Question#: Topic: 1 barriers or fencing Hearing: Oversight of the Department of Homeland Security Primary: The Honorable Ted Cruz Committee: JUDICIARY (SENATE) Question: Current State of U.S.-Mexico Border Fence Construction Your Department has sole responsibility for the northern, southern, and maritime border security of the United States. Congress has, in the past, specifically mandated in statute that your Department undertake to complete U.S.-Mexico border fence construction or otherwise improve or enhance the quality of U.S.-Mexico border fencing in order to reduce the flow of illegal aliens into the United States. It is Congress’s understanding, however, that, despite these instructions, large swaths of the U.S.-Mexico border remain unsecured, because of either the failure to construct required fencing or the failure to replace inadequate or damaged fencing with better fencing. How many miles of the 1,954-mile border shared by the United States and Mexico: Have no barriers or fencing at all? Have vehicle barriers only (designed to halt vehicle traffic but not pedestrian traffic)? Have single-layer fencing only (designed to stop pedestrian traffic)? Have double-layer fencing (designed to stop pedestrian traffic)? Please provide answers in both number of miles and as a percentage of the entire U.S.Mexico border. Response: 1300 miles have no fencing (66.5%) 299.8 miles have vehicle fence (15.3%) 316.6 miles of pedestrian fence (16.2%)* 36.3 miles of double-layer fencing (.02%) *The current total for primary fencing to be 352.9 miles. 316.6 single layer + 36.3 double layer= 352.9 miles of primary fencing. Question#: Topic: 2 vehicle barriers Hearing: Oversight of the Department of Homeland Security Primary: The Honorable Ted Cruz Committee: JUDICIARY (SENATE) Question: With respect to the portions of the U.S.-Mexico border that currently feature only vehicle barriers: Are any of these vehicle barriers being replaced with single-layer fencing? Are any of these vehicle barriers being replaced with double-layer fencing? Response: There are currently no requirements at this time to replace vehicle fencing with single-layer pedestrian fencing. There are currently no requirements at this time to replace vehicle fencing with doublelayer pedestrian fencing. Question#: Topic: 3 unfenced portions of the U.S.-Mexico border Hearing: Oversight of the Department of Homeland Security Primary: The Honorable Ted Cruz Committee: JUDICIARY (SENATE) Question: With respect to the unfenced portions of the U.S.-Mexico border: Is any single-layer fencing being constructed along these portions at this time? Is any double-layer fencing being constructed along these portions at this time? Response: There is no planning or active construction of new single-layer pedestrian fencing taking place at this time. U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP) Office of Border Patrol (OBP) is using the Capability Gap Analysis Process to gather new border security requirements. In addition, there are no requirements for secondary fence at this time. Question#: Topic: 4 border fence construction Hearing: Oversight of the Department of Homeland Security Primary: The Honorable Ted Cruz Committee: JUDICIARY (SENATE) Question: Please explain in detail how your Department is using funding that has been set aside by Congress for border fence construction if it is not using such funding for fence construction, with specific information regarding: When border fence construction funding was spent (broken down by fiscal year). How border fence construction funding was spent. Whether any of the border fence construction went toward non-border fence construction contractor services. Response: Congress has provided over $2.5 billion in BSFIT D&D funds for the execution of border fencing projects across the Southwest border. All funds allocated for border fencing have been or are being used for the execution of such projects to fund planning, design, construction, construction oversight, real estate acquisition, environment planning, compliance and mitigation and contract support required for the successful execution of the border fence. Question#: Topic: 5 Terrorists or Terrorist Presence Near U.S. Borders Hearing: Oversight of the Department of Homeland Security Primary: The Honorable Ted Cruz Committee: JUDICIARY (SENATE) Question: Indications of International Terrorists or Terrorist Presence Near U.S. Borders Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director James Comey recently rejected claims that the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) has been detected in Mexico in close proximity to El Paso, Texas, and was using its presence there as a base of operations for sending ISIS members into the United States to attack domestic targets. Director Comey’s assertions may have been in response to a recent Judicial Watch article that stated, with some degree of specificity, that Mexican authorities had confirmed the presence of an ISIS camp within only a few miles of El Paso. Can you corroborate FBI Director Comey's comments that ISIS does not have a base of operations or any other physical presence in the vicinity of the U.S.-Mexico border? Does your Department have any reason to believe that ISIS may be collaborating with any Mexican, Central American, or South American cartel(s), transnational criminal organization(s), or drug trafficking organization(s)? Please provide the following: All unclassified information about any foreign or international terrorist organizations that have been detected in any part of Mexico or any Central or South American country. All unclassified information about any foreign or international terrorist organizations that have attempted entry into the United States at any point along either the U.S.-Mexico or U.S.-Canada land borders or U.S. maritime borders. If the information requested in the above question is only available in classified form, please inform the Committee accordingly (so that we can make arrangements for a classified briefing on the subject). Response: DHS agrees with FBI Director Comey’s statements that there are no credible indications that the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) has a base of operations or other physical presence on or near the US-Mexico border. DHS is further unaware of any credible information suggesting that ISIL is collaborating with any South- or CentralAmerica based drug cartel, alien smuggling organization, or other transnational criminal organization. Question#: Topic: 5 Terrorists or Terrorist Presence Near U.S. Borders Hearing: Oversight of the Department of Homeland Security Primary: The Honorable Ted Cruz Committee: JUDICIARY (SENATE) DHS I&A has previously briefed you in a classified setting regarding the terrorist threat to the US Southwest border, including a briefing on both historical activities we have and have not seen and the willingness of drug cartels, alien smuggling organizations, and other transnational criminal organizations to facilitate the illicit entry to the United States from Mexico by terrorists. We are prepared to provide a similar briefing, although our assessment on the issue remains unchanged. Question#: Topic: 6 detained Hearing: Oversight of the Department of Homeland Security Primary: The Honorable Ted Cruz Committee: JUDICIARY (SENATE) Question: Please provide the number of: U.S. citizens who have been detained at or near the U.S.-Mexico border who you know or suspect are members of any foreign or international terrorist organization as of April 30, 2015. Foreign nationals who have been detained at or near the U.S.-Mexico border who you know or suspect are members of any foreign or international terrorist organization as of April 30, 2015. U.S. citizens who have been detained at or near the U.S.-Canada border who you know or suspect are members of any foreign or international terrorist organization as of April 30, 2015. Foreign nationals who have been detained at or near the U.S.-Canada border who you know or suspect are members of any foreign or international terrorist organization as of April 30, 2015. U.S. citizens who have been detained in U.S. coastal waters who you know or suspect are members of any foreign or international terrorist organization as of April 30, 2015. Foreign nationals who have been detained in U.S. coastal waters who you know or suspect are members of any foreign or international terrorist organization as of April 30, 2015. Response: Since the beginning of fiscal year 2015 through April 2015, DHS has not detained any U.S. citizens or foreign nationals that are known or suspect members of any foreign or international terrorist organization at or near the U.S.-Mexico border, or near the U.S.-Canada border. The United States Coast Guard has not detained any U.S. citizens in U.S. coastal waters. This year, the Coast Guard vetted a small number of foreign nationals for ties to terrorism in the U.S. coastal waters. Two were positive matches; one a passenger on a cruise ship and one a crewmember on a container vessel. Question#: Topic: 7 Judicial Watch story Hearing: Oversight of the Department of Homeland Security Primary: The Honorable Ted Cruz Committee: JUDICIARY (SENATE) Question: Has your Department made any attempts to contact Mexico’s federal government or State of Chihuahua government officials in order to verify the allegations made in the Judicial Watch story? Response: DHS concurs with the White House National Security Council position on this matter expressed by White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest, in the August 29, 2014, Press Briefing that “the most detailed intelligence assessment that I can offer from here is that there is no evidence or indication right now that ISIL is actively plotting to attack the United States homeland. That’s true right now.” We assess that there is still no indication that this claim is valid. Further, as previously stated, DHS agrees with FBI Director Comey’s statements that there are no credible indications that the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) has a base of operations or other physical presence on or near the US-Mexico border. Question#: Topic: 8 ISIS and Iran Recruiting Hearing: Oversight of the Department of Homeland Security Primary: The Honorable Ted Cruz Committee: JUDICIARY (SENATE) Question: ISIS and Iran Recruiting Efforts in the Americas United States Marine Corps General John F. Kelly recently told the Senate Armed Services Committee that ISIS and Iran are actively recruiting individuals from Caribbean and South American countries for overseas fighting. General Kelly specifically identified Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, Suriname, and Venezuela as countries where these recruiting efforts are currently taking place, and noted that these countries’ proximities to the United States increase the likelihood of radicalized nationals from these countries entering the United States. While foreign nationals from some countries may have a difficult time entering the United States (legally or otherwise), foreign nationals from Barbados, Grenada, Jamaica, or Trinidad and Tobago may enter the United States without visas if they are seeking to enter the United States as agricultural workers. Was your Department aware of this significant, national security-threatening regulatory loophole? Whether or not your Department was previously aware of this loophole, it is aware of it now. Please tell the Committee what steps your Department is taking or will take to close the regulatory loophole. Response: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is aware of this limited nonimmigrant visa exemption for temporary agricultural workers who are nationals of and resident in Jamaica, Grenada, Barbados, or Trinidad and Tobago (as well as British, French, and Netherlands nationals residing in these Caribbean islands or British, French, or Netherlands territory located in the adjacent islands of the Caribbean). In general, individuals seeking admission to the U.S. as nonimmigrants are required to present an unexpired passport and a valid unexpired visa. DHS, through U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and the Department of State (DOS), acting jointly, may waive passport and visa requirements for nonimmigrants in certain circumstances, as provided in section 212(d)(4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. See 8 C.F.R. § 212.1(b)(1). DHS regulations provide that a visa is currently not required for H-2A temporary nonimmigrant agricultural workers from certain Caribbean residents. DOS regulations also describe the visa exemption for these classes of Caribbean residents. See 22 C.F.R. § 41.2(e). DHS, in consultation with DOS, has been reviewing this longstanding visa exemption for Caribbean agricultural workers. The exemption dates back more than 70 years and was created primarily to address U.S. labor shortages during World War II by expeditiously Question#: Topic: 8 ISIS and Iran Recruiting Hearing: Oversight of the Department of Homeland Security Primary: The Honorable Ted Cruz Committee: JUDICIARY (SENATE) providing laborers from the British Caribbean to agricultural employers in the southeastern United States. DHS will continue to work with DOS and the U.S. Intelligence Community to evaluate the potential security risks associated with this visa exemption and determine whether the risks to national security and the integrity of the U.S. immigration system warrant changing the exemption. For all international travelers, regardless of citizenship or visa status, CBP assesses risk and conducts pre-departure vetting prior to travelers boarding flights bound for the United States. Where sufficient derogatory information is identified CBP coordinates with the air carrier to prevent the traveler from boarding the flight. Throughout all points of the travel sequence, CBP continues to vet passengers and travel information, and takes appropriate action to mitigate any risk identified. CBP leverages all available advance passenger data; previous crossing information; and intelligence and law enforcement information. Upon arrival in the United States, all persons are subject to inspection by CBP officers. CBP officers scan the traveler’s entry documents to perform queries against various CBP databases for exact or possible matches to existing lookouts, including those of other law enforcement agencies. CBP officers collect foreign nationals’ biometrics and query biometrics for derogatory information. In addition to the biographic and biometric system queries performed, a CBP officer interviews each traveler to determine the purpose and intent of his/her travel, and whether any further inspection is necessary based on, among other things, national security. Additionally CBP maintains an office in Barbados and has partnered with the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) Joint Regional Communications Centre (JRCC) to conduct targeting and analysis activities on advance passenger information system data from flights and vessels traveling within ten CARICOM member states. (i.e. Antigua and Barbuda, Jamaica, Grenada, Guyana, Barbados, Dominica, St. Kitts & Nevis, St. Vincent & the Grenadines, Trinidad & Tobago, and St. Lucia). Question#: Topic: 9 EPIC report 1 Hearing: Oversight of the Department of Homeland Security Primary: The Honorable Ted Cruz Committee: JUDICIARY (SENATE) Question: Incentivization of Central American Migration This Administration has repeatedly asserted that the main catalyst of the influx of aliens from Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras over the last few years is an increase in gang-related violence in these countries. This claim, however, is undercut by an unclassified intelligence document produced by the United States government. Specifically, the federal El Paso Intelligence Center produced an intelligence assessment in July 2014 entitled “Misperceptions of U.S. Policy Key Driver in Central American Migrant Surge” (EPIC report) that demonstrates clear federal awareness, based on interviews of illegal aliens who had entered the United States during the influx, that it was the perception abroad of the Administration’s amnesty policies rather than any sort of massive swell of violence that was driving the influx. When did you first receive or have the chance to view the EPIC report? Response: I&A personnel assigned to EPIC were involved in the drafting and review of this product prior to its publication. Question: Do you dispute the contents of the EPIC report? If you do dispute the contents of the EPIC report, please provide a detailed explanation as to why. Response: (U//FOUO) The DHS Intelligence Enterprise maintains its assessment that drivers of Central American migration—including the 2014 surge in unaccompanied children (UC)— are multifaceted and include: poor economic conditions in the Northern Triangle of Central America; migrants’ desire for family reunification; regional insecurity; educational opportunities; and misunderstanding of U.S. immigration policies, especially in the case of UC and family units. The EPIC report also noted the role these factors played and is consistent with findings in the joint UAC Baseline report published by ICE, CBP, and I&A on August 15, 2014. Question#: Topic: 10 declining violence Hearing: Oversight of the Department of Homeland Security Primary: The Honorable Ted Cruz Committee: JUDICIARY (SENATE) Question: Given that you and other Department officials have been the main purveyors of the claim that increases in violence have been the primary driver of the influx of illegal aliens from Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras over the last few years, how do you reconcile data that show declining violence in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras with the Administration's claim that increasing violence is driving the influx? Response: The Department is not aware of authoritative data indicating a meaningful decline in violence in El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala. Notwithstanding media reports of short term declines in the murder rates in Central America, El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala are still among the most violent countries in the world, according to U.S. Department of State’s Overseas Security Advisory Council (OSAC). For example, 2015 OSAC country reports list homicide rates per 100,000 inhabitants at 68.6 for El Salvador, 66.4 for Honduras, and 31.6 for Guatemala, compared with approximately 5 for the United States. Question#: Topic: 11 EPIC report 2 Hearing: Oversight of the Department of Homeland Security Primary: The Honorable Ted Cruz Committee: JUDICIARY (SENATE) Question: What role, if any, did your Department have in producing the EPIC report? Response: (U//FOUO) I&A personnel assigned to EPIC were involved in the drafting and review of this product prior to its publication. The EPIC report used CBP data and field reporting to support its analytic judgments. Question: As part of this answer, please specifically indicate: How much Department funding has been provided to support EPIC since October 1, 2009 (broken down by fiscal year). Response: FISCAL FISCAL FISCAL FISCAL FISCAL FISCAL YEAR YEAR YEAR YEAR YEAR YEAR COMPONENT 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 A&O 2,661 CBP 2,918 ICE 132 USCG 928 Total 6,639 *dollars in thousands 3,673 4,808 199 1,187 9,867 3,521 2,655 256 1,046 7,478 4,724 2,257 804 888 8,673 4,563 2,092 919 822 8,396 4,076 1,082 1,004 246 6,408 FISCAL YEAR 2015 3,177 1,201 803 250 5,431 Question: The names of senior Department officials who contributed to this report in any way. Response: Senior Departmental officials are not involved in the production of DHS Intelligence Enterprise analyses to preserve objectivity and to avoid the appearance of bias in keeping with Intelligence Community Directive 203, Analytic Standards, which states “Analytic assessments must not be distorted by, nor shaped for, advocacy of a particular audience, agenda, or policy viewpoint.” Question#: Topic: 12 EPIC report 3 Hearing: Oversight of the Department of Homeland Security Primary: The Honorable Ted Cruz Committee: JUDICIARY (SENATE) Question: What role, if any, did your Department have in preventing the EPIC report from being publicly released (given that the report is unclassified)? Response: (U//FOUO) Analytical intelligence products—even if unclassified—are seldom prepared for public release, and then only after a review by the originating agency for sensitive content that would be exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act or other statutes. The EPIC report contains source material derived from law enforcement records or information that could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings. For this reason, the document is marked UNCLASSIFIED//LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE (LES), which limits dissemination internally to Executive Branch employees (and contractors) who have a valid need to know in the performance of their official duties. DHS personnel who were involved in the preparation and distribution of the EPIC report appropriately followed the rules governing the control and safeguarding of LES information. Question#: Topic: 13 illegal immigration Hearing: Oversight of the Department of Homeland Security Primary: The Honorable Ted Cruz Committee: JUDICIARY (SENATE) Question: DHS Assistance to State and Local Law Enforcement on U.S.