference review board was it used before they l. A. Films Regional Center case . To the best of my recollection congressman we discussed using it in 2012 with respect to another eb5 days and we decided a different process could be used to resolve that very same issue difference in that eb5 days. That was in eb5 case im sorry to cut you off but was a bit for the l. A. Films case or not . To the best of my knowledge no. Thank you. Now, with respect to the las vegas Regional Center issue do you recall specifically speaking with senator reid about this . I do. Okay. Also with respect to steve olson executive director selectu. S. A. . I do not remember speaking with him about the case and that doesnt mean i did or did not. I just dont recall. Now with respect to the gulf coast case that was mentioned in the report do recall having contact with governor mcauliffes . I do. How much contact did how much contact did he have with them about this case . I remember to the best of my recollection less than a handful. To the best of my recollection is as i sit here congressman i remember a meeting i attended in which mr. Mcauliffe was present in the department of Homeland Security headquarters under the direction of defense secretarys office and i remember him calling to complain over the ensuing couple of years i believe a few times. The general discussions were about trying to get that approved, is that correct . Mr. Mcauliffe complaining about our adjudication in the case. Thank you. Now you mentioned during your Opening Statement and i think in her testimony as well that you get involved in cases decided correctly. You recall that . Absolutely. Were there procedures in place to handle these cases at your agency . There were but there were times when cases were brought to my attention that my own employees were so complex legal policy issues. That was with respect to the eb5 cases and many other cases outside of the eb5 program. With respect to the eb5 cases to make sure im clear and tell me yes or no did establish future eb5 cases . Yes. C and whether eb5 cases procedures contemplate a rejection by the head of the agency like you did . I believe they contemplated supervisor earl review so when supervisorial review was warranted supervisors engaged and i viewed myself as theyll commit supervisor responsible for the agencies fair and correct administration of the law. In your mind it was appropriate for you to interject yourself and in the process as he saw fit . It was my responsibility to ensure that we were hearing to the law congressm