-Mexico Border Chief Deputy Sheriff Benny Martinez of the Brooks County Sheriff's Office recently told the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee that this Administration’s pro-amnesty policies have resulted in the discovery of literally hundreds of dead bodies on private parcels of land throughout Brooks County since 2008. Chief Deputy Martinez indicated that, despite the federal role in fueling the flow of illegal immigration into the United States, the cost of body removal and disposal has fallen to Brooks County in the amount of $700,000 since 2008, despite the United States government’s frequent assertions that the United States government is solely responsible for immigration enforcement. Please explain why your Department should not be responsible for reimbursing Brooks County (and similar situated counties throughout the United States) for the costs associated with illegal alien body removal and burial? Does any component of your Department currently have a mechanism for reimbursing state or local agencies for covering the cost of this immigration-related function? Response: There is no authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act, Homeland Security Act, or the current appropriations for DHS to pay costs associated with the removal of dead bodies from private parcels of land. Question#: Topic: 14 CAM Program 1 Hearing: Oversight of the Department of Homeland Security Primary: The Honorable Ted Cruz Committee: JUDICIARY (SENATE) Question: Central American Minors Refugee/Parole Program The recent Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing on the Central American Minors Refugee/Parole Program (CAM Program), which uses taxpayer dollars to bring the spouses and children of illegal aliens to the United States, has revealed significant concern about the legality, wisdom, and cost of the program. Please cite the statutory basis for the creation and implementation of the CAM Program. Please provide both the current and projected costs of the CAM Program. Does your Department generate any revenue from the CAM Program? During the above-mentioned subcommittee hearing, Senator Sessions asked questions regarding the in-country circumstances that would permit a foreign national to claim refugee status. Different scenarios were discussed, based on internal agency documentation addressing the CAM Program, that raised questions about exactly what conditions would allow the extension of refugee status to a foreign national, and whether current Administration interpretations are in accord with statutory language. Question: Please cite the statutory basis for the creation and implementation of the CAM Program. Response: An annual refugee admissions ceiling is established by the President, in consultation with the Congress. The process leading to that annual determination was established by the Refugee Act of 1980, incorporated into section 207 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1157. Section 207(a)(3) of the INA states that the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) shall allocate admissions among refugees “of special humanitarian concern to the United States in accordance with a determination made by the President after appropriate consultation.” Following the congressional consultations, the Department of State drafts a Presidential Determination for signature by the President, which establishes the overall admissions levels, regional allocations, and in-country processing locations (see section 101(a)(42)(B) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(B)). The size and composition of the USRAP is governed by the statutory process set forth in section 207 of the INA. The establishment of the CAM program followed the same process. Question#: Topic: 14 CAM Program 1 Hearing: Oversight of the Department of Homeland Security Primary: The Honorable Ted Cruz Committee: JUDICIARY (SENATE) The parole portion of the program falls squarely within the Secretary of Homeland Security’s authority under section 212(d)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A) and there is well-established precedent for creating such a program. DHS and the Department of Justice have implemented combined refugee and parole programs previously. For example, from 1988-2011, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) and then USCIS offered parole on a case-by-case basis to individuals from the former Soviet Union who were denied refugee status. From 1989-1999, INS also offered parole to certain Vietnamese applicants denied refugee status under the Orderly Departure Program. Question: Please provide both the current and projected costs of the CAM Program. Response: To process refugees under this program, USCIS is using fee funding from the Immigration Examinations Fee Account (IEFA). USCIS allocates funds from the IEFA for worldwide refugee processing on an annual basis. In the FY 2015 Report to Congress on Refugee Admissions, USCIS estimated that its share of the total cost of refugee processing worldwide was $32.9 million, which includes this program. USCIS is also using IEFA funding for costs associated with processing parole authorizations for individuals authorized parole under this program. Question: Does your Department generate any revenue from the CAM Program? Response: No revenue would be generated from the CAM program. Question#: Topic: 15 refugee status to a foreign national Hearing: Oversight of the Department of Homeland Security Primary: The Honorable Ted Cruz Committee: JUDICIARY (SENATE) Question: Is it your Department’s official position that the following conditions justify extension of refugee status to a foreign national: Poor economic conditions within that foreign national’s country? That foreign national’s individual impoverished condition or status? That foreign national’s gender, by itself? That foreign national’s status as a female head of household? That foreign national’s involvement as a victim in any crime? If the answer is yes to any of the above, please provide additional information about the justification for each policy position, including internal agency documentation demonstrating the development or evolution of this position, and the statutory basis for each policy position. Response: Under section 101(a)(42) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), refugee status can be granted on the basis of past persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of one of the five protected grounds: race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group. Each element of the refugee definition must be established for an individual to be eligible for a discretionary grant of refugee status. An expressed fear of poor economic conditions, violence, poverty, generalized threats, or civil unrest alone is not sufficient to justify a grant of refugee status under existing statutes. Each case is decided on a case-by-case basis, following an interview with a DHS officer. DHS adjudicates these cases following appropriate legal precedent and takes into account information on country conditions in determining whether an individual has been persecuted or has a well-founded fear of persecution on account of a protected ground and otherwise meets the requirements. Question#: Topic: 16 CAM Program 2 Hearing: Oversight of the Department of Homeland Security Primary: The Honorable Ted Cruz Committee: JUDICIARY (SENATE) Question: In the event a foreign national is seeking entry into the United States pursuant to the CAM Program but is unable to provide sufficient documentation demonstrating identity or background, is that foreign national: Automatically rejected from the CAM Program? Ineligible to reapply? Response: Refugee applicants are not “automatically rejected” from the CAM program or ineligible to reapply if they are unable to produce identity documents for the reasons described below. The validity of the relationship between the child and the parent in-country as well as the spousal relationship between the parent in the United States and the parent in-country must be established by a preponderance of the evidence as determined by the interviewing officer. USCIS officers are experienced in conducting interviews to determine the validity of claimed family relationships. For the CAM program, DNA testing is required to verify a claimed biological relationship between the parent in the United States and a child for whom the parent is requesting access to a refugee interview. The parent in the United States is responsible for submitting DNA through an accredited lab, and the Resettlement Support Center assists the refugee applicant in submitting DNA through an established process. The parent in the United States is responsible to pay for DNA testing. If all claimed biological relationships are verified by DNA, the parent will be reimbursed by the State Department. To establish adoptive relationships between the U.S.-based parent and the in-country child, a judgment of adoption is required. A refugee applicant must establish his or her identity by a preponderance of the evidence. Under 8 C.F.R.§207.1(a), three documents are required for adjudication of a refugee case: Form I-590 – Registration for Classification as Refugee; G-325C – Biographic Information; and FD-258 Applicant Fingerprint Card. Where reasonably available, refugee applicants may be asked to provide identity documents, but they are not necessarily required to do so; given their circumstances some refugees may not be able to procure such documents. Question#: Topic: 16 CAM Program 2 Hearing: Oversight of the Department of Homeland Security Primary: The Honorable Ted Cruz Committee: JUDICIARY (SENATE) All documents presented to USCIS are reviewed by the interviewing officer for content and authenticity. Based on country conditions information, in some interviewing locations it is understood that identity and other documents are easily accessible to applicants. In such circumstance, an applicant’s inability to provide these documents would be heavily scrutinized by the interviewing officer. In the event that the interviewing officer determines that an applicant has not established his or her identity or the validity of the required relationship by a preponderance of the evidence, the officer will deny the case. Question#: Topic: 17 UAC Removals and Prosecutions to Date Hearing: Oversight of the Department of Homeland Security Primary: The Honorable Ted Cruz Committee: JUDICIARY (SENATE) Question: Despite the fact that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is currently responsible for handling the housing and placement of unaccompanied alien children (UAC) upon their entry into the United States, these UAC nevertheless remain in the United States temporarily, and it remains your Department’s responsibility to ensure that they are handled in accordance with federal statute. Please explain what your Department is doing to handle the removals of UAC that have entered the United States, and been subsequently housed and/or placed by HHS in private homes throughout the United States, to their respective home countries. Is HHS providing your Department with the identities and whereabouts of, and other relevant information about, the UAC that HHS is placing in private homes throughout the United States? Does your Department have total awareness of the whereabouts of all UAC throughout the United States that HHS has placed in private homes? How many UAC has your Department removed to their home countries as of April 30, 2015? How many UAC has your Department prosecuted for illegal re-entry into the United States as of April 30, 2015? Response: The William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 requires, with limited exceptions, that unaccompanied children whom the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) seeks to remove from the United States be placed in removal proceedings under section 240 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. A prior removal order may not be reinstated for an unaccompanied child, nor may an unaccompanied child be subject to expedited removal. Certain unaccompanied children from contiguous countries who are apprehended at the land border or a port of entry may be permitted to withdraw their applications for admission if they meet certain criteria. When unaccompanied children are released to sponsors by the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), ORR provides U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) with a discharge notification form indicating the name and address of the sponsor. ICE maintains case management over the immigration hearing portion of unaccompanied children cases, regardless of whether Question#: Topic: 17 UAC Removals and Prosecutions to Date Hearing: Oversight of the Department of Homeland Security Primary: The Honorable Ted Cruz Committee: JUDICIARY (SENATE) they are in ORR custody or sponsor care. While in the custody of ORR, it is the responsibility of ORR to ensure that unaccompanied children appear for their immigration court hearings. While in the care and custody of sponsors, the sponsors are responsible for ensuring that unaccompanied children appear in court. Sponsors are required to submit a Notice of Change of Address form to the immigration court as appropriate. At the conclusion of immigration court proceedings, ICE takes appropriate enforcement action based on its stated priorities. Unaccompanied children ICE has removed because they have been issued an order of removal or they have been granted voluntary departure are repatriated under safeguards by ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations, according to DHS policy and procedures, and in coordination with the embassy or consulate of the child’s home country, as well as that country’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs (through the U.S. Embassy). Established policies include: repatriation only during daylight hours and at designated ports (for Mexican nationals), ensuring a receiving government official or designee signs for custody of the unaccompanied children to record the transfer, and providing the unaccompanied children an opportunity to communicate with a consular official prior to departure. As of May 2, 2015, ICE removed 1,139 unaccompanied children from the United States in fiscal year 2015. Please note that these removal counts are based on designation of unaccompanied children at time of initial book-in, and some unaccompanied children may not be under the age of 18 at the time of removal. Regarding prosecution of unaccompanied children for illegal re-entry into the United States, DHS defers to the Department of Justice. Question#: Topic: 18 DHS Referrals to the Department of Justice Hearing: Oversight of the Department of Homeland Security Primary: The Honorable Ted Cruz Committee: JUDICIARY (SENATE) Question: On March 31, 2015, I sent a letter to Secretary of Health and Human Services Sylvia Mathews Burwell about information indicating that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) was seriously mishandling the unaccompanied alien children (UAC) in its custody. One of several concerns stated in the letter is that HHS may not be properly referring child abuse incidents occurring within facilities to the FBI or relevant law enforcement agencies, as is required by current federal law. Has your Department recorded or documented any instances of child abuse, including sexual abuse, of any UAC that were in your Department’s custody at any point since January 2011? If the answer is yes, please provide the following additional information: The number of recorded or documented instances of non-sexual child abuse (broken down by fiscal year). The number of these instances of non-sexual child abuse that have been reported to the FBI. If none of these instances of non-sexual child abuse were reported to the FBI, an explanation as to why none of them was reported as required under federal law. The number of recorded or documented instances of sexual child abuse (broken down by fiscal year). The number of these instances of sexual child abuse that have been reported to the FBI. If none of these instances of sexual child abuse were reported to the FBI, an explanation as to why none of them was reported as required under federal law. Response: In FY 2014, 81 allegations of non-sexual abuse involving an unaccompanied child (UC) were received and 8 allegations of sexual abuse involving a UC were received by CBP Office of Internal Affairs (IA). In FY 2015, 35 allegations of non-sexual abuse involving a UC were received and 3 allegations of sexual abuse involving a UC were received by CBP IA. Allegations for 2011, 2012, and 2013 are being compiled and will be provided when available. This will require a manual search of 2011, 2012, and 2013 case data, which is being compiled and reviewed at this time. CBP IA utilizes the Joint Integrity Case Management System (JICMS), a system developed by Immigration and Customs Enforcement/Office of Professional Responsibility, to document allegations, Question#: Topic: 18 DHS Referrals to the Department of Justice Hearing: Oversight of the Department of Homeland Security Primary: The Honorable Ted Cruz Committee: JUDICIARY (SENATE) open investigative case files, and document investigations. JICMS was designed primarily as a case tracking/document storage system, and it does not track specific types of case categories or provide robust statistical data unless specific manual changes are made to its configuration. Prior to FY 2014, information received alleging instances of child abuse were not specifically identified by case category markers. In FY 2014, a UC marker was added to the JICMS to allow for the capture of required statistical data. CBP has in place a reporting, documentation, and investigations process to address criminal and administrative violations that come to the attention of the agency. All allegations, including allegations involving child abuse, are reported to the Joint Intake Center (JIC) where the allegation is documented in the JICMS. Once the information is documented and the case opened, that information is transmitted to the DHS Office of Inspector General (OIG) for review and consideration for investigation by the OIG. If the OIG declines to investigate, the information is returned to CBP for investigation. Based on the nature of the allegation, the allegation may be investigated by agents of CBP IA, referred to an agency designated fact finder, or referred to management for resolution. In the event the investigation finds a criminal violation occurred, CBP IA agents will work with the appropriate prosecuting authorities to bring the matter to trial. Under 28 CFR 81.2 and 81.5, CBP qualifies as a designated “local law enforcement agency” for the purposes of receiving and investigating complaints of child abuse pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 13031. 28 CFR 81.3 designates the FBI as the agency to receive and investigate such allegations only where no such designated agency exists. For that reason, in allegations involving child abuse at facilities under CBP’s jurisdiction, the FBI is not contacted. CBP IA Agents, Border Patrol Agents, and Officers have law enforcement authority, pursuant to 19 U.S.C § 1589(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1357 to enforce the laws of the United States. CBP IA Agents are specially trained investigators who conduct investigations into activities occurring in CBP facilities. Question#: Topic: 19 Assaults of Border Patrol Agents Hearing: Oversight of the Department of Homeland Security Primary: The Honorable Ted Cruz Committee: JUDICIARY (SENATE) Question: Recent Assaults of Border Patrol Agents by Mexican Nationals On April 19, 2015, at least two U.S. Border Patrol agents were injured on the Rio Grande River in the vicinity of Anzalduas Park near McAllen, Texas. Initial reports indicated that these two Border Patrol agents were attacked with stones and rocks from the Mexican side of the Rio Grande River after their boat capsized, and that one of those Border Patrol agents suffered injuries that required hospitalization. Please provide an update about this assault, including the current medical status of the two Border Patrol agents. Response: These injuries were sustained as a result of the boat accident. The rocking incident began when other agents arrived to provide medical assistance to the injured parties. One Border Patrol Agent was treated at Rio Grande Regional Hospital in McAllen and released the day of the incident (April 19). The Agent has returned to full duty status. The other Border Patrol Agent was admitted at McAllen Medical Center for surgery to treat a broken right leg. The Agent was released on April 25 and is still at home recovering from his injuries. Question: What steps has your Department taken to alert federal and/or local Mexican law enforcement officials to the incident and help them pursue arrest and prosecution of the offenders? Response: Rio Grande Valley Border Patrol Sector (RGV) maintained communication with Mexican law enforcement during the incident. Mexico’s communication center and RGV’s Operation Center relayed general information about the collision of the boats and the subsequent rocking, as dictated by the bi-national Border Violence Protocols. Direct contact with Mexican Federal Police was maintained by RGV’s International Liaison Unit, who requested a Mexican law enforcement response for the boat accident and the rock throwing. Mexican Federal Police did respond, but no citizens at the scene (a public park) were willing to provide any information to the authorities. No suspects to the rock throwing were identified by either Mexican law enforcement or Border Patrol. Question: If your Department has taken steps to alert federal and/or local Mexican law Question#: Topic: 19 Assaults of Border Patrol Agents Hearing: Oversight of the Department of Homeland Security Primary: The Honorable Ted Cruz Committee: JUDICIARY (SENATE) enforcement officials about the incident, please indicate progress to date on the part of Mexican officials to track down the perpetrators of the assault. Does the Department have any reason to believe that cartel or gang members were the perpetrators of the assault? Response: There have been no suspects to the rock throwing assault identified by the Mexican authorities or by Border Patrol. Mexican authorities have assisted with the boating accident investigation. Question#: Topic: 20 ICE Officers Hearing: Oversight of the Department of Homeland Security Primary: The Honorable Ted Cruz Committee: JUDICIARY (SENATE) Question: President Obama’s Threat of “Consequences” for ICE Officers On February 25, 2015, President Obama stated during a televised MSNBC/Telemundo town hall discussion that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) employees who did not disobey their statutory obligations to enforce federal immigration law to follow the President’s amnesty instructions would face “consequences.” Please explain what President Obama meant by his February statement that there would be “consequences” for ICE employees who followed current federal immigration law. Has President Obama given you or any other employees within your Department any specific instructions or directives regarding what sort of consequences should follow for ICE employees who continue to follow current federal immigration law? Have any disciplinary measures been instituted against any ICE employees since President Obama’s comments for their roles in detaining illegal aliens or otherwise commencing removal proceedings for illegal aliens? Response: As noted in my November 20, 2014 memorandum entitled Policies for the Apprehension, Detention and Removal of Undocumented Immigrants, the Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) cannot respond to all immigration violations or remove all persons illegally in the United States due to limited resources. This Department-wide guidance applies to each of DHS’s immigration agencies and was intended to provide a strategic direction in their daily activities to appropriately and effectively focus resources on individuals who pose the greatest risk to public safety, border security, and national security. The memorandum issued on November 20 provides the agencies with clearer guidance regarding how best to leverage removal and detention resources to enforce the nation’s immigration laws, while simultaneously working to strengthen public confidence in our immigration enforcement efforts. ICE made no changes to its disciplinary procedures as a result of the November 20 memorandum and has had no closed disciplinary cases since the memorandum concerning a related failure to follow orders or neglect of duty. DHS issued these memoranda after a comprehensive legal review to confirm their compliance and consistency with all applicable laws. This rigorous and inclusive review Question#: Topic: 20 ICE Officers Hearing: Oversight of the Department of Homeland Security Primary: The Honorable Ted Cruz Committee: JUDICIARY (SENATE) sought the advice and input from the individuals charged with implementing the policies, as well as the ideas of a broad range of stakeholders and Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle. Question#: Topic: 21 fee-based revenue 1 Hearing: Oversight of the Department of Homeland Security Primary: The Honorable Ted Cruz Committee: JUDICIARY (SENATE) Question: USCIS Legal Immigrant Processing Capacity Congress is concerned that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may not be adhering to its specific mission to provide for legal and orderly immigration and the administration of related benefits. This failure of mission has manifested itself in the form of application backlogs, processing delays, inadequate modernization of agency recordkeeping and information sharing tools (despite generous congressional funding over the years), and a more general failure to provide our national security apparatus with the information it needs to protect the American people. This slide in performance coincides with USCIS’s access to an ever-increasing amount of revenue derived from the application fees charged to legal immigrants (although serious questions exist regarding whether USCIS is using its fee revenue for activities not sanctioned by Congress). How much fee-based revenue has USCIS received since October 1, 2009? Please provide this information broken down by fiscal year. Response: See table below: Historical Revenue Collections Account Immigration Examinations Fee Account (IEFA) IEFA NonPremium Processing Fee IEFA Premium Processing Fee H-1B Nonimmigrant Petitioner Account Fraud Prevention and Detection Account FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 YTD $ 2,332,775,142 $ 2,549,753,118 $ 2,709,072,237 $ 2,773,342,806 $ 2,785,545,802 $ 1,490,588,289 $ 2,182,088,978 $ 2,308,180,417 $ 2,444,450,270 $ 2,526,561,018 $ 2,496,784,964 $ 1,367,286,032 $ 150,686,163 $ 241,572,701 $ 264,621,967 $ 246,781,788 $ 288,760,837 $ 123,302,257 $ 11,402,636 $ 13,097,527 $ 16,123,276 $ 15,117,593 $ 16,561,527 $ 4,366,717 $ 37,965,287 $ 40,824,663 $ 45,375,438 $ 42,325,775 $ 44,807,259 $ 13,832,194 Total $ 2,382,143,064 $ 2,603,675,307 $ 2,770,570,951 $ 2,830,786,175 * FY 2015 YTD through March 2015 * Excludes reimbursements and collections for the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Commonwealth of the Mariana Islands education funding fee. $ 2,846,914,589 $ 1,508,787,200 Question#: Topic: 22 fee-based revenue 2 Hearing: Oversight of the Department of Homeland Security Primary: The Honorable Ted Cruz Committee: JUDICIARY (SENATE) Question: For each of these fiscal years, please indicate (in both raw dollars and as a percentage of that fiscal year’s fee-based revenue) how much of USCIS’s fee-based revenue was spent on: USCIS headquarters office functions. USCIS field office functions (by office or facility). Overseas office functions (by office or facility). Each region of USCIS’s Field Office Directorate. The National Benefit Center. The various nationwide service centers. The Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate (FDNS). The Administrative Site Visit Verification Program (ASVVP). Asylum-related services (including asylum application processing). Refugee-related services (including refugee application processing). Information technology infrastructure upgrades and repairs. Contractor services (and information indicating which component of USCIS issued and funded those contractor services). Response: Please see the attached worksheets: Sen. Cruz Response Q22 Exam Spending, Sen. Cruz Response Q22 Fraud Account Spending, Sen. Cruz Response Q22 H-1B Spending, and Sen. Cruz Response Q22 USCIS Obligations FY2009-2015; which provide the financial data for the requested information itemized above. Question#: Topic: 23 filing trends Hearing: Oversight of the Department of Homeland Security Primary: The Honorable Ted Cruz Committee: JUDICIARY (SENATE) Question: Please indicate the following: Past filing trends, by form type, for all forms and other instruments the agency deems to not be a form, since October 1, 2009 (including DACA applications and any other congressionally unsanctioned applications). Projections of filing trends, by form type, for all forms and other instruments the agency deems to not be a form, through September 30, 2020 (including DACA applications and any other congressionally unsanctioned applications). A breakdown of past filing trends, by form type, for all forms and other instruments the agency deems to not be a form across all service centers since October 1, 2009. A projection of future filing trends, by form type, for all forms and other instruments the agency deems to not be a form across all service centers through September 30, 2020. Response: See excel attachment USCIS filing trends. Question#: Topic: 24 future processing capacity Hearing: Oversight of the Department of Homeland Security Primary: The Honorable Ted Cruz Committee: JUDICIARY (SENATE) Question: In previous feedback to the Judiciary Committee, USCIS leadership, including USCIS Chief Financial Officer (CFO) Joseph Moore, has indicated that the mobilization of the Crystal City facility was not solely geared toward supporting the Administration’s illegal DACA and DAPA programs, but had the potential to support USCIS’s need for additional processing capacity for sanctioned adjudications. Has your Department assisted USCIS to determine its future processing capacity? Are you aware of whether USCIS has independently determined its future processing capacity? Arlington County, Virginia, is an incredibly expensive real estate market with relatively low unemployment (due to the heavy federal subsidization of the region). Working under the assumption that additional service centers are needed to handle anticipated future processing, are there other potential sites along the eastern seaboard for a new USCIS processing center that would both cost less and provide job opportunities for local residents? What else can Congress do to assist USCIS in the processing of its legal immigrant applications? Response: USCIS, in concert with DHS, is evaluating the future of the Crystal City facility. Each year, USCIS analyzes its current and future processing capacity considering workload volumes and trends. Over the past few years, USCIS has internally discussed the addition of a fifth Service Center to support growing workloads and staff, as the agency’s current capacity already falls short of the workforce need. At the time the agency identified the Crystal City facility, USCIS was interested in leveraging properties that the General Services Administration (GSA) already had in its inventory but which were not occupied. This is because a new facilities project can take as long as 2-3 years before it is occupant ready. This strategy was viewed to benefit both USCIS (by allowing for quicker occupancy) and GSA, by more fully utilizing inventory for which they were already incurring costs. USCIS Facilities experts visited a number of the sites identified by GSA, and the Crystal City site was the only location that was close to the desired size; had the desired features; Question#: Topic: 24 future processing capacity Hearing: Oversight of the Department of Homeland Security Primary: The Honorable Ted Cruz Committee: JUDICIARY (SENATE) and did not require substantial investment to bring it up to occupant-ready standard. The facility did not require construction and was fully furnished. It is important to note that while the DC metro-area has a relatively low unemployment rate, the number of job applications the Crystal City facility received prior to the injunction far exceeded the number of positions available, particularly for entry-level positions. USCIS received thousands of job applications to fill just over 300 entry-level officer vacancies. DHS and USCIS expect to make a final decision on the future of the facility soon, and as always, USCIS remains committed to processing its workload as efficiently as possible while maintaining integrity, protecting public safety, and safeguarding our national security. We appreciate Congress’s interest in facilitating the processing of legal immigration applications and DHS would be glad to work further with Congress with respect to any specific legislation Congress may consider. Question#: Topic: 25 Personnel Concerns Hearing: Oversight of the Department of Homeland Security Primary: The Honorable Ted Cruz Committee: JUDICIARY (SENATE) Question: On Tuesday, March 24, 2015, your Department’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) released a memorandum summarizing its investigation into employee complaints about management of the EB-5 program. The OIG memorandum concluded that current Deputy Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, who generally avoided involvement in EB-5 program adjudications, “communicated with [EB-5 program] stakeholders on substantive issues, outside of the normal adjudicatory process, and intervened with the career USCIS staff in ways that benefited the stakeholders.” The OIG memorandum went on to state that “Mr. Mayorkas’ communication with external stakeholders on specific matters outside the normal procedures, coupled with favorable action that deviated from the regulatory scheme designed to ensure fairness and evenhandedness in adjudicating benefits, created an appearance of favoritism and special access” for those stakeholders. Despite this revelation of apparent inappropriate behavior on the part of Mr. Mayorkas, you oppose removing Mr. Mayorkas from his post. Do you have any reason to believe the results of your Department’s OIG investigation of Mr. Mayorkas are incomplete or inaccurate? Given the findings of your Department’s OIG investigation of Mr. Mayorkas, please explain why you favor retaining him in the role of Deputy Secretary. Do you believe your support for Mr. Mayorkas might send the signal to Department employees that there are no consequences for the appearance of impropriety? Do you believe it is appropriate or acceptable for a political appointee to interfere with the implementation of an immigration program? Response: While the OIG report did not conclude that Mr. Mayorkas’ involvement led to improper outcomes or that he became involved in an EB-5 case for any personal or improper motive, as you note, it did conclude that Mr. Mayorkas’s participation created, for some USCIS employees, an appearance that certain stakeholders received favored treatment. I have discussed with Mr. Mayorkas the matters reflected in the report, and I know he understands that, as senior leaders, when we become involved in individual matters that happen to reach our desk, we risk the appearance of preferential treatment and the suspicion of our subordinates. Question#: Topic: 25 Personnel Concerns Hearing: Oversight of the Department of Homeland Security Primary: The Honorable Ted Cruz Committee: JUDICIARY (SENATE) Mr. Mayorkas has been, and remains, a valuable member of my leadership team. He has taken on leadership for many badly-needed management reforms of this Department. He is always mindful that we are public servants, works hard to do the right thing, and never acts, in my observation, for reasons of personal advancement or aggrandizement. I work with him virtually every day, and in my judgment, he is doing an outstanding job. This experience should remind all employees, especially managers, that our actions may inadvertently give rise to appearances that we do not intend, and that such appearances may color how our colleagues and subordinates view our decisions. I have directed the creation of a new protocol to govern senior leadership participation in EB-5 cases, to avoid the appearance of improper outside influence. Question#: Topic: 26 EPA OIG report Hearing: Oversight of the Department of Homeland Security Primary: The Honorable Ted Cruz Committee: JUDICIARY (SENATE) Question: Immigration and Customs Enforcement recently announced that Gwendolyn Keyes-Fleming, who has served as chief of staff to Administrator Gina McCarthy at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), is leaving EPA to serve as ICE’s Principal Legal Advisor. Bluntly stated, Ms. Keyes-Fleming appears to have zero experience with immigration law or issues. Beyond her notable lack of relevant experience, EPA’s Office of Inspector General also recently released a report (EPA OIG report) in which it specifically identified Ms. Keyes-Fleming as one of several senior officials at EPA who took no action to address inappropriate sexual harassment by senior EPA official Peter Jutro. The OIG report contains information indicating that Ms. Keyes-Fleming specifically did not act on knowledge of Mr. Jutro’s sexual harassment when she became aware of such conduct, which allowed the conduct to continue, to the detriment of several other victims. (Mr. Jutro was apparently later permitted to retire from EPA with full benefits but without any consequences for his conduct.) Ms. Keyes-Fleming may have also played an instrumental role in protecting other problematic EPA employees and, in at least one instance, interfering with an EPA OIG investigation. Were you involved in any way in the recruiting or hiring of Ms. Keyes-Fleming? Do you know if any career ICE attorneys were under consideration for this position? Do you believe it is wise for an agency that is tasked with immigration enforcement to have a chief legal advisor who has zero experience handling that agency’s subject matter? Please explain, in your view, what qualifies Ms. Keyes-Fleming to handle her impending role, in light of her total lack of immigration experience. Was Ms. Keyes-Fleming’s below conduct known before she was hired by ICE: Her failure to act with regard to Mr. Jutro’s sexual harassment conduct at EPA? Her use of OHS to block OIG investigations, including investigations into abusive or illegal EPA employee conduct? Response: Ms. Keyes- Fleming is the new Principal Legal Advisor at ICE. She was selected, after a lengthy search, by the DHS General Counsel, in consultation with Assistant Secretary Saldaña, the leader of ICE. Ms. Keyes-Fleming has extensive law enforcement and legal experience, having, among other things, served as the District Question#: Topic: 26 EPA OIG report Hearing: Oversight of the Department of Homeland Security Primary: The Honorable Ted Cruz Committee: JUDICIARY (SENATE) Attorney and, before that, the Solicitor General in Decatur, Georgia. In total, Ms. Keyes-Fleming has more than 17 years of experience as a law enforcement lawyer. She is smart, energetic and has a track record of successfully adapting to new substantive and management challenges. Ms. Keyes-Fleming is a dynamic and accomplished senior government leader and manager, with experience at both the federal and state levels. She was previously the Chief of Staff at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, where she worked with the EPA Administrator and other senior agency officials to oversee the management of a federal agency with an $8 billion annual budget and more than 15,000 employees. She also previously served as the Regional Administrator for EPA Region 4 (based in Atlanta, Georgia), where she oversaw more than 1,000 employees across various operational and administrative divisions. ICE is charged not only with immigration enforcement but with enforcing more than 400 federal statutes involving everything from counter proliferation to child pornography. ICE’s legal team is made up of attorneys with experience in a wide variety of different law enforcement realms. Ms. Keyes-Fleming’s significant experience in law enforcement and running large government agencies makes her well qualified to serve as ICE’s Principal Legal Advisor. As is true with all such senior appointments, Ms. Keyes-Fleming’s background, history and experience were carefully vetted before she was offered the position of Principal Legal Advisor. Question#: Topic: 27 Oversight of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Hearing: Oversight of the Department of Homeland Security Primary: The Honorable Ted Cruz Committee: JUDICIARY (SENATE) Question: On March 3, 2015, USCIS CFO Joseph Moore, Associate Director of USCIS Field Operations Directorate Daniel Renaud, and Associate Director of USCIS Service Center Operations Directorate Don Neufeld testified before this Committee’s Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest at a hearing entitled “Oversight of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services: Ensuring Agency Priorities Comply with the Law.” Other senators and I submitted a combined package of questions for the record for Messrs. Moore, Renaud, and Neufeld, but have to date still not received answers to those questions. Please provide an update with respect to the questions for the record that were asked of Messrs. Moore, Renaud, and Neufeld subsequent to the March 3 hearing. Response: Responses to those questions have been returned to Congress. Question#: Topic: 28 Information and Network Security Hearing: Oversight of the Department of Homeland Security Primary: The Honorable Ted Cruz Committee: JUDICIARY (SENATE) Question: Reports over the last few years have indicated that high-level Administration officials, including cabinet-level officials, have used personnel e-mail accounts and other personal means of communication to conduct official business. Such conduct, except under narrow circumstances, is illegal under federal law. Part of the reason for stringent federal recordkeeping requirements has to do with being able to assure the proper level of security for the use and transfer of sensitive information. Unauthorized use of personal email accounts or other personal means of communication runs the risk of exposing sensitive federal information systems to intrusion or damage, sometimes by foreign actors. Has your Department experienced any information technology breach or damage incidents as the result of your or another employee’s use of personal e-mail accounts and other personal means of communication to conduct official business? If the answer is yes, please provide additional information about these incidents, including the dates, circumstances, and responses. Response: There has not been an information technology breach or damage from employees using personal e-mail to conduct official business. Question: Does your Department block its employees from accessing the Internet or external, non-federal networks from agency computers? If the answer is yes, please justify this policy (given the sensitivity of information handled by your Department). Response: Generally, the use of webmail is not authorized over DHS furnished equipment or network. DHS Sensitive Systems Directive 4300A, section 5.4.7.a states, “The use of Internet Webmail (Gmail, Yahoo, AOL) or other personal email accounts is not authorized over DHS furnished equipment or network connections.” DHS prohibited webmail use because it could provide an additional vector for adversaries to infect a machine on DHS’s network—for instance, via phishing emails sent to an employee’s private webmail account. However, employees can seek an exception to this policy, which is handled on a case by case basis. Question#: Topic: 29 Status of DHS Headquarters Consolidation Effort Hearing: Oversight of the Department of Homeland Security Primary: The Honorable Ted Cruz Committee: JUDICIARY (SENATE) Question: Your Department has done a poor job consolidating its different components into a single headquarters facility in Washington, D.C. Specifically, your Department’s efforts to bring most or all of its disparate components, many of which had been independent agencies or part of other agencies prior to the creation of the Department of Homeland Security in 2003, together in the new St. Elizabeths headquarters facility in Anacostia have encountered substantial delays, massive cost overruns, and internal resistance from components that refuse to work with headquarters. Please provide an update on the consolidation effort, specifically addressing the following issues: The current estimated date of completion of the St. Elizabeth’s facility. Response: The DHS Consolidated Headquarters completion depends on the full support of the Congress for both DHS and GSA budget requests. As such; subject to the Congress fully funding the President’s Budget Request for FY 2016 and the out-year funding profiles, the St. Elizabeths development will be completed at the end of FY 2021. Without Congressional support and funding, this project cannot be completed in the specified timeline. Question: The current estimated total cost for the construction of the St. Elizabeth’s facility. Response: The President’s FY 2016 Budget Request is based on the “Enhanced Consolidation Plan” that reduces the total estimated cost (including GSA and DHS costs) for the St. Elizabeths development from $4.5 billion to $3.7 billion. Question: The current status of components’ relocation efforts. Response: Phase 1 (U.S. Coast Guard) was completed on-time and on-budget for the portions of the project funded by Congress. Also, GSA awarded a Design-Build construction contract for the initiation of Phase 2 (Center Building renovation) on schedule and on-budget using FY 2014 appropriations. DHS FY 2015 appropriations provided the remaining funds necessary for tenant responsibilities, information technology, outfitting, and move costs for the leadership to occupy the Center Building once the renovation is complete in FY 2017. In addition, Question#: Topic: 29 Status of DHS Headquarters Consolidation Effort Hearing: Oversight of the Department of Homeland Security Primary: The Honorable Ted Cruz Committee: JUDICIARY (SENATE) GSA FY 2015 appropriations provided funding for construction of critical transportation infrastructure necessary to support the traffic demand created by additional occupancies in the remaining phases. GSA is on schedule to issue a Design-Build contract for completion of this work by the end of FY 2015. The Enhanced Consolidation Plan realigns the commercial lease expirations that became out of sync with the delays in funding between 2011 through 2015. The plan focuses on the most pressing lease expirations in sequential order to avoid or minimize the potential for short term lease extensions (at higher costs). Accordingly, funding for construction/renovation of facilities at St. Elizabeths for the Management Directorate is included in the FY 2016 Request. In addition, the FY 2016 Request includes $26 million to increase utilization of the Douglas A. Munro Coast Guard Headquarters Building. The Coast Guard is planning to relocate 700 staff from their activities in Ballston by the end of the calendar year, saving over $7 million annually. By adopting flexible workplace strategies and reduced space standards, we can accommodate an additional 1,400 DHS employees in the facility, thereby saving 273,000 square feet of additional construction. The remaining plan for consolidation at St. Elizabeths includes funding for FEMA construction in FY 2017, ICE construction in FY 2018, and CBP in FY 2019. Question: With respect to any components that continue to resist the consolidation, an update as to each, including their justifications for resisting the consolidation. Response: Since the majority of DHS leases are expiring within the next five years, Components understand that relocations are likely, regardless of the funding status of St. Elizabeths. All DHS Components understand and support the value proposition that consolidation has on Unity of Effort and lower long term costs. Question: Any plans you have to expand parking capacity at the St. Elizabeth’s facility (which may be a factor motivating some components to resist consolidation). Response: The on-site parking allowance for federal facilities within the National Capital Region is prescribed by the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) Comprehensive Plan (Federal Elements) depending on location and access to public transportation. At St. Elizabeths, the NCPC allowance is one parking space for every four employees (1:4 ratio) for day-working activities. An allowance of 1:3 was approved by NCPC for 24/7 functions. As occupancy expands, additional parking will be provided in accordance with the allowance (subject to GSA being adequately funded to construct the facilities). Question#: Topic: 30 FLETC 1 Hearing: Oversight of the Department of Homeland Security Primary: The Honorable Ted Cruz Committee: JUDICIARY (SENATE) Question: Your Department’s Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) currently provides law enforcement and related training for dozens of federal and nonfederal partners, including most federal law enforcement agencies (excluding the FBI and Drug Enforcement Administration, which train out of their own dedicated facilities in Quantico, Virginia). FLETC has an established multi-facility infrastructure and has invested substantial resources in the development of its training capacity. It is my understanding that the State Department is currently attempting to build its own, expensive, stand-alone training facility in Blackstone, Virginia, which it has dubbed the Foreign Affairs Security Training Center (FASTC), to train its diplomatic security personnel, and that the State Department has refused to cooperate with your Department in order to prevent your Department from fully assessing the State Department’s training needs and FLETC’s ability to meet those needs. Do you believe FLETC has the requisite infrastructure, capacity, and experience to train the State Department’s diplomatic security personnel? Response: With the build-out the Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers (FLETC) has proposed to consolidate the Department of State’s (DOS) training at its site in Glynco, Georgia, FLETC would have the requisite infrastructure and capacity to train DOS’s security personnel. However, DOS has determined that its specialized training needs, including close proximity to overseas partners’ training (e.g., U.S. Marine Corps) and night time training requirements, cannot be met at FLETC and requires the construction of a new Foreign Affairs Security Training Center (FASTC) that is tailored to State’s training needs and exclusively for State’s use. Question#: Topic: 31 FLETC 2 Hearing: Oversight of the Department of Homeland Security Primary: The Honorable Ted Cruz Committee: JUDICIARY (SENATE) Question: Your Department’s Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) currently provides law enforcement and related training for dozens of federal and nonfederal partners, including most federal law enforcement agencies (excluding the FBI and Drug Enforcement Administration, which train out of their own dedicated facilities in Quantico, Virginia). FLETC has an established multi-facility infrastructure and has invested substantial resources in the development of its training capacity. It is my understanding that the State Department is currently attempting to build its own, expensive, stand-alone training facility in Blackstone, Virginia, which it has dubbed the Foreign Affairs Security Training Center (FASTC), to train its diplomatic security personnel, and that the State Department has refused to cooperate with your Department in order to prevent your Department from fully assessing the State Department’s training needs and FLETC’s ability to meet those needs. What, if any, additional financial or other investment would FLETC have to make in order to ensure that it has adequate capacity to train the State Department’s diplomatic security personnel? Response: On November 1, 2013, FLETC responded to OMB’s request for a refined estimate for consolidating DOS’s training at FLETC-Glynco. This proposal calls for $272 million for additional construction to meet the needs of DOS’s full scope master plan. This business case identifies DOS training that FLETC could conduct immediately, training that would require modification to existing facilities, and training that would require new construction. Question: Do you have any information regarding how much the State Department’s proposed FASTC would cost? Response: FLETC does not have the State Department’s proposals and associated cost analyses for constructing FASTC at Fort Pickett. DHS defers to DOS for detailed information concerning these estimates. Question: Please provide any additional information you have regarding the State Department’s proposed FASTC that you think would be important for the Committee to consider, including: Any information you have about the parcel(s) of land that the State Department hopes to use for the proposed FASTC, including geographical, geological, or environmental Question#: Topic: 31 FLETC 2 Hearing: Oversight of the Department of Homeland Security Primary: The Honorable Ted Cruz Committee: JUDICIARY (SENATE) concerns. Any information you have any the proposed designs of the proposed FASTC. Response: FLETC does not have any information regarding the parcel of land proposed for the FASTC other than what is publicly available in its Environmental Impact Statement. DHS defers to DOS for further information regarding the DOS FASTC proposal. Question: Do you believe FLETC can train the State Department’s diplomatic security personnel for less funding than it would take to assist the State Department to construct a brand-new training facility? Response: Per the response to Question 30 above, there is no existing direct comparison between the cost of constructing FASTC at Fort Pickett based on DOS’s reduced scope master plan and the cost of modifying existing facilities at FLETC-Glynco to meet DOS’s reduced scope needs. Question#: Topic: 32 FASTC Hearing: Oversight of the Department of Homeland Security Primary: The Honorable Ted Cruz Committee: JUDICIARY (SENATE) Question: It is my understanding that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has conducted its own analysis of the cost differential between FLETC and the State Department’s proposed FASTC, and determined that upgrades to FLETC are far more economical than the construction of a brand new FASTC. It is also my understanding, however, that that internal review has been suppressed by the Administration to conceal the cost-related obstacles of FASTC construction. Does anyone in your Department possess this OMB cost analysis? If the answer is yes, please provide a copy of this cost analysis. Response: FLETC does not have a copy of OMB’s analysis. Question: Has anyone in your Department seen this OMB cost analysis? If the answer is yes, please discuss your understanding of the findings of this cost analysis. Response: FLETC has not seen OMB’s analysis. Question: If FLETC personnel or anyone else in your Department supplied information or material to OMB to help OMB conduct its cost analysis, please supply the names of the individuals at OMB with whom your Department coordinated. Response: FLETC has coordinated with OMB’s Budget Division since late 2012. Oversight of the Department of Homeland Security  Senator Ted Cruz Question 22 Total Fee Revenue Collected by Fiscal Year Immigration Examinations Fee Account  $       2,332,775,142  FY 2010  Spending  $       2,549,753,118 % of  Revenue  FY 2011  Spending  $       2,709,072,237 % of  Revenue  FY 2012  Spending  $       2,773,342,806 % of  Revenue  FY 2013  Spending  $       2,785,545,802 % of  Revenue  FY 2014  Spending  $       1,490,588,289 % of  Revenue  FY 2015  Spending  % of  Revenue Org 1 Org 2 Org 3 HQ Program Offices Director Director $              2,238,090 0.10% $              2,596,331 0.10% $              3,287,140 0.12% $              3,661,018 0.13% $              2,642,267 0.09% $              1,531,685 0.10% OrgName HQ Program Offices Communications Communications                5,499,394 0.24%                6,720,279 0.26%                7,143,984 0.26%                8,210,698 0.30%                 9,278,185 0.33%                 4,836,740 0.32% HQ Program Offices Legislative Affairs Legislative Affairs                2,155,470 0.09%                2,687,066 0.11%                4,153,315 0.15%                3,153,171 0.11%                 3,365,547 0.12%                 1,829,865 0.12% HQ Program Offices Citizenship Citizenship                4,476,354 0.19%                5,631,491 0.22%              11,000,915 0.41%              14,553,393 0.52%               13,208,811 0.47%                 2,660,369 0.18% HQ Program Offices Equal Opportunity & Inclusion Equal Opportunity & Inclusion                2,391,107 0.10%                2,400,792 0.09%                3,135,004 0.12%                3,417,481 0.12%                 3,916,272 0.14%                 2,227,468 0.15% 0.08% HQ Program Offices Executive Secretariat Executive Secretariat                2,037,244 0.09%                2,190,806 0.09%                1,898,261 0.07%                1,689,230 0.06%                 1,879,660 0.07%                 1,249,382 HQ Program Offices Chief Counsel Chief Counsel              25,629,846 1.10%              28,259,789 1.11%              30,470,248 1.12%              34,591,504 1.25%               41,478,206 1.49%               21,318,261 1.43% HQ Program Offices Policy & Strategy Policy & Strategy                7,537,446 0.32%                9,252,264 0.36%              11,786,007 0.44%              11,688,143 0.42%               13,133,438 0.47%                 6,568,826 0.44% HQ Program Offices IT Infrastructure Upgrades and Repairs IT Infrastructure Upgrades and Repairs            531,841,974 22.80%            551,518,051 21.63%            574,320,351 21.20%            565,583,730 20.39%             603,725,355 21.67%             259,750,013 17.43% HQ Program Offices Performance & Quality Performance & Quality                2,549,850 0.11%                4,664,060 0.18%                5,390,039 0.20%                6,220,291 0.22%                 6,001,728 0.22%                 2,500,865 0.17% HQ Program Offices Administrative Appeals Administrative Appeals              14,732,573 0.63%              15,285,163 0.60%              17,854,836 0.66%              20,121,897 0.73%               18,861,661 0.68%                 9,152,779 0.61% HQ Program Offices Privacy Privacy                    597,254 0.03%                    726,024 0.03%                1,127,395 0.04%                1,783,024 0.06%                 2,074,634 0.07%                 1,085,201 0.07%            601,686,601            631,932,115            674,673,581             719,565,764             314,711,453 Program Offices Total            671,567,495 HQ Refugee, Asylum  & Intl Ops Directorate RAIO ‐ Headquarters RAIO ‐ Headquarters Total Refugee, Asylum  & Intl Ops                6,460,917                6,460,917 0.28%              11,534,026              11,534,026 0.45%              10,165,978              10,165,978 0.38%              20,368,091              20,368,091 0.73%               22,619,115               22,619,115 0.81%                 7,289,436                 7,289,436 0.49% Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Refugee, Asylum  & Intl Ops Directorate Refugee, Asylum  & Intl Ops Directorate Refugee, Asylum  & Intl Ops Directorate Refugee, Asylum  & Intl Ops Directorate Refugee, Asylum  & Intl Ops Directorate Refugee, Asylum  & Intl Ops Directorate Refugee, Asylum  & Intl Ops Directorate Refugee, Asylum  & Intl Ops Directorate Refugee, Asylum  & Intl Ops Directorate RAIO ‐ Asylum RAIO ‐ Asylum RAIO ‐ Asylum RAIO ‐ Asylum RAIO ‐ Asylum RAIO ‐ Asylum RAIO ‐ Asylum RAIO ‐ Asylum RAIO ‐ Asylum RAIO ‐ Asylum Total Asylum Division Arlington Asylum Office Chicago Asylum Office Houston Asylum Office Los Angeles Asylum Office Miami Asylum Office New York Asylum Office Newark Asylum Office San Francisco Asylum Office                9,540,863                5,503,088                3,711,194                5,322,302              12,313,915                8,175,973                6,006,923                5,456,367                6,221,429              62,252,055 0.41% 0.24% 0.16% 0.23% 0.53% 0.35% 0.26% 0.23% 0.27%                5,723,204                2,709,099                1,818,592                3,430,810                6,544,074                4,300,643                3,730,808                3,284,934                3,620,107              35,162,272 0.22% 0.11% 0.07% 0.13% 0.26% 0.17% 0.15% 0.13% 0.14%                9,465,805                4,620,596                3,425,223                6,815,520              11,302,459                6,338,704                7,157,725                5,575,730                5,886,944              60,588,707 0.35% 0.17% 0.13% 0.25% 0.42% 0.23% 0.26% 0.21% 0.22%              12,234,750                4,645,645                3,610,071                9,076,129              12,124,609                6,379,580                7,818,327                6,041,134                6,504,302              68,434,549 0.44% 0.17% 0.13% 0.33% 0.44% 0.23% 0.28% 0.22% 0.23%               17,601,560                 5,322,313                 4,381,719               10,856,378               14,507,610                 6,959,292                 8,098,868                 7,436,620                 8,193,292               83,357,652 0.63% 0.19% 0.16% 0.39% 0.52% 0.25% 0.29% 0.27% 0.29%                 3,430,343                 3,005,919                 2,710,403                 7,006,598                 7,882,129                 4,248,053                 3,951,203                 4,374,167                 4,549,632               41,158,446 0.23% 0.20% 0.18% 0.47% 0.53% 0.28% 0.27% 0.29% 0.31% Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Refugee, Asylum  & Intl Ops Directorate Refugee, Asylum  & Intl Ops Directorate Refugee, Asylum  & Intl Ops Directorate Refugee, Asylum  & Intl Ops Directorate Refugee, Asylum  & Intl Ops Directorate Refugee, Asylum  & Intl Ops Directorate Refugee, Asylum  & Intl Ops Directorate Refugee, Asylum  & Intl Ops Directorate Refugee, Asylum  & Intl Ops Directorate Refugee, Asylum  & Intl Ops Directorate Refugee, Asylum  & Intl Ops Directorate Refugee, Asylum  & Intl Ops Directorate Refugee, Asylum  & Intl Ops Directorate Refugee, Asylum  & Intl Ops Directorate Refugee, Asylum  & Intl Ops Directorate Refugee, Asylum  & Intl Ops Directorate Refugee, Asylum  & Intl Ops Directorate Refugee, Asylum  & Intl Ops Directorate Refugee, Asylum  & Intl Ops Directorate Refugee, Asylum  & Intl Ops Directorate Refugee, Asylum  & Intl Ops Directorate Refugee, Asylum  & Intl Ops Directorate Refugee, Asylum  & Intl Ops Directorate Refugee, Asylum  & Intl Ops Directorate Refugee, Asylum  & Intl Ops Directorate Refugee, Asylum  & Intl Ops Directorate Refugee, Asylum  & Intl Ops Directorate Refugee, Asylum  & Intl Ops Directorate Refugee, Asylum  & Intl Ops Directorate Refugee, Asylum  & Intl Ops Directorate Refugee, Asylum  & Intl Ops Directorate RAIO ‐ International Operations Division RAIO ‐ International Operations Division RAIO ‐ International Operations Division RAIO ‐ International Operations Division RAIO ‐ International Operations Division RAIO ‐ International Operations Division RAIO ‐ International Operations Division RAIO ‐ International Operations Division RAIO ‐ International Operations Division RAIO ‐ International Operations Division RAIO ‐ International Operations Division RAIO ‐ International Operations Division RAIO ‐ International Operations Division RAIO ‐ International Operations Division RAIO ‐ International Operations Division RAIO ‐ International Operations Division RAIO ‐ International Operations Division RAIO ‐ International Operations Division RAIO ‐ International Operations Division RAIO ‐ International Operations Division RAIO ‐ International Operations Division RAIO ‐ International Operations Division RAIO ‐ International Operations Division RAIO ‐ International Operations Division RAIO ‐ International Operations Division RAIO ‐ International Operations Division RAIO ‐ International Operations Division RAIO ‐ International Operations Division RAIO ‐ International Operations Division RAIO ‐ International Operations Division RAIO ‐ International Operations Division International Operations Div Accra Ghana Amman, Jordan Suboffice Amsterdam, Netherlands Athens Greece Suboffice Bangkok District Office Beijing, China Ciudad Juarez Suboffice Duty Post: Ottawa, Canada Frankfurt Germany Suboffice Guangzhou, China Guatemala City, Guatemala Havana Cuba Sub off Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam So Johannesburg, South Africa Kingston, Jamaica Lima, Peru London England Suboffice Madrid, Spain Manila Philippines Suboffice Mexico City District Office Monterrey Suboffice Moscow Russia Suboffice Nairobi Kenya Suboffice New Delhi India Suboffice Panama City, Panama Port‐au‐Prince Suboffice Haiti So Rome District Office San Domingo, Dominican Rep So San Salvador, El Salvador Seoul Korea Suboffice              24,038,529                    498,774                    298,582 1.03% 0.02% 0.01% 0.00% 0.04% 0.11% 0.03% 0.05% 0.00% 0.04% 0.04% 0.03% 0.03% 0.02% 0.01% 0.01% 0.02% 0.02% 0.00% 0.03% 0.08% 0.02% 0.06% 0.02% 0.04% 0.01% 0.03% 0.10% 0.01% 0.02% 0.02%              16,832,874                    502,961                    362,701 0.66% 0.02% 0.01% 0.00% 0.03% 0.09% 0.01% 0.04% 0.00% 0.04% 0.04% 0.03% 0.02% 0.01% 0.01% 0.01% 0.02% 0.02% 0.00% 0.03% 0.08% 0.02% 0.05% 0.02% 0.03% 0.01% 0.03% 0.08% 0.01% 0.02% 0.02%              26,130,565                    410,598                    378,319 0.96% 0.02% 0.01% 0.00% 0.03% 0.09% 0.02% 0.03% 0.00% 0.04% 0.04% 0.03% 0.03% 0.00% 0.01% 0.01% 0.02% 0.02% 0.00% 0.02% 0.07% 0.02% 0.05% 0.02% 0.03% 0.01% 0.03% 0.08% 0.02% 0.02% 0.02%              15,679,260                     496,833                     362,724                             ‐                     852,825                2,712,728                     632,394                     856,035 0.57% 0.02% 0.01% 0.00% 0.03% 0.10% 0.02% 0.03% 0.00% 0.04% 0.04% 0.03% 0.02% 0.00% 0.01% 0.00% 0.02% 0.02% 0.00% 0.03% 0.07% 0.02% 0.04% 0.02% 0.02% 0.01% 0.03% 0.08% 0.01% 0.02% 0.02%               15,361,421                      539,663                      328,948 0.55% 0.02% 0.01% 0.00% 0.04% 0.09% 0.03% 0.02% 0.00% 0.04% 0.05% 0.03% 0.02% 0.00% 0.01% 0.00% 0.02% 0.02% 0.00% 0.03% 0.07% 0.02% 0.05% 0.02% 0.03% 0.00% 0.03% 0.08% 0.01% 0.02% 0.03%               14,761,718                      361,760                      211,026 0.99% 0.02% 0.01% 0.00% 0.03% 0.08% 0.03% 0.02% 0.00% 0.04% 0.04% 0.02% 0.02% 0.00% 0.01% 0.00% 0.02% 0.02% 0.00% 0.02% 0.07% 0.02% 0.03% 0.02% 0.03% 0.00% 0.02% 0.08% 0.01% 0.02% 0.03%                    901,986                2,496,894                    708,640                1,117,953                      10,617                1,031,278                1,022,087                    705,124                    600,096                    449,013                    298,084                    329,734                    481,713                    532,080                    627,170                1,872,517                    569,469                1,466,859                    445,753                    821,393                    319,174                    623,655                2,435,107                    348,034                    404,849                    452,233 Page 1 of 4                    840,798                2,289,969                    344,208                1,010,733                    999,673                1,100,878                    782,951                    615,817                    211,292                    296,700                    332,723                    466,211                    472,885                    671,485                2,039,239                    613,401                1,244,213                    391,785                    697,752                    321,278                    727,752                1,988,030                    351,036                    514,152                    524,508                    889,173                2,367,739                    637,161                    813,689                    959,726                1,099,945                    944,934                    710,041                    263,772                    289,667                    477,728                    505,389                            ‐                    672,919                1,815,575                    536,062                1,348,387                    540,225                    762,678                    329,171                    718,558                2,301,873                    501,096                    456,147                    556,776                1,004,394                1,018,646                     810,562                     633,192                     261,272                       94,900                     556,420                     488,111                             ‐                     708,044                1,962,512                     594,496                1,216,008                     578,928                     688,047                     139,561                     837,829                2,240,507                     316,748                     520,933                     603,481                      983,483                 2,442,780                      771,772                      525,785                             460                 1,089,733                 1,396,595                      737,153                      662,087                      309,029                              ‐                      611,299                      464,636                      818,119                 1,819,264                      493,405                 1,397,344                      502,012                      755,291                              ‐                      734,891                 2,205,427                      350,166                      488,077                      717,573                      463,263                 1,144,070                      426,871                      232,815                              ‐                      578,657                      661,447                      343,260                      278,115                      205,762                      340,214                      241,975                      346,034                      983,143                      231,627                      518,587                      281,877                      406,720                      368,736                 1,189,407                      176,452                      253,541                      413,621  FY 2010  Spending  Org 1 Org 2 Org 3 Field Field Field Refugee, Asylum  & Intl Ops Directorate Refugee, Asylum  & Intl Ops Directorate Refugee, Asylum  & Intl Ops Directorate RAIO ‐ International Operations Division RAIO ‐ International Operations Division RAIO ‐ International Operations Division RAIO ‐ International Operations Division Total Tegucigalpa Honduras So Tijuana Mexico Suboffice Vienna Austria Suboffice                    319,153 Field Refugee, Asylum  & Intl Ops Directorate RAIO ‐ Refugee RAIO ‐ Refugee Total Refugee Division OrgName  FY 2011  Spending  % of  Revenue  FY 2012  Spending  % of  Revenue  FY 2013  Spending  % of  Revenue  FY 2014  Spending  % of  Revenue  FY 2015  Spending  % of  Revenue 0.01%                    224,990 0.00% 0.02%                    486,405              38,259,401 0.01%                    344,483 0.00% 0.02%                    459,073              48,221,471 0.01%                     248,329 0.00% 0.02%                     440,486              37,556,205 0.01%                              ‐ 0.00%                              ‐ 0.02%                      484,576               36,990,992 0.00% 0.00%                              ‐ 0.02%                      245,560               25,666,258 0.00% 0.00% 0.02%              18,547,786              18,547,786            134,001,275 0.80%              13,152,327              13,152,327              98,108,027 0.52%              20,099,047              20,099,047            139,075,204 0.74%              20,542,786              20,542,786            146,901,631 0.74%               21,961,068               21,961,068             164,928,826 0.79%               11,181,094               11,181,094               85,295,235 0.75%                    513,968              46,740,517 Refugee, Asylum  & Intl Ops Directorate Total % of  Revenue HQ Field Operations Directorate Field Operations HQ Field Operations HQ Total Field Operations HQ            126,721,830            126,721,830 5.43%              45,593,050              45,593,050 1.79%              46,487,023              46,487,023 1.72%              55,495,182              55,495,182 2.00%               77,360,051               77,360,051 2.78%               40,158,585               40,158,585 2.69% Field Field Operations Directorate National Benefit Center National Benefit Center Total National Benefit Center              71,616,225              71,616,225 3.07%              66,547,251              66,547,251 2.61%              82,114,391              82,114,391 3.03%            108,457,890            108,457,890 3.91%             129,387,826             129,387,826 4.64%               63,602,802               63,602,802 4.27% Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate North East Regional Office North East Regional Office North East Regional Office North East Regional Office North East Regional Office North East Regional Office North East Regional Office North East Regional Office North East Regional Office North East Regional Office North East Regional Office North East Regional Office North East Regional Office North East Regional Office North East Regional Office North East Regional Office North East Regional Office North East Regional Office North East Regional Office North East Regional Office North East Regional Office North East Regional Office North East Regional Office North East Regional Office North East Regional Office North East Regional Office North East Regional Office North East Regional Office North East Regional Office North East Regional Office North East Regional Office North East Regional Office North East Regional Office North East Regional Office Total North East Regional Office Albany NY Field Office Baltimore DO Baltimore Md Field Office Boston District Office Boston DO Boston Ma Field Office Buffalo DO Buffalo NY Field Office Fairfax DO Fairfax VA Field Office Garden City NJ Field Office Hartford Ct Field Office Language Services Section Lawrence Field Office Long Island Field Office Manchester NH Field Office Mt Laurel NJ Field Office New York City Field Office New York District Office New York DO Newark DO Newark NJ Field Office Norfolk VA Field Office Philadelphia DO Philadelphia Pa Field Office Pittsburgh Pa Field Office Portland Me Field Office Providence RI Field Office Queens Field Office Records Section St Albans VT Field Office Washington District Office                5,007,837                1,301,872                            ‐                8,186,197 0.21% 0.06% 0.00% 0.35% 0.00% 0.00% 0.34% 0.01% 0.16% 0.01% 0.30% 0.50% 0.20% 0.00% 0.11% 0.00% 0.03% 0.11% 1.67% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.67% 0.07% 0.00% 0.37% 0.06% 0.04% 0.06% 0.00% 0.00% 0.02% 0.00%                5,952,614                1,262,867                            ‐                8,238,491                            ‐                    923,328                6,643,408                    315,324                3,568,115                    290,906                7,076,080                5,924,704                4,981,677                      87,318                3,001,407                6,144,465                1,067,548                2,626,570              38,582,107 0.23% 0.05% 0.00% 0.32% 0.00% 0.04% 0.26% 0.01% 0.14% 0.01% 0.28% 0.23% 0.20% 0.00% 0.12% 0.24% 0.04% 0.10% 1.51% 0.00% 0.01% 0.00% 0.62% 0.06% 0.00% 0.33% 0.06% 0.04% 0.07% 0.00% 0.00% 0.02% 0.00%                5,830,789                1,376,794                            ‐                8,999,116 0.22% 0.05% 0.00% 0.33% 0.00% 0.06% 0.26% 0.01% 0.13% 0.01% 0.34% 0.03% 0.19% 0.00% 0.10% 0.25% 0.03% 0.11% 1.40% 0.00% 0.05% 0.01% 0.61% 0.06% 0.00% 0.32% 0.05% 0.04% 0.06% 0.20% 0.00% 0.02% 0.00%                4,540,868                1,262,388                       44,285                9,570,558 0.16% 0.05% 0.00% 0.35% 0.00% 0.07% 0.28% 0.01% 0.12% 0.01% 0.34% 0.00% 0.18% 0.00% 0.11% 0.26% 0.04% 0.11% 1.46% 0.00% 0.06% 0.01% 0.63% 0.07% 0.00% 0.34% 0.05% 0.04% 0.06% 0.22% 0.00% 0.02% 0.00% 0.18% 0.05% 0.03% 0.31% 0.00% 0.07% 0.29% 0.02% 0.13% 0.01% 0.35% 0.00% 0.19% 0.00% 0.11% 0.24% 0.04% 0.12% 1.40% 0.00% 0.06% 0.01% 0.63% 0.07% 0.02% 0.34% 0.06% 0.04% 0.07% 0.23% 0.00% 0.03% 0.00% 0.19% 0.05% 0.07% 0.28% 0.00% 0.07% 0.28% 0.05% 0.11% 0.06% 0.29% 0.00% 0.19% 0.00% 0.11% 0.24% 0.04% 0.12% 1.40% 0.00% 0.06% 0.05% 0.55% 0.07% 0.05% 0.30% 0.05% 0.03% 0.06% 0.22% 0.00% 0.03% 0.00% Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate South East Regional Office South East Regional Office South East Regional Office South East Regional Office South East Regional Office South East Regional Office South East Regional Office South East Regional Office South East Regional Office South East Regional Office South East Regional Office South East Regional Office South East Regional Office South East Regional Office South East Regional Office South East Regional Office South East Regional Office South East Regional Office South East Regional Office South East Regional Office South East Regional Office South East Regional Office South East Regional Office South East Regional Office Atlanta District Office Atlanta DO Atlanta Ga Field Office Charleston SC Field Office Charlotte Amalie Vi Field Office Charlotte NC Field Office Ft Smith AR Field Office Hialeah Field Office Jacksonville FL Field Office Kendall Field Office Memphis TN Field Office Miami DO Miami FL Field Office New Orleans DO New Orleans La Field Office Oakland Park Field Office Orlando FL Field Office Orlando FL Suboffice Raleigh NC Field Office San Juan PR Field Office Tampa DO Tampa FL Field Office 0.19% 0.00% 0.05% 0.35% 0.08% 0.04% 0.13% 0.04% 0.23% 0.09% 0.23% 0.12% 0.11% 0.24% 0.03% 0.10% 0.21% 0.19% 0.00% 0.11% 0.09% 0.06% 0.18%                4,778,125                       (1,015)                1,389,800                8,121,403                1,798,506                    896,605                3,060,386                    881,991                5,281,578                2,312,261                5,197,267                2,676,993                2,477,173                5,439,273                    981,855                1,743,894                4,738,282                4,732,923                            ‐                7,894,579                    275,994                3,665,521                    287,811                7,005,190              11,727,468                4,681,352                      90,000                2,539,785                    753,109                2,450,544              38,971,397                           941                      61,640              15,702,837                1,692,050                            ‐                8,531,487                1,310,462                    888,173                1,478,650                    551,515            125,056,412                4,461,029                1,093,995                8,056,823                1,811,558                1,028,283                3,132,452                    845,660                5,356,135                2,151,339                5,459,711                2,772,489                2,486,629                5,620,836                    661,916                2,263,770                4,871,374                4,493,934                2,583,076                2,076,877                1,477,453                4,291,559 Page 2 of 4                    167,613                      63,032              15,684,037                1,475,644                            ‐                8,467,588                1,412,466                1,079,220                1,677,814                          (200)                    609,657                          (672)            127,323,129                2,674,858                1,782,117                1,425,972                4,530,195                1,501,910                7,091,612                    278,983                3,608,525                    312,329                9,100,256                    823,449                5,113,549                    109,900                2,625,540                6,679,612                    898,011                2,955,721              37,969,182                1,437,821                    206,177              16,576,308                1,629,223                      77,685                8,773,122                1,360,699                1,003,820                1,740,802                5,352,554                    605,541                1,989,135                7,638,986                     258,165                3,335,743                     346,926                9,350,637                             ‐                5,123,978                     100,000                3,115,445                7,109,397                1,091,957                2,965,467              40,484,163                                 0                1,602,552                     257,438              17,361,419                2,039,776                     114,110                9,512,966                1,377,853                1,041,868                1,754,774                6,042,124                           (313)                     656,374            134,039,030            140,089,037 0.19%                5,189,167 0.00% 0.05%                1,705,068 0.32%                8,391,045 0.07%                1,978,688 0.04%                    799,041 0.12%                2,763,006 0.03%                    795,172 0.21%                5,708,583 0.09%                2,531,262 0.20%                4,895,990 0.10%                2,826,579 0.10%                2,915,101 0.21%                5,251,331 0.04%                1,047,627 0.07%                1,929,136 0.19%                4,792,474 0.19%                5,219,059 0.00%                      41,814 0.10%                2,846,627 0.07%                1,567,109 0.06%                1,676,190 0.18%                5,230,580 0.19%                4,880,294 0.00%                             ‐ 0.06%                1,942,775 0.31%                9,171,862 0.07%                2,224,755 0.03%                     717,529 0.10%                3,049,362 0.03%                     833,682 0.21%                5,945,720 0.09%                2,828,657 0.18%                5,824,936 0.10%                2,765,723 0.11%                3,520,359 0.19%                5,612,808 0.04%                1,145,595 0.07%                1,789,826 0.18%                5,335,554 0.19%                5,128,076 0.00% 0.11%                2,937,524 0.06%                1,314,358 0.06%                2,075,063 0.19%                5,667,328                 4,929,780                 1,359,053                      944,105                 8,668,032                 1,938,549                 8,127,848                      640,253                 3,570,878                      375,408                 9,693,791                              ‐                 5,324,228                        94,568                 3,104,772                 6,783,992                 1,238,978                 3,235,151               38,963,641                              ‐                 1,801,538                      256,705               17,470,255                 2,059,423                      555,736                 9,388,484                 1,715,765                 1,081,450                 1,870,267                 6,430,129                              ‐                      766,692             142,389,470 0.18% 0.00% 0.07% 0.33% 0.08% 0.03% 0.11% 0.03% 0.21% 0.10% 0.21% 0.10% 0.13% 0.20% 0.04% 0.06% 0.19% 0.18% 0.00% 0.11% 0.05% 0.07% 0.20%                 4,565,360                 2,397,244                 9,997,412                 2,714,147                      550,644                 2,971,455                      833,033                 6,685,022                 2,668,071                 6,505,397                 3,019,743                 3,906,052                 6,440,849                 1,125,102                 2,095,966                 6,155,219                 5,577,032                 3,232,579                 1,407,277                 2,484,936                 6,249,959                 2,859,274                      674,671                 1,026,681                 4,115,114                 1,014,714                 4,170,706                      706,098                 1,591,516                      917,854                 4,270,387                 2,795,333                        43,468                 1,610,486                 3,526,118                      599,560                 1,715,248               20,933,995                      835,610                      782,582                 8,156,791                 1,070,518                      728,662                 4,500,609                      795,571                      517,644                      900,985                 3,233,968                      398,190               74,492,351 0.16% 0.00% 0.09% 0.36% 0.10% 0.02% 0.11% 0.03% 0.24% 0.10% 0.23% 0.11% 0.14% 0.23% 0.04% 0.08% 0.22% 0.20% 0.00% 0.12% 0.05% 0.09% 0.22%                 2,372,794                 1,109,014                 5,237,585                 1,441,557                      254,210                 1,556,058                      440,853                 3,022,595                 1,190,116                 3,227,390                 1,545,604                 1,868,718                 3,425,385                      600,110                 1,041,496                 2,924,210                 2,657,550                 1,747,002                      691,344                 1,271,822                 3,088,108 0.16% 0.00% 0.07% 0.35% 0.10% 0.02% 0.10% 0.03% 0.20% 0.08% 0.22% 0.10% 0.13% 0.23% 0.04% 0.07% 0.20% 0.18% 0.00% 0.12% 0.05% 0.09% 0.21%  FY 2010  Spending  % of  Revenue  FY 2011  Spending  % of  Revenue  FY 2012  Spending  % of  Revenue  FY 2013  Spending  % of  Revenue  FY 2014  Spending  % of  Revenue  FY 2015  Spending  % of  Revenue Org 1 Org 2 Org 3 Field Field Operations Directorate South East Regional Office South East Regional Office Total West Palm Beach FL Field Office                4,091,505              71,088,403 0.18%                4,138,310              71,058,752 0.16%                4,476,469              74,577,118 0.17%                5,130,141              79,841,926 0.18%                 5,181,167               86,763,664 0.19%                 2,544,999               43,258,522 0.17% Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Central Regional Office Central Regional Office Central Regional Office Central Regional Office Central Regional Office Central Regional Office Central Regional Office Central Regional Office Central Regional Office Central Regional Office Central Regional Office Central Regional Office Central Regional Office Central Regional Office Central Regional Office Central Regional Office Central Regional Office Central Regional Office Central Regional Office Central Regional Office Central Regional Office Central Regional Office Central Regional Office Central Regional Office Central Regional Office Central Regional Office Central Regional Office Central Regional Office Central Regional Office Central Regional Office Central Regional Office Central Regional Office Central Regional Office Central Regional Office Central Regional Office Central Regional Office Central Regional Office Central Regional Office Total Central Regional Office Albuquerque Nm Field Office Boise Id Field Office Chicago  District Office Chicago DO Chicago Il Field Office Cincinnati Oh Field Office Cleveland DO Cleveland Oh Field Office Columbus Oh Field Office Dallas DO Dallas TX Field Office Denver Co Field Office Denver DO Des Moines IA Field Office Detroit DO Detroit MI Field Office El Paso TX Field Office Harlingen TX Field Office Helena Mt Field Office Houston DO Houston Field Office Indianapolis In Field Office Kansas City Mo Field Office Kansas DO Louisville KY Field Office Milwaukee Wi Field Office Oklahoma City Ok Field Office Omaha Ne Field Office Salt Lake UT Field Office San Antonio DO San Antonio TX Field Office St Louis Mo Field Office St Louis Mo Suboffice St. Paul MN Field Office Wichita KS Field Office Wichita Ks Field Support Office                5,801,003                1,150,732                1,098,305 0.25% 0.05% 0.05% 0.00% 0.01% 0.60% 0.06% 0.01% 0.09% 0.07% 0.01% 0.35% 0.17% 0.01% 0.04% 0.01% 0.22% 0.14% 0.10% 0.03% 0.01% 0.41% 0.07% 0.11% 0.01% 0.05% 0.08% 0.07% 0.06% 0.06% 0.01% 0.20% 0.06% 0.00% 0.18% 0.00% 0.00%                5,678,062                1,081,757                1,194,636 0.22% 0.04% 0.05% 0.00% 0.03% 0.55% 0.05% 0.02% 0.07% 0.06% 0.02% 0.31% 0.15% 0.02% 0.04% 0.02% 0.20% 0.13% 0.09% 0.03% 0.03% 0.35% 0.07% 0.10% 0.02% 0.05% 0.08% 0.06% 0.06% 0.06% 0.02% 0.18% 0.05% 0.00% 0.16% 0.00% 0.00%                5,566,034                1,108,471                1,185,466 0.21% 0.04% 0.04% 0.00% 0.03% 0.47% 0.05% 0.03% 0.06% 0.06% 0.03% 0.31% 0.15% 0.04% 0.04% 0.03% 0.18% 0.11% 0.09% 0.03% 0.03% 0.35% 0.07% 0.10% 0.03% 0.05% 0.07% 0.06% 0.05% 0.07% 0.04% 0.18% 0.05% 0.00% 0.17% 0.00% 0.00% 0.20% 0.04% 0.04% 0.00% 0.06% 0.44% 0.06% 0.04% 0.06% 0.07% 0.05% 0.33% 0.15% 0.04% 0.04% 0.04% 0.19% 0.11% 0.09% 0.03% 0.04% 0.35% 0.07% 0.08% 0.04% 0.05% 0.07% 0.06% 0.05% 0.07% 0.04% 0.19% 0.05% 0.00% 0.16% 0.02% 0.00% 0.18% 0.04% 0.04% 0.00% 0.05% 0.46% 0.05% 0.05% 0.07% 0.07% 0.05% 0.33% 0.16% 0.04% 0.04% 0.04% 0.20% 0.11% 0.10% 0.03% 0.05% 0.36% 0.07% 0.08% 0.05% 0.06% 0.07% 0.06% 0.05% 0.08% 0.05% 0.22% 0.05% 0.00% 0.18% 0.03% 0.00% 0.17% 0.04% 0.04% 0.00% 0.05% 0.40% 0.05% 0.05% 0.06% 0.07% 0.05% 0.31% 0.16% 0.04% 0.04% 0.04% 0.18% 0.09% 0.10% 0.03% 0.05% 0.35% 0.07% 0.07% 0.04% 0.06% 0.07% 0.07% 0.06% 0.08% 0.05% 0.21% 0.05% 0.00% 0.17% 0.03% 0.00% Western Regional Office Western Regional Office Western Regional Office Western Regional Office Western Regional Office Western Regional Office Western Regional Office Western Regional Office Western Regional Office Western Regional Office Western Regional Office Western Regional Office Western Regional Office Western Regional Office Western Regional Office Western Regional Office Western Regional Office Western Regional Office Western Regional Office Western Regional Office Western Regional Office Western Regional Office Western Regional Office Western Regional Office Western Regional Office Western Regional Office Western Regional Office Western Regional Office Anchorage AK Field Office Chula Vista Ca Field Office East Los Angeles Field Office East Los Angeles Field Support Office El Monte Ca Field Office El Monte Ca Sat Office Fresno Ca Field Office Guam Field Office Honolulu DO Honolulu Hi Field Office Imperial Valley Ca Field Support Office Las Vegas NV Field Office Las Vegas NV Suboffice Los Angeles Ca Field Office Los Angeles County Los Angeles DO Phoenix AR Field Office Phoenix DO Phoenix Life Bldg. Field Support Office Portland Or Field Office Records Section Reno NV Field Office Sacramento Ca Field Office Sacramento DO Saipan Field Support Office San Bernardino Ca Field Office 0.25% 0.04% 0.11% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.13% 0.06% 0.03% 0.08% 0.00% 0.12% 0.00% 0.74% 0.00% 0.20% 0.17% 0.06% 0.00% 0.11% 0.00% 0.04% 0.18% 0.05% 0.00% 0.23% Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate OrgName                    338,580              13,918,421                1,286,075                    227,080                2,027,554                1,553,371                    180,348                8,055,619                4,007,172                    276,377                1,040,773                    257,160                5,099,031                3,298,739                2,436,780                    799,531                    318,594                9,539,905                1,705,372                2,545,633                    213,395                1,205,446                1,864,983                1,562,777                1,410,504                1,447,316                    261,191                4,767,674                1,326,230                4,196,054              85,217,725                5,567,697                    881,630                3,141,937                            ‐                3,866,016                1,157,272                    679,486                2,144,352                3,072,344              28,537,552                4,416,625                4,635,932                    966,234                3,214,049                    315,798                    913,666                4,324,458                    795,541                6,257,385 Page 3 of 4 0.24% 0.04% 0.13% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.17% 0.05% 0.03% 0.09% 0.00% 0.13% 0.00% 1.22% 0.00% 0.19% 0.20% 0.04% 0.00% 0.14% 0.01% 0.04% 0.19% 0.03% 0.00% 0.27%              86,753,416              90,649,314                5,460,728                1,118,442                1,151,476                             ‐                1,549,313              12,147,800                1,533,751                1,136,564                1,765,081                1,842,334                1,248,693                9,014,454                4,077,279                     973,197                1,017,522                1,018,881                5,273,082                3,047,195                2,511,562                     863,730                1,163,473                9,804,805                1,852,872                2,140,146                     999,887                1,502,467                1,978,010                1,774,633                1,374,894                2,012,051                1,131,655                5,321,672                1,396,063                                 4                4,570,816                     640,850                         1,302              94,416,684                5,785,112                1,033,710                3,059,833 0.23%                6,307,124 0.04%                1,062,528 0.12%                3,051,122 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%                            ‐ 0.00% 0.15%                3,510,799 0.04%                1,456,695 0.03%                    685,778 0.08%                2,441,399 0.00%                            ‐ 0.12%                2,925,585 0.00% 0.97%              20,876,179 0.00%                        2,443 0.18%                4,369,565 0.17%                4,561,345 0.04%                1,482,066 0.00%                            ‐ 0.12%                2,694,535 0.00% 0.03%                1,009,520 0.16%                4,481,856 0.03%                1,004,004 0.00%                            ‐ 0.26%                6,428,735 0.23%                6,986,610 0.04%                1,046,645 0.11%                2,990,090 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.13%                3,676,527 0.05%                1,602,002 0.03%                     829,133 0.09%                2,220,563 0.00%                             ‐ 0.11%                3,297,839 0.00% 0.77%              20,484,803 0.00% 0.16%                5,464,025 0.17%                4,704,007 0.05%                1,598,609 0.00%                             ‐ 0.10%                2,925,193 0.00% 0.04%                     987,551 0.17%                4,867,242 0.04%                1,336,439 0.00% 0.24%                6,486,700                    729,896              13,901,157                1,323,750                    491,883                1,862,604                1,500,963                    562,443                7,882,073                3,869,152                    518,889                1,050,789                    429,576                5,069,713                3,351,707                2,354,012                    785,472                    664,127                9,027,704                1,826,024                2,616,803                    429,755                1,217,931                1,970,087                1,591,576                1,455,488                1,655,327                    602,840                4,548,140                1,354,903                4,154,175                3,759,838                1,120,094                    693,536                2,167,235                2,974,892                                0              24,775,671                4,630,886                4,410,238                    962,934                3,051,473                      29,434                    871,362                3,999,300                    791,267                6,601,012                    924,502              12,866,624                1,378,732                    825,280                1,643,147                1,703,179                    941,495                8,524,546                3,991,090                    998,667                1,025,795                    855,451                4,941,930                2,933,605                2,444,424                    900,650                    918,446                9,452,525                1,962,378                2,610,792                    742,140                1,435,561                1,961,006                1,530,467                1,468,250                1,982,997                1,016,530                4,980,353                1,304,333                4,524,447                 5,097,310                 1,235,556                 1,152,545                 1,441,576               12,723,801                 1,436,088                 1,256,607                 1,844,072                 1,903,301                 1,339,949                 9,223,292                 4,582,004                 1,087,176                      999,026                      985,320                 5,552,032                 2,952,842                 2,682,284                      816,066                 1,379,238               10,145,599                 1,984,818                 2,263,573                 1,253,868                 1,548,237                 2,010,810                 1,748,255                 1,402,659                 2,174,158                 1,287,911                 6,063,545                 1,515,154                 4,930,930                      759,994               98,779,597                 6,264,974                 1,406,439                 3,035,517                              ‐                              ‐                 3,871,038                 1,801,827                      855,117                 2,193,001                          6,853                 3,427,141               20,848,509                 4,912,196                 4,691,590                 1,699,926                 2,924,721                              ‐                 1,241,120                 5,202,893                 1,454,036                 6,372,938                 2,539,481                      658,665                      641,019                      722,853                 6,024,385                      764,260                      714,682                      945,338                 1,028,158                      734,186                 4,631,421                 2,340,615                      631,115                      647,271                      572,877                 2,706,062                 1,377,674                 1,424,180                      396,602                      785,130                 5,179,765                 1,019,934                 1,076,231                      589,565                      827,964                 1,051,016                 1,034,398                      947,845                 1,194,132                      713,951                 3,135,503                      810,107                 2,588,727                      392,165               50,847,280 0.22% 0.05% 0.11% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.14% 0.06% 0.03% 0.08% 0.00% 0.12% 0.00% 0.75% 0.00% 0.18% 0.17% 0.06% 0.00% 0.10% 0.00% 0.04% 0.19% 0.05% 0.00% 0.23%                 2,998,617                      727,671                 1,609,137                 2,046,322                 1,002,844                      503,735                 1,215,567                              ‐                 1,900,374               10,592,784                 2,443,003                 2,371,922                      889,339                 1,590,387                              ‐                      669,411                 2,693,058                      742,412                 3,303,309 0.20% 0.05% 0.11% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.14% 0.07% 0.03% 0.08% 0.00% 0.13% 0.00% 0.71% 0.00% 0.16% 0.16% 0.06% 0.00% 0.11% 0.00% 0.04% 0.18% 0.05% 0.00% 0.22% Org 1 Org 2 Org 3 Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Field Operations Directorate Western Regional Office Western Regional Office Western Regional Office Western Regional Office Western Regional Office Western Regional Office Western Regional Office Western Regional Office Western Regional Office Western Regional Office Western Regional Office Western Regional Office Western Regional Office Western Regional Office Western Regional Office Western Regional Office Total San Diego Ca Field Office San Diego DO San Fernando Valley Field Office San Francisco Ca Field Office San Francisco DO San Jose Ca Field Office San Jose Ca Suboffice Santa Ana Ca Field Office Santa Ana Suboffice Seattle DO Seattle Or Field Office Spokane WA Field Office Tucson AZ Field Office Tucson AZ Suboffice Yakima WA Field Office  FY 2010  Spending  OrgName                3,050,913                1,516,497                      37,635                9,893,847                1,286,345                6,818,480                6,275,204                    931,250                4,802,691                    774,746                1,777,017                1,218,154            113,270,752            592,971,346 Field Operations Directorate Total % of  Revenue  FY 2011  Spending  % of  Revenue  FY 2012  Spending  % of  Revenue  FY 2013  Spending   FY 2014  Spending  % of  Revenue 0.13%                3,116,618 0.07%                1,437,970 0.00%                1,699,156 0.42%                9,538,655 0.06%                1,424,492 0.29%                6,275,344 0.00%                              20 0.27%                6,174,748 0.00% 0.04%                    891,582 0.21%                4,655,171 0.03%                    694,665 0.08%                1,799,305 0.00%                            (84) 0.05%                1,321,326            109,746,795            507,022,394 0.12%                3,225,847 0.06%                1,306,094 0.07%                4,130,184 0.37%                9,447,601 0.06%                2,184,093 0.25%                6,129,263 0.00% 0.24%                5,931,316 0.00% 0.03%                1,143,811 0.18%                5,072,433 0.03%                    715,827 0.07%                1,741,230 0.00% 0.05%                1,336,995            110,715,971            538,582,846 0.12%                3,253,076 0.05%                1,647,389 0.15%                5,762,578 0.35%              10,047,685 0.08%                2,240,893 0.23%                6,299,954 0.00% 0.22%                5,455,361 0.00% 0.04%                1,488,089 0.19%                5,465,057 0.03%                     692,224 0.06%                1,793,349 0.00% 0.05%                1,291,766            116,941,399            595,242,118 0.12% 0.06% 0.21% 0.36% 0.08% 0.23% 0.00% 0.20% 0.00% 0.05% 0.20% 0.02% 0.06% 0.00% 0.05%                 3,458,979                 1,458,237                 6,285,764                 9,908,306                 2,240,738                 6,498,666                              ‐                 5,831,840                              ‐                 1,687,308                 5,161,858                      801,721                 2,043,545                 1,577,743             119,164,539             653,845,147 % of  Revenue 0.12% 0.05% 0.23% 0.36% 0.08% 0.23% 0.00% 0.21% 0.00% 0.06% 0.19% 0.03% 0.07% 0.00% 0.06%  FY 2015  Spending                  1,778,648                      755,373                 3,220,794                 4,915,000                 1,292,968                 3,431,132                 2,999,962                      870,203                 2,594,301                      418,865                 1,103,175                      712,941               61,393,254             333,752,794 % of  Revenue 0.12% 0.05% 0.22% 0.33% 0.09% 0.23% 0.00% 0.20% 0.00% 0.06% 0.17% 0.03% 0.07% 0.00% 0.05% HQ Service Center Operations Directorate Service Center Operations Directorate Service Center Operations Directorate Total Service Center Operations Directorate              75,201,021              75,201,021 3.22%              68,276,155              68,276,155 2.68%              73,166,142              73,166,142 2.70%              81,849,750              81,849,750 2.95%               85,418,695               85,418,695 3.07%               34,120,107               34,120,107 2.29% Field Service Center Operations Directorate Vermont Service Center Vermont Service Center Total Vermont Service Center              54,111,872              54,111,872 2.32%              56,581,632              56,581,632 2.22%              61,261,204              61,261,204 2.26%              76,720,371              76,720,371 2.77%               85,600,968               85,600,968 3.07%               45,370,371               45,370,371 3.04% Field Service Center Operations Directorate Texas Service Center Texas Service Center Total Texas Service Center              41,500,988              41,500,988 1.78%              43,151,462              43,151,462 1.69%              46,932,146              46,932,146 1.73%              52,903,491              52,903,491 1.91%               57,522,100               57,522,100 2.07%               31,062,588               31,062,588 2.08% Field Service Center Operations Directorate Nebraska Service Center Nebraska Service Center Total Nebraska Service Center              52,862,890              52,862,890 2.27%              53,948,279              53,948,279 2.12%              57,249,905              57,249,905 2.11%              66,039,705              66,039,705 2.38%               77,342,201               77,342,201 2.78%               40,038,958               40,038,958 2.69% Field Service Center Operations Directorate California Service Center California Service Center Total California Service Center              55,612,566              55,612,566            279,289,337 2.38%              59,264,514              59,264,514            281,222,043 2.32%              64,660,927              64,660,927            303,270,323 2.39%              84,705,428              84,705,428            362,218,744 3.05%               87,631,965               87,631,965             393,515,929 3.15%               45,700,949               45,700,949             196,292,973 3.07% FDNS Directorate FDNS Directorate FDNS Directorate FDNS Directorate Administrate Site Visit & Verification Program FDNS Directorate HQ Total FDNS Directorate Administrate Site Visit & Verification Program                        4,037 0.00% 0.00%                8,963,400                1,157,553              10,120,953 0.35%                9,792,151 0.05%                    528,147              10,320,298 0.36%                       63,031 0.02%                               67                       63,098 0.00%               12,214,842 0.00%                      520,286               12,735,128 0.44%                 4,906,748 0.02%                      113,641                 5,020,389 0.33% 0.01% Field Field FDNS Directorate FDNS Directorate FDNS Directorate FDNS Directorate Total FDNS Directorate Administrate Site Visit & Verification Program FDNS Directorate Field Total FDNS Directorate Administrate Site Visit & Verification Program                    805,943                            ‐                    805,943                    809,980 0.03% 0.00%              56,488,276                4,880,330              61,368,606              71,489,559 2.22% 0.19%              62,800,825                5,106,895              67,907,720              78,228,017 2.32% 0.19%                1,022,754                       12,061                1,034,815                1,097,914 0.04%               75,981,759 0.00%                 5,175,243               81,157,002               93,892,130 2.73%               43,029,156 0.19%                 2,604,781               45,633,937               50,654,326 2.89% 0.17% HQ Customer Service and Public Engagement Directorate CSPE Directorate CSPE HQ Total Customer Service and Public Engagement Directorate              52,368,508              52,368,508 2.24%              34,921,576              34,921,576 1.37%              47,734,065              47,734,065 1.76%              53,141,966              53,141,966 1.92%               65,471,331               65,471,331 2.35%               32,082,656               32,082,656 2.15% Field Field Customer Service and Public Engagement Directorate (CSPE) Customer Service and Public Engagement Directorate (CSPE) CSPE Directorate CSPE Directorate Customer Service and Public Engagement Directorate Total Eastern Call Center NY City Western Call Center Los Angeles                4,503,823                4,121,439                8,625,263              60,993,771 0.19% 0.18%                5,221,059                4,539,164                9,760,223              44,681,799 0.20% 0.18%                5,027,988                4,349,475                9,377,463              57,111,528 0.19% 0.16%                5,827,849                4,485,771              10,313,619              63,455,585 0.21%                 6,275,424 0.16%                 4,670,529               10,945,953               76,417,284 0.23%                 2,907,280 0.17%                 2,370,113                 5,277,393               37,360,049 0.20% 0.16% HQ HQ HQ MIX Enterprise Services Directorate Enterprise Services Directorate Enterprise Services Directorate Enterprise Services Directorate Enterprise Services Directorate Records Division Biometrics Division SAVE Enterprise Services Directorate HQ Total Enterprise Services Directorate Records Division Biometrics Division SAVE                    609,408              21,493,837              60,087,021              13,674,539              95,864,805 0.03%                    684,645 0.92%              17,643,245 2.58%            145,567,105 0.59%              14,674,937            178,569,932 0.03% 0.69% 5.71% 0.58%                1,382,955              17,131,747            148,911,165              14,604,421            182,030,288 0.05% 0.63% 5.50% 0.54%                2,140,142              19,320,604            130,811,382              16,125,336            168,397,464 0.08% 0.70% 4.72% 0.58% 0.07% 0.84% 5.05% 0.74%                      824,308               15,285,502               80,482,767                 9,133,114             105,725,690 0.06% 1.03% 5.40% 0.61% Field Enterprise Services Directorate National Records Center National Records Center Total National Records Center              25,884,329              25,884,329            121,749,134 1.11%              28,972,500              28,972,500            207,542,432 1.14%              29,998,681              29,998,681            212,028,969 1.11%              32,160,552              32,160,552            200,558,017 1.16%               36,879,523               36,879,523             223,365,371 1.32%               22,889,936               22,889,936             128,615,626 1.54% MIX Management Directorate Management Directorate Total Management Directorate Management Directorate            206,914,045            206,914,045 8.87% 8.87%            260,660,475            260,660,475 10.22% 10.22%            274,046,428            274,046,428 10.12% 10.12%            302,486,718            302,486,718 10.91%             305,618,035 10.91%             305,618,035 10.97%             161,586,280 10.97%             161,586,280 10.84% 10.84% HQ USCIS Overhead And Service Wide charges USCIS Overhead And Service Wide charges Total USCIS Overhead And Service Wide charges USCIS Overhead And Service Wide charges            387,589,255            387,589,255 16.61%            376,859,684            376,859,684 14.78%            318,915,672            318,915,672 11.77%            325,968,088            325,968,088 11.75%             348,234,266             348,234,266 12.50%             222,991,310             222,991,310 14.96% 96% $       2,672,602,396 96% $       2,979,382,752 107% $       1,531,260,047 103% Service Center Operations Directorate Total HQ HQ                        4,037 Customer Service and Public Engagement Directorate Total Enterprise Services Directorate Total Grand Total NOTES: $       2,386,004,743 102% $       2,479,518,528 97% $       2,592,826,481                 1,940,465               23,274,040             140,658,974               20,612,369             186,485,848 1)  In fiscal years where actual spending exceeded actual revenue collected, unobligated balances carried forward  from prior fiscal years used to cover additional spending. 2)  Authorized spending levels are typically higher than actual revenue collected in any given fiscal year due to unobligated fee revenue balances carried forward from a prior year, and available for use in a subsequent fiscal year 3)  In accordance with the reprogramming notifications provided to House and Senate Appropriations Committees, additional FDNS costs were assessed to the Fraud Prevention and Detection Account in FY's 2010, 2013, and 2014.  As a result, the FDNS costs that were assessed to the Immigration Examinations Fee Account were reduced in those FYs. 4)  FY 2015 revenue and spending is as of 3/31/15. Page 4 of 4 Oversight of the Department of Homeland Security  Total Fee Revenue Collected by Fiscal Year Senator Ted Cruz Question 22 Org  1 Org  2 HQ Service Center Operations Directorate Fraud Prevention and Detection Account  $      37,965,287 Org  3 OrgName Service Center Operations Directorate Service Center Operations Directorate Service Center Operations Directorate Total Field Service Center Operations Directorate Vermont Service Center Vermont Service Center Vermont Service Center Total Field Service Center Operations Directorate California Service Center California Service Center California Service Center Total Service Center Operations Directorate Total  FY 2010  Spending   $      40,824,663 % of  Revenue  FY 2011  Spending  $      45,375,438 % of  Revenue  FY 2012  Spending  $        42,325,775 % of  Revenue  FY 2013  Spending   $      44,807,259 % of  Revenue  FY 2014  Spending   $      13,832,194 % of  Revenue  FY 2015  Spending  $        2,450,509 6.45% $        2,685,091 6.58% $        3,488,855 7.69% $                      ‐ 0.00% $        5,841,563 13.04% $                    ‐           2,450,509           2,685,091           3,488,855                         ‐           5,841,563                       ‐           3,569,941 9.40%           3,747,317 9.18%           3,777,394 8.32%              3,625,199 8.56%           3,697,938 8.25%           1,882,970           3,569,941           3,747,317           3,777,394              3,625,199           3,697,938           1,882,970           3,997,634 10.53%           3,972,974 9.73%           3,681,073 8.11%              3,405,464 8.05%           3,683,304 8.22%           1,815,152           3,997,634           3,972,974           3,681,073              3,405,464           3,683,304           1,815,152         10,018,084         10,405,382         10,947,322              7,030,663         13,222,805           3,698,122 % of  Revenue 0.00% 13.61% 13.12% HQ FDNS Directorate FDNS Directorate FDNS Directorate         10,849,407 28.58%           5,088,348 12.46%           4,755,669 10.48%           14,992,187 35.42%         10,811,515 24.13%           1,754,441 12.68% Field FDNS Directorate FDNS Directorate FDNS Directorate         71,445,072 188.19%         15,156,205 37.13%         15,316,640 33.76%           83,449,183 197.16%         20,174,105 45.02%           7,311,903 52.86%         82,294,478         20,244,553         20,072,309           98,441,370         30,985,619           9,066,344 FDNS Directorate Total HQ FDNS Directorate Administrate Site Visit & Verification Program Administrate Site Visit & Verification Program           1,821,265 4.80%           1,711,652 4.19%              971,080 2.14%                 823,222 1.94%                      342 0.00%              238,052 1.72% Field FDNS Directorate Administrate Site Visit & Verification Program Administrate Site Visit & Verification Program                 26,056 0.07%                 81,618 0.20%                       ‐ 0.00%              5,013,602 11.85%              446,690 1.00%                 64,972 0.47%           1,847,321           1,793,270              971,080              5,836,824              447,032              303,024         84,141,799         22,037,823         21,043,389         104,278,194         31,432,651           9,369,368                 13,906 0.04%              259,496 0.64%              250,220 0.55%                 199,000 0.47%              244,129 0.54%                       ‐                 13,906              259,496              250,220                 199,000              244,129                       ‐                 13,906              259,496              250,220                 199,000              244,129                       ‐           1,936,881 5.10%           1,936,000 4.74%           1,944,783 4.29%              1,935,999 4.57%           1,936,000 4.32%              968,000           1,936,881           1,936,000           1,944,783              1,935,999           1,936,000              968,000 USCIS OverHead And Service Wide charges Total           1,936,881           1,936,000           1,944,783              1,935,999           1,936,000              968,000 Grand Total $      96,110,670 $      34,638,701 $      34,185,714 $      113,443,856 $      46,835,586 $      14,035,491 Administrate Site Visit & Verification Program Total FDNS Directorate Total Field Management Directorate Administration Administration (GSA Leased Vehicles for FDNS) Administration Total Management Directorate Total HQ USCIS OverHead And Service Wide charges USCIS OverHead And Service Wide charges USCIS OverHead And Service Wide charges USCIS OverHead And Service Wide charges Total NOTES: 1)  In accordance with the reprogramming notifications provided to House and Senate Appropriations Committees, additional FDNS costs were assessed to the Fraud Prevention and Detection Account in FY's 2010, 2013, and 2014.  As a result, the FDNS costs that were assessed to the Immigration Examinations Fee Account were reduced in those FYs. 2)  In fiscal years where actual spending exceeded actual revenue collected, unobligated balances carried forward  from prior fiscal years used to cover additional spending. 3)  FY 2015 revenue and spending is as of 3/31/15. 0.00% 7.00% Oversight of the Department of Homeland Security  Total Fee Revenue Collected by Fiscal Year Senator Ted Cruz Question 22 H‐1B Nonimmigrant Fee Account $            11,402,636 Or 1 Org 2 Org 3 HQ Service Center Operations Directorate Service Center Operations Directorate HQ USCIS OverHead And Service Wide charges Grand Total NOTE: 1)  FY 2015 revenue and spending is as of 3/31/15. Service Center Operations Directorate OrgName  FY 2010  Spending  $               13,097,527   % of  Revenue  FY 2011 Spending  $               16,123,276   % of  Revenue  FY 2012 Spending  $               15,117,593   % of  Revenue  FY 2013 Spending  $               16,561,527   % of  Revenue  FY 2014 Spending  $               4,366,717 % of  Revenue  FY 2015  Spending   Service Center Operations Directorate $               8,950,000 78.49% $                11,000,000 83.99% $                11,000,000 68.22% $                10,999,896 72.76% $                10,999,999 66.42% $               8,703,280 Service Center Operations Directorate Total                  8,950,000                   11,000,000                   11,000,000                   10,999,896                   10,999,999                  8,703,280 USCIS OverHead And Service Wide charges                              ‐ 0.00%                                 ‐ 0.00%                     2,000,000 12.40%                     2,000,000 13.23%                     2,000,000 12.08%                              ‐ USCIS OverHead And Service Wide charges Total                              ‐                                 ‐                     2,000,000                     2,000,000                     2,000,000                              ‐ $              8,950,000   $               11,000,000 $               13,000,000 $               12,999,896 $               12,999,999 $              8,703,280   % of  Revenue 199.31% 0.00% Senator Cruz Q22 Contractual Spending by Fiscal Year by Account Component Name Customer Service Directorate Enterprise Services Directorate Field Operations Directorate Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate Management Directorate Office of Administrative Appeals Office of Chief Counsel Office of Citizenship Office of Communications Office of Immigrant Investor Programs Office of Legislative Affairs Office of Performance and Quality Office of Policy and Strategy Office of Privacy Office of Public Engagement Office of the Director Office of the Executive Secretariat Office of Transformation Refugee, Asylum and International Operations Directorate Service Center Operations Directorate TOTAL Immigration Examinations Fee Account (EX) Immigration Examinations Fee Account  Fund Code Total Amount EX  $                             203,196,652  EX                                 478,612,733  EX                                 553,679,659  EX                                   19,932,465  EX                              1,755,357,526  EX                                     5,051,513  EX                                     1,892,496  EX                                     2,194,940  EX                                     1,485,422  EX                                     3,565,753  EX                                         867,344  EX                                     5,406,926  EX                                     6,045,973  EX                                         108,055  EX                                         166,452  EX                                    (1,090,473) EX                                     1,005,760  EX                                 940,410,892  EX                                   40,808,762  EX                                 371,531,736  $4,390,230,585 $             2,332,775,142 $             2,549,753,118 FY 2010  % of Revenue FY 2011 $                  40,767,599  1.75%  $                  23,154,452                       54,774,616  2.35%                    106,197,272                    118,310,921  5.07%                       62,250,949                          (329,102) ‐0.01%                         6,148,111                    308,209,581  13.21%                    306,661,607                            902,703  0.04%                         1,061,794                            328,930  0.01%                            322,101                            303,239  0.01%                            259,416                            100,531  0.00%                            127,667                                    ‐ 0.00%                                    ‐                             30,559  0.00%                              39,624                         3,255,299  0.14%                          (848,807)                           617,078  0.03%                         1,363,651                                 9,910  0.00%                              38,041                              80,430  0.00%                              21,483                          (571,319) ‐0.02%                          (821,506)                           624,539  0.03%                              58,536                    246,831,508  10.58%                    192,750,264                         3,817,263  0.16%                         6,119,189                       65,676,387  2.82%                       60,572,059  $843,740,672 36.17% $765,475,903 % of Revenue 0.91% 4.17% 2.44% 0.24% 12.03% 0.04% 0.01% 0.01% 0.01% 0.00% 0.00% ‐0.03% 0.05% 0.00% 0.00% ‐0.03% 0.00% 7.56% 0.24% 2.38% 30.02% Total Fee Revenue Collected by Fiscal Year $             2,709,072,237 $             2,773,342,806 $             2,785,545,802 FY 2012 % of Revenue FY 2013 % of Revenue FY 2014 % of Revenue 1.34%  $                  43,971,813  1.58% $                  34,208,298  1.26% $                  37,159,017                       94,341,602  3.48%                      83,627,176  3.02%                       93,254,423  3.35%                      88,043,840  3.25%                   109,665,265  3.95%                    127,041,926  4.56% ‐0.01%                         6,150,673  0.22%                        5,886,703  0.22%                         (261,935)                   322,692,110  11.91%                   307,762,917  11.10%                    343,146,944  12.32%                        1,252,576  0.05%                        1,142,404  0.04%                            433,250  0.02% 0.02%                           281,289  0.01%                           315,179  0.01%                            591,637                            913,412  0.03%                           409,110  0.01%                          (152,494) ‐0.01%                           195,436  0.01%                           408,984  0.01%                            426,785  0.02%                                   ‐ 0.00%                        1,673,315  0.06%                         1,929,324  0.07%                           727,509  0.03%                             29,531  0.00%                              26,836  0.00%                           603,100  0.02%                        1,044,098  0.04%                         1,148,007  0.04%                        1,989,789  0.07%                           904,554  0.03%                         1,165,257  0.04%                             50,613  0.00%                             16,408  0.00%                               (7,682) 0.00% 0.00%                             65,025  0.00%                                 (486) 0.00%                                    ‐                            (87,875) 0.00%                           102,798  0.00%                            149,179  0.01%                             55,094  0.00%                           123,759  0.00%                            141,884  0.01%                   168,484,159  6.22%                   163,904,011  5.91%                    132,325,470  4.75%                        7,575,991  0.28%                        9,219,043  0.33%                       13,523,731  0.49%                      66,338,966  2.45%                      71,787,929  2.59%                       78,249,530  2.81% $793,617,636 29.29% $789,033,078 28.45% $843,516,495 30.28% $         1,490,588,289 FY 2015 % of Revenue 1.61%  $              23,935,472  3.11%                  46,417,643  3.24%                  48,366,758  0.16%                     2,338,016  11.20%                166,884,367  0.02%                        258,786  0.00%                          53,359  0.03%                        462,258  0.02%                        226,019  0.00%                        (36,886) 0.00%                          13,285  0.01%                        205,229  0.00%                            5,642  0.00%                                765                                 ‐ 0.00% 0.01%                        138,249  0.00%                            1,947  2.42%                  36,115,481  0.04%                        553,545  1.94%                  28,906,866  23.81% $354,846,801 NOTE: Negative values represent the net effect of de‐obligation of prior year funds relative to current year spending.  Given the no‐year designation of the USCIS fee accounts, prior year activity is captured and recorded in the execution year.  Component Name Service Center Operations Directorate Total Fraud Prevention and Detection Account (HB) H‐1B Nonimmigrant Fee Account $                   11,402,636 $                   13,097,527 Fund Code Total Amount FY 2010 % of Revenue FY 2011 HB                                   60,491,847                         8,950,000  78.49%                       10,999,979  $60,491,847 $8,950,000 78.49% $10,999,979 Total Fee Revenue Collected by Fiscal Year $                   16,123,276 $                   15,117,593 $                   16,561,527 $                 4,366,717 % of Revenue FY 2012 % of Revenue FY 2013 % of Revenue FY 2014 % of Revenue FY 2015 % of Revenue 78.49% 78.49%                        9,856,344  78.49%                      10,982,246  78.49%                       10,999,999  78.49%                     8,703,280  78.49% 78.49% $9,856,344 78.49% $10,982,246 78.49% $10,999,999 78.49% $8,703,280 Component Name Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate Service Center Operations Directorate Total H‐1B Nonimmigrant Petitioner Fee Account (HP) Fraud Prevention and Detection Account  $                   37,965,287 $                   40,824,663 Fund Code Total Amount FY 2010 % of Revenue FY 2011 HP                                   38,806,739                       11,690,134  30.79%                         5,289,151  HP                                   15,342,135                         2,517,969  6.63%                         2,751,238  $54,148,873 $14,208,103 37.42% $8,040,389 Total Fee Revenue Collected by Fiscal Year $                   45,375,438 $                   42,325,775 $                   44,807,259 % of Revenue FY 2012 % of Revenue FY 2013 % of Revenue FY 2014 12.96%                        4,874,274  10.74%                      10,228,334  24.17%                         5,059,879  6.74%                        3,809,223  8.39%                            (53,744) ‐0.13%                         6,104,540  19.69% $8,683,496 19.14% $10,174,591 24.04% $11,164,419 $               13,832,194 % of Revenue FY 2015 % of Revenue 11.29%                     1,664,967  12.04% 13.62%                        212,909  1.54% 24.92% $1,877,876 13.58% Projected Filings FY15-17 For Domestic Workloads Existing and New/Expanded Workloads Source: July 2014 Volume Projection Committee for Existing Workloads Existing Workloads Form I-90 Total Projected Volume Service Center Projection FY15 783,238 - FY16 890,003 - FY17 731,410 - FY15 420,954 420,954 FY16 432,156 432,156 FY17 432,156 432,156 FY15 296,109 295,778 FY16 311,436 311,088 FY17 311,436 311,088 FY15 564,559 361,168 FY16 583,826 373,493 FY17 600,000 383,841 FY15 98,626 98,381 FY16 98,626 98,381 FY17 98,626 98,381 FY15 314,984 198,062 FY16 318,710 200,405 FY17 321,480 202,146 FY15 5,051 5,031 FY16 9,561 9,524 FY17 9,561 9,524 FY15 8,500 8,500 FY16 17,000 17,000 FY17 17,000 17,000 FY15 3,000 3,000 FY16 6,000 6,000 FY17 6,000 6,000 FY15 89,268 89,268 FY16 88,824 88,824 FY17 88,379 88,379 FY15 123,028 FY16 123,028 FY17 123,028 Form I-129 Total Projected Volume Service Center Projection Form I-130 Preference Total Projected Volume Service Center Projection Form I-130 IR Total Projected Volume Service Center Projection Form I-131 Reentry Total Projected Volume Service Center Projection Form I-131 AP Total Projected Volume Service Center Projection Form I-131 DACA Total Projected Volume Service Center Projection Form I-131 CFRP Total Projected Volume Service Center Projection Form I-131 HFRP Total Projected Volume Service Center Projection Form I-140 Total Projected Volume Service Center Projection Form I-485 Employment Total Projected Volume Service Center Projection 123,028 123,028 123,028 FY15 278,687 131 FY16 278,687 131 FY17 278,687 131 FY15 49,500 - FY16 51,894 - FY17 54,288 - FY15 37,964 32,683 FY16 37,964 32,683 FY17 37,964 32,683 FY15 34,643 34,624 FY16 29,892 29,876 FY17 29,892 29,876 FY15 69,472 68,329 FY16 73,047 71,846 FY17 69,062 67,926 FY15 23,361 23,361 FY16 26,361 26,361 FY17 29,361 29,361 FY15 148,640 146,781 FY16 145,640 143,818 FY17 142,640 140,856 FY15 142,707 142,677 FY16 173,000 172,964 FY17 173,000 172,964 FY15 290,147 290,146 FY16 303,396 303,395 FY17 178,239 178,239 FY15 418,675 418,675 FY16 347,977 347,977 FY17 58,426 58,426 FY15 1,143,681 631,845 FY16 1,113,214 615,013 FY17 1,083,577 598,640 Form I-485 Family Total Projected Volume Service Center Projection Form I-485 Cuban Total Projected Volume Service Center Projection Form I-485 Other Total Projected Volume Service Center Projection Form I-485 Asylee Total Projected Volume Service Center Projection Form I-485 Refugee Total Projected Volume Service Center Projection Form I-539 ELIS Total Projected Volume Service Center Projection Form I-539 Paper Total Projected Volume Service Center Projection Form I-751 Total Projected Volume Service Center Projection Form I-821 TPS Total Projected Volume Service Center Projection Form I-821D DACA Total Projected Volume Service Center Projection Form I-765 Excl. TPS/DACA Total Projected Volume Service Center Projection Form I-765 TPS Total Projected Volume Service Center Projection FY15 290,147 290,146 FY16 303,396 303,395 FY17 178,239 178,239 FY15 418,675 418,675 FY16 347,977 347,977 FY17 58,426 58,426 FY15 815,000 - FY16 828,000 - FY17 815,000 - FY15 9,173 9,173 FY16 9,173 9,173 FY17 9,173 9,173 FY15 68,962 13 FY16 70,484 13 FY17 68,962 13 FY15 471,463 471,463 FY16 472,022 472,022 FY17 473,000 473,000 FY15 10,143 8,859 FY16 10,143 8,859 FY17 10,143 8,859 FY15 48,505 48,352 FY16 45,351 45,208 FY17 45,351 45,208 FY15 61,737 56,050 FY16 64,125 58,218 FY17 66,612 60,476 FY15 42,724 - FY16 42,724 - FY17 42,724 - FY15 24,662 16,811 FY16 24,662 16,811 FY17 24,662 16,811 FY15 22,431 17,195 FY16 25,228 19,339 FY17 27,389 20,995 Form I-765 DACA Total Projected Volume Service Center Projection Form N-400 Reg Total Projected Volume Service Center Projection Form N-400 Military Total Projected Volume Service Center Projection Form N-600/600K Total Projected Volume Service Center Projection Immigrant Visa Total Projected Volume Service Center Projection Form I-102 Total Projected Volume Service Center Projection Form I-129F Total Projected Volume Service Center Projection Waivers Total Projected Volume Service Center Projection Form I-601A Total Projected Volume Service Center Projection Form I-290B Total Projected Volume Service Center Projection Form I-360 Total Projected Volume Service Center Projection Form I-526 Total Projected Volume Service Center Projection FY15 12,518 - FY16 12,941 - FY17 16,405 - FY15 8,714 - FY16 8,714 - FY17 8,714 - FY15 7,902 - FY16 7,902 - FY17 7,902 - FY15 FY16 FY17 Form I-600/600A Total Projected Volume Service Center Projection Form I-800/800A Total Projected Volume Service Center Projection Form I-687 Total Projected Volume Service Center Projection 18 1 18 1 18 1 Form I-690 FY15 Total Projected Volume Service Center Projection FY16 21 1 FY17 21 1 21 1 Form I-694 FY15 Total Projected Volume Service Center Projection FY16 39 1 FY17 39 1 39 1 Form I-698 FY15 Total Projected Volume Service Center Projection FY16 FY17 91 3 91 3 91 3 FY15 17,161 17,149 FY16 17,161 17,149 FY17 17,161 17,149 FY15 2,069 1,703 FY16 2,069 1,703 FY17 2,069 1,703 FY15 11,153 7,670 FY16 10,955 7,534 FY17 10,887 7,487 FY15 3,131 - FY16 3,440 - FY17 3,683 - FY15 FY16 FY17 Form I-730 Total Projected Volume Service Center Projection Form I-817 Fam Unity Total Projected Volume Service Center Projection Form I-824 Total Projected Volume Service Center Projection Form I-829 Total Projected Volume Service Center Projection Form I-910 Total Projected Volume Service Center Projection 613 0 609 0 609 0 Form I-914 FY15 Total Projected Volume Service Center Projection FY16 FY17 887 887 887 887 887 887 FY15 1,066 1,066 FY16 1,143 1,143 FY17 1,221 1,221 FY15 45,600 45,600 FY16 45,600 45,600 FY17 45,600 45,600 FY15 FY16 FY17 Form I-914A Total Projected Volume Service Center Projection Form I-918 Total Projected Volume Service Center Projection Form I-924 Total Projected Volume Service Center Projection 336 - 378 - 421 - Form I-924A FY15 Total Projected Volume Service Center Projection FY16 603 - FY17 806 - 958 - Form I-929 FY15 Total Projected Volume Service Center Projection FY16 575 575 FY17 575 575 575 575 Form N-300 FY15 Total Projected Volume Service Center Projection FY16 FY17 43 41 - 41 - FY15 4,630 - FY16 4,701 - FY17 4,630 - FY15 FY16 FY17 - Form N-336 Total Projected Volume Service Center Projection Form N-470 Total Projected Volume Service Center Projection 369 - 362 - 362 - FY15 28,197 28,029 FY16 28,672 28,502 FY17 29,156 28,983 FY15 65,589 12 FY16 67,111 13 FY17 65,589 12 Form N-565 Total Projected Volume Service Center Projection Form N-600 Total Projected Volume Service Center Projection Form N-600K Total Projected Volume Service Center Projection FY15 3,373 0 FY16 3,373 0 FY17 3,373 0 FY15 FY16 FY17 Form N-644 Total Projected Volume Service Center Projection 1 1 1 1 1 1 FY15 65,000 - FY16 63,055 - FY17 68,319 - FY15 78,485 - FY16 78,485 - FY17 78,485 - FY15 15,603 - FY16 15,603 - FY17 15,603 - FY15 FY16 FY17 Form I-589 Asylum Total Projected Volume Service Center Projection Credible Fear Total Projected Volume Service Center Projection Reasonable Fear Total Projected Volume Service Center Projection Form I-881 NACARA Total Projected Volume Service Center Projection 764 - 764 - 764 -